The Trojan War Chronological Historical

The Trojan War
Chronological, Historical and

Archaeological Evidence
Gérard GERTOUX
PhD candidate in Archaeology and history of Ancient World
LULU 2016
2 THE TROJAN WAR: HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE
Jacket photograph: Scene known as the Battle of the Delta in the mortuary temple of Ramses III at
Medinet Habu. This battle against the "Sea Peoples", mainly from Crete (feathered helmet), is dated Year 8
of Ramses III (1185 BCE).
Remains of Troy VIIA attacked by the Mycenaeans and dated LH III C (1190-1180 BCE). City of
Hisarlik (39°57′26″ N 26°14′21″ E).
The Trojan War: When, Where, Who and Why?
Abstract. The Trojan War is the foundation of Greek history. If Greek historians had little doubt
of its existence they remained extremely sceptical regarding its mythological origin. Archaeology has confirmed
one essential point: there was indeed a general conflagration in the Greek world around 1200 BCE, the
assumed period of that war, which caused the disappearance of two powerful empires: Mycenaean on one
hand and Hittite with its vassals on the other hand. The inscriptions of Ramses III's year 8 describe
actually a general invasion of the Mediterranean by the "Sea Peoples", but without giving any reason. A
precise chronological reconstruction, based on a few absolute dates, shows that the annexation of the kingdom
of Cyprus (Alašia), closely linked to the Mycenaean world, by Hittite King Tudhaliya IV played a role of
detonator in the confrontation between a Greek heterogeneous confederation, consisting of pirates and
privateers on one side and a set of vassal kingdoms of the Hittite empire, such as Troy and Ugarit, on the
other. This struggle to control a vital sea path, from Crete to Egypt, via Cyprus, which ended with a
complete mutual destruction in 1185 BCE, the climax of the famous Trojan War, had begun 10 years
earlier. Surprisingly, this conclusion was already that of Eratosthenes (276-193). Historical and epigraphic
context shows that Homer wrote his epic shortly after Queen Elissa founded Carthage (c. 870 BCE).
Most archaeologists regard the account of Trojan War, attributed to poet Homer, as
a founding myth of Greek civilization. This famous epic therefore arises the problem of
historical truth. Archaeologists generally agree that the presence of the supernatural
discredits the whole story that they rank among myths, but for historians myth can arise
only from a credible historical background. Since it was accepted and transmitted it retains a
part of history. Although Homer's work conforms to Greek mythology, could it contain any
distorted historical facts? For example, the idea of a colonization of Cyprus by the
Achaeans as reported by tradition does not exactly fit to the archaeological studies1 which
rather support a displacement through Anatolia and especially from Syria Palestine. These
minor disagreements (within a period very poorly documented) are they sufficient to call
into question the existence of the Trojan War? This difference in approach is actually about
all the founding narratives: does the Gilgamesh epic belong to Babylonian history, the
Exodus of Moses to Jewish history, Homer's Iliad and Odyssey to Greek history? Is epic
narrative just a founding myth or does it contain a historical background?
Ancient historians who believed in the reality of the Trojan War were they naive, as
some current archaeologists believe (perhaps naively)? Two leading historians: Herodotus,
the father of history, and Thucydides, the father of historical accuracy, responded positively
to this question. But on what facts were their beliefs based and above all are they verifiable?
Herodotus begins his investigation (c. 450 BCE) with these words: Now, the Persian spokesmen
assert the Phoenicians proved the cause of the quarrel. For they say that those men, on coming from the so-
called Red Sea to this sea and settling in that place in which even now they are settled, at once applied
themselves to long voyages, and exporting wares of Egypt and Assyria, came to the rest of the land and
particularly to Argos (Argos during that time surpassed in all ways those in the country now called Greece),
that on coming to this very Argos, the Phoenicians were disposing of their cargo (...) after it some of the
Greeks (for they are unable to relate their name), they assert, put in at Tyre in Phoenicia and seized the
king’s daughter, Europe (these might have been Cretans), and, although that indeed was done by them tit
for tat, yet after it the Greeks proved the cause of the second injustice. For they say that they, on sailing out
with a large ship to Aia in Colchis (...) So then thus far the Persians say there were seizures alone at each
other’s hands, but from then on it was the Greeks who proved greatly guilty, because they began to advance
with an army against Asia before they themselves against Europe and they maintain that, although seizing
1V. COOK – Les rapports de Chypre avec le monde extérieur au passage de l'âge de bronze à l'âge de fer
1982 Thèse de doctorat de troisième cycle en archéologie. École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales pp. 150-166.
women is the work of unjust men, yet, once they are seized, taking pains to exact vengeance is that of
unintelligent, while having no care at their seizure is that of prudent, since it’s quite clear that, if women
themselves were not willing, they would not be seized. Accordingly they, the men from Asia, the Persians say,
when the women were being seized, considered it of no account, but the Greeks for a woman of Lacedaemon
assembled a large armament and then came to Asia and put down the power of Priam [King of Troy].
Hence on each and every occasion they believe the Greek to be hostile to them. For Asia and the barbarian
nations that live in it the Persians claim as their own, but Europe and the land of Greece they hold to be
separate. The above the Persians say happened and on account of the capture of Ilium [Troy] they find there
existed for themselves the beginning of enmity to the Greeks (The Histories I:1-5). Various versions
do not enlighten one about the guilt of the Persians and Phoenicians, however, they reveal a
hidden conflict between a Greek Europe and a Trojan Anatolia which is the role played by
Persian ancestors in this region: the Hittites, that the story of Homer mentions only once:
And verily, as often as we took counsel around the city of Troy, he was ever the first to speak, and made no
miss of words; godlike Nestor and I alone surpassed him. But as often as we fought with the bronze on the
Trojan plain, he would never remain behind in the throng or press of men, but would ever run forth far to
the front, yielding to none in his might; and many men he slew in dread combat. All of them I could not tell
or name, all the host that he slew in defence of the Argives; but what a warrior was that son of Telephus
[Telepinu] whom he slew with the sword, the prince Eurypylus! Aye, and many of his comrades, the
Kheteians [Hittites], were slain about him, because of gifts a woman craved (...) But after we had sacked the
lofty city of Priam, he went on board his ship with his share of the spoil and a goodly prize— all unscathed
he was (Odyssey XI:510-535). This Homeric remark confirms the mercantile stake of the
Trojan war to grab control of wealth coming from the vast sea route between Egypt and
Greece passing through Phoenicia, Cyprus and finally Crete (Odyssey IV:78-85).
Herodotus describes how he got his information about the Trojan War and the
chronology of events: when I had asked the priests whether the Greeks in a foolish account said the
affairs concerning Ilium [Troy] happened not, they asserted thereupon the following and asserted they knew it
by inquiries from Menelaus [King of Sparta] himself: that there went after Helen’s seizure to the Teucrian
[Trojan] land a large host of Greeks that came to Menelaus’ rescue and, after going out onto land and being
encamped, the host sent messengers to Ilium and with them went also Menelaus himself (...) the Greeks put
their faith in the first account and dispatched Menelaus himself to Proteus2. And Menelaus, on coming to
Egypt and sailing up to Memphis, once he had spoken the truth about his affairs (...) Thereafter where he
still turned his steps, the Egyptians could not say, but they asserted something of that they knew by
inquiries, while the other deeds, those that had been done among them, they knew and spoke of exactly. The
priests of the Egyptians said that and I myself assent to the account given about Helen, when I think on
this, that if Helen had been in Ilium, she would have been given back to the Greeks whether Alexander was
willing or unwilling. For indeed Priam [King of Troy] was not of such damaged understanding nor all his
other relatives that they wanted to endanger their own bodies, their offspring and their city, that Alexander
might cohabit with Helen. And, let me tell you, if even in the early period of time they had decided that
issue, when many of all the other Trojans, whenever they had joined battle with the Greeks, had been killed
and for Priam himself there had been no point when two or three or even still more of his sons, while a battle
had been waged, had not died, if we must make some use of the epic poets and speak, then, all that having
turned out like the above described, I on my part suppose that even if Priam himself had cohabited with
Helen, he would have given her back to the Achaeans [Mycenaeans], since then at least he would have likely
been set free from the evils that were at hand (...) And the preceding account has been said as it seems to me.
To Proteus’ kingdom Rhampsinitus3 succeeded, they said, who left as memorials the foregates turned to the
west of the temple of Hephaestus (The Histories II:118-121). Thucydides, he too (c. 410 BCE),
saw a real event in the Trojan War but distorted by "Greek nationalism". He writes in the
2 This name (protee in Greek) means "Proto[type of the Dynasty XX], who was Sethnakh (1196-1192).
3 Hellenized form of Râ-mes-pa-sa-Neith "Ramses the son of Neith" a later nickname of Ramses III (1192-1161).
THE TROJAN WAR: WHEN, WHERE, WHO AND WHY? 5
first chapter of his book: [I:3] There is also another circumstance that contributes not a little to my
conviction of the weakness of ancient times. Before the Trojan war there is no indication of any common
action in Hellas, nor indeed of the universal prevalence of the name; on the contrary, before the time of
Hellen, son of Deucalion, no such appellation existed, but the country went by the names of the different
tribes, in particular of the Pelasgian. It was not till Hellen and his sons grew strong in Phthiotis, and were
invited as allies into the other cities, that one by one they gradually acquired from the connection the name of
Hellenes; though a long time elapsed before that name could fasten itself upon all. The best proof of this is
furnished by Homer. Born long after the Trojan war, he nowhere calls all of them by that name, nor indeed
any of them except the followers of Achilles from Phthiotis, who were the original Hellenes: in his poems they
are called Daneans, Argives, and Achaeans. He does not even use the term barbarian, probably because the
Hellenes had not yet been marked off from the rest of the world by one distinctive appellation. It appears
therefore that the several Hellenic communities, comprising not only those who first acquired the name, city by
city, as they came to understand each other, but also those who assumed it afterwards as the name of the
whole people, were before the Trojan war prevented by their want of strength and the absence of mutual
intercourse from displaying any collective action. Indeed, they could not unite for this expedition till they had
gained increased familiarity with the sea. [4] And the first person known to us by tradition as having
established a navy is Minos. He made himself master of what is now called the Hellenic sea, and ruled over
the Cyclades, into most of which he sent the first colonies, expelling the Carians and appointing his own sons
governors; and thus did his best to put down piracy in those waters, a necessary step to secure the revenues for
his own use. [5] For in early times the Hellenes and the barbarians of the coast and islands, as
communication by sea became more common, were tempted to turn pirates, under the conduct of their most
powerful men; the motives being to serve their own cupidity and to support the needy. They would fall upon a
town unprotected by walls, and consisting of a mere collection of villages, and would plunder it; indeed, this
came to be the main source of their livelihood, no disgrace being yet attached to such an achievement, but even
some glory. An illustration of this is furnished by the honor with which some of the inhabitants of the
continent still regard a successful marauder, and by the question we find the old poets everywhere representing
the people as asking of voyagers—‘Are they pirates?’—as if those who are asked the question would have
no idea of disclaiming the imputation, or their interrogators of reproaching them for it. The same rapine
prevailed also by land. And even at the present day many parts of Hellas still follow the old fashion, the
Ozolian Locrians, for instance, the Aetolians, the Acarnanians, and that region of the continent; and the
custom of carrying arms is still kept up among these continentals, from the old piratical habits. [6] The
whole of Hellas used once to carry arms, their habitations being unprotected, and their communication with
each other unsafe; indeed, to wear arms was as much a part of everyday life with them as with the
barbarians. And the fact that the people in these parts of Hellas are still living in the old way points to a
time when the same mode of life was once equally common to all. The Athenians were the first to lay aside
their weapons, and to adopt an easier and more luxurious mode of life; indeed, it is only lately that their rich
old men left off the luxury of wearing undergarments of linen, and fastening a knot of their hair with a tie of
golden grasshoppers, a fashion which spread to their Ionian kindred, and long prevailed among the old men
there. On the contrary a modest style of dressing, more in conformity with modern ideas, was first adopted by
the Lacedaemonians, the rich doing their best to assimilate their way of life to that of the common people.
They also set the example of contending naked, publicly stripping and anointing themselves with oil in their
gymnastic exercises. Formerly, even in the Olympic contests, the athletes who contended wore belts across their
middles; and it is but a few years since that the practice ceased. To this day among some of the barbarians,
especially in Asia, when prizes for boxing and wrestling are offered, belts are worn by the combatants. And
there are many other points in which a likeness might be shown between the life of the Hellenic world of old
and the barbarian of to-day. The method of Thucydides is less stringent4 than that of
Herodotus (who investigated directly with Egyptian priests) because he relied solely on
4 Given that Thucydides was able to quote some reliable figures and names, he probably consulted the archives of Athens.
Greek oral tradition evaluated by meagre archaeological evidence of his time. However, he
emphasized the role of piracy in the conflict. [I:7] With respect to their towns, later on, at an era of
increased facilities of navigation and a greater supply of capital, we find the shores becoming the site of walled
towns, and the isthmuses being occupied for the purposes of commerce, and defence against a neighbour. But
the old towns, on account of the great prevalence of piracy, were built away from the sea, whether on the
islands or the continent, and still remain in their old sites. For the pirates used to plunder one another, and
indeed all coast populations, whether seafaring or not. [8] The islanders, too, were great pirates. These
islanders were Carians and Phoenicians, by whom most of the islands were colonized, as was proved by the
following fact. During the purification of Delos by Athens in this war all the graves in the island were taken
up, and it was found that above half their inmates were Carians: they were identified by the fashion of the
arms buried with them, and by the method of interment, which was the same as the Carians still follow. But
as soon as Minos had formed his navy, communication by sea became easier, as he colonized most of the
islands, and thus expelled the malefactors. The coast populations now began to apply themselves more closely
to the acquisition of wealth, and their life became more settled; some even began to build themselves walls on
the strength of their newly-acquired riches. For the love of gain would reconcile the weaker to the dominion of
the stronger, and the possession of capital enabled the more powerful to reduce the smaller towns to subjection.
And it was at a somewhat later stage of this development that they went on the expedition against Troy. [9]
What enabled Agamemnon to raise the armament was more, in my opinion, his superiority in strength, than
the oaths of Tyndareus, which bound the Suitors to follow him. Indeed, the account given by those
Peloponnesians who have been the recipients of the most credible tradition is this. First of all Pelops, arriving
among a needy population from Asia with vast wealth, acquired such power that, stranger though he was,
the country was called after him; and this power fortune saw fit materially to increase in the hands of his
descendants. Eurystheus had been killed in Attica by the Heraclids. Atreus was his mother's brother; and
to the hands of his relation, who had left his father on account of the death of Chrysippus, Eurystheus, when
he set out on his expedition, had committed Mycenae and the government. As time went on and Eurystheus
did not return, Atreus complied with the wishes of the Mycenaeans, who were influenced by fear of the
Heraclids, —besides, his power seemed considerable, and he had not neglected to court the favour of the
populace,— and assumed the sceptre of Mycenae and the rest of the dominions of Eurystheus. And so the
power of the descendants of Pelops came to be greater than that of the descendants of Perseus. To all this
Agamemnon succeeded. He had also a navy far stronger than his contemporaries, so that, in my opinion,
fear was quite as strong an element as love in the formation of the confederate expedition. The strength of his
navy is shown by the fact that his own was the largest contingent, and that of the Arcadians was furnished
by him; this at least is what Homer says, if his testimony is deemed sufficient. Besides, in his account of the
transmission of the sceptre, he calls him. [10] Now Mycenae may have been a small place, and many of the
towns of that age may appear comparatively insignificant, but no exact observer would therefore feel justified
in rejecting the estimate given by the poets and by tradition of the magnitude of the armament. For I suppose
if Lacedaemon were to become desolate, and the temples and the foundations of the public buildings were left,
that as time went on there would be a strong disposition with posterity to refuse to accept her fame as a true
exponent of her power. And yet they occupy two-fifths of Peloponnese and lead the whole, not to speak of
their numerous allies without. Still, as the city is neither built in a compact form nor adorned with
magnificent temples and public edifices, but composed of villages after the old fashion of Hellas, there would
be an impression of inadequacy. Whereas, if Athens were to suffer the same misfortune, I suppose that any
inference from the appearance presented to the eye would make her power to have been twice as great as it is.
We have therefore no right to be skeptical5, nor to content ourselves with an inspection of a town to the
exclusion of a consideration of its power; but we may safely conclude that the armament in question
surpassed all before it, as it fell short of modern efforts; if we can here also accept the testimony of Homer's
poems, in which, without allowing for the exaggeration which a poet would feel himself licensed to employ, we
5 This comment is noteworthy, Thucydides, inventor of the historical criticism of sources, was not hypercritical.
can see that it was far from equalling ours. He has represented it as consisting of 1200 vessels; the Boeotian
complement of each ship being 120 men, that of the ships of Philoctetes 50. By this, I conceive, he meant to
convey the maximum and the minimum complement: at any rate he does not specify the amount of any others
in his catalogue of the ships. That they were all rowers as well as warriors we see from his account of the
ships of Philoctetes, in which all the men at the oar are bowmen. Now it is improbable that many
supernumeraries sailed if we except the kings and high officers; especially as they had to cross the open sea
with munitions of war, in ships, moreover, that had no decks, but were equipped in the old piratical fashion.
So that if we strike the average of the largest and smallest ships, the number of those who sailed will appear
inconsiderable, representing, as they did, the whole force of Hellas. [11] And this was due not so much to
scarcity of men as of money. Difficulty of subsistence made the invaders reduce the numbers of the army to a
point at which it might live on the country during the prosecution of the war. Even after the victory they
obtained on their arrival— and a victory there must have been, or the fortifications of the naval camp could
never have been built— there is no indication of their whole force having been employed; on the contrary, they
seem to have turned to cultivation of the Chersonese and to piracy from want of supplies. This was what
really enabled the Trojans to keep the field for 10 years against them; the dispersion of the enemy making
them always a match for the detachment left behind. If they had brought plenty of supplies with them, and
had persevered in the war without scattering for piracy and agriculture, they would have easily defeated the
Trojans in the field; since they could hold their own against them with the division on service. In short, if they
had stuck to the siege, the capture of Troy would have cost them less time and less trouble. But as want of
money proved the weakness of earlier expeditions, so from the same cause even the one in question, more
famous than its predecessors, may be pronounced on the evidence of what it effected to have been inferior to its
renown and to the current opinion about it formed under the tuition of the poets. [12] Even after the Trojan
war Hellas was still engaged in removing and settling, and thus could not attain to the quiet which must
precede growth. The late return of the Hellenes from Ilium caused many revolutions, and factions ensued
almost everywhere; and it was the citizens thus driven into exile who founded the cities. 60 years after the
capture of Ilium the modern Boeotians were driven out of Arne by the Thessalians, and settled in the present
Boeotia, the former Cadmeis; though there was a division of them there before, some of whom joined the
expedition to Ilium. 20 years later the Dorians and the Heraclids became masters of Peloponnese; so that
much had to be done and many years had to elapse before Hellas could attain to a durable tranquillity
undisturbed by removals, and could begin to send out colonies, as Athens did to Ionia and most of the
islands, and the Peloponnesians to most of Italy and Sicily and some places in the rest of Hellas. All these
places were founded subsequently to the war with Troy. [VI:2] On the fall of Ilium, some of the Trojans
escaped from the Achaeans, came in ships to Sicily, and settled next to the Sicanians under the general name
of Elymi; their towns being called Eryx and Egesta. With them settled some of the Phocians carried on their
way from Troy by a storm, first to Libya, and afterwards from thence to Sicily. The Sicels crossed over to
Sicily from their first home Italy, flying from the Opicans, as tradition says and as seems not unlikely, upon
rafts, having watched till the wind set down the strait to effect the passage; although perhaps they may have
sailed over in some other way. Even at the present day there are still Sicels in Italy; and the country got its
name of Italy from Italus, a king of the Sicels, so called. These went with a great host to Sicily, defeated the
Sicanians in battle and forced them to remove to the south and west of the island, which thus came to be
called Sicily instead of Sicania, and after they crossed over continued to enjoy the richest parts of the country
for near 300 years before any Hellenes came to Sicily [c. 900 BCE?]6; indeed they still hold the centre and
north of the island. There were also Phoenicians living all round Sicily, who had occupied promontories upon
the sea coasts and the islets adjacent for the purpose of trading with the Sicels. But when the Hellenes began
to arrive in considerable numbers by sea, the Phoenicians abandoned most of their stations, and drawing
together took up their abode in Motye, Soloeis, and Panormus, near the Elymi, partly because they confided
in their alliance, and also because these are the nearest points, for the voyage between Carthage and Sicily.
6 The Greeks began to colonize Sicily in 735 BCE but some probably arrived at the beginning of Early Iron Age (900 BCE).
THE TROJAN WAR: WHEN AND WHERE?
Herodotus and Thucydides give a realistic and very detailed description of the Trojan
War: a motley Greek confederation, made up of pirates and privateers, gradually united
under the rule of a powerful Mycenaean leader to conquer the commercial wealth of Troy, a
vassal kingdom of the Hittite empire, as well as that of Egypt. The Catalogue of Ships given
by Homer (Iliad II:494-759) lists 29 contingents under 46 captains, accounting for a total of
1,186 ships. Using the figure of 50 oarsmen per ship (Iliad II:716) results in a total of
around 60,000 men transported to the Troad. Achaean trade vessels should have been
similar to the Phoenician ships using the same sea routes (Odyssey XV:415-477). The
Uluburun wreck7, dated c. 1320 BCE, and the one of Cape Gelidonya (c. -1200) showed
that Phoenician ships were about 15m. long and could carry about 50 men, but the
Egyptian warships8 shown in Ramses III's naval battle, with 17 oarsmen on each side, had
an overall length of 25 m and a width of 4.5 m Homeric contingents are named by various
ethnonyms and had lived in 164 places described by toponyms. The majority of these places
have been identified (below) and were occupied in the Late Bronze Age. The terms
Danaans, Argives and Achaeans or the sons of the Achaeans are used for the army as a
whole. The catalogue portrays a loose union of city-states, mostly in mainland Greece, ruled
by hereditary families under the overlordship of the High King (ánax) of Mycenae. This
political snapshot is undeniably one intended to be of late Bronze Age Greece (c. -1200).
7 C. PULAK – The Uluburun Shipwreck and Late Bronze Age Trade

in: Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the Second Millenium B.C. Metropolitan Museum, 2008.
8 The oldest are the 14 Egyptian royal boats buried at Abydos (ca. 2800 BCE) which were ca. 23m. long and 2 to 3m. wide, they
could accommodate up to 30 rowers. A boat drawn in Sahure's tomb at Abusir (ca. 2400 BCE) was ca. 15 m long with 20
rowers. The Fleet Fresco from Akrotiri, ancient Thera (ca. 1620 BCE), depicted several ships which were 34 m. long with about
46 rowers.
Were the Egyptian priests better informed than Homer, as Herodotus believed (and
contrary to Thucydides)? The Aegean list of the funerary monument of Amenhotep III
(1383-1345), at Kom el-Hetan9, includes a series of ancient Aegean toponyms: Kythera,
Mycenae, Nafplio, Ilios (Troy) and Cretan: Amnisos, Phaistos, Knossos and Kydonia. The
cities of Mycenae and Troy which traded with Egypt were important at that time, thus
Egyptian priests must have known them. Depending on Herodotus, the conflict began
under Sethnakh (1196-1192), which he placed about 800 years before him, or about 1250
BCE (The Histories II:118-121,145). The Egyptian priest Manetho (c. 280 BCE) ranged
more precisely the beginning of the Trojan War under Tausert, while confirming the 7-year
reign of [Siptah]-Tausert (1202-1194), he stated: Thuôris, who in Homer is called Polybus, husband
of Alcandre10, and in whose time Troy was taken, reigned for 7 years11. These data, from Egyptian
priests, are consistent with the precise date calculated by Eratosthenes (276-194), a great
Alexandrian scholar appointed head of the Library in 245 BCE, who determined the fall of
Troy in 1184 BCE. According to Thucydides (The Peloponnesian War I:11), the Trojan
War began 10 years earlier (in 1194 BCE). Homer's text already mentioned the gap between
the start of the war waged by the Achaeans and the fall of Troy and their failed landing in
Egypt, 10 years later (Odyssey XIV:228-275). Diodorus (Historical Library I:5,62) lent
credence to the date of Eratosthenes, but stated (c. 50 BCE) that the name of the Egyptian
Pharaoh Proteus was Keten(?). All this chronological and historical data is highly consistent.
This conflict between major maritime powers began in 1194 and ended with a total mutual
destruction 10 years later in 1184. This expedition against the Trojans was the culmination
of 10 years of sea battle (The Peloponnesian War I:8-12) ending with the attack on Egypt:
My house grew apace and I became a great man among the Cretans, but when Jove counselled that terrible
expedition, in which so many perished, the people required me and Idomeneus to lead their ships to Troy,
and there was no way out of it, for they insisted on our doing so. There we Sons of Achaea [Mycenaeans]
fought for 9 whole years, but in the 10th we sacked the city of Priam [King of Troy] and sailed home again
as heaven dispersed us. Then it was that Jove devised evil against me. I spent but 1 month happily with my
children, wife, and property, and then I conceived the idea of making a descent on Egypt, so I fitted out a
fine fleet and manned it. I had nine ships, and the people flocked to fill them. For 6 days I and my men
made feast, and I found them many victims both for sacrifice to the gods and for themselves, but on the 7th
day we went on board and set sail from Crete with a fair North wind behind us though we were going down
a river. Nothing went ill with any of our ships, and we had no sickness on board, but sat where we were and
let the ships go as the wind and steersmen took them. On the 5th day we reached the river Aegyptus [Nile];
there I stationed my ships in the river, bidding my men stay by them and keep guard over them while I sent
out scouts to reconnoitre from every point of vantage. But the men disobeyed my orders, took to their own
devices, and ravaged the land of the Egyptians, killing the men, and taking their wives and children captive.
The alarm was soon carried to the city, and when they heard the war cry, the people came out at daybreak
till the plain was filled with horsemen and foot soldiers and with the gleam of armour. Then Jove spread
panic among my men, and they would no longer face the enemy, for they found themselves surrounded. The
Egyptians killed many of us, and took the rest alive to do forced labour for them. Jove, however, put it in my
mind to do thus —and I wish I had died then and there in Egypt instead, for there was much sorrow in
store for me— I took off my helmet and shield and dropped my spear from my hand; then I went straight up
to the king's chariot, clasped his knees and kissed them, whereon he spared my life, bade me get into his
9 J. STRANGE – Caphtor-Keftiu: a new investigation
in: Acta Theologica Danica 14 (Leiden 1980) Ed. E.J. Brill pp. 21-27.
10 A silver basket, a gift from Alcandre, wife of Polybus in Egyptian Thebes, where men own homes that reveal the greatest wealth. He had given
Menelaus two silver baths, two three-legged cauldrons, and ten golden talents. And his wife had also offered beautiful gifts to Helen: a golden spindle,
and a silver basket on wheels, with a golden rim (Odyssey IV:125-134). Polybus-Alcandre could correspond to Siptah-Tausert.
11 W.G. WADDELL – Manetho (1956, Harvard University Press) pp. 101-119.
Tausert actually reigned after the death of her husband Siptah under his name from 1195 to 1194 BCE.
chariot, and took me weeping to his own home. Many made at me with their ashen spears and tried to kill
me in their fury, but the king protected me, for he feared the wrath of Jove the protector of strangers, who
punishes those who do evil. I stayed there for 7 years and got together much money among the Egyptians, for
they all gave me something (Odyssey XIV:235-285). According to Thucydides, this war was the
result of an expedition of disparate tribes of pirates (see Odyssey III:71-74), living on
islands around Achaia, who were united by King Agamemnon of Mycenae (1202-1184).
The temple of Ramses III (1192-1161) at Medinet Habu contains an account of his
victory over the Sea Peoples. The identification of these peoples and their reasons for
migration are poorly understood12, however, this great war is precisely dated year 8 of his
reign (in 1185 BCE). This war led by the Sea Peoples had to haave been spread over less
than one year because, according to the inscription of Ramses III, all countries (Hatti, the
coast of Cilicia, Carchemish, Cyprus, etc.) were "destroyed all at once" and, according to the
text of Homer, the sacking of the city of Priam [Troy], after 10 years of fighting, was
followed "in less than 1 month" by the trip of Achaeans into Egypt and the sacking of its
wonderful fields (Odyssey XIV:240-280). This destruction coincides with the end of the
Hittite Empire dated year 2 of Meli-Shipak13, which can be dated October 1185 BCE. In
fact many other cities were destroyed: Thebes, Lefkandi, Tiryns, Mycenae and Pylos in
mainland Greece and Chania in Crete were ransacked and in some cases completely
destroyed. Most of these cities and their palaces were burned. In Anatolia, among the most
important sites, archaeological levels similarly destroyed have been found and which date
from the same period. Hattusa, the Hittite capital, was sacked and burned just like the major
cities of Cyprus. On the north coast of Syria, the flourishing city of Ugarit was destroyed
and never inhabited thereafter. Mesopotamia was preserved as the wave of devastation did
not extend to the east, and it was the Egyptians who alone could stop it. According to
chronology, the Trojan War coincided accurately with the attack of the Sea Peoples.
Because of the weakness of archaeological sources, archaeologists rank the Trojan
War among myths. However, since the discoveries of Schliemann in 1870, the existence of
the city of Troy is no longer disputed. But the war, as told by Homer, remains problematic
as archaeological data is difficult to interpret14. In fact, the archaeological level ranked VIIa
corresponds to a destruction of the city by fire dated between 1210 and 1150, which falls at
the end of the "third palaces" (1450-1200) with the collapse of the Minoan and Mycenaean
civilizations15 (beginning of the Dark Ages). The problem remains of the interpretation
from sparse or lack of data. One of the major problems with the site of Hissarlik (the
historical Troy) was its small size (137m x 187m) compared to the Troy described by
Homer. In fact, 300 people at the very most could live there, while Homer describes 50,000.
Embellishment and exaggeration of the poet? One would have to believe it before the
discovery of new excavations in 2001-2002 in the lower town, led by Manfred Korfmann
(University of Tübingen), which revealed a cyclopean wall enclosing the lower city
belonging to the Troy VIIa. This new discovery provides the city an area of 350,000 m², 13
times greater than the acropolis alone we already knew. With such a large size, the Troy area
exceeds its rival Ugarit (200,000 m²) and becomes now one of the largest cities of the
12 S. PECZYNSKI – The Sea People and their Migration
New Jersey 2009, Ed. Rutgers University (PhD in History), pp. 62-105.
13 The last texts from Emar are dated [-]/VI /2 and 6/VII/[2] of Meli-Shipak (Y. COHEN, I. SINGER – A Late Synchronism
2
between Ugarit and Emar in: Essays on Ancient Israel in Its Near Eastern Context, Eisenbrauns 2006, p. 134). According to two
documents from Emar, when the Hurrian army laid siege to Emar, its king, Pilsu-Dagan (1210-1185), raised his eyes to Baal,
who gave him a favourable issue. The king then defeated the Hurrian soldiers and saved the city (RPAE 42 8-16).
14 G.D. MIDDLETON – The Collapse of Palatial Society in LBA Greece and the Postpalatial Period
Durham 2008, Ed. Durham University (PhD in History), pp. 355-389.

15 R. ÉTIENNE, C. MÜLLER, F. PROST – Archéologie historique de la Grèce
Paris 2006 Éd. ellipses pp. 50-57.

Bronze Age. Its population would have been 5,000 to 10,000 inhabitants, which in time of
siege may well be sufficient to accommodate the 50,000 inhabitants of the region. The
narrative of the first historians has been reinforced by the recent archaeological discoveries.
In addition, deep analysis of the historical context around 1200 BCE showed that the
Mycenaean Greeks were closely involved in the political and military affairs of western
Anatolia called Arzawa, especially over the 13th century BCE. During this period the Hittite
vassal state of Wiluša was subjected to numerous military actions in which the Mycenaeans
had to have been directly or indirectly involved. On at least one of these occasions its
territory was perhaps occupied by foreign troops and its king dethroned. Wiluša was located
northwest of Anatolia in the region traditionally called Troas in Greek (Truwisa in Hittite).
In philological terms, Wiluša can be confused with the Greek (W)Ilios, the classic Ilion as
well as the Hittite Milawata refers to the city of Miletus. Similarly, the king of Ahhiyawa in
the Hittite annals corresponds to the king of Achaia (residing at Mycenae) of Greek
historians. The Linear B texts and Hittite letters showed the existence of a Mycenaean
empire16 ruled by a king (wanax) federating some regional overlords (lawagetas).
The existence of the Trojan War is challenged for the following reasons17: our
Anatolian written sources do not provide any direct evidence of a major attack by invading
Greeks on an Anatolian kingdom which would have led to the destruction of the kingdom,
but give the impression of limited attacks that took place over several decades, with perhaps
a temporary occupation of a kingdom under siege. In some cases, the Mycenaean Greeks
were directly involved in the attacks, but in other cases they came from Anatolian forces
under the command of local leaders. While Troy VIIh suffered destruction during this
period (ie 1250 BCE), we have no clear evidence of an enemy attack. Positive points
disputed by some give however excellent agreement with the description of ancient Greek
historians. As for negative points, they are based on undue scepticism. Taking into account
the timing of the Trojan War, it coincides with the VIIa level and not with the VIIh level.
In fact, the main argument from skeptics is about the lack of evidence of a general war in
the Anatolian sources, but this is easily explained: the two great empires involved, Hittite
and Mycenaean (and their vassals), having completely disappeared after the war their annals
have disappeared with them (except Muršili II’s Annals and few Hittite treaties).
Although it is very difficult, if not impossible, to write history only from
archaeological evidence, however, it is possible to reconstruct the timeline of the conflict
that had to have been wide-ranging because how can one explain so many capitals burned
at the same time? Indeed, an earthquake can not destroy (by fire) numerous cities separated
by thousands of miles, and for the same reason a massive migration of a starving mob,
destroying everything in its path in different places so far away, is incomprehensible, in
addition, arming many boats to find food does not seem logical (not to mention
stewardship of such an expedition). The explanation for a major war in multiple cities
burned simultaneously around the Mediterranean seems to be the most logical. The violent
crisis dated around 1200 BCE caused by the Sea Peoples which hit all the eastern
Mediterranean and caused the ruin of the great empires of the Bronze Age, is therefore the
only event to be linked with the Trojan War, its most famous episode. Major sites
(destroyed by fire) at this time are mostly located in Hittite country and some others are
located in Mycenaean Greece and Philistia18 (former Keftiu, a vassal of Egypt).
16 J.M. KELDER – The Kingdom of Mycenae. A Great Kingdom in the Late Bronze Age Aegean
Maryland 2010 Ed. CDL Press pp. 44-47, 88-120.
17 T. BRYCE – The Trojan War: Myth or Reality?
in: The Kingdom of the Hittites (Oxford 2005) pp. 357-371.

18 R. MORKOT – Historical Atlas of Ancient Greece
London 1996 Ed. Penguin Books pp. 30-31.

A simultaneous destruction of many cities would suggest a "blitz" led by the Sea
Peoples, but it does not explain why some cities were destroyed in Achaia and Crete
(probably in retaliation by Trojan privateers) and in the north of the Hittite country
(planning an earthly campaign inside a large country is different from attacking several
coastal cities). Sea Peoples identified in Egyptian records are the Ekwesh (Achaeans);
Teresh, Tyrrhenians (ancestors of the Etruscans); Lukka (Lycians); Sherden (Sardinians);
Shekelesh (Sicels from Sicily); Peleset (Philistines) who came from Crete and were with the
Tjeker (sailors living in northern Philistia, according to the Report of Wenamun, linked with
the Greek Teucrians19) the only major tribe of the Sea Peoples known to have settled
permanently in the Levant. These maritime powers were united under a Mycenaean king
because some swords (used by the Meshuesh of Libya for example) are of Mycenaean
origin20, but the attack on Philistine cities such as Acco, Dor, Ashdod, Askalon could not be
carried out by the Philistines from Crete, but more likely were destroyed in retaliation by
the Egyptians. The Ramses III's record, from his Medinet Habu mortuary temple, describes
precisely the Sea People's activities: Year 8 under the majesty of (Ramses III)... The foreign countries
(ie. Sea Peoples) made a conspiracy in their islands [of Achaia]. All at once the lands were removed and
scattered in the fray. No land could stand before their arms: from Hatti, Qode (Cilicia), Carchemish,
Arzawa (western Anatolia) and Alashiya (Cyprus) on, being cut off [ie. destroyed] at one time. A camp
[was set up] in one place in Amurru. They desolated its people, and its land was like that which has never
come into being. They were coming forward toward Egypt, while the flame was prepared before them. Their
confederation was the Peleset, Tjeker, Shekelesh, Denyen and Weshesh, lands united. They laid their hands
19 M. YON -La fondation de Salamine
in: Salamine de Chypre: histoire et archéologie (Paris, 1980) pp. 71-80.
20 P. GRANDET – Ramsès III histoire d'un règne
Paris 2009 Éd. Pygmalion pp. 185-216.

upon the land as far as the circuit of the earth, their hearts confident and trusting: "Our plans will succeed!"
Now the heart of this god, the Lord of the Gods, was prepared and ready to ensnare them like birds... I
organized my frontier in Djahi [Mediterranean coastline] prepared before them: —princes, commanders of
garrisons, and maryanu [Asiatic picked warriors] I have the Nile-mouths prepared like a strong wall, with
warships, cargo ships and freighters (fully) equipped, for they were manned completely from bow to stern with
valiant warriors carrying their weapons. The troops consisted of every picked man of Egypt. They were like
lions roaring upon the mountain tops. The chariotry consisted of runners, of picked men, of every good and
capable chariot-warrior. The horses were quivering in every part of their bodies, prepared to crush the foreign
countries under their hoofs. I was the valiant Montu [the Egyptian god of war], standing fast at their head,
so that they might gaze upon the capturing of my hands ... Those who reached my frontier, their seed is not,
their heart and their soul are finished forever and ever. Those who came forward together on the sea, the full
flame was in front of them at the river-mouths, while a stockade of lances surrounded them on the shore.
They were dragged in, enclosed, and prostrated on the beach, killed, and made into heaps from tail to head.
Their ships and their goods were as if fallen into the water. I have made the lands turn back from (even)
mentioning Egypt; for when they pronounce my name in their land, then they are burned up (...) The
northern countries quivered in their bodies, the Peleset, Tjek[er, and ...] They cut off their (own) land and
were coming, their soul finished. They were teher-warriors on land; another (group) was on the sea. Those
who came on [land were overthrown and killed ...] Amon-Re was after them, destroying them. Those who
entered the river-mouths were like birds ensnared in the net... Their leaders were carried off and slain. They
were cast down and pinioned21. According to this report a confederation of maritime nations
fomented a conspiracy (of Mycenaean origin) to destroy the Hittite empire by burning the
coastal cities of its vassals in a lightning seaborne attack22. Cities inside the Hittite land
could not be included because the attackers (Sea Peoples) were privateers, not infantrymen,
in addition, a ground attack can not be simultaneously to such a large extent23. As ground
attacks against Egypt (with women and children on carts!) occurred on the mediterranean
coastline (Philistia) the attackers had to be the locals who joined expediently their Cretan
ancestors in order to emigrate to Egypt. The brief accounts from the kings of Hatti, Ugarit
and Cyprus (Hittite vassals) confirm the Egyptian version of an attack by the Sea Peoples:
! Letter from Suppiluliuma II (1207-1185), the last king of Hatti [to Ramses III?]: My father
[...] I mobilized and I, Suppiluliuma, the Great King, immediately [crossed?] the sea. The ships of
Alasiya [Cyprus] met me in the sea three times for battle, and I smote them; and I seized the ships and
set fire to them in the sea. But when I arrived on dry land, the enemy from Alasiya came in multitude
against me for battle24.
! Letter (RS 20.18) of Eshuwara (1200-1185), "prime minister" of Cyprus, to the king of
Ugarit [Ammurapi II]: Thus saith Ešuwara, Governor in chief of Alasia: Say to the king of Ugarit:
for you and for your country, that everything goes well. As for the matters involving these enemies: (they
are) the people of your country and your ships (who) have done that! (These are) the people of your country
who have made a surprise assault! So do not be angry against me! Now twenty ships that the enemy, in a
mountainous region, have not made accosted, did not stay, they left in a hurry and we do not know where
they are. This is to inform you and to warn you that I write to you, know it!
! Letter (RS 20.238) of Ammurapi II (1210-1185) the last king of Ugarit to the viceroy of
Carchemish: Say to the king of Cyprus, my father thus (saith) the king of Ugarit, your son (...) My
father, now the enemy ships came. Some cities of mine have been burned, things were getting nasty in the
21 J. B. PRITCHARD - The Ancient Near East in Pictures
Princeton 1969 Ed. Princeton University Press pp. 262-263.
22 According to Homer (Odyssey III:276-312; IV:80-85) Menelaus, King of Sparta, sailed from Troy to Egypt and Libya via
Crete, Cyprus and Phenicia, a similar travel to the one of the Sea Peoples.
23 Contrary to the report of Ramses III, the city of Carchemish was not destroyed.
24 T. BRYCE – The Kingdom of the Hittites
Oxford 2005 Ed. Oxford University Press pp. 332-356.

country. My father did not he know that [my] troops [...] are in Hatti, and all my ships are in Lycia?
They have not yet joined me and the country is thus abandoned to itself. My father must know this. Now,
seven enemy ships that came against me and they hurt us. Now, if there are other enemy ships informs me
in anyway, as I am aware25.
! Ammurapi, in turn, appealed for aid from the kingdom of Carchemish, but its viceroy,
Kuzi-Tešub (1190-1150), could only offer some words of advice for Ammurapi: As for
what you [Ammurapi] have written to me: Ships of the enemy have been seen at sea! Well, you must
remain firm. Indeed for your part, where are your troops, your chariots stationed? Are they not stationed
near you? No? Behind the enemy, who press upon you? Surround your towns with ramparts. Have your
troops and chariots enter there, and await the enemy with great resolution!
These letters confirm several points: there was no declaration of war against the
Hittites, but a large-scale surprise attack (hence confusion); ships that attacked Cyprus
(vassal of Hatti) returned at a more convenient time (refusal of fighting); Hittite cities were
not taken but were burned; the seaborne attack had probably started by the cities of Troy
and Miletus since the Hittite boats had been sent to Lycia; the viceroy of Carchemish
(Hittite kingdom) did not feel secured to Hatti. Consequently the coordination of this big
coalition involved remarkable logistics26, which proves that the attack of Hatti was prepared
and not an improvised revolt. Egypt was therefore at the center of a huge conflict between
a Mycenaean confederation on one side and a Hittite federation on the other. This explains
the presence of prisoners from both coalitions on the representations of Ramses III's
campaign in Amurru27:
The 1st prisoner (on the left) is a Prince of Hatti (ḫt), the 2nd is a prince of Amurru
(’im‘r), the 3rd is a leader of the Tjeker (tkry), the 4th is a leader of thr Sherden (š3rd3n), the 5th
is a leader of the Sicels (š3[krš]) and the 6th is an Etruscan (twrš3). Amurru kingdom was in
the sphere of Hittite influence, but partly controlled by Egypt, which explains the order of
the prisoners: first the Hittites, at the origin of the conflict, followed by the Sea Peoples, the
"conspirators in the islands." Official ground attacks, consecutive to seaborne attacks, are
difficult to assess, they were probably natives who retaliated or made insurrections.
Indigenous peoples in Libya who attacked Egypt, for example, had an alliance with Aegeans
(who bribed them) because the Libyans (in Year 5 of Ramses III) and the Meshwesh (in
Year 11) on Ramses III's fresco are fighting with Mycenaean weapons. Some kingdoms also
took advantage of the confusion to seize the cities formerly under Hittite domination. The
siege of Emar for instance, which occurred during the reign of Pilsu-Dagan (1210-1185?),
was performed by a Hurrian enemy, maybe from Habigalbat, a vassal kingdom of Assyria28.
Identifying all the protagonists and their motivations is therefore difficult.
25 S. LACKENBACHER – Textes akkadiens d'Ugarit
in: LIPO n° 20 (2002) pp. 192-194.
26 J. LECLANT – Dictionnaire de l'Antiquité
Paris 2005 Éd. P.U.F. p. 1712.

Princeton 1969 Ed. Princeton University Press pp. 4,250.

28 E. LIPINSKI – On the Skirts of Canaan in the Iron Age
Leuven 2006 Ed. Peeters Publishers (OLA) pp. 28-36.

THE TROJAN WAR: WHO AND WHY?
What has always puzzled all historians, since Herodotus and Thucydides, is quite
simple: causes of the Trojan War are absolutely incomprehensible. Indeed, mythological
explanations proposed by Homer are obviously poetic. Of the various theories put forward
to explain the crisis, that which has been the most highly favoured attributes it to ethnic
movements, principally from the north called "invasion of the Dorians", but it is now
questioned because mass movements of populations could be the consequence of warfare,
not the cause. Main chronologies of the Late Bronze Age (1530-1185):
KING OF ASSYRIA reign KING OF BABYLON reign KING OF EGYPT reign
Šamšî-Adad III 1531-1516 Samsuditana 1530 - Kamose 1533-1530
Aššur-nêrârî I 1516-1491 -1499 Ahmose 1530-1505
Puzur-Aššur III 1491 - Agum II 1503-1487 Amenhotep I 1505-1484
-1467 Burna-Buriaš I 1487-1471 Thutmose I 1484-1472
Enlil-nâṣir I 1467 - Kaštiliaš III 1471 - Thutmose II 1472-1469
-1455 -1455 [Hatshepsut] [1469-1450]
Nûr-ili 1455-1443 Ulam-Buriaš 1455 - Thutmose III 1469-1418
Aššur-šadûni 1443-1443 -1439
Aššur-rabi I 1443-1433 Agum III 1439 -
Aššur-nâdin-aḫḫe I 1433-1424 -1423
Enlil-naṣir II 1424-1418 Kadašman-Harbe I 1423 -
Aššur-nêrârî II 1418-1411 -1407 Amenhotep II 1420-1392
Aššur-bêl-nišešu 1411-1403 Kara-indaš 1407 -
Aššur-rê’im-nišešu 1403-1395 -1391
Aššur-nâdin-aḫḫe II 1395-1385 Kurigalzu I 1391 - Thutmose IV 1392-1383
Erîba-Adad I 1385 - -1375 Amenhotep III 1383 -
-1358 Kadašman-Enlil I 1375-1360 -1345
Aššur-uballiṭ I 1358 - Burna-Buriaš II 1360 -Akhenaten 1356-1340
Semenkhkare 1340-1338
-1333 -Ankhkheperure 1338-1336
Kara-ḫardaš 1333 Tutankhamon 1336 -
Nazi-Bugaš 1333 -1327
-1323 Kurigalzu II 1333 - Aÿ 1327-1323
Enlil-nêrârî 1323-1313 -1308 Horemheb 1323-1309
Arik-dên-ili 1313-1302 Nazi-Maruttaš 1308 - 1309-1295
Adad-nêrârî I 1302 - Ramses I 1295-1294
-1271 -1282 Sethy I 1294-1283
Salmanazar I 1271 - Kadašman-Turgu 1282-1264 Ramses II 1283 -
Kadašman-Enlil II 1264-1255
-1242 Kudur-Enlil 1255-1246
Tukultî-Ninurta I 1242 - Šagarakti-šuriaš 1246-1233
Kaštiliašu IV 1233-1225
Enlil-nâdin-šumi 1225-1224
Kadašman-Harbe II 1224-1223
Adad-šuma-iddina 1223-1217 -1216
-1206 Adad-šuma-uṣur 1217 - Merenptah 1216-1207
Aššur-nâdin-apli 1206-1202 Sethy II 1207-1202
Aššur-nêrârî III 1202-1196 Siptah 1202-1196
Enlil-kudurri-uṣur 1196 - -Tausert 1196-1194
-1191 Sethnakht 1196-1192
Ninurta-apil-Ekur 1191 - -1187 Ramses III 1192 -
-1179 Meli-Šipak 1187-1172 (Sea Peoples)
Aššur-dân I 1179 - Marduk-apla-iddina 1172-1159 -1161
Zababa-šuma-iddina 1159-1158 Ramses IV 1161 -
Enlil-nâdin-ahi 1158-1155 -1155
Marduk-kabit-aḫḫešu 1155 - Ramses V 1154-1151
Ramses VI 1151-1144
-1141 Ramses VII 1144-1137
-1133 Itti-Marduk-balaṭu 1141-1133 Ramses VIII 1137-1137
KING OF HATTI reign KING OF UGARIT reign KING OF MITANNI reign
Ḫattušili I 1530-1510 Ammurapi I 1530-1515
Muršili I 1510-1500 Niqmepa III 1515-1500
Ḫantili I 1500-1495 Ibirânu III 1500 - Kirta 1500 -
Zidanta I 1495
Ammuna 1495-1485 -1485 -1485
Ḫuzziya II 1485 Niqmepa IV 1485 - Šutarna I 1485 -
Telipinu 1485-1480 -1480
Alluwamna 1480-1475 Barattarna I 1480 -
Ḫantili II 1475-1470
Taḫurwaili I 1470 -1470
Zidanza (II) 1470-1465 Ibirânu IV 1470 -
Ḫuzziya II 1465-1460
Muwatalli I 1460-1455 -1450 -1455
Tutḫaliya I 1455-1435 Niqmaddu I 1450-1430 Šauštatar I 1455-1435
Ḫattušili II 1435-1425 Yaqaru 1430-1415 Paršatatar 1435-1425
Tutḫaliya II 1425-1395 Ibirânu V 1415-1395 Šauštatar II 1425-1395
Arnuwanda I 1395 - Niqmaddu II 1395-1380 Barattarna II 1395-1390
-1370 Niqmepa V 1380 -Artatama I 1390-1373
Tutḫaliya III 1370 - -1360 Šutarna II 1373-1355
-1353 Ammištamru II 1360 -Artašumara 1355-1353
Šuppiluliuma I 1353 - -1345 Tušratta 1353-1339
Niqmaddu III 1345 - Artatama II 1339-1325
-1322 Šutarna III 1339-1325
Arnuwanda II 1322 -1315 Šattiwaza 1325 -
Muršili II 1322-1295 Arḫalbu 1315-1310 -1300
Muwatalli II 1295 - Niqmepa VI 1310 - Šattuara I 1300-1285
-1275 Wašašatta 1285-1278
Urḫi-Teshub 1275-1268 Šattuara II 1278-1264
Ḫattušili III 1268 - -1260 KING OF EMAR
-1241 Ammištamru III 1260-1230 Yaṣi-Dagan 1260-1245
Tutḫaliya IV 1241 - Ibirânu VI 1230-1220 Baal-kabar I 1245-1220
-1209 Niqmaddu IV 1220-1210 Zu-Aštarti 1220-1210
Arnuwanda III 1209-1207 Ammurapi II 1210 - Abbanu 1210-1200
Šuppiluliyama II 1207-1185 -1185 Pilsu-Dagan 1200-1185
Elli 1185-1170?
Baal-kabar II
KING OF AMURRU reign KING OF reign KING OF ELAM reign
CARCHEMISH
Abdi-Aširta 1380-1345 ? Ḫumban-numena 1355-1345
Aziru 1345 - ? Untaš-Napiriša 1345 -
-1314 Šarri-Kušuḫ 1325 -
DU-Tešub 1314-1312 -1310 -1305
Duppi-Tešub 1312-1280 Šaḫunuruwa 1310 - Kidin-Ḫutran II 1305 -
Bentešina 1280-1275 -1275
Šapili 1275-1264 -1260 Napiriša-untaš 1275 -
Bentešina 1264-1230 Ini-Tešub I 1260 - -1245
Šaušgamuwa 1230 - -1220 Kidin-Ḫutran III 1245-1215
Talmi-Tešub 1220 - Ḫallutaš-Inšušinak 1215 -
-1200? -1190 -1190
Maḫḫaza 1200-1185? Kuzi-Tešub 1190 - Šutruk-Naḫḫunte 1190-1160
LAND OF MUKISH -1150 Kutir-Naḫḫunte II 1160-1155
Ir-Tešub 1150 - Šilhak-Inšušinak 1155-1125
-1110 Ḫutelutuš-Inšušinak 1125-1105
Ini-Tešub II 1110-1070 Šilḫinahamru-Lagamar 1105-1080?
KING OF MYCENAE reign KING OF ATHENS reign KING OF CRETE reign

Atreus ? 1231-1202 Theseus ? 1234-1204 Deucalion ?
Agamemnon II ? 1202-1185 Menestheus ? 1204-1181 Idomeneus ?
Demophon ? 1181-1147
The chronology of the kings of Athens and Mycenae, which comes from Parian
Chronicle29, is verifiable only on a few points such as the date of the Trojan War: 22
Thargelion 1208 BCE and the name Agamemnon which was that of an Achaean king of the
14th century BCE (URUAkagamunaš, ruler of URUAhhiyawa30). Hittite sources also mention
several kings of Troy (Wilusa), but their chronology is very difficult to reconstruct:
KING OF TROY reign KING OF HATTI reign KING OF CYPRUS reign
Aleksandu (Alexander) 1280-1250 Muwatalli II 1295-1275 ?
Piyama-radu ? 1250-1225 Ḫattušili III 1268-1241 ?
Walmu 1225-1200 Tutḫaliya IV 1241-1209 Kušmešuša 1220-1210
Priam (Piyama)? 1200-1185 Šuppiluliyama II 1207-1185 Cinyras ?/ Ešuwara 1210-1185
Late Bronze Age (1530-1185) is characterized by the central role of bronze (= 10

parts of copper + 1 part of tin) in economy and therefore of copper from Cyprus ("Copper"
in Greek). This island was at the centre of the world trade route between Crete and Egypt,
which had been in contact with Crete (Keftiu) since around 2000 BCE through the big
harbour of Byblos. For example, the Aegean list of the funerary monument of Amenhotep
III (1383-1345), at Kom el-Hetan, includes a series of Aegean toponyms: Kythira, Mycenae,
Nafplion and also Cretan: Amnisos, Phaistos, Knossos, Kydonia including Keftiu. Keftiu
(Philistia) and Tanayu "Dananu" (which is Cilicia according to EA 151) are isolated and on
the right31 (north-east of Egypt) while all other names are on the left (north-west of Egypt):
1) Amnisos 2) Phaistos 3) Kydonia 4) Mycenae 5) Dikte (Boeotia) 6) Messinia 7) Nafplion 1) Keftiu 2) Tanayu
8) Kythira 9) Ilios (Troy) 10) Knossos 11) Amnisos 12) Lyktos [Philistia] [Cilicia]
This arrangement of names shows that for the Egyptians all of these cities, or
countries, formed a western geographical entity whereas Keftiu "those of Crete" and Tanayu
(Cilicia) were eastward. Cretan archaeology32 has illuminated the role and exchanges
between the great Aegean, Egyptian and Babylonian empires from the late 3rd millennium
BCE33. The first Babylonian stamps in the name of Sargon34 (2243-2187) appeared in Crete
around 2200 BCE and a stele written under Pharaoh Sesostris I (1946-1901) contains the
expression Horus Kefti which can be translated as "Horus of Crete" by analogy with Horus
Tehenu "Horus of Libyans". Similarly, the Treasury of Tod (discovered in Upper Egypt)
enclosed in 4 chests bearing the cartouche of Pharaoh Amenemhat II (1901-1863) contains
153 silver cups of Minoan manufacturing. These findings show that trade with Crete began
prior to 2000 BCE and mainly concerned the exchange of metal (and of precious materials).
29 F. JACOBY - Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker
Leiden 1962 Ed. E.J. Brill pp. 993-994.
30 G. STEINER -The Case of Wiluša and Ahhiyawa
in: Bibliotheca Orientalis LXIV No. 5-6, September–December 2007.

31 J. STRANGE – Caphtor/Keftiu: a new investigation
in: Acta Theologica Danica 14, Leiden 1980, Ed. E.J. Brill pp. 21-27.
32 F. JOANNÈS - Dictionnaire de la civilisation mésopotamienne
Paris 2001 Éd. Robert Laffont pp. 208-210.

33 R. TREUIL, P. DARCQUE, J.-C. POURSAT, G. TOUCHAIS – Les civilisations égéennes du néolithique et de l'âge de bronze
Paris 2008 Éd. Presses Universitaires de France pp. 138-140, 153-154, 161, 419, 456.
34 E.F. WEIDNER – Notes on the Sargon inscription
in: The Journal of Hellenic Studies Vol. 59 (1939) pp. 138-139.

Mesopotamia imported mainly Cretan tin and Cypriot copper to make bronze while
Egypt favored Cretan vases including silver rhytons. Some inventory tablets, archived in
temples, allow us to reconstruct the route of these materials35. A tablet found in the palace
of Mari, and dated the 9th year of Zimri-Lim (in 1670 BCE), indicates that 500 kg of tin
came from Crete (kap-ta-ra-i-im) and had passed through several Syrian cities: Aleppo, Hazor
and Ugarit, and copper came from Alashiya (=Cyprus, letter EA 40) and Dilmun (Bahrain)
via Magan (Oman). A letter36 (EA 114) sent by Rib-Hadda, mayor of Byblos, to his
suzerain, Pharaoh Amenhotep III (1383-1345), confirms the crucial role of this port city, as
well as the cities of Tyre, Beirut and Sidon, for ships transporting from Alashiya (Cyprus) to
Egypt37. Cretans regularly resided in Canaan because during the stay of King Zimri-Lim
(1680-1667) at Ugarit, it is reported that: on the dock of Ugarit, the Mariotes met Cretan merchants
and their interpreters38. Because of cabotage, Cretan ships made stopovers in Cyprus for
boarding copper, then they unloaded a portion of their cargo (tin and copper) in Byblos,
node in maritime trade, which was then transported overland before completing their
journey towards Egypt (for discharging silver vases). This trade route was sometimes
interrupted (after the expulsion of the Hyksos and the destruction of the great harbour of
Avaris by Kamose) as deplored an Egyptian scribe of that time: Really now, nobody can sail to
north, towards Byblos. How will be providing us cedar wood for our coffins that contain our mummies,
products with which must be buried pure priests, oil, which is coming as far as those of Crete (Keftiu), with
which must be embalmed nobles. These wonders will never return (Admonitions of Ipuwer 3:6-8)39.
This interruption did not last long since the funerary inscription of Sennefer (Urk IV, 535:2-
16), a Chief Treasury of Tuthmosis III40, reported the purchase of 60-cubit cedar beams
brought into Egypt by sea from Byblos. Thus the Egyptians of that time considered Cretans
(Keftiu), whom they rubbed shoulders within "Philistia", as coming from these "islands in
the middle of the sea41 (Crete)" with which they traded. Knossos would have been the main
focus exporter42, at least until 1370 BCE (date of the destruction of the palace at Knossos).
To sum up, until 1370 BCE, the Egyptians had relationships with Cretans who were
living in the islands in the middle of the sea (Minoans in Crete) mainly through those who
were residing in their colony of Palestine (Philistines). This extraterritorial extension of
Crete explains the paradoxes concerning the location of Keftiu and the representation of its
inhabitants. The term Keftiu signifying Aegean figures (Minoans from Crete) in the tomb of
Rekhmire (c. -1450) also appears in tombs of Menkheperreseneb and Amenemhab, but here
this term signifies Syrian figures (Philistines), some of which carry Aegean objects. The
earliest iconographical hybrid with Aegean elements is known from the tomb of Puimre.
The figure from the scene with four foreign princes in the tomb of Puimre shares elements
in skin colour and hair style of Aegean figures and clothes of Syrian figures. Syrian-Aegean
iconographically hybrid figures are known from the tomb of Menkheperreseneb where they
35 M.H. WIENER – The Nature and Control of Minoan Foreign Trade
in: Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology Vol. XC (1991) pp. 325-350.
36 W.L. MORAN - Les lettres d'El Amarna
in: LIPO n°13 Paris 1987 Éd. Cerf pp. 315-318.

37 S. WACHSMANN – Keftiu, the “Isles in the Midst of the Sea” and Alashia
in: Aegeans in the Theban Tombs (Peeters, 1987) pp. 93-101.

38 J.-M. MICHAUD – La Bible et l'héritage d'Ougarit
Paris 2005, Éd. GCG, p. 12.

39 A. FERMAT, M. LAPIDUS – Les prophéties de l'Égypte ancienne
Paris 1999 Éd. La Maison de Vie p. 20.

40 N. GRIMAL, B. MENU – Le commerce en Égypte ancienne
in: Bibliothèque d'Étude 21 (1998) Éd. Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale pp. 122-123.
41 Y. DUHOUX – Des Minoens en Égypte? «Keftiou» et «les îles au milieu du Grand Vert»
in: Publications de l'Institut Orientaliste de Louvain 52 (2003) Éd. Université catholique de Louvain.
42 N. FERNANDEZ – La Crète du roi Minos. Une brillante civilisation de la protohistoire égéenne
Paris 2008 Éd. L'Harmattan pp. 22, 103-108, 156-159.

occupy the second and third register of the scene with foreigners together with Syrian
figures and only a few Aegean figures43. A text from the tomb of Amenemheb (TT 85)
accompanies three registers with foreigners bringing tribute at the time of Thutmose III, it
reads: All chiefs of Upper Retenu, all chiefs of Lower Retenu, Keftiu, Mennus, all lands united. They say:
How great is Your might, victorious king. Thus Keftiu was located near Palestine (Retenu). In fact
Keftiu appears frequently among countries around Palestine in topographical lists44. For
example, on a column drum in Amenhotep III's temple of Soleb in Nubia is engraved the
following topographical list:
1) Kadesh 2) Tunip 3) [----] 4) [----] 5) Ugarit 6) Keftiu 7) Sangar (Shinar) 8) Naharina 9) Hatti 10) -
Another list of names, painted as a row of foreign captives on the base of the king's
throne, is in the tomb of Qenamun (TT 93), chief steward to Amenhotep II (1420-1392):
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1) Upper Egypt 2) Oasis Dwellers 3) Lower Egypt (Delta) 4) Bowmen of the Desert (Sinai) 5) Tehenu (Libya) 6)
Tentdwellers of Nubia 7) Bedouins of Asia (Moab) 8) Naharina 9) Keftiu 10) Minos (?) 11) Upper Retenu
Another list of names, painted in the tomb of Anen (TT 120), second prophet of
Amun, accompanies a row of captives on the throne base of Amenhotep III: 1) Sangar
(Shinar) 2) Kush 3) Naharina 4) Aram 5) Keftiu 6) Tentdewellers of Nubia 7) Tehenu (Libya) 8)
Bedouins of Asia (Moab) 9) Shasu (Bedouins in Palestine).
Greek historians provide some information that illuminates the ethnic origin of the
Philistines. According to Homer: Amid the vast sea is the beautiful and fruitful island of Crete
thousands of men live, and 90 cities are enclosed in this country, where people speak different languages.
There are Achaeans [Mycenaeans], magnanimous Cretans Aboriginal, Kydonians, Dorians divided into 3
tribes, and divine Pelasgians. Amidst this country stands the city of Knossos, where Minos reigned for 9
years (Odyssey XIX:173-177). Plato confirms this tradition on the primacy of Cretans (Laws
I:1). A scholion on this passage says that the epithet of Zeus Pelasgikos was also read as
Pelastikos. Pelasgians were originally called Pelastians45 from which derives the name
Philistines46. According to Thucydides, Minos established the first organized colonies at the
time of the Pelasgians (The Peloponnesian War I:3-4). Diodorus wrote: Tectamus, the son of
43 Aegean figures are distinguished by their reddish skin colour (similar to the skin colour of Egyptian men in iconography), curly
hair, beardless faces, and breechcloths in the tombs of Senenmut, Intef, Puimre, Useramun and the first phase of the tomb of
Rekhmire, and Aegean kilts in the tombs of Menkheperreseneb and the second phase of the tomb of Rekhmire. Syrian figures
are recognised by a yellow skin colour, bearded faces and clothing which might be described as particular kilts different from
those of the Aegean and long robes. Hybrid iconographical figures are also known from these tombs.
U. MATIC – Out of the Word and Out of the Picture? Keftiu and Materializations of ‘Minoans’
in: Encountering Imagery. Materialities, Perceptions, Relations, Ed. Stockholm 2012, pp. 235-253.
44 J. STRANGE – Caphtor/Keftiu: a new investigation
in: Acta Theologica Danica 14, Leiden 1980, Ed. E.J. Brill pp. 53-60.
45 B. SERGENT – Les indo-européens
Paris 1995 Éd. Payot & Rivages pp. 107-108.

46 The words pelagos "high seas", pelasgoi* (pélas-koi) "seamen" and pelastoi "philistines" are close.
Dorus, the son of Hellen, the son of Deucalion, sailed to Crete with Aeolians and Pelasgians and became
king of the island (...) Minos, by virtue of his being the eldest, became king of the island, and he founded on
it not a few cities, the most renowned of which were the three, Knossos in those parts of the island which look
toward Asia, Phaestos on the sea-shore to the south, and Cydonia in the regions to the west facing the
Peloponnesus (...) But now that we have examined these matters it remains for us to discuss the peoples who
have become intermixed with the Cretans. That the first inhabitants of the island were known as Eteo-
Cretans and that they are considered to have sprung from the soil itself, we have stated before; and many
generations after them Pelasgians, who were in movement by reason of their continuous expeditions and
migrations, arrived at Crete and made their home in a part of the island (Historical Library IV:60:2,
V:78:1-2;80:1-2). Herodotus states that the subjects of Minos were the inventors of the
mane helmet (The Histories I:171), which is in agreement with the crested helmets (?)
represented on the Arkalochori Axe (c. 17th century BCE).
Archaeology thanks to the similarity of Minoan and philistine ceramics47 confirmed
the claims of these ancient historians because the Pelasgians were prior to 1800 BCE48.
Egyptian execration texts (c. 1900-1800) directed men like Haluyakim, Hikisanu, Muri,
princes of Ashkelon, and Yarpilu, a prince of Ekron49. If the names of these princes are
Indo-European the names of the five Philistine cities look Semitic50 (Old Canaanite), which
implies that these Philistine colonists have likely adopted the language of their host country
(Canaan). Current interpretation of archaeological data assuming the occurrence of
Philistines only from the 12th century BCE contradicts historical data, including some
archaeological data showing that these cities were already inhabited prior to 1200 BCE51.
Thus, despite the extreme difficulty of excavation (scarcity of remains and cities still
inhabited), some (Philistine) objects were found on the site of Ekron in the layer IX dated
1470-1400 and on the site of Ashdod in the layer XIV dated 1300-120052.
The Philistines (pelišti) are mentioned for the first time in the Great inscription of
Ramses III's year 8 (1185 BCE) among the list of Sea Peoples. Amenemope's Onomasticon
(c. 1100 BCE) then locates the Philistines (p-w-l-ÿ-s3-ti) in Ahsdod, Ashkelon, Gaza, and
[Ekron?]. According to Justinus (Philippics Histories XVIII:3:5), the Sidonians had already
pushed back the Philistine ships one year prior to the Trojan War. On the walls of Medinet
Habu, numerous pirates from the Sea Peoples appear
with feather helmets while one Philistine (p-w-l-s3-ti)
chief is wearing a kind of beret53. According to the
Bible (Dt 2:23, Jr 47:4, Am 9:7), the Philistines who
came into "Philistia" from Crete (Caphtor) were
already settled in this region in the time of Abraham54
(c. -2000). These Philistines associated with the Sea
Peoples, were therefore installed in their ancient
47 M. DELCOR – Philistins, données archéologiques
in: Dictionnaire de la Bible supplément (Letouzey & Ané 1966) pp. 1233-1288.
A.E. KILLEBREW – Biblical Peoples and Etnicity
Atlanta 2005 Ed. Society of Biblical Literature pp. 197-245.
48 N. PAPAHATZIS – Mycènes –Épidaure –Tirythe –Nauplie
Paris 1978, Éd. Clio pp. 12-18.

49 J. BRIEND, M.-J. SEUX – Israël et les nations
in: Supplément au Cahier Evangile 69 (Cerf 1989) pp. 13-15.

50 Ahsdod "a fortified place", Ashkelon "migration?", Gaza "strong", Gat "a wine-press", Ekron "eradication".
51 A. MAZAR – Archeology of the Land of the Bible
New York 1990 Ed. Doubleday, p. 242.

52 C.S. EHRLICH - The Philistines in Transition: A History from Ca. 1000-730 B.C.E.
Leiden 1996 Ed. Brill pp. 9-11.

53 N.K. SANDARS – The Sea Peoples
German Democratic Republic 1987 Ed. Thames and Hudson pp. 117-138, 164-170.
54 Genesis 21:32-34. However, the city of Gerar, near Gaza (Gn 10:19), was not governed by a Philistine tyrant (Jos 13:2-3).
colonies before dominating the Israelites. If biblical research experts agree that the
Philistines were from Crete (the system of their confederation of five tyrants inspired by
Aegeans, for example, differed from surrounding Canaanite kingdoms), the Akkadian
Kaptaru or Egyptian Keftiu, they consider however their mention in the Bible prior to
Ramses III as an anachronism55. The translation of the Egyptian word Keftiu, "those of
Crete/ Cretans" instead of "Crete", not only solves many paradoxes, but also confirms the
great antiquity of the Philistines whom the Egyptians called, in accordance with their origin:
Cretans from islands in the middle of the [Mediterranean] sea (= the Minoans, at that time). The
term Philistia appeared during the 22nd dynasty shortly after the term Keftiu disappeared
during the 20th dynasty56. Vercoutter, despite the large number of documents analysed,
concluded that the identification of Keftiu to Crete was based only on a strong conjecture
because other elements placed this country in North eastern Egypt (not western):
! Egyptian texts that describe geographically Keftiu frequently associate it to the city of
Byblos and located regularly this country near Syria57. The Asian list of Amenhotep III
(1383-1345), for example, lists the city of Ugarit (i-k3-r-ÿ-ti) beside Keftiu58 (k-f-ti-w).
! An Egyptian engraving59 of vizier Rekhmire (c. 1450 BCE) pictures a prince of Keftiu
(land vassal of Egypt) as Syrian type, the 1st character from Keftiu with a little beard,
while his offerings are of Aegean type, as the 4th character with wavy hair from “distant
isle” (Aegean islands). The 2nd character is from Hatti (=Danuna?) and the 3rd character
is from Tunip (near Kadesh in Syria).
! In the Decree of Canopus (238 BCE), the Egyptian word Keftiu is rendered in Greek as
"Phoenicia", a country often equated with Lebanon (fenḫu)60 by the Egyptians.
! In the inscription citing all the "Sea Peoples", the Tjeker (installed in Dor according to
the story Wenamun) and the Philistines are not described as coming from the sea.
To sum up: until 1200 BCE there was a powerful link between Crete and Keftiu
(Philistia) viewed by Egypt as a foreign country vassal.
55 R. DE VAUX - Histoire ancienne d'Israël des origines à l'installation en Canaan
Paris 1986 Éd. Gabalda pp. 468-480.
56 G. STEINDORFF – The Statuette of an Egyptian Commissioner in Syria
in: Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 25 (1939) pp. 30-39.

57 J. VERCOUTTER – L'Egypte et le monde égéen préhellénique: étude critique des sources égyptiennes
Le Caire 1956 Éd. Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale XXXV pp. 38-157.
58 J. SIMONS – Handbook for the Study of Egyptian Topographical Lists Relating to Western Asia
Leiden 1937 Ed. E.J. Brill pp. 132-133.

59 N. DE GARIES DAVIES – The Tombs of Menkheperrasonb, Amenmose, and Another
in: The Theban Tombs Series V (London 1933) The Egypt Exploration Society Plate IV.
60 Some scholars think that the Greek word Phoenix “purple” could come from the Egypian fenḫu “food offerings”.
World trade of the time was cantered on a sea route connecting mainly two empires
(Mycenaean and Egyptian). The Mycenaeans were trading goods with Italy, Sicily, Sardinia
and Cyprus, whereas the Egyptians were trading goods mainly through its vassal kingdom
of Byblos and were chartering Phoenician ships in Tyre, Beirut and Sidon. For example, the
king of Byblos wrote to the king of Egypt the following letter (c. 1350 BCE): In Waḫliya
(Tripoli?) are the ships of the rulers of Tyre, Beirut and Sidon (...) The enemies of the king are at war with
me, as are his mayors, to whom he gives thought. For this reason my situation is extremely grave. Look, ask
the other Amanmašša if it was not <from> Alašiya (Cyprus)61 that I sent him to you (EA 114). Trade
routes of Mycenaean great kingdom62 and Egyptian empire:
Hittite highlights over the 1350-1210 period: In the Amarna letters (EA 31),
Amenhotep III (1383-1345) wrote to the Arzawan king Tarhunta-Radu that the "country
Hattusa" was obliterated, and further asked for Arzawa to send him some of these Kaska
people of whom he had heard. Then the Kaska united for the first time under Pihhuniya of
Tipiya, who "ruled like a king" the Hittites recorded. Pihhuniya conquered Istitina and
advanced as far as Zazzissa. But Mursili II (1322-1295) defeated this force and brought
Pihhuniya back as a prisoner to Hattusa. Mursili then switched to a defensive strategy, with
a chain of border fortresses north to the Devrez. Even so, in the early 13th century, when
Mursili's son Muwatalli II (1295-1275) was king in Hatti, the Kaska sacked Hattusa.
Muwatalli stopped enlisting Kaska as troops; he moved his capital to Tarhuntassa to the
south; and he appointed his brother, the future Hattusili III (1268-1241), as governor over
the northern marches. Hattusili III defeated the Kaska to the point of recapturing Nerik,
and when he took over the kingdom he returned the capital as Hattusa. Tiglath-Pileser I
(1115-1076) recorded that the Kaska and their Mushki allies were active in what had been
61 Y. GOREN, S. BUNIMOVITZ, I. FINKELSTEIN, N. NA'AMAN – The Location of Alashiya: New Evidence
in: American Journal of Archaeology 107:2 (2003) pp. 233-255.
62 J.M. KELDER – A Great King at Mycenae. An Argument for the Wanax as Great King and the Lawagetas as Vassal Ruler
in: Palamedes 3 (2008) p. 1-26.

the Hatti heartland. He defeated them and the Kaska then disappeared.
! To expand his empire, the Hittite king Šuppiluliuma I (1353-1322) engaged a process of
conquest, which came at the expense of Mitanni and Amurru (in 1347 BCE), a vassal
kingdom of Egypt. The conquest of Amurru was challenged by Sety I in 1294 BCE.
! Treaty between the Trojan king Alaksandu (Alexander) and the Hittite king Muwatalli II
(c. 1280 BCE) to seal their alliance (actually a vassalage).
! In order to re-conquer Amurru, Ramses II attacked the Hittites (in 1278 BCE). The
Battle of Kadesh marked a temporary status quo between the two empires. He wrote: His
Majesty arrived at the town of Kadesh, and now the wretched Fallen one of Kadesh was come and had
collected together all the foreign countries as far as the end of the sea; the entire land of Hatti had come,
that of Nahrin (Mitanni) likewise, that of Arzawa, Dardany (Trojans?), that of Keshkesh (Kaska),
those of Masa, those of Pidasa, that of Arawanna, that of Karkisa (Caria), Lukka (Lycia),
Kizzuwadna (Cilicia), Carchemish, Ugarit, Kedy, the entire land of Nuhashshe (northern Syria),
Mushanet, Kadesh; he left no foreign country not to bring it of every distant land, their chiefs there with
him; every man with his infantry and their chariotry exceeding many, without limit of the like of them.
They covered mountains and valleys and they were like the locust by reason of their multitude. He left no
silver in the land, he stripped it of all its possessions and gave them to all the foreign countries in order to
bring them with him to fight. 12 representatives of the chief Hittite allies are pictured (below)
at Luxor, main differences concern hairstyle. Two amazing points: Kaska was an enemy
of the Hittites, not an ally, and Lukka became 90 years later an ally of the Sea Peoples.
! Ramses II partially reconquered Amurru at Muwatalli II's death (in 1276 BCE).
! After 7 years of reign, Hattušili III expelled his nephew Urhi-Tešub who took refuge in
Egypt. Hattušili III demanded his extradition to Ramses II, who refused it. Fearing a
possible coup fomented by Egypt hosting Urhi-Tešub, his rival, Hattušili III combined
(in 1266 BCE) with Babylonian king Kadašman-Turgu to face Egypt.
! Having learned of the collapse of the kingdom of Mitanni (in 1264 BCE), annexed by
Assyrian king Shalmaneser I, Ramses II preferred to stabilize the volatile situation with
Hittite king Hattušili III by a peace treaty in 1263 BCE.
! The Year 21's Treaty led to an era of stability, which pushed Ramses II to boost his ties
by suggesting that Hattušili III marry one of his daughters. The Hittite king accepted (in
1250 BCE) and proposed to send his daughter. Relations between the two kings became
so cordial that Ramses II offered the Hittite king a personal meeting (in 1242 BCE).
! "The Tawagalawa Letter" (c. 1250 BCE) sent from Hittite King (Hattušili III?) to the
king of Ahhiyawa (Achaia) mentions an ancient conflict between the two kingdoms.
The last text above assumes actually that a weakening of the Hittite empire was
starting. The broken and difficult nature of this text calls for a brief introduction in order to
set the stage. The text is a letter addressed to an unnamed king of Aḫḫiyawa from an
unnamed king of Ḫatti. This king is currently accepted to be Ḫattušili III. Although this text
is now commonly known as "The Tawagalawa Letter", Tawagalawa, a brother of the king of
Aḫḫiyawa, is not the main subject. Instead, the purpose of the letter is to outline the
offenses of a man named Piyamaradu (a Trojan king?) in order to convince the Aḫḫiyawan
king to have him extradited to the Hittite king. The text took on the name of Tawagalawa
because of a misunderstanding by the original translators of the role of Piyamaradu in the
text63. The individual referred to in this text as "my brother" is the king of Aḫḫiyawa. The
use of the expression "my brother" indicates two things: 1) The Hittite king recognizes the
king of Aḫḫiyawa as his equal in rank, and 2) that there were friendly, i.e. treaty, relations
between the two. Contrast Muwattalli II's treatment of the king of Assyria: he recognized
him as a Great King, but refused him the status of "brother". In the Piyamaradu Letter,
Kurunta is presented as already being a king, so Ḫattušili had undoubtedly already installed
him in Tarḫuntašša. All in all, it seems possible to posit that the events of the Annals
occurred slightly before those of the third tablet of the Piyamaradu Letter, and that the
Piyamaradu letter may indeed present a continuation of them. Thus it appears that Hattušili
III was unable to restore order in the western part of his kingdom. Dynastic quarrels had
weakened his power: the vassal kingdoms of Tarḫuntašša, in the south, and Carchemish, in
the east, had turned nearly independent, and above all the tribes Gasgas and Muški in the
north regularly led attacks against the Hittite capital (Hattusa).
The Hittite expansionism, which had begun with King Suppiluliuma I, had been
frozen to the east by the Assyrians (Shalmaneser I) and to the south by the Egyptians
(Ramses II), it had turned westward with the subjugation of the kingdoms of Arzawa
(Western Anatolia) and Wilusa (Troy). Meanwhile, the Mycenaean kingdom (appeared
around 1400 BCE) had became a powerful kingdom because the Hittite king Hattusili III,
addressing the great king of Achaeans (actually the most mighty king in Achaia) gives him
the title "my brother" and considers him as his equal. Paradoxically, the expansion of the
Hittite kingdom had created a large empire (c. 1250 BCE) difficult to coordinate.
63The reason for the misunderstanding is related to the fact that the original letter was written on three large tablets, of which
"The Tawagalawa Letter" is only the third. In addition efforts to directly connect this text with the small fragments found of
Ḫattušili's Annals, such as that by Singer (1983), should be taken cautiously. The annals refer to a Mr. P[i-?] and to the Lukka
Lands. But in spite of several more place names in both texts, they match nowhere else. Both texts also present events that deal
with a shortage of water, but the places mentioned are not the same. In spite of all this, there does seem to be sufficient evidence
to posit an indirect connection, if Mr. P[i-?] is accepted as Piyamaradu. The events in the annals impinged upon the territory of
Tarḫuntašša. But there is no evidence of an invasion of Tarḫuntašša after Ḫattušili installed Kurunta there.
To find new resources Hittite kings began taxing ships coming from the Aegean Sea.
Thus, through their vassals the Hittite kings began to control the great sea route linking
Egypt to the Mycenaean world. A letter of Ammištamru III (RS 16.238), King of Ugarit
(1260-1230), to his captaincy shows that ships from Crete were taxed by the Hittites: As
from today, Ammistamru son of Niqmepa, king of Ugarit, stated pure Sinarânu, son of Siginu, as [the
sun] is pure, he is pure. His [grain], his wine, his oil should not enter the palace. His ship is pure, (it is
only) when his ship comes from Crete that he will offer his gift to the king, but the Herald cannot [cl]aim
anything to his house64. The Mycenaean region blocked (or at least drastically hindered) direct
contacts between Asia and Egypt, and the central Mediterranean and Europe respectively.
Syrian sailing was thus restricted by both political and technical barriers65.
The Mycenaean civilization (1400-1200) was a
feudal society made up of fiefdoms run by warlords66,
as can be deduced from some Mycenaean seals and
finger rings (opposite figures). A state of war is clearly
reflected in the Mycenaean world during the 1250-1200
period. Indeed, some 250 to 300 chariots in working
order, listed at Knossos, required at least a stable figure
of 500 animals, most of which had to be imported
from the mainland. However, maintenance of all these
chariots would require a huge cost, in addition to the
fact that Crete is not an environment conducive to the
breeding of horses. The walls of Pylos, in the last state
of the palace (c. 1200 BCE), also show a warrior
inspiration. All this highlights the essential character of
chariots as an armed force, beyond ostentation and
prestige alone. Warrior themes recur elsewhere in strength from the second half of the 13th
century, especially in Mycenae, as can be seen on the "Warriors vase" belonging to the
HRIIIC period (c. 1200 BCE).
From 1250 BCE a new iconographic theme appeared on the vessels that were
representing warship propelled by oars, a sort of forerunner of the pentecontere "50 oars
ship (35m long, 5m wide)", less the spur of the bow. Profiled for speed, they were
particularly suitable for acts of piracy or raids. Despite these obvious elements,
64 S. LACKENBACHER – Textes akkadiens d'Ugarit
in: LIPO n° 20 (2002) Éd. Cerf pp. 310-311.
65 F. ROUGEMONT, J.-P. VITA – Les enregistrements de chars à Ougarit et dans le monde mycénien : approche comparative sur
l'administration au Bronze récent in: PIHANS CXIV (Leiden, 2010) pp. 123-150.
66 A. SCHNAPP-GOURBEILLON – Aux origines de la Grèce
Paris 2002 Éd. Les Belles Lettres pp. 35-69, 111-129, 224-225.
archaeologists argue that the lack of representation of bows and archers during this period
constitutes a serious obstacle to justify a war. However, the arrowheads found in tombs, not
to mention numerous swords and arrows, plus the inventories in Linear B of swords and
arrows, invalidate this statement. The lack of archers on the representations is deliberate,
presumably because the military status of a soldier, often a mercenary, was devalued relative
to the high status of a warrior moving on his chariot with his sword and his spear.
The conquest of the Mycenaean kingdom of Cyprus67 by Tudhaliya IV (1241-1209)
was a turning point in relations between the Hittites and the Achaeans as can be seen from
the Treaty68 of the Hittite king sent to Shaushgamuwa (1230-1200?) the penultimate Syrian
king of Amurru69, in which the Achaean king was deleted thereafter. In this treatise
Tudhaliya IV forbade his Syrian vassal king to allow the Assyrian traders to pass through his
territory70. He required him to raise an army and prepare chariotry and asked him that no
ship be allowed to navigate to him from Ahhiyawa's country: If [the King] of Egypt is My
Majesty's [friend], he shall be your friend. [But] if [he] is My Majesty's enemy, he shall be [your enemy].
And the Kings who are my equals in rank are the King of Egypt, the King of Babylonia, the King of
Assyria, and the King of Ahhiyawa. If the King of Egypt is My Majesty's friend, he shall be your friend.
But if he is My Majesty's enemy, he shall be your enemy. And if the King of Babylonia is My Majesty's
friend, he shall be your friend. But if he is My Majesty's enemy, he shall be your enemy. Since the King of
Assyria is My Majesty's enemy, he shall be your enemy. Your merchant shall not go to Assyria, and you
shall not allow his merchant into your land. He shall not pass through your land. But if he comes into your
land, seize him and send him off to My Majesty. This matter [shall be placed] under [oath] for you.
Because I, My Majesty, have begun war with the King of Assyria, form for yourself, like My Majesty, an
army and a unit of chariotry. Just as it is a matter of urgency and ... for My Majesty, it shall likewise be a
matter of urgency and ... for you. With alacrity form for yourself an army and a unit of chariotry. This
matter shall be placed under oath for you. No ship [of] Ahhiyawa may go to him (the King of Assyria?)
[...] When he dispatches them [...] the deity of your land... Fortify and protect it continuously. In the face of
the enemy for Hatti [...] You shall not protect [another man(?)]. This will be placed under oath for you.
The war with Assyria had began few years earlier (c. 1232 BCE) as it can be deduced from
the edit of Tudhaliya IV releasing Ammištamru III (1260-1230) from participation in war
against Assyria: [In the presence of] Ini-Teshup, king of Carchemish; [son of Sahurunuwa], also king of
Carchemish, I, [My Majesty, Tudhaliya], Great King, King of Hatti, released [Ammistamru, king of the
land] of Ugarit, [his infantry and his chariotry. While the war with] Assyria has not come to an end, the
infantry and the chariotry [of the king of the land] of Ugarit need not come [to my aid. In the future] suit
shall not be brought [against] the king of the land of Ugarit. When the war with Assyria [has come to an
end], if I, My Majesty, prevail over the king of Assyria, [then] we(!) will make peace with one another. Suit
[shall not] be brought [concerning] his infantry and his chariotry, and even afterward [suit shall not] be
brought against him. The king of the land of Ugarit has paid to My Majesty fifty mina of gold by means
often shipments of the sealed storehouse. This war with Assyria was caused by the rupture of the
copper supply (needed to make bronze weapons) and not by the Assyrian expansionism
because during this period Tukultî-Ninurta I (1242-1206) was busy defeating the
Babylonian king Kaštiliašu IV (1233-1225). Actually, the Assyrians solved their problem by
annexing Alše and Alzi, countries near of Urartu, giving access to copper mines of that
68 G. BECKMAN – Hittite Diplomatic Texts
Atlanta 1999 Ed. Scholars Press pp. 103-107, 182-183.

69 E. DEVECCHI – Amurru between Ḫatti, Assyria and Aḫḫiyawa. Discussing a recent hypothesis
in: Zeitschrift für Assyriologie n°100 (2010) pp. 242-256.

70 M. VAN DE MIEROOP – The Eastern Mediterranean in the age of Ramesses II
Oxford 2010 Ed. Blackwell Publishing Ltd pp. 103-104.

region71. The conquest of Cyprus is poorly documented72, but it was probably done by
Kurunta73, a cousin of Tudhaliya IV who was king Tarhuntassa74. Tudhaliya IV left
therefore a vast empire including vassal kingdoms such as: Carchemish, Arzawa (Western
Anatolia), Qode (Cilicia), Wilusa (Troy), Amurru, Ugarit, and finally Alashiya (Cyprus).
The conquest of Cyprus by the Hittite king Tudhaliya IV would cause a chain
reaction ultimately leading to the conflagration called "Attack of the Sea Peoples", of which
the Trojan War is the most famous episode75. Indeed, Cyprus became the heart of global
commerce through its copper used to make bronze (the end of Cyprus marks the end of the
Bronze Age) that was used to make worship utensils for palaces and weapons for soldiers.
So, copper acquired an economic and military role of first magnitude. Assyria, which
became autonomous, and Egypt, which had alliances with Hatti, did not have to worry, but
this was not the case of the Mycenaean confederation of which much of its wealth came
from piracy in the western Mediterranean (especially from 1250 BCE). Its search for metals
had led the Mycenaeans to Cyprus to find copper, to Portugal, Brittany and Cornwall for
tin, to Attica for silver and lead, to Thrace and Orient for gold76.
As there are no Mycenaean documents describing the final period of the empire one
can only provide a realistic scenario. Similarly, the kingdom of Crete left very little
documentation (in Linear B) and many palaces (which unfortunately are silent), while the
72 H.G. GÜTERBOCK – The Hittite Conquest of Cyprus Reconsidered
in: Journal of Near Eastern Studies Vol. 26:2 (1967), pp. 73-81.
73 His birth name was Ulmi-Teshub.
Oxford 2005 Ed. Oxford University Press pp. 270-273, 321-323.

75 C. MOREU – The Sea Peoples and the Historical Background of the Trojan War
in: Mediterranean Archaeology 16 (2003) pp. 107-124.

76 C. ORRIEUX, P. SCHMITT PANTEL – Histoire grecque
Paris 2002 Éd. Presses Universitaires de France p. 33.

kingdom of Cyprus left some documents but paradoxically no palaces77. The last letters of
Suppiluliuma II confirm the movements of ships and people, as well as famine, but they
give no explanation78. These letters prove, however, that the Hittites themselves did not
fully understand what was happening and indirectly confirm the suddenness of a major
seaborne attack. Presumably, in seizing the kingdom of Cyprus the Hittite empire could
now control the sea route on which most of the copper trade was depending (economically
through taxes and militarily by embargo) since it had alliances with almost all the kingdoms
of the Mediterranean rim (Troy, Western Anatolia, Cyprus and Ugarit) with the exception
of Sidon, Byblos and Askelon (allies or vassals of Egypt).
The first contacts with the Sea Peoples appear during Merenptah's reign. Several
79
texts describe these foreign invaders, who would have supported a Libyan/(Philistine)
invasion of Egypt, such as the one on a stele from the temple of Amada which says: it was
told to His Majesty that the enemy of the border had crossed it at the south. That happened in year 4, 2nd
month of Shemu, 1st day. So then, the valiant army of His Majesty overthrew the Libyan vile, so that
nothing remained of the people of this country (...) He [Merenptah] protects Egypt, reassures the beloved
country. He neglects the Nubians and make that comes on their feet, such as dogs, the countries of Hatti.
Those previously who were ignoring Egypt come from themselves, because of the strength of the fear he
inspired, because of his power. He linked the countries and gave peace to Egyptian lands. Dated year 5 of
Merenptah, 2nd month of Shemu, the vast Karnak inscription reads: The vile leader, defeated one
of Libya, Meriay son of Ded goes down from the country of Libyans with his archers (...) some Sherden
[from Sardinia], Sicels [from Sicily], Achaeans, Lycians, Etruscans, having led the elite of fighters and the
warriors of his country. He also brought his wife and children (...) he had reached the western boundary (of
Egypt) in the campaign of Perire. According to the Israel Stela (line 27), dated year 5, 3rd month
of Shemu, 3rd day: [All] Princes are prostrate, saying: “Shalam (Peace)”. Not one lifts up his head
among the Nine Bows. Now that Libya has come to ruin, Hatti is pacified; The Canaan (Gaza) has been
plundered into every sort of woe: Askelon has been overcome; Gezer has been captured; Yenoam is made
non-existent. Israel is laid waste; his offsprings are no longer; Harru is become a widow because of Egypt.
All lands combined, they are at peace; Whoever roams about gets subdued by the King of Upper and Lower
Egypt Merenptah80. The chronology of these campaigns shows that the main purpose of
Menerptah was to defeat an invasion coming from Libya, in:
! Year 4, 2nd month of Shemu (April 1212 BCE), Pharaoh overthrew the ruler of Libya
(Tjehenu) and prevailed on the countries of Hatti (Arzawa, Wilusa?).
! Year 5, 2nd month of Shemu (March 1211 BCE), Pharaoh defeated a ruler of Libya
(Meriay) with his archers of whom were some: Sherden (Sardinians), Sicels (Sicilians),
Achaeans, Lycians, Etruscans having led the elite of fighters and the warriors of his
country. Meriay had brought into Egypt his wife and children.
! Year 5, 3rd month of Shemu (April 1211 BCE), Libya came to ruin, Hatti was pacified,
Philistia was plundered into every sort of woe and Askelon was overcome.
The purpose of the Libyan invasion was probably to establish a colony in Egypt but
not to attack this mighty country and if some Sea Peoples joined the Libyans, it was likely
for commercial reasons (establishment of a trading centre). Several factors show that these
Sea Peoples had not come to attack Egypt: the number of captives (ex warriors) was low:
77 E. PELTENBURG, M. IACOVOU – Crete and Cyprus: contrasting political configurations
in: Parallel Lives: Ancient Island Societies in Crete and Cyprus. Studies 20 (London 2012, British School at Athens) pp. 345-363.
78 T. BRYCE – The Hittite Deal with the Hiyawa-Men
in: Studien zu den Bogazköy-Texten 51, 2010, pp. 47-53.

79 C. LALOUETTE – L'empire des Ramsès
Paris 1985 Éd. Arthème Fayard pp. 268-313.

80 W.K. SIMPSON – The Literature of Ancient Egypt
Cairo 2005 Ed. Yale University Press pp. 356-360.

about 1,000 out of 10,000; although they had arrived the second month the Egyptians went
to defeat them only a month later and most of the invaders had no chariotry but only a few
carts drawn by oxen. The list of the loot is given by two documents (KRI IV, 7-9):
Karnak list Heliopolis list
Total of captives 9,376 Total of captives 9,376
Leaders' sons 6,359
Sicels (warriors) 222
Etruscans (warriors) 742
Libyans (warriors) 218
Leader's women 12
Bronze swords of the Meshwesh (western Libyans) 9,111 Swords 9,268
Bows 6,860
Quivers and arrows 128,860
Horses having carried the leader and his children 12 Horses 44
Various livestock 1,308 Oxen, donkeys, goats, rams 11,594
Gold and silver jewelry 531
Various crockery 3,174 Bronze vases 3,174
Merenptah introduced his looting as a great victory because he probably felt that the
establishment of the Libyan colony (associated to some Mycenaeans) was a potential threat
to Egypt which had to be quickly neutralized. The choice of Merenptah had to have deeply
disrupted international relations because the Sea Peoples became enemies of Egypt (in 1211
BCE). As the king of Achaia (in Mycenaea) had previously supported a secession in western
Anatolia (Arzawa) against Hattusili III, King Šuppiluliyama II (1207-1185) presumably
proceeded to a copper embargo against Achaia because this metal was an essential element
for arming the soldiers. The Mycenaeans were able to continue to supply themselves with
bronze thanks to their allies in Libya and Philistia.
It is noteworthy that Merenptah's military campaigns in Palestine have concerned
only a few thousand Egyptian soldiers (maximum 5000) and mainly targeted the Libyans
associated with a small fraction of the Sea Peoples. For example, an Egyptian scribe wrote
around 1200 BCE in order to warn one of his colleague about the problem of a military
mission (Papyrus Anastasi I)81: O alert scribe, understanding of heart, who is not ignorant at all, torch
in the darkness at the head of the troops — and it gives light to them! Thou art sent on an mission to
Djahy (Phoenicia) at the head of the victorious army, to crush those rebels called Nearin (young warriors).
The bowmen of the army which is before thee amount to 1900; the Sherden 520, the Qehek 1600, the
Meshwesh (100?), and the Negroes 880; total 5000 in all, not counting their officers. There is brought thee
a peace offering before thee: bread, cattle, and wine. The number of men is too great for thee, wheras the
provisions are too small for them. Afterwards the scribe quoted several regions or towns linked
to Egypt: Thou hast not gone to the land of Hatti, thou hast not seen the land of Upi (Damascus area).
Khedem (Lebanon?), thou knowest [not] its nature, nor Yegdy either. What is it like, the Simyra of Sessi
[nickname of Ramses II] —life, prosperity, health!? On which side of it is the city of Aleppo? What is its
stream like ? Thou hast not gone forth to Kadesh [on Orontes] and Tubikhi. Thou hast not gone to the
region of the Shasu with the bowmen of the army. Thou hast [not] trodden the road to the Magur, where the
sky is darkened by day and it is overgrown with cypresses and oaks and cedars which reach the heavens.
Lions are more numerous than leopards or bears, (and it is) surrounded by Shasu on (every) side of it (...)
Let me tell thee of another strange city, named Byblos. What is it like ? And its goddess ? Once again—
[thou] hast not trodden it. Pray, instruct me about Beirut, about Sidon and Sarepta. Where is the stream of
the Litani? What is Uzu like (Tyre on the mainland)?" They say another town is in the sea, named Tyre-
the-Port. Water is taken (to) it by the boats, and it is richer in fish than the sands. Let me tell thee another
difficult case —the crossing of Seram. Thou wilt say: It burns more than a sting! Very sick is the mahir.
81J.B. PRITCHARD - Ancient Near Eastern Texts
Princeton 1969 Ed. Princeton University Press pp. 475-477.
Come, set (me) on the way southward to the region of Acre. Where does the Achshaph road come ? At what
town ? Pray, teach me about the mountain of User. What is its head" like ? Where does the mountain of
Shechem come ? ... Where does the mahir make the journey to Hazor? What is its stream like? Put me
(on) the track to Hamath, Deger, and Deger-El, the promenade ground of every mahir. Pray, teach me
about its road and show me Yan. If one is traveling to Adummim, which way is the face? Do not shrink
from thy teaching! Guide us (to) know them! Come, that I may tell thee other towns which lie above them.
Thou hast not gone to the land of Takhshi, Kur-mereren, Timnat, Kadesh, Deper, Azai, or Harnaim.
Thou hast not seen Kiriath-Anab and Beth-Sepher. Thou dost not know Adurun or Zedpet either. Thou
dost not know the name of Khenrez, which is in the land of Upi, the bull upon its boundary, the place where
the battle array of every hero may have been seen. Pray, teach me about the appearance of Qiyen, let me
know Rehob, explain Beth-Shan and Tirqa-El. The stream of Jordan, how is it crossed? Let me know the
way to pass Megiddo, which is above it (...) [let me relate to] thee the [foreign countries] of the end of the
land of the Canaan. Thou answerest me neither good nor evil; thou returnest me no report. Come, let [me]
tell thee many things as far as the Fortress of the "Ways [of Horus]". I begin for thee with the "Dwelling of
Sessi —life, prosperity, health!" Thou hast not trodden it at all. Thou hast not eaten the fish of ... ; thou
hast not bathed in it. Pray, let me recall to thee Husayin —where is its fortress ? Come now to the region of
Uto of Sessi —life, prosperity, health!— in his stronghold of User-maat-Re —life, prosperity, health!—
and Seba-El, and Ibsaqab (under Seti I). Let me tell thee the nature of Aiyanin. Thou knowest not its
rules. Nekhes and Hebret, thou hast not seen them since thy birth. O mahir, where are they ? Raphia —
what is its wall like? How many iters ("10 km") march is it as far as Gaza? Answer quickly! Make me
a report, that I may call thee mahir and boast to others of thy name maryanu —so shall I speak to them. It
is also noteworthy that for the Egyptians at that time the land of Canaan [under Egyptian
control] covered only the land around Gaza, thus Merenptah's military campaigns in
Palestine actually concerned mainly the south of the country (Philistia).
After the death of Siptah (c. 1196 BCE), Egypt would experience a split between two
pharaohs (Tausert and Setnakht) that would be a source of instability. It is precisely at this
time that the Sea Peoples tried to promote an insurrection against Sethnakht (1196-1192)
from Philistia82. According to a stele from Elephantine (KRI IV,671-672), a coalition of
enemies (unspecified!) had been pushed back: His Majesty [Sethnakht] was like his father Sutek,
extending his arms to wrest Egypt to the man who had taken his power, encircling it of magical protection.
So, the enemies in front of him, their hearts were filled with the fear he inspired, and they fled faster than
sparrows, while the prestige of the hawk reached them. And there they left the gold and silver belonging to
Egypt and which had given them the Asiatics, in order that rush to them the victories that would ensure the
dominance over the beloved Country. But their plans failed and their promises were not for tomorrow (...)
Year 2, 2nd month of Shemu, 10th day, it did not remain any more rebels to His Majesty, in any country,
and one could say to his Majesty: O Lord of the earth, your heart is happy that the prophecy of the gods
realized against your enemies, there is no longer in this country and no more any power of infantry and
chariotry, except the one of your father. All the temples were reopened. One can again enter into the divine
stores to increase (their provisions). The beginning of the Papyrus Harris I which documents the
reign of Ramesses III, provides some details about Setnakht’s rise to power: The land of
Egypt was overthrown from without, and every man was thrown out of his right; they had no “chief mouth”
for many years formerly until other times. The land of Egypt was in the hands of chiefs and of rulers of
towns; one slew his neighbour, great and small. Other times having come after it, with empty years. Irsu "a
self-made man", a certain ‘Palestinian’ (Ḫarru) was with them as chief (wr). He set plundering their (i.e.
the people’s) possessions. They made gods like men, and no offerings were presented in the temples. But when
the gods inclined themselves to peace, to set the land in its rights according to its accustomed manner, they
established their son, who came forth from their limbs, to be ruler, ‘life, prosperity, health’, of every land,
82C. VANDERSLEYEN - L'Egypte et la vallée du Nil Tome 2
Paris 1995 Éd. Presses Universitaires de France pp. 391-393.
upon their great throne, Userkhaure-setepenre-meryamun, ‘life, prosperity, health’, the son of Re, Setnakht-
merire-meryamun, ‘life, prosperity, health’. He was Khepri-Set, when he is enraged; he set in order the entire
land which had been rebellious; he slew the rebels who were in the land of Egypt; he cleansed the great throne
of Egypt; he was ruler of the Two Lands, on the throne of Atum. He gave ready faces to those who had been
turned away. Every man knew his brother who had been walled in. He established the temples in possession
of divine offerings, to offer to the gods according to their customary stipulations83. Unusually no name of
invader people is mentioned, but it might be the Sea Peoples. The allusion to the infantry
and chariotry suggests that these enemies, bribed by Asiatics (in Palestine), came by land.
Inasmuch as the city of Gezer belonged to Kharu area (Urk. IV,1556,10-11) Irsu had to
have resided in the south of Palestine under Egyptian control (Philistia). The precise date,
year 2, 2nd month of Shemu84 shows that the goal of Sethnakht's war was to crush a major
insurrection promoted by the Sea Peoples ("their plans failed"), which came from Philistia.
To prevent any new attempt at insurrection, the Egyptians were forced to take drastic
measures in order to neutralize a new incursion from the Sea Peoples. As the bronze used
for making vases also served for war weapons, they likely imposed its embargo toward the
Achaean islands. Mycenaeans were driven to react not only because they could no longer
manufacture their weapons, but because of the Egyptian embargo85 on bronze in addition
to the Hittite embargo on copper, but their economy, which was heavily dependent on
copper (the most common goods in trade), was becoming progressively asphyxiated.
Presumably the first solution considered by the Mycenaeans was (from 1194 BCE) to
intensify piracy which was the outbreak of hostilities with the Hittites and Egyptians.
Supply in copper coming from piracy had to be limited and the only remaining solution was
to break the Hittite embargo. Attacking frontally the Hittite empire was hardly feasible
(Muwatalli II's army had almost succeeded in crushing the army of Ramses II at Kadesh in
1278 BCE). In addition, a ground attack would have needed a lot of horses and would have
lasted several weeks due to the large distances, which would have alerted the enemy quickly,
allowing him to retaliate. The best solution was undoubtedly a huge surprise attack (by sea),
because it was easier to implement than a ground attack in a foreign country and the
absence of a clash between two armies would decrease greatly the losses of soldiers.
Although very bold, this method had been used a few times in the past successfully. For
instance, the Amorite troops that destroyed Ur (through a surprise attack), capital of the
Sumerian empire, led to its disappearance in 1912 BCE, the Hittite troops which destroyed
Babylon (through a surprise attack), capital of the Akkadian empire, led to its collapse in
1499 BCE and the Assyrian troops which destroyed Washukanni86 (through a lightning
attack), capital of Mitannian empire, caused its fall in 1278 BCE (and then its annexation in
1264 BCE). These empires, even if they were powerful, remained fragile due to the extreme
centralization of their government which was mainly based on its king.
The Ramses III's year 8 record is fairly reliable, despite some parts are ideological87,
about the conduct of the huge surprise attack in 1185 BCE, it is summarized as follows: The
Sea Peoples made a conspiracy in their islands [of Achaia]. All at once the lands were removed and
scattered in the fray. No land could stand before their arms: from Hatti, Cilicia, Carchemish, Arzawa
(western Anatolia) and Cyprus on, being destroyed at one time. A camp [was set up] in one place in
83 J.H. BREASTED – Papyrus Harris I
in: Ancient Records of Egypt Vol. No. 4 (1906) pp. 198-199.
84 In March 1194 BCE Tausert probably died one month earlier (February 1194 BCE).
85 The ports of Tyre and Sidon had to comply with the recommendations from the Egyptian commissioners in Palestine.
86 J. FREU – Histoire du Mitanni
Paris 2003 Éd. L'Harmattan pp. 175-181.

87 S.M. PETERS – Decoding the Medinet Habu Inscriptions: The Ideological Subtext of Ramesses III’s War Accounts
Ne York 2011, Senior Thesis, Department of History, Columbia University pp. 1-59.
Amurru. They desolated its people, and its land was like that which has never come into being. They were
coming forward toward Egypt, while the flame was prepared before them. Their [Mycenaean] confederation
was the Philistines [from Crete], Tjeker, Sicels [from Sicily], Denyen88 [Cilicians from Lycia] and
Weshesh, lands united. They laid their hands upon the land as far as the circuit of the earth, their hearts
confident and trusting: "Our plans will succeed!" Now the king of Egypt was prepared and ready to ensnare
them like birds. I [Ramses III] organized my frontier in Djahy [the Mediterranean coastline]89 prepared
before them: —princes, commanders of garrisons, and Asiatic picked warriors, I have the river-mouths
prepared like a strong wall, with warships, galleys and coasters, (fully) equipped, for they were manned
completely from bow to stern with valiant warriors carrying their weapons. The troops consisted of every
picked man of Egypt. They were like lions roaring upon the mountain tops. The chariotry consisted of
runners, of picked men, of every good and capable chariot-warrior. The horses were quivering in every part of
their bodies, prepared to crush the foreign countries [Libya, Philistia] under their hoofs. I was the valiant
god of war, standing fast at their head, so that they might gaze upon the capturing of my hands. Those who
reached my frontier, their seed is not, their heart and their soul are finished forever and ever. Those who came
forward together on the sea, the full flame was in front of them at the river-mouths, while a stockade of lances
surrounded them on the shore. They were dragged in, enclosed, and prostrated on the beach, killed, and made
into heaps from tail to head. Their ships and their goods were as if fallen into the water. I have made the
lands turn back from (even) mentioning Egypt; for when they pronounce my name in their land, then they
are burned up (...) Those who entered the river-mouths were like birds ensnared in the net. Their leaders
were carried off and slain. They were cast down and pinioned. According to this description, Hatti
and its vassal kingdoms suffered a large-scale surprise attack that suddenly destroyed them.
The Hittite empire was the victim of a conspiracy orchestrated by some peoples coming
mostly from the islands of the Aegean Sea. Actually the Sea Peoples destroyed by fire most
of the major port cities along the coastline: Troy, Miletus, Tarsus and Ugarit. Two letters
from the kings of the previous burned cities lead us to suppose that the Mycenaean ships
burned the cities of Cyprus (Salamis, Kition, Palaiokastro and Paphos) on their way back.
Actually, Eshuwara, "Cyprus' prime minister", wrote to the king of Ugarit: As for the matters
involving these enemies: they are the people of your country and your ships who have done that! These are the
people of your country who have made a surprise assault! So do not be angry against me! Now 20 ships that
the enemy, in a mountainous region, have not made accosted, did not stay, they left in a hurry and we do not
know where they are. The king of Ugarit wrote to the viceroy of Carchemish: My father, now the
enemy ships came. Some cities of mine have been burned, things were getting nasty in the country. My father
did not he know that [my] troops [...] are in Hatti, and all my ships are in Lycia? They have not yet joined
me and the country is thus abandoned to itself. My father must know this. Now, 7 enemy ships that came
against me and they hurt us. The attack on Hittite territory had to be fast because ships move at
an average speed of 160 kilometres per day (12 days were needed to reach Egypt starting
from Mycenae)90, while terrestrial armies move at an average speed of 30 km/day. Ramses
III's account tells that the attack on Egypt occurred during a second phase. He was
prevented by the king of Hatti who had written him: My father [...] I mobilized and I,
Suppiluliuma, the Great King, immediately crossed? the sea. The [Sea Peoples] ships of Cyprus met me in
the sea three times for battle, and I smote them; and I seized the ships and set fire to them in the sea. But
when I arrived on dry land, the enemy from Cyprus came in multitude against me for battle.
The large fresco of Ramses III representing the naval battle is problematic because it
also included a land battle beside91:
88 These Denyen (Cilicians) were not from Danuna (Cilicia), a vassal kingdom of Hatti, but were probably living in Lycia.
89 Djahy refers particularly to the Phoenician coast, of which Byblos was a vassal kingdom of Egypt.
90 P. ARNAUD – Vitesse des navires, segmentation des routes et temps de parcours, l'espace-temps de la Méditerranée antique
in: Les routes de la navigation antique (Paris 2005 Éd. errance) pp. 97-148.
German Democratic Republic 1987 Ed. Thames and Hudson pp. 120-137.
A detailed analysis of the fresco92 shows two points: the Sea Peoples, consisting
largely of the Philistines from Crete, were surrounded by the Egyptians in the seaside; the
ground attack was carried out in retaliation against Philistia93, an ally of the Sea Peoples. We
see (below) that Sea Peoples' ships (P) are squeezed between Egyptian ships (E) full of
archers and Egyptian archers on the coastline.
We also see that the majority of attackers are Mycenaean Philistines from Crete
(recognizable thanks to their feathered helmets), in addition, Egyptian ships and those of
Sea Peoples are substantially the same size. The quantified record of the Egyptian victory
makes it possible to get an idea of the scale of the military forces. According to Ramses
account94: All survivors were taken captive into Egypt, hands and phalluses in limitless number were
carried as booty, heads were bound under the king's window of appearance. And the great ones of all foreign
countries were there, gathered, contemplating their misery. The count of hands and phalluses (only
for slain enemies who were uncircumcised, as the Philistines) is as follows:
Total of hands: 12659 (pile 1) 12532 (pile 2) 12535 (pile 4)
Total of phalluses: 12868 (pile 3) 12535 (pile 5)
Assuming that the number of phalluses fits the number of slain Philistines, this gives
a total amount of about 25,000. If these Philistines were coming from Crete by ship, that
implies an incredibly high number of ships of about 500 men (with a crew of 50 per ship).
A problem arises. Indeed, even if half of the Philistines were coming from Philistia (that
Paris 2009 Éd. Pygmalion pp.182-206.
93 D. KAHN – The Campaign of Ramesses III against Philistia
in: Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 3:4 (2011) pp. 1-11.

94 C. LALOUETTE – L'empire des Ramsès
Paris 1985 Éd. Arthème Fayard pp. 300-309.

would reduce the number of ships by 2), it is hard to believe that the Egyptians were able to
surround 250 ships with only 50 (+/- 30) of their own95. In fact, the Egyptians used the
ships which came from Byblos, one of the most important port cities in the Mediterranean.
This can be deduced from the following part of Ramses III's inscriptions in the temple of
Medinet Habu96: I organized my frontier in Djahi [Mediterranean coastline] prepared before them: —
princes, commanders of garrisons, and maryanu [Asiatic picked warriors] I have the Nile-mouths prepared
like a strong wall, with warships, cargo ships [mnš] and freighters [b3ÿl], (fully) equipped, for they were
manned completely from bow to stern with valiant warriors carrying their weapons. The words mnš
"galleys" and b3ÿl "freighters" are Phoenician loanwords97. The drawing of the freighter
(b3ÿl) with its bow-headed lion (with red circle, see below) in Ramses III's inscription and its
representation on the fresco (boat at the top left) allow us to conclude that these ships were
coming from Byblos98. Indeed, we know, through the story of Wenamun (c. 1085 BCE),
that freighters were usually stationed in the Phoenician ports of Byblos, Tyre and Sidon
(Story of Wenamun I:59-II:2, II:62-63). The words "cargo ship" and "freighter" are written:
mnš and b3ïr in the story of Wenamun.
To assess the maritime forces involved in the conflict, it is necessary to identify the
few documents providing information about the importance of port cities in antiquity.
Although he was caught off guard the Hittite king (Suppiliuma II) organized a counterattack
through his commander in chief and wrote him a letter99 (KTU 2.47): And the king who
governs in his homeland to Yadinu the servant of the king, whom he has made commander of his army. Let
the dynasty not go to ruin. The border patrol has taken kws‘t (Kisuwatna?). Let you army [...] border,
who himself wrote a letter to the viceroy of Carchemish (Kuzi-Tešub): The message of Yadinu
to the king, his lord. Protect your country. Will, please, supply ships, will supply 150 ships [...] and 400
Apiru (Syrian mercenaries) and the king [...]. As the Viceroy of Carchemish controlled Ugarit,
the letter gives the capacity of this old port city. Although the figure of 150 ships seem high,
it is consistent with the data of the time. For instance, on the stele of Kamose's year 3
appears the first detailed report100 about the taking of Avaris and regarding its harbour, we
read: I have not left a board from the 300 ships (made) of fresh pine which were full of gold, lapis lazuli,
silver, turquoise, bronze axes without number, excluding oil moringa, incense, honey, wood-ituren, wood-
95 G.P. GILBERT – Ancient Egyptian Sea Power and the Origin of Maritime Forces
Australia 2008 Ed. Sea Power Centre pp. 34-40.
96 K.A. KITCHEN – Remesside Inscriptions V
Oxford 1983 Ed. Blackwell Ltd, page V:40 lines 6-10.

97 The word b3ïl "freighter" could be related to bâ'ir (Akkadian), baris (Greek) and brm (Ugaritic).
98 N. GRIMAL, M. FRANCIS-ALLOUCHE – Nouvelles recherches archéologiques à Byblos
in: Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions 156:1 (2012), pp. 279-302.
99 S. WACHSMANN – Seagoing Ships and Seamanship in the Bronze Age Levant
Texas 2008 Ed. Texas AM University Press pp. 336-337.

100 L. HABACHI – The Second Stela of Kamose and his Struggle against the Hyksos Ruler and his Capital
Glückstadt 1972 Ed. Verlag J.J. Augustin pp.31-67.

sesenedjem, wood-sepen, all precious woods and all beautiful imports from Retenu. I have taken everything, I
have nothing left, Avaris is doomed to penury, the Asiatic perished. As the harbour of Avaris (before
its destruction) traded with the port cities of Byblos (mainly), Knossos and Mycenae, one
can assume that the number of ships in these harbours was the same order of magnitude
(250? for Byblos, 50? for Knossos and Mycenae). Minoan sailing was very intense in the
Aegean between 1500 and 1400 BCE as evidenced by the various models of boats placed in
the tombs and shrines, paintings on Agia Triada's sarcophagus, and the tomb of Kenamon,
an official in charge of trade with the Levant, by various graffiti, by characters of writing101.
By all accounts a seafaring people, the Mycenaean Greeks of the Late Bronze Age enjoyed
maritime connections with peoples as distant as Egypt and Sicily. These long-distance
relations were important, but the local maritime networks, in the form of "coast scopes"
and "small worlds," are far more representative of the true fabric of Mycenaean life102.
A seaborne assault on a fortified
coastal town is shown103 on fragments of a
silver goblet (LH IA, dated c. -1500). This
Silver Siege Rhyton104, from Shaft Grave IV
of Grave Circle A, depicts, in repoussé
relief, the siege of a fortified coastal town.
The raiders land from the sea, as indicated
by the stylised wave pattern, and proceed to
attack the mud-brick fortifications, which
surmount a rocky eminence. The naked
defenders of the town are armed only with slings and bows while the attackers are clearly
Mycenaeans as shown by their helmets and shields. That they came by ship is indicated by
one valuable clue, for a man, clad in plumed helmet and short-
sleeved tunic, holds a tiller and is a helmsman. A helmet made
from wild boar teeth with a tuft of feathers is engraved on a
Cretan double axe105 (right picture) dated c. -1500. This type of helmet is fully described by
Homer (Iliad 10:261-275). Amongst the defenders are female onlookers who are anxiously
watching the course of the battle on the seashore from the walls of the
town106 . Evidence indicates that Kalamianos was a significant centre of
Mycenaean activity in the 13th century BCE and possibly served as Mycenae's
principal harbour in the Saronic Gulf107. Mycenaean sailors and warriors with
feathered helmet appear (right) in a naval battle on pictorial potteries dated c.
1190 BCE found in Kynos, Phaistos, Kos (Aegean islands), Bademgediği
Tepe (western Anatolia) and Mycenae (warrior’s head on a larnax)108.
101 P. FAURE – En Crère au temps de Minos 1500 av. J.C.
Paris 1973 Éd. Hachette pp. 230-261.
102 T. TARTARON – Maritime Networks in the Mycenaean World
Cambridge 2013 Ed. Cambridge University Press pp. 63-65.

Paris 2002 Éd. Les Belles Lettres pp. 224-225.

104 N. FIELDS – Troy C. 1700-1250 BC
Oxford 2004 Ed. Osprey Publishing Ltd pp. 48-50.

105 A. MCBRIDE – The Mycenaeans C. 1650-1100 BC
Sussex 2005 Ed. Osprey Publishing pp. 11-14.

106 An intriguing parallel can be found in one of the most famous excursus in the Iliad (18:478-607), namely the Shield of
Achilles. On Achilles' new shield the city at war faces a sack and the loss of its property, and while it waits, its men prepared
themselves for an armed sortie while their beloved wives and their little children stood on the rampart (Iliad 18:509-514).
107 T.F. TARTARON, D.J. PULLEN, R.K. DUNN, L. TZORTZOPOULOU-GREGORY, A. DILL, J.I. BOYCE – SHARP: Investigations at
Mycenaean Kalamianos, in: Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens 80:4 (2011) pp. 559-634.
108 A. YASUR-LANDAU – The 'Feathered Helmets' of the Sea Peoples: Joining the Iconographic and Archaeological Evidence
in: Talanta XLIV (2012), pp. 27-40.

It is difficult to know the number of ships chartered by the port cities in 1200 BCE
for two reasons: there is only one known number, the 150 ships of Ugarit, and some later
figures are not significant because after the destruction of the whole Mycenaean fleet in
Egypt, international trade ceased for at least for three centuries. For instance, Wenamun
explains in his narrative109 (dated 1085 BCE) that he was sent to Palestine by Smendes and
after leaving Tyre he met Zakar-Baal the prince of Byblos and negotiated with Warkat-il,
the boat captain: I said to him: Isn't an Egyptian ship and thus an Egyptian crew that sail under
Smendes? Does he have Syrian crews? And he said to me: Aren't there 20 cargo ships here in my harbour
which are in commerce with Smendes? As for Sidon, the other (port) which you passed, aren't another 50
freighters there which are in commerce with Warkat-il and are hauling to his (commercial) house? (Story of
Wenamun I:59-II:2). Thus, there were at least 50 freighters in Sidon at that time. Assuming
that the city of Ugarit had 150 ships in 1200 BCE and that this number was proportional to
the size of the city110, we get the following estimation:
City City total area Old city area Total of ships
Ugarit 200,000 m2 [15,000 m2?] 150
Troy 350,000 m2 25,000 m2 (185m x 135m) [250]
Knossos ? 22,000 m2 (150m x 150m) [220]
Mycenae ? 30,000 m2 (200m x 150m) [300]
Byblos ? 60,000 m2 (245m x 245 m) [600*]
The figure of 600 ships seems excessive because the maximum capacity of a harbour
mouth was probably 300 ships (Avaris), however the other figures are consistent with the
population of cities and also with the total number of crews transported. The average size
of houses was 35 m2 in Troy, implying a total population of about 10,000 people. Because
the crew of a ship varied from 20 to 50 at that time, the maximum number of people
carried by 250 ships would be about 12,500 people. Thus, the Catalogue of Ships given by
Homer, accounting a total of 1,186 ships (Iliad II:494-759), could be correct if one assumes
that the cities of Mycenae and Knossos provided half of the crews (with 50 people per ship)
or only a quarter (with 25 per ship). Moreover, the high number of ships gathered in one
place implies several consequences: the naval defeat of the Sea Peoples was a real Pearl
Harbour; one of the few Egyptian ports able to accommodate as many ships would be the
one of Avaris and for encircling so many ships Ramses III had to use those from Byblos.
THE TROJAN WAR: INQUIRY RESULT
The information provided in the inscription of Ramses III's year 8 being consistent
and broadly in line with all historical and chronological data it can be used to make a
historical reconstitution. According to it, there was a “Mycenaean conspiracy” to destroy
first the Hittite empire then Egypt itself. The purpose of this conspiracy had to be: first to
break the Hittite embargo on copper, then to establish a trading settlement in Egypt with
the help of its allies (Libya and Philistia) in order to supply them with bronze. To achieve
their goal the Mycenaeans had to unite most of the Achaean kingdoms to form a large
enough fleet, in order to destabilize the Hittite empire and to land successfully in Egypt.
The name 'Mycenaean' is used today as a term of convenience for the whole of the
Late Helladic civilization. It reflects Mycenae's prominence within this civilization, in the
archaeological record as well as in Greek literary tradition. Current thinking about the
Mycenaean world, encompassing both mainland Greece and the Greek islands, is that, while
109 W.K. SIMPSON – The Report of Wenamon
in: The Literature of Ancient Egypt (2005) Ed. The American University in Cairo Press pp. 116-124.

it displayed a high degree of cultural homogeneity, it was a politically fragmented world,
consisting of many independent kingdoms subject to their own local rulers. There was,
however, a hierarchy of these kingdoms, in terms of their size, wealth and power. Mycenae,
Tiryns, Argos and Pylos were amongst the most important centres of the Mycenaean world.
Though they were politically and administratively independent of each other, it is possible
that the various kingdoms formed temporary alliances for military purposes or for other
major enterprises, much as Homer depicts them in the Iliad111 . How do Hittite textual
references to Ahhiyawa agree with this? The number of these references is quite small (20
or so), and they often occur in very fragmentary passages. But as far as we can judge from
them, it seems that in some contexts the name was used in a purely generic sense to refer to
the contemporary Greek world in general, just as the Hittites used the term Hurri (Hurrian)
as a general designation for the Human-speaking world, including the kingdom of Mitanni.
On the other hand, the name might also have been used of a specific Greek kingdom,
especially when reference was made to a particular king of Ahhiyawa. In this case, the king
in question was almost certainly the ruler of one of the major kingdoms, perhaps Mycenae
itself. But even the major Mycenaean kingdoms (taken alone) were of very modest size
when compared with the Great Kingdoms of their Near Eastern contemporaries.
Nonetheless it is possible that the Hittites thought of the kings of Ahhiyawa as exercising in
their own world power commensurate with that of their royal brothers in the Near East.
The easiest way to destabilize the Hittite empire was to destroy all of its port cities
(belonging to its vassal kingdoms) along the coastline from Troy to Ugarit via Cyprus. Thus
the cities of Troy, Miletos, Tarsus, Ugarit, Salamis, Kition, Palaiokastro, Paphos had to be
destroyed by fire by the Myceneans. Hittite cities, including the capital Hattusa, were
destroyed by a ground campaign. For logistical reasons, the Mycenaean seaborne war
cannot be responsible for such destruction. In fact, as Mycenaean kings had supported
some Trojan kings on several occasions, they knew that the Hittites had difficulties in
repelling frequent attacks by rebels (Kaška) in Northern Anatolia. The King of Kaskas had
to learn (perhaps through spies or Hittite traders) that the Hittite empire had been attacked
and was sending its troops (into Lycia) to repel the enemy. Thus Hattusa and the cities
north of Hatti were burned by the Kaskas112 . For the same reasons of logistics, most cities
of Philistia (Askalon, Ashdod, Dor, Acco) were burned by Ramses III (maybe some of
them by Sethnakht 10 years earlier), not by the Philistines from Crete. The burning of
Syrian cities (Alalakh, Hamath, Kadesh) is more difficult to explain. Although the Sea
Peoples had established a camp in Amurru, according to Ramses III's inscription, it is not
sure they were responsible for those destructions. Such destructions came maybe from the
opportunistic westward expansionism of the Assyrian empire through Mitanni, its new
Hurrian province (called by them Hanigalbat). In addition, several destructions of cities not
burned (as Emar)113 were slight (mainly a local looting). At last, the destroying of Canaanite
cities under Egyptian rulership (Megiddo, Beth-Shean, Aphek, Gezer, Lachish, Hazor) is
puzzling114, but could be an Egyptian retaliation against the cities looted by the Sea Peoples
then conquered momentarily.
111 T. BRYCE – Letters of the Great Kings of the Ancient Near East
London 2003 Ed. Routledge pp. 200-201.
112 F. JOANNÈS – Dictionnaire de la civilisation mésopotamienne

P. GARELLI, J.M. DURAND, H. GONNET, C. BRENIQUET - Le Proche-Orient Asiatique
Paris 1997 Éd. P.U.F. pp. 316-321.
113 F. DI FILIPPO – The City of Emar among the Late Bronze Age Empires
in: Alter Orient und Altes Testament 349 (Münster, 2008) pp. 45-64.
New York 1990 Ed. Doubleday, pp. 289-291.

The collapse of Mycenae still remains an enigma for scholars, because how is it that
the Mycenaean cities were burned by the Mycenaeans themselves. The explanation of
rivalry between Mycenaean kingdoms is acceptable for some cases, but not for big cities.
The Mycenaean world was plunged into chaos and economic collapse, some settlements
were re-established whilst others remained deserted. Mycenaean power came to an end in
1185 BCE. The close of the Third Palace Period was marked by destruction, often by fire,
at many sites. Some towns were abandoned and never reoccupied, others were rebuilt and
some even grew in size. Tiryns, notably, expanded, probably becoming the most important
centre in the Argolid. There was a dramatic decline in overseas trade and although the
Mycenaean pottery traditions continued, there was certainly an economic recession. The
northernmost sites to show these signs of destruction are in Thessaly, where lolkos was
probably burned, but occupation continued. At Thebes there are signs of devastation
followed by rebuilding and another destruction. Lefkandi was burned but immediately
rebuilt. The evidence from Athens is less clear, but the Postpalatial settlement was much
smaller than the earlier one. Korakou on the isthmus of Corinth was perhaps damaged and
reoccupied. Many sites in the Argolid were destroyed or abandoned after 1185. Prosymna,
Barbati, both close to Mycenae, were abandoned, but without signs of devastation. This was
perhaps the case at Lerna also, but nearby Zygouries and Midea were destroyed by fire. At
Tiryns and Mycenae the citadels and towns were consumed by tire. The citadel of Mycenae
was rebuilt and reoccupied, and the new city at Tiryns was larger than before. Asine was
another site which grew in size. In the southern and western Peloponnese, Iria and
Menelaion went up in flames, as did Nichoria, Pylos, Mouriatadha and Maithi. The regions
of Elis and Arcadia are less well-known, but there are indications of population decline.
There are many more sites known further north in Achaea and it has been suggested that
people then moved to this more protected region. Some sites, such as Teikhos Dymaion
had been burnt but were then protected with fortifications. The evidence from the islands is
much scantier, although there is evidence for similar destruction and looting of palaces on
Paros, at Koukounaries, which was then rebuilt with fortified walls, Mycenaean sites at
Phylakopi on Melos, Ayia Irini on Kea and Grotta on Naxos survived. Further east, lalysos
on Rhodes seems to have increased enormously in population, the settlement at Seraglio on
Kos continued. Crete, presents a different problem. The destruction of Knossos seems to
predate this catastrophe, and is probably due to different causes (earthquake?). Khania was
destroyed around 1200 BCE. In the east of the island, coastal sites were abandoned and
larger settlements in remote and well-protected places seem to have been preferred. So
Amnisos, Mallia and Palaikastro were deserted, to be replaced by Karphi, Vrokastro and
Kavousi. This wave of destruction, much of which can be dated by the pottery evidence to
around 1225-1100, has been blamed on the invasions of the Sea Peoples and the Dorians.
Theories put forward in the last century, which gained wide acceptance until quite recently,
argued that the end of the Mycenaean world was brought about by massive "barbarian"
invasions from the central Balkans. Other population movements from the Balkans
eastward into Anatolia were seen to account for the destruction of Troy and the Hittite
capital of Hattusa. Most Hittite scholars have discarded this migration (for which the
evidence was only very circumstantial). Similarly the movement of the Dorians into
southern Greece may have been into the less-populated regions created by migrations to
Cyprus and the coast of Anatolia115 (where they became the Ionians). Who or what then
was responsible for the widespread destruction and the fall of Mycenae?
First of all, the fact that a major attack has left no archaeological evidence is not
115 R. MORKOT – The collapse of Mycenae
in: Historical Atlas of Ancient Greece (1996, Penguin Books) pp. 32-33.
exceptional. The Huns and the Visigoths, for example, have certainly left an indelible
memory but almost nothing on the ground. The explanation for the collapse by a massive
"barbarian" invasion is illogical because many Mycenaean cities were powerfully fortified.
The only way to explain this sudden collapse of the "Mycenaean empire" is to assume: a
surprise attack led by a powerful enemy and, at the same time, the lack of troops for the
defence, as was the case for the fall of the Hittite empire, due to the Kaskas' attack. This
exceptional case refers only to the Hittites. Indeed, when the Hittites were attacked by
surprise they nevertheless responded by organizing a counterattack on land (troops sent
into Lycia) and sea (Hittite general Yadinu who commandeered the 150 ships of Ugarit).
The mission of Yadinu likely succeeded because all the Mycenaean coastal cities could be
reached in less than 10 days by boat and during the same time, the vast majority of the
Mycenaean soldiers had sailed to Egypt. A small corpus of Linear B tablets from Pylos,
dating to the final days of the palace's existence, concern the deployment of rowers to man
ships around the coastlines of the kingdom (particularly, tablets An 1, An 610, and An 724).
The close match between the different crew sizes, that can be estimated from iconographic
representations (with 20, 30, and 50 as units) and the requisition in Pylos tablet An 610 of
approximately 600 rowers, a multiple of any of these apparently standard galley types,
makes it reasonably certain that the ships in question were galleys, and that the palace was
able to control the fleet and the personnel to operate it. The role or mission of the ships
listed in these tablets is not known, but the description: Thus the watchers are guarding the coastal
region has been interpreted, in view of the impending destruction of the palace, as indicating
an anxious effort to defend the kingdom against imminent attack from the sea116. At the
very least these recruitments involve naval or military operations rather than trade117.
The island of Cyprus is a special case: most of the Cypriot coastal cities were not
burned by the Achaeans (except four). In addition, after the fall of the Hittite empire,
Cyprus was colonized by the Achaeans and numerous palaces and temples were built from
that time118. At Kition, for example, the arrival of Achaean settlers coincided with a radical
transformation of architecture and urbanism. Rectangular towers remained, but walls of
rammed earth brick of the early 13th century were replaced by a Cyclopean wall. The temple
of Aphrodite at Palaepaphos, the oldest of the Mycenaean period, was built around 1200
BCE119 and it is noteworthy that Homer praises the sanctuary of Aphrodite in Paphos and
especially its "fragrant altar of incense smoke" (Odyssey 8:359-370). This suggests that the
Achaean attack on Cyprus was directed solely against the pro-Hittite cities and the primary
goal of the invasion was to colonize the island, as had been envisaged for Philistia.
After 1185 BCE, the cultural collapse of the Mycenaean kingdoms, the Hittite
Empire in Anatolia120 and the New Kingdom of Egypt in Syria and Canaan121 interrupted
trade routes and severely reduced literacy. The gradual end of the Dark Age that ensued
from 1150 to 750 saw the rise of settled Syro-Hittite states in Cilicia and Syria, Aramaean
kingdoms of the 10th century BCE in the Levant and finally the rise of the Neo-Assyrian
Empire from the 9th century BCE. The cause of the "dark ages" apparently enigmatic is
116 The o-ka texts record military preparations along the coast and the term e-qe-si-ja is applied to chariots and chariot wheels.
117 T. TARTARON – Maritime Networks in the Mycenaean World

119 V. KARAGEORGHIS – Les anciens chypriotes entre Orient et Occident
Paris 1990 Éd. Errance pp. 92-108.

120 M. LIVERANI – The collapse of the Near Eastern regional system at the end of the Bronze Age: the case of Syria
in: Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World (Cambridge University Press, 1987) pp. 66-73.
121 M. LIVERANI – Continuities and Discontinuities: A Re-Examination of the Intermediate Bronze Age – Middle Bronze Age
Transition in Palestine, in: BASOR 354 (2009) pp. 1-13.

often explained by a "global catastrophe" mixing in an apocalyptic way: earthquakes,
famines, invasions of barbarians, a dramatic climate change, etc. In fact, the explanation is
very simple. The surprise attack led by the Mycenaean coalition against the Hittite Empire
resulted in an economic disaster for international trade primarily based on bronze. It was
indeed a surprise attack and not a war because many major cities were not affected (Athens,
Knossos, Tyre, Sidon, etc.). The Mycenaean and Hittite ruling classes were decimated and
their capitals destroyed as well their palaces, their military-industrial complexes disappeared.
This "first global economic crisis" did not lead to a long period of instability, as is the case
of war, but rather the disappearance of expansionist wars. The international economy at the
time, which was based on trade serving the interests of executives (building of palaces,
maintenance of armies, administration for levying tax) was replaced by a predominantly
agricultural and pastoral economy122. The massive restructuring of industry based on bronze
into agriculture caused significant and numerous migrations. That is why in the early 11th
century Greece seemed to be a depopulated country. The number of known inhabited sites
dropped significantly from 320 sites in the 13th century to 40 sites in the 11th. Necropolises
also had less graves. This depopulation —loss of 3/4 of the population— did not reach
uniformly all regions of Greece. The Argos and Messenia seemed to have drained more of
their inhabitants such as Attica and Euboea for example123. Another clue of this change is
the appearance from 1100 BCE of a new style of pottery, called Protogeometric124.
The "dark ages" are dark for us only because of the lack of written records. Written
documents being mainly the product of administrations (contracts, archives, annals, etc.)
their collapse was linked. During the period of the "dark ages" trade did not disappear but
dwindled considerably. Some imported products, such as glass jewellery, started being
produced on site125. International trade restarted, between Egypt and Syria first, using the
ports of Sidon and Tyre (Odyssey 8:161-164, 15:415-429), which had been spared and also
the one of Byblos (with Egypt). It is noteworthy that documents concerning these
kingdoms began reappearing at the end of the 11th century BCE126. The need for metal
remained essential for the manufacturing of weapons, thus after 1185 BCE, the iron trade
gradually replaced the bronze trade127. The first State to benefit from the iron trade was
Syria and this trade became again international after the Assyrian expansionism impulsed by
King Adad-nerari128 (912-891). It is noteworthy that the oldest chronicles we know
(Assyrian and Babylonian) appeared exactly under the rulership of this king. The need for
raw materials being the prime mover of trade, it impulsed a fruitful connection between
Euboea (principally Lefkandi?) and Phoenicia (principally Tyre?). Taken as a whole the
evidence suggests that ships based in Euboea and the Near East are most likely to have
been active in exchange within the Aegean and beyond in the 10th century129 . It is not by
chance if Homeric stories appeared at that time and in that region.
122 Elam which provided tin to manufacture bronze encountered the same problem when its economy collapsed, consequently
its kingdom "disappeared" from 1100 to 770 BCE.
123 C. ORRIEUX, P. SCHMITT PANTEL – Histoire grecque


125 K. NIKITA, J. HENDERSON, G. NIGHTINGALE – An archaeological and scientific study of Mycenaean glass from Elateia-
Alonaki, Greece, in: Annales du 17e Congrès, 2006 (Association Internationale pour l’Histoire du Verre, 2009), pp. 39-46.
126 Tyre: Abibaal (1045-1025), Byblos: Ahiram (1020-100), Syria: Hadadezer (1040-1000), Egypt: Psusennes I (1064-1018).
127 M.L. STIG SØRENSEN, R. THOMAS – The Bronze Age-Iron Age transition in Europe: aspects of continuity and change in
European societies, c. 1200 to 500 B.C. in: British Archaeological Reports, International Series 483 (Oxford,1989)
128 F. JOANNÈS – La Mésopotamie au 1er millénaire avant J.C.
Paris 2002 Éd. Armand Colin pp. 21-23.

129 O. DICKINSON – The Aegean from Bronze Age to Iron Age: Continuity and Change Between the Twelfth and Eighth
Centuries BC. London 2007 Ed. Routledge pp. 238-258.

To find out if the chronological information provided by Greek historians was
invented or is authentic, a reenactment of the maritime campaign of the Peoples of the Sea
has to be done. According to Homer the fall of the Hittite empire (Odyssey XI:512-522)
was followed by the attack on Egypt (Odyssey XIV:228-275) which is dated year 8 of
Ramses III (1192-1161). Similarly, Manetho wrote: Thouoris (...) at the time when Troy was taken,
reigned 7 years, indeed Queen Tausert (1202-1194) actually reigned 7 years (on behalf of his
husband Siptah) at the beginning of the Trojan War that began in 1194 BCE, 10 years
before the destruction of the city (the Peloponnesian War I:11-12). According to Clement
of Alexandria (Stromateis I:104) and Eusebius (Preparatio evangelica X:12:15): Troy was
captured in the 18th year of Agamemnon's reign, and in the 1st year of the reign of Theseus' son Demophon
at Athens. According to Dionysius of Argos it took place on the 12th of Thargelion; according to Agias and
Dercylus in their third volume, on the 23rd of Panemus [= Athenian Scirophorion]; according to Hellanicus
[480-405], on the 12th of Thargelion, according to some annalists of Attica as Ephorus (400-334), on the
23rd day of that month130, in the last year of the reign of Menestheus' reign, at the full moon. These
chronological details with no religious significance appear to be historical (despite some
disagreements). As the summer solstice in 1186 BCE is dated July 4 (Athenian month I),
Thargelion 12 (month XI) is dated May 9 (in 1185 BCE). This date can be calculated
otherwise because we know that the military campaign of the Peoples of the Sea against
Egypt, which started westward with Troy and ended in the east with Syria and Egypt131 . The
taking of Troy on May 9 in 1185 BCE is therefore quite likely.
BCE month [A] [B] [C] [D] [E]
1186 1 X VII 17 14 0 6
2 XI VIII 21
3 XII IX
4 I X 1 7 [A] Agamemnon II ? King of Achaia (Mycenea)
5 II XI
6 III XII
[B] Priam ? King of Wilusa (Troy)
7 IV I 18 15 [C] Šuppiluliyama II King of Hatti (Hattusa)
8 V II [D] Meli-Shipak King of Babylonia (Babylon)
9 VI III [E] Ramses III King of Egypt (Thebes)
10 VII IV
11 VIII V
12 IX VI
1185 1 X VII 22
2 XI VIII
3 XII IX
4 I X 2 8
5 II XI *** *** [B] Attack of Hatti, Troy is burnt (Trojan War)
6 III XII
7 IV I [19] *** [C] Some cities of Cyprus are burnt. Hatti's counterattack
8 V II through the 150 ships of Ugarit, but Hattusa is destroyed.
9 VI III
10 VII IV *** *** *** [E] Egypt's counterattack through the ships of Byblos.
11 VIII V The Sea Peoples are defeated. [A] Collapse of Achaia.
12 IX VI
There is no archaeological evidence of Priam and Agamemnon132. According to

archaeological excavations the city of Troy VIIa remained uninhabited following its
destruction until 1120 BCE then was rebuilt, but it was not the case of Mycenae, capital of
the Mycenaean empire, nor of Hattusa, capital of the Hittite empire.
130 The disagreement of dates: 12 or 23 Thargelion, can be explained by a difference of reckoning, either 12 Thargelion with a
starting from full moon (ancient reckoning prior 600 BCE) or 23 Thargelion with a starting from new moon. In the old lunar
calendar starting at the full moon, day 12 (Thargelion) fits day 23 in a calendar beginning at the 1st lunar crescent (day 25 of the
astronomical cycle). Hellanicus and Dionysius of Argos were referring to the old calendar and annalists of Attica to the Athenian
calendar (starting at the summer solstice), each month beginning at the new moon (not the 1st lunar crescent).
131 Given that last Emar texts, marking the end of the campaign are dated [-]/VI /2 and 16/VII/[2] of Meli-Shipak (1187-1172),
2
October 12, 1185 BCE, its beginning had to have occurred 6 months earlier (in May) because the Mediterranean is navigable
only between mid-April and late September.
132 However a ruler of Ahhiyawa called Akagamunaš (Agamemnon I) lived a century before his people attacked Troy.
THE TROJAN WAR: MYTH OF HISTORY?
Manfred Korfmann, director of excavations at Troy and a professor of archaeology
at the University of Tübingen, concluded his survey: Troy appears to have been destroyed around
1180 B.C. (this date corresponds to the end of our excavation of levels Troy VII or VIIa), probably by a
war the city lost. There is evidence of a conflagration, some skeletons, and heaps of sling bullets. People who
have successfully defended their city would have gathered their sling bullets and put them away for another
event, but a victorious conqueror would have done nothing with them. But this does not mean that the conflict
was the war —even though ancient tradition usually places it around this time. After a transitional period
of a few decades, a new population from the eastern Balkans or the north-western Black Sea region evidently
settled in the ruins of what was probably a much weakened city (...) Homer took for granted that his
audience knew a war had been fought for what was alternately called Ilios or Troy. The bard was mainly
concerned with describing the wrath of Achilles and its consequences. He used Troy and the war as a poetic
setting for a conflict between men and gods. From the archaeologist's point of view, however, the Iliad can be
interpreted as a "setting" in an entirely different sense. One may see Homer or his informants as eyewitnesses
to Troy (...) Troy was largely a ruined site in Homer's day, but the remains of Troy VI/VIIa, both the
citadel and the lower city, were still impressive. Contemporary audiences and later ones from the area around
the city were supposed to be able to recognize the general outlines of places where the action happened from
descriptive references in the Iliad. They could visualize it, for instance, whenever they climbed up a slope to a
sanctuary in "holy Ilios." "Holy Ilios" is the most frequently repeated epithet in the Iliad, and one would
expect to see a sacred building in such a place. We can make a convincing case for a sanctuary or
sanctuaries, maybe in the form of a wooden building, from the early seventh century B.C. at the latest —
roughly contemporary with Homer— on this site, which subsequently served as a cult centre into the late
Roman Empire. There is nothing in the archaeological record to contradict the assertion that Troy and the
surrounding countryside formed the setting for Homer's Iliad133. These conclusions are quite similar
to those of Thucydides who intersected the testimonies from oral tradition (likely preserved
in Athens) as well as those of Herodotus who had consulted Egyptian priests.
Archaeological excavations have
brought out new points regarding the
city of Troy, some of them confirming
Homer's story134 but others not. First
point: the city of Troy really existed,
but it did not completely disappear
after its destruction in 1185 BCE
(Troy VIIa). Troy VII, in the mound at
Hisarlik, is an archaeological layer of
Troy that chronologically spans from
1300 to 950. It coincides with the
collapse of the Bronze Age. It was a
walled city with fortified towers
reaching a height of 9 metres; the
foundations of one of its towers
measured 18 metres by 18 metres.
Manfred Korfmann, who excavated
the site in the 1980s, estimated the area
of Troy VII at 200,000 square metres
133 M. KORFMANN – Was There a Trojan War?
in: Archaeology Vol. 57:3 (Archaeological Institute of America, 2004).
134 J. LATACZ – Troy and Homer: towards a solution of an old mystery
Oxford 2004, Ed. Oxford University Press, p. 38.

or more and put its population at 5,000 to 10,000 inhabitants, which makes it "by the
standards of its day a large and important city". The city was built following the destruction
of Troy VIh, probably by an earthquake around 1300 BCE. A number of layers are
distinguished: Troy VIIa: 13th century BCE; Troy VIIb1: 12th century BCE; Troy VIIb2: 11th
century BCE; Troy VIIb3: until 950 BCE.
The city of the archaeological layer known as Troy VIIa has been dated on the basis
of pottery styles to 1250-1200, with a destruction layer dated -1185 +/- 5 years by C-14.
Troy VIIa appears to have been destroyed by a war and there are traces of a fire. Partial
human remains were found in houses and in the streets, and near the north-western
ramparts a human skeleton with skull injuries and a broken jawbone. Three bronze
arrowheads were found, two in the fort and one in the city. However, only small portions
of the city have been excavated, and the findings are too scarce to clearly favour destruction
by war over a natural disaster. The site remained inhabited following the destruction of
Troy VIIa. Troy VIIb dates to a time when Greek influence began to extend to the area (the
"Greek Dark Ages"). Troy VIIb1 (c. 1120 BCE) and Troy VIIb2 (c. 1020 BCE) appear to
have been destroyed by fires. Troy VIIb3 was deserted in the mid-10th century BCE, and
the site remained uninhabited for more than 200 years before a new settlement, Troy VIII,
was established around 700 BCE. The site was again uninhabited throughout Classical
Antiquity, until the foundation of Roman Ilium at the site (Troy IX) in the 20s BCE.
Archaeological evidence is limited and without any inscriptions it is impossible to
know what occurred at the fall of Troy in 1185 BCE. Based on the above mentioned Hittite
documents this settlement was attacked and sacked around 1315 BCE by Mursili II and by
Hattusili II around 1250 BCE. Evidence of destruction in the Achaean Miletus is attested
by the archaeological excavations. In Miletus an Achaean style citadel as well as pottery, and
other Mycenaean elements have been actually discovered. In these periods the Achaean
settlements on the Anatolian coast and the relevant diplomatic relationship with the Hittite
Empire seems to have been led by the Achaean city of Thebes.
In a house of Troy VIIb2 (c. 1020 BCE) located in the south-west area of the citadel
the first Troy Bronze Age written evidence has been found. This seal135 which probably
belonged to a married couple is written in Hieroglyphic Luwian136 (below left). Bronze
Achaean and Hittite swords dated 13th century BCE have been found in the Achaean
acropolis of Miletus (below right).
Archaeology confirms that Troy was the main city of Anatolia, a vassal province of
the Hittite empire. We also know that Alaksandu (1280-1250) was a king of Wilusa (ancient
Troy) who sealed a treaty with the Hittite king Muwatalli II (1295-1275). This treaty implies
that Alaksandu (Alexandros) had previously secured a treaty with Muwatalli's father, Mursili
II, as well. Alaksandu was a successor of one Kukkunni (Kyknos?), although it is not known
if he was his immediate successor. Muwatalli recalls the friendship of Kukkunni with his
own grandfather, Suppiluliuma I (1353-1322), and further evokes over three centuries of
friendship between the Hittites and Wilusa dating back to the reign of Hattusili I (1530-
1510). The many Mycenaean pieces of pottery found on the Anatolian coast show that the
city of Troy was a privileged commercial partner of the Mycenaean empire. The presence of
several Hittite and Achaean swords found at Miletus could be explained by a growing
tension between the Hittite Empire and the Mycenaean empire.
135 J.D. HAWKINSN D.F. EASTON – A Hieroglyphic Seal from Troia
in: Studia Troica 6 (1998), pp. 111-118.
136 On the left side of the seal a terracotta tablet is visible with two stylized columns, these elements attested as more likely the
husband was a clerk. Hieroglyphic Luwian is a variant of the Luwian language, recorded in official and royal seals and a small
number of monumental inscriptions. It is written in a hieroglyphic script known as Anatolian hieroglyphs. The earliest
hieroglyphs appear on official and royal seals, dating from the early 2nd millennium BCE, but they begin to function as a full-
fledged writing system only from the 14th century BCE. The first monumental inscriptions confirmed as Luwian date to the Late
Bronze Age, c. 14th to 13th centuries BCE.
Archaeologically there is no indication that there was a
war between Troy and Mycenae. In addition, such a thing is
unlikely, because Troy had strong trade links with the
Mycenaean empire as well as with Egypt. The most likely
explanation is to admit that the city of Troy suffered
significant looting and a partial destruction by Mycenaean
pirates. Moreover many Mycenaean swords have been found
on the shores of Asia minor of the same type used by the Sea
Peoples when they attacked Egypt (in 1185 BCE). The
presence of such swords proves that the mood of that time
was not quite peaceful137 and the Mycenaean empire had
been involved in a war process. It is noteworthy that Lycia
(Lukka), which was then a vassal of the Hittite empire,
became an ally of the Sea Peoples and had used Mycenaean
swords. Similarly, Libyans who belonged then to the
Egyptian empire, associated themselves with the Sea Peoples
when they attacked Egypt and these Libyan warriors used
Mycenaean swords as well.
The letters of the last king of Ugarit give a little information138. Ammurapi II (1210-
1185) knew that a large-scale attack was in progress on the Mediterranean and the attacked
cities were burned, so that his city would certainly be attacked because some troop
movements were recorded in the region of Alalakh139. However, he did not know the
reason of that attack and the origin of the attackers, except that they came by sea. All that
data explains why he was not prepared to defend his city, which was looted and completely
destroyed140 in 1185 BCE. Ugarit was a cosmopolitan city with 8 different languages. It is
noteworthy that Luwian hieroglyphics (used in Troy) are found on the imprints of Hittite
seals as well as Egyptian hieroglyphics (used in Perunefer) on imported objects. By
gathering all previous historical and archaeological information, we can conclude that Troy
was attacked by the Mycenaeans for the same reasons and in the same way as the city of
Ugarit. It was a surprise attack (not a war) in order to loot and burn all the port cities that
were vassals of the Hittite empire. The most mysterious aspect of the Trojan War is to
know the reason that pushed the Mycenaeans to attack and destroy the city of Troy. Two
other port cities attacked simultaneously in 1185 BCE by the Sea Peoples, Ugarit in Syria
and Perunefer (Avaris) in northern Egypt, provide some clues.
City Troy VIIa (Anatolia) Ugarit (Syria) Perunefer (Egypt)
Status Vassal of the Hittites Vassal of the Hittites Main port of Lower Egypt
Date of attack 1184 BCE (Eratosthenes)141 Year 2 of Meli-Shipak Year 8 of Ramses III
-1185 +/- 5 (Carbon 14) 1185 BCE 1185 BCE
Attackers Mycenaeans Sea Peoples Philistines
Results City partially destroyed City totally destroyed Sea Peoples annihilated
Ramses III’s inscription gives crucial information: it was a surprise attack led by a
Mycenaean confederation that affected all Mediterranean kingdoms and involved many
137 T. PALAIMA – Polemos: Warfare in the Aegean Bronze Age
in: Aegaeum 19 (1999), pp. 367-378.
138 M.C. ASTOUR – New Evidence on the Last Days of Ugarit
in: American Journal of Archaeology 69:3 (1965), pp. 253-258.

139 J.-M. MICHAUD – La Bible et l'héritage d'Ougarit
Paris 2005, Éd. GCG, p. 98.


141 Eratoshenes was head of the Library of Alexandria, Egypt (c. 245 BCE). Manetho (c. 280 BCE) had given the same date.
cities, which were destroyed by fire. The scene of this battle, described in the mortuary
temple of Ramses III at Medinet Habu, shows that most of the attackers were Philistines
(with their feathered helmets) coming from Crete. In fact the inscription describes two
simultaneous battles: a land battle with carts pulled by oxen and a naval battle with ships
from Byblos. One notes that Sea Peoples warriors were accompanied by ox-driven cart with
women and children142 (below) and Mycenaean ships were concentrated in one place.
The presence of these ox-driven carts with women and children, proves that the Sea
Peoples warriors had come in order to colonize the region and therefore that their coming
was not a war but rather an invasion. According to Ramses III’s inscription: A camp [was set
up] in one place in Amurru. They desolated its people, and its land was like that which has never come into
being. They were coming forward toward Egypt, while the flame was prepared before them. Archaeology
confirmed two points143: the camp which was set up in Amurru, a vassal kingdom of the
Hittites, by the Philistines from Crete became the “kingdom of Palistin144 (Patin)” and many
Syrian and Canaanite cities were destroyed by fire. The remains of Megiddo are unclear,
despite the town being burnt by the Sea Peoples around 1185 BCE, she was likely rescued
by the police forces of Ramses III and was inhabited again (ivory deposit and a statue base
inscribed for Ramses VI). Consequently the Battle of the Delta was a sea battle between
Egypt and the Sea Peoples when the Egyptian pharaoh Ramses III repulsed a major sea
invasion. The conflict occurred somewhere at the shores of the eastern Nile Delta (likely
near the stronghold of Tjaru) and partly on the borders of the Egyptian Empire in Syria, a
land battle around Byblos, south of Amurru a vassal of the Hittite empire. This major
conflict, dated year 8 of Ramses III (1185 BCE), is recorded on the temple walls of the
mortuary temple of Ramses III at Medinet Habu. However there are some discrepancies
between the text and the drawings of the battle. For example, it is written: I extended all the
frontiers of Egypt and overthrew those who had attacked them from their lands. I slew the Denyen in their
islands, while the Tjeker and the Philistines were made ashes. The Sherden and Weshesh of the Sea were
made non-existent, captured all together and brought in captivity to Egypt like the sands of the shore. I
settled them in strongholds, bound in my name (Tjaru). Their military classes were as numerous as hundred-
thousands. I assigned portions for them all with clothing and provisions from the treasuries and granaries
every year. I destroyed the people of Seir among the Bedouin tribes. The “people of Seir” is not Edom145
because Syrian towns in Amurru were depicted146. In addition, the first concrete events in
Princeton 1969 Ed. Princeton University Press pp. 4, 116-117, 350.
143 A. MAZAR – Archaeology of the Land of the Bible
New York 1990, Ed. Doubleday, pp. 287-308.

144 J. FREU, M. MAZOYER – Les royaumes néo-hittites à l’âge de fer
Paris 2012 Éd. L'Harmattan, pp. 39-57.

145 J.B. PRITCHARD - Ancient Near Eastern Texts
Princeton 1969 Ed. Princeton University Press p. 262, note 21.

146 J. B. PRITCHARD - The Ancient Near East in Pictures, pp. 116-117.
the Year 5 account describe events in Amurru147: The Chief (“he of”) Amurru is (but) ashes, his
seed is no (more), all his people are taken captive, scattered and [brought lo]. Every survivor from his land
comes in praise to behold the great Sun of Egypt over them. The loveliness of the Sun-disk is before them,
—the two Re’s that emerge and shine forth over the earth— the Sun of Egypt and the one which is in the
sky. They say: “Exalted be Re! Our land is perished (but) we are in the land of life, with the darkness
dispelled —(even by) the King of S. & N. Egypt” (...) The Asiatic and Libyan (Tjehenu) foes (“fallen
ones”) are seized, who had been ruining Nile-land’s condition. The land lay wasted, utterly destroyed, since
kings (had been), and they had persecuted the gods like everyone (else). Consequently, according to this
account, Ramses III had to fight on the ground ("land battle") against 2 powerful enemies,
because he killed the chief of Amurru (Hittite vassal) and he seized the Asiatic and Libyan
foes (in Libya, an Egyptian vassal). Given the geographic context, the Asiatic enemies had
to have come from the south of Canaan, which is called the “people of Seir” instead of the
“people of Philistia (Keftiu)”. Given that the Philistines of Philistia were close to the Sea
Peoples, mainly the Philistines from Crete, the destruction by fire of Ashdod and Ekron
(Ashdod Stratum XIII and Ekron Stratum VII) was performed by Ramses III148.
Because the main conflict was the sea
battle of the Delta149, it is important to know
who were the main attackers and why they
attacked Egypt. At Medinet Habu Ramses III is
portrayed presenting captive Sea Peoples to the
gods Amon and Mut. The prisoners are in three
lines and are indistinguishable from each other
in appearance. The top line according to the
inscriptions are: leaders of every country. Over the
middle line (right picture) is written: Words
spoken by the fallen ones of Denyen “Breath thou ruler, great of strength like Montu in the midst of
Thebes”; and over the bottom line: Words spoken by the fallen ones of Peleset “Give us the breath for
our nostrils thou King, son of Amon”. We can see that there are some discrepancies between the
text and drawings. For example, the leaders of every country have all the same feathered
helmets; only two Sea peoples are named: Denyen [Cilicians from Lycia] and Peleset [Philistines
from Crete]; the Philistine captives have tassels at their kilts, like the Shasu in Canaan,
whereas the Philistine warriors depicted on boats wear none. It is clear that these
representations have been idealized. One notes that, besides the group of prisoners
returning after Ramses III's second Libyan war in year 11 of his reign, there are allied
troops on parade with a
trumpeter (right), these
warriors are mercenary sailors.
The first three are Sherden
(Sardinians), the 4th is maybe a
Denyen? and the last one is
likely a Sicel (Shekelesh). All
these warriors should be some
captives from the battle of the
Delta in year 8 of Ramses III.
147 D. KAHN – Who is Meddling in Egypt’s Affairs? (...) Historicity of the Medinet Habu Asiatic War Reliefs
in: Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 2:1 (2010) pp. 14-23.
New York 1990 Ed. Doubleday, p. 307.

German Democratic Republic 1987 Ed. Thames and Hudson pp. 117-138.
It must be noted that those mercenary
sailors were already participating in the
Egyptian army in year 5 of Ramses III
(picture right) when he waged a war against
the Libyans who were once more trying to
settle in the Delta. The main difference is the
absence of the Denyen? and the presence of
four Tjeker (1st, 3rd, 5th and 7th from the left)
among four Sherden (Sardinians) and before
a group of five Sicels (Shekelesh) with bows.
A stela dated year 16 of Ramses III recounts that many prisoners were enlisted in the army
and others were given to the temples of Egypt (Thebes, Memphis and Heliopolis)150.
According to the Egyptian viewpoint,
the battle of the Delta was a victory over the
Sea Peoples, who were associated with two
rebel countries: Libya, an Egyptian
neighbour, and Amurru, a Hittite vassal. The
prisoners of that battle are in three lines
(picture right) and are distinguishable from
each other in appearance. The first one in
each line is a Libyan. On the first line the 2rd
is a Shasu, the 3rd is a Hittite, the 4th is a
Philistine and the 5th is a Syrian. Because the
Shasu is clothed like a Hebrew (Dt 22:12), in
a kilt with tassels and wearing a pointed
beard, and the Philistine151 has also four
tassels to his kilt, like the Shasu, these two
prisoners must have come from Ashdod or
Ekron. On the second line the 2rd prisoner is
a Sherden, the 3rd is an Amorite and the 5th is
a Tjeker. On the third line the 2rd is a
Denyen?, the 3rd is an Amorite, the 4th is a
Hittite and the 5th is maybe a Philistine from
Philistia (nevertheless his beret is slightly
different and he did not wear a kilt). As we
can see, all these hairstyles are different and it
is unclear whether these (small) differences
are significant or not. However the presence
of Hittites and Amorites among the prisoners
proves that Ramses III made a military
campaign in Amurru.
Archaeological excavations provide some clarification on what happened in this
region. At Tell Deir Alla in the Jordan Valley, a faience bottle with the name of Queen
Tausert (c. 1195 BCE) was found in a clear Late Bronze context Iron Age IA (1200-1150)
which included imported Mycenaean and Cypriot pottery. This discovery is of prime
importance because it confirms the date 1185 BCE for the general collapse during which
Paris 2009 Éd. Pygmalion p. 199.
151 The Philistine warriors depicted on boats never wear tassels at their kilts.
many cities were destroyed152. A manifestation of the termination of the east-west
international trade —one of the dominant characteristic of the Late Bronze Age— was the
disappearance in the Levant of imported Mycenaean and Cypriot pottery.
At the same time in Syria, some of the most important urban centres were destroyed,
including Ugarit and Alalakh. It is noteworthy that most of the looted and burned cities are
located along the Via Maris (from Ugarit to Ashdod). This suggests that the invasion began
with western Syria and headed towards Philistia an ancient Cretan colony. However there is
a major difference among the cities
plundered and destroyed by fire,
those in Syria which were inhabited
again have potteries of Canaanite or
Egyptian style while those in
Philistia have potteries of Aegean or
Philistine style153. This shows that
the invaders were integrated into the
local culture. However, whereas the
Philistines from Crete, called "divine
Pelasgians" by Homer (Odyssey
XIX:173-177), destroyed cities in
Syria, they were not able to destroy
those of their former co-religionists
in Philistia who had to welcome
them as allies, not as invaders.
Consequently, the destruction of the
cities (Ashdod and Ekron) in the
land of the Philistines had to have
been performed by the Egyptians
who opposed their invasion.
However, thanks to the massive
arrival of Philistines into Philistia,
this region became strong and
independent, which quickly incited
the Philistines to invade and rule
Israel, for 40 years (1162-1122)
according to the Bible (Jg 13:1).
According to all the previous data we can imagine the following: when the Sea
Peoples came to Ugarit they looted and burned the town then began to invade Syria,
heading south. The King of Byblos immediately sent ships to Egypt to warn Ramses III of
the attack and also to seek protection for his city. Well informed, Ramses III was thus able
to organize a huge counterattack by land and sea. He had to stop the invaders in Philistia
and then had to go up to Byblos in order to protect his vassal king and also to secure this
important trade route for Egyptians154 . The naval battle took place in the northern Delta155.
152 Megiddo (Stratum VIIB), Beth-Shean (Stratum VII), Tell Abu Hawam (Stratum V), Tel Zeror, Aphek, Gezer (Stratum XV),
Timnah (Tel Batash; Stratum VI), Lachish (Stratum VII and Fosse Temple III), Tell Beit Mirsim (Stratum C), Tel Sera‘ (Stratum
X), and Ashdod (Stratum XIV).
153 A.E. KILLEBREW – The Philistines and Other “Sea Peoples” in Text and Archaeology
Atlanta 2013, Ed. Society of Biblical Literature, pp. 1-52.

154 D. KHAN – Who is Meddling in Egypt’s Affairs?
in: Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 2:1 (2010), pp. 14-23.

Paris 2009 Éd. Pygmalion pp.189-216.

The location of the naval
battle is not indicated but it
must have taken place near
Tjaru156 for two reasons: the
Philistines came from Crete to
Egypt in order to colonize the
Delta (with the help of the
Libyan people), not for making
war, consequently their
immense fleet of boats needed
to dock in an Egyptian port of
large size; the Egyptians needed
to defend their own country
and had no interest in freeing
the land of Amurru, a vassal
kingdom of the Hittites.
Consequently, the Egyptian
port targeted by the Sea Peoples was Perunefer, not Byblos. At this time the main Egyptian
port was located in Perunefer next to Avaris157. The reason that pushed the Mycenaeans to
settle in the Delta was perhaps the same as for the Vikings who invaded several European
countries. Ramses IIIs’ inscription says: I equipped my frontier in Djahy (Phoenicia) prepared before
them, which meant that the Sea Peoples' land forces were moving south along the Levantine
coast and through Palestine when they were confronted and stopped by Ramses III’s forces
at the Egyptian frontier (the Mediterranean coastline from Ashdod to Byblos).
The presence of Hittite prisoners proves two things: the Egyptians fought the Sea
Peoples in Amurru and they were unaware of the exact role of the Hittites (attackers or
attacked). According to Ramses III's inscription: the Hittite kingdom of Carchemish was
suddenly destroyed by the Sea Peoples but according to the letters of Kusib-Tesub (1190-
1150), not only his kingdom was not hit, but he did not even try to defend his vassal
kingdoms, like Ugarit, nor even the core of the Hittite empire (Hattusa); Hittite prisoners
(attacked) were among the warriors of the Sea Peoples (attackers) defeated by the
Egyptians. Similarly, the latest documents of the Kingdom of Emar are dated in year 2 of
Meli-Shipak II (1185 BCE) but according to some documents158 when the Hurrian army
laid siege to Emar its king, Pilsu-Dagan (1200-1185), had raised his eyes to Baal, who gave
him a favourable issue. The king then defeated the Hurrian soldiers and saved the city.
However Hurrian soldiers no longer existed because Mitanni (Hurrian land)159 was annexed
by Shalmaneser in 1264 BCE, and during 1190-1175 BCE the Assyrian kings Ninurta-apil-
Ekur and Ashur-dan I fought against the last Kassite kings by partnering with Elamite
kings160. In another document, Elli the last king of Emar (1185-1170), mentions the siege
on Emar and “the year of hardship” in the days of Pilsu-Dagan. There was therefore a link
between the fall of Ugarit and the fall of Emar. The king of Emar maybe spoke about
Hurrian hordes because he did not know that they were actually from the Sea Peoples.
156 J. SEGUIN – Le Migdol du Proche-Orient
Paris 2007, Ed. Presses de l’Université Paris Sorbonne, pp. 45-46,82-83.
157 M. BIETAK – Perunefer: the principal New Kingdom naval base in: Egyptian Archaeology 34 (2009), pp. 15-17.
158 I. EPH'AL – The City Besieged: Siege and Its Manifestations in the Ancient Near East
Leiden 2009, Ed. Brill, pp. 135-142.

159 The Egyptians called southern Syria “Hurru” (cf Merneptah Stele) i.e. “Hurrian land”, maybe because of the ethnic origin.
160 E. LIPIŃSKI – On the Skirts of Canaan in the Iron Age: Historical and Topographical Researches
Leiden 2006, Ed. Peeters Publishers, pp. 28-35.

Given that the documents of that period (1190-990) are very scarce and their dating
is difficult to fix, a chronological scheme as accurate as possible is needed.
MITANNI date
AMURRU reign CARCHEMISH reign EMAR reign
Bentešina 1264-1230 Ini-Tešub I 1260 -Yaṣi-Dagan 1260-1245
Šaušgamuwa 1230 - -1220Baal-kabar I 1245-1220
Talmi-Tešub 1220 -Zu-Aštarti 1220-1210
-1200 -1190Abbanu 1210-1200
Maḫḫaza 1200-1185? Kuzi-Tešub 1190 -Pilsu-Dagan 1200-1185
Sea Peoples MUKISH 1185 Elli 1185-1170
1150 -1150 Baal-kabar II -
1100 Ir-Tešub 1150-1110
BYBLOS PALISTIN reign Ini-Tešub II 1110-1070 DAMASCUS reign
Zakar-Baal 1100-1080 ? Tudḫaliya 1070-1035 ?
Ahiram 1020-1000 Taita 1045-1000 Sapaziti 1035-1000 Hadadezer 1040-1000
Halparunta 1000-990 Ura-Tarhunza 1000 - Rezon 1000 -
GURGUM reign PATTIN reign
Astuwaramanza - ? 990 -975 -975
Muwatali - ? Suhi I 975 - Heziôn 975-960
? 950 -950 Tabrimmon 960-950
Larama I 950-930 ? Astuwalamanza 950-925 Ben-Hadad I 950-920
Muwizi 930-910 Lubarna 910 Suhi II 925 - Ben-Hadad II 920 -
Halparuntiya I 910 - HAMATH reign -900
-880 Parita 900-870 Katuwa 900-875 -885
Muwatali 880-855 Urḫilina 870-840 Sangara 875-848 Hazael 885-840
Halparuntiya II 855-830 Uratami 840 - Astiruwa 848 - BenHadad III 840 -
Larama II 830-810 -807 -800 -810
It is noted that if the kingdoms of Ugarit and Amurru have disappeared suddenly
after the invasion of the Sea Peoples, in contrast many other kingdoms collapsed rapidly
over a short period (1185-1150). For example, although some Hittite military-administrative
officials were present as witnesses in sale documents, the majority of witnesses seem to
have been indigenous Emarites. Although they have Semitic names, they increasingly
adopted Hittite glyptic. From the reign of Talmi-Tešub I (1220-1190) onwards, Syrian
tablets were no longer written161. Consequently the city of Emar did not collapse suddenly
due to the looting and attack of the Sea Peoples but rather because of a major international
economic crisis (which was mainly based on bronze at that time), which obliged a
progressive replacement of its wealthy trade by a poorer agricultural economy. This
generalized impoverishment has resulted in the migration of many townsfolk (especially
those of large industrial cities like Troy or Hattusa) into the countryside. While a few cities
like Ugarit undoubtedly suffered sudden, violent destruction, there is little evidence for
widespread, violent devastation in the Near Eastern world in this period162. The sites
destroyed by fire seem to have been limited to the regions east of the Marassantiya river,
with Karaoglan (south of Ankara) the only site west of it; there is no visible evidence of
such a catastrophe further west. Indications from archaeological excavations are that only a
small number of sites of the Hittite world were actually destroyed; the majority were simply
abandoned. The communities along the Aegean coast of Anatolia were no doubt affected
by the unsettled conditions in the centuries which followed the end of the Bronze Age. And
there may well have been a southward shift of some of the peoples in this region. But major
161 V.J. VAN EXEL – Social change at Emar: The influence of the Hittite occupation on local traditions)
in: Revue d'assyriologie et d'archéologie orientale Vol. 104 (2010), pp. 65-86.
162 T. BRYCE – The Fall of the Kingdom and its Aftermath

centres like Milawanta (Miletus) survived, as did other settlements along the coast. They
continued to be occupied by local inhabitants, while absorbing large numbers of Greek-
speaking immigrants from across the Aegean (likely Mycenaeans).
Several letters from Ugarit (unpublished) show that Mukish, the land that became
later the kingdom of Palistin, was the main battlefield between Ugarit in the service of the
Hittites and an unknown enemy, the “Sea Peoples”. According to these letters the king of
Ugarit [Ammurapi II] is accused of misleading his master [Kuzi-Tešub, the viceroy of
Carchemish] by claiming that his army camped in Mukish whereas, according to the
viceroy’s sources, Ugarit’s army was in fact located in the town of Apsuna in the northern
part of the kingdom of Ugarit (the viceroy expected Ugarit’s troops to fight the enemy in
Mukish). Secondly, the king of Ugarit is quoted as claiming that his chariotry was in poor
shape and his horses were famished as a pretext for not sending his chariotry as demanded
(a huge request for 2000 horses). Finally, the king of Ugarit is accused of keeping to himself
the best mariyannu-troops while he sent to the viceroy only worthless soldiers163 . The
excavations in Alalakh (Tell Atchana) have shown that the city of Alalakh was the largest
Late Bronze Age settlement in that region (around 3000 inhabitants) and she was strongly
linked to Ugarit, the capital of that Hittite kingdom164.
The central line of
Suppiluliuma I’s dynasty did not,
apparently, survive the catastrophe
which brought about the end of
Hattusa. From this process several
new kingdoms emerged, including
the kingdom of Melid where Kuzi-
Teshub’s grandsons ruled, and above
all the kingdom of Palistin in central
Syria which was the main Syro-Hittite
state that emerged in Syria after the
Late Bronze Age collapse. When
Palistin disintegrated around 1000
BCE it gave birth to the kingdoms of
Pattin (shortened form of Palistin,
called Unqi by Assyrians), Hamath
(Hama, Qarqar), Bit Agusi (Aleppo,
Arpad) and Bit Adini (Til Barsip).
Kinalua (Tell Tayinat) was the capital
of Palistin (neo-Hittite name) also
called Walistin in Aramaic. According
to a Hieroglyphic Luwian inscription,
Taita (1045-1000) was a king of
Palistin165 and according to the Bible,
as King of Hamath he congratulated
King David (1057-1017) when the
latter defeated Hadadezer (in 1042
163 J. CASANA – Alalakh and the Archaeological Landscape of Mukish: (...) Late Bronze Age Kingdom
in: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research No. 353 (2009), pp. 7-37.
164 A. SUMAKA’I FINK – Late Bronze Age Tell Atchana (Alalakh): Stratigraphy, Chronology, History
in: British Archaeological Reports International Series - BARI 2120 (2010), pp. 27-30.
165 T. BRYCE – The World of The Neo-Hittite Kingdoms: A Political and Military History
Oxford 2012, Ed. Oxford University Press, pp. 128-133.

BCE) a king of Aram-Zobah (2Sa 8:5-10; 1Ch 18:9-10). Consequently the Philistines who
came into Amurru settled in that region (land of Mukish), which they ruled pacifically. It is
likely that in order to protect Byblos, an opulent vassal which was a key element in their
economy, the Egyptian army which came in Amurru had to have pacified Phoenicia as well
as some vassal cities of Egypt like Megiddo, which was progressively abandoned, latest
object is dated Ramses VI (1148-1140). An ivory plaque166 (below) depicts a Canaanite king
seated on his Egyptian throne facing a chariot with two prisoners.
The interpretation of that ivory plaque is difficult because of the absence of texts but
because of the dating and historical context, it must represent a scene of victory following
an attack from the Sea Peoples. The beret of the two prisoners is similar to the beret of
Denyen. The helmet of the king is not a crown but it is like the helmet of the chief of the
army (on his chariot), in contrast the hairstyle of the soldier carrying a shield is Syrian. The
throne depicted on the ivory plaque is similar to the throne of Ahiram (1020-1000), a king
of Byblos, as well as the throne of Solomon (1017-977), a king of Israel. The principal side
carved on his sarcophagus167 shows Ahiram seated on a throne with his feet resting on a
triple-staged footstool. The side of the throne consists of a winged sphinx, having the body
and feet of a lion and the head of a woman. The bearded king is clothed in a long, sleeved
robe and holds in his left hand a lotus blossom (an Egyptian symbol). The kings of Byblos
used thrones of Egyptian inspiration (e.g. sphinx with lion paws such as the one of
Tutankhamun), and this type of refined object influenced Solomon's workmen: The king also
made a great ivory throne which he overlaid with refined gold. The throne had 6 steps, a back with a
rounded top, and arms on each side of the seat; 2 lions stood beside the arms, and 12 lions stood on each
side of the 6 steps. Nothing like it has ever been made in any other kingdom (1Ki 10:18-20).
Depending on all these factors it seems likely that the king of Megiddo, who was a faithful
ally of Egypt, managed to repel an invasion of Denyen (in 1185 BCE) with the help of the
Egyptian army. Given the proximity of Megiddo with the maritime city of Dor it seems
logical to assume that these Denyen arrived in this coastal city especially as the Story of
Wenamun168 indicates that Dor was under the control of Tjeker.
According to his report (dated 1085 BCE), Wenamun was sent to Palestine and after
leaving Mikamael the prince of Tyre he met Zakar-Baal the prince of Byblos. In this city, he
negotiated with Warkat-il, the boat captain (and prince of Sidon?), who read out a journal roll of
his forefathers in his presence in order to prove the antiquity and legitimacy of his trade with
Egypt. This last remark shows that the trade with Egypt was not interrupted after the
invasion of the Sea Peoples but had strongly regressed; in addition, the prince of Byblos
was no longer viewed as a vassal but simply as a customer of Egypt. According to his
narrative, Wenamun was sent to Byblos with orders to acquire trees for constructing a
166 M. FELDMAN – Hoarded Treasures: The Megiddo Ivories and the End of the Bronze Age
in: Department of Near Eastern Studies N° 41:2 (2009), pp. 175-194.
Princeton 1969 Ed. Princeton University Press, pp. 157, 302.

Princeton 1969 Ed. Princeton University Press, pp. 25-29.

sacred barque. Throughout the whole affair there is never a mention of Egyptian rule in
Canaan or on the Phoenician coast. The Egyptian emissary encounters indifference and
callousness on the part of the local rulers who feel no obligation towards him and are only
prepared to sell him their merchandise for cash on the line. The first station in his journey is
Dor, which is now in possession of the Tjeker. Here Wenamun was robbed of his money
by one of his sailors who jumped ship. He requests Beder, the prince of Dor, to try and
catch the thief, but the ruler denied that it was his responsibility. After becoming
exasperated with the procrastinating Prince of Dor, Wenamun continued on his journey
and somewhere, perhaps at Tyre, he was able to seize a boat belonging to the Tjeker from
which he recouped part of his loss. As a result, 11 ships of the Tjeker followed him to
Byblos. He managed to elude them and sailed for Cyprus (Alasiya), a land where justice was
practiced! From Wenamun's narrative we not only learn about the new political situation
that had arisen after the collapse of Egyptian rule but we also gain some important
geopolitical details: 1) Phoenicia, a former Egyptian ally, as well as the ancient kingdom of
Amurru, a vassal of Hittite Empire, were replaced by a multitude of independent cities of
which Byblos remained the most prominent; 2) a part of the Mediterranean coast was under
the control of Tjeker. Two other sources confirm the story of Wenamun and illuminate the
situation in Canaan at the beginning of 11th century BCE. An arrow found in Beirut bears
the following inscription written in Old Phoenician: ḤṢ ZKRB‘L MLK ’MR “arrow of Zakar-
Baal king of Amurru”. This inscription was dated around 1100 BCE by paleography169.
This arrow confirms two points: Zakar-Baal (1100-1080), the prince of Byblos, had
replaced Egyptian by Phoenician in his writings and he was introducing himself as “king” of
the former kingdom of Amurru, because he was the more prominent prince at that time in
that region. Another Egyptian document, the Onomasticon of Amenemope170, confirms
there were no longer great kingdoms in Canaan but rather many small towns furthermore
many Sea Peoples had settled on the coastal towns of the mediterranean coast from Gaza to
Dor as shown in a list of cities and former Sea Peoples, going from south to north, which
had docked in Canaan: n°262 Askelon, n°263 Ashdod, n°264 Gaza; n°265 [tribe of] Asher,
n°266 Shaburu (?), n°267 [-], n°268 Sherden, n°269 Tjeker, n°270 Peleset (Philistines), n°271
Ḫurru-ma (=Syrians?), n°272 [-], n°273 [-], n°274 Meki (unknown city in Lebanon), n°275 “Evil”
(?), n°276 “the Mediterranean islands”, n°277 Iqedi (?), n°278 Nḫ[-], n°279 [-], n°280 “the land of
Seirka (?)”, n°281 Mwi (=ancient Lydians?), n°282 Arameans. The list is not quite clear but it
proves that from the Egyptians’ viewpoint the Sea Peoples had been integrated in the
coastal region of Canaan at that time (c. 1100 BCE).
The letter of Eshuwara (RS 20.18), the last prime minister of Cyprus (1200-1185), to
the king of Ugarit [Ammurapi II], shows that he did not understand at all the surprise
assault of the Sea Peoples because he believed that the enemies who had docked in Cyprus
were coming from Ugarit's kingdom. Two points confirm that the enemies were indeed the
Sea Peoples. First of all, Cyprus (Alashiya) was a major trading partner with Ugarit, where
169 J. STARCKY – La flèche de Zakarba'al roi d'Amurru
in: Archéologie au Levant. Recueil à la mémoire de R. Saidah (Lyon, 1982), pp. 179-186.
170 A.H. GARDINER – Ancient Egyptian Onomastica. Text, Volume I
Oxford 1947, Ed. Oxford University Press, pp. 190*-206*.

documents in a variant of the Cypro-Minoan script have been found171. They show that the
Cypriot elites were interested in boasting of their connections with north Syria, Egypt, and
the Greek mainland. It is noteworthy that Cypriot Syllabary (1050-300) appeared when
Cypro-Minoan (1550-1150) and Linear B (1450-1150), a Mycenean writing, disappeared and
it is considered as their successor. There is some evidence beyond that of material culture
that shows that Greek-speakers arrived in Cyprus shortly after the end of the Mycenaean
palace culture and retained some of its administrative structures. At the end of the Late
Bronze Age the major sites in Cyprus did not experience the same level of destruction as in
Greece and parts of Syro-Anatolia, and certain sites show continuity of settlement across
the end of the Bronze Age, in particular Enkomi, Palaepaphos, Hala Sultan Tekke, and
Kourion. It is at the beginning of LCIIIA (c. 1200 BCE) that we see widespread destruction
of sites. Trade in Cyprus towards the end of the Bronze Age was focused on Syria and
Palestine (furthermore Phoenician presence on the islands in the 12th century is proved by
the Near Eastern-style temples at Enkomi and Kition), but at the end of the LC IIIA period
(1125/1100 BCE) ties between Cyprus and the Aegean had been renewed, surely in part the
result of an afflux of Greek-speakers (Myceneans). The same situation occurred in Cyprus.
A 12th-century ivory gaming-box from a tomb at Enkomi, Cyprus, shows a charioteer
hunting wild cattle and goats with a pack of hounds172 . The Enkomi box shows two men on
foot similar to the Sea Peoples attacking Ramses III. The huntsman (bottom right) wears a
feathered helmet very similar to those worn by Tjeker or Philistines173 but his axe is unusual
and is a type also found in Sicily (Shekelesh).
Finkelstein and Lipschits The Genesis of Moab
We can see therefore

that the Sea Peoples were well
integrated into all the countries
they invaded. It is possible that
after they invaded the land of
Israel (1162-1122), according to
the Bible (Jg 13:1), the
Philistines had also invaded the
land of Moab. For example, the
stela of Balu’a found in the
territory of Moab174 bears an
Egyptian-style bas-relief dated
to about the beginning of the
12th century, the time when the
Sea Peoples came in Canaan.
Figure 1 General map of the southern steppe region, showing the main sites mentioned in the text
171 M.R. BACHVAROVA –From Hittite to Homer: The Anatolian Background of Ancient Greek Epic
Cambridge 2016, Ed. Cambridge University Press, pp. 304-307.
We are aware that the chain of evidence supporting summary in Routledge 2004, 79). Elsewhere one o
German Democratic Republican 1987 Ed. Thames
early Moabiteandterritorial
Hudson pp. 40-41, 199-200.
formation presented explained in detail why these numbers stem fr
173 A. YASUR-LANDAU – The ‘Feathered Helmets’ of the Sea Peoples: Joining the Iconographic aand Archaeologic evidence
below is sometimes fragmentary and hence calls for errors in dating survey sherds — it seems that pain
in: Talanta XLIV (2012), pp. 27-40.
a degree of extrapolation, but this would be true for medieval sherds were wrongly interpreted as datin
174 I. FINKELSTEIN, O. LIPSCHITS – The Genesis of Moab: A Proposal
most historical reconstructions based almost solely the Late Bronze Age (Finkelstein 1998). Bienkows
in: Levant 43:2 (2011), pp. 139-152.
on archaeology. So, although the data are far from soundings at Khirbet Dubab, where the Ke
complete, we decided to opt for a comprehensive plateau surveys reported Late Bronze sherds,
reconstruction of the processes that took place in the vealed no such pottery. Routledge (2004, 79–
This stela (right) represents a Moabite king honouring an
Egyptian pharaoh but it has two anomalies: 1) the hairstyle of the
king is not Canaanite but similar to those of Shekelesh and 2) the
writing, despite its being still undeciphered, is not Moabite, but
similar to many signs of Linear B175 (one must know that there are
many variants in Linear B writing)176. This scene could represent the
new king of Moab making allegiance to the king of Egypt (Ramses
III?). A stela from the 9th year of Ramses II (1275 BCE) discovered
at Beth-Shean bears witness to a campaign in Canaan that year and
reliefs from Luxor show the capture of Ataroth (b-<3>-t-r-t)177 in the
Land of Moab (m-w-ì-b) and Dibon178 (t-b-n-ì). However that region
remains poorly known archaeologically because the excavations of
major biblical towns, such as Dibon and Heshbon, have yielded only
meagre remains from Iron Age I.
The work of Homer contains very little historical information because no event can
be dated by a synchronism (with the exception of the Trojan War) and no city around the
Mediterranean can be identified with certainty179. We only learn that the king of Mycenae
led a massive armada of 1,186 ships (Iliad II:494-759) and that the war between the
Mycenaeans and the Trojans lasted 10 years and was completed by the capture of the city
thanks to the "Trojan horse". The sole purpose of the Mycenaean soldiers and Trojan
soldiers was plundering and destroying the cities to accumulate loot (Iliad 9:278-281, 591-
594, 16:830-832). The military expedition to Egypt mentioned immediately after the capture
of Troy had the same purpose (Odyssey XIV:240-280). When the Hittites are mentioned (in
an very anecdotal manner), it is for telling us that: they were slain because of gifts which women had
craved (Odyssey XI:510-535). This is neither a national story, nor even a founding myth,
because the author (Homer) was not interested in the historical and geographical context of
the war. The sole purpose of the story is to tell us the extraordinary adventures of the hero
and his companions, so it's an epic, a very old literary genre that describes on a historical
background, generally authentic, the fate (often tragic) of a hero. It is because of this
touching human aspect that epics are universal and have lasted for centuries.
The question that is the most controversial is: did the Trojan War really occur? The
answer is easy: no! Indeed, the Homeric text indicates that the capture of Troy was the
result of a surprise attack. Among 1,186 warships only 6 were used to take the city (Iliad
V:638-642). A crew of 50 pirates by ship gives a total of 300 people, which seems not
enough to attack a city of 10,000 inhabitants. Diodorus of Sicily noticed: At that time Heracles
had not had the leisure, since he was engaged upon the expedition of Jason, but later he found an opportunity
and made war upon Troy with 18 ships of war, as some say, but, as Homer writes, with 6 in all (Library
of History IV:32). The figure of 18 ships is the one generally accepted as noted
Apollodorus: After his servitude, being rid of his disease he mustered an army of noble volunteers and
sailed for Ilium with 18 ships of 50 oars each. And having come to port at Ilium, he left the guard of the
ships to Oicles and himself with the rest of the champions set out to attack the city. Howbeit Laomedon
marched against the ships with the multitude and slew Oicles in battle, but being repulsed by the troops of
175 J. NAVEH – Early History of the Alphabet
Jerusalem 1987, Ed. The Hebrew University Magnes Press, pp. 22-23.
176 B. DAVIS – Introduction to the Aegean pre-alphabetic scripts
in: Kubaba 1 (2010), pp. 38-61.

177 Ataroth and Dibon are mentioned in the Bible at the time of Moses (Nb 32:3,34) as well as in the Mesha Stele.
178 Y. AHARONI – The Land of the Bible
Philadelphia 1979, Ed. The Westminster Press, p. 182.

179 J. CUISENIER – Le périple d'Ulysse
Paris 2003, Éd Fayard.

Hercules, he was besieged. The siege once laid, Telamon was the first to breach the wall and enter the city,
and after him Hercules. But when he saw that Telamon had entered it first, he drew his sword and rushed
at him, loath that anybody should be reputed a better man than himself (Library of Apollodorus
II:6:4). The fall of Troy by a small commando force which entered inside the city by trickery
is possible, as evidenced by the fall of Babylon. However, the famous trick of the "Trojan
horse" is not compatible with a surprise attack, because such a construction made of
timbers would have needed several months. It is more likely that the trickery attributed to
Djehuty, a general of Thutmose III, for the taking of Joppa180 was used for the capture of
Troy. This story, written during the 19th Dynasty181, relates the capture of Joppa by the
introduction of a convoy of 200 baskets filled with men and driven by chariot horses. The
Trojan attack by a commando of 200 pirates concealed in baskets brought by chariot horses
into the city is quite plausible (in time, chariot horses became the "Trojan horse"). As can
be seen, the historical background of the Trojan War, although tiny, is generally reliable.
However as Homer was not a historian, but a poet, for whom and when did he write?
According to Herodotus, Homer (907-837?) would have lived around 850 BCE (The
Histories II:53) and according to the Parian marble he was born around 907 BCE182.
Moreover, the Iliad describes a magnificent golden cup that belonged to Nestor, the king of
Pylos (Iliad XI:632-637). In the ancient Greek site of Pithekoussai (one of the earliest Greek
colonies in the West) has been found a "Cup of Nestor" dated to the Late Geometric
Period. This pottery has been dated c. 730 BCE because it was found with an Egyptian
scarab bearing Bocchoris' name (735-729). The beginning of the inscription is: Nestor’s cup I
am, good to drink from (below, from right to left):
Historical testimonies, archaeological evidence and epigraphic analysis, converge for

dating Homer to 850 BCE183. However, archaeologists refuse this conclusion because of a
simplistic pretext: given that the oldest Greek inscriptions are dated around 750 BCE,
Homer's work must be dated around this time. This argument is not only wrong, since the
oldest Greek inscriptions are now dated back to 800 BCE184, but obviously absurd since
180 The text describes the triumph of an Egyptian military force over the town of Joppa, a port on the East Mediterranean coast.
This victory is not achieved by military might in battle, or even in a siege, but by a devious stratagem invented by the
commander of the Egyptian force, Djehuty. It consists of a false surrender by the Egyptians and the concealment of soldiers in
200 baskets within which are supposedly the spoils of war. After the baskets are moved within the walls of the town, the 200
Egyptian soldiers climb out from the booty, had entered into the city 300 soldiers, and capture the inhabitants. The prisoners are
sent back to serve the king in Egypt.
181 D.P. DAVIES – The taking of Joppa
Durham 2003, Ed Durham University (PhD thesis), pp. 17-19, 127-140.

182 These two pieces of information are consistent and if a life of 70 years is assumed that gives a dating from 907 to 837.
Homer's work must actually be located around 850 BCE, rather than 750 BCE as is often suggested, because his fame was
already significant around 730 BCE. For example, Eumelus of Corinth, an early Greek poet to whom were attributed several
epic poems, as the Return from Troy, was influenced by Homeric texts. Eumelus (c. 760-740), was contemporaneous with Archias,
his fellow-Bacchiad, who founded Syracuse (Geography VI:2:4) about 734 BCE.

184 The earliest Greek inscriptions are a curious graffito consisting of five signs eulin ? on a local flask from Osteria dell’Osa
belonging to a Latium IIB archaeological layer dated 830-770, and some graffiti from Lefkandi (T. THEURILLAT – Early Iron
Age graffiti from the sanctuary of Apollo at Eretria in: Oropos and Euboea in the Early Iron Age, Ed. University of Thessaly
Press 2007, pp. 331-344. S. SHERRATT – Visible Writing: Questions of Script and Identity in Early Iron Age Greece and Cyprus
in: Oxford Journal of Archaeology 22:3, 2003, pp. 225-242. M.G. AMADASI GUZZO – La transmission de l'alphabet phénicien aux
Grecs in: Des signes pictographiques à l'alphabet, Éd. Khartala 2000, pp. 231-246).
one would have to admit that the Greeks would have sunk into illiteracy for four centuries
(1150-750). This is not serious. The Mycenaean Greeks used a syllabary to write their
language, but they rarely used clay tablets to write letters on because this medium was quite
inappropriate for this kind of writing as can be seen on this letter from Pylos (below)
written just before the burning of the city (1185 BCE). The translation of this letter (An
657) written in archaic Greek (Linear B) is still problematic185:
1) This is how the guards defend the coastal areas.
2) The command of Māleus in O-wi-tnos:
3) Ampelitāwōn, Orestās, Etewās, Gorgiōn,
4) Su-we-ro-wios, 50 O-ka-rai men from O-wi-tnos (at their orders);
5)
6) The command of Nedwātās: Ekhemēdēs,
7) Amphietās, Malantheus, Ta-ni-kos,
8) in Halwons 20 Ke-ki-des men from Kuparissos (at their orders);
9)
10) in Aithalēwes 10 Ke-ki-des men from Kuparissos (at their orders);
11) and with them (is) the son of Kerkis as officer
12) Aerikhwoitās; in Deer Harbor
13) 30 O-ka-rai men from O-wi-tnos and 20 Ke-ki-des A-pu2-kānes men
14) (are at their orders) and with them (is) the officer Aigotās.
However this letter was written in a hurry because it mentions the organization of a
defence system which was mobilizing mercenaries and the requisitioning of 600 rowers (=
20 boats of 30 rowers each) because the governor of Pylos feared an imminent attack from
the sea186 (“how the guards defend the coastal areas”). For a long time archaeologists have
refused to connect the naval
battle in the Delta (in 1185
BCE) between the Philistines
from Aegean islands and the
Egyptian army of Ramses III,
with any naval battle between
the Mycenaean Empire and
the Hittite vassal cities like
Troy and Miletus. However,
recently several kraters (dated
c. 1190 BCE) have been
found in Aegean islands as
well as western Anatolia,
which depict naval battles
with warriors (right) wearing
feathered helmets similar to
those of the Philistines.187
185 For some of anthroponyms and place names, other interpretations are possible. The transcribed terms describing soldiers are
unknown, these terms may be ethnic, phyletic, appellatives, or something else.
186 J. CHADWICK – Linéaire B et écritures apparentées
in: La naissance des écritures du cunéiforme à l'alphabet (1994 Éd. Seuil) pp. 224-230.
187 J.P. EMANUEL – Sailing from Periphery to Core in the Late Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean
in: There and Back Again – the Crossroads II (Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Arts, 2015), pp. 163-179.
The usual medium for writing at that time were some wooden tablets covered with
wax. For example, the only character whose precise practice of writing (Mycenaean) in the
works of Homer is Proteus, the first king of Tiryns (Iliad VI:169), who used a "folded
tablet": He [Proteus] gave baneful signs to her, drawing on a folded tablet many mortal characters, he
invited her to show it to her stepfather, for his ruin. This amazing remark (long considered fanciful)
is in agreement with recent archaeological discoveries188: the "folded tablet" would have
been a diptych made of wood covered with wax and "many characters" would have been
syllabograms of Linear B (Mycenaean Greek). As the clay tablets discovered in Crete are
not real pieces of archiving but are rather accounting documents, the originals would
instead have been recorded on suitable media such as palm leaves, according to Pliny
(Natural History XIII:21), or more likely on diptychs in wood covered with wax189, as
shown by the Uluburun wreck dated around 1320 BCE190. The city of Ugarit (the only one
the Chancery have been found) provides also some letters191 which refer to "wax tablets".
A question has long puzzled scholars: what happened during the dark ages, from
1185 to 776 BCE (1st Olympic game)? A chronological reconstruction give a satisfactory
answer. After 1185 BCE, the land of Canaan was permanently transformed by a series of
upheavals that ended the Canaanite Bronze Age. Only along a narrow coastal strip north of
Akko —a region the Greeks termed Phoenicia— were Canaanites able to maintain their
international trade. There a remarkable rebirth took place, primarily in the harbours of Tyre,
Sidon, Byblos, and Arwad, as those city-states succeeded in reasserting their maritime
interests. Despite their rivalries, they were able to fill the vacuum created by the dissolution
of the internationalism that had characterized the Amarna Age. From the 11th century BCE
Tyre was engaged in overseas colonization192. The Aramaean kingdoms of northern Syria
were the targets of Tiglath-Pileser I (1115-1076), because of their wealth. The control of the
high road to the Mediterranean was secured by the possession of the Hittite town of Pitru193
at the junction between the Euphrates and Sajur; thence he proceeded to Gubal (Byblos),
Sidon, and finally to Arvad where he embarked on a ship to sail the Mediterranean.
According to the biblical text, Hiram I (1025-991) was a wealthy king of Tyre who traded
with Solomon and David (1Ki 5:1-18). According to his report, dated 1085 BCE, Wenamun
was sent to Palestine and after leaving Mikamael the prince of Tyre he met Zakar-Baal the
prince of Byblos. In this city, he negotiated with Warkat-il, the boat captain (and prince of
Sidon?), who read out a journal roll of his forefathers in his presence in order to prove the
antiquity and legitimacy of his trade with Egypt (Story of Wenamun II:9-11). The Egyptian
story proves two points: a mere boat captain could read Phoenician and was also able to
speak with an Egyptian. As Phoenician kingdoms were at the centre of all this trade,
Phoenician language quickly became the international writing from 1100 BCE.
Throughout the period following the collapse of the Mycenaean empire, Greece
remained isolated from international trade until at least 900 BCE, however, Greek writing
did not disappear194, since it can be noted that some Mycenaeans who emigrated to Cyprus
188 W. WAAL – They wrote on wood. The case for a hieroglyphic scribal tradition on wooden writing boards in Hittite Anatolia
in: Anatolian Studies 61 (2011) pp. 21-34.
189 J. DRIESSEN – Homère et les tablettes en linéaire B. Mise au point
in: L'Antiquité classique 61 (Bruxelles 1992), pp. 5-37.

190 C. PULAK – The Uluburun Shipwreck and Late Bronze Age Trade
in: Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the Second Millenium B.C. Metropolitan Museum, 2008.
191 S. LACKENBACHER – Textes akkadiens d'Ugarit in: Littératures Anciennes du Proche-Orient 20 (Cerf , 2002), pp. 22 n.11, 202.
192 R.R. STIEGLITZ – The Geopolitics of the Phoenician Littoral in the Early Iron Age
in: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research No. 279 (1990), pp. 9-12.
193 T. BRYCE – The Routledge Handbook of the Peoples and Places of Ancient Western Asia
New York 2009, Ed. Routledge p. 563.

194 P.M. STEELE – Syllabic Writing on Cyprus and Its Context
Cambridge 2013 Ed. Cambridge Univesity Press pp. 16-24, 133-152.

continued using a Cypriot syllabary c. 1050 BCE, close to the Linear B. Moreover, the style
of the Parian Chronicle’s entries suggests that the ultimate source of the information in the
Chronicle was the archives of the city of Athens (from the Mycenaean period to 900 BCE),
which had to have been written in Linear B or Cypro-Minoan, according to 3 evidences195:
1) The naming of the reigning king or archon in Athens for each entry is consistent with an
Athenian provenance of the material; 2) The source behind each entry must have provided
a year-number from which the author of the Parian Chronicle was able to calculate the
years to his own time, thus suggesting that the archives from which the information was
taken were keeping track of the years since the founding of the kingship in Athens under
Cecrops. This would have been feasible if Athens was keeping some synchronisms for
important events, which enabled a reckoning of years; 3) The annalistic style of the
Chronicle is in keeping with the genre of annalistic records such as the Assyrian Eponym
Canon, in which the purpose was not so much to describe events as to give an accurate
record of when the events occurred, as related to the years since the founding of the
kingship and also tying the event to the king or archon who was currently reigning.
The apparent collapse of Greek writings over the 1185-
900 period can be explained by two important factors: a
collapse of the economy (from an international industrial
economy to a national traditional economy) which led to a fall
of commercial contracts and taxes (consequently of
documents), and use of a perishable medium (such as diptychs
in wood covered with wax or parchments). The Assyrian
Empire is a good example of this complexity. From Tiglat-
pileser I (1115-1076) who made vassal several Phoenician
states, Assyrian chancelleries adopted Aramaic as a second
diplomatic language beside Babylonian. When the Assyrian
scribes are represented196 (opposite figure), they are always by
two: one with a tablet and stylus and the other with a parchment and quill197. Despite this
evidence proving the existence of Assyrian archives on parchment (in Aramaic), none of
these documents have ever been found. The support of writing used by most countries, like
Aramaic (Syrian states) or Old Canaanite (Phoenician states), was papyrus and parchment
which do not keep long in these regions. Clay tablets were used for writing cuneiform (as
for the Babylonian language) and scrolls for Aramaic (international language). The scribes198
were called in Akkadian ṭupšarru, from the Sumerian word DUB-SAR "tablet-write," and
sepîru, translating the Sumerian KUŠ-SAR "skin-write".
If the Greek period 1185-800 is almost empty of writings it is not a dark period199,
because there is an abundance of pottery (vase, jar, cup, bowl, etc.). The decoration of these
objects allows one to reconstitute a timeline and the nature of trade200:
1. Protogeometric period (1050-900). Cypro-Minoan inscriptions.
2. Early Geometric period (900-850). Paleo-Hebrew inscriptions in Cyprus.
195 R.C. YOUNG – Correlation of Select Classical Sources Related to the Trojan War with Assyrian and Biblical Chronologies
in: Journal for the Evangelical Study of the Old Testament 1.2 (2012), pp. 223-248.
196 Egyptian scribes are usually represented in a seated position equipped with sharpened rush pens and small water jars (ink).
Princeton 1969 Ed. Princeton University Press p. 74.



200 A. QUEYREL – Athènes la cité archaïque et classique
Paris 2003 Éd. Picard pp. 13-22.

3. Middle Geometric period (850-760). Resumption of commercial international in Greece.
4. Middle Geometric period (760-700). Early Greek and Cypriot inscriptions.
The Middle Geometric period (850-760) is characterised by the rapid development of
trade and the revival of contacts both with the East and between different Greek city-
states201. The first narrative scenes make their appearance during the Middle Geometric II
period (800-760). The Greek alphabet appears in the Geometric period in particular from
850 BCE, a date which marks the economic renaissance of Greece and its return to
international trade. As Aramaic was the language of international trade and was spread by
Phoenician sailors, the Greeks who traded with the East should have been able to read and
write it in order to make contracts (at least the names of the owners and products).
The place and date of the invention of the alphabet are controversial, but
epigraphical analysis leads to the conclusion that there was no inventor, but rather a
standardization of a Phoenician alphabet (probably already used before) during the period
900-850. First, the conversion of a language, written with a syllabary, into an alphabet is not
unusual202, especially for proper names which are always written "phonetically" (the oldest
case, dated 1550-1480203, is the name of a scribe Ali-dîn-ili written in cuneiform a-lí-di-in-ì-lí
and also ALDNAL in the paleo-Hebrew alphabet)204. For example, the name of the Hittite
queen Puduhepa (1297-1215), written in syllabic cuneiform: pu-du-ḫi-pa is also written in an
Egyptian "alphabet": p-w-d-w-ḫ-y-p3 read as p-u-d-u-ḫ-i-pa. This example shows that the use of
certain consonants to write vowels was "natural" (Y for I, W for U and 3 for A at the end
of words). The Tell Fekherye Stele (dated 870-840) is a bilingual inscription, which was
written both in alphabetic and syllabic Aramaic as follows:
Syllabic Alphabetic Hebrew (M.T.) Greek (LXX) reference
ḫa-bur! ḪBUR ḪaBOR! ABÔR! 2Ki 18:11!
ne-iri-gal! NIRGL NeRGaL! NERIGEL! 2Ki 17:30!
gu-za-ni! GUZN GOZaN GÔZAN! 2Ki 18:11!
adad-si-ka-ni! HDDSKN HaDaD-[! ADAD-[! Gn 36:35!
Alphabetic reading (with Y = I and W = U; [-] = a) is less accurate (vowel E is
lacking) but requires about five times fewer signs that the syllabic system205. The Greeks
borrowed the Phoenician alphabet to write their language:
! Herodotus (c. 450 BCE), a Greek historian: I believe that Melampus learned the worship of
Dionysus chiefly from Cadmus of Tyre and those who came with Cadmus from Phoenicia to the land now
201 The characteristic feature of the Attic vases of this period is the harmony between shape and decoration which tends to cover
the entire surface of the vase in zones separated from each other by vertical groups of lines, creating panels. Animals, such as
horses and water birds, are now painted more frequently, and the human figure becomes an established motif. In the
Protogeometric period (1050-900) vase shapes that had survived down to the Submycenaean period (stirrup jar, squat
afabastron, etc.) disappeared and new shapes made their appearance, such as the amphora, trefoil oinochoe and lekythos, krater,
kantharos, skyphos and pyxis. Two important innovations, the quick potters wheel and the compass with the multiple brush,
resulted in an increase in the output of pottery and the achievement of an improved aesthetic appearance. The decoration of the
vases is characteristically austere. Most of the surface is covered by black glaze, and the decoration is confined to the shoulder
(closed shapes) or the zone at the handles (open shapes). Systems of concentric circles or semicircles, groups of oblique, parallel
lines, hatched triangles and lozenges. rows of solid triangles, etc., are the main motifs of the period. The horse also makes its first
appearance as a pictorial motif at this time. In the Early Geometric period (900-850) almost the entire surface of the vase is
covered by black glaze and the decorative motifs are set in panels and zones on the neck, shoulder and belly. Curvilinear motifs
are no longer popular. Triangles and zigzags are the dominant ornaments during this period, and the meander. The predominant
motif of the Geometric period make its appearance. As to the previous period, there are occasional representations of animals
such as the horse,which is rendered according to Geometric perceptions and in silhouette.
202 G. GERTOUX – The Name of God Y.eH.oW.aH Which is Pronounced as it is Written
Lanham 2002, Ed. University Press of America pp. 251-278.

203 S. DALLEY – Babylonian Tablets from the First Sealand Dynasty in the Schøyen Collection
in: Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology Vol. 9 (CDL Press, 2009) pp. 1-16, 112, plates LIII, CLIIV.
204 L. COLONNA D'ISTRIA – Babylonian Tablets from the First Sealand Dynasty in the Schøyen Collection
in: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires N°3 (2012) pp. 61-63.

205 Because 5 syllables (pa, pe, pi, po, pu for example) need 1 out of 5 vowels (a, e, i, o, u) and only 1 consonant (p).
called Boeotia (...) These Phoenicians who came with Cadmus and of whom the Gephyraeans were a part
brought with them to Hellas, among many other kinds of learning, the alphabet, which had been
unknown before this, I think, to the Greeks. As time went on the sound and the form of the letters were
changed. At this time the Greeks who were settled around them were for the most part Ionians, and after
being taught the letters by the Phoenicians, they used them with a few changes of form. In so doing, they
gave to these characters the name of Phoenician, as was quite fair seeing that the Phoenicians had brought
them into Greece. The Ionians have also from ancient times called sheets of papyrus skins, since they
formerly used the skins of sheep and goats due to the lack of papyrus. Even to this day there are many
foreigners who write on such skins. I have myself seen Cadmean writing in the temple of Ismenian Apollo
at Thebes of Boeotia engraved on certain tripods and for the most part looking like Ionians letters (The
Histories II:49,91,145,182; V:58-59).
! Eupolemus (c. 160 BCE), a Hellenistic Jewish historian: Moses was the first to acquire wisdom
and transmit writing to the Jews, the Phoenicians received it, then from the Phoenicians to the Greeks.
Moses was the first to write laws for the Jews (Preparatio evangelica IX:26).
! Diodorus of Sicily (c. 50 BCE), a Greek historian: Many generations later men supposed that
Cadmus, the son of Agenor, had been the first to bring the letters from Phoenicia to Greece; and after the
time of Cadmus onwards the Greeks were believed to have kept making new discoveries in the science of
writing, since a sort of general ignorance of the facts possessed the Greeks (...) Now Cadmus honoured
likewise the Lindian Athena with votive offerings, one of which was a striking bronze cauldron worked
after the ancient manner, and this carried an inscription in Phoenician letters, which, men say, were first
brought from Phoenicia to Greece (...) To the Muses, we are further told, it was given by their father Zeus
to discover the letters and to combine words in the way which is designated poetry. And in reply to those
who say that the Syrians are the discoverers of the letters, the Phoenicians having learned them from the
Syrians and then passed them on to the Greeks, and that these Phoenicians are those who sailed to
Europe together with Cadmus and this is the reason why the Greeks call the letters "Phoenician," men
tell us, on the other hand, that the Phoenicians were not the first to make this discovery, but that they did
no more than to change the forms of the letters, whereupon the majority of mankind made use of the way
of writing them as the Phoenicians devised it, and so the letters received the designation we have mentioned
above (Historical Library V:57-58,74).
! Pline the Elder (c. 70 CE), a Roman naturalist: I have always been of opinion, that letters were of
Assyrian origin, but other writers, Gellius, for instance, suppose that they were invented in Egypt by
Mercury: others, again, will have it that they were discovered by the Syrians; and that Cadmus brought
from Phœnicia 16 letters into Greece. To these, Palamedes, it is said, at the time of the Trojan war, added
these 4: H Y Φ X. Simonides, the lyric poet, afterwards added a like number Ψ Ξ Ω Θ; the sounds
denoted by all of which are now received into our alphabet (Natural History VII:57).
! Tacitus (c. 100 CE), a Roman historian: The Egyptians, in their animal-pictures, were the first
people to represent thought by symbols: these, the earliest documents of human history, are visible to‑day,
impressed upon stone. They describe themselves also as the inventors of the alphabet: from Egypt, they
consider, the Phoenicians, who were predominant at sea, imported the knowledge into Greece, and gained
the credit of discovering what they had borrowed. For the tradition runs that it was Cadmus, arriving with
a Phoenician fleet, who taught the art to the still uncivilized Greek peoples. Others relate that Cecrops of
Athens (or Linus of Thebes) and, in the Trojan era, Palamedes of Argos, invented 16 letters, the rest
being added later by different authors, particularly Simonides. In Italy the Etruscans learned the lesson
from the Corinthian Demaratus, the Aborigines from Evander the Arcadian; and in form the Latin
characters are identical with those of the earliest Greeks. But, in our case too, the original number was
small, and additions were made subsequently: a precedent for Claudius, who appended three more letters,
which had their vogue during his reign, then fell into desuetude, but still meet the eye on the official bronzes
fixed in the forums and temples (Annals XI:14).
According to these historians, the
Greeks began to write their language using
the Phoenician alphabet, after the Trojan
War, and by adding specific letters. The date
of transition (Greek syllabary =>
Phoenician alphabet) is not specified but
several clues converge over a period 900-
850 (around the foundation of Carthage in
870 BCE). For example, Herodotus wrote
that the Phoenicians had settled on the
Mediterranean coast (The Histories II:44;
V:46; VI:47), 5 generations before the
Greek colonization (which started around
700 BCE), and given that 3 generations
equal 100 years (The Histories II:142), their
settlement in Libya had to be around 860
BCE. Strabo (c. 20 CE), a Greek
geographer, philosopher and historian
wrote: The Phoenicians, I say, were the informants
of Homer; and these people occupied the best of
Iberia and Libya before the age of Homer, and
continued to be masters of those regions until the
Romans broke up their empire (Geography III:2:14). Velleius Paterculus states (c. 20 CE) that
the founding of Carthage coincided with Lycurgus (Roman History I:6), the legendary
lawgiver of Sparta who reigned 159 years before the Olympics (884 BCE), according to
Eratosthenes, but 130 years before King Theopompe (720-675), according to Plutarch (Life
of Lycurgus §IX). According to Tatian, Lycurgus made his laws 100 years before the
Olympics, or 876 BCE (Discourses to Greeks XLI). Lycurgus is credited with the formation
of many Spartan institutions integral to the country's rise to power. According to these
historians, Homer's work and Lycurgus' laws are dated over the period 880-850. Their
dating is in good agreement with the epigraphic analysis of Greek and Semitic alphabets.
The comparison of the archaic Greek alphabet206 (750-600) implies a progressive
standardization and not a sudden onset due to an inventor.
Indeed it appears that several letters (like B, E, F, H, Y, O, Q, S, below) are slightly
different depending on the region. Some differences can be explained by errors of copyists
(like B, E, F, S), but others come from the time when the Semitic alphabet was adopted
(like H, Y, O, Q). Many Semitic inscriptions have been classified according to the
"conventional" chronology and also according to the form of their letters (which changes
over time). It is possible to use these classifications207, while dating them according208 to the
aforementioned chronologies, which give: Zakar-Baal209 (1100-1080), Ahiram (1020-1000);
Abibaal (980-960); Yehimilk (960-940); Elibaal (940-920); Shipitbaal (920-900); Mesha (900-
870); Fekherye (870-840); Dan (-860); Hazael (880-840); Kilamuwa (840-830).
206 J.F. HEALEY – Premières tentatives d'écritures alphabétiques
C.J. RUIJGH – Sur la date de la création de l'alphabet Grec
in: Mnemosyne vol. 51:6 (1998) pp. 658-687.
207 B. SASS – The Alphabet at the turn of the Millenium. The West Semitic Alphabet ca. 1150-850 BCE
Tel Aviv 2005 Ed. Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology pp. 22-40.
208 C.A. ROLLSTON – The Dating of the Early Royal Byblian Phoenician Inscriptions: A response to Benjamin Sass
in: Maarav 15:1 (2008) pp. 57-93.

209 The dating of Zakar-Baal’s arrowhead, a king of Amurru (= prince of Byblos?), is controversial.
-1150 -1000 [-900] -850
Historians of writing210 base their analysis on a simple premise: a new writing is never
born from nothing but derives from a more archaic model, which allows us to date its
appearance since it coincides with the disappearance of the ancient writing (became
"archaic"). Thus Ignace Gelb211 , an Assyriologist and linguist, had noticed that the Greek D
was identical to the Phoenician D without a tail (Δ), which was replaced by a shape with tail
from the inscription of Kilamuwa (840-830). The Greeks therefore borrowed their alphabet
from the Phoenicians before that date. Greek H (eta) is identical to the Phoenician shape
without tail which is replaced by a shape with tail after Yehimilk (960-940). In addition, the
H with two horizontal strokes instead of three appeared from Mesha (900-870). The Greek
letter "O (omicron)" sometimes appears with a point inside, a Phoenician graphy that
disappeared after the Fekherye inscription (870-840). The Greek "A" is similar to the
Phoenician letter "A", only from Mesha (900-870). Thus, according to chronology, the
Greek language was likely conveyed by a syllabary, Cypro-Minoan (1185-1050), then
Phoenician writing gradually replaced it, at the same time as the Cypriot writing which
appeared sporadically from 1050 BCE212. However, the affiliation of various Aegean
writings is far from simple213. The development of these letters imposes a date of the Greek
writing onset after 900 BCE and its standardization around 850 BCE214, the time when
210 J.G. FÉVRIER – Histoire de l'écriture
Paris 1984 Éd. Payot pp. 179-201, 384-397.
211 I.-J. GELB – Pour une théorie de l'écriture
Paris 1973 Éd. Flammarion pp. 135-140, 198-201.

212 H. LA MARLE – L'aventure de l'alphabet
Paris 2000 Ed. Librairie P. Geuthner pp. 57-94, 161-163.

213 J.-P. OLIVIER - Les écritures syllabiques égéennes et leur diffusion en Egypte au premier millénaire avant notre ère
in: Actes du premier forum international du Centre de Calligraphie de la Bibliotheca Alexandrina, (24-27 avril 2003) pp. 167-181.
214 J.F. HEALEY – Premières tentatives d'écritures alphabétiques
C.J. RUIJGH – Sur la date de la création de l'alphabet Grec
in: Mnemosyne vol. 51:6 (1998) pp. 658-687.
Homer is supposed to have lived215 . It is noteworthy that two famous characters
Lycurgus216, the first lawgiver of Sparta (c. 880 BCE) and Homer, the first Greek writer,
belong both to the Early Geometric period (900-850). The dates for the following Athenian
rulers217 were conjectured centuries later, by historians of the Hellenistic era who tried to
backdate events by cross-referencing ancient sources such as the Parian Chronicle218.
KING OF reign KING OF reign Historical or archaeological information
TROY ATHENS
[Uhhaziti's ally] 1300-1280 Pandion II 1307-1282 Contemporary of Muršili II (1307-1295)
Aleksandu 1280-1250 Aegeus 1282 - Contemporary of Muwatalli II (1295-1275)
Piyama-radu ? 1250-1225 -1234 Contemporary of Ḫattušili III (1268-1241)
Walmu 1225-1200 Theseus ? 1234-1204 Contemporary of Tutḫaliya IV (1241-1209)
Priam ? 1200-1185 Menestheus ? 1204-1181 Contemporary of Šuppiluliyama II (1207-1185)
DARK AGES Demophon ? 1181-1147 Sack of Troy VIIa (in 1185 BCE)
Oxyntes ? 1147-1135 Protogeometric period
Apheidas ? 1135-1134
Thymoetes ? 1134-1126
Melanthus ? 1126-1089 (Linear B replaced by Cypro-Minoan)
Codrus ? 1089-1068 Dorian Invasion of Peloponnesus
LIFE ARCHONS Medon ? 1068-1048 First ruler of Attica
Acastus ? 1048-1012 Troy VIIb2 destroyed (ca. -1020)
Archippus ? 1012-993
Thersippus ? 993-952 (Cypro-Minoan replaced by Paleo-Hebrew/ Greek)
Phorbas ? 952-922 Troy VIIb3: deserted (ca. -950)
Megacles ? 922-892 Early Geometric period
Diognetus ? 892-864 Lycurgus, first lawgiver of Sparta (c. -880)
Pherecles ? 864-845 Homer composes the Iliad and Odyssey (ca. -850)
Ariphron ? 845-825 Middle Geometric period
Thespieus ? 824-797
Agamestor ? 796-778
Aeschylus ? 778-755 First Olympiad (776 BCE)
Alcmaeon ? 755-753
DECENNIAL ARCHONS Charops 753-743 Early Greek inscriptions (Nestor's cup)
Aesimides 743-733
Clidicus 733-723
Hippomenes 723-713
Leocrates 713-703
Apsander 703-693
Eryxias 693-683
ARCHONS Creon 682-681
Lysiades 681-680
The name of Achaean or Trojan kings rarely appear in Hittite records. For example,
Uhhazati who was king of Arzawa Minor, the nucleus of the Arzawa complex (his capital
Apasa was almost certainly located on the site of the later Ephesos) was attempting to force
Hittite subject states in the region away from their alliance, apparently in collaboration with
the king of Ahhiyawa who controlled the islands in the eastern Aegean219 . The chronology
of the kings of Athens involves the existence of Athenian archives, which is indirectly
215 At that time commercial trips were common in the Mediterranean, see Dating the warning of Jonah against Nineveh.
216 Velleius Paterculus states that the founding of Carthage (884 BCE) coincided with Lycurgus (Roman History I:6) who reigned
159 years before the Olympics according to Eratosthenes, but only 130 years before King Theopompe (720-675), according to
Plutarch (Life of Lycurgus §IX). According to Tatian, Lycurgus legislated 100 years before the Olympics, or 876 BCE
(Discourses to Greeks XLI).
217 A.E. SAMUEL – Greek and Roman Chronology
München 1972 Ed. Verlag C.H. Beck pp. 195-210.

218 Tradition says that King Menestheus (1204-1181) took part in the Trojan War (1194-1184), and Codrus (1089-1068), the last
king of Athens, was the one to repel the Dorian Invasion of Attica.
219 T. BRYCE – The Trojan War: Myth or Reality?

confirmed by Thucydides when he gave a short chronology of some important events
taking place during the dark ages, which was only possible if he could see some written
documents220, because oral transmission does not exceed 150 years (such as the oral
transmission of the Talmud after 70 CE, which was written about 200 CE).
Many scholars deny the existence of Homer because nothing is known about his life.
They assume that an old oral tradition was embellished in time and was progressively put in
writing by various authors (anonymous). This unfounded assumption, since no Greek
historian mentioned it, is actually absurd because all the manuscripts of Homer have the
same arrangement of chapters and its chapters are always in the same order. Homer's work
is not a set of episodes (coming from recitations) randomly assembled (which would have
been the case with manuscripts from different authors), but an editorial choice made by a
single author who thought his long poem as a whole221 . A final question is: why and for
whom did he write? Unlike Herodotus, Homer did not attempt to write history. He did not
bother to date events, to situate them geographically or even to explain the historical
context that led to the Trojan War. This war only serves as a backdrop to highlight the
tragic events his hero would try to overcome. His (wonderful) description of the hero's
tragic life is the foundation of this timeless epic (fascinating). Knowing the time of Homer's
work makes it possible to find the key to the riddle.
According to a widely spread tradition, Carthage was founded by Queen Elissa, then
known as Dido, who fled Tyre following the murder of her husband in an attempt by her
younger brother, the King of Tyre, to bolster his own power. According to Justinus'
account (History XVIII:4-6), Princess Elissa was the daughter of King Mattan I (906-877).
When he died, the throne was jointly bequeathed to her and her brother, Pygmalion. She
married her uncle [Zakar-Baal] High Priest of Melqart, a man with both the authority and
wealth comparable to the king. The tragic events that led Queen Elissa to leave the city of
Tyre, wandering in the Mediterranean before finally founding a new Tyre (Carthage in 870
BCE), strongly influenced her contemporaries. Homer, informed by Phoenician sailors
(according to Strabo) must have adapted Elissa's Phoenician epic into Ulysses' Greek epic.
Some clues reveal the source of his inspiration. The name of Ulysses, who was Greek hero
par excellence, is not Greek, which is very paradoxical, however Ulysses could be a native
of Cretan (Odyssey XIV:199; XVII:523). A likely explanation is to assume that the name of
Ulysses222 (Ὀλυσσεύς), also pronounced Udysses in Crete223, is a transcription of Elissa's
name which means in Phoenician "my god is salvation (2Ki 2:6)". Likewise, the name of the
hometown of Ulysses, Ithaca224, is not Greek, but could mean "moved away (‫ ")עתיק‬like in
Isaiah 28:9. In recounting the Trojan War, Homer did not seek to make a historical work
(this old event was known and had little interest), but he wanted to offer a religious
explanation for our tragic earthly destiny and in this field he succeeded magnificently.
220 Even after the Trojan war Hellas was still engaged in removing and settling, and thus could not attain to the quiet which must precede growth. The
late return of the Hellenes from Ilium caused many revolutions, and factions ensued almost everywhere; and it was the citizens thus driven into exile who
founded the cities. 60 years after the capture of Ilium the modern Boeotians were driven out of Arne by the Thessalians, and settled in the present
Boeotia, the former Cadmeis; though there was a division of them there before, some of whom joined the expedition to Ilium. 20 years later the Dorians
and the Heraclids became masters of the Peloponnese (...) But at last a time came when the tyrants of Athens and the far older tyrannies of the rest of
Hellas were, with the exception of those in Sicily, once and for all put down by Lacedaemon; for this city, though after the settlement of the Dorians, its
present inhabitants, suffered from factions for an unparalleled length of time, still at a very early period obtained good laws, and enjoyed a freedom from
tyrants which was unbroken; it possessed the same form of government for more than 400 years, reckoning to the end of the late war [c. 400 BCE],
and was thus in a position to arrange the affairs of the other states (The Peloponnesian War (I:12,18).

222 The oldest testimony of the name, from ancient Greek lyric poet Ibycus (c. 565 BCE), is not Ulysses but Ulikses (Ὀλιξής).
223 P. FAURE – Ulysse le crétois
Paris 1980 Éd. Librairie Arthème Fayard, pp. 30-34.

224 The location of Ithaca as featured in Homer's Odyssey (Odyssey IX:25-26) is a matter for debate. There have been various
theories about its location, although Modern Ithaca is generally accepted to be Homer's island by most scholars.
Annex
Basic astronomy for historians to get a chronology
Abstract: "Chronology is the backbone of history" is usually taught in schools but in the same time
the first fall of Babylon is currently fixed either in 1595 BCE or in 1651, 1531, 1499 depending on
historians! Such a difference in timeline prevents one from reaching the historical truth. It is for this reason
that from Herodotus, the "father of history" (in fact the father of scientific and chronological inquiry), Greek
historians gradually established a system of scientific dating in order to write a universal history. Many
astronomical phenomena (observed and described by Babylonian astrologers), which are well identified such
as eclipses, enable anyone today (with at least an undergraduate level) to synchronize these ancient dating
systems and anchor them on absolute dates. As incredible as it may seem this is still not done (among the
hundreds of thousands of theses in history there is none which focuses on chronology, except the one of Isaac
Newton in 1728 entitled: Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended). The purpose of the present item is
to understand the origin of this anomaly and above all to give the tools for easily verifying important dates in
history thanks to numerous practical examples like Jesus' birth on Monday 29 September 2 BCE, Herod's
death on Monday 26 January 1 BCE, the destruction of Jerusalem's Temple on Sunday 27 August 587
BCE, the first fall of Babylon soon after April 1499 BCE, etc.
Anyone interested in history has been able to see that every Egyptologist has their
own chronology (and consequently their own truth about history) and all the history books
just mention in their introduction that some dates are controversial and in order to solve
this crucial problem they argue that most academic historians have used the "Middle
Chronology" as reference (it's magic), because the truth always belongs to the majority in a
democracy. How can one explain this anomaly? Academic historians claim that chronology
is a complex science and historical documents are difficult to interpret. These two lame
excuses are false. In fact the primary purpose of academic historians is to validate and to
spread an official history aimed at magnifying the national novel of their country (it's a part
of the process called "manufacturing consent"). The official history is that of the winner
(for every country) and the vanquished are always pictured as barbarians, unworthy of
owning their own country such as the American Indians, the Palestinians in the West Bank,
the Armenians in Turkey, etc. The only history that most academic historians are really
seeking to promote is their own history (their cursus honorum), not the truth1. The criticizing
of ones colleagues is not very polite and it gets you immediately blacklisted, as was already
the case for Herodotus (until today among Egyptologists!), but that's life (Luke 6:26).
Chronology is at the heart of our lives, the day we die the only information that will
be listed next to our name is our date of birth and date of death. Truth is very often
mundane, but quite different from fairy tales "once upon a time in a far away country".
These two dates are not kept by chance but because they are a link to the great mystery of
humankind: the question of origin and end. That's why calendars are religious, Anno Domini
"Year of the Lord" for Christians (Gregorian calendar), Annus Mundi for Jews (Seder Olam),
Anno Hegirae for Muslims, Chinese Zodiac for some Asiatics, etc. The main difficulty is to
convert the dates from one calendar to another one. Given that most calendars have
changed in time because of some readjustments, scientists use today as reference the Julian
astronomical calendar (quite similar to the ancient Julian calendar). All calendars are based
on the sun and the moon: the year is related to an Earth rotation around the sun (365.25
days), the month to a moon rotation around Earth (29.5 days) and the day to an Earth
rotation around itself. The synchronization between the solar year of 365 days and the 12
lunar months of 354 days has always been a problem of great complexity. The first exercise
is therefore to know the functioning of the Julian calendar (Gregorian after 1582 AD).
1 All those who deeply know the academic world will be able to check my disillusioned opinion.
The calendar was a reform in 1582 CE (Christian Era) of the Julian calendar. It was
introduced by Pope Gregory XIII, after whom the calendar was named. The motivation for
the adjustment was to bring the date for the celebration of Easter to the time of the year in
which the First Council of Nicaea had agreed upon in 325 CE. Although a canon of the
council specified that all Christians should celebrate Easter on the same day, it took almost
five centuries before virtually all Christians achieved that objective by adopting the rules of
the Church of Alexandria. The reform adopted was a modification of a proposal made by
the Calabrian doctor Aloysius Lilius. Lilius's proposals had two components. Firstly, he
proposed a correction of the length of the year. The mean tropical year is 365.24219 days
long, while the mean vernal equinox year is 365.2424 days. As the average length of a Julian
year is 365.25 days, the Julian year is almost 11 minutes longer than the mean year. The
discrepancy results in a drift of about 3 days every 400 years. Lilius's proposal resulted in an
average year of 365.2425 days. At the time of Gregory's reform there had already been a
drift of 10 days since the Council of Nicaea, resulting in the (astronomical) vernal equinox
falling on 11 March instead of the ecclesiastically fixed date of 21 March, and if unreformed
it would drift further. Accordingly, when the new calendar was put in use, the error
accumulated in the 13 centuries since the Council of Nicaea was corrected by a deletion of
10 days. The Julian calendar day Thursday, 4 October 1582 CE was followed by the first
day of the Gregorian calendar, Friday, 15 October 1582 CE.
Dionysius Exiguus (470-544) was the inventor of the Anno Domini era, which is used
to number the years of both the Gregorian and Julian calendar. He used it to identify the
several Easters in his Easter table, but did not use it to date any historical event. When he
devised his table, Julian calendar years were identified by naming the consuls who held
office that year —he himself stated that the "present year" was "the consulship of Probus
Junior", which he also stated was 525 years: since the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. He
invented a new system of numbering years to replace the Diocletian years that had been
used in an old Easter table because he did not wish to continue the memory of a tyrant who
persecuted Christians. There exists evidence that Dionysius' desire to replace Diocletian
years with a calendar based on the incarnation of Christ was to prevent people from
believing in the imminent end of the world. At the time it was believed that the
Resurrection and the end of the world would occur 500 years after the birth of Jesus. The
current Anno Mundi calendar commenced with the creation of the world based on
information in the Septuagint. It was believed that based on the Anno Mundi calendar Jesus
was born in the year 5500 (or 5500 years after the world was created) with the year 6000 of
the Anno Mundi calendar marking the end of the world. Anno Mundi 6000 (c. 500 CE) was
thus equated with the resurrection of Christ and the end of the world. Because Dionysius
did not place the Incarnation in an explicit year, competent scholars have deduced both 1
CE and 1 BCE. Most have selected 1 BCE (historians do not use a year zero). Because the
anniversary of the Incarnation was 25 March, which was near Easter, a year that was year
525 "since the Incarnation" implied that 525 whole years were completed near that Easter.
Consequently 1 year after the Incarnation would have meant 25 March 1 CE, meaning that
Dionysius placed the Incarnation on 25 March 1 BCE. How did he manage to get such a
result? Dionysius knew that Epiphanius dated Jesus birth in the year when Augustus XIII and
Silvanus were consuls (Panarion LI:22:3) and Paul Orosius in the year 752 of the founding of Rome
(Histories against the pagans VI:22.1). As he stated that the "present year" was "the
consulship of Probus Junior", he was able to reckon 525 consular years2 between the
consulship of Probus Junior and the one of Augustus XIII and Silvanus according to the list of
2http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consuls_romains_du_Bas-Empire
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consuls_romains_du_Haut-Empire
BASIC ASTRONOMY FOR HISTORIANS TO GET A CHRONOLOGY 71
Roman consuls. Consequently he defined a new era beginning at Jesus birth with the
equation: consulship of Probus Junior = 525 Anno Domini. As one can see he made a little
mistake because the consulship of Probus Junior3 was the 526th after 525 consulships, what
postponed Jesus birth to 1 BCE instead of 2 BCE. For this period of history we have
several synchronistic lists, which give correspondences between different dating systems4:
Year Consulship rank Roman consuls Olympiad Year of Year of
after Jesus birth Rome Seleucid era
4 BCE Gaius Calvisius Sabinus 194:1 750 309
Lucius Passienus Rufus
3 BCE Lucius Cornelius Lentulus 194:2 751 310
Marcus Valerius Messalla Messallinus
2 BCE 0 Imperator Caesar Augustus XIII 194:3 752 311
Marcus Plautius Silvanus
1 BCE 1 Cossus Cornelius Lentulus 194:4 753 312
Lucius Calpurnius Piso
1 CE 2 Caius Iulius Caesar 195:1 754 313
Lucius Aemilius Paullus
This first example shows that one must always check the calculations even those
from competent scholars because they can make mistakes (nobody's perfect). Calculations
to determine Jesus birth are easy to carry out because they are all consistent. For example
Clement of Alexandria (Stromata I:21:145) put it 194 years before Commodus death on
December 31, 192 CE and Tertullian (Against the Jews VIII:11:75) in the 41st year of
Augustus' reign5, 28 years after Cleopatra's death on August 29, 30 BCE. By combining
these data, Jesus birth has to be fixed in 2 BCE between September 1 and October 30.
A chronological detail from the book of Luke allows the fixing of the exact date of
Jesus' birth. Indeed, John the Baptist was born 6 months before Jesus (Lk 1:26) and his
conception was announced at the Temple 9 months earlier. This announcement may be
dated toward June, because this was the class of Abijah, to which belonged Zechariah father
of John the Baptist, who officiated at this time of the year (Lk 1:5-13). The name and the
order of classes of priests were very old (1Ch 24:7-18). According to Josephus (Jewish
Antiquities VII:365-366), each class officiated for a week from the Sabbath to the next
Sabbath (1Ch 9:25; 2Ch 23:8), and the Mishna (Sukka 4:7) states that during the great
annual festivals the 24 classes served together synchronizing both cycles of 24 weeks, the 1st
beginning in Nisan and the 2nd in Tishri. Manuscripts found at Qumran (4Q321) confirm
the seasonal order of such a calendar6. The turnover of classes of priests was cyclic on the
year, this system worked until the destruction of the Temple in September 70 CE (Tosephta
Taanit 2:10 b)7. The cycle of 24 classes, which lasted 24 weeks, coincided with lunar year, as
the 1st cycle began after the Passover (14 to 21 Nisan) and lasted 24 weeks and the 2nd cycle
began after the Feast of Tabernacles (10 to 21 Tishri). A period of 6 lunar months lasts
exactly 177 days (= 6x29,5), or approximately 25 weeks (25x7 = 175 days). The religious
year began on 1 Nisan. As the weeks went from Saturday to Saturday, the 8 days of
Passover overlapped 1 or 2 weeks (depending on the year). Similarly, the calendar year
3 http://www.roman-empire.net/articles/article-024.html
4 E.J. BICKERMAN - Chronology of the Ancient World
London 1980 Ed. Thames and Hudson pp. 115-166.
5 Augustus' reign began from the second triumvirate of October 43 BCE, made official a few weeks later, according to Appian
(Civil Wars IV:5-7), by the law lex Titia on November 27, 43 BCE. Ancient writers reckoned the reign of Augustus not from
January 27 BCE, but from October 43 BCE when Octavian, later Augustus, formed the second triumvirate. The 42nd year of
Augustus began (at the end of his 41st year), so in October 2 BCE.
6 M. WISE, M. ABEGG, E. COOK – Les manuscrits de la mer Morte
Paris 2001 Éd. Plon pp. 388-398.

7 J. BONSIRVEN – Textes rabbiniques des deux premiers siècles
Roma 1955 Ed. Pontificio Istituto Biblico p. 264.

started on 1 Tishri, thus the Feast of Tabernacles (Tishri 10 to 21) covered 2 or 3 weeks.
Therefore, the 24 classes of priests officiated all together on average 2 weeks during the two
major festivals (the Feast of Tabernacles starting with Yom Kippur from 10 to 21 Tishri),
since the solar year of 365 days is 52 weeks long (= 24x2 + 2x2). The conception of John
the Baptist occurred after the announcement during the office of Abijah class and therefore
at the beginning of the next class, that of Jeshua. The conception of Jesus is placed 3
months before the end of the gestation of John the Baptist (Lk 1:56). The birth of John the
Baptist therefore precedes exactly by 6 months that of Jesus. This previous calendrical
information has to be combined with the following constraints (which imposes a
chronological framework): Sabbaths coincide with Saturdays; Tishri 1 (Jewish calendar)8
coincides with the 1st visible crescent just after the autumn equinox (September 25 at that
time)9; the duration of human gestation is on average 273 days10 (one can assume that the
pregnancies of John the Baptist and Jesus took place normally), consequently:
! Spring equinox was on 23 March in 3 BCE.
! 1st lunar crescent11 after the spring equinox (= 1st Nisan): Tuesday 16 April 3 BCE.
! Passover on 14 Nisan: Monday 29 April, 3 BCE.
! Start of the first cycle of 24 classes on 26 Nisan: Saturday 11 May 3 BCE.
! Class of Abijah (8th week), beginning on 16 Siwan: Saturday 29 June 3 BCE.
! Class of Jeshua (9th week), beginning on 23 Siwan: Saturday 5 July 3 BCE. Beginning of
the gestation of John the Baptist (born 273 days later).
! Yom Kippur on 10 Tishri: Saturday 19 October (3 BCE).
! Start of the second cycle of 24 classes on 24 Tishri: Saturday 2 November 3 BCE.
! Angel Gabriel announced the birth of Jesus 6 months after that of John the Baptist on 23
Kislev: Monday 30 December 3 BCE (2 days before the Festival of Dedication).
Beginning of the gestation of Jesus (born 273 days later).
! Birth of John the Baptist on 1 Nisan: Saturday 5 April 2 BCE.
! Birth of Jesus on 1 Tishri: Monday 29 September 2 BCE (after 273 days of gestation).
As can be seen calculations to determine the date of Jesus' birth are quite attainable
and give on Monday 29 September 2 BCE (not 25 December 1 BCE). Using his
mathematical equations, Kepler believed he could predict the appearance of the night sky
for any day in history, as seen from any place on earth. In December 1603 CE he witnessed
a Jupiter-Saturn-conjunction followed by a conjunction of Jupiter-Mars. He then made a
rapprochement with the star of the Magi thanks to a Hebrew text of Rabbi Abravanel: For
Jewish astrologers, the Messiah would come from a conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter in the constellation of
Pisces. Kepler calculated that the same conjunction occurred three times in the same year of
7 BCE: 29 May, 3 October and 4 December. The repetition of this alignment is extremely
rare, he concluded that careful observers of the sky such as the Magi would have been able
to notice it, he likened this event with the Star of Bethlehem and thus placed the Nativity in
the year 7 BC in his book De Stella Nova in Pede Serpentarti (first published in 1605). Based on
the coincidence of the lunar eclipse of 13 March 4 BC, just after the Fast of Esther of 12
March, Academician Wallon12 concluded that the 37-year reign of Herod, having started in
40 BC was completed in 4 BC and therefore the birth of Jesus should be set at 25
December 7 BC. This dating without scientific rigor is still the choice of the "prestigious"
8 http://www.livius.org/caa-can/calendar/calendar_babylonian.html
9 http://www.imcce.fr/fr/grandpublic/temps/saisons.php
10 C. NAUDIN, N. GRUMBACH – Larousse médical
Paris1995 Éd. Larousse p. 449.

11 http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/pacalc.html http://www.imcce.fr/fr/grandpublic/phenomenes/phases_lune/index.php
12 H. WALLON – Mémoire sur les années de Jésus-Christ
Paris 1858 Ed. Comptes Rendus Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres.

French Academy13, but is easy to check that the link made with the conjunction of Saturn
and Jupiter in 7 BCE and the Star of Bethlehem is absolutely baseless.
According to the text of the Gospels (New International Version): After Jesus was born
in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked,
‘Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to
worship him (...) Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had
appeared. He sent them to Bethlehem and said, ‘Go and search carefully for the child. As soon as you find
him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.’ After they had heard the king, they went on their
way, and the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the
child was. When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. On coming to the house, they saw the child with his
mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshipped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented
him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. And having been warned in a dream not to go back to
Herod, they returned to their country by another route. When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared
to Joseph in a dream. ‘Get up,’ he said, ‘take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until
I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.’ So he got up, took the child and his mother
during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod (...) When Herod realised that
he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and
its vicinity who were 2 years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi (Mt
2:1-16). The word Magi comes from the Greek magos, which also appears in the text of
Daniel 2:2,10 (LXX). It was a term originally applied to Persian priests14, a tribe of the Mede
according to Herodotus (The Histories I:101), thus Magi means "astrologers". It is
noteworthy that many Bible translations prefer to use the term "wise men" instead of
"astrologers" because astrology is severely condemned in the Bible (Dt 18:10-12). As the
text of Matthew clearly states: the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped
over the place where the child was, it was a miraculous "star", not an astronomical event (even a
comet can't go ahead and stop over a house!).
In his thesis (1605) the Polish historian Laurentius Suslyga was the first to suggest
that Christ was born around 4 BCE instead of 2 BCE, based on the coincidence of the
lunar eclipse of 13 March 4 BCE just after the Fast of Esther dated 12 March, deriving this
date from the chronology of Herod the Great found in Josephus' works. Once again these
"scientific" claims are completely preposterous for 3 reasons: 1) the fast of Esther in the 1st
century did not exist because it did not appear until the 12th century15, in addition on 13
Adar was the Feast of Nicanor (Jewish Antiquities XII:412); 2) according to current
astronomical calculations, the eclipse of 13 March 4 BCE had a magnitude of 36% only and
would have drawn attention to very few people in the early morning when it happened16; 3)
if Herod died on March 4 BCE, it is impossible to make a reconstitution respecting all the
13 G. PICARD – La date de naissance de Jésus du point de vue romain
in: Comptes-rendus des séances de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 139e année, N. 3, 1995. pp. 799-807.
14 W.E. VINE – An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words
New York 1985 Ed. Thomas Nelson Publishers, p. 587.

15 The She'iltot of R. Aḥa of Shabḥa (8th century) has the earliest record of the custom of fasting on the 13th of Adar. It quotes
the declaration of R. Samuel b. Isaac (Megillah 2a): The 13th day of Adar is the time for public gathering, Maimonides accepts the
custom of public fasting on this day finding his scriptural authority in the words: Regarding the fasting and the crying (Est 9:31).
Comparing it with other public fasts he declares: Whereas the other fasts are postponed to the following day if they would otherwise fall on the
Sabbath the Fast of Esther is anticipated to the Thursday, since fasting here must precede the celebration (Yad, Ta'anit 5:5). An earlier tradition
of fasting (c. 750 CE) in connection with Purim is preserved in the Talmud (Soferim 14:4), which specifically excludes fasting on
the 13th of Adar: because of Nicanor and his men. This is in accordance with the prohibition of Megillat Ta'anit against fasting on
those days on which the Maccabean victories over Nicanor and their other enemies were celebrated. Elsewhere tractate Soferim
asserts: Our Rabbis in the West [i.e., Ereẓ Israel] are accustomed to fast at intervals after Purim [i.e., on the 3 subsequent days: Monday, Thursday,
and Monday] in commemoration of the 3 days fasted by Esther and Mordecai and those who joined them (Soferim 21:1). Maimonides stated that
the commemoration of fasting should precede the festival (Hilkhot Ta'aniyot 1:14), which instituted the Fast of Esther on 13
Adar, before the feast of Purim on 14 and 15 Adar.
16 4 BCE = -3* http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEcat5/LE-0099-0000.html
synchronisms (16 in all) mentioned by Josephus which are all consistent with a date of
death around 1 BCE/1 CE17. According to the texts of Josephus: Herod died after a day that
the Jews observe as a fast which happened just before an eclipse of the moon (...); after he had reigned for 34
years from the time when he had put Antigonus to death, and for 37 years from the time when he had been
appointed king by the Romans (...); before the Passover (Jewish Antiquities XVII:166-167, 191, 213).
The first years of Herod's reign are described by Josephus in great chronological detail,
which explains the discrepancy between his legal kingship received from the Roman Senate
in 40 BCE and the beginning of his effective reign in 36 BCE, dated year 3 on his first
minting. According to Josephus, Herod came to Rome in winter (Jewish War I:279) at the
end of the year 40 BCE (Jewish Antiquities XIV:487), since he conquered Jerusalem in July
37 BCE, just 3 years after his enthronement by the Romans in December 40 BCE (Jewish
War I:343; Jewish Antiquities XIV:389). The Roman Senate named him king and celebrated
his first day of reign (Jewish War I:285) on 1st January, 39 BCE, because the posts of
governors were awarded on that date18. After the capture of Jerusalem in July 37 BCE,
Sossius, the governor of Syria, handed over King Antigonus to Marc Antony. Herod,
fearing a possible restoration of Antigonus by the Roman Senate, greased Mark Antony's
palm to kill his rival (Jewish Antiquities XIV:473, 487-491). Mark Antony who left Italy for
Greece in the autumn of 37 BCE, then went to Antioch which he reached in winter.
Antigonus was executed just before Herod took power19 (March 36 BCE). Cassius Dio
confirms the chronological data of Josephus, he writes: These people Antony entrusted to a certain
Herod to govern; but Antigonus he bound to a cross and flogged, — a punishment no other king had
suffered at the hands of the Romans, — and afterwards slew him (...) Antony spent the entire year [37
BCE] in reaching Italy and returning again to the province (Roman History XLIX:22-23). All these
synchronisms involve Herod having died between April 2 BCE and March 1 BCE20.
Although Josephus dates Herod's victory in July 37 BCE, he fixes the beginning of his
effective reign in 36 BCE, as he states that Herod ended a Hasmonean era which had
started 126 years earlier (Jewish Antiquities XIV:490) and as he dates the beginning of the
period in 162 BCE the reign of Herod started therefore in 36 BCE (= -162 + 126). This
figure is confirmed by two other indications of Josephus: the beginning of his reign is fixed
27 years after the victory of Pompey (Jewish Antiquities XIV:487) dated July 63 BCE, that
is 36 BCE (= -63 + 27) and 107 years before the destruction of the Temple (Jewish
Antiquities XX:250) dated August 70 CE, that is 36 BCE (= 70 -107 + 1, no year 0). The
first coins minted by Herod after his victory over Jerusalem (in July 37 BCE) are dated year
321 (wrote LΓ in Greek). Since Jewish reigns begin on 1st Nisan (new moon +1)22, this coin
therefore appeared in April of 36 BCE. This method of reckoning reign, from 1st Nisan
after an accession, was usual for kings of Judea (Talmud Rosh Hashanah 1:1). If Herod died
in 4 BCE, year 3 of his reign would have been in 38 BCE, 2 years before his victory, that is
unlikely, moreover, at that date Antigonus still ruled Judea. The Jews fasted 4 times a year
(Zc 8:19): on 17 Tammuz, 9 Ab, 3 Tishri and 10 Tebeth. The Mishnah (Taanit 4:6) only
describes the fasts of 17 Tammuz and 9 Ab. It is noteworthy that 13 Adar was not a fast at
17 B. MAHIEU – Between Rome and Jerusalem. Herod the Great and his Sons in their Struggle for Recognition
in: Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 208 (Brill 2012) pp. 235-243.
18 C. SAULNIER - Histoire d'Israël
Paris 1985 Éd. Cerf p. 207.

19 R. MARCUS – Josephus. Jewish Antiquities, Books XIV-XV
Cambridge 2004 Ed. Harvard University Press page 255 note e, page 479 note b.
20 J. FINEGAN - Handbook of Biblical Chronology
Massachussetts 1999 Ed. Hendrickson pp. 299-301.

21 J. MALTIEL-GERSTENFELD - 260 Years of Ancient Jewish Coins
1982 Tel Aviv Ed. Kol Printing Service Ltd pp. 125-131.
the time because it was the Feast of Nicanor (Jewish Antiquities XII:412). This feast of
Nicanor on 13 Adar was formerly known as the feast of Mordecai (2M 15:36). The Mishna
(Taanit 2:10, Rosh Hashanah 1:3) also stipulates that there was no fasting at Purim in the
month of Adar. The fast of the 7th month (Tishri) commemorated the murder of Governor
Gedaliah and the one of the 10th month (Tebeth) commemorated the beginning of the siege
of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar (2Ki 25:1, Ezk 24:1-2) as recalled by Josephus (Jewish
Antiquities X:116). The fast of 10 Tebeth (January 5 in 1 BCE), observed only in Judea
(Jerusalem Talmud, Taanit 4:6), actually preceded by a few days (5) the total lunar eclipse on
14/15 Tebeth23 (9/10 January in 1 BCE)24.
The ancient Roll of fasts25 (Megillat Taanit 23a) says: On Shebat 2 a feast-day, no mourning.
The date 2 Shebat was 26 January in 1 BCE26. The Scholion of Megillat Taanit speaks of the
death of Herod in three copies: at 7 Kislev (Oxford, hybrid text) or at 2 Shebat (Parma)
which agrees with the date of the Roll of fasts (7 Kislev is linked with King Alexander
Jannaeus's death). Astronomy enables us to date the events mentioned by Josephus: (1) a
memorial fasting followed by (2) an eclipse of the moon and then (3) Herod's death, three
events which succeeded in a short time before (4) Passover (-1 = 0 BCE):
date in 1 BCE in 4 BCE
month (1) fast (2) eclipse (3) death # #
st
VII 3 Tishri 1 Oct. 2 BCE 4 Oct. 5 BCE
VIII Heshvan
IX Kislev 7 Kislev ? 3 Dec. 2 BCE 6 Dec. 5 BCE NO#
X 10 Tebeth 5 Jan. 1 BCE YES 8 Jan. 4 BCE
15 Tebeth 10 Jan. 1 BCE Total 13 Jan. 4 BCE
XI Shebat 2 Shebat 26 Jan. 1 BCE YES 29 Jan. 4 BCE NO#
XII [13] Adar [9 Mar. 1 BCE] [12 Ma. 4 BCE] NO#
14 Adar 13 Mar. 4 BCE Partial
I [1st] Nisan [25 Mar. 1 BCE] 1 Apr. 4 BCE? NO#
[14] Nisan (4) Passover [7 Apr. 1 BCE] [10 Apr. 4 BCE]
II Iyar
III Siwan
IV 17 Tammuz 7 Jul. 1 BCE 10 Jul. 4 BCE
V 9 Ab 29 Jul. 1 BCE 1st Aug. 4 BCE
VI Elul
VII Tishri
VIII Heshvan
IX Kislev 7 Kislev ? 21 Nov. 1 BCE 25 Nov. 4 BCE
On the death of Herod, his sons sought the endorsement of Caesar Augustus to
legitimize their royalty, as had done Herod himself. Josephus explains that in the past:
Caesar received the boys [in 20 BCE] with the greatest consideration. He also gave Herod the right to
secure in the possession of his kingdom whichever of his offspring he wished (Jewish Antiquities
XV:343). Herod having died on 2 Shebat (Monday 26 January 1 BCE), the first year of
effective reign of his sons could start at 1st Nisan (24 March 1 BCE). Herod Philip did as his
father. The coins minted27 from his first year of reign in 1 BCE are dated year 3, wrote LΓ
in Greek, which referred to Herod's testament made at the end of the legation of Varus in 4
23 Astronomy requires matching the eclipses of the moon with the full moon days.
24 http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEcat5/LE-0099-0000.html
25 W.E. FILMER - The Chronology of the Reign of Herod the Great
in: The Journal of Theological Studies Vol. XVII. Oxford 1966 p. 284.
H. LICHTENSTEIN - Die fastenrolle eine untersuchung zur jüdisch-hellenistishen geschichte
in: Hebrew Union College Annual Cincinnati 1931-32 pp. 271-280.
26 A.E. STEINMANN – When Did Herod the Great Reign?
in: Novum Testamentum Vol. 51 (2009) pp. 1-29.

27 J. MALTIEL-GERSTENFELD - 260 Years of Ancient Jewish Coins
1982 Tel Aviv Ed. Kol Printing Service Ltd p. 144.

BCE, a year being considered as an accession year (without having been co-regency). This
point is crucial to understanding the chronology of Herodian reigns. Indeed, fictional
accessions, legally back-calculated, were not uncommon at that time28. All of the Herods
acknowledged receiving their kingdom from Augustus (Jewish Antiquities XVII:244-246). A
testament establishing the kingdom of Herod's sons was written in front of Augustus at the
end of the legation of Varus (Jewish Antiquities XVII:202-210). This document served as a
reference after the death of Herod to confirm the kingdom of his sons29. For that reason,
just after the death of Herod, Archelaus rushed to Rome to validate by Augustus the
testament of his father who made him king (Jewish War II:1-2). Similarly, Antipas disputed
succession to the throne because he was referring to the first testament of Herod, who
designated him as king, in his view that testament annulling its codicil (Jewish War II:20).
Therefore, that testament, not Herod's codicils, had to be used to set the beginning of their
statutory royalty because only the decision of Augustus, which validated it, was considered
as a last resort (Jewish War II:20-21,28). Herod's sons had to have been legally established
kings (in Rome) before taking office (in Jerusalem). Josephus relates Antipater's dialogue
with his father: And indeed what was there that could possibly provoke me against thee? Could the hope
of being king do it? I was a king already (Jewish War I:625-631). If it was only about the
certitude of reigning, this explanation would have accused Antipater, because he would
have been able to accelerate his accession to the throne by committing parricide, while in
recalling that he was King already, Herod's death did not change anything for him; this
argument had already been used in the past to prove his innocence (Jewish War I:503).
According to Josephus, Herod Archelaus reigned 10 years. The 9th year of his reign (Jewish
War II:111), at the end of which he was dismissed, is dated 6 CE according Dio (Roman
History LV:25:1, 27:5) and the beginning of his 10th year (Jewish Antiquities XVII:342),
marked by the census of Quirinius, is dated 7 CE30 (Jewish Antiquities XVIII:26).
The above examples illustrate two important points: do not believe by word the
"mainstream chronologies", even if they come from prestigious academics, but follow this
wise biblical advice: Make sure of all things (1Th 5:21); believe what you have checked and question
the rest (1Jo 4:1) specially regarding chronology (2Th 2:2). In fact, the main difficulty does
not come from astronomy or calculations but from wrong readings of historical texts! It is
indeed necessary to first ensure that a historical text, used for dating, aptly describes an
astronomical phenomenon and not a non-reproducible exceptional event or a symbolic
event like the "eclipse" of a king, which was frequently pictured as a real (total) eclipse.
As noted K.A. Kitchen, a prominent Egyptologist, chronological and historical data
from the Bible is generally consistent with archaeological findings, at least until Abraham (c.
2000 BCE), however the chronology of the prehistoric period, especially the Deluge, is
absolutely insoluble31 (one might say). For example, the global flood is dated around 2350
BCE, according to the chronology from the Masoretic text, but Sargon of Akkad (c. 2300
BCE) already knew of the Deluge which had occurred before Gilgamesh’s time (c. 2700
BCE), four centuries earlier! On the other hand, some geologists estimate that the biblical
flood could be a memory of the last ice age, which ended around -10,000. All this data is
apparently irreconcilable, but in fact not. First the explanation of the chronologies of the
28 E.J. BICKERMAN -Notes on Seleucid and Parthian Chronology
in: Berytus VIII (1943) pp. 73-83.
29 W.E. FILMER - The Chronology of the Reign of Herod the Great
in: The Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. XVII. Oxford 1966 pp. 283-298.
30 Consular years used by Cassius Dio were reckoned from January 1 to December 31, 6 CE, but the 37th of Actium was
reckoned from September 6 CE to September 7 CE. The 9th year of Archelaus was reckoned from April 6 CE to April 7 CE.
31 K.A. KITCHEN – On the Reliability of the Old Testament
Cambridge 2003 Ed. Eerdmans Publishing Company pp. 439-447.

Deluge are all based on ideological interpretations, religious or scientific, without any
verification with the absolute dating based on astronomy. For example, the Jews date the
Deluge in 2104 BCE (= -3761 + 1656) as it is explained in their Seder Olam32, but there is a
wide variety of results33. In fact it is clear that there is no evidence of such a statement but
only conjectures. Finally, Catholics date the Deluge, equated with the last ice age, around
13,000 BCE in their official Bible34. Consequently, it is necessary to use astronomy.
BASIC ASTRONOMY FOR HISTORIANS
Astronomical concepts necessary for historians are actually quite rudimentary. One
just has to know the working of solar and lunar cycles, which served to define the years and
months. As solar and lunar cycles are actually very complex, they could not be predicted in
the past with sufficient accuracy in order to fix calendars (as is the case today with software
very easy to use) and consequently they had to be visually observed.
From Earth, the Sun is seen projected against the remote background of the celestial
sphere35. This apparent path of the Sun around the sky in the course of a year is known as
the ecliptic. Since most of the planets revolve around the Sun in more or less a flat plane,
viewed from Earth the paths of the other planets across the sky tend to stay fairly close to
the ecliptic. Knowing this, ancient people attached great importance to this band of
constellations on the ecliptic, known as the zodiac. However, the Earth's axis is not
perpendicular to the ecliptic —rather, it is tipped at an angle of 23½ degrees. The ecliptic,
therefore, is tipped with respect to the celestial equator by the same angle. Because of this,
Northern and Southern Hemispheres experience opposite seasons. In June, the Southern
Hemisphere is in winter because it is leaning away from the Sun, while the Northern
Hemisphere is experiencing midsummer. The Sun's rays no longer reach the South Pole,
and for half the year there the Sun will fail to rise, resulting in continuous night. Six months
later, in December, the Earth will have gone half-way round the Sun. The Northern
Hemisphere is now in midwinter, while the Southern Hemisphere is in midsummer. In
March and September, however, both hemispheres have an equal share of day and night
("equinox" means "[day] equal night"). The length of summer days and the corresponding
brevity of winter days increases as you move to higher latitudes. During winter, the Sun is
low in the sky, which means that the days are short and the nights long. Also, the Sun's rays
must pass through a greater thickness of the atmosphere; some of the heat is absorbed, and
the low angle from which the rays come means that they are more spread out. In summer,
on the other hand, the Sun passes high across the sky as it rises and sets each day, yielding
longer days than in winter. Also, because the Sun is high during this season, the Sun's rays
are less spread out and it heats the Earth more directly. Midway between sunrise and sunset
the Sun reaches its highest point in the sky around noon. If, over the course of a year, you
observed the shadow cast by a stick on a flat piece of ground, you would graphically see
how the Sun's height in the sky at noon varies with the passing of the seasons (see
32 H.W. GUGGENHEIMER – Seder Olam. The Rabbinic View of Biblical Chronology
Lanham 2005 Ed. Roman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. pp. 3-21.
33 Many of the earliest Christians who followed the Septuagint calculated creation around 5500 BC: Clement of Alexandria
(5592), Theophilus of Antioch (5529), Julius Africanus (5501), Hippolytus of Rome (5500), Gregory of Tours (5500), Panodorus
of Alexandria (5493), Maximus the Confessor (5493), George Syncellus (5492) Sulpicius Severus (5469), Isidore of Seville (5336).
Eusebius (5228), Jerome (5199). Proposed calculations using the Masoretic text: Marianus Scotus (4192), Henry Fynes Clinton
(4138), Maimonides (4058), Henri Spondanus (4051), Benedict Pereira (4021), Louis Cappel (4005), James Ussher (4004),
Augustin Calmet (4002), Isaac Newton (4000 BC), Johannes Kepler (3977), Melanchthon (3964), Martin Luther (3961),
Cornelius Cornelii a Lapide (3961), John Lightfoot (3960), Joseph Justus Scaliger (3949), Gerardus Mercator (3928), Benito Arias
Montano (3849), Andreas Helwig (3836), David Gans (3761 BC), Gershom ben Judah (3754), Yom-Tov Lipmann Heller (3616).
34 Bible de Jérusalem (Cerf, 1986), p. 1805.
35 D. LEVY – Skywatching. The ultimate guide to the Universe
1995 London Ed. Harper Collins pp. 84-85.

illustration below). During summer, the shadow is shortest at noon on the solstice, the day
with the longest daylight hours. Here, the Sun reaches its highest point in the sky for the
year. In winter, the Sun traces its lowest path across the sky on the day of the "winter"
solstice. It is during this time that the Sun casts the longest shadows and gives us the day
with the fewest daylight hours.
The path of the Sun across the sky at different times of the year (below), as viewed
by a Northern Hemisphere observer (a Southern sky-watcher would look north, instead of
south, to see the same effect). In the past, there were 2 seasons: summer started with the
flax harvest at the spring equinox and winter with the concluding harvest at the autumn
equinox with ploughing. At the equinox both day and night have to last exactly 12 hours.
It is now easy to reconstruct a past calendar anchored on the equinoxes like the
Jewish religious year, which began on 1st Nisan. This particular day coincides with the 1st
visible lunar crescent in Jerusalem after the spring equinox. In 2 BCE, or -1 in astronomy,
the spring equinox is dated36 25/9/-1 at 19:59 UT (Universal Time). The 1st lunar crescent
after 25/9/-1 (25 September 2 BCE) is dated 29/9/-1 (new moon 28/9/-1 at 6:50 UT)37.
The 1st Tishri is dated 25 September 2BCE,then the 1st Heshvan (next 1st lunar crescent) is
dated 29 October and so on. One can see that the 2 Shebat in 1 BCE is dated 26 January
and years 4 ad 1 BCE were embolismic with 13 lunar months instead of 12 (because 1st
Nisan must be just after the spring equinox, not before):
Event month Jewish calendar Julian calendar Julian calendar
[autumn equinox] 2 BCE [25 September -1] 5 BCE [25 September -4]
Jesus birth VII 1st Tishri 9 29 September 9 2 October
VIII 1st Heshvan 10 29 October 10 31 October
Magi visit IX 1st Kislev 11 27 November 11 30 November
Firstborns murder X 1st Tebeth 12 27 December 12 29 December
st
Herod's death XI 1 Shebat 1 BCE 25 January 0 4 BCE 28 January -3
Return from Egypt XII 1st Adar 2 25 February 2 27 February
[XIIb] [1st Adar2] - -
[spring equinox] [3] [22 March 0] [3] [22 March -3]
I 1st Nisan 3 25 March 3 28 March
II 1st Iyar 4 23 April 4 26 April
st
III 1 Siwan 5 23 May 5 25 May
IV 1st Tammuz 6 21 June 6 24 June
V 1st Ab 7 20 July 7 24 July
VI 1st Elul 8 19 August 8 22 August
VII 1st Tishri 9 17 September 9 21 September
[autumn equinox] (embolismic year) 9 [25 September 0] 9 [25 September -3]
VIII 1st Heshvan 10 17 October 10 21 October
IX 1st Kislev 11 15 November 11 19 November
st
X 1 Tebeth 12 15 December 12 19 December
XI 1st Shebat 1 CE 14 January 1 3 BCE 18 January -2
XII 1st Adar 2 13 February 2 16 February
Embolismic year XIIb 1st Adar2 3 14 March 3 17 March
[spring equinox] [3] [22 March 1] [3] [22 March -2]
As many commemorations were related to a lunar calendar in the past, it is possible
to calculate precisely the date of these celebrations. For example the earliest source which
dates precisely Jesus' death is the Greek historian Phlegon of Tralles who completed in 140
CE his chronology of the most important events dated by Olympiads. He gives a specific
date, reported by Eusebius: In the 4th year, however, of Olympiad 202, an eclipse of the sun happened,
greater and more excellent than any that had happened before it; at the 6th hour [12:00], day turned into
dark night, so that the stars were seen in the sky, and an earthquake in Bithynia toppled many buildings of
the city of Nicaea38. The 4th year of the 202nd Olympiad is from July 32 to June 33 CE. This
information was considered reliable at the time because Origen (248 CE) quoted it to refute
Celsus (Against Celsus II:14,33,59), a Greek philosopher very critical of Christianity but
familiar with history. Eusebius39 also states in his quotation from Phlegon that Jesus began
his ministry in the 15th year of Tiberius and he died 3 years later in the year 18. He gives a
more accurate duration of not quite 4 years in another of his books (Ecclesiastical History
I:10:2). Jerome, who published the chronicle of Eusebius, regarded it as reliable. According
to Irenaeus, some heretics propagated (177 CE) a period of only 1 year for the ministry of
Jesus (Against Heresies II:22:5). Likewise Matthew mentions both an earthquake and
surprising darkness (Mt 27:45-54) during the death of Jesus from noon to 3 p.m., the hour
of prayer, according to Acts 3:1. It was not a solar eclipse because it lasted 3 hours, far
beyond the duration of a solar eclipse (7 mn 30 s). Several authors report this exceptional
darkening for example Thallus a Samaritan historian of the 1st century who says in the third
book of his Histories, quoted by Julius Africanus40 (in 220 CE): A most terrible darkness fell
over all the world, the rocks were torn apart by an earthquake, and many places both in Judea and the rest
of the world were thrown down. Thus Jesus death is dated 33 CE, two elements provided by the
38 EUSÈBE - Chronicorum
Paris 1857 Patrologiae Graecae t. XIX Ed. Migne p. 535.
39 R. HELM – Eusebius Werke
Berlin 1956 Ed. Akademie-Verlag Berlin pp. 174,175.

40 JULIUS AFRICANUS - Chronographiæ
Turnhout 1966 Ed. Brepols (Migne) Patrologiæ Graecae t. X p. 91.

Gospels enable one to fix it on 3 April 33 CE by astronomy. The day of the Passover could
coincide with any day of the week, but the next day, corresponding to the 1st day of the
feast of unleavened bread was to be a Sabbath (Lv 23:5-7). If this Sabbath (15 Nisan)
coincided with the usual Sabbath on Saturday, it was called a "great Sabbath". As Jesus was
resurrected on the 1st day of the week, on Sunday in the Jewish calendar (Jn 19:31; 20:1), he
must have died on Friday 14 Nisan. It is noteworthy that the only year for which 14 Nisan
matches on a Friday41 during the period from 27 to 35 CE is the year 33 CE. Depuydt
proposes Friday 15 April 29 CE assuming an error of one day on the observation of the 1st
crescent, but this is unlikely because one would have to admit that the 1st crescent was seen
one day too early, but a new moon is not visible. The day corresponding to 14 Nisan over
the 26-36 CE period is as follows:
CE 14 Nisan in Julian calendar Lunar eclipse (in Nisan) Event
26 Friday 22 March -
27 Wednesday 9 April -
28 Monday 29 March -
29 Saturday 16 April - Jesus' baptism (Jn 1:28-34)
30 Wednesday 5 April - 1st Passover (Jn 2:13)
31 Monday 26 March - 2nd Passover {Jn 5:1}
32 Monday 14 April (no visible in Jerusalem) 3rd Passover (Jn 6:4)
33 Friday 3 April OK 4th Passover (Jn 12:1)
34 Monday 22 March -
35 Monday 11 April -
36 Friday 30 March -
A second confirmation of 33 CE comes from the book of Acts describing celestial
phenomena that occurred at the death of Jesus: The sun will be turned into darkness and the moon
into blood (Acts 2:20), text already describing a lunar eclipse just before the destruction of the
first Temple42 (Joel 3:3-5). Generally, during a lunar eclipse it appears blood-red, which is
the most natural explanation of the text of Acts. The Roman historian Quintus Curtius
suggests, for example, a lunar eclipse, in terms that illuminate how this phenomenon was
perceived at the time (c. 50 CE): Alexander made in this place, a halt of two days, and the next, gave
the order to start. But near the eve of the day, the moon was eclipsing, the brightness of its disk began to
disappear, and then a kind of veil of blood came sullying its light: worried already about the approaches of a
so terrible accident, the Macedonians were imbued with a deep religious feeling, and fear at the same time.
This was against the wishes of the gods, they said, that drew them to the ends of the earth, the rivers were
already unaffordable and the stars did not pay more than their former clarity and everywhere they met
wastelands, deserts everywhere: and why so much blood? to satisfy the vanity of one man! He disdained his
homeland, he disowned his father Philip, and in the pride of his thoughts, aspired to heaven! Sedition would
burst, when Alexander, still inaccessible to fear, command chiefs and principal officers of his army to
assemble in his tent body and at the same time the Egyptian priests, whom he considered very skilful in
knowledge of the sky and stars, to express their opinion. Those knew well that, in the course of time, a series
marked by revolutions is accomplished, and that the moon is eclipsed when it passes under the earth, or it is
hidden by the sun, but what calculation revealed, they careful avoid sharing with vulgar. At hearing them,
the sun is the heavenly body of the Greeks, the moon for the Persians: also, whenever it vanishes, it is to the
Persians a portent of ruin and desolation, and they cite to examples of ancient kings of this empire, in which
the moon by eclipsing, testified that they were fighting with opponent gods. Nothing so powerfully governs the
minds of the multitude that superstition carried, cruel, fickle as any other occasion, when vain ideas of
41http://www.nr.com/julian.html
42There was a lunar eclipse in 587 BCE on 4 July (13 Tammuz), which coincided with the legal end of blood sacrifices in the
Temple (Dn 9:27). The Talmud relates that the sacrifices in the Temple ceased on 17 Tammuz because of a total lack of sheep
(Mishnah 4:6 Taanit 28b) and the Bible dates the beginning of the fall of Jerusalem from 9 Tammuz (2Ki 25:1-4 ).
religion dominate, it obeys the priests much better than its leaders. Also, the response of the Egyptians, just
published in the army, revived the drooping spirits of hope and confidence (Histories of Alexander the
Great IV:10). Curtius gives an accurate description of the eclipse dated 13/VI year 5 of
Darius III (20 September 331 BCE) by a Babylonian astronomical tablet (BM 36761), but
the alleged Egyptian source of his explanations is actually a truncated quotation from
Herodotus (Histories VII:37) because it states that the Persians also sacrificed to the sun
and the moon (Histories I:131). Quintus Curtius himself recognized the point: It was a
traditional use among the Persians, not turn on after sunrise, when the day was shining in all its brilliance.
The starting signal given by the trumpet, left the tent of the king over the tent, loud enough for everyone could
see it, shone like the sun embedded in the crystal (...) then came a chariot dedicated to Jupiter, drawn by
white horses, and followed by a courier of an extraordinary size, which is called the messenger of the sun:
golden wands and white garments distinguished the conductors of these horses (Histories of Alexander
the Great III:3). When Curtius explains that a lunar eclipse with a veil of blood cannot be a
harbinger of death he expresses the ideas of his time in cultivated circles but also indicates
that these eclipses were seen as prescient in popular circles. In the 1st century Josephus
shared this view: do not you disturb yourselves at the quaking of inanimate creatures, nor do you imagine
that this earthquake is a sign of another calamity; for such affections of the elements are according to the
course of nature, nor does it import any thing further to men, than what mischief it does immediately of itself
(Jewish War I:377). The evangelist Luke, who was a doctor, must have shared this scientific
view about lunar eclipses (sometimes abnormal darkness is caused by thick clouds made of
dust or ash). There was actually a partial eclipse of the moon on Friday 3 April 33, which
began towards 15:40 (Local Time) and was visible in Jerusalem from 17:50 to 18:30. It was
also, according to astronomical calculations43, the only one falling on Friday44 between 26
and 36 CE, period of Pilate's legation in Judea:
Tiberius reign CE 14 Nisan: Julian calendar Lunar eclipse Event
15/16 29 Saturday 16 April - Baptism of Jesus (Lk 3:1-23)
16/17 30 Wednesday 5 April -
17/18 31 Monday 26 March -
18/19 32 Monday 14 April (no visible in Jerusalem) death of John the Baptist
19/20 33 Friday 3 April OK death of Jesus
20/21 34 Monday 22 March - death of Herod Philip
21/22 35 Monday 11 April -
Dates from the lunar calendars are easy to check because astronomical new moon
precedes 1 day the 1st day of each month, which was keyed on the 1st visible crescent. The
Hebrew lunar calendar sets the Passover at 14 Nisan, the traditional date of Jesus' death.
This date can be back-calculated by astronomy to the period beginning with the ministry of
Jesus in the year 15 of Tiberius (29 CE) until the end of the legation of Pontius Pilate (36
CE). In addition, the lunar eclipse requires dating Jesus' death on Friday 3 April 33 CE.
Thus, using chronological data from historical narratives requires knowledge of the
functioning of ancient calendars and also their changes over time, particularly with regard to
the duration and the exact beginning of the year, month and day. The only way to verify
their accuracy is to compare calendar dates with astronomical data calculated in the Julian
calendar, an astronomical calendar which serves as a reference. For some highly localized
astronomical phenomena such as eclipses (eg a solar eclipse lasts less than 8 minutes) it is
necessary to know not only the day but also the hour at which they occurred.
43 http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEcat5/LE0001-0100.html The maximum eclipse is at 14:47 UT and its beginning is set 86
minutes earlier, dated in Jerusalem at 15:41 (= 14:47 – 86 + 2:20).
44 J.P. PARISOT, F. SUAGHER - Calendriers et chronologie
Paris 1996 Éd. Masson pp. 164-166.

THE JULIAN (ASTRONOMICAL) CALENDAR
Joseph Scaliger proposed in 1583, one year after the creation of the Gregorian
calendar, a new way to calculate dates in astronomy: the Julian days. He chose the adjective
Julian in honour of his father, whose name was Jules (Julius as Caesar). Julian day refers to a
continuous count of days since the beginning of the Julian Period used primarily by
astronomers. The Julian Day Number (JDN) is the integer assigned to a whole solar day in
the Julian day count starting from noon Greenwich Mean Time (longitude 0°), with Julian
day number 0 assigned to the day starting at noon on 1 January, 4713 BCE proleptic Julian
calendar. The Julian Date (JD) of any instant is the Julian day number for the preceding
noon plus the fraction of the day since that instant. A Julian date is the continuous addition
of days since that reference date of 4713 BCE, with years of 365.25 days. Its greatest
advantage is enabling the synchronization of the multitude of ancient calendars (including
the old Julian calendar). Let us note that between 1 January of the year 1 BCE, and 1
January of year 1 CE, there were only 365 calendar days, that is one year (not two). Between
4713 BCE and 1770 there were 6482 years (= 4713 + 1770 - 1). Thus, noon on 1 January
1770 of the Julian calendar was the Julian day 2367551 (= 365.25 x 6482), while noon on 1
January 1770 of the Gregorian calendar (i.e. the same day) was the Julian day 2367540, due
to the 11 days removed during the introduction of the Gregorian calendar in England and
its American colonies in 1752.
Since 1972, the duration of the second in UTC (Coordinated Universal Time) was
fixed to the value determined by an average of atomic clocks (TAI: International Atomic
Time) around the world and leap seconds have been added to align to about 0.9 second the
UTC. This definition allows one to measure the time regardless of the slight slowing of the
Earth (about 1 second per year). The mean tropical year, as of 1st January 2000 was
365.2421897 or 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, 45.19 seconds (but it changes slowly)45. It is
called "tropical year", which is the time measured between two vernal equinoxes.
For practical reasons, the dates are presented in a standard pattern. Thus, 31
December 2001 at 11 o'clock, 59 minutes, 28 seconds and 73 hundredths (on the
Greenwich meridian) appears as: 2001-12-31 23:59:28.73 UTC and corresponds to the
Julian46 day 2452275.4996. Dates are expressed in the Gregorian calendar (introduced by
Pope Gregory XIII) from Friday, 5 October 1582, and in the Julian calendar for prior dates.
Thus we switch in 1582 from Thursday 4 October (Julian) to Friday 15 October
(Gregorian) corresponding to Friday 5 October 1582 (Julian). The Gregorian calendar was
introduced to correct the progressive advance of the Julian calendar (11 days in 1582)
compared to the spring equinox, which is astronomically fixed in the year.
To improve the synchronization of the Gregorian calendar with the tropical year 3
days must be removed every 400 years. A year becomes a leap year.
! if it is divisible by 4. A "29 February" is added and the year has 366 days instead of 365
(since 1996/4 = 499, 1996 is a leap year), except:
! if it is divisible by 100. This Gregorian year is a normal year of 365 days (for example
1900/100 = 19, so 1900 is a normal year), except:
! if it is divisible by 400 (for example 2000/400 = 5, 2000 is a leap year).
These three rules are designed to keep seasons close to fixed dates in the calendar, as
the spring equinox keyed on March 21, however this benchmark of spring varies slightly in
the Gregorian calendar.
45 The length in days for the distant past is: 365,2421905166 - 61,5607x10-6T - 68,4x10-9T2 + 263x10-9T3 + 3,2x10-9T4 where T is
in Julian centuries of 365,25 days measured from noon January 1, 2000 TT (in negative numbers for dates in the past).
46 http://www.nr.com/julian.html
For example the equinox of spring varies slightly in the
Gregorian calendar (green curve) and more strongly in the Julian
calendar (line in red), thus one day more should be added in year
3952 CE.
Calendar duration in days shift / tropical year
Lunar 354.36346 -10.88 days every year
Idealized 360 -5 days every year
Egyptian (civil) 365 -1 day every 4 years
Julian 365.25 +1 day every 128 years
Gregorian 365.2425 +1 day every 3,420 years
Tropical (in 1900) 365.24219647 +1 day every 160,256 years
The tropical year (which is observed) is not constant

because it decreases 0,539 s each year.
The Gregorian and Julian

calendars are solar calendars based on
calculation. They were created to
overcome both the difficulties in
observation and complexity to
synchronize the lunar year with the
length of the solar year. The original
calendars were for the most part drawn
from the observation, the year being
based on seasons (equinox or solstice),
the month coinciding with the lunar
cycle (new or full moon) and the day
being related to the daily cycle of the sun (sunrise or sunset or midday etc.). All these
astronomical cycles are more or less irregular and their exact durations are very complex to
calculate47. If the day is measured between two successive culminations of the sun, the
average duration is 24 hours, but varies by up to 15 minutes (see graph above), depending
on the time of year. The average length48 of the lunar month is 29.530288 days between two
successive new moons (or full moons), but can vary between values ranging from 29.2679
to 29.8376 days. The difficulties of observation led the Romans to replace their lunar
calendar (observed) by a calculated lunar calendar of 355 days and finally by a calculated
solar calendar. After 150 BCE, the year began at the winter solstice (25 December),
Mercedonius, an intercalary month of 22 or 23 days, being inserted every 2 years, the 6th day
before the Kalends of March, giving an average of 366.25 days for the year. After 46 BCE,
the intercalary month was deleted, the number of days of some months was changed and 1
day is added every 4 years (the 6th day before the calends of March). In addition, the year
began on January 1 and the spring equinox fell on 25 March. To resynchronize this calendar
the year 708 of Rome (46 BCE) lasted 455 days and was called the "year of confusion"
(which means that the Julian dates used by Roman historians can be shifted by 90 days in
some cases compared to UTC Julian dates). The pontiffs inserting 1 day every 3 years
instead of 4 and there were 12 leap years in 8 BCE instead of 9 planned which led Augustus
to remove the next leap years for 12 years. These reforms were discussed by Macrobius
47 A. DANJON – Astronomie Générale
Paris, 1994, Éd. Librairie scientifique et technique A. Blanchard.
48 This average varies slightly over time: D = 29,5305888531 + 216,21x10-9T – 0,364x10-9T2 with T = (JD - 2451545.0)/36525
and JD = Julian Day, thus D = 29,53058424 days in 1 CE (JD = 4713x365,25 ; T = -20).

(Saturnalia I:14), Censorinus (De Die Natali XX:8), Suetonius (Life of Julius Caesar XL),
Solin (De mirabilibus mundi I), Pliny the Elder (Natural History XVIII,LVII) and Dion
(Roman History XLIII:26). Chronology of pre-Julian calendars:
Lunar calendar (calculated) Solar calendar (calculated)
From 150 to 46 BCE Days From 46 to 8 BCE Days From 8 BCE to 1582 Days
XI IANVARIVS 29 IANVARIVS 31 IANVARIVS 31
XII FEBRVARIVS 28 FEBRVARIVS 29(/30) FEBRVARIVS 28(/29)
MERCEDONIVS (22/23)
I MARTIVS 31 MARTIVS 31 MARTIVS 31
II APRILIS 29 APRILIS 30 APRILIS 30
III MAIVS 31 MAIVS 31 MAIVS 31
IV IVNIVS 29 IVNIVS 30 IVNIVS 30
V QVINTILIS 31 IVLIVS 31 IVLIVS 31
VI SEXTLIS 29 SEXTLIS 30 AVGVSTVS 31
VII SEPTEMBER 29 SEPTEMBER 31 SEPTEMBER 30
VIII OCTOBER 31 OCTOBER 30 OCTOBER 31
IX NOVEMBER 29 NOVEMBER 31 NOVEMBER 30
X DECEMBER 29 DECEMBER 30 DECEMBER 31
All these variations show that historical dates from a calendar in a given time may be
different from the Julian (UTC) calendar. Through astronomy, it is possible to check the
accuracy of some of these ancient dates. For example, according to Roman authors, Julius
Caesar was assassinated on 15 March of the year 710 of Rome, or 15 March 44 BCE in the
old Julian calendar. However, according to astronomy, the vernal equinox fell on 23 March
in the Julian (UTC) calendar, implying a shift of 2 days from the official date of 25 March.
Consequently Julius Caesar died on 13 March 44 BCE in the Julian (UTC) calendar49. This
correction, inconsequential, especially enables one to check the consistency of dates.
Given that astronomical data depends on the place of observation, any point on the
Earth is defined by its longitude (from West to East) and latitude (from Equator to North
Pole). Equator is latitude 0° and Prime Meridian (Greenwich) is longitude 0°.
For example the latitude of Jerusalem is 31°46' (or 31.77°) North and its longitude is
35°14' (or 35.23°) East50 (1° = 60' =60x60"). As the Earth rotates on its axis once every 24
hours each degree of longitude is traversed in 4 minutes (= 24x60 minutes/360°). A
calculated phenomenon 0:00 Universal Time actually occurs in Jerusalem 2:21 Local Time
later (LT = UT + 2:21), because 2:21 = 141 minutes = 4 minutes x 35.23°. Eclipses occur
only when the earth, moon and sun are perfectly aligned, consequently, solar eclipses occur
only during the day (between sunrise and sunset) and lunar eclipses occur only during the
49 http://www.imcce.fr/page.php?nav=fr/ephemerides/astronomie/saisons/index.php
50 http://www.astro.com/cgi/aq.cgi?lang=e
night (between sunset and sunrise). For example, the lunar eclipse dated on 3 April 33 CE
occurred at 17:37:53 UT (maximum of eclipse) and its umbra (shadow) lasted 170 minutes51.
Using these figures the eclipse began at 16:13 UT (= 17:38 – 1:25; 1:25 = 85 = 170/2) and
ended at 19:03 UT (= 17:38 + 1:25), or from 18:34 LT (= 16:13 + 2:21) to 21:24 LT. After
clicking on Jerusalem, a software52 gives: sunrise at 5:25 LT and sunset at 17:59 LT,
consequently the lunar eclipse of 3 April 33 CE could have been seen in Jerusalem.
The main challenge for historians is not mastering the complex concepts of
astronomy, because at present powerful software easy to use is available on the internet, but
decrypting ancient texts to know whether they were describing symbolic or astronomical
phenomena. People once believed that the darkness of a celestial body (as was the case with
eclipses) was a bad omen for the king or the whole country, but on the other hand an
exceptional brightness (like a comet or meteor) was a good omen. Ancient texts describing
lunar eclipses speak of "veils of blood", solar eclipses are described by "the sun was
swallowed by the sky" or just a "bad omen from the sun". Ancient astronomical texts
describing eclipses are more scientific in their description, however when they are
connected to official kings list, errors may arise because co-regencies between kings and
(official) usurpers were systematically removed, which obviously changes the chronology.
Modern historians who naively trust in the Babylonians kings list don't believe that there
were co-regencies and likewise they believe that all those kings were legitimate because they
say so (the name Sargon means "legitimate king", actually because he was not). Comparing
of royal chronologies in different calendars, as well as some dated contracts, enables one to
find the genuine dates. The dating of Alexander's death is a good example and will illustrate
the difficulty in properly synchronizing multiple calendars in a given place. This famous
conqueror died in Babylon and luckily several official reports were written to date that
memorable day53, but it is clear that the multiplicity of dates raises problems. The cycle of
lunar months during the Babylonian period 323-319 BCE comes from the astronomical
tablets BM 34075 and BM 45962 (theoretical cycle is highlighted in grey):
Date (in 323 BCE) Calendar Source Julian date Lunar phase
29 Ayyaru Babylonian Tablet BM 34075 10/11 June 1st crescent
4 Pharmouthi Egyptian Pseudo Callisthenes 13 June
28 Daisios Macedonian* (old) Royal ephemeris 10 June
30 Daisios Macedonian (new) Aristobulus 12 June New moon
30 29 30 29 30 29 30 29 30 29 30 29 30
BCE I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIIa
323 [30] 29 30 30 30 30 29 30 29 29
322 29 30 30 [29] 30 29 30
321 30 30 [29] 30 29
320 29 30 [29] 30 29
319 30
The most reliable document is the Babylonian tablet dating the event on 29 Ayyaru
(from 10 June to June 11 at 18:00). In fact, the date of Alexander's death was immediately
known in Babylon as he died in that city. Astronomy confirms the length of the sequence of
9 consecutive months (below) in the Babylonian tablets. The spring equinox is dated on 25
March in 323 BCE (= -322) and the 1st lunar crescent of 12 April (day after the new moon,
highlighted in black)54 is dated on 13 April.
51 http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEcat5/LE0001-0100.html
52 http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/
53 E. GRZYBEK - Du calendrier macédonien au calendrier ptolémaïque
in: Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 20 Basel 1990 pp. 29-35.

Spring equinox Nisan (I)
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
March -322 April
Nisan (I) Iyyar (II)
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
May
Iyyar (II) Siwan (III)
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
June
Siwan (III) Tammuz (IV)
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
29 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
July
Tammuz (IV) Ab (V)
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
August
Ab (V) Elul (VI)
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2
September
Elul (VI) Tishri (VII)
25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3
October
Tishri Heshvan (VIII)
27 28 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5
November
Kislev (IX)
30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 1 2
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6
December
Tebeth (X) Shebat (XI)
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 1 2 29 1 2
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
January -321 February
This remarkable agreement shows two things: the Babylonian months were
determined by observation not by a theoretical calculation and the Babylonian priests were
good observers. As Aristobulus (Alexander's Secretary) also specifies that the death
occurred on the evening of June 10 (after 18:00) it matches the 29 Daisios. The difference
with the 30 Daisios received various explanations55. Depuydt56 having noticed that the
indication of Alexander's death was recorded in the late 29th Ayyaru observations, the date
could only have been June 11 around 17:00. In fact, this conclusion is not logical because
extra astronomical comments could be recorded at the end but not during the account of
observations because they were known only after a while. In addition, can we talk about
evening at 17:00? Plutarch states: He [Alexander] gave a splendid entertainment to Nearchus, and
then, although he had taken his customary bath before going to bed, at the request of Medius he went to hold
high revel with him; and here, after drinking all the next day, he began to have a fever. This did not come
upon him after he had quaffed a "bowl of Heracles," nor after he had been seized with a sudden pain in the
back as though smitten with a spear; these particulars certain writers felt obliged to give, and so, as it were,
invented in tragic fashion a moving finale for a great action. But Aristobulus says that he had a raging fever,
and that when he got very thirsty he drank wine, whereupon he became delirious, and died on the 30th day of
the month Daisios. Moreover, in the court "Journals" there are recorded the following particulars regarding
his sickness (...) on the 28th, towards evening, he died (Life of Alexander 75:4-76:1). According to
the pseudo-Callisthenes, Alexander died at sunset (Alexander Romance III:35), thus
Alexander died shortly after sunset (c. 18:00). The disagreement between the two dates, 28
and 30 Daisios, can be explained by reference to two Macedonian calendars: the old one
55 H. HAUBEN - La chronologie macédonienne et ptolémaïque mise à l'épreuve
in: Chronique d'Égypte LXVII (1992) fasc. 133 pp. 146,147.
56 L. DEPUYDT - The Time of Death of Alexander the Great: 11 June 323 BC, ca 4:00-5:00 PM
in: Die Welt des Orients 28 (1997) pp. 117-135.

with the 30th, which started at sunset, and the new one with the 28th, which began at sunrise.
In addition, in the Greek calendar the last day of the month (29 or 30) was called the 30th.
Plutarch relates: Aristander the seer made a sacrifice, and after taking the omens, declared very
confidently to the bystanders that the city would certainly be captured during that month. His words
produced laughter and jesting, since it was then the last [29th] day of the month, and the king, seeing that he
was perplexed, and being always eager to support his prophecies, gave orders to reckon that day, not as the
30th of the month, but as the 28th (Life of Alexander 25:1-2). Prolonging the month by 1 day
allowed the prediction to come true but did not affect the calendar57.
Calendar death
(in 323 BCE) 00---6:00---12:00---18:00---24 00---6:00---12:00---18:00---24 00
1 Julian (astronomical) 9 June --> <----------- 10 June ----------> <----------- 11 June ---------->
2 Natural (Day/Night) Night Day X Day Night
3 Babylonian <-------- 28 Ayyaru --------> <-------- 29 Ayyaru ---------> <1- Simanu
4 Macedonian* (old) <-------- 28 Daisios --------> <-------"30" Daisios -------> <1- Panemos
5 Macedonian (new) 27 Daisios -> <-------- 28 Daisios ---------> <-------- 29 Daisios -------->
6 Egyptian (civil) 30 Phamenoth -> <------- 1 Pharmouthi------> <------- 2 Pharmouthi ------->
The 4 Pharmouthi corresponded to 13 June in 323 BCE58! One way to resolve this
discrepancy is to assume that the original date was the 1 Pharmouthi and it was damaged (in
Greek) according to the following process: Pharmouthi A became Pharmouthi Δ and then
Pharmouthi tetradi. This explanation, however, requires a synchronization between the
Macedonian and Egyptian calendars, which is unlikely because of the large distance between
the cities of Babylon and Alexandria. It is nevertheless quite possible that the news of
Alexander's death reached Alexandria 4 days later. Indeed, these two cities are separated by
about 1700 km by land routes, it took at least 4 days for the royal steeds, moving at an
average speed of 15.3 km/h59 to deliver this exceptional news. For example, the death of
Alexander which was announced on 01/III/1 in Babylon was known on 05/III/1 in
Idumea, that implies 5 days to cover about 1800 kilometres60. Under these conditions, the 4
Pharmouthi could match the 29 Ayyaru 4 days later, because of the delay from travel Even
in the best case where two calendars (Egyptian and Macedonian) would have been available
at the same place, the synchronization of dates remained difficult. The Rosetta Stone, for
example, is an official document, precisely and doubly dated, it reads: Ptolemy, living forever,
beloved of Ptah, in his year 9 (...) the 4 of month Xandikos, corresponding to the Egyptians to the 18th day
of Mecheir61. This dating is surprising because the year 9 of Ptolemy (196 BCE) began actually
on 1 Thoth (11 October 197 BCE) and ends on next 1 Thoth (11 October 196 BCE), thus
18 Mecheir matches to 27 March. The Macedonian calendar began with the month of Dios
keyed on the autumnal equinox which began on 26 September in 197 BCE. The 1st lunar
crescent after the equinox (= 1st Dios) is dated 25 October 197 BCE and the 1st visible
crescent of the 6th month (Xandikos) is dated 22 March 196 BCE. Consequently the 4
Xandikos corresponds to the 25 March 196 BCE. There are 2 days difference from the 27
March from the Egyptian calendar. A clerical error in an official document is quite unlikely,
this difference of 2 days proves that Greek calendars were sketchy. In fact, the Greek lunar
months were not set on observation but seem to alternate regularly between months of 29
57 As the normal sequence 29*-30 became artificially 30*-29.
58 http://www.chronosynchro.net/wordpress/convertisseur/
59 A.E. MINETTI - Physiology: efficiency of equine express postal systems
in: Nature n° 426 (18 décembre 2003) pp. 785-786.

60 T. BOIY – Between High and Low. A Chronology of the Early Hellenistic Period
Leuven 2007 Ed. VerlagAntike pp. 130-131.

61 C. ANDREWS – La Pierre de Rosette
London 1993 Ed. British Museum Press p. 26.

and 30 days, which could induce a shift (sometimes up to 10 days!) with astronomical
observations62. The Battle of Gaugamela, which Darius III lost against Alexander the Great,
dated in Athenian and Babylonian calendars, illustrates the inaccuracy of the Greek
calendar. According to an astronomical diary, this famous battle is dated 24/VI in the 5th
year of Darius (1 October 331 BCE)63 just after the lunar eclipse of 13/VI. According to
Plutarch: on the 6th day of the month of Boedromion the Greeks defeated the Persians at Marathon, on the
3rd day at Plataea and Mycale together, and on the 26th day at Arbela [Gaugamela]. Moreover, it was
about full moon of the same month that the Athenians won their sea-fight off Naxos (Life of Camillus
19:3). He states: It so happened that in the month Boedromion the moon suffered an eclipse, about the
beginning of the Mysteries at Athens, and on the 11th night after the eclipse (Life of Alexander 31:8).
These details show that the Babylonian calendar was keyed on the first visible crescent (in
331 BCE), while the Athenian calendar, which was keyed on the new moon was in advance
of two days compared to the Babylonian calendar.
331 BCE Julian Astronomy Babylonian Athenian
September 6 New moon 29 1
7 Astronomical crescent 30 2
8 1st visible crescent 1 3
9 2 4
10 3 5
11 4 6
12 5 7
13 6 8
14 7 9
15 8 10
16 9 11
17 10 12
18 11 13
19 12 14
20 Eclipse of the moon 13 15 0
21 14 16 1
22 15 17 2
23 16 18 3
24 17 19 4
25 18 20 5
26 19 21 6
27 20 22 7
28 21 23 8
29 22 24 9
30 23 25 10
October 1 24 26 11
2 25 27
Some historians, knowing the difference between Greek calendars and astronomy,
referred sometimes to it for clarification. Thucydides wrote, for example, new month depending
on the moon (The Peloponnesian War II:28, IV:52). Josephus is also obliged to specify: in the
month Xanthicos, on the 15th day of the lunar month (...) In the month of Xanthicos, which is by us called
Nisan, and is the beginning of our year, on the 14th day of the lunar month, when the sun is in Aries
(Jewish Antiquities II:318, III:248), suggesting a difference between the official month and
the astronomical lunar month. This simple overview illustrates this: the precise dating of a
well referenced event, even in several calendars, brings up complex problems because our
understanding of ancient calendars is approximate and the synchronization of a date in
multiple calendars, even for a event as important as the death of Alexander, remains
difficult and approximate to within plus or minus few days.
63 J.A. BRINKMAN - BM 36761, the Astronomical Diary for 331 B.C.
in: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires (1987) §63.

Large distances between Upper and Lower Egypt made it difficult to synchronize the
calendar throughout the whole territory even inside the country64. To determine the
beginning of the solar year the Egyptians referred to the rising of Sirius, which was
appearing at that time on approximately c. 19 July in the Julian calendar. Despite the
importance of this day in their calendar, since it coincided with the beginning of the Nile
flood, they never mentioned that the Sothic rising was observed a day late by degree of
latitude, involving a delay of 7 days between the observatory of Elephantine (24°) and the
one of Buto (31°)65. The Persian Empire being larger than Egypt, it was impossible to
synchronize the lunar calendar over the whole territory since a courrier needed on average
one month to reach the ends of the empire. The Persians, though they had a Royal Mail
known for its speed66, needed however at least two weeks to deliver an outstanding new
event throughout the whole empire.
The royal road from Susa to Sardis, 2750 km long, could be covered in about 10 days
by postal couriers who were moving at an average speed of 15.3 km/h. This duration67
could even go down to less than one week if the couriers were taking turns day and night,
as Xenophon claims (Cyropaedia VIII:6:17-18). Despite this performance, the
synchronization of local calendars from a single city remained an impossible feat to achieve,
even for two cities as close as Susa and Babylon about 400 km apart, because the new moon
was determined each month through an observation and not through a theoretical
computation as the Metonic cycle that would have predicted dates in advance68. If a scribe
of Susa, the day after the 29 Ayyaru, had to wait for the response of Babylonian priests to
determine whether the day was 30 Ayyaru or 1st Simanu he could not date his writings for 2
days. This delay amounted to 4 days for the cities of Susa and Persepolis about 800 km
apart. Actually for practical reasons, each satrapy had to deal with the management of its
own lunar calendar (through the temples). The synchronization was actually obtained by
observation. These examples show that the calendars of the past depended on local
observation. Concerning the Greek calendar it was reformed about 520 BCE and according
to Censorinus, Cleostrate of Tenedos introduced at that time an intercalation cycle of 8-
year. Several astronomers then proposed other systems of intercalation: 19-year cycle of
Meton in 433 BCE, 76-year cycle of Calippe in 330 BCE and 304-year cycle of Hipparchus
in 125 BCE. These reforms, which were in fact only theoretical, confirm that throughout
the Classical period (500-323) the Greek calendar was in practice not very accurate (+/- 5
days), as Aristoxenus of Tarentum (355-300?) confirms: Moreover, the data from physicists about
tones is perfectly analogous to the marching of days. For example, when the Corinthians count the 10th day
[of month], the Athenians count the 5th and some other peoples the 8th (Harmonic Elements II:22).
Likewise Plutarch (46-125) adds: This battle [of Marathon] was fought on the 4th of the month
Boëdromion, as the Athenians reckon time; but according to the Boeotian calendar, on the 27th of the month
Panemus, the day when, down to the present time, the Hellenic council assembles in Plataea, and the
Plataeans sacrifice to Zeus the Deliverer for the victory. We must not wonder at the apparent discrepancy
between these dates, since, even now that astronomy is a more exact science, different peoples have different
beginnings and endings for their months. (Life of Aristides XIX:7). According to R.F. Avienus
64 W.A. WARD - The Present Status of Egyptian Chronology
in: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 288 (1991) pp. 53-66.
65 A.S. VON BOMHARD - Le calendrier Égyptien. Une œuvre d'éternité
London 1999 Ed. Periplus pp. 46,47.

66 P. BRIANT - Histoire de l'empire perse. De Cyrus à Alexandre
Paris 1996 Éd. Fayard pp. 382,383.

67 B. LAFONT - Messagers
in: Dictionnaire de la civilisation mésopotamienne (Laffont, 2001) p. 526-528.

68 In the Metonic cycle each 64th day was taken away to the months of 30 days, which was disrupting the regular alternation
30/29 by a couple 30/30 every 15 months.

Plataeans sacrifice to Zeus the Deliverer for the victory. We must not wonder at the apparent discrepancy
between these dates, since, even now that astronomy is a more exact science, different peoples have different
beginnings and endings for their months. (Life of Aristides XIX:7). According to R.F. Avienus
(The(The prognostics
prognostics ofofAratus),
Aratus),the theonly
onlyreform
reformof of the
the Greek
Greek calendar was was the the synchronizing
synchronizing
of of
thearchontic
archonticyear year(which
(which beganbegan at the winter
at the solstice
winter priorprior
solstice 433 BCE) with the
433 BCE) withOlympic year
the Olympic
year(starting
(startingat atsolstice summer).
the solstice Diodorus
of summer). states that
Diodorus it that
states tookitplace in 432in BCE
took place on 13
432 BCE on
13 Scirophorion
Scirophorion(= (= 28
28 June
June == summer
summer solstice)
solstice) of
of the
the Athenian
Athenian calendar
calendar(Historical
(HistoricalLibrary
Library
XII:36:1-3).
XII:36:1-3). ThisThis multiplicity
multiplicity of of calendars
calendars lasted
lasted until
until 100100 BCE,
BCE, prior
prior it eacheach
to which city city
had had
its
6469
its own
own wayway of counting
counting days,
days, starting,
starting, naming
naming andand intercalating
intercalatingmonths
months . .The Thefollowing
followinglist
list
70 65 stst
of of somecalendars
some calendarsillustrates
illustrates the thecomplexity
complexity of of the
the situation
situation (the 11 month month ofof each
each
calendar
calendar is month
is month 1 andallallcalendars
1 and calendarsare arealigned
alignedononthat
thatofofAthens).
Athens).
TheThe Greek Greekcalendar started

calendar started(from(from
520 BCE) at theatfirst
520 BCE) thenewfirstmoonnew after
moontheaftersummer
the
solstice (28 June) in Athens, Delphi and Epidaurus, after
summer solstice (28 June) in Athens, Delphi and Epidaurus, after the autumnal equinox (28 the autumnal equinox (28
September)
September) in in
Rhodes,
Rhodes,Cos Cosand andMacedonia,
Macedonia,atatthe the winter
winter solstice (28 December)
solstice (28 December)ininDelos, Delos,
andand afterafterthethespring
springequinox
equinox(26 (26March)
March) inin Babylonia
Babylonia and Miletus. In
and Miletus. In addition,
addition, these
these
calendars
calendars usedweretheusing
samethe month
same names,
month but
names,placed
but at different
placed times of
at different the year.
times of theTheyear.month
The
st nd th
Panemos,
month Panemos,for example,for was
example,the 1
was month
the 1st of the
month year
of in
the Cos,
year inthe 2
Cos, thein Thessaly,
2nd
in the
Thessaly, 5 thein
th th th
Miletus,
th the 6 in
5 in Miletus, theDelos,
th the 9 the
6 in Delos, in Macedonia
th
9 in Macedonia and inandBoeotia, the 10
in Boeotia, the 10 in Rhodes
th
in Rhodes andand
the
th
12 thein 12 Aetolia.
th The Greek
in Aetolia. astronomer
The Greek Geminos
astronomer of Rhodes
Geminos (80-10?)
of Rhodes also states
(80-10?) that some
also states that
Greeks were content to alternate months of 29 and 30
some Greeks were content to alternate months of 29 and 30 days, and thus the first days, and thus the first crescent
could fall between
crescent could fall 1 and 3 of the
between 1 and month 3 of(Introduction to phenomena
the month (Introduction VIII:34, IX:14).
to phenomena This
VIII:34,
multiplicity of calendars is surprising because many Greek cities
IX:14). This multiplicity of calendars is surprising because many Greek cities were closely were closely related to the
satrapy of Sardis (directly connected to the Persian capital Susa which used a Babylonian
64W. KENDRICK PRITCHETT – Athenian Calendars andstEkklesias
calendar
Amsterdamwell synchronized
Ed. J.C. Gieben Publisher pp.on
6-11.the 1 lunar crescent). Several difficulties complicate the
dating:
65E.J. B the year beginning was different depending on the system of dating, the year
ICKERMAN - Chronology of the Ancient World
duration was different depending on eras. In addition these systems evolved over time (that
partially put them out of sync). The year of Rome, for example, which should have started
on 21 April began in fact, for practical reasons, on 1st January. The Olympic year began
from the 1st full moon after the summer solstice (28 June), the Seleucid era began on 1st
69 W. KENDRICK PRITCHETT – Athenian Calendars and Ekklesias
Amsterdam Ed. J.C. Gieben Publisher pp. 6-11.

Tishri in Macedonia (7 October 312 BCE), but on 1st Nisan in Babylonia (3 April 311
BCE). In addition, the duration and beginning of the year varied over time. The Roman
year, for example, gradually moved from an observed lunisolar year (beginning at the winter
solstice) into a computed solar year which began on 1st January. The Greeks remained
faithful to a lunisolar year first observed, then computed, but the intercalary month was
added in a lax manner and variably. We understand better why Thucydides (460-398),
despite his desire of accuracy, could not use a Greek reference calendar as well as the
remark of Herodotus (484-425) who lamented about the functioning of the Greek calendar.
Thucydides is obliged to specify: new month according to the Moon (The Peloponnesian War
II:28) to mark the difference between the 1st day of the month and the 1st visible crescent
(or new moon). Greek months usually beginning at the new moon, the Greek word neomenie
"new month" was understood as "new moon" and it is in this sense that Thucydides used it
(The Peloponnesian War IV:52). Herodotus and Thucydides knew Persian and Babylonian
calendars since they mention them but these systems were not employed in Greece, despite
the superiority of their functioning because the concept of a universal calendar did not exist
at that time, only a calendar related to a king or city made sense. The unreliability of the
Greek calendar in its counting of days and months handicapped the Greek historians, then
Roman, at least until the beginning of our era. Diodorus of Sicily (90-21 BCE), for example,
managed to synchronize the Greek archontic years with the Roman consular year only
about 8 years. Herodotus, the father of History, was the first who understood the crucial
role of chronology to authenticate historical narratives. However, he had to face a technical
problem for dating events: the lack of a universal calendar, which forced him to invent a
dating system based on Olympiads, eponymous archons, periods from well-known events
such as: battles, King's deaths, religious festivals, eclipses, etc71.
The Greeks knew various calendars but Herodotus explains why he did not used
them: these calendars gave dates only on months and days, but not on years or eras and the
same dating of an event varied according to Greek cities (The Histories I:32, II:4).
Thucydides too, despite his strong desire for accuracy, didn’t use any of them. At the
beginning of his account, he explained his way of proceeding: Here is the account of operations,
written in chronological order, by winter [from autumn equinox] and by summer [from spring equinox]. The
peace, which after the winning of Eubœa, was concluded for 30 years, lasted 14 years. But in the 15th year,
being the 48th of the priesthood of Chrysis in Argos: Ænesias being then ephor at Sparta, and Pythodorus
being, 4 months yet archon of Athens, in the 6th month after the battle at Potidæa and in the beginning of
the spring (...) The same summer, at the beginning of a new lunar month, the only time by the way at which
it appears possible, the sun was eclipsed after noon. After it had assumed the form of a crescent and some of
the stars had come out, it returned to its natural shape (The Peloponnesian War II:1-2; 28). All this
detailed information enable us to reconstruct an absolute chronology. According to the list
of Athenian archons72, Pythodorus was archon in 432-431 BC and the solar eclipse
observed near Athens, among all the solar eclipses between 440 and 420 BCE visible near
Athens which took place in the afternoon73, is dated 3 August 431 BCE. This eclipse fits
well with the description given by Thucydides74, its magnitude was 0.88 in Athens at 17:30
LT75 (0.96 in Babylon at 19:00 LT).
71 Olympiads (Enquête II:160, V:22, VI:127, VII:206, VIII:72, IX:33); eponymous archons (Enquête VIII:51; 131); periods (Enquête
I:209, II:142, III:14,67); batlles (Enquête VI:117); King's death (Enquête VII:1-7); religious festivals (Enquête VII:206, VIII:72); solar
eclipses (Enquête I:74, VII:37?, IX:10?).
72 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archon_of_Athens
73 http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEatlas/SEatlas-1/SEatlas-0439.GIF
74 F.R. STEPHENSON - Historical Eclipses and Earth's Rotation

75 http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsearch/SEsearchmap.php?Ecl=-04300803
Thucydides also says that a treaty with Darius II (424-405), in his 13th year of reign,
was concluded during the spring of the 20th year and the last year of the war when
Alexippidas was ephor (The Peloponnesian War VIII:58-60), in the spring 411 BCE
because Alexippidas was ephor from September 412 to September 411 BCE and Darius II
began his 13th year of reign on 1st Nisan (29 March 411 BCE). A difficulty arises because
Thucydides says that the treaty was concluded in late winter (spring equinox) and therefore
before 26 March 411 BCE, slightly before the beginning of the 13th year of Darius II. Some
have speculated that this was the 13th year reckoned from the date of accession to the
throne76, but this is without parallel. Actually, the 13th year of Darius began either on 1st
Nisan (Babylonian New Year) or on 1st Thoth (4 December 412 BCE)77 in Egypt78. The
spring equinox was used to separate winter from summer in Greece. Thucydides begins, for
example, the 8th year by linking it with a solar eclipse: Thus the winter ended, and with it ended the
7th year of this war of which Thucydides is the historian. In first days of the next summer there was an
eclipse of the sun at the time of new moon, and in the early part of the same month an earthquake (The
Peloponnesian War IV:51-52). There was indeed a partial solar eclipse on 21 March 424
BCE in Athens (0.71 magnitude)79. Thus the first days of summer ranging from 21 to 26
March. However, as the 13th year of Darius II had a 2nd Adar (month 12b), 1st Nisan was
therefore shifted one month and started on February 27 and not on 29 March (411 BCE).
The contract dated 24/12b/14 of Darius II should be read 24/12b/13! as the previous
intercalary year was in year 1080. Thus, the treaty was concluded in 411 BCE between 27
February and 26 March. Given its reliability why did Thucydides not use archon years more
often? It is because the archons took their office in January until 433 BCE, but to
synchronize archontic years with Olympic years, the Greeks decided, from Apseudes, that
archons would take their office along with the Olympiads (in July):
Year Athenian archon Roman consuls Olympiad Year of Year of
BCE Rome Seleucid era
435 Antiochides Caius Iulius Iullus II 86:1 319 -122
Lucius Verginius Tricostus I 86:2
434 Chares Caius Iulius Iullus III 320 -121
Lucius Verginius Tricostus II 86:3
433 Apseudes Military tribune 321 -120
with consular power 86:4
432 Military tribune 322 -119
Pythodorus with consular power 87:1
431 Titus Quinctius Poenus Cincinnatus 323 -118
Euthydemus Cnaeus Iulius Mento 87:2
430 Lucius Papirius Crassus II 324 -117
Apollodorus Lucius Iulius Iullus 87:3
The remark of Thucydides: Pythodorus being 4 months yet archon of Athens, involves dating
the beginning of the 1st year of the Peloponnesian War about March 431 BCE, which
actually corresponds to the beginning of the summer (spring equinox). The recent change in
reckoning of archontic years also explains why Thucydides did not consider appropriate to
use a system which was still evolving at his time.
76 L. DEPUYDT - Evidence for Accession Dating under the Achaemenids
in: Journal of the American Oriental Society 115/2 (1995) pp. 193-204.
77 http://www.chronosynchro.net/wordpress/convertisseur
78 L. DEPUYDT - Regnal Years and Civil Calendar in Achaemenid Egypt
in: The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 81 (1995) pp. 151-173.

79 http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsearch/SEsearchmap.php?Ecl=-04230321
80 V. SCHEIL – Notules
in: Revue d'Assyriologie et d'Archéologie Oriental 16, 1919, pp. 111-112.

BCE month [A] [B] [C] [D] [E]
432 1 X 322 -119 1 [A] Archon Apseudes
2 XI
3 XII
4 I 2 [E] Darius B (Babylonian year)
5 II
6 III
7 IV [A] Archon Pythodorus
8 V
9 VI
10 VII -118 [D] Year of Seleucid era
11 VIII
12 IX
431 1 X 323 [C] Year of Rome
2 XI
3 XII 1 1 [B] 1st year of the Peloponnesian war
4 I 2 3
5 II 3
6 III 4
7 IV [A] Archon Euthydemus
8 V *** Solar eclipse dated 3 August 431 BCE
9 VI
10 VII -117
11 VIII
12 IX
Thus the chronology reconstituted by Greek historians is accurate and reliable81.

However, when they began (mainly from 330 BCE) to harmonize their chronology with
that from the Babylonian king lists, a major disagreement arose (highlighted in orange):
King (according to Greek historians) Reign King (according to Babylonian King Lists) Reign
Cyrus II 539-530 Cyrus II 539-530
Cambyses II 530-522 Cambyses II 530-522
Bardiya (usurper during 7 months) 522-521 Darius I 522 -
Darius I 522-486 -486
Xerxes I (coregency with Darius) 496-475 Xerxes I 486 -
Artabanus (usurper) 475-474 - -465
Artaxerxes I 475-434 Artaxerxes I 465 -
Darius B (coregency with Artaxerxes) 434-426 -
Artaxerxes I 426-425 -
Xerxes II (45 days reign not reckoned) 425-424 -
Sogdianus (usurper during 6.5 months) 424-424 - -424
Darius II 424-405 Darius II 424-405
The Babylonian chronology from King Lists, used in Ptolemy's Canon, is wrong
because there are no coregents and usurpers82. One has to know that very early, historians
modified the Greek chronology in order83 to fit it on Babylonian chronology, creating a
great confusion over the period 475-455 BCE. For example, the battle of the Eurymedon
between the Delian League of Athens and its Allies, and the Persian Empire of Xerxes I —
essential step of Greco-Persian relations— is fixed, according to modern authors, at
extreme dates from 476 BCE to 462 BCE84. According to Diodorus of Sicily, the battle of
the Eurymedon took place under the archonship of Demotion, in 470 BCE, but also under
the consulship of Publius Valerius Publicola and Gaius Nautius Rufus, in 475 BCE
81 M.S. KOUTORGA - Recherches critiques sur l'histoire de la Grèce, pendant la période des guerres médiques
in: Mémoires présentés par divers savants à l'Académie royale des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres de l'Institut de France, 1re série. t. VII, Paris 1861.
82 T. BOIY – Between High and Low. A Chronology of the Early Hellenistic Period
2007 Leuven Ed. Verlag Antike pp. 95-131.


84 P. BRIANT, P. LEVEQUE, P. BRULE, R. DESCAT, M.M. MACTOUX - Le monde grec Tome 1

(Historical Library XI:60-61). In fact the Roman chronology of Diodorus was shifted from
5 to 8 years over this period around 465 BCE85. Diodorus (Historical Library I:68:6) dated
the beginning of the Persian domination in Egypt in the 3rd year of the 63rd Olympiad [in
526 BCE] and the end in the archonship of Euclid [in 403 BCE], or in the year 2 of
Artaxerxes II, when Amyrtaeus had become the new pharaoh of the XXVIII dynasty
(Historical Library XIV:11:1-12:1, I:44:3). This data taken from his Greek chronology is
accurate, however, Diodorus wrote in summary: The Persians were the masters, after King
Cambyses had subjected the nation by force of arms, for 135 years, contradicting his own
chronological calculations (length of 123 years between 526 and 403 BCE). In fact, the total
period of 123 years corresponds to an amount calculated with a 40-year reign for Artaxerxes
I, while that of 135 years corresponds to an actual reign of 51 years. Diodorus compiled
numerous data, probably thanks to an Egyptian informer (Historical Library III:11), without
trying to harmonize it.
Length according to: dated event: official reign actual reign Reign
Cambyses II (in Egypt)* 526 - 6* years 6* years [526-521]*
Darius I 36 years 36 years 522-486
Xerxes I 20 years 21 years 496-475
Artaxerxes I 40 years 51 years 475-424
Darius II 19 years 19 years 424-405
Artaxerxes II (in Egypt) -403 2 years 2 years 405-[403]
Total: 123 years 123 years 135 years 526-403
The previous example highlights several points: the using of chronological data from
historical narratives requires a good understanding of how usurpers, co-regencies and
parallel dynasties (instead of consecutive) have biased official chronologies, in addition,
former historians have compiled many documents of different origin (Greek, Babylonian,
Egyptian, Persian) without knowing how ancient reigns had been reckoned, as accession
years (with or without), beginning of regnal years (on 1st Nisan, 1st Tishri, 1st Thot), etc.
The only way to get an absolute chronology is the dating of some historical
synchronisms by astronomy. For example, the partial eclipse in year 7 of Cambyses II
(tablet BM 33066) may be dated 523 BCE July 16/17 [mag. 0.54] and the total eclipse 522
BCE January 9/10. Claudius Ptolemy had to have known the original tablet because he gave
the right magnitude of 0.50 for the partial eclipse (Almagest V:14). Another astronomical
tablet (BM 36879) describes the eclipses in years 1-4 of Cambyses II, dated by astronomy in
529-526 BCE86. An astronomical journal (BM 38462) list some lunar eclipses in the years 1
to 27 of Nebuchadnezzar which are dated from 604 to 578 BCE87. Other dated lunar
eclipses88 are these of year 1 and 2 of Merodachbaladan (19/20 March 721 BCE, 8/9 March
and 1/2 September 720 BCE); year 5 of Nabopolassar (21/22 April 621 BCE); year 2 of
Šamaš-šuma-ukîn (10/11 April 666 BCE) and year 42 of Nebuchadnezzar (2/3 March 562
BCE). A diary (VAT 4956)89 contains numerous astronomical conjunctions in years 37 and
38 of Nebuchadnezzar dated from astronomy in 568 and 567 BCE. Babylonian and Greek
chronologies give the same results, except for the death of Xerxes: 465 or 475 BCE?
85 J. HAILLET - Diodore de Sicile Bibliothèque historique livre XI.
Paris 2001 Éd. Les Belles Lettres pp. XV-XX; XXVII-XXXII.
86 P.J. HUBER, S. DE MEIS – Babylonian Eclipse Observations from 750 BC to 1 BC
Milano 2004 Ed. Mimesis pp. 94-96.

87 H. HUNGER - Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia vol. V n° 6
Wien 2001 Ed. Akademie der Wissenschaften pp. 27-30,396.

Cambridge 1997 Ed. Cambridge University Press pp. 99-100, 151-152, 166-167, 206.
89 A.J. SACHS, H. HUNGER - Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia vol. I
Wien 1988 Ed. Akademie der Wissenschaften (n° -567).

XERXES, DID HE DIE IN 465 BCE (KING LISTS) OR 475 BCE (THUCYDIDES)?
For example, Herodotus says that Xerxes prepared his campaign against Greece one
year after Darius' death (486 BCE) and the crushing of an Egyptian revolt (The Histories
VII:7). He explained that after the Egyptian revolt (in 485 BCE), Xerxes began his
campaign (Battle of Salamis) at the end of the 5th year (480 BCE) in the archonship of
Calliades (The Histories VII:20; VIII:51) and during (the 73rd) Olympic games (The
Histories VII:206). The following year there was the battle of Plataea (479 BCE) when
Xanthippus was archon (The Histories VIII:131). One can see that all historical data
provided by Herodotus is coherent. In the same way it is possible to check data coming
from various historians.
Year Athenian Roman consuls Olympiad Year of Year of
BCE archon Rome Seleucid era
481 HypsichidesKaeso Fabius Vibulanus II 72:4 273 -168
Spurius Furius Fusus
480 Calliades Marcus Fabius Vibulanus II 73:1 274 -167
Cnaeus Manlius Cincinnatus
479 Xanthippus Kaeso Fabius Vibulanus III 73:2 275 -166
Titus Verginius Tricostus Rutilus
478 Timosthenes Lucius Aemilius Mamercinus II 73:3 276 -165
Caius Servilius Structus Ahala*
477 Adimantus Caius Horatius Pulvillus I 73:4 277 -164
Titus Menenius Agrippae Lanatus
476 Phaedon Aulus Verginius Tricostus Rutilus 74:1 278 -163
Spurius Servilius Priscus Structus
475 Dromoclides Publius Valerius Publicola I 74:2 279 -162
Caius Nautius Rutilus I
474 Acestorides Aulus Manlius Vulso 74:3 280 -161
Lucius Furius Medullinus
473 Menon Lucius Aemilius Mamercinus III 74:4 281 -160
Vopiscus Iulius Iullus
472 Chares Lucius Pinarius Mamercinus Rufus 75:1 282 -159
Publius Furius Medullinus Fusus
471 Praxiergus Titus Quinctius Capitolinus Barbatus I 75:2 283 -158
Appius Claudius Crassinus Regillensis Sabinus
According to Thucydides: Themistocles manifested a desire to visit the king of Persia (...) The
storm caused the vessel to drift towards the camp of the Athenians who then besieged Naxos (...)
Accompanied by a Persian coast, then he penetrated into the interior of the country and sent to Artaxerxes,
who had succeeded Xerxes, his father a letter (The Peloponnesian War I:98;137). Therefore, he
reports the fall of Naxos after the one of Skyros dated at the beginning of the archonship of
Phaedon (476 BCE), according to Plutarch (Life of Theseus §§35,36). Thus, the meeting
with Themistocles would have occurred soon after 475/474 BCE. Furthermore,
Themistocles died under the archonship of Praxiergus (471 BCE), according to Diodorus
Siculus (Historical Library XI:54-60), and Herodotus situated the transfer of power from
Darius to Xerxes at the time of the revolt of Egypt (The Histories VII:1-4), 4 years after
Marathon (in 490 BCE) and the change Xerxes/ Artaxerxes shortly after the storming of
Eion [in 476 BCE], the last event of the reign of Xerxes (The Histories VII:106-107).
If Artaxerxes began his reign in 465 BCE, Themistocles, who died in 471 BCE, could
not have met him. Aware of this aberration, many historians today reject the death of
Themistocles in 460 or even in 450 BCE. But this choice comes up against a problem: the
life of Themistocles is well documented. This paradox is not new, as already evoked by
Cornelius Nepos: I know most historians have related that Themistocles went over into Asia in the reign
of Xerxes, but I give credence to Thucydides in preference to others, because he, of all who have left records of
that period, was nearest in point of time to Themistocles, and was of the same city (Life of Themistocles
IX). Plutarch says: Thucydides and Charon of Lampsacus say that Xerxes was dead, and that
Themistocles had an interview with his son; but Ephorus, Dinon, Clitarchus, Heraclides, and many others,
write that he came to Xerxes. The chronological tables better agree with the account of Thucydides, and yet
neither can their statements be said to be quite set at rest (Life of Themistocles XXVII). Cicero
relates: Who was more eminent in Greece than Themistocles, who more powerful? But he, after having
saved Greece from slavery by his leadership in the war with Persia, and after having been banished because
of his unpopularity, would not submit to the injustice of an ungrateful country, as he was in duty bound to
do: he did the same thing that Coriolanus had done among our people 20 years before. Not one single
supporter could be found to aid these men against their country; therefore, each took his own life (Laelius
on Friendship XII§42). Livy (Roman History II:34-39) dates precisely the life of
Coriolanus, indicating that he betrayed in the consulship of Marcus Minucius and Aulus
Sempronius (491 BCE) and died 3 years later when Spurius Nautius and Sextus Furius were
consuls (488 BCE). The parallel between these two famous men who had a similar purpose
would involve the death of Themistocles around 468 BCE. Plutarch also says that
Themistocles ended his days in the city of Magnesia, having lived 65 years (Life of Themistocles III;
XXXI). According to Cornelius Nepos, Themistocles and Aristides were about the same
age (Aristides I:1). Elien says: Themistocles, and Aristides Son of Lysimachus, had the same
Governours, they were also brought up together, and taught by one Master, but whilest yet Boyes, they were
alwaies at variance ; and this emulation continued from their childhood, to extreme old age (Various
History XIII:44). Plutarch wrote: Aristides being the friend and supporter of that Clisthenes (...) had
Themistocles, son to Neocles, his adversary on the side of the populace. Some say that, being boys and bred
up together from their infancy, they were always at variance with each other in all their words and actions
(Aristides II:1). Now, to be part of the Boule (Senat), you had to be at least 30 years old90.
So Aristide had to have been born a little before 538 BCE, for the constitution of
Cleisthenes was in 508 BCE. With an estimated birth around 538 BCE, the death of
Themistocles 65 years later would have been c. 473 BCE. Ælian wrote: On a time Themistocles,
yet a boy, returning from School, his Master bade him, meeting Pisistratus the Tyrant, to go a little out of
the way. Whereto he generously answered, "Is not here way enough for him?" So much did something
ingenious and generous appear in Themistocles at those years (Various History III:21). As Pisistratus
died in the archonship of Philoneos (in 527 BCE), according to Aristotle (Constitution of
Athens XVII:1-2), Themistocles had to have risen about 537/536, as being a παϊς "boy" at
this meeting he was around 10 years old91. If Themistocles, who died at the age of 65, was
born in 536 BCE, his death was therefore in 471 BCE and he met Artaxerxes I in 474 BCE.
Xerxes' death is actually dated in 465 BCE because it comes from the official
Babylonian chronology based on the tablet BM 34576 (King List copy dated 99 BCE)92,
however, the testimony of Thucydides as well as some Egyptian records from Elephantine
rather support the dating 475 BCE. In addition the official Babylonian chronology is partly
false93 because it deliberately ignores all coregents and usurpers. Despite the reputation of
chronological accuracy granted to Thucydides, historians prefer Babylonian chronology.
90 C. ORRIEUX, P. SCHMITT PANTEL - Histoire grecque.
Paris 1995 Ed. Presses Universitaires de France pp. 165,197.
91 According to Hippocrates (On the Creation §105) there are 7 “ages of man” of 7 years each in the life cycle of a male person:
1) παιδἰον "little boy": 0-7 years, 2) παϊς "boy": 7-14 years, 3) μειράκιον "lad": 14-21 years, 4) νεαἰσκος "young man": 21-28
years, 5) ἀνήρ "man": 28-49 years, 6) πρεσβύτης "elderly man": 49-56 years, 7) γέρων "old man": 56-<.
92 T. BOIY - Dating Problems in Cuneiform Tablets
in: Journal of the American Oriental Society 121 (2001) pp. 645-649.
93 T. BOIY - Dating Method During the Early Hellenistic Period
in: Jounal of Cuneiform Studies 52 (2000) pp. 115-121.

S. ZAWADZKI - The Fall of Assyria (...) in Light of the Nabopolassar Chronicle
Poznan 1988 Ed. A. Mickiewick University Press.
Fortunately the death of Xerxes dated 14/V is mentioned between two lunar eclipses dated
[14/III] and 14/VIII in an astronomical tablet94 (BM 32234) and although its beginning is
damaged it contains enough information for dating:
1' at ˹18°?˺ [...]

2' 40° onset, ma[ximal phase, and clearing]. The "garment of the sky [rain-clouds]" was there.
3' In the area of the 4 rear stars of Sagittarius it was eclipsed. Month VI was intercalary
4' Month V, the 14?, ˹Xer˺xes —his son killed him.
——————————
5' Month VIII, the 14th, 13° after
6' sunset, [the moon] came out of a cloud,
7' ˹1/4˺ of the disk on the [...]
8' and west side was covered. 8°? [onset? and]
9' clearing [...]
Given that the second lunar eclipse is dated 14/VIII (November/ December) it is
easy to check in which year it occurred95 and also that the first dated event 14/V had no
connection with an eclipse (475 BCE = -474*, P = Partial; T = Total; N = Penumbral):
year [14 III] eclipse 14 V eclipse 14 VIII eclipse
BCE (Sivan) (Ab) (Heshvan)
476 6-Jul. P 3-Sept. _ 1-Dec. _
475 26-Jun T 24-Aug. _ 20-Dec. P
474 15-Jul. _ 12-Sept. _ 9-Dec. N
473 3-Jul. _ 31-Aug. _ 28-Nov. _
472 23-Jul. _ 20-Sept. _ 17-Dec. _
471 12-Jul. _ 9-Sept. _ 6-Dec. _
470 1-Jul. _ 29-Aug. _ 25-Nov. _
469 19-Jun _ 17-Aug. P 14-Nov. _
468 9-Jul. _ 6-Sept. _ 3-Dec. _
467 28-Jun _ 26-Aug. _ 22-Nov. _
466 16-Jul. N 13-Sept. _ 11-Dec. _
465 5-Jun P 4-Aug. _ 29-Nov. T
464 25-Jul. _ 22-Sept. _ 19-Dec. _
This preliminary analysis shows that only two years may agree: 475 or 465 BCE. A
complete analysis of these eclipses (when they began and ended and how much area of the
moon was darkened) enables one to keep only the year 475. Contrary to the mainstream
academic interpretation of astronomical data (which support the “Standard Chronology”),
94 H. HUNGER - Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia vol V
Wien 2001 Ed. Akademie der Wissenschaften pp. 20-21, 396.
95 http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEcat5/LE-0499--0400.html
which supports the date 46596, the analysis of this tablet is easy and gives 475 BCE. First of
all, Babylonian astronomical tablets are extremely accurate as regards their describing of
astronomical events. For example, the astronomical tablet BM 71537 fixes the death of
Artaxerxes III97 after the solar eclipse of 29/IV (dated 11 March 358 BCE)98:
[year] 21, month IV, (after) 5 month, the 29 [...] not observed
month VI, Umakuš [Artaxerxes III] went to his fate.
Aršu, his son sat on the throne.
King Name according to astronomical tablets Greek name
Xerxes I Ḫišiaršu Xerxes
Artaxerxes I Artakšatsu Artoxerxes
Darius II Umakuš, whom name is Darawušu Ochos
Artaxerxes II Aršu, whom name is Artakšatsu Arsakes
Artaxerxes III Umakuš, whom name is Artakšatsu Ochos
Artaxerxes IV Aršu, son of Umasu, whom name is Artakšatsu Arses
Darius III Artakšatsu, whom name is Dariyawuš Darios
Babylonian astronomers used a reference system based of course on a local observer.
Stars position in the sky were measured according to their altitude, or elevation, in degrees
between horizon (0°) and zenith (90°) and their azimuth in degrees from north (0°), east
(90°), south (180°) or west (270°). Altitude is the angle above the observer's horizon and
azimuth is the angle measured clockwise from north along the horizon to the point on the
horizon that lies beneath the star. Meridian is an imaginary great circle that passes through
the zenith from north to south, dividing the sky in two: the eastern and the western halves.
It is important to be aware of this line because when an object crosses it, it's as high in the
sky as it's going to get. The Sun crosses the line of the meridian around noon every day. We
say that the Sun, or any star, culminates when it crosses the meridian. Meridian covers a
total angle of 180° (-90° to 90°) and horizon a total angle of 360°.
Babylonian astronomers measured the sky with their hands (extended arms) knowing
that the little finger has an apparent width of 1° and a span (distance between the ends of
the thumb and little finger) has an apparent width of 15°. Thus the moon has an apparent
96 M.W. STOLPER - The Evidence of Cuneiform Texts for the date of Xerxes' Death
in: The Journal of Hellenic Studies vol CVIII (1988) pp. 196-198.
M.W. STOLPER - Late Achaemenid Babylonian Chronology
in: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires (1999) N°6 pp. 9-12.
97 F. JOANNÈS - La Mésopotamie au 1er millénaire avant J.C.
2000 Paris Ed. Armand Colin p. 145.

Wien 2001 Ed. Akademie der Wissenschaften p. 45.

width of 0.5° (30') as does the Sun (half of a little finger). Each zodiac constellation has an
apparent diameter of around 15° ("a span"), so there are 12 constellations in the celestial
vault. The darkness of the sky appears when the sun is 6° below the horizon. Given that the
full celestial sphere (360°) is covered in a 24-hour day (24x60 = 1440 minutes), each
celestial degree corresponds to a duration of 4 minutes (= 1440/360). For example the
technical indication: 14° after sunset, means [the eclipse began] 56 minutes (= 14x4) after sunset,
likewise: 14° before sunrise, means [the eclipse began] 56 minutes before sunrise. Paradoxically a
lunar eclipse in the Babylonian astronomical records may start slightly before sunset or end
slightly after sunrise, which normally is not possible (not observable), but as the beginning
and end of eclipses are symmetrical, Babylonian astronomers used to add some appropriate
calculations to their observations.
There are two types of eclipse, total and partial. For a total eclipse (left below) the
st
“1 onset” points out the beginning of the penumbra (highlighted in grey) on the moon (in
yellow), the “2nd onset” the beginning of the full eclipse (in dark red), the “3rd onset” the
end of total eclipse and the “4th onset” the end of the penumbra. The full length of the
eclipse is given by the time between the 1st and the 4th onset (maximum of 52° or 3.5
hours). For a partial eclipse (right below) the 1st onset point out the beginning of the
penumbra and the 2nd onset the end of it. In this case the surface covered by the shadow is
given by means of a fraction of the lunar disk (around 2/3 for the example).
4th, ,3rd 2nd, 1st onset 2nd, 1st onset (Moon)
Total lunar eclipse Partial lunar eclipse
Total eclipse dated 13 December 317 BCE (-316*)
5' Month IX, the 15th. When it began on the south and east side,
6' in 19° all was covered. 5° maximal phase.
7' In 16° it cleared to between north and east.
8' 40° onset, maximal phase and clearing. During onset (and) maximal phase
9' it was slow, during clearing fast.
10' Its eclipse was red. 1 1/2 cubits
11' in front of β Geminorum it was eclipsed. At 44° after sunset.
According to astronomy, the total eclipse dated 13 December 317 BCE (-396)
According
lasted 220 minutesto astronomy,
and the total
was total during 83 eclipse
minutesdated
94
13 December
. It began 317 BCE
at 20:36 (local time)(-316*)
or 3:34lasted
99
220
after sunset, which was at 17:02 in Babylon . This length of 3:34 corresponds to 54°. 3:34 after
minutes and was total during 83 minutes
95
. It began at 20:36 (local time) or
sunset, which was at 17:02 in Babylon100. This length of 3:34 corresponds to 54°.
Description of the eclipse (total) according to the tablet according to astronomy difference
Description
1 onset [beginning]
st of the eclipse (total) according to
44° after sunsetthe tablet according to
54° after sunset astronomy difference
10° (40 min.)
st
11st onset
onset–[beginning]
2nd onset [penumbra] 44°
19°after sunset 54° after sunset 2° (8 min.)
17° 10° (40 min.)
st nd
1
2nd onset – 2 onset [penumbra]
onset – 3rdrdonset [maximal] 19°
5° (20 min.) 17°
21° (83 min.) 2° (8 min.)
16° (64 min.)
nd
32rdrd onset
onset––4th3 onset
th
onset [maximal]
[clearing] 16° 5° (20 min.) 17° (64 min.)21° (83 min.) 16° (64 min.)
1° (4 min.)
3 onset – 4 onset [clearing]
1stst onset – 4ththonset [length]
16°
40° (160 min.)
17° (64 min.)
55° (220 min.)
1° (4 min.)
15° (60 min.)
1 onset – 4 onset [length] 40° (160 min.) 55° (220 min.) 15° (60 min.)
Partial
Partialeclipse dated
eclipse 5 April
dated 397397
5 April BCEBCE
2' Month XII , the 14th
2' Month XII22, the 14th
3'
3' ititbegan
began on the south side,
on the south side,
4'
4' 1/4 of the disk
1/4 of the disk was
wascovered.
covered.
5'
5' It cleared to the west.27°
It cleared to the west. 27°
6'
6' onset, maximal phase, andclearing.
onset, maximal phase, and clearing.
7'
7' The "garment
The "garment of
ofthe
thesky"
sky"was
wasthere, thethe
there, south wind
south blew.
wind blew.
8'
8' At 48° after sunset.
At 48° after sunset.
According
According to astronomy,this
to astronomy, thispartial
partialeclipse
eclipse dated
dated 5 April
5 April 397397
BCE BCE(-396)(-396*)
lastedlasted
63 63
101
minutes and its
minutes and itsmagnitude
magnitude(covered
(coveredsurface
surfaceof of
thethe lunar
lunar disk)
disk) waswas
0.080.08
96 . It began
. It began at 21:34
at 21:34
102
(local time)or
(local time) or3:09
3:09(189
(189minutes)
minutes)after
after sunset, which
sunset 97 , which
was was at 18:25
at 18:25 in Babylon.
in Babylon. This length
This length
103
of 189
189 minutes
minutescorresponds
correspondstoto47°.
47°.AsAsthethe "garment
"garment of the
of the sky"sky" means
means "rain-clouds
"rain-clouds 98
", the ", the
observation
observation hadmustto behave been difficult (in that case missing observations were usually
difficult.
replaced with some assessments).
Description of the eclipse (partial) according to the tablet according to astronomy difference
Description of
1 onset [beginning]
st the eclipse (partial) according to
48° after sunsetthe tablet according to
47° after sunset astronomy difference
1° (4 min.)
st
1 onsetsurface
Covered [beginning]
of the disk 48°
0.25after sunset 47° after sunset
0.08 3X 1° (4 min.)
Covered surface of the disk
1stst onset – 2ndndonset [length] 0.25
27° (108 min.) 0.08
16° (63 min.) 3X
11° (44 min.)
1 onset – 2 onset [length] 27° (108 min.) 16° (63 min.) 11° (44 min.)
99
Huber104 compared the dates given by the astronomical tablets with those obtained
Huber
in astronomy today.compared the dates
According to his given by indications
analysis, the astronomical
concerningtablets thewith those and
beginning obtained
by
endastronomy today.
of the eclipse withAccording
respect to to his analysis,
sunrise and sunset indications
can reachconcerning
a maximumthe beginning
deviation of and
end
+/- of
20°the eclipse
(+/- 1 hourwith20respect
minutes) to and
sunrise and sunset
indications can reachofathe
of duration maximumeclipse can deviation
reach aof +/-
20° (+/- deviation
maximum 1 hour 20 of minutes)
+/- 10° (+/-and indications
40 minutes).ofHuber duration of the
explains the eclipse
origin ofcan thesereach a
maximum
differences deviation of +/- 10°of (+/-
by some difficulties 40 minutes).
observing (when there Huber explains
were clouds the for origin of these
example),
differences
copying errorsby some difficulties
in the tablets, ofmisinterpretation
observing (whenofthere were clouds
a poorly preserved for example),
text, falsecopying
errors in the tablets,
identifications misinterpretation
of eclipses especially when of an aeclipse
poorly preserved
predicted text, false
an eclipse identifications
replaced missing of
eclipses especiallyAtwhen
or not observed. an Babylonian
last the eclipse wasconcept
predicted of 1because
st
, 2 , 3 it and
nd rd was4replaced
th
contact by an assessment
(onset) may
st nd rd th
when it was not observed. Finally the Babylonian
be slightly different from the present astronomical concept. concept of 1 , 2 , 3 and 4 contact
(onset) may be slightly different from the present astronomical concept.
94 http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCLEmap/-0399--0300/LE-0316-12-13T.gif
Wien
100 H.2001 Ed. Akademie
HUNGER der Wissenschaften
- Astronomical pp. Related
Diaries and 6-7, 395.Texts from Babylonia vol V
F.R. STEPHENSON
Wien - Historical
2001 Ed. Akademie Eclipses
der and Earth's pp.
Wissenschaften Rotation
6-7, 395.
Cambridge 1997 Ed. Cambridge
F.R. STEPHENSON University
- Historical EclipsesPress
andpp. 176-177.
Earth's Rotation
96 http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCLEmap/-0399--0300/LE-0396-04-05P.gif
97 H. HUNGER - Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia vol V pp. 12-13, 395.
F.R. STEPHENSON - Historical Eclipses and Earth's Rotation pp. 169-170.
102 H.PARPOLA
98 A. HUNGER -The- Astronomical
Sky-Garment. ADiaries and
Study of theRelated
HarappanTexts fromand
Religion Babylonia voltoVthepp.
Its Relation 12-13, 395. and Later Indian Religions
Mesopotamian
F.R.
in: STEPHENSON
Studia Orientalia vol.-57
Historical
(1985). Eclipses and Earth's Rotation pp. 169-170.
103 A. H
99 P.J. PUBER -The
, S. DE
ARPOLA MEISSky-Garment. A Study
– Babylonian Eclipse of the Harappan
Observations Religion
from 750 BC to 1 and
BC Its Relation to the Mesopotamian and Later Indian
Milano 2004in:Ed.
Religions Mimesis
Studia pp. 3,22,28-31.
Orientalia vol. 57 (1985).
Milano 2004 Ed. Mimesis pp. 3,22,28-31.

Astronomical analysis showed two important points: the Babylonian measures were
excellent but their lack of precision could reach 1 hour, that is to say around "a span" (15°),
and the way of describing eclipses depended on their nature, either partial or total. It is easy
to verify that the two lunar eclipses which occurred in 475 BCE, first total then partial, were
in reverse in 465 BCE, first partial then total.
Lunar eclipses in 475 BCE105
Lunar eclipses in 465 BCE106
Stolper107 dated on 4 August 465 BCE the death of Xerxes (14/V/21) as there were
actually two eclipses in that year. However, the astronomical description of these two
eclipses does not match that indicated on the tablet (BM 32234) because the 1st eclipse was
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCLEmap/-0499--0400/LE-0474-12-20P.gif
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCLEmap/-0499--0400/LE-0464-11-29T.gif
107 M.W. STOLPER - The Evidence of Cuneiform Texts for the date of Xerxes' Death
in: The Journal of Hellenic Studies vol CVIII (1988) pp. 196-198.
total and the 2nd eclipse was partial. A comparison of all the data from the tablet with that
of astronomy gives the following results (local time in Babylon; LT = UT +2:58):
Year Date of eclipse according Type of mag. according agreement
to the tablet eclipse to the tablet
475 BCE 26 June [14 III] Total 1.80 total OK
20 December 14 VIII Partial 0.60 0.25 (1/4) OK
465 BCE 5 June [14 III] Partial 0.94 total NO
29 November 14 VIII Total 1.46 0.25 (1/4) NO
First eclipse start end mag. sunrise sunset
1st 2nd 3rd 4th
26 June 475 BCE 4:05 5:02 6:42 7:39 1.82 5:02 19:06
5 June 465 BCE 21:51 0:55 0.94 5:00 18:59
Second eclipse start end mag. sunrise sunset
1st 2nd 3rd 4th
20 December 475 BCE 20:24 23:20 0.61 7:02 17:00
29 November 465 BCE 14:25 15:31 17:05 18:11 1.46 6:47 16:55
Partial eclipse eclipse not observed at Babylon total eclipse
According to 475 BCE gap 465 BCE gap

First eclipse tablet BM 32234 26 June 5 June
st
1 onset [-] 13° before sunrise [-] 43° after sunset [-]
1st – 2nd onset [-] 14° [-] [-]
nd rd
2 – 3 onset [-] 25° [-] [-]
3rd – 4th onset 18° 14° 4° NO
st th
1 – 4 onset 40° 54° 14° 46° 6°
Second eclipse 20 December 29 November
1st onset 13° after sunset 51° after sunset 38° 38° before sunset NO
- 17° NO
- 24° ## NO
- 17° NO
1st – 2nd onset [8°] 44° 36° 57° 49°
According to astronomy, only the beginning of the first eclipse (26 June 475 BCE)
could be observed, in addition, the weather was rainy ("The garment of the sky was there").
Observations were therefore difficult, thus the two durations of eclipse, 40° and [8°], were
due to a guess. In 30% of cases (on average), the Babylonians completed their observations
with values calculated108 according to some theories poorly understood109. Despite some
difficulties of observation the results obtained by the ancient Babylonian astronomers for
the two lunar eclipses of 475 BCE are remarkably good (there are 5 major disagreements in
465 BCE). A second way of checking the data in the astronomical tablet is the wording: In
the area of the 4 rear stars of Sagittarius it [the moon] was eclipsed [1st eclipse].
The observations were performed in Babylon whose latitude is 32°33' (or 32.55°)
North and its longitude is 44°26' (or 44.43°) East110. With astronomy software it is possible
to see the sky at any one point and a given time111 (in 475 BCE Universal Time: -474-06-26
0:00; Azimuth: 230°; Field of view: 45°; in 465 BCE Universal Time: -464-06-06 0:00).

Milano 2004 Ed. Mimesis p. 7.
109 N.M. SWERDLOW - The Babylonian Theory of the Planets
1998 New Jersey Ed. Princeton University Press pp. 44,45.

111 http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Yourhorizon
One can see that in 475 BCE the moon was 20° behind Sagittarius (above left) and in
465 BCE it was inside (above right). According to the astronomical tablet the first lunar
eclipse [total] was: in the area of the 4 rear stars of Sagittarius [in 475 BCE]. Consequently,
according to astronomy, Xerxes died (14/V/21) on Wednesday 23 August 475 BCE (see
Dating the reigns of Xerxes and Artaxerxes).
Contrary to what history books pretend astronomical dating is neither complex nor
controversial. In fact, controversies about the dating almost always come from a
misunderstanding of historical data. For example, the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BCE
is also dated in 586 BCE by a few scholars (or even in 607 BCE by some). What does
astronomy actually say?
WHEN WAS ANCIENT JERUSALEM DESTROYED: 587 OR 586?
According to the biblical text of Jeremiah: King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon came with all
his army against Jerusalem. They camped against it and built a siege wall all around it. And the city was
under siege until the 11th year of King Zedekiah (...) In the 5th month, on the 10th day of the month, that is,
in the 19th year of King Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, Nebuzaradan the chief of the guard, who
was an attendant of the king of Babylon, came into Jerusalem. He burned down the house of Jehovah, the
king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem; he also burned down every large house. And the walls
surrounding Jerusalem were pulled down by the entire Chaldean army that was with the chief of the guard
(Jeremiah 52:4-14). Thus the destruction of Jerusalem is dated either 10/V/11 of Zedekiah
or 10/V/19 of Nebuchadnezzar II and 9/V (9 Ab) in the Mishna (Taanit 4:7-8).
The reign of Nebuchadnezzar is extremely easy to fix by astronomy because it has
many synchronisms with Assyrian and Egyptian chronologies, which are themselves
anchored to astronomical dates. In addition, Nebuchadnezzar's reign is very well-known
(day by day)112 and numerous astronomical events are described in the astronomical tablet
VAT 4956 dated in his 37th and 38th year. For example, the first 19 years of the reign of
Nebuchadnezzar II (605-586) are as follows113:
http://web.archive.org/web/20030814000518/http://www.nexus.hu/enkidu/lists/CHRON.CHN
112
J. FINEGAN - Handbook of Biblical Chronology

113
Massachusetts 1999 Ed. Hendrickson Publishers pp. 27-28.

year cycle April January
0 605 I II III IV V VI VI2 VII VIII IX X XI XII XII2
1 604 11 29 29 30 29 30 30 - 29 30 30 30 29 29 -
2 603 12U 30 29 29 29 30 30 30 29 30 30 29 30 29 -
3 602 13 30 29 29 30 29 30 - 30 29 30 29 30 30 -
4 601 14 29 30 29 29 30 29 - 30 30 29 30 29 30 -
5 600 15U 29 30 29 30 29 30 28 30 30 30 29 29 30 -
6 599 16 30 30 29 30 30 29 - 30 29 29 30 29 30 -
7 598 17U 29 30 29 30 30 30 29 30 29 29 30 29 29 -
8 597 18 30 29 30 30 30 30 - 29 29 30 29 30 29 -
9 596 19U 29 30 29 30 30 30 30 29 29 30 29 30 29 -
10 595 1 29 30 29 30 30 29 - 30 30 29 30 29 30 -
11 594 2A 29 29 30 29 30 30 - 29 30 29 30 30 29 30
12 593 3 29 29 30 29 30 29 - 30 29 30 30 30 29 -
13 592 4 30 29 30 29 29 30 - 29 29 30 30 30 29 -
14 591 5A 30 30 29 30 29 29 - 30 29 29 30 30 29 30
15 590 6 30 29 30 29 30 29 - 30 29 30 29 29 30 -
16 589 7 30 29 30 29 30 30 - 29 30 29 30 29 29 -
17 588 8A 30 29 30 29 30 30 - 30 29 30 29 30 29 29
18 587 9 30 29 30 29 30 30 - 30 29 30 29 30 29 -
19 586 10 29 30 29 29 30 30 - 30 30 29 30 29 30 -
This cycle of 19 years was based on observation and not on calculations114 (the
computed data in diaries appear roughly in 350 BCE)115 . It was not a theoretical cycle like
the cycle of Meton but a coincidence which came from the following equivalences:
19 solar years = 6539.6 days (= 365.24219 x 365)
19 lunar years + 7 intercalary months = 6539.6 days (= [19 x 12+7] x 29.530288).
The presence of four months Elul2 (VI2) in the period 603-596, instead of only one,
proves that the Babylonian system of intercalary months was empirical. These months (VI2)
were mainly used to calibrate the 1st Tishri (VII) just after the autumn equinox. Historians
of Babylonian astronomy have in recent decades come to the conclusion that the cycle was
known to the Babylonians by about 500 BCE, but it must be admitted, however, that there
are still problems with the list of intercalary months during the latter years of the
Achaemenid empire. For instance, in the 16th year of Darius II (408/407), three sources
suggest an intercalary Ulul2 but one an intercalary Adar2 (XII2); in the 16th year of
Artaxerxes II, two sources suggest an intercalary Ulul2 but one an intercalary Adar2; and
two sources (including a contemporary astronomical Diary) suggest an intercalary Adar2 in
the 20th year of Artaxerxes II (385/384) whereas two other sources (including the Saros
canon) attribute the intercalary month to his 21st year116. A table of intercalary months gives
the impression that the 19 years cycle was standardized from 500 or 483 BCE, depending
on the way to group periods117, with some exceptions. However, Parker and Dubberstein
assumed118, because of these anomalies, the Babylonian calendar had really been
standardized as from 367 BCE instead of 500 BCE. During the period from 600 BCE to
530 BCE, spring equinox = 27 March and autumn equinox = 29 September119 . The 1st
Nisan corresponds to the 1st lunar crescent (that is New moon day + 1) after the spring
114 J.M. STEELE – Calendars and Years. Astronomy and Time in the Ancient Near East
Oxford 2007 Ed. Oxbow Books pp. 120-123.
115 F. ROCHBERG-HALTON – Between Observation and Theory in Babylonian Astronomical Texts
in: Journal of Near Eastern Studies 50:2 (1991) pp. 107-120.

116 C. WALKER - Achaemenid Chronology and the Babylonian Sources
in: Mesopotamia and Iran in the Persian Period Ed. British Museum Press (1997) pp. 23-24.
117 J.P. BRITTON – Treatments of Annual Phenomena in Cuneiform Sources
in: Under One Sky (Münster 2002) Ed. Ugarit-Verlag pp. 25-35.
118 R.A. PARKER, W.H. DUBBERSTEIN - Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.-A.D. 75
Rhode Island 1956 Ed. Brown University Press pp. 1-6.

equinox. For example in 580 BCE (= -579) new moon day = 4 April120. In 580 BCE (year
25): 1st Nisan = 5 April and 1st Adar = 24 February. The intercalary month (Adar2) is
missing because 1st Nisan of year 26 is on 25 March, which is before the spring equinox.
The intercalary month was added the following year (year 26). If the intercalary month is
missing, 1st Nisan is before 27 March**, not after. In 588 BCE: 1st Nisan = 3 April.
Calculation of 1st Nisan from the years 17 to 40 of Nebuchadnezzar II's reign (the Metonic
cycle is the theoretical cycle):
year Tablets with intercalary month intercalary 1st Nisan Metonic cycle 1st Nisan
BCE month (astronomy) (theoritical) (astronomy)
588 17 YOS 17:23, 156, 202 Adar2 3 April 3A 3 April
587 18 - 22 April 4 22 April
586 19 - 12 April 5 12 April
585 20 - 31 March 6A 31 March
584 21 YOS 17:36, 38 Bertin 101 Elul2 21 March 7 19 April
583 22 - 9 April 8A 9 April
582 23 YOS 17:349 GCCI 1:45 Adar2 29 March 9 29 March
581 24 - 15 April 10 15 April
580 25 - 5 April 11A 5 April
579 26 CT 57:989 Adar2 25 March 12 23 April
578 27 - 13 April 13 13 April
577 28 CT 55:85 UCP 9/1:I,52 Adar2 2 April 14A 2 April
576 29 - 21 April 15 21 April
575 30 - 10 April 16 10 April
574 31 OECT 12:A91,95 TuM2/3:20 Elul2 30 March 17U 30 March
573 32 - 17 April 18 17 April
572 33 GCCI 1:117,125 Bertin 1116 Adar2 6 April 19A 6 April
571 34 - 25 April 1 25 April
570 35 - 14 April 2 14 April
569 36 GCCI 1:68,98 Bertin 1127 Adar2 3 April 3A 3 April
568 37 - 22 April 4 22 April
567 38 - 12 April 5 12 April
566 39 [Adar2] 1st April 6A 1st April
565 40 - 19 April 7 19 April
BCE year month Babylonian Julian

568 36 X 1st Tebeth 25 December
XI 1st Shebat 24 January
XII 1st Adar 22 February
XIIb 1st Adar2 24 March
Spring equinox 27 March
37 I 1st Nisan 22 April
II 1st Iyar 21 May
III 1st Siwan 20 June
IV 1st Tammuz 19 July
V 1st Ab 17 August
VI 1st Elul 16 September
Autumn equinox 29 September
VII 1st Tishri 16 October
VIII 1st Heshvan 14 November
IX 1st Kislev 14 December
567 X 1st Tebeth 13 January
XI 1st Shebat 12 February
XII 1st Adar 13 March
Spring equinox 27 March
38 I 1st Nisan 12 April
II 1st Iyar 11 May
120http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/pacalc.html
http://www.imcce.fr/fr/grandpublic/phenomenes/phases_lune/index.php
The previous table shows two important points: the duration of the lunar months
and lunar years depended solely on observation and data from astronomical tablets exactly
matches the current astronomical calculations. For example, the series of months for the
year 1 of Nebuchadnezzar II (604 BCE) was: 29-29-30-29-30-30-29-30-30-30-29-29. It is
obvious that the complete series of around 500 lunar months during Nebuchadnezzar's
reign belongs only to the period 604-562 BCE, not 20 years earlier 624-582 BCE. One can
see that the year 37 began on 22 April (1st Nisan) in 568 BCE and on 3 April in 588 BCE.
The astronomical tablet VAT 4956 is very well known121. It is an astronomical diary
that records 13 lunar observations, and 15 planetary observations which details the position
of the moon and the planets in regard to certain stars and constellations122, indicating the
days and the months throughout the year 37 of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II until the
beginning of his year 38. Text of the 17 first lines of the tablet (important data in bold type):
1- Year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. Month I (the 1st of which was identical with) the 30th (of
the preceding month), the moon became visible behind the Bull of Heaven; [sunset to moonset:] .... [...]
2- Saturn was in front of the Swallow. The 2nd, in the morning, a rainbow stretched in the west. Night of
the 3rd, the moon was 2 cubits in front of [...]
3- it rained? Night of the 9th (error for 8th), beginning of the night, the moon stood 1 cubit in front of β
Virginis. The 9th, the sun in the west [was surrounded] by a halo [... The 11th]
4- or 12th, Jupiter's acronychal rising. On the 14th, one god was seen with the other; sunrise to moonset: 4°.
The 15th, overcast. The 16th, Venus [...]
5- The 20th, in the morning, the sun was surrounded by a halo. Around noon, ... rain PISAN. A rainbow
stretched in the east. [...]
6- From the 8th of month XII2 to the 28th, the river level rose 3 cubits and 8 fingers, b cubits [were missing]
to the high flood [...]
7- were killed on order of the king. That month, a fox entered the city. Coughing and a little risitu-disease [.]
8- Month II (the 1st of which was identical with) the 30th (of the preceding month), the moon became
visible while the sun stood there, 4 cubits below β Geminorum; it was thick; there was earth shine [...]
9- Saturn was in front of the Swallow; Mercury, which had set, was not visible. Night of the 1st, gusty storm
from east and south. The 1st, all day [...]
10- stood [... in front] of Venus to the west. The 2nd, the north wind blew. The 3rd, Mars entered Praesepe.
The 5th, it went out of it. The 10th, Mercury [rose] in the west behind the [Little Twins ...]
11- The 15th, ZI IR. The 18th, Venus was balanced 1 cubit 4 fingers below α Leonis. The 26th, (moonrise to
sunrise) 23°; I did not observe the moon. The 27th, 20+x [...]
12- Month III (the 1st of which was identical with) the 30th (of the preceding month), the moon became
visible behind Cancer; it was thick; sunset to moonset: 20°; the north wind blew. At that time, Mars and
Mercury were 4 cubits in front of α [Leonis ...]
13- Mercury passed below Mars to the East? ; Jupiter was above α Scorpii; Venus was in the west opposite ϑ
Leonis [...]
14- 1? cubit. Night of the 5th, beginning of the night, the moon passed towards the east 1 cubit
<above/below> the bright star of the end of the Lion's foot. Night of the 6th, beginning of the night, [..]
15- it was low. Night of the 8th, first part of the night, the moon stood 2½ cubits below β Librae. Night of
the 9th, first part of the night, the moon [stood] 1 cubit in front of [...]
16- passed towards the east. The 9th, solstice. Night of the 10th, first part of the night, the moon was
balanced 3½ cubits above α Scorpii. The 12th, Mars was b cubits above [α Leonis ...]
17- [...] The 15th, one god was seen with the other; sunrise to moonset: 7°30'. A lunar eclipse which was
omitted [...]
18- [... the moon was be]low the bright star at the end of the [Lion's] foot [...]
Several astronomical phenomena (highlighted in blue) are easy to date:
! Line 1: the 1st lunar crescent after the spring equinox (27 March)123 is on 22 April in 568
121 http://www.lavia.org/english/archivo/VAT4956en.htm
http://adamoh.org/TreeOfLife.wan.io/OTCh/VAT4956/VAT4956ATranscriptionOfItsTranslationAndComments.htm

BCE (-567) or 3 April in 588 BCE (-587*).
! Line 4: the Jupiter's acronychal rising dated 12/I/37 on the tablet occurred on 3 May in
568 BCE and 18 December in 588 BCE124.
! Line 16: the summer solstice dated 9/III/37 occurred on 29 June125 in 568 or in 588
BCE (the summer solstice occurs on a fixed date in the year).
! Line 17: the lunar eclipse dated 9/III/37 occurred on 15 June126 in 568 BCE.
According to the tablet VAT 4956 According to astronomy in:
Date astronomical event -567* (568 BCE) -587* (588 BCE)
1/I/37 (1st lunar crescent) 22 April 22 April 3 April 3 April
12/I/37 Jupiter's acronychal rising 3 May 3 May OK 14 April 18 December ##
1/III/37 (1st lunar crescent) 20 June 20 June 1 June 1 June
9/III/37 Solstice 28 June 29 June OK 9 June 29 June ##
15/III/37 Lunar eclipse 4 July 4 July OK 15 June - ##
Two astronomical dated events occurred only in 568 BCE: summer solstice and
Jupiter's acronychal rising. The acronychal rising is the last day of the year when the star or
the planet (after a period when it was visible at night) rises in the evening after sunset and
the Sun is already far enough below the eastern horizon (-6°) to make it visible in the
evening twilight. In 568 BCE127: Universal Time: -567-05-03 16:00 then 16:05 (LT = UT +
2:58); Azimuth: 110°; Field of view: 60° (Jupiter is at the bottom 3° above the horizon):
Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian and Israelite chronologies provide synchronisms that

can be dated independently. For example, Assyrian chronology may be rebuilt for the
period 911-609 only thanks to eponyms. The list of Assyrian eponyms is anchored on the
solar eclipse which occurred on Simanu (month III, day 30) in the eponymy of Bur-Sagale
(dated June 15, 763 BCE). The Assyrian period 911-648128 is dated owing to its canonical
126 http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEcat5/LE-0599--0500.html
127 In 588 BCE: Universal Time: -587-12-18 15:25 then 15:30; Azimuth 60°.
128 S. PARPOLA – Assyrian Chronology 681-648 BC. in: Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and
Assurbanipal Part II (Winona Lake 2007 Ed. Eisenbrauns), pp. 381-430.

eponyms and the period 648-609 by a prosopography of its eponyms129 . A few eponyms are
non canonical because they died during the year of their eponymy and there are also some
gaps of 1 year between eponym dates and regnal years in tablet with double dates because
the first Assyrian regnal year (accession) was reckoned in either system: year 0 (Babylonian)
or year 1 (Assyrian). Thus, as there are exactly 154 canonical eponyms between Gargamisaiu
and Bur-Sagale, which is dated 763, that involves dating the one of Gargamisaiu into 609 (=
763 – 154). The only solar eclipse over Assyria during the period 800-750 is the total eclipse
dated June 15, 763 BCE. The partial solar eclipses dated June 4, 800 and June 24, 791 were
not able to be viewed over Assyria.
! The fall of the Assyrian empire, which took place in October 609 after the battle of
Harran, is characterized by a quadruple synchronism, since the year of Assur-uballit II
corresponds to year 17 of Nabopolassar to Josiah's year 31 and year 1 of Necho II.
! According to the biography of Adad-Guppi130, mother of Nabonidus, Nabopolassar
reigned 21 years, then Nebuchadnezzar 43 years, Amel-Marduk 2 years, Neriglissar 4
years just before Nabonidus. According to the Hillah's stele131 there were 54 years
between the destruction of the temple of Sin, in Harran, and the beginning of the reign of
Nabonidus. According to a Babylonian chronicle (BM 21901)132 and Adad-Guppi's stele,
the temple of Harran was destroyed in the year 16 of Nabopolassar.
! Dated lunar eclipses133 are: year 1 and 2 of Merodachbaladan (March 19/20 721, March
8/9 and September 1/2 720); year 5 of Nabopolassar (April 21/22 621); year 2 of Šamaš-
šuma-ukîn (April 10/11 666); year 42 of Nebuchadnezzar (March 2/3 562). A diary (VAT
4956)134 contains numerous astronomical conjunctions in years 37 and 38 of
Nebuchadnezzar dated from astronomy in 568 and 567. An astronomical journal (BM
38462)135 list some lunar eclipses in the years 1 to 27 of Nebuchadnezzar which are dated
from 604 to 578.
The chronology of the Saite period (663-525) may be reckoned exactly thanks to
"biographies136 of prominent men or Apis bulls":
1. Grave stele of Psammetichus son of Genefbahorek. Date of birth: Year 3 of Necho II, month 10,
day 1. Date of death: Year 35 of Amasis, month 2, day 6. Length of life: 71 years, 4
months, 6 days (see column A. 1st Thot matches the beginning of Egyptian year).
2. Grave stele of the priest Psammetichus son of Iahuben. Date of birth: Year 1 of Necho II, month
11, day 1. Date of death: Year 27 [of Amasis], month 8, day 28. Length of life: 65 years,
10 months, 2 days (see column B).
129 S. PARPOLA – The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire
Helsinki 1998 University of Helsinki pp. XVIII-XX.
Princeton 1969 Ed. Princeton University Press p. 560-561.

131 P.A. BEAULIEU – The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556-539 B.C.
in: Yale Near Eastern Research 10 (1989) n°2.

132 J.J. GLASSNER – Chroniques mésopotamiennes n°22
Paris 1993 Éd. Belles Lettres pp. 193-197.

Cambridge 1997 Ed. Cambridge University Press pp. 99-100, 151-152, 206.


136 H. GAUTHIER – Le livre des rois d'Égypte
Le Caire 1915 Éd. Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale pp. 74, 87-88, 92-93, 106, 115, 119.
F.K. KIENITZ – Die politische Geschichte Ägyptens vom 7. bis zum 4. Jahrhundert vor der Zeitwende
Berlin 1953 Ed. Akademie-Verlag pp. 154-156.
J.H. BREASTED – Ancient records of Egypt: Historical documents from the earliest times to the Persian conquest. Vol. IV
Chicago 1906 (1962) Ed. The University of Chicago Press pp. 497-498, 501-505, 518-520.
3. Grave stele of the 4th Apis of the 26th Dynasty. Date of birth: Year 16 of Necho II, month 2,
day 7. Installation: Year 1 of Psammetichus II, month 11, day 9. Date of death: Year 12
of Apries, month 8, day 12. Date of burial: Year 12 of Apries, month 10, day 21. Length
of life: 17 years, 6 months, 5 days (see column C).
4. Grave stele of the 3rd Apis of the 26th Dynasty. Date of birth: Year 53 of Psammetichus I,
month 6, day 19. Installation: Year 54 of Psammetichus I, month 3, day 12. Date of
death: Year 16 of Necho II, month 2, day 6. Date of burial: Year 16 of Necho II, month
4, day 16. Length of life: 16 years, 7 months, 17 days (see column D).
5. Epitaph of Apis bull from Cambyses137. Date of birth: Year 27 [of Amasis]. Date of death:
Year 6 of Cambyses II. Length of life unknown, but the average life-span of Apis bulls is
from 16 to 19 years during the 26th Dynasty138 (see column E).
6. Pharaoh Apries was still living according to a stele139 dated year 3 of Amasis (which was
beginning on January 12, 567).
Egyptian King BCE 1st Thot A B C D E
Psammetichus I 1 663 5-Feb
2 662 5-Feb
3 661 4-Feb
4 660 4-Feb
5 659 4-Feb
6 658 4-Feb
7 657 3-Feb
8 656 3-Feb
9 655 3-Feb
10 654 3-Feb
11 653 2-Feb
12 652 2-Feb
13 651 2-Feb
14 650 2-Feb
15 649 1-Feb
16 648 1-Feb
17 647 1-Feb
18 646 1-Feb
19 645 30-Jan
20 644 31-Jan
21 643 31-Jan
22 642 31-Jan
23 641 30-Jan
24 640 30-Jan
25 639 30-Jan
26 638 30-Jan
27 637 29-Jan
28 636 29-Jan
29 635 29-Jan
30 634 29-Jan
31 633 28-Jan
32 632 28-Jan
33 631 28-Jan
34 630 28-Jan
35 629 27-Jan
36 628 27-Jan
37 627 27-Jan
38 626 27-Jan
39 625 26-Jan
40 624 26-Jan
137 A. KUHRT – The Persian Empire
London 2010 Ed. Routledge pp. 122-124.
138 M. MALININE, G. POSENER, J. VERCOUTER – Catalogue des stèles du Sérapéum de Memphis I
Paris 1968 Éd. Imprimerie Nationale p. XIII.

139 A. SPALINGER - Egypt and Babylonia: A Survey
Hamburg 1977, in: Studien Zur Altägyptischen Kultur Band 5 pp. 241-242.
41 623 26-Jan
42 622 26-Jan
43 621 25-Jan
44 620 25-Jan
45 619 25-Jan
46 618 25-Jan
47 617 24-Jan
48 616 24-Jan
49 615 24-Jan
50 614 24-Jan
51 613 23-Jan
52 612 23-Jan
53 611 23-Jan 0
54 610 23-Jan 1
Necho II 1 609 22-Jan 0 2
2 608 22-Jan 1 3
3 607 22-Jan 0 2 4
4 606 22-Jan 1 3 5
5 605 21-Jan 2 4 6
6 604 21-Jan 3 5 7
7 603 21-Jan 4 6 8
8 602 21-Jan 5 7 9
9 601 20-Jan 6 8 10
10 600 20-Jan 7 9 11
11 599 20-Jan 8 10 12
12 598 20-Jan 9 11 13
13 597 19-Jan 10 12 14
14 596 19-Jan 11 13 15
15 595 19-Jan 12 14 16
Psammetichus II 16 1 594 19-Jan 13 15 0 0 16y 7m
2 593 18-Jan 14 16 1
3 592 18-Jan 15 17 2
4 591 18-Jan 16 18 3
5 590 18-Jan 17 19 4
6 589 17-Jan 18 20 5
Apries 1 7 588 17-Jan 19 21 6
2 587 17-Jan 20 22 7
3 586 17-Jan 21 23 8
4 585 16-Jan 22 24 9
5 584 16-Jan 23 25 10
6 583 16-Jan 24 26 11
7 582 16-Jan 25 27 12
8 581 15-Jan 26 28 13
9 580 15-Jan 27 29 14
10 579 15-Jan 28 30 15
11 578 15-Jan 29 31 16
12 577 14-Jan 30 32 17y 6m
13 576 14-Jan 31 33
14 575 14-Jan 32 34
15 574 14-Jan 33 35
16 573 13-Jan 34 36
17 572 13-Jan 35 37
18 571 13-Jan 36 38
19 570 13-Jan 37 39
Amasis 20 1 569 12-Jan 38 40
21 2 568 12-Jan 39 41
22 3 567 12-Jan 40 42
4 566 12-Jan 41 43
5 565 11-Jan 42 44
6 564 11-Jan 43 45
7 563 11-Jan 44 46
8 562 11-Jan 45 47
9 561 10-Jan 46 48
10 560 10-Jan 47 49
11 559 10-Jan 48 50
12 558 10-Jan 49 51
13 557 9-Jan 50 52
14 556 9-Jan 51 53
15 555 9-Jan 52 54
16 554 9-Jan 53 55
17 553 8-Jan 54 56
18 552 8-Jan 55 57
19 551 8-Jan 56 58
20 550 8-Jan 57 59
21 549 7-Jan 58 60
22 548 7-Jan 59 61
23 547 7-Jan 60 62
24 546 7-Jan 61 63
25 545 6-Jan 62 64
26 544 6-Jan 63 65
27 543 6-Jan 64 65y 10m 0
28 542 6-Jan 65 1
29 541 5-Jan 66 2
30 540 5-Jan 67 3
31 539 5-Jan 68 4
32 538 5-Jan 69 5
33 537 4-Jan 70 6
34 536 4-Jan 71 7
35 535 4-Jan 71y 4m 8
36 534 4-Jan 9
37 533 3-Jan 10
38 532 3-Jan 11
39 531 3-Jan 12
40 530 3-Jan 13
41 529 2-Jan 14
42 528 2-Jan 15
43 527 2-Jan 16
Psammetichus III 1 44 526 2-Jan 17
Cambyses II 2 5 525 1-Jan 18
3 6 524 1-Jan (19y)
4 7 523 1-Jan
5 8 522 1-Jan
Several historical synchronisms with the Egyptian chronology are anchored on
astronomical data as lunar eclipses:
! The partial eclipse in year 7 of Cambyses II (tablet BM 33066) may be dated 523 July
16/17 [magnitude = 0.54] and the total eclipse 522 January 9/10. Claudius Ptolemy had
to have known the original tablet because he gave the right magnitude of 0.50 for the
partial eclipse (Almagest V:14). Another astronomical tablet (BM 36879) describes
eclipses in years 1-4 of Cambyses II, dated by astronomy 529-526140. A diary (VAT
4956)141 contains numerous astronomical conjunctions in years 37 and 38 of
Nebuchadnezzar dated from astronomy in 568 and 567. An astronomical journal (BM
38462)142 list some lunar eclipses in the years 1 to 27 of Nebuchadnezzar which are dated
from 604 to 578. Other dated lunar eclipses143 are these of: year 1 and 2 of
Merodachbaladan (March 19/20, 721, March 8/9 and September 1/2, 720); year 5 of
Nabopolassar (April 21/22, 621); year 2 of Šamaš-šuma-ukîn (April 10/11, 666); year 42
of Nebuchadnezzar (March 2/3 562).

Milano 2004 Ed. Mimesis pp. 94-96.


Cambridge 1997 Ed. Cambridge University Press pp. 99-100, 151-152, 166-167, 206.
! Cambyses II defeated Egypt in his 5th year, month 2 (May 525 BCE), which is also dated
year 2, month 5, of Psammetichus III (May 525 BCE).
! According to the biography of Adad-Guppi144, mother of Nabonidus, Nabopolassar
reigned 21 years, then Nebuchadnezzar 43 years, Amel-Marduk 2 years, Neriglissar 4
years just before Nabonidus. According to the Hillah's stele145 there were 54 years
between the destruction of the temple of Sin, in Harran, and the beginning of the reign of
Nabonidus. According to a Babylonian chronicle (BM 21901)146 and Adad-Guppi's stele,
the temple of Harran was destroyed in the year 16 of Nabopolassar.
! After the fall of the Assyrian empire in October 609 BCE, Babylonian domination lasted
exactly 70 years (Jr 25:11-12) until its fall in October 539 BCE.
! The Assyrian period 911-648 is dated owing to its eponyms147 and the period 648-609 by
a prosopography of its eponyms148.
! Year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II (582 BCE) in Palestine (Jewish Antiquities X:180-182)
corresponds to year 7 of Apries149. Year 1 of Amel Marduk (561 BCE) corresponds to
year 37 of Jehoiachin's exile (2 Ki 25:27). This exile began just after the attack on
Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar II in the year 7 of his reign (598 BCE).
! The fall of the Assyrian empire, which took place in October 609 BCE after the battle of
Harran, is characterized by four synchronisms, since the year 3 of Assur-uballit II
corresponds to year 17 of Nabopolassar to Josiah's year 31 and year 1 of Necho II.
! Year 6 of Assurbanipal corresponds to year 1 of Psammetichus I150.
! After the death of Shabaka, his successor Shabataka immediately summoned an army,
which he placed under the command of his brother Taharqa to repel an Assyrian attack
which was threatening151. Sennacherib's 3rd campaign thus corresponds to the 1st year of
Shabataka. The inscription of Sargon II, found at Tang-i Var152, involves dating this
campaign in the 10th year of Sargon II (712 BCE).
Pharaoh Reign (from Apis) Length of reign Highest year Synchronism with:
Shabataka [ /712-01/689] 23 years 3 year 10 of Sargon II
Taharqa [01/689-01/663] 26 years 26
Psammetichus I 02/663-01/609 54 years 54 year 6 of Assurbanipal
Necho II 02/609-10/594 15 years 10 months 16 year 17 of Nabopolassar
Psammetichus II 11/594-01/588 6 years 1 month 7
Apries 02/588-12/570 19 years 17
Apries/ Amasis 01/569-12/567 [3 years co-regency] [3]
Amasis 01/569-10/526 43 years 10 months 44
Psammetichus III 11/526-04/525 6 months 2 year 5 of Cambyses II

Princeton 1969 Ed. Princeton University Press p. 560,561.
145 P.A. BEAULIEU – The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556-539 B.C.
in: Yale Near Eastern Research 10 (1989) n°2.

146 J.J. GLASSNER – Chroniques mésopotamiennes n°22

147 S. PARPOLA – Assyrian Chronology 681-648 BC. in: Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and
Assurbanipal Part II (Winona Lake 2007 Ed. Eisenbrauns), pp. 381-430.


149 M. ABD EL-MAKSOUD, D. VALBELLE – Une stèle de l'an 7 d'Apriès
in: Revue d'Égyptologie 64 (2013) pp. 1-13.

150 A.K. GRAYSON – The Chronology of the Reign of Ashurbanipal
in: Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 70:2 (1980) pp. 227-245.
151 M.F. LAMING MACADAM – The Temples of Kawa I. The Inscriptions
London 1949 Ed. Oxford University Press pp. 14-32.

152 G. FRAME – The Inscription of Sargon II at Tang-i Var
in: Orientalia 68:1 (1999) pp. 31-60.

BCE Assyrian king Assyrian eponym Babylonian king
Egyptian king
717 14 Sargon II Tab-šar-Aššur 5 5 Merodachbaladan II
716 15 Shabaka Tab-sil-Ešarra 6 6
715 16 Taklak-ana-beli 7 [0] 7
714 17 Ištar-duri 8 [1] 8
713 18 Aššur-babi 9 [2] 9
712 [1] 1 Shabataka/ Šarru-êmuranni 10 [3] 10
711 [2] 2 [Taharqa] Ninurta-âlik-pâni 11 [4] 11
710 [3] 3 Šamaš-bêlu-uṣur 12 [5] 12
709 [4] 4 Mannu-kî-Aššur-lê’i 13 [6] 1 Sargon II
708 [5] 5 Šamaš-upahhir 14 [7] 2
707 [6] 6 Ša-Aššur-dubbu 15 [8] 3
706 [7] 7 Mutakkil-Aššur 16 [9] 4
705 [8] 8 Nashru-Bêl 17 [10] 5
704 [9] 9 Sennacherib Nabû-deni-epuš 1 18 (Sargon II)
703 [10] 10 Nuhšaya 2 19 Marduk-zakir-šumi II
702 [11] 11 Nabû-lê’i 3 1 Bêl-ibni
701 [12] 12 Hananu 4 2
700 [13] 13 Metunu 5 3
699 [14] 14 Bêl-šarrani 6 1 Aššur-nâdin-šumi II
698 [15] 15 Arda-Mulissu Sulmu-šarri 7 [1] 2
697 [16] 16 Nabû-dûru-uṣur 8 [2] 3
696 [17] 17 Šulmu-bêli 9 [3] 4
695 [18] 18 Aššur-bêlu-uṣur 10 [4] 5
694 [19] 19 Ilu-issîya 11 [5] 6
693 [20] 20 Iddin-ahhê 12 [6] 1 Nergal-ušêzib
692 [21] 21 Zazâya 13 [7] 1 Mušêzib-Marduk
691 [22] 22 Bêl-êmuranni 14 [8] 2
690 [23] 23 Nabû-kênu-uṣur 15 [9] 3
689 1 Taharqa Gihilu 16 [10] 4
688 2 Iddin-ahhê 17 [11] 1 Sennacherib
687 3 Sin-ahhê-erîba 18 [12] 2
686 4 Bêl-êmuranni 19 [13] 3
685 5 Aššur-da’’inanni 20 [14] 4
684 6 Manzernê 21 [15] 5
683 7 Mannu-kî-Adad 22 [1] 6
682 8 Nabû-sharru-uṣur 23 [2] 7
681 9 Nabû-ahhê-êreš 24 [3] 8
680 10 Esarhaddon Danânu 1 1 Esarhaddon
679 11 Issi-Adad-anênu 2 2
678 12 Nergal-šarru-uṣur 3 3
677 13 Abî-râmu 4 4
676 14 Banbâ 5 5
675 15 Nabû-ahhê-iddin 6 6
674 16 Šarru-nûrî 7 7
673 17 Atar-ilu 8 8
672 18 Nabû-bêlu-uṣur 9 [1] 9
671 19 Kanûnâyu 10 [2] 10
670 20 Šulmu-bêli-lašme 11 [3] 11
669 21 Šamash-kâšid-ayâbi 12 [4] 12
668 22 Assurbanipal Marlarim 1 1 Aššurbanipal
667 23 Gabbaru 2 1 Šamaš-šuma-ukîn
666 24 Kanûnâyu 3 2 Tablet BM 45640
665 25 Mannu-kî-šarri 4 3
664 26 Thebes devastated Šarru-lû-dâri 5 4
663 1 Psammetichus I Bêl-na’id 6 5 1
662 2 Tab-šar-Sîn 7 6 2
661 3 Arba’ilâyu 8 7 3
660 4 Girsapûnu 9 8 4
659 5 Silim-Aššur 10 9 5
658 6 Ša-Nabû-šû 11 10 6
657 7 Lâ-bâši 12 11 7
656 8 Milkî-râmu 13 12 8
655 9 Amyânu 14 13 9
654 10 Assur-nâsir 15 14 10
653 11 Assur-ilâya 16 15 11
652 12 Assur-dûru-uṣur 17 16 12
651 13 Sagabbu 18 17 13
650 14 Bêl-Harrân-šadûa 19 18 14
649 15 Ahu-ilâya 20 19 15
648 16 Belshunu 21 20 16
647 17 Nabû-nadin-ahi 22 1 Kandalanu 17
646 18 Nabû-šar-ahhešu 23 2 18
645 19 Šamaš-da’’inanni of Babylon 24 3 19
644 20 Nabû-sharru-uṣur 25 4 20
643 21 Nabû-sharru-uṣur of Marash 26 5 21
642 22 Šamaš-da’’inanni of Que 27 6 22
641 23 Aššur-garu’a-nere 28 7 23
640 24 Šarru-metu-uballit 29 8 24
639 25 Mušallim-Aššur 30 9 25
638 26 Aššur-gimilli-tere 31 10 26
637 27 Zababa-eriba 32 11 27
636 28 Sin-šarru-uṣur 33 12 28
635 29 Bel-lu-dari 34 13 29
634 30 Bullutu 35 14 30
633 31 Upaqa-ana-Arbail 36 15 31
632 32 Tab-sil-Sin 37 16 32
631 33 Adad-remanni 38 17 33
630 34 Salmu-šarri-iqbi 39 18 34
629 35 Aššur-etel-ilâni Nabû-šarru-uṣur [40] 1 19 35
628 36 ?Nur-salam-sarpi? [41] 2 20 36
627 37 Marduk-šarru-uṣur [42] 3 21 Sin-šum-lišir 37
626 38 Sin-šar-iškun Iqbi-ilani /Marduk-remanni 04 22) Sin-šar-iškun 38
625 39 Sin-šarru-uṣur 1 1 Nabopolassar 39
624 40 Kanunaiu 2 2 40
623 41 Aššur-matu-taqqin 3 3 41
622 42 Daddî 4 4 42
621 43 Bel-iqbi 5 5 43
620 44 Sa’ilu 6 6 44
619 45 Mannu-ki-ahhe 7 7 45
618 46 Nabû-sakip 8 8 46
617 47 Assur-remanni 9 9 47
616 48 Bel-ahu-uṣur 10 10 48
615 49 Sin-alik-pani 11 11 49
614 50 Paši 12 12 50
613 51 Nabû-tapputi-alik 13 13 51
612 52 Shamash-šarru-ibni 14 14 52
611 53 Aššur-uballit II Nabû-mar-šarri-uṣur 1 15 53
610 54 Nabû-šarru-uṣur 2 16 Temple of Harran wrecked 54
609 1 Necho II Gargamisaiu 3 [0] 17 Stele of Adad-Guppi 1 55
608 2 [1] 18 2 56
607 3 [2] 19 3 57
606 4 [3] 20 4 58
605 5 [4] 21 5 59
604 6 1 Nebuchadnezzar II 6 60
603 7 2 7 61
602 8 3 8 62
601 9 4 9 63
600 10 5 10 64
599 11 6 11 65
598 12 7 12 66
597 13 8 13 67
596 14 9 14 68
595 15 10 15 69
594 16 1 Psammetichus II 11 16 70
593 2 12 17 71
592 3 13 18 72
591 4 14 19 73
590 5 15 20 74
589 6 16 21 75
588 1 7 Apries 17 22 76
587 2 18 23 77
586 3 19 24 78
585 4 20 25 79
584 5 21 26 80
583 6 22 27 81
582 7 23 28 82
581 8 24 29 83
580 9 25 30 84
579 10 26 31 85
578 11 27 32 86
577 12 28 33 87
576 13 29 34 88
575 14 30 35 89
574 15 31 36 90
573 16 32 37 91
572 17 33 38 92
571 18 34 39 93
570 19 35 40 94
569 [20] 1 Amasis 36 41 95
568 [21] 2 37 Tablet VAT 4956 42 96
567 [22] 3 38 43 97
566 4 39 44 98
565 5 40 45 99
564 6 41 46 100
563 7 42 47 101
562 8 0 43 48 102
561 9 1 Amel-Marduk 49 103
560 10 0 2 50 104
559 11 1 Neriglissar 51 105
558 12 pap. Louvre 7848 Cyrus II [1] 2 52 106
557 13 [2] 3 53 107
556 14 [3] 0 4 Lâbâši-Marduk 54 108
555 15 stele of Hillah [4] 1 Nabonidus 109
554 16 [5] 2 110
553 17 [6] [0] 3 Belshazzar 111
552 18 [7] [1] 4 112
551 19 [8] [2] 5 113
550 20 [9] [3] 6 114
549 21 [10] [4] 7 115
548 22 [11] [5] 8 116
547 23 [12] [6] 9 117
546 24 [13] [7] 10 118
545 25 [14] [8] 11 119
544 26 [15] [9] 12 120
543 27 [16] [10] 13 121
542 28 [17] [11] 14 122
541 29 [18] [12] 15 123
540 30 [19] [13] 16 124
539 31 [20] [14] 17 Fall of Babylon 125
538 32 Cyrus II 1 [1] Ugbaru 126
537 33 21 Cambyses II 127
536 34 3 [2] 128
535 35 4 [3] 129
534 36 5 [4] 130
533 37 6 [5] 131
532 38 7 [6] 132
531 39 8 [7] 133
530 40 9 [8] 134
529 41 Cambyses II 1 135
528 42 2 136
527 43 3 137
526 1 44 Psammetichus III 4 138
525 2 5 Cambyses II Stele IM.4187 5
524 3 6 6
523 4 7 Tablet BM 33066 7
522 5 8 8
Year 44 of Amasis, the last of his reign, should be dated 526. The solution proposed
by Parker of a year 45 dated 526 is not possible, as recognized by Depuydt153 who prefers to
date the death of Amasis in 527 in his 44th year, assuming that the 4th year of Cambyses
(526) was a period of disorder without pharaoh! But this choice leads to an implausible
result, contrary to the accounts of all the ancient historians154: the throne of Egypt would
have been a vacuum for 1 year after the disappearance of Psammetichus III, from May 526
to May 525, when Cambyses was recognized Pharaoh, but the end of the ancient Egyptian
empire was an important milestone that has been recounted by the following historians:
!According to Diodorus Siculus: After a reign of 55 years155 he [Amasis] ended his days at the time
when Cambyses, the king of the Persians, attacked Egypt, in the 3rd year of the 63rd Olympiad
(Historical Library I:68:6). Thus Amasis died between July 526 and July 525.
!According to the Egyptian priest Manetho156: Cambyses, in the 5th year of his reign over the
Persians [in -525] became king of Egypt and led it for 3 years [from spring 525 to spring 522].
!According to Herodotus (c. -450): On the death of Cyrus, Cambyses his son by Cassandane
daughter of Pharnaspes took the kingdom (...) Amasis was the Egyptian king against whom Cambyses,
son of Cyrus, made his expedition; and with him went an army composed of the many nations under his
rule, among them being included both Ionic and Aeolic Greeks (...) One of the mercenaries of Amasis, a
Halicarnassian, Phanes by name, a man of good judgment, and a brave warrior, dissatisfied for some
reason or other with his master, deserted the service, and taking ship, fled to Cambyses, wishing to get
speech with him (...) Psammenitus, son of Amasis, lay encamped at the mouth of the. Nile, called the
Pelusiac, awaiting Cambyses. For Cambyses, when he went up against Egypt, found Amasis no longer in
life: he had died after ruling Egypt 44 years, during all which time no great misfortune had befallen him
(...) The Egyptians who fought in the battle, no sooner turned their backs upon the enemy, than they fled
away in complete disorder to Memphis (...) 10 days after the fort had fallen, Cambyses resolved to try the
spirit of Psammenitus, the Egyptian king, whose whole reign had been but 6 months (...) Psammenitus
plotted evil, and received his reward accordingly. He was discovered to be stirring up revolt in Egypt,
wherefore Cambyses, when his guilt clearly appeared, compelled him to drink bull’s blood, which presently
caused his death. Such was the end of Psammenitus (The Histories II:1; III:1,4,10-16).
The Egyptian priest Manetho indicates the same values as Herodotus, 44 years for
Amasis and 6 months for Psammetichus III. By combining this information with data from
the reign of Persian King Cambyses who became Egyptian in May 525, the death of Amasis
can be fixed around October 526. Fixing the date of the conquest of Egypt in 525 is also
confirmed since the 5th year of Cambyses began the 1st Nisan (March 29) in the Persian
system, and the 1st Thoth (January 2) in the Egyptian system. The account of these
historians is confirmed by several archaeological finds:
!The narrative of Udjahorresnet157, the Egyptian general who led the naval fleet under
Amasis, then under Psammetichus III and finally under Cambyses, authenticates the
version of Herodotus. This war probably lasted at least six months because, according to
the historian Polyaenus: When Cambyses attacked Pelusium, which guarded the entrance into Egypt,
the Egyptians defended it with great resolution. They advanced formidable engines against the besiegers,
and hurled missiles, stones, and fire at them from their catapults. (Stratagems of war VII:9). These
153 L. DEPUYDT - Egyptian Regnal Dating under Cambyses and the Date of the Persian Conquest
1996 in: Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson pp. 179-190.
154 Herodotus was close to events, and Manetho, an Egyptian priest, was to know the history of his country.
155 Amasis’ reign is counted from the revolt after the attack of Nebuchadnezzar II the 23rd year in 582 BCE (Jewish Antiquities
X:180-182): 581-526 (55 years) instead of 570-526 (44 years).

156 W.G. WADDELL - Manetho (Loeb Classical Library 350)
Cambridge 1956 Ed. Harvard University Press pp. 169-177.

Paris 1996 Éd. Fayard pp. 63-65.

narratives overlap exactly and give the following chronological scheme: war of Cambyses
against Egypt beginning in the year 44, the last year of Amasis, which ends after the brief
reign of 6 months of Psammetichus III, his successor or in the 5th year of Cambyses.
!According to the stele IM.4187 in the Louvre, an Apis bull was born at month 5, day 29,
year 5 of Cambyses, died on month 9, day 4, year 4 of Darius I and was buried month 11,
day 13, of the same year, covering a total period of 7 years 3 months and 5 days (reading 8
years less likely). This computation is consistent (between the month 9, day 4, and the
month 11, day 13, there are exactly 70 days for the period of embalming the bull) and
gives the following dates in the Julian calendar: May 29, 525, August 31, 518 and
November 8, 518. This stele proves that Cambyses reigned in Egypt from May 525
because at the end of this month, an Apis bull is dedicated to him. Thus the conquest of
Egypt had to be completed in early May 525 as the last text referring to Psammetichus III
(below) is dated I Peret year 2 (May 525). He was the son of Amasis as confirmed by the
stele No. 309 of the Serapeum (Louvre). It is indeed Psammetichus III because one of the
contracting parties cited in the text was still alive in the year 35 of Darius I158 .
!
Before his conquest Cambyses was a Persian leader but thereafter he also became an
Egyptian pharaoh. This new situation has created a dual system of counting the reign.
!Egyptian documents of the time of Darius I mention the events of years 3 and 4 of
Cambyses, apparently before the conquest of Egypt. A papyrus dated 9th year of Darius
says: In his 2nd year, therefore, Cambyses conquered Egypt really, and in 5th year he died. This demotic
text (Papyrus Rylands IX 21), entitled Peteisis petition spoke of a conflict in a family of
priests of the temple of Amon at Teuzoi (El-Hibeh) between the 4th year of Psammetichus
I and the 4th year of Cambyses159 . It ends with the following dates: Until the Year 44 of
Amasis. In Year 3 of Cambyses, Hor son of Psammet-kmenempe, the prophet of Amon (...) in Year 4 of
Cambyses. A second Egyptian papyrus known as the Demotic Chronicle, confirmed the year
44 of Amasis as last year160. This source says that Darius (I) in the 3rd year of his reign
would have given the satrap of Egypt the order of gathering a committee of wise men
from among the Egyptian warriors, priests and scribes in order: that they put in writing that
Egyptian law was in force until the 44th year of the reign of Amasis.
!Cambyses died in 522, it was therefore his 5th year in Egypt, the 2nd corresponded to 525
and the 1st to 526. This conquest began in 526, since Herodotus (The Histories III:1,10)
states that the war began with the death of Amasis. Years 2 to 5 of Cambyses refer to his
years of domination in Egypt (not his regnal years). It is not logical to assume that the
Egyptians used a counting system reserved for their pharaohs rather than for foreign
leaders161, which Cambyses was before his conquest (though, after 525, Persian leaders
would be considered as Pharaohs).
The year 5 of Cambyses (525 BCE) began on Nisan 1st, that is March 28, and Year 44
of Amasis (526 BCE) began on Thot 1st, that is January 2. Thus, as the reign of
Psammeticus III was 6 months long, his year 1 (526 BCE) began near November and his
year 2 began on Thot 1st, that is January 1st, 525 BCE, and ended around April.
158 H. GAUTHIER – Le livre des rois d'Égypte
Le Caire 1915 Éd. Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale pp. 131-132).
Paris 1996 Éd. Fayard p. 92.

160 A. KUHRT - The Persian Empire
London 2010 Ed. Routeledge pp. 124-125.

161 R.A. PARKER - Persian and Egyptian Chronology
in: The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures LVIII/3 (1941) pp. 298-301.
It is interesting to note that the Israelite chronology fits very well the previous
chronologies (Egyptian, Assyrian and Babylonian). For example, the text of 2Kings 18:9 in
which the fall of Samaria began in the 4th year of King Hezekiah, that is, the 7th year of
Hosea, that Shalmaneser the king of Assyria came against Samaria and began to lay siege to
it, which lasted 3 years. According to a Babylonian chronicle the fall of Samaria began on
the 5th and last year of Shalmaneser V and was completed 3 years later in the 2nd year of
Sargon II (Annals of Sargon). According to the Bible, there are many dated synchronisms
between kings of Judah (Ahaz, Hezechiah) and kings of Israel (Pekah, Hosea) with Assyrian
kings (Tiglath-pileser III, Salmanazar V, Sargon II, Sennacherib) and one Babylonian king
(Merodachbaladan II). In addition, there were four dated lunar eclipses during this period:
one on year 1 of Nabû-mukîn-zêri (April 9, 731), one in year 1 of Merodachbaladan II
(March 19, 721) and two on his year 2 (March 8, September 1st, 720).
ASSYRIA BABYLONIA JUDEA ISRAEL EGYPT reference
800 11 Adad-nêrari III ? Ninurta-apla-X 10 Uziah 23 Jeroboam Shoshenq IV
799 12 1 11 24 1 (22nd Dyn.)
798 13 2 12 25 2
797 14 3 13 26 3
796 15 4 14 Azariah 27 4 2Ki 14:23
795 16 5 15 28 5 2Ki 15:1,2
794 17 6 16 29 6 2Ch 26:3
793 18 7 17 30 7
792 19 8 18 31 8
791 20 9 19 32 9
790 21 10? Marduk-bêl-zêri 20 33 10
789 22 1 21 34 11
788 23 2 22 35 12
787 24 3 23 36 1 Pamiu
786 25 4 24 37 2
785 26 5 25 38 3
784 27 6 26 39 4
783 28 Shalmaneser IV 7 27 40 5
782 1 [0] Bar Ga’ah 8 28 41 6
781 2 [1] (Pulu) 9 29 1 Zekariah 1 Shoshenq V 2Ki 14:29
780 3 [2] 10? Marduk-apla-uṣur 30 [2] 2
779 4 [3] 1 31 [3] 3
778 5 [4] 2 32 [4] 4
777 6 [5] 3 33 [5] 5
776 7 [6] 4 34 [6] 6
775 8 [7] 5 35 [7] 7
774 9 [8] 6 36 [8] 8
773 10 Aššur-dân III 7 37 [9] 9
772 1 [10] 8 38 [10] 10 2Ki 15:8
771 2 [11] 9 39 [11]Shallum 11 2Ki 15:13
770 3 [12] 10 Erîba-Marduk 40 1Menahem 12 2Ki 15:17
769 4 [13] 1 41 1 13
768 5 [14] 2 42 2 14
767 6 [15] 3 43 3 15
766 7 [16] 4 44 4 16 (Isa 10:5-8)
765 8 [17] 5 45 5 (Pulu) 17 2Ki 15:19-20
764 9 [18] 6 46 6 18
763 10 (total solar eclipse) 7 47 7 19 Bur-Sagale
762 11 [20] 8 48 8 20
761 12 [21] 9 Nabû-šum-iškun 49 9 21
760 13 [22] 1 50 10 Pekayah 22 2Ki 15:22-23
759 14 [23] 2 51 1 23
758 15 [24] 3 52 Jotham 2 Pekah 24 2Ki 15:27-33
757 16 [25] 4 1 1 25
756 17 [26] 5 2 2 26
755 18 Aššur-nêrari V 6 3 3 27
754 1 [28] 7 4 4 28
753 2 [29] 8 5 5 29
752 3 [30] 9 6 6 30
751 4 [31] 10 7 7 31
750 5 [32] 11 8 8 32
749 6 [33] 12 9 9 33
748 7 [34] 13 Nabû-nâsir 10 10 34
747 8 [35] 1 11 11 35
746 9 [36] 2 12 12 36
745 10 [0] 3 13 13 37
744 1Tiglath-pileser III 4 14 14 1 Osorkon IV
743 2 5 15 15 2 (= So)
742 3 6 16 16 3
741 4 7 1 Ahaz 17 17 4 2Ki 16:1-10
740 5 [1] Shalmaneser V 8 2 18 18 5 2Ch 28:16
739 6 [2] 9 3 19 19 6 2Ki 16:5,6
738 7 [3] 10 [4] 20 20 Hosea 7 2Ki 15:27-30
737 8 [4] 11 [5] [1] 8
736 9 [5] 12 6 [2] 9
735 10 [6] 13 7 [3] 10
734 11 [7] 14 Nabû-nâdîn-zêri 8 [4] 11 2Ki 16:7-9
733 12 [8] 1 9 [5] 12
732 13 [9] 2 Nabû-mukîn-zêri 10 [6] 13
731 14 [10] 1 (lunar eclipse April 9) 11 [7] 14
730 15 [11] 2 12 [8] 15
729 16 [12] 3 Pulu 13 [9] 16 2Ki 17:1
728 17 [14] 1 14 1 [10] 17
727 18 [15] 2 Ulûlaiu 15 2 [11] 18
726 1 Shalmaneser V 1 (Shalmaneser V) 16 Ezechias 3 [12] 19 2Ki 18:1
725 2 2 1 4 [13] 20
724 3 3 2 5 [14] 21
723 4 4 3# 6 [15] 22 #(alliance) 2Ki 17:2-5
722 5 Sargon II 5 Merodachbaladan II 4 7 [16] 23 2Ki 18:9
721 1 1 (lunar eclipse March 19) 5 8 [17] 24
720 2 Fall of Samaria 2 (March 8; September 1st) 6 9 [18] 25 2Ki 18:10
719 3 3 7 [19] 26
718 4 4 8 [20] 27
717 5 5 9 [21] 28
716 6 6 10 [22] 29
715 7 #(alliance) 7 11 [23] 30 #(alliance)
714 8 -[1] Sennacherib 8 12 [24] 31
713 9 -[2] 9 13 [25] 32
712 10-[3] Ashdod Lakish 10 (failed alliance) 14 [26] 1 Shabataka Is 36:1; 39:1
711 11-[4] taken 11 15 [27] 2 /Taharqa 1
710 12-[5] 12 Sargon II 16 [28] 3 (25th Dyn.) 2
709 13-[6] 1 17 [29] 4 3
708 14-[7] 2 18 [30] 5 4
707 15-[8] 3 19 [31] 6 5
706 16-[9] 4 20 [32] 7 6
705 17 Sennacherib 5 Sennacherib 21 [33] 8 7
704 1 1 22 [34] 9 8
703 2 2 Bêl-ibni 23 [35] 10 9
702 3 1 24 [36] 11 10
701 4 2 25 [37] 12 11
700 5 3 Aššur-nâdin-šumi II 26 [38] 13 12
699 6 1 27 [39] 14 13
698 7 [1] Arda-Mulissu 2 28 [40] 15 14
697 8 [2] 3 29 [41] 16 15
696 9 [3] 4 1 Manasseh [42] 17 2Ki 21:1
695 10 [4] 5 2 [43] 18
694 11 [5] 6 3 [44] 19
693 12 [6] 1 Nergal-ušezib 4 [45] 20
692 13 [7] 1 Mušezib-Marduk 5 [46] 21
691 14 [8] 2 6 [47] 22
690 15 [9] 3 7 [48] 23
689 16 [10] 4 8 [49] 1 Taharqa
688 17 [11] 1 Sennacherib 9 [50] 2
687 18 [12] 2 10 [51] 3
686 19 [13] 3 11 [52] 4
685 20 [14] 4 12 [53] 5
684 21 [15] 5 13 [54] 6
683 22 [1] Esarhaddon 6 14 [55] 7
682 23 [2] 7 15 [56] 8
681 24 [3] 8 16 [57] 9
680 1 Esarhaddon 1 Esarhaddon 17 [58] 10
679 2 2 18 [59] 11
678 3 3 19 [60] 12
677 4 4 20 [61] 13
676 5 5 21 [62] 14
675 6 6 22 [63] 15
674 7 7 23 [64] 16
673 8 (Manasseh deported) 8 (2Chr 33:11) 24 [65] 17 Ezr 4:2 Is 7:8,9
672 9 [1] Aššurbanipal 9 25 18 (Israel deported into Assyria)
671 10 [2] 10 26 1 Necho I 19
670 11 [3] 11 27 2 (26th Dyn.) 20
669 12 [4] 12 28 3 21
668 1 Aššurbanipal 1 Aššurbanipal 29 4 22
667 2 1 Šamašumaukin 30 5 23
666 3 2 (lunar eclipse April 10) 31 6 24 BM 45640
665 4 3 32 7 25
664 5 (Thebes sacked) 4 (Nah 3:8) 33 8 26 Ezr 4:10
663 6 5 34 1 Psammetichus I
662 7 6 35 2
661 8 7 36 3
660 9 8 37 4
659 10 9 38 5
658 11 10 39 6
657 12 11 40 7
656 13 12 41 8
655 14 13 42 9
654 15 14 43 10
653 16 15 44 11
652 17 16 45 12
651 18 17 46 13
650 19 18 47 14
649 20 19 48 15
648 21 20 Kandalanu 49 16
647 22 1 50 17
646 23 2 51 18
645 24 3 52 19
644 25 4 53 20
643 26 5 54 21
642 27 6 55 Amon 22 2Ki 21:1
641 28 7 1 23 2Ki 21:19
640 29 8 2 Josiah 24 2Ki 22:1
639 30 9 1 25
638 31 10 2 26
637 32 11 3 27
636 33 12 4 28
635 34 13 5 29
634 35 14 6 30
633 36 15 7 31
632 37 16 8 32
631 38 17 9 33
630 39 18 10 34
629 1 Aššur-etel-ilâni 19 11 35
628 2 [41] 20 12 36
627 3 [42] 21 13 37
626 4 Sin-šar-iškun 22 Nabopolassar 14 38
625 1 1 15 39
624 2 2 16 40
623 3 3 17 41
622 4 4 18 42
621 5 5 Lunar eclipse (22 April) 19 43
620 6 6 (Almagest V,14) 20 44
619 7 7 21 45
618 8 8 22 46
617 9 9 23 47
616 10 10 24 48
615 11 11 25 49
614 12 12 26 50
613 13 13 27 51
612 14 Aššur-uballit II 14 Nineveh destroyed 28 52 Nah 3:15-19
611 1 15 29 53
610 2 16 30 54
609 3 Battle of Harran 17 BM 21901 31 Joiaqim 1 Necho II 2Ki 22:1;
The only problem to solve is why the destruction of Jerusalem in Jeremiah's text is
dated on 10/V/11 of Zedekiah (587 BCE) and on 10/V/19 of Nebuchadnezzar (586 BCE).
This discrepancy of one year is not an error, but reflects a change which took place at the
Battle of Harran (609 BCE), a historical event well documented and dated in four different
chronologies. It is worth noting that Josiah was the last anointed king (Lm 4:20; 2Ch 35:23-
25). Just before this battle, Josiah was killed in Megiddo by Necho II (2Ki 23:29). According
to Josephus this pharaoh had come to assist the Assyrian king against Babylonians and
allied Media (Antiquities of the Jews X:74). Herodotus reports this event (History II:159)
and a Babylonian chronicle (BM 21901) teaches us that this event took place in the 17th year
of Nabopolassar in the month of Dumuzi (July), and that the Assyrian king Assur-uballit II
was defeated in the 3rd year of his reign. Chronology from 609 to 400 BCE:
BABYLONIA JUDEA EGYPT reference
609 3 Battle of Harran 17 [0] Joiaqim 31 0 1 Necho II 2Ki 23:36
608 End of Assyria 18 [1] 1 1 2
607 19 [2] 2 2 3
606 20 [3] 3 3 4
605 Nebuchadnezzar 21 1 4 4 5 Battle of Karkemish Jr 25:1;46:2
604 12 5 5 6
603 23 6 6 7
602 34 7 7 8
601 Birth of Darius the 45 8 8 0 9 Joiaqim vassal of Dn 5:31
600 Mede (Harpagus) 56 9 9 1 10 Nebuchadnezzar 2Ki 24:1
599 67 10 10 2 11
598 BM 21946 78 Zedekiah 11 11 3 12 Exile of Joiakîn Jr 52:28
597 89 1 12 1 13 2Chr 36:9,10 2Ki 24:12
596 9 10 2 13 2 14
595 10 11 3 14 3 15
594 11 12 4 15 4 16
593 12 13 5 16 5 1 Psammetichus II
592 13 14 6 17 6 2
591 14 15 7 18 7 3
590 15 16 8 19 8 4
589 16 17 Jer 52:4 9 20 9 5 Siege of Jerusalem Ezk 24:1
588 Jubilee violated 17 18 50 10 21 10 6/1 Apries Jr 32:1
587 18 19 1 Temple destroyed 11 22 11 2 Exile of the people Jr 52:1,12,29
586 Ezk 26:1-12 19 1 2 1 23 12 3 1st year of exile Ezk 33:21
585 Dan 2:1 20 2 3 2 24 13 4
584 Dan 4:25-29 21 3 4 3 25 14 5
583 (7 years of madness) 22 4 5 4 26 15 6
582 23 5 6 5 27 16 7 Last exile Jr 52:30
581 24 7 6 28 17 8
580 25 8 7 29 18 9
579 26 9 8 30 19 10
578 27 10 9 31 20 11
577 28 11 10 32 21 12
576 29 12 11 33 22 13
575 30 13 12 34 23 14
574 (Tyre, siege of 13 years) 31 14 13 35 24 15
573 Against Apion 1:156 32 15 14 36 25 16 Ezk 40:1
572 33 16 15 37 26 17
571 34 17 16 38 27 18 Ezk 29:12-20
570 35 18 17 39 28 19
569 36 19 18 40 29 1 20 Amasis
568 VT 4956 (eclipse) 37 20 19 41 30 2 21 Jr 43:10,13
567 (Egypt attacked) 38 21 20 42 31 3 22 Death of Apries
566 39 22 21 43 32 4 1 Egypt desolated 40 years Jr 44:30
565 40 23 22 44 33 52
564 41 24 23 45 34 63
563 42 25 24 46 35 74
562 Amêl Marduk 43 26 25 47 36 85
561 1 27 26 48 37 9 6 Jehoiachin liberated Jr 52:31
560 Neriglissar 2 28 27 49 10 7
559 (Cyrus II Persian king) 1 29 28 50 11 8
558 2 30 29 51 12 9
557 3 31 30 52 13 10
556 Labashi-Marduk 4 32 31 53 14 11
555 Nabonidus 1 33 32 54 15 12
554 2 34 33 55 16 13
553 Belshazzar 3 0 35 34 56 17 14
552 4 1 36 35 57 18 15 Dn 7:1
551 5 2 37 36 58 19 16
550 Harpagus Median king 6 3 38 37 59 20 17 Dn 8:1,20-21
549 vassal of Cyrus II 7 4 39 38 60 21 18
548 8 5 40 39 61 22 19
547 9 6 41 40 62 23 20
546 10 7 42 41 63 24 21
545 11 8 43 42 64 25 22
544 12 9 44 43 65 26 23
543 13 10 45 44 66 27 24
542 14 11 46 45 67 28 25
541 15 12 47 46 68 29 26
540 16 13 48 47 69 30 27
539 Fall of Babylon 17 14 Cyrus II 48 70 31 28 Jr 25:11,12
538 Freedom year 1 1 50 49 32 29 Is 43:1,3;
537 2 50 33 30 45:1
536 3 51 34 31 Dn 10:1
535 4 52 35 32
534 5 53 36 33
533 6 54 37 34
532 7 55 38 35
531 8 56 39 36
530 90 Cambyses II 57 40 37
529 1 58 41 38
528 2 59 42 39
527 3 60 43 40 Ezk 29:12-16
526 4 61 1 44 Psammetichus III
525 5 62 2 Fall of Egypt
524 6 63
523 Lunar eclipse 16 July 7 64 BM 33066
522 0 8 Darius I 65
521 1 66
520 2 67
519 3 68
518 4 69 50 End of Temple's desolation Zc 7:1-5
517 5 70 1 New jubilee cycle Dn 9:2
516 6 2
515 7 3
514 8 4
513 9 5
512 10 6
511 11 7
510 12 8
509 13 9
508 14 10
507 15 11
506 16 12
505 17 13
504 18 14
503 19 15
502 Lunar eclipse 19 Nov. 20 16 Almagest IV:9
501 21 17
500 22 18
499 23 19
498 24 20
497 25 21
496 26 0 Xerxes I 22
495 27 1 23
494 28 2 24
493 29 3 25 Vashti repudiated Est 1:3
492 30 4 26
491 Lunar eclipse 25 Apr. 31 5 27 Almagest IV:1
490 32 6 28
489 33 7 29 Wedding of Xerxes Est 2:16-17
488 34 8 30
487 35 9 31
486 36 10 32
485 Babylonian revolt 11 33 Ezr 4:6
484 Est 2:21-3:7 12 34 Est 3:7-10
483 13 35
482 14 36
481 15 37
480 16 38
479 17 39
478 18 40
477 19 41
476 20 42
475 Lunar eclipse Jun. 26 0 21 Artaxerxes I 43 BM 32234
474 Lunar eclipse Dec. 20 1 44
473 2 45
472 3 46
471 4 47
470 5 48
469 6 49
468 7 50 1st jubilee celebrated Ezr 7:1-8,24
467 8 1
466 6 2
465 10 3
464 11 4
463 12 5
462 13 6
461 14 7
460 15 8
459 16 9
458 17 10
457 18 11
456 19 12
455 20 13 1 Beginning of 483 years Dn 9:24-27
454 21 14 2 (483 = 69x7) Ne 2:1-9
453 22 15 3
452 23 16 4
451 24 17 5
450 25 18 6
449 26 19 7
448 27 20 8
447 28 21 9
446 29 22 10
445 30 23 11
444 31 24 12
443 32 25 13 Inspection of Nehemiah Ne 5:14
442 33 26 14
441 34 27 15
440 35 28 16
439 36 29 17
438 37 20 18
437 38 31 19
436 39 32 20
435 40 33 21
434 41 0 Darius B 34 22
433 42 1 35 23
432 [] 2 36 24
431 [] 3 37 25
430 [] 4 38 26
429 [] 5 39 27
428 [] 6 40 28
427 [] 7 41 29
426 [] 8 42 30
425 50 0 Xerxes II 43 31
424 0 51 Darius II 44 32
423 1 45 33
422 2 46 34
421 3 47 35
420 4 48 36
419 5 49 37
418 6 50 38
417 7 1 39
416 8 2 40
415 9 3 41
414 10 4 42
413 11 5 43
412 12 6 44
411 13 7 45
410 14 8 46
409 15 9 47
408 16 10 48
407 17 11 49 (49 = 7x7) (Dn 9:25)
406 18 12 50 Jerusalem city achieved Nh 12:22-43
405 19 0 Artaxerxes II 13 51 (inauguration)
404 1 14 52
The Battle of Harran was a turning point in history because it marked the definitive
end of the Assyrian Empire and the beginning of the 70-year domination of the Babylonian
empire: these nations [including Tyre and Judea] will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years. But
when 70 years have been fulfilled, I will call to account the king of Babylon and that nation for their error,
declares Jehovah, and I will make the land of the Chaldeans a desolate wasteland [on October 539 BCE]
for all time (Jr 25:11-12). Nebuchadnezzar's reign is counted in two ways by Jeremiah
however far from being a mistake this reckoning proves to be an amazing chronological
accuracy. Indeed, the first 8 years of Babylonian domination (609-601) were through the
pharaoh Necho, furthermore, Egyptians counted their years of reign from year 1, without
accession (year 0) as Babylonians were doing, and the following years from 1st Thoth
instead of 1st Nisan for Babylonians. Thus the 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign was
reckoned in 605 BCE because Joiaqim was under Babylonian rulership through Necho (Jr
25:1; 46:2). This chronological reckoning is it correct?
Given that the 1st year of Necho's reign began in 609 BCE it had to start after 1st
Thoth but as there is no year 55 of Psammetichus I (which would have had to start also on
1st Thoth), Necho began to reign just after 1st Thoth, 23 January in 609 BCE162.
Mesopotamian chronicles163 describe the events from day to day, such as the Battle of
Harran which involved several great kings simultaneously but without naming them (as for
example Necho, king of Egypt, and Cyaxares, king of the Medes), except Aššur-uballit II,
king of Assyria. According to Mesopotamian chronicles the Babylonians and the Medes put
theirs armies together and marched to Harran against Aššur-uballit in the 16th year of
Nabopolassar, month Arahsamna [November 610 BCE], but an army of Egypt came to
help him. In the month Addaru [March 609 BCE] Nebuchadnezzar, the crown prince (co-
regent), left his troops and their camp, and went home with his father. The 17th year in the
month Du'uzu [July 609 BCE] Aššur-uballit with a large army from Egypt crossed the river
Euphrates and marched against Harran to conquer it but until the month Ululu [September
609 BCE] they did battle against the city but achieved nothing. Four years later, the 20th
year, the army of Egypt marched against the Babylonian king who went home in the month
Šabatu [February 605 BCE]. In the 21st year Nabopolassar stayed in his own land [April 605
BCE], Nebuchadnezzar mustered the Babylonian army and marched to Karchemiš and
completely defeated the Egyptian army and conquered the whole area of Hamath but on 8
Abu [14 August 605 BCE] Nabopolassar died and Nebuchadnezzar returned to Babylon on
1st Ululu [5 September 605 BCE].
The Babylonian chronicle gives a detailed account but omits one key element: why
did Necho who came to help the Assyrian army not intervene in the Battle of Harran?
According to Berossus a Babylonian writer, a priest of Bel Marduk and astronomer, in his
History of Babylonia (c. 280 BCE), Necho was appointed satrap of Palestine and Phoenicia,
presumably for his renunciation to support the Assyrian king at the Battle of Harran (which
began July 609 BCE), but was then dismissed for having rebelled (February 605 BCE)
against Nebuchadnezzar (Against Apion I:134-137). This turnaround explains why Necho's
intervention in Syria was a victory according to Herodotus (The Histories II:159) and also
why he was able to depose Jehoahaz (September 609 BCE) who he replaced by Jehoiakim,
actually a vassal of Nebuchadnezzar (2Ki 24:1). Consequently the destruction of Jerusalem
in Jeremiah's text is dated on 10/V/19 of Nebuchadnezzar II (Jr 52:12), instead of the usual
10/V/18 (Jr 52:29), because the Babylonian reign began under Egyptian administration.
Concerning the day of the destruction of Jerusalem 10/V it is also dated 7/V (2Ki 25:8) and
9/V (9 Ab) in the Talmud (Taanit 28b; Mishna Taanit 4:6-8).
162http://www.chronosynchro.net/wordpress/convertisseur/
163http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/chron00.html
http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/abc4/late-nabopolassar.html
http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/abc5/jerusalem.html#1
The Talmud also reports that the fire began at night just after the conclusion of the
Sabbath thus at sunset of the 9th day of the month of Ab the Babylonians set fire to the
Temple (Taanit 29a). In other words, that year the day of the 9th of Ab itself took place on a
Sunday. As the 1st Nisan is the 1st lunar crescent (= new moon +1)164 after spring equinox165
it is possible to find the exact day of the week166 which matches to 9 Ab:
Year Spring equinox 1 Nisan 1 Iyyar 1 Siwan 1 Tammuz 1 Ab 9 Ab
587 BCE 27 March 22 April 21 May 20 June 19 July 18 August 27 August Sunday
70 CE 22 March 31 March 30 April 29 May 27 June 27 July 4 August Saturday
Chronological indications of the Talmud are excellent; the temple of Jerusalem was
burned by Titus in 70 CE by a remarkable coincidence the same day of the year by
Nebuchadnezzar in 587 BCE (Jewish War VI:250-253). The chronological reconstruction
of the destruction of the first temple is as follows: Nebuzaradan the chief of the body-guard
came to Jerusalem and began to burn the houses of the city on 7 Ab (Friday 25 August),
then he had evacuated the city on the Sabbath dated on 8 Ab (Saturday 26 August),
afterwards on 9 Ab he set fire to the Temple around sunset (c. 18:00-6:00 Sunday 27
August 587 BCE) and prevented the Jews from extinguishing it during the night, which was
the beginning of 10 Ab (Monday 28 August 587 BCE). In 70 CE the temple burned until
Sunday 5 August.
The oldest lunar eclipse in astronomical tablets (BM 32238) is after sunrise in Year 1
of king [Nabu]-Mukin-zeri in the first month of the year (9 April 731). Before that date,
lunar eclipses are described in a more summary way which allows an absolute dating only if
the study period is less than 10 years because lunar phenomena are cyclical and may recur
(+/1 day) after the 11th year (1 year = 12 months + [1 intercalary month]):
! 11 solar years = 11 x 365.24519 = 4017.7 days
! 11 lunar years = (11x12 + 4) x 29.530588 = 4016.2 days
The dating of events over a period which the uncertainty is greater than 10 years
requires the use of astronomical phenomena whose cycle is greater than 10 years such as
solar eclipses or heliacal risings of Sirius (or Venus). Sirius and Venus were observed both
by Babylonians and Egyptians because they are the brightest stars of the sky.
For example, Assyrian chronology may be rebuilt over the period 911-609 thanks to
eponyms167. The list of Assyrian eponyms is anchored on the solar eclipse which occurred
on Simanu in the eponymy of Bur-Sagale (15 June 763)168 . The Assyrian period 911-648 is
dated owing to its canonical eponyms169 and the period 648-609 by a prosopography of its
eponyms170. A few eponyms are non canonical because they died during the year of their
eponymy and there are also some gaps of 1 year between eponym dates and regnal years in
tablet with double dates because the first Assyrian regnal year (accession) was reckoned in
either system: year 0 (Babylonian) or year 1 (Assyrian). Thus, as there are exactly 154
canonical eponyms between Gargamisaiu and Bur-Sagale, which is dated 763 BCE, that
involves dating the one of Gargamisaiu in 609 (= 763 – 154).
164 http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/pacalc.html
166 http://www.nr.com/julian.html
167 http://www.livius.org/li-ln/limmu/limmu_1b.html
169 S. PARPOLA – Assyrian Chronology 681-648 BC.
in: Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal Part II Eisenbrauns, 2007) pp. 381-430.

Year Spring equinox 1 Nisan 29 Nisan 1 Iyyar 30 Iyyar 1 Siwan 29 Siwan 1 Tammuz
763 BCE 29 March 20 March 17 April 18 April 17 May 18 May 15 June 16 June
As solar eclipses occur during new moons (highlighted in black) for reasons of
geometry (the sun, moon and earth must be perfectly aligned) the date [29] Siwan is
excellent, however it can be noted that the 1st of Nisan is dated a little while (9 days) before
the spring equinox. Anyway the only solar eclipse over Assyria during the period 800-750
BCE was the total eclipse dated 15 June 763 BCE (-762). Other solar eclipses have been
suggested but it is noteworthy that the partial solar eclipses dated 4 June 800 BCE and 24
June 791 BCE were not able to be viewed over Assyria.
The Mesopotamian chronology of the period 1133-609 is reconstructed using the
number of Assyrian eponyms (1 a year) and the length of Babylonian reigns (#) combined
with the set of synchronisms among Assyrian and Babylonian kings in Annals:
ASSYRIAN KING # Reign BABYLONIAN KING # Reign JUDEAN RULER # Reign
Aššur-rêš-iši I 18 1133-1115 Ninurta-nâdin-šumi 6 1133-1127 Eli (Philistines) 40 1162-1122
Tiglath-pileser I 39 1115 - Nebuchadnezzar I 22 1127-1105 Samson 20 1122-1102
Enlil-nâdin-apli 4 1105-1101 Sons of Samuel 5 1102-1097
-1076 Marduk-nâdin-ahhê 18 1101-1083 Saul 40 1097 -
Ašared-apil-Ekur 2 1076-1074 Marduk-šapik-zêri 13 1083-1070 -1057
Aššur-bêl-kala 18 1074-1056 Adad-apla-iddina 22 1070-1048 David 40 1057 -
Erîba-Adad II 2 1056-1054 Marduk-ahhê-erîba 1 1048-1047
Šamšî-Adad IV 4 1054-1050 Marduk-zêr-[…] 12 1047-1035
Aššurnaṣirpal I 19 1050-1031 Nabû-šum-libur 8 1035-1027 -1017
Shalmaneser II 12 1031-1019 Simbar-šipak 18 1027-1009 Solomon 40 1017 -
Aššur-nêrârî IV 6 1019-1013 Ea-mukîn-zêri 1 1009-1008
Aššur-rabi II 41 1013 - Kaššu-nâdin-ahi 2 1008-1006
Eulmaš-šakin-šumi 17 1006 -989
Ninurta-kudurri-uṣur I 3 989-986
Širiki-šuqamuna 1 986-985
-972 Mâr-bîti-apla-uṣur 5 985-980 -977
Aššur-rêš-iši II 5 972-967 Nabû-mukîn-apli 36 980-944 Roboam 17 977-960
Tiglath-pileser II 32 967-935 Ninurta-kudurri-uṣur II 3 944-943 Abiyam 3 960-957
Aššur-dân II 23 935-912 Mâr-bîti-ahhê-iddin 943- ? Asa 41 957-916
Adad-nêrârî II 21 912-891 Šamaš-mudammiq ? -900 Jehosaphat 25 916-891
Tukultî-Ninurta II 7 891-884 Nabû-šum-ukîn I 12 900-888 Jehoram 8 893-885
Aššurnaṣirpal II 26 884-859 Nabû-apla-iddina 33 888-855 [Athaliah] 6 885-879
Shalmaneser III 35 859-824 Marduk-zâkir-šumi I 36 855-819 Joas 40 879-839
Šamšî-Adad V 13 824 - Marduk-balâssu-iqbi 6 819-813 Amasiah 29 839 -
-811 Bâba-ah-iddina 813 -810
Adad-nêrârî III 28 811 - unknown kings ? Uziah 52 810 -
-783 Marduk-bêl-zêri 790?-780?
Shalmaneser IV 10 783-773 Marduk-apla-uṣur 780?-770
Aššur-dân III 18 773-755 Erîba-Marduk 9 770-761 -758
Aššur-nêrârî V 10 755-745 Nabû-šum-iškun 13 761-748 Jotham 16 758-742
Tiglath-pileser III 18 745 - Nabû-naṣir 14 748-734 Ahaz 16 742 -
Nabû-nâdin-zêri 2 734-732
Nabû-šum-ukîn II 1 732-731
Nabû-mukîn-zêri 2 731-729
-727 Tiglath-pileser III Pûlu 2 729-727 -726
Shalmaneser V 5 727-722 Shalmaneser V Ulûlaiu 5 727-722 Ezechias 29 726 -
Sargon II 17 722 - Merodachbaladan II 12 722-710
-705 Sargon II 5 710-705
Sennacherib 24 705 - Sennacherib 2 705-703
Marduk-zakir-šumi II 0 703
Bêl-ibni 3 703-700 -697
Aššur-nâdin-šumi 6 700-694 Manasseh 55 697 -
Nergal-ušezib 1 694-693
Mušezib-Marduk 4 693-689
-681 Sennacherib 8 689-681
Esarhaddon 12 681-669 Esarhaddon 12 681-669
Aššurbanipal 42 669-627 Šamaš-šum-ukîn 40 668-648 -642
Aššur-etel-ilâni 4 630 - Kandalanu 21 648 - Amon 2 642-640
Sin-šum-lišir -627 Josiah 31 640 -
-626 Sin-šar-iškun 1 627-626
Sin-šar-iškun 14 626-612 Nabopolassar 21 626 -
Aššur-uballiṭ II 3 612-609 609 -609
-605
Chronology of Assyrian reigns can therefore be fully reconstructed starting from
Aššur-uballiṭ II (612-609) up to Erišu I (N° 33), since all the years of reign between these
two kings are known, being aware that Assyrian years are solar up to Aššur-dân I (1179-
1133) and lunar prior to this king. The durations of four reigns are missing (N° 65, 66, 37,
and 38), but they can be calculated through synchronisms from Assyrian annals that
indicate the exact length between the reconstruction of some famous temples171.
N° ASSYRIAN KING Reign length # synchronisms
27 Sulili (Zariqum) 1954-1940 [14] First lists of eponyms (lost)
28 Kikkia 1940-1927 [14] (-1)
29 Akia 1927-1913 [14] Fall of Ur (in -1912)
30 Puzur-Aššur I 1913-1900 [14] (-1) Beginning of the Paleo-Assyrian period
31 Šalim-ahum 1900-1886 [14]
32 Ilu-šumma 1886-1873 [14] (-1)
33 Êrišu I 1873-1834 40 (-1) 40 First Chronicles
34 Ikunum 1834-1821 14 (-1) 159 (eponym starting on 1st Sippu)
35 Sargon I 1821-1782 40 (-1)
171 H. GASCHE, J.A. ARMSTRONG, S.W. COLE – Dating the Fall of Babylon
in: Mesopotamian History and Environment (1998) Chicago pp. 57-80.
36 Puzur-Aššur II 1782-1774 8
37 Naram-Sîn 1774-1722 [54] (-2)
38 Êrišu II 1722-1712 [10]
39 Šamšî-Adad I 1712-1680 33 (-1) year 33 of Šamšî-Adad I =
40 Išme-Dagan I 1680-1670 11 (-1) 434 = year 17 of Hammurabi (1697-1680)
41 Aššur-dugul 1670-1664 6 41* Mut-Aškur/ Rimu-x/ Asîsum
42 Aššur-apla-idi 1664 0
43 Nâṣir-Sîn 1664 0
44 Sîn-namir 1664 0
45 Ipqi-Ištar 1664 0
46 Adad-ṣalûlu 1664 0
47 Adasi 1664 0
48 Bêlu-bâni 1664-1654 10
49 Libbaya 1654-1638 17 (-1)
50 Šarma-Adad I 1638-1626 12
51 Puzur-Sîn 1626-1615 12 (-1)
52 Bazaya 1615-1588 28 (-1)
53 Lullaya 1588-1582 6
54 Šû-Ninûa 1582-1568 14
55 Šarma-Adad II 1568-1565 3
56 Êrišu III 1565-1553 13 (-1)
57 Šamšî-Adad II 1553-1547 6
58 Išme-Dagan II 1547-1531 16
59 Šamšî-Adad III 1531-1516 16 (-1)
60 Aššur-nêrârî I 1516-1491 26 (-1)
61 Puzur-Aššur III 1491-1467 24
62 Enlil-nâṣir I 1467-1455 13 (-1)
63 Nûr-ili 1455-1443 12
64 Aššur-šadûni 1443-1443 0
65 Aššur-rabi I 1443-1433 [10*]
66 Aššur-nâdin-aḫḫe I 1433-1424 [10*] (-1)
67 Enlil-naṣir II 1424-1418 6
68 Aššur-nêrârî II 1418-1411 7
69 Aššur-bêl-nišešu 1411-1403 9 (-1)
70 Aššur-rê’im-nišešu 1403-1395 8
71 Aššur-nâdin-aḫḫe II 1395-1385 10
72 Erîba-Adad I 1385-1358 27 -
73 Aššur-uballiṭ I 1358-1323 36 (-1)
74 Enlil-nêrârî 1323-1313 10 -
75 Arik-dên-ili 1313-1302 12 (-1)
76 Adad-nêrârî I 1302-1271 32 (-1)
77 Salmanazar I 1271-1259 12 434 eponyms from Išme-Dagan I
1259-1242 18 (-1) 580 452 = 434 + 12
78 Tukultî-Ninurta I 1242-1206 37 (-1)
79 Aššur-nâdin-apli 1206-1203 4 (-1)
80 Aššur-nêrârî III 1203-1197 6 -
81 Enlil-kudurri-uṣur 1197-1192 5 -
82 Ninurta-apil-Ekur 1192-1179 13 -
83 Aššur-dân I 1179-1133 46 - (eponym starting on 1st Nisan:
84 Ninurta-tukultî-Aššur 1133 0 - as Babylonian intercalation)
85 Mutakkil-Nusku 1133 0 -
86 Aššur-rêš-iši I 1133-1115 18 -
87 Tiglath-phalazar I 1115-1076 39 - Several double dates (Assyrian/ Babylonian)
88 Ašared-apil-Ekur 1076-1074 2 - (Babylonian calendar used)
89 Aššur-bêl-kala 1074-1056 18 -
90 Erîba-Adad II 1056-1054 2 -
91 Šamšî-Adad IV 1054-1050 4 -
92 Aššurnaṣirpal I 1050-1031 19 -
93 Salmanazar II 1031-1019 12 -
94 Aššur-nêrârî IV 1019-1013 6 -
95 Aššur-rabi II 1013-972 41 -
96 Aššur-rêš-iši II 972-967 5 -
97 Tiglath-phalazar II 967-935 32 -
98 Aššur-dân II 935-912 23 -
99 Adad-nêrârî II 912-891 21 -
100 Tukultî-Ninurta II 891-884 7 -
101 Aššurnaṣirpal II 884-859 25 -
102 Salmanazar III 859-824 35 -
103 Šamšî-Adad V 824-811 13 -
104 Adad-nêrârî III 811-783 28 -
105 Salmanazar IV 783-773 10 -
106 Aššur-dân III 773-755 18 -
107 Aššur-nêrârî V 755-745 10 -
108 Tiglath-phalazar III 745-727 18 -
109 Salmanazar V 727-722 5 -
110 Sargon II 722-705 17 -
111 Sennacherib 705-681 24 -
112 Assarhaddon 681-669 12 (72) -
113 Aššurbanipal 669-627 42 -
[Aššur-etel-ilâni] [630-627] [3] -
114 Aššur-etel-ilâni 627-626 1 -
115 Sin-šar-iškun 626-612 14 -
116 Aššur-uballiṭ II 612-609 3 -
The synchronism: year 33 of Šamšî-Adad I (1712-1680) = year 17 of Hammurabi
(1697-1654) enables the dating of Babylonian reigns before Samsuditana (1530-1499), the
last Babylonian king before the sack of Babylon by the Hittite king Mursili I, which is
considered crucial to calculations of the early chronology172 of the ancient Near East. 15
royal chronicles enable one to reconstruct the Babylonian and Kassite chronologies:
n° KASSITE KING Reign # King Highest BABYLONIAN KING Reign #
Lists date
Sûmû-abum 1799-1785 14
Sûmû-la-Il 1785-1749 36
Sâbium 1749-1735 14
Apil-Sîn 1735-1717 18
Sîn-muballiṭ 1717-1697 20
Hammurabi 1697-1654 43
1 Gandaš 1661-1635 26 [2]6 Samsu-iluna 1654 - 38
2 Agum I 1635-1613 22 22 -1616
3 Kaštiliaš I 1613-1591 22 22 Abi-ešuḫ 1616-1588 28
4 Ušši 1591-1583 8 8 Ammiditana 1588 - 37
5 Abirattaš 1583-1567 [16]
6 Kaštiliaš II (?) 1567-1551 [16] -1551
7 Urzigurumaš (?) 1551-1535 [16] Ammiṣaduqa 1551-1530 21
8 Harbašihu (?) 1535-1519 [16] Samsuditana 1530 - 31
9 Tiptakzi 1519-1503 [16] -1499
10 Agum II 1503-1487 [16] "Babylon's restoration" 1498 - 41
11 Burna-Buriaš I 1487-1471 [16]
12 Kaštiliaš III 1471-1455 [16] -1457
13 Ulam-Buriaš 1455-1439 [16] 1457 -
14 Agum III 1439-1423 [16]
15 Kadašman-Harbe I 1423-1407 [16]
16 Kara-indaš 1407-1391 [16]
17 Kurigalzu I 1391-1375 [16]
18 Kadašman-Enlil I 1375-1360 15 15
19 Burna-Buriaš II 1360-1333 27 27
20 Kara-ḫardaš 1333 0 0
21 Nazi-Bugaš 1333 0 0
22 Kurigalzu II 1333-1308 25 [25] 24
23 Nazi-Maruttaš 1308-1282 26 26 24
R. PRUZSINSKY – Mesopotamian Chronology of the 2nd Millennium B.C.

172
Wien 2009 Ed. Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften pp. 17-104.

24 Kadašman-Turgu 1282-1264 18 18 17
25 Kadašman-Enlil II 1264-1255 9 [10 (+x)] 8 [9?]
26 Kudur-Enlil 1255-1246 9 [6] 9
27 Šagarakti-šuriaš 1246-1233 13 13 13
28 Kaštiliašu IV 1233-1225 8 8 8
[Tukulti-Ninurta I] [1225-1224] [1] [1]
29 Enlil-nâdin-šumi 1225-1224 1 1,5 1
30 Kadašman-Harbe II 1224-1223 1 1,5 1
31 Adad-šuma-iddina 1223-1217 6 6 0
32 Adad-šuma-uṣur 1217-1187 30 30 13
33 Meli-Šipak 1187-1172 15 15 12
34 Marduk-apla-iddina 1172-1159 13 13 6
35 Zababa-šuma-iddina 1159-1158 1 1
36 Enlil-nâdin-ahi 1158-1155 3 3
Marduk-kabit-aḫḫešu 1155-1141 14
Itti-Marduk-balaṭu 1141-1133 8
However the fall of Babylon is set in 1595 BCE instead of 1499 BCE by a majority
of Assyriologists173. This date, based on the Venus Tablet (astronomical tablet), is chosen
mainly as it is consistent with the chronology accepted by most historians of the late 20th
century, hence the name of "Middle chronology". According to the Venus Tablet, there are
only four possible dates for the sacking of Babylon. This astronomical tablet (Enuma Anu
Enlil 63)174, copied in 7th century BCE, describes the rising and setting of Venus during the
reign of Ammisaduqa (a descendant of Hammurabi):
Year 1 inferior Venus sets on Shabatu 15 and after 3 days rises on Shabatu 18
Year 2 superior Venus vanishes E. on Arahsamnu 21 and after 1 month 25 days appears W. on Tebetu 16
Year 3 inferior Venus sets on Ululu 29 and after 16 days rises on Tashritu 15
Year 4 superior Venus vanishes E. on Dumuzi 3 and after 2 months 6 days appears W. on Ululu 9
Year 5 inferior Venus sets on Nisan 29 and after 12 days rises on Ayar 11
Year 5 superior Venus vanishes E. on Kislimu 27 and after 2 months 3 days appears W. on Shabatu 30
Year 6 inferior Venus sets on Arahsamnu 28 and after 3 days rises on Kislimu 1
Year 7 superior Venus vanishes E. on Abu 30 and after 2 months appears W. on Tashritu 30
Year 8 inferior Venus sets on Dumuzi 9 and after 17 days rises on Dumuzi 26
Year 8 superior Venus vanishes E. on Adar 27 and after 2 months 16 days appears W. on Simanu 13
Year 9 inferior Venus sets on Adar 12 and after 2 days rises on Adar 14
Year 11 inferior Venus sets on Ululu 25 and after 16 days rises on II Ululu 11
Year 12 superior Venus vanishes E. on Ayar 29 and after 2 months 6 days appears W. on Abu 5
Year 13 superior Venus vanishes E. on Tebetu 23 and after 2 months 3 days appears W. on Adar 26
Year 14 inferior Venus sets on Arahsamnu 24 and after 3 days rises on Arahsamnu 27
Year 15 superior Venus vanishes E. on Abu 26 and after 2 months appears W. on Tashritu 26
Year 16 inferior Venus sets on Dumuzi 5 and after 16 days rises on Dumuzi 21
Year 16 superior Venus vanishes E. on Adar 24 and after 2 months 15 days appears W. on Simanu 9
Year 17 inferior Venus sets on Adar 8 and after 3 days rises on Adar 11
Year 19 inferior Venus sets on II Ululu 20 and after 17 days rises on Tashritu 8
Year 20 superior Venus vanishes E. on Simanu 25 and after 2 months 6 days appears W. on Ululu 1
Year 21 superior Venus vanishes E. on Tebetu 19 and after 2 months 3 days appears W. on Adar 22
Paris 2001 Éd. Robert Laffont pp. 164,522,565,758.
F. JOANNÈS - La Mésopotamie au 1er millénaire avant J.C.
2000 Paris Ed. Armand Colin pp. 186-187.
J.A. BRINKMAN – Materials and Studies for Kassite History Vol. I
Chicago 1976 Ed. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago pp. 6-34.
J.J. GLASSNER – Chroniques mésopotamiennes (n°22)
174 E. REINER, D. PINGREE – Babylonian Planetary Omens. Part 1. The Venus Tablet of Ammisaduqa
Malibu 1975 Ed. Undena Publications pp. 17-62.

Although the interpretation of this astronomical tablet is difficult175 , because much
data appears to have been poorly copied, the fall of Babylon can be dated to the period
1500-1700 only according to four possibilities176 (below):
Chronology (BCE): Ultra-Low # Low # Middle # High #
Fall of Ur 1912 1944 2004 2064
Reign of Hammurabi 1697-1654 1729-1686 1793-1750 1849-1806
Reign of Ammisaduqa 1551-1530 1583-1562 1647-1626 1703-1682
Venus rises Year 1 (computed) 14-Feb 1549 0 24-Feb 1581 0 14-Mar 1645 0 31-Mar 1701 0
Shabatu 18 Year 1 (observed) 27-Feb 1549 +13 19-Feb 1581 -5 9-Mar 1645 -6 28-Mar 1701 -3
Fall of Babylon 1499 1531 1595 1651
Despite the excellent agreement with the fall of Babylon in 1499 BCE177 the Ultra-
Low chronology is considered too low compared to Kassite and Hittite chronologies. This
criticism is unfounded178 (below synchronisms are highligthed), because these chronologies
are very approximate: most durations of reigns are unknown and they have no link with any
astronomical events. In addition, dendrochronological dating of the Acemhöyüke palace
requires locating the death of Šamšî-Adad I after 1752 BCE179 eliminating the Middle
Chronology which dates this reign 1807-1775, at least 23 years too early.
AKKADIAN SUMERIAN
BABYLONIAN Reign # ISINIAN Reign #
Sâbium 1749 - 14 Iter-piša 1740-1736 [4]
-1735 Ur-dukuga 1736-1732 [4]
Apil-Sîn 1735-1717 18 Sîn-mâgir 1732-1721 11
Sîn-muballiṭ 1717-1697 20 Damiq-ilîšu I 1721-1698 23
KASSITE Reign # Hammurabi 1697-1654 43 SEALAND Reign #
Gandaš 1661-1635 [2]6 Samsu-iluna 1654 - 38 Ilum-maz-ilî 1654 - 60
Agum I 1635-1613 22 -1616
Kaštiliaš I 1613-1591 22 Abi-ešuḫ 1616-1588 28 -1594
Ušši 1591-1583 8 Ammiditana 1588 - 37 Itti-ili-nîbî 1594-1578 [16]
Abirattaš 1583-1567 [16] Damqi-ilišu II 1578-1562 [16]
Kaštiliaš II (?) 1567-1551 [16] -1551 Iškibal 1562-1546 [16]
Urzigurumaš (?) 1551-1535 [16] Ammiṣaduqa 1551-1530 21 Šušši 1546-1530 [16]
Harbašihu (?) 1535-1519 [16] Samsuditana 1530 - 31 Gulkišar 1530-1514 [16]
Tiptakzi 1519-1503 [16] -1499 Pešgaldarameš 1514-1498 [16]
Agum II 1503-1487 [16] 300 Ayadaragalama 1498-1482 [16]
Burna-Buriaš I 1487-1471 [16] Akurulana 1482-1466 [16]
Kaštiliaš III 1471 - [16] Melamkukurra 1466-1459 7
-1455 Ea-gam[il] 1459 - 9
Ulam-Buriaš 1455-1439 [16] -1450
Agum III 1439-1423 [16]
Kadašman-Harbe I 1423-1407 [16]
Kara-indaš 1407-1391 [16]
Kurigalzu I 1391-1375 [16]
Kadašman-Enlil I 1375-1360 15
Burna-Buriaš II 1360-1333 27
Kara-ḫardaš 1333 0
Nazi-Bugaš 1333 0
Kurigalzu II 1333-1308 25
175 V.G. GURZADYAN – The Venus Tablet and Refraction
in: Akkadica 124 (2003) pp. 13-17 ( http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0311036 ).
176 V.G. GURZADYAN – On the Astronomical Records and Babylonian Chronology
in: Akkadica 119-120 (2000) pp. 175-184.

177 H. GASCHE – La fin de la première dynastie de Babylone : une chute difficile
in: Akkadica 124 (2003) pp. 205-221.

178 G. GERTOUX – Moses and the Exodus: Chronological, Historical and Archaeological Evidence
Raleigh 2015, Ed. Lulu.com, pp.183-248.

179 C. MICHEL, P. ROCHER – La chronologie du IIe millénaire revue à l'ombre d'une éclipse de soleil
in: Jaarbericht (...) Ex Oriente Lux N° 35/36 (1997-2000) Chicago pp. 111-126.
How does one read the Venus Tablet? For example the line: Year 8 superior Venus
vanishes East on Adar 27 and after 2 months 16 days appears West on Simanu 13, can be dated as
follows if we suppose the year 1543 BCE (-1542):
-1542 1 Adar Spring equinox 1 Nisan 1 Iyyar 1 Siwan 1 Tammuz 1 Ab
3 March 4 April 2 April 1 May 30 May 29 June 29 July
27 Adar 29 Nisan 29 Iyyar 13 Siwan 30 Siwan 30 Tammuz 29 Ab
29 March 30 April 29 May 11 June 28 June 28 July 26 August
It is thus possible to reconstruct the 25 months of the astronomical tablet and to

compare them with those of the inscription, unfortunately no solution, depending on the
selected year, gives a perfect fit180 . Consequently another way of dating is used, it is based
on the Venus cycle. Indeed, we can see that years 5, 13 and 21 (with a periodicity of 8 years)
give substantially the same values with a 4-day shift, which comes from the cycles of the
moon and Venus. If an astronomical phenomenon occurs at exactly the same time each
year it will be noted with an advance of 2 days181 at the end of eight years. The same pattern
repeats a 1-day shift every 8 years because 8 sidereal orbital periods of the Earth (365.25636
days - slightly longer than the tropical year) is 2922.06 days, and 13 sidereal orbital periods
of Venus (224.701 days) is 2921.11 days. Thus, after this period both Venus and Earth have
returned to very nearly the same point (1 day) in each of their respective orbits. If the Sun
and Venus are perfectly aligned (Transit of Venus), the heliacal rising and setting of Venus
occur on the same dates shifted by 2 or 3 days every 8 years. A transit of Venus182 across
the Sun takes place when the planet Venus passes directly between the Sun and Earth (or
another planet), becoming visible against (and hence obscuring a small portion of) the solar
disk. During a transit, Venus can be seen from Earth as a small black disk moving across
the face of the Sun. The duration of such transits is usually measured in hours (the transit of
2012 lasted 6 hours and 40 minutes). A transit is similar to a solar eclipse by the Moon.
While the diameter of Venus is more than 3 times that of the Moon, Venus appears smaller,
and travels more slowly across the face of the Sun, because it is much farther away from
Earth. Transits of Venus are among the rarest of predictable astronomical phenomena.
They occur in a pattern that generally repeats itself every 243 years, with pairs of transits 8
years apart separated by long gaps of 121.5 years and 105.5 years183. Given that the
astronomical data during Ammisaduqa's 21-year reign over the period of 8 years are shifted
4 days, instead of 2 or 3 when the transit of Venus exactly occurs, it means that it was close
to this transit. Transits of Venus are as follows:184
Date greatest (UT) Ammisaduqa Date greatest (UT) Ammisaduqa
-1998 Nov 18 11:20 -1641 May 20 18:02 1582-1561 (L)
-1892 May 21 19:26 -1520 Nov 20 23:44 1550-1529 (UL)
-1884 May 19 12:30 -1512 Nov 18 12:51
-1763 Nov 20 22:56 1702-1681 (H) -1406 May 23 05:57
-1755 Nov 18 12:18 -1398 May 20 23:03
-1649 May 23 00:45 1646-1625 (M) -1277 Nov 22 00:09
180 http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0311035v1
181 2 days = 8x365.24519 days – (8x12 + 3)x29.530588 days (= -1.6)
182 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_of_Venus
183 Venus, with an orbit inclined by 3.4° relative to the Earth's, usually appears to pass under (or over) the Sun at inferior
conjunction. A transit occurs when Venus reaches conjunction with the Sun at or near one of its nodes —the longitude where
Venus passes through the Earth's orbital plane (the ecliptic)— and appears to pass directly across the Sun. Although the
inclination between these two orbital planes is only 3.4°, Venus can be as far as 9.6° from the Sun when viewed from the Earth
at inferior conjunction. Since the angular diameter of the Sun is about 0.5° degree, Venus may appear to pass above or below the
Sun by more than 18 solar diameters during an ordinary conjunction.
184 http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/transit/catalog/VenusCatalog.html
The best fit is with the "Middle
chronology (M)", but it contradicts the
chronology obtained from the Assyrian
eponyms. The fit with the "Ultra-Low
chronology (UL)" is good because there is
only a shift of an 8-year cycle. For this, one
has to check the alignment gap between
Venus and the sun relative to its position
during transit. For example during the
transit of Venus in 1513 BCE (= -1512*),
this planet "crossed" the sun (see opposite
figure). The observations were performed
in Babylon185. Actually the best way for
dating the fall of Babylon186 is to use a
couple of well known lunar eclipses. A
tablet of astronomical omens187 (Enuma
Anu Enlil 20) mentions a lunar eclipse,
dated 14 Siwanu, at the end of the reign of Šulgi (14/III/48) and another (Enuma Anu Enlil
21) mentions a lunar eclipse, dated 14 Addaru, at the end of the Ur III dynasty ending with
the reign of Ibbi-Sin (14/XII/24). These two lunar eclipses were separated by 42 years of
reign (42 = 9 years of Amar-Sin + 9 years of Šu-Sîn + 24 years of Ibbi-Sin). Over the
period 2200-1850 there were only three couples of eclipses188, spaced by 42 years, matching
the description of astronomical omens189:
1st eclipse Magnitude 2nd eclipse Magnitude gap Chronology
(14/III/48) (14/XII/24) (1st - 2nd)
13/08/2189 1.21 12/03/2107 1.00 82 years
12/05/2175 1.80 " " 68 years
04/07/2150 1.32 " " 43 years ≈
25/07/2095 1.32 04/05/2063 1.78 32 years
[2106]# [2064]# High
" " 13/04/2053 0.63 42 years OK
" " 11/02/2031 1.14 64 years
[2046]# [2004]# Middle
26/06/2019 1.07 24/04/2016 1.84 3 years
" " 15/03/1977 0.82 42 years OK
" " 04/03/1976 1.47 43 years ≈
25/05/2008 0.96 15/04/1969 1.84 39 years
18/07/2002 1.08 23/02/1929 1.63 73 years
[1986]# [1944]# Low
27/06/1954 1.39 16/03/1912 0.58 42 years OK Ultra Low
18/07/1937 0.75 14/02/1901 0.94 36, years
18/05/1915 1.47 14/02/1882 1.58 33 years
" " 27/03/1875 1.82 40 years
28/06/1908 1.04 " " 33 years
latitude 32°33' North; longitude 44°26' East; Universal Time: -1512-11-18 12:51; Azimuth: 240°; Field of view: 45°.
186 B. BANJEVIC – Ancient Eclipses and Dating the Fall of Babylon
in: Publ. Astron. Obs. Belgrade N° 80 (2006) pp. 251-257.

187 The series was probably compiled in its canonical form during the Kassite period but there was certainly some form of
prototype in the Old Babylonian period.

188 http://xjubier.free.fr/en/site_pages/lunar_eclipses/5MCLE/xLE_Five_Millennium_Canon.html
189 P.J. HUBER – Astronomy and Ancient Chronology
in: Akkadica 119-120 (2000) pp. 159-176.

Teije de Jong regards Šamšî-Adad I's death dated 1776 BCE +/- 10 indirectly by C14
(instead of 1680 BCE) as an absolute date190 but C14 dating is not absolute. It is noteworthy
that in a tablet of Mari, Ašqudum (eponym N°193) mentions a [total] lunar eclipse191 dated:
day 14 [month Dagan], (14 August -1686?) but unfortunately we don't know for which year
it is referred (a short timee before or during his eponymy).
Lunar eclipse matching the (# = NO): Fall of Babylon Chronology
Last year of Šulgi Fall of Ur III Year 12/13 of According to
(14/III/48) (14/XII/24) Hammurabi Venus Tablet
[2106]# [2064]# [1836]# 1651 High
25/07/2095 13/04/2053 #
[2046]# [2004]# [1780]# 1595 Middle
26/06/2019 15/03/1977 #
[1986]# [1944]# 03/09/1716 1531 Low
27/06/1954 16/03/1912 07/12/1684 1499 Ultra-Low
Anyone who has a scientific background would be amazed to learn that most current
historians support the Middle Chronology in spite of the fact that they know it is false. This
may seem strange, but they prefer to join a consensus that still prevails rather than to
defend a minority truth. It is easy to make fun of this choice, not very brave, but
challenging a truth means challenging the authority which validated it. We are in a world
where truth is polytheistic with scientific truths ("real truths") but also historical, religious,
political, legal, etc. For example, for scientists man appeared by chance a few millions of
years ago ("once upon a time in a far away country"), for historians History begins around -3000
(after prehistory which belongs to Dark Ages), for Orthodox believers man was created by
God around 5509 BCE "according to the Bible", for Catholics around 4024 BCE
"according to the Bible", for Jews in 3761 BCE "according to the Bible", etc. If you are
both scientific and religious or scientific and historian you risk to become schizophrenic as
shown by the famous Galileo affair when this scholar tried to solve the conflict between his
astronomical observations and the biblical interpretation of his Church (Catholic). In 1610,
Galileo published his Sidereus Nuncius in which he argued that the tides were evidence of the
motion of the Earth and promoted the theory of Copernicus. These ideas created conflicts
with other scientists and Catholic scholars. Galileo's part in the controversies culminated in
his trial and sentencing by the Roman Inquisition in 1633 on a grave suspicion of heresy.
Galileo was considered as a heretic by his Church because his assertions contradicted the
Bible which says "clearly" that the sun is setting and rising and, sometimes, motionless (Jos
1:4,15; 10:12). Consequently for its own safety it was more comfortable to accept a
polytheist truth rather than a monotheist truth. Egyptologists in this area are favoured
because each one has his own chronology and consequently his own truth. The accuracy of
Egyptian chronology being considered according to the reputation of Egyptologists (new
Pharaohs?) not according to astronomy.
It is unfortunate that Egyptologists are not interested in scientific chronology
because Egyptian documents contain many heliacal risings of Sirius and lunar dates that
enable one to get absolute dates until 2774 BCE. Egyptologists know it is possible to date
Djer's reign by means of a heliacal rising of Sirius192 (18 July 2774 BCE) but they prefer to
refer to educated guesses for dating his reign as follows: 3100-3055 (Grimal); 2999-2949
(von Beckerath); 2939-2892 (Malek); 2870-2823 (Krauss); xxx-xxx (your favourite).
190 T. DE JONG – Astronomical Fine-tuning of the Chronology of the Hammurabi Age
in: Jaarbericht (...) Ex Oriente Lux N° 44 (2012-2013) pp. 147-163.
191 W. HEIMPEL – Letters to the King of Mari: A New Translation, With Historical Introduction, Notes, and Commentary
Leiden 2003 Ed. Eisenbrauns pp. 190, 209-210.

192 J. VERCOUTTER – L'Égypte et la vallée du Nil Tome 1 Des origines à la fin de l'Ancien Empire

DATING THE REIGN OF THUTMOSE III THROUGH ASTRONOMY
The relative chronology of Thutmoses III's reign is approximate due to numerous
variants in the sequence of pharaohs and also in the length of certain reigns193 :
Redford Hornung Carbon 14 Krauss Dodson [Gertoux] Helck
Thutmose III 1504-1452 1490-1436 1486-1434 1479-1425 1479-1424 1472-1418 1467-1413
There is thus a 37-year gap between these chronologies. What is quite ironic is that
all these Egyptologists claim to rely on astronomy to calculate their chronology. Where is
the bug? The reign of Thutmose III is based on the following chronological data:
!It is dated 1486-1434 BCE +/- 15 years by Carbon 14194.
!The date of accession is: year 1, I Shemu 4, and date of death is: year 54, III Peret 30
(length of his reign: 53 years 11 months)195. Years of reign are counted from the date of
accession (I Shemu 4) and not from 1st Thoth (I Akhet 1). Moreover, Thutmose III began
to reign independently, without Hatshepsut, presumably from year 22, II Peret 10,
according to the Armant Stela.
!The astronomical ceiling of Senenmut's tomb gives the position of several constellations
and planets, known at this time. Some of them are easy to identify as the Big Dipper,
Orion, Venus, Mars, Mercury, Saturn and Jupiter. This ceiling describes a right ascension
of Jupiter between 75° and 95° where Mars is not visible, which could occur in the period
from 1455 to 1505, only during the night on 14 November 1463 BCE according to
astronomy196 . Senenmut was a very important person under Hatshepsut, thus it is possible
to find the year of the reign when the ceiling of his grave was designed. Senenmut
received the prestigious title of "Grand Steward of Amun" probably around the 5th or the
7th year of Thutmose III and also had the rare privilege for an individual of developing a
royal tomb and appending his own grave. The ostraca of this tomb197 can set the year in
which the ceiling was realized, because masonry and stone cutting started on IV Peret 2,
year 7 of Thutmose III and spread out through year 9. As ostracon No. 80 states that the
door of the chapel was opened on III Akhet 27, year 11, we can assume that the
development work and decoration, such as the astronomical ceiling design (from the
observation) were performed at the end of the development work in year 9 or 10.
According to Dorman198, Senenmut monuments and those of the vast complex of Deir el-
Bahari were probably built in parallel. The posthumous disgraces of Senenmut and Queen
Hatshepsut led to a hammering and rewriting of their cartouches, which creates
conflicting dates199 . These two disgraces are unexplained since the mummy of Thutmose I
was placed (in year 16) in the sarcophagus of Hatshepsut beside another which was built
after his death200 (in year 22). However, the start date of the tomb is Year 7. As
193 M. DESSOUDEIX – Chronique de l'Égypte ancienne
Paris 2008 Éd. Actes Sud p. 267.
194 C.B. RAMSEY, M.W. DEE, J.M. ROWLAND, T.F. G. HIGHAM, S.A. HARRIS, F. BROCK, A. QUILES, E.M. WILD, E.S. MARCUS,
A.J. SHORTLAND - Radiocarbon - Based Chronology for Dynastic Egypt in: Science Vol 328 (10 june 2010) pp. 1554-1557.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/data/328/5985/1554/DC1/1
195 C. VANDERSLEYEN - L'Egypte et la vallée du Nil Tome 2

196 C. LEITZ – Le premier plafond astronomique dans la tombe de Senmout
in: Les dossiers d'archéologie n°187 S (Novembre 1993) pp. 116,117.

197 W.C. HAYES – Ostraka and Name Stones from the Tomb of Sen-mut (TT71) at Thebes
New York 1942 Ed. Arno Press pp. 7,21-23.

198 P.F. DORMAN – The Monuments of Senenmut. Problems in Historical Methodology
New York Ed. Kegan Paul International pp. 66-109.

199 C. DESROCHES NOBLECOURT – La reine mystérieuse Hatshepsout

200 C. LALOUETTE – Thèbes ou la naissance d'un empire
Paris 1995 Éd. Flammarion pp. 270-271.

Senenmut's tomb is only a small part of the vast complex, 2 years of construction seem to
have been sufficient to complete the ceiling. The famous expedition to Punt, for example,
which is represented on a retaining wall of the temple201, is dated year 9. Astronomical
observation represented on the ceiling must therefore date from this year 9 of Thutmose
III, which sets the accession of the pharaoh in 1472 (= 1463 + 9) BCE and his reign from
08/1472 to 03/1418, according to the accession date.
This scientific dating is unanimously rejected by Egyptologists because it does not fit
with their own chronologies. Some of them even dare to argue that the astronomical ceiling
of Senenmut (below) cannot be dated with certainty.
201 C. GRAINDORGE – Deir El Bahari le temple de millions d'années

in: Les dossiers d'archéologie n°187 S (11/1993) pp. 72-75.
The vertical line in the middle represents the meridian, the floor line (horizon)
represents the equator (0°) and the ceiling line (zenith) represents the pole (90°). By
extending the inclined side of the meridian in the upper part, this line intersects the toes of
Orion's left foot (equidistant from the left and right edges), that is to say Rigel (β Orionis).
The line that crosses the Big Dipper and pointing to the pole is directed towards the month
8. The Egyptians identified Orion to Osiris and its main star Rigel ("foot" in Arabic) gave
its name to the whole constellation, s3ḥ meaning "Orion" as well as "Toes." The
arrangement of 12 months in 3 groups of 4 can be used to date events because these 360
days (= 36 decans of 10 days) are divided by the meridian into 3 equal parts of 120 days.
On the lower part, one recognized 12 circles thanks to their names in hieroglyphs,
they represent the 12 Egyptian months. In the centre of this panel, separating the 12 circles
into two unequal groups, a long and narrow triangle symbolizes the meridian. On the tip of
the meridian there is a small circle which is connected to the schematic drawing of a bull
called Big Dipper by a hieroglyph inscribed on its body. The Egyptians believed that the 7
main stars of this constellation embodied a bull or rather its thigh and that the star (η) at the
tip of the meridian was Ursae majoris, the Big Dipper. If we extend the spear of the falcon-
headed god figured under the Big Dipper and the meridian, the two lines meet at the North
Pole (90° altitude or declination), the meridian crossing vertically the ceiling reaches the
equator, a line describing the horizon (0°). The star in the small circle (η Ursae majoris) is
located at 68.2° (altitude). This value is obtained by precisely measuring the length going
from the equator to the pole, knowing that the total distance from the equator to the pole is
90°. When a star is on the meridian, it holds the highest position (if it is a circumpolar star it
is also its lowest position), one says that it culminates. The culmination played an important
role among the Egyptians and the culmination of the star η Ursae majoris was done on the
night of 18/19 March at midnight with a declination of 68.2° at that time (which confirms
that it is indeed the culmination of this star). Moreover, if one extends the spear backwards
it leads on the month 8 (IV Peret) which began in mid-March at that time (c. 1470 BCE),
which again confirms the identification. If the boundary between the 2nd and the 3rd part
was the night of 18/19 March (culmination of the star η Ursae majoris), the one between the
3rd and the 1st was 120 days later, on the night of 16/17 July which corresponds to the
heliacal rising of Sirius, the brightest star in the sky, and the Egyptian New Year celebration.
That day, began the first season of the Egyptian year, and the Nile began to flood the
Lower Egypt in mid-July. The boundary between the 1st and the 2nd part was located 120
days later, on the night of 14/15 November. During that night unfolded another major
astronomical event: the culmination of Rigel (β Orionis) at midnight. To reconstitute the
calendar for an entire year (excluding the 5 epagomenal days, is divided into 36 decans, each
covering a period of 10 days) one must first verify that the 8th month (IV Peret 1) actually
began around 19 March202 in 1460 BCE and then adding 3 times 10 days one gets the
beginning of each month:
month 8 month 9 month 10 month 11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
19 Mar. 29 Mar. 8 Apr. 18 Apr. 28 Apr. 8 May 18 May 28 May 7 June 17 June 27 June 7 July
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
17 Jul. 27 Jul. 6 Aug. 16 Aug. 26 Aug. 5 Sep. 15 Sep. 25 Sep. 5 Oct. 15 Oct. 25 Oct. 4 Nov.
25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
14 Nov. 24 Nov. 4 Dec. 14 Dec. 24 Dec. 3 Jan. 13 Jan. 23 Jan. 2 Feb. 12 Feb. 22 Feb. 4 Mar.
From the foregoing it is possible to find the place of observation because a heliacal
rising of Sirius on 17 July was only possible (at that time) at a latitude of 30° North (near
Heliopolis). Similarly, the simultaneous passage on the meridian of Rigel (β Orionis) and the
star of the Big Dipper (η Ursae majoris) also gives a latitude of 30° North203. To check this
first point one has to know what is a heliacal rising of Sirius.
As Sirius is the brightest star in the sky it is easy to spot. A heliacal rising is a
coincidence between the sunrise (Helios was Sun god) and the rising of a star (see video204).
But because of the overwhelming brightness of the sun there must be a minimum angle
between the star above the horizon and the sun below the horizon, this angle is called arcus
visionis, which is an observational data. A set of measures showed that it could be modelled
by the equation205: arcus visionis = 10.5 + 1.44x(magnitude). The arcus visionis of Sirius
(magnitude -1.46) is theoretically 8.4° (but usually around 9.2°)206. Then one must use
astronomy software to know the heliacal rising of Sirius207 based on a given latitude208:
City Longitude Latitude Heliacal rising (9.2°)
Alexandria 29°55' E 31°12' N 18 July 2:07 UT
Buto 31°12' E 30°45' N 17 July 2:03 UT
Heliopolis 31°20' E 30°05' N 17 July 2:05 UT
Memphis 31°15' E 29°52' N 16 July 2:06 UT
Thebes (Deir el-Bahari) 32°39' E 25°42' N 12 July 2:10 UT
Elephantine 32°53' E 24°05' N 10 July 2:13 UT
Because of the precession of the equinoxes209, the apparent position of the Sun
relative to the backdrop of the stars at some seasonally fixed time slowly regresses a full
360° through all 12 traditional constellations of the zodiac, at the rate of about 50.3 seconds
of arc per year (approximately 360 degrees divided by 25,772), or 1 degree every 71.6 years.
The constellation or house of the zodiac in front of which the Sun rises at the vernal
203 É. TISSOT – Etude de l'astronomie égyptienne et ses implications dans la symbolique astrale de la constellation d'Orion dans
la religion égyptienne Lyon 1990 Mémoire de maîtrise : Histoire de l'art - Maison de l'Orient Université Lyon 2, pp. 112-114.
204 http://solar-center.stanford.edu/AO/Sirius.mov
205 http://www.alcyone.de/PVis/documentation/accuracy.html
206 T. DE JONG – The Heliacal Rising of Sirius
in: Ancient Egyptian Chronology (Leiden 2006) Ed. Brill pp. 432-438.
207 http://www.imcce.fr/fr/grandpublic/phenomenes/sothis/index.php
209 See video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qHjtp4cdCA
equinox is therefore changed210. This phenomenon enables the dating of the ceiling in 1460
BCE +/- 10 years because the value of the declination was 68.4° +/- 0.1°(6'). The accuracy
is not very good but the "absence of Mars" on the ceiling allows its dating with a high
precision (the name of the 12 months of the year as well as of 5 planets is written alongside
in hieroglyph)211.
For example in the upper part of the drawing of the southern sky, one recognizes the
god Orion standing in a boat. On the left there is a woman standing too in a boat. It is Isis
identified with the goddess Sothis. Follow two falcon-headed gods with a star on their head.
The hieroglyphs above them identify them as Jupiter and Saturn. At the extreme left is
Venus who the Egyptians represented in the guise of a heron (bnw). Mercury is also present
in the form of a small Sethian figure, above to the right of Venus. Mars, the last of the five
planets known in antiquity, is missing212. Its absence (empty boat) in a celestial map so neat
is all the more remarkable in that in all later cards and, without exception, even more
schematic, Mars follows in a ship Jupiter and Saturn as a 3rd falcon-headed god. The only
possible conclusion is that Mars was not visible during the night represented in the tomb of
Senenmut. Another detail makes it possible to calculate the year of the astronomical ceiling.
We note that near the figures of Orion and Jupiter there are small dots
determining the exact position of the two stars. The line near Jupiter
corresponds on the map to all points of the same longitude which have
the same rise between 73° and 95°. However, among the 50 years
between 1505 and 1455 there is only one213 in which Jupiter had a right
ascension between 75° and 95°, on the night of 14/15 November, and
Mars was not visible (right below)214: it is the year 1463 BCE.
210 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession
211 A.S. VON BOMHARD – Le calendrier égyptien une œuvre d'éternité
London 1999 Ed. Periplus pp. 72-76, 90-91.
212 C. LEITZ – Remarks about the Appearance of Mars in the Tomb of Senenmut in Western Thebes
in: Centaurus Vol. 44 (2002) pp. 140-142.

213 C. LEITZ – Le premier plafond astronomique dans la tombe de Senmout
in: Les dossiers d'archéologie n°187 S (Novembre 1993) pp. 116-117.

214 http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Yourhorizon (in 1464 BCE Universal Time: -1463-11-14 22:00; Azimuth: 30°; Field of
view: 90°; in 1463 BCE Universal Time: -1462-11-14 22:00).

The previous result is surprising, because the Egyptian priest astronomers, usually
very accurate in their representations, were particularly ill-advised to choose this year when
Mars was absent, unique in Egyptian representations because Mars always appears in its
boat like on the Sarcophagus of Nectanebo II (below)215, however it is not so.
⇧ ⇧ 1 2 3 4 5 ⇧ ⇧ ⇧ ⇧ ⇧
Phoenix Mercure (last decan) 5 epagonemal days Mars Saturn Jupiter Sothis Orion
In fact, observation of the shape and the position of Orion's constellations, Sirius
and Venus explain the reason for their choice. If Rigel corresponds to Orion's toes with the
three stars aligned in its belt, Sirius is located consequently on the level of Sothis' ankles
which are at the same level of the head of the heron (benu) representing Venus. This heron,
called Phoenix by the Greeks, inaugurates the beginning of the ceiling at the upper left and
month 1 inaugurates the beginning of the ceiling at the bottom right. If the culmination of
the Big Dipper can be dated 14 November 1463 BCE, this year began with the heliacal
rising of Sirius (on 16 July 1464 BCE) at month 1. But on this day occurred an exceptional
phenomenon which only occurs every 103 years: the heliacal rising of Sirius, the brightest
star in the sky, coincided with the heliacal setting of Venus, the brightest planet216. This
coincidence of dates inaugurated a new era called "Great year" or "Phoenix rebirth" by the
Greeks. The dates in this table can be shifted +/- 8 years because of Venus period217.
Heliopolis (cycle 243 years): -1558 -1315 -1072 -829 -586 -343 -100 143
+103 years -1455 -1202 -969 -726 -483 -240 3 246
Thebes (cycle 243 years): -1542 -1299 -1056 -813 -570 -327 -84 159
+103 years -1439 -1196 -953 -710 -467 -224 19 262
These dates have played a special role, since some have been commemorated and
those in bold have left a historical record and some eras of the Phoenix were pictured218.
This Greek word matches the Egyptian expression rnpt "year" or "regeneration". Some
historians such as Tacitus (Annals VI:28), cited these "eras of the Phoenix219" without
understanding their meaning. Some Coins of Antoninus Pius dated year 6 of his reign
commemorated a double helical rising of Sirius and Venus (19 July 143 CE) because they
have been marked with a phoenix220 and Αίών "lifespan". In his biography the Egyptian
astronomer Harkhebi (c. 300 BCE) explained that he was observing stars in order to
announce in which decan rose [heliacally] beside Benu (Venus), predicting and observing
the heliacal rising of Sothis, (...) and he knew everything on the 1st day of every month221.
London 1999 Ed. Periplus pp. 72-74.
216 G.W. VAN OOSTERHOUT – Sirius, Venus and the Egyptian Calendar
in: Discussions in Egyptology 27 (1993) pp. 83-96.

217 Heliopolis (lat 30°05' N) ; Thebes (lat 25°42' N) ; 8 sidereal orbital periods of the Earth (365.25636 days) is 2922.06 days and
13 periods of Venus (224.701 days) is 2921.11 days.

218 O. NEUGEBAUER, R.A. PARKER – Egyptian Astronomical Texts
London 1969 Ed. Brown University Press pp. 6-11, plates 3, 9, 16, 25, 28.
219 Some eras of the Phoenix were commemorated in -1299 by Seti I; in -1196 by Tausert; in -1056 by Psusennes I (whose name
means the star that rises over the city [Thebes]); in -343 by Nectanebo II and in -240 (?) on Harendotes' sarcophagus.
220 R. VAN DEN BROEK – The Myth of the Phoenix
Leiden 1972 Ed. E.J. Brill pp. 66-73, 103-109, 428-433.

221 J. DIELEMAN -Claiming the stars – Egyptian Priests facing the Sky
in: Aegyptiaca Helvetica 17 (Basel 2003) pp. 277-289.

The heliacal rising of Sirius at Heliopolis in 1464 BCE (-1463) was on 16 July222 and
coincided with the heliacal rising of Venus223 (below). An arcus visionis of around 8.5° means
that Sirius and Venus may be seen 2° above the horizon and the sun was 6° beneath the
horizon and consequently there was a sunrise 24 minutes later (= 6°x4min) at 5:35 (LT).
Venus Jupiter Mars Sirius
One can see that the Egyptian drawings of celestial maps were extremely accurate.
The star above the head of the heron (phoenix) represents the heliacal setting of Venus
coinciding with the heliacal rising of Sirius, located at the ankles of Sothis (associated with
Isis representing Venus), Rigel being located at the toes of Orion (s3ḥ) which means "toes".
Sirius is a shining star, which belongs to the Canis
Major constellation. This star is just before Procyon
(belonging to Canis Minor) and after Rigel, which
belongs to Orion constellation. Canis Major was
chosen by the Egyptians as the first constellation
because the rising of Sirius, its brightest star, was
matched the beginning of the Nile's flood at summer
solstice. These heliacal risings occurred every year at
the same time, they were therefore not noted unless
they occurred with another remarkable astronomical
event. Two other Sothic (heliacal rising of Sirius) dates
222http://www.imcce.fr/fr/grandpublic/phenomenes/sothis/index.php Long 31°20' E; Lat 30°05'; arcus visionis 8.9
223Universal Time = -1463-07-16 2:20 (= Local Time 5:10), Azimuth 90° (E); Field of view 90°; latitude = 30°05' North;
longitude = 31°19' East; http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Yourhorizon one can see that Jupiter and Mars have a right
accession about 40°.
62 62 SCIENTIFIC
SCIENTIFIC
APPROACH TO AN
APPROACH TOABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY
AN ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY
BASICTHROUGH SYNCHRONISMS
THROUGH
ASTRONOMY FOR DATED
SYNCHRONISMS BYGET
DATED
HISTORIANS TO ASTRONOMY
BY A
ASTRONOMY
CHRONOLOGY 143
Two Two
appear during other Sothic
other
the reign of (heliacal
Sothic
Thutmose rising
(heliacal of Sirius)
III.rising
Their ofregnal dates
Sirius) dates
years appearnotduring
areappear the
during
known reign
224 the
but isoflikely
itreign of
188 188
Thutmose
after Thutmose
the III. Their
II Peret III. ofregnal
10 Their yearsyears
regnal
Thutmose are
III'snot
are known
not22known
year but but
without itHatshepsut.
is itlikely afterThe
is likely theElephantine
after II Peret
the 10 of
II Peret 10 of
Stone,
Thutmose
from Thutmose III's year
the templeIII's 22 without
year 22 without
of Khnum Hatshepsut.
Hatshepsut.
that Thutmose The Elephantine
hadThe Elephantine
built, Stone,
mentionsStone, from the temple
fromrising
a Sothic the temple of
dated of III
Khnum that
Khnum Thutmose
that Thutmosemade built,
made mentions
built, a
mentions Sothic
a rising
Sothic dated
rising
Shemu 28 and the Buto Stela has a Sothic setting dated immediately before the I Shemu 30 III
dated Shemu
III Shemu 28 and
28 the
and the
ButoButo
Stela Stela
(penultimate has ahas
Sothic
line). setting
a Sothic dateddated
setting immediately before
immediately the Ithe
before Shemu
I Shemu30 (penultimate
30 (penultimate line).line).
Sothic
Sothic rising (III
rising (III
Sothic Shemu
risingShemu 28) 28)
28)
(III Shemu SothicSothic
settingsetting
Sothic (I Shemu
(I Shemu
setting (I Shemu 30)
30) 30)
It Itis indeed is aindeed

is Itindeed setting
a settinga (with
setting
(withsunset),
(with
sunset), not not
sunset), a Sothic
not
a Sothic arising
Sothic (with
rising sunrise),
rising
(with (with for the
sunrise),
sunrise), forfollowing
for
the the
reason:
following between
followingreason: III
reason: Shemu
between between III28 IIIand
Shemu Shemu I Shemu
28 28 and
and 30I Shemu
I Shemu there are 62aredays,
30 there
30 there 62this
are days,
62 days,duration
this this
duration would
duration
225
correspond
wouldwouldcorrespond to a difference
correspond of 244
to a difference
to a difference of 244 years 244(=
of years (=4x61)
years (= 4x61)
4x61) in case
189 189
case ofofSothic
in case Sothic
of Sothic dates,
dates,dates,
which which
whichis isis
impossible
impossible
impossible for
for thethe same
for the same king.
king.king. In addition,
In addition,
In addition, the hieroglyph
the hieroglyph
the hieroglyph representing
representing
representing the "rising"
the "rising"
the "rising" actually
actually
actually
means
means "leave"
means
"leave" (two
"leave" legs
(two (two walking walking
legs walking surmounted
surmounted
surmounted by
by aby a horizontal
a horizontal
horizontal bar
bar bar "bolt")
"bolt")"bolt") and
and not not not
"arrive", "arrive",
"arrive",
confirming
confirming
confirming the
the representation
the representation
representation (very
(very rare)
(very
rare) ofofa of
rare) aSothic
Sothic
a Sothic setting
settingsetting
whichwhich
whichoccursoccurs
occurs 61 days
61 days days
before before
before
the
therising.
rising. Between
the rising.Between Between the Sothic
Sothic
the Sothic setting
setting setting dated
dated I IShemu
dated Shemu
I Shemu 3030 30and
and thethe
and the
SothicSothic
Sothic
rising rising
rising
dated dated
dated III
III III
Shemu
Shemu Shemu
28
28 there 28 thereiswas isa aperiod
a period period of invisibility
of invisibility of 62ofdays
invisibility of6262 days
and daysand
notand not
70 days.70 days.
not 70 This
Thisdays. difference
This difference
difference could could
could be
beexplained
be explained explainedby the byby thethe
fact factfact
that that
thisthatthis this
period period decreased
decreased
period about
decreased about 1.5 about
1.5 day
by day
for 1° forlatitude
1° latitude
1.5 forsouthward,
day southward, 1° latitude
whichwhich
southward, implies implies
which 67 days 67 days
implies in Buto67in days
Buto in(latitude
(latitude Buto31.1°) 31.1°)
(lat and
31.1°) and
59 days 59 days
and in Thebes
in Thebes
59 days (latitude
in (latitude
Thebes 25.7°).
(lati 25.7°).ThisThis
25.7°). This
period period
periodof of
of invisibility invisibility
invisibility is different is different
differentfrom from
fromEgyptian Egyptian
Egyptiantexts, texts,
texts, which which
which always always
always indicate
indicate
indicate 70
70 days.
70 days.days. This
This This
discrepancy
discrepancy
discrepancy with with with
astronomyastronomy illustrates
illustrates the the
role role
of of
religious
astronomy illustrates the role of religious Egyptian astronomy. Indeed, religious
EgyptianEgyptian astronomy.
astronomy. Indeed, Indeed,at atat
190
this this time
thistime
time 190
226 the ,period
, , the the period
period of invisibility
of invisibility
of invisibility of of Sirius
of Sirius
Sirius iswas isabout
about about65 days
6565 days
days
at theat the
at the latitude
latitude
latitudeof Buto,ofof Buto,63 63
Buto, 63
days days
at the at the
latitude latitudeof of
Memphis. Memphis. Even Even
assuming
days at the latitude of Memphis. Even assuming good observing conditions there was aassuming good good observing
observing conditions
conditions (arcus(arcus
227 visionis visionis
of of
8° for8°of
period for67Sothic
Sothic risingrising
days atand and
the6.5° 6.5° for
for Sothic
latitude ofSothic setting)
Buto setting)
andthere notthere is a period
is70a days
period 67ofdays
asofEgyptian 67 daysattexts
theat latitude
the latitude
indicate. of
of This
period Buto
Buto and of 70 and
notdays not
70 days 70
covered days as
as Egyptian Egyptian
in191fact atexts texts
symbolic indicate.
indicate. periodThis of This
period period
7 decans of
of 70 days
228 70 days
, thecovered covered
Egyptian in year in fact
fact abeing a
191
covered symbolic
symbolic byperiod36period of 7 of
decans, 7ordecans
decans 360 , Egyptian
, Egyptian
(= 12x30)year yeardays.being
being Thecovered
covered 28byShemu36bydecans,
36 III
decans,or
also orbelongs
360 360
(= 12x30)(= 12x30)
to the
days. days.
The The
28 28
Shemu Shemu III III
also also
belongs belongsto theto the
effective
effective reign of Thutmose, after his 22 years of co-regency with Hatshepsut. In addition, effectivereign reign
of of Thutmose,
Thutmose, after after
his his
22 22
years years
the of co-regency
of Palestine
co-regency with with
campaign Hatshepsut.
Hatshepsut.
which occurred In addition,
In addition, fromthe yearsthe 23 Palestine
Palestine 25 iscampaign
to campaign which
mentioned which occurred
occurred
in the fromfrom
Buto Stela:
is a years
Ityears 23 to23
brave 25tois 25
king is mentioned
mentioned
who, in the melee, in Buto in Buto
madeStela: Stela:
great aIt brave
is a brave
It isslaughters kingamongking who,
in theinmelee,
who,Asiatic the melee,
mademade
coalitions. He great
great theslaughters
isslaughtersone that
amongamong
makes Asiatic
rulers
Asiatic
of coalitions.
Retenu's
coalitions.
He isHe the isonethethat
one makes
that makesrulersrulers of Retenu's
of Retenu's land,land, in their
in their entirety,
entirety, torequired
to .beSothic
229 be required
192 land,192 in their entirety, to be required to provide their tribute dates
to provide their tribute . Sothic dates appearing on Buto Stela and on Elephantine Stone are are
to provide their tribute . Sothic dates appearing on Buto Stela and on Elephantine Stone
appearing on the Buto Stela and on the Elephantine Stone likely date to year 25. Why have
likelylikely
dating dating
to year to 25.
year 25. Why these two Sothic dates
havehave beenbeen engraved?
these two Sothic dates Why beenthese two Sothic
engraved? As datesThebes was theengraved?
capital of Egypt at this time
As Thebes As Thebes was the was capital
the capital of Egyptof Egypt at this at this
timetime (1470 (1470
230BCE) BCE) the theSothic Sothic
rising rising
waswas
(1470 on BCE) 12 in the
Julythis Sothic
in place
this place rising was
(latitude on 12
25.7°) July
193 in this place . The III Shemu 28 coincides
on 12 July (latitude 25.7°) 193
. The. The III III Shemu
231 Shemu 28 coincides
28 coincides withwith 13 July
13 July on theon the
with 13 periodJuly on
1448-1445 the period 1941448-1445 BCE , which matches effectively to year 25 of
period 1448-1445 BCEBCE 194
, which , whichmatches matches effectively
effectively to year to year
25 of 25Thutmose
of Thutmose III since
III since his his
Thutmose year 9III since 1464
is dated his year BCE. 9 isGiven
datedthat 1464 theBCE.accession Given of that
Thutmosethe accession
III was on of IThutmose
Shemu 4 his III
year 9 is dated 1464 BCE. Given that the accession of Thutmose III was on I Shemu 4 his
188 A.S. 188 A.S.
BEd.VON BOMHARD - Le pp.- Le calendrier
calendrier Égyptien. Une œuvre d'éternité
London VON
1999 OMHARD Periplus 41-44.Égyptien. Une œuvre d'éternité
225London
London
1999 Ed.1999 Ed. Periplus
Periplus pp. pp. 41-44.
41-44.
As the189Egyptian calendar has exactly
As the Egyptian 365365days it shifts 11 day every44years
years compared to solar
the solar year (365.25 days).
189 As the
226 M.F. I190
Egyptian calendarcalendar has exactly
has exactly 365 days it days
shiftsit1shifts day 4every
day every compared
years compared to the to the
solar year (365.25
year (365.25 days). days).
190 M.F. I NGHAM
M.F. I –
NGHAMThe –Lenght
The of
Lenght the
of
NGHAM – The Lenght of the Sothic Cycle
Sothic
the SothicCycle
Cycle
in:in:The
TheJournal
in: The of
Journal Egyptian
ofJournal Archaeology
of Egyptian
Egyptian 55 55
Archaeology
Archaeology (1969)
(1969)55 (1969)pp.pp.36-40.
pp. 36-40. 36-40.
J. J.CONMAN J. C – It's
ONMAN About
– It's Time:
About Ancient
Time: Egyptian
Ancient
CONMAN – It's About Time: Ancient Egyptian Cosmology Egyptian Cosmology
Cosmology
in:in:Studienin:zur
Studien Studien
zur zur Altägyptischen
Altägyptischen
Altägyptischen Kultur
Kultur Kultur
31Band
Band
Band 31 (2003)
31 (2003)
(2003) pp.42-47.
pp.
pp. 42-47. 42-47.
191 A.S. V ON BOMHARD – Le livre du ciel. De l'observation astronomique à la mythologie
A.S. visionis
227191arcus VON BOMHARD
of 8° for–Sothic
Le livrerising
du ciel.
andDe6.5°
l'observation
for Sothic astronomique
setting. à la mythologie
228in:A.S. Vin:
ON
Orientalia
Orientalia Lovaniensia
B OMHARD
Lovaniensia
Analecta
– Le Analecta
livre 150 (2007)
150 (2007)
du Ed.De
ciel. Ed. Uitgeverij
Uitgeverij PeetersPeeters
l'observation pp. 202-205.
pp. 202-205.
astronomique à la mythologie
192 A.S. 192
VONA.S.
B VON BOMHARD
OMHARD - Le - Le calendrier
calendrier Égyptien.Égyptien.
Une Une œuvre
œuvre d'éternité
d'éternité
in: Orientalia
LondonLovaniensia
1999 Ed. Analecta
Periplus 15041-44.
pp. (2007) Ed. Uitgeverij Peeters pp. 202-205.
193 http://www.imcce.fr/fr/grandpublic/phenomenes/sothis/index.php Long 32°39'
Long 32°39' E; LatE; Lat 25°42';
25°42'; arcus visionis
arcus visionis 8.9 8.9
London 1999
194 Ed. Periplus pp. 41-44.
http://www.chronosynchro.net/wordpress/convertisseur/
230 http://www.imcce.fr/fr/grandpublic/phenomenes/sothis/index.php Long 32°39' E; Lat 25°42'; arcus visionis 8.9
was on I Shemu 4 his year 25 was going from 20 April 1448 BCE to 19 April 1447 BCE.
The full moons during this period of time (1448 BCE) have been highlighted in yellow232.
Year Egyptian I Shemu 4 II Shemu 28 II Shemu 29 III Shemu 27 III Shemu 28 III Shemu 29
-1447 Julian 20 April 13 June 14 June 12 July 13 July 14 July
Lunar day year 25 30 1 29 1 2
One can see that the heliacal rising of Sirius dated 12 July 1448 BCE coincided with a
full moon, which was no doubt a remarkable event. However the event was dated III
Shemu 28 instead of III Shemu 27 because the full moon was the last day in the Egyptian
lunar calendar (based on lunar months of 29 or 30 days). In practice the 1st day of the
Egyptian lunar calendar was also considered as a full moon (the "two eyes" of Horus) that's
why the coincidence was dated on 1st day of the lunar month. Similarly, the Sothic setting
mentioned in the Buto Stela dated I Shemu 30 (16 May 1448 BCE) coincided with a full
moon dated a day before on I Shemu 29 (15 May 1448 BCE).
Year Egyptian IV Peret 29 IV Peret 30 I Shemu 4 I Shemu 28 I Shemu 29 I Shemu 30
-1447 Julian 15 April 16 April 20 April 14 May 15 May 16 May
Lunar day 29 1 year 25 29 1 2
These exceptional coincidences with the full moon may explain why these two Sothic
dates were mentioned on inscriptions. The Egyptians considered the full moon as an
auspicious day as the 1st lunar crescent, that is why these two days have played an important
role in religious festivals or inaugurations. For example, the beginning of the works in
Senenmut's tomb is dated IV Peret 2, year 7 of Thutmose III (24 March 1465 BCE) which
was a full moon and the door of the chapel was opened on III Akhet 27, year 11 (18
November 1461) which was a 1st lunar crescent (new moon + 2). The Egyptians considered
the 17th day of the month to be associated with the death of Osiris, a lunar god, and the 18th
day was called "day of the moon" because it marked the beginning of the re-parcelling of
Osiris symbolizing his resurrection. Egyptian reckoning of lunar months:
Egyptian lunar month beginning on full moon (= 1°), new moon (= 16*)
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16*
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1°
Babylonian lunar month beginning on 1st lunar crescent (= 1), full moon (= 14°)
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29*
30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14°
The Egyptian lunar calendar was not used for the dating of documents contrary to its
Babylonian counterpart, but it served only to fix the beginning of religious festivals related
to the moon. Its working was very simple: the 1st lunar day (psdntyw) was fixed by an
observation (of the full moon) which allowed one to determine the whole cycle of festivals
during this lunar month. The names of the lunar months were the same as the calendar
months with usually one month advance. When the full moon (lunar day 1) fell in the same
civil month, or on an epagomenal day, the name of the lunar month remained the same. It
happened as if the Egyptian calendar had nine intercalary months (highlighted). In the
232http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/pacalc.html
Egyptian papyrus Carlsberg 9 (column III lines 9-21), dated 144 CE, there is a list of 9
“great” years of 13 months (highlighted) and of the 16 “small” years of 12 months233:
Babylonian Egyptian AKHET PERET SHEMU
cycle cycle I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV (5)
14A 1 1/30 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25 25
15 2 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14
16 3 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3
17U 4 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 23
18 5 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 12 12
19A 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1
1 7 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 22 22 21 21 20
2 8 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 10
3A 9 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1/30 30 29 29 28
4 10 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18
5 11 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 9 9 8 8 7
6A 12 2 1 1/30 30 30 29 28 28 27 27 27 26
7 13 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 16 15
8A 14 10 9 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4
9 15 29 28 28 27 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24
10 16 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 14 13
11A 17 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2
12 18 26 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 22 22 21
13 19 16 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11
14A 20 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1/30 30
15 21 24 24 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19
16 22 13 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 9 9 8
17U 23 3 2 2 1 1/30 30 30 29 29 28 28 27
18 24 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 18 17 17
19A 25 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6
This Egyptian lunar cycle of 25 years remained stable over at least 525 years since
there appears only a slight difference of 0.0483 day at the end of the cycle234 (which implies
1 day more after 21 cycles). Coincidentally the ratio of intercalary years compared to normal
years was the same in both systems: 0.36 (9/25) for the Egyptian cycle and 0.37 for the
Babylonian cycle (7/19). Intercalary years had no role in the Egyptian lunar calendar since it
was only a rough correspondence with the months of the calendar which was almost solar.
From the Ptolemaic era, Egyptian astronomers used a lunar cycle starting on the new moon
instead of the full moon, but the coincidences remained almost the same as can be seen in
the papyrus Rylands Inv. 666235 (dated October 180 BCE). Parker has compiled and
explained the 30 days of the Egyptian lunar month (red colour means nonsense):
½ month n° Day of the month Moon phase according to:
Name Meaning Macnaughton Parker
(15) 1 psdntyw Shining ones Full moon First invisibility
2 3bd Month After full moon First crescent
7 dnit Quarter Last quarter First quarter
14 si3w Perceptions Last crescent Before full moon
15 smdt Subordinate Before new moon Full moon
1 17 si3w Perceptions Before first crescent -
2 18 i‘ḥ Moon First crescent -
7 23 dnit Quarter First quarter Last quarter
14 30 prt Mn Min going-forth Before full moon New moon
233 L. DEPUYDT - The Demotic Mathematical Astronomical Papyrus Carlsberg 9 Reinterpreted
in: Egyptian Religion the Last Thousand Years (Peeters, 1998) pp. 1277-1297.
234 25 civil years = 25x365 = 9125 days and 25 lunar years = (25x12 + 9)x29.530588 = 9124.9517 days.
235 E.G. TURNER, O. NEUGEBAUER - Gymnasium Debts and New Moons
in: Bulletin of the John Rylands Library Vol. 32 (1949) pp. 80-96.
A lunar cycle of 25 years began in 1471 BCE (-1470*) on 1st Thoth (I Akhet 1)236
(highlighted in blue) matching a full moon dated 26 August237, the 1st lunar day psdntyw of
the lunar month. Two lunar days 1 (psdntyw)238 respectively dated I Shemu 21 year 23 of
Thutmose III (Urk.IV 657.2) and II Peret 30 year 24239, confirm the dating of Thutmose's
reign. According to astronomy these lunar days (psdntyw)240 coincided with the full moons of
7 May in 1450 BCE and of 16 February in 1448 BCE. The year 1 of Thutmose III starting
on I Shemu 4 (May in 1472 BCE), the year 23 must have begun on 21 April 1450 BCE (I
Shemu 4). The date I Shemu 21, year 23 of Thutmose III is on 8 May 1450 BCE and the II
Peret 30, year 24, is on 15 February 1448 BCE. Thutmose III chose this specific lunar day
to attack Megiddo because he considered it an auspicious day of shining full moon. He
explains: Now that illuminates the moon, that encircles the solar disk when it shines, that surround Geb
and Nut, he placed them in the circle of his arms. His Majesty stands at the entrance to the earth, ready to
defeat the Asiatics241. Reign of Thutmose III:
SEASON: BCE AKHET PERET SHEMU
I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV 5
1473 Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug.
Thutmose III 1472 1 24 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 18 17 17
1471 2 25 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6
1470 3 1 1 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25 25
1469 4 2 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14
1468 5 3 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3
1467 6 4 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 23
1466 7 5 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 12 12
1465 8 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1
1464 9 7 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 22 22 21 21 20
1463 10 8 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 10
1462 11 9 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 30 29 29 28
1461 12 10 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18
1460 13 11 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 9 9 8 8 7
1459 14 12 2 1 1 30 30 29 28 28 27 27 27 26
1458 15 13 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 16 15
1457 16 14 10 9 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4
1456 17 15 29 28 28 27 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24
1455 18 16 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 14 13
1454 19 17 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2
1453 20 18 26 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 22 22 21
1452 21 19 16 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11
1451 22 20 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 30
1450 23 21 24 24 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19
1449 24 22 13 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 9 9 8
1448 25 23 3 2 2 1 1 1/30 30 29 29 28 28 27
1447 26 24 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 18 17 17
1446 27 25 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6
Lunar dates I Shemu 21 year 23 in 1450 BCE and II Peret 30 year 24 in 1448 BCE
Sothic setting on I Shemu 29 and Sothic rising on III Shemu 28 in 1448 BCE (year 25)
Heliacal risings of Sirius and Venus on 16 July 1464 BCE (year 9 III Shemu 21)
Right ascension of Jupiter 80° without Mars on 14 November 1463 BCE (year 10)
238 K. SETHE – Urkunden der 18. Dynastie
Leipzig 1907 Ed. J.C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung pp. IV 657, 807-809, 836.
239 Thutmose III inaugurated a sanctuary on II Peret year 24 he called Akh-menu "brilliant monument" (Urk.IV 836.1-3).
240 R.A. PARKER - The Lunar Dates of Thutmose III and Ramesses II
in: Journal of Eastern Studies XVI (1957) pp. 39-43.

241 C. LALOUETTE – Thèbes. La naissance d'un empire
Paris 1995 Éd. Flammarion pp. 276-279, 371-372).

Similarly, a heliacal rising of Sirius during Seti I's reign and several dated lunar days
(psdntyw) allow an absolute dating of the 19th and 20th Dynasties.
DATING OF THE XIXTH AND XXTH DYNASTIES THROUGH ASTRONOMY
The helical rising of Sirius during Seti's reign is dated I Akhet 1 year 4242, given that
the astronomical ceiling of Seti I starts by a Sothic rising dated on I Akhet [1] according to
his cenotaph: All these stars begin on I Akhet when Sirius appears243. This Sothic rising is dated
(around -1300)244 either on 12 July (Thebes) or 17 July (Heliopolis), which matched a full
moon245 (I Akhet 6 in the 25-year lunar cycle). The 2nd coincidence of a full moon with a
heliacal rising of Sirius is not suitable because it occurred in Seti I's year 10 (1285 BCE).
Pharaoh Year I Akhet 1 Full moon in: Sothic rising
Dynasty XIX BCE Julian Lunar cycle Julian Thebes Heliopolis
1296 1 13 July I Akhet 1 13 July 12 July 17 July
1295 2 13 July I Akhet 19 1 August 12 July 17 July
Seti I 1294 1 3 13 July I Akhet 9 21 July 13 July 17 July
1293 2 4 12 July I Akhet 28 8 August 12 July 16 July
1292 3 5 12 July I Akhet 17 28 July 12 July 17 July
Seti I's accession occurred in 1294 BCE on III Shemu 24? (1 June). His reign lasted
11 years and a few days as shown by the autobiography246 of the priest Bakenkhons who
stated: I spent 4 years as an excellent youngster, 11 years as a youth, as a trainee stable-master for king
Men[maat]re (Seti I), wab priest of Amun for 4 years, god's father of Amun for 12 years, third pries of
Amun for 15 years, second priest of Amun for 12. In addition, the 11 years of Seti I were all
reported, except year 10, which confirms the 11-year reign247. Consequently Ramses II's
accession must be dated in 1283 (= 1294 - 11), more exactly on III Shemu 27 (1 June 1283
BCE). The lunar day psdntyw dated II Peret 27, year 52 of Ramses II248, which occurred on
20 December 1232 BCE, confirms the accession in 1283 (= 1232 + 52 – 1). Furthermore,
the accession of Kadašman-Enlil II (1264-1255) occurred in year 19 of Ramses II249,
implying again dating the accession of Ramses II in 1283 (= 1264 + 19 + 0). Accession250
242 K. SETHE - Sethos I und die Erneuerung der Hundssternperiode
in: Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache 66 (1931) pp. 1-7.
243 O. NEUGEBAUER, R.A. PARKER – Egyptian Astronomical Texts I
London 1960 Ed. Brown University Press pp. 44, 54 (Text T2 plate 47).
arcus visionis 8.9 Heliopolis Long 31°20' E Lat 30°05' N Thebes; Long 32°39' E Lat 25°42' N
246 E. FLOOD – Biographical Texts from Ramessid Egypt
Atlanta 2007 Ed. Society of Biblical Literature p. 41.

247 E. HORNUNG – The New Kingdom
248 J.J. JANSSEN – Two Ancient Egyptian Ship's Logs
Leiden 1961 Ed. E.J. Brill p. 12.

249 W.A. WARD - The Present Status of Egyptian Chronology
in: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 288 (1991) pp. 55,56.
in: Ancient Egyptian Chronology. Leiden 2006 Ed. Brill pp. 208-211.
C. VANDERSLEYEN - L'Egypte et la vallée du Nil Tome 2
J. VON BECKERATH – Chronologie des pharaonischen ägypten
1997 Ed. Verlag Philipp von Zabern pp. 201-202.
dates and years of reign enable one to reconstitute the following chronology (Seti I's reign
with a Sothic rising has been highlighted in pink and reigns with lunar dates in deep blue):
Dynasty XIX Length of reign accession date highest date Reign
Ramses I 1 year 4 months 1 III Peret ? 2 II Peret 20 01/1295-05/1294
Seti I 11 years 1 III Shemu 24 ? 11 IV Shemu 13 06/1294-06/1283
Ramses II 67 years 2 months 1 III Shemu 27 67 I Akhet 18 06/1283-07/1216
Merenptah 9 years 3 months 1 II Akhet 5-13? 10 IV Akhet 7 08/1216-10/1207
Seti II 5 years 1 I Peret ? 6 I Peret 19 11/1207-10/1202
[Amenmes] [4 years] 1 [II Shemu ?] [ 4 III Shemu 29 ?] [04/1206-03/1202]
Siptah 6 years 1 I Peret 2? 7 IV Akhet 22 11/1202-10/1196
(Siptah)-Tausert 1 year 6 months " 8 II Shemu 29 11/1196-04/1194
Dynasty XX
Sethnakht 3 years 5 months " 4 11/1196-03/1192
Ramses III 31 years 1 month 1 I Shemu 26 32 III Shemu 14 04/1192-04/1161
Ramses IV 6 years 8 months 1 III Shemu 15 7 III Akhet 29? 05/1161-12/1155
The durations of reign fit quite well with those of Manetho (via Flavius Josephus).
However, because of the uncertainty on some accession dates three of these reigns may
have an additional year if we place it at the end of the last year of reign instead of the
beginning. Thus, Seti II may have reigned 6 years instead of 5 (the most likely)251 and
Ramses II may have reigned 67 years and 2 months instead of 66 years and 2 months. In his
stele dated beginning of year 4, Ramses IV compares his 3 years of reign with the 67 years
(not 66) of Ramses II, which involves the death of Ramses II at the beginning of his year 68
in accordance with the number of his jubilees (sed festivals). In fact, 14 jubilees were
attested, the first one being celebrated in year 30 and the others every 3 years: the 11th in
year 60 (=2x30), the 12th in year 61 and the 14th in year 66. The most delicate case being the
4-year reign of pharaoh Amenmes, that some place between Merenptah and Seti II, and
others in parallel with Seti II (and delay it by approximately 5 months). Several
synchronisms and lunar dates, dated by astronomy, can resolve these uncertainties.
The violent crisis that hit the eastern Mediterranean caused the ruin of the great
empires of the Bronze Age, which the Trojan War is the most famous episode, is exactly
dated year 8 of Ramses III. Thebes, Lefkandi, Tiryns, Mycenae and Pylos in mainland
Greece and Chania in Crete, were ransacked and some completely destroyed. Most of these
cities and their palaces were burned. In Anatolia, among the most important sites, several
archaeological levels similarly destroyed are found which date from the same period.
Hattusha, the Hittite capital, was sacked and burned just like the major cities of Cyprus. On
the north coast of Syria, the flourishing city of Ugarit was destroyed and never inhabited
thereafter. Mesopotamia was preserved as the wave of devastation did not extend to the
east, and it was the Egyptians who alone could stop it. The temple of Ramses III at Medinet
Habu contains an account of this victory over the Sea Peoples. The identification of these
peoples and their reasons for migration are poorly understood, however, these events are
precisely dated. The great Alexandrian scholar Eratosthenes (276-193), for example, dated
the Trojan War in 1184 BCE. Manetho252 , while confirming the 7-year reign of Queen
[Siptah]/Tausert (1202-1194) states: Thouôris, (...) at the time when Troy was taken, reigned 7
years253. Tausert reigned (1195-1194) at the beginning of the war, 10 years before the
destruction of Troy. This destruction coincides with the fall of the Hittite Empire dated
251 H. ALTENMÜLLER – Bemerkunden zu den königsgräbern des neuen reiches
in: Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 10 (1983) pp. 43-61.
252 W.G. WADDELL – Manetho
Massachusetts 1956 Ed. Harvard University Press pp. 101-119.

253 According to Thucydides, the Trojan War was the result of an expedition of disparate tribes of pirates (Odyssey III:71-74),
living on islands around Achaia, who were united by King Agamemnon of Mycenae. This expedition against the Trojans was the
culmination of 10 years of battle (The Peloponnesian War I:8-12), a battle in Egypt is mentioned in the year 5 of Ramses III.
indirectly in year 8 of Ramses III and in year 2 of Meli-Shipak (October 1185 BCE) 254. This
war led by the Sea Peoples must have been spread over less than one year because,
according to the inscription of Ramses III, all countries (Hatti, the coast of Cilicia,
Carchemish, Cyprus, etc.) were "destroyed all at once" and, according to Homer (Odyssey
XIV:240-280), the sacking of the city of Priam [Troy], after 10 years of fighting, was
followed "in less than 1 month" by the sailing of Achaeans to Egypt and the sacking of its
wonderful fields. As year 2 of Meli-Shipak is dated in 1185 BCE, Ramses III's accession has
to be dated in 1192 (= 1185 +8 – 2 +1)255 . This date is consistent with the accession of
Ramses II in 1283 (= 1192 + 3+5 m. +6 + 5 + 9+3 m. + 67+2 m.).
The reign of Tausert is well known256. Wife of Seti II, she exercised after his death a
strong influence on his son Siptah (Regency?) then, at the latter's death, she continued his
reign instead of inaugurating a new one (Sethnakht also began his reign from Siptah's
death)257. Egyptian women, as wife or daughter of a Pharaoh, could access the deity, which
authorized them to embody and so prolong the reign of a dead pharaoh without successor,
but not to begin a new reign. This case occurred three times over the period 1500-1200:
Tausert, wife of Seti II, continuing the reign of his son Siptah, Ankhkheperure continued
the reign of Semenkhkare her husband and Hatshepsut continued the reign of her husband
Thutmose II (which was in turn extended by Thutmose III at Hatshepsut's death). These
extended reigns were interpreted by some as co-regencies, which distorts the chronology.
Another source of error comes from the change of name by some pharaohs, interpreted as
the reign of new sovereign. In fact it is not the case, since for no apparent reason Ramses-
Siptah (Sekhâenre-Meryamun) was then called Merenptah Siptah (Akhenrê-Setepenre) from
the year 3 of his reign. It is possible to anchor Tausert's reign, and consequently the one of
Ramses III, thanks to a graffito a scribe named Thotemhab left at the Theban temple of
Deir el-Bahari, in memory of his participation in the Festival of the Valley. During this
annual celebration, the processional statue of Amon passed two nights at the funerary
temple of the reigning monarch. The graffito of Thotemhab tells us that in the II Shemu 28
Year 7 of Tausert, the statue of Amon was transported to the mortuary temple. The
Beautiful Festival of the Valley was celebrated the day after the 1st lunar day, which implies
dating that day 1 (psdntyw) to II Shemu 27 Year 7 of Tausert258. The reign of Amenmes259
cannot be placed between that of Merenptah and Seti II, but only in parallel with the one of
Seti II, as can be deduced from the lunar dates (see table hereafter), because the insertion of
4-year reign of Amenmes would push the lunar date, either in II Peret 21 (in 1236 BCE) if
the reign of Seti II is 5 years long, or in II Peret 2 (in 1237 BCE) if this reign is 6 years long,
yet the only possibility is that of II Peret 27 in 1232 BCE. The reign of Ramses III began at
I Shemu 26 year 1 (9 March 1192 BCE). This reconstruction also confirms the 2-year reign
of Sethnakht because the duration of 3 years260 would imply a lunar date II Shemu 7 (c.
254 The last texts from Emar are dated [-]/VI2/2 and 6/VII/[2] of Meli-Shipak (Y. COHEN, I. SINGER – A Late Synchronism
between Ugarit and Emar in: Essays on Ancient Israel in Its Near Eastern Context, Ed. Eisenbrauns 2006, p. 134.
255 Year 2 of Meli-Shipak beginning on Nisan 1, or on April 4, 1185 BCE, and year 8 of Ramesses III starts at I Shemu 26 or so
in April at that time. The accession is counted as year 0 by the Babylonians and as a year 1 by the Egyptians.
256 V.G. CALLENDER – Queen Tausret and the End of Dynasty 19


258 R. KRAUSS – Moïse le pharaon
Monaco 2005 Éd. Rocher pp. 125-127.

259 T. SCHNEIDER – Conjectures about Amenmesse
in: Ramesside Studies in Honour of K.A. itchen (Rutherford Press, 2011) pp. 445-451.
260 If the Elephantine Stele (KRI V:671-672) states that all the enemies of Egypt were eliminated on II Shemu 1 in year 2 of
Sethnakht, there is no explicit link with a accession date, but it could correspond to the time of the disappearance of Tausert
(whose highest date is the II Shemu 29 year 8 of Siptah).
April in 1196 BCE), incompatible with that of II Shemu 27 from the graffito. This date II
Shemu 27 Year 7 of Siptah corresponds to 10 April in 1195 BCE261 and actually coincides
with a full moon (saw on 9 April -1194)262. A good indication of the rivalry between the two
kings, Setnakht and Amenmes (later considered as usurper), comes from their cartouche,
each having had erased the name of the other263.
We also note that the two lunar dates (psdntyw) of Ramses III (I Shemu 11 and IV
Peret 1)264 fall at the beginning and end of year 5. Moreover, the beautiful feast of the valley265
[probably at the end of year 5], celebrated just after the lunar day 1(psdntyw), is dated II
Shemu 1 and 2, which implies dating this lunar day I Shemu 30 on 12 March in 1187 BCE
(full moon). The lunar day psdntyw has always played an important role in Egyptian cult. On
the stele from Abydos dated Year 4 of Ramses IV, Pharaoh says: My heart has not forgotten the
day of my psdntyw feast266 and this stele is dated 10 Akhet III, which implies a connection with
this lunar day. The year 4 of Ramses IV began at III Shemu 15 (the day of his accession)267
and in 1158 BCE according to the previous scheme, one can also verify that the year 4 of
Ramses IV began with a lunar day 1 dated III Shemu 16, which explains the choice of year
4 for this inscription. The III Shemu 15 corresponds to 19 April in 1158 BCE (full moon)
and the III Akhet 10 which corresponds to 16 August 1158 BCE (full moon).
Dynasty XIX accession date Julian date (BCE) highest date Julian date (BCE)
Ramses I 1 III Peret ? 09 Jan-07 Feb. 1295 2 II Peret 20 29 Dec. 1295
Seti I 1 III Shemu 24 ? 01? Jun. 1294 11 IV Shemu 13 23 May 1283
Ramses II 1 III Shemu 27 01 Jun. 1283 67 I Akhet 18 10 Jul. 1216
Merenptah 1 II Akhet 5-13? 27 Jul-04 Aug. 1216 10 IV Akhet 7 25 Sep. 1207
Seti II 1 I Peret ? 19 Oct-17 Nov. 1207 6 I Peret 19 05 Nov. 1202
[Amenmes] 1 [II Shemu ?] 18 Mar-16 Apr. 1206 [ 4 III Shemu 29 ?] [14? May 1202]
Siptah 1 I Peret 2? 19? Oct. 1202 7 IV Akhet 22 07 Oct. 1196
(Siptah)-Tausert " 17? Oct. 1196 8 II Shemu 29 12 Apr. 1194
Dynast XX
Sethnakht " 17? Oct. 1196 4 [Jun. 1191-1192]
Ramses III 1 I Shemu 26 09 Mar. 1192 32 III Shemu 14 19 Apr. 1161
Ramses IV 1 III Shemu 15 20 Apr. 1161 7 III Akhet 29? 04? Sep. 1155
Sothic rising Lunar day 1 (psdntyw) Date (BCE) Full moon
Seti I 4 I Akhet 1 4 [I Akhet 6] 12 Jul. 1291 [17 Jul. 1291]
Ramses II 52 II Peret 27 20 Dec. 1262 21 Dec. 1262
(Siptah)-Tausert 7 II Shemu 27 10 Apr. 1195 9 Apr. 1195
Ramses III 5 I Shemu 11 22 Feb. 1188 21 Feb. 1188
5 IV Peret 1 12 Jan. 1187 11 Jan. 1187
6 I Shemu 30 12 Mar. 1187 11 Mar. 1187
Ramses IV 4 III Shemu 15 19 Apr. 1158 19 Apr. 1158
4 III Akhet 10 16 Aug. 1158 15 Aug. 1158
The complete reconstruction of all Egyptian reigns in the period 1295-1155 BCE
(Dynasties XIX-XX), based on the Sothic rising of Seti I and lunar dates (psdntyw), allows
one to check the coincidences of these dates which occur only once every 25 years268:
263 Year 4 of Sethnakht involves at least 3 years of reign (Al-Ahram Weekly 11-17 January 2007 No. 827), but as this reign began
with the death of Siptah, Tausert's reign (1 year 6 months) must be subtracted.
264 A. SPALINGER – Egyptian Festival Dating and the Moon
in: Under One Sky (Münster 2002) Ed. Ugarit-Verlag pp. 385-389.
265 S. EL-SABBAN – Temple Festival Calendars of Ancient Egypt
Liverpol 2000 Ed. Liverpool University Press pp. 67,68.

266 A.J. PEDEN – The Reign of Ramesses IV
Warminster 1994 Ed. Aris & Phillips Ltd pp. 91-94.


268 Or every 11/14 years if there is an error of 1 day.
Legend of colours:
Year 1 of Ramses I from IV Peret, June in 1294 BCE, to III Peret, May in 1293 BCE.
Synchronism with the Sothic rising dated I Akhet 1 in year 4 of Seti I (12 July 1291 BCE).
Synchronism with Babylonian chronology:
years 19 and 42 of Ramses II (in 1264 and 1241 BCE); year 8 of Ramesses III (in 1185 BCE).
Lunar dates: year 52 de Ramses II (in 1232); year 7 de Siptah (in 1195); year 4 de Ramses IV (in 1158).
SEASON BCE AKHET PERET SHEMU
month 1296 Jul. Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun.
Ramses I 1295 1 1 1 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25 25
Seti I 1294 2 2 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14
1293 1 3 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3
1292 2 4 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 23
1291 3 5 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 12 12
1290 4 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1
1289 5 7 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 22 22 21 21 20
1288 6 8 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 10
1287 7 9 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 30 29 29 28
1286 8 10 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18
1285 9 11 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 9 9 8 8 7
1284 10 12 2 1 1 30 30 29 28 28 27 27 27 26
Ramses II 1283 11 13 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 16 15
1282 1 14 10 9 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4
1281 2 15 29 28 28 27 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24
1280 3 16 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 14 13
1279 4 17 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2
1278 5 18 26 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 22 22 21
1277 6 19 16 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11
1276 7 20 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 30
1275 8 21 24 24 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19
1274 9 22 13 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 9 9 8
1273 10 23 3 2 2 1 1 30 30 29 29 28 28 27
1272 11 24 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 18 17 17
1271 12 25 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6
1270 13 1 1 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25 25
1269 14 2 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14
1268 15 3 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3
1267 16 4 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 23
1266 17 5 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 12 12
1265 18 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1
1264 19 7 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 22 22 21 21 20
1263 20 8 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 10
1262 21 9 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 30 29 29 28
1261 22 10 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18
1260 23 11 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 9 9 8 8 7
1259 24 12 2 1 1 30 30 29 28 28 27 27 27 26
1258 25 13 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 16 15
1257 26 14 10 9 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4
1256 27 15 29 28 28 27 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24
1255 28 16 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 14 13
1254 29 17 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2
1253 30 18 26 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 22 22 21
1252 31 19 16 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11
1251 32 20 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 30
1250 33 21 24 24 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19
1249 34 22 13 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 9 9 8
1248 35 23 3 2 2 1 1 30 30 29 29 28 28 27
1247 36 24 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 18 17 17
1246 37 25 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6
1245 38 1 1 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25 25
1244 39 2 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14
1243 40 3 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3
1242 41 4 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 23
1241 42 5 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 12 12
1240 43 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1
1239 44 7 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 22 22 21 21 20
1238 45 8 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 10
1237 46 9 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 30 29 29 28
1236 47 10 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18
1235 48 11 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 9 9 8 8 7
1234 49 12 2 1 1 30 30 29 28 28 27 27 27 26
1233 50 13 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 16 15
1232 51 14 10 9 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4
1231 52 15 29 28 28 27 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24
1230 53 16 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 14 13
1229 54 17 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2
1228 55 18 26 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 22 22 21
1227 56 19 16 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11
1226 57 20 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 30
1225 58 21 24 24 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19
1224 59 22 13 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 9 9 8
1223 60 23 3 2 2 1 1 30 30 29 29 28 28 27
1222 61 24 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 18 17 17
1221 62 25 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6
1220 63 1 1 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25 25
1219 64 2 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14
1218 65 3 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3
1217 66 4 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 23
1216 67 5 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 12 12
Merenptah 1215 1 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1
1214 2 7 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 22 22 21 21 20
1213 3 8 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 10
1212 4 9 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 30 29 29 28
1211 5 10 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18
1210 6 11 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 9 9 8 8 7
1209 7 12 2 1 1 30 30 29 28 28 27 27 27 26
1208 8 13 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 16 15
1207 9 14 10 9 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4
Seti II 1206 1 15 29 28 28 27 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24
1205 2 16 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 14 13
1204 3 17 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2
1203 4 18 26 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 22 22 21
1202 5 19 16 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11
Siptah 1201 1 20 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 30
1200 2 21 24 24 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19
1199 3 22 13 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 9 9 8
1198 4 23 3 2 2 1 1 30 30 29 29 28 28 27
1197 5 24 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 18 17 17
1196 6 25 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6
Tausert 1195 7 1 1 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25 25
Sethnakht 1194 2 2 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14
1193 3 3 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3
Ramses III 1192 1 4 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 23
1191 2 5 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 12 12
1190 3 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1
1189 4 7 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 22 22 21 21 20
1188 5 8 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 10
1187 6 9 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 30 29 29 28
1186 7 10 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18
1185 8 11 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 9 9 8 8 7
1184 9 12 2 1 1 30 30 29 28 28 27 27 27 26
1183 10 13 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 16 15
1182 11 14 10 9 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4
1181 12 15 29 28 28 27 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24
1180 13 16 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 14 13
1179 14 17 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2
1178 15 18 26 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 22 22 21
1177 16 19 16 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11
1176 17 20 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 30
1175 18 21 24 24 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19
1174 19 22 13 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 9 9 8
1173 20 23 3 2 2 1 1 30 30 29 29 28 28 27
1172 21 24 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 18 17 17
1171 22 25 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6
1170 23 1 1 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25 25
1169 24 2 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14
1168 25 3 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3
1167 26 4 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 23
1166 27 5 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 12 12
1165 28 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1
1164 29 7 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 22 22 21 21 20
1163 30 8 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 10
1162 31 9 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 30 29 29 28
1161 32 10 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18
Ramses IV 1160 1 11 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 9 9 8 8 7
1159 2 12 2 1 1 30 30 29 28 28 27 27 27 26
1158 3 13 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 16 15
1157 4 14 10 9 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4
1156 5 15 29 28 28 27 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24
1155 6 14 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 14 13
1154 7 15 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2
1153 Jul. Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun.
SEASON BCE AKHET PERET SHEMU
month I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV 5
DATING OF THE XXVIITH DYNASTY THROUGH ASTRONOMY

The calendar at Elephantine (in the far south of Egypt) with its system of double
dates, Egyptian and Babylonian, was used by Persians officials and Jewish scribes only
during a short period from 500 to 400 BCE. For example, a Persian official erected a votive
stele stating: This temple, (W)id(arnaga) head of the garrison at Syene was done in the month of Siwan,
that is to say Mehir, year 7 of King Artaxerxes, (to) Osirnaḥty, the god. Peace269. After the conquest
of Egypt by Cambyses Egypt became a Persian satrapy but most of the scribes were
Egyptians or Jews270. Persian officials at Elephantine were familiar with three kinds of lunar
calendar (Elamite, Old-Persian, Babylonian), which appear Darius I's inscriptions at
Behistun271. Jewish scribes at Elephantine were familiar with different calendars272 , but they
mainly used a calendar based on the Babylonian calendar after their return to Judea from
Babylon (538 BCE). At that time there were the following equivalences among calendars273:
269 A. LEMAIRE – Recherches d'épigraphie araméenne en Asie mineure et en Égypte
in: Achaemenid History V (1991) Ed. Nederlands Instituut Leiden pp.199-201.
270 According to Herodotus (The Histories II:152-154), Psammetichus I, dynasts of Sais, called on foreign mercenaries, including
Ionians and Carians, to consolidate his power in Egypt, he then installed these mercenary garrisons in Daphne west of Delta and
Elephantine, on the border in the south (The Histories II:30-31). The Letter of Aristeas to Philocrates III:13 states that among
these mercenaries there were Jews. According to the biblical text, the massive emigration of Jews into Egypt began shortly after
the pharaoh Necho II established King Jehoiakim (in 609 BCE) on the throne in Jerusalem (2Ki 23:34, Jr 26:21-23, 42:14). After
the murder of Gedaliah, many of these Jews immigrated to Egypt (Jr 43:7, 44:1) especially in the country of Patros (meaning "the
Land of the South" in Egyptian) the southern province in which Elephantine was the main town.
271 P. LECOQ - Les inscriptions de la Perse achéménide
Paris 1997 Éd. Gallimard pp. 171-174.

272 P. GRELOT – Documents araméens d’Égypte
in: Littératures anciennes du proche orient n°5 (Cerf, 1972) pp. 33-63, 509-510.
273 A. KUHRT - The Persian Empire
London 2010 Ed. Routeledge pp. 885-886.

EGYPTIAN JEWISH/ PERSIAN BABYLONIAN JULIAN
SECULAR RELIGIOUS HEBREW ARAMAIC
I Akhet 30 Thoth (1) 30 January 31
II Akhet 30 Paopi (2) 29 February 28
III Akhet 30 Hathor (3) 30 March 31
IV Akhet 30 Koyak (4) 29 month I Nisan Nisanu 30 April 30
I Peret 30 Teobi (5) 30 month II Iyyar Ayyaru 29 May 31
II Peret 30 Mehir (6) 29 month III Siwan Simanu 30 June 30
III Peret 30 Pamenotep (7) 29 month IV Tammuz Dumuzu 29 July 31
IV Peret 30 Parmuti (8) 29 month V Ab Abu 30 August 31
I Shemu 30 Pahons (9) 29 month VI Elul Ululu 29 September 30
II Shemu 30 Paoni (10) 29 month VII Tishri Tashritu 30 October 31
III Shemu 30 Epipi (11) 30 month VIII Marheshwan Arahsamna 29 November 30
IV Shemu 30 Mesore (12) 29 month IX Kislew Kislimu 30 December 31
Epagomen 5 [xxx2] (13) 30
month X Tebeth Tebetu 29 January 31
month XI Shebat Shabatu 30 February 28
month XII Adar Addaru
month XIII [Adar2] [Addaru2] 29 March 31
As the Egyptian calendar had 12 months of 30 days, plus 5 days at the end (called
epagomenon in Greek), it was not lunar. As the Jews of Elephantine were in an Egyptian
environment they used the Egyptian lunar calendar for the dating of their religious festivals.
It is noteworthy that those Jews used only the word yerah "lunation" (implying the [full]
moon)274, to designate the month while at the same time, in Judea, the Jews of Arad used
only the word hodesh "new" (implying the new [moon])275. We read for example on the
ostracon n°7 (c. 600 BCE): for the 10th [month], the 1st of the month to the 6th of the month276. In the
Hebrew Scriptures277, the words hodesh and yerah are often used in the sense of "month", but
they are not synonymous since some sentences are found in Canaanite inscriptions278 like:
hodesh yerah Etanim, which can be translated as "new moon of Etanim (1Ki 8:2)". If the two
words hodesh and yerah were synonymous the translation would be "month of the month of
Etanim", which does not make sense279. This semantic distinction is important. Indeed, in a
lunar calendar starting at the new moon, the two words hodesh "new [moon]" and yerah
"lunation" to refer to one month may be suitable. But in a schedule starting at the full
moon, only the word "lunation" is appropriate. Following the religious reform carried out
by Nehemiah in Jerusalem about 440 BCE (Ne 13:6-9), the Jews of Elephantine would
celebrate the Passover again using the Aramaic calendar based on a Babylonian pattern280,
because this festival was to be celebrated 14 days after the new moon. It was indeed a
reform of the calendar, not a reform of worship, because the Jews were in contact with the
priesthood in Jerusalem and they had celebrated the Passover since at least 450 BCE281. The
reform of the calendar (reforms carried out by Nehemiah in Jerusalem) is dated the 5th year
274 B. PORTEN A. YARDENI - Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt, 3
1993 Ed. Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities pp. XXXVI.
275 G.I. DAVIES - Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions, Corpus and Concordance
Cambridge 1991 Ed. Cambridge University Press pp. 14,15,348.

276 A. LEMAIRE -Inscriptions hébraïques Tome I, Les Ostraca
In: Littératures anciennes du proche orient n°9 Paris 1977 Ed. Cerf pp. 168,231.
277 The word "full moon (Pr 7:20)" is kese in Hebrew or lebanah "the white one (Is 30:26)".
278 H. DONNER, W. RÖLLING - Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften
Wiesbaden 2002 Ed. Harrassowitzp. 9 N°3.

279 J.A. WAGENAAR - Post-Exilic Calendar Innovations
in: Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 115 (2003) p. 7 note 9.

280 J. MÉLÈZE MODRZEJEWSKI - Les Juifs d'Égypte de Ramsès II à Hadrien
Paris 1991 Éd. Errance p. 37

281 A. VINCENT - La religion des judéo-araméens d'Éléphantine
Paris 1937 Éd. Librairie orientaliste P. Geuthner pp. 267-274.

of Darius II (419 BCE)282. At Elephantine the main system of dating was the Egyptian
calendar (secular), but as numerous religious festivals in Egypt were based on moon phases
a lunar calendar was used to fix these dates. The Jews, then the Persians, naturally used this
calendar for their own festivals based on a lunar calendar (as the Passover for the Jews).
The language of administration being either Egyptian or Persian, it was necessary to convert
the names of the Egyptian lunar months to the common language understood by all,
Aramaic. For example, the Jews converted into Aramaic the name of the months of their
Hebrew calendar: It came about that in the 4th year of Darius (...) on the 4th [day] of the 9th month,
[that is] in Kislev (Zc 7:1). Given that Egyptian name of lunar months were the same as the
ones from the secular calendar, it is clear that if the Jews had only transcribed the lunar date
and the current date, the double dating would have been incomprehensible (except for the
Egyptians). For example the papyrus Louvre 7848283 is dated (line 5): in year 12, 2nd month of
Shemu, (day) 13, on the 15th day of the 1st month of Shemu. In 558 BCE the year 12 of Amasis
began on I Akhet 1 (10 January) and I Shemu 1 is dated 7 September284 and as the II Shemu
1 (lunar) began on full moon (10 September)285, consequently I Shemu 15 (secular) and II
Shemu 13 (lunar) are both dated 21 September 558 BCE:
August September 558 BCE
25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
IV Peret (secular) I Shemu (secular)
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
I Shemu (lunar) II Shemu (lunar)
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
For reasons of clarity the scribes of Elephantine (both Jews and Persians) used the
Egyptian lunar calendar by replacing the names of months by their Aramaic equivalent,
which were familiar to them. However, like the Babylonians, they counted the new day after
sunset (c. 18 p.m.) while the Egyptians counted it from the vanishing of stars (c. 5 a.m.). If a
Jewish scribe wrote on (in 475 BCE) 17 Thoth around 16:00 he dated his document on 17
Kislev286, but if he wrote about 20:00 he would have dated it on 18 Kislev.
midnight midday midnight
19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 6
Babylonian computation
18 Kislev 19 Kislev
Julian computation
4 January 5 January 6 January
Egyptian computation
16 Thoth 17 Thoth
An Elephantine Papyri (B24) is dated: [17] Thoth, which is 17 Kislev, year 21 (of Xerxes),
accession year of Artaxerxes287. As Xerxes died on 14/V/21 (24 August) the 1st Thoth (I Akhet
1) in 475 BCE is dated 20 December and the 17 Thoth, on 5 January 474 BCE:
282 As often happens, reforms are not fully followed. Yefet ben Eli, a Karaite living in Iraq (c. 950 CE) recalled that while the
Karaites determined the 1st lunar day according to the observation of the new moon and Rabbinites determined it by
calculations, those who had determined it in the past as the full moon did not exist (S. POZNANSKI – Les écrits d'Anan in: Revue
des Études Juives 44 (1902) pp. 171-172). By contrast, Jacob Qirqisani, a contemporary of Yefet ben Eli, also known Jewish
supporters of the full moon: the "Margariya" and Yeshua ben Yehuda (c. 1050 CE) mentions them as the "Albedaryah".
283 K. DONKER VAN HEEL – Abnormal Hieratic and Early Demotic Texts collected by the Theban Choachytes in the reign of
Amasis: Papyrus from the Louvre Eisenlohr Lot (Thesis). Leiden 1996 Ed. Rijksuniversiteit pp. 93-99.
in: Littératures anciennes du proche orient n°5 (Cerf, 1972) pp. 174-178.
287 B. PORTEN - The Elephantine Papyri in English
Leiden 1996 Ed E.J. Brill pp. 164-165.

BCE
475 1 X I 21 20
2 XI II
3 XII III
4 I IV 21 Xerxes I
5 II V
6 III VI (Total lunar eclipse dated 26 June)
7 IV VII
8 V VIII Xerxes died on 24 August
9 VI IX (21) 1 (Xerxes I) / Artabanus
10 VII X 2
11 VIII XI 3 (Partial lunar eclipse dated 20 December)
12 IX XII 4
474 1 X I 1 0 5 Artaxerxes I (pap. B24 dated on 5 January)
2 XI II 6
3 XII III 7
4 I IV 1
5 II V
6 III VI
7 IV VII
8 V VIII
9 VI IX
10 VII X
The reckoning of regnal years is different depending on its referring pattern:

Egyptian or Babylonian. For example the 21st year of Xerxes' reign began on 1st Nisan
(month I) at Babylon but on 1st Thoth (month I) at Elephantine. The 1st Nisan is dated 14
April in 475 BCE, which was the first lunar crescent288 after the spring equinox (26
March)289, and as the 1st Thoth is dated 20 December290, the 1st Kislev as well. In the
Babylonian pattern the 1st Kislev (month IX) is dated 6 December (first lunar crescent)
while in the Egyptian pattern the 1st Kislev is dated 20 December (full moon).
November December 475 BCE
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Mesore Epagomen Thoth
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6
Arahsamna Kislimu (Babylon)
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Marheshwan Kislev (Elephantine)
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 1 2 3 4 5 6
The 20 documents from Elephantine with a dual date enable us to reconstruct the
chronology of the reigns of the XXVIIth dynasty. For example the papyrus B23 is dated: year
15 [of Xerxes] 18 Elul, which is 28 Pahons, hence the 1st lunar day is dated 11 Pahons (= 28 -
17), which was a full moon in 481 BCE (30 August). The 11 Pahons or I Shemu 11 matches
exactly to day 11, column I Shemu, in the 25-year lunar cycle (year 8 of the cycle):
Papyrus year Lunar date Egyptian calendar BCE 1st lunar day Full moon
Xerxes I 1 Elul 11 Pahons (I Shemu) 29 Aug. 30 Aug.
B23 15 18 Elul 28 Pahons 15 Sept. 481
SEASON AKHET PERET SHEMU

BCE I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV 5
month 483 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
Xerxes I 482 14 7 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 22 22 21 21 20
481 15 8 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 10
480 16 9 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 30 29 29 28
Papyrus year Lunar date Egyptian calendar BCE 1st lunar day Full moon
Darius I
N°1 7 6 Mehir 3 Jun. 515
N°2 27 2 Epipi 22 Oct. 495
Xerxes I 1 Elul 11 Pahons (I Shemu) 29 Aug. 30 Aug.
B23 15 18 Elul 28 Pahons 15 Sept. 481
Artaxerxes I [0] 1 Kislev 5 epagomen [475] 19 Dec. 20 Dec.
B24 1 18 Kislev [17] Thoth 5 Jan. 474
1 Kislev [ 1] Mesore (IV Shemu) 14 Nov. 14 Nov.
B25/26 6 21 Kislev [21] Mesore 4 Dec. 469
1 Kislev 28 Mesore (IV Shemu) 10 Dec. 11 Dec.
B34 9 7 Kislev 4 epagomen* 16 Dec. 466
1 Siwan 6 Pamenot (III Peret) 20 Jun. 21 Jun.
B35 14 20 Siwan 25 Pamenot 9 Jul. 461
1 Tammuz 16 Pamenot (III Peret) 29 Jun. 28 Jun.
N°43 16 18 Tammuz 3 Parmuti 16 Jul. 459
1 Ab [13] Parmuti (IV Peret) 26 Jul. 28 Jul.
B36 16 18 Ab [30] Parmuti 12 Aug. 459
1 Tishri 13 Paoni (II Shemu) 24 Sep. 25 Sep.
B28 16 24 Tishri 6 Epipi 17 Oct. 459
1 Kislev 9 Mesore (IV Shemu) 18 Nov. 20 Nov.
B29 19 2 Kislev 10 Mesore 19 Nov. 456
1 Ab 6 Pahons (I Shemu) 16 Aug. 17 Aug.
B30 25 14 Ab 19 Pahons 29 Aug. 450
1 Elul 3 Paoni (II Shemu) 11 Sep. 13 Sep.
B37 28 7 Elul 9 Paoni 17 Sep. 447
1 Tishri 1 Epipi (III Shemu) 8 Oct. 9 Oct.
B38 31 25 Tishri 25 Epipi 1 Nov. 444
1 Siwan 18 Mehir (II Peret) 27 May 27 May
B39 38 20 Siwan 7 Pamenotep 15 Jun. 437
Darius B 1 Tammuz 1 Parmuti (IV Peret) 7 Jul. 8 Jul.
B40 4 8 Tammuz 8 Parmuti 14 Jul. 430
1 Elul 1 Paoni (II Shemu) 5 Sep. 5 Sep.
B31 4 30 Elul 30 Paoni 4 Oct. 430
1 Tishri 17 Paoni (II Shemu) 20 Sep. 20 Sep.
B42 8 6 Tishri 22 Paoni 25 Sep. 426
After year 5 of Darius II (419 BCE) when a document is dated between Thoth and
Koyak (December to March) the accession year is indicated291 (see below), for example
(papyrus N°40): 3 Kislev, year 8 [Babylonian reckoning], which is 12 Thoth, year 9 [Egyptian
reckoning] of king Darius. The Egyptian lunar calendar began on the full moon while the
Babylonian lunar calendar was beginning on the 1st crescent, consequently the 25-year lunar
cycle had to be shifted by 10 years (later). For example, a 25-year lunar cycle began in 439
BCE on the full moon dated I Akhet 1 (11 December), while the new 25-year lunar cycle in
429 BCE began on 1st lunar crescent dated I Akhet 1 (9 December).
Papyrus year Lunar date Egyptian calendar BCE 1st lunar day 1st crescent
Darius II 1 Kislev 10 Thoth (I Akhet) [9] 14 Dec. 13 Dec.
B32 (N°40) 8 3 Kislev 12 Thoth [9] 16 Dec. 416
1 Shebat 16 Paopi (II Akhet) [14] 18 Jan. 18 Jan.
B33 (N°41) 13 24 Shebat 9 Hathor [14] 10 Feb. 410
Artaxerxes II 1 Heshwan 6 Mesore (IV Shemu) 2 Nov. 2 Nov.
B43 1 24 Heshwan 29 Mesore 25 Nov. 404
1 Adar 19 Hathor (III Akhet) 18 Feb. 17 Feb.
B44 3 20 Adar 8 Koyak 9 Mar. 402
Amartaeus
N°7 5 21? Pamenhotep 19 Jun. 400
in: Littératures anciennes du proche orient n°5 (Cerf, 1972) pp. 198-207.
Legend of colours (I Akhet 1 in 489 BCE is dated 24 December, which was a full moon)
1 Lunar dates dated by Egyptian calendar (secular) in the 25-year lunar cycle based on full moon
1 Lunar dates dated by Egyptian calendar (secular) in the 25-year lunar cycle based on first lunar crescent
36 Darius I died on 10/IX/36 (8 December 486 BCE) just before I Akhet 1 (23 December)

BCE I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV 5
month 491 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
Darius I 490 32 6 24 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 18 17 17
489 33 7 25 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6
488 34 8 1 1 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25 25
487 35 9 2 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14
486 36 10 3 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3
Xerxes I 485 11 4 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 23
484 12 5 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 12 12
483 13 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1
482 14 7 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 22 22 21 21 20
481 15 8 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 10
480 16 9 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 30 29 29 28
479 17 10 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18
478 18 11 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 9 9 8 8 7
477 19 12 2 1 1 30 30 29 28 28 27 27 27 26
476 20 13 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 16 15
475 0 21 14 10 9 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4
Artaxerxes I 474 1 15 29 28 28 27 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24
473 2 16 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 14 13
472 3 17 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2
471 4 18 26 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 22 22 21
470 5 19 16 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11
469 6 20 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 30
468 7 21 24 24 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19
467 8 22 13 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 9 9 8
466 9 23 3 2 2 1 1 30 30 29 29 28 28 27
465 10 24 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 18 17 17
464 11 25 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6
463 12 1 1 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25 25
462 13 2 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14
461 14 3 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3
460 15 4 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 23
459 16 5 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 12 12
458 17 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1
457 18 7 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 22 22 21 21 20
456 19 8 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 10
455 20 9 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 30 29 29 28
454 21 10 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18
453 22 11 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 9 9 8 8 7
452 23 12 2 1 1 30 30 29 28 28 27 27 27 26
451 24 13 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 16 15
450 25 14 10 9 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4
449 26 15 29 28 28 27 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24
448 27 16 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 14 13
447 28 17 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2
446 29 18 26 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 22 22 21
445 30 19 16 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11
444 31 20 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 30
443 32 21 24 24 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19
442 33 22 13 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 9 9 8
441 34 23 3 2 2 1 1 30 30 29 29 28 28 27
440 35 24 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 18 17 17
439 36 25 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6
438 37 1 1 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25 25
437 38 2 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14
436 39 3 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3
435 40 4 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 23
434 0 41 5 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 12 12
Darius B 433 1 42 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1
432 2 7 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 22 22 21 21 20
431 3 8 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 10
430 4 9 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 30 29 29 28
429 5 10 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18
428 6 11 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 9 9 8 8 7
427 7 12 2 1 1 30 30 29 28 28 27 27 27 26
426 8 13 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 16 15
425 50 14 10 9 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4
424 0 51 15 29 28 28 27 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24
Darius II 423 1 16 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 14 13
422 2 17 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2
421 3 18 26 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 22 22 21
420 4 19 16 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11
419 5 20 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 30
418 6 21 24 24 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19
417 7 12 2 1 1 30 30 29 28 28 27 27 27 26
416 8 13 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 16 15
415 9 14 10 9 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4
414 10 15 29 28 28 27 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24
413 11 16 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 14 13
412 12 17 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2
411 13 18 26 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 22 22 21
410 14 19 16 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11
409 15 20 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 30
408 16 21 24 24 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19
407 17 22 13 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 9 9 8
406 18 23 3 2 2 1 1 30 30 29 29 28 28 27
405 0 19 24 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 18 17 17
Artaxerxes II 404 1 25 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6
403 2 1 1 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25 25
402 3 2 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14
Armataeus 401 4 3 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3
400 5 4 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 23
month Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov.
Very early (at least since the Vth Dynasty) the Egyptians used two calendars: a secular
calendar292 used to date their documents and a religious schedule to determine the days of
their festivals linked to the moon293. They distinguished some "seasonal festivals",
celebrated in their calendar, from "sky festivals" related to the lunar cycle. A major point
has to be noted: the Egyptians were concerned only by the increasing part of the lunar
cycle, never by its decreasing part. So they celebrated their lunar festivals during the 15 last
days of the full lunar month ("½ month"). The feast of psdntyw "shining ones" was the
starting point (day 1 of the full month) corresponding to day 15 of the ½ month, which was
sometimes dated in the civil calendar, as well as the wag feast (day 18 of the full month)
called "day of the moon" and corresponding to day 2 ("month day") of the ½ month.
292 with a year of 365 days consisting of 12 months of 30 days and completed by 5 days "in addition".
293 A. SPALINGER - The Private Feast Lists of Ancient Egypt
Wiesbaden 1996 Ed. Harrassowitz pp. 9-72.
A. SPALINGER - The Lunar System in Festival Calendars from the New Kingdom Onwards
in: Société d'Égyptologie N°19 (1995) Genève pp. 25-40.
Lunar phases were symbolized at Dendera (c. 50 BCE) by 14 deities climbing stairs
to achieve the filling of the eye Wedjat294 (safe eye) the 15th day at the full moon, the lunar
day 1 (psdntyw). But this cycle of 15 days was only a ½ month, the next full month had to
begin at the end of this cycle, which was a full moon. Thus, the Egyptians were able to
reckon lunar months almost in the same manner as the Babylonians.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16]
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 [ 2]
DATING OF THE XIITH DYNASTY THROUGH ASTRONOMY

The dating of the XIIth dynasty is at the present time based only on the notoriety of a
few well-known Egyptologists who give for its first king Amenemhat I, for example, a reign
which was going from 1994-1964 (Dodson) to 1938-1908 (Krauss). In fact one can get a
chronology based on three scientific criteria: the carbon-14 dating295, the likely duration of
reigns evaluated from the best documents296 and a Sirius heliacal rising which is precisely
dated during Senwosret III's reign.
Dynasty XII Carbon 14 Turin King List Date ++ Manetho Duration Reign
Amenemhat I 1975-1948 27 years [2]9 30 16 years 29 years 1975-1946
Senwosret I 1948-1903 45 years 45 45 46 years 45 years 1946-1901
Amenemhat II 1903-1870 33 years 3[8?] 35 38 years 38 years 1901-1863
Senwosret II 1870-1863 7 years 1[8?] 8 48 years 8 years 1863-1855
Senwosret III 1863-1825 38 years 1[9] 19 8 years 19 years 1855-1836
Amenemhat III 1825-1781 44 years [45?] 46 8 years 45 years 1836-1791
Amenemhat IV 1781-1773 8 years 9 years 4 m. 27 d. 9 8 years 9.4 years 1791-1782
Neferusebek 1773-1770 3 years 3 years 10 m. 24 d. 3 4 years 3.9 years 1782-1778
Total: 1975-1770 205 years 213 years 195 years 176 years 197 years 1975-1778
Through an Egyptian document, which describes numerous lunar festivals297 that

occurred in the 19 years of Senwosret III's reign then the 45 years of Amenemhat III298, it is
possible to get an absolute dating. This document shows that the lunar days psdntyw which
are dated fit together299 in a lunar 25-year cycle. In addition, a few wag feasts have been
294 E.A.W. BUDGE - Gods of the Egyptian Vol II
1969 Ed. Dover Publications p. 321.

297 R.A. PARKER - The Calendars of Ancient Egypt
in: Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization N°26 (1950) Ed. University of Chicago pp. 63-67.
298 C. OBSOMER - Sésostris Ier. Étude chronologique et historique du règne
Bruxelles 1995 Éd. Connaissance ancienne de l'Égypte p. 149.

299 U. LUFT – Die chronologische Fixierung des ägyptischen Mittleren Reiches
Wien 1992 Ed. Akademie der Wissenschaften pp. 150,151.

R. KRAUSS - Arguments in Favor of a Low Chronology for the Middle and New Kingdom
in: The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern (M. Bietak 2003) pp. 175-197
dated on the 16th/17th lunar day, instead of the theoretical 18th day named "moon day",
implying that the lunar day 1 (psdntyw) was anchored not on the full moon but on the day
after the full moon (= full moon + 1 or 2). These dates are shifted by one day in relation to
those of Parker who translated the word "up to" in an inclusive way300 , not exclusive. This
document can be dated precisely thanks to the Sothic rising dated IV Peret 16, Year 7 of
Senwosret III (the Sothic rising predicted by an officer named Nebkaure)301. The anchoring
by Carbon 14 dating gives only an accuracy of around +/- 25 years as regards that period
(1975-1770), consequently year 7 of Senwosret III (1863-1825) has to be inside the interval
1857-1832 BCE. Over this period there is a very good agreement in 1848 BCE between the
dating of IV Peret 16 (11 July)302, the Sothic rising in Thebes (11 July)303 and the lunar day 1
(psdntyw) dated IV Peret 1 (26 July) with a full moon + 1 day (25 July)304.
Carbon 14 IV Akhet 16 Sothic rising
BCE Julian Thebes Heliopolis Elephantine
Senwosret III (year 7) 1857 - 14 July 11 July 16 July 10 July
1848 11 July 11 July 16 July 10 July
-1832 7 July 11 July 16 July 10 July
Year BCE AKHET PERET SHEMU
1882 1857 Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov
1881 1856 1 1 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25 25
1880 1855 2 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14
1879 1854 1 3 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3
1878 1853 2 4 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 23
1877 1852 3 5 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 12 12
1876 1851 4 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1
1875 1850 5 7 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 22 22 21 21 20
1874 1849 6 8 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 10
1873 1848 7 9 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 30 29 29 28
1872 1847 8 10 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18
1871 1846 9 11 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 9 9 8 8 7
1870 1845 10 12 2 1 1 30 30 29 28 28 27 27 27 26
1869 1844 11 13 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 16 15
1868 1843 12 14 10 9 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4
1867 1842 13 15 29 28 28 27 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24
1866 1841 14 16 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 14 13
1865 1840 15 17 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2
1864 1839 16 18 26 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 22 22 21
1863 1838 17 19 16 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11
1862 1837 18 20 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 17 1 30
1861 1836 19 21 24 24 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19
1860 1835 1 22 13 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 9 9 8
1859 1834 2 23 3 2 2 1 1 1 30 29 29 28 28 27
1858 1833 3 24 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 18 17 17
1857 1832 4 25 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6
One can check that the lunar day 1 (psdntyw) in year 18 of Senwosret III (1837 BCE)
dated II Shemu 1 (24 June) was a full moon + 1 day (24 June) and the wag feast dated II
Shemu 17 (10 July) was a 1st lunar crescent (9 July).
300 L.E. ROSE – The Astronomical Evidence for Dating the End of the Middle Kingdom
in: Journal of Near Eastern Studies 53 (1994) pp. 247-248.
301 P. TALLET – Sésostris et la fin de la XIIe dynastie
Paris 2005 Éd. Pygmalion pp. 24-27, 283-285.

303 Arcus visionis 8.5°; Thebes (Lon. 32°39' E, Lat. 25°42' N); Heliopolis (Lon. 31°20' E, Lat. 30°05' N); Elephantine (Lon. 32°53'
E, Lat. 24°05' N) http://www.imcce.fr/fr/grandpublic/phenomenes/sothis/index.php

Although the duration of the reign of Senwosret III is estimated around 38 years by
carbon-14 dating, it should be rather 19 years because of the following reasons: the Turin
King List gives 1[9], its highest date of reign is 19 and the only king with a reign longer than
36 years just after a 19-year reign was Amenemhat III (below):
Dynasty XII Year AKHET PERET SHEMU
Pharaoh 1837 Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov
[Senwosret III] 1836 19 21 24 24 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19
1837 18 20 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 17 1 30
1836 19 21 24 24 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19
[Amenemhat III] 1835 1 22 13 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 9 9 8
1834 2 23 3 2 2 1 1 1 30 29 29 28 28 27
1833 3 24 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 18 17 17
1832 4 25 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6
1831 5 1 1 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25 25
1830 6 2 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14
1829 7 3 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3
1828 8 4 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 23
1827 9 5 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 29 12 12
1826 10 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1
1825 11 7 25 25 25 24 23 23 23 22 22 21 21 20
1824 12 8 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 10
1823 13 9 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 30 29 29 28
1822 14 10 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18
1821 15 11 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 9 9 8 8 7
1820 16 12 2 1 1 30 30 29 28 28 27 27 27 26
1819 17 13 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 16 15
1818 18 14 10 9 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4
1817 19 15 29 28 28 27 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24
1816 20 16 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 14 13
1815 21 17 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2
1814 22 18 26 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 22 22 21
1813 23 19 16 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11
1812 24 20 6 5 4 4 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 30
1811 25 21 24 24 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19
1810 26 22 13 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 9 9 8
1809 27 23 3 2 2 1 1 1 30 29 29 28 28 27
1808 28 24 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 18 17 17
1807 29 25 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 8 8 7 6 6
1806 30 1 1 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25 25
1805 31 2 19 20 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 15 15 14
1804 32 3 9 9 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3
1803 33 4 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 23
1802 34 5 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 12 12
1801 35 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1
1800 36 7 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 22 22 21 21 20
1799 37 8 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 10
The reconstruction of the chronology for the XIIth Dynasty is quite good with the
exception of the reign of Senwosret II which was 8 years according to carbon-14 as well as
the highest dates of his reign, whereas the Turin King List gives a reign of 1[4?] years (in
agreement with the total of 213 years). This gap between the two durations could be
explained by a co-regency of 6 years between Senwosret II (1868-1855) and Amenemhat II
because in the inscription of Hapu at Aswan there is a mention of year 35 of Amenemhat
III (1901-1863), which corresponds to year 3 of Senwosret II305 (1866 BCE). Another
means for checking chronology through astronomy is the use of buildings aligned on stars.
305C. VANDERSLEYEN - L'Egypte et la vallée du Nil Tome 2
DATING OF THE IVTH DYNASTY THROUGH ASTRONOMY
Carbon-14 dating provides a relative Egyptian chronology306 but the astronomical
dating from the precise orientation of the pyramids307 of Dynasties IV and V (with the
exception of that of Khephren, which is interpreted differently308) gives an absolute
chronology (below). The accuracy of astronomical dates is about +/- 5 years309 based on a
calculated difference of 19" per year due to the precession of the equinoxes. This angle
variation is very low but if a building is now aligned on the pole star (celestial north), in 95
years it will be shifted relative to this star by approximately 0.5 degree, which is the apparent
diameter of the moon.
Dynasty Pharaoh TC Astronomy C14 calibrated Duration
IV Snefru 24 2526-2480 46 2612-2594 18 #
Kheops 23 2480-2457 23 2594-2573 21
Djedefre 8 2457-2448 9 2573-2566 7
Khephren 2[9] 2448-2415 33 2566-2543 23
Baka 2415-2415 - 2543-2543
Mykerinos 18/28 2415-2388 27 2543-2516 27
Shepseskaf 4 2388 - 8 2516-2508 8
Thamphthis 2 -2380 - -
V Userkaf 7 2380-2372 8 2508-2501 7
Sahure 1[2] 2372-2359 13 2501-2443 58 #
Neferirkare (Kakaï) ? 2359-23[**] ? 2443-[***] [*]
The duration as well as order of the reigns according to astronomy is in good
agreement with the data coming from the Turin Canon (TC) except for Snefru. However
even in this case the astronomical dating is better because it is confirmed by the number of
cattle censuses, which were not bi-annual, as Egyptologists claim. The reconstruction310 of
the early years of the reign of Djedkare Isesi (2323-2285) shows that cattle censuses were on
a ratio311 of 1.7 (= 30/18). The ratio of "years after" compared to normal years, for the first
8 years of the reign is 0.37 (= 11/30) the same ratio of 0.36 (= 9/25) of intercalary years of
the 25 years lunar cycle. The date of the first sed festival (= 30 years of reign) of Pepi I
coincided with his 18th livestock census312, which confirms the theoretical ratio of 1.7 (=
25/14) between census years and regnal years (= 30/18). Years "after" (= intercalar) are
consistent with reign durations313 according to the equation: minimum duration of reign =
number of census years x 1.7. The comparison is excellent between the durations calculated
by astronomy and those from the Turin Royal Canon, which confirms the reliability of this
document on chronology (but values from Manetho are often too high). A few durations in
the Turin Canon (TC*) have been corrected. Snefru's reign is dated 2526-2480 and lasted 46
years, which is in agreement with the minimum length of 41 years (= 24x1.7) coming from
307 K. SPENCE – Ancient Egyptian Chronology and Astronomical Orientation of the Pyramids
in: Nature Vol. 408 (November 2000) pp. 320-324.

308 G. MAGLI – On the Astronomical Orientation of the IV Dynasty Egyptian Pyramids and the Dating of the Second Giza
Pyramid in: http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0307100

309 This figure may be optimistic because Egyptian observations were depending on visual acuity of human eye which has only a
resolution of 1' (60") which is 3 times higher than the value of the difference.
310 M. VERNER – Archaeological Remarks on the 4th and 5th Dynasty Chronology
in: Archiv Orientalni 69:3 (2001) Ed. Brill pp. 363-418.

311 J.S. NOLAN – Lunar intercalations and "cattle counts" during the Old Kingdom: the Hebsed in context
in: Chronology and Archaeology in Ancient Egypt. Ed. Czech Institute of Egyptology, Prague 2008, pp. 44-60.
312 M. BAUD – The Relative Chronology of Dynasties 6 and 8
313 G. GREENBERG – Manetho. A Study in Egyptian Chronology.
Pennsylvania 2004 Ed. MPM8 pp. 147,171,184.

the number of censuses. The ancient harbour of Kheops (Wadi el-Jarf) delivered some
papyri describing shipments of stones for his pyramid of which the highest date,
corresponding to the end of his reign, is: after the 13th census314 (= year 23, like in the TC),
which confirms the ratio 1.7 (= 23/13) between the years of reign and the number of
censuses. If this ratio was 2, Kheops' reign (50 years in Herodotus II:127!) would have
lasted 28 years instead of 23 years.
Dynasty Astronomy # TC Man. cens x1.7 date + TC* Reign
IV Snefru 2526-2480 46 24 29 24≤ ≥41 44 2523-2479
Kheops 2480-2457 23 23 63 13+≤ ≥23 23 2479-2456
Djedefre 2457-2448 9 8 25 11?≤ ≥18? 8 2456-2448
Khephren 2448-2415 33 2[9] 66 13≤ ≥22 29 2448-2419
Baka 2415-2415 - 0 2419-2419
Mykerinos 2415-2388 27 18/28 63 11≤ ≥19 28 2419-2391
Shepseskaf 2388 - 8 4 7 1+≤ ≥3 1 4 2391-2387
Thamphthis -2380 - 2 2 2387-2385
V Userkaf 2380-2372 8 7 28 3≤ ≥5 7 7 2385-2378
Sahure 2372-2359 13 12* 13 7+≤ ≥12 15 14 2378-2364
Neferirkar (Kakaï) 2359-23[**] ? ? 20 5≤ ≥9 11 10 2364-2354
Shepseskare 7 7 7 2354-2347
Neferrefre 1 20 1≤ ≥1 1 2347-2346
Niuserre (Ini) 11+x 44 7≤ ≥12 sed* 14 2346-2332
Menkauhor 8 9 8 2332-2324
Djedkare (Isesi) 28 44 22≤ ≥38 sed 38 2324-2286
Unas 30 33 8≤ ≥14 sed 30 2286-2256
VI Teti ? 30 11≤ ≥18 18 2256-2238
Userkare 0 2238-2238
Pepi I 2243-2200 43 20 53 25≤ ≥43 42 43 2238-2195
Merenre I 44 7 5+≤ ≥10 14 2195-2181
Pepi II 9[4] 94 31+≤ ≥54 54? 2181-2127
Merenre II 1 1 1 2127-2126
Pepi I’s reign (2238-2195) is confirmed by astronomy (2243-2200). This pharaoh and
Sargon of Akkad must have been contemporaries315, because an alabaster vase on behalf of
Pepi I was discovered in the palace of
Iš'ar-Damu (2245-2210), the last king of
Ebla. We know that Sargon (2243-2187)
destroyed the city of Ebla near the middle
of his reign. The fact that Pepi I’s birth name (above)316 is preceded by the title nsw-bity (to
indicate the enthronement) proves that the alabaster vase had been offered to Iš'ar-Damu, a
mighty Syrian king associated to Byblos, at the beginning of Pepi I’s reign (c. 2238 BCE).
Mesopotamian chronology can be reconstructed up to Sargon of Akkad (2243-2187).
This period has few synchronisms which are precisely datable by astronomy (highlighted in
blue) but reign durations of the dynasties of Akkad, Uruk IV-V and Ur III are accurately
known317. The chronology of dynasties IX to XII is locked to the beginning of the XIIth in
1975 BCE and based on the sum of regnal years. The duration of the dynasties VII and
VIII was brief because, according to Manetho, 70 kings would have ruled 70 days each
(70x70 days = around 13 years) or a period about 8? years of instability (2126-2118?)
314 « Le port de Kheops ressurgit des sables » in: Sciences et Avenir N°796 (juin 2013) pp. 52-53.
315 P. MATTHIAE- Recherches archéologiques à Ébla, 1977 : le quartier administratif du palais royaI G
in: Comptes rendus des séances de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 122e année, N. 2, (1978) pp. 204-236.
316 From right to left we read: [mr]y t3.wy (Horus name) nsw-bity (King title) s3 ḥw.t-ḥr nb.t iwn.t pp[y] (Birth name).
317 J.-J. GLASSNER – Chroniques mésopotamiennes

EGYPT Reign MESOPOTAMIA Reign
Unas 30 2286-2256 En-metena (LAGASH) 2282 - 30
Dynasty VI -2252
Teti Seheteptawy 18 2256-2238 En-anatum II 2252-2245 7
Userkare <1 2238-2238 En-entarzi 2245-2240 5
Pepi I Nefersahor 43 2238-2195 Sargon (AKKAD) 2243-2187 56
Merenre I 14 2195-2181 Rimuš 2187-2178 9
Pepi II Neferkare 54? 2181-2127 Maništusu 2178-2163 15
Merenre II Antiemsaf 1 2127-2126 Narâm-Sîn 2163 - 37
Nitocris <1? 2126-2126 (insurrections) -2126
Dynasties VII-VIII (instability) 8? 2126-2118 Šar-kali-šarri 2126 - 25
Dynasty XI (Dynasties IX-X)
Mentuhotep I - 16 2118 -
Antef I Sehertauy - 2102 -2101
Antef II Uahankh 49 2102 - Irgigi/ Imi/ Nanum/ Ilulu 2101-2098 3
Dudu 2098-2077 21
Šu-Turul 2077-2062 15
-2053 Ur-Nigin (URUK IV) 2062-2055 7
Antef III Nekhtnetepnefer 8 2053 - Ur-Gigir 2055-2049 6
-2045 Kuda 2049-2043 6
Mentuhotep II Nebhepetre 51 2045 - Puzur-ili 2043-2038 5
Ur-Utu 2038-2032 6
Utu-hegal 2032-2021 [11]
Ur-Nammu (UR III) 2020-2002 18
-1994 Šulgi 2002 - 48
Mentuhotep III Seankhkare 12 1994-1982
Mentuhotep IV Nebtauyre 7 1982-1975
Dynasty XII -1954
Amenemhat I Sehetepibre 29 1975-1946 Amar-Sîn 1954-1945 9
Senwosret I Kheparkare 45 1946 - Šu-Sîn 1945-1936 9
-1901 Ibbi-Sîn 1936-1912 24
Amenemhat II Nebkaure 38 1901-1863 Collapse of Ur 1912 -
Senwosret II Khakheperre 8 1863-1855 113
Senwosret III Khakaure 19 1855-1836 -1799
Amenemhat III Nimaatre 45 1836-1791 Sûmû-abum (BABEL) 1799 - 14
Amenemhat IV Maakherure 9 1791-1782 -1785
Neferusebek Sebekkare 4 1782-1778 Sûmû-la-Il 1785 - 36
Dynasty XIII -1749
1778 - Sâbium 1749-1735 14
Apil-Sîn 1735-1717 18
Sîn-muballiṭ 1717-1697 20
Hammurabi 1697-1654 43
Samsu-iluna 1654-1616 38
-1573 Abi-ešuḫ 1616-1588 28
Dynasty XVII Ammiditana 1588 - 37
Rahotep Sekhemra-wahkhau 4? 1573-1569
Sobekemsaf I Sekhemra-Shedtawy 2? 1569-1567
Sobekemsaf II Sekhemra-wadjkhau 10? 1567-1557
Antef VI Sekhemra-wepmaat 2? 1557-1555 -1551
Antef VII Nubkheperra 10? 1555-1545 Ammiṣaduqa 1551 - 21
Antef VIII SekhemraHeruhermaat <1 1545-1545
Ahmose Senakhtenre 1? 1545-1544
Taa Seqenenre 11 1544-1533
Kamose Wadjkheperre 3 1533-1530 -1530
Dynasty XVIII Samsuditana 1530 - 31
Ahmose Nebpehtyre 25 1530-1505
Amenhotep I Djeserkare 21 1505-1484 -1499
DATING OF THE IST DYNASTY THROUGH ASTRONOMY
The relative chronology of the Ist Dynasty is very approximate due to uncertainty in
the names of pharaohs as well as the length of their reigns318:
Dynasty I Grimal Carbon 14 Vercoutter von Beckerath Malek Krauss
Âha - Atoti 3125-3100 3100 - 3125-3095 3007-2975 +/- 25 2972-2939 [?]-2870
Djer 3100-3055 -3080 3095-3040 2975-2927 +/- 25 2939-2892 2870-2823
Djet - Wadji 3055-3050 3080-3000 3040-3030 2927-2914 +/- 25 2892-2879 2822-2815
Den 3050-2995 3000 - 3030-2985 2914-2867 +/- 25 2879-2832 2814-2772
These chronologies (above) of the Ist dynasty were reconstructed using data from
Manetho (Man.), calibrated carbon 14 dating (C14 calib.) and information from the Turin
Canon (TC) and Palermo Stone (PS). Although the exceptional Sothic rising during the
reign of Djer (2774 BCE) is known it is not used for dating319. These chronologies are
improved if they are based on the astronomical dating of the reign of Snefru (2523-2479)
and using a mean reign of 15 years (calculated from the IIIrd Dynasty) for the reigns of the
two first dynasties. The IInd dynasty includes several pharaohs at Abydos in parallel with
those at Memphis320 and the reigns calculated from the Palermo Stone are hypothetical321
(PS*) or speculative (bracketed). The reign of 40 years assigned to Ninetjer seems excessive
compared with other pharaohs of the IInd Dynasty, in addition, it had no Sed festival
(celebrated when a reign is above 30 years)322.
Dynasty I Astronomy # TC Man. PS* date+ TC* Reign
(Memphis) (Abydos) C14 calib. #
Menes/Narmer 60 2840-2820
Âha - Atoti 3100 - 27 2820-2810
Djer -2774 29 41 Sed 41 2810-2769
Djet (Wadji) 3080-3000 42 [10] [10] 2769-2759
Den 3000 - 20 32 31 32 2759-2727
Andjib 26 10 10 2727-2717
Semerkhet 18 9 9 2717-2708
Qaa 2925 - 26 33 Sed 33 2708-2675
Dynasty II
Hotepsekhemwy 38 [10] 2675-2665
Nebra (Raneb) 39 [10] 2665-2655
Ninetjer / Peribsen 47 40 7 [24] 2655-2631
Uneg(nebti) / Senedj (?) 17 [ 7] 2631-2624
Neferkara / Sekhemid 25 [ 2] 2 2624-2622
Neferkasokar -2679 8 48 [ 9] 8 2622-2614
Khasekhemwy 2679-2658 11 27 30 18 17 2614-2597
Dynasty III
Djoser - Netjerikhet 2658-2641 17 19 29 28 19 2597-2578
Sekhemkhet 2641 - 6 7 7 6 2578-2572
Nebka[ra]/ Sanakht 19 28 19 2572-2553
Khaba 6 17 7 6 2553-2547
Huni 24 42 24 2547-2523
Dynasty IV
Snefru 2526-2480 46 24 29 41 44 2523-2479
Paris 2008 Éd. Actes Sud p. 31.
319 J. VERCOUTTER – L'Égypte et la vallée du Nil Tome 1 Des origines à la fin de l'Ancien Empire

320 P. VERNUS, J. YOYOTTE - Dictionnaire des pharaons
Paris 1998 Éd. Noésis pp. 177-179.

321 T.A.H. WILKINSON – Royal Annals of Ancient Egypt
London 2000 Ed. Kegan Paul International pp. 75-81, 256-259.

322 Semerkhet celebrated a Sed festival (not mentioned in the Palermo Stone) which was probably the same one of his father
Den.
According to the previous reconstruction, the reign of Djer is assessed
as 2810-2769. The Djer's plate mentions the oldest known heliacal rising323 of
Sirius324 dated at the beginning of the flood (I Akhet 1) and summer solstice.
The origin of the Egyptian civil calendar is difficult to establish because of
the lack of documents. We can make some probable conjectures. The name
of the first 4 months being those of the season called Akhet "flooding" it is
logical to conclude that this calendar started with the flooding of the Nile,
which coincided itself with the summer solstice (July 17 at that time). The name of the next
two periods of the calendar: Peret "offspring" and Shemu "heat", is also in agreement with
the seasons. From the Ist dynasties the sign of the year appears on ivory labels which implies
the existence of a calendar and also annals were to be held from the beginning of historical
times. On the ivory plate of king Djer there is a connection between the rising of Sirius in
Buto (north of Heliopolis), represented as a cow (Hathor-sek associated with Isis), like in
Denderah, and the beginning of the flood recorded by the sign Akhet.
The coincidence between the beginning of
the flooding of the Nile at the summer solstice
(July 17)325 and the heliacal rising of Sirius326 (the
brightest star in the sky) was performed only at
Buto in 2774 BCE327 (18 July), which also
coincides with the heliacal rising of Venus (the
brightest planet in the solar system), which
coincidentally happens every 243 years328. In
addition, there was also the heliacal rising of the
new moon329 on I Akhet 1 (= July 18). All these
coincidences had impressed the Egyptians. This
double heliacal rising was often represented by a
heron (associated to Isis) with a star above the
head (Venus) at the same level as the ankles of
Sothis (Sirius). On the opposite picture (90°x90°)
Sirius is 2° above the horizon (on the right),
Venus and the new moon are 4° above the
horizon330 (on the left). The celestial equator is in
light blue and the ecliptic is in dark red. By extrapolating the previous results, the carbon-14
dating gives older reigns in an exponential way331:
Pharaoh C14 calib. Astronomy Gap
[7454 -] [3214 -] +4240 (= 4x1060)
[4074 -] [3014 -] +1060 (= 4x265)
Djer 3080 - 2814-2773 + 266 (= 4x66)
Khasekhemwy 2679-2658 2614-2597 + 65 (= 4x16)
323 Another Sothis rise in Memphis is dated IV Akhet 1: c. 2415 BCE (M.E. HABICHT; R. GAUTSCHY; R. SIEGMANN; D. RUTICA;
R. HANNIG - A New Sothis Rise on a Small Cylindrical Jar from the Old Kingdom, in: Göttinger Miszellen 247, 2015, pp. 41-50).

326 http://www.imcce.fr/fr/grandpublic/phenomenes/sothis/index.php (arcus visionis = 8.9; Buto: Lat 31°12' N 30°45' E).
327 http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Yourhorizon (Universal Time: -2773-07-18 2:05; Field of view: 90°).
328 G.W. VAN OOSTERHOUT – Sirius, Venus and the Egyptian Calendar
in: Discussions in Egyptology 27 (1993) pp. 83-96.

330 Given that Venus is less brighter than Sirius its arcus visionis is a little higher (11° instead of 9°).
331 Four times the gap: 7454 BCE instead of 3214 BCE (through astronomy).
THE DATING OF AKHENATEN'S REIGN THROUGH ASTRONOMY
Amenhotep IV (1356-1340) died after a 17-year reign in year 6 of Akhetaten (1345-
1340). This city also lasted 6 years as long as Akhenaten's reign without his co-regency (=
17 - 11). The reign can be dated through an indication coming from a temple dedicated to
the solar cult which he built in El-Amarna (small Aten temple) used for celebrating the rise
of Aten, the deified solar disc (several temples of the ancient Egyptian civilization were
astronomically orientated)332. This temple is directed precisely toward a notch in the
mountains333 (azimuth 103° on the horizon)334. In the photograph (right below) the axis of
the temple is oriented in the direction of the notch (hidden by a column) on the horizon.
The name of the new capital built by Akhenaten, called Akhetaten (3ht-'itn) "where
the sun disk rises [Aten's horizon]" which was represented by the hieroglyph exactly
imitating the sun appearing in the notch of the mountain in Amarna. The temple in the city
was inaugurated on IV Peret 13 in Year 5 of Akhenaten and commemorated in Year 6 at
the same date335. The fact that the temple is oriented exactly in line with the Royal Wadi336
suggests that Akhenaten chose to inaugurate the city, the precise day when the sun rose337 in
the notch of the mountain, illuminating the temple like a laser beam. The simulation of
sunrise observed at that location338 (14th century BCE) indicates that it appeared at 4:38 UT
in the notch of the mountain (its apparent diameter is 0.9°, the one of the sun is 0.5°) only
two days in the year: 3/4 March and 5/6 November, as the apparent path of the sun drift
by about 0.4° per day at the horizon (0° altitude) to go back and forth between the two
extreme positions reached at solstices on 1st January and 5 July (spring equinox was on 2
April339 at that time). This implies that the equation: IV Peret 13 = 3 March340 [day of solar
illumination in the temple] was satisfied only for 4 years, from 1341 to 1338 BCE. As the
commemoration of IV Peret 13 stopped at the 6th year of Akhenaten (no 7th year), one can
assume that it was the last year of his reign (matching the 17th year from his co-regency).
The posthumous stela of year 8 was completed in the last year of the 4-year cycle, in 1338
BCE. His father Amenhotep III died on April 1345 BCE during year 38 of his reign. Letter
EA 106 was written 5 years after the beginning of the war (1352 BCE) and EA 116 after
Akhenaten sat on the throne.
332 M. SHALTOUT, J.A. BELMONTE, M. FEKRI - On the orientation of ancient Egyptian temples:
in: Journal for the History of Astronomy XXXVIII (2007) pp. 313-333.
333 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amarna
334 http://earth.google.fr/ Longitude 30°53'47" E Latitude 27°38'43" N (Small Temple of Aten)
335 W.J. MURNANE - The "First Occasion of the Discovery" of Akhet-Aton

336 D.P. SILVERMAN, J.W. WEGNER, J.H. WEGNER – Akhenaten and Tutankhamun Revolution and Restoration
Philadelphia 2006 Ed. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology pp. 43-55.

337 L. GABOLDE – Mise au point sur l’orientation du temple d’Amon-Rê à Karnak en direction du lever du soleil au solstice
d’hiver in: Cahier de Karnak 13 (Presses du Conseil Suprême des Antiquités de l’Égypte, 2010), pp. 243-256.
338 R.A. WELLS - The Amarna M,X,K Boundary Stelae Date: A Modern Calendar Equivalent

340 The other possibility IV Peret 13 = 5 November has no solution in the 14th century BCE.
For example the sunrise on 3 March -1340 occurred in 2005 (below) on 18 February
(at 4:32, altitude 0°, azimuth 102.8° which became visible at 4:36, altitude 1°, azimuth
103.2°)341 then on 19 February (at 4:35, altitude 1°, azimuth 102.8°), the apparent path of
the sun moving towards the summer solstice, on 21 June 2005 (5 July in -1340). The
Egyptian calendar of 365 days drifted 1 day every 4 years compared to the true solar year of
365.24 days which caused an offset of about 0.1° per year. 342
period: 2005 CE 1344-1341 1340-1337 1336-1333

Sunrise at the azimuth 102.8° 18 February 3 March 3 March 3 March
IV Peret 13 (in Julian calendar) [18 November] 4 March 3 March 2 March
Spring equinox 20 March 2 April 2 April 2 April
The sunrise was seen at the horizon (left below)343 at 4:37 UT, altitude 0°, azimuth
102.8° (= 180° - 77.2°) then in the small Aten temple through the notch 2 minutes later
(right below) at 4:39 UT; altitude 1°, azimuth 103.2°.
341 http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/ Location: Lat 27.645 (=27°38'43" N) Lng 30.913 (=30°53'47" E); Time Zone
0; Date: 18 Feb 2005; Local Time 04:35 = 04:31 Apparent Sunrise + 4 minutes (=1° altitude); Azimuth 103.12°.
The dating of Amenhotep IV's reign (1356-1340) through astronomy is a fine
example to illustrate why all Egyptologists refuse to use it. Normally searching for the truth
should be the fundamental purpose of any honest historian, but “What is truth” said Pilate,
who was a high official (Jn 18:38). For all honest historians, “truth” is based on two main
pillars: an accurate chronology (Herodotus’ principle) anchored on absolute dates and
reliable documents (Thucydides’ principle) coming from critical editions. Unfortunately, not
only do mainstream historians (including archaeologists and Egyptologists) refuse to anchor
chronology thanks to some astronomical dates, but those who do so are systematically
victim of dishonest bullying. For example, Hermann Gasche succeeded in dating the fall of
Babylon in 1499 BCE by means of several lunar eclipses but Cécile Michel, President of the
International Association for Assyriology (2014), claimed that the darkening of the sun
mentioned during the Puzur-Ištar eponym, the year just after the birth of Šamšî-Adad I,
could be interpreted as a solar eclipse344. However, there was no total solar eclipse visible in
Assyria (between Ashur and Nineveh) over the period 1800-1700, but only two partial
eclipses slightly visible345. Worse, the term used [n]a-ah-du-ur, means an eclipse in a
metaphorical way and is different from the usual antalûm used in Mari346. The comments in
the list of eponyms were added later because Šamšî-Adad I was initially an Amorite king
who became part of the Assyrian dynasty only at the end of his glorious reign. Thus for the
Assyrian copyist of that time, the birth of Šamšî-Adad I actually marked the end or the
eclipse of the authentic Assyrian dynasty and thus had nothing to do with astronomy. In
fact the scientific way of reconstructing an absolute chronology is first to establish a relative
chronology thanks to Babylonian and Assyrian reigns and afterwards to anchor it with an
absolute date obtained from an astronomical event, not the contrary (in fixing first a date
obtained from an astronomical event and afterwards adjusting the relative chronology)
because solar and lunar phenomena are not unique in time but occur cyclically. For example
Šamšî-Adad I’s reign (1712-1680) can be dated thanks to the relative chronology of
Assyrian kings then, given that we know that Year 33 of Šamšî-Adad I corresponds to Year
17 of Hammurabi (1697-1680), it is easy to check that the astronomical tablet (Enuma Anu
Enlil 63), which describes the rising and setting of Venus during the reign of Ammisaduqa
(a descendant of Hammurabi), fits exactly his reign (1551-1530).
WHY IS THE CO-REGENCY OF AKHENATEN SO VILIFIED?
Dimitri Laboury, senior research fellow in History of Art and Archaeology of
Pharaonic Egypt at the University of Liege, wrote in his deep study about Akhenaten: Before
discussing the rise and the commencement of the reign of prince Amenhotep (subject of the next chapter), it is
necessary to polish off —even briefly— an issue that has long divided Egyptology: that of the co-regency
between Amenhotep III and his son Amenhotep IV. The theory that the two sovereigns would for a time
ruled jointly, unleashed, it is true, the passions of the last century, but has lived and today is primarily the
history of the discipline, even if it still has very few followers today. Insofar as it has recently been the subject
of a particularly detailed analysis —and sometimes quite technical— by Marc Gabolde, who showed the
complete absence of probative evidence in its favour, I will only mention here two types of arguments that lead
to recognize in this case, in vogue long ago, an Egyptological fiction347 . In clear, only a few simple-
minded people still believe in this Egyptological fiction, which was an old delirious passion.
344 C. MICHEL, P. ROCHER – La chronologie du IIe millénaire revue à l'ombre d'une éclipse de soleil
in: Jaarbericht (...) Ex Oriente Lux N° 35/36 (1997-2000) Chicago pp. 111-126.
345 On October 10, 1737 BCE (of magnitude 0.92) and that on September 8, 1791 BCE (of magnitude 0.92)
346 As the sentence: on the 26th day of the month Sivan, in the 7th year [of Simbar-šipak], the day turned to night, did not describe a solar
eclipse but there was no solar eclipse on 2 July 1020 BCE and solar eclipses occur only on the last day of month (not 26th).
347 D. LABOURY - Akhénaton

As I don't like to be considered as simple-minded (and probably you as well) I am going to
demonstrate the absurdity of such dogmatic claims.
What is this particularly detailed and sometimes quite technical analysis? The answer is quite
simple: Despite the fact that chronology is the backbone of history, each Egyptologist uses
his own chronology which is based only on scholarly assumptions. In addition, when
Tutankhamun claims to be the son of Amenhotep III, it would be a lie (because he dares to
contradict Gabolde —life, prosperity, health). Marc Gabolde explains his "bold method" in
his study about Akhenaten: The proposal that seemed, at the outset, the most likely explanation for the
[previous] monument is therefore the one that should be rejected (...) I have assumed that a text found in the
Hittite capital was reporting statements perhaps deliberately deceptive from the Queen of Egypt (...) This
attitude requires sometimes using more imaginative explanations from documents. And he concludes:
Speculation on the subject is necessarily a part of the method (...) the efforts to align the elements of a relative
chronology and dates that appear here and there are often desperate348. Chronology and historical
testimonies being fully rejected (both foundations of history!) Egyptologists rely on science
for resolving the controversy over the co-regency. For example, the “great” Egyptologist
Zahi Hawass chairman of the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities —life, prosperity,
health— and a great friend and minister of President Hosni Mubarak —life, health, force—
was able to prove, thanks to C-14 measurements and analysis of DNA, that Tutankhamun
was the son of Akhenaten. The study, published February 17, 2010 in the Journal of the
American Medical Association (vol 303:7, pp. 638-647), concluded that Tutankhamun's
father was the pharaoh Akhenaten, that his parents were brother and sister, and that two
mummified foetuses found in Tutankhamun's tomb were probably his stillborn daughters
—conclusions that have since become received wisdom. But many geneticists complain that
the team used inappropriate analysis techniques. Far from being definitive, the study is "not
seen as rigorous or convincing", says Eline Lorenzen of the Center for GeoGenetics at the
Natural History Museum in Copenhagen, Denmark. "Many of us in the DNA community
are surprised that this has been published."
The doggedness of some Egyptologists to want to prove against all logic, and despite
much historical and chronological evidence, the absence of a co-regency between
Amenhotep IV and Amenhotep III, defies common sense. Why is it so crucial for them to
defend such an absurdity? In fact, they explain clearly their motive and the goal of the
propagation of their teaching (which is the very essence of a religious propaganda!). For
example Dimitri Laboury —life, prosperity, health— wrote: In one of his most brilliant
contribution of historical reconstruction, Eduard Meyer in 1904 shown that some reminiscences of
Akhenaten had actually survived in the Egyptian oral tradition and resurfaced after nearly a millennium of
latency. He showed that a rather fantastic story about Jews and lepers kept in Aïgyptiaka of Manetho could
only refer to Akhenaten and his monotheistic revolution. And, as Assmann insists, even if the theory of
Meyer was criticized, adjusted and completed, it nonetheless remains perfectly convincing and today is
unanimously accepted, at least in its outline. The story in question, quoted Manetho by Josephus in his
Against Apion (I:228-252), can be summarized as follows: a pharaoh named Amenophis, who wanted to
see the gods, summoned his namesake; son of Paapis, the royal advisor then suggested to clean Egypt of its
lepers, what the king did in penning them in careers "east of the Nile, in order they work apart from the rest
of the Egyptians." But the lepers finally revolted and took as chief a priest of the sun named Osarsiph who
wrote new laws which were "totally opposite to the Egyptian customs." This Osarsiph then associated to
foreign invaders (similar to Hyksos of the Second Intermediate Period) and, pushing the king of Egypt and
his followers into Nubia, he reigned over the Nile for 13 years of terror, or, with his "polluted" Egyptians
and his foreigners, he plundered the temples, mutilated the divine image and made roast the sacred animals.
M. GABOLDE - D'Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon
348
Lyon 1998 Éd. Institut d'Archéologie et d'Histoire de l'Antiquité pp. 5-6, 278-280.
An end was put to this reign of horror by the expelling of lepers and their foreign allies, and their leader who
had taken the name of Moses. The Jewish historian protests of course against such slanders uttered about his
people by his pairs of Egypt, Manetho and Apion. It is absolutely clear that this is a legend that
accumulates confuses and distorts a whole series of events more or less real and disjoint of Egyptian history,
but we can not fail to be struck as was Eduard Meyer, by the points that evoke a memory —albeit
altered— from the Atenist episode: the time after the reign of Amenhotep III, the irreligious attitude and
contrary to the rites of the Egyptians, the cult of the sun, the persecution of temples and godly images, and
even the intense activity in quarries, are a reminiscent from Akhenaten's reign. I will not go further here in
the comparison between the two stories, one of Akhenaten and that of Osarsiph alias Moses, the future
leader of the Jewish people, but rather I would refer the reader to the magisterial study that proposes J.
Assmann in his now famous Moses the Egyptian. What interests me most here is that traumatic and
repressed memories of Akhenaten, as qualifies J. Assmann, built probably on some form of true feeling vis-
a-vis of the Atonism at the very time of the "perfect child of Aten", but nevertheless largely built by the post-
amarnian ideology (as soon as Tutankhamun's reign), this collective memory and culturally determined of
the Atenist Pharaoh, therefore, will experience a very large spread clearly in the literary world of the ancient
Mediterranean. Indeed, the legend of which Manetho echoes down to us through Josephus is also mentioned
in various forms and variations, by authors as read during the Greco-Roman antiquity as Hecataeus of
Abdera, Lysimachus, Chaeremon (Egyptian priest who was the tutor of Emperor Nero), Appian, Strabo,
Tacitus and many others, replacing some leprosy by a plague (!)349.
Jan Assmann, a German Egyptologist with many awards such as the Max Planck
Award for Research, Honorary Doctorate in Theology from the Theology Faculty, Munster,
Soc.Sc.D. (honoris causa), Yale University, PhD (honoris causa), Hebrew University of
Jerusalem, Alfried Krupp Prize for Scholarship and so on —life, prosperity, health—, is
known beyond Egyptology circles for his interpretation of the origins of monotheism,
which he considers as a break from earlier cosmotheism, first with Atenism and later with
the Exodus from Egypt of the Israelites. He wrote350 in his "Moses the Egyptian": Let us call
the distinction between true and false in religion the "Mosaic distinction" became tradition ascribes it to
Moses. We cannot be sure that Moses ever lived because there are no traces of his earthly existence outside
the tradition. But we can be sure that he was not the first to draw the distinction. There was a precursor in
the person of an Egyptian king who called himself Akhenaten and instituted a monotheistic religion in the
fourteenth century B.C.E. His religion, however, spawned no tradition but was forgotten immediately after
his death. Moses is a figure of memory but not of history, while Akhenaten is a figure of history but not of
memory. Since memory is all that counts in the sphere of cultural distinctions and constructions, we are
justified in speaking not of Akhenaten's distinction but of the Mosaic distinction. The space severed or
cloven by this distinction is the space of Western monotheism. It is this constructed mental or cultural space
that has been inhabited by Europeans for nearly two millennia (...) Whereas the Jews depicted idolatry as a
land of mental aberration, of madness, the Egyptians associated iconoclasm with the idea of a highly
contagious and bodily disfiguring epidemic. The language of illness continues to typify the debate on the
Mosaic distinction down to the days of Sigmund Freud. In the following chapter, I try to show that this story
about the lepers originally referred not to Moses, but to Akhenaten, who was the first to establish a
monotheistic counter-religion and to draw the distinction between true and false. But after his death, his
religion was abolished, and his name fell into complete oblivion. The traumatic memories of his revolution
were encrypted and dislocated; eventually, they came to be fixed on the Jews (...) Unlike Moses, Akhenaten,
Pharaoh Amenophis IV, was a figure exclusively of history and not of memory. Shortly after his death, his
name was erased from the king-lists, his monuments were dismantled, his inscriptions and representations
349 D. LABOURY - Akhénaton
350 J. ASSMANN – Moses the Egyptian : the memory of Egypt in western monotheism
Harward 1998 Ed. First Harvard University Press pp. 1-2, 5, 23-24, 151-152, 169, 255.
were destroyed, and almost every trace of his existence was obliterated. For centuries no one knew of his
extraordinary revolution. Until his rediscovery in the nineteenth century, there was virtually no memory of
Akhenaten. Moses represents the reverse case. No traces have ever been found of his historical existence. He
grew and developed only as a figure of memory, absorbing and embodying all traditions that pertained to
legislation, liberation, and monotheism. Immediately after the first publication of the rediscovered inscriptions
of Akhenaten it was realized that he had done something very similar to what memory had ascribed to
Moses: he had abolished the cults and idols of Egyptian polytheism and established a purely monotheistic
worship of a new god of light, whom he called "Aten." In his Berlin dissertation, De hymnis in Solem sub
Rege Amenophide IV. Redactis (1894), the young American scholar James Henry Breasted demonstrated
the importance of Akhenaten's monotheistic revolution for the interpretation of Biblical monotheism. Arthur
Weigall, another Egyptologist with a less solid philological background, established the parallel between
Egyptian and Biblical monotheism or between Akhenaten and Moses even more closely. Was Psalm 104
not a Hebrew translation of Akhenaten's hymn? Were not the Egyptian "Aten" and the Hebrew
"Adonai" the same name? When Sigmund Freud embarked on his "historical novel" about Moses and
monotheism, he followed these lines and made Moses an Atonist, close to the throne but not identical with
the king himself. This identification did not fail to be made by several other authors working in a field which
could be characterized as "science fiction" applied to the past instead of the future (...) One could perhaps go
even further back in history to the seventeenth century B.C.E., when the Hyksos, a population of
Palestinian invaders, settled in the eastern delta and went out to rule Egypt for more than a hundred years.
The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus saw the ancestors of Israel in these foreign rulers of Egypt. But there
was certainly no religious conflict between the Hyksos and the Egyptians. The Hyksos were neither
monotheists nor iconoclasts. On the contrary, their remaining monuments show them in conformity with the
religious obligations of traditional Egyptian pharaohs, whose role they assumed in the same way as did later
foreign rulers of Egypt such as the Persians, the Macedonians, and the Romans. They adhered to the cult of
Baal ["my Lord"], who was a familiar figure for the Egyptians, and they did not try to convert the
Egyptians to the cult of their god. The whole concept of conversion seems absurd in the context of polytheistic
religions. No —if we look for the first outbreak of a purely religious conflict in the historical records, we find
something very different (...) Only now does he seem to realize that Moses' being an Egyptian could have
something to do with "Ikhnaton" and his monotheistic revolution. This could be explained if Freud had
learned about these events only after completing his historical studies. But Freud knew about Akhenaten as
early as 1912, when he suggested this subject to Karl Abraham and published Abraham's important article
on Akhenaten in the first volume of his newly founded journal, Imago. In this article, Abraham drew a
portrait of Akhenaten and his religion which closely anticipates the one that Freud himself would postulate.
But Freud never mentions Abraham in the book. Is it possible that Freud was devising his "historischen
Roman" as a serialized novel, breaking off at the point of highest suspense so that he could continue in the
following issue? Did he consciously postpone the obvious conclusion that Moses, if he was an Egyptian, must
have been an Atenist, saving it for another article? I do not think so. The remembrance of Akhenaten and
the discovery that Moses was an Atenist must have struck him like a revelation between the first and second
issues of Imago, volume 23 (1937). (...) Therefore, two things remain for an Egyptologist to do. He should
complement Freud's passing and superficial remarks on Akhenaten's religious revolution with a close
reading of at least the most important text and discuss the contributions Egyptology can make concerning the
counter-religious character of that monotheism. Second, he should assist Cudworth in his quest for any pre-
Trismegistick" testimonies of Egyptian theology (...) There is much to be said in support of Freud's
description of monotheism as a "religion of the father." This seems to apply to Atenism. What Freud did
not know, because Breasted and Weigall did not mention it, was that the name of Akhenaten's god
("Yati") sounded very much like the Egyptian word for "my father ("yat-i") and that the text constantly
play on this assonance. The god even bears the royal title "my father.' Akhenaten enacted his monotheism as
a coregency between himself and the sun god, who acted as a senior partner in this theocracy. Akhenaten's
Aten religion was very much a father-religion, except that the concept of fatherhood was related exclusively to
the king, not to the people or to humankind at large. The previous verbose explanations can be
summed up as follows: Moses is a figure of memory but not of history, while Akhenaten is
a figure of history but not of memory according to Freudian theories.
Although these Egyptologists like to present themselves as enlightened minds, their
comments on Akhenaten and Moses are only deplorable propaganda. How can one believe
that the co-regency of Akhenaten with his father would have been a co-regency with God
the Father. This is not science, but a mystic delirium that reaches many Egyptologists. For
example Dr Rolf Krauss, a renowned German Egyptologist who worked as a researcher at
the Berlin Museum of Prehistory and Early History and as a lecturer at Humboldt
University —life, prosperity, health— explained in his book "The Moses Mystery351" why
Akhenaten was never monotheistic because throughout his reign many other gods
continued to be worshiped such as Re-Harakhty, Osiris, Ptah, Thoth, the goddess Hathor,
the four sons of Horus, etc., in addition, Akhenaten's monotheism had nothing to do with
the monotheism of Moses given that the biblical god is depicted as the creator of the sun
whose worship was forbidden. Where the story takes a comic turn, is when one discovers
that Rolf Krauss has finally found the historical truth about Moses, he was actually the
pharaoh Amenesse who reigned from 1206 to 1203 BCE (new egyptological delirium).
Although Egyptologists are divided about points of detail regarding Akhenaten and
Moses they agree with the following points: Akhenaten, although he was not the inventor
of monotheism was nevertheless the inspirer and he owes nothing to his predecessors
(consequently there was no co-regency); The story of Moses is a biblical myth352 and there is
no link to be made between the Hyksos and the Hebrews. For example, one reads:
!As the history of unclean ones is devoid of any historical basis it is difficult to agree with Manetho and
Josephus that the forcibly expelling from Avaris by Pharaoh and his congeners is the same event as the
liberation of the Hebrews pulled out by Moses with God's help ... The gross invention of Egyptian scribes,
worthy of the trash, can not remain in the folder of historians of Bible times (...) The apologetical travesty
imagined by Josephus is not better than the libelous travesty of the Egyptian priest353. Jean Yoyotte
(1927-2009), Egyptologist, he was Chairholder of Egyptology at the Collège de France and
director of studies at the Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes.
!Modern archeology has shown that the concept of archives kept in Jerusalem with writings of the tenth
century, is an absurdity based on a biblical witness and not on factual evidence. Bible stories would rank
therefore among national mythologies, and would have no more historical foundation that Homeric saga of
Ulysses, or that of Aeneas, founder of Rome, sung by Virgil354. Israel Finkelstein, Israeli
Monaco 2005 Éd. du Rocher pp. 57-84 141-157.
352 It is absurd on the one hand, taking the biblical text for a historical document, on the other hand reversing the importance of protagonists: Israel is
mentioned only once on a stela of Merneptah while the word Egypt is used 680 times in the Bible (...) The references to Egypt in the Bible are mainly
used to feed the internal history of the Hebrews, giving a vague backdrop for some episodes, and are unrelated with current history teaches (C.
DESROCHES NOBLECOURT - Symboles de l'Égypte. Paris 2004 Éd. Desclée de Brouwer pp. 125-126). Christiane Desroches
Noblecourt (1913-2011), Egyptologist, Emeritus Chief Curator of Egyptian Antiquities (Louvre) and former professor of
archeology at the Ecole du Louvre. In general, no serious archaeologist believes today that the events described in the Book of Joshua have any
accurate historical basis. Archaeological surveys in the early 1990s, in particular, showed that the Israelite culture emerged in the central hills of the
country, in continuity with the Canaanite culture of the previous period (P. DE MIROSCHEDJI – Les archéologues réécrivent la Bible in: La
Recherche n°391, 2005, p. 32) Pierre de Miroschedji, archaeologist, director of research at CNRS. The departure from Egypt, known as
the Exodus, is an essential vicissitude of this story [Exodus 13:14] (...) We almost forget one fundamental fact: nothing in the present state of
Egyptian literature, more or less contemporary with these events, confirms this story, or even alluded, only fleetingly, to one of the episodes where some
characters are mentioned. Nothing! (A. ZIVIE – Les Hébreux en Egypte: réalités et fantasmes in: Historia n°698, 2005, p. 59) Alain
Zivie, Egyptologist, Director of Research at CNRS.
Monaco 2005 Éd. du Rocher pp. 57-84 141-157.

354I. FINKELSTEIN, N.A. SILBERMAN - La Bible dévoilée
Paris 2002 Éd. Bayard pp. 51-53.

archaeologist, Director of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, author of
the famous book The Bible Unearthed.
!How should ultimately consider the source that is the biblical text to serve as a gateway for talking about
people of the Bible? (...) There are so many layers of myths, they should not be taken for historical
narratives. The Exodus, episode presented in history books of college as a real historic event, provides a
good illustration. According to the Bible (...) this is the long journey of the Hebrews from Egypt and
Canaan which is called the Exodus. However, it is highly unlikely that such an event ever took place. The
first reason to doubt results from the considerable chronological gap between the time of writing from books
that mention it and the supposed date of the event, clearly located in a mythical past. The second reason is
the absence of any explicit data in the biblical text to place Exodus in the time and to follow it in space, so
the name of the Pharaoh is not given. The third reason is the silence of the Egyptian sources. A final
argument is the absence of any reference to the Exodus in the oldest strata of the Bible355. Christian
Robin, Director of the Laboratory of ancient Semitic Studies (Collège de France Paris IV
Sorbonne), member of the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres.
!The biblical writers and editors had some genuine sources, but they did not hesitate to manipulate them.
They did this not only with exaggerations and embellishments, but also with additions and even outright
inventions, in order to make the stories serve their own ideological agenda. In this regard, they were like
most ancient historians. Nevertheless, they still need not be regarded as charlatans, even though their view
of history was naive. They, too, thought that they were telling the operative truth — that is, they were
simply writing well-intentioned propaganda. This may be called “historicized myth,” and that is how much
of modem, liberal, critical scholarship regards the Hebrew Bible. Nevertheless, even propaganda and myth,
like caricature, must necessarily contain some objective truths, lest they be completely unbelievable and thus
ineffective (...) Rather than attempt to defend the factual historicity of the Exodus traditions, I suggest that
we must understand the Exodus story precisely as a myth, specifically as a “metaphor for liberation”.
William G. Dever, American archaeologist (University of Arizona), specialist and defender
(sic) of the history of biblical Israel356.
!Stories and history (...) It would be absurd requesting the rigor that would use a modern historian (...),
although we can not specify the contours in the mythical garment that has been given, in accordance with
the mentality of the time and the environment (...) For the date of the Exodus, we can not rely on
chronological indications of 1 K 6:1 and Jg 11:26, which are secondary and derived from artificial
computations (...) Certainly neither the apostles nor other evangelical preachers and storytellers have tried
to make « history » in the technical sense of the word, their purpose was less profane and more theological.
Jerusalem Bible (Paris 1986 Ed. Cerf pp. 27, 1410), which is the official Bible of the
Catholic world.
An objective reader should note that most reasons put forward by these prestigious
scholars are ideological, not based on any verifiable factual data: absurd, no serious archaeologist
believes; worthy of the garbage, fundamental fact: nothing, pious legend, there was no mass exodus from
Egypt; nonsense based on a biblical witness; very type of myth, history does not support the amazing and
miraculous story of Exodus, etc. Some of these scholars, in order to prove their claims, quote
the work of the archaeologist Finkelstein explaining357 , but his critics against the Pentateuch
are all based on absence of evidence that would be evidence of the absence. In fact, the
reign of Akhenaten is ideal for disclosing the imposture of archaeology and Egyptology.
355 C. ROBIN – Les peuples de la Bible quelle(s) lecture(s) ?

in: Les Cahiers de Science&Vie n°89 (octobre 2005) pp. 6-8.
356 W.G. DEVER – Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?
Grand Rapids 2003 Ed. Eerdmans Publishing pp. 226,233.

357 I. FINKELSTEIN, N.A. SILBERMAN -The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Isreal and the Origin of
Sacred Texts. New York 2001 Ed. The Free Press pp. 36-38.
EGYPTOLOGY AND ARCHAEOLOGY UNMASKED THANKS TO AKHENATEN’S REIGN
This reign is one of the most controversial of all Egyptian history since only about
the co-regency with Amenhotep III there are more than 1200 books and academic articles
that have been written. He has thus become the centre of many other controversies: 1)
although he had only (six) daughters he would be the father of Tutankhamun (a boy!) and
despite the fact that the latter had clearly stated to be the son of Amenhotep III, 2)
although he had worshiped the sun under different shapes (Aten, Re, Amun) he would be
the true father of monotheism who inspired the biblical myth of Moses as well as the
Jewish god Adon "Lord", a plagiarism of Aten, 3) although he was the sovereign pontiff of
Egypt, a delegation of priests of Amun would have plotted a religious rebellion in order to
remove the heretic worship of Aten, etc. All this doesn't seem serious. The eminent
Egyptologist Marc Gabolde is a representative example of all these impostor historians. The
only way of knowing the (historical) truth is to use a chronology anchored on absolute dates
(coming from astronomy). For example, in his comprehensive study of Tutankhamun, Marc
Gabolde gives an extremely precise chronology358 (to within one day!) of the reigns of
Thutmose III up to Merneptah despite the chronology359 of the reigns from Amenhotep III
to Tutankhamun (Amarna period) remaining controversial (co-regencies are highlighted):
King: Amenhotep III Amenhotep IV Semenkhkare Neferneferuaten Tutankhamun
highest date: 38 17 1 3 10
Carbon 14: 1397-1359 1359-1345 1345- -1342 1342-1333
Dodson 1388-1348 1360-1343 1346-1343 1346-1343 1343-1333
Gabolde 1382-1346 1346-1329 - 1329-1327 1327-1318
[Gertoux] 1383-1345 1356-1340 1340-1338 1338-1336 1336-1327
Grimal 1390-1352 1352-1338 1338-1336 1338-1336 1336-1327
Helck 1379-1340 1340-1324 1324-1319 1324-1319 1319-1309
Hornung 1402-1364 1364-1347 1351-1348 1351-1348 1347-1338
Kitchen 1386-1349 1356-1340 1342-1340 1342-1340 1340-1331
Krauss 1390-1353 1353-1336 1336-1334 1334-1333? 1333-1323?
Malek 1391-1353 1353-1337 1338-1336 1338-1336 1336-1327
Redford 1410-1372 1372-1355 1335-1335 1335-1335 1355-1346
Vandersleyen 1387-1348 1359-1342? 1341-1339? 1342-1341? 1339-1329
von Beckerath 1388-1350 1355-1337 1338-1335 1338-1335 1335-1325
Although he claims to rely on a set of dates astronomically keyed "to get a fairly
reliable absolute chronology" (page 492), Gabolde's chronology, which has many anomalies
and incongruities, is actually completely fanciful for the following reasons:
!His astronomical calculations are solely based on his own use from IMCCE software
without any evidence (you must trust him), worse, it is easy to check (for astronomers, but
most of his readers are not) that all his so-called calculations are wrong (see hereafter).
!For (mysterious) historical reasons (page 492), the reigns of Horemheb and Seti I, which
were 27 and 11 years respectively, according to dated inscriptions, must be shrunk to 15
and 10 years. What is funny is that these two new durations disagree with those of his
table (page 494): 13 years to Horembed (1314-1301) and 9 years to Seti I (1300-1291). In
addition, Horemheb’s reign is dated from 1330 to 1302 by carbon-14 implying a reign of
about 28 years and his last inscription is dated 9/IX/27.
!There was no co-regency between Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV because the
arguments in favour of such a co-regency are insignificant and do not stand up to
examination of sources (p. 55). What is this evidence? Gabolde refuses to give it because
358 M. GABOLDE - Toutankhamon
2015 Paris, Ed. Pygmalion, pp. 489-493.
Paris 2008 Éd. Actes Sud pp. 293-316.

he does not want to bore his readers with tedious demonstrations (p. 56). However he
adds in an endnote (p. 544) that the inscription found in the tomb of vizier Amenhotep-
Huy, which was dated to Amenhotep III’s sed festival (year 30) and Amenhotep IV, was
not a proof implying a co-regency of at least 8 years between the two kings360, because he
already had proved in his PhD (gospel truth) that there was no co-regency! In the same
manner, Tutankhamun's inscription in which he wrote that Amenhotep III was his father
is wrong because, as all Egyptologists know (contrary to naive ones like me), this kind of
Egyptian document is not truthful (contrary to Gabolde of course).
From a scientific point of view, Gabolde's method is nonsensical because when an
inscription disagrees with his interpretation of Egyptian history, he claims that this is a
mistake (p. 544 n. 4) and when a colleague has a different interpretation of his own, he
shows that this approach is not acceptable because it is contrary to normal historical
method implying trusting in inscriptions (p. 566 n. 67). In fact, Gabolde clearly explains in
his introduction that the only method of historical interpretation is imagination, he adds
"imagination is not a perversion of the historical method, but its very essence" (p. 10). This
explains why the public loves so much these tales of the Arabian Nights.
The only way to establish a scientific chronology of the reign of Akhenaten is to
reconstruct, first a relative chronology based on C-14 dating supplemented by all known
dated inscriptions, then to anchor this chronology on absolute dating coming from some
astronomical events clearly described in ancient documents. As the accuracy on dates is
about +/- 15 years according to C-14 dating361 , the year 1 of Amenhotep III has to be
between 1412 and 1382 and his reign lasted at least 37 years according to the highest date.
The short period 1360-1330 is one of the best documented about Canaan, Palestine and
Egypt through the Amarna letters (almost 400), but paradoxically some parts remain
controversial362 because of the following:
!Most protagonists are rarely mentioned by name but almost exclusively by their title (king,
mayor) or function (ruler, commissioner). The boundaries of some small countries
(Amurru, Palestine) have been very volatile. Transcription of Egyptian names into
Akkadian is often quite confusing363 . It is difficult to distinguish ethnic vs common names,
but a link exists between them364, depending on their language365. Canaanite mayors all
accuse each other of treachery to the pharaoh (who are the liars?). There were several
simultaneous wars: 1) Hatti against Mitanni (ally of Egypt) then against Amurru (former
ally of Egypt); 2) Apiru mercenaries (EA 195) around Amurru's area in the North and
around Shechem's area in the South against Canaanite kings.
360 F.M. VALENTIN, T. BEDMAN – Proof of a “Long coregency” between Amenhotep III & Amenhotep IV
in: Kmt A Modern Journal of Ancient Egypt Vol 24:2 (September 2014) pp. 17-27.
362 D. KAHN – One Step Forward, Two Steps Backward: The Relations between Amenhotep III and Tushratta, King of Mitanni
in: Egypt, Canaan and Israel: History, Imperialism, Ideology and Literature (Brill, 2011) pp. 136-152.
363 The land of Mitanni (Hittite) is called Meteni (Egyptian), Ḫanigalbat (Assyrian), Aram-Naharaim (Hebrew), Naharina "[between
the] rivers [Tigris and Euphrates]" (Babylonian), Neherine (Egyptian), Mesopotamia "between rivers" (Greek). The people of
Mitanni are called Ḫurri. Transcrition of Egyptian names into Akkadian: Thutmose III (Menḫeperre / Manaḫpiya); Amenhotep III
(Nebmaatre / Ni[b]muariya); Akhenaten (Neferḫeperure / Napḫuriya); Tutankhamun (Nebḫeperure / Nibḫururiya); Semenkhkare
(Anḫḫeperure / [Nip]Ḫuriya), see A. DODSON – Were Nefertiti & Tutankhamen Coregents? in: KMT a Modern Journal of Ancient
Egypt n° 20:3, 2009, p. 48.
in: LIPO n°13 Paris 1987 Éd. Cerf pp. 569, 604-605.
365 ‘Aperu "crew members/workmen", Šasu "Bedouins", ‘A[l]amu "Asiatics"; in Babylonian: ‘Apiru "factious", Ḫapiru SA.GAZ
"nomads", Ḫabiru "migrants", Aḫlamaiu "Arameans"; in Hebrew: ‘Ibrim "Hebrews/those of Eber", ‘eber means migrant! These
terms often refer to people in the same place at the same time. In Middle Assyrian apâru/epêru means "put crown on the head".
In Amarna letters Apiru are compared to: a runaway dog (EA 67); mercenaries (EA 71); a rebel (EA 288); robbers (EA 318). In
Akkadian Ḫapirû/Ḫabbâtu luSA.GAZ means "nomads/looters".
If the dates obtained by C-14 (calibrated by dendrochronology) are imprecise (+/- 15
years) they nevertheless allow the setting of a relative chronology over the period 1500-
1000. Dates obtained both by C-14 and astronomy (dates in bold) have been highlighted
(the astronomical dating is given as an indication, because it will be calculated afterward):
According to: 14C dating length of reign astronomical dating gap
th
17 Dynasty (date in bold)
8 Taa Seqenenre - 11 years /1544-04/1533
9 Kamose - 2 years 11 months 05/1533-04/1530
th
18 Dynasty
1 Ahmose 1557-1532 25 years 4 months 04/1530-07/1505 +27
2 Amenhotep I 1532-1511 20 years 7 months 08/1505-02/1484 +27
3 Thutmose I 1511-1499 12 years 9 months 02/1484-11/1472 +27
4 Thutmose II 1499-1486 3 years 08/1472-07/1469 +27
[-Hatshepsut] 1480- [21 years 9 months] [08/1472-04/1450] +8
5 Thutmose III 1486-1434 53 years 11 months [08/1472-03/1418] +14
/[Amenhotep II] [2 years 4 months] [11/1420-03/1418]
6 Amenhotep II 1434-1407 25 years 10 months 04/1418-02/1392 +16
7 Thutmose IV 1407-1397 9 years 8 months 02/1392-10/1383 +15
8 Amenhotep III 1397-1359 37 years 10 months 10/1383-07/1345 +14
/[Amenhotep IV] 1359-1345 [11 years 5 months] [03/1356-07/1345]
Akhenaten 5 years 2 months 08/1345-10/1340
9 Semenkhkare 1345-1342 1 year 4 months 10/1340-02/1338 +5
10 -Ankhkheperure 2 years 1 months 02/1338-03/1336
11 Tutankhamun 1342-1333 9 years 8 months 03/1336-10/1327 +6
12 Aÿ 1333-1330 4 years 1 month 10/1327-11/1323 +6
13 Horemheb I [former regent] 1330-1302 14 years 11/1323-11/1309 +7
Horemheb II [pharaoh] 13 years 2 months 12/1309-01/1295
th
19 Dynasty
1 Ramses I 1302-1302 1 year 4 months 01/1295-05/1294 +7
2 Sety I 1302-1285 11 years 06/1294-06/1283 +8
3 Ramses II 1285-1219 67 years 2 months 06/1283-07/1216 +2
4 Merenptah 1219-1206 9 years 3 months 08/1216-10/1207 +3
5 Sethy II 1206- 5 years 11/1207-10/1202 -1
6 [Amenmes] 1209- [4 years] [04/1206-03/1202] +3
7 Siptah 1200-1194 6 years 11/1202-10/1196 -2
Siptah-Tausert / [Setnakht] 1194-1192 1 year 6 months 11/1196-04/1194 -2
th
20 Dynasty
1 Sethnakht 1192-1189 3 years 5 months 11/1196-03/1192 -4
2 Ramses III 1189-1158 31 years 1 months 04/1192-04/1161 -3
3 Ramses IV 1158-1152 6 years 8 months 05/1161-12/1155 -3
4 Ramses V 1152-1148 3 years 2 months 01/1154-02/1151 -2
5 Ramses VI 1148-1140 7 years 03/1151-02/1144 -3
6 Ramses VII 1140-1133 7 years 1 month 03/1144-03/1137 -4
7 Ramses VIII 1133-1130 3 months ? 04/1137-06/1137 -4
8 Ramses IX 1130-1112 18 years 4 months 07/1137-10/1119 -7
9 Ramses X 1112-1103 2 years 5 months 11/1119-03/1116 -7
10 Ramses XI 1103-1073 26 years 1 month ? 04/1116-04/1090 -13
[Herihor] [1098-1085]
21st Dynasty
1 Smendes 1090-1064 26 years
2 Amenemnesut [1064-1060] 4 years
3 Psusennes I 1064-1018 46 years
4 Amenemope 1018-1009 9 years
5 Osorkon the Elder 1009-1003 6 years
6 Siamun 1003-984 19 years
7 Psusennes II/III 994-980 14 years
The chronology of dynasties 22-24 is drawn up by numerous synchronisms366. The
reigns of the 21st dynasty come from Africanus, which is considered a reliable document.
The great priest Psusennes II and the Pharaoh Psusennes III were the same character. The
reign of Osorkon II is disputed, but it lasted 44 years rather than 24 years367.
22nd Dynasty (Tanis)
1 Shoshenq I 980-959 21 years
2 Osorkon I 959-924 35 years
3 Shoshenq II 924-922 2 years
Shoshenq IIb 922
4 Takelot I 922-909 13 years
5 Osorkon II 909-865 44 years
6 Takelot II 865-840 25 years
7 Shoshenq III 840-800 40 years
Shoshenq IV 800-788 12 years
8 Pamiu 788-782 6 years
9 Shoshenq V 782-745 37 years
10 Osorkon IV (Sô) 745-712 33 years
11 Gemenefkhonsubak [710-680] 30 years
12 Petubastis II [680-665] 15 years
23nd Dynasty (Leontopolis)
1 Petubastis I 833-811 22 years
2 Iuput I 819-808 11 years
Shoshenq VI 808-802 6 years
3 Osorkon III 802-774 28 years
4 Takelot III 779-765 14 years
5 Rudamun 765-762 3 years
Shoshenq VIa 762-749 13 years
6 Iuput II 749-729 20 years
24th Dynasty (Sais)
1 Tefnakht 742-735 7 years
2 Bocchoris 735-729 6 years
25th Dynasty (Nubia)
1 Alara [800-781] 20 years
2 Kashta [781-761] 20 years
3 Piye 761-730 31 years
4 Shabaka 730-712 18 years
5 Shabataka 712-689 23 years [ /712-01/689]
6 Taharqa 689-663 26 years [01/689-01/663]
7 Tantamani 663-655 8 years
26th Dynasty
Neshepso 678-672 6 years
1 Necho I 672-664 8 years
2 Psammetichus I 663-609 54 years 02/663-01/609
3 Necho II 609-594 15 years 10 months 02/609-10/594
4 Psammetichus I 594-588 6 years 1 month 11/594-01/588
5 Apries 588-570 19 years 02/588-12/570
Apries/ Amasis 569-567 [3 years] 01/569-12/567
6 Amasis 569-526 43 years 10 months 01/569-10/526
7 Psammetichus III 526-525 6 months 11/526-04/525
27th Dynasty (Persian)
1 Cambyses II 526-522 4 years
2 Darius I 522-486 36 years
366 K. JANSEN-WINKELN – The Chronology of the Third Intermediate Period: Dyns. 22-24
367 G. GERTOUX – Kings David and Solomon: Chronological, Historical and Archaeological Evidence
Raleigh 2015, Ed. Lulu.com, pp.25-44.

The period of time (1490-1320) that goes from Thutmose III to Tutankhamun has
six dates (in bold) anchored by astronomy. As the accuracy of Carbon 14 measurements is
small it does not allow the deciding between the reigns with or without co-regency. Reigns
prior to Thutmose III can be reconstructed by combining the length of reigns with
accession dates368. This data is insufficient to reconstruct the chronology, but the
information provided by Manetho369, transmitted by Josephus (Against Apion I:93-98),
which seems fairly reliable over this period, can complete this table:
Pharaoh Accession date Highest date Duration (min.) Manetho Reign duration
Taa Seqenenre ? 11 II Shemu 10 years - 10 years x m.
Kamose II Shemu 3 III Shemu 10 2 years - 3 years
Ahmose 22 21 years 25 years 4 m. 25 years 4 m.
Amenhotep I III/IV Shemu ? 21 20 years 20 years 7 m. 20 years 7 m.
Thutmose I III Peret 21 11 ? 10 years 12 years 9 m. 12 years 9 m.
Thutmose II 1 II Akhet 8 1 year 13 years 3 years
[Hatshepsut] [coregency] 20 III Peret 2 [20 years] [21 years 9 m.] [21 years 9 m.]
Thutmose III I Shemu 4 54 III Peret 30 53 years 11 m. - 53 years 11 m.
Durations of reign are obtained by matching the highest dates of the reign with
accession dates370. The length of the reign of Thutmose II can be checked by listing the
number of scarabs assigned to each pharaoh371 and assuming a normal statistical
distribution (constant average production rate):
Pharaoh Reign duration Number of scarabs Average per year
Thutmose I 12 years 9 months 241 / 290 18,9 / 22,7
Thutmose II [3 years] 65 / 90 [20] / [30]372
Hatshepsut 21 years 9 months 463 / ---- 21,3 / ----
Thutmose III 08/1472-03/1418
Thutmose IV 9 years 8 months ---- / 374 ---- / 38,7
Assuming an annual average of 20/30, we obtain a reign of about 3 years (= 65/20
or 90/30) for Thutmose II, not 13 years. A second way to check the approximate length of
this reign comes from the biography of Ahmose Pen-Nekhbet who claims to have reached
a good old age after serving several pharaohs from Ahmose until the death of Hatshepsut,
or 82 years (25+20+12+3+22). If he had started at the age of 18, he would have reached
100 years (110 years old with 13 years of reign). Even though the co-regency between
Hatshepsut and Thutmose III is well documented since Thutmose III ruled with her until
year 22 (then he ruled alone), it is more complicated than it seems373. Thutmose III argues,
for example, having ruled alongside his father Thutmose II374, in fact Queen Hatshepsut. In
addition, she celebrated in the year 16 of Thutmose III a jubilee commemorating the 30
J. VON BECKERATH – Chronologie des pharaonischen ägypten
1997 Ed. Verlag Philipp von Zabern pp. 201,202.
369 W.G. WADDELL - Manetho
Massachusetts 1956 Ed. Harvard University Press pp. 101-119.

370 The 13 years attributed to Thutmose II by Manetho result either from a miscalculation in the subtraction of co-regencies, or a
scribal error "/ 3 years" being read "13 years."

371 L. GABOLDE – La chronologie du règne de Thoutmosis II
in: Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur Band 14 (1987) pp. 61-81.

372 [20] = [18,9 + 21,3]/2 ; [30] = [22,7 + 38,7]/2.
373 The date of accession being I Shemu 4 and his death being dated III Peret 30 year 54, that implies a total duration of 53 years
and 11 months, including 32 years for the reign alone (subtracting his co-regency with Hatshepsut). However, Josephus seems
making two mistakes: forgetting the reign of Thutmose III and giving a wrong sonship, because Hatshepsut was the daughter of
Thutmose I, not Amenhotep I. This could be due to a misinterpretation of the reign of Hatshepsut, because the queen dated her
reign in the name of her son Thutmose III in continuity of the reign of her husband Thutmose II.
374 C. LALOUETTE – Thèbes ou la naissance d'un empire
Paris 1986 Éd. Fayard pp. 201-203, 257-260.

years of reign of her father Thutmose I (who reigned 12 years and 9 months), which proves
that her reign began (in fact Thutmose III's reign) in year 1 of Thutmose II375. This way of
proceeding is classical, as shown in the case of the female pharaoh Tausert who pursued the
reign of Siptah, her husband, after his death. Hatshepsut claimed, when her husband died,
having received a right to the regency from her father Thutmose I, who would also have
ordered the two obelisks of year 16 (Urk. IV, 358). Therefore, she dated her years of reign
in the name of Thutmose III but in continuation of the reign of her ex-husband Thutmose
II, which led to believe a co-regency between these two pharaohs376 . Her commemoration
of a jubilee in year 16 for the 30-year reign of his father Thutmose I proves that she began
her reign (actually that of Thutmose III) in year 1 of Thutmose II, because the 30 years
include the combination of 13 years of Thutmose I, the 3 years of Thutmose II and the first
13 years of his actual reign. In fact, the 30 years of this jubilee are shorter than those of a
traditional jubilee, because it actually covers the reigns of three successive pharaohs. Two of
these years of reign are shorter because they are counted from Pharaoh's accession to the
accession of the next Pharaoh (starting at the death of the previous Pharaoh). Some
Egyptologists consider this jubilee (sed festival celebrated after 30 years of reign) as fanciful,
but this assumption is illogical, because the Pharaohs were guarantor of ceremonial and
they would not have changed it without compelling (and explained) reason. In addition, we
find that adding the successive reigns of Thutmose I (13 years) and the first 16 years of
Thutmose III we obtain the 29 years (= 13 + 16) necessary to celebrate a jubilee.
Hatshepsut's reign begins not in year 1 but in year 4 as she continued the reign of her
husband. Stelas dated from Thutmose III (under the regency of his aunt Hatshepsut) are
from year 4 to year 20. Furthermore, this ambiguity in the reign of Thutmose III has
sometimes been interpreted as a co-regency377 between Hatshepsut and Thutmose I or
between Thutmose II and Thutmose I, but the most logical explanation is to accept a
regency on her nephew Thutmose III in the name of her husband Thutmose II. This
scenario would explain the confusion of Manetho. Hatshepsut who ruled in Thutmose's
name, could be considered as the daughter of Amenhotep I, Thutmose I's predecessor, and
the 30-year rule in her name could be mixed with the 32 years of Thutmose III. Tutor of
Hatshepsut, Ahmose Pen-Nekhbet, did not consider her as a pharaoh since after her death
he did not mention her on the list of pharaohs he had served: Ahmose, Amenhotep I,
Thutmose I, Thutmose II and Tuthmose III. Ineni stating that after the death of Thutmose
II: “Thutmose III reigned through Hatshepsut378 ”.
Using durations from Manetho for the reigns of Amenhotep I and Thutmose I
(reigned 12 years 5 months, died around Egyptian month XI) and that obtained from the
frequency of scarabs for Thutmose II (3 years), it is possible to reconstruct a chronology of
the reign of Amenhotep I. The reign of Thutmose III pursuing Thutmose II's reign
(through the proxy of Hatshepsut) his accession's date of I Shemu 4 does not match that of
Thutmose II, which prevents calculating the month of accession in 1472 BCE, probably
around month XI (as the construction of two obelisks lasted 7 months, from 15/VI/15 to
30/XII/16, the accession must be just before month XII).
375 E. WENTE, C. VAN SICLEN - Studies in Honor of George R. Hughes
in: Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 39 (Chicago, 1977) pp. 220,221.
376 L. GABOLDE – La chronologie du règne de Thoutmosis II
in: Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur Band 14 (1987) pp. 61-81.

M. GABOLDE – Les portraits d'une reine pharaon
in: Akhénaton et l'époque amarnienne, Éd. Khéops et centre d'égyptologie (2005) pp. 261-286.
377 W.J. MURNANE - Ancient Egyptian Coregencies
in: Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 40 (Chicago, 1977) pp. 35-39,115-117,230.

378 C. DESROCHES NOBLECOURT – La reine mystérieuse Hatshepsout

BCE year year year Pharaoh
1486 20/21 Amenhotep I
1485 21/ 1 /1
1484 1/2 1/2 Thutmose I accession date III Peret 21 (17 February 1484)
1483 2/3 2/3
1482 3/4 3/4
1481 4/5 4/5
1480 5/6 5/6
1479 6/7 6/7
1478 7/8 7/8
1477 8/9 8/9
1476 9/10 9/10
1475 10/11 10/11
1474 11/12 11/12
1473 12/13 12/13
1472 13/ 1 13/14
1471 1/2 14/15 Thutmose II, accession date [-]/XI/13 (September 1472)
1470 2/3 15/16
1469 3/(1) 3/4 16/17 Death of Thutmose II dated around [-]/XI/3 (July 1469)
1468 4 4/5 17/18 Hatshepsut extends the reign of her husband on behalf of
1467 5 5/6 18/19 Thutmose III
1466 6 6/7 19/20
1465 7 7/8 20/21 Senenmut's tomb began on 2/VIII/7 (full moon dated 23 March 1465)
1464 8 8/9 21/22 Great Year began on 16 July 1464 (heliacal risings of Sirius and Venus)
1463 9 9/10 22/23 astronomical ceiling of the tomb of Senenmut. Culmination of
1462 10 10/11 23/24 the Big Dipper, in the absence of Mars (14 November 1463).
1461 11 11/12 24/25
1460 12 12/13 25/26
1459 13 13/14 26/27
1458 14 14/15 27/28 construction of two obelisks ordered by Thutmose I (!)
1457 15 15/16 28/29 from 15/VI/15 (02 February 1457) to 30/XII/16 (16 August 1457)
1456 16 16/17 29/30 year 30 of Jubilee379 began at the end of year 16 (le 18 July 1456)
1455 17 17/18
1454 18 18/19
1453 19 19/20
1452 20 20/21
1451 21 21/22 Hatshepsut died on 10/VI/22 (27 January 1451)
1450 22 22/23 year 22 of Thutmose III began on I Shemu 4, 4/IX/22 (21 April 1450)
1449 23/24 lunar days psdntyw dated 21/IX/23 (full moon dated 07 May 1450)
1448 24/25 and 30/VI/24 (full moon dated 16 February 1448), Sothic rising dated
1447 25/26 28/XI/[25] (full moon dated 12 July 1448)
1446 26/27
The dating of Thutmose III's reign by several astronomical phenomena allows the
anchoring of the chronological beginning of the 18th Dynasty. The helical rising of Sirius
during the 11-year reign of Sety I, dated I Akhet 1, year 4380 fixes the end of the 18th
Dynasty. This astronomical event fixes his accession in 1294 (+/- 4)381. The astronomical
ceiling of Sety I actually started by a Sothic rising and according to his Cenotaph: All these
stars begin on 1st Akhet when Sirius appears382 . These two reigns dated by astronomy are used for
anchoring the chronology of the 18th dynasty:
379 That Jubilee was celebrated during the festival of Opet dated from II Akhet 15 to 26 (J.C. DARNELL – Opet Festival in:
UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology 12-10-2010, pp. 1-15) The period dated 15-26/II/16 was around November 1457 BCE.
380 K. SETHE - Sethos I und die Erneuerung der Hundssternperiode

381 At Thebes (Longitude 32°39' Latitude 25°42') with an arcus visionis of 8.7 the Sothiac rising is dated 12 July on the period
1370-600 (see http://www.imcce.fr/fr/grandpublic/phenomenes/sothis/index.php ) and I Akhet 1 = 12 July in 1293-1290.

382 O. NEUGEBAUER, R.A. PARKER – Egyptian Astronomical Texts I
London 1960 Ed. Brown University Press pp. 44, 54 (Text T2 plate 47).
K. SETHE - Sethos I und die Erneuerung der Hundssternperiode
18th Dynasty Name (Manetho via Josephus) Reign duration anchor dates
Ahmose Tethmôsis 25 years 4 months
Amenhotep I Amenophis 20 years 7 months
Thutmose I Mephres 12 years 9 months
Thutmose II Chebron 13 years
Hatshepsut Amessis, daughter of Amenophis 21 years 9 months
Thutmose III [co-regency?] - 08/1472-03/1418
Amenhotep II Mephragmouthôsis 25 years 10 months
Thutmose IV Thoutmosis 9 years 8 months
Amenhotep III Amenophis 30 years 10 months
Amenhotep IV [co-regency?] 36 years 5 months
Akhenaten Orus
Semenkhkare -
Ankhkheperure Akencheris, daughter of Orus 12 years 1 month
Tutankhamun Rhathotis, brother of Akencheris 9 years
Aÿ Harmais 4 years 1 month
Horemheb Akencheres I 12 years 5 months
Akencheres II 12 years 3 months
19th Dynasty
Ramses I Ramesses 1 year 4 months 01/1295-05/1294
Sety I [-]383 to Sethos, 59 years 06/1294-06/1283
The next step consists in verifying Manetho's data through the highest regnal dates
combined with dates of accession and death. As Thutmose III died on III Peret 30 Year 54
(10 March 1418), the accession of Amenhotep II, his successor, should have been dated on
IV Peret 1. However it is dated IV Akhet 1, implying a gap of 4 months. Some authors
consider that one of these dates is wrong but the chronology of the Asiatic campaigns of
Amenhotep II, such as his first campaign dated year 3 can only be explained if there is a co-
regency of 2 years and 4 months at the end of the reign of Thutmose III384 . During this co-
regency Amenhotep II built the temple of Amada in Nubia whose decoration shares
harmoniously between Thutmose III —depicted in the lower registers scenes— and
Amenhotep II —featured in the upper registers. This co-regency385 is confirmed by a lunar
date found in a papyrus (Leningrad 1116A) which mentions a grain delivery dated III
Shemu 6 Year 19 of Amenhotep II for an offering of beer matching the 1st lunar day
psdntyw386 . According to Egyptian papyri, beer could be produced in 3 or 4 days and storage
could not exceed 15 days for conservation reasons (if it was meant to be consumed, not
offered in sacrifice). These technical considerations set the date of psdntyw day between 10
and 25 of III Shemu. In fact, since the grain offering was for worship, a beer storage for
several days after the brewing was not necessary. The sequence had to be the following:
recording the grain stock on 6 of III Shemu, then the brewing of beer from 7 to 10 and the
offering on 11 (psdntyw day is therefore dated III Shemu 11 Year 19). Thus the co-regency
of Amenhotep II which began 2 years and 4 months before the death of Thutmose III (10
March 1418), the IV Akhet 1 corresponds to 11 November in 1420 BCE, so the reign of 25
years and 10 months is the duration without the co-regency. The date of III Shemu 11 Year
383 A word is missing, maybe the name "Orus".
in: Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 40 (Chicago, 1977) pp. 44-57.
P. DER MANUELIAN – Studies in the reign of Amenophis II
in: Hidesheimer Ägyptologische Beiträge 26 (1987) pp. 19-40.
P. DER MANUELIAN – The End of the Reign and the Accession of Amenhotep II
in: Thutmose III A New Biography Ed. The University of Michigan Press (2005) pp. 414-429.
385 N. GRIMAL - Histoire de l'Égypte ancienne
Paris 1988 Éd. Fayard p. 279.

P. VERNUS, J. YOYOTTE - Dictionnaire des pharaons
Paris 1998 Éd. Noésis p. 19.
386 J.G. READ – Chronological Placements for Thutmose II, Amenhotep II, Ramesses II
in: Discussions in Egyptology 36 (1996) p. 105.

19 of Amenhotep II matches the full moon of June 15, 1402 BCE387. The next two reigns,
those of Thutmose IV and Amenhotep III, do not present any difficulty (no co-regency)
and can be placed after that of Amenhotep II (III Shemu 11 is a lunar date in 1402)
AKHET PERET SHEMU
I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV I
BCE Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Thutmose III 1422 51 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 18 17 17
1421 52 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6
Amenhotep II 1420 53 1 1 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25 25
1419 54 2 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14
1418 3 3 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3
1417 4 4 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 23
1416 5 5 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 12 12
1415 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1
1414 7 7 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 22 22 21 21 20
1413 8 8 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 10
1412 9 9 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 30 29 29 28
1411 10 10 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18
1410 11 11 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 9 9 8 8 7
1409 12 12 2 1 1 30 30 29 28 28 27 27 27 26
1408 13 13 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 16 15
1407 14 14 10 9 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4
1406 15 15 29 28 28 27 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24
1405 16 16 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 14 13
1404 17 17 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2
1403 18 18 26 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 22 22 21
1402 19 19 16 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11
1401 20 20 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 30
1400 21 21 24 24 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19
1399 22 22 13 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 9 9 8
1398 23 23 3 2 2 1 1 1/30 30 29 29 28 28 27
1397 24 24 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 18 17 17
1396 25 25 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6
1395 26 1 1 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25 25
1394 27 2 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14
1393 28 3 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3
Thutmose IV 1392 1 4 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 23
1391 2 5 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 12 12
1390 3 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1
1389 4 7 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 22 22 21 21 20
As Thutmose III died in March 1418 BCE, Amenhotep III's death must have been
in April 1345 = 1418 - (37 years 10 months) - (9 years 8 months) - (25 years 10 months).
The missing reign of Semenkhkare can be reconstituted through the 6 rings made during his
reign, compared to the 18 issued during the 4 years and 1 month of Ay's reign, implying a
period of 1 year and 4 months (= 4 years x 6/18)388. The Josephus' remark: Akencheris,
daughter of Orus [Akhenaten], reigned [1]2 years and 1 month, shows that he was well informed389
because Semenkhkare appears married with Meritaten (who was indeed a daughter of
Akhenaten, her name is transcribed Mayati in Akkadian) in the tomb of Meryre and this
queen reigned 2 years 1 month after the death of her husband under the name of
[Semenkhkare]-Ankhkheperure. One notes however that several reigns have some tens in
excess and the duration of reigns with co-regencies is systematically wrong. Horemheb's
387 Lunar cycles of 25 years begin at I Akhet 1 at the full moon of 13 August 1421 BCE and 7 August 1396 BCE. One can also
note that the co-regency of Amenhotep II started from a new lunar cycle of 25 years.
388 M. GABOLDE - D'Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon
Lyon 1998 Éd. Institut d'Archéologie et d'Histoire de l'Antiquité p. 220.

389 G. GREENBERG – Manetho. A Study in Egyptian Chronology
Pennsylvania 2004, Marco Polo Monographs 8 pp. 78-86.

reign is oddly divided into two parts, but Horemheb is indeed referred to by his birth name
(Ar-ma-a in Akkadian) in the annals of Mursili II until his year 10 (1322-1312), instead of
his throne name (Djoser-kheperu[setepen]re), as it is usually the case for pharaohs in title.
This anomaly shows that this Pharaoh initially reigned as a former representative of
Pharaoh before becoming a full-fledged Pharaoh. The reigns indicated by Manetho are
reliable except for periods of co-regencies (highlighted in orange).
Pharao Accession date Highest date Duration (min.) Manetho Reign duration
18th Dynasty (Year 1)
Ahmose 22 21 years 25 years 4 m. 25 years 4 m.
Amenhotep I III/IV Shemu? 21 20 years 20 years 7 m. 20 years 7 m.
Thutmose I III Peret 21 11 ? 10 years 12 years 9 m. 12 years 9 m.
Thutmose II 1 II Akhet 8 1 year [1]3 years 3 years
Hatshepsut co-regency 20 III Peret 2 20 years 21 years 9 m. 21 years 9 m.
Thutmose III I Shemu 4 54 III Peret 30 53 years 11 m. [co-regency?] 53 years 11 m.
Amenhotep II IV Akhet 1 ? 26 25 years 25 years 10 m. 25 years 10 m.
Thutmose IV 8 III Peret 2 7 years 9 years 8 m. 9 years 8 m.
Amenhotep III II/III Shemu ? 38 III Shemu 1 37 years 10 m. 30 years 10 m. 37 years 10 m.
Amenhotep IV I Peret 1-8 ? 17 II Akhet 16 years 7 m. 36 years 5 m. 16 years 7 m.
Akhenaten 6 IV Peret 13 5 years [co-regency?]
Semenkhkare 1 1 year - 1 year 4 m.
Ankhkheperure 3 III Akhet 10 2 years [1]2 years 1 m. 2 years 1 m.
Tutankhamun IV Akhet 19 10 [III Akhet] 9 years 9 years 9 years
Aÿ 4 IV Akhet 1 3 years 4 years 1 m. 4 years 1 m.
Horemheb III Akhet [5]? 27 I Shemu 9 27 years 12 years 5 m.
(Opet Festival) 12 years 3 m. 27 years 2 m.
Ramses I III Peret ? 2 II Peret 20 1 year 4 m. 1 year 4 m. 1 year 4 m.
Sety I III Shemu 24 ? 11 IV Shemu 13 11 years 11 years
The durations of the two reigns: 37 years 10 months for Amenhotep III and 16 years
7 months of Amenhotep IV are admitted, only the 11-year co-regency of Akhenaten with
his father is disputed. Elements that support the co-regency are as follows390:
!The context in the chapel of Vizier Amenhotep-Huy indicates clearly the unit on the time
of destruction of the decoration, carried out by order of the Royal House on a date after
the year 30 of Amenhotep III, happened year 35 of Amenhotep III (the last known date is
1/IX/35). There is a space enclosed with no more 2 metres between each of the columns
that show the inscriptions sculpted by the same craftsmen, at the same time, paired,
Amenhotep III/ Amenhotep IV. In one of the columns with the inscription of
Amenhotep III it's the mention, about the appearance of the King in the Tjentjat “at the
beginning of the year 30 Jubilee”. That date, is collected in Kheruef's TT192 as referring
to 27/X/30 of Amenhotep III. Consequently, the 38-year reign of Amenhotep III implies
a co-regency of at least 8 years between the two kings391 (from year 30 to 38) because the
inscription in the vizier’s chapel was made before the death of Amenhotep III.
!The transactions between Mesy and the shepherd Nebmehy (Berlin Papyrus 9784) dated
III Shemu 20, year 27 of Amenhotep III then [?] Peret 27, year 2 of Amenhotep IV (not
Akhenaten) imply a co-regency of 11 years between the two transactions separated of 1
year (without co-regency it would have been 12 years of silence).
!The mention of a sed feast in the year 30 of Amenhotep III392, as reported by Amenhotep
IV during his 3rd year, confirms the 11-year co-regency. Those who refuse this co-regency
390 P.F. DORMAN – The Long Coregency Revisited: Architectural and Iconographic Conundra in the Tomb of Kheruef in:
Causing His Name to Live: Studies in Egyptian Epigraphy and History in Memory of William J. Murnane 2006 The University of Memphis.
391 F.M. VALENTIN, T. BEDMAN – Proof of a “Long coregency” between Amenhotep III & Amenhotep IV
in: Kmt A Modern Journal of Ancient Egypt Vol 24:2 (September 2014) pp. 17-27.
392 L.E. BAILEY – Amenhotep III and Akhenaten : an Examination of the Coregency Issues
Chicago 2000 E. University of Chicago pp. 14,26-28,38.

are obliged to say that this sed festival commemorating 30 years of reign, mentioned by
Amenhotep IV, would have been anachronistic393. This Pharaoh would have used the
festival only in order to proclaim his "divine" quality and would have violated the ancestral
ritual of commemorations, which is very unlikely.
!Amenhotep IV in front of Amenhotep III (stela Berlin 20716), recognizable through their
headdress, is represented in the process of serving a beverage to his father394 (below).
26 Amenhotep III
27 Change of name:
28 Amenhotep IV 1 Amun is pleased (Amenhotep III's son)
29 2
30 Jubilee 3 Re-Horakhty (...) who is Aten
34 Jubilee (of year 33) 7
37 Jubilee (of year 36) 10 Re (...) who comes back as Aten
38 11 (birth of Tutankhamun) 1
12 Akhenaten 1 Life of Aten (transfer to Akhetaten) 2
17/1 6 7
2 Semenkhkare [7] (brother of Akhenaten) 8
3 -Ankhkheperure [8] (wife of Semenkhkare) 9
1 Tutankhamun (younger brother of Akhenaten) 10
!Among the dated jar-labels from the 8th to the 38th regnal years of Amenhotep III there
are seven dated year 28 including five examples dated year 1 [of Amenhotep IV]395.
!In the year 12 of Amenhotep IV, Tiy (wife of Amenhotep III) moved to Akhetaten396.
!Changes of name (Aten instead of Amun) in the titular of Amenhotep IV at the years 3
and 9 of his reign should be linked to the jubilees of year 30 and 36 of Amenhotep III397.
!Tutankhamun states clearly to be a son of Amenhotep III and, as he died at the age of 20
+/- 2 years (according to the state of his mummy), his statement can only be true if there
was a co-regency of at least 11 years. Without co-regency, Amenhotep III's death is
separated from Tutankhamun by 30 years (= 17+3+10) and he could not be his son
because he died when he was 20 as confirmed by his coronation chair made for a 10-year
old child. With the co-regency, the gap of 19 years (= 6+3+10) is in agreement with his
birth to the end of Amenhotep III's reign in 1347 (= 1327 + 20). Thus the successor of
Akhenaten was first Semenkhkare (his brother) then Tutankhamun (his younger brother)
3 years later. There is a paradox for those who refuse the co-regency and Gabolde agrees:
then why, if Tutankhamun was the son of Akhenaten, would have he hidden it in this way his real
ancestry to proclaim, on occasion, he was the «son» of Amenhotep III? (...) The legitimacy of Amenhotep
IV/Akhenaten has never been questioned under Tutankhamun and continuity was maintained during
his reign in the traditional pattern: a son succeeded his father. To assume that Tutankhamun would
have denied his "father" Akhenaten, who had only 6 girls!, for religious reasons is
unprecedented and leads to an absurdity: Admittedly, it is paradoxical to consider that
Tutankhamun may seemingly, in the same spirit, honor his father and deny him all at once and there is no
obvious explanation for this contradiction398. The obvious explanation exists: as he claimed
Lyon 1998 Éd. Institut d'Archéologie et d'Histoire de l'Antiquité pp. 26-28.
394 C. DESROCHES-NOBLECOURT - Toutankhamon
Paris 1965 Éd.Hachette pp. 110-111.

395 W.C. HAYES - Inscriptions from the Palace of Amenhotep III
in: Journal of Near Eastern Studies 10:1 (Jan. 1951), pp. 35-56.
396 N. GRIMAL - Histoire de l'Égypte ancienne
Paris 1988 Éd. Fayard pp. 301-302.

397 J. GOHARY – Akhenaten's Sed-Festival at Karnak
London 1992 Ed. Kegan Paul International pp. 29-33.

Lyon 1998 Éd. Institut d'Archéologie et d'Histoire de l'Antiquité p. 293.

Tutankhamun was the son of Amenhotep III. In addition if Tutankhamun was the son of
Akhenaten why did Semenkhkare succeed his brother Akhetaten instead of his own son?
Once again, there is a new anomaly!
The 11-year co-regency between the two pharaohs is therefore well established.
Amenhotep IV probably expected the death of Amenhotep III for transferring the whole
court in the new city (Akhetaten) and to favor the promoting of Aten's worship
(Toutankhaten, later Tutankhamun, would choose again the ancient Amun's worship). The
receipt of foreign tributes at Amarna is dated IV Peret 8 Year 12 of Amenhotep IV399. This
celebration inaugurated in fact Aten's worship in Amarna. The date was well chosen
because it was a few days before the solar beam appearing the IV Peret 13. The numerous
jars of wine excavated in the city dated years 1-4 as well as the boundary stelae dated years 5
and 6 seem to refer to Akhenaten's reign officially appearing at the 12th year of Amenhotep
IV, which was the 1st year of Akhenaten (stelae of year 8 are posthumous and contemporary
of Semenkhkare)400. Inasmuch Akhenaten stated in the stela year 5 that the situation was
worse in his time than the one of Amenhotep III, it was not the Amenohotep IV's year 5
but Akhenaten's year 5 because he would not have spoken in such terms of the reign of
Amenohotep III if he was still alive and shared power with him. Semenkhkare being
Akhenaten's successor, the jars dating year 1 just after year 17 should be attributed to him
rather than to Akhenaten401. Despite evidence of the co-regency between Amenhotep III
and his son Amenhotep IV the reconstitution without co-regency is favored by most
egyptologists of the 32nd Dynasty (those affected by pharaonic megalomania). However
chronological synchronisms, as well as calculation by astronomy (highlighted in sky blue) of
the dates of Akhenaten's death in October 1340 BCE and of Tutankhamen in October
1327 BCE402, confirm the 11-year co-regency.
King Reign duration Reign
Ahmose 25 years 4 months 04/1530-07/1505
Amenhotep I 20 years 7 months 08/1505-02/1484
Thutmose I 12 years 5 months 03/1484-07/1472
Thutmose II 3 years 08/1472-07/1469
Thutmose III 53 years 11 months 08/1472-03/1418
[Thutmose III/Amenhotep II] [ 2 years 4 months] [11/1420-03/1418]
Amenhotep II 25 years 10 months 04/1418-02/1392
Thutmose IV 9 years 8 months 02/1392-10/1383
Amenhotep III 37 years 10 months 10/1383-07/1345
[Amenhotep III/Amenhotep IV] [11 years 5 months] [03/1356-07/1345]
Akhenaten 5 years 2 months 08/1345-10/1340
Semenkhkare 1 year 4 months 10/1340-02/1338
-Ankhkheperure 2 years 1 month 02/1338-03/1336
Tutankhamun 9 years 8 months 03/1336-10/1327
Aÿ 4 years 1 month 10/1327-11/1323
Horemheb I [former regent] 14 years 11/1323-11/1309
Horemheb II [pharaoh] 13 years 2 months 12/1309-01/1295
Ramses I 01/1295-05/1294
Sety I 11 years 06/1294-06/1283
Total: 124 years 04/1418-05/1294
Lyon 1998 Éd. Institut d'Archéologie et d'Histoire de l'Antiquité pp. 281-283.
400 F.J. GILES – The Amarna Age: Egypt
2001 Ed. Aris & Phillips pp. 43-45.

in: Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 40 (Chicago, 1977) pp. 215-225.

402 The month of Akhenaten's death must be around October because a label on a jar dated year 17 (partially erased and changed
to 1) refers to honey and honey harvesting in Egypt, in the valley, was carried out in September (P.T. NICHOLSON, I. SHAW –
Ancient Materials and Technology, Cambridge, 2000, pp. 410-411). In addition, Suppiluliuma I was informed of Tutankhamun's
death at the end of his campaign which ended before the onset of winter (November).
Between Thutmose III's death on March 10, 1418 BCE and the beginning of Sety I's
reign in June 1294 BCE there are 124 years (= 1418 - 1294), a difference that exactly
matches the sum of the reigns: 124 years (= 25 years 10 months of Amenhotep II + 9 years
8 months of Thutmose IV + 37 years 10 months of Amenhotep III + 5 years 2 months of
Akhenaten + 1 year 4 month of Semenkhkare + 2 years 1 month of Ankhkheperure + 9
years 8 months of Tutankhamun + 4 years 1 month of Ay + 27 years 2 months of
Horemheb + 1 year 4 month of Ramses I) provided that the 11 years of co-regency
between Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV are not counted. To dispute this coincidence,
egyptologists of the 32nd Dynasty assume that the reign of Horemheb lasted only 16 years
(or 14!) instead of 27. This assumption defies common sense.
Even though the duration of Horemheb's reign is controversial because of the low
number of dated inscriptions between years 14 to 27 (which is not unusual), only years 1-4,
6-9, and 12-14 are attested in his grave (unfinished!)403, this reign is dated from 1330 to 1302
by C-14 implying a reign of about 28 years. Kitchen also observed404 that Horemheb's
extensive building projects at Karnak supported the theory of a long reign for this Pharaoh
and stressed that "a good number of the undated 'late 18th Dynasty' private monuments that
are in both Egypt and the world's Museums
must, in fact, belong to his reign. There are
only two dated inscriptions after the Year
14: a decree on a section of wall dated Year
[2]5 and a graffito on a fragment of a statue
dated year 27405. The ink graffito reads: Year
27, I Shemu 9, the day406 on which Horemheb, who
loves Amun and hates his enemies, entered the
temple for this event. The use of Horemheb's
name and the addition of a long "Meryamun" (Beloved of Amun) epithet in the graffito
suggests a living, eulogised king rather than a long deceased one407. If the reading of the year
[2]5 is only the most likely408 (figure above), that of 27 year is indisputable and requires a
period of reign of at least 26 years. A second element supports the period of 27 years. Mes'
inscription409 describes a complaint during the year 18 of Ramses II about a piece of land
inherited from the time of Horemheb, which is finally judged and dated in the year 59 of
Horemheb410. Sety I's reign lasted 11 years (actually 11 years and a few days) as shown in the
autobiography of the priest Bakenkhons411. Hari, in his thesis about Horemheb, noted that
403 J. VAN DIJK – New Evidence of the Length of the Reign of Horemheb
in: Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt vol. 44 (2008) pp. 193-200.
404 K.A. KITCHEN – The Basis of Egyptian Chronology in Relation to the Bronze Age in: "High, Middle or Low? Acts of
International Colloquim on Absolute Chronology held at the University of Gothenburg 20-22 August 1987" Ed. Paul Aström Vol 1 pp. 37-55.
405 Petrie Collection (UC 14391),the part where appeared the year [2]5 has been chipped and is now illegible.
406 This date I Shemu 9 Year 27 corresponds to March 18 in 1296 BCE and coincides with a 1st lunar crescent.
407 D. REDFORD in: JNES 25 (1966), p. 123; in BASOR 211 (1973) No. 37 footnote.
408 R. HARI – Horemheb et la reine Moutnedjemet ou la fin d'une dynastie
Genève 1964 Imprimerie La Sirène. Thèse n°179 fig. 82, 84.

409 A.H. GARDINER – The Inscription of Mes
Leipzig 1905 in: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Altertumskunde Ägyptens 4:3.
410 The only plausible explanation for this unusual year 59 is to assume that the 58-year reign posthumously attributed to
Horemheb corresponds in fact to 27 years 2 months of Horemheb's actual reign + 1 year 4 months of Ramses I's reign + 11
years of Sety I's reign + 18 years from the beginning of Ramses II's reign. The reign of Horemheb was extended posthumously
because the year 28 is followed by years 1-2 of Ramses I (years 29-30 of Horemheb) then by years 1-11 of Seti I (years 31-41 of
Horemheb) and finally with years 1-18 of Ramses II (42-59 years of Horemheb).
411 Bakenkhonsu states that he spent 4 years as an excellent youngster, 11 years as a youth, as a trainee stable-master for king Men[maat]re (Sety I),
wab priest of Amun for 4 years, god's father of Amun for 12 years, third pries of Amun for 15 years, second priest of Amun for 12 (E. FLOOD –
Biographical Texts from Ramessid Egypt Atlanta 2007 Ed. Society of Biblical Literature p. 41). The 11 years of Sety I are all
represented, except 10, which confirms the 11 years reign (E. HORNUNG -The New Kingdom in: Ancient Egyptian Chronology
(Leiden 2006) Ed. Brill pp. 210-211).
the usual explanations about this pharaoh are romanticized and baseless. After reviewing
overall enrollments and representations, he concluded that transitions between pharaohs
were based solely on the "principle of legitimacy." General Horemheb had been appointed
as "representative of the Pharaoh" by Tutankhamun, but not as co-regent, and after the
death of Tutankhamun, Ay was his legitimate successor. Ay having no children when he
died, Horemheb remained only the representative of a dead pharaoh. To extend her
function of representing the Pharaoh, Queen Mutnodjmet, divine Ay's daughter, married
Horemheb (as did in the past Queen Hatshepsut, daughter of Thutmose I, with her half-
brother Thutmose II). Thus Horemheb reigned about 14 years as a "representative (idenu)
of Pharaoh" and after the death of the queen he was enthroned as Pharaoh and started a
"new reign" of about 13 years (year 1 succeeding year 14). In his "Decree of Coronation"
Horemheb reminds one that he had been designated as "representative" by King (unnamed)
and it was in this way that: he ruled the country for a period of many years [more than 10 years] before
eventually be designated as "king" by the "eldest son of Horus" ("son of Horus" meant the king in
title, ie Mutnodjmet's husband?). Manetho rightly separated the reign of Horemheb into
two roughly equal parts (14 years as a representative of pharaoh then 13 years as pharaoh,
27 years in total, hence the oddity of the reckoning).
Tutankhamun died the year Hittite king Šuppiluliuma I conquered the Mitannian
kingdom of Carchemish. This victory took place 5 years before Šuppiluliuma I's death, who
died during his 6th year of war. Muršili II, youngest son of Šuppiluliuma, succeeded his
father after the brief reign of Arnuwanda II the eldest son. Šuppiluliuma learned of the
death of Pharaoh during his 1st year of war412 which lasted 6 years and that ended with his
own death413. The presence of the brief reign of Arnuwanda II, whose duration is not
specified, complicates this chronology, but luckily the account of Šuppiluliuma's deeds
states that the king died with the plague, as did his son Arnuwanda, transmitted by some
Egyptian captives he had deported into Hittite country. This detail allows a dating because
plague epidemics in Europe have shown that the average mortality rate was about 30% of
the total population and 60 to 100% of the population was infected, thus the weakest were
quickly killed and the plague in a given location therefore lasted on average 6-9 months.
One can deduce from this epidemiological observation that Arnuwanda II could have
reigned only 6 months (max) during the accession year of Muršili II. In his annals, the king
mentions the death of his father and older brother during his accession, therefore all these
events occurred during a single campaign between April and November in 1322 BCE414.
Muršili II's reign can be dated precisely415 because at the beginning of his 10th year
there was "a solar omen416" (total eclipse on the Hittite capital Ḫattuša). During this period
1330-1310 BCE there was only one total solar eclipse on Hittite territory, that of 24 June
1312 BCE417. The eclipse of -1307* (1308 BCE) April 13, can not be accepted because it
was an annular eclipse 95% of magnitude, which means that it was not noticed by a casual
observer, because eclipses of a magnitude less than 98 % go unnoticed. In addition, the
Princeton 1969 Ed. Princeton University Press p. 319.
413 K.A. KITCHEN – Suppiluliuma and the Amarna Pharaohs
Liverpool 1962 Ed. Liverpool University Press pp. 3-5,22,23.

414 T. BRYCE – The Kingdom of the Hittites.

415 E. WENTE, C. VAN SICLEN - Studies in Honor of George R. Hughes
in: Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 39 (Chicago, 1976) p. 249.

416 I. SINGER – Hittite Prayers
Atlanta 2002 Ed. Society of Biblical Litterature pp. 75,77.

P.J. HUBER -The Solar Omen of Mursili II
in: Journal of the American Oriental Society 121 (2001) pp. 640-644.
417 http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcat5/SE-1399--1300.html
trajectory of this eclipse did not pass on the Hittite territory. The eclipse of 1312, which
occurred shortly after the beginning of the year, as the text of the omen suggests, is the only
one able to fulfill two key criteria: it was total (magnitude 102%) and its path passed near
Hattuša, the Hittite capital. Given the year 10 of Mursili II is dated 1312, that means his
accession has to be dated between April 1322 and March 1321. Thus Tutankhamun's death
took place in 1327 BCE, 5 years before the brief reign of Arnuwanda II418 and the accession
of Mursili II dated 1322/1321. Trajectories of eclipses between 1320 and 1300 (below)419,
only the one of -1311 (1312 BCE) June 24 matches the two key criteria.
Tutankhamun's death in 1327 BCE can be deduced from the following (Egyptian,
Mitannian and Hittite) synchronisms:
! Amenhotep III died in April 1345 BCE in the 38th year of his reign.
! Tušratta wrote 7 letters420 to Amenhotep III (EA 17 to 26) then 3 letters to Amenhotep
IV (EA 27 to 29). He relates in his first letter (EA 17) his accession to the throne after
the murder of his brother Artašuwara, then the following year the attack of Hittite king
[Šuppiluliuma] that he managed to repel. EA 23 letter (BM 29793) is dated IV Peret 1
Year 36 and 27 EA letter is dated I Peret [5] Year [1]2 of Amenhotep IV.
Correspondence with Amenhotep III was intense because the EA 20 letter stated that
the following letter would be sent 6 months later, involving a total period of 4 or 5 years
between his first and last letter. Correspondence with Amenhotep IV was more relaxed
since the last letter written to Amenhotep IV (EA 29) states "my messengers for 4 years",
involving a period of at least 4 years between his first and last letter.
! Šuppiluliuma I congratulated Semenkhkare (Ḫureya) when he ascended to Egypt's throne
(EA 41), then mentions the murder of Tušratta in a letter to Semenkhkare (EA 43).
! Šuppiluliuma died in 1322, as did his son Arnuwanda II, during the 6th and final year of
the war. The deeds of Šuppiluliuma mention a period of 20 years between this Hurrian
war of 6 years and the Syrian war of 1 year (KUB 19:9 I). The preparation of the Syrian
war covered a period of 3 or 4 years after the first unsuccessful attack against Tušratta at
the beginning of his reign (KBo I:1).
in: LIPO n°13 Paris 1987 Éd. Cerf pp. 55 note 137.
in: LIPO n°13 Paris 1987 Éd. Cerf pp. 48, 110-190.
Astronomical dating EGYPT MITANNI HATTI
BCE Amenhotep III Šutarna II Tutḫaliya III
1357 27 P. Berlin 9784
1356 28 Amenhotep IV Artašumara
1355 29 2
1354 30 3 Tušratta
1353 31 4 [1] Šuppiluliuma I
first letters 1352 32 (EA 254) 5 [2] 1st attack
1351 33 [6] EA 17, EA 18 1 2
1350 34 [7] EA 19, EA 20 2 3
1349 35 8 EA 21, EA 22 3 4
1348 36 (EA 75) 9 EA 23, EA 24 4 ‘1-year War’
1347 37 (EA 106) [10] EA 25 5 6/1
1346 38 [11] EA 26 2
1345 Akhenaten 12 (EA 116) EA 27 1 3
1344 [2] [13] 2 4
1343 [3] 14 EA 28 3 5
1342 [4] [15] 4 6
3 March 1341 5 16 EA 29 7
3 March 1340 6 17 8
1339 [-] Semenkhkare [15] 9 (EA 41)
14 May 1338 *8* 2 (EA 43) 10
1337 -Ankhkheperure 11
last letters 1336 Akhetaten abandoned Tutankhamun (EA 9) 24 12
1335 2 25 13
1334 3 26 14
1333 3 (Burna-Buriaš II) 27 15
1332 5 (Kurigalzu II) 1 16
1331 6 2 17
1330 7 18
1329 8 19
1328 9 CARCHEMISH 20
1327 10 0 ‘6-year War’
1326 Ay Šarri-Kušuḫ 1 2
1325 2 2 3
1324 3 3 4
1323 4 4 5
1322 Horemheb 5 Arnuwanda II
1321 2 6 Muršili II
1320 3 7 2
1319 4 8 3
1318 5 9 4
1317 6 10 5
1316 7 11 6
1315 8 12 7
1314 9 13 8
1313 10 14 9
24 June 1312 11 15 10
1311 12 16 11
1310 13 Šaḫurunuwa 1 12
1309 Mutnodjmet died 14 2 13
1308 1/[15] 3 14
1307 2/[16] 4 15
1306 3/[17] 5 16
1305 4/[18] 6 17
The reconstruction of the succession of reigns is possible only through the use of a
precise chronology, for the same reason, the succession of the numerous events, that
occurred during the co-regency of Amenhotep IV with his father Amenhotep III, may only
be reconstructed from this chronology. Šuppiluliuma's 1-year war (April 1347 BCE) against
the powerful kingdom of Mitanni ruled by Tušratta (1354-1339), an ally of Egypt, to the
end of the reign of Amenhotep III, triggered a profound destabilization of the entire
Middle East, especially in Canaan. Thus Abdi-Aširta (1370-1347) the king of Amurru, a
former ally of Egypt, took advantage of the disorder to conquer several small kingdoms in
the north of Canaan which were vassals of Egypt. Similarly, Labayu, the powerful mayor of
Shechem, conducted a series of raids against the other Canaanite mayors in his region. It is
worth noting that Barak, an Israelite judge, took this opportunity to get rid of the authority
exerted by Jabin II (1366-1346), the great king of Hazor, through Sisera (1370-1345) an
army chief Phoenician ruler (Jg 4:1-25) of Ušnatu421.
The letter EA 17 written just after the attack by Suppiluliuma (1353-1322), which was
repelled by Tušratta (1354-1339), must be dated 1351, which means dating the letter EA 23
in 1348, a year which exactly coincides with year 36 of Amenhotep III. Another
synchronism again confirms this date422. The correspondence from the mayor of Byblos
attests that Tušratta and the Hurrians led a vigorous counterattack during the months that
followed the Hittite raid (mentioned in EA 75), before their entering into Amurru and their
advance towards Byblos (EA 85:51-55). Amurru was plundered (EA 86:8-12) and despite
Abdi-Aširta being sick (EA 95:41-42) he negotiated with Tušratta (EA 90:19-20). The latter
recognized that Amurru, too large for him, was a "possession" of Pharaoh (EA 95:27-31).
The information with numbers (such as 1, 2 or 3 years) allow us to date these events in the
year 35 and 36 of Amenhotep III (1349-1348), which coincided with the marriage between
him and Taduhepa, Tušratta's daughter (EA 22-23-24). The letter EA 27 must be dated in
1345 and corresponds therefore to Year 12 of Amenhotep IV since the latter died in 1340
in his 17th year of reign (Year 6 of Akhenaten = year 17 of Amenhotep IV). The contents of
this letter supports this conclusion. Indeed, the demand for Tušratta may be explained only
if Amenhotep III, Amenhotep IV's father, had died recently (a few months at most)423, in
addition, the preparation of a wide celebration kimru, with sending of gifts, corresponds to
foreign tributes that were received on year 12 the IV Peret 8. Letter EA 27 has a hieratic
inscription: [year 1]2 I Peret [5 ..] (shaded areas are reconstructions):
[year 1]2 I Peret [5 [year]2 I Peret [5

The reading "year 2" would imply a co-regency of only 1 year because 2 years, not 1,
follow year 38 of Amenhotep III. Furthermore the reading "year 12" is better than "year 2"
for the following reason: the sign that appears before the "2" is a remnant of the sign "10"
and not the sign "year" because among the 99 hieratic inscriptions found at El-Amarna only
two (No. 27, 37) may correspond to the reconstitution "year 2". This exceptional and
421 G. GERTOUX – Moses and the Exodus: Chronological, Historical and Archaeological Evidence
Raleigh 2015, Ed. Lulu.com, pp. 152-166.
422 J. FREU – La chronologie du règne de Suppiluliuma
in: Silva Anatolica. Anatolian Studies Presented to Maciej Popko (Warsaw 2002) pp. 87-107.
in: LIPO n°13 Paris 1987 Éd. Cerf pp. 53,171-176.

therefore abnormal reading, used for a reconstitution that
would be also abnormal, eliminates this choice. In addition,
the Egyptian scribe who wrote the letters EA 23 and EA
27424 wrote "year 36" with the usual hieroglyph ô, not ●
(EA 23, opposite figure right bottom). Anyway as the letter
EA 27 is dated 1345 this year matches exactly the year 12
of Amenhotep IV. The set of previous synchronisms
implies dating Amenhotep IV's death in 1340 and
Semenkhkare's death around 1338. Akhenaten died after 6
years of reign (1340 BCE), or 17 years from his co-regency,
and as he had no son his brother Semenkhare succeeded
him (as had happened before with Kamose, Seqenenre
Taa's brother, who succeeded him after his death and the
death of Crown Prince Ahmose Sapaïr). Semenkhkare died around 1338 BCE after a reign
of 1 year and 4 months. His widow Meritaten then reigned 2 years and 1 month on behalf
of her husband (as Hatshepsut had done after her husband's death), first under the feminine
name Ankh[et]kheperure then under Ankhkheperure the same name but in the masculine
The precision transmitted by Josephus "Akencheris, daughter of Orus [Akhenaten], reigned
[1]2 years and 1 month" proves accurate because Semenkhkare appears married to
Meritaten, a daughter of Akhenaten, on an anonymous stela (Aegyptisches Berlin museum
15000). As he also appears on another stela under an effeminate shape accompanied by
Akhenaten, this has led some to believe a possible co-regency. Similarly, Akhenaten and
Nefertiti are sometimes depicted on stelae as two partner kings (Berlin 17813, Cairo JE
59294). This imbroglio could explain the difficulty that Manetho encountered, or a
precursor thereof, to extract a precise duration of these reigns. In fact, Ankhkheperure died
around 1336 BCE, after 2 years and 1 month of reign, and having no heir the last son of
Amenhotep III, the young Tutankhamun aged 10, became a new pharaoh. The
reconstruction of the interregnum between Akhenaten and Tutankhamun is controversial
because of the many changes in titulatures (not to mention usurpations). The simplest
explanation is to admit that since Akhenaten had no son, Semenkhkare his brother had to
succeed him for a short reign of about 1 year and 4 months. On Semenkhkare's death,
Meritaten425 his widow continued the reign of her husband (for 2 years 1 month) under the
name Ankhkheperure, a female name which was then masculinized426 (similar case with
queen Tausert, wife of Seti II who continued the reign of Siptah after his death, likewise
Hatshepsut, wife of Thutmose II, who continued the reign of her deceased husband on
behalf of his nephew Thutmose III).
The hectic succession of Akhenaten's reign has generated many extravagant scenari
by most Egyptologists. In fact, the plague which was becoming endemic in this part of
Egypt could explain why the mortality was so high during that period of time (1344-1337).
The plague was probably brought into the city of Akhetaten by a foreign delegation during
the receiving tribute in the year 12 of Amenhotep IV (1345 BCE), or year 1 of Akhenaten.
In the letter (EA 10) from Burna-Buriaš II sent to Napḫurareya (Akhenaten), we learn that
424 L. WATERMAN – Royal Correspondence of the Assyrian Empire Vol. 4
Ann Arbor 1936 Ed. University of Michigan Press plate 4 n°11.
425 C. ALDRED – Akhenaton roi d'Égypte
Paris 1988 Éd. Seuil, pp. 160-161, 284-296.

426 J.-L. BOVOT – La tombe KV 55 un imbroglio archéologique
M. GABOLDE – Pour qui fut confectionné le mobilier funéraire de Toutânkhamon
the plague had affected the royal house and the death of a royal wife (Nefertiti) had just
been mourned (1341/1340). Burna-Buriaš II had just heard about Mayati (Meritaten) and so
sent her a greeting gift of a necklace containing 1048 lapis lazuli gems. Greeting gifts are
usually sent to the king, his wife or mother, so here Burna-Buriaš had presumably learnt
that Meritaten had become the royal spouse of Akhenaten (presumably after the death of
Nefertiti to whom Burna-Buriaš never sent greeting gifts —at least in the preserved letters).
But it appears Meritaten did not acknowledge nor make an enquiry about Burna-Buriaš’
health. So in his next letter (EA 11) he sent only 20 gems to the "mistress of the house" as
Meritaten had shown no concern for him427. Given that Akhenaten died (September 1340)
soon after his wife and because he had had no son, consequently no heir, Semenkhkare his
brother succeeded him for a short reign. Likely because of the plague Semenkhkare died
soon after his brother. On Semenkhkare's death (February 1338), Meritaten his widow
continued the reign of her husband under the name Ankhkheperure.
The total solar eclipse of 14 May 1338 BCE upon the city of Akhenaten (named
Akhetaten), cited in allusion on the Amun's priest graffito428 dated III Akhet 10, Year 3 of
Ankhkheperure429 (1st October 1338 BCE), and which was understood as a terrible omen
against the Pharaoh (understood as “Aten” is going to die), could explain easily the strange
behaviour of the queen to get a king on the throne of Egypt. The deeds of Šuppiluliuma (28
III:11-15) tell that after Akhenaten's death the scared widow of Semenkhkare (written
[Nip]Ḫururiya in cuneiform) asked for a son to Šuppiluliuma for becoming a “Sun” in Egypt
(likely in order to get an heir). However this unprecedented marriage never took place
because the Hitite prince Zannanza (third son of Šuppiluliuma) was assassinated when he
came into Egypt. Thus Ankhkheperure remained a widow as indicated by a jar inscription
dated Year 3 of her reign430: Jar 17½ hin (8 liters). Year III, wine for the house of the solitary king of
West River. Head of winemakers, Pencha. The total solar eclipse was interpreted by Egyptian
priests as a curse against Aten. For example, we read in the graffito dated 10/III/3 of
Ankhkheperure: Make worship to Amun, sniff the earth for Unnefer (Osiris) the part of scribes of the
divine offerings of Amun. Thus Aten is no longer mentioned and was replaced by Amun. The
seemingly incomprehensible choice of Ankhkheperure who wanted to choose a husband
who was not Egyptian is likely due to her fear of seeing him die if he would have been a son
of Aten (the Sun). This incongruous choice had to have been disapproved by the high priest
of Amun, who asked General Ay (later became Pharaoh) to murder Zannanza discreetly, in
order to favour a normal succession with Tuthankamun (third and last son of Amenhotep
III). It may be noted that the queen died shortly after the solar eclipse (she was either
murdered or she died of the plague). The transition between Ankhkheperure and
Tutankhamun was therefore performed in a dramatic context.
Ankhkheperure's reign can be assessed thanks to the 50 shards inscribed in hieratic
found in Amarna and dated year 2 as well as 13 shards dated to year 3. As Akhenaten
inaugurated the city of Akhetaten (Amarna) in year 5 of his reign, all jar bearing a regnal
year lower than 5 belong to his successor Ankhkheperure431 . Assuming dated inscriptions
were produced at a constant rate of about 4 per month (= 50/12), Year 3 lasted about 1
427 Moran, following Na'aman, makes the comment: By sending the gift (and a small one) to Mayatu under her title it is perhaps suggested
that the demands of propriety rather than those of friendship are being met (W.L. MORAN – The Amarna Letters, Baltimore 1992, Ed. The
John Hopkins University Press, pp. 19-23).
428 « As you [Amun-Re] made me see the darkness which are yours to give, make it for me light so I can see you ».
429 W.J. MURNANE – Texts from the Amarna Period
Atlanta 1995 Ed. Society of Biblical Literature pp. 207-208.

Paris 2015, Ed. Pygmalion, pp. 77-86.

Paris 2015, Ed. Pygmalion, pp. 81,552.

month (= 13/12). This reign’s duration, going from October 1340 to Novenber 1338, is
identical to that given by Manetho (2 years 1 month) and ends in the Egyptian month IV in
1338, which was the accession month of Tutankhamun appearing in the Restoration Stela
(CGC 34183): [Year 1], IV Akhet, day 19, under his majesty of Horus Strong Bull Beautiful of Births,
the Two Ladies Effective of Laws who Pacifies the Two Lands, Golden Horus Young of Appearance
Satisfying the Gods, king of Upper and Lower Egypt Nebkheperure, Son of Re Tutankhamen, ruler of
Heliopolis of the South, who is given life for all eternity like Re, beloved of Amen-Re, Lord of the Thrones
of the Two Lands from Ipet-esut, beloved of Atem. Lord of the Two Lands, the Heliopolitan, of Re-
Harakhte, of Ptah south of his Wall, Lord of the life of the Two Lands, of Thoth, lord of the words of the
gods, who appeared on the Horus throne of the living daily like his father Re. The Good God, son of Amen,
child of the Bull of his mother; useful seed; holy egg created by Amen himself; father of the Two Lands,
creator of the one who created him and former of him who had formed him. The bas of Heliopolis were
assembled in order to form him to make a king for eternity, Horus existing forever. The spatial
reconstruction of the beginning of the stela (below) confirms the Year 1 of Tutankhamun.
The date mentioned at the beginning of the Restoration Stela (19/IV/1) is that of the
accession of Tutankhamun because it is the same month of Ankhkheperure's death. Given
that the text of the stela mentions that the enthronement took place in the perfect palace (in
Memphis) located in the area of Aakheperkare (Thutmose I), which was usually used for the
enthronement of kings, it describes an accession. In addition, the text of the stela develops
a long program of government which was generally announced on the day of accession.
However this text has apparently three serious anomalies: Tutankhamun changed his birth
name into Toutakhaten in the first three years of his reign, not at his accession to the
throne432. According to astronomical dates, Tutankhamun's reign began at the end of 1337
and not at the end of 1338. If the accession of Tutankhamun took place immediately after
Ankhkhaperure’s death it would have had to occur in Akhetaten, not in Memphis. The only
way to solve these anomalies is to assume that immediately after the death of
Ankhkheperure there was Tutankhaten's accession in Akhetaten (Amarna) on 19/IV/1 and
exactly one year later took place the enthronement of Tutankhamun which opened a new
era and closed the catastrophic parenthesis dedicated to Aten433 (plague and solar eclipse).
The last wine jars are dated: Year 1, Master of vintage434 (The city of Akhenaten III, no 35,55-
57). All these absolute dates (highlighted in blue) allow the following reconstitution:
King Reign duration Reign Complete reign Total
Amenhotep III 37 years 10 months 10/1383-07/1345 10/1383-07/1345 37 years 10 months
Amenhotep IV 11 years 5 months 03/1356-07/1345 03/1356 -
Akhenaten 5 years 2 months 08/1345-10/1340 -10/1340 16 years 7 months
Semenkhkare 1 year 4 months 10/1340-02/1338 10/1340 -
-Ankhkheperure 7 month 02/1338-11/1338 -11/1338 2 years 1 month
Tutankhaten 1 year 11/1338-11/1337 - [1 year]
Tutankhamun 10 years 2 months 11/1337-10/1327 11/1337-10/1327 10 years 2 months
Aÿ 4 years 1 month 10/1327-11/1323 10/1327-11/1323 4 years 1 month
Horemheb I 14 years 11/1323-11/1309 11/1323 -
Horemheb II 13 years 2 months 12/1309-01/1295 -01/1295 27 years 2 months
Ramses I 1 year 4 months 01/1295-05/1294 01/1295-05/1294 1 year 4 months
Paris 2015, Ed. Pygmalion, pp. 115-119, 124-133.
433 Tutankh-Amen is viewed as the genuine successor of Amen-hotep III.

1347 1 VI 36 Amenhotep III

2 VII Amenhotep IV
3 VIII *** [10] Letter EA 23 from Tušratta to Amenhotep III (Nimmureya) dated 1/VIII/36
4 IX
5X
6 XI
7 XII
8I
9 II
10 III 37 Jar-label dated Sed festival year 37 see JNES 10:1 (1951) p. 36
11 IV
12 V
1346 1 VI
2 VII
3 VIII [11]
4 IX
5X
6 XI
7 XII
8I
9 II
10 III 38
11 IV
12 V
1345 1 VI
2 VII
3 VIII 12
4 IX
5X
6 XI Labels from Molkata ending on 1/XI/38
7 XII Death of Amenhotep III
8I [1] Akhenaten / Amenhotep IV
9 II Transfer into Akhetaten
10 III
11 IV
12 V *** Letter EA 27 from Tušratta to Amenhotep IV (Napḫurreya) dated [5]/V/12
1344 1 VI Tribute scenes in the tomb of Meryre and Huya dated 8/VI/12
2 VII Reception of foreign tributes on 8/VIII/12
3 VIII [2] [13] (Beginning of the year on 13/VIII)
4 IX
5X
6 XI
7 XII
8I
9 II
10 III
11 IV
12 V
1343 1 VI
2 VII
3 VIII [3] 14
4 IX
5X
6 XI
7 XII
8I
9 II
10 III
11 IV
12 V
1342 1 VI Graffito at Saqqara dated 2?/VI/14
2 VII
3 VIII [4] 15
4 IX
5X
6 XI
7 XII
8I
9 II Jar-label dated [II]/15 see JNES 10:2 (1951) p. 99
10 III
11 IV
12 V
1341 1 VI
2 VII
3 VIII 5 16 Sunrise at azimuth 103° dated 13/VIII/5 (3 March 1341 BCE)
4 IX Temple's inauguration, stela of year 5 in Akhetaten
5X
6 XI
7 XII
8I
9 II
10 III Hieratic text dated 15/III/16 of Amenhotep IV stating: "Great King's
11 IV Wife, his beloved, mistress of the two lands, Neferneferuaten Nefertiti"
12 V Letter EA 10 from Burna-Buriaš II sent to Akhenaten (Napḫurureya)
1340 1 VI regarding Neferti's death and the new "Mistress of the House" Meritaten.
2 VII
3 VIII 6 17 Sunrise at azimuth 103° dated 13/VIII/6 (3 March 1340 BCE)
4 IX stela of year 6 in Akhetaten
5X
6 XI
7 XII
8I
9 II Last label of wine jar dated II/17. Death of Akhenaten
10 III 1 Semenkhkare (reigned 1 year 4 months)
11 IV Wine jar date Year 1, Master of flooding (The city of Akhenaten III, no 279)
12 V
1339 1 VI
2 VII
3 VIII [7] (no stela Year 7 of Akhenaten) letter EA 41 from Šuppiluliuma I to
4 IX Semenkhkare (Ḫuriya) congratulating him to be king
5X
6 XI
7 XII
8I
9 II Letter EA 43 from Šuppiluliuma I to Semenkhkare who mentions the
10 III 2 murder of Tušratta
11 IV
12 V
1338 1 VI Death of Semenkhkare, his wife continues his reign
2 VII [Semenkhkare] Ankhkeperure (reigned 2 years 1 month)
3 VIII 8 Posthumous stela of the year 8 of Akhenaten in Akhetaten city
4 IX
5X *** Total solar eclipse upon Akhetaten on May 14, 1338 BCE
6 XI Ankhkeperure writes to Šuppiluliuma I asking him one of his son as husband
7 XII (Deeds of Šuppiluliuma frag. 28 III:11-15). Zannanza, 3rd son of Šuppiluliuma, is
8I murdered during his coming into Egypt.
9 II
10 III 3 Graffito dated 10/III/3 of Ankhkeperure mentioning a solar eclipse
11 IV 1 Tutankhaten accession in Akhetaten (Amarna) on 19/IV/1
12 V Wine jar dated Year 1, Master of vintage (The city of Akhenaten III, no 35,55-57)
1337 1 VI
2 VII
3 VIII
4 IX Letter EA 9 from Burna-Buriaš II to Tutankhaten (Nibḫurrereya)
5X congratulating him on becoming king
6 XI
7 XII
8I
9 II The city of Akhenaten is abandoned
10 III
11 IV 1 Tutankhamun accession in Memphis on 19/IV/1
12 V Restoration Stela (CGC 34183)
1336 1 VI
2 VII
3 VIII
4 IX
5X
6 XI
7 XII
8I
9 II
10 III
11 IV 2
12 V
Those who refuse to use chronology as well as synchronisms and reject all
inscriptions that antagonize their speculations can not succeed even to assess the length of a
reign (the case of Horemheb’s reign is a good example435). The reigns of the Amarna period
are therefore accurately dated. This scientific dating was obtained using first the reigns of
Amenhotep III (1383-1345) and Burna-Buriaš II (1360-1333), which are anchored on
astronomical dates. Then the many synchronisms of the Amarna period allow us to date the
reigns of Šuppiluliuma I (1353-1322), Tušratta (1354-1339) and Amenhotep IV (1356-
1340), knowing that the 1st year of the Hurrian 6-year war goes back in 1327, year of
Tutankhamun's death. The Syrian 1-year war against Amurru is dated 1348 and
Šuppiluliuma's attack against Tušratta in 1352. Tušratta likely began to reign one year before
the attack and died436 during the brief reign of Semenkhkare (1340-1339). The succession of
reigns between Amenhotep III and Tutankhamun, based on the synchronism and
astronomical dates, can be reconstructed as follows437: in the year 27 of his reign,
Amenhotep III established his son Amenhotep IV as co-regent (as had already done before
Thutmose III with his son Amenhotep II). Amenhotep III died after 38 years of reign, thus
Amenhotep IV began a new reign under the name Akhenaten (1345-1340) in his new city
of Akhetaten (Amarna). Horemheb also began a new reign after the death of Queen
Mutnodjmet in the year 14 of his reign (1309 BCE).
If Tutankhamun was about 9 years old (as indicated by the size of his throne and his
crown) on 8 November 1337, the day of his enthronement (19/IV/1), he was born in 1345
in the final year of reign of Amenhotep III. So Tutankhamun was the rightful son of
Amenhotep III, as indicate several dedications inscribed on monuments for his father (like
the Soleb lion), similarly on an astronomical instrument (OI 12144) which was dedicated by
Tutankhamun to Thutmose IV his grandfather438 (it itw). It should finally be noted that a
lock of hair of Queen Tiye (a symbol of filiation) had been placed in Tutankhamun's
tomb439. Consequently, Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten) but also Smenkhkare and Tutankhaten
(Tutankhamun) were the sons of Amenhotep III (and Queen Tiye). Unlike the extravagant
speculations of which Egyptologists are fond, there is no need to seek a mysterious princess
(the "Young Lady") who would have slept with Akhenaten to give birth to a hidden son,
Tutankhamun, protected by the clergy of Amun priests, who would have prepared in secret
to replace a heretic pharaoh, inventor of monotheism, by a pharaoh who would be again a
defender of Egyptian cults. The truth, based on chronology as well as documents, is much
more banal: When Amenhotep IV was installed in his new city (Akhetaten) after the death
of his father (Amenhotep III) he was the victim of the plague that caused the death of his
wife (Nefertiti), his own, that of his brother Semenkhkare as well as that of his wife
(Ankhkeperure). The total solar eclipse (dated 14 May 1338) during the brief reign of
Ankhkeperure, a widowed queen, was perceived by the priests of Amun as a curse on the
town ruled by Aten. Amenhotep IV who was a mystic pharaoh, he greatly promoted the
idolatry of the god Aten, but not monotheism which was unknown for Egyptians (in
addition, the worship of other gods had continued in the rest of Egypt), was considered
retrospectively as having angered the other gods by his favouritism. On the death of
435 L.D. BELL – New Evidence on the Length of the Reign of Horemheb
in: Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 44 (2008), pp. 193-200.
436 J. FREU, M. MAZOYER – Les débuts du nouvel empire hittite. Les Hittites et leur histoire
Paris 2007 Éd. L'Harmattan p. 271.

437 M. GABOLDE - Les portraits d'une reine pharaon
438 E.F. WENTE, J.E. HARRIS – Royal Mummies of the Eighteenth Dynasty
in: After Tut‘ankhamūn, Ed. Routledge (London, 1992), pp. 13-15.

439 L.D. BELL – La parenté de Toutankhamon
in: Les dossiers Histoire et Archéologie n°101 (1986), pp. 47-49.

Ankhkeperure the priests of Amun decided to abandon the city of Akhetaten (September
1337) and return to old values by the cult of Amun in renaming Tutankh-Aten, the last son
of Amen-hotep III, to Tutankh-Amen. Noteworthy when he became pharaoh, General Ay
built a temple for Toutankhamen440 he considered as “his son” likely because he had
preserved him his right to the throne when he murdered Zannanza who had been
promoted as Pharaoh by Ankhkeperure.
Like alchemists who can turn lead into gold and gold into lead, Egyptologists are able
to transform myths into history and history into myths. Thus, despite much historical and
archaeological evidence of the biblical Exodus at Ahmose’s time (1530 BCE), which is
confirmed by the Egyptian priest Manetho, most scholars teach that it would have taken
place under Ramses II. For example the Jerusalem Bible (Cerf, 1986, p. 1806), which is the
official Bible of Catholicism, states that the Exodus occurred in 1250 BCE, during the reign
of the famous Ramses II (1290-1224). This choice is manifestly preposterous because this
pharaoh did not perish in the Red Sea (Ps 136:15), he didn't have to face an Asiatic who
was well known to Egyptians (Ex 11:3) and obviously there was never a disaster that
resulted in many deaths in Egypt during his reign (Ex 12:29-33).
After reading my work about chronology, an honest reader may wonder why
archaeologists and Egyptologists continue to teach that the conquest of Canaan took place
around -1250 instead of -1530? In fact, I asked this question to the specialists who had
written an article about that matter (about a hundred) after sending them a copy of my
work (only half gave me an answer). The responses are staggering (for a scientific mind):
!LEO DEPUYDT (Professor, Department of Egyptology and Ancient Western Asian Studies
at the Brown University) wrote that my work could not be true because I was putting all
that was known upside down and if it was true it would be a complete revolution in
Egyptology (sic), which is of course impossible!
!CHRISTIANE DESROCHES-NOBLECOURT (French Institute of Oriental Archaeology)
answered me that she was not a specialist in this matter (sic) and therefore could not say
for sure, but she told me that the biblical text could not be used by historians and for
archaeology I would have to refer to Finkelstein's books.
!CHRISTIANE ZIEGLER (General curator, honorary director of the Department of Egyptian
Antiquities at the Louvre and publishing director of the archaeological mission of the
Louvre) wrote she was not a specialist in this matter (sic), which was very controversial.
She advised me to wait for further archaeological discoveries.
!PASCAL VERNUS (Director of Studies in Egyptian linguistics and philology at the Ecole
Pratique des Hautes Etudes at the Sorbonne, resident at the French Institute of Oriental
Archaeology) wrote me that after reading the first page of my work he found that his
name was missing from my bibliography which was an obvious lack of seriousness and
forced him to stop his reading (sic).
!MAURICE SARTRE (Professor of ancient history at the University of Tours 1, former
scientist resident at the French Institute of Archaeology of the Near East) explained that I
was very pretentious (sic) to examine a subject I knew bad, further I did not even have the
basics. He counselled me that I should start by reading his books. I wrote him that I had
read them and it is for this reason that I sent him my work to report the problem. He then
told me that I was insolent and arrogant because I dared to contradict him (sic).
!JEAN LECLANT (former professor of Egyptology at the Collège de France) just advised me
to stick to the conventional presentation (?).
440M. GABOLDE - Toutankhamon
Paris 2015, Ed. Pygmalion, pp. 89-92, 409-432.
!PIERRE BRIANT (holder of the Chair History and Civilization of the Achaemenid World
and Empire of Alexander at Collège de France) told me there was no need to read my
work because it was necessarily wrong since it contradicted the official chronology (sic).
!LAURE PANTALACCI (former Director of French Institute of Oriental Archaeology) told
me a year later through the Secretary of the IFAO that because I was defending the date
of 607 BCE for the fall of Jerusalem (sic) my work was not credible.
!NICOLAS GRIMAL (Professor of Egyptology at the Sorbonne Paris IV, former director of
the French Institute of Oriental Archaeology. Chair of Egyptology at the Collège de
France) only said to me that the matter was controverted and there was a lot of nonsense
written about it.
!JEAN-CLAUDE GOYON (Master of Research at CNRS and professor emeritus of
Egyptology at the University of Lyon II) said to me that since I used the biblical text as a
historical document that way of working was absurd because this book contained a
collection of coarse legends (sic).
!DAVID ALAN WARBURTON (former director of the American Institute for Yemeni
Studies), jury member of my first PhD defence, told me I was an idiot (sic) for having
contradicted Rolf Krauss about the Egyptian lunar calendar, which would have always
started at the first invisibility, obviously not at the full moon (sic).
!DOMINIQUE VALBELLE, ZAHI HAWASS, CLAIRE LALOUETTE, DIMITRI LABOURY,
MANFRED BIETAK, PHILIPPE BRISSAUD, JEAN-LOUIS HUOT, LUC GABOLDE, BERNADETTE
MENU, SYLVIE CAUVILLE, and many others less known, never answered my letters.
Some Egyptologists have agreed to read more than the first pages of my work, but
the answers which I got were not really better. CLAUDE VANDERSLEYEN (professor at the
Catholic University of Louvain, where he teaches Egyptian art and Egyptian language): I'm
taking a big risk by telling you what I think, that could irritate you or chagrin you, and you felt against me
the same feelings of frustration and even resentment, as towards other colleagues. The fact that everyone have
asked you to limit your search to a particular period and not wanting to deal with all the periods is a sign
that you do not seem to have, understood. I printed the first ten pages of your study about the Egyptian
chronology (there are 103!) to get an idea first. About the Israelite chronology the fact there are five times
more is a sign that you're not on the right track. One does not take you for a ride, but one does not dare to
say that you are quite beside the right path. I could bring old proverbs like: "one shouldn't spread oneself too
thinly", "The one who don't know to confine itself will never know writing", or "μεγα βιβλιον, μεγα
κακον". The first ten pages I've read make it unnecessary to go further. You have worked from authors
and not according to the sources, not even from their sources. Why the Babylonian chronology is reliable
nearly one year? What worth is the Babylonian chronology you give p. 2? On what is it based? One
immediately enters into the blur and unproven, if not in the unprovable. Without going any further, you
understand that those who told you to limit yourself to a single period are right. But it is above your
"method" which is devoid of any credibility. In fact, you have no method. So, either you learn to work
correctly (How do you not understand yourself spontaneously?) or you stop to fill paper. What I tell you is
hard, but it is the only useful judgment. Please accept, dear sir, with my sincere sympathy (private letter in
French dated June 5, 2008). If you cannot believe the responses above, you can write to
these Egyptologists in order to check (I wish you good luck) that most of these specialists
are absolutely sure of their doubts about dating the birth of Israel!
To end on a positive note, I all the same received a favourable letter (only 1 out 100!)
in which PAUL BARGUET (curator in the Department of Egyptian Antiquities at the Louvre
and professor of Egyptian epigraphy at the Ecole du Louvre. Director of the Institute of
Egyptology at the University of Lyon II) sent me his own brief research about chronology
in order to confirm that the biblical exodus could have occurred only around 1500 BCE.
However he did not want to contradict his influential colleagues because he shared the view
of BERNARD MATHIEU the former director of IFAO (Institut Français d'Archéologie
Orientale) regarding his “rogue” profession. When Bernard Mathieu was ousted from his
post, Jean Yoyotte explained to Agence France Presse that Egyptology was a real mafia441.
However, most people trust more in this mafia, an admired intelligentsia which is looking
for its own glory more than the truth (John 5:44), above all when it comes from the Bible.
A demanding reader could legitimately ask why I am still a PhD candidate and not an
academic with a PhD degree, and why my article has not been published in a scholarly
review with a peer reading committee. The answer is as follows:
I completed a thesis in Archaeology and History of Ancient Worlds442 in order to get
a PhD (Doctorate) at the University of Lyon II (Maison de l’Orient)443 . I had a research
director and a jury of six444 ready to review my dissertation in December 2007. However,
four months before I had to make the defence of my work, Pierre Villard, my research
director, and all six jurors received a letter informing them I was a Jehovah’s Witness445.
After they received the letter, they refused to grant me the PhD. However my research
director accepted to sign a transfer request so I could move to another school to get my
PhD. Consequently, I transferred my PhD to the INALCO, a university in Paris, but the
President of Doctoral School, Magdalena Novotna, refused on 7 July 2009 to accept me as
a transfer despite the fact that I received the agreement of Daniel Bodi, my new research
director at the INALCO, and two of my former jurors for recording, Francis Joannès446 and
André Lemaire447, who had agreed to serve on my new jury, I was not accepted.
The CAP LC European Coordination for Freedom of Conscience, an association
created in order to counter discrimination in France concerning the right to freedom of
conscience and belief and to alert the public to acts and speech violating human rights or
which are a threat to fundamental liberties, reported my case448 in its report 2010 and sent
it449 to Congress of the United States450 on October 28, 2011. Unfortunately nothing
changed.
Finally, I filed a complaint of religious discrimination because Daniel Bodi, my
research director, sent me an email dated 14 September 2009 in which he clearly wrote that
INALCO refused me, solely because I was considered as a “fundamentalist”. However, on
10 February 2011 the Tribunal Administratif de Paris (Dossier n°: 0918003/7-3) refused to
validate my complaint of religious discrimination because the word “fundamentalist” is not
mentioned in French laws! It is noteworthy that on 7 July 2012 (Request n°8916/05)451 the
European Court of Human Rights unanimously condemned France for religious
discrimination against Jehovah's Witnesses. Unfortunately nothing changed for me. Still
worse I am now blacklisted in the academic world because I dared to file a complaint
against a prestigious university (which is a member of the Université Sorbonne Paris Cité).
441 S. FOUCART - L'égyptologie française est en proie à de profondes dissensions

in: Journal Le Monde 07/06/2005.
442 http://opac.mom.fr/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber=487510
443 http://www.theses.fr/sujets/?q=Gertoux+Gérard
444 http://mom.academia.edu/GerardGERTOUX/CurriculumVitae
445 Procès Verbal 2009/1011 daté du 25 mai 2009, BSU de Riom (Clermont Ferrand)
446 Professor at the Université Paris 1 -Panthéon Sorbonne, Research Director at the Unité Archéologie et Sciences de
l’Antiquité.
447 Research Director at the École pratique des hautes études, member of the Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres.
448 http://www.freedomofconscience.eu/discrimination-of-minority-belief-groups-in-france/
449 http://www.aicongress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/France-Executive-Summary-October17.2011.pdf
450 http://www.coordiap.com/Document/letter%20of%20Congress%20US.pdf
451 http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-112025#%7B%22itemid%22:%5B%22001-
112025%22%5D%7D
Regarding my skills as astronomer member of the International Association for
Assyriologists (from September 2013):
Dr. Hermann Hunger

Professor of Assyriology (retired)
University of Vienna
Spitalgasse 2
1090 Wien
Austria
7. Mai 2015
To whom it may concern:
I have read the manuscript „Basic astronomy for historians to get a chronology“ of Gerard
Gertoux and found it a well-informed and informative introduction to this complicated subject. It
clearly explains what is required from a historian who wants to establish the chronology of
historical events.
The author shows by examples how different chronologies can be evaluated or refuted. He also
explains the astronomical phenomena that can be used for dating events, and the pitfalls in using
ancient calendars. For some cases, he offers new conclusions or refutes chronologies proposed
by other scholars.
The manuscript forces the reader to be very attentive, but this attention is well worth it.
Hermann Hunger
As editor, Hermann Hunger wrote452 in the preface of Mesopotamian Chronology of

the 2nd Millennium B.C. (2009): It was therefore natural to include a study on Mesopotamian
chronology within SCIEM 2000, and Regine Pruzsinszky was entrusted with it. From her investigations it
became clear that a solution for Mesopotamian chronology could not yet be achieved.
Regarding my skills as historian: author of The Name of God Y.eH.oW.aH Which is

Pronounced as it is Written I_Eh_oU_Ah: Its Story (University Press of America, 2002):
This detailed treatment of the Name is useful for those who are interested in the history of its translation of
the centuries, Won W. Lee in: Religious Studies Review Vol. 29:3 (2003) p. 285, published by
Council of Societies for the Study of Religion (Valparaiso University).
I would like to thank my friend Norman Cleworth for his corrections.
R. PRUZSINSKY – Mesopotamian Chronology of the 2nd Millennium B.C.

452
Wien 2009 Ed. Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften p. 13.

The Trojan War Chronological Historical

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

The Trojan War Chronological Historical

Uploaded by

Copyright:

The Trojan War

Chronological, Historical and

7 C. PULAK – The Uluburun Shipwreck and Late Bronze Age Trade

Durham 2008, Ed. Durham University (PhD in History), pp. 355-389.

Paris 2006 Éd. ellipses pp. 50-57.

in: The Kingdom of the Hittites (Oxford 2005) pp. 357-371.

London 1996 Ed. Penguin Books pp. 30-31.

Paris 2009 Éd. Pygmalion pp. 185-216.

Oxford 2005 Ed. Oxford University Press pp. 332-356.

Paris 2005 Éd. P.U.F. p. 1712.

Princeton 1969 Ed. Princeton University Press pp. 4,250.

Leuven 2006 Ed. Peeters Publishers (OLA) pp. 28-36.

KING OF MYCENAE reign KING OF ATHENS reign KING OF CRETE reign

Late Bronze Age (1530-1185) is characterized by the central role of bronze (= 10

in: Bibliotheca Orientalis LXIV No. 5-6, September–December 2007.

Paris 2001 Éd. Robert Laffont pp. 208-210.

in: The Journal of Hellenic Studies Vol. 59 (1939) pp. 138-139.

in: LIPO n°13 Paris 1987 Éd. Cerf pp. 315-318.

in: Aegeans in the Theban Tombs (Peeters, 1987) pp. 93-101.

Paris 2005, Éd. GCG, p. 12.

Paris 1999 Éd. La Maison de Vie p. 20.

Paris 2008 Éd. L'Harmattan pp. 22, 103-108, 156-159.

Paris 1995 Éd. Payot & Rivages pp. 107-108.

Paris 1978, Éd. Clio pp. 12-18.

in: Supplément au Cahier Evangile 69 (Cerf 1989) pp. 13-15.

New York 1990 Ed. Doubleday, p. 242.

Leiden 1996 Ed. Brill pp. 9-11.

in: Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 25 (1939) pp. 30-39.

Leiden 1937 Ed. E.J. Brill pp. 132-133.

in: Palamedes 3 (2008) p. 1-26.

Atlanta 1999 Ed. Scholars Press pp. 103-107, 182-183.

in: Zeitschrift für Assyriologie n°100 (2010) pp. 242-256.

Oxford 2010 Ed. Blackwell Publishing Ltd pp. 103-104.

Oxford 2005 Ed. Oxford University Press pp. 270-273, 321-323.

in: Mediterranean Archaeology 16 (2003) pp. 107-124.

Paris 2002 Éd. Presses Universitaires de France p. 33.

in: Studien zu den Bogazköy-Texten 51, 2010, pp. 47-53.

Paris 1985 Éd. Arthème Fayard pp. 268-313.

Cairo 2005 Ed. Yale University Press pp. 356-360.

Paris 2003 Éd. L'Harmattan pp. 175-181.

in: Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 3:4 (2011) pp. 1-11.

Paris 1985 Éd. Arthème Fayard pp. 300-309.

Oxford 1983 Ed. Blackwell Ltd, page V:40 lines 6-10.

Texas 2008 Ed. Texas AM University Press pp. 336-337.

Glückstadt 1972 Ed. Verlag J.J. Augustin pp.31-67.

Cambridge 2013 Ed. Cambridge University Press pp. 63-65.

Paris 2002 Éd. Les Belles Lettres pp. 224-225.

Oxford 2004 Ed. Osprey Publishing Ltd pp. 48-50.

Sussex 2005 Ed. Osprey Publishing pp. 11-14.

in: Talanta XLIV (2012), pp. 27-40.

Paris 2006 Éd. ellipses pp. 12-48.

Paris 2001 Éd. Robert Laffont pp. 644-647.

New York 1990 Ed. Doubleday, pp. 289-291.

Paris 2002 Éd. Les Belles Lettres pp. 98-102.

Paris 1990 Éd. Errance pp. 92-108.

Transition in Palestine, in: BASOR 354 (2009) pp. 1-13.

Paris 2002 Éd. Presses Universitaires de France p. 37.

Paris 2008 Éd. Presses Universitaires de France pp. 373-377.

Paris 2002 Éd. Armand Colin pp. 21-23.

Centuries BC. London 2007 Ed. Routledge pp. 238-258.

There is no archaeological evidence of Priam and Agamemnon132. According to

Oxford 2004, Ed. Oxford University Press, p. 38.

in: American Journal of Archaeology 69:3 (1965), pp. 253-258.

Paris 2005, Éd. GCG, p. 98.

Paris 2001 Éd. Robert Laffont pp. 867-870.

New York 1990, Ed. Doubleday, pp. 287-308.

Oxford 1947, Ed. Oxford University Press, pp. 190-206.