Absolute_Egyptian_chronology_From_Narmer

Egyptian chronology, 2838-342 BCE, through astronomically dated
synchronisms and comparison with carbon-14 dating

Gérard Gertoux
Abstract: Egyptian king lists make it possible to elaborate a chronology of all kings up to Narmer
(2838-2808), because the numerous synchronisms between Egyptian and Mesopotamian reigns make it
possible to anchor the 30 dynasties of this Egyptian chronology. These synchronisms with the Achaemenid
and Babylonian chronologies, which are anchored on absolute dates obtained by astronomy over the period
2243-340 BCE, allow to anchor the Egyptian chronology and to note that the Egyptian lunar calendar began
at the full moon and not at the first invisibility as believed by Richard A. Parker in 1950. The Egyptian lunar
calendar, based on a 25-year cycle with 9 intercalary years, was used before the 11th Dynasty to date
important events according to the number of censuses, not according to the number of reign years. These
censuses were carried out during the non-intercalary years, which implies a ratio of 1.6 (instead of 2)
between the number of reign years and the number of censuses. Astronomical events, such as eclipses or the
heliacal rising of Sirius, dated in their civil (365 days) or religious (lunar) calendar, can be retro-calculated
by astronomy, allowing the reconstruction of an absolute chronology up to King Djer (2788-2752). The
comparison of dates obtained by carbon 14 shows an increasing discrepancy from 2200 BCE, and in an
exponential way, with the absolute dates obtained by astronomy. Consequently, the Uruk expansion that took
place around 2950 BCE in Sumer is at the origin of predynastic Egypt at Abydos (Dynasty 0). In annex:
Comparison of absolute dates and carbon-14 dates; Comparison of absolute dates and biblical dates.
Preliminary remark. To find the truth in any field, one must search hard for it, because the world is full
of mistakes, misunderstandings and lies (Walsh: 1977, 53-71). Historians should be prosecutors in the court
of history, but unfortunately, as Champollion1 already denounced in 1809 (when he was appointed assistant
professor of history at the University of Grenoble) the all too frequent complacency of historians towards
political power. Very often university professors are more concerned with the advancement of their careers
than with the advancement of the truth and therefore rarely risk questioning government propaganda. No
field is spared. For example, Albert Einstein, who was one of the most respected scientists ever, wrote in his
letter to Jost Winteler2 (1901): “Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” Due to
excessive deference to authority, as Milgram's experiments on obedience to authority figures have shown,
university professors refrain from questioning national novels in order not to antagonise government
authorities3, and thus refrain from defending historical truth. Moreover, most readers, by giving unthinking
respect to university professors, give up questioning their nationalist narratives. The best method to expose
these historical lies is, as understood by Herodotus, “the Father of History”, to use chronology as a criterion
of truth to flush out the myths and lies: “Once upon a time in a faraway land…” Thus absolute “chronology
is the backbone of history”, and it is a powerful means of finding historical truth. The first person to state this
historical principle was, paradoxically, the religious archaeologist Edwin R. Thiele, “the Father of
chronological falsifications” (Thiele: 1944, 137-186).
Despite the numerous archaeological discoveries of the 20th century and intensive research,
Egyptologists have still not been able to establish a reference Egyptian chronology before 663 BCE (Dodson,
Hilton: 2010, 287). They therefore continue to choose their own chronology according to the degree of
confidence they place in the chronological data of the 30 Egyptian dynasties compiled by Manetho (c. 285
BCE) transmitted (unfortunately with many errors) by Sextus Julius Africanus in his book Chronographiai
(221 CE). Those who accept Manetho's chronological data corrected by archaeological data and inscriptions,
considering astronomical data from Egyptian documents, such as the heliac risings of Sirius, and
synchronisms with the Mesopotamian chronology (Ward, 1991, 53–66), place Dynasties 8 to 10 in parallel
with Dynasty 11, which implies dating the beginning of Dynasty 12 between 1994 BCE (Dodson) and 1938
BCE (Krauss) or in 1975 BCE according to the 14C dating. Although Dynasty 12 is privileged since the order
of succession of its eight kings is known, as well as the duration of each reign, there is nevertheless a gap of
56 years (= 1994 – 1938) between the two current extreme chronologies of the Egyptologists4.
1
Jean-François Champollion was a French philologist and orientalist, known primarily as the decipherer of Egyptian hieroglyphs and
a founding figure in the field of Egyptology.
2
In this letter, quoted in The Private Lives of Albert Einstein by Roger Highfield and Paul Carter (1993), p. 79, he wrote that he had
been upset that Paul Drude, editor of the Annalen der Physik, had dismissed out of hand some of his criticisms of Drude’s electron
theory of metals.
3
Disagreeing with a member of his government can have serious consequences for an academic: losing grants or permission to
conduct excavations, being removed from his or her position and being transferred to a smaller university (see Crisis at the French
Institute of Oriental Archaeology https://www.osirisnet.net/news/n_12_04.htm?en). For example, Isaac Newton asked that his study:
The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended (1728) be published after his death so that he would not be excluded from the Royal
Society. On the other hand, an academic with connections to influential politicians will benefit from career and publication
promotion and research grants, provided, of course, that he or she implicitly endorses the political vision of the benefactor.
4
The beginning of Dynasty 6 is dated between 2513 BCE (Redford) and 2392 BCE (Dodson) with a gap of 121 years.
2
CONTENTS
EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY, 2838-342 BCE, THROUGH ASTRONOMICALLY DATED SYNCHRONISMS AND

COMPARISON WITH CARBON-14 DATING ....................................................................................................... 1
How to establish an absolute chronology ................................................................................................. 8
Absolute chronology of the 27th Dynasty (526-405)................................................................................. 9
Functioning of the Egyptian lunar calendar ........................................................................................... 12
Absolute chronology of the 26th Dynasty (02/663–04/525) .................................................................... 17
Absolute chronology of dynasties 21 to 25 (1090-663) ........................................................................... 21
Absolute chronology of the 20th Dynasty (1196-1090)........................................................................... 40
Dating the reign of Ramses II (1283-1216) through Mesopotamian chronology ................................... 44
The reign of Amenhotep IV (1356-1340)/ Akhenaten (1345-1340) through astronomy ......................... 53
The reign of Thutmose III (1472-1418) through astronomy ................................................................... 59
Chronology of dynasties 13 to 17 (1778-1530) through astronomy ....................................................... 70
Chronology of Seqenenre Taa’s reign (1544-1533) and the expulsion of the Hyksos ............................ 75
Ibni-Addu king of Hazor (1685-1665): absolute chronology versus 14C dating ................................... 100
Reign of Neferhotep I (1701-1690) through astronomy ........................................................................ 102
Chronology of the 12th dynasty (1975-1778) through astronomy ........................................................ 104
Reigns of Senwosret I (1946-1901) and Amenemhat III (1901-1863) through astronomy ................... 106
Dating of the meeting between Abraham and Amenemhet I in 1963 BCE............................................ 109
Chronology of Dynasty 11 (2118-1975) through astronomy ................................................................ 121
Chronology of Dynasties 7 to 10 (2124-2032) through astronomy ...................................................... 122
Chronology of Dynasties 4 to 6 (2523-2124) through astronomy ........................................................ 122
How to transform a number of censuses into a number of years of reign ............................................ 123
Chronology of the reign of Djedkare (2324-2286) through astronomy ................................................ 128
How to determine a date through the orientation of pyramids ............................................................. 131
Chronology of dynasties 3 to 1 through King Lists and 14C.................................................................. 143
Chronology of dynasties 2 to 1 (2838-2581) through Palermo Stone and astronomy.......................... 151
Did Menkauhor commission the copies of the Palermo Stone annals? ................................................ 159
Dating the reign of Djer (2788-2750) through astronomy.................................................................... 188
Narmer (2838-2808), first king of Egypt and last predynastic king ..................................................... 192
Chronology of dynasty 0 (2940-2838) through some synchronisms and 14C dating ............................ 212
WHAT IS THE ORIGIN OF THE SUMERIANS AND EGYPTIANS? .................................................................... 225
COMPARISON OF ABSOLUTE DATES AND CARBON-14 DATES .................................................................... 231
COMPARISON OF ABSOLUTE DATES AND BIBLICAL DATES ........................................................................ 239
The period of Kings (1097-517 BCE).................................................................................................... 247
Period of the second Temple (517 BCE - 133 CE)................................................................................ 248
The period of the Judges (1493-1097) .................................................................................................. 249
The patriarcal period (2038-1493) ....................................................................................................... 251
Are Sumerian, Egyptian and Biblical chronologies mythical or historical? ........................................ 252
BIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................................................ 261
3 EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY THROUGH ASTRONOMICALLY DATED SYNCHRONISMS
The comparison between the two methods of “absolute dating” used by Egyptologists, dating by
astronomy or dating by radiocarbon (14C calibrated by dendrochronology), shows that the dates obtained by
radiocarbon correspond to those of astronomy until 2000 BCE, errors of measurement are not significant, but
before 2000 BCE the dates obtained by radiocarbon deviate exponentially (curve below) from the dates
obtained by astronomy (Haas, et al: 1987, 585-606).
FIG. 1
The main disagreement between Egyptologists concerns the dating of the first dynasties. There are two
main trends: those who favour radiocarbon dating, which sets the beginning of Dynasty 1 around 3150 BCE
(Dodson, Hilton: 2010, 287; Grimal: 1988, 591), and those who favour historical and astronomical data,
which sets the beginning of Dynasty 1 around 2900 BCE (Hornung, Krauss, Warburton: 2006, 490). This
difference of about 250 years between two methods supposed to give an “absolute dating” is scientifically
absurd. Egyptologists have long reconstructed the Egyptian chronology from historical documents, such as
the king lists, by cross-checking them with the inscriptions discovered by archaeologists, but the chronology
of the first two dynasties can only be reconstructed from the king list engraved on the Palermo Stone, but this
king list is extremely fragmentary, as only two fragments representing about 15% of the initial stele remain,
and moreover, the duration of the reigns is not expressed in number of years but in number of censuses,
which most Egyptologists convert into number of years by assuming that these censuses were biennial
(Wilkinson: 1999, 113–114). This difficulty has led current Egyptologists to fix the beginning of Dynasty 1
4
5
at very different dates ranging from 3185 BCE to 2900 BCE . Unable to agree among themselves, most
current Egyptologists have rallied to the “absolute chronology” (below) based on the dates obtained by 14C
(Dee, Wengrow, Shortland, Stevenson, Brock, Girdland Flink, Bronk Ramsey: 2013, 1-11). It is interesting
to compare this “absolute chronology” calculated by 14C dates and the absolute chronology calculated by
astronomical dates (see: Dating the reign of Djer (2788-2750) through astronomy).
TABLE 1
68% hpd range 95% hpd range Palermo Stone
Dynasty 1 Grimal Hornung 14C dating +/- ∆1 14C dating +/- ∆2 Reign ∆0 ∆14C
Narmer 3150-3125 2900 - [3120? - [3180? - 2838-2808 30
‘Aha 3125-3100 -2870 3078-3055 33 23 3127-3078 92 49 2808-2788 20 +319
Djer 3100-3055 2870-2823 3055-2965 19 90 3078-2967 55 111 2788-2750 38 +290
Djet 3055-3055 2822-2815 2965-2931 24 34 2967-2940 40 27 2750-2741 9 +217
Merit-Neith 3055-3050 - 2931-2920 15 11 2940-2925 30 15 2741 - +199
Den 3050-2995 2814-2772 2920-2906 9 14 2925-2904 22 21 -2705 36
Adjib 2995 -? 2771-2764 2906-2902 10 4 2904-2894 18 10 2705-2699 6 +199
Semerkhet ? -2950 2763-2756 2902-2896 11 6 2894-2879 27 15 2699-2690 9 +195
Qaa /Sneferka 2960-2926 2755-2732 2896-2856 10 40 2879-2819 37 60 2690-2657 33 +189
According to radiocarbonists, Djer's reign should be dated to 3055-2965 BCE with a margin of error of
+/- 19 years (68% confidence range) or 3078-2967 BCE with a margin of error of +/- 55 years (95%
confidence range). It is easy to see that the highest confidence range (95%) gives a reign length (∆2) of 111
years, which is physically impossible, but this outlier does not confuse radiocarbonists. Second, even if the
length of the reigns cannot be evaluated in absolute value, it can be evaluated in relative value deduced from
the number of censuses and it is easy to see that the lengths of the reigns obtained by 14C (∆2) have no
connection with those from the Egyptian king lists (∆0). Third, radiocarbonists claim (naively) to establish
an absolute chronology, but the dates obtained get younger with time since the beginning of Dynasty 2
started around 2930 BCE, in 1992 (Vercoutter: 1992, 200,223), then around 2819 BCE, in 2013, then around
2700 BCE, in 2019 (Mączyńska, Chłodnicki, Ciałowicz: 2019, 1-139), a rejuvenation of 230 years in only 27
years, which is much for an “absolute chronology”. Paradoxically, in 1970, the first (uncalibrated) 14C dates
of the Egyptian dynasties (Berger: 1970, 23-36) were much lower than later results.
14
C dating in: (1970) (1992) (2013) (2019) astronomy
Dynasty 1 2685–2315 3185–2930 3150–2819 3000–2700 2838-2657
Dynasty 2 2315–2225 2930–2715 2819–2660 2700–2600 2657-2581
The preceding results clearly show that the Egyptian chronology obtained by 14C measurements is not
an absolute chronology, contrary to the claims of radiocarbonists, but only a relative chronology that must be
recalibrated more rigorously (see the chapter: Comparison of absolute dates and carbon-14 dates). Manfred
Bietak, an Austrian archaeologist, and professor emeritus of Egyptology at the University of Vienna, has
been very interested in these chronological inconsistencies and has concluded that the 14C dates should be
recalibrated and lowered by 100 to 150 years for the 17th century BCE:
This article deals with the conflicting debate about the chronology of the Middle and the Late Bronze
Ages in Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant. Radiocarbon chronology and historical/archaeological
chronology that depend to some extent on the Egyptian absolute chronology seem to produce results
which are 100 to 150 years apart. The debate was not always fair and the differences in dating were
never convincingly explained. Yet, a flood of articles and books supporting the high Aegean and
Levantine chronology, based solely on radiocarbon dating, seem to have tilted the weight of public
opinion in favour of a high chronology by fixing the eruption of Thera to the second half of the 17th
century BC. These measurements were the result of highly polished calibration curves, based largely on
decadal and semi-decadal tree-ring measurements, which have distorted the resolution of 14C dating (...)
However, he Arizona lab results demonstrated the possibility for a new date range for the Thera
eruption nearly a century later, sometime between 1570 and 1510 BC. The new results buttress the
historical/archaeological dating, although due to wiggles in the calibration curve the former radiocarbon
measurements allowed the date of the Thera eruption to extend into the 16th century as well – a result
that was ignored by the adherents of the high chronology. Recently, the results from the Arizona lab
have been confirmed and are now included in the IntCal20 calibration curve against which recalibration
of previous Thera relevant dates all display probabilities in the 16th century BC. This article will put
forth the archaeological and stratigraphic reasons for why the former 14C dates for the Middle Bronze
Age were too high when samples were taken from the tell-stratigraphies (Bietak: 2021, 20–56).
5
3185 BC (Vercoutter), 3150 BC (Dodson), 3092 BC (Kitchen), 2987 BC (Helck), 2972 BC (Malek), 2950 BC (Wilkinson), 2916
BC (Ian Shaw). The first scientific chronology of Egypt fixed the beginning of the First Dynasty in 3285 BC (Toffteen: 1907, 269).
The short phrase: The debate was not always fair and the differences in dating were never convincingly
explained, implicitly gives the reasons for the lack of consensus among Egyptologists on the establishment
of a conventional chronology as a reference. Manfred Bietak does not explain why the chronology debate has
not always been fair (to put it mildly!) or why the differences in dating have never been convincingly
explained. The reasons for this (very) unfair debate are explicitly stated in the comments of the minimalists
(most Egyptologists) about the maximalists (a few Egyptologists linked to religious institutions who consider
that the Bible can be used as a historical document). Maximalism and minimalism are labels for two opinions
about the relationship between historical written evidence and archaeological evidence, which sometimes are
conflicting. The expressions are used when discussing the past of ancient Israel (but similar debates are
known in Roman, Greek, and Iranian archaeology). The labels "maximalism" and "minimalism" were coined
in the debate about the historical reliability of the Bible. Three famous biblical events, 1) the Exodus of
Moses, 2) the confusion of tongues during the building of the Tower of Babel 3) after Noah's Flood, have
generated particularly virulent controversies between minimalists, who consider that the Bible contains
mostly mythical stories with little historical value, and maximalists, who consider the Bible a reliable
historical document. The identification of the Hyksos, known to archaeologists6, with the Israelites of
historians is particularly revealing of the ideological, even religious, aspect of this debate. In fact, according
to the Israeli archaeologist Israel Finkelstein, this ideological debate is no longer relevant, since the biblical
account is only a pious story, written around the 7th century BCE, which became the founding myth of the
Israelites as the Iliad and the Odyssey were for the Greeks. He wrote (Finkelstein, Silberman: 2001, 48–71):
In the early years of modern research, scholars identified the Hyksos with the kings of the 15th Dynasty
of Egypt, who ruled from about 1670 to 1570 BCE. The early scholars accepted Manetho’s report quite
literally and sought evidence for a powerful foreign nation or ethnic group that came from afar to invade
and conquer Egypt. Subsequent studies showed that inscriptions and seals bearing the names of Hyksos
rulers were West Semitic – in other words, Canaanite. Recent archaeological excavations in the eastern
Nile delta have confirmed that conclusion and indicate that the Hyksos “invasion” was a gradual process
(from around 1750 BCE) of immigration from Canaan to Egypt, rather than a lightning military
campaign (...) there is an even more telling parallel between the saga of the Hyksos and the biblical
story of the Israelites in Egypt, despite their drastic difference in tone. Manetho describes how the
Hyksos invasion of Egypt was finally brought to an end by a virtuous Egyptian king (unnamed!) who
attacked and defeated the Hyksos, “killing many of them and pursuing the remainder to the frontiers of
Syria.” In fact, Manetho suggested that after the Hyksos were driven from Egypt (...)7, they founded the
city of Jerusalem and constructed a temple there. Far more trustworthy is an Egyptian source of the 16th
century BCE that recounts the exploits of Pharaoh Ahmose, of the 18th Dynasty, who sacked Avaris
and chased the remnants of the Hyksos to their main citadel in southern Canaan – Sharuhen, near Gaza
– which he stormed after a long siege. And indeed, around the middle of the 16th century BCE, Tell ed-
Daba was abandoned, marking the sudden end of Canaanite influence there. So, independent
archaeological and historical sources tell of migrations of Semites from Canaan to Egypt, and of
Egyptians forcibly expelling them. This basic outline of immigration and violent return to Canaan is
parallel to the biblical account of Exodus. Two key questions remain: First, who were these Semitic
immigrants? And second, how does the date of their sojourn in Egypt square with biblical chronology?
Although he acknowledges a clear parallelism between the biblical account of the Exodus, the account
of the Egyptian priest Manetho and archaeological findings, he refuses to equate the Hyksos with Israelites
but only with Canaanites, and although the stelae of Ahmose do not mention a victory against Apopi, the last
Great Hyksos king of Dynasty 15, Finkelstein imagines that Ahmose was the victor in the war against the
Hyksos that had begun at the end of the reign of Seqenenre Taa, the last king of Dynasty 17. The second
reason given for refusing to identify the Hyksos with the Israelites is based on the uncertainties of biblical
chronology8. The two reasons used by Finkelstein to replace the Exodus narrative with an imaginary war
against the Hyksos are aberrant, as the Egyptologist Claude Vandersleyen acknowledges:
6
According to Manfred Bietak, in the late Middle Kingdom and the 2nd Intermediate Period, the people of Egypt were confronted
with two previously unknown phenomena: on the one hand, the settlement of a not insignificant number of Asian migrants in the
eastern Nile Delta and, on the other hand, the resulting rule of two foreign dynasties, the predecessors of the Hyksos (14th Dynasty)
and the Hyksos themselves (15th Dynasty), who controlled the north of the country and trade with the Levant for about 200 years
(c.1730–1530 BCE). These immigrants certainly came to Egypt with the approval of the Egyptian crown to create a hybrid Agypto-
Levantine culture in an important trading centre of its time, Tell el-Dab‘a/Avaris. According to archaeological relics, these
immigrants had their roots in the Near East (and more precisely from the Levant), although their exact geographical origins and their
cultural and “ethnic identities” are still the subject of current research (Prell: 2021).
7
It was also reported that the priest, who ordained their polity and their laws, was by birth of Heliopolis, and his name Osarsiph
[Auserre-Apophi], from Osiris, who was the god of Heliopolis; but that when he was gone over to these people, his name was
changed, and he was called Moses (Against Apion I:75-91, 237-266).
8
According to the biblical chronology of Thiele (1983), the Exodus is dated between 1446 and 1250 BCE (Finegan: 1998, 224-244).
6
The New Kingdom began in a strange silence of the sources. What happened there after the 3rd year of
Kamose? (...) It is curious that the most important event in the history of Egypt during an entire
millennium, the annihilation of the population of the Hyksos, was ignored in the inscriptions of King
Ahmose dealing with something quite different: a storm that destroyed the cemetery of Thebes, his
concern about the perpetuation of his grandmother, Queen Teti-Sheri, some gifts offered to the temple
of Amun at Karnak, the wise government of his mother, Queen Ahhotep, etc., but not the main conquest
of his reign (...) All these calculations lead us well before Ramses II, and specifically around the mid-
16th century BCE. No doubt the reliability of these chronologies is unproven, but they are spaced apart
—whereas they exist— because they contradict the low dating of the Exodus that is not based on any
document (...) and should we push back the Exodus to the mid-16th century BCE? (...) It was noted that
all proposed solutions to the problems of the Exodus are speculative and ignore infrequent figures
preserved in the Bible and Manetho. But the date given by Manetho — that the Exodus took place under
Ahmose (1543-1518) — is the only one truly accurate (...) In short, whatever the objections of exegetes
today, we must not reject a priori to study the problem of Exodus in connection with the expulsion of
the Hyksos (Vandersleyen: 1995, 190– 237).
The refusal to link the biblical Exodus to the expulsion of the Hyksos in the mid-16th century BCE is
therefore arbitrary and is justified by Egyptologists only on ideological grounds, which are used to deny any
historical value to the biblical account. To solve the “unsolvable enigma” of the Hyksos, Manfred Bietak,
who believes that the connection to the biblical Exodus is only credible (Bietak, 2015, 17-36), initiated from
issue 9 of Contributions to the Archaeology of Egypt, Nubia and the Levant (in 2017), a series entitled: The
Enigma of the Hyksos. Egyptian chronology has evolved greatly over time, currently (in 2020) most
Egyptologists accept the following chronological scheme (Hornung, Krauss, Warburton: 2006, 490-495),
controversial periods are highlighted in orange and 14C dates are in red (dates that can be determined by
astronomical events, such as lunar dates and heliacal rising of Sirius, are in bold):
TABLE 2
14
Dynasty C dates Comments
-1 10000 - This period, called Neolithic by archaeologists, was populated by prehistoric
men who left no written documents, who built no temples or cemeteries,
-3300 whose representations are based solely on the imagination.
0 3300-3150 The radiocarbon dating of this predynastic period is highly controversial.
1 3150-2930 The radiocarbon dating of the 1st Dynasty is 200 years too high. The 2nd
2 2 2930-2590 Dynasty is composed of two parallel dynasties.
3 2590-2520 All the reigns from the 3rd to the 6th Dynasty are well documented and this
4 2520-2390 period includes a synchronism with Sargon of Akkad (2243-2187) as well as
5 2390-2280 the alignment of the pyramids, thanks to the position of stars, which allows a
6 2280-2130 retro calculation by astronomy.
7-8 2130-2120 This obscure period is framed by the end of the 6th Dynasty and the
9 2120 - beginning of the 11th around 2120 BCE. However, all the reigns from the
10 -2040 11th to the 12th Dynasty are well documented and this period includes
11 -2000 several astronomical events.
12 2000-1780
13 1780 - The three Hyksos dynasties (14,15 and 16) are poorly documented, and the
14 1750 - chronological placement of the 16th dynasty is highly controversial. As many
15 -1580 kings of this period are unknown, the 13th Dynasty is framed by the end of
17 16 1580-1540 the 12th Dynasty and the beginning of the 17th Dynasty.
18 1540-1290 All the reigns from the 18th to the 20th Dynasty are well documented and
19 1290-1185 this period includes many synchronisms with Mesopotamian chronology as
20 1185-1070 well as numerous astronomical events.
21 1070-945 All the reigns from the 21st to the 25th dynasty are well documented,
22 945 - however this period is anchored in 945 BCE based on the Israelite
23 860 - chronology calculated by Edwin R. Thiele who fixed the reign of Rehoboam
-740 from 930 to 913 BCE. Moreover, radiocarbon measurements do not allow to
9
24 25 740-715 date this period because of the Hallstatt plateau .
715-664 All the reigns of this period include many synchronisms with Mesopotamian
26 664-525 chronology as well as numerous astronomical events.
9
The Hallstatt plateau is a term used in archaeology that refers to a consistently flat area on graphs that plot radiocarbon dating
against calendar dates. Radiocarbon dates of around 2450 BP (Before Present) always calibrate to c. 800–400 BCE, no matter the
measurement precision.
This Egyptian chronology, which is a consensus among Egyptologists, is paradoxical because although
the lengths of the reigns are almost all known (except for the first two dynasties), there are a hundred or so
dated lunar dates and a dozen or so heliacal risings of Sirius in the Egyptian civil calendar, and a dozen or so
precise synchronisms with the Babylonian and Assyrian chronologies, only the following pivotal dates are
retained (Hornung, Krauss, Warburton: 2006, 473-489):
1) A lunar date from year 12 of Amasis (in 559 BCE), setting year 1 of Psamtik I in 664 BCE.
2) A Serapeum stela linking Psamtik I to Taharqa and other dated sources yield 690 BCE as the latter’s
year 1. Dated documents of Taharqa’s predecessor Shebitku are few, but according to the Tang-i Var
inscription, regnal year 1 of Shebitku corresponded to 706 BCE at the latest.
3) The traditional date of 945 BCE for Shoshenq I’s accession rests on a combination of Biblical and
Egyptological information.
4) Parker preferred 1290 BCE as year 1 of Ramses II, while admitting 1304 and 1279 BCE as other
possibilities. The best match for the astronomically possible equivalents for the Piramesses lunar date
and the festival-of-the-valley lunar dates is 1279 BCE (Casperson: 1988, 181-184).
5) There are two lunar dates of Thutmose III, one referring to the foundation date of a temple at Karnak in
year 24 and the other to the battle of Megiddo in year 23. Both dates have a complicated history of
interpretation. Utilizing both possibilities results in 1479 BCE = 1 Thutmose III as the only
astronomically viable alternative (Casperson: 1986, 139-150).
6) The result can be expressed as 1 Senwosret III = 1837/36 BCE, corresponding to 1831/30 BCE = year 7
of Senwosret III (but 1872 BCE according to Parker in 1950), the year of the recorded Sothic date.
These few pivotal dates of conventional Egyptian chronology are unanimously accepted by
Egyptologists, although a check shows that all these dates are wrong (which is a shame for pivotal dates):
1) The precisely dated biographies of the Apis bulls allow us to date the beginning of the reign of Psamtik
I on 5 February 663 BCE and the beginning of the year 12 of Amasis on 10 January 558 BCE.
Although these dates were long considered sound, Parker's work on the lunar calendar (in 1950)
modified them and moved them back one year (Hornung, Krauss, Warburton: 2006, 267). In fact,
despite his great competence Parker made two elementary mistakes: 1) he assumed that the Egyptian
lunar calendar started at the 1st invisibility (day before the 1st astronomical lunar crescent), whereas this
calendar started at the full moon (Gertoux: 2018, 202-206; 2020: 273-279), as Duncan Macnaughton
had well understood (Parker: 1950, 9), and 2) he assumed that in an Egyptian papyrus the first date was
in the civil calendar and the second date was in the lunar calendar, whereas the numerous Elephantine
papyri show that, without exception, the first date is always lunar10.
2) The reign of Shabataka ended in 689 BCE at Taharqa's accession and the 1st year of his reign coincided
with the Battle of Eltekeh, according to the Kawa stelae (Török: 1997, 169-171), and with the capture of
Ashdod by Sargon (in 712 BCE) in the stele of Tang-i Var. Despite the virtual absence of regnal years
(only year 3 is attested), the number of monuments erected by Shabaka and Shabataka, which is
substantially the same, means one must attribute to them reigns of similar lengths.
3) The beginning of Dynasty 22 is dated in 945 BCE by most by Egyptologists. This date was calculated
by Kenneth A. Kitchen (2003: 30-34,108-110), who used the biblical chronology calculated by Edwin
R. Thiele (1983: 10). Kitchen proposed to situate the attack on Jerusalem by Shoshenq I during his
campaign in Palestine (mentioned on a stele dated to his 21st and last year of reign), which is dated to
the 5th year of Rehoboam (1Ki 14:25-26, 2Ch 12:2-9). Then, based on the reign of Jeroboam (930-913)
calculated by Thiele, Kitchen set the 5th year in 925 (= 930 - 5), assuming that the campaign took place
just before Year 21, which fixes the accession of Shoshenq I in 945 BCE (= 925 + 20) and therefore his
complete reign (945-924). Despite his great skill, Kitchen made three mistakes: 1) he used Thiele's
chronology which is wrong by about 45 years (Nolen Jones: 2005, Tetley: 2005) at the time of
Rehoboam's reign (977-960); 2) placing the Palestine campaign in Shoshenq I's year 20 is arbitrary; 3)
using a synchronism between two chronologies to establish chronology is illogical, as a synchronism is
only used to check the accuracy of a chronology. King Rehoboam's 5th year, 972 BCE, is consistent
with Shoshenq I's reign based on astronomy from 980 BCE to 959 BCE.
4) The dates of 1279 BCE for Ramses II and 1479 BCE for Thutmose III were proposed by Parker based
on a lunar calendar starting at the 1st invisibility (Parker: 1957: 39-43). Using a lunar calendar starting
at the full moon, the reign of Ramses II began in 1483 BCE,
5) and that of Thutmose III in 1472 BCE.
6) The combination of the Sothic date of IV Peret 16 of Senwosret III's year 7 with the numerous lunar
dates allows us to fix the beginning of Senwosret III's 19-year reign in 1855 BCE.
10
The papyrus Louvre 7848 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 Jan.) and I Shemu 1 is dated 7 September and as the II Shemu 1 (lunar)
began on full moon (10 Sep.), consequently I Shemu 15 (civil) and II Shemu 13 (lunar) are both dated 21 September 558 BCE.
8
HOW TO ESTABLISH AN ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY
Before establishing an absolute chronology, a relative chronology must first be established by compiling
chronological data from king lists, inscriptions, and ancient historians. This relative chronology must then be
cross-referenced with other relative chronologies by means of precise synchronisms between these
chronologies. Finally, this relative chronology must be anchored on synchronisms and definitively anchored
on precisely dated astronomical events in a civil calendar. This work has been done for the chronologies of
the first millennium BCE (Bickerman: 1980, 109-216). This conventional chronology, which serves as a
reference for Egyptologists and Assyriologists, is anchored on Ptolemy's Royal Canon, which is considered
an absolute chronology (Depuydt: 1995, 97-117), and on lunar dates calculated by Parker (Bickerman: 1980,
80-91). However conventional Babylonian chronology is partly false because it ignores coregents and
usurpers (Boiy: 2000, 115-121). It is interesting to note that the main chronological inconsistencies concern
the biographies of two famous figures: Xerxes and Themistocles (Shaw: 2003, 41,148-149). Consequently,
these chronological inconsistencies of the first millennium BCE must first be resolved before an absolute
chronology can be established. Although historians claim that chronology is the backbone of history, it is
still not taught at university and, worse, no thesis has been devoted to it11. The only book on absolute
Achaemenid chronology published by a peer-reviewed publisher is Gérard Gertoux's Dating the Reigns of
Xerxes and Artaxerxes, in: Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Series Archaeologica 40, 2018, and Intercalations
during the co-regency of Xerxes with Darius, in NABU 2020-4 note 130. The Mesopotamian chronology of
the 1st millennium BCE must be calibrated on astronomical events: Assyrian and biblical chronologies are
they reliable? published by Gérard Gertoux in 2023 (https://hal.science/hal-03207471v4/document).
This absolute Egyptian chronology will therefore be based on unpublished works that have been
presented in colloquia but which, unfortunately, could not be published by peer-reviewed editors. The
Mesopotamian chronology of the 2nd millennium BCE remains highly controversial12, until today, even
though the “Middle Chronology”, anchored on the reign of Hammurabi (1793-1750), is favoured by most
scholars. In 1998, H. Gasche, J.A. Armstrong and S. W Cole proposed to anchor the reign of Hammurabi
(1697-1654) on two lunar eclipses during the reigns of Dynasty Ur III as well as the Ammisaduqa tablet on
Venus. This new Mesopotamian chronology, called Ultra-Low by its critics, has been strongly contested by
scholars who have argued that it is based primarily on the evidence of Babylonian pottery (which is false)
and that it should instead be based on statisticians and physicists specializing in 14C dating (Sallaberger,
Schrakamp: 2015, 5-11). The Mesopotamian chronology of the 2nd millennium BCE must be calibrated on
astronomical events: Mesopotamian chronology (2340-539 BCE) through astronomically dated
synchronisms and comparison with carbon-14 dating published by Gérard Gertoux in 2023b
(https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03090272v6/document).
Notice to readers. The reading of this monograph does not require advanced knowledge in astronomy,
but only to know some elementary concepts (https://promenade.imcce.fr/en/pages2/243.html) on lunar and
solar eclipses (https://promenade.imcce.fr/en/pages4/469.html) as well as on equinoxes and solstices
(https://promenade.imcce.fr/en/pages4/438.html). As the heliacal rising of Sirius played a great role among
the Egyptians, since the reign of Djer (First Dynasty), it is important to have some knowledge of it
(http://www.gautschy.ch/~rita/archast/sirius/siriuseng.htm). The reader who wants to check some
astronomical calculations does not need to have great mathematical skills because many software programs
allow to perform instantly these complex calculations, the easiest software program to use is Sky View
(https://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Yourhorizon). A software can be used to calculate the heliacal rising of
Sirius more accurately (https://promenade.imcce.fr/en/pages6/724.html).
There are catalogues of solar eclipses (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/solar.html) as well as lunar eclipses
(http://eclipsewise.com/lunar/LEcatalog/LEcatalog.html). For those who are demanding, there are even
calculators to transform the days of the civil calendar into the Julian day of the astronomical calendar
(https://core2.gsfc.nasa.gov/time/julian.html). For in-depth research on astronomical events the reader can
consult the book by Stephenson F. Richard: Historical Eclipses and Earth’s Rotation (1997) and the book by
Steele, John M.: Calendars and Years. Astronomy and Time in the Ancient Near East (2007).
In this study, astronomical calculations for calculating absolute dates have been developed in detail so
that readers who are interested in scientific truth can verify them. As this approach makes the reading
considerably more cumbersome, readers may wish to skip it on a first reading.
11
In fact, there was only Olaf Toffteen's 1907 thesis partially published in 1908.
12
Hammurabi is considered as the greatest Babylonian king and the chronology of his reign is well known. However, in 1863, Jules
Oppert had Hammurabi's reign begin in 2394 BCE, François Thureau-Dangin, in 1927, lowered this date to 2003 BCE, which was, in
1950, lowered by consensus in 1793 BCE (“Middle Chronology”), between 1849 BCE (“High Chronology”) and 1729 BCE (“Low
Chronology”). Finally, Hermann Gasche proposed, in 1998, to lower it again to 1697 BCE (“Ultra-Low Chronology”). Hammurabi
has therefore rejuvenated by about 700 years during the 20th century!
ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF THE 27TH DYNASTY (526-405)
The Egyptian chronology of the 27th dynasty is the same as the Achaemenid chronology, which is itself
based on the Babylonian king lists. However, these king lists contain certain chronological inconsistencies,
particularly at the beginning and end of the reign of Artaxerxes I. A study was therefore carried out on all the
dated Babylonian contracts, as well as on all the astronomical tablets listed, to reconstruct an absolute
chronology of the Achaemenid period (Gertoux 2018: 179-206). Here are the results (the kings who reigned
are highlighted in grey and the reigns anchored on astronomical dating are highlighted in sky blue. The
period of the king list that is incorrect is highlighted in orange):
TABLE 3
King (in King list) Date min. Date max. Death King as Reign King List
Cambyses II 12/VI/00 23/I/08 xx/I/08 530–522 530 -
Bardiya13 14/XII/00 co-regent 523 -
20/VIII/01 10/VII/01 “usurper” -522
Nebuchadnezzar III 14/VII/00 2/X/00 xx/X/00 “usurper” 522–522
Nebuchadnezzar IV 27/II/01 26/VII/01 xx/VIII/01 “usurper” 522–522 -522
Darius I 6/X/00 10+/IX/36 [10]/IX/36 522–486 522 -
Xerxes I [-]/III/[00] [10/IX/10] co-regent 496 - -486
Bel-shimanni 14+/V/00 04/VI/00 xx/VI/00 “usurper” 485–485
Shamash-eriba 04/V!/00 11/VIII/00 xx/VIII/00 “usurper” 485–485
Xerxes I 20/V/21 14/V/21 -475 486 -
Darius A - - [14/V/00] crown prince 475-475
Artaban xx/XII/00 “usurper” 475-475 -465
Artaxerxes I 10/IX/00 20/XII/41 475 - 465 -
Darius B 14/IX/00 6/VII/08 xx/xx/08 co-regent 434–426
Artaxerxes I 4/VI/50 xx/XI/50 -425
Xerxes II - - [xx/II/51] 425–424
Sogdianus [xx/IX/51] “usurper” 424–424 -424
Darius II 14/IX/00 2/VI/19 xx/VIII/19 424–405 424–405
The above table shows that the Babylonian king lists have been purged of all co-regencies as well as all
usurpers including kings who were later considered illegitimate or “usurper” (Bardiya and Xerxes II). These
changes forced the Babylonian scribes to rearrange the king lists and to modify certain reigns (Xerxes I and
Artaxerxes I). In the same way the Egyptian king lists ignore usurpers (Inaros) and co-regencies:
TABLE 4
Dynasty 26 BCE Egyptian ruler BCE Lybia BCE King (Persia) BCE
Amasis 569-526 Cambyses II 530 -
Psamtik III 526-525 Udjahorresnet 526 -
Dynasty 27
Cambyses II 526-522 Bardiya 523-522
Darius I 522-496 -496 Darius I 522-496
Darius I/Xerxes 496-486 Pherendates 496-486 Darius I/Xerxes 496-486
Xerxes I 486-475 Achemenes 485-474 Psamtik IV 487-484 Xerxes I 486-475
Artaxerxes I 475 - Inaros 474-469 Artaxerxes I 475 -
Ariyawrata 469 - Amyrtaeus I 469-450?
-434 Thannyras -445? Pausiris 450-440? -434
Darius B 434-426 Arsames 445 - Psamtik V 440- ? Darius B 434-426
- 426 - Artaxerxes I 426-425
- -424 Xerxes II 425-424
Darius II 424-405 -406 Darius II 424 -
Dynasty 28 -405
Amyrtaeus II 405-399 Psamtik VI 405-399 Artaxerxes II 405 -
Dynasty 29
Nefaarud I 399-393
Hagar 393-380 -359
Consequently, the absolute Achaemenid chronology modifies the Egyptian chronology because whereas
the contracts of the Achaemenid kings were dated in the Babylonian lunar calendar those written at
Elephantine in southern Egypt, over the period 525-400 BCE, were dated in the Egyptian civil calendar. In
addition, regnal years were beginning with the 1st Nisan in Babylonia but with the 1st Thoth in Egypt.
13
Bardiya (birth name) is called Gaumata by Darius I, Mardus by Aeschylus (472 BCE), Smerdis by Herodotus (450 BCE),
Tanyoxarkes by Ctesias (400 BCE), Artaxerxes (maybe his throne name) by Esdras (Esd 4:4-24), Mergis by Justinus, etc.
10
As Bardiya, Xerxes began his reign on two occasions, first as co-regent in 496 BCE, his accession is
dated III/00 (June), and again as true king after the death of Darius I dated 10/IX/10 (8 December 486 BCE).
TABLE 5
BCE Bab Egy King
486 1 X I 10 35 9 Darius I / Xerxes I
2 XI II
3 XII III
4 I IV 36 10
5 II V
6 III VI
7 IV VII *** Bertin 2857 dated 23/IV/10 (Babylon)
8 V VIII
9 VI IX
10 VII X
11 VIII XI *** CT 4, 34 dated 24/VIII/10 (Babylon)
12 IX XII *** 10 [0] Xerxes I / [Xerxes as new king]
485 1 X I 11
2 XI II
3 XII III
4 I IV 11 1 BSCAS 32 n°2 dated 02/I/11 (Uruk)
5 II V
6 III VI
7 IV VII
8 V VIII 0 Xerxes I / Bel-šimânni
9 VI IX 0 Xerxes I / Šamaš-erîba Year 1 of Xerxes/ 24/VI/00 (BM 96414)
10 VII X
11 VIII XI
12 IX XII *** OECT 10 176 dated 5/IX/11 (Kish)
484 1 X I 12
2 XI II *** JCS 28 38 dated 24/XI/11 (unassigned)
According to this chronological reconstruction, during his 10th year of reign Xerxes was co-regent of
Darius I until 8 December 486 BCE, then full king after this date. As the years of reign began on the 1st
Thoth in Egypt at that time (early January), the 11th year of Xerxes' reign began in January 485 BCE, while
this 11th year began in April 485 BCE in Babylon. A careful examination of Egyptian documents confirms
this change in Xerxes' status. Indeed, G. Posener had noted that the Egyptian title of Xerxes had changed
from his Year 10 but without giving the reason. In his collection of hieroglyphic inscriptions (Posener: 1936,
92, 120-124, 162), Posener classified the Persian kings according to the chronology accepted in his time.
However, several anomalies can be explained only by assuming a 10-year co-regency between Xerxes and
Darius. In these inscriptions, Egyptian pharaohs, from Amasis to Artaxerxes, are still called “Lord of the
Two Lands”, except Xerxes who is called “Master of Crowns” between year 1 and year 10 of his reign. He
received the title of “Lord of the Two Lands”, the official title of the Pharaohs of Egypt, only from his year
10. If Xerxes had become pharaoh immediately after the death of Darius, he would have received the usual
title Lord of the Two Lands used to designate Egyptian kings, but the title was awarded to him only from his
year 10. In addition, for no apparent reason, the name Darius changed from year 27 up till year 36 of his
reign to become inDarius. The hieroglyph in, literally meaning “contribution” in Egyptian14, or “booster”,
cannot be a phonetic complement, since it deteriorates the pronunciation.
FIG. 2
Year 2 Month I Akhet Day 9
Master of crowns, Xerxes
Year 6, Master of crowns, Xerxes
Year 10, Lord of the two lands, Xerxes (December 486 BCE)
Year 6, Lord of the two lands, Cambyses (II)
Year 36, Lord of the two lands, Darius (I)
Year 12, Lord of the two lands, Xerxes

14
This hieroglyph appears in the names some pharaohs like Antef “contribution of his divine father”. It could be an abbreviation of
the Egyptian word inpw “royal child”, meaning a pretender to the throne that is a “Crown prince”.
TABLE 6
King in Babylonia in Egypt
Cambyses (II) Kambuzia K-n-b-w-d3
From 5th year to 8th year King of Babylon, King of lands Lord of the Two Lands
Darius (I) Dariawush (in)-Ti-rw-y-w-š3
From 1st year to 36th year King of Babylon, King of lands Lord of the Two Lands
Xerxes Khisi‘arsa Ḫ-š3-y-rw-š3
From accession to 1st year King of Babylon, King of lands ?
From 1st year to 10th year King of Persia and Media, Master of Crowns
King of Babylon and of lands
From 10th year to 21st year King of lands Lord of the Two Lands
The years indicated in those documents have been understood as years of reign when in fact they are
years of domination (months and days are usually unspecified). The Egyptian administrator Atiyawahy, for
example, says that he spent “6 years under Cambyses and 36 years under Darius”. The hieroglyph with
an eyebrow above the date is used, while the years of reign are typically identified by the hieroglyph .
As the Egyptian word inḥ “eyebrow” also means “surround”, those years [of reign] were for the Egyptians
years [of surrender]. Diodorus dates the beginning of the Persian domination in Egypt in the third year of the
63rd Olympiad [in 526 BCE] (Historical Library I: 68:6) 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 28th dynasty
(Historical Library XIV:11:1-12:1, I:44:3). Those data taken from his Greek chronology are 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 obtained 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 probably compiled different data from an Egyptian informer (Historical Library III:11)
without trying to harmonize them. The reign of 6 years* in the Egyptian reckoning can correspond to 4 years
in the Babylonian reckoning (526-522).
TABLE 7
Length according to: dates: official reign Diodorus Ptolemy actual reign BCE
Cambyses II 526 - 6 years 526-520 526-522 ( 6 years*) 526-522
Darius I 36 years 520-484 522-486 36 years 522-486
Xerxes I 20 years 484-464 486-465 21 years 496-475
Artaxerxes I 40 years 464-424 465-424 51 years 475-424
Darius II 19 years 424-405 424-405 19 years 424-405
Artaxerxes II -403 2 years 405-403 405-403 2 years 405-403
Total: 123 years 123 years 526-403 526-403 135 years
The titles of Xerxes in Egypt and the data of Diodorus confirm the 10-year co-regency with Darius, but
the discovery of Elephantine's papyri with numerous double dates with the civil and lunar calendars have
cancelled out these conclusions. Indeed, the dating of the documents was in accordance with the chronology
of Ptolemy's Canon, which is still in line with recent studies. This paradox could be confusing, but the
ancient (and unique) study by Parker that was used to validate this work was in fact erroneous.
Babylonian contracts were written in cuneiform on clay tablets, but Egyptian contracts were written on
papyri in Aramaic, the international language of the Persian Empire. Among the Elephantine contracts15
written during the reigns of Xerxes I and Artaxerxes I, 21 contain double dates. These double-dated
contracts, with one date in a lunar calendar and a second in the Egyptian civil calendar of 365 days, allow
absolute dates to be obtained. As the name of the lunar months is in Aramaic, specialists thought it was a
Babylonian lunar calendar, but this is not possible for two reasons: the Babylonian lunar calendar was not
used in southern Egypt and the Egyptians had been using a lunar calendar for two millennia with months that
started at full moon and not at the first lunar crescent as in the Babylonian calendar. This point is
fundamental in order to understand the functioning of the Egyptian lunar calendar.
15
According to Herodotus, Psamtik I, dynasts of Sais, called on foreign mercenaries, including Ionians and Carians, to consolidate
his power in Egypt(The Histories II:152-154), 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 Bible, the massive emigration of Jews into Egypt began shortly after the pharaoh Nekau 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) in the country of Patros (“the Land of the South” in Egyptian) the southern
province in which Elephantine was the main town.
12
FUNCTIONING OF THE EGYPTIAN LUNAR CALENDAR
The calendar of Elephantine (in the far south of Egypt) with its system of double dates, using Egyptian
and Babylonian names, was used by Persians officials and Jewish scribes only during a short period from
525 to 400 BCE. For example, a Persian official erected a votive stela stating:
This temple, (W)id(arnaga) the garrison commander of Syene made in the month of Sivan, that is
Meḥir, year 7 Artaxerxes, the king (to) Osirnaḥty, the god. Peace (Lemaire: 1991, 199-201).
Egyptian documents dated in both the lunar calendar and the civil calendar allow absolute dates to be
obtained because such date coincidences only occur every 25 years if the lunar day is correctly observed, or
every 11 years if there is a 1-day observation error. The Aramaic documents from Elephantine, dated over
the period 525-398 BCE, contain 21 well identified double dates, which makes it possible to anchor the
reigns of Xerxes and Artaxerxes on absolute dates. Although Leo Dupuydt has considered that the Egyptian
chronology calculated by the astronomer Claude Ptolemy (c. 150 CE) is in perfect agreement with the
Babylonian chronology (Depuydt: 1995, 97-117), two elements categorically contradict him:
• The Babylonian chronology of Ptolemy was calculated from the king lists which eliminated all co-
regencies as well as kings later considered as usurpers16. A study showed that the reigns of Xerxes and
Artaxerxes had been shifted by 10 years with respect to astronomical dates17 and gave rise to different
intercalations during the reigns of Darius and Xerxes (Gertoux: 2018, 179-206; 2020, 273-279).
• Elephantine papyri are letters dated in both the lunar calendar and the Egyptian civil calendar, so they
provide absolute dates, assuming that the lunar calendar was in line with conventional Babylonian
chronology (Porten: 1996, 152–234), but this is not scientifically satisfactory because if the average
error is one day among most dated documents, in seven contract the double dates deviate by more than
one day; in two contracts the difference is two days (C13; K2); in one it is four days (C10); in three it is
a month (K8; C8; C9); and in one it is a year (K6), which is aberrant (Porten: 1990, 22). If the
Babylonian lunar calendar is replaced by the Egyptian lunar calendar suggested by Richard A. Parker
(in 1950), which starts the lunar month at the 1st invisibility (day after the new moon and before the
first lunar crescent), the average error increases from 1 to 2 days on lunar days (Stern: 2000, 159–171).
From 525 BCE Egypt became a Persian satrapy but most of the scribes were Egyptians or Jews. Persian
officials at Elephantine were familiar with three kinds of lunar calendar, Elamite, Old-Persian and
Babylonian, which appear on Darius I's inscriptions at Behistun. Jewish scribes at Elephantine were familiar
with different calendars, but they used a calendar based on the Babylonian calendar after their return to Judea
from Babylon. At that time there were the following equivalences among calendars (Kuhrt: 2010, 885-886):
TABLE 8
EGYPTIAN (525-400 BCE) JEWISH/ PERSIAN BABYLONIAN JULIAN
CIVIL RELIGIOUS HEBREW ARAMAIC
I Akhet 30 Thoth (I) 29 January 31
II Akhet 30 Paopi (II) 30 February 28
III Akhet 30 Hathor (III) 29 March 31
IV Akhet 30 Koyak (IV) 30 month I Nisan Nisanu 30 April 30
I Peret 30 Teobi (V) 29 month II Iyyar Ayyaru 29 May 31
II Peret 30 Mehir (VI) 30 month III Siwan Simanu 30 June 30
16
The Babylonian chronology established by Claudius Ptolemy was confirmed by the BM 34576 tablet (King List dated 99 BCE). A
study of all tablets (contracts or inscriptions) dated during the period 626–331 BCE was published (Parker, Dubberstein: 1956) and
demonstrated that all the durations of the Achaemenid period agreed with those of the Babylonian royal lists, providing that several
short co-regencies were admitted shortly before and also during the enthronement of the new king. Although this study confirmed the
Babylonian chronology from the King Lists, it also contradicted the transition between Artaxerxes I and Darius II precisely described
by all Greek historians. It had to be admitted that the reign of a legitimate king, Xerxes II (425–424), and a usurper, Sogdianus (424–
424), who had succeeded Artaxerxes I before Darius II came to power, was historically contradicted by Babylonian chronology.
17
Babylonian astronomers classified lunar eclipses according to an 18-year Saros cycle, because they had noticed that astronomical
phenomena were reproduced identically in the 19th year of the solar cycle and almost identically in the 11th year (to within a day).
The 19 solar years last 6939.6 days = 19x365.24219 days and correspond exactly to 19 lunar years plus 7 intercalary months, which
last 6939.7 days = ([19x12]+7) x 29.530588 days. The 11 solar years last 4017.6 days = 11x365.24219 days and correspond to 11
lunar years plus 4 intercalary months, which last 4016.2 days = ([11x12]+4) x 29.530588 days. Because of these astronomical cycles
the two lunar eclipses of 475 BCE (first total, second partial) were reproduced in 465 BCE, but in reverse order (partial then total).
For example, the two lunar eclipses of 475 BCE were exactly reproduced in 457 BCE on 6 July (total) and 31 December (partial).
The rearrangements made by Babylonian astronomers changed the chronology of the reigns of Xerxes and Artaxerxes, including the
Metonic cycle of the intercalary years. This 19-year cycle is a mathematical cycle that synchronizes the 19 lunar years with 19 solar
years by adding intercalary months, a 2nd Adar month (XIIa) or a 2nd Ulul month (VIb), in 7 years of the 19-year cycle (3A, 6A, 8A,
11A, 14A, 17U, 19A). However, this 19-year cycle was based on observations, not on calculations (Steele: 2007, 121-123) and the
computed data in diaries (purely computational, not the combination of observational and predictive methodologies) appear a little
before 350 BCE (Rochberg-Halton: 1991, 107-120). The reading of a few months in between is disputed, for example the year 7A
(XIIa) of Xerxes should perhaps be replaced by the year 8U (VIb) of Xerxes (Ossendrijver: 2018, 138-143)
III Peret 30 Pamenotep (VII) 29 month IV Tammuz Dumuzu 29 July 31
IV Peret 30 Parmuti (VIII) 30 month V Ab Abu 30 August 31
I Shemu 30 Pahons (IX) 29 month VI Elul Ululu 29 September 30
II Shemu 30 Paoni (X) 30 month VII Tishri Tashritu 30 October 31
III Shemu 30 Epipi (XI) 29 month VIII Marheshwan Arahsamna 29 November 30
IV Shemu 30 Mesore (XII) 30 month IX Kislew Kislimu 30 December 31
Epagomen 5 [ " ] (XIII) 29
I Akhet 30 Thoth (I) 29 month X Tebeth Tebetu 29 January 31
II Akhet 30 Paopi (II) 30 month XI Shebat Shabatu 30 February 28
III Akhet 30 Hathor (III) 29 month XII Adar Addaru 29 March 31
month XIII [Adar2] [Addaru2] 30
As the Egyptian calendar had 12 months of 30 days, plus 5 days at the end of the year (365 days), called
epagomenon in Greek, it was not lunar (around 354 days). In Elephantine the main system of dating was the
Egyptian calendar (civil), but as numerous religious festivals in Egypt were based on moon phases a lunar
calendar was used to fix these dates. The Jews (after 587 BCE), then the Persians (after 525 BCE), naturally
used this calendar for their own religious festivals based on a lunar calendar (like 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 » (Za 7:1). There was the same situation in
Egypt, for example, an Elephantine Papyri (B24) is dated: « [17] Thoth, which is 17 Kislev, year 21 (of
Xerxes), accession year of Artaxerxes » (Porten: 1996, 164-165). As Xerxes died on 14/V/21 (24 August) in
475 BCE, the 1st Thoth (I Akhet 1) in 475 BCE is dated 20 December and 17 Thoth on 5 January 474 BCE:
TABLE 9
BCE Jul Bab Egy [A] [B] [C] King
475 1 X I 21 20 [A] Xerxes I (Egyptian reckoning 1st Thoth)
2 XI II
3 XII III [B] Xerxes I (Babylonian reckoning 1st Nisannu)
4 I IV 21
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 [C] 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 [A] Artaxerxes I (pap. B24 dated on 5 January)
2 XI II 6
3 XII III 7
4 I IV 1 1 [C] Inaros (Thucydides I:104,110)
5 II V
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 (the
Thoth of the lunar calendar has been replaced by Kislev). Given that Egyptian names of lunar months were
the same as the ones from the civil calendar, it is clear that if the scribes had only transcribed the lunar date
and the current date, the double dating would have been incomprehensible (except for the Egyptians).
However, like the Babylonians, they counted the new day after sunset (c. 18:00) while the Egyptians counted
it from the vanishing of stars (c. 5:30). If a Jewish scribe wrote on 17 Thoth c. 16:00, in 475 BCE, he dated
his document on 17 Kislev, but if he wrote c. 20:00 he would have dated it on 18 Kislev (month 1 is January
in Julian calendar, month X is Tebeth in Babylonian calendar and month I is Thoth is Egyptian calendar):
TABLE 10
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 calendar
18 Kislev 19 Kislev
Julian calendar
4 January 5 January 6 January
Egyptian calendar
16 Thoth 17 Thoth
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) for Babylonians but on 1st Thoth
14
(month I) for Egyptians. The 1st Nisan is dated 14 April in 475 BCE, which was the 1st lunar crescent after
the spring equinox (26 March), and as the 1st Thoth is dated 20 December, the 1st Kislev as well. In the
Babylonian pattern the 1st Kislev (month IX) is dated 6 December (1st lunar crescent) while in the Egyptian
pattern the 1st Kislev is dated 20 December (full moon).
TABLE 11
November December 475 BCE (Julian astronomical calendar)
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 (Egyptian civil calendar) 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 (Babylonian calendar) Kislimu
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 (Elephantine lunar calendar) Kislev
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 dating of papyrus B24 shows that the double date: 17 Kislev = 17 Thoth, implying that 1 Kislev
(first lunar day) = 1 Thoth (Egyptian civil calendar) = 20 December (Julian astronomical calendar),
corresponded to a full moon. Therefore, the lunar calendar used in Elephantine was not a Babylonian
calendar (beginning at the first lunar crescent), but an Egyptian lunar calendar (beginning at the full moon)
with Babylonian month names. To avoid depending on the contradictory opinion of Egyptologists it is
crucial to check these chronological calculations yourself. The equation linking the day in the Julian
astronomical calendar (365.25 days) to the day in the Egyptian calendar in Year* (astronomical year = Year
BCE – 1) is as follows:
Julian day = 201 + (139 – Year*)/4 + (Egyptian day – 1)
Egyptian day = 1 Thoth = I Akhet 1 = 1/I = 0x30 + 1 = 1 (for example IV Akhet 3 = 3x30 + 3 = 93)
Julian day = 201 + (139 + 474)/4 + (1 – 1) = 354.25 = 354.25 + 0x365 = 354 (no leap year)
Julian day = 354 = 31 + 28 + 31 + 30 + 31 + 30 + 31 + 31 + 30 + 31 + 30 + 20 = 20 December
(0.75 =3/4, means a leap year every 4 years, in that case: February = 29 instead of 28)
Consequently, 1st Thoth in 475 BCE thus corresponds to 20 December in the Julian astronomical
calendar. Using astronomy software (https://promenade.imcce.fr/fr/pages4/441.html), we can see that on 20
December -474* (= 475 BCE) there was a full moon at 18:20 UT (Universal Time), or at 20:30 Local Time
(LT = UT + 2:10) in Elephantine. The 1 Kislev of the lunar calendar in Elephantine thus corresponded to the
full moon of 20 December in 475 BCE. To calculate the 1st Kislev (= 1/IX) of the Babylonian lunar calendar
one must first calculate the 1st Tishri (1/VII) which coincided with the 1st lunar crescent after the autumnal
equinox on 29 September 01:00 UT in -474* (https://promenade.imcce.fr/fr/pages4/439.html). The 1st
astronomical lunar crescent (day after the astronomical new moon) after 29 September is that of 8 October
22:11 UT (= 1/VII). It is possible to calculate the 1st lunar day of the following months: 7 November 09:17
UT (= 1/VIII), 6 December 20:22 UT (= 1/IX). The coincidences between the observed lunar days and the
dates of the calendars are therefore perfect. In 475 BCE (= -474*):
1 Kislimu (Babylonian calendar) = 6 December (in Babylon)
1 Kislev (Egyptian lunar calendar) = 20 December (in Elephantine)
The 20 documents from Elephantine with a double date enable us to reconstruct the chronology of the
reigns of the 27th dynasty. 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 fits exactly to day 11:
Papyrus year Lunar date Egyptian calendar BCE 1st lunar day Full moon
Xerxes I 15 1 Elul 11 Pahons (I Shemu 11) 29 Aug. 30 Aug.
Papyrus B23 15 18 Elul 28 Pahons (= 11 + 17) 15 Sept. 481
The simultaneous presence of two different lunar calendars, Babylonian and Egyptian, complicates the
dating of the synchronisms between these two chronologies, particularly during the reign of Cambyses II.
TABLE 12
BCE Egyptian king Persian king Babylonian king
540 30 Amasis [19] [13] 16 Nabonidus
539 31 [20] [14] 17 Belshazzar
538 32 Cyrus II 1 [1] Ugbaru
537 33 21 Cambyses II
536 34 3 [2]
535 35 4 [3]
534 36 5 [4]
533 37 6 [5]
532 38 7 [6]
531 39 8 [7]
530 40 9 [8]
529 41 Cambyses II 1
528 42 2
527 43 3
526 1 44 Psamtik III 4
525 2 5 Cambyses II Stele IM.4187 5
524 3 6 6
523 4 7 Tablet BM 33066 70 Bardiya
522 5 8 81
521 1 Darius I Darius I 11 Nebuchadnezzar IV
520 2 2
Year 44 of Amasis, the last of his reign, should be dated 526 BCE. The solution proposed by Parker of a
year 45 dated 526 BCE is not possible, as recognized by Depuydt who prefers to date the death of Amasis in
527 BCE in his 44th year, assuming that the 4th year of Cambyses (526 BCE) was a period of disorder
without pharaoh (Depuydt: 1996, 179-190). But this choice leads to an implausible result, contrary to the
accounts of all the ancient historians: the throne of Egypt would have been a vacuum for one year after the
disappearance of Psamtik III, from May 526 to May 525 BCE, when Cambyses was recognized king of
Egypt, but the end of Dynasty 26 was an important milestone that was recounted by several historians:
• According to Diodorus Siculus: “After a reign of 55 years18 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). Consequently, Amasis died between July 526 and July 525 BCE.
• According to Manetho: Cambyses, in the 5th year of his reign over the Persians [in 525 BCE] became
king of Egypt and led it for 3 years [from spring 525 to spring 522 BCE].
• According to Herodotus (The Histories II:1; III:1,4,10-16): 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 speak with him (...) Psammenitus (Psamtik), 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 alive: he had died after ruling Egypt 44 years, during all of 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 [in 525 BCE], when his guilt clearly
appeared, compelled him to drink bull’s blood, which presently caused his death. Such was the end of
Psammenitus.
• According to the stele referred IM.4187 in the Louvre, an Apis bull was born on month 5, day 29, year 5
of Cambyses, died on month 9, day 4, year 4 of Darius I and was buried on 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: 29 May
525 BCE, 31 August and 8 November 518 BCE. This stele proves that Cambyses reigned in Egypt from
May 525 BCE because at the end of this month, an Apis bull is dedicated to him. Consequently, the
conquest of Egypt was to be completed in early May 525 BCE as the last text referring to Psamtik III is
dated I Peret year 2 (May 525 BCE). He was the son of Amasis as confirmed by the stele No. 309 of the
Serapeum (Louvre). It is indeed Psamtik III because one of the contracting parties cited in the text was
still alive in Year 35 of Darius I (Gauthier: 1915, 131-132). Before his conquest of Egypt Cambyses was
a Persian king, but later he also became an Egyptian king. This new situation created a dual system of
counting his reign.
18
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 BCE (44 years).
16
The Egyptian priest Manetho indicates the same values as Herodotus (Waddel: 1964, 171), 44 years for
Amasis and 6 months for Psamtik III. By combining this information with data from the reign of Persian
King Cambyses who became Egyptian in May 525 BCE, the death of Amasis can be fixed in October 526
BCE19. The account of these historians is confirmed by the narrative of Udjahorresnet (Briant: 1996, 63-65),
the Egyptian general who led the naval fleet under Amasis, then under Psamtik III and finally under
Cambyses, which 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 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 Psamtik III, his successor or in the 5th year of Cambyses. Egyptian documents of the time of Darius I
mention the events of years 3 and 4 of Cambyses, apparently before his conquest of Egypt. A papyrus dated
9th year of Darius says: In his 2nd year, Cambyses conquered Egypt really, and in his 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 Psamtik I and the 4th year of Cambyses
(Briant: 1996, 92). 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 his last year (Kuhrt: 2010,
124-125). 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 BCE, it was therefore his 5th year in Egypt, the 2nd corresponded to 525 BCE
and the 1st to 526 BCE. This conquest began in 526 BCE, 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 different from that of foreign kings (Parker: 1941, 298-301), which Cambyses was before his
conquest (though, after 525 BCE, Persian kings would be considered as Pharaohs). Consequently, the year 5
of Cambyses (525 BCE) began on 1st Nisan, that is 28 March, and Year 44 of Amasis (526 BCE) began on
1st Thot, that is 2 January 5 (as the reign of Psamtik III was 6 months long, his year 1, in 526 BCE, began
near November and his year 2 began on 1st Thot, that is 1st January, in 525 BCE, and ended around April).
TABLE 13
Dynasty 26 Egypt BCE Persia Dynasty 27
Amasis 43 525 7 IV 3 Cambyses II
8 V
9 VI
10 VII
11 VIII
12 IX
Pap. Rylands IX 44 526 1 X
1 2 XI 1 Beginning of the conquest of Egypt
------------------------------ 3 XII
4 I (1st year of domination)
4
------------------------------ 5 II
6 III
7 IV
8 V
9 VI
10 VII
Psamtik III 1 11 VIII (Herodotus III:1,4,10-16)
12 IX
2 2 525 1 X 2 (2nd year of domination)
2 XI
3 XII
4 I 5
stele IM.4187 5 5 II End of the conquest of Egypt
6 III
7 IV
8 V
9 VI
10 VII
11 VIII
12 IX
6 3 524 1 X
2 XI
19
Fixing the date of the conquest of Egypt in 525 BCE is also confirmed since the 5th year of Cambyses began the 1st Nisan (29
March) in the Persian system, and the 1st Thoth (2 January) in the Egyptian system.
ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF THE 26TH DYNASTY (02/663–04/525)
The chronology of the 26th dynasty, from Psamtik I to Psamtik III, can be reconstructed thanks to the
birth and death dates of the Apis as well as their exact life span, all given to the nearest day (an Apis was a
sacred bull identified as the son of Hathor and worshipped in the Memphis area). This chronology is
confirmed by astronomy (thanks to a document doubly dated from Amasis Year 12) as well as by two
synchronisms with Mesopotamian chronology. In fact, the chronology of the 26th dynasty may be reckoned
exactly thanks to biographies of prominent men and Apis bulls (Gauthier: 1915, 74-119; Kienitz: 1953, 154-
156; Breasted: 1906, 497-520):
A. Grave stele of Psammetichus son of Genefbahorek. Date of birth: Year 3 of Nekau 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 (1st Thot
matches the beginning of Egyptian year).
B. Grave stele of the priest Psammetichus son of Iahuben. Date of birth: Year 1 of Nekau 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.
C. Grave stele of the 4th Apis of the 26th Dynasty. Date of birth: Year 16 of Nekau II, month 2, day 7.
Installation: Year 1 of Psamtik 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.
D. Grave stele of the 3rd Apis of the 26th Dynasty. Date of birth: Year 53 of Psamtik I, month 6, day 19.
Installation: Year 54 of Psamtik I, month 3, day 12. Date of death: Year 16 of Nekau II, month 2, day 6.
Date of burial: Year 16 of Nekau II, month 4, day 16. Length of life: 16 years, 7 months, 17 days.
E. Epitaph of Apis bull from Cambyses (Kuhrt: 2010, 122-124). Date of birth: Year 27 [of Amasis]. Date
of death: Year 6 of Cambyses II. Length of life unknown, but the average lifespan of Apis bulls is from
16 to 19 years during the 26th Dynasty (Malinine, Posener, Vercoutter: 1968, XIII).
F. King Apries was still living according to a stele (Spalinger: 1977, 241-242) dated Year 3 of Amasis
(which was beginning on 12 January 567 BCE).
G. Year 6 of Assurbanipal corresponds to year 1 of Psamtik I (Grayson: 1980, 227-245).
H. 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 Aššur-uballit II corresponds to Year 17 of
Nabopolassar to Josiah's year 31 and year 1 of Nekau II.
TABLE 14
Dynasty 26 BCE 1st Thot A B C D E
Psamtik I 1 663 5-Feb year 6 of Aššurbanipal
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
18
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
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
Nekau 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
Psamtik 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
(Jeremiah 43:10-13; 44:30) 21 2 568 12-Jan 39 41 Year 37 of Nabuchadnezzar
(Herodotus II:161-169) 22 3 567 12-Jan 40 42
(Ezekiel 29:13-16) 1 4 566 12-Jan 41 43
(Herodotus II:172-173) 2 5 565 11-Jan 42 44
3 6 564 11-Jan 43 45
4 7 563 11-Jan 44 46
5 8 562 11-Jan 45 47
6 9 561 10-Jan 46 48
7 10 560 10-Jan 47 49
8 11 559 10-Jan 48 50
papyrus Louvre 7848 9 12 558 10-Jan 49 51
10 13 557 9-Jan 50 52
11 14 556 9-Jan 51 53
12 15 555 9-Jan 52 54
13 16 554 9-Jan 53 55
14 17 553 8-Jan 54 56
15 18 552 8-Jan 55 57
16 19 551 8-Jan 56 58
17 20 550 8-Jan 57 59
18 21 549 7-Jan 58 60
19 22 548 7-Jan 59 61
20 23 547 7-Jan 60 62
21 24 546 7-Jan 61 63
22 25 545 6-Jan 62 64
23 26 544 6-Jan 63 65
24 27 543 6-Jan 64 65y 10m 0
25 28 542 6-Jan 65 1
26 29 541 5-Jan 66 2
27 30 540 5-Jan 67 3
28 31 539 5-Jan 68 4
29 32 538 5-Jan 69 5
30 33 537 4-Jan 70 6
31 34 536 4-Jan 71 7
32 35 535 4-Jan 71y 4m 8
33 36 534 4-Jan 9
34 37 533 3-Jan 10
35 38 532 3-Jan 11
36 39 531 3-Jan 12
37 40 530 3-Jan 13
38 41 529 2-Jan 14
39 42 528 2-Jan 15
40 43 527 2-Jan 16
Psamtik 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
Darius I 6 1 521 31-Dec 522
2 520 31-Dec 521
3 519 31-Dec 520
4 518 31-Dec 519
5 517 30-Dec 518
TABLE 15
Dynasty 26 Reign Length of reign Year max Synchronism with:
(Nekau I) (671–01/663) (8 years) (2)
Psamtik I 02/663–01/609 54 years 54 Year 6 of Aššurbanipal
Nekau II 02/609–10/594 15 years 10 months 16 Year 17 of Nabopolassar
Psamtik 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] Year 37 of Nabuchadnezzar
Amasis 01/569–10/526 43 years 10 months 44
Psamtik III 11/526–04/525 6 months 2 Year 5 of Cambyses II
20
Dynasty 27 Reign Length of reign Year max
Cambyses II 02/526–01/521 ( 6)
Darius I 01/521–12/486 (36)
Xerxes 06/496–12/475 (21)
The Egyptian civil calendar was used to date civil events and the Egyptian lunar calendar was used to
date religious festivals linked to the moon. For example, the papyrus Louvre 7848 is dated (line 5): in year
12, 2nd month of Shemu, (day) 13, on the 15th day of the 1st month of Shemu. Consequently, we have: II
Shemu 13 (lunar) = 1 Shemu 15 (civil) in year 12 of Amasis (558 BCE). In 558 BCE I Shemu 1 (civil) was
dated 7 September and the first full moon before 7 September is on 11 August20:
TABLE 16
AUGUST (Julian calendar in 558 BCE) SEPTEMBER
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 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
ELUL (Babylonian calendar) TISHRI
14 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 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
IV PERET (Egyptian civil calendar) I SHEMU
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 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
I SHEMU (Egyptian lunar calendar) II SHEMU
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 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
The synchronisms in 609 BCE, between the chronologies: Egyptian, Babylonian, Assyrian and Israelite,
make it possible to confirm the accuracy of the different dates. These synchronisms in 609 BCE are very
well documented because they occurred at the end of the Assyrian Empire with the Fall of Haran just after
the Battle of Megiddo and 4 years before the Battle of Carchemish (605 BCE):
In his days Pharaoh Nekau the king of Egypt came to meet the king of Assyria (Aššur-uballiṭ II) by the
Euphrates River, and King Josiah went out to confront him; but when Nekau saw him, he put him to
death at Megiddo. So his servants transported his dead body in a chariot from Megiddo and brought him
to Jerusalem and buried him in his grave. Then the people of the land took Josiah’s son Jehoachaz and
anointed him and made him king in place of his father. Jehoachaz was 23 years old when he became
king (...) Pharaoh Nekau imprisoned him at Riblah in the land of Hamath, to keep him from reigning in
Jerusalem, and then imposed on the land a fine of 100 silver talents and a gold talent. Furthermore,
Pharaoh Nekau made Josiah’s son Eliakim king in place of his father Josiah and changed his name to
Jehoiakim; but he took Jehoahaz and brought him to Egypt, where he eventually died (2Ki 23:29-34).
The end of Assyrian dominion replaced by the Babylonian dominion had to have occurred at that time:
After all of this, when Josiah had prepared the temple, King Nekau of Egypt came up to fight at
Carchemish by the Euphrates. Then Josiah went out against him. So, he sent messengers to him, saying:
What does this have to do with you, O king of Judah? I am not coming against you today, but my fight
is against another house, and God says that I should hurry. For your own sake, refrain from opposing
God, who is with me, or he will bring you to ruin. However, Josiah would not turn away from him, but
he disguised himself to fight against him and would not listen to the words of Nekau, which were from
the mouth of God. So, he came to fight in the Plain of Megiddo. And the archers shot King Josiah, and
the king said to his servants: Get me out of here, for I am severely wounded. So, his servants took him
out of the chariot and had him ride in his second war chariot and brought him to Jerusalem. Thus, he
died and was buried in the tomb of his forefathers, and all Judah and Jerusalem mourned Josiah. And
Jeremiah chanted over Josiah, and all the male and female singers keep singing about Josiah in their
dirges down to this day (Lm 4:18-20); and a decision was made that they should be sung in Israel, and
they are written among the dirges (2Ch 35:20-25).
Herodotus recorded this famous battle and the Egyptian campaign in his writings (The Histories II:159)
and the Babylonian Chronicles give many historical details from the 10th to the 21st year of Nabopolassar.
Using ancient Babylonian records and texts that are lost to us, Berosus published the Babyloniaca in three
books (c. 280 BCE) and Josephus quoted some extracts (Against Apion I:133-137). Combining all the data
enables the reconstruction of the following chain of events: after the destruction of Nineveh (August 612
BCE) Nabopolassar appointed his young Nebuchadnezzar, likely around 20 years old (the minimum age for
acting as head of armies), as Crown Prince (at that same time the king of Assyria, Sin-šar-iškun, died); after
the fall of Haran (October 609 BCE) the king of Assyria, Aššur-uballiṭ II, disappeared (and probably died
soon after), Nabopolassar appointed the defeated Egyptian king (Nekau II) as satrap of Egypt but the latter
rebelled a few years later (June 606 BCE); finally Nebuchadnezzar inflicted a defeat upon the Egyptians at
Carchemish and defeated them completely (August 605 BCE).
20
In the same way that we have: 1st lunar crescent = new moon + 1; full moon observed = full moon (astronomy) - 1, hence the full
moon observed is 10 August = I Shemu 1 (lunar) and 9 September = II Shemu 1 (lunar). Consequently, I Shemu 15 (civil) and II
Shemu 13 (lunar) are both dated 21 September 558 BCE.
TABLE 17
BCE [A] [B] [C] [D] [E] [F] King
610 1 X 1 15 (0) 29 [A] Psamtik I, king of Egypt
2 XI 54
3 XII [B] Aššur-uballiṭ II, king of Assyria
4 I 2 16 (1) 30 [C] Nabopolassar, king of Babylonia
5 II [D] Nebuchadnezzar II, Crown Prince
6 III
7 IV [E] Josiah, king of Judah (2Ki 22:1)
8 V
9 VI
10 VII
11 VIII
12 IX
609 1 X
2 XI 1 [A] Nekau II, king of Egypt
3 XII
4 I 3 17 (2) 31
5 II [A] Nekau II, satrap of Egypt
6 III Battle of Megiddo (2Ki 23:29-30)
7 IV 0 [E] Jehoachaz (2Ki 23:31-32)
8 V
9 VI End of Assyrian Empire
10 VII 0 1 [A] Nekau II, satrap of Egypt
11 VIII
12 IX [E] Jehoiakim (2Ki 23:34-36)
608 1 X
2 XI [F] 70-year period (Jr 25:11-12; 29:10)
2
3 XII (70 years = October 609 – October 539)
4 I 18 (3) 1
ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF DYNASTIES 21 TO 25 (1090-663)
According to the Manetho King's List (Man.), mainly preserved in Africanus, the 21st dynasty preceded
dynasties 22 to 25, which followed one another chronologically (in parallel). To date these dynasties,
Egyptologists use the following chronological markers:
• The beginning of Dynasty 21 is dated c. 1080-1070 BCE (Dessoudeix: 2008, 429) because the first four
kings of this dynasty can be dated by radiocarbon measurements with an accuracy of +/- 20 years.
• The beginning of Dynasty 22 is dated in 945 BCE by most by Egyptologists (Dessoudeix: 2008, 442).
This date was calculated by Kenneth A. Kitchen (2003: 30-34,108-110), who used the biblical
chronology calculated by Edwin R. Thiele (1983: 10). Kitchen proposed to situate the attack on
Jerusalem by Shoshenq I during his campaign in Palestine (mentioned on a stele dated to his 21st and
last year of reign), which is dated to the 5th year of Rehoboam (1Ki 14:25-26, 2Ch 12:2-9). Then, based
on the reign of Jeroboam (930-913) calculated by Thiele, Kitchen set the 5th year in 925 (= 930 - 5),
assuming that the campaign took place just before Year 21, which fixes the accession of Shoshenq I in
945 BCE (= 925 + 20) and therefore his complete reign (945–924).
• The beginning of Dynasty 25 is dated c. 752-735 BCE with the reign of Piye who preceded those of
Shabaka, Shabataka, Taharqa and Tanunatum (Dessoudeix: 2008, 485–497).
• The reign of Taharqa (689-663) immediately preceded the reign of Psamtik I (663-609) of Dynasty 26.
The chronology of a few reigns has however been modified by recent studies, notably the reigns of
Shabaka and Shabataka which have been reversed because Sargon II (722–705) faced Shabataka during his
10th campaign in 712 BCE, not in 702 BCE as previously believed (Payraudeau: 2020, 36–37). This
arbitrary inversion of reigns contradicts all historical documents such as: 1) Manetho which sets the
following order: Shabaka (Sabacon), Shabataka (Sebichos) then Taharqa (Tarkos), 2) the biblical text which
fixes the attack of the Kushite king, Taharqa, in the year 14 of Hezekiah (2Ki 19:8-9), i.e. in 712 BCE, 3) an
Apis was installed Year 14 of Shabaka and another Apis died in Year 4 of Taharqa. As the lifespan of Apis
bulls is about 16 years during this period (Vercoutter: 1958, 340-342), the reign of Shabataka had to be: 7
years (1 Apis), 23 years (2 Apis) or 39 years (3 Apis). The 23-year period with two Apis is necessary
because it is the only one to match the 18 years of Shabaka's reign and ended in 712 BCE at Shabataka's
accession. Taharqa's reign ended in January 663 BCE since Psamtik I's reign, his successor, began around
February of that year. That reign lasted 26 years, according to the dates of the Apis bulls, because an Apis
born in year 26 of Taharqa, the III Peret 9, died 21 years later in year 20 of Psamtik I, the IV Shemu 20,
which dates back to Taharqa's accession in January 689 BCE. The attack on Egypt by Esarhaddon in the 10th
year of his reign (March 671 BCE) corresponds to the march of a Kushite reserve unit mentioned on a rock,
this inscription is dated year 19 of Taharqa. According to a stele of Kawa, Taharqa was 20 at the Battle of
22
Eltekeh (in 712 BCE), which places his birth in 732 BCE, or two years before the death of Piye his father,
who ruled at least 30 years because the Great Temple at Gebel Barkal contains carved relief scenes depicting
Piye celebrating a Sed Festival (= Year 30). The beginning of Shabataka's reign can be dated to 712 BCE
thanks to a quadruple synchronism. 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 threatening (Laming Macadam: 1949, 14-32). Sennacherib's 3rd campaign21 thus corresponds to
the 1st year of Shabataka. The inscription of Sargon II, found at Tang-i Var (Frame: 1999, 31-60), involves
dating this campaign in the 10th year of Sargon II (712 BCE).
TABLE 18
BCE [A] [B] [C] [D] [E] [F] King
712 1 X 9 (2) 9 13 1 [26] [A] Sargon II, King of Assyria (Is 20:1, 36:1)
2 XI
3 XII [B] Sennacherib, Crown Prince (2Ki 18:13-17)
4 I 10 (3) 10 14 [C] Merodachbaladan II, King of Babylonia (Is 39:1)
5 II
6 III [D] Hezekiah, King of Judah
7 IV [E] Shabataka, King of Egypt
8 V /Taharqa, Co-regent of Egypt (2Ki 19:8-9)
9 VI
10 VII [27] [F] 65-year period (Is 7:8-9) from 738 BCE to 673 BCE
11 VIII
12 IX
Taharqa's lifetime of 69 years corresponds to a death of old age. The period covering the reigns from
Shabaka to Taharqa can be reconstituted22 with the following data (Kitchen: 2004, XLI-XLII, 148-183, 590-
593; Jansen-Winkeln: 2006, 258-264; Török: 1997, 129-188).
TABLE 19
Dynasty 24 Africanus Dated documents of the reign Man.* Reign
1 Tefnakht I (Tnephachthos) 8 years 8 years 742-734
2 Bakenrenef (Bocchôris) 6 years 6 (= Year 2 of Shabaka) 6 years 735-729
Dynasty 25 728 -
0 Kashta - 770?-761
1 Piye 3, 4, 21, [30] (sed festival) 761-12/-731
2 Shabaka (Sabacôn) 8 years 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15 [1]8 years 01/730-01/712
3 Shabataka (Sebichos) 14 years 1 (= year 10 of Sargon II), 3 [2]4 years 01/712-01/689
4 Taharqa (Tarkos) 18 years 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 19, 21, 24, 26 [26] years 01/689-01/663
5 Tanutamun 8 years 1,2,8 8 years 02/663-656
13 (Napata) 656-650?
(6) Atlanersa - (Napata) 650?-640?
Dynasty 26
Tefnakht II (Stephinatês) 7 years 8 7 years 12/678-12/671
Nekau I (Nechaô) 8 years 2 8 years 01/671-01/663
1 Psamtik I (Psammêtichos) 54 years 1-54 54 years 02/663-01/609
6 Psamtik III 6 months 1-2 6 months -525 203
Shabaka’s reign is 8 years, according to the Africanus account (Man.), but as the years from 10 to 15 are
attested, the true length of his reign had to be 18 years (the ten having been forgotten). Similarly, Shabataka's
14-year reign must be replaced by 24 years (Man.*). In order to take into account the synchronism dated in
712 BCE, between the reigns of Shabataka and Sargon II, Payraudeau suggested reversing these two reigns,
although clearly indicated by Manetho (Sabacôn before Sebichos), so as not to modify too much the
conventional chronology of Egyptologists. This modification of the chronology of the Dynasty 25 obliged
him to shift the chronology of two dynasties. He replaced the reign of Tefnakht I (Dynasty 24) by that of
Tefnakht II (Dynasty 26) and moved the reign of Osorkon IV from Dynasty 22 to Dynasty 23, considering
that the synchronism attested between Year 2 of Shabaka (730–712), in 729 BCE, and Year 6 of Bakenrenef
(734–728), at the time of the burial of an Apis bull, was erroneous and should no longer be used
(Payraudeau: 2020, 36). These modifications are based on an erroneous chronology and Payraudeau himself
21
The military campaigns of Sennacherib and Sargon are clearly identified as parallel and dated 712 BCE (2Ki 18:13-17; 2Ch 32:9,
Is 20:1). When Sennacherib comes to Jerusalem, it is stated: “the kings of Assyria (malkhê aššur) did to all the lands by devoting
them to destruction” (2Ki 19:10-17), implying Sennacherib and Sargon.
22
The reign of Shabataka ended in 689 BCE at Taharqa's accession and the 1st year of his reign coincided with the Battle of Eltekeh,
according to the Kawa stelae (Török: 1997, 169-171), and with the capture of Ashdod by Sargon (712 BCE) in the stele of Tang-i
Var. His reign lasted from 712 to 689. Despite the virtual absence of regnal years (only year 3 is attested), the number of monuments
erected by Shabaka and Shabataka, which is substantially the same, means one must attribute to them reigns of similar lengths.
gives the reasons for refusing them. For example, a demotic king list published in 2009 indicates that the
total number of years of reign between the last king of the 24th dynasty (Bakenrenef) and Psamtik III, the
last king of the 26th dynasty, was 203 years (Payraudeau: 2020, 8-9). This count, which is rigorously
accurate, since there are indeed 203 years between the end of the reign of Bakenrenef and the end of the
reign of Psamtik III (203 = 728 – 526), shows that the Egyptian King List were regularly copied and
contained few errors. These king lists also show that the Egyptian dynasties (22 to 25) that ruled in parallel
are listed in chronological order, which could explain why the kings after Shoshenq V and those before
Shabaka were not registered to give the illusion of a single ruling dynasty. Moreover, although several kings
reigned at the same time, only one Apis bull was dedicated to one king and not to the others. This suggests
that the Apis bull consecrated in year 6 of Bakenrenef, in 729 BCE, was preceded by the Apis bull
consecrated in year 37 of Shoshenq V, around 746 BCE, as the average lifespan of the Apis bulls was 16
years at that time. King Pedubast II, who reigned 5 years before Osorkon IV, the king who began his reign
from the year 21 of Piye (in 741 BCE), fits perfectly into the previously calculated chronology.
Paradoxically, the reigns of Osorkon IV and Piye are absent from Egyptian King List (quoted by
Manetho), giving the illusion of the following succession: Shoshenq V (Dynasty 22), Iuput II (Dynasty 23),
Tefnakht I, Bakenrenef (Dynasty 24), Shabaka (Dynasty 25).
TABLE 20
BCE Dynasty 22 Dynasty 23 Dynasty 25 Dynasty 24
(Tanis) (Leontopolis) (Nubia) (Sais)
749 Shoshenq V 34 Iuput II 14/1 Piye 13
748 35 2 14
747 36 3 15
746 37 Death of an Apis 4 16
745 Pedubast II 38/1 5 17 Tiglath-pileser III
744 2 6 18
743 3 7 19
742 4 8 20 Tefnakht I 1
741 Osorkon IV 5/1 9 Piye's conquest 21 2
740 2 10 22 3
739 3 11 23 4
738 4 12 24 5
737 5 13 25 6
736 6 14 26 7
735 7 15 27 8
734 8 16 28 Bakenrenef 9/1
733 9 17 29 2
732 10 18 30 3
731 11 19 31 4
730 12 20 Shabaka 1 5
729 13 Death of an Apis 21 2 6
728 14 3 1 1
727 15 Shalmaneser V 4 2 2
726 16 1 5 3 3
725 17 2 6 4 4
724 18 3 7 5 5
723 19 4 8 6 6
722 Sô’ (2Ki 17:3-5) 20 Sargon II 9 7 7
721 21 1 10 8 8
720 22 2 11 9 9
719 23 3 12 10 10
718 24 4 13 11 11
717 25 5 Death of an Apis 14 12 12
716 Shilkani 26 6 1 15 13
715 Pir’u (Pharaoh) 27 /Sennacherib 2 16 14
714 28 1 8 3 17 15
713 29 2 9 4 18 16
712 Pamiu II 30/1 3 10 5 Shabataka 19/1 17
711 2 11 6 /Taharqa 2 (2Ki 19:8-9) 18
710 3 12 7 3 19
709 4 13 8 4 20
708 5 14 9 5 21
707 6 15 10 6 22
706 7 16 11 7 23
24
705 8 Sennacherib 12 8 24
704 9 1 13 9 25
703 10 2 14 10 26
702 11/1 3 15 Death of an Apis 12 27
701 2 1 13 28
700 2 14 29
699 3 15 30
698 4 16 31
697 5 17 32
696 6 19 33
695 7 20 34
694 8 21 35
693 9 22 36
692 10 23 37
691 11 24 38
690 12 25 39
689 13 Taharqa 26/1 40
688 14 2 41
687 15 3 42
686 16 Death of an Apis 4 43
685 1 5 44
684 2 6 45
683 3 7 46
682 4 8 47
681 5 9 48
680 6 10 49
679 Dynasty 26 7 11 50
678 Tefnakht II 1 8 12 51
677 2 9 13 52
676 3 10 14 53
675 4 11 15 54
674 5 12 16 55
673 6 13 17 56
672 7 14 18 57
671 Nekau I 1 15 19 58
670 2 16 ? 20 59
669 3 Aššurbanipal 1 21 60
668 4 1 2 22 61
667 5 2 3 23 62
666 6 3 4 24 63
665 7 4 5 25 64
664 8 5 6 26 65
663 Psamtik I 1 6 7 Tanutamun 1 66
662 2 7 8 2 67
526 Psamtik III 44/1 203

525 2
The analysis of the stele dated I Akhet 1 Year 21 of Piye (24 February 741 BCE) allows us to
understand the transition between Dynasty 22 and Dynasty 25. In this stele, the king of Kush, Piye, boasts of
having defeated a coalition of three kings of Egypt: Osorkon IV, Iuput II, Tefnakht I, and three chiefs in
Lower Egypt and of having obtained their allegiance. However, Tefnakht I, the leader of the coalition, is not
represented on the stele among the defeated (Payraudeau: 2020, 175–182), which shows that he retained his
authority as king of Egypt, while the two other kings were demoted to the rank of governors under the
tutorship of Piye, the king of Kush. This change in status explains why Dynasty 23 ended in the year 21 of
Iuput II and Dynasty 22 apparently ended in the year 38 of Shoshenq V although the reign of Osorkon IV
began in the year 21 of Piye. The reason why Tefnakht I formed a coalition with the other two kings of
Egypt is not clear, but it seems that he wanted to federate Egypt to be able to repel a possible attack by
Tiglath-pileser III (745–727), an imperialist Assyrian king who had begun the annexation of the kingdom of
Arpad in 742 BCE and who obviously intended to annex Samaria and Egypt. It is therefore likely that this
powerful coalition of the kings of Egypt must have worried the king of Kush who intervened, not to become
king of Egypt but to keep it under his control. Osorkon IV reappears when the Assyrian king, Shalmaneser V
(727-722), began to annex Samaria towards the end of his reign in 722 BCE, prompting Hosea, the king of
Israel, to seek support from Osorkon IV (2Ki 17:3-6). The name Osorkon (w3-s3-i-r-k-n) is spelled Sô’ (‫)סוא‬
in the Hebrew text and Segôr (Σηγωρ) in the Greek text. This king named Sô’ appoints Osorkon IV for at
least two reasons: the other king in 722 BCE, Shabaka, is an Ethiopian king like Taharqa in the south of
Egypt (2Ki 19:9) while Osorkon IV is an Egyptian king in the north of Egypt (in Tanis) and close to the
kingdom of Israel. His name Sô' is a hypochoristic of O(so)rkon23, just as Piye is a hypochoristic of
Pi(ankh)ye or Sese is a hypochoristic of (Ram)sese. Osorkon IV appears again, in 716 BCE, as Shilkani24,
when he paid tribute to King Sargon II. The end of the reign of Osorkon IV is unclear but he probably
disappeared when King Sargon II and his Crown Prince Sennacherib attacked Egypt in 712 BCE. The
inscription of Sargon II, found at Tang-i Var, requires dating the campaign of Sargon II in 712 BCE not in
702/701. Lines 19 to 21 read (Frame: 1999, 31-60):
19) I plundered the city of Ashdod (in 712 BCE). Iamani, its king, feared [my weapons] and ... He fled to the
region of the land of Meluḫḫa and lived (there) stealthfully (literally: like a thief).
20) Šapataku’ (Shabataka), king of the land of Meluḫḫa (Nubia), heard of the mig[ht] of the gods Aššur,
Nabu, (and) Marduk which I had [demonstrated] over all lands, ...
21) He put (Iamani) in manacles and handcuffs ... he had him brought captive into my presence.
The capture of the city of Ashod by Sargon II is mentioned in the biblical text (Is 20:1) in parallel with
the capture of Lachish by Sennacherib (1Ki 18:13-14), in the 14th year of Hezekiah, in 712 BCE. Sargon's
inscription does not mention Osorkon IV between the capture of Ashdod and the apparent surrender of
Shabataka, presumably because this king had to oppose Sargon and was eliminated. According to the two
stelae of Kawa, after the death of Shabaka (in 712 BCE), his successor Shabataka immediately summoned an
army which he placed under the command of his brother Taharqa, a young son of Piye age 20 to repel an
Assyrian attack which was threatening. In addition, Taharqa states explicitly on these stelae that he was
designated as heir (Crown Prince)25 by Shabataka despite his other brothers and all their children. This attack
on Egypt by Sargon II explains the reaction of Taharqa preparing to come to Judea to fight against
Sennacherib, who had begun the siege of Jerusalem (2Ki 19:8-10), and consequently repel the Assyrian
attack. According to the biblical text, Sennacherib's army of 185,000 soldiers was destroyed by an angel in a
single night, forcing Sennacherib to return to Nineveh (2Ki 19:35-36). According to Herodotus:
The next king (after Sabacôs) was the priest of Hephaestus whose name was Sethon (...) So when
presently king Sanacharib came against Egypt, with a great force of Arabians and Assyrians, the warrior
Egyptians would not march against him. The priest, in this quandary, went into the temple shrine and
there before the god’s image bitterly lamented over what he expected to suffer. Sleep came on him
while he was lamenting, and it seemed to him the god stood over him and told him to take heart, that he
would come to no harm encountering the power of Arabia: “I shall send you champions,” said the god.
So he trusted the vision, and together with those Egyptians who would follow him camped at Pelusium,
where the road comes into Egypt; and none of the warriors would go with him, but only merchants and
craftsmen and traders. Their enemies came there, too, and during the night were overrun by a horde of
field mice that gnawed quivers and bows and the handles of shields, with the result that many were
killed fleeing unarmed the next day (The Histories II:139-141).
The Ethiopian king who succeeded Shabaka (Sabacôs) was Taharqa whom Herodotus called Sethon26,
an Ethiopian priest-king. This description of Herodotus confirms the biblical text but replaces the miraculous
intervention of an angel with an instant plague epidemic, which is a rational explanation.
The previous examples show that the presence of co-regencies can distort the chronological sequence.
The chronology of the 21st dynasty can be calculated mainly thanks to the duration of reigns from the
ancient document called Africanus (Wallraff: 2007, 113-119). We can compare this list with that of Eusebius
(Von Beckerath: 1997, 224-226), as well as the highest dates of each reign (Jansen-Winkeln: 2006, 218-258).
Fragments of king lists preserved in Greek chronicles have made it possible to increase some durations of
reigns that do not appear in the Africanus. The papyrus Lips Inv. 1228, for example, shows the reigning
durations for Osorkon II (Ousorthos 40+x years) and Shoshenq III (Sesongkhes 41 years). Harsiese, the high
priest of Amun and co-regent of Osorkon II, does not appear in this papyrus. These studies made it possible
to identify the names of the king list transmitted by Manetho (mainly in Africanus) and to associate them
with those of the Egyptian inscriptions.
23
It should be noted that one of the two birth names of Osorkon IV is spelled S3-w3-r-k-n-i (Dessoudeix: 2008, 466), vocalised
Sauarkeni, instead of the usual W3-s3-r-k-n, vocalised Uasairken.
24
The Assyrian name Shilkani (Ši-il-kan-ni) is a normal distortion of the Egyptian name (Ua)sairkeni, because the beginning of the
name "ua" means "and" in Semitic languages and has not been transcribed, the permutation of the sounds "sh" and "s" is usual and
the Egyptian "r" was a rolled "r/l" close to the "l". In 715 BCE, Shilkani was called Pi-ir-’u (Pharaoh).
25
As the Nubian succession is carried out through the fraternal link, and not through the filial link (as in Egypt), Taharqa as brother
of Chabataka was naturally appointed to his succession and in practice had the role of co-regent.
26
Sethon did not designate a proper name but was the title of the high priest of Amun in Memphis, this title having evolved over time
from sm (priest sem), to stm(t), then stne (Griffith: 1900, 5–12).
26
The study of the genealogical lists of the kings of Egypt as well as those of the high priests of Amun,
made it possible to improve the chronology of Dynasties 21 and 22 which had been proposed by Kitchen.
TABLE 21
Dyn. Greek name years Kitchen Personal name Throne name
21 1 Smendes 26 1069-1043 Nesibanebdjedet Hedjkheperre-setepenre
2 Nephercheres 46 1043-1039 Amenemnesu Neferkare-heqawaset
3 Psusennes I 4 1039-991 Pasebkhanut I Akheperre-setpenamun
4 Amenôphthis 9 993-984 Amenemope Usermaatre-setpenamun
5 Osochôr 6 984-978 Osorkon the Elder Akheperre-setpenre
6 Psinaches 9 978-959 Siamun Netjerkheperre-meryamun
7 Psusennes II/III 14 959-945 Pasebkhanut II Tyetkheperure-setpenre
22 1 Sesônchis 21 945-924 Shoshenq I Hedjkheperre setepenre
2 Osôrton 15 924-889 Osorkon I Sekhemkheperre-setepenre
3 ? 889 - Shoshenq II Heqakheperre-setpenre
Shoshenq IIb Tutkheperre
-889 Shoshenq IIc Maakheperre
4 Takelôthis 13 889-874 Takelot I Hedjkheperre-setpenre
5 Ousorthos 40+x 874-850 Osorkon II /[Harsiese] Usermaatre-setpenamun
6 850-825 Takelot II Hedjkheperre-setpenre
7 Sesongkhes 41 825 - Shoshenq III Usermaatre-setpenre
-773 Shoshenq IV Hedjkheperre-setpenre
8 773-767 Pamiu I Usermaatre-setepenamun
9 767-730 Shoshenq V Akheperre
10 Pedubast II Sehetepibenre
11 730-715 Osorkon IV Akheperre-stpenamun?
This chronological classification of the kings of Dynasty 22 has long been accepted, but the discovery
of new pharaohs, as well as longer reigns, has significantly modified this conventional arrangement27. In fact,
this Dynasty 22 chronology was challenged by the genealogical analysis of the reign of Osorkon II. Aston
showed, by reconstructing the genealogy of two Theban families (Aston: 1989, 139-153), that the reign of
Osorkon II should be 40-45 years instead of 24 usually accepted (Jansen-Winkeln: 2006, 234-264). The reign
of Osorkon II is probably 44/45 years, which is consistent with the Sed-festivals mentioned on some reliefs
of Osorkon II at Bubastis (Lange: 2009, 203-218) where ancient inscriptions name a first Sed-festival (Year
30), a repetition of Sed-festival (Year 33) and a third time (Year 39) or fourth time (Year 42) of celebrating
it. This duration of about 44 years was further confirmed by the extract from the King List papyrus Lips Inv.
1228. To avoid a shift of about 20 years in the conventional chronology, several Egyptologists have moved
the reign of Takelot II into Dynasty 23 (Dessoudeix: 2008, 423-466).
TABLE 22
Dyn. years Dated documents of the reign ∆0 14C dating ∆1
21 1 Smendes 26 11-13, 15-16, 18-21, 25 26 1073-1046 27
3 Psusennes I 46 6-8, 19, 27, 30, 40, 48-49 46 1046-1042 4
2 Amenemnesu 4 - 4 1042-997 45
4 Amenemope 9 1, 3, 5, 10? 9 997-989 8
5 Osorkon the Elder 6 2 6
6 Siamun 9 1-7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17 [1]9 1003-984
7 Psusennes II/III 14 5, 11, 13? 14 994-980
22 1 Shoshenq I (Sesônchis) 21 2, 5, 6, 10-11, 13, 21 21 980-959
2 Osorkon I (Osortôn) 15 1-4, 6, 10-12, 23, 33-34 [3]5 959-924
3 Shoshenq II 2,3? [2] 924-922
Shoshenq IIb - 922-922
4 Takelot I (Takelôthis) 13 5?, 8?, 9, 13/14?, 14? 13 922-909
5 Osorkon II (Ousorthos) 40+x 12, 16, 21-23, 29, [30], [33], [39], [42] [44] 909-865
6 Takelot II 11-25 [25] 865-840
7 Shoshenq III (Sesongkhes) 41 3, 5?, 6, 12, 14, 15, 18?, 22-33, 38-39 41 840-799
Shoshenq IV 10 [11?] 799-788
8 Pamiu I 2, 4-7 [6] 788-782
9 Shoshenq V 7, 8, 11, 15, 17, 19, 22, 36-38 [37] 782-745
10 Pedubast II 5 [4] 745-741
11 Osorkon IV28 [30] 741-712
27
The discovery of new Kings Sheshonq (II, IIa and IIb) did not significantly alter the chronology, as only Sheshonq II has at least
two years of reign, the other two Shoshenqs apparently did not reign, or only very briefly. It is also possible that Sheshonq IIa and
Sheshonq IIb are Sheshonq II with two other personal names. Harsiese, co-regent of Osorkon II, has no regnal year.
28
The reign of Osorkon IV has no date (because he was Piye's vassal), but as the duration of the reign of his father Pedubast II is
comparable to that of Pamiu, it is logical to suppose that his was of about thirty years like that of Shoshenq V.
Carbon-14 dating confirms the duration of the first four reigns of Dynasty 21, showing that Africanus is a
reliable document. However, the order of these kings is different, but it should be remembered that the
absolute accuracy of carbon-14 dating is +/- 20 years within this period. In addition, the list of Africanus is
confirmed by the highest dates of reigns, except in three cases: Year 49 of Psusennes I (instead of 47,
maximum, because there is no accession year), Year 17 of Siamun (10 maximum) and Year 35 of Osorkon I
(16 maximum). These differences may be explained in various ways (copying mistakes, presence of co-
regencies, etc.). There are two difficulties: the low number of dates explicitly linked to the pharaoh's name
(underlined values), which is why some Egyptologists have not kept the same values (Kitchen: 2000, 39-41)
and the presence of several co-regencies which do not say how they were counted is unknown. The year 49
of Psusennes I (Papyrus Brooklyn 16.205) can be explained by a co-regency with another pharaoh (Le
Guilloux: 2010, 257-266). This Pharaoh seems to have prevailed in the North for 4 years with Amenemnesu
in the South, then alone after his death (Grimal: 1988, 407) and towards the end of his reign (after year 46)
he co-ruled with (his son?) Amenemope29.
The chronological reconstruction of Dynasty 22, using only reign lengths, makes it necessary to date the
reign of Shoshenq I (980-959) 35 years earlier than in Kitchen's chronology. In order not to modify this
chronology anchored on the reign of Shoshenq I, Payraudeau suggested keeping this reign, slightly modified
(943-922), and eliminating Takelot II from the 22nd dynasty at Tanis and placing him in a parallel 22nd
dynasty that would have reigned at Thebes. The main argument to justify this surprising choice is to assume
a synchronism between Year 4 of Takelot II and Year 1 of Shoshenq I (Payraudeau: 2020, 24-25, 126-127,
555-557). Are the reasons that pushed current Egyptologists to make this choice well-founded? Here are the
main ones that are exposed in the introduction of Aston's article (Aston: 2009, 1-28):
Some twenty years ago I wrote an article in which I suggested that Takeloth II, far from being a Tanite
Pharaoh, as had previously always been assumed, was in fact a king of a different line – the Theban
Twenty-third Dynasty. Not only that but that he was also a contemporary of the Tanite Shoshenq III,
who, I postulated, immediately followed the reign of Osorkon II. Furthermore, by arguing from the year
dates recorded in the famed Chronicle of Prince Osorkon, I suggested that Year 22 of Shoshenq III must
have been very close to Year 24 of Takeloth II, and not twenty-two years later. Assuming Shoshenq
III’s Year 22 followed Takeloth II’s highest known year date, Year 25, then Shoshenq III came to the
throne in Tanis in Year 3 of Takeloth II. Furthermore, I suggested that the civil war which broke out in
Thebes in Takeloth II’s Year 11, as recorded in the Chronicle of Prince Osorkon, was caused by
Pedubast Siese setting himself up in opposition to Takeloth as king of Thebes and, as such, Year 1 of
Pedubast = Year 11 of Takeloth II = Year 8 of Shoshenq III. Whilst admitting the weakness of some of
the points outlined in that article, I still hold to the basic tenets of the theory listed above. I had also
pointed out that by generation counting, based on the styles of the grave goods of the descendants of
Takeloth II, then Takeloth II should be dated from around 825-800 BC, or a full generation later than
that suggested in Kitchen’s magisterial Third Intermediate Period, which thus meant that Osorkon II had
to have reigned for 40/45 years to fill the gap, and sought to justify this by drawing attention to several
genealogies which seem to indicate that Osorkon’s reign must have covered more than one generation.
However, this gap may, in fact, be somewhat shorter; it was created by utilising an average of 25 years
per generation for the Third Intermediate Period, as suggested by Bierbrier, but it now looks as though
this figure is too low, 28-30 years being a more likely figure. By recomputing the genealogical
information with this higher figure, then Takeloth II can, nay must, have reigned slightly earlier in time.
To justify his chronological choice, Aston is obliged to contradict one of his previous studies in which
he showed that the reign of Osorkon II was to be 44/45 years (which should now be replaced by 34/35
years!), and to postulate that the year 24 of Takelot II in the Chronicle of Prince Osorkon should be followed
immediately (not 22 years later as previously admitted) by the year 22 of Shoshenq III. The Chronicle is
divided into three distinct parts, A, B and C. Part A is the earlier part of the inscription (Siat: 2012, 25-27).
Though the inscription has mostly survived, we must derive a date of its narrative from clues extracted from
29
If this co-regency lasted 3 years, the last year of the reign of Psusennes I is the year 49 (= 46 + 3). This year 49 is followed by the
year 4 of Amenemope which can be interpreted as two dates separated by 1 year. The inscription dated I Shemu 1 of year 17 in the
annals of a priest of Karnak under Siamun led to postulate a reign of 19 years instead of 9. This conclusion is logical, but the co-
regencies are common during this period, it is possible that there was one of 10 years (= 19 - 9) with Psusennes II. This scenario is
more likely that this pharaoh first ruled as high priest of Amun (Payraudeau: 2008, 293-308), after the death of Pinudjem II in the
year 10 of Siamun (Kitchen: 2004, 277,283). This Pharaoh high priest is known as Psusennes III, but Kitchen recognizes that in fact
it may be have been Psusennes II. Also, when did Siamun bury all the royal mummies in the new vault at Der el-Bahari, this activity
took place over the years 1-10, or during the first 9 years of his reign as king alone, in agreement with the Africanus. Texts which
dating from the year 33 of Osorkon I, on the bandages of a mummy, supported a reign of 35 years, implying a clerical error (15
instead of 35) rather than a co-regency. Although the reconstruction and dating of the 22nd and 23rd dynasty are controversial, for
example some documents that were originally attributed to Takelot III are now attributed to Takelot II (Payraudeau: 2009, 291-302),
however, the succession and the length of reigns are confirmed by dated steles of the Apis bulls.
28
within the text, in particular Prince Osorkon’s father, Takeloth II’s reigning Years 11-24 (Part A, Main Text)
and Shoshenq III’s Years 22-29 (Part B).
FIG. 3
Contrary to what Aston postulated, it is unlikely that the text in Part B, which was written later,
describes events that took place immediately after those described in Part A. The Chronicle30 lists regnal
years for the benefactions of Osorkon B in terms of the reigns of Takeloth II (Osorkon B’s father) and
Shoshenq III (his brother). Caminos refers to a tabulation of “surviving portions of the summary of
Osorkon’s benefactions” with Table below. He comments that, “The dates in which the above occur show
with a degree of probability amounting almost to certainty that year 24 in col. 7 (date-row 2) is Takeloth II’s
while dates 3 to 8 all belong to Shoshenq’s reign (Tetley: 2014, 546-547).
TABLE 23
Row Column Regnal years
1 6–7 Year 11 of Takeloth II to year 28 of Shoshenq III
2 7[–9] Year 24, fourth month [—]
3 [10–]12 [—] Year 22 to year 28
4 12 Year 23
5 16 Year 24
6 17 Year 25
7 17 Year 22 (?) to year 28
8 22 Year 29
While on the surface the list appears sequential as understood by Caminos, Aston thought he had found
an overlap because the 24th year of Takeloth II (row 2) is followed by the 22nd year of Shoshenq III (row 3).
Traditionally, it is understood that a gap occurs in the account between columns 7 and 12 (rows 2 and 3),
which presumably held information now missing. Aston has interpreted it to infer that Year 24 of Takeloth II
was closely followed by Year 22 of Shoshenq III, implying that Takeloth II began to reign just three years
before Shoshenq III, that is, in the third-to-last year of Osorkon II’s reign. Kitchen holds to the traditional
view that Takeloth II was king in the second half of the 22nd Dynasty, succeeding Osorkon II and preceding
his son Shoshenq III31. The fact that of the three sons of Osorkon II, Hornakht, Nimlot C and Shoshenq D,
none succeeded him, but Takelot II, the son of Nimlot C, proves that Osorkon II reigned about 44 years.
Indeed, the first three kings of Dynasty 22 reigned on average 19 years (= [21 + 35 + 2]/3), therefore, since
Takelot I reigned 13 years, his son Osorkon II should have reigned about 25 years (= 19 + 19 - 13), and
Osorkon II's son should have reigned about 19 years. Since his three sons died before they could reign,
Osorkon II therefore reigned about 44 years (= 25 + 19).
30
Founder of the Bubastite Dynasty, Shoshenq I’s hand of power as a Libyan Period king was depicted in relief on the Bubastite
Portal at Karnak. The portal is shared with reliefs, the internal wall bearing the inscriptions of the Chronicle of Prince Osorkon. The
inscriptions themselves are meant to act as records of instated offerings or commemoration of activities. The Chronicle is in a
narrative form and addresses Osorkon (B) as the High Priest of Amun and the civil uprisings of rebels in Thebes and the attempts by
Osorkon to subdue these rebellions. The Chronicle addresses enemies from inside Egypt and the measures Osorkon took to quell the
rebellions, make official decrees for offerings and care of the estate of Amun, and other restorative duties.
31
Concerning family relationships, Kitchen protests that having relatives at Thebes does not infer that Takeloth II lived there, nor is
there any trace of his burial at Thebes, and nothing has been discovered to prove he resided there. He points out that the title “God,
Ruler of Thebes,” is used also of Shoshenq V at Tanis (22nd Dynasty) and means nothing as to the location of Takeloth II or the 23rd
Dynasty. He explains that the epithet Si-Ese “Son of Isis” refers to the god living in the East Delta used by kings of the 23rd Dynasty
and used as an alternative to “Son of Bast” referring to the god Bast worshiped in the vicinity of Bubastis and Leontopolis by the
coexisting 22nd Dynasty kings. He says the epithets are not equivalent to the north and south of Egypt. Pedubast I’s use of both
epithets is explained because he was the offspring of the Tanite/Bubastite 22nd Dynasty and began his own dynasty at Leontopolis in
Isis country, not far away. There is much uncertainty about the high priest of Amun, Harsiese, but he could have been a coregent for
10 years (?) during the reign of Osorkon II (Payraudeau: 2020, 115-127)
The chronological reconstitution of the 22nd dynasty carried out by all the synchronisms confirms the
absolute chronology. There are two types of synchronisms: those between the regnal years of kings and those
between the regnal years of a king and the date of burial of an Apis bull (Dessoudeix: 2008, 450-463):
TABLE 24
BCE Dy. King Burial of Lifespan Synchronism with:
an Apis (in years)
980 22 Shoshenq I Year 1 of Shoshenq I = Year 15 of Psusennes II
959 22 Osorkon I Year 1 of Osorkon I = Year 22 of Shoshenq I
924 22 Takelot I Year 1 of Takelot I = Year 36 of Osorkon I
922 22 Shoshenq II Year 1 of Shoshenq II = Year 14 of Takelot I
909 22 Osorkon II Year 1 of Osorkon II = [Year 3] of Shoshenq II
887 Year 23 ?
875 Year 35 of Osorkon II
870 [Year 40] [17] [uncertified burial]
865 22 Takelot II Year 1 of Takelot II = [Year 45] of Osorkon II
852 Year 14 [18]
851 Total lunar eclipse dated 29/XII/15 (= 17 March)
840 Year 26 of Takelot II
837 22 Shoshenq III Year 4 15 [unnamed king]
829 Year 12 of Shoshenq III = Year 5 of Pedubast I
818 Year 16 of Pedubast I = Year 2 of Iuput I
813 Year 28 24
800 22 Shoshenq IV Year 1 of Shoshenq IV = Year 41 of Shoshenq III
787 22 Pamiu I Year 2 26
772 22 Shoshenq V Year 11 15
746 Year 37 26
741 22 Osorkon IV Year 1 of Osorkon IV = Year 21 of Piye
729 24 Bakenrenef 000 Year 6 [17] Year 6 of Bakenrenef = Year 2 of Shabaka
722 Osorkon IV Sô (2Ki 17:3-5)
717 25 Shabaka Year 14 [12]
715 Osorkon IV Shilkani (Year 7 of Sargon II)
712 Year 30 of Osorkon IV = Year 1 of Shabataka
686 25 Taharqa Year 4 [16]
594 26 Nekau II Year 16 16y. 7m.
577 26 Apries Year 12 17y. 6m.
526 26 203 Year 44 of Amasis = Year 1 of Psamtik III
524 26 Cambyses II Year 6 19
All these synchronisms are accepted by Aston except those in square brackets and those from astronomy
(highlighted in midnight blue). The above chronological reconstruction helps us understand why he
eliminated the 35-year reign (875-840) from Year 35 of Osorkon II to Year 26 of Takelot II, because this 35-
year period (highlighted in grey) corresponds approximately to the 37 years of difference between the reign
of Shoshenq I according to the absolute chronology (980-959) and that according to the Payraudeau
chronology (943-922). The choice to move the reign of Takelot II to a parallel and rival 22nd dynasty
implies three unlikely consequences:
• To respect all the synchronisms in the 22nd Dynasty, it must now be subdivided into four parallel and
rival dynasties (Payraudeau: 2020, 555-557): 1) Dynasty 22, Bubastite lineage (Tanis), 2) Dynasty 22,
Theban lineage (Thebes), 3) Dynasty 22 of competing Theban kings, and 4) Dynasty 22 of local kings
(Hermopolis, Heracleopolis, Leontopolis).
• The existence of the Apis buried in Year 14 of Takelot II (Jansen-Winkeln: 2006, 239-240) is disputed
by some Egyptologists (Aston: 1989, 142) because it would confirm that this king belonged to the 22nd
dynasty and not to a rival dynasty. However, the Apis enthroned by Padiiset in Year 4 of Shoshenq III
then buried in Year 2832 and the following Apis buried just before his death in Year 2 of Pamiu I makes
it possible to prove the existence of the Apis buried in Year 14 of Takelot II by the father of Padiiset.
• The total lunar eclipse dated IV Shemu 25 in the year 15 of Takelot II, mentioned in the Chronicle of
Prince Osorkon, can no longer be used (Payraudeau: 2020, 28).
32
The Apis was buried in Year 28 of Sheshonq III by the son of Takelot, Padiiset who was then already high priest of Ptah. Padiiset
is known to us mainly by two stelae erected by his children and found at the Serapeum of Saqqarah. Takelot, was a high priest of
Ptah in Memphis during the 22nd dynasty. Son of the high priest of Ptah Sheshonq, he was the grandson of Osorkon II (909-865) and
the nephew of Takelot II (865-840). Takelot (870?-790?) continued the work of his father in Memphis and proceeded to the
enthronement of a new Apis in Year 4 of Sheshonq III. Takelot married one of his father's half-sisters, Tjesbastperet, with whom he
had a son Padiiset and a daughter Djedbastetesankh who married Pharaoh Sheshonq III (840-800). At his death Padiiset himself
became high priest of Ptah.
30
Another way of verifying this chronology of Dynasty 22, based on synchronisms and on the dated
biography of the Apis bulls, is to use lunar dates linked to full moons which were considered beneficial by
Egyptian priests. For example, the Apis bulls were always inducted on a full moon day, and Tepi Shemu's
feasts have always taken place at full moon. The Egyptian word Tepi Shemu literally means “Head [first
month] of Shemu [2nd season of the Egyptian calendar]”, which can be translated as "I Shemu [1]" (9th
month, day 1 of Egyptian calendar). For example, according to the Louvre stela IM 3736, an Apis was
enthroned at Memphis in Year 28 of Shoshenq III (813 BCE) on II Akhet 1. Shoshenq III also has the date:
Tepi Shemu feast on I Shemu [1] in his year 39 (802 BCE). The Karnak Priestly Annals provide several other
dates of Tepi Shemu feasts as well as dates of induction of certain senior officials33 (Tetley: 2014, 553-556):
TABLE 25
BCE Egyptian king Year Festival Egyptian date Julian Date Full moon (UT)
855 Takelot II 11 Tepi Shemu I Shemu [1] 1/IX 20 November 22/11 at 00:30
827 Pedubast I 7 Tepi Shemu I Shemu [1] 1/IX 13 November 12/11 at 9:38
826 8 Induction of a vizier I Shemu 19 19/IX 1 December 1/12 at 22:34
813 Shoshenq III 28 Induction of an Apis II Akhet 1 1/II 13 April 14/04 at 18:04
802 39 Tepi Shemu I Shemu [1] 1/IX 7 November 6/11 at 10:36
The difference of 1 day between the date from the Egyptian civil calendar and the date of the
astronomical full moon can be explained by a difficulty of observation because a full moon lasts 2 or 3 days,
depending on the lunar month, whereas the astronomical full moon (UT) is fixed to the minute. However,
Egyptian priests were experienced observers therefore a difference of 2 days can be explained by a gap
between the Egyptian days which go from dawn (about 20 minutes before sunrise) to next dawn while Julian
astronomical days go from 00:01 to 24:00. The conversion between the days of the Egyptian civil calendar
and the Julian astronomical days is obtained by the following formula:
Julian day = 201 + (139 – Year*)/4 + (Egyptian day - 1)

How can one determine the Egyptian date I Shemu 1 = 1/IX in 855 BCE (= -854*)? The equation
linking the day in the Julian calendar to the day in the Egyptian calendar in Year* is as follows:
Egyptian day = I Shemu 1 = 1/IX = 8x30 (8 months of 30 days each) + 1 = 241
Julian day = 201+ (139 + 854)/4 +(241 – 1) = 689.25 = 324.25 + 365 = 324
(0.75 = 3/4, means a leap year every 4 years and February = 29 days instead of 28 days)
Julian day = 324 = 31+28+31+30+31+30+31+31+30+31+20 = 20 November (in 855 BCE)
As the sun rises around 4:20 a.m. (Local Time) on 20 November in Thebes34, I Shemu 1 (1/IX) thus
goes from 20 November around 4:00 a.m. to 21 November around 4:00 a.m. The use of astronomical
software (https://promenade.imcce.fr/fr/pages4/441.html) allows us to verify that the full moon of November
-854* (855 BCE) occurred on 22 November at 00:30 UT (Universal Time). The date of the astronomical full
moon designates the exact maximum of the full moon, therefore the maximum at 00:30 on 22 November
could not be distinguished to the eye from the brightness of the moon a few hours earlier in the evening of 21
November (from 18:00 to 24:00). Therefore, the full moon of I Shemu 1 of Year 11 of Takelot II was
observed in the evening (from 18:00 to 24:00) of 21 November 855 BCE which corresponded to the end of I
Shemu 1 (from 00:01 to 4:00). This full moon was therefore observed with the eye one day ahead of the
astronomical full moon. Astronomical dating of the five full moons over the period 855-802 BCE confirms
the succession without co-regency of the reigns of Takelot II (865-840), and Sheshonq III (840-840).
A chronological reconstruction is accurate if: it agrees with all dates determined by astronomy
(highlighted in midnight blue), if it agrees with all synchronisms (parts framed by a black line) and if it is in
agreement with all reign durations.
33
Kitchen notes that the Karnak Priestly Annals fragment No. 1 line 1 records that in Year 7 of Pedubast (which was year 14 of
Shoshenq III), Pediamonet, a lesser son of the king Pedubast I, was “justified into the places of Mut and Khons,” that is, “into priestly
service for Amun’s fellow deities in Thebes.” The date for Pedubast I’s 7th year is given as I Shemu [1]. In Year 8, there was the
induction of another Pediamonet (fragment No. 2 of the Karnak Priestly Annals) “of long lineage into the ranks of the bearers of
Amun’s processional images.” Also in Year 8 on I Shemu 19, “the much-betitled vizier Pentyef-ankh, son of a former vizier Hori”
was also inducted. Referring to Takeloth II’s year 11, Kitchen notes that when Prince Osorkon arrived in Thebes he presented
“handsome offerings to Amun … Having outwardly crushed opposition by main force, Osorkon made new appointments and issued
no less than six new decrees …”. Krauss thinks that the wording justifies the assumption that this is an Amun feast or what is referred
to as a Tepi Shemu feast. He reckons that Amun feasts were held on the 1st to 5th days of the lunar month in the (civil) month of I
Shemu and not, as Kitchen says, on I Shemu 1–5 (civil).
34
The Sky View software (http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Yourhorizon) allows to calculate astronomically the sunrise on 22
November -854* at Thebes (25°42’ N latitude; 32°39’ E longitude). Astronomical data are given in Universal Time (UT) at longitude
0°. It is possible to transform Universal Time (UT) into Local Time (LT) in Thebes by the following formula: LT = UT + 2:11 (= 131
minutes = [24x60/360°]x32.66°).
TABLE 26
BCE Dynasty 22 Apis Astro Dynasty 23
(Tanis) (Leontopolis)
866 Osorkon II 4 44
865 Takelot II 5 45/1
864 6 2
863 7 3
862 8 4
861 9 5
860 10 6
859 11 7
858 12 8
857 13 9
856 14 10
855 Full moon 21/11 15 11
854 16 12
853 17 13
852 [18] 14
851 Total eclipse 1 15 dated 17/03
850 2 16
849 3 17
848 4 18
847 5 19
846 6 20
845 7 21
844 8 22
843 9 23
842 10 24
841 11 25
840 Shoshenq III 12 26/1
839 13 2
838 14 3
837 15 4
836 1 5
835 2 6
834 3 7
833 4 8 Pedubast I 1
832 5 9 2
831 6 10 3
830 7 11 4
829 8 12 5
828 9 13 6
827 10 14 Full moon 13/11 7
826 11 15 Full moon 1/12 8
825 12 16 9
824 13 17 10
823 14 18 11
822 15 19 12
821 16 20 13
820 17 21 14
819 18 22 Iuput I 15/1
818 19 23 16/2
817 20 24 17/3
816 21 25 18/4
815 22 26 19/5
814 23 27 20/6
813 Full moon 13/04 24 28 21/7
812 1 29 22/8
811 2 30 23/9
810 3 31 10
809 4 32 11
808 5 33 Shoshenq VI 12/1
807 6 34 2
32
806 7 35 3
805 8 36 4
804 9 37 5
803 10 38 6
802 Full moon 7/11 11 39 Osorkon III 7/1
801 12 40 2
800 13 41 3
799 Shoshenq IV 14 42/1 4
798 15 2 5
797 16 3 6
796 17 4 7
795 18 5 8
794 19 6 9
793 20 7 10
792 21 8 11
791 22 9 12
790 23 10 13
789 24 11 14
788 Pamiu I 25 12/1 15
787 26 2 16
786 1 3 17
785 2 4 18
784 3 5 19
783 4 6 20
782 Shoshenq V 5 7/1 21
781 6 2 22
780 7 3 23
779 8 4 Takelot III 24/1
778 9 5 25/2
777 10 6 26/3
776 11 7 27/4
775 12 8 28/5
774 13 9 29/6
773 14 10 7
772 15 11 8
771 1 12 9
770 2 13 10 Kashta
769 3 14 11
768 4 15 12
767 5 16 13
766 6 17 14
765 7 18 Rudamon 15/1
764 8 19 2
763 9 20 3
762 10 21 Shoshenq VIa 4/1 Dynasty 25
761 11 22 2 (Nubia)
760 12 23 3 Piye 1
759 13 24 4 2
758 14 25 5 3
757 15 26 6 4
756 16 27 7 5
755 17 28 8 6
754 18 29 9 7
753 19 30 10 8
752 20 31 11 9
751 21 32 12 10
750 22 33 13 11
749 23 34 Iuput II 14/1 13
748 24 35 2 14
747 25 36 3 15
746 26 37 4 16
745 Pedubast II 1 38/1 5 17
744 2 2 6 18
743 3 3 7 19
742 4 4 8 20 Tefnakht I 1
741 Osorkon IV 5 5/1 9 Piye's conquest 21 2
740 6 2 10 22 3
739 7 3 11 23 4
738 8 4 12 24 5
737 9 5 13 25 6
736 10 6 14 26 7
735 11 7 15 27 8
734 12 8 16 28 Bakenrenef 9/1
733 13 9 17 29 2
732 14 10 18 30 3
731 15 11 19 31 4
730 16 12 20 Shabaka 1 5
729 17 13 21 2 6
The reign of Takelot II (865-840) is based on two astronomical phenomena: the full moon of I Shemu 1
in Year 11 (21 November 855 BCE) and the total lunar eclipse of IV Shemu 25 in Year 15, mentioned in the
Osorkon Chronicle. When Caminos published this chronicle, he doubted that the sentence could be
understood as a lunar eclipse because the expression was in the negative form:
In the regnal year 15, 4th month of Shemu, day 25/[29]35, under the Majesty of his august father, the
god who rules Thebes [Takelot II], the sky has not swallowed the moon, a great convulsion broke out in
this land like [...] children of rebellion, they stirred up civil strife (Caminos: 1958, 88-90).
In fact, by superstition, the Egyptians never mentioned the eclipses, except in the negative. Parker
noticed that a lunar eclipse was described: “so that the sky will not swallow the moon the '16th lunar day'
[mspr] in the region of Heliopolis” (Parker: 1953, 50) and that the one dated on the IV Shemu 25[29] of the
15th year of Takelot II coincided with the total lunar eclipse of 17 March 851 BCE. If one checks lunar
eclipses during the month of Shemu IV over the period 900-800 BCE, visible in Egypt, we obtain:
BCE date of the eclipse type IV Shemu 25 IV Shemu 29
851 17 March Total 13 March 17 March
840 13 February Total 10 March 14 March
821 15 February Partial 5 March 9 March
As Parker noted, if the scribe had precisely recorded the date of the revolt, which was closer to the lunar
eclipse, it was to note a coincidence with this bad omen rather than noting a lack of coincidence. The total
lunar eclipse as coincidence was therefore noted. With the date of 25 Shemu (13 March) the revolt preceded
the eclipse (17 March) by a few days, which should have been the opposite if it was a “normal” omen,
consequently the reading 29 (17 March) is more likely than 25 and the eclipse of 17 March 851 BCE fixed
Takelot II's accession in 865 BCE. TABLE 27
King Man.* Reign King Man.* Reign
21 1 Smendes 26 1090-1064
2 Amenemnesu 4 1064-1060
3 Psusennes I 46 1064-1018
4 Amenemope 9 1018-1009
5 Osorkon the Elder 6 1009-1003
6 Siamun 19 1003-984
7 Psusennes II/III 14 994-980
22 1 Shoshenq I 21 980-959
2 Osorkon I 35 959-924
3 Shoshenq II 2 924-922
Shoshenq IIb - 922-922
4 Takelot I 13 922-909
5 Osorkon II 44 909-865
6 Takelot II 25 865-840
7 Shoshenq III 41 840-799
Shoshenq IV 11 799-788
8 Pamiu I 6 788-782
9 Shoshenq V 37 782-745 25 1 Piye - 761 -
10 Pedubast II - 745-741 -741
11 Osorkon IV - 741 - -730
-712 2 Shabaka 18 730-712
35
At the time of Takelot the hieratic sign representing number 9 was similar to 5 (Möller: 1912, 59-61).
34
Using the reign durations anchored on the reign of Takelot II (865-840), Dynasty 22 begins with the
reign of Shoshenq I (980-959). Most scholars agree in identifying Shoshenq I with the biblical ‘Shishak, king
of Egypt36’ who, according to 1 Kings 14:25-26 and 2 Chronicles 12:2-9, came to Jerusalem and despoiled
the Temple of Solomon in Year 5 of Rehoboam. This key synchronism between the Egyptian chronology
and the biblical chronology of Israelite kings makes it possible to verify the dating of the reign of Shoshenq I
(980-959) is accurate. Surprisingly, academic studies refer to the biblical chronology calculated by Edwin R.
Thiele, but this chronology is unusable because he arbitrarily assumed nine co-regencies among the reigns of
Judah and Israel37. However, two theses have shown that the biblical chronology, reconstructed solely from
the chronological data of the biblical text (Nolen Jones: 2005, Tetley: 2005), agrees with the Assyrian and
Babylonian chronologies38 (synchronisms are highlighted in grey correspond. Dates in bold are those
corresponding to the Assyrian and Babylonian chronologies and names in bold are those that appear in the
Assyrian annals). The case is made that the biblical accounts are historically accurate (Siddall: 2006, 93-106)
and in complete accord with the Assyrian sources (Dubovský: 2006, 153-170). The biblical chronology is
particularly interesting because it contains a dozen synchronisms with the Egyptian chronology, most of
which are precisely dated.
36
The triumph scene of King Shoshenq I appears on the south wall of the Bubastite Portal at Karnak. The topographical list (rows 1
to 3) forms a part of that relief as a road map for the campaign (beginning with Gaza). Some scholars point out several differences
between the biblical account of the campaign and its Egyptian version :1) Jerusalem is not mentioned in the list. This name would
have to appear between Gibeon (n°17) and Mahanaim (n°18); 2) while the biblical account of the campaign only mentions Jerusalem
as the focus of the Egyptian attack, few sites in Judah are found in the triumphal relief. Instead, the list comprises sites in Israel and
the Negev; 3) these reconstructions do not explain why Shoshenq attacked Jeroboam, a man he had recently harboured as a political
refugee. The topographical list in this relief does not preserve the actual army’s route. This may be seen by comparing some
topographical lists with known itineraries for Egyptian campaigns. The route of Thutmose III’s march, for instance, is known from
his Annals, which are also inscribed on the walls of Karnak. The Annals give a prose account of his first campaign, which is the same
campaign mentioned in the superscription to the topographical list in three of his triumphal reliefs. When the route of the march from
the Annals is compared with the topographical lists, it becomes apparent that the latter are not arranged according to the army’s
itinerary. Gaza, one of the first cities of Canaan mentioned in the Annals, is not listed on the triumphal relief at all. The order of these
two names in the list is also different from that given in the Annals, with Yehem, which was reached first, coming after Aruna, which
was reached later. Megiddo, which was visited after passing all these towns, is the second town in the lists. And Kadesh, a town to
which Thutmose III did not go, is first on the lists. In addition, the superscriptions to the topographical lists indicate that Thutmose III
did not march to all these towns, but that they all assembled against him at Megiddo instead. The same results are also found when
comparing the topographical lists of Seti I with known campaign itineraries. This is even more evident in the triumphal reliefs of
Ramses III. His lists contain approximately 125 sites in Palestine, but not one of the cities where he is known to have campaigned is
found in those lists. All these factors demonstrate that the topographical list of Shoshenq I do not preserve the actual route of the
pharaoh’s march. So, while the inscription refers to the king as having subdued the entire world, the topographical lists provide a
graphic illustration of this same thing. Instead of being the record of a campaign, the triumphal reliefs show an idealized picture of
the accomplishments of the pharaoh, who is portrayed as the conqueror of the known world. First question: why is Jerusalem not
mentioned in the list? Because it was not captured: When Rehoboam had consolidated the kingdom and become strong, he, and all
Israel with him, abandoned the Law of Yahweh; and thus it happened that in the fifth year of King Rehoboam, Shishak king of Egypt
marched on Jerusalem, because they had been unfaithful to Yahweh, with twelve hundred chariots and sixty thousand cavalry and
countless hordes of Libyans, Sukkiim and Cushites who came from Egypt with him. They captured the fortified towns of Judah and
reached Jerusalem (...) So Shishak king of Egypt advanced on Jerusalem and carried off the treasures of the Temple and the
treasures of the royal palace. He took everything away, including the golden shields which Solomon had made (2Ch 12:1-4,9). If
Shoshenq was welcomed, and even invited by his protégé Jeroboam, one could well understand that the first aim of this campaign
was directed against Jerusalem, presumably to stop any attempt to suppress again the new pro-Egyptian kingdom of Israel. Thus, the
Bible text must normally be interpreted as indicating implicitly that Shoshenq’s army entered Jerusalem and plundered the city’s
treasures, but it does not give any details of this campaign or of Rehoboam’s attitude. Since Rehoboam appears to have kept his
throne and not to have been taken prisoner, one could suggest that he temporarily left Jerusalem to take refuge elsewhere, an attitude
that we could liken to David’s, when faced with the revolt of Absalom (2Sa 15:14), or more likely, he could accept tacitly that
Shoshenq took the treasures of the Temple of the royal palace (an authorized looting to show his implied submission!), according to
the reading: He [Shishak] got to take (1Ki 14:26). Thus, Shoshenq considered in his campaign record that he had subjugated Judah.
37
So, he lowered the reign of Menahem from 771-760 BCE to 752-742 BCE. His biblical chronology gives rise to several insoluble
inconsistencies and destroys the biblical synchronisms between the kings of Israel and Judah (Tetley: 2005, 91-185). The numerous
inconsistencies make it unusable to establish a reliable chronology (Hughes: 1990, 264-266).
38
A 70-year period of desolation (Dn 9:6), without worship at the Temple (Mt 24:15), began in 587 BCE and ended in 517 BCE
when the worship at the Temple started anew after the 4th year of Darius I (Zk 7:1-7), in 517 BCE. The 37th and last year of exile of
King Jehoiachin (598-561) ended at the beginning of the 1st year of the reign of Evil-Merodach (562-560), in 561 BCE (2Ki 25:27-
28). The destruction of the Temple occurred when the Jews of the exile (Jr 25:8-12) came into Babylon in Year 18 of
Nebuchadnezzar (Jr 52:29), in 587 BCE. King Josiah (640-609) died during the battle of Megiddo just before the fall of the city of
Harran which took place in the last year of King Aššur-uballiṭ II (2Ki 23:29-34; La 4:18-20) which is dated to the 17th of
Nabopolassar, in 609 BCE, the year marking the end of the Assyrian empire. Babylon's world domination lasted 70 years (Jr 25:11-
12; 29:10; Is 23:13-17). It started in the beginning of the reign of Jehoiaqim (Jr 27:1-7), in October 609 BCE, and ended when Cyrus
subdued all nations in October 539 BCE and freed the Jews (Is 45:1-7). King Hosea (729-720) died in the fall of Samaria in Year 2
of Sargon II in 720 BCE (Briend, Seux: 1977, 105-111). Tiglath-pileser III overthrew Peqah (Pa-qa-ḫa), king of Israel (Bît Ḫumria),
and replaced him by [Hosea] (A-ú-si-’) according to his annals (Tadmor: 2011, 105-106) when he annexed Hatarikka in 738 BCE
(Yamada: 2014, 31-50). According to the account of Šamši-Adad V (823-811), his brother Aššur-danin-pal was King of Nineveh
during a short period of rebellion after the death of Shalmaneser III, in 824 BCE (Villard: 2001, 565), at the time when Jonah met the
king of Nineveh (Jonah 3:6) at the beginning of Jeroboam II’s reign (823-782) as King of Israel (2Ki 14:23-25).
TABLE 28
King of Judah Reign MT King of Israel Reign MT Reference
David 1057-1017 40 2Sa 5:4
Solomon 1017-977 40 1Ki 11:42
Rehoboam 977-960 17 000 Jeroboam I 10/977 - Ezk 4:5-6
Abiyam 960-957 3 -05/955 22 1Ki 14:20-21
Asa 957 - 41 Nadab 06/955-05/954 2 1Ki 15:10,25
Baasha 06/954-04/931 24 1Ki 15:28,33
Elah 05/931-04/930 2 1Ki 16:8
Zimri 05/930 7d 1Ki 16:10-16
Omri/ 06/930-05/919/ 12 1Ki 16:21-23
-916 [Tibni] [06/930-01/925] 6
Jehoshaphat 916 - 25 Ahab 06/919-01/898 22 1Ki 16:29
-891 Ahaziah 02/898-01/897 2 1Ki 22:51
Jehoram J. 893-885 8 Jehoram A. 02/897 - 12 2Ki 3:1
Ahaziah 886-885 [1] -08/885
Athaliah (Jehoyada) 885-879 6 Jehu 10/885-03/856 28 2Ki 10:36
Joash 879 - 40 Jehoahaz 04/856-09/839 17 2Ki 10:35;13:1
-839 Jehoahaz/Jehoash [01/841-09/839] 2 2Ki 13:10
Amasiah 839 - 29 Jehoash 09/839-01/823 16 2Ki 13:10
-810 Jeroboam II 01/823-05/782 41 2Ki 14:23
Uzziah 810 - 52 [Zechariah] 06/782-02/771 [11] 2Ki 14:29
[Azariah] [796 - Zechariah 03/771-08/771 6m 2Ki 15:8
Shallum 09/771 1m 2Ki 15:13
Menahem 10/771-03/760 10 2Ki 15:17
-758 Peqayah 04/760-03/758 2 2Ki 15:23
Jotham 758-742 16 Peqah 04/758-05/738 20 2Ki 15:27
Ahaz 742-726 16 Hosea I 06/738-06/729 9 2Ki 15:27-30
Hezekiah 726-697 29 Hosea II 07/729-09/720 9 2Ki 17:1,3
Manasseh 697-642 55 2Ki 21:1
Amon 642-640 2 2Ki 21:19
Josiah 640-609 31 2Ki 22:1
Jehoachaz 609-609 3m 2Ch 36:2
Jehoiaqim 609-598 11 2Ch 36:5
Jehoiachin 598-598 3m 2Ch 36:9
Zedekiah 598-587 11 390 King of Babylon 2Ch 36:11
Jehoiachin (exile) 598-561 37 Evil-Merodach 07/562-12/560 2Ki 25:27-28
Babylonian dominion 609-539 70 Jr 25:11-12
Temple desolation 587-517 70 Zc 7:1-4
Egyptologists assume that the campaign Shoshenq I (documented on a wall of Karnak) took place in the
year 20 or 21 of his reign, but this is improbable because the date of II Shemu, Year 21, which appears on a
pylon, corresponds to the end of the work completed by Iuput, a son of the king appointed high priest of
Amun in Year 10 and not to the date of the campaign (Caminos: 1952, 46-61). Moreover, the appearance of
the white crown on the head of Shoshenq I, symbolizing the ancient supremacy of Upper Egypt, is
meaningful only when the high priest of Amun at Thebes ceased to contest it, precisely at the time when
Iuput was chosen (Ben-Dor Evian 2011, 11-22). The unusual absence of day in the date, replaced by: “to this
day, while his Majesty was in residence,” suggesting that the inauguration was planned, but that the king
could not attend. As noted Nicolas Grimal:
On his return from his victorious campaign from Palestine in 925, the king undertook an ambitious
construction programme in the Temple of Amen-Re at Karnak. He gave details of it on a stele erected
on the occasion of the reopening of the quarries of Gebel el-Silsile in 924. His son, the High Priest
Iuput, directed the work: he had the courtyard laid out in front of the 2nd pylon, giving it the appearance
described above. On the outer wall of the south gate of the courtyard thus created, he depicted the
triumph of Egypt over the two Jewish kingdoms of Judah and Israel, which he also recalled by a
triumphal stele displayed in Ipet-sut, near the Annals of Thutmose III (Grimal: 1988, 416-417).
The importance of this work, which constituted the main activity of the reign, necessitated a period of
several years or at least about 10, which goes back to the date of the campaign before Year 11. As the name
of Pharaoh appears as Shishak in the Hebrew text (Sousaqim in the Septuagint) some scholars question its
identification with Shoshenq because of the absence of an “n”. The only name of pharaoh that comes close is
Sysa, a hypocoristic of Ramses II, but it is impossible to equate a possible Sysa[q] to Shishak, because of the
three centuries that separate them. Moreover, according to linguistics, the fall of a “q” is not possible, on the
36
other hand the assimilation of n to the following consonant, ng/nk becoming gg/kk, is usual. The name of a
Shoshenq is vocalized Su-si-in-qu in the annals of Aššurbanipal (in 668 BCE) with an “n”, but some
Egyptian cartridges of Shoshenq I contain his name without the “n”, which would suggest a nasalized letter
(ã for an). If one draws a parallel between the reign of Shoshenq I (Gauthier: 1914, 307-310), according to
the previous Egyptian chronology, with those of Solomon and Rehoboam, according to the biblical
chronology above, we obtain an excellent agreement among all the synchronisms:
TABLE 29
BCE King year Official support King
980 Shoshenq I 1 37 Solomon
979 Shesha-qa 2 Stele Shisha-q 38 1Ki 11:23-25
978 3 Shisha-q 39 1Ki 11:40-42
977 4 Shisha-q 40/0 Rehoboam
976 Shesha-qa 5 Stele 1 1Ki 14:20-21
975 Shesha-q 6 Lapidary inscription 2
974 7 3
973 8 4
972 Shesha-q 9 Palestine campaign inscription Shisha-q 5 2Ch 12:2-13
971 Sheshanq 10 Stele 6
970 11 7
969 12 8
968 Sheshanq 13 Annals of the priests of Amun 9
The change in time of the name Shoshenq, with or without “n”, fits perfectly with this chronological
scheme. It is written without the “n” in the account of the campaign in Palestine (in 972 BCE), which
corresponds to the spelling of 5-10 years of the reign. Some biblical texts provide information about
Shoshenq/Shishaq. This is the remark that Jeroboam took refuge in the court of Shoshenq after Solomon
tried to kill him for treason. Jeroboam had been a senior official in Solomon's administration, but at one point
he seems to have rebelled. When Solomon sought to put him to death, Jeroboam fled to Egypt, where he took
refuge in the court of the pharaoh: Solomon tried to kill Jeroboam but he made off and fled to Egypt, to
Shishak king of Egypt, and he remained in Egypt until Solomon's death (1Ki 11:40). After the death of
Solomon, he returned to Israel, where he took part in the Shechem Assembly that rejected Rehoboam as
king. Following this meeting, Jeroboam himself was made king. The foreign policy of the 21st Dynasty in
Egypt seems to have been rather mixed. On the one hand, the pharaohs appear to have had a political treaty
with the United Monarchy of David and Solomon, as is evidenced by the marriage of Solomon to the
pharaoh’s daughter mentioned several times in the Book of Kings. At the same time, however, Egypt was not
above harbouring political refugees who were enemies of Israel, such as Hadad, of the Edomite king family,
who returned to Palestine to cause trouble upon the death of David (1Ki 11:14-22). Military actions in
Palestine may have also occurred. The Bible mentions, for instance, that Gezer was captured by the pharaoh,
but later returned to Solomon as part of the wedding arrangement. It is likely, therefore, that Egypt followed
a dual policy. Due to internal weaknesses, Egypt was not in a position to openly oppose the United
Monarchy, so the pharaohs ensured good relations between the countries through a political alliance. Yet
they could not have been happy with such a strong military presence dominating their north-eastern border
(such as the city of Megiddo), so they worked behind the scenes to bring unrest and instability to Israel by
backing political opponents. A fragment of stele on behalf of Shoshenq I was found at Megiddo, one of the
cities subjected by the pharaoh, according to his own account. With the passing of the 21st Dynasty and the
beginning of the 22nd, this situation was still in place. This explains Shoshenq’s willingness to harbor
Jeroboam, one of the chief opponents of the Davidic Monarchy. But with the death of Solomon, Shoshenq
seems to have seized upon the opportunity to bring an end to the United Monarchy. When Jeroboam returned
from Egypt to take part in the Assembly at Shechem, he probably had promises of support from Shoshenq.
When Israel separated from Judah, it had the strength of Egypt behind it. This would explain the presence of
the stele of Shoshenq at Megiddo since it could easily have been set up either to commemorate a treaty
between the two nations or to signify the vassal status of Israel. After the split of Israel and Judah, the Bible
notes that there was constant warfare between Israel and Judah. It is in this context that the campaign of
Shoshenq against Judah should be viewed. With the two states fighting, the pharaoh may have come to the
aid of his ally, Jeroboam. In fact, the appearance of Shoshenq on the scene may lie behind the remark in
1Kings 12:21-24 that says Rehoboam had planned to retake Israel by force, but quickly changed his mind,
ostensibly at the urging of the prophet Shemiah. Having persuaded Rehoboam not to attack Israel, Shoshenq
returned to Egypt, leaving Jerusalem with little will or resources to fight against Jeroboam. The fact that
Shoshenq captured numerous cities of a King ally, and that he even burned some of them, may seem strange.
In reality, these cities are mentioned only to show that the Pharaoh subjected the country. Those that were
partially burned, mainly in the far north (such as Meggido, Dor and Rehob), were not destroyed but only
freed of Canaanites who had remained there. The city of Gezer, which was burned by the pharaoh in Year 24
of Solomon is a good example of this situation: Pharaoh king of Egypt mounted an expedition, captured
Gezer, burnt it down and massacred the Canaanites living there; he then gave the town as a dowry to his
daughter, Solomon's wife, and Solomon rebuilt Gezer (1Ki 9:16-17). Gezer was burned after 20 years of
construction (1Ki 9:10,16,17) beginning in early Year 4 (1Ki 6:37-7:1). As a result, the city of Gezer was
burned in Year 24 of Solomon (1017-977), in 993 BCE. The pharaoh who burned Gezer is not named in the
Bible but the only certified Egyptian campaign in Palestine during this period was that of Siamun (Kitchen:
2003, 110-112, 618). In addition, the 21st Dynasty is distinguished by the fact that some of its pharaohs gave
their daughter in marriage to foreigners as for example to Solomon (1Ki 3:1, 9:10). In addition, some scarabs
on behalf of Siamun were found in the cities of Dor and Megiddo (Münger: 2003, 66-77).
TABLE 30
BCE Dyn. Egypt Judah Israel
1096 20 Ramses XI 21 Saul 1 0 1Sa 14:49
1095 22 2 1 1Ch 8:33
1094 23 3 2
1093 24 4 3
1092 25 5 4
1091 26 6 5
1090 21 Smendes 1 7 6
1089 2 8 7
1066 25 31 30
1065 26 32 31
1064 Psusennes I 1 1 33 32
1063 2 2 34 33
1062 3 3 Samuel died 35 34 1Sa 25:1
1061 /Amenemnesu 4 4 36 35
1060 5 37 36
1059 6 38 37
1058 7 39 38
1057 8 40 39 Actes 13:21
1056 9 David 1 Ish-bosheth 40 2Sa 2:10
1055 10 (in Hebron) 2 41
1054 11 3
1053 12 4
1052 13 5
1051 14 6
1050 15 (in Jerusalem) 7 2Sa 2:11
1049 16 8
1048 17 9
1047 18 10
1046 19 11
1045 20 12
1044 21 13
1043 22 14
1042 23 Enemies defeated 15 Hadadezer/ To‘y 2Sa 8:1-15
1041 24 16 (Zobah/ Hamath) 1Ch 18:9
1020 47 City of David 37 Hiram 1Ch 22:1-5

1019 46 38 (Tyre) 2Sa 5:7-11
1018 Amenemope 47 1 39 Solomon (age) 16 1Ch 23:1;26:31
1017 48 2 40 17 2Sa 5:4
1016 49 3 Solomon 1 18 1Ki 2:11-12
1015 4 2
1014 Pharaoh's daughter 5 3 1Ki 2:39; 3:1
1013 6 Temple founded 4 Hiram/ [Ahiram] 1Ki 6:5-37
1012 7 5 (Tyre/ Byblos)
1011 8 6
1010 9 7
1009 Osorkon the Elder 1 8
1008 2 9
1007 3 10
1006 4 Temple finished 11 0 1Ki 6:38
38
1005 5 12 1 1Ki 7:1
1004 6 13 2
1003 Siamun 1 14 3
1002 2 15 4
1001 3 16 5
1000 4 17 6
999 5 18 7
998 6 19 8
997 7 20 9
996 8 21 10
995 9 22 11
994 Psusennes III 1 10 23 12
993 Pharaoh's daughter 2 11 Gezer is burned 24 13 1Ki 9:1,10,16-17
992 3 12 25 Queen of Sheba 1Ki 10:1-10
991 4 13 26
990 5 14 27
989 6 15 28
988 7 16 29
987 8 17 30
986 9 18 31
985 (Tahpenes) 10 19 Pharaoh's wife 32 Hadad of Edom 1Ki 11:14-22
984 Psusennes II 11 33 (an opponent)
983 12 34
982 13 35
981 14 36
980 22 Shoshenq I 1 37
979 Flight of Jeroboam 2 38 1Ki 11:40-42
978 3 39
977 4 40
976 5 Rehoboam 1 Jeroboam 1 1Ki 14:20,21
975 6 2 2
974 7 3 3
973 8 4 4
972 Jerusalem looted 9 5 5 2Ch 12:2-13
971 10 6 6
970 11 7 7
969 12 8 8
968 13 9 9
967 14 10 10
966 15 11 11
965 16 12 12
964 17 13 13
963 18 14 14
962 19 15 15
961 20 16 16
960 21 17 17
959 Osorkon I 1 1 Abiya 1 18 18 1Ki 15:1,2
958 2 2 2 19 19
957 3 3 3 20 20 1Ki 15:9,10
956 4 4 Asa 1 21 21
955 5 5 2 22 Nadab 22 1Ki 15:25
954 6 6 3 23 Baasha 1 1Ki 15:28,33
953 7 7 4 24 2
952 8 8 5 25 3
951 9 9 6 26 4
950 10 10 (Tab-Rimmon) 7 27 5
949 11 1 (Ben-Hadad I) 8 28 6 1Ki 15:18
948 12 2 9 29 7
947 (Zerah) 13 3 10 30 8 2Ch 14:1-13
946 14 4 11 31 9
945 15 5 12 32 10
944 16 6 13 33 11
943 17 7 15 34 12
942 18 8 15 35 13 2Ch 15:10
941 19 9 16 36 14 2Ch 16:1-3
940 20 10 17 15
By comparing the chronology of the Egyptian reigns during Dynasties 21 and 22 with the chronology of
the Judean and Israelite reigns, it is possible to verify five synchronisms, three of which are precisely dated.
The marriage of Solomon to a daughter of Pharaoh in 1014 BCE must correspond to Psusennes I who had
just died or Amenemope. Similarly, the marriage of Hadad with the sister of the Pharaoh's wife (unknown
but called Tahpenes in Hebrew or Thekemina in the Septuagint) in 985 BCE could correspond to Siamun.
TABLE 31
BCE Dynasty 21 Year Year
Psusennes I 1064-1018 David 1057-1017
1014 Amenemope 1018-1009 [5] Solomon 1017 - [3] 1Ki 2:39; 3:1
Osorkon the Elder 1009-1003
993 Siamun 1003 - 11 24 1Ki 9:1,10,16-17
985 -984 [19] [32] 1Ki 11:14-22
Psusennes II/III 994-980
979-977 Shoshenq I 980 - 2-4 -977 38-40 1Ki 11:40-42
972 -959 9 Rehoboam 977-960 5 2Ch 12:2-13
Two elements from the reign of Psusennes I (1064-1018) allow us to anchor it on a remarkable
astronomical phenomenon. Firstly, this king used four personal names (Dessousseix: 2008, 432-434), which
is unusual, all of which contain the same expression: “The star that appeared for the city (of Thebes)”. This
expression refers to a heliacal rising of Sirius (the brightest star in the sky) which coincided with a heliacal
rising of Venus (the brightest planet in the sky). Several inscriptions from Psusennes I mention this
exceptional apparition of Sirius (Le Guilloux: 2010, 133,147,229,284-285). This double Heliac rising is
conventionally represented by a grey heron (Venus), appearing at the beginning of the procession (below
right), whose head is surmounted by a star (Sirius).
⇩
FIG. 4
This double heliac rising occurs astronomically four times during a total cycle of 243 years39 (= 8-
105.5-8-121.5), whose coincidences are the following according to astronomical calculations (Oosterhout:
1993, 83-96). Astronomical dates are marked with an asterisk (-1056* = 1057 BCE). The dates in bold are
those of the double heliacal risings which were depicted on sarcophagi or astronomical ceilings40:
TABLE 32
Heliopolis longitude 31°19' E, latitude 30°05' N (BCE)
(243 ans) 2774 2531 2288 2045 1802 1559 1316 1073 830 587 344 101 143 CE
+103 ans 2671 2428 2185 1942 1699 1456 1203 970 727 484 241 3 CE 246 CE
Thebes longitude 32°39' E, latitude 25°42' N (BCE)
(243 ans) 2758 2515 2272 2029 1786 1543 1300 1057 814 571 328 85 159 CE
+103 ans 2655 2412 2169 1926 1683 1440 1197 954 711 468 225 19 CE 262 CE
A double helical rising of Sirius and Venus thus occurred in 1057 BCE (-1056*) or in 1065 BCE
because of the pseudo 8-year period of the Venus cycle. This date corresponds to the accession to the throne
of Psusennes I. The exact calculation of this double heliac rising according to astronomy gives the date of 13
July 1065 BCE around 4:30 in local time (http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Yourhorizon).
39
The calculation of the date of the coincidence of the heliac risings of Venus and Sirius is similar to the calculation of the “transit of
Venus in Sirius”. The transit of Venus includes a period of 243 years for the ascending node and a sub-period of 105.5 years for the
descending node. As there is a pseudo period of 8 years, this gives a complete cycle of 243 years decomposing approximately as
follows: 8 years/105.5 years/8 years/121.5 years = 243 years. When the two heliac rising coincide in a 103-year sub-period, the
heliac rising of Sirius coincides with a heliac setting of Venus. This problem is slightly more complicated than a classical transit
because the arcus visionis of Venus and Sirius are different, from 8.5° to 9° for Sirius and from 4.5° to 5.5° for Venus, which means
that even when Venus and Sirius are in conjunction, Venus is seen about 5 days before Sirius (1° of shift per day is covered in 4
minutes, because the earth rotates 360° in 24 hours and 365 days in 1 year).
40
The date of 2774 BCE is calculated from the Djer ivory tablet dated to the I Akhet [1].
40
The heliacal rise of Venus (magnitude -4.47) took place at only 1° above the horizon (bottom left)
because it is six times brighter than Sirius (magnitude -1.46), which is 2° above the horizon (below right):
FIG. 5
The accession to the throne of Psusennes I took place during the 26th and last year of Smendes' reign in
1065 BCE, so it took place between August 1065 BCE and January 1064 BCE.
The violent crisis that hit the eastern Mediterranean causing the ruin of the great empires of the Bronze
Age41, of which the Trojan War is the most famous episode, is exactly dated year 8 of Ramses III. The
temple of Ramses III at Medinet Habu contains an account of this victory over the Sea Peoples. The
identification of these peoples as 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. This destruction, dated in year 8 of Ramesses III, coincides with the fall of the Hittite Empire42 in
year 2 of Meli-Shipak because the last texts from Emar are dated [-]/VI2/2 and 6/VII/[2] of Meli-Shipak
(Cohen, Singer: 2006, 134). As year 2 of Meli-Shipak is dated in 1185 BCE, Ramses III's accession has to be
dated in 1192 BCE (= 1185 +8 – 2 +1)43. Using all the dates of accession combined with the accession’s
dates and highest dates (Vandersleyen: 1995, 591-664), it is possible to completely reconstruct the
chronology of the 20th Dynasty. The end of the 20th dynasty is poorly determined due to an “age of rebirth”
(Herihor?) starting in year 19 of Ramses XI. The Story of Wenamun, dated year 5 of Smendes (Simpson:
2005, 116-124; Bonhême: 1979, 267-283), suggests that this pharaoh ruled in parallel with Herihor, a priest
41
Thebes, Lefkandi, Tiryns, Mycenae and Pylos in mainland Greece and Chania in Crete, were ransacked and in some cases
destroyed. Most of these cities and their palaces were burned. In Anatolia, among the most important sites, archaeological levels
similarly destroyed are found and which date from the same period. Hattuša, 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.
42
This war led by the Sea Peoples had to be 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
(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 cruise of Achaeans to Egypt and the sacking of its wonderful fields.
43
Year 2 of Meli-Shipak (1187-1172) beginning on Nisan 1, or on 4 April 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.
king, after the death of Ramses XI. It seems that the weakening of the royal function enabled Heriror, high
priest of Amon, to steal some royal prerogatives. In his account, Wenamun said that he had been sent to
Palestine by Smendes (at Tanis) and his wife Tanetamon, without specifying the title of the Pharaoh, only
saying that Smendes and Heriror were the “magnates” of Egypt. Wenamun reminded that: “I have not done
to you what was done to Khaemwase's [birth name of Ramses XI] envoys when they had spent 17 years in
this land.” According to this last remark, year 5 refers to Smendes, successor of Ramses XI, not Heriror. The
chronology of the reigns of the 20th dynasty can be established precisely by combining the dates of
accession with the dates of the highest reigns.
TABLE 33
Dynasty 20 Accession's date Highest date Length of the reign Reign
Sethnakht 1 I Peret 2? 4 3 years 5 months 11/1196-03/1192
Ramses III 1 I Shemu 26 32 III Shemu 14 31 years 1 month 04/1192-04/1161
Ramses IV 1 III Shemu 15 7 III Akhet 29? 6 years 8 months 05/1161-12/1155
Ramses V 1 III Peret 29 4 IV Akhet 30 3 years 2 months 01/1154-02/1151
Ramses VI 1 I-II Peret? 7 III Akhet 8 7 years 03/1151-02/1144
Ramses VII 1 IV Peret ? 7 II Shemu 16 7 years 1 month 03/1144-03/1137
Ramses VIII 1 ? 1 I Peret 2 4 months? 03/1137-07/1137
Ramses IX 1 I Akhet 21 19 IV Akhet 18 years 4 months 07/1137-10/1119
Ramses X 1 I Peret 27 3 IV Akhet 2 years 5 months 11/1119-03/1116
Ramses XI 1 IV Shemu 28 27 IV Shemu 8 26 years 1 month? 04/1116-04/1090
[Herihor] year 19 Ramses XI? 12? [13 years ?] [1098?-1085?]
Dynasty 21
Smendes 1 ? 25 25 years 9 months 05/1090-09/1065
Amenemnesu 1 ? - 4 years [05/1090-09/1061]
Psusennes I 1 ? 49 49 years 10/1065-09/1016
Amenemope 1 ? 10? 9 years 02/1018-01/1009
The precise chronology of the 20th dynasty (11/1196-04/1090) makes it possible to refine the dates of
Smendes' reign (05/1090-09/1065) and to compare it with that obtained by 14C dating (D1 = Difference
between the date obtained by carbon 14 and that obtained by calculations of the duration of reigns anchored
on astronomical phenomena). The reigns calculated by 14C are in good agreement (the accuracy of dates
being less than 5 years before 1130 BCE).
TABLE 34
14
Dynasty 20 C dating ∆1 Man.* Length of the reign Reign D1
Sethnakht 1192-1189 3 years ? 3 years 5 months 11/1196-03/1192 -4
Ramses III 1189-1158 31 years ? 31 years 1 month 04/1192-04/1161 -3
Ramses IV 1158-1152 6 years ? 6 years 8 months 05/1161-12/1155 -3
Ramses V 1152-1148 4 years ? 3 years 2 months 01/1154-02/1151 -2
Ramses VI 1148-1140 8 years ? 7 years 03/1151-02/1144 -3
Ramses VII 1140-1133 7 years ? 7 years 1 month 03/1144-03/1137 -4
Ramses VIII 1133-1130 3 years ? 4 months? 03/1137-07/1137 -4
Ramses IX 1130-1112 18 years ? 18 years 4 months 07/1137-10/1119 -7
Ramses X 1112-1103 9 years ? 2 years 5 months 11/1119-03/1116 -7
Ramses XI 1103-1073 30 years ? 26 years 1 month? 04/1116-04/1090 -13
[Herihor] [13 years ?] [1098?-1085?]
Dynasty 21
Smendes 1073-1046 27 years 26 years 25 years 9 months 05/1090-09/1065 -17
Amenemnesut 1046-1042 4 years 4 years 4 years 05/1090-09/1061 -34
Psusennes I 1042-997 45 years 46 years 49 years 10/1065-09/1016 -23
Amenemope 997-989 8 years 9 years 9 years 02/1018-01/1009 -21
By using all accession dates combined with the highest dates of the reign (Vandersleyen: 1995, 493-
587; Hornung: 2006, 208-211; Von Beckerath: 1997, 201-202), it is possible to reconstruct the chronology of
the 19th Dynasty. Furthermore, the Sothic day (helical rising of Sirius) dated I Akhet 1 of year 4 of Sety I,
allows to obtain an absolute date for the beginning of his reign (c. 1294 BCE) fixed by astronomy (with a 4-
year accuracy). In addition, several 1st days of the Egyptian lunar calendar, called psdntyw (“the shining
ones [of full moon]”), are dated in the Egyptian civil calendar, which allows an absolute dating of these lunar
days (highlighted in sky blue). These full moon days also make it possible to astronomically anchor two
reigns of the 20th dynasty (Ramses III and IV).
42
TABLE 35
14
Dynasty 19 Accession's date Highest date C dating Day Reign D1
Ramses I 1 III Peret ? 2 II Peret 20 1302-1302 01/1295-05/1294 +7
Sety I 1 III Shemu 24 ? 11 IV Shemu 13 1302-1285 Sothic 06/1294-06/1283 +8
Ramses II 1 III Shemu 27 67 I Akhet 18 1285-1219 Lunar 06/1283-07/1216 +2
Merenptah 1 II Akhet 5-13? 10 IV Akhet 7 1219-1206 08/1216-10/1207 +3
Sety II 1 I Peret ? 6 I Peret 19 1206-1200 11/1207-10/1202 -1
[Amenmes] 1 [II Shemu ?] [ 4 III Shemu 29 ?] 1209-1200 [04/1206-03/1202] +3
Siptah 1 I Peret 2? 7 IV Akhet 22 1200-1194 Lunar 11/1202-10/1196 -2
Siptah/Tausert 8 II Shemu 29 1194-1192 11/1196-04/1194 -2
Dynasty 20
Sethnakht 1 I Peret 2? 4 1192-1189 11/1196-03/1192 -4
Ramses III 1 I Shemu 26 32 III Shemu 14 1189-1158 Lunar 04/1192-04/1161 -3
Ramses IV 1 III Shemu 15 7 III Akhet 29? 1158-1152 Lunar 05/1161-12/1155 -3
Ramses V 1 III Peret 29 4 IV Akhet 30 1152-1148 01/1154-02/1151 -2
The helical rising of Sirius (also called Sothic rising) during Sety I's reign is dated I Akhet 1, Year 4
(Sethe: 1931, 1-7), deducted from his astronomical ceiling which starts by a Sothic rising dated on I Akhet
[1] and according to his cenotaph: All these stars begin on I Akhet [1] when Sirius appears (Neugebauer,
Parker: 1960-1969, 44,54, Text T2 plate 47). This Sothic rising is dated c. 1300 BCE according to
astronomy44, either on 12 July (Thebes) or 17 July (Heliopolis).
TABLE 36
Year L I Akhet 1 Full moon in: Sothic rising
King BCE Julian Lunar cycle Julian Thebes Heliopolis
1296 1 13 July I Akhet 1 13 July 12 July 17 July
Ramses I 1295 2 13 July I Akhet 19 1 August 12 July 17 July
Sety 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
The Sirius heliacal rising, dated I Akhet 1 year 4 of Sety I, allows the dating of this year (by astronomy)
on the period 1293-1291 BCE. The lunar day psdntyw dated II Peret 27, year 52 of Ramses II, confirms that
Sety I's accession occurred in 1294 BCE on III Shemu 24? (1st June). Sety I’s reign lasted 11 years (and a
few days) because in his autobiography the priest Bakenkhons wrote: “I 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 priest of Amun for 15 years, second priest of Amun for
12” (Flood: 2007, 41). In addition, the 11 years of Sety I were all reported (except year 10) which confirms
the 11-year reign (Hornung: 2006, 210-211). Consequently, Ramses II's accession must be dated in 1283
BCE (= 1294 - 11), more exactly on III Shemu 27 (1st June 1283 BCE). The lunar day psdntyw dated II Peret
27, year 52 of Ramses II (Janssen: 1961, 12), which occurred on 20 December 1232 BCE, confirms the
accession in 1283 BCE45 (= 1232 + 52 – 1). 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, Sety II may have reigned 6 years instead of 5, the most likely (Altenmüller: 1983, 43-61),
and Ramses II may have reigned 67 years and 2 months instead of 66 years and 2 months. For example, 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
Sety II, and others in parallel with Sety II (and delay it by approximately 5 months). Several synchronisms
and lunar dates, dated by astronomy, can resolve these uncertainties.
44
http://www.imcce.fr/fr/grandpublic/phenomenes/sothis/index.php arcus visionis 8.9°.
45
Furthermore, the accession of Kadašman-Enlil II (1264-1255) occurred in year 19 of Ramses II (Ward: 1991, 55-56), implying
again dating the accession of Ramses II in 1283 BCE (= 1264 + 19 + 0).
The reign of Queen Tausert is well known (Callender: 2004, 81-104). Wife of Sety II, she exercised
after his death a strong influence on his son Siptah (a kind of 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
(Vandersleyen: 1995, 591-593). 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 BCE: 1) Tausert, wife of Sety
II, continuing the reign of his son Siptah, 2) Ankhkheperure continued the reign of Semenkhkare her
husband and 3) 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 Ramses III’s reign, 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 Tausert (Krauss: 2005, 125-127). The reign of Amenmes (Schneider: 2011, 445-451) cannot be placed
between that of Merenptah and Sety II, but only in parallel with Sety II’s reign, as can be deduced from the
lunar dates, 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 Sety II was 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 years46 would imply a lunar date II Shemu 7 (around 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 BCE and actually coincides with a full moon (saw on 9 April 1194 BCE). 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 other47. Therefore, the two lunar dates, during the reigns
of Rameses II and (Siptah)-Tausert, make it possible to obtain absolute dates fixed by astronomy and to
calculate precisely the dates of accession as well as the duration of each reign.
TABLE 37
Dynasty 19 accession date Julian date (BCE) Lunar day psdntyw Julian date Full moon
Ramses I 1 III Peret ? 09/01-07/02 1295
Sety I 1 III Shemu 24 ? 01?/06 1294
Ramses II 1 III Shemu 27 01/06 1283 52 II Peret 27 20/12 1262 21/12 1262
Merenptah 1 II Akhet 5-13? 27/07-04/08 1216
Sety II 1 I Peret ? 19/10-17/11 1207
[Amenmes] 1 [II Shemu ?] 18/03-16/04 1206
Siptah 1 I Peret 2? 19?/10 1202
(Siptah)-Tausert 1 " 17?/10 1196 7 II Shemu 27 09/04 1195 09/04 1195
Dynasty 20
Sethnakht 1 " 17?/10 1196
Ramses III 1 I Shemu 26 09/03 1192 5 I Shemu 11 22/02 1188 21/02 1188
5 IV Peret 1 12/01 1187 11/01 1187
6 I Shemu 30 12/03 1187 11/03 1187
Ramses IV 1 III Shemu 15 20/04 1161 4 III Shemu 15 19/04 1158 19/04 1158
4 III Akhet 10 16/08 1158 15/08 1158
Ramses V 1 III Peret 29 02/01/1154
We can note that the two lunar dates (psdntyw) of Ramses III (I Shemu 11 and IV Peret 1) fall at the
beginning and end of his year 5 (Spalinger: 2002, 385-389). Moreover, the Beautiful Feast of the Valley (El-
Sabban: 2000, 67-68), 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. The lunar day
psdntyw 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 feast” (Peden: 1994, 91-94) and this
46
Although 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 an 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).
47
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.
44
48
stele is dated 10 Akhet III, which implies a connection with this lunar day . According to astronomical
dating, Ramses II's accession must be dated 1 June 1283 BCE, but most Egyptologists prefer to fix it to 1279
BCE (Dessoudeix: 2008, 338), although some still prefer 1290 or 1304 BCE, two other dates proposed by
Parker (Casperson: 1988, 181-184). In his 1957 article, he explained that thanks to synchronisms with the
Babylonian chronology, Ramses II's accession should be around 1300 BCE and by using the psdntyw day,
dated II Peret 27 in year 52 of Ramses II, it was possible to date this accession in 1290 BCE, but also in 1304
or 1279 BCE if there had been 1 day's delay in observing the 1st invisibility (Parker: 1957, 39-43). In fact,
Parker's astronomical analysis is excellent with one major exception: he assumed that the Egyptian lunar
month began at the 1st invisibility49 instead of the full moon.
DATING THE REIGN OF RAMSES II (1283-1216) THROUGH MESOPOTAMIAN CHRONOLOGY

The main synchronisms with the Mesopotamian chronology are as follows:
• The death of Hattušili III is dated in year 42 of Ramses II (Desroches Noblecourt: 1996, 365).
• The Nihriya battle involved the Hittite king Tudhaliya IV, the successor of Hattušili III, and the
Assyrian king Tukulti-Ninurta I in the first two years of his reign (Bryce: 2005, XV, 375-382).
• The reign of Hattušili III is located within Shalmaneser I's reign (Beckman: 2000, 24). Hattušili III died
shortly before Shalmaneser I, and the successor of Hattušili, Tuthaliya IV, was at war with the successor
of Shalmaneser I, Tukulti-Ninurta I, in the first two years of the latter, which gives: Year 42 of Ramses
II = death of Hattušili III = death of Shalmaneser I +/- 1 year. Consequently, the accession of Tukulti-
Ninurta I (year 0) matches the year 42 of Ramses II. Tuthaliya IV began to rule from this year, but it is
possible that his father (Hattušili III), feeling old and sick, associated him to kingship as crown prince
(appearing under the name of Hišmi-šarruma).
• Accession (year 0) of Kadašman-Enlil II (in 1264 BCE) = year 19 of Ramses II.
• Accession (year 0) of Tukulti-Ninurta I (in 1242 BCE) = year 42 of Ramses II.
FIG. 6
The synchronism between Year 0 of Kadašman Enlil II and Year 19 of Ramses II derives from the
sequence of the following events (Kitchen: 1985, 82-134; Desroches Noblecourt: 1996, 257-294,329-365):
1. To expand his empire, the Hittite king Šuppiluliuma I engaged [in 1352 BCE] a process of conquest,
which came at the expense of Mitanni and Amurru, a vassal kingdom of Egypt.
2. To reconquer Amurru, Ramses II attacked the Hittite king Muwatalli II. The Battle of Kadesh (dated III
Shemu 9 Year 5, at the extreme end of year 5) is presented as a victory by Ramses, although he actually
faced disaster because of over-optimism.
48
The year 4 of Ramses IV began at III Shemu 15, the day of his accession (Vandersleyen: 1995, 616) 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).
49
The first invisibility is the day immediately after the new astronomical moon and before the first lunar crescent.
3. Ramses II 'took advantage' of Muwatalli II's death and of the accession of young king Urhi-Teshub
[Muršili III] to launch a new conquest of Amurru. He temporarily conquered 18 cities (including Dapur
and Tunip). This war is dated towards the end of year 8 (April/May) which implies placing the death of
the Hittite king in the 1st half of year 8.
4. After 7 years of reign, Hattušili III expelled his nephew Urhi-Tešub who took refuge in Egypt. Hattušili
III demanded his extradition by Ramses II, who refused it (Bryce: 2005, 261).
5. Fearing a possible coup fomented by Egypt hosting Urhi-Tešub, his rival, Hattušili III combined with
Babylonian king Kadašman-Turgu to face Egypt. The epithets of Ramses on a stele at Beth-Shean,
dated IV Peret 1 of his year 18 (2nd half of the year), have a strong military flavour and attest to the
frenetic activity that prevailed in this region (Higginbotham: 2000, 31-34).
6. Having learned of the collapse of the kingdom of Mitanni, annexed by Assyrian king Shalmaneser I,
Ramses II preferred to stabilize the volatile situation with Hittite king Hattušili III by a peace treaty,
dated I Peret 21, year 21 of Ramses II (1st half of year 21).
7. A letter of Hattušili III sent to Babylonian king Kadašman-Enlil II to justify his shifting alliances
(Beckman: 1999, 138-143), tells us that the latter's father, Kadašman-Turgu, had died shortly before the
peace treaty of the year 21 (after the year 21, Hattušili III could appeal against the extradition clauses to
be included in the treaty).
The synchronism: Year 0 of Tukulti-Ninurta I [in 1242 BCE] = Year 42 of Ramses II, results from the
sequence of the following events:
• The Treaty of the year 21 led to an era of stability, which pushed Ramses II to boost his ties by
suggesting to Hattušili III to marry one of his daughters. The Hittite king accepted and proposed to send
his daughter [Maathorneferure] for his 2nd jubilee (year 33). Negotiations for the marriage began IV
Akhet of year 33 but were finally concluded only III Peret of year 34 because of the reluctance of
Puduhepa, Hattušili III's wife.
• Relations between the two kings became so cordial that Ramses II, after his 4th jubilee year 39,
proposed to the Hittite king to meet him in person. Hattušili III appears to have accepted and proposed,
as a pledge, another of his daughters to Ramses II to seal this agreement at the top. Nothing is known of
the name and fate of the girl who followed her sister into the harem of Ramses II. There is also no more
information on later relationships between the two courts. The wedding date is not specified, but
presumably it intervened in the year 42, because it is from this time that Ramses II assumed his new title
of “Sovereign God of Heliopolis” (found in cuneiform texts)50.
Chronological reconstruction51 of the Egyptian, Hittite, Babylonian and Assyrian reigns over the period
1295-1215 BCE is as follows (synchronisms are highlighted):
TABLE 38
EGYPT HATTI BABYLONIA BCE ASSYRIA
Ramses I [-]/Muwatalli II Nazi-Maruttaš 1295 Adad-nêrârî I
2/Sethy I [1] 14 1294 10
1/2 [2] 15 1293 11
2/3 [3] 16 1292 12
3/4 [4] 17 1291 13
4/5 [5] 18 1290 14
5/6 [6] 19 1289 15
6/7 [7] 20 1288 16
7/8 [8] 21 1287 17
8/9 [9] 22 1286 16
9/10 [10] 23 1285 17
10/11 [11] 24 1284 18
11/Ramses II [12] 25 1283 19
50
The general study of special epithets shows that they were adopted at a given time and in under certain circumstances to define and
consecrate forever a theological aspect of the royal person (Yoyotte: 1956, 66-70). The title "Ruler of Heliopolis" appears for the first
time on the ostracon Louvre 2262, dated IV Peret, year 42 of Ramses II. This title might have appeared shortly before, but this is
unlikely because no special circumstances mentioned in connection with Ramses except that he married the daughter of the Hittite
king. Since Hattušili III had offered his first daughter, plus a rich dowry, for the 2nd jubilee of Ramses II year 33, one can assume
that he proceeded the same way for his second daughter in the 5th jubilee year 42. The fact that relationships are interrupted just after
the marriage can be explained only by the disappearance of Hattušili III. This death probably pushed the new Assyrian king Tukulti-
Ninurta I to attack Tuthaliya IV the young successor of Hattušili III, who lost his Tarhuntassa region. This defeat pushed the Hittite
king to bind to the Babylonian king (not named) by a wedding with one of his daughters Ramses II wrote to Tuthaliya IV to
discourage such a connection, but in vain (Bryce: 2005, 297-298). Ramses celebrated his 14th jubilee in year 66 (Desroches
Noblecourt: 1996, 361-376). The year 42 of Ramses was chosen by Wennufer, high priest of Osiris at Abydos, to praise Ramses II
and to thank him for having appointed several members of his family to high office. It is likely that this special year was one when it
was decided to build the temple of Wadi es-Seboua dedicating the new function of Ramses II as Ruler of Heliopolis. This temple was
completed after the year 44 (stele of the officer Ramose).
51
Years of Ramses II go from June to May (III Shemu 27) and years of Babylonian reigns run from April to March.
46
1/2 [13] 26/Kadašman-Turgu 1282 20
2/3 [14] 1 1281 21
3/4 [15] 2 1280 22
4/5 [16] 3 1279 23
5/6 [Battle of Kadesh] 4 1278 24
6/7 [18] 5 1277 25
7/8 [19] 6 1276 26
8/9 Urhi-Tešub [Muršili III] 7 1275 27
9/10 1 8 1274 28
10/11 2 9 1273 29
11/12 3 10 1272 30
12/13 4 11 1271 31/Shalmaneser I
13/14 5 12 1270 1
14/15 6 13 1269 2
15/16 7/Ḫattušili III 14 1268 3
16/17 [1] 15 1267 4
17/18 [alliance] 16 1266 5
18/19 [3] 17 1265 6
19/20 [4] 18/Kadašman-Enlil II 1264 7 [Collapse of Mitanni]
20/21 [Peace treaty] 1 1263 8
21/22 [6] 2 1262 9
22/23 [7] 3 1261 10
23/24 [8] 4 1260 11
24/25 [9] 5 1259 12
25/26 [10] 6 1258 13
26/27 [11] 7 1257 14
27/28 [12] 8 1256 15
28/29 [13] 9/Kudur-Enlil 1255 16
29/30 [1st Jubilee] [14] 1 1254 17
30/31 [15] 2 1253 18
31/32 [16] 3 1252 19
32/33 [2nd Jubilee, 1st wedding] 4 1251 20
33/34 [18] 5 1250 21
34/35 [19] 6 1249 22
35/36 [3rd Jubilee] [20] 7 1248 23
36/37 [21] 8 1247 24
37/38 [22] 9/Šagarakti-Šuriaš 1246 25
38/39 [4th Jubilee] [23] 1 1245 26
39/40 [24] 2 1244 27
40/41 [25] 3 1243 28
41/42 [5th Jubilee, 2nd wedding] 4 1242 29/Tukulti-Ninurta I
42/43 [27]/Tutḫaliya IV 5 1241 1
43/44 [1] 6 1240 2
44/45 [6th Jubilee] [2] 7 1239 3
45/46 [3] 8 1238 4
46/47 [4] 9 1237 5
47/48 [7th Jubilee] [5] 10 1236 6
48/49 [6] 11 1235 7
49/50 [7] 12 1234 8
50/51 [8th Jubilee] [8] 13/Kaštiliašu IV 1233 9
51/52 [9] 1 1232 10
52/53 [10] 2 1231 11
53/54 [9th Jubilee] [11] 3 1230 12
54/55 [12] 4 1229 13
55/56 [Kurunta] 9 1228 14
56/57 [10th Jubilee] [14] 10 1227 15
57/58 [15] 11 1226 16
58/59 [16] 12/Enlil-nâdin-šumi 1225 17
59/60 [11th Jubilee] [17] 1/Kadašman-Ḫarbe II 1224 18
60/61 [12th Jubilee] [18] Adad-šuma-iddina 1223 19
61/62 [19] 1 1222 20
62/63 [13th Jubilee] [20] 2 1221 21
63/64 [21] 3 1220 22
64/65 [22] 4 1219 23
65/66 [14th Jubilee] [23] 5 1218 24
66/67 [24] 6/Adad-šuma-uṣur 1217 22
67/Merenptah [25] 1 1216 23
1/2 [26] 2 1215 24
The two synchronisms of the reign of Ramses II with the Mesopotamian chronology are in perfect
harmony with the absolute Egyptian chronology. The complete reconstruction of the reigns of Dynasties 19
and 20 over the period 1295-1150 BCE, based on the Sothic rising of Sety I, the lunar days psdntyw (whose
coincidences with the dates of the Egyptian calendar occur only every 25 years or every 11/14 years if there
is a 1-day error from the observation) and the two synchronisms with the Mesopotamian chronology, shows
that all these chronological data are in perfect agreement with each other.
TABLE 39
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 Sety I (12 July 1291 BCE).
Synchronism with Babylonian chronology: years 19 and 42 of Ramses II (in 1264 and 1241 BCE);
Year 8 of Ramses III (in 1185 BCE).
Lunar dates psdntyw: year 52 de Ramses II (in 1232 BCE); Year 7 de Siptah (in 1195 BCE);
Year 4 de Ramses IV (in 1158 BCE).
SEASON BCE AKHET PERET SHEMU
I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV 5
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
Sety 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
Sothic 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
synchronism 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
48
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
synchronism 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
1st lunar day 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
Sety 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
1st lunar day 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
synchronism 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
1st lunar day 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 16 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 14 13
1154 7 17 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2
Ramses V 1153 1 18 26 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 22 22 21
1152 2 19 16 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11
1151 3 20 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 30
Ramses VI 1150 1 21 24 24 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19
1149 2 22 13 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 9 9 8
1148 3 23 3 2 2 1 1 30 30 29 29 28 28 27
1147 4 24 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 18 17 17
1146 5 25 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6
1145 6 1 1 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25 25
1144 7 2 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14
Ramses VII 1143 1 3 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3
1142 2 4 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 23
1141 3 6 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
Year 2 of Meli-Shipak (1187-1172) began on 1st Nisan, or 4 April 1185 BCE, and Year 8 of Ramses III
began on I Shemu 26 or 7 March 1185 BCE. The last tablets of Emar are dated month VII (October), Year 2
of Meli-Shipak corresponding to Year 22 of Šuppiluliuma II (1207-1185), the last king of Hatti.
50
The chronology of the reigns of the 18th dynasty is reconstructed by combining radiocarbon dates with
the durations of the reigns transmitted by Flavius Josephus (Against Apion I:93-98) as well as the highest
dates of each reign (Hornung: 2006, 198-201; Von Beckerath: 1997, 211-202):
TABLE 40
14
Dynasty 18 C dating ∆1 Josephus (Man.) Highest date Reign duration
Ahmose 1557-1532 25 years 25 years 4 m. 22 25 years 4 m.
Amenhotep I 1532-1511 21 years 20 years 7 m. 21 20 years 7 m.
Thutmose I 1511-1499 12 years 12 years 9 m. 11 ? 12 years 9 m.
Thutmose II 1499-1486 13 years [1]3 years 1 II Akhet 8 [3 years]
[Hatshepsut] 1480-1458 22 years 21 years 9 m. 20 III Peret 2 [21 years 9 m.]
Thutmose III 1486-1434 52 years - 54 III Peret 30 [54 years]
Amenhotep II 1434-1407 27 years 25 years 10 m. 26 25 years 10 m.
Thutmose IV 1407-1397 10 years 9 years 8 m. 8 III Peret 2 9 years 8 m.
Amenhotep III 1397-1359 38 years 30 years 10 m. 38 III Shemu 1 [38 years]
Amenhotep IV 1359-1345 14 years 36 years 5 m. 17 II Akhet [17 years]
Semenkhkare 1345 - 1
-Ankhkheperure -1342 3 years [1]2 years 1 m. 3 III Akhet 10 2 years 1 m.
Tutankhamun 1342-1333 9 years 9 years 10 [III Akhet] 9 years
Aÿ 1333-1330 3 years 4 years 1 m. 4 IV Akhet 1 4 years 1 m.
Horemheb I 1330 - 28 years 12 years 5 m. 27 I Shemu 9 [28 years]
Horemheb II -1302 12 years 3 m. 1323-1295
Dynasty 19
Ramses I 1302-1302 0 year - 2 II Peret 20 01/1295-05/1294
Sety 1302-1285 17 years 55 years 11 IV Shemu 13 06/1294-06/1283
The corrected chronological data provided by Josephus appears to be accurate except for Thutmose III,
Amenhotep III, Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten) and Horemheb. Even though the duration of Horemheb's reign is
controversial (Van Dijk: 2008, 193-200) 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 (Van Dijk: 2008, 193-
200), which is unfinished! Kitchen also observed 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 (Kitchen: 1987, 37-55). There are only two dated inscriptions after Year 14: a decree on a section of
wall dated Year [2]5 and a graffito on a fragment of a statue dated year 2752. The ink graffito reads: “Year
27, I Shemu 9, the day53 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 one (Redford: 1973, No. 37 footnote). If
the reading of the year [2]5 (Hari: 1964, n°179 fig.
82, 84) is only the most likely (opposite figure),
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' inscription (Gardiner: 1905) 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 Horemheb54. Hari, in his thesis about Horemheb, noted that the usual explanations
about this pharaoh are romanticized and baseless. After reviewing overall enrolments 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, Aÿ 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
52
Petrie Collection (UC 14391), the part in which appeared the year [2]5 has been chipped and is now illegible.
53
This date I Shemu 9 Year 27 corresponds to 18 March in 1296 BCE and coincides with a 1st lunar crescent.
54
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 Sety I (years 31-41 of Horemheb) and finally
with years 1-18 of Ramses II (42-59 years of Horemheb).
Pharaoh, Queen Mutnodjmet, divine Aÿ's daughter, married Horemheb (as did in the past Queen Hatshepsut,
daughter of Thutmose I, with her half-brother Thutmose II). Consequently, 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 being designated as
“king” by the “eldest son of Horus” (“son of Horus” meant the king in title, i.e. 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 (in accordance with the 28-year duration from 14C
dating). The calculation of Horemheb's reign (1322-1295) makes it possible to fix Tutankhamun's reign
approximately 1335-1326 BCE on the basis of the reign of Ramses I (1295-1294).
14
Dyn. King C dating ∆1 Reign duration Reign
18 Tutankhamun 1342-1333 9 years 9 years 1335-1326
Aÿ 1333-1330 3 years 4 years 1 month 1326-1322
Horemheb I 1330 - 28 years 14 years 1322-1308
Horemheb II -1302 13 years 1308-1295
19 Ramses I 1302-1302 - 1 year 4 months 01/1295-05/1294
Tutankhamun died the year 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 war (Pritchard: 1969, 319) which lasted 6
years and that ended with his own death (Kitchen: 1962, 3-5,22-23). The brief reign of Arnuwanda II, the
duration of which is not specified, must have lasted about 6 months55. 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 BCE (Bryce: 2005, 154-220). Muršili II's reign can be dated
precisely (Wente, Van Siclen: 1977, 249) because at the beginning of his 10th year there was "a solar omen"
(Singer: 2002, 75-77), which was a 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 BCE56. This eclipse,
which occurred shortly after the beginning of the year, as the text of the omen suggests, is the only one able
to fulfil two key criteria57: 1) it was total (magnitude 102%) and 2) its path passed near Ḫattuša, the Hittite
capital. Given that the year 10 of Mursili II is dated 1312 BCE, that means his accession has to be dated
between April 1322 and March 1321 BCE. Consequently, Tutankhamun's death took place in 1327 BCE, 5
years before the brief reign of Arnuwanda II (Moran: 1987, 55 note 137) and the accession of Mursili II
dated 1322/1321 BCE. Tutankhamun's death in 1327 BCE can be deduced from the following synchronisms:
• Amenhotep III died in April 1345 BCE in the 38th year of his reign.
• Tušratta wrote 7 letters (Moran: 1987, 48, 110-190) 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 I] 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 letters. 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 letters.
• 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 I died in 1322 BCE, 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).
55
The account of Šuppiluliuma's deeds states that the king died of 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.
56
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcat5/SE-1399--1300.html http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEatlas/SEatlas-2/SEatlas-1319.GIF
57
The eclipse of -1307* (1308 BCE) April 13, cannot 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 trajectory
of this eclipse did not pass on the Hittite territory.
52
TABLE 41
BCE EGYPT MITANNI HATTI
1358 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
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. Consequently, 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. The letter EA 17 written just after the attack by Suppiluliuma (1353-1322), which was repelled by
Tušratta (1354-1339), must be dated 1351 BCE, 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 date (Freu: 2002,
87-107). 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 BCE and corresponds therefore to Year 12 of Amenhotep IV
since the latter died in 1340 BCE in his 17th year of reign (Year 6 of Akhenaten = year 17 of Amenhotep
IV). The content 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 before (Moran: 1987,
53,171-176), in addition, the preparation of a wide celebration kimru, with sending of gifts, corresponds to
foreign tributes that were received in year 12 the IV Peret 8. Letter EA 27 has a hieratic inscription: [year
1]2 I Peret [5 ..]58, which is dated 1345 BCE and matches exactly the year 12 of Amenhotep IV. The set of
previous synchronisms implies dating Amenhotep IV's death in 1340 BCE and Semenkhkare's death around
1338 BCE. Akhenaten died after 6 years of reign, or 17 years from his co-regency, and as he had no son his
brother Semenkhkare succeeded him59 but 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 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 around 10, became a new pharaoh. The reconstruction of the interregnum between
Akhenaten and Tutankhamun is controversial because of the many changes in titles (not to mention
usurpations). However, we know that Akhenaten had no son (but only 6 daughters), Semenkhkare, his
brother, had to succeed him for a short reign of about 1 year and 4 months. On Semenkhkare's death,
Meritaten his widow continued the reign of her husband (for 2 years 1 month) under the name
Ankhkheperure (Aldred: 1988, 160-161, 284-296), a female name which was then masculinized60 (Bovot:
2005, 183-224; Gabolde: 2005, 273-286).
THE REIGN OF AMENHOTEP IV (1356-1340)/ AKHENATEN (1345-1340) THROUGH ASTRONOMY
The hectic succession of Akhenaten's reign has generated many explanations 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 (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 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 him61. Given that Akhenaten died (September 1340 BCE) soon after his wife and
because he had had no son, consequently no heir, Semenkhkare his brother succeeded him for a short reign.
58
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 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 2758 wrote "year 36" with
the usual hieroglyph ô, not ● (EA 23).
59
As had happened before with Kamose, Seqenenre Taa's brother, who succeeded him after his death and the death of Crown Prince
Ahmose Sapaïr.
60
Similar case with queen Tausert, wife of Sety 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.
61
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” (Moran: 1992, 19-23).
54
Likely because of the plague, Semenkhkare died soon after his brother. On Semenkhkare's death (February
1338 BCE), 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 Akhet-aten), cited in
allusion on the Amun's priest graffito62 dated III Akhet 10, Year 3 of Ankhkheperure (Murnane: 1995, 207-
208), dated 1st October 1338 BCE, and which was understood as a terrible omen against the Pharaoh,
meaning: “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 to become a “Sun” in
Egypt (likely in order to get an heir). However, this unprecedented marriage never took place because the
Hittite prince Zannanza (third son of Šuppiluliuma) was assassinated when he came into Egypt.
Consequently, Ankhkheperure remained a widow as indicated by a jar inscription dated Year 3 of her reign63.
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.” So, Aten is no longer mentioned and was replaced by
Amun64. It may be noted that the queen died shortly after the solar eclipse. The transition from
Ankhkheperure to Tutankhamun therefore took place 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 jars
bearing a regnal year lower than 5 belong to his successor Ankhkheperure (Gabolde: 2015, 81,552).
Assuming dated inscriptions were produced at a constant rate of about 4 per month (= 50/12), year 3 lasted
about 1 month (= 13/12). This reign’s duration, going from October 1340 to November 1338 BCE, is
identical to that given by Manetho (2 years 1 month) and ends in the Egyptian month IV in 1338 BCE, 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
(Urk. IV, 2025, 18).
The spatial reconstruction of the beginning of the stela (below) confirms Year 1 of Tutankhamun.
Regnal year 1 month IV Akhet day 19 Horus incarnation

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 Tutankhaten in the first three years of his reign, not at his accession to the throne
(Gabolde: 2015, 115-119, 124-133). According to astronomical dates, Tutankhamun's reign began at the end
of 1337 BCE and not at the end of 1338 BCE. 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 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 Aten (plague and solar eclipse).
62
« As you [Amun-Re] made me see the darkness which are yours to give, make it for me light so I can see you ».
63
« Jar 17½ hin (8 liters). Year III, wine for the house of the solitary king of West River. Head of winemakers, Pencha » (Gabolde;
2015, 77-86).
64
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 (who later became Pharaoh) to murder Zannanza discreetly, in order to favour a
normal succession with Tuthankamun, the third and last son of Amenhotep III.
The last wine jars are dated: “Year 1, Master of vintage” (Vandersleyen: 1995, 469-472). 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. The 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 BCE, year of Tutankhamun's death65. The
succession of reigns between Amenhotep III and Tutankhamun, based on the synchronism and astronomical
dates, can be reconstructed as follows (Gabolde: 2005, 261-286): 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 10 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 BCE in the final year of reign
of Amenhotep III. So, Tutankhamun was the rightful son of Amenhotep III, as indicate several dedications
(Wente, Harris: 1992, 13-15) 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 grandfather
(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 tomb (Bell: 1986, 47-49). Consequently, Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten) but also Smenkhkare
and Tutankhaten (Tutankhamun) were the sons of Amenhotep III (and Queen Tiye). Tutankhamun stated
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 have been
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) agrees with his birth to the end of Amenhotep III's
reign in 1347 BCE (= 1327 + 20). Consequently, the successor of Akhenaten was first Semenkhkare (his
brother) then Tutankhamun (his younger brother) 3 years later. Consequently, 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 BCE) 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 Ankhkeperure the priests of Amun decided to abandon the city of Akhetaten (September 1337 BCE)
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 Tutankhamun
(Gabolde: 2015, 89-92, 409-432) 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.
The 11-year co-regency between the two pharaohs is therefore well established. Amenhotep IV
probably expected the death of Amenhotep III in transferring the whole court to the new city (Akhetaten) and
in favouring the promoting of Aten's worship (Tutankhaten, 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 IV (Gabolde: 1998, 281-283). 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 (3
March 1341 BCE). This temple is directed precisely toward a notch in the mountains visible on the horizon
(azimuth 103°). 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 on the same date (Murnane: 1987, 239-246). The fact that the
temple is oriented exactly in line with the Royal Wadi (Silverman, Wegner, Houser Wegner: 2006, 43-55)
suggests that Akhenaten chose to inaugurate the city, the precise day when the sun rose in the notch of the
65
Tutankhamun's death in October 1327 BCE is confirmed by the Suppiluliuma I's campaign, since he was informed of
Tutankhamun's death at the end of his campaign which ended before the onset of winter (November). The Syrian 1-year war against
Amurru is dated 1348 BCE and Šuppiluliuma's attack against Tušratta in 1352 BCE. Tušratta likely began to reign one year before
the attack and died (Freu, Mazoyer: 2007, 271) during the brief reign of Semenkhkare (1340-1339).
56
mountain (Gabolde: 2010, 243-256), illuminating the temple as a laser beam. The simulation of sunrise
observed at that location in 14th century BCE (Wells: 1987, 313-333) indicates that it appeared to 4:38 UT in
the notch of the mountain (which 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 of about 0.4° per day at the horizon
(0° altitude) to go back and forth between the two extreme positions reached at solstices on 1 January and 5
July (spring equinox was on 2 April at that time). This implies that the equation: IV Peret 13 = 3 March, 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
had completed in the last year of the 4-year cycle, in 1338 BCE. Akhenaten's 11-year co-regency with his
father, which is proven by chronology based on synchronisms dated by astronomy, is contested by most
Egyptologists for ideological reasons (absolute power is not shared!). A minority of Egyptologists, more
attached to archaeological facts, had noticed the evidence of this 11-year co-regency between the two
Pharaohs66 (Dorman: 2006). Paralleling all chronological data:
TABLE 42
BCE King Change of name:
1357 27 Amenhotep III
1356 28 Amen-hotep IV 1 Amen is pleased (Amenhotep III's son)
1355 29 2
1354 30 Jubilee of year 30 3 Re-Horakhty (...) who is Aten
1353 31 4
1352 32 5
1351 33 6
1350 34 Jubilee (of year 33) 7
1349 35 8
1348 36 9
1347 37 Jubilee (of year 36) 10 Re (...) who comes back as Aten 0
1346 38 11 (age of Tutankhamun) 1
1345 12 Akhen-aten 1 Life of Aten (transfer to Akhetaten) 2
1344 13 2 3
1343 14 3 4
1342 15 4 5
1341 16 5 6
1340 17 6 7
1339 1 Semenkhkare [7] (brother of Akhenaten) 8
1338 2 -Ankhkheperure [8] (wife of Semenkhkare) 9
1337 3 1 Tutankh-aten (younger brother of Akhenaten) 10
1336 1 Tutankh-amen 11
1335 2 12
66
The context in the chapel of Vizier Amenhotep-Huy indicates that 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. There is a space
enclosed with no more than 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 kings from year 30 to 38 (Valentin, Bedman: 2014, 17-27) 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 by 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 III (Bailey: 2000, 14,26-28,38), as reported by Amenhotep IV during his 3rd year, confirms the
11-year co-regency. Those who refuse this co-regency are obliged to say that this sed festival commemorating 30 years of reign,
mentioned by Amenhotep IV, would have been anachronistic (Gabolde: 1998, 26-28). 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 father (Desroches-Noblecourt: 1965, 110-111).
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 (Hayes: 1951, 35-56). In the year 12 of Amenhotep IV, Tiy (wife of Amenhotep III) moved
to Akhetaten (Grimal: 1988, 301-302). 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 III (Gohary: 1992, 29-33).
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. It is interesting to
note that stelae of year 8 are posthumous and contemporary of Semenkhkare (Giles: 2001, 43-45). 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 Akhenaten (Murnane: 1977, 215-225).
There is a paradox for those who refuse the co-regency between Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV and
Marc Gabolde agrees. He wrote « Then why, if Tutankhamun was the son of Akhenaten, would he have
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 daughters, for religious reasons is
unprecedented and leads to an absurdity (Gabolde: 1998, 293): Admittedly, it is paradoxical to consider that
Tutankhamun may seemingly, in the same spirit, honour his father and deny him all at once and there is no
obvious explanation for this contradiction. However, the obvious explanation exists: as he claimed,
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!
TABLE 43
BCE King
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
58
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
2 VII regarding Neferti's death and the new "Mistress of the House" Meritaten.
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 Akhenaten67
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 14 May 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,
8I is 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 Akhetaten, the city of Akhenaten, is abandoned
10 III
11 IV 1 Tutankhamun accession in Memphis on 19/IV/1
67
Akhenaten’s death in October is confirmed by a label on a jar dated year 17 (partially erased and changed to 1) referring to honey
and honey harvesting in Egypt, in the valley, which was carried out in September (Nicholson, Shaw: 2000, 410-411).
12 V Restoration Stela (CGC 34183)
1336 1 VI
2 VII
3 VIII
4 IX
5X
6 XI
7 XII
8I Wine jar dated Year 1, month I, domain of Sehetepaten, Khay [who was Officer
9 II of the Southern Foreign Lands, Troop Commander of Tutankhamun]
10 III
(The city of Akhenaten II, no 111)
11 IV 2
12 V
By using the dating of Amenhotep III’s reign (1383-1345) and combining it with the dates fixed by 14C
dating, we obtain an approximate dating of the reign of Thutmose III (1473-1419):
TABLE 44
14
Dyn. King C dating Reign Accession date Reign duration D1
18 Ahmose 1557-1532 (1532-1407) 25 years 4 months +25
Amenhotep I 1532-1511 (1507-1487) 20 years 7 months +25
Thutmose I 1511-1499 (1487-1475) 12 years 9 months +25
Thutmose II 1499-1486 (1475-1472) [3 years] +23
Thutmose III 1486-1434 (1472-1418) I Shemu 4 [54 years] +13
Amenhotep II 1434-1407 (1418-1392) IV Akhet 1 ? 25 years 10 months +15
Thutmose IV 1407-1397 (1392-1383) 9 years 8 months +14
Amenhotep III 1397-1359 10/1383-07/1345 ? 37 years 10 months +14
Amenhotep IV 1359-1345 03/1356-10/1340 I Peret 1-8 ? 16 years 7 months +3
Semenkhkare 1345 - 10/1340-11/1338 2 years 1 month +5
-Ankhkheperure -1342 11/1338-11/1337 [1 year]
Tutankhamun 1342-1333 11/1337-10/1327 IV Akhet 19 10 years 2 months +5
Aÿ 1333-1330 10/1327-11/1323 4 years 1 month +6
Horemheb 1330-1302 11/1323-01/1295 III Akhet [5]? 27 years 2 months +7
19 Ramses I 1302-1302 01/1295-05/1294 III Peret ? 1 year 4 months +7
Sety I 1302-1285 06/1294-06/1283 III Shemu 24 ? 11 years +8
Ramses II 1285-1219 06/1283-07/1216 III Shemu 27 67 years 1 month +2
THE REIGN OF THUTMOSE III (1472-1418) THROUGH ASTRONOMY
The reign of Thutmose III is well documented since we know the date of his accession to the throne
(year 1, I Shemu 4) and the date of his death (year 54, III Peret 30), which allows us to calculate the exact
duration of his reign68: 53 years 11 months (of 30 days) and 4 days. Moreover, Thutmose III began to reign
independently, without Hatshepsut, presumably from year 22, II Peret 10, according to the Armant Stela. In
addition, two lunar days 1 psdntyw (Sethe: 1907, IV 657, 807-809, 836) respectively dated I Shemu 21 year
23 of Thutmose III and II Peret 30 year 2469, fix the dating of Thutmose's reign because according to
astronomy these lunar days psdntyw (Parker: 1957, 39-43) coincided with the full moons of 7 May in 1450
BCE and of 16 February in 1448 BCE. Because Year 1 of Thutmose III started on I Shemu 4 (May in 1472
BCE), Year 23 must have begun on 21 April 1450 BCE (I Shemu 4). The date I Shemu 21, Year 23 of
Thutmose III is dated 8 May 1450 BCE and the II Peret 30, Year 24, is dated 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 Asiatics” (Lalouette: 1995, 276-279, 371-372).
The two lunar dates allow us to precisely date the reign of Thutmose III (1472-1418) since these
astronomical coincidences only occur every 25 years (or 11 and 14 years if there is a 1-day shift in the date).
Years of reign of Thutmose III (1472-1418) 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 the time, making it
possible to date these astronomical phenomena exactly.
68
Years of reign are counted from the date of accession (I Shemu 4) and not from 1st Thoth (I Akhet 1).
69
Thutmose III inaugurated a sanctuary on II Peret year 24 and called it: Akh-menu “brilliant monument” (Urk.IV 836.1-3).
60
Some constellations and stars like the Big Dipper, Orion, Venus, Mars, Mercury, Saturn and Jupiter (the
name of the 12 months of the year as well as of 5 planets is written alongside in hieroglyph) are easy to
identify. 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 astronomy. Senenmut was a very important person under Hatshepsut, thus we can find the year
of the reign when the ceiling of his grave was painted. Senenmut received the prestigious title of “Grand
Steward of Amun” probably around the 5th or the 7th year of Thutmose III and had the rare privilege for an
individual of developing a royal tomb and appending his own grave. The ostraca of this tomb 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.
The start date of the tomb is Year 7. As Senenmut's tomb is only a small part of the vast complex, two 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 temple, is dated Year 9. Astronomical observation
represented on the ceiling must therefore date from this year 9 of Thutmose III. So, according to the
accession date, the accession of the pharaoh would have taken place in 1472 (= 1463 + 9) and his reign from
08/1472 to 03/1418. 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), Rigel (β Orionis). The line that crosses the Big Dipper and pointing to the pole is directed
towards 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 “Egyptian weeks” or decans of 10 days)
are divided by the meridian into 3 equal parts of 120 days.
On the lower part, 12 circles can be recognized 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 to 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 second and
the third part was the night of 18/19 March (culmination of the star η Ursae Majoris), the one between the
third and the first 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 second 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, which was divided into 36 decans, each covering a period of 10 days (excluding
the 5 epagomenal days), one must first verify that the 8th month (IV Peret 1) began around 19 March in 1460
BCE and then, adding 3 times 10 days, one gets the beginning of each month:
62
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 give a latitude of 30° North. As Sirius is the brightest star in the sky it is easy to spot, 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 data70. The accuracy
is not very good but the “absence of Mars” on the ceiling allows its dating with a high precision. 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 whom 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 missing. Its absence (empty boat) in so neat a celestial map is all the more remarkable in that in all later
cards and, without exception, even more characteristically, Mars on board in a ship follows Jupiter and
Saturn depicted 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. Among the 50 years between 1505 and 1455 BCE there is
only one in which Mars was not visible, it was the night of 14/15 November 1463 BCE (right below)
according to astronomy (http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Yourhorizon).
FIG. 7
70
A set of measures showed ( http://www.alcyone.de/PVis/documentation/accuracy.html ) that it could be modelled by the equation:
arcus visionis = 10.5 + 1.44 x (magnitude). The arcus visionis of Sirius (magnitude -1.46) is theoretically 8.4°, but usually around 9°
(2° above the horizon for the star and 7° below the horizon for the sun). Astronomy software allows us to know
(http://www.imcce.fr/langues/fr/grandpublic/phenomenes/sothis/index.html) the heliacal rising of Sirius based on a given latitude
(http://www.astro.com/cgi/aq.cgi?lang=e). Because of the precession of the equinoxes, the apparent position of the Sun relative to the
backdrop of the stars (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qHjtp4cdCA) at some seasonally fixed time slowly regresses a full 360°
through all 12 traditional constellations of the zodiac (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession), at the rate of about 50.3
seconds of arc per year (= 360°/25,772 year), or 1° every 71.6 year. 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').
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. On the map,
the line near Jupiter corresponds to all points of the same longitude which have the same rise between 7° and
95°. However, among the 50 years between 1505 and 1455 BCE there is only one in which Jupiter had a
right ascension (75°-95°) on the night of 14/15 November, it is the year 1463 BCE. The previous result is
surprising, because the Egyptian priest astronomers, usually very accurate in their representations, were
particularly ill-advised to choose that particular year when Mars was absent. This is unique in Egyptian
representations because Mars always appears in its boat like on the Sarcophagus of Nectanebo II (below):
⇧ ⇧ 1 2 3 4 5 ⇧ ⇧ ⇧ ⇧ ⇧
Phoenix Mercure (last decan) 5 epagonemal days Mars Saturn Jupiter Sothis Orion
Observation of the shape and the position of Orion, Sirius and Venus explain the reason for their choice.
If Rigel corresponds to Orion's toes with the 3 stars aligned in its belt, Sirius is located consequently on the
level of Sothis' ankles, which are at the same level as 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 side and month
1 inaugurates the beginning of the ceiling at the bottom right side. If the culmination of the Big Dipper can
be dated 14 November 1463 BCE, this year began with the heliacal rising of Sirius on month 1 dated 16 July
1464 BCE (-1463*). 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 planet. 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 period. 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 pictured. The heliacal rising of Sirius at Heliopolis in 1464 BCE (-1463*) was
on 16 July and coincided with the heliacal rising of Venus (below). An arcus visionis of around 8.5° means
that Sirius and Venus may be seen 2° above the horizon and the sun was 6.5° beneath the horizon.
FIG. 8
Venus Jupiter Mars Sirius Phoenix Jupiter Saturn Sirius

Beginning of the year (16 July 1464 BCE) 120 days later (15 November 1463 BCE)
64
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 located 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 matched the beginning of the Nile's
flood at summer solstice. These heliacal risings occurred
every year simultaneously, they were therefore not noted
unless they occurred with another remarkable astronomical
event. Two other Sothic dates appear during the reign of
Thutmose III (the regnal years are not known but it is
likely after the II Peret 10 of Thutmose III's Year 22
without Hatshepsut). The Elephantine Stone, from the temple of Khnum that Thutmose had built, mentions a
Sothic rising dated III Shemu 28 and the Buto Stela has a Sothic setting dated before the I Shemu 30.
FIG. 9
Sothicrising
Sothic rising(III
(IIIShemu
Shemu28)
28) Sothicsetting
Sothic setting (I(I Shemu
Shemu 30)
The date is indeed a setting (with sunset), not a Sothic rising (with sunrise), for the following reason:
between III Shemu 28 and I Shemu 30 there are 62 days, this duration would correspond to a difference of
244 years (= 4x61) in case of Sothic dates, which is impossible for the same king. In addition, the hieroglyph
representing the “rising” actually means “leave” (two legs walking surmounted by a horizontal bar “bolt”)
and not “arrive”, confirming the representation (very rare) of a Sothic setting which occurs 61 days before
the rising. Between the Sothic setting dated I Shemu 30 and the Sothic rising dated III Shemu 28 there was a
period of invisibility of 62 days, not 70 days71. The 28 Shemu III also belongs to the effective reign of
Thutmose III, after his 22 years of co-regency with Hatshepsut. In addition, the Palestine campaign which
occurred from Years 23 to 25 is mentioned in the Buto Stela72: Why have these two Sothic dates been
engraved? As Thebes was the capital of Egypt at this time (1470 BCE), the Sothic rising was on 12 July in
this place. The III Shemu 28 coincides with 13 July on the period 1448-1445, which matches effectively
Year 25 of Thutmose III since his Year 9 is dated 1464 BCE. Given that the accession of Thutmose III 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 yellow.
BCE Egyptian I Shemu 4 II Shemu 28 II Shemu 29 III Shemu 27 III Shemu 28 III Shemu 29
1448 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. In practice, the 1st day of the Egyptian
71
This difference could be explained by the fact that this period decreased by about 1.5 day for 1° latitude southward, which implies
67 days in Buto (latitude 31.1°) and 59 days in Thebes (latitude 25.7°). This period of invisibility is different from Egyptian texts,
which always indicate 70 days. This discrepancy with astronomy illustrates the role of religious Egyptian astronomy. Indeed, at that
time, the period of invisibility of Sirius was about 65 days at the latitude of Buto, 63 days at the latitude of Memphis. Even assuming
good observing conditions (arcus visionis of 8° for Sothic rising and 6.5° for Sothic setting) there was a period of 67 days at the
latitude of Buto, not 70 days as Egyptian texts indicate. This period of 70 days covered in fact a symbolic period of 7 decans, the
Egyptian year being covered by 36 decans, or 360 (= 12x30) days.
72
The stele reads: It is a brave king who, in the melee, made great slaughters among Asiatic coalitions. He is the one that makes
rulers of Retjenu's land, in their entirety, to be required to provide their tribute. Sothic dates appearing on the Buto Stela and on the
Elephantine Stone likely date to Year 25.
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).
BCE Egyptian IV Peret 29 IV Peret 30 I Shemu 4 I Shemu 28 I Shemu 29 I Shemu 30
1448 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 explain why these two Sothic dates were mentioned
on inscriptions. The Egyptians considered the full moon day as an auspicious day, just as the 1st lunar
crescent was, that is why these two days played an important role in religious festivals or inaugurations73.
A lunar cycle of 25 years began in 1471 BCE (-1470*) on I Akhet 1, or 1st Thoth (highlighted in
blue) matching a full moon dated 26 August, the 1st lunar day psdntyw of the lunar month.
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 (both 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)
TABLE 45
SEASON: AKHET PERET SHEMU
BCE I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV 5
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
Sothic rising 1464 9 7 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 22 22 21 21 20
astronomical event 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
1st lunar day 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
1st lunar day 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
1445 28 1 1 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25 25
1444 29 2 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14
73
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 BCE) 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. The Egyptians have granted a symbolic meaning to two astronomical events: the rising of stars, mostly that of Sirius,
and the culmination of stars when passing the meridian. Rising of stars meant the birth of that star and setting of stars meant the death
of that star as well as its entrance in the night for a period of invisibility. As the stars rise in the east (the Latin word “orient” means
“rising”) and sets in the west, including the sun, the living world was east of the Nil, symbolizing the meridian, and the world of the
dead is to the west of the Nile (the Latin word “occident” means “dying”). This astral conception of the world led the Egyptians to
always build pyramids on the west side of the Nile but to inhabit to east side of it, never the contrary. The heliacal rising of Sirius, the
brightest star in the sky, played a crucial role for Egyptians because around that day, which also occurred at summer solstice, the Nile
began to flood the Lower Egypt. Consequently, the rising of Sirius was the rising of life in Egypt. Egyptians did generally not date
the rising of Sirius because it occurred annually at the same time. The main exception was when the heliacal rising of Sirius
coincided with the heliacal rising of Venus, the brightest planet of the sky.
66
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 shift 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 III (Murnane: 1977, 44-57; Der Manuelian: 1987, 19-
40; 2005, 414-429). During this co-regency Amenhotep II built the temple of Amada in Nubia whose
decoration shares harmoniously between Thutmose III —depicted in the lower register scenes— and
Amenhotep II —featured in the upper registers (Grimal: 1988, 279; Vernus, Yoyotte: 1998, 19). This co-
regency 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 psdntyw
(Read: 1996, 105). 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). Consequently, 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 19 of Amenhotep II matches the full moon of 15 June
1402 BCE. The next reign of Thutmose IV does 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 BCE. 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).
TABLE 46
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
1st lunar day 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
1388 5 8 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 10
1387 6 9 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 30 29 29 28
1386 7 10 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18
1385 8 11 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 9 9 8 8 7
1384 9 12 2 1 1 30 30 29 28 28 27 27 27 26
1383 10 13 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 16 15
Amenhotep III 1382 1 14 10 9 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4
1381 2 15 29 28 28 27 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24
1380 3 16 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 14 13
1379 4 17 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2
1378 5 18 26 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 22 22 21
1377 6 19 16 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11
1376 7 20 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 30
1375 8 21 24 24 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19
1374 9 22 13 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 9 9 8
The reigns of the Thutmose kings can be calculated from the chronological data transmitted by
Josephus, but the duration of the reign of Thutmose II (13 years) is erroneous if compared with that obtained
from the number of scarabs emitted during his reign compared to those of the other Thutmoses. The length of
the reign of Thutmose II can be checked by listing the number of scarabs assigned to each pharaoh (Gabolde:
1987, 61-81) and assuming a normal statistical distribution (constant average production rate):
TABLE 47
King Josephus (Manetho) Reign Number of scarabs Average per year
Thutmose I 12 years 9 months 02/1484-11/1472 241 / 290 18,9 / 22,7
Thutmose II 13 years 08/1472-07/1469 65 / 90 [20] / [30]74
Hatshepsut 21 years 9 months [08/1472-04/1450] 463 / ---- 21,3 / ----
Thutmose III - 08/1472-03/1418
Thutmose IV 9 years 8 months 02/1392-09/1383 ---- / 374 ---- / 38,7
Amenhotep III 10/1383-07/1345
Amenhotep IV 03/1356-10/1340
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 of checking the 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 seems75. Thutmose III argues, for example, having ruled
alongside his father Thutmose II (Lalouette: 1986, 201-203, 257-260), in fact Queen Hatshepsut. In addition,
she celebrated in the year 16 of Thutmose III a jubilee commemorating the 30 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 II (Wente, Van Siclen: 1977, 220-221). 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 pharaohs (Gabolde: 1987, 61-81; Gabolde: 2005,
261-286). Her commemoration of a jubilee in year 16 for the 30-year reign of her 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 (=
74
[20] = [18,9 + 21,3]/2 ; [30] = [22,7 + 38,7]/2.
75
The date of accession is I Shemu 4 and his death is dated III Peret 30 year 54, which 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 to have made
2 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.
68
76
13 + 16) necessary to celebrate a jubilee . 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).
TABLE 48
BCE King
1486 20/21 Amenhotep I
1485 21/ 1 [21]/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 (1/2) 14/15 Thutmose II, accession date [-]/XI/13 (September 1472)
1470 2/3 (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 the Big
1462 10 10/11 23/24 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 Jubilee77 began at the end of year 16 (on 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)
The chronological reconstruction of Thutmose III's reign allows us to explain two anomalies of
Hatshepsut's reign. Indeed, this queen, who was the daughter of Thutmose I, became co-regent in behalf of
76
Hatshepsut's reign begins not in year 1 but in year 4 as she continued the reign of her husband. Stelae 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 was
sometimes interpreted as a co-regency (Murnane: 1977, 35-39, 115-117, 230) 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 Hatshepsut” (Desroches Noblecourt: 2002, 408-411).
77
That Jubilee was celebrated during the festival of Opet dated from II Akhet 15 to 26 (Darnell: 2010, 1-15). The period dated 15-
26/II/16 was around November 1457 BCE.
Thutmose III after the death of her husband Thutmose II, because his son Thutmose III was too young to
reign, but her co-regency began only after year 3 of Thutmose III (Hatshepsut is mentioned for the first time
in a stele dated I Shemu 16, year 3 of Thutmose III), not immediately from his year 1 and she celebrated an
anachronistic jubilee at the end of year 16, not during his year 30 (Vandersleyen: 1995, 265-318). In fact, at
the death of Thutmose II (I Shemu 3, year 3), Hatshepsut prolonged the reign of her husband in behalf of her
father Thutmose I (1484-1472), accordingly, she celebrated the 30th year of his reign posthumously, at the
end of year 16 of Thutmose III. Therefore, the anomalies in Hatshepsut's co-regency at the death of
Thutmose II dated I Shemu 3, year 3, are explained by the fact that this queen began her co-regency
immediately the following day, I Shemu 4, year 3 of Thutmose III, not year 1.
TABLE 49
I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV 5
Dynasty 18 BCE Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug.
Ahmose 1514 17 7 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 22 22 21 21 20
1513 18 8 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 10
1512 19 9 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 30 29 29 28
1511 20 10 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18
1510 21 11 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 9 9 8 8 7
1509 22 12 2 1 1 30 30 29 28 28 27 27 27 26
1508 23 13 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 16 15
1507 24 14 10 9 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4
1506 25 15 29 28 28 27 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24
Amenhotep I 1505 1 16 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 14 13
1504 2 17 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2
1503 3 18 26 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 22 22 21
1502 4 19 16 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11
1501 5 20 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1/30 30
1500 6 21 24 24 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19
1499 7 22 13 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 9 9 8
1498 8 23 3 2 2 1 1/30 30 30 29 29 28 28 27
1497 9 24 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 18 17 17
Sothic rising 1496 10 25 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6
1495 11 1 1/30 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25 25
1494 12 2 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14
1493 13 3 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3
1492 14 4 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 23
1491 15 5 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 12 12
1490 16 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1
1489 17 7 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 22 22 21 21 20
1488 18 8 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 10
1487 19 9 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 30 29 29 28
1486 20 10 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18
1485 21 11 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 9 9 8 8 7
Thutmose I 1484 1 1 12 2 1 1 30 30 29 28 28 27 27 27 26
1483 2 2 13 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 16 15
1482 3 3 14 10 9 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4
1481 4 4 15 29 28 28 27 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24
1480 5 5 16 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 14 13
1479 6 6 17 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2
1478 7 7 18 26 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 22 22 21
1477 8 8 19 16 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11
1476 9 9 20 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1/30
1475 10 10 21 24 24 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19
1474 11 11 22 13 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 9 9 8
1473 12 12 23 3 2 2 1 1 1/30 30 29 29 28 28 27
Thutmose II 1472 13 14 1 24 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 18 17 17
1471 15 2 25 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6
1470 16 3 1 1/30 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25 25
Thutmose III 1469 17 4 2 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14
/Hatshepsut 1468 18 5 3 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3
1467 19 6 4 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 23
1466 20 7 5 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 12 12
1465 21 8 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1
Sothic rising 1464 22 9 7 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 22 22 21 21 20
70
astronomy event 1463 23 10 8 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 10
1462 24 11 9 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 30 29 29 28
1461 25 12 10 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18
1460 26 13 11 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 9 9 8 8 7
1459 27 14 12 2 1 1 30 30 29 28 28 27 27 27 26
1458 28 15 13 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 16 15
1457 29 16 14 10 9 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4
Jubilee 1456 30 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 1/30
full moon 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
full moon 1448 25 23 3 2 2 1 1 1/30 30 29 29 28 28 27
Consequently, the chronological data transmitted by Josephus, combined with the dates of accession,
make it possible to date exactly the reigns of the 18th dynasty between Ahmose (1530-1505) and Thutmose I
(1484-1472). The papyrus Ebers dated year 9 of Amenhotep I (1496 BCE) begins a list of celebrations with:
“Feast of the New Year, III Shemu, day 9, rising of Sirius” (Von Bomhard: 1999, 32-33). It is a lunar date
because the Sothic rising at that time was on July 11 and this date in the Egyptian civil calendar should have
been III Shemu 14 (11 July)78.
Calendars in 1496 BCE
TABLE 50
JUNE JULY (Julian calendar) AUGUST
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 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4
Full moon Sothic rising 1st lunar crescent (= new moon +1)
SIMANU (Babylonian calendar) DUMUZU
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 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
III SHEMU (Egyptian civil calendar) IV SHEMU
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 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
II SHEMU III SHEMU (Egyptian lunar calendar)
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 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3
This Sirius rising was dated in Year 9, month 9 and lunar day 9 (III Shemu 9) because of the symbolism
of the number 979 (and it is also possible that the date of accession of Amenhotep I, which was III Shemu
[15-30?], played a role. This chronological information makes it possible to anchor Ahmose's reign (1530-
1505) on a date calculated by astronomy (highlighted in sky blue). The chronology of Dynasty 18 is
therefore exactly determined by astronomy, which shows that carbon-14 dating is overestimated by about 27
years. This ageing of the dates is confirmed by the stratigraphic dating of the 9 kings of Dynasty 17 which
ends around 1545 BCE instead of 1557 BCE (Dodson, Hilton: 2010, 122-129,290). However, since 2019, the
beginning of the 18th dynasty is dated to 1530* BCE (Bruins, Van der Plicht: 2019, 353-367).
TABLE 51
14
Dynasty 17 C dating Major event Reign Reign duration D1
1 Rahotep (1585 - (1570 - (+15)
8 Seqenenre Taa ‘War of the Hyksos’

9 Kamose -1545) Fall of Avaris /1533-04/1530 3 years (+15)
Dynasty 18 (1530* - (+0)
1 Ahmose 1557-1532 04/1530-07/1505 25 years 4 months +27
2 Amenhotep I 1532-1511 08/1505-02/1484 20 years 7 months +27
3 Thutmose I 1511-1499 02/1484-11/1472 12 years 9 months +27
CHRONOLOGY OF DYNASTIES 13 TO 17 (1778-1530) THROUGH ASTRONOMY
Chronological reconstruction of the Second Intermediate Period of Egypt (S.I.P.) is uncertain, including
the succession of kings (Ryholt: 1997, 184-201; Von Beckerath: 1997, 126-137), however it is based on the
following chronological elements: the end of the 12th Dynasty (1975-1778), which is anchored on three
absolute dates, corresponds to the beginning of the 13th Dynasty and the beginning of the 18th Dynasty
78
Julian day = 201 + (139 – Year*)/4 + (Egyptian day – 1); Year* = astronomical year.
79
The number “9” in Egyptian is called psd “shine”, which also explains the connection between lunar day 1 psdntyw “those shining
ones”, the Ennead of gods (psdt) and the Nine Bows (psdt).
(1530-1295) corresponds to the end of the 17th Dynasty, which makes it possible to precisely determine the
duration of the Second Intermediate Period (1978-1530). The 15th dynasty lasted 108 years according to the
Turin king-list and Apopi, the last king of the 15th dynasty would have reigned for 40 years (108 = 68 + 40).
According to Herodotus, the Egyptians did not want to remember this period perceived by them as harmful
and which had lasted 106 years (The Histories II:128). According to the Stela of Year 400, found at Tanis,
the 15th dynasty of the Great Hyksos began around 1680 BCE, 400 years prior to Ramses II (1283-1216).
The Stela, made under Ramses II, apparently refers to the Sethian dynasty of the Hyksos, 400 years earlier.
The interpretation of this stele is controversial because it represents the vizier Sety (grandfather of Sety I,
father of Ramses II), commemorating the event (Pritchard: 1969, 252-253), but Ramses II seems to have
connected his reign to his predecessor whose name Sethos I referred to the god Seth80. The era of Ramses II
would be a continuation of a prestigious past, which would place the establishment of the cult of Seth/Baal
around 1680 BCE, if one counts from Ramses II's reign. In fact, Seth is completely absent from the titular of
Ramses II and its worship appears only after the Battle of Kadesh (Desroches Noblecourt: 1996, 185-189,
370-372) and from the construction of the temple of Abu Simbel started in year 5 of his reign in 1279 BCE.
Accordingly, the 15th dynasty began in 1679 BCE (= 1279 + 400) and ended in 1571 BCE (= 1679 – 108).
since there is no year of accession (Year 0) in the Egyptian reigns. The chronology of the 15th dynasty
(1680-1572) is postponed by one year to make it consistent with Mesopotamian chronology. Although the
name and order of some pharaohs in the Hyksos period based on archaeological findings remain
controversial the following chronological framework is generally accepted (Franke: 2013, 7-13):
TABLE 52
Strata Period D1 D2 Egyptian Dynasty Vizier Asiatic Dynasty Capital
MBA IIA 1975-1778 12 (Lisht/ [Memphis]) Yes
MBA IIB 1778-1750 13 (Lisht/ [Memphis]) Yes
1750-1680 Yes 14 (Hyksos) Tanis
MBA IIC 1680-1613 400 68 (Thebes) - 15 (Great Hyksos) Avaris
1613-1572 40 - Apopi
1572-1544 17 (Thebes) - 16 (Theban kings) Edfu?
1544-1533 Seqenenre Taa -
LBA I 1533-1530 Kamose - (‘War of the Hyksos’)
1530 - 18 (Thebes)
-1505 Ahmose Yes
-1400
LBA IIA 1400-1300
LBA IIB 19 (Thebes)
Ramses I Yes
Sety I Yes
1283-1279 Ramses II Yes
1279-1216
According to dating Middle Bronze Age (MBA) strata, dated +/- 30 years (Bietak: 1991, 27-72), the
first part of the 13th Dynasty could be dated 1750-1650 (MBA IIB), the 15th Dynasty in 1650-1550 (MBA
IIC) and the beginning of the 18th Dynasty in 1550 BCE (LBA I). However, an improvement in the
calibration of 14C dates over the period 1600-1500 BCE has lowered81 (in 2019) these values by about 20
years BP (McAneney, Baillie: 2019, 99–112), now the beginning of the 18th Dynasty in 1530 BCE (Bruins,
Van der Plicht: 2019, 353-367), which is consistent with the dating of the reign of Ahmose (1530-1505)
according to astronomy. The “War of the Hyksos” thus took place during the reign of Kamose (1533-1530).
The material culture of the Canaanite settlers in the eastern Delta displays a distinct similarity to the
material culture found at Middle Bronze Age sites in Palestine (Ben-Tor: 2007, 1-3) and studies of scarabs of
the Middle Bronze period from both regions argue for the southern Levant as the place of origin of the
Second Intermediate Period of foreign rulers in Egypt (Ben-Tor: 2009, 1-7). The site of Tell el-Dab‘a,
identified with ancient Avaris, was recently identified with the New Kingdom port of Prw Nfr, when two
possible harbours were found (Bader: 2011, 137-158). If the first Hyksos (14th dynasty) began to reign
80
The Stele seems to have been made to support an honourable affiliation with an ancient dynasty, because the cult of Seth, likened
to the Baal of the Hyksos, was not widespread among the Egyptians. In addition, the system of eras was not used in Egypt. It is
possible that Ramses had imitated the previous era under the auspices of Horemheb, a predecessor, because a trial in the year 18 of
Ramses II is dated in the year 59 of Horemheb. Mes's inscription describes a complaint declared in the year 18 of Ramses II, which
was finally recorded and dated in the year 59 of Horemheb. The only plausible explanation for this anomaly is to assume that the
reign of Horemheb was extended posthumously, year 28 being followed by years 1-2 of Ramses I, which became years 29-30 of
Horemheb, then by years 1-11 of Sety I (years 31-41) and finally by years 1-18 of Ramses II (years 42-59).
81
Calibration of dates (in 2019) led to major 14C (re)dating efforts of wood dated by dendrochronology for the relevant time range.
The result is that between ca. 3600 and 3500 calBP the calibration curve needs a shift of about 20 years BP upwards in 14C age.
72
around 1750 BCE, they had already arrived in Egypt over a century previously and, according to Egyptian
records, most of them came from Palestine (called Retjenu in Egyptian). As can be seen the Hyksos period
overlaps exactly the stay of the Hebrews in Egypt (1748-1533), consequently, it is paramount to
chronologically determine this period with accuracy. The three Hyksos dynasties, 14, 15 and 16, ruled Egypt
approximately from 1750 to 1530 BCE and then disappeared abruptly after the death of Pharaoh Seqenenre
Taa. One can notice that Egyptian documents unanimously describe the departure of the Hyksos from Egypt
to Palestine in a disaster. Modern Egyptologists pictured a ‘war of the Hyksos’, however no document
speaks of war but only that Avaris, Hyksos’ capital, was looted and vandalized after their departure.
Moreover, all accounts of former historians picture the Hyksos as the ancestors of the Hebrews, led into
Palestine under the leadership of Moses. Most Egyptologists assume that:
The Hyksos dynasty (15) reigned a hundred years in Egypt, succumbing only after a struggle that was
very difficult for Egyptian nationalist Pharaohs, of whom at least one of them was killed (Seqenenre
Taa). Kamose began the liberation war, but it is Ahmose who definitively eradicated the Hyksos
domination by taking Avaris and Sharuhen (Vernus, Yoyotte: 1998, 85).
However, some Egyptologists, such as Claude Vandersleyen, despite offering a fictionalized version of
the ‘liberation war of the Hyksos’, noted that:
The New Kingdom began in a strange silence of the sources. What happened there after the 3rd year of
Kamose? (...) It is curious that the most important event in the history of Egypt during an entire
millennium, the annihilation of the population of the Hyksos, was ignored in the inscriptions of King
Ahmose dealing with something quite different: a storm that destroyed the cemetery of Thebes, his
concern about the perpetuation of his grandmother, Queen Teti-Sheri, some gifts offered to the temple
of Amun at Karnak, the wise government of his mother, Queen Ahhotep, etc., but not the main conquest
of his reign (Vandersleyen: 1995, 190,193,213, 232-237).
He also argued that there is no archaeological evidence of the Exodus under Ramses II and, therefore,
that the biblical Exodus under this Pharaoh would be a pious story, written after the fact, embellished for
posterity, which is the frequent conclusion of most scholars (Bloch-Smith: 2003, 401-425, Hendel: 2001:
601-622)! Concerning chronology, he acknowledged that:
All these calculations lead us well before Ramses II, and specifically in the 16th century. No doubt the
reliability of these chronologies is unproven, but they are spaced apart —whereas they exist— because
they contradict the low dating of the Exodus that is not based on any document (...) and should we push
back the Exodus to the 16th century? (...) It was noted that all proposed solutions to the problems of the
Exodus are speculative and ignore infrequent figures preserved in the Bible and Manetho. But the date
given by Manetho — that the Exodus took place under Ahmose — is the only one truly accurate (...) In
short, whatever the objections of exegetes today, we must not reject a priori to study the problem of
Exodus in connection with the expulsion of the Hyksos.
The Egyptologist Jan Assmann, also believing in the ‘liberation war of the Hyksos’, noted however that:
All the extra-Biblical versions agree that the aliens, or impure ones, are driven out of Egypt. In the
Bible, the Hebrews are retained in Egypt against their will and they are allowed to emigrate only after
divine interventions in the form of the plagues. But even in this version the account of the emigration
contains elements of expulsion. Of course, it would be most instructive to confront these different
versions with what could constitute historical evidence, but there is almost no such evidence. The only
historical evidence which is both archaeologically provable and semantically comparable with the
content of these different versions of the expulsion/emigration story is the sojourn of the Hyksos in
Egypt. If we apply the same question asked previously about the Amarna experience to the Hyksos
tradition and if we remain on the lookout for what might have become of the memories that must have
been shared by the expelled tribes about their stay in, and domination of Egypt, we find ourselves again
referred to the Exodus tradition. I completely agree with Flavius Josephus and Donald B. Redford, who
has held in various publications that the Hyksos' sojourn in, and withdrawal from, Egypt was all that
happened in terms of historical fact (Assmann: 1997, 40-41).
The comparison of archaeological data with the Turin king list shows that the three Hyksos dynasties:
14, 15 and 16, must have been parallel with the two Egyptian dynasties: 12 and 17 (Schneider: 1998, 123-
145; Vernus, Yoyotte: 1998, 63,185-186). The major problem for Egyptologists is to determine the link that
existed between the three Hyksos dynasties, the “Rulers of Foreign Countries”, and the two Egyptian
dynasties. While the archaeological evidence from Tell el-Daba (Avaris) shows Palestinian and Syrian
groups settling in the north-east Delta from 12th Dynasty times, nothing is known as to the political
development of the area. It has been proposed that it became an independent polity early in the 13th Dynasty,
being the historical basis for Manetho’s 14th Dynasty. It is unclear how the Theban kings (Dynasty 16)
gained control over their capital and the area northwards to Abydos, since peace seems to have lasted for
some decades until the final confrontation during the last part of the 17th Dynasty. There was some form of
accommodation between the 17th Dynasty and the last Hyksos Dynasty, as it appears from one of the stelae
of Kamose that the Thebans were able to pasture their cattle in Hyksos territory. For unknown reasons,
hostilities began between the two regimes under Seqenenre Taa, culminating in the final expulsion of the
Hyksos from Egypt (Dodson, Hilton: 2010, 114-129).
TABLE 53
n° Hebrew ruler BCE D1 reference Egyptian king Reign
Abraham (in Ur) 2038-1963 75 Gn 12:4-5
Canaan-Egypt 1963 - 430 Ex 12:40-41 Amenemhat I 1975-1946
Birth of Isaac -1938 25 Gn 21:5
Period of servitude 1938 - 450 Ac 13:17-20
Isaac is weaned -1933 (5) Gn 21:8-9
Period of affliction 1933 - 400 Gn 15:13
-1533 Seqenenre Taa -1533
Moses (Exodus) 1533-1493 40 Ex 16:35 Kamose 1533-1530
1 Joshua 1493 - 30 Jos 24:29
Period of pacification -1488 5 Jos 14:7,10
-1463
2 Without judge 1463 - (11) Jos 24:31
total n° 1-2 -1452 41 Nb 32:13
3 Cushan-rishataim 1452-1444 8 Jg 3:8
4 Othniel 1444-1404 40 Jg 3:11
5 Eglon 1404-1386 18 Jg 3:14
6 Ehud 1386-1306 80 Jg 3:30
7 Madian 1306-1299 7 Jg 6:1
8 Gideon 1299-1259 40 Jg 8:28
9 Abimelek 1259-1256 3 Jg 9:22
10 Tola 1256-1233 23 Jg 10:2
11 Jair 1233-1211 22 Jg 10:3
12 Anarchy 1211 - 18 Jg 10:8 Merenptah 1216-1207
total n° 1-12 -1193 300 Jg 11:26,30
13 Jephte 1193-1187 6 Jg 12:7
14 Ibzan 1187-1180 7 Jg 12:9
15 Elon 1180-1170 10 Jg 12:11
16 Abdon 1170-1162 8 Jg 12:14
17 [Eli] Philistines 1162-1122 40 1S 4:18
18 Samson 1122-1102 20 Jg 16:31
19 Samuel's sons 1102-1097 [5] 1S 8:1-3
20 Saul 1097-1057 40 Ac 13:21
21 David 1057-1017 40 1Ki 2:11
22 Solomon (year 4) 1017 -
total n° 1-22 -1013 4 480 1Ki 6:1
23 Solomon -977 40 1Ki 11:42 Shoshenq I 980 -
Rehoboam 977-960 17 1Ki 14:20-21 -959
Zedekiah 598 - 11 2Ch 36:11

-587 390 Ezk 4:5-6 Apries 588-567
The comparison of the Egyptian chronology with the biblical chronology of the patriarchs shows that
the end of the 17th dynasty coincided exactly in 1533 BCE with the beginning of the 40 years of exodus
under the leadership of Moses. Moreover, it is interesting to note that the three Hyksos dynasties took place
during the stay of the Israelites in Egypt which lasted 215 years. and that Moses' stay in Midian, which lasted
40 years, took place during the last Hyksos dynasty and the 17th Egyptian dynasty.
TABLE 54
2038 1963 1938 1933 1878 1788 1748 1678 1573 1533 1493 1488
a b c d e f g h i j k l
5 400 40 5
75 25 150 40 215
100 60 90 110 105 40
450
430
Egyptian Dynasties 11 12 13 17 18
Hyksos Dynasties 14 15 16
74
a) Birth of Abraham (in 2038 BCE).
b) Abraham entered Canaan when he was 75 years old (Gn 12:4-5); 430-year82 alien residence began (Ex
12:40-41).
c) Birth of Isaac (in 1938 BCE), ancestor of the people of Israel, when Abraham was 100 years old (Gn
21:5); 450-year period began (Ac 13:17-20).
d) Isaac was weaned at 5 years old83; 400 years of affliction84 began (Gn 15:13). This period starts when
Isaac was persecuted by Agar's son85 (Gn 21:8-9) and ended with the Exodus from Egypt and the end of
slavery86 (Ga 4:25-29).
e) Birth of Jacob (in 1878 BCE) when Isaac was 60 years old (Gn 25:26).
f) Birth of Joseph in Jacob's 91st year since he was 130 years old (Gn 41:46-47, 53-54; 45:11; 47:9) when
Joseph was 39 (= 30 years + 7 years of plenty + 2 years of famine).
g) Israelites (Jacob and his family, 75 individuals) came to Egypt in Joseph's 40th year (Gn 45:11; 46:5-7);
beginning of a 215-year dwelling.
h) Joseph died in 1678 BCE, when he was 110 years old. Israelite chiefs appointed by Joseph and later on
by pharaohs as kings (Great Hyksos) administrated the land of Goshen for 105 years (Gn 47:6; Ex
5:14).
i) Moses was banished for 40 years (1573-1533) in Midian before coming back to Egypt87 (Hb 11:24; Ac
7:21-23, 29-36).
j) Exodus from Egypt and beginning of 40-year (1533-1493) wandering in the wilderness of Sinai before
entering Canaan (Ex 16:35). Moses stood as the last “great personality in Egypt”, because he was
considered as “pharaoh's son” for 40 years (Ex 2:15; 11:3; Dt 34:7), that is from 1613 to 1573 BCE.
k) Israel came out of Sinai and entered Canaan (in 1493 BCE); beginning of a 5-year pacification period
(Jos 14:7,10) ending in 1488 BCE and fixes the beginning of Jubilees (every 50 years). Moses died at
120 years old (Dt 34:1-7).
l) Joshua completed pacification of Canaan (in 1488 BCE).
The 17th Dynasty is a continuation of the 13th dynasty, but the order of its 9 kings remains
controversial (Polz: 2010, 343-352). As there were 50 kings in the 13th Dynasty (1778-1572) and 9 kings in
the 17th (1572-1530) the average duration of each reign is approximately 4 years88. As we know the duration
of the last two reigns (3 years for Kamose and 11 years for Seqenenre Taa), the 17th dynasty had to have
started in 1572 BCE (= 1530 + 3 + 11 + 7x4). The average of 4 years may be adjusted based on the number
of dated documents and highest dates (Ryholt: 1997, 203-204). The durations of the reigns of the 17th
Dynasty are approximate except for the last two which can be reconstructed through the chronological
reconstruction of the fall of Avaris which is described in several Egyptian documents.
TABLE 54
Dyn. Birth name Throne name highest date [Adjusted duration] Reign
17 1 Rahotep Sekhemre-wahkhau [ 4 years] 1572-1568
2 Sobekemsaf I Sekhemre-Shedtawi [ 2 years] 1568-1566
3 Sobkemsaf II Sekhemre-wadjkhau 7 [10 years] 1566-1556
4 Antef VI Sekhemre-wepmaat [ 2 years] 1556-1554
5 Antef VII Nubkheperre 3 III Peret 25 [ 9 years] 1554-1545
6 Antef VIII Sekhemre-Heruhirmaat 0 - 1545-1545
7 Ahmose Senakhtenre 1 [ 1 year] 1545-1544
8 Taa Seqenenre 11 II Shemu (1) 11 years 1544-1533
9 Kamose Wadjkheperre 3 III Shemu 10 2 years 11 m. 1533-1530
18 1 Ahmose Nebpehtire 22 25 years 4 m. 1530-1505
2 Amenhotep I Djeserkare 21 20 years 7 months 1505-1484
82
The 430-year period is controversial. We read: the dwelling of the sons of Israel, who had dwelt in Egypt, was 430 years (Ex
12:40). Does that mean that Israel dwelt in Egypt for 430 years? This would contradict other biblical data. Jewish translators of the
Septuagint were aware of this ambiguity and thus chose to add an interpolation in order to prevent any misunderstanding: The
dwelling of the sons of Israel which they dwelt in the land of Egypt [and in the land of Canaan] was 430 years long. This
interpolation, that is also found in the Samaritan Pentateuch, is in keeping with the context which says that the 430-year period
covers the total span of the painful dwelling of the sons of Israel outside the Mosaic covenant (Ga 3:17). This period does include
two parts: one which started in Canaan with the Abrahamic covenant rapidly followed by harassment of Isaac by Esau (Gn 21:9) and
ended when Jacob left for Egypt. The second period began with the slavery in Egypt and ended with the Exodus.
83
According to 2Maccabees 7:27, breastfeeding usually lasted at least 3 years (see 2Ch 31:16).
84
The 400-year period begins with the oppression of Isaac and not from his birth.
85
The meaning of the Hebrew verb is “mocking” not “play”. The Talmud (Sotah 6:6) even mentions of abuse.
86
Maimonides (Epistle to Yemen III) and Rashi wrote that the 400 years run from birth of Isaac to the departure from Egypt.
87
It is possible that Moses knowing the prophecy of Neferty stated under Amenemhat I (1975-1946), similar to the 400 years'
prophecy of Genesis 15:13, wanted to achieve it in 1575 BCE (= 1975 - 400), 40 years too early.
88
4 = (1778 – 1530)/(50 + 9)
CHRONOLOGY OF SEQENENRE TAA’S REIGN (1544-1533) AND THE EXPULSION OF THE HYKSOS
The only major incident during the period before the “war against the Hyksos” is recorded in a decree of
Antef VII (c.1554-1545), a predecessor of Seqenenre, the in absentia impeachment of Teti, viceroy of Kush,
who had fomented a rebellion (Lalouette: 1986, 108-110):
Year 3, III Peret 25, under the Majesty, King of Upper and Lower Egypt ❨NEB-KHEPER-RA❩, Royal
❨ANTEF [VII]❩ (...) that one ignores now his name in the temple (...) rebel and enemy of God, his
writings have to be destroyed (...) any king or powerful governor who will be merciful to him will not
be able to receive the white crown [Upper Egypt] anymore, he will not bear the Red Crown [Lower
Egypt], he will not sit on the throne of Horus [Egypt] of living beings, the two Mistresses will not be
favourable to him (Vandersleyen:1995, 187-188).
These remarks illustrate the political situation at the time: kings of the 17th Dynasty had authority over
Egypt but they had delegated a part of Upper Egypt to vassal kings of Kush and a part of Lower Egypt to
kings of foreign Lands, the Theban kings of the 16th dynasty, such as Mentuhotepi (1567-1566) who wrote:
one in whose governance people (can) live, one who functions as king [...] of victorious Thebes! I am a king
native of Thebes, this city of mine, mistress of the entire land, city of triumph (Redford: 1997, 5,12).
Relationships between Egyptian and Hyksos kings were peaceful, as evidenced by the fact that stones of the
monument in Thebes of Senakhtenre (c.1545-1544) come from Tura, near Memphis, which proves that the
Egyptian kingdoms (16th and 17th Dynasties) maintained trade and peaceful relations, reversing a so-called
rivalry (Biston-Moulin: 2012, 61-71). To summarize, Egyptian stories written before and after Apopi are
absolutely contradictory since before this king no tension can be reported, but the Hyksos suddenly become a
calamity for Egyptians after their departure from Egypt. The earlier Egyptian documents show that, contrary
to the descriptions of later Egyptian sources, the Hyksos were builders, even encouraging the spread of
Egyptian literature and intellectual life of Egypt (Grimal: 1988, 246-247). Furthermore, paradoxically, no
Pharaoh had this terrible “war against the Hyksos” engraved on the rock (as well as their victory) as was the
case for the Battle of Kadesh, which was nevertheless crucial in Egyptian history. The reconstruction of this
time period shows that the “war of the Hyksos” occurred during the reign of Kamose, but two paradoxes
appear: 1) Kamose who is nevertheless the key element in the “Egypt liberation” is not placed at the
beginning of the 18th dynasty, and in his lengthy biography the soldier Ahmose son of Abana detailing his
service, from Seqenenre until Thutmose I, ignored Kamose, the major hero of the war; 2) Some
Egyptologists describe, by conjecture, a violent war with the Hyksos, but the remains of Avaris show no
trace of conflagration and destruction, but rather a gradual abandonment of the city. The mystery is over.
What really happened and why have Egyptians always refused to identify the culprit of their disaster, as
Herodotus noted (The Histories II:128)? The first document about the “war of the Hyksos” is an account
between king [Aauserre] Apopi and pharaoh Seqenenre [Djehuty aa] giving the reasons for the conflict (parts
in square brackets have been reconstituted according to the context):
A1/
It was the land of Egypt was in trouble because there was no lord, life-integrity-health, as king of the
(entire) region. It was then, King ❨SE-QEN-EN-RA❩, l.i.h, was ❨Ruler❩, l.i.h, of the Southern City
(Thebes) and was the misfortune of Asiatics in the city for the prince A2/❨APOPI❩, l.i.h, was installed in
Avaris. He had put the entire country in his service, the North (Delta) also providing (him) all kinds of
good products from the Northern Land. Now King ❨APOPI❩, l.i.h, A3/made Sutekh (Baal) his lord, he did
not serve any god of the whole country except Sutekh. He built (him) a temple in perfect work for
eternity next to the palace King ❨APOPI❩, l.i.h, A4/he appeared [...] days to present [his offering] to
Sutekh daily while dignitaries [...] wore linen cloths used in accordance with the temple of Re-Harakhti
in front of it. Now therefore A5/King ❨APOPI❩, l.i.h, would send a letter of challenge (to) King ❨SE-QEN-
EN-RA❩, [l.i.h] Prince of the Southern City. After many days had elapsed after this, A6/King [❨APOPI❩,
l.i.h] did call [...] write a report [...] and dignitaries [said: O] ❨Sovereign❩, l.i.h, A8/our Lord [grant that
Seqenenre chasing after] some hippos out the lake [that lie to the east of the City, considering] that they
don't leave [coming to us the sleep neither day nor] night [their din fills the ears of our city ...] A9/So the
Prince of the Southern City [...] B1/is with him (Seqenenre) as a protector, he bows to no god [in entire
country] except Amun-Ra-king-of-gods. After many days had elapsed after this, the B2/King [❨APOPI❩,
l.i.h, sent to the Prince of the Southern City the letter of challenge than he had called his scribes
scholars. B3/The messenger of King ❨APOPI❩, l.i.h, came to the Prince of the Southern City. So he was
taken in the presence of the Prince of the Southern City and B4/one (the Prince) said to the messenger of
King ❨APOPI❩, l.i.h: Why have you sent to the Southern City? Why hast thou done this trip? Then the
messenger B5/told him (to Seqenenre): It is King ❨APOPI❩, l.i.h, that sends me to you to tell you: do
make chasing out of the lake hippos that are to the east of the city considering they do not let me get
76
B6/
to sleep either by day or night, their uproar fills the ears of the city. So the Prince of the Southern City
burst into tears, in great despair, for he was (not) in a state of knowing how B7/to respond to the
messenger of King ❨APOPI❩, l.i.h. So the Prince of the Southern City said: Is it that thy lord, l.i.h, hear
B8/
the noise [of hippos] in the east of the Southern City over there (in Avaris, 900 km north)? So [the
messenger clarified?] the terms (of the challenge) on which he (Apopi) had written. B9/[The prince of the
Southern City made sure] that were taken care of [the messenger of King ❨APOPI❩, l.i.h, through all
kinds] of good things, meats, cakes B10/[ ... Then the Prince of the Southern City] said: [So I will do that.
Go back where you came,] and all that thou shalt say to him (to Apopi), I will. So will you tell him
B11/
[... Then messenger of King] ❨APOPI❩, l.i.h, was transported on a journey to the place, where his
lord, l.i.h. C1/Then the Prince of the Southern City convoked his great dignitaries, and all the soldiers and
generals before him, and repeated all the terms of challenge on which C2/King ❨APOPI❩, l.i.h, wrote to
him. And then they all remained silent, in great distress, C3/without knowing answer for good or evil.
Then King ❨APOPI❩, l.i.h, wrote to [...] (Barbotin: 2008, 231-235; Peirce: 2015, 137-139). FIG. 10
As one can see, there are many anomalies, to say nothing of
strangeness: 1) How is it that Seqenenre, the last king of the 17th dynasty
discusses with Apopi, the last king of the 15th dynasty, while we should
have a Theban king from the end of the 16th dynasty? Why is a pharaoh
shocked that another king worships only one god? What do the letters of
challenge from king Apopi contain so serious that they could make pharaoh
Seqenenre burst into tears, in great despair? Why does King Seqenenre
(birth name Djehuty), Prince of the Southern City (Thebes), use his throne
name while he quotes only the birth name of King Apopi (his throne name
was Aauserre)? The Challenge “the hippos from the Southern City [Thebes]
make noise” (which is absurd, Avaris is approximately 900 kilometres from
Thebes) was actually a harbinger of death against Pharaoh because,
according to Egyptian mythology, Menes, the first king of Egypt was killed
by a hippopotamus. In addition, each year, pharaoh put to death a
hippopotamus, an incarnation of Seth, in a ritual manner, to commemorate
the triumphant struggle of Horus against Seth. So this sinister omen could
explain the reaction of Seqenenre Taa who bursts into tears, in despair, and
why his great dignitaries all remain silent. No Egyptian source has
described the sequence of events, but the state of the mummy of Seqenenre,
especially his head indicating serious injury (above picture), is eloquent,
this pharaoh died (aged 30 to 40 years) in a very violent manner and it took
quite a long time before his mummification (Leca: 1976, 147-148).
Although this event was exceptional the Egyptians are silent about this
death, but it is not the case of Egyptologists who explain that Seqenenre
was probably slaughtered by at least two Hyksos soldiers. This explanation
is ridiculous because this would mean the Egyptians left to decompose the
corpse of their pharaoh before its mummifying, which would have been
blasphemy. Moreover, as the ribs and vertebrae are fractured and
dislocated, Seqenenre had to have been attacked by at least two
“Terminators”, which is obviously absurd (Shaw: 2009, 159-176). Not only
is the brutal death of Seqenenre inexplicable, but his eldest son, the Crown
Prince, also died shortly before in dramatic circumstances:
Seqenenre had an heir, Prince Iahmes. He died at six years old and his
father followed closely (...) Very quickly his cult was formed [and
would last until the beginning of the 21st dynasty] and he was the first
of the "big family" Royal from the late 17th and early 18th Dynasty to
have been the object of worship, before Amenhotep I and Iahmes
Nefertari (...) inscriptions of the statue reveal that this prince was the
eldest son of Seqenenre Djehuty-Aa (...) The statue is exceptional in
many respects. This is a large statue of 1.035 m tall, which is
remarkable at a time when there were almost no statues! It shows
family grief, the prince evidently died prematurely as it is regretted by
his mother and two sisters, and his father the king. It is unique in the
history of Pharaonic Egypt that a king declares his paternity and speaks
directly to his son, using a second person (Vandersleyen: 2006, 14-20,27).
The reasons for this cult that lasted nearly half a millennium remain mysterious. The examination of the
mummy of Iahmes Sapaïr indicates that this prince measured 1.17 m which evaluates as 9/10 years the age of
his son89. Despite his young age, Ahmose Sapaïr was circumcised to indicate that he was pure in gods' eyes
which was exceptional (Elliot Smith: 1912, 1-6, 25), because circumcision was usually performed at puberty.
On the stele of year 3 of Kamose (Habachi: 1972, 31-67) appears the first detailed report of the “taking of
Avaris”, an inaccurate term because there is no fighting, the city being only looted. This inscription looks
more like a report written shortly after the events rather than a declaration of victory, traditionally laudatory.
Important point of this inscription: Kamose's retaliation was not caused by an attack of the Hyksos since his
counsellors remind him: we are at peace with our Egypt (Lalouette: 1986, 117, 591 note 51). The entry is
highlighted in the following points90 (Dessoudeix: 2010, 12-60):
A1/
Year 3 of the Horus appearing on his throne, the Two Ladies of renewing the memorials, the golden
hawk which pacifies the Two Lands, King of Upper and Lower Egypt (nsw-bity) ❨WADJ-KHEPER-
RA❩ [Royal ❨KA]MOSE❩, endowed with life, beloved of Amun-Re lord of the thrones of the Two Lands
like Ra, forever nights and days. A2/The victorious king (nsw) in the nome of Thebes, ❨KAMOSE❩
endowed with life for eternity of nights, is a king (nsw) efficient: it is Ra himself [who made him] King
(nsw), who sent him victory in truth! His Majesty said in his palace in the board of his dignitaries
A3/
who were following him: « How do I should recognize, my victory, with a prince (wr) in Avaris and
another in Kush, I who have been enthroned in company with an Asiatic (‘3m) and a Nubian (nḥsy)?
Each has his part in this Egypt. The country has been shared with me, and A4/there is no one who goes
beyond (his share) up to Memphis, the canal of Egypt: see then he holds Hermopolis! One can't stop
without being squeezed by easements (taxes) of Asiatics. I'll confront him, I'll disembowel him, I desire
to get hold (whole) of Egypt and destroy A5/the Asiatics! ». The dignitaries of is council said: « As far as
Cusae is the allegiance of Asiatics. Flaps on their chatter, for we are at peace with our Egypt!
Elephantine is impregnable, A6/and the centre (of the country) belongs to us as far as Cusae. Plowing for
us the best in their fields, our cattle graze in the marshes (Delta), the grain is shipped (for fattening) our
pigs, our cattle are not stolen, no crocodile A7/[...] because of this, he (the Hyksos king) holds Asiatic
country and we hold Egypt. If coming (the one that would work against) and we would act against him
». They affected the heart of His Majesty « with regard to your will A8/[...] right, I should not
acknowledge the one that shares the country with me, those Asiatics who [...] A9/I sail northward to
complete the annihilation of Asiatics and success will result. If [... his eyes] in tears, the whole country
[...] A10/the ruler (ḥq3) in the nome of Thebes, ❨KAMOSE❩ who protects Egypt. So I sailed northward
through my courage to chase the Asiatics, and by order of Amon who attests to the will, my valiant
army A11/before me like the heat of a flame. The Medjaÿs troupe which is east of our watch will flush
out the Asiatics and destroy their settlements, east and west providing them the grease A12/while the
army eats food, anywhere. I sent the victorious troop of Medjaÿs, I was so busy with [...] to the
encirclement of the [rebel] A13/Teti, son of Pepi, within Nefrusi [near Hermopolis]. I will not allow him
to escape when I should expel the Asiatics who oppose Egypt in order for him to do Nefrusi a nest of
Asiatics! It's on my ship, the heart happy, I spent the night A14/. At dawn, I found myself on board,
similar to the status of a hawk, and after lunch, I devastated, having demolished its walls, killing its
people and bringing down his wife (of the rebel Teti) A15/to shore, my army like the state of lions, in
charge of his booty, crumbling of slaves, cattle, fat and honey, busy with the division of his property, his
heart swelling (of joy). District Nefrusi A16/is in a state of surrender, we will not totally lock up the (?),
Per-shaq goes away when I approach him, his carriages have fled inside. Patrols of the army [...],
A17/
those who remember in the valley, their goods, it [...]
[---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------]
B1/
terrible news in your city: you are turned back on the side of your army! You are insolent when you
make me a worthy (sr), while you're a ruler (ḥq3), until I'll ask B2/for you this illegitimate good because
of which you fall! Look at the disaster behind you! My army close behind you, women of Avaris will
not give birth anymore because it is no longer (a man) who opens their heart B3/in their belly when the
clamour of my army is heard. I am moored in front of the citadel, and the brave (?) said: « My heart is
swollen (of joy), I'll show B4/Apopi time of the weakness, he the prince (sr) of Retjenu to weak arms,
who devises in his heart heroic acts without occurring in his favour ». I came to Inyt-B5/of-the-upstream,
I crossed the river toward them (my soldiers) to the harangue: « Steer me to ensure the fleet that (each
ship) is disposed one behind the other, I want to put them bow to stern, with the B6best of my brave
going to fly over the river, how would do a hawk, my ship gold-headed ahead. (It) is like their falcon-
headed. B7I want to place this warship in the limits of the desert, the fleet behind him as it (?) ravaging
89
The enthronement name: Sapaïr (s3 p3 ir) “son of the one who acted”, was attached shortly after the death of Seqenenre. The
mummy of the prince measuring 1.17 m and his statue with a size of 1.035 m, it had to be done about 1 year before his death.
90
A1 means “line 1 of the first stele of year 3 of Kamose” and B1 means “line 1 of the second stele of year 3 of Kamose”.
78
B8
the land of Avaris. I watched its women (of Avaris) at the top of his castle watching from their
windows to port. There is no (man) who opens their bellies when B9they see me, while watching through
its loopholes in their walls, like little mice to the bottom of their holes, saying: « How he goes fast ».
B10
Here I am to triumph, what is left (of the country) is in my hand, my action is effective! By victorious
Amon, I do not spare you, I will not let you cross a field B11without finding myself in front of you! So
your heart fails, moron Asiatic! Look, I drink wine of your vineyard, B12the one that press for me the
Asiatics I capture, I ransacked your place of residence, I cut your trees after having put your wives in
(my) slipway B13and I took possession of carriages. I have not left a board from the 300 ships (made) of
fresh pine which were full of gold, lapis lazuli, silver, turquoise, B14bronze axes without number,
excluding oil moringa, incense, honey, wood-ituren, wood-sesenedjem, wood-sepen, all precious woods
B15
and all beautiful imports from Retjenu. I have taken everything, I have nothing left, Avaris is doomed
to penury, the Asiatic perished. B16So your heart fails, moron Asiatic who said: « I am the Lord (nb),
unrivalled as far as Hermopolis, as far as Pi-Hathor on the (?) and as far as Avaris B17between the two
rivers ». I left it in the destruction, without inhabitants, having sacked their cities. I burned that their
settlements which were reduced to mounds redden (by fire), B18for the eternity of nights, because the
damage they had done inside Egypt. Those who allowed themselves to listen the call of Asiatics, they
have abandoned Egypt, their mistress. B19I captured his messenger (of Apopi) east of the oasis (in
Bahariya) as he went back south to Kush with a written message. I found there the written retranscrition
of the words from the ruler (ḥq3) of Avaris: B20❨A‘A-USER-RA❩ Royal ❨APOPI❩, send greetings to (my)
son, Ruler (ḥq3) of Kush. Why did you set up as ruler (ḥq3) without letting me know? B21Did you see
what Egypt has done against me? The ruler (ḥq3) therein, ❨KAMOSE❩ endowed with life, driving me
out of my land as I have not attacked, in a manner identical to what he had done B22against you. He
wants to tear the two countries to destroy my country and yours, after having ransacked. Come, come
down the Nile, did not hesitate. B23Look, he's here with me, there is someone who opposes you in (this
part of) Egypt. Look, I do not let him free rein until you came here. So we will share B24those cities of
(this part of) Egypt and Khenthennefer will rejoice! Wadjkheperre (Kamose) endowed with life that
drives away evil. B25I placed the deserts and uphill of the country under my authority, and rivers as well,
one cannot find a way to assault me. I cannot be careless about my army (because one) had not yet
prevailed B26on the northern (Apopi). That's when I went to the north that he was afraid of me, before we
fought, before I've never met him. When he saw my flame, he wrote to Kush (a letter) B27requesting his
protection. I intercepted him (the messenger) in the desert, so I do not permit that he arrives. So I made
him take in order to send him back. It (the letter) was left B28toward Atfih. My triumph has penetrated
his heart, his members were dashed when his messenger told him what I had done against the District of
Cynopolis which was part B29of his possessions. I sent my powerful troop which goes by land to
devastate the oasis of Bahariya. B30while I was at Saka to prevent a rebel behind me. So it is a brave
heart and a happy heart that I sailed southward, destroying any rebel who was on the road. What a
perfect trip toward the south it was for the ruler (ḥq3), B31life, integrity, health, with his army in front of
him (Kamose)! There was no loss, no one inquired for his friend, no one cried. This is at time of the
season B32Akhet that I arrived with hastily on the floor of the City (Thebes). Each face was bright, the
country was in opulence, the port was in jubilation, the Theban nome was celebrating. Women and men
were constantly coming B33to see me. Every woman pressed again and again, his fellow in his arms. No
face was in tears. The incense was (placed) to the brave inside the Nekhen chapel where one says:
B34
Get what's good! as when it gives strength to the son of Amon, life, integrity, health, sustainable King
(nsw) ❨WADJ-KHEPER-RA❩ Royal ❨KAMOSE❩ the victorious one, given life, B35that defeated the
South and who drove out the North, who seized the country by force, given life, stability and power, his
joy being with his ka, like Ra for ever and ever. B36His Majesty has ordered the Director, Governor,
Superior of the secrets of the royal domain, higher in-Chief of the entire domain, Chancellor of the king
of Lower Egypt (bity), instructor of the two lands in front, Governor, Directors of Friends, B37Director
of sealed things, Wesernesha: Make sure you write all that My Majesty made thanks to the strength of a
stele. Its place will be located in Karnak in B38the Theban nome forever and ever. And he (Wesernesha)
said to his Majesty: It is in relation to the favour of the royal presence I do any mission.
Seal’s Director Neshi
As one can see, there are several anomalies (Barbotin: 2008, 169-179,261-263): At the beginning of the
inscription: “year 3 (renpet 3)” is the number of years, not “regnal year 3 (hat-sep 3)”; Pharaoh's name
should have appeared at the beginning (as in Pharaoh Apopi's letter in line B20) instead of the god Horus,
who merely represents the pharaoh; according to the chronological description of Kamose's military
campaign, Apopi had, at the beginning of hostilities, a full title of pharaoh (line B20) with a power superior
to the viceroy of Kush since he called the latter “my son”, indeed kings of same power wrote to each other
using the expression “my brother” (Lalouette: 1986, 121,591 note 63), while Kamose is referred to as
“worthy” by Apopi (line B1). During the drafting of the stele by Wesernesha, who was Chancellor of the
king of Lower Egypt, Kamose was only the king of Upper Egypt (lines B34-38) and ruler of Thebes.
Kamose's title evolved rapidly: Worthy, Ruler of Thebes, King of Lower Egypt and finally King of Upper
and Lower Egypt. Apopi's title, on the contrary, decreased rapidly: King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Ruler of
Avaris and finally Prince of Retjenu.
FIG. 11
80
The stele provides essential information to rebuild the military campaigns of Kamose in chronological
order:
• Kamose complained for being squeezed by easements (taxes) of Asiatics.
• He desired to get hold (whole) of Egypt and destroy the Asiatics despite his dignitaries telling him: we
are at peace with our Egypt.
• He sailed northward to chase the Asiatics.
• He intended to flush out the Asiatics and destroy their settlements by mean of Medjays troop which is
east.
• He sent the troop of Medjays to encircle the rebel Teti, son of Pepi, within Nefrusi [near Hermopolis],
which was a nest of Asiatics who opposed Egypt.
• Kamose devastated Nefrusi, demolished its walls, killed its people, taking booty and crashing his
enemies. District Nefrusi surrounded.
• He moored in front of the citadel (Avaris) and intended to show a time of weakness to Apopi, the prince
of Retjenu.
• He ravaged the land of Avaris, ransacked it, took everything and left nothing (no inhabitants), made it
doomed to penury. He burned the settlements of the Asiatics because of the damage they had done in
Egypt. He left not a single plank from the 300 ships of Avaris port and took all beautiful imports from
Retjenu.
• Some Egyptians listened to the call of Asiatics and abandoned Egypt, their mistress.
• Kamose captured the messenger, east of the oasis (in Bahariya), going back south to send a message to
the king of Kush to whom Apopi was requesting help.
• Kamose went to the north again which made Apopi afraid (but did not meet him). Apopi's supporters
had fled before he fought when his messenger told him what Kamose had done against the District of
Cynopolis which was part of his possessions.
• He sent his troops to devastate the oasis of Bahariya, while he was at Saka to prevent a rebellion behind
him.
• He sailed southward, destroying any rebel who was on the road.
• He arrived in Thebes at the time of Akhet season to celebrate his seizing the country by force
(performed by his defeating the South and his driving out the North). It is worth noting that the only
warlike activity of Kamose, clearly described, had taken place in the south (O'Connor: 1997, 45-63).
This account is strange. Why did Apopi, who was a powerful pharaoh (there were, for example, 300
ships in the port city of Avaris, more than Byblos the biggest port of that time!), disappear in a ditch without
fighting? Why did Kamose not mention what was the serious damage Apopi had done in Egypt? The only
rational explanation of this confused story is the detailed capture of the rebel Teti, the son of Pepi. We can
assume the following: after a serious dispute with Seqenenre (for an unknown reason), Apopi a Hyksos king
would have gone to Palestine accompanied by his supporters including some Egyptians. In retaliation
Kamose plundered the rich city of Avaris, which had been abandoned. Taking advantage of the situation, the
viceroy of Kush, Teti son of Minhotep, who had already fomented a rebellion in the days of Antef VII
(Lalouette: 1986, 108-110), urged the Hyksos who remained in the area of Nefrusi (the headquarters of the
16th dynasty were at Edfu) to support him in his revolt against Egypt. Pepi was the diminutive of Minhotep
(Vandersleyen: 1995, 187-188,221-226). Kamose crushed the revolt and captured Teti. The northern land of
Kush, called Wawat (part of the kingdom of Kerma, which had been independent), was annexed to Egypt.
The viceroy of Kush was replaced by Djehuty who was appointed as “king [of Egypt]’s son”. One of the
numerous problems with the Second Stele of Kamose is the fact that it contains only the second half of a
longer text. The text opens abruptly in the middle of a series of threats against Apopi. It then goes on to
relate that the armies of Kamose reached the locality: B5/Inyt-of-the-upstream. It has generally been assumed
that this place (unknown) was located near Avaris, but there are good reasons for rejecting this assumption.
Immediately after the relating of incidents in this area, it is said that a messenger sent by Apopi to the Ruler
of Kush was captured. The letter carried by this messenger is quoted and Apopi is scorned for cowardice. It
is then stated that the letter was brought back to Apopi so that the messenger might inform him of Kamose's
victorious activities in “the District of Cynopolis which was part B29of his possessions”. These last words
clearly reveal where the activities previously related on the Second Stele had been going on, namely in the
Cynopolite nome. That Kamose was still in this nome and not relating some former victory (which, in any
case, would make little sense) is made clear from his following statement, which mentions Saka, a major city
within the Cynopolite nome: “I sent my powerful troop which goes by land to devastate the oasis of
Bahariya. B30while I was at Saka to prevent a rebel behind me”. A final proof that Kamose had not reached
Avaris nor even been near it during the last stage of the activities related on the Second Stele is provided by
the fact that when Kamose returned the letter to Apopi, he actually sent it to Atfih. Atfih was therefore either
in the possession of Apopi or formed some form of no man's land between the two warring parties —in any
case not part of Kamose's territory. With the destruction of the Bahariya Oasis, the account of Kamose's
military feats ends and it is told how Kamose returned in victory to Thebes (in September). Accordingly, the
Cynopolite nome may be seen as marking the northernmost advance of Kamose's armies by his Year 3 when
the stele was set up. It is significant that when Kamose says: B15all beautiful imports from Retjenu
(Palestine). I have taken everything, I have nothing left, Avaris is doomed to penury, he does not claim to
have taken everything in Avaris, but everything belonging to Avaris, i.e. the spoil which his army has carried
off. The Papyrus Rhind briefly describes the fall of Avaris and the events that followed (Von Beckerath:
1964, 270-279). This papyrus is a copy of a vast mathematical treatise written under Pharaoh Amenemhat III
which is dated “IV Akhet, year 33 of Pharaoh Apopi” (Lalouette: 1986, 125; Barbotin: 2008, 144,180-182).
Very surprisingly, a scribe has added inside a blank space the following note (Dessoudeix: 2010, 62-64),
which has nothing to do with mathematics:
Year 11, II Shemu (1); we entered Heliopolis
I Akhet 23; the mighty dignitary

of the South attacked Tjaru (Sile)
[day] 25, we heard that
we had entered Tjaru
Year 11, I Akhet 3-birth of Seth [3rd epagomenal day]

his voice is given by the majesty of this god (he thundered)
Birth of Isis [4th epagomenal day], the sky has made rain
The scribe probably wanted to keep track of these memorable events, not hesitating to include them in a
mathematical treatise of great value. Once again, anomalies are numerous: the fall of Avaris is not mentioned
(!); Pharaoh's name is not quoted, only the Prince of the South (Kamose), regnal years were reckoned from I
Akhet 1, so it should have been: Year 12 (not 11), I Akhet 3- birth of Seth. Forgetting the name of the
Pharaoh seems inexplicable, since Pharaoh's name is specified in the year 33. As this anonymous pharaoh
clearly belongs to the end of the Hyksos era, speculation about his identification were many: year 11 of
Khamudy, Yeneses or Ahmose. In fact, the solution is easy: the pharaoh and his crown prince having died
within a short time interval, there was nobody on the throne of Egypt during the evacuation of Avaris at this
time. The scribe therefore wrote a posthumous Year 11 [of Seqenenre]. The powerful dignitary of the South
who attacked Tjaru, modern Tell Hebua (Abd El-Maksoud: 2006, 1-43), a city in Hyksos territory, to regain
control, is clearly Kamose (the word “mighty” is written with k3 “victorious bull” as in the name of Kamose
k3-ms “fathered by victorious bull”). The note of the scribe is preceded by a supply contract where the
account appears: 1/[...] living for ever. List of the food in Hebebti 2/[... his] brother, the steward Kamose [...]
3/
(Peet: 1923, 128-129). Consequently the note in the Papyrus Rhind can
be understood as follows: probably shortly before the II Shemu year 11 of
Seqenenre, the pharaoh and his son Crown Prince Ahmose Sapaïr, must
have died shortly before the evacuation of Avaris, the capital of the
Hyksos, which had to be a major trauma for the Egyptians; 1 month later
the army of Prince Kamose (Seqenenre’s brother) entered Heliopolis, then
3 months later attacked Tjaru which fell in 2 days; 8 days later there was
an impressive tempest from the birth of Seth (3rd epagomenal day), being
seen as an evil day. The career of Kamose is quite strange: he bore three
names of Horus, unique case for the 17th Dynasty (Grimal: 1988, 254); he
is never mentioned as king of Upper and Lower Egypt in the documents
not written by him; his coffin (opposite figure) was not gilded and was not
equipped with the royal uraeus used as a symbol of sovereignty, royalty,
deity and divine authority in ancient Egypt; Kamose does not appear on a
fresco depicting the royal family of Seqenenre Taa (Dodson, Hilton: 2010,
122-126). However the genealogical reconstitution of Ahmose's family
82
imposes several chronological synchronisms (Dessoudeix: 2008, 245-255). Thus Seqenenre had one younger
brother: Kamose (Ryholt: 1997, 309), 7 daughters (most named Ahmose), 2 sons: Ahmose (Sapaïr) and
Ahmose I (junior). The age of Ahmose at his father's death (around 1 year) and the duration of Kamose's
reign (approximately 3 years) are deduced from the mummy of Ahmose indicating a death at between 25 and
30 years old (Shaw, Nicholson: 1995, 18). Subtracting from this value the length of his reign: 25 years and 4
months and the 3 years minimum of Kamose’s reign, the calculation gives around 1 year (= 30 - [25 years +
4 months + 3 years]). During these 3 years, Ahmose was crown prince (replacing Ahmose Sapaïr) as the last
son of Seqenenre and Kamose, as the younger brother of Seqenenre, was the regent of this new crown prince.
This complex situation explains the following anomalies:
• On two rock-inscriptions at Arminna and Toshka in Nubia, the throne name and birth name of Kings
Kamose and Ahmose, as well as the names of two princes, are inscribed together. In both inscriptions,
the names of Ahmose follow directly below those of Kamose and each king is given the epithet di ‘nḫ
“given life”, which was normally used of ruling kings. This indicates that both Kamose and Ahmose
were ruling when these inscriptions were cut and consequently that they were coregents (Ryholt: 1997,
273-274).
• An axe in the name of the perfect god ❨NEB-PEHTY-RA❩,
king ❨AHMOSE❩ represents him adult in the process of
defeating the Hyksos (opposite figure). This axe is often cited
by Egyptologists as evidence of the war against the Hyksos. It
should be noted that the warrior defeated by the king is indeed
a Hyksos, because he wears two bands crossed on his chest,
but the victorious king could not be Ahmose because he was
around 5 years old at that time. In addition, his birth name is
not followed by the usual Egyptian expression “given life” for
ruling kings because it was his mother Ahhotep who, as
regent, was in charge of his kingship. Besides, this axe was
found in the tomb of Queen Ahhotep not in the tomb of King
Ahmose. Given that Kamose fought against the Hyksos, he
was represented as the victor of that “religious war”, which is
symbolized by griffin Montu91 at the bottom of the axe,
because the function of this god is described as being the sun
god of warfare and protector of the gods. As a result the
image on the axe is only a traditional representation of
Pharaoh who symbolically conquered his (nine) enemies.
• In his biography the soldier Ahmes son of Abana describes
his career under the King of Upper and Lower Egypt (nsw-
bity), Seqenenre. He then describes his acts of bravery at the
time of the Master of the Two Lands (nb t3wy) Ahmose, with
the looting of Avaris, the siege and then the ransacking of
Sharuhen in year 3 as in Kamose's stele (Habachi: 1972, 31-
67), the only date of his account, then finally the crushing of a
Nubian revolt. He states that he had the privilege of
accompanying his (anonymous) Sovereign (ity) when he was
travelling in his war chariot. As Ahmose was 5 years old
when he began reigning, the (anonymous) Sovereign had to
be Kamose.
• Although liberator of Egypt, having opposed the Hyksos and
having defeated the Nubians, Kamose is not the 1st king of
the 18th dynasty but Ahmose is.
• In the Buhen stele of Ahmes, Kamose is called “mighty ruler”, not “king of Upper and Lower Egypt”,
and in the Buhen stele of Iy (Nubia) dated regnal year 3, III Shemu 10, the throne name of Senwosret I
(KHEPER-KA-RA) took place of Kamose's name92 (Redford: 1997, 4-5 n°12).
91
The evidence indicates that Montu was first worshipped as a local Upper Egyptian solar deity, and that he rose to national
prominence because of his patronage of the victory of King Nebhepetre Mentuhotep II of Dynasty XI in his war to reunify Egypt
under Theban supremacy. Apparently as early as Dynasty XII, Montu was assigned the role of war god based on his participation in
that victory, a role attributed to him until the end of native Egyptian civilization.
92
The image of the fully armed pharaoh ready to strike was the usual subject of a border stele and echoes the rhetoric of the Great
Semna Stele, the Cycle of Hymns to Senwosret III and other Middle Kingdom texts that thematise the king as the establisher and
protector of Egypt’s borders (Knoblauch: 2012, 93).
• The epithet “the great ruler (pa heqa a‘a)” is sometimes included in the second cartouche in place of
the name Kamose (Ryholt: 1997, 400) and without the usual title “Royal (Ra‘ sa)” before his birth
name. A practice which was still attested under his
successor Ahmose. For example, one reads= —❨WADJ-
KHEPER-RA❩—❨PA-HEQA-A‘A❩. On a scarab (above)
there are 2 ostrich feathers, symbol of Atef crown93,
above the throne name of Kamose: Atef crown ❨WADJ-
KHEPER-RA❩, instead of the usual title nesu bity “King
of Upper and Lower Egypt” (Petrie: 1917, pl XXIII).
• In Emhab's stele, at Edfu, describing the confrontation at Avaris, year 3 is anonymous (Kamose
according to context) and there is a curious dualism between “god (pharaoh)” and “ruler (king)”
concerning the king's title.
• In the stele of Kamose, at Buhen, the title of King of Upper and Lower Egypt is this time attributed to
Kamose as in the stele of year 3.
• Kamose’s sarcophagus contains many wealthy objects with Ahmose's name.
• In a royal chronology, appearing in a private document of the Third Intermediate Period, King Apopi is
the immediate predecessor of King Ahmose (Barbotin: 2008, 58-59)!
• From Ahmose, regnal years no longer start at I Akhet 1 but from the date of accession. This enigmatic
change would last years until Amasis (569-526).
Based on all the above information it is possible to assume that after a quarrel with Seqenenre (for an
unknown reason)94, Apopi decided to leave for Retjenu and evacuate the city of Avaris. Shortly afterwards,
both the crown prince and pharaoh died suddenly. Kamose, Seqenenre's brother, was ordered to hand back
the country and the young Ahmose (about two years old) was appointed as new crown prince to replace his
older brother (Ahmose Sapaïr). Kamose thus acted as representative or senior regent of the young Ahmose.
In the past, until the 5th dynasty, pharaohs were enthroned only with a Horus name. In time, the complete
titulary had five names, but only two were usually used, the throne name and the birth name. The birth name
aside, which did not change (except for some additional laudatory), other names could be changed to indicate
a new political or religious program. For Kamose his first Horus name was “He who appears on his throne”,
the second “He who subdues the two Lands” and the third “He who nourishes the two Lands”. These 3 names
match his 3 years of reign (Vandersleyen: 1995, 195). This two-headed system of command, King, and co-
regent, obviously led to a dual assignment in royal actions. Inscriptions, however, officially recognize only
the king title95. Royal inscriptions are always complimentary to kings and their victories, thus the so-called
victory over the Hyksos should have been commented by Ahmose, but it was not. All the data gathered on
the Hyksos legacy provides evidence to show that the Egyptians were influenced by the historical context
and personal motives in the recording of their past. The Egyptians were not creating an objective history but
documenting the past with deliberate purpose (Pierce: 2015, 82). Given that the rule of Kamose took place
during the short period 1533-1530 BCE, it is interesting to put it in parallel with the dominion of Theban
kings of that time, but the end of the 16th Dynasty is unknown96 as well as the meeting of Moses with the
anonymous pharaoh of the Bible, which triggered the “10 plagues of Egypt” and the beginning of the
Exodus. A careful reconstruction of the “10 plagues of Egypt” shows that it lasted about 40 days, from
month XII day 1 to month I day 14 in 1533 BCE, the most lethal wounds (9th and 10th) being focused on the
last three days, with total darkness, storm and death of all the firstborn (Nolen Jones: 2005, 70):
TABLE 55
Hebrew Julian (BCE) Egyptian reference n° Event
7 Adar ( 7/XII) 18/03/1533 Ex 7:14-25 1 (Nile) Water to blood
15 Adar (15/XII) 26/03/1533 Ex 8:1-7 2 Frogs
18 Adar (18/XII) 29/03/1533 Ex 8:16-19 3 Lice
20 Adar (20/XII) 31/03/1533 Ex 8:24-29 4 Flies
93
The Atef crown is composed of a double fringe of ostrich feathers and it is associated with the cult of Osiris, god of the afterlife,
death, life, and resurrection. This crown is also worn by Sobek who was associated with pharaonic power, fertility, and military
prowess, but served additionally as a protective deity with apotropaic qualities, invoked particularly for protection against the
dangers presented by the Nile river. They are the same ostrich feather as (singly) worn by Ma'at, symbol of universal order.
94
It should be noted that Seqenenre Taa reproached Apopi for worshipping only Seth (in fact Baal) and reproached him for his
uncompromising monotheism. Apopi was therefore the founder of monotheism since he worshipped solely his “Lord (ba’al)”
(Goldwasser: 2006, 129-133,331-354). According to Manetho, as reported by Josephus, the Hyksos resided at Avaris, a city devoted
to Typhon/Seth (Against Apion I:237-238).
95
For example, Hatshepstut, although co-regent, dated her documents on behalf of Thutmose III, or once on behalf of Thutmose I for
‘his’ sed festival, and three times on behalf of Thutmose III followed by her name (years 12, 16 and 20).
96
For this reason, some scholars do not follow Ryholt (1997, 151-162) and see only insufficient evidence for the interpretation of the
16th Dynasty as Theban (Quirke: 2010, 56 note 6).
84
23 Adar (23/XII) 3/04/1533 26/VII Ex 9:6 5 Murrain (Spring equinox)
25 Adar (25/XII) 5/04/1533 Ex 9:8-12 6 Boils
27 Adar (27/XII) 7/04/1533 Ex 9:22-26 7 Hail and Fire
28 Adar (28/XII) 8/04/1533 Ex 9:31 Barley and flax smitten
6 2 Nisan ( 2/I) 12/04/1533 Ex 10:13-15 8 Locust
3 Nisan ( 3/I) 13/04/1533 Ex 10:21-23 9 Darkness for 3 days
10 Nisan (10/I) 20/04/1533 Ex 12:28 Passover, lamb selected
14 Nisan (14/I) 24/04/1533 17/VIII Ex 12:29-36 10 Death of firstborn (Ahmose Sapaïr)
15 Nisan (15/I) 25/04/1533 18/VIII Avaris evacuated then sacked
30 Nisan (30/I) 10/05/1533 3/IX Ex 14:7-28 Death of Seqenenre Taa (total solar eclipse)
29 Iyyar (29/II) 7/06/1533 1/X [Kamose] arrived in Heliopolis
2/10/1533 23/I Tjaru (Sile) sacked by Kamose
1 Iyyar ( 1/II) 29/05/1532 Nb 1:1 Year 2 of the Exodus
(c. IV) xx/07/1532 (c.XI) Nb 14:34-45 Israelites defeated (near Sharuhen)
Chronological reconstruction
TABLE 56
BCE month Eg [A] [B] [C] [D] [E] Rulers of Egypt
1534 3 XII VII 10 (9) 79 [A] Seqenenre Taa King of Upper Egypt
4 I VIII
5 II IX [B] Ahmose Sapaïr Crown Prince
6 III X [C] Teti son of Pepi Viceroy of Kush
7 IV XI [D] Dedumose I Theban King (Lower Egypt)
8 V XII
9 VI I 11 (10) [E] Aauserre Apopi former Hyksos King
10 VII II 80 [D] Dedumose II Theban king
11 VIII III
12 IX IV
1533 1 X V
2 XI VI 0 [E] Beginning of the 10 plagues of Egypt
3 XII VII
4 I VIII *** Apopi (Moses) Ruler of Retjenu (Palestine)
1
5 II IX *** Avaris, capital of Hyksos, is evacuated
6 III X *** [B] Kamose Prince of the South (Thebes), entered
7 IV XI Heliopolis (he was Seqenenre’s brother)
8 V XII
9 VI I (2) (1) [A] Ahmose Crown Prince (second Seqenenre’s son)
10 VII II
11 VIII III [Avaris, then] Tjaru (Sile) sacked by Prince Kamose
12 IX IV [B] Kamose Horus of Egypt (1st time)
1532 1 X V [D] Mentuhotep VI Theban king
2 XI VI
3 XII VII
4 I VIII 2 [E] Year 2 of the Exodus
5 II IX (2)
6 III X [B] Kamose Horus of Egypt (2nd time)
7 IV XI *** Israelites defeated by the Amalekites in the south of
8 V XII Palestine, likely near Sharuhen (Nb 1:1, 14:34-45).
9 VI I (3) [D] Senwosret IV Theban king
10 VII II
11 VIII III
12 IX IV
1531 1 X V
2 XI VI
3 XII VII
4 I VIII (3) 3 [B] Kamose Horus of Egypt (3rd time)
5 II IX
6 III X
7 IV XI *** Nefrusy is sacked. Wawat (Kush) is annexed
8 V XII [C] Djehuty Viceroy of Kush
9 VI I (4)
10 VII II 3 Sharuhen is sacked by Kamose
11 VIII III [B] Kamose King of Upper and Lower Egypt
12 IX IV
1530 1 X V
2 XI VI
3 XII VII
4 I VIII 1 - 4 [A] Ahmose King of Upper and Lower Egypt
5 II IX
6 III X (Ahmose was around 5 years old)
7 IV XI [B] Ahhotep Queen and coregent
8 V XII (Ahhotep was Senqenre’s wife and Ahmose’s mother)
9 VI I (5)
10 VII II
TABLE 57
APRIL (Julian calendar) MAY
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 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
equinox new moon 1st lunar crescent Full moon Eclipse
ADARRU NISANU (Babylonian calendar) IYAR
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 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 1 2 3
III PERET IV PERET (Egyptian secular calendar) I SHEMU
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 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5
IV PERET (Egyptian lunar calendar) I SHEMU
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 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
The main events that marked the departure of the Hyksos to Palestine, and the death of Seqenenre Taa,
are dated in the Egyptian chronology (Papyrus Rhind) and in the biblical chronology. The death of the
Crown Prince, Ahmose Sapair, the eldest son of Seqenenre Taa, who was about 10 years old at the time, took
place on 14 Nisan (24/04/1533), 15 days before the death of his father (10/05/1533). Kamose, the younger
brother of Seqenenre Taa, who was the prince of Thebes, immediately attacked the cities abandoned by the
Hyksos, starting with Avaris, then Heliopolis (7/06/1533). Ahmose, the youngest son of Seqenenre Taa
should have replaced Ahmose Sapaïr, his elder brother, as Crown Prince, but being about two years old at the
death of his father he could not exercise authority and was appointed as the new Crown Prince under the
tutelage of Kamose, the younger brother of Seqenenre Taa. According to the biblical text:
And at midnight Jehovah struck down all the first-born in Egypt from the first-born of Pharaoh, heir to
his throne, to the first-born of the prisoner in the dungeon, and the first-born of all the livestock.
Pharaoh and all his officials and all the Egyptians got up in the night, and there was great wailing in
Egypt, for there was not a house without its dead. It was still dark when Pharaoh summoned Moses and
Aaron and said: Up, leave my subjects, you and the Israelites! Go and worship Jehovah as you have
asked (Ex 12:29-31).
The remark: from the first-born of Pharaoh, heir to his throne, shows that this anonymous Pharaoh had
a son (the eldest) who was Crown prince. The final sequence of events is precisely dated97. The departure
from Egypt is dated 15 Nisan (Nb 33:3). Since the arrival in the desert of Sin is dated the 15th of the
following month (Ex 16:1) and the final showdown is near Pihahiroth (Ex 14:9) a place halfway between the
city called Rameses and the desert of Sin, the date marking the death of the Pharaoh can be fixed Nisan 30/1
Iyyar, on 10 May 1533 BCE. Flavius Josephus gives some chronological details on this important event:
A thick darkness, without the least light, spread itself over the Egyptians, whereby their sight being
obstructed, and their breathing hindered by the thickness of the air, they died miserably, and under a
terror lest they should be swallowed up by the dark cloud. Besides this, when the darkness, after three
days and as many nights, was dissipated, (...) But when God had signified, that with one plague he
would compel the Egyptians to let Hebrews go, he commanded Moses to tell the people that they should
have a sacrifice ready, and they should prepare themselves on the 10th day of the month Xanthicus,
against the 14th, (which month is called by the Egyptians Pharmouthi, Nisan by the Hebrews; but the
Macedonians call it Xanthicus,) and that he should carry the Hebrews with all they had (...) the whole
Egyptian army was within it, the sea flowed to its own place, and came down with a torrent raised by
storms of wind, and encompassed the Egyptians. Showers of rain also came down from the sky, and
dreadful thunders and lightning, with flashes of fire. Thunderbolts also were darted upon them. Nor was
97
The Exodus began on 15 Nisan (25/04/1533) from Rameses a storage city (unidentified), which was the ancient Egyptian Babylon
(Fustat, near Old Cairo) according to Josephus (Jewish Antiquities II:315). Israelites followed the path of the desert (from Memphis
to the mines of Serabit el-Khadim) and not the Philistines way, called “Ways of Horus” by the Egyptians, along the Mediterranean
coast to a camp at Sukkhot, then Etham before finally returning to Pihahiroth (Ex 13:17-14:2). This town was to be located north of
the Red Sea as described by Josephus (Jewish Antiquities II:324-326) and could be the present jebel ‘Ataqa (the site actually looks
like a dead end). Pihahiroth in Old Canaanite is pi ḫirîtu “mouth of the channel”. If the Israelites had taken the ways of Horus in the
open, they could easily return to Egypt in seeing the army of Pharaoh pursuing them. The pharaoh died during the crossing of the
Red Sea (Ps 136:15), and the Israelites reached Elim (Gharandel wadi) on the 15th of the following month (Ex 16:1). It is in fact the
old Sea of Reeds north of the Red Sea because the Greek text (Ac 7:36, Heb 11:29) always translates the Hebrew words yam-suph
“Sea of Reeds” by erythra thalassa “Red Sea”. The route between Memphis and Elim is round 600 kilometres. The distance can be
covered in approximately 24 days, which corresponds to 30 days indicated in the text (taking into account the duration of each stay).
The armies of the past moved at an average speed to 25 km per day. Even the Roman armies, highly organized, did not exceed this
speed (Luttwak: 2009, 137). Departure from Ramses (near Memphis) on 15 Nisan, arrival at Succoth on 21, departure on 23, arrival
at Etham on 27, departure on 29, arrival at Pihahiroth on 30, departure on 1, arrival at Mara on 8 and departure on 13, arrived at Elim
on 15. Crossing the current between the promontory called Ras ‘Ataqa to the oasis Ayun Musa, on the opposite bank is about 10 km
which requires a period of at least two hours to get from the bottom of one bank to another. The maximum depth is 15 meters in the
middle of the path, which is consistent with the biblical description: The Israelites went on dry ground right through the sea, with
walls of water to right and left of them (Ex 14:22). To avoid miraculous explanation some biblical scholars propose a simple swamps
crossing, but in this case the path would be either impractical for a large crowd or without danger for the Egyptian armies.
86
there any thing which used to be sent by God upon men, as indications of his wrath, which did not
happen at this time, for a dark and dismal night oppressed them. And thus did all these men perish, so
that there was not one man left to be a messenger of this calamity to the rest of the Egyptians (Jewish
Antiquities II:308-311,343-344).
The equivalence: 1st Pharmouthi (IV Peret 1) = 1st Nisan, is possible only around 1530 BCE. The ‘dark
and dismal night’ that occurred on April 14 was a total solar eclipse. The total solar eclipse on 15/II was
merged with the violent storm that occurred at the same time:
The waters have seen you, O God, the waters have seen you; they began to be in severe pains. Also, the
watery deeps began to be agitated. The clouds have thunderously poured down water; A sound the
cloudy skies have given forth. Also, your own arrows proceeded to go here and there. The sound of your
thunder was like chariot wheels; Lightnings have lighted up the productive land; The earth became
agitated and began to rock. Through the sea your way was, and your path was through many waters;
And your very footprints have not come to be known. You have led your people just like a flock, by the
hand of Moses and Aaron (Ps 77:17-20).
The text of Ezekiel mentions the tragic end of a pharaoh and associates it with a cloudy sky and a solar
eclipse: Son of man, lift up a dirge concerning Pharaoh98 the king of Egypt, and you must say to him:
As a maned young lion of nations you have been silenced. And you have been like the marine monster
in the seas [crocodile], and you kept gushing in your rivers and kept muddying the waters with your feet
and fouling their rivers (...) And when you get extinguished I will cover [the] heavens and darken their
stars. As for [the] sun, with clouds I shall cover it, and [the] moon itself will not let its light shine. All
the luminaries of light in the heavens —I shall darken them on your account, and I will put darkness
upon your land (Ezk 32:2, 7-8).
The expression: All the luminaries of light in the heavens — I shall darken them on your account, and I
will put darkness upon your land has a symbolic meaning but could be understood only if it had also a literal
meaning. The Pharaoh was considered a living god by the Egyptians, the son of Ra the sun god, thus the
solar eclipse as the moonless night had to mark them. According to astronomy, the only total solar eclipse in
this region during this period 1600-150099 BCE was the one dated May 10, 1533 BCE100, magnitude 1.08, it
covered a strip of 250 km and was visible in the North of Egypt over several cities such as Heliopolis
(dedicated to sun worship), Memphis and Heracleopolis, at 16:40 (Local Time) and lasted more than 6
minutes (the place called Pihahiroth "mouth of the canal" should be near Suez).
FIG. 12
98
This text targets the Pharaoh of the Exodus, the only one known for ending tragically (Ps 136:15), because the terms “crocodile
dragon/ marine monster” always refer to this ruder (Is 51:9-10) as an avatar of the sliding snake, Leviathan (Is 27:1, Ezk 29:2-5, Ps
74:13-14), not Apries, the Pharaoh of that time who is named (Jr 44:30). This process of assimilation between two rulers from
different eras is found again with the king of Tyre who was assimilated to the original serpent in Eden (Ezk 28:12-14).
99
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcat5/SE-1599--1500.html
100
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsearch/SEsearchmap.php?Ecl=-15320510
The date of the total solar eclipse of 10 May 1533 BCE is a key date in Egyptian history because it
corresponds to the death of Seqenenre Taa, dated I Shemu in the papyrus Rhind (Egyptian secular calendar).
It is also a key date in biblical history because it corresponds to the death of this pharaoh (Ps 136:15) dated
1st Iyyar (Babylonian calendar) at the beginning of the Exodus. The death of Seqenenre Taa generated one
of the greatest upheavals in Egyptian history, because it marked the beginning of the “War of the Hyksos”,
according to the interpretation of Egyptologists, or the beginning of the Exodus, according to the Bible. By
combining all the chronological information, the reigns of Seqenenre Taa and Kamose (his younger brother)
can be precisely reconstructed:
TABLE 58
1546 Lunar date I Akhet 1 on 14 September 1546 BCE (full moon)
1543 Heliacal risings of Sirius and Venus at Thebes on 12 July 1543 BCE
1533 Total solar eclipse over the north of the Red Sea on 10 May 1533 BCE
AKHET PERET SHEMU
1546 Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug.
Dynasty 17 1545 1 1/30 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25 25
1544 2 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14
Seqenenre 1543 12 3 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3
1542 3 4 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 23
1541 4 5 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 12 12
1540 5 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1
1539 6 7 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 22 22 21 21 20
1538 7 8 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 10
1537 8 9 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 30 29 29 28
1536 9 10 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18
1535 10 11 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 9 9 8 8 7
1534 11 12 2 1 1 30 30 29 28 28 27 27 27 26
Kamose 1533 [1] 13 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 16 15
1532 [2] 14 10 9 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4
1531 3 15 29 28 28 27 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24
Dynasty 18
Ahmose 1530 1 16 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 14 13
1529 2 17 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2
While the end of Seqenenre’s reign (1543-

1533) was marked by an extraordinary
astronomical event: a total solar eclipse (10
May 1533 BCE), the beginning of his reign
was also marked by another extraordinary
astronomical event: a double helical rising of
Sirius and Venus dated 12 July 1543 BCE
(4:30 local time in Thebes), an exceptional
event which occurred every 243 years and
which was depicted as a symbolic phoenix by
Egyptian astronomer priests. It is noteworthy
that the Horus name of Seqenenre was Kha-em-
was.t “The one which appeared in the centre of
authority (Thebes)”, similar to the personal
name of Psusennes I, Pa-seba-kha-en-nut “The
star that appeared for the city (of Thebes)” in
Egyptian. When Seqenenre died his eldest son
Ahmose Sapaïr, who was crown prince, was
about 10 years old according to the size of his
mummy as well as his mortuary statue,
accordingly, he was born in 1543 BCE when
his father began to reign. This coincidence may
explain why he received an exceptional
worship for approximately 500 years after his
death. When he died his youngest brother,
Ahmose, was about 2 years old, which may
explain why he was not able to reign at once.
88
When Kamose died, Ahmose was about 5 years old, that is why his mother, Queen Ahhotep (Seqenenre’s
wife), was his regent until the 20th year of his reign. One also notes that the counting of regnal years which
were beginning on I Akhet 1 before Kamose, began from the date of accession after Kamose. Finally, an
extremely rare event, the crescent shaped hieroglyph representing the moon was reversed down after
Kamose. Consequently, all these changes prove that the death of Seqenenre Taa and Ahmose Sapaïr was a
paramount event in Egyptian history.
The chronological reconstruction of the so-called war of the Hyksos shows that in fact it was carried out
in two phases: first a police operation led from Thebes to Sile (modern Tell Hebua), through Heliopolis, in
order to loot Avaris, former capital of the Hyksos, then to destroy Sile (another big city belonging to the
Hyksos). One year later Kamose waged a war, dated in his year 3, to annex the Kushite kingdom of Kerma,
ally of the Hyksos (16th Dynasty). Most steles describing a war are dated Year 3 [of Kamose] and were
erected at Edfu (near Thebes), capital of the 16th Dynasty (Barbotin: 2008, 169-202), which indirectly
confirm the place of the war (south of Egypt). These steles inscriptions, such as the Emhab stele (Cairo JE
49566), are among the most problematic and controversial ancient Egyptian texts (Baines: 1986, 41-53).
However, most textual difficulties have arisen when translators approached the inscription out of context,
forcing new meanings on words and expressions to make the Egyptian text only an account of a quarry
dispute or a drumming contest (Klotz: 2010, 211-241).
Taking into account the historical context allows us to understand the role of Emhab because he
introduces himself as: governor, chief steward, Emhab surnamed Tamarilu (T3mrrw) born of the royal lady
Biya, and on the right side of the stele stands “Horus of Behedet, Great God of his city” and “Hathor Lady of
Dendera”, the classical divine pair of Edfu. As a result, Embah was governor of Edfu, capital of the 16th
Dynasty, the last Hyksos dynasty. Emhab bore the title Chief Steward, one of the highest offices in the
Egyptian administration primarily concerned with economic and agricultural affairs outside of the city.
Given that the 16th Dynasty was a puppy vassal government whose kings were highly Egyptianised, thus
Emhab was a Hyksos who bore an Egyptian name, which was likely an abbreviation for (i)m(y)-ḥ3b “He
who is in festival”. His Hyksos name Tamarilu (T3-mr-r-w) could mean “Palm-tree of God” in Hebrew. This
inscription has an anomaly in the reckoning of regnal years: renpet 3 “year 3” (line 8), indicating the number
of years, instead of the usual hat-sep 3 “regnal year 3”, exactly the same anomaly that in the stele of year 3
of Kamose during his campaign against the Kushite kingdom of Kerma and then the city of Avaris. During
this campaign, Emhab followed his lord (nb), in all places and at all times (lines 4 and 13). Accordingly, his
anonymous “lord” was Kamose because he says (line 11): He is a god (ntr), while I am a ruler (ḥq3), and
(lines 15-16): so I reached Avaris. Then my lord [Kamose] began to fight, he flew across the water of Lower
Egypt. In addition to his military bravery, Emhab provided economic support for Upper Egypt during the war
(lines 10-11), sending tax agents to collect supplies and revenue (line 5). In fact, Emhab narrated (lines 6-8)
his fierce struggle against an anonymous powerful warrior called Tamyar-hatinat (Ti-i-m-y-r-h-ti-n-t), which
led to victory over 7,000 enemies. This mysterious character was to be a Kushite (Nubian) leader who
rebelled against Kamose when he annexed the kingdom of Kush. In the course of this short inscription,
Emhab sketched a biography of an ideal regional administrator during a time of war:
1/
An offering of the king gives and Osiris, Lord of Busiris, the Great God, Lord of Abydos, that he
might give 2/a voice-offerings of bread, beer, oxen and fowl for the spirit of the governor [of Edfu],
chief-steward, and possessor of love 3/Emhab, surnamed Tamarilu, who repeats life. He says: I am 4/one
who followed his lord [Kamose] in his movements, who was never defeated regarding a command 5/he
said. All the agents gave to me that which was bound in their hands. 6/Then Tamyar-hatinat [a Nubian
ruler] said: I will fight 7/against him [Kamose] to the death. I [Emhab] defeated him [Tamyar-hatinat]
with fingers [i.e. bare hands], 8/with the result that 7,000 [i.e. many] passed away. (I) spent year 3 [of
Kamose] beating 9/the drum every day [i.e. in order to drum up supporters]. In all of his commands did I
live up to 10/my lord [Kamose], 11/he is a god [i.e. pharaoh], while I am a ruler [i.e. ruler of foreign lands
“Hyksos”]. It is with me sustaining [i.e. as chief-steward] that he [Kamose] 12/slaughters [i.e. as lord
warrior]. Just as I reached Miu [city of Kush], 13/without counting every foreign land [i.e. land of
Hyksos], following him 14/night and day, so I reached Avaris. 15/Then my lord [Kamose] began to fight,
he flew across the water of Lower Egypt, 16/[while] I was in front of [...] Then [...].
We can understand why Emhab was so mysterious about his “lord”, because as governor of Edfu his
legal king was to be Sobekhotep IV (or another king of the 16th dynasty), but according to the account of
Kamose in his stele dated Year 3, almost all the Hyksos had left Egypt to go to Palestine. As a result, this
vassal king had become a leader without real power and Emhab preferred to cooperate directly under the
authority of Kamose. However, there was a new difficulty because the legal king in Egypt at that time was
not Kamose, Prince of Thebes and co-regent, but Crown Prince Ahmose who was only 5 years old. A
number of biographical inscriptions show that the military conflict between the Egyptians at the end of the
17th Dynasty only concerned the kingdom of Kush (Kubisch: 2010, 323-325):
I am a strong servant of the ruler [ḥq3] of Kush. I wash my feet in the waters of Kush while following
the ruler Nedjeḥ // I am a strong commander of Buhen. Never did any commander do what I did. I built
the temple of Horus, Lord of Buhen, to the delight of the ruler [ḥq3] of Kush // I am a powerful warrior
entering Edfu. I took <my> wife, children and household away from the south of Kush in 13 days // I
am a powerful warrior of the strong ruler [ḥq3] [Ka]mose, given life. I brought forty-six heads of people
while following the ruler, given life// I am one who follow his lord [nb] on his journeys, one who do not
fail in (any) statement he makes (...) I will fight against him (i.e. an enemy mentioned before) in
endurance (...) I reached Miu (city of Kush)101 without counting every land while I followed him day
and night, and I reached Avaris.
The loyalty of the provincial officials was an important basis for the re-conquest of Egypt, enabling
Kamose and Ahmose to unite these local powers into a single force. The only record that describes the so-
called war of the Hyksos in the field, and not according to official propaganda, comes from an officer of El-
kab, Ahmose son of Abana, whose autobiography is in his tomb (Barbotin: 2008, 197-202):
1/
The chief of the rowers, Ahmose son of Abana, 2/says: « I want to speak to you, all people. I want you
to be aware of the distinctions that are due to me: I was rewarded with gold seven times 3/facing the
entire country and the servants alike. I have been endowed with so many fields, my name is strong for
what I did, safe in this 4/country ever ». He says: « It is in the city of Nekheb (El-kab) I grew up, when
my father was a soldier of late King of Upper and Lower Egypt Seqenenre. Baba, son of 5/Ro-inet was
his name. Then I was a soldier in his place in the boat “the Wild Bull”, at the time of late Lord of Two
Lands Nebpehtyre (Ahmose). 6/I was (yet) a young man, I had not yet married, I slept in a hammock.
Then I founded a home. So, I was taken aboard 7/the ship “the Septentrion” since my excellence, I
walked in the wake of the Sovereign (ity), life, integrity, health, when he was travelling in his 8/chariot.
They laid siege to the city of Avaris and I behaved valiantly, in the field, before His Majesty. So I was
then assigned to 9/the (ship) “Emergence in Memphis” and they fought on the water, the channel
Padjedkou of Avaris. So I made the catch. 10/I brought 1 hand, something that was repeated to the royal
herald: I was given the gold of valour. Then the fighting resumed in this place and I made the catch. 11/I
brought 1 hand and I was given the gold of valour again. Then they fought in the part of Egypt which is
south of this city. 12/I brought a prisoner alive after plunging into the water. Look, he was returned as
taken from the side of the 13/city and it is by stating that I crossed the water. This having been reported
to the royal herald, my reward was the gold again. 14/Then they began to plunder Avaris and I brought
back the spoils: 1 man and three women, a total of four (individuals). His Majesty's attributed to me as
slaves. 15/Then they besieged Sharuhen in Year 3 and His Majesty sacked it. So I brought back the
spoils: two women and 1 hand, 16/and I was given the gold of bravery. Look, I was awarded my taken as
slaves! And then, His Majesty slew the Sinai Bedouins. 17/It went up the Nile as far Khenthennefer
(south of the second cataract) to destroy the Nubian archers. Her Majesty is doing a great slaughter
among them. 18/So I brought back as booty two men, two ears and two hands. I was rewarded with gold
once again and, look, I was given two maids. 19/His Majesty sailed north, his heart swelling with joy by
the bravery and victory, because it had seized the South and North. 20/So is the rebel Aata came to the
South, his destiny was to be destroyed. The gods of the South seized him and he was discovered by His
Majesty in Tentaâmu. His Majesty took 21/him prisoner each of his people being an easy prey. So I
brought two captured warriors on the ship the rebel Aata 22/and he gave me five persons and five shared
arourai102 field in my city. He was doing the same for all the crew. Then came this vile enemy, 23/his
name was Tetian (Teti-the-beautiful) who had gathered around him his rebels. His Majesty killed him,
his associates (of Tetian) were as if they had not existed. 24/Then they gave me three persons and five
arourai field in my city. So I carried late King of Upper and Lower Egypt Djeserkare (Amenohotep I) as
he sailed southward towards Kush to expand 25/the borders of Egypt. His Majesty overthrew this vile
Nubian nomad midst of his army which was taken tied, those who had fled 26/were laying as if they had
not existed while I was at the head of our army. I fought in truth and His Majesty saw my bravery. I
brought back 2 hands which were presented to 27/His Majesty and his people were sought and his cattle.
Then I brought a prisoner who was brought alive to His Majesty. I guided his Majesty for 2 days to
Egypt 28/(passing) through the eastern wells. Then I was rewarded with gold and I brought back as booty
by two maids over what I had presented to 29/His Majesty (before). Then I was promoted to the rank of
“Ruler's Warrior”. Then I carried late King of Upper and Lower Egypt Âakheperkare (Thutmose I)
while sailing south towards Khenthennefer 30/to destroy the rebellion through the mountainous regions
and to repel an invasion from the desert regions.
101
It is the same city in the Khor Gash (Sudan) quoted by Emhab in his stele.
102
The Setjat aroure represents a square of one hundred royal cubits on each side, i.e. approximately 2,756.25 m2.
90
The events are recorded in a chronological order (Vandersleyen: 1995, 213-
216). Early in his career, Ahmes states that at Ahmose's time he accompanied the
Sovereign in his chariot (line 8). The hieroglyphic sign of the chariot can even
inform us about its shape. The Sovereign (ity) is not named, but as he got into his
chariot the king was bound to be an adult. As Ahmose was 2 years old at that
time, it might be Kamose. In addition, the facts related are identical to those
described in the stele of year 3. Ahmes laid siege to the city of Avaris and
behaved valiantly (in fact, he took only 1 man in the Padjedku channel of Avaris) and plundered Avaris (no
fight is mentioned). He besieged Sharuhen in Year 3 and His Majesty sacked it. Sharuhen was besieged in
Year 3 (same date in Kamose's Stele), not for 3 years, for at least three reasons: as Kamose crushed the
powerful viceroy of Kush in a single military campaign, Sharuhen, which was a small city, could not hold
out long against Kamose's army; no army at that time could sustain a siege of more than 1 year (the mighty
Thutmose III besieged the city of Megiddo for 7 months); such a memorable siege would have been
recounted, but only a sack of the city is mentioned. The only battles and slaughters that are detailed all took
place in southern Egypt and involved only Nubian rebels. Given the low numbers of prisoners and the small
number of deaths, these Egyptian troops would be better described as squads of police rather than regiments
of war. The soldier Ahmose son of Abana did not mention Kamose in his autobiography as did the soldier
Ahmose son of Pennekhbet who described his service (Dessoudeix: 2008, 113-132) under successive Kings
(nsw): Ahmose then Amenhotep I, Thutmose I, Thutmose II, Ruler (ḥq3) and finally under Thutmose III.
Queen Hatshepsut is not mentioned by name but by Ruler (coregent's title). These various protocol titles
prove that the Egyptian administration was very attached to the respect of the protocol. Consequently, given
that Ruler Kamose was regent of Crown Prince Ahmose, but not King of Upper and Lower, his stele dated
Year 3 should have been written (words in red are missing):
Regnal Year 3 of the Horus “great of developments”, the Two Ladies of renewing the memorials, the
golden hawk which pacifies the Two Lands, King of Upper and Lower Egypt (nsw-bity) ❨NEB-PEHTY-
RA❩ Royal ❨AHMOSE❩, alive forever, ❨WADJ-KHEPER-RA❩ Royal ❨KAMOSE❩, endowed with life,
beloved of Amun-Re lord of the thrones of the Two Lands like Ra, forever nights and days.
This omission of the name of Ahmose is not due to chance but indicates that Kamose regarded himself
as the only official king103. The chariot used as an offensive weapon appears for the first time under the
reign of Kamose. This is confirmed by the relief of the “fall of Avaris” reconstituted (below) thanks to the
fragments found at Abydos in the temple next to the pyramid of Ahmose (Harvey: 1998, 316-353,529-550).
Although no direct text accompanying this scene has been found many internal details allow its identification
as the presence of ships, the names of Apopi and Avaris as well as representation of the weapons use.
FIG. 13
The use of horses by the Egyptians proves that there had been no war with the Hyksos because as
they came from Palestine they knew horse domestication, already performed in Syria and Mari since 1700
BCE, and had brought this animal to Egypt (Kupper: 1957, 35-37).
103
This usurpation did not have to escape Queen Ahhotep, who probably eliminated Kamose to protect her son's reign (and
consequently became the new regent of Ahmose). This hypothesis is very probable because Kamose died just a few days before the
enthronement of his 4th year of reign.
If there had been a war with the Egyptians, the Hyksos would have used
their own horses and would have prevailed. Apopi’s name (i-p-p) appears on a
fragment (lower arrow in the drawing) and an Asiatic recognizable by his
fringed garment and his dagger sword (top arrow). The fact that the name Apopi
(i-‡-p-p-i) is usually written with the syllabic group i-‡ would rather suggest that
is was foreign in origin, just as are all the other known names of kings and their
treasurers of this Dynasty (Ryholt: 1997, 129). The name Apopi does not mean
anything in Egyptian but means “splendid (yepepia)” in Hebrew (Jr 46:20), close
to the name Joppa “beautiful” (Jos 19:46). On the relief of Ahmose, several
Hyksos warriors are represented falling (they have two bands crossed over the
chest with a collar, which identifies them as Hyksos), pierced by arrows. A small
fragment of a relief immersed, discovered in the same context, named Avaris,
the capital of the Hyksos (with the same spelling as in the Stele of Kamose). The
arrows used by archers are Nubian, we know they were used by Nubian archers
loyal to Kamose, the Madjays, during the siege of Avaris. The ships represented
on the relief are warships such as the “vulture” (the Nile was used to transport
troops). The description of a grain crop in a context of war is very surprising and
might suggest that a famine caused by strategy was associated with this war. The
relief of Ahmose therefore is in full agreement with the indications given by the
Stele of Kamose, but is an absolutely new type of representation in Egyptian art.
Later representations of this “battle” are most prolific in detail, like the one
shown on two panels of a chariot of Thutmose IV (Pritchard: 1969, 103-104):
Careful examination of protagonists reveals that only Nubians are portrayed with arms (the archers
who oppose the Pharaoh), which is not the case of Asiatics identifiable by their beards. In addition, some
Asiatics (indicated by an arrow in the figure above) wear two bands crossed over their chest with a collar,
which is a characteristic of Hyksos soldiers (the depiction contains an anachronism since the chariot of
Pharaoh has eight spokes while those of his opponents have four, as at the time of Ahmose). Egyptians
undertook several aggressive campaigns against Nubia (land of Kush) and conducted only a few raids of
intimidation in northern Sinai, Syria and Mitanni (Vandersleyen: 1995, 225-257), but nothing specific,
except threats, against Retjenu where the ancient Hyksos fled (Knoppers, Hirsch: 2004, 121-141). Whereas
Ahmose doesn’t detail the war against the Hyksos he insists, on the other hand, on two issues: “he is now the
king of Lower Egypt (stele at Karnak) and the events that preceded his reign were terrible (Tempest Stele)”.
The stele of Ahmose at Karnak reads (Barbotin: 2008, 210-214):
1/
The King of Upper and Lower Egypt, lord of the Two Lands, ❨NEB-PEHTY-RA❩, his beloved, Royal
❨AHMOSE❩, living forever, the son of Amun-Re, his beloved (...) whose valiance is terrific, he who
subdues the rebel, gives life and 4/establishes Maat, the king of Lower Egypt for the kings in all
countries, the sovereign, life-integrity-health, who tamed the Two Banks (Egypt), great in the terror he
inspires, whose coronation commands the Nubian archers kneeling (...) 7/he ruled over what surrounds
sun's course, the white crown and the red crown set upon his head, the shares of Horus and Seth are
under his authority, he whose pictures appeared in glory from his childhood (...) 12/This is a king of the
92
North that Ra made sovereign, Amun made great. May they grant the banks and the countries all at once
(...) 19/This is a King of Lower Egypt unique, a disciple of the star Sirius, the favourite of Sehat. The
prestige of Thoth is by his side 20/: may he deign to grant him know the rituals! (Thus) he will lead the
scribes according to exact rules. It is a large holder of magic, who provides love of him more than any
king of Lower Egypt (...) 22/Follow this King of Lower Egypt in his campaigns, spread his empire by
other people (...) 23/honour him as for Ra, adore him as for the moon, he the king of Upper and Lower
Egypt ❨NEB-PEHTY-RA❩, living forever, who tames any foreign land. 24/Glorify the Lady, the Queen of
the banks of Hau-nebu [eastern Delta], whose reputation is high over any foreign land, who fulfils the
will of the multitude, 25/the wife of the king [Seqenenre], the sister of the Sovereign [Kamose], life-
integrity-health, the daughter of the king [Senakhtenre], the august mother of the king [Ahmose], who
knows the business, who unites Egypt; she gathered its worthies 26/whom she assured cohesion and took
back its fugitives, she merged its dissidents and has pacified Upper Egypt, she has pushed its rebels,
Queen ❨AHHOTEP❩, living.
Ahmose's statement confirms two important points: first, the war against the Hyksos (no mention)
occurred before his reign. He focuses particularly on his new role as King of Lower Egypt, then, how his
mother, Queen Ahhotep (Vandersleyen: 1971, 135-228), managed to bring home some Egyptian dissidents
(who followed Apopi) and pushing (not crushing) some rebels (Hyksos). Family ties of Queen Ahhotep
clarify two other points: Kamose was the brother of Seqenenre since Ahhotep was the daughter of
Seqenenre, the granddaughter of Senakhtenre and the sister of Kamose; Kamose was co-regent, not king
since the titles are different: king [Senakhtenre] king [Seqenenre], Sovereign [Kamose], and king [Ahmose].
In fact, the main events commented by Ahmose in his inscriptions concern his family104 (Stasser: 2002, 23-
46). Thus we know that his mother Ahhotep assured his regency from Year 1 to 20; toward Year 18,
Satkamose his first wife died; he then married Ahmes Nefertari; his mother died around year 20 at the time
of Amenhotep I's birth. This event marked a new era105, as the hieroglyphic sign of the moon consisting of a
crescent with two points upward would definitely change (unique in Egyptian history) and would turn
downward from Year 20 of Ahmose. Evolution over time of Ahmose's name “fathered by the Moon”:
17th Dynasty beginning of 18th Dynasty 18th Dynasty
The beginning of the reign of Ahmose was relatively peaceful since no incidents were reported. A
graffito in hieratic dated year 2, found in the tomb of Sobeknakht at El-kab, provides insignificant
information. Another graffito carved on a block of a chapel at Karnak simply says this: In year 5, II Akhet
12, level of the great inundation. The chancellor of the king of Lower Egypt and general in chief Ah[mose]
came (Cotelle-Michel: 2003, 348). The most surprising information that Ahmose gave about the Hyksos
period, which preceded his reign, comes from the “stele of the storm” or “Tempest Stele” dated year 1 (line
0), consequently at the beginning of his reign. A high-resolution readout made it possible to restore almost
all of this stele (Wiener, Allen: 1998, 1-28):
1/
[Regnal Year 1 ... during the Incarnation of the Horus “Great of Developments”. Two] Ladies “Perfect
of Birth”, Gold Falcon “Who knots together the Two Lands”, King of Upper and Lower Egypt ❨NEB-
PEHTY-RA❩ Royal ❨AHMOSE❩, alive forever 2/—at the coming of His Incarnation [to ... ], the Sun
himself having designated him king; for though His Incarnation had settled in the harbour-town of
“Provisioner of the Two Lands” [...] of the south of Dendera, 3/A[mun-Re, lord of thrones of the Two
Lands] was in Thebes. Then His Incarnation sailed upstream to [give him a] pure [...]. Now, after this
offer[ing 4/ceremony ... th]em, and they were put on the [... in/of] this [nome], while the processional
image [...], 5/his body united with this temple, his limbs in joy. [Then His Incarnation sailed downstream
to the Palace, lph. 6/But] this great [god] was desiring [that] His Incarnation [return to him, while] the
gods were asking for [all] their cult-services. [Then] the gods [made] 7/the sky come in a storm of r[ain,
with dark]ness in the western region and the sky beclouded without [stop, 8/loud]er than [the sound of]
the subjects, strong[er than ..., howling(?)] on the hills more than the sound of the cavern in Elephantine.
Then every house and every habitation they reached [perished and those in them died, 9/their corpses]
floating on the water like skiffs of papyrus, (even) in the doorway and the private apartments (of the
palace), for a period of up to [...] days, 10/while no torch could give light over the Two Lands. Then His
Incarnation said: How much greater is this than the impressive manifestation of the great god, than the
plans of the gods! What His Incarnation did was to go down to his launch, 11/with his council behind
him and [his] army on the east and west (kinks) providing cover, there being no covering on them after
104
Ahmose was Seqenenre's son and Senakhtenre's grandson (Biston-Moulin: 2012, 61-71).
105
The accession of Ahmose is dated around IV Peret 1 which coincided in his year 19 (in 1512 BCE) with a full moon (April 3).
the occurrence of the god's 12/impressive manifestation. What His Incarnation did was to arrive at the
interior of Thebes, and gold encountered the gold of this processional image, so that he received what he
had desired. Then His Incarnation 13/was stabilizing the Two Lands and guiding the flooded areas. He
did not stop, feeding them with silver, with gold, with copper, 14/with oils and clothing, with every need
that could be desired. What His Incarnation did was to rest in the Palace, lph. Then one was reminding
15/
His Incarnation of the entering of the sacred estates, the dismantling of tombs, the hacking up of
mortuary enclosures, and the toppling of pyramids —how what had never been done (before) had been
16/
done. Then His Incarnation commanded to make firm the temples that had fallen to ruin in this entire
land: to make functional the monuments of the gods, to erect 17/their enclosure walls, to put the sacred
things in the special room, to hide the secret places, to cause the processional images that 18/were fallen
to the ground to enter their shrines, to set up the braziers, to erect the altars and fix their offering-loaves,
to double the income of office-holders —to put the land like its original situation. 19/Then it was done
like everything that His Incarnation commanded to do.
The inscription confirms three points: the disaster linked to Hyksos occurred before the reign of
Ahmose and it affected all Egypt; the unprecedented violence of climatic elements explains the consternation
of Seqenenre and his council when they met Apopi; the origin of this conflict was linked to “Seth(Baal), the
Lord of Avaris” (Apopi's single god), because of the amazing sentence: How much greater is this than the
impressive manifestation of the great god, than the plans of the gods! Regarding this last point Queen
Hatshepsut is even more explicit:
35/
Listen to him, you, namely all patricians and common folk in its multitude! I did these things by the
design of my heart 36/I did not sleep as one who forgets, I had established what was ruined. I raised up
what was dismantled 37/since the Asiatics being in the midst of the “North Land” (Delta) of the region of
Avaris. When the wandering foreigners were in their midst 38/destroying what had been made. They
ruled without Ra, he not giving a divine decree until my majesty. I being (firmly) established 39/upon the
thrones of Ra, I having been foretold for many years as the born conqueror. I have come as Horus, my
uraeus 40/firing against my opponents. I have driven off the abomination of the gods, and the land
removed (the footprints of) their sandals. This was at the instruction of the father (Kamose) 41/of father
(Thutmose I)106, who came at his time on one day. As the destruction of a command of Amun will not
happen, my stele will endure like mountains (Peirce: 2015, 131-134).
Ahmose's reign had been peaceful. Ahhotep's regency was even a brilliant restoration of Egyptian
authority. It was during this recovery period, which lasted 20 years, that king's counsellors were the most
active. In respect of the court etiquette, advising the pharaoh was usually given in the form of a timeless (and
archaizing) wisdom with the guarantee of an illustrious predecessor having sometimes experienced a similar
situation (Simpson: 2005, 125-243). This is the case of The Teaching for King Merikare (Vernus: 2010, 179-
213). Although this teaching is assigned to Merikare, this text should rather be dated to the beginning of the
18th Dynasty for the following reasons: this teaching is completely unknown before and is never mentioned
by any previous document; the conflict with Asiatics which is described as catastrophical, is identical to the
one mentioned in Tempest Stele under Ahmose; Antef II, in the last year of his reign (year 50), said he
seized the thinite nome wholly (Gnirs: 2006, 207-265). He speaks as if Thebes took possession of it for the
first time. Moreover, nothing in the inscriptions of nomarchs at this time lets one think about a state of war or
of any disorders (Vandersleyen: 1995, 6-11). The Teaching seems to have been written around year 20 of
Ahmose, which coincides with the end Ahhotep's regency. Indeed, the note: Quarry stones from Tura and do
not construct your tomb through recycled materials is consistent with the fact that King Ahmose started to
build his pyramid (actually a cenotaph at Abydos) from year 22. The remark: For these 20 years, recruits
have been at ease, following their heart, and the military goes forth in strength. Those who are recruited
enlist voluntarily like young men trained [and strengthened]. It is (our) ancestry which fights on our behalf,
contradicts interpretations assuming a King Ahmose who would lead a war against the Hyksos.
The beginning of the Instruction made by the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Khet]y, for his son,
Merikare [...] But whose many partisans are now a multitude and respect him for his possessions and for
his cleverness, one who has gained (men’s) confidence and has ingratiated himself in the sight of his
dependents, and who persists as a troublemaker and a spreader of talk, get rid of him, and slay his
children, obliterate his name, and destroy his supporters, banish (all) memory of him and of the
partisans who respect him a seditious man is liable to incite the citizens And create two groups of
malcontents among the youth. If, therefore, you find that there is such a one among the citizens, [A ...]
whose actions challenge you, denounce him before the officials and get rid of him, for he is indeed a
rebel (...) Be proficient in speech, so that you may be strong, for the strength of a king is his tongue.
Words are mightier than any struggle, And no one can outsmart him who is skilled of heart, [But you
will sit secure] upon the throne. The wise man is a bulwark (even) for officials, And those who are
106
Thutmose I was the father of Hatshepsut and Kamose was the father of Djehuty-mes (Thutmose I).
94
aware of his knowledge dare not assail him. No evil happens in his presence (...) Show due respect to
the nobles, support your people, fortify your borders and your buffer zones, for it is expedient to work
for the future (...) Punish by means of flogging and imprisonment, for thus will this land be kept in good
order, except for the rebel who has contrived his plots. But God is aware of the rebel, and God will
smite his evil with blood (...) The ba will return to the place which it knows, and it will not wander from
its familiar ways; all magic rituals will be unable to oppose it (...) Marshall your troops so that the
Residence may respect you; increase your supporters in the military. Behold, your cities are filled with
new generations; For these 20 years, recruits have been at ease, following their heart, and the military
goes forth in strength. Those who are recruited enlist voluntarily like young men trained [and
strengthened]. It is (our) ancestry which fights on our behalf, and I was raised up from it on my
succession. Elevate your officials, promote your fighters; bestow wealth upon the young men of your
followers, provide them with possessions, confer fields upon them, and endow them with cattle. Make
no distinction between a well-born man and a commoner but take a man into your service because of his
deeds. Let every occupation be carried on [...] for the Lord of might. Keep guard over your border, and
strengthen your forts, for troops are profitable to their lord. Erect [many] monuments for God (...) But
enemies will not be calm within Egypt, for troops will fight troops, as (our) ancestors foretold, and
Egypt will fight/ in the necropolis, destroying the tombs with havoc time and again. I did the same, and
the same will happen (again), as is done by him who likewise transgresses against God. Do not be too
stern with the southern territory, for you know what the Residence advises about it. It has happened (in
the past), just as such things may happen (again). There was no attack on their part, even as they
maintained, but yet I advanced upon Thinis right to its southern border at Tawer (...) Granite comes to
you without interruption, so do not destroy the monuments of another. Quarry stones from Tura and do
not construct your tomb through salvaged materials (...) I brought peace to the entire west as far as the
area of the lake; (Now) it serves (me) of its own accord and produces meru-wood, one may now see the
juniper wood which they give us. The east abounds with foreigners, and their taxes [pour in]. The
Middle Island has returned (to us) and every man within it. The temples say: ‘‘O Great One, (all) men
revere you.’’ Behold, the land which they had destroyed has been established as nomes, and all the great
cities [have been rebuilt]. What had been governed by one man is now under the control of ten; officials
are appointed, taxes are levied, and every responsibility is clearly understood. When free men are
granted a plot of land, they serve you like a single company; such ensures that no one among them will
be discontent. The Nile flood will cause you no worry by failing to come, and the revenues of the Delta
are in your hand behold, the mooring post which I have made in the east is secure, from Hebenu to the
Way of Horus, well settled with towns and full of people, the choicest of the entire land, to drive back /
any attacks against them. May I see a brave man who will emulate this, one who will for his own sake
add even more to what I have done. I would be worried by an heir who is ineffective. But as concerns
the foreigners, let this be said: The vile Asiatic is miserable because of the place wherein he is, shortage
of water, lack of many trees, and the paths thereof difficult because of the mountains. He has never
settled in one place, but plagued by want, he wanders the deserts on foot. He has been fighting ever
since the time of Horus. He neither conquers nor can he be conquered. He does not announce the day of
fighting, but is like a thief whom society has expelled. However, as I live / and shall be what I am, these
foreigners were like a sealed fortress which I had surrounded and besieged. I caused the Delta to strike
them, I captured their people and seized their cattle to the point that the Asiatics detested Egypt. Do not
distress your heart on his account, for the Asiatic is only a crocodile on its riverbank which attacks on a
lonely road but does not invade the area of a crowded town. Unite Medenit to its [nome], take
possession of its adjacent territory as far as Kem-Wer, for behold, it is a lifeline against the foreigners.
Its walls are a defence, its soldiers are numerous, and the serfs within it adept at carrying weapons, as
are the free citizens within it. As for the region of Djedsut, it totals 10,000 men, both serfs and free
citizens exempt from taxation. Officials have been in it ever since it was the Residence; well established
are its borders, and mighty are its garrisons. Many northerners irrigate it as far as the borders of the
Delta, taxed with grain after the fashion of free citizens. For him who achieves (all) this, it will be
means of surpassing me. Behold, it is the gateway to the Delta, and they have formed a protection as far
as / Neni-nesut. Well-populated cities mean satisfaction, but beware of being surrounded by the
supporters of a foe. Vigilance prolongs one’s years. Equip your border against the lands to the south, for
they are aliens who take up the panoply of war. Construct buildings in the Delta, for a man’s name will
not be demeaned by what he has accomplished, and a securely founded town will not be destroyed; so
build mansions for your image. An enemy loves anguish, and his actions are despicable. (...) But as for
him who revolts against you, this is (like) a destruction of heaven, (like) destroying a hundred years of
monuments. If an enemy is prudent, he will not destroy them, In hope that his action may be affirmed by
another who comes after him; But there is no one who does not have an / enemy. The (ruler) of the two
banks is intelligent. The king, the lord of courtiers, will not act foolishly. He was wise even at his
coming forth from the womb, and God has made him preeminent over the land above countless others
(...) Behold, a dreadful incident occurred in my time: The nome of Thinis was laid desolate. Indeed, it
did not happen through anything I had done, and I learned of it only after it had been committed. Behold
my abomination! What I did is all too plain! Verily, destruction is detestable. It is pointless for a man to
repair what he has destroyed or to rebuild what he has torn down. Beware of such! Affliction will be
requited in kind, and every deed committed has its consequence. One generation of mortals follows
another, but God, the all-knowing, has concealed himself. There is none who can resist the might of the
Lord of the Land (...) He has slain the rebellious among them, as if a man would smite his son for the
sake of his brother. And God knows every name. Make no detraction from my discourse, for it
establishes all the precepts of kingship. Instruct yourself, so that you may rise up as a man, and then you
will equal me, and none will indict you (...) Implant love for yourself in the entire land, for a good
disposition means being remembered, even after years are past and gone. May you be called ‘‘Destroyer
of the Time of Evil’’ By those who are among the descendants of the house of Khety, And may they
pray, ‘‘Let him return this (very) day!’’ Behold, I have told you the best of my thoughts; may you
conduct yourself in accordance with what is laid out before you.
Both the Teaching for King Merikare and the Tempest Stele agree. The description of events, according
to the Tempest Stele, has several amazing items: a storm of extraordinary intensity affected the whole of
Egypt, the country was left in total darkness, during nine days, according to the inscription of naos 2248
(Goedicke: 1992, 61), the storm decimated the people including the Palace, and dead bodies floated down the
Nile like skiffs of papyrus; the temples were particularly affected; the disaster was caused by a god greater
than the will of the gods. Egyptologists believe that this description is overstated or even fanciful, but it fully
agrees with another known as the Admonitions of Ipuwer. By the New Kingdom, the memory of the Hyksos
had the capacity to bond the Egyptians together through shared cultural knowledge, values and experiences.
As the Hyksos rule represented the first occupation of Egypt by a foreign people, this period became a
defining moment in Egyptian history. The memory of the expulsion of the Hyksos seems to have given
prestige to the Egyptians of the 18th dynasty, and during the reign of Hatshepsut at least, the cultural identity
forged at that time continued to influence how the Egyptians perceived themselves. Though Hatshepsut did
identify herself with brave deeds including expelling the Hyksos, the utilisation of less violent terminology
and the diminished use of the adjective qni “brave” suggests ideas of the brave warrior no longer
encapsulated Egyptian identity as a whole. The Egyptians’ defamation of these rulers was a mechanism to
justify warfare, though it also had the consequence of formulating a sense of Egyptian identity in relation to a
warrior ethos. In later periods the Egyptian rulers remembered the time of the Hyksos with contemporary
circumstances, and goals, in mind, because the Hyksos expulsion encapsulated the role of the king as the one
who expels chaos. Thus, the recollections of the Hyksos were irrevocably shaped by the context, including
features of repression and trauma, and by the goals of the memory maker (Peirce: 2015, 76-77).
There is no consensus to precisely restore the chronology of the 15th dynasty, with the exception of
Apopi, its last Hyksos king, who is well attested and reigned about 4[1] years according to the Turin king-list
(Schneider: 1998, 57-75). The Khyan sealings found at Edfu, in the same context together with those of
Sobekhotep IV (1690-1681), attest a peaceful contact between the Hyksos (15th Dynasty) and Upper Egypt
(13th Dynasty) at that time (Moeller, Marouard: 2011, 108-111). In fact, Hyksos kings of the 15th dynasty
were considered genuinely Egyptian kings since a manuscript, dated to the Third Intermediate Period
(Barbotin: 2008, 58-59), lists two of them (likely six in all) in the following order: Shareq, Apopi, then
Ahmose and Amenhotep I.
TABLE 59
Manetho N° King-list (Turin Canon) Capital Length Reign
Dynasty 15 Avaris
Salitis 1 [Yaqob-Her?] [20 years?] 1680-1660
Bnon 2 [Šemqen?] [ 6 years?] 1660-1654
3 [‘Aper-‘Anati?] [1]3 years 1654-1641
4 [Sakar-Her?] 8 years 1641-1633
Arpachan 5 [Khyan?] [Suserunere] 20 years 1633-1613
Apophis 6 [Apopi] [Aauserre] 4[1 years?] 1613-1573
- Khamudi Hotepibre [1? year] 1573-1572
Dynasty 16 Edfu
? 1 ? [1 year] 1572-1571
? 2 Djehuty Sekhemresementawy 3 years 1571-1568
? 5 Mentuhotepi Sankhenre 1 year [-] 1567-1566
1566-1531
? 15 [?] [ 1 year] 1531-1530
96
Conspicuously few monuments of the 14th Dynasty are known today. The entire dynasty is represented
by no more than about ten royal monuments and, except for two, all bear the name of Nehesy (either as king
or king's son) who had a reign of less than one year according to the Turin king-list. This circumstance is
difficult to reconcile with the fact that the 14th Dynasty was situated in the most fertile lands in Egypt and
had intensive trade with both Canaan, 13th Dynasty Egypt, and Nubia. Apart from scarabs and a few seal-
impressions, the 14th Dynasty is attested outside the Turin king-list only by monuments of its second king,
Nehesy, from the eastern Delta, none of which were found in precisely datable contexts. For its 51 or more
rulers (the 5 first rulers are lost), the king-list preserves a total of 12 years, 2 months, and 23 days of rule in
18 entries, with no reign longer than 3 years (Allen: 2010, 1-6). Consequently, the total duration of the 14th
dynasty would be about 34 years (= 51x12/18). Several reigns have durations of only a few months which
shows an abnormal process.
The first Asiatic king had to have appeared at the time of Hotepibre (Ryholt: 1997, 1-6) under the throne
name “the Asiatics, son of Hornedjherkef”, Hornedjherkef (1753-1741) being a king of the 13th Dynasty.
The last king of Dynasty 14 must have coincided with the first king of Dynasty 15. We can reconstruct the
reign of the first five kings of the 14th dynasty (1750-1680) using the number of seals and assuming a
constant uttering each year. The 14th dynasty is composed of Hyksos kings who all have Semitic birth names
and Egyptian throne names. It is interesting to note that the 5th King Hyksos of this dynasty is called Sheshi,
which means “sixth” in Hebrew. The 637 seals that were found cover a period from 22 to 85 years,
representing an average of 53 years (= [22+85]/2), which gives an average of 12 seals per year (= 637/53) or
one seal per month. This method of counting is however uncertain, mainly for Sheshi107.
TABLE 60
Dyn. n° Birth name Throne name Seals duration average Reign
637 22-85 years 53 years
14 1 Yakbim Sekhaenre 123 5-16 years 10 years 1750-1740
2 Ya‘ammu Nubwoserre 26 1-4 years 2 years 1740-1738
3 Qareaḫ Khawoserre 30 1-4 years 3 years 1738-1735
4 ‘Ammu Ahotepre 62 2-8 years 5 years 1735-1730
5 Sheshi Maaibre 396 13-53 years 33 years 1730-1697
6 Nehesy Aasehre 7 7 m. 1697 -
45 -1680
15 1 [Yaqob-Her?] [20 years?] 1680-1660
2 [Šemqen?] [ 6 years?] 1660-1654
In his review of the Second Intermediate Period, Kim Ryholt proposed that Nehesy was the son and
direct successor of the pharaoh Sheshi with a Nubian Queen named Tati. Egyptologist Darrell Baker, who
also shares this opinion, posits that Tati must have been Nubian or of Nubian descent, hence Nehesy's name
meaning “The Nubian.” The 14th dynasty being of Canaanite origin, Nehesy is also believed to be of
Canaanite descent108. Four scarabs found, including one from Semna in Nubia and three of unknown
provenance, point to a temporary coregency with his father. Furthermore, one scarab mentions Nehesy as
107
There is a considerable margin of error involved in such statistical calculations. This may be illustrated through King Ibiaw and
his successor Aya (13th Dynasty), both of whose exact reign-lengths are preserved in the Turin King-list. Ibiaw ruled 11 years and is
attested by 13 seals (average of c. 1 seal per year), while Aya ruled 24 (or 14) years and is attested by 63 seals (average of c. 2 ½
seals per year). Calculating the reign of Ibiaw by the average for Aya would suggest a reign of 5 years for Ibiaw (vs. an actual length
of 11 years), and vice versa a reign of 52 ½ years for Aya (vs. an actual length of 24/14 years). However, this approach seems at
present to be the only means by which a rough idea of the individual reign-lengths of the first five 14th Dynasty kings can be
achieved. Neferhotep I (11 years), Sobkhotep IV (min. 9 years), Ibiaw (11 years), Aya (24/14 years), Khyan (20/10 years), Apopi (40
years), and Nebiryrau (27 years): there are around 288 seals and a total reign-length of more than 130 years.
108
In 2005 a further stele of Nehesy was discovered in the fortress city of Tjaru, once the starting point of the Way of Horus, the
major road leading out of Egypt into Canaan. The stele shows a king's son Nehesy offering oil to the god Banebdjedet and bears an
inscription mentioning the king's sister Tany. A woman with this name and title is known from other sources around the time of the
Hyksos king Apophis, who ruled at the end of the Second Intermediate Period in 1573 BCE. Daphna Ben-Tor, who studied the
scarabs of Nehesy, concludes that those referring to the king's son Nehesy are different in style from those referring to Nehesy as a
king. She thus wonders whether the king's son Nehesy might be a different person from the better-known king of the same name. In
this situation, king Nehesy would still be an early 14th Dynasty ruler, however some of the attestations attributed to him would in
fact belong to a Hyksos prince. According to Manfred Bietak, Nehesy's 14th dynasty kingdom started during the late 13th Dynasty,
around or just after 1710 BCE, because of the slow disintegration of the 13th Dynasty. After this event, “no single ruler was able to
control the whole of Egypt” until Ahmose I captured this city. Nehesy's authority may have “encompassed the eastern Delta from
Tell el-Muqdam to Tell el-Habua (where his name occurs), but the universal practise of usurpation and quarrying of earlier
monuments complicates the picture. Given that the only examples that were certainly found at the sites where they once stood are
those from Tell el-Habua and Tell el-Daba, his kingdom may actually have been much smaller.” Nehesy seems to have been
remembered long after his death as several locations in the eastern Delta bore names such as “The mansion of Pinehsy” and “The
Place of the Asiatic Pinehsy”, Pinehsy being a late Egyptian rendering of Nehesy.
King's son. Despite a very short reign of around 6 months, Nehesy is the best attested ruler of the 14th
dynasty. According to Ryholt's latest reading of the Turin Canon, Nehesy is attested there on the first entry
of the ninth column (Gardiner, entry 8.1) and is the first king of the 14th dynasty whose name is preserved
on this king list. Paradoxically, Nehesy is also attested by numerous contemporary artefacts, foremost among
which are scarab seals. In addition, a fragmentary obelisk from the Temple of Seth in Raahu bears his name
together with the inscription “king's eldest son”. A seated statue, later usurped by Merenptah, is believed to
have originally belonged to Nehesy. It is inscribed with “Seth, Lord of Avaris” (who was the only God
worshipped by King Apopi) and was found in Tell el Muqdam. Nehesy is also attested by two relief
fragments inscribed with the names of the king, which were unearthed in Tell el-Dab'a in the mid 1980s.
Finally, two further stelae are known from Tell-Habuwa (ancient Tjaru): one bearing Nehesy's birth name,
the other one the throne of the king Aahsere. Thanks to these stelae it was possible to connect the name
Nehesy with the throne name Aahsere (‘3-sḥ-R‘ “Ra's pavilion is large”). Before this discovery, Aasehre was
considered a Hyksos king. After Nehesy's death, the 14th dynasty continued to rule in the Delta region of
Lower Egypt with several ephemeral or short-lived rulers until 1680 BCE when the Hyksos 15th Dynasty
ruled the Delta. The average duration of the reigns of the 14th dynasty between the 11th King and the 45th
and last King, must be about 3 months (=[1689 - 1680]/[45 - 10] x 12 months).
TABLE 61
Dynasty 13 Reign
Hotepibre 1753 - Dynasty 14 Length Reign
-1741 1 [Yakobamu] [Sekhaenre] [10 years] 1750-1740
2 [Ya‘ammu] [Nubwoserre] [ 2 years] 1740-1738
3 [Qareḫ] [Khawoserre] [ 3 years] 1738-1735
4 [‘Ammu] [Ahotepre] [ 5 years] 1735-1730
Sobekhotep III 1705-1701 5 [Sheshi] [Maaibre] [33 years] 1730-1697
Neferhotep I 1701 - 6 Nehesy Aasehre [6 m.] 3 d. 1697-1697
7 [-] Khakherewre [6 m.] 3 d. 1697-1696
8 [-] Nebefawre 1 year 6 m. 15 d. 1696-1695
9 [-] Sehebre [3 years] 1 d. 1695-1692
-1690 10 [-] Merdjefare [3 years] 1692-1689
Sobekhotep IV 1690 - 11 [-] Sewadjkare 1 year 1689-1688
12 [-] Nebdjefare 1 year 1688-1687
13 [-] Webenre [6 m.] 1687-1687
14 [-] [.........] [1 year] 1687-1686
15 [-] [...]djefare 4 m. 1686-1686
16 [-] [...Jwebenre 3 m. 1686-1686
17 [-] Awibre 1 m.? 18 d. 1686-1686
18 [-] Heribre 1 m.? 29 d. 1686-1686
19 [-] Nebsenre 5 m. 20 d. 1686-1685
20 [-] [.........] 21-24 d. 1685-1685
21 [-] Sekheperenre 2 m. 1-5 d. 1685-1685
22 [-] Djedkherewre 2 m. 5 d. 1685-1685
23 [-] Sankhibre 19 d. 1685-1685
24 [-] Nefertumre 18 d. 1685-1685
25 [-] Sekhem[...]re [2 m.] 1685-1685
1685-1680
-1681 45 [-] [-] [2 m.] 1680-1680
Sobekhotep V 1681-1679 Dynasty 15
Sobekhotep VI 1679-1676 1 Yaqob-Her? Merwoserre 1680 -
Ibiaw 1676-1665 -1660
Aya 1665-1652 2 Šemqen? ? 1660-1654
Ini I 1652-1650 3 ‘Aper-‘Anati? ? 1654 -
Sewadjtu 1650-1647
Ined 1647-1644
Hori 1644-1639 -1641
Sobekhotep VII 1639-1637 4 Sakar-Her? Aritashef? 1641 -
Ini II 1637-1633 -1633
Neferhotep II 1633-1629 5 Khyan? Sewoserenre 1633 -
? 1629 -
? -1615 -1613
Sobekhotep VIII 1615-1600 6 Apopi Nebkhepeshre 40 years 1613 -
Sobekhotep IX 1600-1589
? -1572 Aawoserre -1573
Dynasty 17 Dynasty 16
98
The chronology of the 16th dynasty (1572-1530) is conjectural (Dodson, Hilton: 2010, 16-117) because
some kings could have belonged to the end of the 13th dynasty (Dessoudeix: 2008, 169-177,226-235), which
may have also included the kings of the Abydos Dynasty (Vandersleyen: 1995, 660-662). The capital of the
16th dynasty must have been Edfu because the only architectural remains of this dynasty were found in this
city while the capital of the 13th dynasty was Thebes. The chronology of the 14th dynasty (1750-1680) is
controversial, because Sheshi and Yaqob-her may have belonged to the beginning of the 15th dynasty. The
chronology of the 13th dynasty is uncertain because the position of the first 35 kings is approximate and the
last 15 kings are not identifiable in the present state of documentation. It is assumed that the 17th dynasty
(1572-1530) was a continuation of the 13th dynasty which was itself a continuation of the 12th Dynasty
(1975-1778). This succession of dynasties makes it possible to frame the 13th dynasty between the end of the
12th dynasty in 1778 BCE and the beginning of the 17th dynasty in 1572 BCE. Although the reigns of the
13th dynasty are determined with a margin of error of several years, the synchronisms with the Hyksos
dynasties (highlighted in grey) are consistent with historical documents that mention some of these kings.
The chronology of the 13th dynasty is difficult to verify because it has little synchronism with the other
chronologies of the period. As most reigns have an average duration of 4 years (= [1778 – 1572]/50)
probably because this dynasty was a gerontocracy consisting of all the king's brothers succeeding each other
on the throne (instead of the traditional father/son succession), the few kings who left inscriptions or
monuments are those who reigned for around ten years or more. Among the fifty or so kings of the 13th
dynasty, only four can be dated by synchronisms: 1) Hotepibre (c. 1753-1741), 2) Neferhotep I (c. 1701-
1690) I, 3) Sobekhotep VIII (1616-1600) and 4) Sobekhotep IX (1600-1589):
1) The reign of Sa-Hornedjheritef Hotepibre having provided several prestigious relics he must have
exceeded the average by 4 years. These relics included some objects in carved hippopotamus ivory, the
remains of a throne decorated with bronze goat heads, and especially an ancient Egyptian ceremonial
mace made of gold, silver and ivory, a gift from the pharaoh Hotepibre (c. 1753-1741), who was a
contemporary of Immeya (c. 1750-1725), a king of Ebla. Immeya was most likely buried in the so-
called “Tomb of the Lord of the Goats”, dated around 1750-1700 by stratigraphy, in the royal necropolis
of the western palace at Ebla, as suggested by a silver cup bearing an inscription in his name. Assuming
that, it is likely that the funerary equipment found in the tomb belonged to Immeya too. Immeya also
appears as the sender of a letter to a king, which was also found at Ebla (Matthiae: 2010, 217-218).
According to the biblical text, Joseph was established vizier of an (anonymous) pharaoh for a period of
about 14 years (1758-1744), which suggests that this pharaoh must have been Hotepibre. Ryholt is the
only Egyptologist to date the reign of Hotepibre (1791-1788) but his chronological reconstruction is not
based on any synchronism. The two synchronisms (Immeya and Joseph) with the reign of Hotepibre are
concordant to date this reign between 1760 and 1740 BCE.
2) Khasekhemre Neferhotep I's relative chronological position is secured thanks to the Turin king list as
well as contemporary attestations. He was the successor of Sobekhotep III and predecessor of
Sobekhotep IV. On the other hand, the absolute chronological position of Neferhotep I is debated, with
Ryholt and Baker seeing him respectively as the 26th and 27th pharaoh of the 13th Dynasty while
Detlef Franke and Jürgen von Beckerath contend that he was only the 22nd ruler. Similarly, the absolute
dating of Neferhotep's reign varies by as much as 40 years between the scholars, with Kim Ryholt
dating the beginning of his reign c.1740 BCE and Thomas Schneider c.1700 BCE. Ryholt is the only
Egyptologist who has published a book to explain in detail how he calculated the chronology of the
Second Intermediate Period including the reign of Neferhotep I109. For the internal chronology of the
13th Dynasty, Ryholt relied partly on the Turin king-list (TC) and partly on dates preserved in
contemporary sources (Ryholt: 1997, 190-251). From the latter group, only dates within the first regnal
year and the highest attested dates are mentioned, since only these aid in establishing the reign lengths
of the individual kings. The dates within the first regnal year help to narrow the accession date of the
109
Neferhotep I is known from a relatively high number of objects found over a large area, from Byblos to the north to the Egyptian
fortresses of Buhen and Mirgissa in Lower Nubia to the south through all parts of Egypt, especially in the southern portion of Upper
Egypt. A single attestation is known from Lower Egypt, a scarab from Tell el-Yahudiya. Other attestations include over 60 scarab
seals, 2 cylinder-seals, a statue from Elephantine, and 11 rock inscriptions from Wadi el Shatt el-Rigal, Sehel Island, Konosso and
Philae.The inscriptions record the members of Neferhotep's family as well as two high officials serving him "The royal acquaintance
Nebankh" and the "Treasurer Senebi". Two stelae are known from Abydos one of which, usurped from king Wegaf and dated to his
4th regnal year, forbids the construction of tombs on the sacred processional way of Wepwawet. Two naoses housing two statues
each of Neferhotep, as well as a pedestal bearing Neferhotep's and Sobekhotep IV's cartouches, have been found in Karnak. There are
also a few attestations from the Faiyum region where the capital of Egypt was located at the time, in particular a statuette of the king
dedicated to Sobek and Horus of Shedet. Inscriptions from Aswan indicate that Neferhotep I had at least two children, named
Haankhef and Kemi like his parents, with a woman called Senebsen. Despite this, Neferhotep I named his brother Sahathor as
coregent in the last months of his reign and when both Sahathor and Neferhotep I died around the same time, they were succeeded by
another brother, Sobekhotep IV. Sobekhotep IV, whose reign marks the apex of the 13th Dynasty, mentions on a stela (Cairo JE
51911) that was placed in the temple of Amun at Karnak that he was born in Thebes.
kings within the civil year. According to the historical sequence of kings of Byblos is known110 (Nigro:
2009, 159-175), Neferhotep I was a contemporary of Yantin-Ammu (1695-1670) since there was found
at Byblos a relief showing Pharaoh Neferhotep I opposite Prince Yantin-(‘Ammu) of Byblos. In
addition, in a letter dated the 9th year of Zimri-Lim (1680-1667), the name Yantin-Ammu appears as
the donor of a gold cup (Ryholt: 1997, 87-88).
3) Sekhemre-Sewasertawy Sobekhotep VIII, credited with a 16-year reign in the Turin Canon, was long
classified as the third king of the 16th dynasty because the name of the king preceding him in this royal
list is Djehuty (with a 3-year reign). A study of all the inscriptions of this king, however, shows that his
title is typical of the 13th dynasty (Labarta: 2017, 279-288). Moreover, the architectural arrangements
he made in a temple courtyard in Karnak show that he resided in Thebes, the capital of the 13th dynasty
(the few monuments of the 16th dynasty have been found in Edfu). Only the Egyptian kings dated their
reign, which was not the case for the Hyksos kings111. Finally, Ryholt, who dates this reign from 1645-
1629 BCE, classifies it as the 16th dynasty because he assumes that this dynasty preceded the 17th,
Firstly, the kings attested by inscriptions cannot be eliminated from the Egyptian chronology. The only
contemporary attestation of Sobekhotep VIII is a stela found inside the third pylon at Karnak, dated to
the epagomenal, or final five days, of Sobekhotep VIII's 4th regnal year, and describes his attitude at a
temple, probably that of Karnak, during a massive Nile flood:
(Life to) the son of Ra Sobekhotep, beloved of the great inundation, given life for ever. Year 4, 4th
month of Shemu, the epagomenal days, under the auspices of the person of this god, living for ever.
His person went to the hall of this temple in order to see the great inundation. His person came to
the hall of this temple which was full of water. Then his person waded there [...]
According to John Baines, who studied the stela in detail, by coming to the temple as it was flooded, the
king re-enacted the Egyptian story of the creation of the world in imitating the actions of the creator god
Amun-Ra, to which the stela iconography closely associates the king, ordering the waters to recede from
around the primordial mount (Baines: 1974, 39-54). The level of this exceptional flooding of the Nile
and its date therefore had a major symbolic significance for Sobekhotep VIII. The precise date of this
exceptional flood: IV Shemu 30(+1-5), Year 4 (just before I Akhet 1, Year 5), allows us to date this
event precisely because the flooding of the Nile began in mid-July and reached its peak towards the end
of September. The equivalence I Akhet 1 = 30 September is satisfied from 1617 to 1613 BCE, which
makes it possible to attribute a reign to Sobekhotep VIII (1616-1600) within 4 years. It is interesting to
note that the date of the flood almost corresponds to the year of birth of Moses in 1613 BCE. If Moses
was born in the year of this exceptional flood, which had meant the coming of a new era of the world
for the Egyptians, then Sobekhotep VIII must have reigned from 1616 to 1600 BCE.
4) Maare Sobekhotep IX is only attested by three scarabs and his reign is to be placed at the end of the
13th dynasty (Vandersleyen: 1995, 130). A recent study of Egyptian chronology questioned the order of
the 13th Dynasty kings (obtained by Ryholt) and eliminated Sobekhotep VIII and IX because these two
kings could no longer be inserted into this new chronology. This study was based mainly on two
hypotheses: Dynasty 13 was followed by Dynasties 16-17 and the order of classification is defined
according to the antiquity and etymology of throne names (Siesse: 2015, 75-97). The first hypothesis is
false since Dynasty 16 (1572-1530) did not precede Dynasty 17 (1572-1530) but took place in parallel.
The second hypothesis on the antiquity of verbs of the causative form in -re is interesting but remains
hazardous, as the author of the study acknowledges. Firstly, the kings attested by inscriptions (Ryholt:
1997, 455) cannot be eliminated from the Egyptian chronology (it can be assumed that Sobekhotep IX
succeeded Sobekhotep VIII).
TABLE 62
Dyn. Throne name Birth name Reign Dyn. Birth name Reign
13 Sekhemre-khutawy Sobekhotep I 1778-1775
Khaankhre Sobekhotep II 1737-1733 14 1750 -
Sekhemre-sewadjtawy Sobekhotep III 1705-1701 Sheshi 1730-1697
Khaneferre Sobekhotep IV 1690-1681
Merhotepre Sobekhotep V 1681-1679
Khahotepre Sobekhotep VI 1679-1676 15 Yaqob-Her? 1680-1660
Merkawre Sobekhotep VII 1639-1637 Sakar-Her? 1641-1633
Sekhemre-seworsertawy Sobekhotep VIII 1615-1600 Apopi 1613 -
Maare Sobekhotep IX 1600 - -1573
110
1) Abi-Shemu I (Tomb I), 2) Ip-Shemu-Abi (Tomb II), 3) Yakin-el (Tomb III), a contemporary of Sa Hornedjherkef Hotepibre,
and 4) Ilimi-Yapi (Tomb IV). Yatin-Ammu's father was Yakin (Gerstenblith: 1983, 101-107).
111
Regnal years on steles are typical of Egyptian dynasties (13 and 17) but are absent among Hyksos dynasties 14, 15 and 16 (except
Year 33 of Apopi), consequently, Sobekhotep VIII (year 4), Nebiriau I (IV Akhet 30, year 1) and Senwosret IV (II Shemu 1, year 1)
could have belonged to the 13th dynasty rather than the 16th dynasty.
100
The Theban Desert Road Survey in 1991 uncovered the ancient Alamat Tal Road between Thebes and
Gebel Tjauti where a rock was found that dates a heliacal rising of Sothis. Now called the Gebel Tjauti Rock
Inscription 11, it was published in 2002 by John C. Darnell. The text reads:
Regnal year 11, second month of the Shemu season, day 20: Observing the (heliacal) rising of Sothis.
The date is II šmw 20, in the 11th year of an unnamed king. Darnell notes: The inscription does not
record the day of celebration of the heliacal rising of Sothis but rather purports to record the actual sighting
(m33) itself. Take at face value, the text suggests an observation at Gebel Tjauti, probably from the top of the
plateau112 a few minutes climb up, considering the somewhat limited view of the horizon from the level of
the inscription shelf. The observation would appear to have been made from a spot jut to the south of the
point where the ‘Alamat Tal Road reaches the top of the high desert, an area in which there are a number of
huts and many small cairns, all surrounded by considerable amounts of Middle Kingdom, Second
Intermediate Period, and early Eighteen Dynasty pottery. This is the only observation of the heliacal rising of
Sothis/Sirius from ancient Egypt for which one may say that the location of the point of observation, at least
down to the minutes, and the elevation, approximately 450 meters above sea level, are known (...) Taking
into account that for each additional degree of latitude southward the heliacal rising of Sothis occurs one day
earlier, the II šmw 20 heliacal rising of Sothis recorded at Gebel Tjauti would appear to have occurred during
the first decade of the sixteenth century B.C. Preliminary calculations using P. V. Neugebauer’s tables and
assuming an arcus visionis of 8.4 suggest that the Gebel Tjauti observation occurred on the morning of 11
July during one of the years from 1593 to 1590 B.C. (Darnell, Darnell: 2002, 49-52). The name of the king is
unknown, but his reign must have covered the period 1600-1590 BCE, according to astronomy, which makes
it possible to attribute this reign to Sobekhotep IX, the successor of Sobekhotep VIII. According to this
chronology, the 11th year of Sobekhotep IX's reign coincided with the 23rd year of Apopi's reign.
As Egyptologists consider carbon-14 dating to be an absolute dating (with a margin of error of less than
20 years), it is interesting to compare these dates with those obtained by astronomy on the reign of Ibni-addu
(1685-1665), a king of Hazor.
IBNI-ADDU KING OF HAZOR (1685-1665): ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY VERSUS 14C DATING
The city of Hazor also had important trade exchanges with Egypt which makes it possible to date this
period of exchange through both stratigraphy and the study of the style of pottery in these two cities.
Consequently, the Egyptian chronology of this period is linked with the Mesopotamian chronology via the
chronology of the city of Hazor. This is particularly true for the history of “Greater Hazor”. It stands to
reason that the Hazor that corresponded with Mari is “Greater Hazor”, consisting of the acropolis and the
lower city. This Hazor, which began in MB IIA–B, approximately 1720–1680 BCE, reached its peak —even
if its rise was rapid— only in MB IIB, some 20–30 years later, around 1680 BCE at the earliest. The Hazor
that corresponded with Mari was thus Hazor Stratum XVI (= 3), and not XVII (= 4), during which
construction of the city’s fortifications had only begun. As shown, the Tell el-Dab‘a chronology indicates
that the MB IIA–B transition occurred not before the end of the 18th century113, around 1700 BCE.
Since the strata of the “Greater Hazor” (of Ibni-Addu) are dated around -1700 +/- 20 by carbon-14 and
those of the corresponding Egyptian period are dated around -1710 +/- 20. The reign of Neferhotep I (1721-
1710) was dated through radiocarbon measurements by Rolf Kraus.
King of Egypt Reign (14C) King of Hazor Reign (14C) King of Babylon Reign
Neferhotep I 1721–1710 Ibni-Addu 1700–1680 Hammurabi 1697–1654
The conventional Egyptian chronology of this period is in agreement to +/- 20 years with the carbon-14
dating and as the stratigraphic dating of the objects found at Hazor gives the same value of -1700 +/- 20.
112
Perched on the summit of the highest peak in the Hills of Thebes, the Djebel Thoth, there is a fascinating temple dedicated to the
falcon god Horus by the 11th-dynasty king Mentuhotep III (1994-1982). Djebel Thoth must have been an important landmark in the
sacred landscape of Luxor area: the Montu temple at Medamud, for example, was evidently facing it. The summit of Djebel Thoth
would have been a marvellous spot from which to observe the heliacal rising of the star, well above the haze of the riverbanks, and
we would tend to agree with this idea since, nearby, in the scarps of Djebel Tjauti, a report of the observation of the heliacal rising of
Sirius was inscribed on the rocks (Shaltout, Belmonte: 2005, 1-26).
113
Weinstein suggests dating this transition somewhat earlier, to between 1730–1710 BCE “in the late third and the early fourth
quarters of the 18th century B.C.” The difference between these two sets of dates is not crucial (a date -1710 +/- 20 may be chosen).
This is therefore when building activity started at Hazor, even before the earliest mention of Hazor in the Mari documents. One may
argue that Stratum F at Tell el-Dab‘a, equated with the beginnings of MB Hazor, is wrongly dated and that it is in fact earlier. The
response to this would be that there is a consensus among Egyptologists with regard to the date of this phase and that any margin of
error would be negligible. Stratum F is dated relatively late in the 13th dynasty, the date of which is also generally agreed upon. Even
a slightly earlier date for this stratum would have no significant bearing. In summary, the synchronisms between Hammurabi, king of
Babylon, Ibni-Addu, king of Hazor, and Neferhotep I, king of Egypt, make it necessary to date all these reigns in the same period.
However, the reign of Ibni-Addu (1685-1665) is 15 years lower than the reign measured by radiocarbon
(1700-1680) and that of Neferhotep I (1701-1690) is 20 years lower (1721-1710). How can such a
discrepancy be explained? Neferhotep I is considered the 27th Egyptian King of Dynasty 13. This dynasty is
difficult to date because the duration of many reigns is not precisely known114. The material culture of the
Canaanite settlers in the eastern Delta displays a distinct similarity to the material culture found at Middle
Bronze Age sites in Palestine (Ben-Tor: 2007, 1-3) and studies of scarabs of the Middle Bronze period from
both regions argue for the southern Levant as the place of origin of the Second Intermediate Period of
foreign rulers in Egypt115 (Ben-Tor: 2009, 1-7). If the first Hyksos (14th dynasty) began to reign around 1750
BCE, they must have already arrived in Egypt more than a century earlier and, according to Egyptian
records, most of them came from Palestine, which was called Retjenu in Egyptian. Assuming an exact
contemporaneity, the death of Abi-Shemu had to have occurred around 1790 BCE (death of Amenemhat III).
The living conditions of Byblos Rulers at the time of these Egyptian kings being quite similar one can
assume a period of about 25 years of reign, because 8 reigns lasted 197 years. The following chronological
reconstruction shows that the agreement between reign dates is satisfied at +/- 10 years (the parts highlighted
indicate a synchronism between two reigns and the parts highlighted in sky blue indicate that the dates of the
reigns were anchored on astronomical dates):
TABLE 63
King of Mari Reign King of Byblos Reign King of Egypt Reign ∆0
Abi-Shemu 1815-1790 [25] Amenemhat III 1836-1791 45
Ip-Shemu-Abi 1790 - [25] Amenemhat IV 1791-1782 9
Neferusobek 1782-1778 4
Dynasty 13
Sobekhotep I 1778-1775 3
-1765 Sonbef 1775-1771 4
Yakin-el 1765 - [25]
? -1740 Hotepibre Sihorne. 1753-1741 [12]
? Ilimi-yapi ? 1740 - [20] [-] Sewadjkare 1741-1737 [4]
Yaggid-Lîm 1738 - Sobekhotep II 1737-1733 [4]
Hor I 1732-1728 [4]
Amenemhat VII 1728-1724 [4]
-1720 Wegaf 1724-1722 2
-1716 Yakin-[ilu II?] 1720 - [25] Khendjer 1722-1717 5
Yahdun-Lîm 1716 - Imyremeshaw 1717-1713 [4]
Antef V 1713-1709 [4]
Seth 1709-1705 [4]
-1699 Sobekhotep III 1705-1701 4
Sûmû-Yamam 1699-1697 -1695 Neferhotep I 1701 - 11
Samsî-Addu 1697-1687 Yantin-Ammu 1695 - [25] -1690
Yasmah-Addu 1687-1680 Sobekhotep IV 1690-1681 9
Zimrî-Lîm 1680 - Sobekhotep V 1681-1679 2
Sobekhotep VI 1679-1676 3
-1667 -1670 Ibiaw 1676 - 11
Yapaḫ-šumu-Abu 1667-1664 ‘Egel? 1670 - -1665
The chronology anchored on the dates obtained by astronomy and that deduced from radiocarbon dating
(14C), are in good agreement, radiocarbon dates being only about 15 to 20 years higher.
Previous results show the following: the 14C dating of the reign of Ibni-Addu (1700-1680) is 15 years
higher than the astronomical dating (1685–1665), similarly the 14C dating of the reign of Neferhotep I is
1721–1710 BCE according to Krauss, but 1742–1731 BCE according to Ryholt (Dessoudeix: 2008, 197) and
therefore 20-40 years higher than the astronomical dating. The reigns anchored on absolute dates obtained by
astronomy, Neferhotep I (1701–1690) and Ibni-Addu (1685–1665), provide a better chronological agreement
and show that 14C dates are on average 20 years higher that dates from astronomy.
114
However, Egyptologists use two chronological data to calculate these durations: Dynasty 13 began immediately after Dynasty 12,
and given the number of reigns over this period, the average duration of the reigns is estimated to be about 4 years. Moreover, the
chronology of Dynasty 13 can be anchored on absolute dates because the reigns of Senwosret III and Amenemhat III, include well-
identified astronomical phenomena. According to dating Middle Bronze Age strata, dated +/- 30 years (Bietak: 1991, 27-72), the first
part of the 13th Dynasty could be dated 1750-1650 (MB IIB), the 15th Dynasty in 1650-1550 (MB IIC) and the beginning of the 18th
Dynasty in 1550 BCE (LB AI).
115
The site of Tell el-Dab‘a, identified with ancient Avaris, was recently identified with the New Kingdom port of Prw Nfr, when
two possible harbours were found (Bader: 2011, 137-158).
102
REIGN OF NEFERHOTEP I (1701-1690) THROUGH ASTRONOMY
The absolute chronology based on astronomical dates (highlighted in midnight blue) is used to evaluate
Ryholt's chronology. The king of Hazor Ibni-Addu reigned for at least 20 years (from 1685 to 1665 BCE)
but probably his reign had begun several years before (around 1700 BCE?). The kings of Byblos reigned for
an average of 25 years, but the variations of these reigns are not known. It is however possible to verify that
Neferhotep I and Yantin-Ammu were contemporaries from 1694 to 1690 BCE, and that the 9th year of
Zimrî-Lîm, in 1671 BCE, corresponds to Year 24 of Yantin-Ammu.
TABLE 64
BCE N° Assyrian eponym [A] [B] [C] [D] [E] [F] [G]
1706 172 Abī-šagiš 10 6 11 21 15 [A] Yahdun-Lîm king of Mari
173 Ṭab-ṣilla-Aššur 7 [B] Šamšî-Adad I king of Assyria n°39
1705 174 Iddin-Aššur 11 8 12 22 16 [C] Sîn-muballiṭ king of Babylon
1704 175 Namiya 12 9 13 23 17 1 [D] Rîm-Sîn I king of Larsa
1703 176 Ahu-šarri 13 10 14 24 18 2 [F] Yakin-[ilu II?] king of Byblos
1702 177 Dadaya 14 11 15 25 19 3 [G] Sobekhotep III king of Egypt
1701 178 Ennam-[Aššur?] 15 12 16 26 20 4
1700 179 [?]-Aššur 16 13 17 27 21 1 [G] Neferhotep I king of Egypt
1699 180 Atānum 17 14 18 28 22 2
1698 181 Aššur-taklāku 1 15 19 29 23 3 [A] Sumu-Yamam king of Mari
1697 182 Haya-malik 2 16 20 30 24 4 [C] Accession of Hammurabi
1696 183 Šalim-Aššur 1 17 1 31 25 5 [A] Samsî-Addu king of Mari
1695 184 Šalim-Aššur 2 18 2 32 26 6 [C] Hammurabi king of Babylon
1694 185 Ennam-Aššur 3 19 3 33 1 7 [F] Yantin-Ammu king of Byblos
1693 186 Suen-muballiṭ 4 20 4 34 2 8
1692 187 Rēš-Šamaš 5 21 5 35 3 9
1691 188 Ibni-Adad 6 22 6 36 4 10
1690 189 Aššur-imittī 7 23 7 37 5 11
1689 190 Ilī-ellatī 8 24 8 38 6 1 [G] Sobekhotep IV king of Egypt
1688 191 Rigmānum 9 25 9 39 7 2
1687 192 Ikūn-pīya 10 26 10 40 8 3
1686 193 Ašqūdum 1 27 11 41 9 4 [A] Yasmah-Addu king of Mari
1685 194 Aššur-malik 2 28 12 42 10 5 [E] Ibni-Addu king of Hazor
1684 195 Aḫiyaya* 3 29 13 43 1 11 6
1683 196 Awīliya 4 30 14 44 2 12 7
1682 197 Nimar-Suen 5 31 15 45 3 13 8
1681 198 Adad-bāni 6 32 16 46 4 14 9
1680 199 Ṭab-ṣilli-Aššur 7 33 17 47 5 15 1 [G] Sobekhotep V king of Egypt
1679 200 Ennam-Aššur 1 1 18 48 6 16 2 [A] Zimrî-Lîm king of Mari
1678 201 Aššur-emūqī 2 2 19 49 7 17 1 [B] Išme-Dagan I king of Assyria n°40
1677 202 Abu-šalim 3 3 20 50 8 18 2 [G] Sobekhotep VI king of Egypt
1676 203 Puṣṣānum 4 4 21 51 9 19 3
1675 204 Ikūn-pī-Ištar 5 5 22 52 10 20 1 [G] Ibiaw king of Egypt
1674 205 Ahiyaya 6 6 23 53 11 21 2
1673 206 Bēliya 7 7 24 54 12 22 3
207 Ilī-bāni 8 (34 Assyrian years = 33 Babylonian years)
1672 208 Aššur-taklāku 8 9 25 55 13 23 4
1671 208 Sassāpum 9 10 26 56 14 24 5
1670 209 Ahu-waqar 10 11 27 57 15 25 6
1669 210 Kizurum 11 1 28 58 16 1 7 [B] Aššur-dugul king of Assyria n°41
1668 211 Dādiya 12 2 29 59 17 2 8
1667 212 Yam-aha? 13 3 30 60 18 3 9 Larsa is annexed by Hammurabi
1666 213 Adad-bāni 1 4 31 [1] 19 4 10 [A] Yâpaḫ-Šumu-Abu king of Mari
1665 214 Ennam-Aššur 2 5 32 [2] 20 5 11 [E] Mari is destroyed by Hammurabi
1664 215 Attaya 3 6 33 [3] 6 [B] accession of 6 Assyrian kings n°42-47
It is interesting to compare the chronology of the Egyptian dynasties, from 13 to 18, with that of the
three Hyksos dynasties, from 15 to 16, as well as the synchronisms (highlighted) with the chronology of the
biblical characters who lived during these periods. Chronology of that period:
TABLE 65
Dynasty 12 reign Birth name Throne name
Amenemhat I 1975-1946 197 Abram (builds Tanis) 1963-1957 215 430
Senwosret I 1946-1901
Amenemhat II 1901-1863
Senwosret II 1863-1855
Senwosret III 1855-1836
Amenemhat III 1836-1791
Amenemhat IV 1791-1782
Neferusobek 1782-1778
Dynasty 13 reign
Sobekhotep I 1778-1775
Sonbef 1775-1771
[-] Nerikare 1771-1765
Amenemhat V 1765-1761
Qemaw 1761-1757
Amenemhat VI 1757-1753 Joseph (vizier) 1758 -
Nebnuni 1753-1753 Jacob’s family (enters Egypt) -1748
Iufeni 1753-1753 Dynasty 14 (Hyksos) reign
Sihornedjher. Hotepibre 1753-1741 Yakobamu Sekhaenre 1750-1740 70
[-] Sewadjkare 1741-1739 Ya‘ammu Nubwoserre 1740 -
[-] Nedjemibre 1739-1739 -1738
Sobekhotep II 1739-1733 Qareḫ Khawoserre 1738-1735
Reniseneb 1733-1733 ‘Ammu Ahotepre 1735-1733
Hor I 1733-1729 Sheshi Maibre 1733 -
Amenemhat VII 1729-1722
Wegaf 1722-1720
Khendjer 1720-1716
Imyremeshaw 1716-1712
Antef V 1712-1708
Seth 1708-1705
Sobekhotep III 1705-1701 -1700
Neferhotep I 1701 - Nehesy Aasehre 1700-1699
[-] Khakherure 1699-1698
[-] Nebefawre 1698-1696
-1690 [-] Sehebre 1696-1693
Sihathor 1690-1690 [-] Merdjefare 1693-1690
Sobekhotep IV 1690 - [-] Sewadjkare 1690-1689
[-] Nebdjefare 1689-1688
[-] Webenre 1688-1688
[-] [.........] 1688-1687
[-] [...]djefare 1687-1687
[-] [...Jwebenre 1687-1687
[-] Awibre 1687-1687
[-] Heribre 1687-1687
[-] Nebsenre 1687-1686
[-] [.........] 1686-1686
[-] Sekheperenre 1686-1686
[-] Djedkherewre 1686-1686
[-] Sankhibre 1686-1686
[-] Nefertumre 1686-1686
[-] Sekhem[...]re 1686-1686
-1681 ? 1686-1681
Sobekhotep V 1681-1679 Dynasty 15 (Great Hyksos) reign
Sobekhotep VI 1679-1676 400 Yaqob-Her Merwoserre 1681 - 108
Ibiaw 1676-1665 -Baal
Aya 1665-1652 -1660
Ini I 1652-1650 Semqen? ? 1660 -
Sewadjtu 1650-1647 -1654
Ined 1647-1644 ‘Aper-Anati? ? 1654 -
Hori 1644-1639 -1641
Sobekhotep VII 1639-1637 Sakar-Her? Aritashef? 1641 -
Ini II 1637-1633 -1633
Neferhotep II 1633-1629 Khyan? Sewoserenre 1633 -
104
? 1629 - -1613
Sobekhotep VIII 1615-1600 Apopi Aawoserre 1613 -
Sobekhotep IX 1600-1589 -1573
? -1572 Khamudi? Hotepibre? 1573-1572 40
Dynasty 17 reign Dynasty 16 (Theban Kings) reign
Rahotep 1572-1568 Djehuty Sekhemresementawy 1572-1568
Sobekemsaf I 1568-1566 Neferhotep III Sekhemresankhtawy 1568-1567
Sobekemsaf II 1566-1556 Mentuhotepi Sankhenre 1567-1566
Antef VI 1556-1554 Nebiriau I* Sewadjenre 1566 -
Antef VII 1555 - -1550
Nebiriau II - 1550-1550
- Semenre 1550-1549
-1545 Bebiankh Sewoserenre 1549 -
Antef VIII 1545-1545
Ahmose Senakhtenre 1545-1544
Seqenenre Taa 1544 - -1537
- Sekhemreshedwaset 1537-1537
Dedumose I Djedhotepre 1537-1534
(Hyksos’ war) -1533 Dedumose II Djedneferre 1534-1533
Kamose 1533 - Mentuemsaf Djedankhre 1533-1532 40
Mentuhotep VI Merankhre 1532-1531
-1530 Senwosret IV* Seneferibre 1531-1530
Dynasty 18 reign
Ahmose 1530-1505 Moses (Exodus) -
Amenhotep I 1505 - -1493
-1484 Joshua (Canaan) 1493-1488
1484-1283
Dynasty 19
Ramses II (Year 400) 1283-1279
CHRONOLOGY OF THE 12TH DYNASTY (1975-1778) THROUGH ASTRONOMY

Astronomical phenomena during the reigns of Senwosret I, Senwosret III and Amenemhat III, make it
possible to anchor the 12th Dynasty on absolute dates (highlighted in light blue):
TABLE 66
14
Dynasty 12 Throne name TC Man. Date + Reign C dating D1 ∆1
1 Amenemhat I Sehetepibre [2]9 16 30 1975-1946 1975-1948 0 27
2 Senwosret I Kheparkare 45 46 45 1946-1901 1948-1903 +2 45
3 Amenemhat II Nebkaure 3[8] 38 35 1901-1863 1903-1870 +2 33
4 Senwosret II Khakheperre 19 48 8 1863-1855 1870-1863 +7 7
5 Senwosret III Khakaure 3[-] 8 19 1855-1836 1863-1825 +8 38
6 Amenemhat III Nimaatre 45 8 46 1836-1791 1825-1781 -11 45
7 Amenemhat IV Maakhakaure 9 y. 3 m. 27 d. 9 1791-1782 1781-1773 -10 8
8 Neferusobek Sobekkare 3 y. 10 m. 24 d. 3 1782-1778 1773-1770 -9 3
Total duration: 213 y. 1 m. 17 d. 195 y. 197 years 205 years
Dynasty 13
1 Sobekhotep I Sekhemrekhutawy 4 1778-1775
2 Sonbef Sekhemkare 5 1775-1771
The order of the 12th Dynasty reigns, according to the Turin Canon, is correct, as well as that given by
the carbon-14 dating, but there are two errors (highlighted in orange) in the durations in the Turin Canon and
one in the carbon-14 dating (Vandersleyen: 1995, 43-118,660). Senwosret II's highest recorded regnal year
was his 8th, based on Stela Cairo JE 59485. In contrast, half of Manetho's reign periods is wrong. In his
article dedicated to the orientation of the temple of Amun-Ra at Karnak (Thebes), Luc Gabolde gave the
precise measurement of the azimuth of the sunrise at winter solstice based on the axis of the temple: 116° 43'
7,35" (Gabolde: 2010, 243-256). Due to the precession of equinoxes, the azimuth of sunrise has changed
slowly over time. If one observes the sun at the horizon, its path on azimuth moves through three peculiar
positions easy to observe: the sunrise at summer solstice, the sunrise at winter solstice and the culmination of
the sun at summer (or winter) solstice on the celestial meridian. To highlight this special and unique day, the
Egyptians built a central corridor in several of their temples to let sunrays cross these temples on this very
day of the year, as in the Senwosret I’s temple in the Karnak Temple Complex on the day of winter solstice.
Given that the construction of the temple of Senwosret I was decided at the time of his accession, the
direction of the corridor has been set at this time which fixes the first year of his reign in 1946 BCE.
FIG. 14
FIG. 15
106
The azimuth of sunrise (altitude 0°) seen from
Senwosret I's temple in Karnak (longitude 32°39’
East, latitude 25°42’ North) at winter solstice on 5
January116 was -63.264° or 116.736° (opposite
picture)117, which is the value (116° 43' 48") for the
axis of the temple: 116° 43' 7,35". Given that the
azimuth of Sirius at its heliacal rising was 111° 7',
that star was not used to align the temple. The dating
of a temple through the orientation of its axis is
sometimes difficult because some new temples were
built with the same axis as some ancient temples. For
example, the North Temple of Hatshepsut (dated
around 1465 BCE) has exactly the same axis as
Senwosret I's temple. The archaic temple built on
Thoth Hill, that was restored by Mentuhotep III
(1994-1982), has an axis of 118.5°, which would
imply (with a shift of 0.3' per year) a date around
2500 BCE (at the time of Sneferu). In the case of the
temple of Senwosret I, the exact correspondence
between the physical measurement of the temple axis
and the astronomical simulation, to within 40"
(which is less than the resolution limit of the eye,
which is 1'), leads to the conclusion that the temple
axis was aligned with the winter solstice. This
alignment is however unusual because the pyramids
of Giza were all aligned at the time of the summer solstice which is easier to observe because it is higher
above the horizon than the winter solstice.
REIGNS OF SENWOSRET I (1946-1901) AND AMENEMHAT III (1901-1863) THROUGH ASTRONOMY
It is interesting to note that the El-Lahun papyri, which describe numerous lunar festivals that occurred
during the 19 years of Senwosret III's reign, followed by the 45 years of Amenemhat III (consequently the
10-year co-regency between Amenemhat I and Senwosret I was not considered). These papyri show the 1st
lunar days psdntyw (full moon) which were dated in the Egyptian civil calendar (highlighted in brown
green). In addition, we notice that some Wag festivals are dated 16 days after the 1st lunar day (full moon)
which corresponds astronomically to the 1st lunar crescent. The document can be dated precisely thanks to
the heliacal rising of Sirius dated IV Peret 16, Year 7 of Senwosret III (Von Bomhard: 1999, 41) since,
according to astronomy, it took place in Thebes on 11 July 1848 BCE118. We can see that few Wag feasts
have been dated (highlighted in blue) and they all fall on the 17th lunar day. For example, on the 10th month
(II Shemu) of the 18th year of Senwosret III (in 1837 BCE) the 1st lunar day (psdntyw) was dated II Shemu
1, corresponding to 22 August in the Egyptian civil calendar (the full moon is dated astronomically on 21
August in 1837 BCE and the next new moon on 5 September) and the Wag festival was dated II Shemu 17,
corresponding to 7 September (the 1st lunar crescent is dated astronomically on 6 September). The chart
checks that the first lunar cycle of 25 years (beginning on I Akhet 1) coincided with the full moon of 30
November 1857 BCE.
Colour Event
Lunar day 1 (psdntyw) dated in the Egyptian civil calendar (full moon)
* Lunar day 1 shifted one day compared to the theoretical cycle
Heliacal rising of Sirius dated in the Egyptian civil calendar (IV Peret 16, Year 7 of Senwosret III)
Wag festival dated in the Egyptian civil calendar (1st lunar crescent)
New astronomical moon (last day of the month, just before the 1st lunar crescent)
116
The winter solstice occurs on 21 September in our Gregorian calendar, but in the astronomical Julian calendar, it occurred on 5
January around 1950 BCE (http://www.imcce.fr/fr/grandpublic/temps/saisons.html).
117
According to the astronomy software http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Yourhorizon this sunrise occurred around 4:46 UTC
(Universal Time) which corresponds to 6:65 in local time.
118
The heliacal rising of Sirius was on 11 July at Thebes (Longitude 32°39' East, Latitude 25°42' North) with an arcus visionis 8.5° (
http://www.imcce.fr/langues/fr/grandpublic/phenomenes/sothis/index.html. This heliacal rising of Sirius is dated between 1849 and
1846 BCE with: IV Peret 16 = 11 July. In addition, the Sothic rising, dated 11 July 1848 BCE, coincided with the 1st lunar crescent,
which may have been a remarkable event (IV Peret 1 coincided with the full moon of 26 June 1848 BCE.
TABLE 67
AKHET PERET SHEMU
King BCE I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV 5
1857 Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov.
Senwosret II 1856 7 1 1 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25 25
1855 8 2 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14
Senwosret III 1854 1 3 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3
1853 2 4 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 23
1852 3 5 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 12 12
1851 4 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1
1850 5 7 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 22 22 21 21 20
1849 6 8 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 10
1848 7 9 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 16 30 29 29 28
1847 8 10 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18
1846 9 11 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 9 9 8 8 7
1845 10 12 2 1 1 30 30 29 28 28 27 27 27 26
1844 11 13 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 16 15
1843 12 14 10 9 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4
1842 13 15 29 28 28 27 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24
1841 14 16 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 14 13
1840 15 17 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2
1839 16 18 26 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 22 22 21
1838 17 19 16 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11
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
AKHET PERET SHEMU
Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov.
108
In the Babylonian lunar calendar, the 1st day corresponds to the new astronomical moon plus 1 and in
the Egyptian lunar calendar, the 1st day119 corresponds to the full astronomical moon plus 1 (the dates of the
new astronomical moons are in white on a black background).
TABLE 68
JUNE JULY (Julian calendar)
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 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
SIMANU DUMUZU (Babylonian calendar)
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 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
III PERET IV PERET (Egyptian civil calendar)
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 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1
III PERET IV PERET (Egyptian lunar calendar)
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 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 1 2

AUGUST SEPTEMBER (Julian calendar)
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 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 26
ABU ULULU (Babylonian calendar)
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 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
I SHEMU II SHEMU (Egyptian civil calendar) III SHEMU
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 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 6
I SHEMU II SHEMU (Egyptian lunar calendar) II SHEMU
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 27 28 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

AUGUST SEPTEMBER (Julian calendar)
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 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
ABU (Babylonian calendar) ULULU
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 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
I SHEMU II SHEMU (Egyptian civil calendar) III SHEMU
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 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 6
I SHEMU II SHEMU (Egyptian lunar calendar)
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 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
The chronology of the 12th dynasty is therefore anchored on several astronomical dates. Although the
reigns of Senwosret I and Amenemhat III are rooted in astronomical dates, it is not possible to determine
when each year of reign began because it was fixed by the date of accession, which we do not know. By
convention it will be assumed that each year of Egyptian reign began on 1 January. This uncertainty about
the beginnings of Egyptian reigns can cause a gap of several months with Babylonian reigns, which began on
the 1st Nisanu (c. April) of each year.
Synchronisms with the other chronologies are few, there are only three: 1) the end of the reign of
Amenemhet III with the end of the reign of Abi-Shemu, 2) the beginning of the reign of Amenemhet IV with
the beginning of the reign of Ip-Shemu-Abi and 3) the end of the reign of Shulgi and the return of Abraham
from Egypt. Abraham's stay in Egypt (1963-1957) and the end of Chedorlaomer (1990-1954), a powerful
king of Elam, are precisely dated in the Bible.
TABLE 69
King of Sumer Reign Abraham Lifespan King of Egypt Reign
Shulgi (Ur III) 2002 - 2038 - Dynasty 12
-1954 1963-1957 Amenemhat I 1975 -
Amar-Sîn 1954-1945 -1946
Šu-Sîn 1945-1936 Senwosret I 1946 -
Ibbi-Sîn 1936-1912 -1901
Išbi-Erra (Isin) 1923-1890 Amenemhat II 1901 -
Šū-ilîšu 1890-1880 -1863 -1863
Iddin-Dagān 1880-1859 Senwosret II 1863-1855
Išme-Dagān 1859-1840 Senwosret III 1855 -
Lipit-Eštar 1840-1829 King of Byblos Reign -1836
Ur-Ninurta 1829-1801 Abi-Shemu 1815-1790 Amenemhat III 1836-1791
Sumu-abum (Babylon) 1799-1785 Ip-Shemu-Abi 1790 - Amenemhat IV 1791-1782
Sumu-la-Il 1785-1749 -1765 Neferusobek 1782-1778
119
As the cities of Thebes and Babylon are located respectively at longitudes of 32°39'and 44°25', the 1st lunar crescent was
perceived with a 48-minute delay in Egypt (48 mn = [44° - 32°]x[24x60mn/360°]).
DATING OF THE MEETING BETWEEN ABRAHAM AND AMENEMHET I IN 1963 BCE
The pharaoh whom Abraham met, according to the biblical account, is anonymous but the chronology
makes it possible to identify him. For example, the genealogy120 of Moses' ancestors can be accurately
calculated (DiTommaso: 1998, 81-91):
Terah (2168-1963)
I
Nahor II (2098-1923?) / Abram (2038-1863) / Saraï (2028-1901)
I
Ismael (1952-1815) / Isaac (1938-1758) / (6 sons with Keturah)
I
Jacob-Israel (1878-1731)
I
(1st) Reuben (1794-1654) / (3rd) Levi (1792-1655) / (12th) Joseph (1788-1678)
I
Kohath (1731-1598)
I
Amram (1691-1554)
I
Miriam (1623-1493) / Aaron (1616-1493) / Moses (1613-1493)
When Abram arrived in Canaan, in 1963 BCE, he was 75 years old (Gn 12:4-5) and because Hagar was
pregnant with Ishmael 10 years later (16:3-4), the War of Nine Kings (Gn 14:1-17), which occurred a year
before, must be dated in 1954 BCE. During that war, Abram shot Chedorlaomer the king of Elam. According
to this chronological reconstruction, Abraham arrived in Egypt in 1963 BCE, in Year 14 of Amenemhat I, he
founded Tanis in Year 20 of Amenemhat I and he killed Chedorlaomer in Year 23 of Amenemhat I.
TABLE 70
BCE [A] bis [B] [C] bis [D] [A] = Egypt, [B] = Sumer, [C] = Elam, [D] = Canaan,
1968 9 34 22 70 [A] Amenemhat I King of Egypt
1967 10 35 23 1 71 [B] Shulgi King of Ur, King of the four corners
1966 11 36 24 2 72 [C] Kudur-Lagamar King of Elam and King of Akkad
1965 12 37 25 3 73 [D] Age of Abraham (who dwelt in Ur)
1964 13 38 26 4 74
1963 14 1 39 27 5 75 [D] Abraham arrived in Canaan, Hebron is founded, shortly after
1962 15 2 40 28 6 76 Abraham went into Egypt (Gn 12:4-13:1,18)
1961 16 3 41 29 7 77
1960 17 4 42 30 8 78
1959 18 5 43 31 9 79
1958 19 6 44 32 10 80
1957 20 7 45 33 11 81 [A] Tanis is founded 7 years after Hebron (Nb 13:22)
1956 21 1 46 34 12 82 [A] Senwosret I Coregent of Egypt
1955 22 2 47 35 13 83 [C] Revolt of Transjordan kings against Kudur-Lagamar (Gn 14:4)
1954 23 3 48 36 14 84 [C] Kudur-Lagamar shot by Abraham (Gn 14:5-17)
1953 24 4 1 1 1 85 [A] Nesu-Montu, Army General of Amenemhat I, commemorated his
1952 25 5 2 2 2 86 military activities along the eastern border of the Delta in Year 24
1951 26 6 3 3 3 87 [D] Hagar ran away to Egypt (Gn 16:6-7,16, 21:17-21)
1950 27 7 4 4 4 88 [B] Amar-Sîn King of Ur, King of the four corners
1949 28 8 5 5 5 89 [C] Tazitta I Man of Anšan / Ebarat I Man of Šimaški
1948 29 9 6 6 6 90
1947 30 10 7 7 7 91
1946 1 8 8 8 92 [A] Senwosret I King of Egypt
1945 2 9 9 9 93
1944 3 1 10 10 94 [B] Šu-Sîn King of Ur, King of the four corners
1943 4 2 11 11 95
1942 5 3 12 12 96
1941 6 4 13 13 97
1940 7 5 14 98 [C] Ebarat I Man of Šimaški (new Elamite dynasty)
1939 8 6 15 99 [D] Sodom (Shutum) is destroyed. At the age of 99 Abraham returned to
1938 9 7 16 100 settle near Egypt (Gn 17:1; 20:1). Birth of Isaac (Gn 21:5).
120
Terah (Gn 11:25-26,32); Abram (Gn 16:16, 17:17; 25:7); Saraï (Gn 23:1); Ishmael (Gn 16:16, 25:17); Isaac (Gn 25:26, 35:28);
Jacob (Gn 47:9,28); Levi (Ex 6:16); Joseph (Gn 41:46-50, 50:22-23); Kohath (Ex 6:18); Amram (Ex 6:20); Miriam (Nb 20:1,29, Ex
2:1-4); Aaron (Ex 7:7; Nb 33:39); Moses (Dt 34:7).
110
Chedorlaomer’s reign is dated only by the synchronisms with the Mesopotamian reigns (Gertoux: 2021,
1-71). According to the Sumerian king list WB 444 , Chedorlaomer, written ku-du7[-ur-la-ga-mar], the third
and last king of the dynasty of Awan I, reigned for 36 years as king of Akkad (1990-1954).
TABLE 71
AKKAD reign LAGASH II reign GUTIUM reign ELAM AWAN I/II
Šar-kalli-šarri 2126 - Lugal-ušumgal 2130-2120 Nibia 2123-2120 3 Epir-mupi 2140 -
Puzur-Mama 2120 - Inkišuš 2120-2114 6 -2015
-2114 -2110 Sarlagab 2114-2108 6 ? 2115 -
-2101 Ur-Ningirsu I 2110 - Šulme 2108-2102 6
Irgigi, Imi 2101 - -2100 Silulumeš 2102-2096 6
Nuhum Ilulu -2098 Pirig-me 2100-2090 Inimabakeš 2096-2091 5 -2090
Dudu 2098-2077 Lu-Ba’u 2090-2080 Igeša’uš 2091-2085 6 Ḫielu 2090 -
Šu-Turul 2077 - Lu-Gula 2080-2070 Jarlabag 2085-2070 15
Inim-kug 2070 - Ibate 2070-2067 3
Jarla 2067-2064 3
-2062 Kurum 2064-2063 1 -2065
URUK IV -2060 Ḫabil-kîn 2063-2060 3 Ḫita 2065 -
Ur-nigina 2062 - Ur-Ba’u 2060 - Lā’arābum 2060-2058 2
Irarum 2058-2056 2
-2055 Ibranum 2056-2055 1
Ur-gigira 2055 - Ḫablum 2055-2053 2
-2049 -2048 Puzur-Sîn 2053-2046 7
Kuda 2049-2043 Gudea 2048 - Jarlaganda 2046 - 7
Puzur-ilî 2043-2038 -2039 -2040
Ur-Utu 2038-2032 Si’um 2039-2032 7 Puzur- 2040 -
Utu-hegal (V) 2032 - Tirigan 2032-2032 0 Inšušinak
-2028 (vassal of 2032 -
Ur-Ningirsu II 2028-2023 Awan)
Ur-gar 2023-2022
-2020 Ur-abba 2022-2021
UR III Ur-Mama 2021-2020 ELAM SIMAŠKI
Ur-Namma 2020 - Nam-mahazi 2020-2017 [unammed] 2020 -
-2002 (Ur's vassal) -2005
Šulgi 2002 - Ur-Ninsuna 1996-1986 [-]-lu 2005-1990
Ur-Ninkimara 1986-1976 -1990 Kudu[r-Laga 1990 -
-1954 Lu-kirilaza 1976-1954 Girnamme 1990-1955 -mar] -1954
Amar-Sîn 1954-1945 Ir-Nanna 1954 - Tazitta I 1955-1940
Šu-Sîn 1945-1936 -1933 Ebarat I 1955-1935
Ibbi-Sîn 1936 - Ur-Ningirsu 1933-1928 Tazitta II 1935-1925
Ur-Nanše 1928-1923 Lurrakluḫḫan 1925 -
ISIN -1915
-1912 Išbi-Erra 1923 - Kindadu 1915-1905
-1890 Tan.Ruḫuratir 1890-1875
TABLE 72
SUMER AKKAD ELAM
URUK IV AWAN II
Ur-nigina 2062-2055 Ḫita 2065 - 11th
Ur-gigira 2055-2049
Kuda 2049-2043
Puzur-ilî 2043-2038 -2040
Ur-Utu 2038-2032 Puzur-Inšušinak 2040 - 12th
Utu-hegal URUK V 2032-2021
UR III AWAN I -2020 SIMAŠKI
Ur-Namma 2020-2002 2020-2005 1st [unammed] 2020 -
Šulgi 2002 - [-]-lu 2005-1990 2nd -1990
-1954 Kudu[r-Laga.] 1990-1954 3rd 1st Girnamme 1990-1955
Amar-Sîn 1954-1945 2nd Tazitta I 1955-1940
Šu-Sîn 1945-1936 3rd Ebarat I 1955-1935
Ibbi-Sîn 1936 - ISIN 4th Tazitta II 1935-1925
Išbi-Erra 1923 - 5th Lurrakluḫḫan 1925-1915
-1912 6th Kindadu 1915-1905
-1890 7th Idadu I 1905-1890
Šû-ilîšu 1890-1880 8th Tan.Ruḫuratir 1890-1875
According to the biblical account, Chedorlaomer had already annexed the south of Canaan (Gn 14:4-7)
when he came to this region, around the town of Kadesh (modern ‘Ain Qedeis), presumably to continue his
expansion towards the north of Egypt, which must have worried Amenemhat I. This event, mentioned only
in the Bible, explains some surprising choices of this pharaoh. The fact that Amenemhet I moved north to
establish a new capital remains incomprehensible to Egyptologists. Dieter Arnold and Peter Jánosi explain:
The massive rock-cut tombs of the officials in the surrounding limestone cliffs were also left unfinished.
One deduces from these circumstances that the king and his court must have abandoned the Theban
residence and its cemetery. Highly unusual, this move is comparable only to the New Kingdom ruler
Akhenaten’s later relocation from Thebes to a new residence at Amarna. The rejection of the tombs, in
particular, presents a mystery (...) What was the impetus for the move north? One possible explanation
is that Sinai tribes and Libyan Bedouins threatened the Nile Delta from the east and west, respectively.
The vulnerability of Egypt’s border is a common topic in the ancient literature, but there is no direct
evidence of significant invasions. Construction of the Wall of the Ruler, which was built by Amenemhat
to secure the country’s eastern border, perhaps following an older fortification named the Way of Horus,
suggests that the king’s situation may have been dangerous indeed (...) The defense of Lower Egypt
against foreign invasions possibly required the king’s presence and immediate response —a convincing
reason for him to reside in the north (...) Having abandoned his Theban tomb for unknown reasons, the
king seems to have begun a second monument in the north (...) This second tomb, which was a pyramid,
poses another mystery of the king’s reign. The name of the pyramid: “the place of desire is glorious”
(...) A papyrus fragment found at Lisht mentions “the place of desire is glorious” and suggests that a
pyramid administration existed in the king’s 14th regnal year (...) The removal of an entire pyramid
complex and the construction of a new one was a huge technical undertaking and must have had a
compelling motive, which is sadly lost to history (Arnold, Jánosi: 2015, 54-57).
It is obvious that Sinai tribes were not able to threaten seriously the powerful Egyptian Empire, but in
contrast the powerful king of Elam could. In fact, the ambitious project of Chedorlaomer, the powerful king
of Elam, must have worried Amenemhat I because the south of Canaan was a great source of supply from the
5th Dynasty (Husson, Valbelle: 1992, 66-67), including labour121 (Menu: 2010, 171-183). It is noteworthy
that the absence of taxes on goods favoured trade122. The arrival of Chedorlaomer in northern Egypt and his
military interventions caused great concern as can be seen on the stela of Nesu-Montu dated Year 24 of
Amenemhat I (1953 BCE):
Year 24, IV Shemu (December), under the majesty of (...) Amenemhat (...) I [Nesu-Montu] trained the
troops in ambush, and at daybreak the landing stage surrendered. When I grasped the tip of the bow, I
led the battle for the two lands. I was victorious, my arms taking [so much spoil] that I had to leave
[some] on the ground. I destroyed the foes, I overthrew the enemies of my lord, there being none other
who will the like. As for the words of this tablet, it is the revelation of that which happened by my arm,
it is that which I did in reality. There is no boast, there is no lie therein. I destroyed the Asiatic nomads,
the Bedouin, I overthrew their strongholds, I creeping like the desert fox on the desert margin. I came
and went through their streets without an equal therein by command of Montu (Arnold: 1991, 5-48).
There are two anomalies in the text of that stela: Nesu-Montu commemorated his military activities
along the eastern border of the Delta without mentioning any enemy, and because it reads: his arms took [so
much spoil] that he had to leave [some] on the ground, the abundant spoil took in that area in northern Sinai
(inhabited only by Bedouins) must have actually come from the taking of a rich city in the south of Canaan.
There are a number of sources attesting to the difficulties Amenemhat faced in the region of the Nile delta123.
Finally, the above-quoted stela of Nesu-Montu and an important biographical text in the tomb of the
nomarch Khnumholtep I at Beni Hasan describe actual military activities on the eastern border of the Delta.
121
The Annals of Amenemhat II read: Number of prisoners brought from these foreign lands (Sinai): 1,554 Asiatics. For example,
Sinuhe as high-ranking administrator of Amenemhat I bore the title: Nobleman and overlord, governor and canal-cutter, sovereign
among the Asiatics (ity m styw). Whereas kings of Ur III regarded the kings of Syria as vassals, the Egyptian royal administration
regarded the kings of Canaan mainly as providers under the aegis of the crown and was only charging a toll for foreigners (Menu:
2004, 196-202,224).
122
International trade was often placed under the control of palaces or temples. These organisms managed surplus, produced and
acquired revenues by levying taxes. After the fall of the empire of Ur III, merchants became more independent. To promote trade
towards the Hittite kingdom, Assyrian king Erishu I (1873-1834) cancelled taxes on metals, seed and wool. Result of these measures,
the trade route between Ashur and Kanesh became one of the major trade routes of the time (Grandpierre: 2010: 248-251).
123
A literary source “The Prophecy of Neferty” says in its description of the chaos before the coming of the new king: Foes have
risen in the East, Asiatics have come down to Egypt. Later, in describing the results of Amenemhat's takeover, the text refers at
length to his consolidation of the eastern and western Delta frontiers. The building of an eastern “Wall of the Ruler” is mentioned
specifically. This east Delta fortification wall reappears in the Story of Sinuhe and must therefore have actually existed.
Archaeologically, a fortress built by Amenemhat I at the western frontier, in the Wadi Natrun, has been located and thus corroborates
the claim of newly established frontier fortifications, while substantial building activities in the eastern Delta, including the erection
of a palace, show the importance that the king assigned to this area.
112
This situation necessitated prolonged operations in the area. The course of action that finally led to success
was, apparently, a combination of punitive campaigns and the establishment of Egyptian border forts124. The
Egyptian relationship to Canaan as characterized by Sinuhe appears neither militaristic nor imperialistic; the
overall tone is one of detente125. While Egypt had the power to control much of the Levant, and certainly
believed it had the right to do so, the impression is of reasonably pacific and detached relations, in which
Egypt mostly ignored policies in the southern Levant. Although hostile actions occurred, as illustrated by the
Nesu-Montu stela, they may have been no more than peacekeeping forays, or campaigns for the purpose of
“showing the flag,” and need not necessarily represent normal Egyptian policy. Thus, despite the fictional
nature of the story, and the clear propagandistic elements within it, the Tale of Sinuhe supports the
impression that Relations between Egypt and the Southern Levant at the beginning of the 12th Dynasty were
essentially peaceful, although under control. Despite this rather peaceful approach to their Semitic
neighbours dwelling outside Egyptian territory, the Egyptians appear to have controlled rather stringently
who and what crossed their borders126. For a long time, archaeologists have wondered about this astonishing
information about the “permission for travellers to move inside Egypt” because it was unique. However,
124
Amenemhat first step in reorganizing the country after the Delta and its neighbours were subjugated was therefore the transfer of
his residence from Thebes to the north. He founded Itj-tawy as the new capital of Egypt, instead of Memphis, probably about Year 20
of his reign (1957 BCE) when his son Senwosret was established as co-regent. However, the period of military activity seems to have
stopped after Year 24 since the story of Sinuhe describes peaceful relations between Egypt and Syria (Cohen: 2002, 36-41). The only
Egyptian military actions at this time were the conquest of Nubia which began in Year 29 of Amenemhat I in 1948 BCE and ended in
Year 18 of Senwosret I in 1929 BCE (Vandersleyen: 1995, 52-67). The Tale of Sinuhe, a fictional account composed during the reign
of Senwosret I, indicates an increased interest in the southern Levant and its inhabitants. There is a clear shift of focus in Egyptian
perspective between the literature of Amenemhat I and that dating to the reign of Senwosret I. Instead of focusing on an Asiatic
presence and threat within the borders of Egypt, Sinuhe presents a picture of Asiatics in the southern Levant itself. However, it must
be remembered that, like the rest of the 12th Dynasty literature, the Tale of Sinuhe has a propagandistic slant in which the
glorification of Senwosret I and his reign is juxtaposed with the traditional theme of the pharaoh's subjugation of all foreign peoples.
The Egypto-Canaanite relationship portrayed in the story continues to be one of détente and reasonably cordial relations. Several
elements in the story relate peaceful encounters between Egyptians and Canaanites. When Sinuhe leaves Egypt and travels out into
the desert, he is saved by a group of Bedouins, the chief of whom is described as: a man who had been in Egypt. Furthermore, the
Bedouin chief is said to recognize Sinuhe; thus, not only had the chief been in Egypt (and consequently spoke Egyptian), but he may
also have been at the capital, which is where Sinuhe, as a courtier, would have resided prior to his flight. This incident may indicate
that, despite the bellicose rhetoric about smiting and crushing sand-dwellers and the like, there were comparatively peaceful relations
between the Egyptians and their Asiatic neighbours. Further evidence for this can even be found in some of the propagandistic
elements of the story. In his hymns of praise for Senwosret I, Sinuhe again juxtaposes the traditional view of the pharaoh as
conqueror with a glimpse into the “Realpolitik” of the times. The praise for the pharaoh is effusive: He will conquer southern lands,
while ignoring [being able to ignore the] northern lands, though made to smite Asiatics and tread on Sand-farers. However, Sinuhe
then admonishes Amusinenshi, the local chieftain (somewhere in Syria) with whom he resides while in exile, to: Write to him
[Senwosret I] and let him know your name. Do not cast a spell against his Majesty, for he will not fail to do good to a foreign land
which is loyal to him. The implications of this advice are clear. Although Senwosret I would have no compunctions about waging
war against Canaan, Egypt would be just as happy to deal with these territories in a diplomatic way, albeit as lesser and subordinate
powers. Although this statement, as part of an encomium, must be read as a propagandistic element within the text, the very fact that
Sinuhe urges Amusinenshi to establish diplomatic ties speaks more for semi-peaceful relations than for bellicose Egyptian expansion
(Amusinenshi means “Asiatic-son-of-Ensi” in Egyptian. “Ensi” is a Sumerian word meaning “Lord”, the equivalent of the Akkadian
word “bel”, the Canaanite “baal” and the Egyptian “neb” or “ḥeqa”, accordingly Amusinenshi was a Canaanite ruler (in Syria)
whose father came likely from Sumer). Other events in the tale attest to the conducting of diplomatic activity between Egypt and the
Levant. Sinuhe says that the: envoy who came north or went south to the residence stayed with me. I let everybody stay with me.
However, the destination of the messengers is unknown; it seems more probable that the diplomatic relations alluded to were
between Egypt and other regions further north in Syria, since Sinuhe implies that the messengers only passed through his territory. In
any event, a relatively peaceful situation in Canaan may be implied by the fact that the messengers were able to pass unhindered
through the Levant on their way north. Finally, on his return to Egypt, Sinuhe's advice to the king includes a recommendation for
diplomatic overtures to individuals presumably located somewhere in the southern Levant, or at least in regions with which Sinuhe
had contact while residing in Yaa. He said: May now Your Majesty command that there be brought to you Me[l]ki chief from Qedem
(Lebanon), the mountain chiefs from out of Keshu, and the Menus (harbours?) chief from the lands of the Fenkhu (Phoenicia). They
are rulers with renowned names who grew up in love of you. I need not even mention Retjenu (Palestine), for it belongs to you like
your hunting hounds. Egypt is clearly the dominant power in any relationship that might develop, and Sinuhe's statement does, in
fact, indicate that Retjenu was subordinate, or at least not hostile to Egypt.
125
Nowhere in the story is there any mention of military activity in Canaan, whereas diplomatic activity or other informal relations of
some type are alluded to more than once. In fact, the reference to letter writing between the pharaoh and the petty rulers of the Levant
strongly evokes the flavour of the later Amarna Age, characterized by a relatively peaceable relationship between a stronger power
and its weaker neighbours.
126
Movement between Egypt and Canaan was almost certainly monitored by the: Walls of the Ruler which were made to repel the
Asiatics and crush the Sand-farers. In Sinuhe's own account of his flight from Egypt, he: crouched in a bush for fear of being seen by
the guard on duty upon the wall, who would have, presumably, prevented him from leaving, or at least detained him. This same
border control is in evidence during Sinuhe's return, despite his changed status from fugitive to prodigal expatriate. When he obeys
the summons to return to Egypt, Sinuhe proceeds south, where he: halted at the Horus-ways. The commander in charge of the
garrison sent a message to the residence to let it be known. Then his majesty sent a trusted overseer of the royal domains with whom
were loaded ships, bearing royal gifts for the Asiatics who had come with me to escort me to Horus-ways. In other words, Sinuhe
was detained at the official border crossing, where he had to wait for proper clearance to arrive from the capital before he was
allowed into Egypt.
several hieroglyphic inscriptions have been found by archaeologists, which clearly show that the portable
clay tokens regularly found in the archives127 were presumably used as laisser-passer, a practice which
implies the presence of checkpoints along the roads. As a matter of fact, it has been surmised that the
watching posts already in use in the 4th/5th dynasty were manned by Egyptian to check the move along the
roads towards the main Egyptian cities (Förster, Riemer: 2013, 283-294).
The only period of real conflict with the northern Delta is restricted to a brief period from Year 20 to
Year 24 of Amenemhat I. Although this was not a war, but rather a police raid at the borders of Egypt, the
intervention of Nesu-Montu was the first serious incident between Egypt and Canaan. It is not a coincidence
that the oldest execration texts are dated from this period (20th century BCE). Execration rituals were
stylized magical actions aimed at thwarting or eradicating foes and were similar in nature to other protective
measures, such as apotropaic animal sacrifice or walking on depictions of enemies128. As a result, the
reaction of Amenemhat I, a mighty pharaoh of the 12th dynasty, is not mysterious, but on the contrary
entirely understandable. Indeed, Chedorlaomer had established a protectorate over the southern Palestine for
14 years in a wealthy area called Shutu[m] (Sodom) by Egyptians and this mighty king of Elam (Awan I)
had obviously intended to expand in the Egyptian Delta, which constituted a serious threat to Egypt.
The archaeological traces of Chedorlaomer are few because the capital of Awan dynasty has not yet
been found, but two elements prove that he was a very powerful king. In the Sumerian king lists, his name
(line 13 below) refers to him as the third and last king of Awan who reigned for 36 years as king of Akkad
(while Shulgi reigned as king of Sumer).
10 [mu xx. ì-a5 ]
[ ]
mu [ xx ì-a5 ]
ku-du7[-ur -la -ga -mar ] ⇒
mu 36[ ì-a5 ] ⇒
15 3 [lugal ]
mu-bi 356 [íb -a5 ]
a-wa-anki giš[tukul ba-a]n-sìg
nam lugal bi
The life-size head129 (opposite figure) of

an anonymous Elamite sovereign made of
arsenical copper is dated around 2000 BCE.
Its heavy-lidded eyes, prominent but
unexaggerated nose, full lips, and enlarged
ears all suggest a portrait of an actual person.
This head, cast almost solid, is extremely
heavy. A dowel hole at the base served to
join it to a body or other support, most likely
for display in a temple setting (Harper, Aruz,
Tallon: 1992: 94,176). At that time in
Mesopotamia, only kings and gods were
honoured by being represented by their own
statue, as their manufacture required highly
skilled artists and craftsmen (sculptors,
engravers, designers, foundries, etc.).
Moreover, as these objects were very
127
In Jebel Uweinat then near Bahariya and Dakhla (in 2007). El-Bahariya is a depression in Egypt and was called Djesdjes in
Egyptian during the Middle Kingdom. It is approximately 370 km south-west from Cairo. Several inscriptions found in Jebel
Uweinat mention Mentuhotep II (2045-1995).
128
Execration rites took place from at least early in the Old Kingdom through the Roman Period. Execration rites “bewitching” could
be aimed at political, preternatural, or personal enemies. The political and preternatural were often tied together. The Book of Felling
Apophis, for example, instructs that the rite would fell the enemies of Ra, Horus, and Pharaoh. Political rituals likely began as
attempts to deal with rebellious Egyptians, but soon included rebellious vassals and foreign enemies, and were almost always
directed toward potential problems as a type of proactive apotropaic measure. The victims of these rites were those who, whether
dead or alive, would in the future rebel, conspire rebellion, or think of speaking, sleeping, or dreaming rebelliously, or with ill-intent.
These vague enemies, as well as specific individuals, groups, or geographic locations, were named for things they might do in the
future (Muhlestein: 2008, 1-4), though some individuals presumably were included because of things they had already done. The
standardization of the texts, the concern with foreign entities, and the desire to protect the state, ruler, and divine, combined with the
knowledge of foreign politics, geography, and leaders that the texts demonstrate, all indicate that these were state-sponsored rites.
Thus various magical measures were taken to prevent chaotic forces from acting before they could even begin.
129
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Rogers Fund, 1947 (47.100.80).
114
expensive, they were generally small (about 50 cm high) and made of steatite (a fairly soft stone) such as that
of Iddin-ilum (1995-1990), king of Mari, or diorite (a very hard black stone) such as that of Gudea (2048-
2028) or Ur-Ningirsu II (2028-2023), kings of Lagash, or Puzur-Eshtar (1958-1933), king of Mari. Life-size
statues are very rare, moreover, only those intended for the gods were made of metal (copper, silver or gold).
There were only a few exceptions: the copper head of Sargon (2243-2187), powerful Amorite king, the
copper statues of Pepy I (2238-2195) and the statue of Amenemhat III (1836-1791), both powerful Egyptian
kings. Therefore, the large arsenical copper head implies that this powerful Elamite king was Chedorlaomer.
The Bible does not give the reason why Amenemhat I wanted to meet Abraham, it indicates only that he
had wanted to marry Sarai, the half-sister of Abraham. Amenemhat must have known about the existence of
the kingdom of Elam (Awan I) through the Mesopotamian merchants coming to Byblos130, however the
Egyptians never went to Canaan (and of course farther) from the 6th Dynasty to 12th Dynasty
(Vandersleyen: 1995, 28-30), because no Egyptian objects like scarabs, between Pepi II (2181-2127) and
Senwosret I (1946-1901), have been unearthed in Palestine131. Thus, Abraham was a person of distinction132
for Amenemhat because he came from Sumer (Shinar), which was little known by Egyptians. Furthermore,
he had information about Chedorlaomer that could be of outstanding importance to Amenemhat I.
Egyptologists do not believe that Abraham's journey took place so early because at the time (c. 2000
BCE) there was no commercial land route between Shinar (Sumer) and Egypt, but this statement is wrong
(Mazar: 1990, 105-108). There was a commercial land route between Sumer (Ur, Uruk) and Lebanon133
(Ugarit, Byblos) used by Babylonians merchants with their donkeys, then a commercial sea route between
Syria134 and Egypt (Heliopolis) used by Phoenicians with their ships and a commercial land route between
Egypt (Sinai) and Syria used by Bedouins with their camels (Gn 37:25). The long route followed by
Abraham (along the Euphrates) for completing his trip from Ur (Sumer) to Haran, then to Shechem and
finally to Tanis (Egypt), is in harmony with the historical context of that time135.
Several points show that Amenemhat I took the Elamite threat very seriously. He feared that, after
having annexed the south of Canaan (Sodom area), which was a wealthy area, Chedorlaomer would succeed
in annexing the Sinai and then northern Egypt (Delta). One must know that trade and diplomacy were closely
linked at that time. The main income of a king came from taxes levied on traveling merchants who benefited
in return of armed protection (provided by a contingent of about 300 to 600 soldiers) on the territory crossed.
To avoid being attacked by an enemy, several kings of a region (between 10 to 20)136 could forge alliances
with a great king in order to receive “international” protection in case of aggression. A great king could unite
a set of other great kings and thereby form a confederation of vassal kingdoms (which had to pay tribute to
130
Merchants were considered as reliable informants (sometimes also as spies) because they were eyewitnesses of what was
happening in many cities. As there was no mail service at that time, international merchants were also often used as messengers.
131
Some pharaohs, such as Mentuhotep II (2045-1994), were able to reach Sharuhen, a city north of the Sinai (Ward: 1961, 37-40).
132
The Bible gives very few details on the social position of Abraham when he came into Egypt, it says only that he had accumulated
goods and had acquired people in Haran (Gn 12:5) and then he founded the city of Hebron (Gn 13:18, 23:2; Nb 13:22), which entails
having many servants in his service.
133
For example, we know that Gilgamesh, a king of Uruk (2460-2400), and Sargon, the first king of Akkad (2243-2187), reached
Lebanon with its famous cedars (Epic of Gilgamesh III:9-12). At the time of Abraham there was also an important trade of tin, which
came from Elam to Carchemish (then to Aleppo and Ugarit) via Larsa and Ešnunna. Consequently, Abraham could have left Ur to go
to Carchemish with a caravan of 300 donkeys and 300 men (i.e. a crowd of around 1200-2000 people). When he arrived at Haran
“caravan city”, Abraham had to buy camels to continue his trip to the south of Canaan (Negeb) by the road called the King’s Road,
because some parts of that road crossed dry and hot regions (northern Arabia). When he arrived in Canaan, Abram broke camp and
journeyed toward the Negeb but afterward went down toward Egypt because of a famine (Gn 12:9-10). The way to Egypt is called
the “way to Shur” in the Bible (Gn 16:7, 20:1). Shur means “wall” in Hebrew (Gn 49:22), this could have a link with the “Walls of
the Ruler” built by Amenemhat I. Many scholars think that the “Ways of Horus (w3wt Ḥr)” was the actual name of that route
(Hoffmeier, Moshier: 2013, 485-510), which connected Egypt and Asia (the earliest occurrences date to the 5th dynasty). It had a
dual function, military and trade.
134
For example, the silver goblet from Ain Samiya, near Jericho (southern Canaan), dated c. 2100-2000 BCE was likely
manufactured in northern Syria from a Sumerian copy (Mazar: 1990, 167-171). Archaeology confirms that there was a trade route
from Uruk to Ugarit or Byblos along the Euphrates (Butterlin: 2003, 15-18,196-198). The first historical data about this international
trade comes from the archives of Mari (Michel: 1996, 385-426), which give numerous details about the Assyrian merchants who
travelled from Assur in Assyria to Kanesh (Kültepe) in Anatolia via Carkemish in Syria from the time of Erišu I (1783-1834). There
was a sea route on Euphrates. For example, AZInum (c. 1680 BCE) managed a flotilla of 15 boats on Euphrates with a capacity of
300 gur each (1 gur = 253 l), each boat was manoeuvered by 6 men.
135
We know for example that Assyrian merchants needed around three months for their travels from Assur to Kanesh (c. 1500 km)
with a caravan of 300 donkeys (each donkey could carriy a load of 90 kg) and 300 men (for security reasons). Long-distance trade
therefore existed at the time of Abraham. Two points indirectly confirm the biblical narrative about Abraham and Chedorlaomer:
although the Egyptians never went into Canaan before Amenemhat I, the Execration Texts contain a very well informed report about
many Canaanite cities (who was the informant?), in addition, the spelling of these Canaanite cities is not Canaanite but their ending is
in Old Babylonian characterized by mimation (ending in -um/-im), a language spoken in Ur which disappeared after the collapse of
this famous city (Huehnergard: 2000, 258-259; Vacin: 2009, 59-60).
136
According to a letter from Mari (c. 1680 BCE): There is no king who alone is powerful — 10 or 15 kings follow Hammurabi, the
lord of Babylon, as many for Rim-Sin, the lord of Larsa, as many for Ibal-pi-El of Eshnunna, and as many for Amut-pi-El of Qatna,
[but] 20 kings follow Yarim-lim, the Lord of Yamhad [Aleppo].
their great king). These big confederations functioned as empires. If a vassal king was breaking his alliance
with the “emperor” (by stopping to pay tribute), he was attacked by an army provided by the other kings of
the confederation (with a total of 10,000 troops in case of war, if 20 kings had given a garrison of 500
soldiers). This is apparently what happened with the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah137 who rebelled and were
therefore attacked by an expeditionary force (of around 2000 soldiers because there were four kings) led by
Chedorlaomer (Gn 14:1-5). Amenemhat I had likely feared that Chedorlaomer would forge alliances with the
nomarchs of northern Egypt and consequently that the Delta region would become a vassal kingdom of
Elam. To thwart this annexation, he undertook radical and unprecedented measures (in 1957 BCE) which
cannot be explained otherwise: he moved his capital in the south (Thebes) to the north of Egypt (Itj-tawy) to
better control the area and he named his son co-regent (Senwosret) to ensure his succession in case of
assassination (which moreover happened). Finally, he established checkpoints on the “Ways of Horus”, this
line of fortifications was called the “Walls of the Ruler” (Hoffmeier: 2006, 1-20). Given this exceptional
context the arrival of Abram in Egypt was perceived by Amenemhat as providential because this eminent
character, who was an “international merchant” coming from Shinar, knew well therefore Chedorlaomer and
his expansionism in southern Canaan. As Abram had planned to return to this region, Amenemhat made a
covenant with him so that he became an ally on his return to Canaan. According to the biblical account, he
gave him a lot of money and gold, but especially a military escort consisting of 318 “trained men” (Gn
14:14), that is a crack regiment, so that he could build alliances with some Canaanite kings. The Bible states
that among the many Egyptian menservants that Abram received (Gn 12:16) there were “318 trained men
generated in his household” (Gn 14:14). These “dedicated men138” were not born in Ur because training an
army was the privilege of kings, furthermore, the word “elite men” appears for the first time in the Egyptian
execration texts (c. 1950 BCE), it was never used in Mesopotamia. In addition, if Abram had entered in
Egypt with an army of 318 trained men, he would not have been allowed to pass the check points along the
“Way of Shur” to Egypt because he would have been stopped immediately by the military commanders of
the “Ways of Horus” who had a control mission of travellers. The term ḥanik “trained man” is unique in the
whole Bible, but it appears in the execration texts to designate Egyptian elite warriors (Pritchard: 1969, 328-
329). Amenemhat therefore had considered Abram as a potential ally (against Chedorlaomer) who could
secure the south of Palestine on his return to Shechem (Gn 12:6). Thus, when he came back to Canaan,
Abram was considered as a mighty chief of God (Gn 23:6) or a king of God (LXX) who had authority to
associate with other chiefs to form a confederation. Amenemhat I made a strange strategic choice but it is
explained by the fact that Egypt had never yet intervened in Canaan and until then Egypt had no standing
army but only some warriors or mercenaries recruited as needed139. The first Egyptian military campaign in
Canaan, as far as Shechem, was led by General Khu-Sobek (Peet: 1914, 3-22) under Senwosret III (1855-
1836). This police operation, rather than military, did not have the same scale as that led by Abram since
there were only 60 soldiers involved:
His majesty went down the river to overthrow the Bedouins of Asia (mntw stt). His majesty arrived at a
region whose name is Sechem (written Skmm as in Execration Texts). His majesty made a prosperous
return to the Residence of Life, Prosperity, and Health (his palace). Then Sechem fell together with the
vile land of Retjenu (Palestine), while I was acting as rearguard. Then the army soldiers came to close
quarters to fight with the Asiatics (‘3mw). I struck one down and caused his arms to be taken away by
two soldiers, without pausing from the combat. My face pressed on, and I did not turn my back on the
Asiatic. As Senwosret (III) lives, I have spoken truly. Then the king placed a staff of electrum in my
hand, and a bow and dagger worked with electrum together with handle. Member of the elite, high
official, steadfast, easy of bearing, loyal to the one who makes him advance, one to whom the lord of
the Two Lands gave his splendour (...) He (Khu-Sobek) says: I was born in Year 27 under the majesty
of the dual-king Nubkaura (Amenemhat II), justified. When the majesty of the dual-king Khakaura
(Senwosret III) arose in the double crown on the Horus throne of the living, his majesty caused me to
adopt the profession of warrior of the guard, by the side of his majesty among the 6 men of the
Residence. Behold, I was skilled at his side, and his majesty caused me to be made a Follower of the
Ruler, and 60 men were given to me. When his majesty went upstream to overthrow the desert Nubians,
137
In the Execration Texts that region is called Upper Shutu[m] and Lower Shutu[m].
138
The phrase hanîkaîw yelîdê betô literally means “dedicated men born ones of his house” or “borne of/ brought forth” (Gn 21:9) /
“produced” (Job 38:28) “of his house” and corresponds exactly to the Akkadian phrase: wilid bītim “house-born slaves”
(Chirichigno: 1993, 90-91). These 318 trained men were given to Abraham and not purchased, they were Egyptian servants not
Hebrew children, because Abraham was a rich businessman who was the head of a large farm (Gn 13:5-9), not a slave merchant (Gn
37:27-28).
139
For example, when Pepi I (2238-2195) led a military expedition to southern Palestine during his 18th census (year 30) he recruited
a few hundred fighters (Vercoutter: 1992, 324-326) as can be inferred from a relief at Deshasheh showing an (unidentifiable) city in
Asia (Mazar: 1990, 141-144), but at the same time an army of 20,000 men to quell a revolt in Nubia (wawat). Pharaohs of that time
could also put military escorts hundreds soldiers to protect the 1600 workers in the turquoise mines (Roccati: 1982, 248-270).
116
I captured a Nubian [at Kenekef?] in the presence of my townsmen. Then I proceeded downstream in
attendance with 6 men of the Residence. He appointed me to Inspector of the Followers, 100 men have
been given to me as a reward.
Several factors enabled Abram to defeat the mighty king of Elam: he had a crack regiment of 318
Egyptian elite men at his disposal, he attacked him by surprise and held out an ambush at night and, finally,
the expeditionary force led by Kudur-Lagamar came to perform a police operation with likely 2000 soldiers,
not a war which could have mobilized ten times as many soldiers. It may seem surprising that the Elamite
Empire (Awan I Dynasty) collapsed after the death of Chedorlaomer, but this amazing phenomenon occurred
several times in history. Indeed, large centralized empires were powerful but completely dependent on the
will of its emperor140. The mission given to Abraham therefore succeeded beyond expectations when
Chedorlaomer was eliminated. When Nesu-Montu, Army General of Amenemhat I, came along the eastern
border of the Delta, in 1953 BCE, it was not to fight against an enemy (not mentioned) but to repatriate the
Egyptian crack regiment as well as to take a share of the huge spoils taken initially by Chedorlaomer (Gn
14:21-24). According to the biblical account (Gn 12:10-16):
Now a famine arose in the land and Abram made his way down toward Egypt to reside there as an alien,
because the famine was severe in the land. And it came about that as soon as he got near to entering
Egypt, then he said to Sarai his wife: Please, now! I well know you are a woman beautiful in
appearance. So, it is bound to happen that the Egyptians will see you and will say, ‘This is his wife.’
And they will certainly kill me, but you they will preserve alive. Please say you are my sister, in order
that it may go well with me on your account, and my soul will be certain to live due to you. So it
happened that, as soon as Abram entered Egypt, the Egyptians got to see the woman, that she was very
beautiful. And the princes of Pharaoh also got to see her and they began praising her to Pharaoh, so that
the woman was taken to the house of Pharaoh. And he treated Abram well on her account, and he came
to have sheep and cattle and asses and menservants and maidservants and she-asses and camels.
This biblical text contains several apparent anomalies. For example, Saraï (2028-1901) was 65 years old
when she met Amenemhat I, in 1963 BCE, but the biblical text says that she was “a woman beautiful in
appearance141”. Contrary to what Abram had said, Sarai was not his sister (Gn 12:19), but Abram was not a
liar because his wife was truly his sister, the daughter of his father but not the daughter of his mother (Gn
20:12). Amenemhat wanted to marry Saraï, a simple commoner, which was impossible since pharaohs only
married women from royalty or the high clergy. For example, the vizier Joseph married Asenath, the
daughter of Potiphera, the priest of Heliopolis (Gn 41:45). It is obvious that this pharaoh was not a
womanizer, as shows the text of Genesis 12:16, but by marrying Sarai, officially Abram's sister, he wanted to
seal an alliance with him. Indeed, marrying a princess was an ancestral way of sealing an alliance with a
foreign kingdom. For example, Shulgi (2002-1954) took as wife a daughter of a Governor (šakkanakku) of
Mari as well as a Lord (ENSI) of Eshnunna and at least six of his daughters married Elamite princes
(Joannès: 2001, 40-42, 822-824, 870-872, 885-887). Similarly, Amarna letters (14th century BCE) show that
several pharaohs got married to Hittite and Mitannian princesses to seal alliances with these foreign
kingdoms142. A difficulty remains to be explained because all these women were princesses and although
Sarah means “princess” she did not belong to a Royal Family, she was only the wife of a wealthy
businessman who came from Shinar (Sumer). However, King Amenemhat I was also a commoner
(Bonhême, Forgeau: 2001, 40-42, 822-824, 870-872, 885-887). Regarding the royal family, Egypt was a
special case because pharaoh, as Pontiff, appointed priests and priestesses who became his representatives
and were therefore considered to belong to the royal house. For example, Pharaoh gave Joseph, his vizier (in
1758 BCE), Asenath the daughter of Potiphera the priest of On (Heliopolis) as a wife (Gn 41:45). It is
interesting to note that the most prestigious title that a pharaoh could grant a woman was to be appointed as
his personal funeral priestess, as was the case for Nefertiabet a daughter of Pharaoh Khufu (Dodson, Hilton:
2010, 255-260) depicted with a long wig and a panther skin garment. As we have seen, Amenemhat I
presumably considered making a covenant with Abram by marrying his sister: When Pharaoh's officials saw
her they sang her praises to Pharaoh and the woman was taken into Pharaoh's household. And Abram was
very well treated because of her (Gn 12:15-16). A cursory reading might suggest that the enormous gift to
Abraham by the Pharaoh (Gn 12:20) could be a compensation to clear his name, but this is not the case
140
For example, Ibbi-Sîn (1936-1912), last king of the mighty Sumerian empire of Ur III, could mobilize 20,000 men in case of war,
but was defeated by the surprise attack of an Amorite king, with 1500 troops (Hamblin: 2006, 158-159), who was a mercenary ally of
Išbi-Erra (1923-1890) King of Isin. After a victory, Ishbi-Erra instructed his officials to divide the booty from the Elamite campaign
with the Amorites, giving: 890 sheep and goat skins for wrapping silver as gifts for the Amorites when Elam was defeated.
141
In fact, although she was 65 years old, Saraï was only half her age (Gen 23:1), which would correspond to about 40 years for a
woman today. Similarly Abraham aged 75 was less than half his age (Gn 25:7).
142
Even the Bible gives some examples of this ancient custom: Havor, a Hivite chieftain, who inhabited the city of Shechem, asked
Jacob (1878-1731) to give Dinah his daughter as wife for his son in order to seal an alliance (Gn 34:1-19). King Solomon made a
marriage alliance with Pharaoh when he married one of his daughters (1Ki 3:1).
because Pharaoh was innocent. For this marriage to take place, Amenemhat I had to ennoble Sarai by naming
her to the prestigious post of personal funeral priestess. The alliance of an Egyptian king with a foreign
sovereign, furthermore sealed by wedding, has always been an exceptional event in Egyptian history. This
kind of exceptional event was carved on stelae or pictured by royal statues143. Although the wedding of
Amenemhat I with Sarai was finally cancelled, it was nearly consumed and has therefore been depicted. As
incredible as it seems, we still possess several statues which were made to commemorate this exceptional
event. The statue of the offering bearer dated in the early reign of Amenemhat I, is a masterpiece of Egyptian
wood carving which was discovered in a hidden chamber at the side of the passage leading into the rock cut
tomb of the royal chief steward Meketre. This exceptional woman144 (below) is not identified whereas she
has several features that are absolutely unique throughout Egyptian history: the offering bearer is represented
alone whereas usually they are two to four, the size of this statuette (112 cm) is three or four times the
normal size (25 to 40 cm), the finishing of this statuette is exceptional compared to statues of that era, this
woman wears a royal wig that proves she belonged to the royal family of Amenemhat I, this woman wears a
multi-coloured dress of Canaanite type, which is a unique case because Egyptian women, from female
servant to Queen, always wore a white linen dress (Tooley: 1989, 230), without exception145. The most
surprising anomaly is the fact that this woman belonged to the royal family of Amenemhat I, but was in
Meketre’s tomb, and she had worn a dress of Canaanite origin, which is paradoxical. Representations of such
colourful and highly patterned textiles are seen in some representations from the early Middle Kingdom, for
example, in the Tomb of Inyotef (Jaros-Deckert: 1984, 5) who was Overseer of the audience chamber in the
reign of Senwosret I (1946-1901).
FIG. 16
143
Amenemhat (I) emerges now (2015) as more active in his sculptural activity, in the Delta and in the Memphite area, and more
creative than is generally assumed. In addition, a small sphinx head found in Tyre bears testimony to an internationalism activity not
generally attributed to him (Freed: 2015, 143).
144
Two copies in The Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York): Accession Number: 20.3.7. One copy in the Musée du Louvre
(Paris): Accession Number E 10781.
145
Nefertiabet wore a panther skin garment which was a characteristic of Sem priest, not a multi-coloured dress. From the 18th
dynasty the goddess Hathor wore a multi-coloured dress, but Hathor was not a woman of the earthly world.
118
The scene shows several representations of Asiatic women, who were dwelling in the south of Canaan
(Schulman: 1982, 165-183), wearing their multi-coloured dress.
FIG. 17
A classic example of Egyptian-Asiatic contact in the early Middle Kingdom is the painting in Tomb No.
3 at Beni Hasan (Kamrin: 2013, 156-169). The Tomb belongs to the nomarch Khnumhotep III, who was
Administrator of the Eastern Desert in the 6th year of Senwosret II's reign (1863-1855).
FIG. 18
As a result, the female offering bearer in the tomb

of Meketre, who belonged to the royal family of
Amenemhat I, wore a dress of Canaanite origin, which
is apparently an enigma. However, an in-depth study of
this unique statue (Arnold: 1991, 5-48) has made it
possible to define the exact time of its manufacture as
well as that of its original owner. In Old Egypt, the
statuettes of offering bearers were placed in the tomb of
the deceased to accompany him on his journey into the
afterlife to continue serving him. According to this
Egyptian custom, the female offering bearer in the tomb
of Meketre would have belonged to his staff, but it is
not the case since there are already in his tomb his four
personal offering bearers146 in addition of the two
Canaanite female offering bearers.
146
The Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York): Accession Number: 20.3.8.
It is noted that whereas the two female offering bearers of Meketre
wore royal wigs (quite rare) they nevertheless wore white linen robes,
which was the norm (opposite). The only explanation of this
extraordinary situation is as follows: the other exceptional female
offering bearer found in his tomb had been originally intended for the
tomb of Amenemhat I, but because of an unexpected event there was a
change and this magnificent masterpiece was given to Meketre who
placed it then in his own grave. Given that the royal statue of the
offering bearer was placed in the tomb after the death of Meketre it is
important to determine the date in order to know at what time this
woman of high status lived. As Meketre was an important character, his
career can be reconstituted with accuracy as well as his lifespan: around
2025-1960 BCE147. We know that the statuette of the female offering
bearer of Canaanite origin was completed before Meketre’s death,
which can be fixed precisely. Meketre's tomb must be dated during the
reign of Amenemhat I because all the proportions of the model figures
found in his tomb are from this period148 (early Dynasty 12) and
probably around Year 15 of Amenemhat149 in 1962 BCE. This date is
confirmed by the analysis of the career of the maker of these statues, as
he can be identified. This analysis then makes it possible to determine
the date on which the statuettes of the Canaanite woman were made.
The finishing of the statuettes of the Canaanite woman is exceptional and if we compare it to the statues
of the period, like the colossal statue in red granite of Amenemhat I from Tanis, one can identify the artist
who produced such masterpieces150: chief steward Nakht. As he was an important character, his career can be
reconstituted with accuracy as well as his life span around 1992-1932 BCE151, because we know that he had
served under Senwosret I and must have died in about that king’s 14th or 15th year, in 1932 BCE. If he was
around 60 when he died it must have been born around 1992 BCE and, consequently, have had started his
career when he was around 25-30 years old (1967-1962). Accordingly, the statuette of the female offering
bearer of Canaanite origin would have been made for Amenemhat I during the period 1967-1962 and then
given in 1962 BCE to the Chancellor Meketre (apparently for no reason). According to the biblical account,
when Sarai arrived in Tanis, in 1963 BCE, Amenemhat had wanted to marry her in order to seal an alliance
with Abram. Amenemhat likely prepared this exceptional wedding but when he learned that Sarai was
Abram's wife, he cancelled its process and gave the beautiful statues of his “future royal wife” to Meketre his
Chancellor in order to honour his death, which had just happened in 1962 BCE by his royal gifts. There was
no need for Amenemhat to keep a statue of a wedding that failed. Amenemhat probably gave a third copy of
this beautiful statue, now exhibited in the Louvre (ref. E 10781).
147
Meketre first appears in the Shatt er-Rigal rock inscriptions. He is listed there as ‘Overseer of the Six Great Tribunal’, a judicial
title of high rank. The date of the inscription is most probably year 39 of Nebhepetra (2007 BCE). At that time Khety, the owner of
the tomb 311, was chancellor. In the year 46 of Nebhepetra, a man named Meru held the office of chancellor, as is known from his
stela, now in Turin. Meketre finally appears with the title of chancellor in the limestone reliefs of Mentuhotep II Nebhepetra’s
mortuary temple at Deir el-Bahri. He must have followed Meru in office after year 46. At the most that leaves years 47 to 51 for
Meketre’s term of office as chancellor under Mentuhotep II Nebhepetra. Assuming Meketre to have been 20 years old at the time of
the Shatt er-Rigal inscriptions, he was around 30 when Nebhetepra died (1994 BCE). At the ascension of Amenemhat I (1975 BCE),
Meketre was therefore around 50 years old. He would have been around 65 years old if he died while the funerary monument in the
valley northwest of the Ramesseum was still under construction.
148
The proportions of the statuettes are very different, for those belonging to the reign of Mentuhotep II (2045-1994) the height of
bust is 70% of the skirt and the height of head 30%, but for those belonging to early Dynasty 12 (1975-1900) the height of bust is
55% of the skirt and the height of head 51%.
149
In the valley behind the Ramesseum the burials of the chancellor Intef, who may have been the brother or son of Meketre, and
Meketre’s ‘overseer of the storehouse’, Wah, were laid down during the years following Meketre’s death. Judging from his mummy,
Wah was in his thirties when he died and may have been the son of Meketre. The linen sheets used for the mummy’s wrapping were
marked in ink with the dates “Year 2”, “Year 5”, and “Year 5” each coupled with Wah’s name. A “Year 15” seems be followed by
another person’s name. If the “Year 15” mark dates from the reign of Amenemhat I, Wah was buried after Year 15 of Amenemhat I
(1962 BCE) and Meketre died just before this date.
150
The colossal statue of Amenemhat I is now in the Egyptian Museum (Cairo JE 37470). The similarities of the face of the two
Meketre women is striking: eyes and mouth are well distanced from each other and the smooth cheeks occupy a fair amount of space.
In reliefs, the tense indentations at the nostrils do not disappear with Amenemhat I. They are still prominent in the kings' and deities'
faces on the Lisht reliefs.
151
Among statues of non-royal persons, the granite statue of Nakht found in his tomb at Lisht North, and now in Cairo, is surely one
of the most important works of the time. But the style of statue points to an origin in the reign of Amenemhat I because of its close
relationship to the two statues of that king and it is consistent with the location of Nakht’s tomb near the pyramid of Amenemhat I at
Lisht North. Nakht’s life may well have spanned part of the reigns of Amenemhat I and Senwosret I; the statue for his tomb was
probably created when Nakht was still serving the older king.
120
It is worth noting that the offering bearer (opposite) is represented
alone whereas usually they are two to four, and the size of this
statuette made of coated and painted ficus wood (H. 1.08 m) is three or
four times the normal size (i.e. 25 to 40 cm). The finishing of this
statuette is exceptional compared to statues of that era, in addition, this
woman wears an Egyptian wig but also a multi-coloured dress of
Canaanite type. However, contrary to the two other offering bearers,
she does not wear a royal wig and her face is obviously non-Egyptian
(small eyes and fleshy mouth). These two details confirm the biblical
account: the woman was very beautiful, and the wedding had not
begun (Gn 12:14-16). If one combines all the chronological, historical,
and archaeological information, the following scenario is obtained:
When Abram arrived in Egypt in 1963 BCE with his group of servants
(about 2000 people) he settled in a place that would become the city of
Tanis (Zoan). Pharaoh Amenemhat I was informed immediately of his
presence and contacted him because he was concerned about the
powerful confederation created by Kudur-Lagamar in the region called
Shutu[m] in southern Canaan. To block the progress of this powerful
Mesopotamian king, Amenemhat I had planned to create an Amorite
rival confederation and in order to achieve his goal he proposed an
alliance to Abram who accepted. Amenemhat began preparations for this alliance by appointing Sarai as a
bearer of offering to his personal service (which was a prestigious function) then by marrying her to seal this
alliance. When Amenemhat was informed that Sarai was Abram's wife, he offered the magnificent statues of
Sarai to Meketre, his Chancellor, but even though he was a bit annoyed by Abram’s omission, he did not
change his plan and put a crack regiment in Abram’s service and gave him a lot of gold and silver so that he
could negotiate alliances with Amorite leaders in southern Canaan (Negeb). In Year 20 of Amenemhat I, in
1957 BCE, Tanis was built exactly 7 years after Hebron (Nb 13:22), the capital city of Egypt (Thebes) was
moved to the north (Itj-tawy “Seizer of the Two Lands”) and his son (Senwosret) was established co-regent.
Abram went up out of Egypt to the Negeb with Lot (Gn 13:1) and formed an Amorite confederation with
three princes Aner, Eshcol and Mamre (Gn 14:24). In 1955 BCE the confederation of Transjordan kings
around Sodom and Gomorrah refused to pay tribute and rebelled against Kudur-Lagamar152 (Gn 14:3-4). In
1954 BCE, Abram mustered his army of 318 Egyptian elite men as well as his three Amorite confederates
(Gn 14:13-14,24) to retaliate against the four Mesopotamian kings by means of an ambush at night, thus
Chedorlaomer was “cut out” (Gn 14:15-17, LXX). In 1953 BCE, Nesu-Montu, Army General of Amenemhat
I, repatriated to Egypt the army which had been given to Abram as well as a part of the booty (Gn 14:24).
• In 1948 BCE a graffito inscribed on a rock at Korosko reads: Amenemhat (I)
came to overthrow Wawat (Nubia) in his year 29, however he claimed later in his
teaching to his son Senwosret (Menu: 2004, 152-156): I subdued the people of
Wawat (Nubia), and brought away the Medjay (a Nubian tribe). I have made the
Asiatics (Styw) walking like dogs (Teaching of King Ammenemes I to His Son
Senwosret §12). Having sponsored Abraham, Amenemhat I took legitimately the
credit of his victory over the “Asiatic” kings. The execration texts were written
on figurines (opposite) depicting “bewitched” characters without beard,
accordingly those kings were not Canaanites (a’amu) but Sumerians. The
execration text ends with: all the Asiatics [a’amu] of Byblos (...), Jerusalem (...)
and of Yasapa. Their warriors, their allies (...) those who would revolt, plot, fight,
think to fight, and those who would consider revolting in this entire country.
• In 1946 BCE Amenemhat I was murdered and Senwosret I began to reign, but
due to some troubles in Egypt, Sinuhe, a high official decided to flee to the north
of Canaan (eastern Lebanon). It reads: I set off for Byblos and approached
Qedem (East), and spent a year and a half there. Amusinenshi —he was a ruler of
152
In 1955-1954 BCE was the culmination of Chedorlaomer's expansionism. When Abram returned to Canaan, the Transjordan kings
revolt was at its peak (Gn 14:4), presumably because taxes (or looting) became unbearable. This confiscation must have been
important because an exceptional booty from Šimaški (Elam) was reported during the year 47 of Šulgi, in 1955 BCE. It was not a
looting of Šimaški because its ambassadors arrived at Ur just after the death of Šulgi, in 1954 BCE, which demonstrates good
relations between the two cities. When Chedorlaomer conducted once again a razzia in the region, in which Lot was the victim (Gn
14:11-12), Abraham was not caught off guard and was able to mobilize immediately the expeditionary corps Amenemhat I had
placed at his disposal. Having lived in Mesopotamia, Abraham knew well the imperialist aims of Chedorlaomer (from 1968 BCE)
and was therefore able to inform Amenemhat of the operation of the Elamite Empire. Abraham was also supported by three local
Amorite allies (Gn 14:13).
Upper Retjenu (Palestine)— took me and said to me: You will be well with me, for you will hear the
speech of Egypt. He said this because he knew my reputation (30-35) He (Senwosret I) has been made
to smite the Asiatics from Sinai (sttyw) and trample the nomads. Let him know your name. Do not plot
anything against His Majesty, he will do everything for you that his father did, he will not fail to do
good for the country that will be loyal to him (72-75) Now you are here, you shall stay with me. What I
shall do for you is good. He placed me at the head of his children. He married me to his eldest daughter
and let me choose for myself from his country, from the choicest of his surrounds on the border of the
next country. It was a fair land, called Iaa (77-81). Several points confirm the biblical account: Sinuhe
encouraged the Canaanite king to forge a covenant of peace with Egypt. Unlike Abraham, Sinuhe who
had lived in Egypt did not know at all Canaan since he was unable to name a single city (except
Byblos), or country, and the only one that is mentioned (Iaa/ Arar?) is completely unknown. To forge an
alliance of peace, the Canaanite king Amunsienshi married Sinuhe to one of his daughters. The last
puzzling detail in the story of Sinuhe, the Canaanite king Amunsienshi was not Canaanite but was the
son of a Sumerian king (from Shinar) because in Egyptian his name means: “Asiatic-son-of-Ensi (’mw-
s3-n-nši)” and the word “Ensi” means “Lord” in Sumerian153.
The reign of Amenemhat I (1975-1946) was therefore exceptional since it can be dated by a heliacal
rising of Sirius as well as several lunar days dated in the Egyptian civil calendar and by several synchronisms
with other famous figures (Chedorlaomer, Abram and Shulgi) whose lives can be dated precisely.
CHRONOLOGY OF DYNASTY 11 (2118-1975) THROUGH ASTRONOMY
The chronology of the 11th dynasty can be entirely reconstructed from the chronological data of the
Turin king list (TC) because the reign of Antef II is [-]9 years, or a reign of 49 years since the highest reign
date is 50 and as the total years of reign for the 11th dynasty is 143 years, the first two reigns therefore lasted
16 years (Vandersleyen: 1995, 11-15,659). It is possible that Antef I, who was the brother of Antef II, ruled
with his father (Dodson, Hilton: 2010, 83).
TABLE 73
14
Dyn. Personal name Throne name C dating D1 TC Date + Reign
11 1 Mentuhotep I Tepya [16] 2118 -
2 Antef I Sehertauy - 2102
3 Antef II Uahankh [4]9 50 2102-2053
4 Antef III Nekhtnetepnefer 8 2053-2045
5 Mentuhotep II Nebhepetre 2064-xxxx (+23) 51 46 2045-1994
6 Mentuhotep III Seankhkare 12 8 1994-1982
7 Mentuhotep IV Nebtauyre 7 2 1982-1975
12 1 Amenemhat I Sehetepibre 1998-1971 +23 29 30 1975-1946
2 Senwosret I Kheparkare 1971-1928 +25 45 45 1946-1901
The chronology of the 11th dynasty can be verified by carbon-14 dating and a Sirius heliacal rising at
the beginning of Mentuhotep II's reign. According to the radiocarbon, the beginning of the reign is fixed
around 2064 BCE and since there is an ageing of about 23 years in the measurements at that time, the
corrected date is 2041 BCE (= 2064 - 23). Astronomy makes it possible to have an anchor on an absolute
date because the reign of Mentuhotep II (2045-1994) was marked by a heliacal rising of Sirius dated year [1],
II Peret 21 (Tetley: 2014, 45). Since the heliacal rising of Sirius (the brightest star in the sky) took place each
year on the same date, those indicated were those that coincided with the heliacal rising of Venus (the
brightest planet in the sky), as this coincidence only occurred every 243 years. However, this coincidence
depended on the latitude of observation (Van Oosterhout: 1993, 83-96).
TABLE 74
King Reign Egyptian date Julian date (BCE)
BCE (Buto/ Heliopolis) (Thebes)154
Djer 2788-2750 I Akhet 1, Year 23 16 July 2774 - 8 11 July 2758
Khaba/ Huni 2547-2523 (II Akhet 30, Year 17) 16 July 2531 11 July 2515
Menkaure 2415-2387 IV Akhet 1 (Year 7) 16 July 2409 11 July 2393
Djedkare Isesi 2324-2286 (I Peret 1, Year 37) 16 July 2288 11 July 2272
Mentuhotep II 2045-1994 II Peret 21, Year [1] 16 July 2045 11 July 2029
Amenemhat III 1836-1791 (I Shemu 2, Year 35) 16 July 1802 11 July 1786
Taa Seqenenre 1543-1533 beginning of his reign 16 July 1559 11 July 1543
Sety I 1294-1283 just before his reign 17 July 1316 12 July 1300
153
The Sumerian word ENSI2, meaningless in Canaanite, is translated iššakku “city-ruler” into Akkadian.
154
The cities of the Egyptian Delta, Buto and Heliopolis (near Memphis), were the first cities to observe the stars, then from the 13th
dynasty, with the change of capital, it was Thebes who replaced them.
122
The period following the 6th dynasty is poorly documented. The Turin Canon indicates that it was
followed by Dynasties 7 and 8, composed of 16 kings (Gourdon: 2016, 24,303-317), but also that there was a
6-year period without a king. The most plausible way to explain this paradox is to admit that after Nitocris'
death155, Egypt was temporarily ruled during 6 years by a government composed of 16 kings. The end of
Dynasties 7 and 8 was followed by the 9th dynasty, but also by the parallel (and peaceful) establishment of
the 11th dynasty. The 9th dynasty was followed by the 10th dynasty, apparently towards the end of the reign
of Antef II, then this dynasty disappeared after the death of Merikare II, which took place before the 14th
year of Mentuhotep II's reign (2045-1994). The order of the kings of Dynasties 7 to 10, as well as their
dating, remain controversial (Dessoudeix: 2008, 109-121; Dodson, Hilton: 2010, 288-289). The 11th dynasty
would have been preceded by a period of 6 years just before the reign of Nitocris. An inscription (Cairo JE
43290) mentions a full moon celebration dated Year (1) IV Akhet 25, of King [Neferkauhor] (Tetley: 2014,
249-250), who reigned 2 years 1 month and 1 day (Gourdon: 2016, 303-304). The only full moon dated IV
Akhet 25 at that time is that of 28 May 2114 BCE156 (highlighted in sky blue):
TABLE 75
Dynasty King Reign ∆0 Dynasty King Reign
6 7 Netjerkare (Nitocris) 2126-2124 2
- No kings 2124 - 6 7-8 1 Menkare 2124 -
-2118
1 Mentuhotep I 2118 - 16 14 Neferkaure 2119-2115
15 Neferkauhor 2115-2113
16 Neferirkare II 2113-2112
9 Khety I? 2112 -
2 Antef I - 2102
3 Antef II 2102 - 49
11 -2053 10 Khety V?
4 Antef III 2053-2045 8
5 Mentuhotep II 2045 - 51 Merikare II -2032
-1994
6 Mentuhotep III 1994-1982 12
7 Mentuhotep IV 1982-1975 7
12 1 Amenemhat I 1975-1946 29
The chronology of the first Egyptian dynasties is reconstructed by means of the list of Manetho
(transmitted by the Africanus), the Canon of Turin and the Palermo Stone, but all these lists contain errors
(the worst is Manetho). There are two ways to correct some of the reigning durations of the Turin Canon,
either by using radiocarbon dates or by using dates obtained by astronomy. For example, Aidan Dodson uses
the chronological data from the Turin Canon but modified some of them, depending on the radiocarbon
dates, to obtain a dating of Dynasties 1 to 4 in 3150-2392 BCE (Dodson, Hilton: 2010, 287-288).
Egyptologists who use the dates obtained by astronomy (such as some heliacal rising of Sirius combined
with lunar days dated in the civil calendar) as well as the set of maximum reign dates, obtain a dating of
dynasties 1 to 4 in 2900-2436 BCE (Hornung, Krauss, Warburton: 2006, 490-491). As we saw at the
beginning, radiocarbon dating produces an exponentially aging of objects from the 6th dynasty onwards per
comparison to dates obtained by astronomy. It is therefore necessary to calibrate the radiocarbon dates on
those obtained by astronomy before using them, but as these dates are accurate to only about +/- 5 years, it is
necessary to use chronological data from the two most reliable documents: the Turin Canon (TC) and the
Palermo Stone (PS). Despite the reliability of these two documents, however, they contain some
disagreements between them (Tetley: 2014, 218-221, 283, 289-291, 323). When the difference between the
two dates is more than 5 years, the duration of the reign obtained by astronomy makes it possible to separate
the two dates, but in some cases the two dates seem erroneous. For example:
155
According to Herodotus: She (Nitocris), to avenge her brother (Merenre II) put many of the Egyptians to death by treachery. She
built a spacious underground chamber; then, with the pretence of inaugurating it, but with quite another intent in her mind, she gave a
great feast, inviting to it those Egyptians whom she knew to have had the most complicity in her brother's murder; and while they
feasted, she let the river in upon them by a vast secret channel (...) when she had done this she cast herself into a chamber full of hot
ashes, to escape vengeance (The Histories II:100). The Greek name Nitocris is written Netjertkare in the Abydos King List.
156
This date is confirmed by a heliacal rising of Sirius located in the decan dated II Peret 1-10 on the stellar clock of the coffin of Idy
(Von Bomhard: 1999, 58-59) who was vizier of Pepy II at the end of his reign, then of Neferkauhor and Neferirkare. In Thebes the
rising of Sirius took place on 11 July, this date coincides with II Peret 10 in 2112 BCE.
• Sneferu's reign being 24 years (TC) or between 40 and 50 years (PS), the 46 years of astronomy agree
with the oldest king list (PS), especially since the construction time of Sneferu's pyramids imposes a
reign around 45 years (Krauss: 1996, 43-50). The reign which seems most likely is 44 years. With the
case of the duration of Sahure's reign, it was found that the decisive way to separate the two durations in
the documents (12 years in TC or 15 years in PS) was to use the highest reign date (15). Unfortunately,
only few years of reign have been preserved, mainly in the inscriptions indicating the level of the Nile
(which was at that time very important for farmers), but we do have several engraved inscriptions
indicating the year in which the king's cattle had been censused (which was very important for tax
collection purposes). Usually, Egyptologists consider that these censuses were biennial, but in some
cases the correspondence between the number of years of reign and the number of censuses is not in a
ratio 2, but less than 2. As there is an obvious link between these two numbers, it is important to
understand how to transform a number of censuses into a number of years of reign.
HOW TO TRANSFORM A NUMBER OF CENSUSES INTO A NUMBER OF YEARS OF REIGN
The Egyptian lunar calendar was not used for dating documents, contrary to its Babylonian counterpart,
but it served only to fix the beginning of religious festivals related to the moon. Its functioning was very
simple: the first lunar day (psdntyw) was fixed by the observation of the full moon, which made it possible to
determine the whole cycle of festivals of this lunar month. The names of the lunar months were the same as
the calendar months with usually one month in 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 Egyptian papyrus Carlsberg 9 (column
III lines 9-21), dated 144 CE, there is a list of 9 “great” years of 13 months and of the 16 “small” years of 12
months (Depuydt: 1998, 1277-1297). 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 (= 9125 – 9124.9517)157 at the end of the
cycle (which implies 1 day more after 21 cycles). Babylonian intercalary years (of 13 lunar months) are
highlighted in blue and Egyptian intercalary years (of 13 lunar months) are highlighted in green.
TABLE 76
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
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). The intercalary years had no role
in the Egyptian lunar calendar as they were only a rough correspondence with the months of the civil
157
25 civil years = 25x365 = 9125 days and 25 lunar years = (25x12 + 9)x29.530588 = 9124.9517 days. 0.0483 = 9125.
124
calendar which was almost solar (365 days instead of 365.24219 days). From the Ptolemaic era, Egyptian
astronomers used a lunar cycle starting on the new moon instead of the full moon, but the coincidences have
remained almost the same as can be seen in the papyrus Rylands Inv. 666 dated October 180 BCE (Turner,
Neugebauer: 1949, 80-96).
As early as the 5th dynasty, the relationship between the years of reign and the censuses was well-
known (Greenberg: 2004, 147,171,184). Before Dynasty 11, the length of reigns is not expressed in years but
in the number of censuses, which most Egyptologists convert into years by assuming that these censuses
were biennial (Wilkinson: 1999, 113–114). However, if this ratio was 2 (biennial census), Khufu reign would
have lasted 28 years instead of the 23 years of the Turin Canon which are confirmed by astronomy. The
censuses were therefore not biennial (Ciavatti: 2020, 8-18). We know that Khufu died in the year of the 14th
census, as indicated by the date of the “14th occasion on I Shemu 19” (Tallet, Lehner: 2021, 280-281) and
reigned for 23 years, this shows that there is a ratio of 1.6 (= 23/14) between the number of years of reign (N
= 23) and the number of censuses (NC = 14). The maximum number of known censuses (Verner: 2006, 124-
143) therefore allows us to know the duration of the reigns or their minimum duration.
The first years of the reign of Djedkare Isesi reconstructed thanks to several livestock censuses (Nolan:
2008, 44-60), shows however that intercalary years were, at that time (5th Dynasty), associated with some
“years after”. This reconstruction (below) also shows that these censuses were not biannual, but with a ratio
of 1.6 (= 30/19), the same ratio of Khufu’s reign (= 23/14). In addition, the ratio of “years after” compared to
normal years, for the first 8 years of the reign (those ones attested have been highlighted), is 0.37 (= 11/30
which is the value for a cycle with intercalary months.
TABLE 77
Festival Djedkare number of lunar 13 12 Name of the year Date of the NC NC+0.5
Year months in the year census x1.6
1 12 1 Beginning [x] (1)
2 12 2 Year of the 1st occasion II Akhet 1 1 2.4
3 13 1 Year after the 1st occasion IV Shemu 1 1+ (3.4)
4 12 3 Year of the 2nd occasion 2 4
5 12 4 Year of the 3rd occasion IV Akhet 25 3 5.6
6 13 2 Year after the 3rd occasion [x] 3+ (6.6)
7 12 5 Year of the 4th occasion 4 7.2
8 13 3 Year after the 4th occasion IV Shemu 15 4+ (8.2)
9 12 6 Year of the 5th occasion IV Akhet 5 8.8
10 12 7 Year of the 6th occasion IV Peret 22 6 10.4
11 [13?] 4 Year after the 6th occasion? 6+ (11.4)
12 12 8 Year of the 7th occasion 7 12
13 13 5 Year after the 7th occasion I Akhet 7+ (13)
14 12 9 Year of the 8th occasion IV Shemu 8 13.6
15 12 10 Year of the 9th occasion [x] 9 15.2
17 12 11 Year of the 10th occasion IV [x] 24 10 16.8
18 13 7 Year after the 10th occasion IV Shemu 21 10+ (17.8)
19 12 12 Year of the 11th occasion II Akhet 11 11 18.4
20 12 13 Year of the 12th occasion 12 20
21 12 14 Year of the 13th occasion 13 21.6
23 12 15 Year of the 14th occasion II Shemu 14 23.2
24 13 9 Year after the 14th occasion I Akhet 28 14+ (24.2)
25 12 16 Year of the 15th occasion IV Akhet 27 15 24.8
26 12 17 Year of the 16th occasion IV Shemu 28 16 26.4
28 12 18 Year of the 17th occasion III [x] 17 28
29 13 11 Year after the 17th occasion I Shemu 23 17+ (29)
Sed 30 12 19 Year of the 18th occasion IV Shemu 18 29.6
31 12 20 Year of the 19th occasion? - 19 31.2
The theoretical ratio between the number of years of reign and the number of years of occasion, or
census, is 1.6 (= 25/16). For example, the date of Pepy's first Sed festival (jubilee for 30 years of reign) is
associated with the year of his 18th census (Verner: 2001, 363-418; Baud: 2006, 144-158), which gives the
same ratio of 1.6 (= 30/19). According to astronomy Sneferu's reign is dated 2526-2480 BCE and lasted
around 46 years (+/- 5 years)158 which agrees with the minimum length of 44 years = (27 + 0.5)x1.6)
158
This error of +/- 5 years is due to the resolution of the eye (acuity) which is at best 1'. The relative error over a reign duration
obtained by radiocarbon measurements is of the same order of magnitude.
computed from the number of censuses (NC = 27) and since the number of units in the Turin Canon is
generally correct (24), we can assume that the duration of Sneferu's reign was 44 years. It is noteworthy that
the ancient port of Khufu (Wadi el-Jarf) delivered many papyri describing several shipments of stones for his
pyramid, the highest dates of which, corresponding to the end of his reign, are “after the 13th census” (NC =
13+) and “14th census, I Shemu 19”. The result confirms again the ratio 1.6 (= 23/14) between the years of
reign (N) and the number of censuses (NC). Inscriptions mention two types of censuses: census type (rnpt
zp) of “NCth occasion” (NC) or post-census type (rnpt m-ḫt zp), i.e., “after NCth occasion” (NC+).
Year N = (NC + 0.5)x1.6 (+ 1 for NC+ instead of NC).
To establish the exact duration (∆0) of all the reigns covering dynasties 4 to 6, all the known durations
were put in parallel (below): those from astronomy (∆0*), from the Turin Canon (TC), from Manetho (Man),
from the value calculated from the number of censuses (NC), as well as from the highest known reign dates
(date+). The Sed festival corresponding to 30 reign years. Some of the reigns in the Abydos King List (AKL)
are absent from the Turin Canon list (TC), implying that these reigns were brief or non-existent. The
bibliographical inscription of Ptahshepses (Pta.), priest of Re, makes it possible to verify the length of the
reigns between the end of the reigns of Menkaure and Neferirkare Kakai (Dorman: 2002, 95-110). Values
highlighted in orange (in the table below) indicate an error compared to those taken from astronomy
(highlighted in dark blue), which are reliable for better than +/- 5 years, or from the number of censuses (NC)
and the highest date (date+), or from the Palermo Stone (PS), numbers in brackets.
TABLE 78
King astronomy ∆0* TC Man NC YN date+ TC AKL Pta. ∆0 reign
4 1st Sneferu 2526-2480 46 24 29 24 ≥39 Sed 1st 1st 44 2523-2479
2nd Khufu (Kheops) 2480-2457 23 23 63 14 23 2nd 2nd 23 2479-2456
3rd Djedefre 2457-2448 9 8 25 2+ ≥5 3rd 3rd 8 2456-2448
4th Khafre (Khephren) 2448-2415 33 [x] 66 13 ≥22 4th 4th 33 2448-2415
5th Baka (?) 2415-2415 - [x] 22 - - 5th - - 2415-2415
6th Menkaure 2415-2388 27 28 63 11+ ≥19 6th 5th 6th 28 2415-2387
7th Shepseskaf 2388 - 8 4 7 1+ ≥3 7th 6th 7th 4 2387-2383
8th Thamphthis (?) -2380 - 2 9 - - 8th - - - 2383-2383
5 1st Userkaf 2380-2372 8 7 28 3 ≥6 (10) 1st 1st 1st 10 2383-2373
2nd Sahure 2372-2359 13 12 13 [6]+ ≥12 (12) 2nd 2nd 2nd 12 2373-2361
3rd Neferirkare Kakai 2359-**** ? ? 20 5 ≥9 (≥10) 3rd 3rd 3rd 12 2361-2349
4th Shepseskare 7 7 - 4th - 4th 1 2349-2348
5th Neferefre [-] 20 1 ≥2 5th 4th 5th 2 2348-2346
6th Niuserre Ini 11-4 44 7 ≥12 Sed* 6th 5th 6th 14 2346-2332
14
7th Menkauhor C dating 8 9 - - Sed* 7th 6th 8 2332-2324
8th Djedkare Isesi 2486-2450 36 28 44 21 ≥35 Sed 8th 7th 38 2324-2286
9th Unas 2450-2423 27 30 33 8 ≥14 Sed? 9th 8th 30 2286-2256
6 1st Teti 2423-xxxx [x].5 30 11 ≥18 1st 1st 18 2256-2238
2nd Userkare [x] - - 2nd 2nd [4] 2242-2238
3rd Pepy I Meryre 20 53 25+ ≥42 Sed 3rd 3rd 43 2238-2195
4th Merenre I ]14 7 5+ ≥10 4th 4th 14 2195-2181
5th Pepy II Neferkare 9[4] 94 33 ≥54 Sed 5th 5th 54 2181-2127
6th Merenre II Saemsaf 1 1 - - 6th 6th 1 2127-2126
7th Nitocris (Netjerkare) 2 12 - - 7th 7th? 2 2126-2124
• Sneferu (4:1). The 24 censuses attributed to Sneferu implies a reign ≥ 39 years (= 24.5x1.6), which
agrees with the value obtained by astronomy (46 years), In addition, the construction time of Sneferu's
pyramids imposes a reign around 45 years (Krauss: 1996, 43-50). Therefore, the duration of 24 years
(TC) should be corrected to 44 years.
• Khufu (4:2). The reign of this king allows us to verify that the last and 14th census corresponds to a
reign of 23 years (=14.5x1.6), which is the same duration given by the Turin Canon and by astronomy.
• Djedefre/ Radjedef (4:3). The 11 (or 10?) censuses attributed to Djedefre (≥18 years) are attributed to a
king Ra’djedef who appears after Khufu (Verner: 2006, 132), but this must be an error, because the
value obtained by astronomy (9 years) confirms the duration of 8 years (TC).
• Khafre/ Khephren (4:4). The poorly known reign of 33 years comes solely from astronomy. According
to Herodotus (c. 450 BCE), Kheops reigned for 50 years and Khephren for 56 (The Histories II:127-
129), which implies that Khafre reigned at least 6 years longer than Khufu. As the reigns calculated by
126
astronomy are almost identical to those of the Turin Canon (when there are no errors) to plus or minus
one year, the 33-year duration from astronomy is accurate to +/- 1 year.
• Baka (4:5). Manetho attributes 22 years of reign to this king called Bikheris, but not attested. In fact,
Bikheris is a deformation of the name Baefre, one of the two sons of Khufu (Dorman: 2002 ,109).
• Menkaure (4:6). The reign is 28 years (TC) agrees with the 27 years according to astronomy.
• Shepseskaf (4:7). Shepseskaf's reign is attested through the funerary inscriptions made by the officials
who served him. The fact that many of these inscriptions only mention Shepseskaf without further
details hints at the short duration of his reign in agreement with the value of 4 years (TC) rather than the
8 years (+/- 4 years) duration of astronomy (Dodson, Hilton: 2010, 288).
• Thamphthis (4:8). His reign is 2 years (TC) but the name is lost. The complete lack of contemporary
attestations is evidence for considering him as a regent like Queen Khentkaus I (Verner: 2001, 385).
• Userkaf (5:1). Duration of Userkaf’s reign is 7 years (TC), in accordance with astronomy, but the
reconstruction of the Stone of Palermo imposes a reign of at least 10 years (Tetley: 2014, 314-316).
• Neferirkare Kakai (5:3). The number of censuses and the spatial reconstruction of the Palermo Stone
show that this reign lasted at least 10 years. The length of Neferirkare Kakai's reign (10 + x) can be
deduced from the sum of the reigns between Menkaure (2415-2388) and Neferefre (2348-2346), whose
durations were determined by astronomy. As the sum of 69 years (= 2415 - 2346) = 28 + 4 + 10 + 12 +
1[x] + 1 + 2, therefore x is 2 years.
• Shepseskare (5:4), missing in the AKL, is mentioned in the South Saqqara Stone. This king is attested
only by a few objects, and no census is attributed to him, which supposes a reign of hardly one year
(Verner: 2006, 127-128,484; Dodson, Hilton: 2010, 288), probably 7 months instead of 7 years (TC).
• Neferefre/ Raneferef (5:5). As the construction of his funerary temple stopped after the first census, due
to the death of the king159, this reign must have lasted about 2 years (= 1.5x1.6). The papyri discovered
in this funerary temple mention two w3g-festivals, the first one is dated to I Akhet 2[9] and the second
to III [Akhet] 28. The number 9 could also be read 3, 5 or 6, but as the w3g-festival coincides with the
1st lunar crescent, the lunar cycle of 29.5 days imposes the day 29 to agree with the second w3g-festival
two months later, on day 28 (Verner: 2001, 400-401). According to the Egyptian civil calendar, the I
Akhet 29 corresponds to 30 April in 2346 BCE (= -2345*), which coincided with a 1st lunar crescent160.
Similarly, the III Akhet 28 corresponds to 28 June which coincided with a 1st lunar crescent.
• Niuserre Ini (5:6). On the papyrus (TC) only the bottom part of the ten-sign is visible and depending on
the remaining spacing the number of years could be 11-14. The few secure dates for Niuserre, taken
together with his building achievements, allow an estimate of 15 years (Hornung, Krauss, Warburton:
2006, 484), assuming a reign of 14 years. The representation of the Sed-festival in Niuserre’s sun
temple was intended to celebrate the temple itself, not the king (Nuzzolo: 2015, 366-392).
• Menkauhor (5:7) A statue depicts the king wearing the cloak of the Sed-festival, but there is no
evidence that he celebrated the Sed-festival.
• Djedkare Isesi (5:8). The 21 censuses identified under Djedkare imply a reign of at least 35 years (=
21.5x1.6) in agreement with the 36-year duration derived from radiocarbon dating. The duration of 28
years (TC) is therefore incorrect but allows us to assume that a decade has been omitted, the number 28
having to be corrected to 38. The beginning of the reign in 2324 BCE is confirmed by astronomy.
• Unas (5:9). The duration of 30 years (TC) is confirmed by that obtained by radiocarbon dating (27
years). In favour of such a long reign are scenes of a Sed festival found in Unas' mortuary temple.
However, several Egyptologists suspect a reign of less than 30 years for Unas, owing to the scarcity of
artefacts datable to his reign as well as the lack of documents dated to beyond his 8th census (= Year
14) on the throne (Verner: 2001, 411-412).
• Teti (6:1). The 11 censuses listed under Teti require a length of reign of 18 years (= 11.5x1.6) or more
(Baud: 2006, 145-146). However, this reign (2256-2238) did not exceed 18 years since it was between
the reigns of Unas (2286-2256) and Pepy I (2238-2195).
• Userkare (6:2). The reign of this king is enigmatic: he was a legitimate king who reigned about 4 years
between his father Teti and his younger brother Pepy I, but he is only recorded in the South Saqqara
Stone. Teti's eldest son was called Ankhteti (birth name), who was appointed co-regent in Teti's last 4
years and died when his father was assassinated (Gourdon: 2016, 65-73). Consequently, Teti would
have reigned alone for 14 years (2256-2242) and then 4 years (2242-2238) with his son Userkare.
• Pepy I Meryre (6:3). The number of censuses imposes a reign duration greater than or equal to 42 years
(= 25.5x1.6 + 1). A synchronism with the viziers of Ebla, whose reigns are anchored on absolute dates,
allows us to fix the beginning of the reign of Pepy I in 2238 BCE. Pepy I and Sargon of Akkad were
159
At the age of between 20 to 23 years according to the anthropological analysis of his mummy.
160
https://promenade.imcce.fr/fr/pages4/441.html (first lunar crescent = new moon + 1).
contemporaries because an alabaster vase on behalf of Pepy I was discovered in the palace of Išar-Damu
(Biga, Grimal, Durand: 2016, 692-711). The reigns of Sargon of Akkad (2243-2187) and Išar-Damu
(2245-2213) are dated in a chronology based on dates determined by astronomy (Gertoux: 2021, 1-71).
• Merenre I (6:4). This king, called Nemtyemsaf I (birth name) has a reign of [10+10+10+]14 years (TC),
but the bracketed part is probably blank implying a reign of only 14 years, in accordance with the 14
slots (= 14 years) allocated to this king in a king list (Baud, Dobrev: 1995, 50).
• Pepy II (6:5). This reign is 94 years (Man) or 9[x] (TC). According to the number of censuses it must be
greater than 52 years (= 31.5x1.6 + 1). The 33 censuses are uncertain (Baud: 2006, 152-156), but they
would correspond to a 54-year reign (= 33.5x1.6). The 94-year reign, which is 28 years longer than that
of Ramses II (66 years), the longest known reign in Egyptian history, must therefore be corrected.
• Nitocris (6:7). According to the Turin Canon, this reign is 2 years 1 month (Newberry, Percy: 1943, 51-
54), but 6 years according to Eratosthenes or 12 years according to Manetho (Coche-Zivie: 1972, 115-
138). As there are no archaeological remains of this famous queen the duration of 2 years and 1 month
(TC) seems correct and the [1]2 years of Manetho (Africanus) come from a copyist error. This queen
(Nitocris) is called Netjerkare Siptah in the Abydos King List.
On the false door of his tomb chapel in Saqqara, Ptahshepses recorded in eight vertical columns of
hieroglyphs that he lived under eight kings161. We can reasonably surmise that the four left columns
mentioned events in the life of Ptahshepses under the kings Neferirkare, Shepseskare, Neferefre, and
Niuserre (Lehner: 2016, 133-134). The biography of Ptahshepses is anchored on four major events in his
life162, his infancy took place at the end of the reign of Menkaure, his rite of passage, marking the end of
childhood, took place towards the end of the reign of Shepseskaf, his marriage took place before the end of
the reign of Userkaf and his death took place towards the end of the reign of Niuserre (Smith: 2017, 118-
120), which allows us to verify the chronology of these eight kings (Dorman: 2002, 95-110):
TABLE 79
King ∆0 reign Age of Ptahshepses major life events
4 6th Menkaure 28 2415-2387 1–6 From birth to early childhood (3-4 years)
7th Shepseskaf 4 2387-2383 6–10 Upper limit of childhood (10 years)
5 1st Userkaf 10 2383-2373 10–20 Upper limit of adulthood (20 years)
2nd Sahure 12 2373-2361 20–32 (Priest of Re is Neferiretenef)
3rd Neferirkare Kakai 12 2361-2349 32–44 Priest of Re in the king's solar temple
4th Shepseskare 1 2349-2348 44–45 [Priest of Re]
5th Neferefre 2 2348-2346 45–47 [Priest of Re]
6th Niuserre Ini 14 2346-2332 47–60 Priest of Re. Average lifespan (60 years)
7th Menkauhor 8 2332-2324 (Priest of Re is Neferiretptah)
8th Djedkare Isesi 38 2324-2286 Priesthood is reformed
Some reigns may be extended by one or two years, but in this case, others must be reduced by the same
amount because the total duration of reigns between:
ü Sneferu (2523-2479) and Neferefre (2348-2346) must be 175 years (= 2523 – 2348).
ü Neferefre (2348-2346) and Djedkare (2324-2286) must be 24 years (= 2348 – 2324).
ü Djedkare (2324-2286) and Pepy I (2238-2195) must be 86 years (= 2324 – 2238)
ü Pepy I (2238-2195) and Nitocris (2126-2124) must be 112 years (= 2238 – 2126).
The reigns of Sneferu (2523-2479) and Pepy I (2238-2195) are based on dates obtained by astronomy
with an accuracy less than +/- 5 years and the reigns of Neferefre and Djedkare Isesi can be determined
exactly by astronomy because they are based on the 25-year lunar cycle. According to the current
conventional chronology (Dodson, Hilton: 2010, 287-288), the reigns of Sneferu (2520-2470) and Pepy I
(2265-2219) are paradoxically quite close to those obtained by relying on absolute dates.
161
In the missing first part of four vertical columns of hieroglyphs on the right, Ptahshepses probably began, “a child who was born”,
and then, in what is preserved, he states: “… during the time of Menkaure, [Ptahshepses] who was educated among the royal children
in the palace of the king and in the privacy of the royal harem… A youth who tied on the girdle (a rite of passage growing up) …
during the time of Shepseskaf, who was educated among the royal children in the palace of the king and in the privacy of the royal
harem…” Ptahshepses goes on to name Userkaf, in relation to his marriage to a daughter of that king, and Sahure. The left side of
this text mentions Ptahshepses’s title of priest in the named sun temple of Niuserre (without naming that king himself).
162
The end of infancy was around 3-4 years, the upper limit of childhood was at 10 years of age, the transition period from late
childhood to adulthood for boys was between 16 and 20, hence the average age of marriage was 18 (Marshall: 2022, 4,160,167). The
average lifespan over a period can be deduced approximately from the average length of reigns over that period, provided that the
succession of kings was stable (without accident or fatal illness) and from father to son. Indeed, if the king's son marries and has a
son at age X, then begins to reign at age Y (when his father dies) and then dies at age Z, these three average lengths of reign are
related by the equations: Z = 3X and Y = 2X. The first six of the 4th dynasty had an average reign length of 20 years (=
[44+23+8+33+28+4]/7) which implies an average lifespan of 60 years (= 3x20).
128
CHRONOLOGY OF THE REIGN OF DJEDKARE (2324-2286) THROUGH ASTRONOMY
The classification of Djedkare's censuses according to the intercalary years shows that his first year of
reign, in 2324 BCE, coincided with the 7th year of the 25-year lunar cycle. The full moon on 29 March 2331
BCE coincided with the I Akhet 1, which marks the beginning of the 25-year lunar cycle. There is, however,
a one-year time lag with the lunar cycle, from Year 13 of Djedkare, perhaps because the censuses were
carried out at the beginning of the intercalary year rather than at the end.
TABLE 80
BCE Year Egyptian AKHET PERET SHEMU
Djedkare cycle I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV (5)
2331 Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb.
2330 1 1/30 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25 25
2329 2 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14
2328 3 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3
2327 4 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 23
2326 5 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 12 12
2325 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1
2324 1 7 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 22 22 21 21 20
2323 2 8 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 10
2322 3 9 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1/30 30 29 29 28
2321 4 10 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18
2320 5 11 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 9 9 8 8 7
2319 6 12 2 1 1/30 30 30 29 28 28 27 27 27 26
2318 7 13 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 16 15
2317 8 14 10 9 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4
2316 9 15 29 28 28 27 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24
2315 10 16 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 14 13
2314 11 17 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2
2313 12 18 26 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 22 22 21
2312 13 19 16 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11
2311 14 20 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1/30 30
2310 15 21 24 24 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19
2309 16 22 13 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 9 9 8
2308 17 23 3 2 2 1 1/30 30 30 29 29 28 28 27
2307 18 24 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 18 17 17
2306 19 25 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5*
2305 20 1 1/30 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25 25
2304 21 2 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14
2303 22 3 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3
2302 23 4 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 23
2301 24 5 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 12 12
2300 25 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1
2299 26 7 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 22 22 21 21 20
2298 27 8 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 10
2297 28 9 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1/30 30 29 29 28
2296 29* 10 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18
2295 30 11 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 9 9 8 8 7
2294 31 12 2 1 1/30 30 30 29 28 28 27 27 27 26
As Year 1 of Djedkare is dated 2324 BCE, the first intercalary year occurred in October 2323 BCE,
during Year 3 of Djedkare (corresponding to the 9th year of the 25-year lunar cycle). The lunar month
following the IV Peret began on IV Peret 30 (civil calendar) became an intercalary month (IV Peret “bis”).
MARCH APRIL (Julian calendar in 2331 BCE)
23 24 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 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3
1 2 3 4 5 I AKHET (Egyptian civil calendar) II AKHET
30 1 2 3 4 5 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 3 4 5 6
IV SHEMU I AKHET (Egyptian lunar calendar) I AKHET bis
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 27 28 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
OCTOBER NOVEMBER (Julian calendar in 2323 BCE)
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 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 26 27
III PERET IV PERET (Egyptian civil calendar) I SHEMU
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 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 6
III PERET IV PERET (Egyptian lunar calendar) IV PERET bis
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 27 28 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
All censuses coincide with the intercalary years called “years after”, except for some censuses (Years
13, 16, 18, 24, 27), which are apparently carried out one year earlier than the astronomical date, difference
that can be explained in different ways. Livestock censuses were involving hundreds of thousands of animals
and were expected to take several months to complete. So there was a gap between the beginning and end of
the census. Moreover, the years of reign ranged from the day of accession to the throne to the same day of
the following year, but this date is unknown to us.
The reign of Pepy I (2238-2195) is dated over the period 2355-2323 BCE by 14C, which shows that this
dating method ages the dates anchored on astronomy by about 120 years before 2300 BCE. A synchronism
between the reigns of Pepy I, Sargon of Akkad and Išar-Damu of Mari, makes it possible to confirm that 14C
dating ages historical dates by more than 100 years before 2200 BCE. Pepy I and Sargon of Akkad must
have been contemporaries because an alabaster vase on behalf of Pepy I was discovered in the palace of Išar-
Damu (Biga, Grimal, Durand: 2016, 692-711). The reigns of Sargon of Akkad (2243-2187) and Išar-Damu
(2245-2213) are dated in a chronology based on dates determined by astronomy (Gertoux: 2021, 1-71).
TABLE 81
n° KING OF MARI ∆ Reign KING OF EBLA ∆ Reign LAGASH I ∆ Reign
Sa’umu 6 2282-2276 Iš’ar-Malik 6 2282-2276 En-metena 30 2282 -
Itup-Išar 4 2276-2272 Kun-Damu 6 2276-2270
Iblul-Il 20 2272 - Adub-Damu 6 2270-2264
-2252 Igriš-Halab 12 2264-2252 -2252
Nizi 3 2252-2249 Irkab-Damu/Tir 5 2252-2247 En-anatum II 7 2252 -
Enna-Dagan 4 2249-2245 /Arrukun 2 2247-2245 -2245
Išar-Damu 17 2245 - En-entarzi 5 2245-2240
ASSYRIAN KING /Ibrium Sargon of Akkad 56 2243 -
1 Tudiya 9 2235-2226 -2228
2 Adamu 9 2226-2217 /Ibbi-zikir 15 2228 -
3 Yangi 9 2217-2208 -2213
4 Lillâmu 9 2208-2199
5 Harharu 9 2199-2190 -2187
6 Mandaru 9 2190-2181 Rimuš 9 2187-2178
7 Imṣu 9 2181-2172 Maništusu 15 2178 -
8 Harṣu 9 2172-2163 KING OF MARI ∆ Reign -2163
9 Didânu 9 2163-2154 Ididiš 60 2164 - Narâm-Sîn 37 2163 -
10 Hanû 9 2154-2145
11 Zuabu 9 2145-2136
12 Nuabu 9 2136-2127 -2126
13 Abazu 9 2127-2118 Šar-kali-šarri 25 2126 -
14 Belû 9 2118-2109 -2104
15 Azarah 9 2109-2100 Šu-Dagan 5 2104 - -2101
16 Ušpia 9 2100 - Irgigi/ Imi/ 3 2101 -
-2091 -2099 Nanum/ Ilulu -2098
17 Apiašal 9 2091-2082 Išmah-Dagan 45 2099 - Dudu 21 2098-2077
18 Halê 14 2082-2068 Šu-Turul 15 2077-2062
19 Samânu 14 2068-2054 -2054 Ur-nigina (URUK) 7 2062-2055
20 Hayâni_ 14 2054 - Nûr-Mêr 5 2054-2049 Ur-gigira 6 2055-2049
Išdub-El 11 2049 - Kuda 6 2049-2043
-2040 -2038 Puzur-ilî 5 2043-2038
21 Ilu-Mer 14 2040-2026 Iškun-Addu 8 2038-2030 Ur-Utu 6 2038-2032
22 Yakmesi 14 2026-2012 Apil-Kîn 35 2030 - Utu-hegal (V) ? 2032-2020
23 Yakmeni 14 2010-1996 -1995 Ur-Namma (UR) 18 2020-2002
24 Yazkur-El 14 1996-1982 Iddin-Ilum 5 1995-1990 Šulgi 48 2002 -
25 Ila-kabkabû 14 1982-1968 Ilum-Išar 12 1990-1978
26 Amînum 14 1968 - Turâm-Dagan 20 1978-1958
-1954 Puzur-Eštar 25 1958 - -1954
27 Sulili 14 1954-1940 -1933 Amar-Sîn 9 1954-1945
The Ebla archives have shown that Išar-Damu (2245-2213) sent considerable quantities of lapis lazuli
from the 7th year of his reign, in 2238 BCE, to the king of Dugurasu (Egypt) via Byblos (Biga, Grimal,
Durand: 2016, 692-711; Archi: 2016, 5-12). The land of Dugurasu (du-gu2-ra-suKI) refers to Lower Egypt
(Winters: 2019, 19-20) and the Egyptian king was Pepy I (2238-2195) because his birth name appears on an
alabaster vase offered to Išar-Damu. The land called du-gu2-ra-suKI corresponded to the Egyptian place r‘.w-
ḥ3.wt “river mouths”, a word for the Delta. As the Sed festival celebrated the 30-year reign of Pepy I in 2209
130
BCE, 4 years after the destruction of Ebla in 2213 BCE, one must assume that Pepy I must have included the
4-year co-regency of Userkare (throne name). Userkare was the eldest son of Teti, his birth name was
Ankhteti. Although he is attested in historical sources, Userkare is completely absent from the tomb of the
Egyptian officials who lived during his reign. He was probably appointed co-regent during Teti's last 4 years
and died when his father was assassinated, which explains why these 4 years of co-regency have not been
recorded (Gourdon: 2016, 65-73). Dates in italics indicate a relative chronology obtained from the reign
lengths (∆) in the king lists. Some durations with asterisks are corrected durations considering synchronisms
with other absolute chronologies. For example, the chronology of the kings of Kish is obtained from king
lists (Glassner: 2004, 140,259) corrected considering that there are synchronisms (highlighted in grey)
between Enbi-Ištar and Ur-Zababa with two kings of Uruk III and Lagash I.
TABLE 82
n° Dynasty 6 ∆ Reign KING OF EBLA ∆ Reign KING OF KISH ∆ Reign
1 Teti 18 2256 - Irkab-Damu /Tir 5 2252-2247 Enbi-Ištar 15* 2265-2250
/Arrukun 2 2247-2245 Lugalmu 6 2250-2244
2 Userkare [ 4] 2242-2238 Išar-Damu 17 2245 - Ku-Baba 5* 2244-2239
3 Pepy I Meryre 43 2238 - /Ibrium -2228 Puzur-Sin 10* 2239-2229
/Ibbi-zikir 15 2228 - Ur-Zababa 6 2229-2223
Zimudara 7 2223-2216
-2213 -2213 Uṣi-watar 6 2216-2210
-2195 Ištar-muti 11 2210-2199
4 Merenre I 14 2195 - Išme-Šamaš 11 2199-2188
-2181 Nanniya 3 2188-2185
Dates based on astronomy are therefore much more reliable than dates obtained using 14C. Current
Egyptologists (2020) place the beginning of the reign of Pepy I between 2354 BCE (D.B. Redford) and 2265
BCE (A. Dodson), instead of 2238 BCE, which shows that current Egyptian chronologies are not anchored
on absolute dates. The duration of the reigns (∆0) of Djedkare and Unas is measured by 14C (∆14C) with a
measurement error of +/- 3 years, in contrast, this duration of the reigns for the 5th Dynasty is measured with
an error that exceeds +/- ∆0 (highlighted in orange) whereas with astronomical measurements (∆0*), based
on the orientation of pyramids, this measurement error is +/- 2 years163.
TABLE 83
14
King C dating ∆14C astronomy ∆0* TC PS Pta. ∆0 reign
4 1st Sneferu 2649-(2629) 20 2526-2480 46 [2]4 44 2523-2479
2nd Khufu (Kheops) 2629-(2610) 19 2480-2457 23 23 23 2479-2456
3rd Djedefre 2610-(2604) 6 2457-2448 9 8 8 2456-2448
4th Khafre (Khephren) 2604-(2581) 23 2448-2415 33 [x] 33 2448-2415
5th Menkaure 2581-(2556) 25 2415-2388 27 28 [28] 5th 28 2415-2387
6th Shepseskaf 2556-(2548) 18 2388-2380 8 4 [ 4] 6th 4 2387-2383
5 1st Userkaf 2548-(2542) 6 2380-2372 8 7 [10] 1st 10 2383-2373
2nd Sahure 2542-(xxxx) ? 2372-2359 13 12 [12] 2nd 12 2373-2361
3rd Neferirkare Kakai 2359-2348 11 ? [12] 3rd 12 2361-2349
4th Shepseskare - - 7 4th 1 2349-2348
5th Neferefre 2348-2346 2 [-] 5th 2 2348-2346
6th Niuserre Ini 2346-**** ? 11-4 6th 14 2346-2332
7th Menkauhor 8 8 2332-2324
8th Djedkare Isesi 2486-2450 36 [2]8 38 2324-2286
9th Unas 2450-2423 27 30 30 2286-2256
6 1st Teti 2423-xxxx ? [x] 18 2256-2238
2nd Userkare [x] [4] 2242-2238
3rd Pepy I 20 43 2238-2195
4th Merenre I ]14 14 2195-2181
5th Pepy II 9[4] 54 2181-2127
6th Merenre II 1 1 2127-2126
7th Nitocris (Netjerkare) 2 2 2126-2124
Since the length of Khafre's reign (33 years), measured only by astronomy (∆0*), corresponds exactly to
its value deduced from the other reign lengths (∆0), it can be considered correct and will be used to
reconstruct the Palermo Stone (PS). As the astronomical dates deduced from the orientation of the pyramids
have been controversial the following chapter has been dedicated to them.
163
The reigns of Shepseskaf and Userkaf (8 years) come from a wrong extrapolation and should be replaced by 6 and 10 years.
HOW TO DETERMINE A DATE THROUGH THE ORIENTATION OF PYRAMIDS
The perfect orientation on the four cardinal points of the Great Pyramids of Giza leads to the conclusion
that their four sides were aligned with the stars, or the sun, which rises in the east and sets in the west. These
pyramids of the 4th and 5th dynasties were oriented to the cardinal points (below) with extraordinary
precision. The most precisely aligned monument is the Pyramid of Khufu at Giza, also known as the Great
Pyramid, whose sides deviate from geographic north by less than 3' (= 0.05°) on average.
1- Userkaf Sun temple, 2- Pyramid of Sahure, 3- Pyramid of Neferirkare, 4- Pyramid of Neferefre, 5- Unfinished
pyramid of Shepseskare, 6a- Pyramid of Niuserre, 6b-Mastaba of Ptahshepses, 6c- Niuserre Sun temple.
The absence of contemporary source material accounts for the range of possible orientation methods
that have been proposed over the years. There are no relevant texts or representations from this period and
discussions have therefore relied either on much later textual or representational evidence or on
considerations of potential accuracy. Although for many years it has been accepted on the grounds of
accuracy that a stellar method was used, recent research has revived the possibility of solar alignment. Nor
can the accuracy of the Khufu alignment be considered coincidental when overall trends in pyramid
orientation are examined in detail. In her article Spence lists the pyramids for which accurate measurements
of orientation are available together with the accession dates of the kings for whom they were constructed.
She followed the lower range of dates given in von Beckerath's chronology, except for the reign of Sneferu,
as well as Stadelmann's proposed 46-year reign of Sneferu, because the construction time of Sneferu's
pyramids imposes a reign around 45 years (Krauss: 1996, 43-50). She assumed that the pyramid alignment
ceremony occurred in year 2 of each king's reign, after the burial of his predecessor, the choice of a suitable
location, and preparation and levelling of the site (Spence: 2000, 320-324). The accession dates used by
Spence, in 2000, were all lowered in 2006 (Hornung, Krauss, Warburton: 2006, 490-492).
TABLE 84
King Accession date Orientation -West Orientation -East Recalibrated
(2000) (2006) side of pyramid side of pyramid accession date
(1) Sneferu-Meidum 2600 BCE 2543 BCE -18.1' +/- 1.0 -20.6 +/- 1.0 2526 BCE
(2) Sneferu-Bent Pyramid 2583 BCE -11.8' +/- 0.2 -7.3' +/- 0.2
(3) Sneferu-Red Pyramid 2572 BCE -8.7' +/- 0.2
(4) Khufu 2554 BCE 2509 BCE -2.8' +/- 0.2 -3.4' +/- 0.2 2480 BCE
Djedefre 2531 BCE 2482 BCE -49'
(5) Khafre (Khephren) 2522 BCE 2472 BCE -6.0' +/- 0.2 -6.0' +/- 0.2 2448 BCE
(6) Menkaure 2489 BCE 2447 BCE -14.1' +/- 1.8 +12.4' +/- 1.0 2415 BCE
Shepseskaf 2461 BCE 2441 BCE
Userkaf 2454 BCE 2435 BCE
(7) Sahure 2446 BCE 2428 BCE -23' +/- 1.0 2372 BCE
(8) Neferirkare Kakai 2433 BCE 2415 BCE +30.0' +/- 1.0 2359 BCE
Shepseskare 2413 BCE 2403 BCE
Unas 2317BCE 2321BCE +17.1' (2286 BCE)
Senwosret I 1956 BCE 1920 BCE -90' 1946 BCE
Amenemhat III 1853 BCE 1818 BCE +15.7 (1836 BCE)
132
The dates and measurements of alignment for each pyramid are plotted below. The figure shows that of
the eight pyramids, (1) to (8), dating from 2600-2400 BCE, six lie approximately in a straight line. The other
two, the pyramids of Khafre and Sahure, lie close to this group.
FIG. 19
This alignment of the deviations measured on the eight pyramids confirms that they originate from the
precession of the equinoxes. Points 1-3 (Sneferu), 4 (Khufu), 5 (Khafre), 6 (Mekaure) and 8 (Neferirkare)
align with a straight line of positive slope and points 5 (Khafre), 7 (Sahure), as well as Senwosret I (1946-
1901), align with another straight line of negative slope. The orientation of the pyramids (from 1 to 8) is on a
positive straight line “a” but two pyramids (5 and 7) are on a negative straight line “b”. If one supposes that
the values on the line “a” were performed at summer solstice (positive deviation) and those on the line “b”
were at winter solstice (negative deviation) we can get a new calibrated straight-line b parallel to line a (right
figure below). The deviations measured on the pyramids of Unas and Amenemhat III cannot be explained by
the precession of the equinoxes.
FIG. 20
The main objection to the method proposed by Spence is the following: When the pyramids were built,
only two stars brighter than fifth magnitude lay anywhere near the pole: Thuban (3.65 mag, 1.5° distant) and
the irregularly variable star ι Draco (4.5–5.0 mag). In 2627 BCE, the pole was equidistant (1°) from each
star, so the pole was the obtuse apex of a squat isosceles triangle formed between itself and the two stars.
When both stars were at the same altitude, north was the direction bisecting them. Among several
mechanical methods, north could have been determined in the dark by sighting the two horizontal stars
simultaneously against a pointed post, the pyramidal top of an obelisk, or any similar object; when the
observer can eclipse both stars simultaneously on opposite sides of the peak, the line from the observer to the
peak points northwards. This simultaneous-eclipse method does not require the post or obelisk to be
illuminated, making it simpler than Spence’s plumb-line method; there is no easy way to see a plumb line at
night while retaining the observer’s night vision acuity. Spence’s Kochab and Mizar are indeed brighter than
Thuban, but the eye precision she assumes implies that the Kochab–Mizar line will confusingly pass into
detectable and uncentred non-verticality in a matter of a few (perhaps 10) seconds. (Spence’s suggestions of
5-year or 1–2-year precision for dating the pyramids imply a surveying precision of about 1' = 0.017°). So
Spence’s method, although possible, would require agile quickness. In contrast, the midpoint between
Thuban and ι Draco gives a ground orientation within 1' of true north for over 5 minutes on either side of its
transit. The very slow motion of these stars (and the small size of any potential orientation error from their
use) is due to their close proximity to the celestial pole. In 2627 BCE, the misorientation associated with our
obvious and straight forward method was null but precessionally increasing at 27.4' cy-1 in azimuth, which
matches Spence’s 28' cy-1 empirical rate much more closely than her Mizar–Kochab method (31' cy-1). This
implies dates of 2638 BCE for Khufu’s pyramid and 2607 BCE for Khafre’s.
Spence replies — Rawlins and Pickering have correctly identified an error: I should indeed have divided
the calculated figures for the distance of the line between β Ursae Minoris (Kochab) and ζ Ursae Majoris
(Mizar) from the pole by cosine 30° to convert the rate of drift (which is correct) into azimuth. However, this
error does not invalidate my method: the increase in the slope is small and the revised gradient fits well with
the data originally presented (below).
The decision to discard the alternative pair of stars first considered is also now more convincing, as their
revised drift is around 37' cy-1, which cannot be accommodated by the archaeological data. The revision
therefore does not affect my results, apart from being more compatible with a shorter reign for Sneferu.
Rawlins and Pickering also question whether orientations could be achieved during the short period when the
two stars are in simultaneous transit. This would not be a problem as, assuming that the plumb line was hung
from a frame, the sighting device could be adjusted to keep the plumb line equidistant between the two stars
for several minutes as they came into simultaneous transit. The alignment could also have been checked on
successive nights to ensure that it was exact. The fact that this method has a short and clearly defined period
(the stars move rapidly out of plumb in opposite directions), within which the alignment is established, is one
of the reasons why it is such an accurate method of orientation. The stars used are very bright and low light
on a plumb line would not have substantially affected visibility. I find the alternative method proposed by
Rawlins and Pickering unconvincing because ι Draco is very faint, barely visible to the naked eye on a clear,
dark night (Spence: 2001, 699-700).
Spence's refutation of the visibility of the astronomical phenomenon is therefore very relevant but may
backfire on her explanation of the transit of the two stars by the celestial pole. Indeed, if these two stars,
which rotated around the celestial pole (2° west of Thuban), were briefly vertical at the time of the transit of
the two stars, this could be verified by a plumb line, but the visibility of a plumb line at night is very
problematic (and the addition of an oil lamp would have prevented the stars from being seen).
134
FIG. 21
FIG. 21
The solution proposed by Kate Spence to explain the orientation of the pyramids of the 4th and 5th
dynasties undeniably satisfies the following two conditions: 1) the variations in orientation can only be
explained by the precession of equinoxes and 2) the high precision of the orientations of about +/- 0.2', which
corresponds to a variation of +/- 6 mm on a side of 100 m, can only be explained by a very precise stellar
alignment. However, two conditions are not met: 1) the choice of the two stars, Kochab and Mizar, is
arbitrary and has no historical justification, only Sirius and Venus (considered as a star) played a role in
Egyptian astronomy, and 2) the method of simultaneous transit of two stars is too sophisticated compared to
the rudimentary observation techniques of the Egyptians during the 4th and 5th Dynasties. To remedy these
two obstacles some astronomers have proposed another simpler method of observation164 (Dash: 2013, 8-14),
which was probably used to trace the meridian in the astronomical ceiling of Senenmut (Žába: 1953, 14-74).
A close examination of this astronomical ceiling reveals that, while the accuracy of the observations is
remarkable (better than 0.1°, but at least 10 times less than that used to orient the pyramids), the method used
to trace the meridian did not correspond to that of Kate Spence, and the accuracy of the astronomical
readings on the ceiling depended on clepsydras (water clocks for measuring the 12 hours of the night) which
were not invented until around 1500 BCE165, i.e. 1,000 years after the reign of Sneferu.
164
This method consisted of precisely locating the spot where a star rises in the east on an artificial horizon, then the spot where it
sets in the west, and drawing the bisector between these two marks.
165
The Greeks referred to it as a klepsydra (the Latinized variant is clepsydra), literally a “water thief”. An inscription in his tomb
identifies one Amenemhet, court astronomer to Amenhotep I (1505-1484), as the inventor of the water clock.
The astronomical ceiling of Senenmut is cut in half by a vertical pole representing the meridian. We
know that the pyramid texts (5th Dynasty) distinguish between imperishable stars, those that can be seen all
year round, and perishable stars, those that are born at the horizon (heliacal rising of the star), culminate and
then die at the horizon (heliacal setting of the star). The meridian is represented by the bisector between a
point on the horizon in the east and another equidistant point in the west. Analysis of this astronomical
ceiling166 revealed that at around midnight on 18/19 March 1463 BCE, there was the simultaneous passage
on the meridian of two stars well known to the Egyptians: β Orionis (Rigel) and η Ursae Majoris (Alkaid, the
star at the western end of the Big Dipper). Among the 36 stars mentioned on the astronomical ceiling of
Senenmut there is neither Mizar (ζ Ursae Majoris) nor Kochab (β Ursae Minoris), the two stars that would
have been used to determine the meridian according to Kate Spence.
166
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 in the Big Dipper at the tip of the meridian was η Ursae Majoris. 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
(altitude) of 68.2° in 1463 BCE. If the limit between the second and third part (of four months of 30 days) was the night of 18/19
March (culmination of the star η Ursae Majoris), the one between the third and the first part 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 first
and the second 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, which was
divided into 36 decans (= 36 Egyptian weeks), each covering a period of 10 days (excluding the 5 epagomenal days).
136
The meridian of the astronomical ceiling of Senenmut was therefore traced using the simultaneous
culmination at midnight (24:00) of the stars Rigel (β Orionis) and Alkaid (η Ursae Majoris). To determine
the culmination point of a star as accurately as possible, the altitude of the star should be recorded when it
appears in the east at the beginning of the night, around 19:00 (= 24:00 - 5:00), and then disappears in the
west towards the end of the night, around 5:00. To obtain the exact highest point (culmination) it is sufficient
to draw the bisector between the points at exactly the same altitude in the East and West (below). As a star
takes 24 hours to complete a full circle, it can only be observed for 10 hours (from 19:00 to 5:00), since
during the day the sunlight prevents it from being seen.
This method of tracing the meridian has several drawbacks: 1) it is 10 times less accurate than the
method used to orient the pyramids on the meridian, 2) it is only accurate when night lasts at least 10 hours,
i.e. between the autumnal and spring equinoxes, and 3) it must use bright stars that are easily visible. The
“Stretching the cord” ceremony, used for the astronomical orientation of the temples, in the Red Chapel of
Hatshepsut at Karnak for example, does not mention any stars (including Sirius) and the description assumes
that this ceremony was performed during the day, not at night (Lauer: 1960, 172-182). According to an
inscription in the Temple of Horus at Edfu (built in the Ptolemaic period): I take the pole and grasp the
handle of the mallet; I grasp the cord with Seshat (Egyptian goddess of writing, wisdom, and knowledge). I
turn my gaze according to the movement of the stars and move it to (the asterism of) Meskhetiu (the Big
Dipper). The God of time-keeping is standing next to his merkhet167. I establish the 4 corners of your temple.
This very late text (dated between 257 and 57 BCE) indeed associates the orientation of the 4 corners of a
temple with the observation of the stars and the “Stretching the cord” ceremony, but the Egyptian texts of
this time only mention Sirius, the brightest star of the Big Dipper, and Venus, the brightest planet considered
as a star. In addition, there is no evidence that the “Stretching the cord” ceremony took place at night, on the
contrary. Therefore, the only star that was sometimes used to fix the orientation of some temples was Sirius,
but this star could not be used to fix the meridian, and thus the north-south axis of the pyramids, for at least
two reasons: 1) to have the best accuracy it had to be observed during the nights around the winter solstice,
however the majority of the pyramids of the 4th and 5th dynasties were oriented at the time of the summer
solstice (the worse period for observation of Sirius), 2) even at the time of the winter solstice the meridian
obtained by drawing the bisector between the East and West markers of Sirius at the same altitude
(declination) is 10 times less accurate than that of the pyramids of the 4th and 5th dynasties.
If the Egyptian astronomical priests had used Mizar and Kochab, or two other stars, to determine the
meridian and thus the axis of the pyramids, these two particular stars should have been mentioned in the
stellar clocks, the oldest of which was discovered in the coffin of Idy (Von Bomhard: 1999, 58-59) who was
vizier of Pepy II (2181-2127) at the end of his reign, then of Neferkauhor and Neferirkare. Among 20 stellar
clocks studied, only about 40 stars, among the 50 or so listed, could be identified, but none of these lists
mentions Mizar or Kochab (Gadré: 2008, 15-70). Stellar clocks were used by the Egyptians, as early as the
time of Pepy II, to measure, each week (= 10 days) of the year, the 12 hours of the night, which began with
167
The merkhet (mrḫt, 'instrument of knowing') was an ancient surveying and timekeeping instrument. It involved the use of a bar
with a plumb line, attached to a wooden handle. It was used to track the alignment of certain stars during decans or “baktiu” (weeks
of 10 days) in the Ancient Egyptian. When visible, the stars could be used to measure the time at night. There were 10 stars for the 10
hours of the night; the day had a total of 24 hours including 12 hours for the day, 1 hour for sunset, and 1 hour for sunrise. Merkhets
were used to replace sundials, which were useless during the dark.
the heliacal rising of Sirius. These clocks were replaced, from Amenhotep I onwards, by clepsydras, which
were much easier to use. The 12 hours of the day were measured very simply thanks to a gnomon, the
ancestor of sundial. The pyramid texts mention only two stars, Sirius and Venus, and the oldest known
astronomical observation centre is the one dated to the time of Mentuhotep III (1994-1982) which was
dedicated to the observation of the heliacal rise of Sirius168. To be consistent with this historical data, Karine
Gadré suggested that the pyramids of the 5th and 4th dynasties were oriented according to the azimuth of the
heliacal setting of Procyon (α Canis Minoris), the brightest star in the constellation of Canis Minor, a star
associated with Sirius (α Canis Majoris), the brightest star in the constellation of Canis Major. However, as
the azimuth measurement is at best 0.1° (accuracy 30 times lower than the 0.2' of the pyramids' axis), it does
not allow to establish a precise chronology (Gadré: 2008c, 1-10).
The methods used by the Egyptians to determine the meridian are still unknown, but the easiest way
was to use a gnomon (below), a pole displaying the shadow of the sun (like sundials). At the summer solstice
the shadow height is shortest but the day is longest with a large east-west axis, whereas at the winter solstice
the shadow height is longest but the day is shortest with a small east-west axis.
FIG. 22
168
Perched on the summit of the highest peak in the Hills of Thebes, the Djebel Thoth, there is a fascinating temple dedicated to the
falcon god Horus by the 11th-dynasty king Mentuhotep III. The summit of Djebel Thoth would have been a marvelous spot from
which to observe the heliacal rising of the star, well above the haze of the riverbanks, and we would tend to agree with this idea
since, nearby, in the scarps of Djebel Tjauti, a report of the observation of the heliacal rising of Sirius was inscribed on the rocks
(Shaltout, Belmonte: 2005, 1-26).
138
This method is very simple, but the blurring of the shadow (of about 2 mm) cast on the ground by the
gnomon prevents an accurate measurement of the meridian. For example, even with a well-sharpened 2
metre high pole, the alignment of the 4.6 m long bisector (= 2m/tan[23.5°]) at the summer solstice is about
+/- 1.5' (0.025° = arctan[2/4600]). To obtain an accuracy of 0.15' (0.0025°), as measured on the pyramids, a
40-metre-high mast would be required. For a long time, most specialists (including myself) believed that the
orientation of the meridian, obtained by tracing the perpendicular to the east-west axis from the shadow of
the gnomon, could not be accurate enough (+/- 0.1'). However, several studies have shown that two points:
1) a 40-metre-high mast is easily achievable and 2) the mean curve connecting all the measurement points
(below) improves the accuracy of the alignment by a factor of 10 (Gangui: 2015, 199-200).
In Kate Spence's study, the deviations in the orientation of pyramids are estimated on average to be
around 0.2' with respect to the axis of the normalized east face (East* side). Some deviations are difficult to
explain, such as the orientation of the north face of the Sneferu-Meidum pyramid (North side), which should
have provided the best result (double transit of the stars Mizar and Kochab around the celestial pole), is 17.3'
(= 35.4' - 18.1'), and that of the Djdefre pyramid is worse: -49', instead of -4' (Dash: 2015, 1-15; (Hamilton:
2018 ,49). Even the faces of this pyramid are not strictly parallel since they form an angle of -4.0' (= arctan
[(106.007 m – 106.132 m)/106.007 m]). Despite these small errors in the orientation of the pyramids, the
dating of Menkaure's reign (2411-2384) fits within 4 years of Shepseskaf's reign (2387-2383), which is
anchored on Neferefre's reign (2348-2346) determined by astronomy.
TABLE 85
King East* North East South West Average reign #
4 (1) Sneferu-Meidum -18.1' -35.4' -20.6' -23.6' -18.1' -24.4' 2522 - 46
(2) Sneferu-Bent Pyramid -11.8' -7.5' -17.3' -4.2' -11.8' -10.2'
(3) Sneferu-Red Pyramid -8.7' -8.7' -2476
(4) Khufu -2.8' -2.9' -3.4' -3.7' -4.6' -3.6' 2476-(2453) 23
Djedefre (-4.0') (-49') (2453)-2444 ( 9)
(5) Khafre (Khephren) -6.0' -5.2 -6.0' -5.7' -6.0' -5.7' 2444-2411 33
(6) Menkaure +14.1' +18.8' +12.4' +13.0' +14.1' 2411-2384 27
Shepseskaf 2387-2383 4
5 Userkaf 2383-2373 10
(7) Sahure +30.0' +23' 2374-2361 13
(8) Neferirkare Kakai +35.0' +30.0' 2361-2349 12
Shepseskare 2349-2348 1
Neferefre 2348-2346 2
King Djedefre North East South West Average ∆East-West

side length of the pyramid 106.220 m 106.132 m 106.006 m 106.007 m 106.009 m (-4.0')
FIG. 23
If all deviations from the
alignment of the pyramids, studied by
Spence, are plotted on a curve
(opposite figure), one gets two
straight lines: red for the meridian
obtained at the summer solstice and
green for the meridian obtained at the
winter solstice. Therefore, Spence's
results remain accurate if we replace
her assumption of a meridian, north-
south axis, obtained from the transit
of two stars on the celestial pole, with
the bisection of the east-west axis
obtained from a gnomon visualising
the shadow of the sun. As the sun is a
star (the only one visible during the
day) the precession is the same as for
the other stars169.
The accuracy of an orientation based on stars (0.2') is about 10 times better than an orientation based on
the sun's shadow (2'), using a gnomon, but in the table above the accuracy is closer to that obtained by a
gnomon. Furthermore, the best accuracy is obtained on the east-west axis (used by Spence to calculate the
accession dates of the Egyptian kings!), rather than on the north-south axis (meridian), which should have
been the preferred axis according to Spence's stellar method (Dash: 2017: 1-15). Egyptologists have believed
that, since the oldest heliacal lever of Sirius appears on a plaque of King Djer and the city of Heliopolis had
the oldest astronomical observation centre, the Egyptians observed the stars as early as the first dynasties.
This conclusion is false for the following reasons: 1) these centres were dedicated to the observation of the
sun and not the stars; 2) the kings of the 4th and 5th dynasties all built, next to their pyramids aligned on the
meridian, temples of the Sun; 3) the oldest astronomical observation centre (Thoth hill) is the one built by
Mentuhotep III (1994-1982) to observe the heliacal rising of Sirius and 4) the oldest stellar clock is the one
that appears on the coffin of Idy who was vizier of Pepy II (2181-2127) at the end of his reign. Therefore,
there is no evidence that the Egyptians observed the stars, apart from Sirius, before the reign of Pepy II. The
most important personage, next to the king and the vizier, had the prominent title “Supervisor of the
observation of Re” and the city of Heliopolis meant “city of the sun” in Greek and “city of pillars
(obelisks170)” in Egyptian (Waziri: 2016, 31-50).
TABLE 86
King ∆0 reign Supervisor of the Name of the solar Pyramid with a
observation of Re temple171 north-south axis
4 6th Menkaure 28 2415-2387 Neferinpu - Yes
7th Shepseskaf 4 2387-2383 " - Yes
5 1st Userkaf 10 2383-2373 Neferiretenef Nekhen-Re Yes
2nd Sahure 12 2373-2361 " Sekhet-Re Yes
3rd Neferirkare Kakai 12 2361-2349 Ptahshepses Setib-Re Yes
4th Shepseskare 1 2349-2348 " Hotepib-Re? Yes
5th Neferefre 2 2348-2346 " Hetep-Re Yes (unfinished)
6th Niuserre Ini 14 2346-2332 " Shesepib-Re Yes
7th Menkauhor 8 2332-2324 Neferiretptah Akhet-Re -
8th Djedkare Isesi 38 2324-2286 - - -
The astronomical observation centre was therefore mainly dedicated to the observation of the sun and
secondarily to the observation of Sirius which marked the flooding of the Nile around the summer solstice.
The pyramids of the kings of the 4th and 5th dynasties were all centred on the four cardinal points until
169
These two lines (red and green) are straight over the period 2600 to 2000 BCE because the area of variation is small compared to
the total cycle of 25,772 years needed to return to the starting point. 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 (30° each), at
the rate of about 50.3" (= 360°x60x60/25,772) per year, or 1° (= 60') every 71.6 years.
170
Benben is the Egyptian name for the obelisk. According to the Heliopolitans, Atum-Ra (Sun god) manifested himself in this form
for the first time and the obelisk was a frozen sunbeam. It is certainly according to this symbolism that the pyramidion was covered
with gold leaves.
171
The word -Re at the end of the names means “Sun” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_sun_temple
140
Niuserre. Spence assumed that the pyramid alignment ceremony took place in the second year of each king's
reign, after the burial of his predecessor, the selection of a suitable site, the preparation and levelling of the
site. Two examples show that the choice of the site of the pyramid and the beginning of its construction took
place early in the reign. For example, Shepseskare (2349-2348), who reigned for only one year, was able to
complete his pyramid (probably with the help of his successor), as was Senwosret I (1946-1901), who
aligned the axis of his temple with the azimuth of the sunrise at the winter solstice (5 January 1946 BCE), in
his first year of reign.
The antiquity of the Egyptian ritual of the “stretching of the cord” can be traced back to the 1st Dynasty.
Right up until the latest representations of the ceremony, which date to the Roman period, one goddess
always appeared in it: Seshat. The iconography of the ritual retained throughout several features that are
present in the earliest scene known, dating to king Khasekhemwy (Josephson, Hartwig: 2019, 215). We
know that the “stretching of the cord” was used for the orientation of Egyptian constructions (but there is no
indication that this orientation depended on stars or the sun). The earliest representation of a stretching of the
cord ceremony is found in the Palermo Stone: it refers to the reign of an unknown king of the 1st Dynasty,
presumably Den. Here, the sign of Seshat is written in a way more similar to the Old and early New
Kingdom depictions. Consequently, the stretching of the cord ceremony can be traced back to the earliest
stages of Egyptian history and we can guess that it was very probably used to establish the axis of sacred
buildings prior to starting the actual construction of the monument. It is interesting to note that neither the
Palermo stone nor earlier representations, such as the one found at Abusir and dated to the 5th Dynasty
(below right) or the one depicted on the Red Chapel of Queen Hatshepsut (below left), mention the name of
the star or asterism observed during the ceremony (Miranda, Belmonte, Molinero: 2008, 57-61).
FIG. 24
If this “Stretching of the cord” ceremony to fix the orientation of the four sides of a pyramid depended
on two transiting stars, as Spence postulated, these representations should have represented them. Even the
symbol above Seshat's head is not a star172. Moreover, it seems unlikely that, as early as the first dynasty, the
Egyptians were able to orientate these pyramids by using a double star transit. It is much more logical that
they used the large masts at the entrance of the temples (about 30 metres high) as gnomons. In fact, the only
event that was accurately observed by the Egyptians was the flooding of the Nile, which coincided with the
summer solstice and the heliacal rising of Sirius, but there is no evidence that these astronomical events were
used to orient the funerary buildings.
The four early First Dynasty rulers built their cult structures, usually now called funerary enclosures, in
the North Cemetery (fig. 29). Again, there are both similarities and differences among these monuments. The
funerary enclosures seem to have remained quite static in basic form. They had massive mudbrick walls and
would have looked from the outside similar to private mastaba tombs of the period: they were simple
rectangles in plan, always oriented north–south173. In fact, the Abydos enclosures are oriented substantially
172
The Seshat emblem is a hieroglyph representing the goddess Seshat in ancient Egypt. As the emblem symbolizes this deity, it sits
atop her head. The emblem was a long stem with a seven-petal flower on top and surmounted by a pair of horns; the archaic form had
seven petals and surmounted by two enclosing sickle-shaped signs, two falcon-feathers on top.
173
Their exterior walls were decorated with a complex pattern of niching on their local east face and sim-pler niching on their other
sides. At the exterior base of the walls ran a low brick bench. The enclosures had two doorways (southeast and northeast).
off a perfect cardinal axis, but this is because the Nile in the region of Abydos flows from southeast to
northwest. The enclosures are oriented parallel to the Nile, even though the river is many kilometres away.
As such, these monuments are notionally, or theoretically (therefore plus or minus a few degrees), rather than
cardinally aligned to a north–south axis (Bestock: 2011, 137-144).
FIG. 25
These slight deviations in orientation on the north-south axis (above) prove that these buildings were not
oriented in relation to the stars, but approximately, plus or minus a few degrees, in relation to the maximum
shadow of a gnomon (probably the mast of a temple dedicated to the sun). Therefore, the “stretching of the
cord” ceremony was initially used to fix a rectangular alignment of the walls, as masons still do to build the
foundations of a building when they stretch a string (generally coated with a coloured powder) between two
stakes. A circle is then drawn around each stake to obtain a perpendicular (red line) to the original axis of
orientation (the two blue horizontal lines represent the rope wrapped around the two poles).
FIG. 26
The kings of the first two dynasties built
rectangular funerary monuments oriented roughly
north-south parallel to the Nile. In contrast, the
kings of the third dynasty built pyramids with
square bases that continued to be oriented to the
north (the step pyramids of Djoser and Khaba
were transformed into triangular pyramids).
Sneferu, the first king of the fourth dynasty,
was also the first to orient his pyramid rigorously
according to the four cardinal points. As the east-
west axis of this pyramid is the most precise, it
must be assumed that this orientation was
determined precisely by means of a high gnomon
(probably one of the masts at the entrance to a
solar temple).
142
FIG. 27
The unfinished pyramid of Nebka (above), with a square base (200 m x 200 m), is perfectly aligned
towards the north, but this pyramid was paradoxically not finished, and its state of preservation did not allow
us to measure its exact orientation in relation to the north and to deduce the deviation induced by the
precession of the equinoxes. However, it is possible that this pyramid was the first to be perfectly aligned
with the meridian. If the deviation of the orientation of this pyramid from the meridian could have been
measured, it could have made it possible to calculate the date of the beginning of Nebka's reign. The
orientation of the pyramids thus allows to calculate precisely all the reigns of the kings of the fourth dynasty.
TABLE 87
14 14
King C dating ∆ C
TC ∆0 reign
4 1st Sneferu 2649-(2629) 20
24 44 2523-2479
2nd Khufu (Kheops) 2629-(2610) 19
23 23 2479-2456
3rd Djedefre 2610-(2604) 6 8 8 2456-2448
4th Khafre (Khephren) 2604-(2581) 23
[x] 33 2448-2415
5th Menkaure 2581-(2556) 25
28 28 2415-2387
6th Shepseskaf 2556-(2548) 8 4 4 2387-2383
5 1st Userkaf 2548-(2542) 6 7 10 2383-2373
2nd Sahure 2542-(xxxx) 12 12 2373-2361
3rd Neferirkare Kakai ? 12 2361-2349
4th Shepseskare 7 1 2349-2348
5th Neferefre [-] 2 2348-2346
6th Niuserre Ini 11-4 14 2346-2332
7th Menkauhor 8 8 2332-2324
8th Djedkare Isesi 2486-(2450) 36 28 38 2324-2286
9th Unas 2450-(2423) 27 30 30 2286-2256
6 1st Teti 2423-(xxxx) [-] 18 2256-2238
The reign lengths obtained by astronomy (∆0) are in very good agreement with those of the Turin
Canon (TC) but in less good agreement (errors highlighted in orange) with those calculated by carbon-14
(∆14C). These comparisons allow us to deduce an essential point concerning the Egyptian king lists: they
existed as early as the first king (Narmer) and were copied with meticulousness since 79% of the figures of
the Turin Canon are accurate (highlighted in green) despite a copy made about 1200 years later. Therefore, it
can be assumed that the figures (∆0) in the king list of the Palermo Stone, copied around 2350 BCE, must
have been accurate and must therefore be used in the reconstruction of the Palermo Stone. This assumption is
crucial for the reconstruction of the Palermo Stone because this king list (PS) is very fragmentary, but as
each compartment on a line represents a year of reign (of 365 days), therefore Sneferu's reign, which is
incomplete, must have had 44 compartments.
Before determining the length of the reigns of the first three dynasties, the order of succession must first
be determined by cross-checking all the king lists and using 14C dating.
CHRONOLOGY OF DYNASTIES 3 TO 1 THROUGH KING LISTS AND 14C
Egyptian chronology has been reconstructed, for a long time, from the chronological data of the 30
Manetho dynasties (c. 285 BCE). The study of the following king lists174 (c. 1250 BCE): Turin Canon (TC),
Saqqara tablet (Saq), Abydos King List (AKL), and (c. 2350 BCE) Palermo Stone (PS), showed that
Manetho's chronological and geographical data were relatively correct, except for the first dynasties whose
pharaoh names are unrecognizable and the duration of reigns unusable. The first problem to be solved,
before establishing a chronology, is to determine an exact list of the succession of Egyptian kings because no
list gives the same names. In addition, archaeological excavations have revealed many names of kings,
appearing on inscriptions, that were unknown (Dessoudeix: 2008, 7-92) and difficult to read (Hornung,
Krauss, Warburton: 2006, 101). This problem was solved when Egyptologists understood that during the first
four dynasties, kings used four then five names that are conventionally called: 1) Horus' name (ḥr), 2) birth
name (s3-r‘), 3) name of the Two Ladies175 (nb.ty), 4) gold Horus' name (bik-nbw) and 5) throne name (nsw-
bity). The first king who had a complete titulary of the five names is Neferirkare Kakai. For example, if one
list mentions the name of King Neferirkare (5:3) and another the name of Kakai or Userkhau, it is the same
king and not three different kings. The oldest king list is the one appearing on the Palermo Stone (PS). The
names highlighted in grey are those that appear most frequently in the inscriptions.
TABLE 88
Horus Birth name Two Ladies Gold Horus Throne name TC Saq PS AKL
1 1st Narmer Meni 1st [1st] 1st
2nd ‘Aha Teti 2nd 2nd 2nd
3rd Djer Atoti Ninebu 3rd 3rd 3rd
4th Djet Itai 4th 4th 4th
5th Den Semti Khasti ? Iretnebu 5th 5th 5th
6th Adjib Merbiapen Mergeregpen 6th 1st 6th 6th
7th Semerkhet Semsem Iri 7th - 7th 7th
8th Qaa /(Sneferka) Qebeh Qaa 8th 2nd 8th 8th
2 1st Hotepsekhemwy Baunetjer Hotepu 1st 1st 1st 1st
2nd Ra‘neb (Nebre) Nebunefer 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd
3rd Ninetjer Banetjeru? Ninetjer Ren 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd
Seth-peribsen Peribsen Peribsen - - 4th -
Sekhemid Perenmaat - - ? -
4th ? ? Weneg 4th 4th [5th] 4th
? Sened ? 5th 5th [6th] 5th
5th ? Neferkare ? 6th 6th ? -
6th ? Neferkasokar ? 7th 7th ? -
7th Khasekhemwy Bebti K.-hotepnetjer 9th 8th 9th 6th
3 1st Netjerikhet Djoser Netjerikhet 2nd 1st 1st 2nd
2nd Sekhemkhet Djoser-ti 3rd 2nd 2nd 3rd
3rd Sanakht Nebka 1st 3rd [3rd] 1st
“erased” [?] - - [?]
4th Khaba Huni H(u)n(isut-hu) 4th 4th [4th] 4th
4 1st Nebmaat Sneferu Nebmaat Biknebau 1st 1st 1st 1st
2nd Medjdu Khufu Medjdu Bikwynebau Medjdu 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd
3rd Kheper Djedefre Kheper Bikwynebau 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd
4th Userib Khafre User 4th 4th 4th 4th
5th Baka 5th [5th] ? -
“erased” [6th]
6th Kakhet Menkaure Ka 6th [7th] 5th 5th
7th Shepeskhet Shepseskaf Shepes Shepseskaf 7th [8th] 6th 6th
8th Djedefptah 8th [9th] -
5 1st Irumaat Userkaf Irumaat Neferbiknebau 1st 1st 1st 1st
2nd Nebkhau Sahure Nebkhau Bikuinebau 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd
3rd Userkhau Kakai Khau Sekhemunebau Neferirkare 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd
4th Sekhemkhau Usernetjeru Shepseskare [4th] 4th [4th] -
5th Neferkhau Isi Neferu Neferbiknebau Neferefre 5th 5th [5th] 4th
6th Setibtawy Ini Setib Niuserre 6th - [6th] 5th
7th Menkhau Ikauhor Biknebauhadju Menkauhor 7th 6th 6th
8th Djedkare Isesi Djedkhau Djedbiknebau Djedkare 8th 7th 7th
9th Wadjtawy Unas Wadj Wadjbiknebau ? 9th 8th 8th
174
https://pharaoh.se/turin-kinglist-content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saqqara_Tablet
175
The Two Ladies are probably Upper and Lower Egypt.
144
These four lists of kings, together with that of Ptahshepses (Pta.), prove that Egyptian chancelleries had
archives from the First Dynasty onwards. Disagreements between these king lists can be explained either by
omissions, errors, or different ideological interpretations, as shown by the Saqqara tablet for Dynasty 1. As
with any transmission of texts, the number of errors increases with time. For example, the names of the kings
in the list of Manetho, transmitted by Sextus Julius Africanus (c.160–240), are very distorted and the lengths
of reigns out of the 27 known reigns in common with the Turin Canon, are all different, except for one
(Shepseskare), i.e. 3.5% of exact transmission over a period of about 1000 years. The Manetho list is
therefore unusable to establish the lengths of reigns for the first five dynasties. Of the 20 known lengths of
reign between Neferkasokar and Unas (TC), 13 have been transmitted exactly, i.e. 65% exact transmission
compared to the Manetho list. Over the same period, most reign lengths of the Palermo Stone (PS), values
based on the number of compartments (NC) were transmitted exactly (∆0).
TABLE 89
Horus or birth name TC TC Afr. AKL Saq PS Pta. Giz. NC (PS) ∆0 reign
1 1st Narmer 1st [-] 62 1st [1st]
2nd ‘Aha 2nd [-] 57 2nd 2nd
3rd Djer 3rd [-] 31 3rd 3rd
4th Djet 4th [-] 23 4th 4th
5th Den /(Meritneith) 5th [-] 20 5th 5th
6th Adjib 6th 74 26 6th 1st 6th
7th Semerkhet 7th 72 18 7th - 7th
8th Qaa /Sneferka 8th 63 26 8th 2nd 8th
2 1st Hotepsekhemwy 1st 95 38 1st 1st 1st 1st
2nd Ra‘neb (Nebre) 2nd [-] 39 2nd 2nd 2nd
3rd Ninetjer 3rd 95 47 3rd 3rd 3rd
- Peribsen / Sekhemid - - - - - 4th
4th Weneg 4th 70 17 4th 4th [5th]
5th Sened 5th 54 41 5th 5th [6th]
6th Neferkare 6th 70 17 - 6th
7th Neferkasokar 7th 8 y. 3 m. 25 - 7th
8th “Hudjefa” 8th 11 y. 8 m. 48 - 8th
9th Khasekhemwy 9th 27 y. 2 m. 30 6th 9th 7th 17 y. 2 m. 17 2598-2581
3 1st Netjerikhet/ Djoser 2nd 19 y. 1 m. 28 2nd 1st 1st 19 y. 1 m. 19 2581-2562
2nd Sekhemkhet 3rd 6 17 3rd 2nd [2nd] [2nd] 6 6 2562-2556
3rd Nebka 1st 19 16 1st 3rd [3rd] 9 9 2556-2547
[?] 6 62 [?] - - - -
4th Khaba/ Huni 4th 24 57 4th 4th [4th] 24 24 2547-2523
4 1st Sneferu 1st 24 28 1st 1st 1st 44 44 2523-2479
2nd Khufu 2nd 23 63 2nd 2nd 2nd 23 23 2479-2456
3rd Djedefre 3rd 8 25 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 8 8 2456-2448
4th Khafre 4th [x] 66 4th 4th 4th 4th [33] 33 2448-2415
5th Baka 5th [x] 22 - [5th] ? - -
6th Menkaure 6th 28 63 5th [6th] 5th 5th 28 28 2415-2387
7th Shepseskaf 7th 4 7 6th [7th] 6th 6th 4 4 2387-2383
8th Djedefptah 8th 2 9 - [8th] ? - - -
5 1st Userkaf 1st 7 28 1st 1st 1st 1st 10 10 2383-2373
2nd Sahure 2nd 12 13 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 12 12 2373-2361
3rd Neferirkare 3rd ? 20 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 12 12 2361-2349
4th Shepseskare [4th] 7 7 - 4th [4th] 4th [ 1] 1 2349-2348
5th Neferefre 5th [x] 20 4th 5th [5th] 5th [ 2] 2 2348-2346
6th Niuserre 6th 11-4 44 5th - [6th] 6th [14] 14 2346-2332
7th Menkauhor 7th 8 9 6th 6th 8 2332-2324
8th Djedkare 8th 28 44 7th 7th 38 2324-2286
9th Unas 9th 30 33 8th 8th 30 2286-2256
6 1st Teti 1st [x] 30 1st 1st 18 2256-2238
All these king lists contain errors (highlighted in orange). There are three ways to detect them: 1) cross-
checking all these lists, for example the reign lengths of the Africanus (Afr.) are unusable; 2) comparison of
reign lengths with those obtained by astronomy (non-measurable durations are less than one year) and 3)
confirmation of reigns by inscriptions or monuments discovered by archaeologists. Before 2500 BCE 14C
dating is not precise enough to establish an absolute chronology, but it can confirm the order of reigns. For
example, the reign of Khasekhemwy (2:9) determined by 14C (2679-2658) is 81 years older than that
obtained by astronomy (2598-2581), but its duration of 21 years is in line with that of the Palermo Stone.
Dynasty 5
• The 28 years of Djedkare's reign (5:8), instead of the 38 years, come from the omission of a decade.
• Niuserre (5:6) was the younger son of Neferirkare Kakai and queen Khentkaus II, and the brother of the
short-lived king Neferefre (5:5). He succeeded his brother directly and Shepseskare (5:4) reigned
between the two (Dodson, Hilton: 2010, 64-67). Analysis of the inscriptions found near their temples
and the brevity of the construction of their pyramids indicate that Sepseskare reigned for about 7 months
instead of 7 years (TC), and Neferefre reigned for about 2 years (Verner: 2001, 495-345). The brevity of
Shepseskare's reign as well as his lack of royal genealogy probably explain his disappearance from a
king list (AKL). On the other hand, the absence of Niuserre in the Saqqara tablet is surprising.
• The 7-year reign of Userkaf (5:1) is accepted by all Egyptologists, however the precise reconstruction
of the Palermo stone (PS) as well as the reigns based on astronomy show that this reign must have lasted
10 years, in accordance with the absolute chronology of Dynasty 5.
Dynasty 4
• Djedefptah (4:8) is the Egyptianized form of the Greek name Thamphthis (TC). Baka (4:5) and
Djedefptah (“He endures like Ptah”) have left no trace, no inscriptions or funerary monuments bearing
their names have been found. According to absolute chronology, these two reigns were either very brief
(a few months) or were co-regencies that were recorded only in a few king lists. It is possible that
Userkaf's wife, Queen Khentkaus I, who was given the unique title of 'Queen mother of a Queen', had a
role as regent to her son Sahure for 2 years (Verner: 2001, 385).
Dynasty 3
• Khaba (3:4) is identical to the Ramesside names Sedjes and Hudjefa II (TC). Both “names” (hudjefa
ḥw-df3 is an ancient Egyptian word for “erased” or “missing”) are pseudonyms for a royal title that was
illegible when the Ramesside scribes compiled the king lists. Huni is identified with the contemporarily
well-attested king Horus-Khaba. This identification is based on the circumstance that both names appear
on incised stone vessels without any further guiding notes. It was a fashion that began with the death of
king Khasekhemwy (end of 2nd dynasty) and ended under king Sneferu (beginning of the 4th dynasty).
Thus, it was a very typical practice of the 3rd dynasty (Wilkinson: 1999, 85–89). The necropolis of the
Layer Pyramid at Zawyet el'Aryan is still incompletely investigated. A nearby mastaba (Mastaba Z500),
which was integrated into the pyramid complex, contained several stone bowls with the Horus name of
king Khaba. Thus, the Layer Pyramid is commonly equally known as the pyramid of Khaba. However,
the finishing of the pyramid lasted a long period of time and since the Turin Canon credits a 24-year
reign to Huni, this time span surely covered the building time needed for the pyramid. Thus, both names
Huni and Khaba might point to one and the same ruler (Verner: 1999, 174; Stadelmann: 2007, 425–
431). Netjerikhet (3:1) and Sekhemkhet (3:2), according to two king lists (Saq, PS). King Nebka (3:3),
in third place (Saq), was displaced in two king lists (TC, AKL) at the beginning of the dynasty; perhaps
because the 19-year reign given to him, instead of 9 years (Dodson, Hilton: 2010, 287), was equated
with the 19 years given to Djoser (Seidlmayer: 2006, 116-123).
Dynasty 2
• The list of kings of Dynasty 2 is the most difficult to reconstruct, because among the seven names
confirmed by the inscriptions (highlighted in grey), only one appears in the four previous king lists
(Sened), with the surprising exception of the Palermo Stone, which instead mentions the names of three
kings Ninetjer, Seth-Peribsen and Khasekhemwy (Wilkinson: 2000, 54,258).
TABLE 90
King name in: Turin KL Saqqara KL Abydos KL Giza KL Palermo KL
Date c. 1250 BCE c. 1250 BCE c. 1280 BCE c. 2350 BCE c. 2350 BCE
2 1st Hotepsekhemwy Bau[netjer] Baunetjer Bedjau Bedjatau [Hotepsekhemwy]
2nd Ra‘neb (Nebre) [Ka]kau Kakau Kakau [Ra‘neb]
3rd Ninetjer Baunetjer Banetjeru Baunetjer Ninetjer Ren
4th Weneg Wadjenes Wadjles Wadjenes -
5th Sened Senedj Senedj Sendi -
- Seth-Peribsen - - - Seth-[Peribsen]
6th Neferkare Aaka Neferkare - [?]
7th Neferkasokar Neferkasokar Neferkasokar - [?]
8th “Hudjefa” “Hudjefa “Hudjefa - [?]
9th Khasekhemwy Bebety Beby Djaday Khasekhemwy
3 1st Netjerikhet/ Djoser Djoser-it Djoser Djosersa Netjerikhet
2nd Sekhemkhet/Djoser-ti Djoser-ti Djoser-teti Teti Teti Sekhemkhet
3rd Nebka Nebka Nebkare Nebka [Nebka]
4th Khaba/ Huni Huni Huni Neferkare [Khaba]
H(u)n(isut-hu)
146
The discrepancies in names in the two oldest king lists (Palermo, Giza) show that some lists had been
revised as early as Dynasty 5. While some differences may be explained by copyist errors, the main cause of
the discrepancies is the updating of the king lists in relation to the standardization of royal titulary which had
evolved over time. The kings of Dynasty 1 mainly used their Horus name in their inscriptions, while the
kings of Dynasty 4 favoured their birth name and those of Dynasty 5 favoured their throne name in their
titulary. The Palermo Stone was engraved using a copy from a royal archive while the Giza writing board
was engraved using a copy from an Egyptian temple176. The updating of the names contained in the king lists
of Dynasties 2 and 3 is particularly complex because during these two dynasties the titulary was fluctuating.
For example, Sekhemkhet, which was the Horus name of this king, was first replaced by Djoser-teti (Saq),
his birth name, and then quickly shortened to Teti (Giza, AKL) or Djsoser-ti (TC). The case of
Khasekhemwy is more complex because he used three different Horus names (in fact three Horus-Seth
names) and two different Two Ladies names (Dessoudaix: 2008, 46-47), and his birth name is not known. It
is possible that Bedjatau was his birth name and that it was misread, as the spelling of the names of the first
three dynasties is extremely defective, and then mis-abbreviated. It is also possible that Banetjeru (shortened
to Baunetjer) was the birth name of Ninetjer. However, Ra‘neb's birth name was Nebunefer, not Kakau
(unknown). The standardization of royal names explains the numerous confusions in the king lists of
Dynasty 2, and therefore the numerous errors of copyists. A second source of confusion was the complicated
succession between Ninetjer and Khasekhemwy since there would have been Weneg, Sened, then Neferkar
and Neferkasokar, who are unknown kings, whereas according to the Palermo Stone there would have been
Seth-Peribsen, then perhaps Weneg and Sened. The setting in parallel of the kings and the duration of their
reign of the first three dynasties, according to the Turin Canon and the Palermo Stone, shows that those of
Dynasty 2 comprise several anomalies in the order of succession and in the duration of reigns.
TABLE 91
14
King C dating ∆1 TC Afr. PS date+ [PS] ∆0 Reign
1 1st Narmer [-] 62 [1st] [30] [30]
2nd ‘Aha 3060 - 260 [-] 57 2nd 20 - [24] [171] 2835 -
3rd Djer [-] 31 3rd 38 Sed [46]
4th Djet/ Wadji [-] 23 4th 9 [ 9]
5th Den [-] 20 5th 36 Sed [44]
6th Adjib 74 26 6th 6 [ 6]
7th Semerkhet 72 18 7th 9 [ 9]
8th Qaa /(Sneferka) -2800 63 26 8th 33 II Sed [33] -2664
2 1st Hetepsekhemwy 2800 - 114 95 38 1st (83) 2664 -
2nd Ra‘neb (Nebra) [-] 39 2nd
3rd Ninetjer 95 47 3rd Sed
Peribsen - - 4th
4th Weneg 70 17 -
5th Sened 54 41 -
6th Neferkare 70 17 [5th]
7th Neferkasokar 8 25 [6th]
8th “Hudjefa” 12 48
9th Khasekhemwy -2686 27 30 7th 17 17 2598-2581
3 1st Djoser/ Netjerikhet 2686 - 73 19 29 1st [19] 19 58 2581-2562
2nd Sekhemkhet 6 7 [2nd] [ 6] 6 2562-2556
3rd Nebka/ Sanakht 19 28 [3rd] [ 9] 9 2556-2547
4th Khaba/ Huni -2613 24 16 [4th] 24 24 2547-2523
4 1st Sneferu 2613 - 24 28 1st 44 41 44 2523-2479
The duration of the first three dynasties was measured by 14C (Hassan, Seirrano, Tassie: 2006, 702-709).
Although the 14C dating ages the dates obtained by astronomy are of 90 years for the reign of Sneferu (2523-
2479), of 105 years for the reign of Djoser (2581-2562), etc., it does so in a regular and progressive way,
which allows to estimate the real duration (according to astronomy) of Dynasty 2. We note that Dynasty 3
has a duration of 58 years (∆0), according to astronomy, but of 73 years ∆1) according to 14C dating, an
ageing in a ratio of 1,26 (= 73/58). Dynasty 1 has an approximate duration of 171 years (∆0), according to
the estimation of the number of compartments in the Palermo Stone (see following pages), but of 260 years
∆1) according to 14C dating, an aging in a ratio of 1,50 (= 260/171). Dynasty 2, which lies between dynasties
1 and 3, must be aged approximately in a ratio of 1.38 (= [1.50 + 1.26]/2), which implies a real duration of
about 83 years (= 114/1.38), while the sum of the durations, according to the Palermo Stone, this duration
must be around 131 years. This quick calculation shows that there are obviously too many reigns in Dynasty
176
The Giza king list is an ancient Egyptian artefact created during the late Dynasty 5 (c. 2350 BCE). It was found in the burial place
of a high official named Mesdjerw and his wife Hetep-neferet.
2 (at least two). The discovery of numerous inscriptions of the kings of the second dynasty makes it possible
to reconstitute the complete succession of reigns.
FIG. 28
177
A short king list appears on the statue of Hotepdief, priest of the
mortuary cults of the first three rulers of the dynasty, Hotepsekhemwy, Ra‘neb
and Ninetjer. The serekh (Horus name) of Ra‘neb is the middle one on the
shoulder of the priest (opposite). This priest having served three kings during
his career, one can suppose from 30 to 70 years178, that supposes a maximum
duration for his career of 40 years179, in agreement with the average duration of
13 years (3x13) for the reigns of the kings of Dynasty 3. The succession of
these three kings is complicated by the presence of a co-regency between
Hotepsekhemwy and Ra‘neb that can be deduced from the fact that
Hotepsekhemwy appears in front of the goddess Ubastet (Bastet) on a diorite
vase (N°57) with only his name of Horus, but on another vase (N°58) he
appears in front of the same goddess with his name of Horus surmounted
by the crown of Upper and Lower Egypt before Ra‘neb also with his name
of Horus surmounted by the crown of Upper and Lower Egypt (Lacau,
Lauer: 1959, 13). This simultaneous presentation of two kings one behind
the other in front of the same goddess is exceptional and logically
supposes a co-regency between these two kings.
The sequence of three Dynasty 2 kings is secure: Hotepsekhemwy—Ra‘neb—Ninetjer, however as the
Horus name of Weneg should be Ra‘neb (Kahl: 2006, 102-106; Hamilton: 2016, 185-199), in fourth place in
all the king lists (except PS), was thus mistakenly understood as a king who would have succeeded Ninetjer.
In the Palermo Stone there is evidence that the ancient annals jumped straight from Ninetjer to Peribsen,
omitting the ephemeral rulers Weneg and Sened altogether. In addition, these two kings seem to have
reigned for short periods, to judge from the paucity of contemporary inscriptions. The four-legged (Seth)
animal atop the serekh of the second king in Cairo 1 register 4 (who follows Ninetjer directly) suggests that
this king should be Peribsen. Yet the position of the titulary indicates a short reign of around 12 years, a very
short period of time for Peribsen to have constructed his tomb and funerary enclosure at Abydos (Wilkinson:
2000, 74). The two Horus names, Sekhemib and Sekhemib-Perenma'at, which appear in the tomb of king
Peribsen, but do not appear in any king list, must be attributed to this king. Two statuettes of Khasekhemwy,
discovered at Hierakonpolis, show on their base the image of lifeless bodies, accompanied by the mention «
Enemies of the North (Lower Egypt): 47,209 », which shows that the transition from Peribsen to
Khasekhemwy was accompanied by violent military engagements (Tallet, Payraudeau, Ragazzoli,
Somaglino: 2019, 74-87). Moreover, the fact that Peribsen had a name of Horus next to a name of Seth and
that he preceded Khasekhemwy, the last king of Dynasty 2, who gave himself a name of Horus and Seth,
confirms that the succession of Ninetjer was very strange (and which remains difficult to explain) since there
was in parallel a king of Upper Egypt (Sened) and a king of Lower Egypt (Peribsen).
The transition between Ninetjer and Khasekhemwy described in the Turin Canon with five intermediate
kings does not correspond to the inscriptions that describe a transition only with Peribsen as intermediate
king, in accordance with the Palermo Stone (Vercoutter: 1992, 223-233). What caused confusion in the early
king lists was the multiplicity of names of this king (who, moreover, ruled only in Lower Egypt), since he
first used an unusual Seth name (Seth-Peribsen), then a classical Horus name (Horus-Sekhemib) alongside
two Two Ladies names: Peribsen and Perenmaat. His successor, Khasekhemwy, also used several unusual
names, first a classical Horus name, Khasekhem, then an unusual Horus-Seth name, Khasekhemwy, next to
Two Ladies names: Hotepnetjeruimef and Nebuhatsen. The relationship between the names Sekhemib and
Peribsen suggest that they were names borne simultaneously by a single king (Horus Sekhemib was the older
177
This kind of king lists which may be called "resultant" lists because they are not a work of a sole "compiler", but the royal names
were added upon the object in which they are inscribed side by side and reign after reign, to indicate the successive individual owner
of that object. These sequences, however, can be considered as true royal lists for two reasons: 1) because the scribes who
successively carved the royal names created a unique register and wrote the sign-groups in a similar module, id est, proceeded by
imitation of the true lists (they could choose to erase and replace the name of the predecessor but they did not); and 2) because most
of them come from the substructure of the step pyramid of King Djoser at Saqqara, to whom they looked like true "lists of ancestors"
when the stone vessels in which they are carved were included in the furniture of his tomb. The "deliberate" lists include Horus
names only (with or without serekhs) and have an eminently funerary character (the seals come from tombs and mention god
Khentiamentiu, and Hotepdief was devoted to funerary royal cult); the "resultant" ones can include Horus or dual names (throne
name and/or Two Ladies name) and have an originally court and ritual character (Cervello: 2005, 20).
178
Herodotus considered in his time (c. 450 BCE) that an age of 70 years was an extreme limit for most men and that a man entered
the service of the king only after 20 years (The Histories I:32,136).
179
A career of 40 years is exceptional for a high official, as is a 40-year reign for a king. For example, Hemaka spent his entire career
during Den's 36-year reign and Merka spent his entire career during Qaa's 33-year reign (Wilkinson: 1999, 147-149).
148
name of Seth Peribsen). The last king of Dynasty 2 was Horus-Seth Khasekhemwy. His power base seems to
have been Hierakonpolis where he is attested as victor over northern enemies under the name: Horus
Khasekhem. Presumably later in his reign, Khasekhem took the Horus-Seth name Khasekhemwy to
demonstrate that peace and harmony had been restored through his actions (Kahl: 2006, 104-115). According
to the inscriptions found in the tombs of 2nd-Dynasty kings180 we obtain the following succession:
TABLE 92
Horus name Birth name Two Ladies Horus/Seth name Birth name Two Ladies
Memphis Thinis
2 1st Hotepsekhemwy Baunetjer Hotepu
2nd Ra‘neb (Nebre) Nebunefer Weneg
3rd Ninetjer Nubnefer? Ninetjer
4th [Neferkasokar?] Sened Seth-Peribsen Peribsen Peribsen
“Hudjefa” Horus-Sekhemid Perenmaat
Khasekhem ? Hotepnetjeruimef
5th Khasekhemwy Nebuhatsen
3 1st Netjerikhet Djoser Netjerikhet
The parallel reign of Sened and Peribsen as well as their multiple Horus names, and Two Ladies names,
are the cause of confusion in the king lists of this 2nd-Dynasty, for several of these names were attributed to
different kings, such as Weneg and Ra‘neb or Nefersokar and Sened, and kings who reigned in parallel were
placed as successive kings, such as Sened and “Hudjefa” (Sekhemib?). The comparison between the names
and lengths of reigns (TC) in the Turin Canon with the names and lengths of reigns obtained by counting the
number of compartments (NC) in the Palermo Stone (PS) gives the following result (Tetley: 2014, 323):
TABLE 93
TC King (Birth name) TC AKL PS King (Horus name) NC King's mother name
0 30 kings of Memphis ** - Kings of Memphis 30 -
10 kings of Thinis ** Kings of Thinis 10
1 1st Meni [-] 1st [1st] [Narmer] 30 ?
2nd Teti [-] 2nd 2nd ‘Aha 24 Neithhotep
3rd Iti (= Atoti) [-] 3rd 3rd Djer 46 Khenthap
4th Itui (= Itai) [-] 4th 4th Djet 9 (Herneith or Nakhtneith)
5th Qenti (= Semti) [-] 5th 5th Den 44 Meritneith
6th Merbiapen 74 6th 6th Adjib 6 (Seshemetka or Semat or ?)
7th Semsem 72 7th 7th Semerkhet 9 Batires
8th Qebeh 63 8th 8th Qaa /Sneferka 33 (Batires)
2 1st Baunetjer 95 1st 1st Hotepsekhemwy 14 ?
2nd Kakau* (= Weneg!) [-] 2nd 2nd Ra‘neb (Nebre) 14 "
3rd Banetjer* (= Nubnefer?) 95 3rd 3rd Ninetjer 44 ?
4th Wadjnes* - 4th 4th Seth-Peribsen 12 ?
[Sekhemid] 42 "
5th Senedj (Horus name) 70 5th [5th] [Sened]
6th 54 6th [6th] [Khasekhem]
7th [Neferkare?] 70 - -
8th Neferkasokar* 12 - -
9th Bebti 27 7th 7th Khasekhemwy 17 ?
The reigns of Weneg (birth name) and Sened (Horus name), were probably placed in the 42-year period
between Peribsen and Khasekhemwy. Three other reasons were a source of confusion: 1) several kings used
their birth name or their Two Ladies name instead of their Horus name, as had been the case for the kings of
the First Dynasty, 2) Ninetjer's successors, Sened and Peribsen, modified the protocol of royal names since
during Dynasty 1 the kings had only one Horus name and 3) unlike the kings of the First Dynasty who
succeeded each other from father to son (except Qaa whose father is unknown), the filiation of the kings of
180
In the long run, the unification of Egypt implied that the Abydos area was no longer the logical centre of power because of the
economic importance of the Memphite region and the Delta, as well as the control over the desert routes connecting with the Levant.
According to tradition, the capital already moved to Memphis during te reign of Narmer. From the time of Aha onwards, the highest
officials were buried in elaborate mastabas at Saqqara, confirming Memphis as government capital. But during the 1st Dynasty, the
kings continued to be buried in the traditional ground at Abydos. Most 2nd-Dynasty kings were buried at Saqqara, but the enigmatic
Peribsen and the last king of the Dynasty, Khasekhemwy, were buried at Abydos. The reasons for this may have been dynastic
troubles and the necessity to confirm the integration into an age-old tradition of the kings concerned. The architecture of the tomb of
Peribsen is inspired by the 1st-Dynasty tombs, while that of Khasekhemwy seems to have started from a similar tomb but was
afterwards changed into an imitation of the Saqqara royal tombs. His successor, Djoser /Netjerikhet, made the definite transfer of the
royal burial ground to the north by having his step-pyramid complex built at Saqqara (Hendrickx: 2014, 259-278).
the Second Dynasty is unknown (Dodson, Hilton: 2010, 44-49). A few elements help to explain this
anomaly. Since Perneb was a son of Hotepsekhemwy and Ra‘neb was his co-regent, it can be assumed that
Ra‘neb was another son of Hotepsekhemwy, who had been designated as crown prince by his father, in
agreement with the Egyptian clergy, and that he had received a name of Horus conferred according to a
religious protocol given the divine nature of the king. The titulary of the kings of the First Dynasty indicates
the name of Horus of these kings, not their birth name, accompanied by the name of their mother, not that of
their father, which shows that the Egyptian kings (who had several wives) belonged to a monarchy that was
heir through the queen (wife of Horus) and religious (enthronement by the Egyptian clergy). This succession
method guaranteed a stability of power because the legitimacy of the crown prince was guaranteed by the
Egyptian clergy who validated the choice of the king by enthroning him during his lifetime (this crown
prince became his co-regent), or 70 days after his death. If the king had no heir able to reign at the time of his
death, the clergy could enthrone one of his brothers (who would marry the queen), or a prince of the royal
family (who would marry the queen). Concerning Ninetjer (Banetjeru), Manetho gave the following
comments (Waddell: 1964, 37): Binothris (= Banetjeru), for 47 years. In his reign it was decided that women
might hold the kingly office. This comment implies that the priests gave Ninetjer (a young prince) his Horus
name not by Ra‘neb (perhaps without an heir) but by marriage to a king's daughter, which was an innovation.
The ritual of enthronement of the king with the choice of his sacred names by the priests was a well-kept
secret. The queens of the first dynasties played a role in this ritual as their title “she who sees Horus and
bears Seth” indicates (Bonhême, Forgeau: 2001, 35-37,104-105,240-243). The last three kings of Dynasty 2
in the Turin Canon have reign lengths that are similar with those of the Palermo Stone: Ninetjer/Banetjeru
(44 instead of 47), Nefersokar/Sened (8), Peribsen/“erased”(12), Khasekhemwy (17 instead of 27).
TABLE 94
Dyn. King (Memphis) (Thinis)
Horus name Birth name ∆0 Reign Horus name ∆0 Reign
2 1st Hotepsekhemwy Baunetjer 12 2658-2646
2nd Ra‘neb Weneg 12 2654-2642
3rd Ninetjer Banetjeru 36 2642 -
[4th] -2606 Seth-Peribsen 12 2608 -
5th [Neferkasokar?] Sened 8 2606-2598
[6th] Khasekhem 17 2598 - Sekhemid -2596
7th Khasekhemwy -2581
The end of king Ninetjer's reign has given rise to countless theories because his successor was Peribsen,
according to the Palermo Stone, whereas the Turin Canon does not mention this legitimate king. Inscriptions
exhumed by archaeologists have confirmed the existence of this king, whose tomb at Abydos is comparable
to those of the kings of the First Dynasty (La Loggia: 2016, 121-154). Apparently, Ninetjer had his son
Peribsen enthroned as co-regent181, the two kings dividing the roles, Ninetjer ruling Lower Egypt (in
Memphis) and Peribsen ruling Upper Egypt (in Thinis). To distinguish himself from his father who had a
Horus name (Horus being the god of Upper Egypt), Peribsen adopted a Seth name (Seth being the god of
Lower Egypt). When Ninetjer died, Sened, another of his sons, was appointed by the Egyptian clergy to
succeed him (in Memphis), but his name of Horus is unknown (Neferkasokar?). During this period, Peribsen
adopted the Horus name: Sekhemid. When Sened died, the Horus Khasekhem, who succeeded him, fought
Horus Sekhemid and defeated him. To symbolise this reunification of Egypt, Khasekhem adopted the Horus-
Seth name: Khasekhemwy. Consequently, Sened reigned before him (Kahl: 2006, 104), and Peribsen, who
was a legitimate co-regent (recorded on the Palermo Stone), has not been preserved in the later annals.
This chronological reconstruction is consistent with the estimated duration of this dynasty (2658-2581),
it assumes a duration of 52 years (= 2658 - 2606) for the first three kings, corresponding to the 50 years of
the career of Hotepdief, probably between 20 and 70 years, as the average life span was generally limited to
70 years182, as Herodotus himself recalled (The Histories I:32), which implies a career duration of about 50
years. Similarly, the reign of Ninetjer estimated at 44 years in the Palermo Stone is based on biannual
181
The collection of revenue by the central treasury would have been most efficiently organised by dividing the country into two
halves. This practice may be reflected in the two different names given to the treasury in the Early Dynastic period. Inscriptions
mention either the pr-ḥd ‘white house’ (Upper Egyptian institution), or the pr-dšr ‘red house’ (Lower Egyptian institution). The
former seems to be the earlier name for the treasury and is first attested early in the reign of Den. Towards the end of the First
Dynasty, for reasons which are unclear, the name for the treasury was changed to pr-dšr. This institution is attested in the reigns of
Adjib, Qaa and Ninetjer. With the accession of Sekhemib/Peribsen, the name reverted to pr-ḥd, only to be changed back to pr-dšr
under Khasekhemwy. The name remained pr-dšr during the reign of Netjerikhet (Wilkinson: 1999, 125-128).
182
However, an exceptional longevity of 80 years, mentioned by ancient authors, is possible, as indicated in a text attributed to
Moses (Ps 90:10). According to ancient texts, Athenian citizens began to be old from 50 years and at 60 years, one reached the
maximum threshold of the age. According to the study of the skeletons of this time, the 60 years old and more represented only 6 to
8% of the population at most (Corvisier: 2018, 17-36).
150
censuses, i.e. 22 censuses, whereas the censuses took place every year except intercalary years which would
imply a reign of 36 years (= 22.5x1.6), instead of 44 years. These two changes imply a reign of about 14
years for the first two kings. The average duration of the five reigns of Dynasty 2 (2658-2581) is 15 years,
which is comparable to the average duration of 15 years of the four reigns of Dynasty 3 (2581-2523). All
Egyptologists agree that the chronological data of the Turin Canon concerning the first two dynasties are
unusable in contrast those of the Palermo Stone correspond to archaeological data, but as this king-list is
very fragmentary it depends on the spatial reconstruction adopted. Moreover, the description of Dynasty 0
(before Narmer), without any chronological indication, is mythological.
Dynasty 1
All king lists start the First Dynasty with Menes/Narmer (except the Saqqara Tablet) but paradoxically
those that give comments specify that this famous king had been preceded by 30 kings of Memphis (mn nfr)
and 10 kings of Thinis (tni) with reigns lasting several thousand years (Dynasty 0). For example, according
to the list transmitted by Manetho (the only one to give the exact number of these kings): After the 6 Gods, 9
Demigods reigned for 1255 years, and again another line of kings held sway for 1817 years; then came 30
more kings of Memphis, reigning for 1790 years; and then again 10 kings of Thinis, reigning for 350 years
(Waddell: 1964, 5). The king list of the Turin Canon is made of 11 columns of 30 lines, but this papyrus is
extremely fragmentary183. Lines 12 to 30 of column 2 are devoted to kings (whose names are lost) and lines 1
to 10 of column 3 give the life spans of several kings of Thinis called the Followers of Horus whose total
reigns would have been 23200 years. The sixth line specifies: 19 Followers of Horus who are in Thinis, 2341
(+ x) years their lifetime. The first register on the recto of the Palermo Stone is very fragmentary but
compartments 32 to 40 (if all compartments have the same width) contain the names of 9 (unknown) kings
wearing the crown of Lower Egypt, then compartments 61 to 70 have 10 kings wearing the crown of Upper
Egypt (Wilkinson: 2000, 85-88). The last 30 compartments (70 to 100) of the first register can be attributed
to king Narmer (assuming compartments of the same width as those of king Qaa) because the first 24
compartments of the second register are attributed to Aha. Since the first register contains no chronological
information, nor any mention of events such as the flooding of the Nile each year, this suggests that these
predynastic kings had no chancellery to collect taxes (Wilkinson: 2010, 54-71) and finance an army and,
therefore, no archives or king lists. The fact that the Narmer Palette depicts a king as a powerful warlord
proves that he must have organized his military campaign and therefore had an administration to oversee the
stewardship and management of his army, even if it had been temporary. The representation of the Narmer
Palette showing a warrior king wearing the crown of the kings of Thinis and fighting against the enemies of
Egypt, and a shepherd king wearing the crown of
the kings of Memphis, served as a model for all
the following kings. For example, Sekhemkhet
(3:2) was represented in this way (Dodson,
Hilton: 2010, 48). Den (1:5) chose to merge these
two crowns into one to be represented as king of
Egypt. By establishing a chancellery, Narmer laid
the foundations of Egyptian administration and
can therefore be considered the founder of
Egyptian royalty.
Dynasty 0
The reality of the predynastic kings was disputed, Bill Manley, for example, considered it to be three
confederations of princes in southern Egypt rather than one Egyptian kingdom over Egypt, but this is no
longer the case today, the latest Predynastic burials belonged to people who had many trappings of later
kingship (Bestock: 2008, 42-59). However, the origins of Predynastic Egypt remain based solely on
speculation based on carbon-14 dating (Hendrickx: 2020, 573-594). The Predynastic period began around the
beginning of the Naqada III period (Dynasty 0) with the appearance of mud-brick constructions in Lower
Egypt (Tell el-Farkha, Maadi) and the construction of large buildings in cut stone in Upper Egypt (Abydos,
Naqada, Hierakonpolis). As a result, the appearance of the Predynastic period was apparently sudden around
3000 BCE, the establishment of an Egyptian state, whose seat was in Abydos and which dominated all of
Egypt, including southern Levant, as evidenced by the homogeneous style of the pottery. Several elements of
Egyptian protocol were established from the beginning of Egypt: 1) king's name is inscribed in a serekh
(representing ancient palace), 2) which is surmounted by the falcon Horus, 3) the white crown of Upper
Egypt (Thinis) is on king's head, 4) the king is depicted as a “Master of Animals” exterminating the wild
animals and enemies of Egypt (presumably Libyans for Narmer and Nubians for Djer). The red crown of
Lower Egypt (Memphis) which appears on a vase from Naqada was only worn from Narmer.
183
https://pharaoh.se/turin-kinglist-content
CHRONOLOGY OF DYNASTIES 2 TO 1 (2838-2581) THROUGH PALERMO STONE AND ASTRONOMY
Current Egyptologists are unable to date the first two dynasties, there are those who date this period
between 3150 and 2584 BCE (Dodson, Hilton: 2010, 287), using the 14C dates combined with the assumed
values of the partial Annals appearing on the Palermo Stone (Hassan, Seirrano, Tassie: 2006, 702-709), and
there are those who date this period between 2900 and 2593 BCE using only the values deduced from a
spatial reconstruction of fragments of these Annals (Hornung, Krauss, Warburton: 2006, 19-25,490).
Egyptologists have great confidence in 14C dating without checking whether the reigns obtained by this
method have a duration with the historical data. For example, the reign of Narmer (3150-3060) would have
been 90 years instead of 30 years (PS). Radiocarbonists claim to produce an absolute chronology for Early
Egypt by combining radiocarbon and archaeological evidence within a Bayesian paradigm (Dee, Wengrow,
Shortland, Stevenson, Brock, Girdland Flink, Bronk Ramsey: 2013, 1-11). Radiocarbon dating now uses the
Highest Posterior Density (HPD) as a criterion for accuracy of measurement. The HPD interval is the
shortest possible interval with a fixed probability, say 95%, for a parameter of interest, given the posterior
density function as determined by the likelihood function and your prior distribution. So, you can say that
you are 95% sure that the parameter is in this interval, whose width yields the highest possible accuracy (the
interval is constructed in such a way that it contains the values considered most likely a posteriori, “with the
highest density”, as the name HPD suggests). Modelled dates for accession years of the First Dynasty:
TABLE 95
68% HPD range 95% HPD range PS
Accession: From To average 14C dating ∆1 From To average 14C dating ∆2 Reign ∆0
Narmer (3150) 3150-3078 (72) 2838-2808 30
‘Aha 3111 3045 3078 3078-3055 23 3218 3035 3127 3127-3078 49 2808-2788 20
Djer 3073 3036 3055 3055-2965 90 3130 3021 3078 3078-2967 111 2788-2750 38
Djet 2989 2941 2965 2965-2931 34 3005 2926 2967 2967-2940 27 2750-2741 9
Meritneith 2946 2916 2931 2931-2920 11 2970 2910 2940 2940-2925 15 2741 -
Den 2928 2911 2920 2920-2906 14 2945 2904 2925 2925-2904 21 -2705 36
Adjib 2916 2896 2906 2906-2902 4 2921 2886 2904 2904-2894 10 2705-2699 6
Semerkhet 2912 2891 2902 2902-2896 6 2921 2867 2894 2894-2879 15 2699-2690 9
Qaa /Sneferka 2906 2886 2896 2896-2856 40 2916 2842 2879 2879-2819 60 2690-2657 33
This table (above) illustrates the inconsistencies of radiocarbon dating: 1) paradoxically the most precise
measurements, in theory (∆2), give aberrant results, such as the 111-year reign for Djer and the 15-year reign
for Meritneith184 (Meritneith is the feminine form of Merneith); 2) the least precise measurements (∆1)
slightly improve these anomalies but do not make them disappear. If we include the reigns of Merneith with
that of Den (∆1) and compare the shifts (D1) in these absolute dates (∆1 and ∆0). I asked several dozen
Egyptologists how they explained these incomprehensible discrepancies and their answer was systematically
“I am not competent on these chronological questions, so ask specialists”. So, I asked Nicolas Grimal185 who
agreed to read my study and to give me his opinion twice, but he never kept his promise. I also asked Pierre
Tallet186, who replied that he was not interested in chronological questions (sic) and that I should consult
Anita Quiles of the IFAO187, head of the archaeometry division in charge of the Chronological Modelling of
Ancient Egypt (Crossed chronologies: absolute and relative. 14C dating and ceramic material).
It is obvious that 14C dating is totally inadequate to date the first two Egyptian dynasties and that only
the reign lengths obtained by the reconstruction of the Palermo Stone can determine the exact chronology of
these two dynasties. This annal is the keystone of Egyptian chronology because the original document listed
the reigns and their durations of all kings from the 10 predynastic kings of Thinis to those of the middle of
the 5th dynasty. The Palermo Stone is a series of seven fragments consisting of two large and five small
fragments, shared between three museums. These fragments do not all seem to belong to the same monument
(at least two, perhaps three), but in any case, they are duplicates of the same original document. The dating
has been debated for a long time, but it is now agreed that these documents are original copies from the Old
Kingdom around 2350 BCE and not late copies. The habit of recording events that then serve to characterize
a year (eponymy) exists as early as the reign of Narmer. To this designation of the year of reign by one or
several remarkable events that occurred during it was added, during the First Dynasty, the hieroglyphic sign
of the year, rnpt, which henceforth indicated the “date” and constituted a marker unifying all the data in a
sort of “annual box”, according to an arrangement that would last for a long time. The fragments of royal
184
A clay seal found in the tomb of her son, Den, was engraved with “King's Mother, Merneith”. It is possible that Den was too
young to rule when Djet died, so she may have ruled as regent until Den was old enough. A seal containing a list of kings of the first
dynasty was found in the tomb of Qaa. However, this list does not mention the reign of Merneith.
185
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Grimal
186
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Tallet
187
https://www.ifao.egnet.net/recherche/chercheurs/aquiles/
152
188
annals (gnwt) that have come down to us are not the original annals, archived in Heliopolis and recorded
on a perishable medium (papyrus). They are above all compilations made from archived journals (hrwyt) and
intended for display in the temples, on a monumental and permanent support (Postel: 2013, 89-118).
The annals of the Palermo Stone give exceptional historical and chronological information: 1) Narmer
was not the first king since he succeeded the 10 kings of Thinis, but he was the first to cumulate the crowns
of Upper Egypt (Thinis) and Lower Egypt (Memphis), 2) he was the first to record every year the height of
the Nile flood, because this height indicated the abundance of the coming harvests and therefore the height of
the taxes to be paid, 3) he was the first to carry out censuses of livestock, except in the intervening years,
because the herds were the main source of taxes and therefore of the wealth of the state, 4) the 30
compartments attributed to Narmer represented 30 years of reign. Each compartment of a king's reign
represents a reign year of 365 days with the last compartment indicating the remainder of the reign. For
example, the reign of Khasekhemwy (Horus' name) is represented by 18 compartments, the 18th of which
indicates a duration of 2 months and 23 days. The total duration of the reign was thus 17 years, 2 months and
23 days. According to the annals of the Turin Canon, the reign of Bebti (birth name of Khasekhemwy) was
27 years, 2 months and 1 day (Tetley: 2014, 284-285). These discrepancies show that the editor of the Turin
Canon (c. 1250 BCE) no longer had copies of the original annals (written in the form of a journal), but
revised copies (the name of Horus of the kings having been replaced by their birth names) and simplified
ones (the censuses having been arbitrarily replaced by years of reign). The comparison between the king lists
obtained from the annals of the Palermo Stone (Dodson, Hilton: 2010, 45) and the simplified annals of the
Turin Canon, helps to understand the purpose of the publication of these king lists.
TABLE 96
1 HORUS name (PS) King's wife Birth name (TC)
1st NARMER_____ ____Neithhotep MENI
I
2nd Khenthap_____ ____ ‘AHA Benerib TETI
I
3rd DJER________ ____Herneith or__ Nakhtneith ATAI
I
4th Meritneith______ _____DJET ITUI
I
5th DEN________ __Seshemetka or_ Semat or Serethor QENTI
I
6th ________ _______Batires_______ ____ADJIB MERBIAPEN
I I
7th I SEMERKHET SEMSEM
8th QAA (QE)BEH
2 (SNEFERKA)
1st HOTEPSEKHEMWY BAUNETJER
The main purpose of the King Lists is to establish the legitimate lineage of the kings of Egypt, which is
not derived from a patrilineal lineage but from a matrilineal lineage through the king's principal wife (and not
the other secondary wives). The succession of the kings of the first dynasty had two exceptions: 1) King
Den, enthroned at a very young age, began to reign under the regency of his mother (Meritneith), 2) King
Qaa reigned after the death of his brother (Semerkhet), but Sneferka (his son?) who was his co-regent at the
end of his reign, had Hotepsekhemwy as his successor189. The analysis of the tombs and cenotaphs of the
kings of the 1st dynasty confirms the annals of the Palermo Stone: 1) Narmer was the first king of this
dynasty, 2) the eight kings used only their Horus name and 3) censuses were regularly recorded from the
beginning of this dynasty, which proves their crucial role for the State.
188
A particularly significant rite is supposed to take place in Heliopolis itself under the aegis of Atum during the coronation
ceremonies and their renewal. It is indeed Atum who, with the help of the goddess Seshat and sometimes the god Thoth, inscribed the
name of the king and his years of reign on the fruits of the iched tree located in Heliopolis. Atum was thus the guarantor of royalty
and his sanctuary at Heliopolis was the repository of the deeds of royalty. It was in Heliopolis that the new king followed in the
footsteps of his predecessors, that he forged the indispensable link to the legitimate exercise of kingship by going back to the divine
generations, when they still reigned on earth. It was also in Heliopolis that the official legal act sanctioning the transmission of power
between the last representative of the Heliopolitan Ennead who exercised kingship, Horus, and his human successor, was repeated at
the beginning of each reign. The place called the “secret office at Heliopolis” (ỉpȝt m Ỉwnw) is an allusion to the space in the
Temenos of Tem in which the acts of kingship were recorded and preserved, the place where the archival documents were stored and
where the royal annals carved in stone and displayed in the temples of the country were then compiled. From the Egyptian
documentation, it appears that the royal annals developed in close connection with Heliopolis.
189
Contemporary sources show that he may have gained the throne after a period of political strife, including an ephemeral ruler
Sneferka (Horus name). The Horus name of Hotepsekhemwy which means “The two powers are reconciled” could relate to a re-
unification of the Egyptian realm after a period of discord. In any case, Sneferka was not registered in any king list.
The facades of the city halls correspond exactly to the facades with notched walls of the mastabas at
Saqqara. The city hall of the kings of Memphis (mastaba S.3357) was requisitioned by Narmer190 to become
his city hall where the high officials of his administration resided, then upon his death his tomb was built in
Abydos and this mastaba continued to be used by Aha. When King Aha died, it was converted into a
cenotaph and his tomb continued to be built in Abydos, the political capital. These cenotaphs are therefore
not tombs attributable to the kings of Dynasty 1, they are burial places of high officials, probably all from the
royal family, or tombs of queens. Moreover, the number of subsidiary tombs at Abydos is much greater than
at Saqqara, and there are no royal stelae at Saqqara, and the burial chambers of the Abydos tombs are much
larger than those of the Saqqara mastabas (Hendrickx: 2008, 61-88). Therefore, the size of the cenotaphs in
the basement of these massive mastabas at Saqqara should not be compared with the size of the tombs at
Abydos, as it simply reflects the size of the king's administration and the number of his senior officials. The
establishment of this powerful administration by Narmer, which largely contributed to the emergence of the
Egyptian State, explains why this king has been unanimously recognised as the founder of the Egyptian
dynasties. Moreover, this administration largely contributed to the diffusion of hieroglyphic writing, even if
it was a very simplistic administrative writing.
TABLE 97
Cenotaph (Saqqara) 1 Reign Senior official bull horns length width Tomb (Abydos)
[S.3357] 1st Narmer (vizier?) 41.5 m 15.5 m B17-B18
S.3357 2nd Aha ? X 41.5 m 15.5 m B10-B15-B19
S.2185 3rd Djer ? X 38.2 m 14.8 m O326
S.3471 Djer ? 41.2 m 15.1 m
S.3504 4th Djet Sekhemka X 49.5 m 20.0 m Z174
S.3503 (5th) Meritneith Sekhemka 42.6 m 16.0 m Y41
S.3507 5th Den Sekhka X 37.9 m 15.8 m T121
S.3506 Den Setka 47.6 m 14.8 m
S.3035 Den Hemaka 57.3 m 26.0 m
S.3036 Den Ankhka 41.0 m 22.0 m
S.X Den (?) Neska 26.0 m 12.0 m
S.3041 Den (?) ? 24.9 m 10.9 m
S.3338 6th Adjib ? 30.5 m 14.0 m
S.3111 Adjib Sabu 29.2 m 12.1 m
S.3038 Adjib Nebitka X 37.0 m 13.8 m X63
SCA 95 7th Semerkhet ? ? X? 51.0 m 27.5 m U69
S.3505 8th Qaa/ Sneferka Merka X 24.3 m 35.2 m Q26
S.3500 Qaa ? 31.9 m 15.8 m
S.3121 Qaa ? 19.0 m 14.0 m
S.3120 Qaa ? 12.5 m 9.5 m
An in-depth study of the set of 1) jar labels, 2) cylinder seal impressions and 3) inscriptions mentioning
the titles of some high officials, in the necropolises of Abydos and Saqqara, has allowed us to understand
how the Egyptian State functioned and what was the role of the royal tomb U-j in Abydos and the royal
mastabas in Saqqara (Morris: 2007, 171-190). The following points could be clarified:
• Thinis was the capital of the predynastic kings (Dynasty 0) and the building called Tomb U-j at Abydos
was the city hall built to manage all the luxurious goods imported into Egypt for the elite from southern
Palestine as well as from Nubia. Because of the central role played by this building, Abydos became a
royal necropolis as well as a cemetery for some members of the elite.
• When at the beginning of his reign Narmer annexed the city of Memphis he requisitioned the city hall of
the kings of Memphis to make it the administrative centre for managing the huge cattle census. This
management contributed to the prodigious wealth of Egypt through their system of redistribution,
especially to the skilled labourers working for the king. The annals of the Palermo Stone indicate that
the ‘following of Horus’ (šms-Ḥr), which took place on average two years out of three, was a major
event in the life of the court. One of its functions was to serve as a tour of inspection, allowing officials
of the central administration to keep up-to-date records
on the agricultural potential of the provinces
(Wilkinson: 1999, 142). The essential role of the
livestock census in the administration of the city halls
can be seen in the decoration of several mastabas with
the horns of livestock around them (opposite).
190
The Palette of Narmer was most likely written by the administration of the city hall of Saqqara whose aim was to establish the
functioning of the kingship: a single king wearing the crown of Upper Egypt and that of Lower Egypt in the region of Memphis.
154
• The ability of the Saqqara mastabas to house far more wealth than the U-j Tomb at Abydos –even using
only a fraction of their potential storage space– cannot be disputed. For example, the wealth once
interred in mastaba 3504 (Djet) must have been wildly extravagant to judge from the material that
remained even after repeated robberies over the course of five millennia191. While Narmer used the
ancient city hall of the kings of Memphis as the main administrative centre of his dual kingdom (Upper
and Lower Egypt), especially for the management of livestock censuses, he kept the city hall of Thinis,
Tomb U-j in Abydos, as a secondary administrative centre. His successor, Aha, appropriated the city
hall required by Narmer (mastaba S.3357) and appointed a treasury administrator to manage the
livestock censuses but also, and this was a novelty, to set up a cenotaph in the basement of the city hall
after the death of the king. This custom was followed by all subsequent kings (Dynasty 1).
• From Djer onwards, the Treasury administration became the central element of the Egyptian State and
contributed to its growing power. Djer had two city halls built (mastabas S.2185 and S.3471), each
headed by an administrator who combined the two titles of 1) administrator of the Treasury and 2)
administrator of the king's funeral estate192. It was therefore acceptable for the administrator of the
king’s burial estate to include more funerary material in his own tomb than in that of his sovereign
whose tomb was at Abydos. The other conclusion that can be drawn is that Sekhemka's name appears
many times in mastaba 3504 because he was in fact responsible for its equipment, either for a cenotaph
of the king or for a burial of a member of the royal family. First, this scenario neatly explains why
identical and virtually identical sealings applied by Sekhemka are discovered in Djet’s own tomb at
Abydos. For, as the administrator of the king’s estate, Sekhemka would certainly have been responsible
for equipping the royal burial. Second, if Djet’s tomb at Abydos and mastaba 3504 at Saqqara had both
been equipped out of the stores of the royal domain, this would also explain why so many other aspects
of the material culture were virtually identical, such as cylinder seal impressions that did not include
Sekhemka’s name. This similarity in repertoire is true of the pottery corpus as well, and even of a large
percentage of individual pot-marks.
• Although Queen Meritneith was given a tomb at Abydos (Y41), her cenotaph at Saqqara (S.3503) is not
decorated with bull's horns, which is characteristic of a royal tomb. Moreover, this queen, who was the
regent of Den, was not included in any later king list. Similarly, Sneferka, Horus' name that appears in
the cenotaph of King Qaa193 (S.3505), has no tomb at Abydos and is not mentioned in any king list.
• Although the Treasury administration used hieroglyphic writing for its accounting, the use of proper
names and the various titles of administrators led it to use title statements on labels which are the
ancestors of sentences194. Seal impressions of officials discovered at Saqqara and Abydos:
191
Pottery vessels and their contents were only the beginning of mastaba 3504’s stored wealth, as despite rampant plundering the
tomb still contained approximately 1,500 stone vessels. These had been made of alabaster, limestone, basalt, breccia, granite, diorite,
dolomite, schist, serpentine, marble, quartzite, crystal, and porphyritic rock. In order to determine just what constitutes a prestige
good in any given society, archaeologists rank among the most important cross-culturally relevant factors: the distance from which
the raw materials had to be procured, the method used to transport the materials to their destination, the manner of extraction, and the
hardness of the material. In Egypt most varieties of stone had to be quarried from the Wadi Hammamat or other desert locales by
organized expeditions of men and then transported overland for substantial distances. Given the arduous process of extraction and
that only trained professionals had the tools and skills necessary to fashion fine stone vessels, some of these items have been ranked
equivalent to or even higher than gold in a wealth index tabulated according to effort expenditure.
192
Sekhemka was the official whose name appears numerous times in mastaba 3504 on labels, cylinder seal impressions, an ivory
wand, and a cache of 69 identical pottery jars all stored together in a single chamber. The earliest attestation of Sekhemka’s name,
significantly, appears at Abydos on a wooden label from the tomb of Djet’s predecessor, Djer. Here Sekhemka’s name is wedged
between Djer’s serekh and the hieroglyphs ḥwt qd-ḥtp –which in all likelihood designated an estate established in order to supply the
crown with a particular class of goods, such as cattle or natron. His close association with King Djer and his experience managing
royal property appear eventually to have resulted in Sekhemka's appointment as administrator (‘d mr) of Djer's funerary domain: ḥr-
sḫnti-dw. Sekhemka's name is also occasionally found in association with Djet's serekh and this may have been due to his position as
administrator (both ‘d mr and ḫrp) of Djet's own funerary domain –w3d-ḥr. It was in his capacity as administrator of Djet's funerary
domain that Sekhemka sealed most of the jars that bore his impression in mastaba 3504 and in Djet's tomb at Abydos. Further,
Sekhemka sealed many, if not most, of the items in mastaba 3504 during the reign of Djet's successor, Den. This is clearly evidenced
by the sealings that bore Den's serekh, which had been impressed in the wet clay at the same time as Sekhemka's own seal. There are
therefore two conclusions to be drawn from Sekhemka's most important role, that he was the administrator of the Djet city hall
(mastaba S.3504) which became his burial estate after his death.
193
A second serekh-name “Sneferka” appears in the underground galleries of the step pyramid of king Djoser (3:1).
194
Of the Saqqara tombs that are now generally assumed to be the resting places of officials, over half do not contain the names of
the men to whom they should be assigned (mastabas 2171, 2185, 3120, 3121, 3338, 3357, 3471, 3500) or contain the names of more
than one official (mastabas 3504, 3505, 3506, 3507). The lintel read: ỉry-p‘t nsw ds ḥ3ty(-‘), which could perhaps be translated
“Family member of the king himself, foremost one” or, perhaps something along the lines of “Hereditary noble of the king himself
and count”. The great size, associated boat burials, and the use of stone portcullis in the entrance corridors of mastabas 3035 and
3036 marks their owners as people of the highest social class. The multiple seal impressions of Hemaka and Ankhka in the cenotaphs
of Den (mastabas 3035, 3036 and 3506) and in the tomb of Den at Abydos and elsewhere at Saqqara and Abydos, however, strongly
implies that the aforementioned seal impressions of these two men should be interpreted as the stamp of industrious administrators
rather than as indicators of the ownership of the tombs in which they appear.
• Domains, whose names were written in crenulated ovals, seem to have been royal land-holdings that
belonged to specific kings and were used to support their activities in life, to supply their tombs at
death, and to support their funerary cults thereafter. This confirms the interpretation of the Libyan
Palette which has names written above a crenelated oval, thus representing a royal estate used to support
the king's activities during his lifetime and to support his funeral cult after his death. This representation
by a crenelated oval is different from that of a city surrounded by a fortified wall.
Obviously, contemporary records are more reliable as they present first-hand information about the
activities of Egypt’s early rulers. Contemporary sources such as year labels are by no means objective. They
recorded only those events which the court considered significant, and which presented the institution of
kingship in the best light. None the less, they can be used, with care, to illuminate the time in which they
were made. The same is true of royal monuments, comprising ceremonial palettes, maceheads, inscribed
slabs, stelae and stone architectural elements from royal buildings. These present the iconography of early
kingship, but in doing so may yield historical information, for example by recording the king’s (inevitable)
victory over his enemies in a military campaign. Several rock-cut inscriptions from the eastern and western
deserts and the Sinai provide valuable information about the extent of Early Dynastic activity in Egypt’s
peripheral regions, and the ability of the court to organise expeditions outside the Nile valley. Perhaps the
most abundant inscriptions from the first three dynasties are the numerous seal-impressions from tombs and
settlements. These are the main source for analysing the structure and functioning of the Early Dynastic
administration, and the context of seal-impressions may afford important historical information, such as the
order of succession. Here, two recent discoveries have made a significant impact. Excavations in the royal
cemetery at Abydos have revealed impressions from the necropolis seals (below):
Narmer Aha Djer Djet Den / Meritneith
This seal lists in chronological order the first five kings of the First Dynasty, from Narmer to Den, with
the addition of the queen mother Meritneith at the end. This seal must have been engraved at Meritneith's
request to legitimise her regency during Den's minority (the first known case in Egyptian history). However,
she is not presented as a queen who ruled between Djet and Den, but as the regent of Den. For example,
156
Meritneith does not appear in the list that enumerates, in chronological order, the first eight kings of the first
dynasty, from Narmer to Qaa (Wilkinson: 1999, 62-64).
Qaa Semerkhet Adjib Den Djet Djer Aha Narmer
This seal lists all eight kings of the First Dynasty, confirming the order established by scholars from
other, more fragmentary, sources. This brief king list was not used to provide historical data, available in the
archives (in Heliopolis), but to legitimise the reign of the one who had this royal seal engraved. It is likely
that this seal was engraved at the request of Hotepsekhemwy who succeeded Qaa, not Sneferka (who is
deliberately ignored). Many artefacts bearing royal inscriptions can be useful in filling in some of the gaps in
our historical knowledge. In particular, the stone vessels amassed by Netjerikhet (Djoser) to furnish his Step
Pyramid complex include many examples from earlier reigns, and these have proved invaluable in
establishing the internal history of the Second Dynasty. Moreover, inscribed stone vessels provide the only
evidence for a few ephemeral rulers. During the First Dynasty especially, large pottery vessels were often
inscribed with the name of the king, sometimes accompanied by a short inscription detailing the contents.
Therefore, as early as the reign of Narmer, the administration of the Treasury (residing in the city halls)
recorded censuses, temple constructions, exceptional celebrations such as the Sed festival195, the names of
the kings (as well as the name of their mothers) and archived them, as shown in the Palermo Stone, which
allows the reconstruction of the reigns of the first dynasties (Wengrow: 2006, 128-133,276).
The preceding examples show that the brief king lists of the first dynasty, which were engraved on
seals, were done to legitimise (Meritneith), or delegitimise (Sneferka), controversial reigns. It is therefore
surprising to note the absence of brief king lists among the next three dynasties (Dynasties 2 to 4) despite
some controversial successions. In fact, only a few reigns of the very obscure Dynasty 2 (below) are
controversial (Dodson, Hilton: 2010, 44-61).
TABLE 98
King (Memphis) (Thinis)
Horus name Birth name ∆0 Reign Horus name ∆0 Reign
2 1st Hotepsekhemwy Baunetjer 12 2658-2646
2nd Ra‘neb Weneg 12 2654-2642
3rd Ninetjer Banetjeru 36 2642 -
[4th] -2606 Seth-Peribsen 12 2608 -
5th [Neferkasokar?] Sened 8 2606-2598
[6th] Khasekhem 17 2598 - Sekhemid -2596
7th Khasekhemwy -2581
3 1st Netjerikhet Djoser 19 2581-2562
2nd Sekhemkhet Djoser-Teti 6 2562-2556
3rd Sanakht Nebka 9 2556-2547
Ninetjer (2:3) by appointing his son Peribsen co-regent towards the end of his reign created the novel
situation of a bi-headed state, with Horus-Ninetjer ruling in Memphis over Lower Egypt and Seth-Peribsen
(2:4) in Thinis over Upper Egypt. On the death of Ninetjer his son Sened (2:5) succeeded his father, Seth-
Peribsen remaining king of Upper Egypt. On the death of Sened, Khasekhem (2:6) succeeded him, Seth-
Peribsen took Sekhemid as Horus' name. Khasekhem, attacked Sekhemid and ended his reign, then took
Khasekhemwy (2:7) as Horus' new name, whose meaning “the two powers appear in that the ancestors rest
within him” suggests that he had reunited this bi-headed state. Moreover, on his serekh the gods Horus and
Seth are associated instead of the god Horus alone (a unique case). In the annals of the Palermo Stone
Ninetjer's successor is Seth-Peribsen and the entry for Year 15 of Khasekhemwy mentions the creation of a
statue called 'high is Khasekhemwy' (Wilkinson: 2000, 130,203). Peribsen and his successor, Khasekhemwy,
built tombs and enclosures at Abydos, in the same areas used by the First Dynasty kings (Bestock: 2011,
143). Khasekhem’s kingship is attested by statues, stelae, and stone vessels he dedicated in the
195
The word 'sed' means 'tail', perhaps a symbol of Narmer's victorious reign.
Hierakonpolitan temple, and on the stone architectural features with which the temple was ornamented. His
best known surviving statues are two half life-sized figures, one in limestone, the other in schist. Both bear
inscriptions proclaiming that 47,209 casualties were inflicted by his forces on his northern foes. Three stone
vessels were also found there inscribed with year names for Khasekhem, called “victory over the papyrus
people, unification of Egypt”. Triumphant, Khasekhemwy embarked on a number of large construction
projects. He finished his “Fort” in Hierakonpolis with an outer casing of white plaster and a niched
brickwork palace facade design. A granite doorjamb fragment bearing Khasekhemwy’s name inside the
“Fort” depicted the first “stretching the cord” ceremony. Other stone embellishments, such as a lintel carved
with his image depicting him enthroned, arrayed in his Sed Festival robe, and other stone relief fragments
from this site showing the king running with his royal Ka, and with attendants – together three distinct ritual
ceremonial scenes – suggest the “Fort” may have been used for the celebration of the king’s Sed Festival
(Josephson, Hartwig: 2019, 213-223). As the Sed festival celebrated the 30 years of his reign and the statue
of Khasekhemwy, wearing the crown of Upper Egypt, was made in Year 15 of his reign, this king therefore
considered that by reunifying Upper and Lower Egypt he had ruled Egypt 2x15 years.
Therefore, even if the succession of the kings of the second dynasty is complicated because of the co-
regency of Seth-Peribsen, as well as the change of Horus' names, it does not contain any anomaly, all kings
were legitimate kings. Khasekhemwy's wife was Queen Nimaathap, mother of the King's Children. They
were the parents of Djoser and Djoser's wife Hetephernebti. It is also possible that Khasekhemwy's sons
were Sekhemkhet and Sanakht, the two kings succeeding Djoser. Errors appeared in the annals from the fifth
dynasty onwards, when the Horus names of the kings of the early dynasties were replaced by their birth
names or throne names. The reign of Seth-Peribsen, although legitimate, was suppressed because he did not
belong to the list of kings of Egypt who had reigned at Memphis.
From the beginning of the Second Dynasty to the end of the Fourth Dynasty no King Lists or Annals
have been found. Paradoxically, two brief king lists and the annals of the Stone of Palermo appear in the time
of Niuserre (2346-2332). The biography of Ptahshepses (B) lists eight consecutive kings (4:6-7; 5:1-6), the
Giza writing board (Brovarski: 1987, 27-52) lists six kings in chronological order (2:1; 3:2; 4:3-4; 5:2-3),
and the Palermo Stone lists all the kings from the 10 predynastic kings of Thinis and Narmer to (presumably)
Niuserre. It is interesting to note that only the Palermo Stone uses Horus names, while the two brief king lists
use birth or throne names. It is also important to understand why the succession of Niuserre was
controversial (Dodson, Hilton: 2010, 64-69):
TABLE 99
KING King's wife reign
5 1st USERKAF___ __Khentkaues I____ ________ 2383-2373
I I
2nd Neferethanebty__ ___SAHURE I 2373-2361
I I
3rd ________ _______________ _____Khentkaues II_ __NEFERIRKARE 2361-2349
I I I I
4th I I SHEPSESKARE I 2349-2348
5th I NEFEREFRE I 2348-2346
6th NIUSERRE__ _Reptynub (PTAHSHEPSES B) _Khamerernebty 2346-2332
(I) I
7th MENKAUHOR_ _Meresankh IV (PTAHSHEPSES C) 2332-2324
8th DJEDKARE 2324-2286
9th UNAS 2286-2256
6 1st TETI 2256-2238
The first six kings of the Fifth Dynasty had an undisputed succession with two anomalies: Shepseskare
is absent from the Abydos king list, presumably because of the brevity of his reign (7 months), and Niuserre
is absent from the Saqqara king list for no apparent reason since he is mentioned in all the other king lists.
Several reigns were unusually short (12 years or less) or even brief (2 years or less). Userkaf (birth name)
reigned for 10 years, and was succeeded by Sahure, the son of the royal wife Khentkaues I. Sahure (birth
name) ruled for 12 years, but although he was married to Neferethanebty and had four sons none succeeded
him (including Netjeryrenre his eldest son), presumably because they were too young to rule196, so he was
succeeded by his younger brother, Neferirkare (throne name) who reigned for 12 years and was succeeded by
three sons of the royal wife Khentkaues II, the first two of whom had short reigns (1 and 2 years).
For some reason, Shepseskare (throne name), whose birth name was Usernetjeru, was buried in a grave
with the name Werkaure, instead of Usernetjeru. A large group of hieratic inscriptions has been documented
in the mastaba of Prince Werkaure, the eldest son of King Neferirkare because the name of the tomb owner
196
Netjeryrenre, the eldest son of Sahure, was a contemporary of Sheseskare, the king who succeeded Neferirkare.
158
and his titles, the “king’s son” (z3 nzwt) and the “eldest king’s son” (z3 nzwt smsw), are attested in the
hieratic inscriptions. Besides the owner’s name, other individuals left their marks in the tomb. Most of the
inscriptions contained the name and title of the tomb owner, but one also mentioned the date: the year of the
8th occasion of the cattle count, likely Year 14 (= 8.5 x 1.6) of Niuserre (his last year of rule). The most
striking is the name of Menkauhor, who most likely was the future king and successor of Niuserre. It seems
logical that Menkauhor was the son of Niuserre because of his title (Vymazalová: 2020, 185-216), but
probably of a secondary wife and not of Reptynub since he is not mentioned in the genealogy of Niuserre.
Shepseskare (Werkaure) had no sons and was succeeded by his brother Neferefre, who also reigned for a
short period of 2 years. Neferefre having no sons was also succeeded by his third brother Niuserre who
reigned for 14 years. The rapid succession of three brothers is rare but has occurred on a few occasions197.
Princess Khamerernebty who married Ptahshepses (B), given her probable age in regard to Niuserre,
was the daughter of Neferirkare and therefore the sister of Niuserre (not his daughter), and the extra title was
given to add special distinction to her status (Callender: 2011, 59-70). It is interesting to note that the two
dates that appear in the tombs and mastaba of Werkaure are the 7th and 8th occasions of the cattle count,
corresponding to the years 12 (= 7.5 x 1.6) and 14 of Niuserre. These dates are not coincidental because at
that time, the high priest Ptahshepses (B) who had served in the solar temple of Neferirkare (Setib-Re) was
now serving in the solar temple of Niuserre (Shesepib-Re), and his marriage to Khamerernebty, the daughter
of king Neferirkare, allowed him to claim the royal succession. Indeed, according to Egyptian royal protocol,
if a prince or high official was not a son of a royal wife, he could legitimise his kingship by marrying the
widow of the previous king or by marrying a king's daughter (Bonhême, Forgeau: 2001, 256-257). By
publishing a king list of the eight kings who reigned until Niuserre, Ptahshepses (B) displayed his claim to
the succession of Niuserre after the king's death. Niuserre had no children by Reptynub, his royal wife, and
only mentioned the name of Menkauhor, a son of a secondary wife. The succession of Niuserre by
Menkauhor could thus be contested by Ptahshepses (B) after his marriage to Khamerernebty. However, the
fact that Ptahshepses (B) was replaced by Neferiretptah in the solar temple of Menkauhor (Akhet-Re),
indirectly indicates that he must have died towards the end of Niuserre's reign.
Several anomalies show that the succession of Niuserre must have been complicated: 1) the publication
of a king list by Ptahshepses (B) of the eight kings who reigned until Niuserre indicates that this high priest
of Re claimed the succession of Niuserre; 2) the replacement of the Sed festival, celebrating Year 30 of the
king, by a Sed festival celebrating Year 30 of the solar temple of the king198, who reigned only 14 years, is
strange and could be explained by a posthumous Sed festival attributed to “Year 30 [of Neferirkare]” who
had begun his reign 30 years earlier; 3) Menkauhor stopped the tradition of building his pyramid with a
north-south axis oriented on the meridian; 4) although he reigned only 8 years (TC), the statue of Menkauhor
depicts him wearing the crown of Upper Egypt and the Sed festival robe, suggesting that he took over the
tradition inaugurated by Niuserre concerning the new meaning of the Sed festival; 5) Menkauhor is believed
to be the first to abandon the royal type of rock tablets instituting a simple inscription with no figure or
scene199, and this is considered a development from those having such scenes, for here the cartouches and
titles occupy a compartment to themselves and replace the earlier figured representations. All these
surprising elements converge towards the fact that Menkauhor (2332-2324) wanted to legitimise his reign
against the claims of Ptahshepses (B). Consequently, he is probably the commendatory of the Palermo Stone,
and of its copies, because these annals, which went back to the origin of the Egyptian kingship until Niuserre
(2346-2332), indicated that he designated himself as his legitimate successor. Egyptologists believe,
according to the hypotheses used for the reconstruction of the Palermo Stone, which are uncertain (Hornung,
Krauss, Warburton: 2006, 21-25), that these annals were engraved perhaps at the time of Niuserre
(Wilkinson: 2000, 75; Tetley: 2014, 311,322), but neither of these suggestions can be proven.
197
For example, Amenhotep III appointed his eldest son as co-regent (Amenhotep IV) who succeeded him after his death under the
name of Akhenaten. This king transferred his capital to Akhetaten (El Amarna) but after 6 years of reign he died (at the same time as
Nefertiti) victim of a plague brought by Hittite prisoners. As Akhenaten had six daughters but no sons his brother Semenkhkare was
enthroned and reigned for only 1 year and 4 months. His wife continued his reign under the name [Semenkhkare] Ankhkeperure and
reigned for 2 years and 1 month. Having no sons, she proposed to the Hittite king Šuppiluliuma to send her the prince Zannanza so
that she could perpetuate her dynasty, however Zannanza was murdered on his way to Egypt. When [Semenkhkare] Ankhkeperure
died, Semenkhkare's third brother, now 9 years old, was enthroned as Tutankhaten who ruled for 1 year at Akhetaten, then moved his
capital to Memphis and ruled for 10 years as Tutankhamun.
198
The representation of the Sed-Festival in Niuserre’s sun temple might have been intended to celebrate, for eternity, the role and
meaning of the temple itself, and probably of the solar temples as a whole. In other words, they functioned as an architectural setting
that enabled the meeting of the king with the gods during the oldest ritual performance known in Egyptian civilization, the Sed-
Festival, with the ultimate purpose of reconĳirming the pharaoh’s kingship and, at the same time, associating him with the new,
supreme, solar deity, the god Re (Nuzzolo: 2015, 366-392).
199
The Rock Tablet found in Wadi Magharah mentions the name of the king Menkauhor. This monument is the earliest example of a
new type of record, the characteristics of which are the further development of the inscriptional part and the reduction or complete
suppression of the pictural part.
DID MENKAUHOR COMMISSION THE COPIES OF THE PALERMO STONE ANNALS?
In order to know who commissioned the annals engraved on Palermo Stone, it is necessary to determine
which was the last reign inscribed at the missing end of the back of the annals (PS). This part of the annals
can only be reconstructed using a spatial reconstruction of all the reigns, knowing that each compartment
represents a year of reign. There is, however, a major difficulty, as many of the reign durations used for the
spatial reconstruction come from the Turin Canon and Manetho are hypothetical, which leads to a circular
reasoning: the assumed durations are used for the spatial reconstruction of the annals (PS), which in turn
confirms the assumed durations (Hsu: 2010, 68-89). The use of all known reigns determined previously,
from the 17 years and 2 months of Khasekhemwy (2598-2581) to the 30 years of Unas (2286-2256), avoids
this circular reasoning. The validity of this method can be verified by testing it on the annals of the South
Saqqara Stone, which are annals similar to those of the Palermo Stone.
The South Saqqara Stone has many points in common with the Palermo Stone: 1) these annals were
engraved on both sides on a large basalt monolith200; 2) the reigns, from Teti to Merenre II, are described
successively on several horizontal registers; 3) each year of reign is represented by a compartment; 4) for
each king are indicated his protocol title and the name of the queen mother; 5) some reign years are dated
according to the number of livestock censuses (tnwt); 6) the height of the Nile floods is indicated, as well as
important events that occurred during the year (inauguration of a temple, creation of statues, attestation of
rituals, etc.). The South Saqqara Stone has some minor differences with the Palermo Stone: 1) it was written
from left to right instead of right to left for the Palermo Stone; 2) the names of the kings mentioned are their
birth names instead of their Horus names; 3) the compartments are all the same width but have no dividing
line; 4) the thickness of the basalt slab is about three times as great (0.20 m instead of 0.06 m) (Baud,
Dobrev: 1995a, 415-426; 1997: 35-42). The succession of the kings of the 6th and 7th dynasties is known
and accepted, as well as the names of the queen mothers (below), but the names of the kings in the king lists
of the 6th dynasty are birth names, whereas those of the 7th dynasty kings (first name when there two) are
throne names (Dodson, Hilton: 2010, 72-73,288).
TABLE 100
KING King's wife reign
6 1st TETI_________ ____Knentkaus III__ ______Iput I 18 2256-2238
I I
2nd USERKARE I [4] 2242-2238
3rd Ankhenespepy II____ __Ankhenespepy I__ ______PEPY I 43 2238-2195
I I
4th I NEMTYEMSAF I_ (MERENRE I) 14 2195-2181
5th PEPY II________ ______Neith A 54 2181-2127
I
6th Siptah_________ _NEMTYEMSAF II (MERENRE II) 1 2127-2126
7 7th 1st NETJERKARE SIPTAH 2 2126-2124
8 2nd MENKARE 2124 -
3rd NEFERKARE
4th NEFERKARE NEBY -2123
The end of the 6th Dynasty is complicated because Nitocris (Netjerkare) was both the 7th and last king
of this dynasty but also the first king of the next dynasty. According to the Turin Canon, Nitocris reigned 2
years 1 month (Newberry, Percy: 1943, 51-54). Nitocris is called Netjerkare (throne name) Siptah (birth
name) in the Abydos King List. According to Herodotus:
She (Nitocris), to avenge her brother (he was king of Egypt and was slain by his subjects, who then gave
Nitocris the sovereignty) put many of the Egyptians to death by treachery. She built a spacious
underground chamber; then, with the pretence of inaugurating it, but with quite another intent in her
mind, she gave a great feast, inviting to it those Egyptians whom she knew to have had the most
complicity in her brother's murder; and while they feasted, she let the river in upon them by a vast secret
channel. This was all that the priests told of her, except that when she had done this she cast herself into
a chamber full of hot ashes, to escape vengeance. (The Histories II:100).
200
This monolith (height = 0.85 m; width = 2.17 m = 4 cubits; thickness = 0.20 cm) of which only 8% of the initially engraved text
remains, is three times thicker than the Palermo Stone. The height of the registers on the Palermo Stone rises from about 4 cm for the
Thinite kings until Dynasty 3, to 6 cm for the beginning of Dynasty 4, 7 cm for the end of Dynasty 4 and the beginning of Dynasty 5,
and 7.5 cm for the end of the reign of Sahure and the beginning of the reign of Neferirkare. In the Annals of South Saqqara Stone (JE
65908), the height of the registers is 14 to 15 cm, a height that does not vary throughout the reigns, with the exception of register F, at
the bottom of the slab, which is limited to 10 cm. It is thus about twice as high as that of the last reigns of the Palermo Stone. It is
interesting to note that the text of the South Saqqara Stone refers to a royal library: [psdt] m pr-md3t-ntr snwt “(for) the Ennead in the
house of the divine writings (located) in the double sanctuary-snwt”.
160
Although Manetho mentions, according to some versions, that after Nitocris a period during which 70
kings succeeded each other in 70 days (which is implausible), the information of the Turin Canon, the
Abydos king list and Herodotus are consistent and in agreement with the inscriptions. Merenre II
legitimately succeeded the long reign (54 years) of his father Pepy II but was assassinated (perhaps because
of the discontent of some powerful governors) after a short reign of 1 year and replaced by his sister and wife
Siptah (birth name). This royal wife assumed the regency under the throne name Netjerkare (Nitocris), but
after avenging the murder of her brother (Merenre II) she committed suicide which complicated the
succession. To make up for this lack of successors, the sons of Pepy II, but of secondary wives, such as
Neferkare Neby son of Ankhenespepy IV, were enthroned (Gourdon: 2016, 24,303-317). As Pepy II had a
long reign (54 years) the many children he had by his four secondary wives (besides his royal wife Neith A)
must have been old when they were enthroned, which would explain the brevity of the 16 kings who
succeeded Netjerkare. Since Netjerkare's reign can be disputed, it is likely that she commissioned the South
Saqqara Stone annals to prove the legitimacy of her succession (which was accepted in later king lists).
The recto of the South Saqqara Stone is almost illegible, but the few readable parts (8% of the total
surface) allow a spatial reconstruction of six horizontal registers (of the same height) despite the absence of
separating lines between the compartments. The recto begins with Year 1 of Teti, top left, and ends with
Year 7 of Merenre I, bottom right (below). A part of the text describing the end of the reign of Pepy I
(middle of the 6th register at the bottom) and the beginning of the reign of Merenre I gives the (fragmentary)
list of censuses: [the year] after the 23rd occasion of the cattle census [= Year 39 of Pepy I] (...) [the year
after] the 25th occasion [= Year 42 of Pepy I] of the cattle census (zone E8) the year of the union of the Two
Lands, cattle census [= Year 1 of Merenre I = Year 43 of Pepy I]201 (zone F5). The reverse side (verso) is
completely illegible but is also divided into six horizontal registers (of the same height), part D1 in the
middle of the 4th register is attributed to Pepy II (Baud, Dobrev: 1995, 23-92; 1997: 35-42). This spatial
reconstruction confirms the 43-year reign of Pepy I which preceded the reign of Merenre I.
South Saqqara Stone (recto) FIG. 29
South Saqqara Stone (verso) FIG. 30
201
The fact that on pendants the cartouche of Merenre I is associated with the cartouche of Pepy I, during his Sed festival, does not
prove that there was a co-regency between King Pepy I and his designated successor (Gourdon: 2016: 84).
The spatial reconstruction of the recto allows us to assume that the six horizontal registers were divided
into six double compartments (= 2x6 compartments) corresponding to 12 reign years each. Therefore, the
total of these six double compartments (of twelve compartments each) is equivalent to a reign duration of 72
years (= 6x12), which corresponds exactly to the sum of the reigns (= 18 + 4 + 43 + 7) of the recto. This
coincidence between these two durations confirms two chronological points: 1) the astronomically calculated
durations of the reigns of Teti (18), Userkare (4) and Pepy I (43) agree perfectly with those of the annals of
the South Saqqara Stone; 2) assuming that the compartments on the verso had the same dimensions as those
on the recto, the 7 years of Merenre I preceded the 54 years of Pepy II, i.e. 61 years (= 7 + 54), and ended at
the bottom left of the verso at the beginning of the sixth and last register (5x12 + 1), just before the last
compartment attributed to Merenre II. The use of reign lengths thus makes it possible to complete the spatial
distribution of these reigns in the annals when they are incomplete. Consequently, the verso of the Palermo
Stone could be reconstructed by this method.
Netjerkare's reign was a major change in the protocol of succession of Egyptian kings and also in the
copying of the annals. For example, the 16 kings of Dynasty 8 are likely to have been sons of Pepy II's
secondary wives instead of the queen mother. As this king reigned for 54 years, he was old at the time of his
succession (over 70), therefore his children must also have been old (over 50) which explains the shortness
of most of the 8th Dynasty reigns. These kings mostly used their throne names, next to their birth names, but
no longer used Horus names. The annals of the following dynasties (9 and 10) are even more obscure
(Dodson, Hilton: 2010, 288). In the face of this decay of the Egyptian dynasties, Mentuhotep, a Theban
nomarch, reinstated the ancestral functioning of the dynasties and posthumously became the first king of the
11th dynasty202. In accordance with ancient protocol, he was succeeded by his son Antef I, son of the royal
wife Neferu I. After the reign of Netjerkare, the annals were simplified to include only the Horus names of
the kings, their throne and birth names, and the length of their reigns (in years, months and days) instead of
the number of censuses. The Turin Canon is an example of this new type of annals.
TABLE 101
Horus name Birth name Throne name Birth name TC reign
7 1st NETJERKARE Siptah 2 y. 1 m. 2126-2124
8 1st MENKARE ? ? 2124 -
2nd NEFERKARE II ? ?
3rd NEFERKARE III Neby ?
4th DJEDKARE II Shemay ? -2123
5th NEFERKARE IV Khendu ? 2123 -
6th MERENHOR ? ?
7th NEFERKA[MIN] ? ?
8th NIKARE ? ?
9th NEFERKARE V Tereru ? -2122
10th NEFERKAHOR ? ? 2122 -
11h NEFERKARE VI Pepysenbe ?
12th NEFERKAMIN Anu ? -2121
13th QAKARE Ibi 2 y. 1 m. 2121-2119
11 Tepi‘a MENTUHOTEP I 14th NEFERKAURE ? 4 y. 2 m. 2119-2115
(2118-2102) 15th NEFERKAUHOR Khuihapy 2 y. 1 m. 2115-2113
16th NEFERIRKARE II ? 1 y. 6 m. 2113-2112
9 1st Meryibre KHETY I ? 2112 -
The annals of the Palermo Stone are thus the only vestige of the first Egyptian dynasties. Despite their
importance, few studies have been devoted to them. Toby A.H. Wilkinson carried out a translation of the
available fragments in 2000, Shih-Wei Hsu listed all the available chronological information in 2010 and
Massimiliano Nuzzolo started in 2020 a high-definition reading of the recto of the main fragment of the
Palermo Stone, which improves the translation of some parts of the text (a few percent of the total
inscription), especially on the edges of the fragment. Studies have shown that the original stela that served as
a model for the Palermo Stone must have had an elongated rectangular shape like that of the papyrus of
202
Mentuhotep was a local Egyptian nomarch at Thebes during the early first intermediate period (time of Neferkaure). The Karnak
king list found in the Festival Hall of Thutmose III preserves, in position No. 12, the name "Men[hotep I]" in a royal cartouche.
Many scholars have argued from the list that a Mentuhotep I was posthumously given a royal titulary by his successors. On the base
of a statue from the sanctuary of Heqaib on Elephantine, a Mentuhotep is referred to as "Father of the gods". This title probably
refers to Mentuhotep's immediate successors, Antef I and Antef II who reigned as kings over Upper Egypt. From this title, many
Egyptologists argued that this Mentuhotep I was probably the father of Antef I and II, and also that he was never a pharaoh, as this
title was usually reserved for the non-royal ancestors of pharaohs. The throne name of Mentuhotep is unknown; since he might not
have been a king, or no subsequent 11th Dynasty king bore any throne name until Mentuhotep II, it is probable that he never had one.
His Horus name Tepi‘a, "The ancestor" was certainly given to him posthumously.
162
Turin (TC). This papyrus as presently constituted is 1.7 m long and 0.41 m wide, broken into over 160
fragments. Consequently, Turin king list (with 2013 corrections of positions for some fragments) is divided
into 11 columns of 31 rows. Despite attempts at reconstruction, approximately 50% of the papyrus of Turin
remains missing. The reconstruction of the Palermo Stone is much more uncertain because it depends on the
spatial location of the 9 fragments, which is assumed to be conform with the Turin king list. According to the
most recent reconstruction (Tetley: 2014) the annals of the Palermo Stone would have been engraved in
horizontal registers (9 for the recto, 8 for the verso) distributed on the front and back of a rectangular shaped
stela of about 1.95 m long and about 0.75 m wide, which therefore implies that 85% of the stela currently
remains missing. Two pieces of information compensate for this handicap: the inscriptions, mentioning the
name and title of several kings, engraved on the two main fragments clearly define the chronological
reckoning used to date all these reigns, and the height of each register is easily measured, which makes it
possible to carry out a spatial reconstruction.
Thanks to the Royal Annals of the PS, we can obtain information about the king’s name, the regnal
length, the names given to the years, and the height of the Nile flood. In the first register, the names of nine
predynastic Kings of Lower Egypt (lords of Memphis) are preserved. Below this first register of predynastic
Kings is inscribed the second register including the length of the reign of the dynastic kings. These are
separated by the vertical line of the hieroglyphic sign for “year” (rnpt). Each compartment represents a single
year in the reign of
a king. Within each
compartment, the
names of kings as
well as the
principal events
which occurred that
particular year are
recorded (Hsu:
2010, 78-80). Note,
Fig. 13. The second register of the PS
however, that these compartments record civil or calendar years rather than regnal years. Thus, it is inscribed
on the PS r. register 2:2–3 “6 months and 7 days, 4 months and 13 days; uniting Upper and Lower Egypt;
circumambulating the wall; 6 cubits”: Jéquier was the first scholar to realize that these enumerations
represent periods of time (i.e., cardinal numbers), rather than dates (i.e., ordinal numbers). The first figure
recorded that portion of the calendar year which had elapsed since the death of the former king. The second
figure recorded the months and days in the same calendar year that fell within the reign of the new king. The
signsign (sm3
t3wj) refers to the
“union of the two
lands”, signifying a
royal coronation
and appears each
time a new king
acceded to the
throne. A further example (right) occurs in the r. register 5:7–8: “2 months 23 days; appearance of the dual
king; uniting Upper and Lower Egypt; circumambulating the wall”.
On the recto-side: The length of the reigns of the predynastic kings is unclear here. The regnal order of
the dynastic kings is probably presented as follows: the First Dynasty occupies registers 2 and 3, following
directly on from the predynastic kings, while registers 4 and 5 contain the Second Dynasty. Finally, register
6 records the Third Dynasty. On the verso-side: The first register bears inscriptions referring to the end of the
Fourth Dynasty, but most of the verso is occupied with three reigns from the Fifth Dynasty (namely those of
kings Userkaf, Sahure and Neferirkare in registers 2–5). The most frequent action undertaken by the king
was the periodic “following of Horus” (šms-Ḥr), a royal tour, every intercalary year (1.6 year on average), on
which the king, accompanied by his officials, travelled throughout the country. The purpose of the tour was
to make himself known to his people and to exercise his control over the economic and political
developments in the provinces. On occasions he would also settle any judicial or civil disputes. The king also
performed various rituals. The most important ceremony was, beyond question, the accession to the throne or
the coronation, which was a highly significant event and worthy of being recorded in the Royal Inscription.
Based on this information and assuming that the king lists in the Palermo Stone and the Turin papyrus were
identical, except for copyist errors. In the Palermo Stone (PS), and its nine fragments, the duration of reigns
is reconstructed from the number of compartments (one compartment per year) combined with the
(hypothetical) spatial location of the reigns. The comparison of the 11 columns with their rows of the Turin
Canon (TC) with the recto and verso of the registers with their compartments of the Palermo Stone, allows to
verify that these two King lists contain the same kings in the same order of succession (Tetley: 2014, 218-
221,323). This spatial reconstruction of the reigns is based on several interlocking hypotheses:
• Height of compartments. The compartments of the first five registers on the recto (below left) are all the
same height. Since the compartment of the sixth register on the front side (recto) as well as the
compartments of the first four registers on the back side (verso) are all the same height, it can be
assumed that this height is the same in the missing parts. According to this assumption, there were nine
registers on the front and eight on the back with a total height of about 0.75 m.
• Width of compartments. The width of the compartments in a register is the same but varies greatly from
one register to another. On the recto, registers 1, 3 and 5 have approximately the same width. The width
of the first two compartments of register 6 is approximately double the width of the compartments of
register 2 and the third compartment is three times as wide. On the verso (below right) the compartment
of register 2 has the same width (about 20 cm) as the 10 compartments of register 2 on the recto.
PS recto FIG. 31 PS verso FIG. 32
The similarity of the compartments in registers 1 to 5 of the verso allows us to

assume that their width must have been approximately the same in each register. On
the recto, one can only assume by using fragment CF4 (Cairo Fragment 4) that the
top two compartments, corresponding to register 6 (of the recto) are approximately
the same width as the first two compartments of this register 6 (PS recto). The width
of the following compartments of this fragment CF4 (right), corresponding to
registers 7 and 8, is difficult to evaluate, but one has the impression that they are
slightly wider than the compartments of register 6. The maximum dimensions of the
recto of the CF4 fragment are 11.5 cm high, 7.5 cm wide, and 0.81 cm thick. It has
upper, middle, and lower registers. Differing thicknesses as well as the absence of titulary bands between the
registers on several fragments has led scholars to suggest that there were at least two copies of the annals
(Tetley: 2014, 294-296). They suggest that the Palermo Stone (PS), CF1 and CF3 come from an original that
is different from CF2 and CF4. But whether the latter two come from the same stone is not determined. The
upper register in CF4 is damaged along the top and slopes down to the left at the Nile height band, whereas
the middle and lower sections slope away from the Nile height band to the right so that the lower register
164
extends beyond the right edge of the upper and middle registers. There are slight variations between the
compartments for Sneferu on PS and CF4, which might indicate they are from different copies. Among the
variations are slight differences of width, and vertical lines separating text columns203 on CF4 (which are
absent on the Palermo Stone).
The major difference between the recto and verso of the Palermo Stone concerns the information that is
contained in each compartment. The compartments on the verso all contain a large amount of information
while those of the first five registers on the recto contain very little, and even none for register 1. The only
chronologically useful indication is the height of the Nile, which is indicated every year, but the number of
censuses, apparently biennial, is not exact for the following reasons:
• Apparently, every second year in PS register 4 (recto) is identified by the combination of two events:
the 'following of Horus' and the census. Since the 'following of Horus' probably denotes a royal progress
throughout the country, it seems likely that the two events were connected in some way. The regular
progress of the king, no doubt accompanied by his most senior officials, may have presented the court
with the ideal opportunity to assess the country's agricultural wealth and thus the amount of taxation to
be levied. The precise nature and scope of the census is not clear, although entries in register 5 mention
a 'census of gold and fields', in other words the mineral and agricultural wealth of the country. In the
Second Dynasty, the naming of years after particular events was apparently replaced by a dating system
based upon a regular census of the country's wealth (tnwt). This new system, whereby a census took
place in alternate years, is attested in inscriptions of the Second Dynasty. In fact, censuses were taken
every year except for the intercalary (“after”) years, resulting in a census every 1.6 years on average, or
approximately every 2 years. Consequently, the naming of alternate years in this way was simply an
administrative convenience employed for the purposes of dating; alternatively, the regularity of the
census in the annals reflects a way by the compilers to simplify their source material (in archives). For
example, nearly 60% of the entries for the reign of Ninetjer (PS recto register 4) are “fillers” used to
conform to a drafting pattern and need have no other basis than a single jar label referring to an isolated
census or a single occurrence of the royal progress (Wilkinson: 2000, 41,64,120).
• Register 2 on the recto contains eight compartments with the height of the Nile describing the beginning
of Djer's reign. No census is recorded but only the description of the procession, every other year, of the
“following of Horus”. Register 3 contains thirteen compartments with the height of the Nile during the
reign of Den, but no census or procession of the “following of Horus” is recorded. Register 4 contains
fourteen compartments with the height of the Nile and the procession, every other year, of the
“following of Horus” during the reign of Ninetjer. Register 5 contains six compartments during the
reign of Khasekhemwy and 5 compartments during the reign of Netjerikhet (Djoser), with the height of
the Nile and the procession, every other year, of the “following of Horus”. Register 6 contains three
compartments during the reign of Sneferu with the height of the Nile and the procession, presumably
every other year, of the “following of Horus”. Therefore, the censuses started with Ninetjer and were
203
Wilkinson notes a different display of its text, which has smaller signs, is thicker, and does not have the titulary bands between its
registers. He suggests that what look like four compartments in the upper register with dividing lines between them are probably only
two compartments —the middle dividing line being heavier than the vertical lines shown to the left in the upper and middle registers.
Wilkinson thinks the lines on the upper register are sloppily cut and are too long, projecting down into the Nile height band. The
presence of the Nile height measurement in what appears to be the central text column on each side of the heavy vertical line gives
the impression that there are three text columns to one compartment. The first preserved column in the upper register of CF4 contains
the cartouche of Sneferu, confirmed by the presence of the serekh of Nebmaat, his Horus name, in the second text column in the
following compartment. In the first compartment in the column before the heavy vertical line, the text refers to the “second occasion
of the census” (zp 2 tnwt) indicating Sneferu’s 4th regnal year. Here, as in the Palermo Stone, the census count appears as the last
entry before the next compartment, which is a good indication that the heavy vertical line is a rnpt marker. The absence of a census
count in the second compartment is appropriate and indicates the king’s 5th year. Without a titulary band between registers 6 and 7 in
CF4, the dimensions of CF4 cannot be reproduced to the same scale as the Palermo Stone. Were the scribes following the layout as
they saw it before them? Or, for reasons best known to themselves, did they decide to abolish the titulary band in favour of having
the next register come immediately below the Nile height band? The lack of a titulary band means that the king’s titulary would have
been incised within a compartment. The verso of the Palermo Stone and CF1 displays a Nile height band and what appears to be an
empty band between registers 1 and 2, and between registers 2 and 3. But between registers 3 and 4, and 4 and 5 on the Palermo
Stone (CF1 not being evident) there is no empty band (i.e. titulary band) under the Nile height band. The one existing compartment
on the verso pertaining to the first year of a king’s reign, that of Neferirkare in register 4 verso, has the titulary of the king under and
horizontal to the Nile height band, as the top line within his first compartment. This gives some support to the idea that there was no
titulary band after register 6 on the recto. On the other hand, the small fragment, CF3, appears to have a titulary band (a significant
horizontal space without horizontal rulings) between its upper and lower registers. This fragment is thought to be broken off from the
lowest register of CF1. Since CF3 gives space for a titulary band, register 6 must have had a titulary band in CF1, assuming CF1 and
CF3 come from the same original. As Wilkinson points out, the scarcity of fragments and the lack of overlap between them tends to
argue against multiple originals. There seems to be no finality about whether or not the Palermo Stone and CF1 had titulary bands in
register seven and below, but CF4 does not show them. The upper register of CF4 contains the greater part of Sneferu’s 4th and 5th
years. The identity of the kings in the middle and lower registers of CF4 depends on the length of Sneferu’s reign and that of his
successor, Khufu (Cheops).
conventionally recorded once every two years but, according to inscriptions, censuses were held every
year, including the first year of the reign, except for intercalary years (called “year after”).
To achieve a complete spatial reconstruction of the original Palermo stone, it is necessary to start with
the reverse side (verso) for the following reasons: the width of the compartments being the largest (19.5 cm),
this reduces the risk of error in the sum of the reign years (1 compartment = 1 reign year). The main
fragment of the Palermo Stone has two precise chronological markers: in register 1, the last compartment of
the reign of Menkaure (2418-2390) precedes the first compartment of the reign of Shepseskaf (2390-2384)
and in register 4 the last compartment of the reign of Sahure (2377-2365) precedes the first compartment of
the reign of Neferirkare Kakai (2365-2354). The reign durations of Dynasties 3 to 5 can thus be used as it
can be assumed that the 5th Dynasty records used to engrave the Palermo Stone were well preserved.
The reconstruction of the original Palermo Stone is based on three types of chronological data, 1) those
from the two main fragments of the Palermo Stone (PS and CF1), calculated from the place and number of
compartments with the name of a king, 2) the duration of the known reigns (highlighted in grey) which
imposes a precise number of compartments, and 3) the width of the compartments in each register (1 to 9 for
recto) which is uncertain must be roughly the same on a register (Tetley: 2014, 323):
The compartments on the verso are much wider than those on the recto. For example, the compartment
in register 2 (PS verso) occupies almost the entire width of the PS fragment, which is 19.5 cm wide, and
corresponds to 11 compartments on the recto (register 2). Shepseskaf succeeded Menkaure, his father. His
name is lost in the Turin Canon, but he is attributed 4 years. His accession year, known as the “Year of the
Unification of Upper and Lower Egypt,” is mentioned in his first compartment (register 1) in the annals.
FIG. 33
Register 1 (verso). The “Edict of Shepseskaf for the pyramid of Mycerinus (Menkaure)” mentions his
“year after the 1st occurrence of count of (all) oxen and small cattle.” These are the only years of his reign
that are certainly attested. If the first census count took place in the king’s 2nd full year, then the inscription
refers to his 3rd year (= 1.5x1.6 + 1). Part of the first half of Shepseskaf’s 1st year is preserved204. That the
compartment belongs to Shepseskaf is confirmed by the presence of his cartouche in the second column of
text where it refers to his pyramid, actually “a sarcophagus-shaped funerary monument at South Saqqara.”
He is attested in funerary inscriptions in Giza and Saqqara written by his officials, but the lack of detail
suggests he did not reign long. Shepseskaf was not able to complete his funerary monument before his death.
The 4 years of the Turin Canon is consistent with what we know of him. Menkaure’s last compartment is
preserved. It is broken away at the upper edge but “24 days” is legible. According to Gardiner’s
reconstruction, the upper part would have contained the signs for “4 months,” which would be the last part of
Menkaure’s final year. This column can be identified with Menkaure’s reign because after the change of
reign at the start of a new compartment the name of Shepseskaf, Menkaure’s successor, appears in a
cartouche in the second text column (Tetley: 2014, 313).
204
Following the final part of Menkaure’s reign and a change-of-reign divider, the signs for 3 months and 11 days are visible in a
separate column within the first compartment of the new king. However, the top of this column is lost and Gardiner has reckoned that
the space provides for 4 more months, giving Shepseskaf’s accession year as 7 months and 11 days. These figures with those of
Menkaure’s final partial year amount to one year of 365 days. To Menkaure can be attributed 28 years, 4 months, and 24 days.
166
Register 2 (verso). Parts of two compartments are preserved in CF1 that belong to Userkaf’s reign.
Only about one-quarter of the first compartment remains on the right. It has four text columns. The third
column refers to Userkaf’s pyramid and the last records “the year after the first occasion of the cattle count.”
This refers to the king’s 3rd year. A rnpt sign divides Userkaf’s 3rd year from his 4th, with about three-
quarters preserved on CF1. Userkaf’s cartouche appears at the beginning of the text along the upper edge
where it has the same phrase as appears in Userkaf’s 6th year compartment in the Palermo Stone. The rubric
reads: “The dual king N: he made as his endowment for: the souls of Heliopolis...” It is followed by
recipients of the king’s bounty and details of his donations. The same format and phrase appear in the other
existing compartments (PS). The 5th compartment/year for Userkaf’s reign falls in the gap between CF1 and
PS with only a tiny section preserved at the top left corner of PS where part of a bird-sign can be seen. The
sign appears in full at the top of the last column in the 5th year of Sahure’s compartment205, beneath which is
“the year after the second occasion of the census” seen in PS (register 3). Almost all of Userkaf’s 6th
compartment/year is preserved on PS except for a minimal amount at the right bottom at the base of a rnpt
marker and at the left top where the top of a rnpt marker is missing. The last text column refers to the “third
occasion of the cattle census” confirming that this is Userkaf’s 6th year (= 3.5x1.6). A small section of
Userkaf’s 7th year is preserved on the left of the rnpt marker, but it does not convey anything of
chronological significance (Tetley: 2014, 314-316).
Register 3 (verso). The name of the king who follows Userkaf is lost in the Turin Canon, but it gives
him 12 years Sahure’s reign is represented in the annals for his 2nd year (CF1), and 5th and 6th years in
register 3, and final (14th) year in register 4 (PS), though that is disputed by some scholars. The name of the
king who follows Userkaf is lost in the Turin Canon, but it gives him 12 years Sahure’s reign is represented
in the annals for his 2nd year (CF1), and 5th and 6th years in register 3, and final (12rd) year in register 4
(PS). The last three text-columns of Sahure’s 2nd year appear on the right edge of CF1 in register 3. The
second text column records “six likenesses of Sahure” referring to statues, which confirms that it belongs to
Sahure’s reign. Wilkinson also notes that the compartment refers to the first occasion of an event that may be
the “making of an inventory of the House-of-Horus-and-Seth.” The “first occasion” (rnpt zp 1) identifies this
compartment as belonging to Sahure’s 2nd year (= 1.5x1.6). Sahure’s third compartment follows the second
in CF1. Most of it falls in CF1 and a final portion of it would have extended beyond the broken left edge. All
that Wilkinson could read was the usual phrase, “The dual king Sahure: he made as his endowment for: his
father?...” Sahure’s 4th year compartment falls entirely in the gap between CF1 and PS. As shown in the
image above, his 5th year compartment begins to the right (PS) in the gap, though most of the compartment
is present. The size of Sahure’s 5th compartment (PS) can be compared with the complete compartment of
Userkaf above it in register 2. Both end at almost at the point, with Sahure’s 6th year compartment in register
3 ending slightly to the left of Userkaf’s in register 2, suggesting that they both began at about the same
place. From this we may assume that the same number of compartments in both registers can be fitted into
the distance from the right edge of the annals across to the Palermo Stone on the left (including those in C1).
Apart from the introductory formula, Sahure’s 5th year compartment is divided into precisely defined text
columns of uniform width. The upper part of the last column refers to the “third occasion of making of an
inventory of the House-of-Horus-and-Seth” which, as we noted earlier, Wilkinson assumed had also been
written in the last column of Userkaf’s 5th year where only part of the sign remains on the damaged edge.
This column concludes by recording the cattle count in the “year after the second occasion of the census,”
thus confirming that it belongs to Sahure’s 5th year (= 2.5x1.6 + 1). A rnpt marker separates Sahure’s 5th
year from the beginning of the 6th. Of the latter only a small portion of the right side survives in PS with the
remainder lost to the left. Before the edge of the annals there is space for two more compartments, Sahure’s
6th and 7th. Sahure’s reign continues on the right of register 4 with his 8th year (Tetley: 2014, 316-319).
Register 4 (verso). Wilkinson notes that there is no titulary band separating register 3 and register 4. He
suggests that this is because there was no need to repeat Sahure’s titulary since it had been given in the
preceding register. Three compartments (of about 20 cm) would have been present in register 4 before the
right edge of CF1. Sahure’s 12th year would have occupied most of CF1 with about a quarter of his 13th
year on the left side. Nothing is legible there now. Approximately the last third of Sahure’s 14th and final
compartment appears in register 4 on the right side of PS (before Year 1 of Neferirkare). It is separated from
the next compartment by a column of text that extends down to the next register (which does not have a
titulary band). In its upper part, the column contains a cattle count, and in its lower part the months and days
of the king’s last year. Apparently, there was too much text to be contained in the normal column length. The
205
Referring to the partial bird-sign in Userkaf’s 5th year, Wilkinson observes “By analogy with the Annals for the fifth year of
Userkaf’s successor Sahure, the entry can be restored with some certainty as ‘3rd occasion of (making) the inventory of the House-
of-Horus-and-Seth.” Thus, both compartments refer to the 5th year of the respective kings. This is borne out by the next
compartment.
signs are very worn and difficult to read. The highest census attributed to Sahure is “year after the 6th
occasion of the census” (Verner: 2006, 137-138) which corresponds to his 11th year (= 6.5x1.6 + 1).
According to the space provided for the years of Sahure’s reign, his last year was his 12th. According to
Gardiner’s reconstruction, Sahure’s last year consisted of 9 months and 28 days, with the complement being
seen in Neferirkare’s 1st year where he is given 2 months and 7 days206. Sahure thus reigned for 12 years, 9
months and 28 days, a duration rounded off to 12 years in the Turin Canon.
Between the right edge of the annals and the right edge of PS in register 1 there are five and a half
compartments; in registers 2 and 3 there are 5 (being slightly larger than those of register 1); and in registers
4 and 5 there are five and three quarters (because the damaged edge of PS slopes to the left). In other words,
there is some comparability of size of the compartments in all the registers. But if two compartments were
taken out of register 4, to give Sahure 12 years, there would only be four compartments to the right of PS —
unless one was taken from register 3 and one from register 4. But the same disproportion of compartment
sizes per register would occur. Although there is one exception, the third compartment in register 6 (PS
recto) is 50% wider than the previous two compartments, the other compartments are approximately the
same width in the same register. The exact reconstruction of the number of compartments between PS and
CF1, as well as their width, is essential to establish the exact duration of the reigns because these two
parameters are linked (Nuzzolo: 2020, 55-82).
Register 5 (verso). The name of Sahure’s successor and the years he reigned are lost in the Turin
Canon. However, he is named in the Abydos King List as Kakai and as Neferirkare in the Saqqara Table.
Once understood to be Sahure’s brother, new evidence has now been interpreted to mean that Neferirkare
was the elder of twins, the other being Netjerirenre, Sahure’s firstborn of six sons. Neferirkare’s first
compartment/year follows that of Sahure’s in register 4 (PS). Along the top of, and within, the compartment
are the preserved signs of his titulary. Noted in the first text column is the duration of his accession year
amounting to 2 months and 7 days, the complement of Sahure’s last partial year. Two stonemasons’
inscriptions, one from the pyramid of Khenthaus II (Neferirkare’s queen), and the other from Neferirkare’s
own pyramid, both record the king’s rnpt zp 5, his 9th year (= 5.5x1.6). A rnpt zp 5 appears in the small
preserved section on the left upper corner of PS in register 5, and this is confirmed as belonging to
Neferirkare’s 9th year because his cartouche appears in the next compartment, his 10th year/compartment. In
register 5 of PS his 10th compartment appears directly below his 1st compartment in register 4. Neferirkare
has three compartments/years in register 4, the first on PS then two more to the left edge of the annals. From
the right edge of register 5 there are seven compartments/years to his 10th and final year on PS. Neferirkare’s
10th year compartment on PS, of which only the upper right part survives, is the last section of the annals
that is preserved. There is space for two more compartments in register 5 on the left of PS after Neferirkare’s
10th year. The reign of Neferirkare (2361-2349) is estimated to be 12 years, so the last two compartments of
register 5 have been assigned to years 11 and 12.
Register 6 to 8 (verso). The spatial reconstruction of the recto of the original Palermo Stone allows us
to calculate the total height of the registers, 0.75 m, which implies the existence of a maximum of 8 registers
on the verso if this stone was engraved on its entire surface. A fragment (CF4) was placed in register 7 of the
recto207, which implies that register 6 of the verso was engraved. If the compartments in registers 6 to 8 were
the same width, there were 8 or 9 compartments of about 20 cm on each register. Therefore, of the 9
compartments of register 6, the first was occupied by the reign of Shepseskare, the next two by the reign of
Neferefre and the last six by the first 6 years of the reign of Niuserre, which implies that the first eight
compartments of register 7 are attributed to Niuserre. According to this spatial reconstruction, it can be
assumed that the engraver adapted the width of these 8 remaining years to the total width of the Palermo
206
Associated with the reign of Sahure is the small London Fragment (LF). Its verso side covers a small area. Nothing is seen in the
upper and middle areas, but the lower part shows traces of signs. The positioning of the fragment in relation to the Palermo Stone in
register 5 of the recto precisely defines its location on the verso side, confirmed by measurements. The upper part falls mostly in the
bottom left corner of Sahure’s 6th year compartment, and the larger part falls in the 2nd year of Neferirkare’s reign. The small
portion of preserved text has no data of chronological value, but it does mention arable land.
207
The verso of PS and CF1 displays a Nile height band and what appears to be an empty band between registers 1 and 2, and
between registers 2 and 3. But between registers 3 and 4, and 4 and 5 on PS there is no empty band (i.e. titulary band) under the Nile
height band. The one existing compartment on the verso pertaining to the first year of a king’s reign, that of Neferirkare in register 4
verso, has the titulary of the king under and horizontal to the Nile height band, as the top line within his first compartment. This gives
some support to the idea that there was no titulary band after register 6 on the recto. On the other hand, the small fragment CF3
appears to have a titulary band (a significant horizontal space without horizontal rulings) between its upper and lower registers. This
fragment is thought to be broken off from the lowest register of CF1. Since CF3 gives space for a titulary band, register 6 must have
had a titulary band in CF1, assuming CF1 and CF3 come from the same original (the scarcity of fragments and the lack of overlap
between them tends to argue against multiple originals). We do not know if PS and CF1 had titulary bands in register 7 and below,
but C4 does not show them. The upper register of CF4 contains the greater part of Sneferu’s 4th and 5th years. The identity of the
kings in the middle and lower registers of CF4 depends on the length of Sneferu’s reign and that of his successor, Khufu (Cheops).
168
Stone (175 cm), by increasing the width of the previous compartments (i.e. 22 cm instead of 19.5 cm).
According to this reconstruction, the author of the Palermo Stone must have been Menkauhor, the successor
of Niuserre. The reason for his initiative is not known, but it is interesting to note that, unlike their
predecessors, Menkauhor had any known dynastic ties (Dodson, Hilton: 2010, 62-67). By making this
prestigious royal genealogy, Menkauhor, without any known genealogy, probably wanted to legitimize his
kingship. This inscription may have contributed to the establishment of his long burial cult208 and to the fact
that a statue depicts him wearing the robe celebrating the Sed festival (usually celebrating 30 years of reign).
The spatial arrangement of the compartments on the verso of the Palermo Stone had to respect the
following constraints: 1) similar width of the compartments, 2) concordance with the reign years mentioned
in the compartments, 3) same width of the compartments beginning or ending a register, 4) first
compartments privileged for the first years of reigns. The respect of all these constraints imposed to the
engraver to have slightly different widths according to the registers and sometimes even on the same register.
For example, the compartments on the reverse have an average width of 17 cm in register 1, 20 cm in
registers 2 and 3, 22 cm in register 4, 20 cm in register 5, 19 cm in register 6, and 22 cm in registers 7 and 8
(presumably not inscribed). The same problem is found among the 10 registers on the recto, but with a
significant difference in the number of columns of text in each compartment depending on the register. The
compartments in register 1 have no text except for the names of kings, those in registers 2 to 5 have only one
column of text, those in registers 6 and 7 have 3 columns of text, sometimes 4, those in registers 8 to 10 have
4 columns of text, sometimes 5. The comparison with the number of text columns in each compartment on
the verso is impressive, the compartments in register 1 have 12 columns of text, those in register 2 have 16
columns of text, those in registers 3 to 8 have 19 columns of text.
The exponential gradation in the number of text columns indirectly proves that the records available to
the engraver at the time of the writing of the Palermo Stone (c. 2330 BCE) must have been almost non-
existent before Aha (c. 2800 BCE), very limited before Sneferu (2523-2479), limited before Djedefre (2456-
2448) and abundant from Shepseskaf 2387-2383) onwards. Furthermore, Egyptian archives were to preserve
only memorable events that had religious significance (construction of temples, celebration of festivals),
political significance (victory over an enemy) or economic significance (flooding of the Nile, livestock
censuses). All these events being periodic, they allow the reconstruction of a chronology of the reigns. For
example, the height of the Nile flood was recorded every year (towards the end of September), the census of
livestock, associated with the “Following of Horus”, was carried out every non-intercalating years, the Sed-
festival, usually celebrated after 30 years of reign (Hornung: 2006, 10-11), except for Niuserre and
Menkauhor (for exceptional religious reasons), the running of the Apis bull was celebrated apparently every
6 years, etc. All these events (partially preserved in the archives) with varying periodicity were harmonised
by the engraver of the Palermo Stone, which led to several chronological contradictions (Wilkinson: 2000,
37,54,107-108,189-192). For example, the Following of Horus or/and the cattle censuses are biennial from
the reign of Aha until the reign of Khasekhemwy, then become irregular from the reign of Sneferu
(Wilkinson: 2000, 141-146). This creates a chronological problem, seemingly unsolvable (Nuzzolo: 2020,
80-81), as the chronology of the reigns depends on the dating system according to the censuses. The censuses
during Sahure's reign of the 1st occasion and after the 2nd occasion (Wilkinson: 2000, 160-166,220) must be
dated to Year 2 (= 1.5x1.6) and Year 5 (= 2.5x1.6 + 1) respectively. The 25-year lunar cycle covering
Sahure's reign began on the full moon dated I Akhet 1 (= 10 April 2381 BCE).
TABLE 102
AKHET PERET SHEMU
Sahure 25-year I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV (5)
BCE Year Census cycle Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar.
2374 7 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 22 22 21 21 20
2373 1 8 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 10
2372 2 1 9 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1/30 30 29 29 28
2371 3 1+ 10 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18
2370 4 2 11 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 9 9 8 8 7
2369 5 2+ 12 2 1 1/30 30 30 29 28 28 27 27 27 26
2368 6 3 13 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 16 15
2367 7 3+ 14 10 9 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4
2366 8 4 15 29 28 28 27 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24
208
The figure of Menkauhor was at the centre of a long-lasting funerary cult until the end of the Old Kingdom period, with at least
seven agricultural domains producing goods for the necessary offerings. The cult of a deified Menkauhor, then known by the titles
"Strong Lord of the Two Lands, Menkauhor the Justified" reappeared during the New Kingdom period and lasted until at least the
Nineteenth Dynasty.
The positioning of the 10-year reign of Userkaf (2383-2373), the 12-year reign of Sahure (2373-2361)
and the 12-year reign of Neferirkare (2361-2349), allows us to estimate the initial dimensions of the Palermo
Stone (175 cm x 75 cm).
RECONSTITUTED PALERMO STONE (verso right side)
FIG. 34
170
RECONSTITUTED PALERMO STONE (verso left side)
Register 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
FIG. 35
The spatial reconstruction of the recto of the Palermo Stone is derived from the following constraints: 1)
the placement of the recto of the two main fragments (PS and CF1) must exactly match their placement on
the verso; 2) the average width of the compartments on each register is assumed to be the same; 3) the
duration of the reigns from Netjerikhet (2587-2568) onward is reconstructed from the astronomically
confirmed values of the Third and Fourth dynasties; 4) the titulary of each kings is incised above the middle
of the compartments of their reign.
TABLE 84
Register 1 (recto). This first register is extremely fragmentary because only the names of 9 kings
(unknown) wearing the crown of Lower Egypt appear in compartments 32 to 40, and then, in compartments
61 to 70, about 10 kings (whose names have been lost) wearing the crown of Upper Egypt (Wilkinson: 2000,
85-88). This first register of predynastic kings does not contain any historical or chronological information, it
only indicates that these kings were included in the list of the “pontiff rulers” of Egypt, and that they
constituted the (divine) origin of the king lists. According to the king-list transmitted by Manetho, Menes
was the first king of Upper and Lower Egypt, in accordance with the Abydos King List, but he had been
preceded by six Gods, nine Demigods, 30 kings of Memphis and 10 kings of Thinis (Waddell: 1964, 5,15-
17), in accordance with the Turin king list. If these king lists were similar, which seems likely, compartments
30 to 60 of the Palermo Stone were attributed to the kings of Memphis and the next 10 compartments were
attributed to the kings of Thinis. The last 30 compartments, from 70 to 100 (assuming an average width
similar to the compartments of the kings Qaa or Den) must therefore be attributed to Narmer, the Horus
name of Menes, for the Palermo Stone designates the kings of the early dynasties by their Horus name, rather
than by their birth name as was the custom from the fifth Dynasty onward. While archaeology has indeed
confirmed that Narmer was preceded by 10 kings of Thinis, whose royal necropolis was at Abydos, it has
found no trace of these 30 kings of Memphis, whose royal necropolis at Saqqara was only used by the kings
of Dynasty 1. Numerous seal impressions linked to the kings of Thinis were found at Tell el-Farkha in a
large mud-brick building, confirming that these kings also ruled over Lower Egypt (Agut, Moreno-Garcia:
2016, 74-103). The kings of Thinis ruled Egypt, including the southern Levant, as evidenced by the many
serekhs found throughout this geographical area (Mumford: 2013, 69-72; Van den Brink: 2001, 24-100).
These kings had an administration that allowed them to control this international trade for their local elites
and supervised the construction of their royal tombs at Abydos (Patch, Adams: 2011, 15-51). The uniformity
of the style of pottery (Hendrickx, Eyckerman: 2012, 23-72) and jewellery shows that Egypt was already
unified before Menes (Scott: 2014, 106-108). While Thinis had been the political capital of Egypt for these
predynastic kings, Memphis, due to its geographical position, was their economic capital. In 2012 an
inscription depicting the visit of the predynastic king Iry-Hor to Memphis was discovered in the Sinai
(Tallet, Laisney: 2012, 381-398). Since Iry-Hor predates Narmer, the latter cannot have been the founder of
the city and the king of Memphis, at that time, was only the lord (Mayor) of Memphis. As the economic
capital of Egypt, Memphis must have had a king from the beginning, but these kings were only kings of the
city whereas the kings of Thinis were kings of Egypt.
172
Little is known about Memphis, the (political and economic) state capital of the powerful kings of the
First Dynasty. At one point the city was referred to as Ankh-Tawy “Life of the Two Lands”, stressing the
strategic position of the city between Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt. This name appears to date from the
Middle Kingdom and is frequently found in ancient Egyptian texts. At the beginning of the New Kingdom,
the city became known as Men-nefer “enduring and beautiful”, which became Memfi in Bohairic Coptic and
Memphis in Greek. According to Herodotus (c. 450 BCE):
So far, all I have said is the record of my own autopsy and judgment and inquiry. Henceforth I will
record Egyptian chronicles, according to what I have heard, adding something of what I myself have
seen. The priests told me that Min (Menes) was the first king of Egypt, and that first he separated
Memphis from the Nile by a dam (...) when this first king Min had made dry land of what he thus cut
off, he first founded in it that city which is now called Memphis, and outside of it he dug a lake from the
river to its north and west (for the Nile itself bounds it on the east); and secondly, he built in it the great
and most noteworthy temple of Hephaestus (The Histories II:99).
Although it had already been questioned whether Narmer was the historical unifier of Egypt, it was only
during the 1980s that this view was definitively laid to rest, especially after the discovery of tomb U-j at
Abydos–Umm el-Qaab in 1988 dating to Naqada IIIA1, which is of utmost importance for our understanding
of the final stage of the emergence of kingship. The royal character of the burial cannot be denied, if only
because an hq3 sceptre (or crook) was found in the tomb209 (Hendrickx: 2014, 259-278). According to
Manetho, an Egyptian priest (c. 285 BCE), Menes was the founder of the Egyptian state, not the unifier,
because the Egypt of the 10 kings of Thinis, which preceded him, was already unified, and the 30 kings of
Memphis could be considered as governors of the kings of Thinis. Manetho explains why Menes was
considered the founder of Egypt:
The Egyptians reckon the First Dynasty to consist of eight kings. The first of these was Menes, who
won high renown in the government of his kingdom. Menes of Thinis and his seven descendants. He
reigned for 30 years, and advanced with his army beyond the frontiers of his realm, winning renown by
his exploits. He was carried off by a hippopotamus god. Athothis (Teti?), his son, held the throne for 27
years. He built for himself a royal palace at Memphis (Waddell: 1964, 33).
The Palette of Narmer describes both a mighty warrior king who defeated Libyans (Thn.w) with a mace
and wore the crown of the kings of Thinis, but also a peaceful king of the Delta wearing the crown of the
kings of Memphis. Narmer was the first king of Egypt to cumulate the two crowns, which will be seen as the
crowns of Upper and Lower Egypt, merged into one crown of the Two Lands. The fact that Narmer was a
powerful warlord proves that he must have organized his military campaign and therefore had an
administration to oversee the stewardship and management of his army. By establishing a chancery, Narmer
laid the foundations of Egyptian administration. Narmer's palette and mace both show him accompanied by a
person called tt, designating the vizier (later called t3ty), who was responsible for the overall administration
(Tallet, Payraudeau, Ragazzoli, Somaglino: 2019, 90-91). On the Narmer year label (below left), the event
represented designates the most significant event of the year, making it the earliest year label found in Egypt.
On the upper right side is Narmer’s name in a serekh. The year event is indicated to the left of the serekh by
means of a catfish (king Narmer) with arms, one of which swings a mace while the other clutches a fallen
enemy by a clump of papyrus growing out of his head (Heagy: 2014, 59-92).
Narmer year label Narmer Cylinder FIG. 36
209
Tomb U-j has twelve rooms and was presumably built as a tomb and a funerary palace at the same time. In addition, the earliest
extensive documentation of writing comes from this tomb to the end of the Naqada II Period. Tomb U-547 is a large tomb but has not
yet a mud-brick–lined burial pit, which occurs only from the very beginning of the Naqada III Period onwards. A number of
multichambered mud-brick tombs, such as U-a and U-k, date to Naqada IIIA1, as is the case for U-j, but they are slightly earlier.
Most probably at least some of them were also royal and are to be considered predecessors of tomb U-j. This is confirmed to some
extent by the fact that the aforementioned tombs U-a and U-k also contained an important number of vessels imported from the
southern Levant.
Below the catfish is a chisel, completing the name of Narmer (“catfish”). The fallen enemy is
determined by the nw-pot hieroglyph, similar to the one on the Narmer Cylinder. The nw-pot sign can be
read as a phonetic complement for Thn.w (those of Libya), while the papyrus plant on the head of the enemy
shows that he represents the Delta. Therefore, the year event on the label is “the smiting of the Thn.w
papyrus people” which corresponds to the people of the west Delta referred to on the Narmer Palette. The
Narmer Cylinder, found at Hierakonpolis shows Narmer in the form of a catfish with human arms, smiting
three registers of bound prisoners who are identified as Libyans (Thn.w). As on the Narmer year label, a
chisel below the catfish completes the king’s name. On the respective sides of his palette, Narmer is the first
king known to be represented wearing the crowns of both Upper and Lower Egypt. This changes the report
of simply a military victory into a claim of completing the unification and becoming the first king of a united
Egypt. Menes was the first king to adopt a new Horus name, instead of adding the title Horus in front of his
birth name (Narmer instead of Horus Menes), and he was also the first king of Egypt to use year labels which
now allowed the number of years of reign to be counted. The first register of the Palermo Stone is therefore
consistent with all this archaeological and historical information. The 30 compartments after those giving the
names of the 10 kings of Thinis must be attributed to Narmer and must have been similar to the next 24
compartments attributed to Aha. They were to mention some of the events that took place during those 30
years (counted by the Nile floods beginning at the summer solstice around mid-July).
Register 2 (recto). The royal titulary: Ḥr-Dr ?-n-nbw ’Ití mwt Ḫn(w)t-Ḥp(w) “The Horus Djer, Gold
name? Iti; (his) mother Khenut-hap”, in the band above register 2 (CF1) is complete and identifies the reign
in question as that of Djer. The group of three signs following the serekh is difficult to interpret but seems to
be a forerunner of the later 'golden Horus' name. The appearance of a cartouche in the titulary of Djer is an
anachronism: this device is not attested until the end of Dynasty 3. The compilers of the annals sought to fit
the names of the early kings into the pattern of royal titles familiar to them (Dynasty 5), a pattern which
included a cartouche-name. The name in the cartouche (presumably the king's birth name, though not
attested in contemporary First Dynasty inscriptions) reads: ’Ití. The writing is identical to the name of the
third king of Dynasty 1 as recorded in the Abydos king list of Seti I. This seems to indicate that, to later
generations at least, Djer was regarded as the third ruler of the First Dynasty. The correspondence of the
name on CF1 and the name in the Abydos king list appears to confirm other indications (namely the
necropolis sealings of Den and Qaa) that the Egyptians themselves regarded Narmer as the first king of the
First Dynasty, Aha as the second and hence Djer as the third. The name of Djer’s mother is given as Ḫnt-Ḥp,
a theophorous name compounded with the divine bull Ḥp (Apis). Apis was worshipped at Memphis, and one
can speculate that the name may indicate that Djer's mother came from the Memphite area (Wilkinson: 2000,
186-187). As the middle of Djer's titulary is centred on the year 23 of his reign we can deduce that its total
duration was 46 years (= 2x23). The first 8 years of Djer's reign appear on the main fragment (PS) and are
preceded by the 24 years of a king who can only be Aha. Fragment CF5 (below) with Years 16 to 20 of this
reign contains two pieces of information: the width of the
compartments of king Aha is the same as those of king Djer, but the
height of the Nile flood level (measured every year) is not
indicated. The numbers of months and days recorded for Aha in the
register 2 (PS) do not add up to a whole year. His reign came to an
end after only 6 months and 7 days had elapsed of the civil year
(365 days). Hence, the first compartment of Djer should record the
remaining 5 months and 28 days; but, instead, the annals give only
4 months and 13 days. The discrepancy (1 month and 15 days are
missing) represents either a scribal error or an error in the records
from which the annals were compiled.
The length of Aha's reign, estimated at 24 years, 4 months and 13 days in the annals, proves that the
Egyptians had begun to use a calendar starting at the summer solstice, which consisted of 10 months of 30
days each with 5 or 6 extra days. The reign of Djer, which includes a heliacal rising of Sirius coinciding with
the summer solstice, dated I Akhet [1], assumes that the Egyptian civil calendar had been set exactly to 10
months of 30 days and 5 extra days (= 365 days). The festival of Sopdu “Lord of the east”, the deified Sirius
star (Sopdet), in Year 6 of Semerkhet, shows that Sirius was observed. The festival of the “Following of
Horus” during the reign of Djer was celebrated every two years. This biennial celebration associated with the
censuses, was in fact to be celebrated every non intercalary year, therefore the 46 years of reign (= 23x2)
correspond to 23 censuses. It appears that the annals did not keep the censuses but only the total number of
23, which implies a reign of only 38 years (= 23.5x1.6). The remaining 9 compartments, after the 46 of
Djer's reign, must be attributed to Djet. The maximum height of the Nile flood being recorded each year
(towards the end of September) this implies a total number of 38 compartments, instead of 46 according to
the censuses. Unfortunately, this part of Djer's reign is found in the missing part of the Palermo Stone.
174
Register 3 (recto). The royal titulary: Ḥr-D(w)n [… mwt Nt-M]rt “The Horus Den [... his mother
M]ereith[Neith]”, in the band above register 2, between his years 19 (CF5) and 25 (PS), is incomplete but
identifies the reign of Den. His titulary must have been spread over 6 compartments like Semerkhet's, placed
just above Den's. As the middle of his titulary is centred on the year 22 (= [19+25]/2) of his reign (below),
we can deduce that its total duration was 44 years (= 2x22). The next 6 compartments, after the 44
compartments describing the reign of Den, must be attributed to Adjib. This 6th compartment begins register
2 (CF1) and precedes the eight compartments of Semerkhet whose full titulary appears above: Ḥr-Smr-ht ?
’Irí-nbtí ?-nbw B3-tí-r-st? “The Horus Semerkhet Iry-nebty ?-of-gold; (his) mother Batirset?” (Wilkinson:
2000, 194-195). We notice that after the 8th and last compartment of the reign of Semerkhet appears directly
the compartment of the year 1 of Qaa without the intermediate compartment indicating the number of
months and days between the two reigns. The 33 compartments that end register 3 can be attributed to Qaa.
FIG. 37
The reign of Den has two major anomalies: 1) unlike the previous reign (Djer) and the following reign
(Semerkhet) there is no festival of the ‘Following of Horus’ and 2) the Sed-festival is dated in Year 27
instead of Year 30 (Wilkinson: 2000, 105-118,241-247):
• Year 17: Smiting the Asiatics (Sttí(w) inhabitants of Southern Canaan).
• Year 18 (= 15*): Creating an imiut-fetish (in?) the senut(i)-shrine.
• Year 19 (= 16*): Smiting the 'dog-like (people)'?
• Year 20 (= 17*): Planning? (the building) 'companion of the gods'; Sokar?-festival
• Year 25 (= 21*): Halting (at) the temple (at) Heka? and Sau?
• Year 26 (= 22*): Smiting the bowmen (’Iwntíw inhabitants of Sinai).
• Year 27 (= 23*): Appearance of the dual king (of Upper and Lower Egypt nswt bítí); Sed-festival.
• Year 28: Organizing? the agricultural holdings? of the north-west (ern Delta) and all the people of the
east(ern Delta).
• Year 29 (= 24*): 2nd occasion of the Djet-festival (the 1st occasion was maybe in Year 8).
• Year 30 (= 25*): Planning? (the building) ‘thrones of the gods (swt-ntrw)’; Sokar?-festival.
• Year 31: Stretching the cord (at the) great door (of the) 'thrones of the gods' (by) the priest of Seshat.
• Year 32 (= 26*): Opening the (sacred) lake (at the) 'thrones of the gods'; spearing the hippopotamus.
• Year 33 (= 27*): Halting (at) Herakleopolis (and) the lake of the temple of Herishef.
• Year 34 (= 28*): Travelling downstream by boat (to the towns of) Sah?-nisut (and) Wer-ka.
• Year 35 (= 29*): Creating (an image of) Sed.
• Year 36 (= 30*): appearance of the king of Lower Egypt (bítí); 1st occasion of the running of the Apis
bull (the 2nd occasion was maybe in Year 40 = 33*).
• Year 37: Creating (images of) Seshat and Mafdet.
The reign of Den was marked by several new festivals whose frequency had not yet been fixed. For
example, the Sokar-festival and the running of the Apis bull took place every 6 years during the reign of
Ninetjer. If the celebration of the following of Horus was biennial, it should have been recorded every even
compartment (Years 30, 32, 34 and 36), which implies an equivalence of compartments/year 30 with the
15th census. In fact, Year 30* corresponded to the 18th census (30* = 18.5x1.6), i.e. to compartments 36 in a
biennial count. Consequently, it seems that the engraver of the Palermo Stone has interchanged the Sed-
festival in Year 27 (= 23*) and the (2nd? occasion of the) Sokar-festival in compartment 30. However, it is
problematic to posit a royal ceremony of a building in Year 30 (= Year 25*) before its formal foundation210
in Year 31. An explanation for this anomaly is that the engraver split an event that occurred in the actual 25th
210
The ‘stretching the cord’ marks the official foundation ceremony, during which the temple was laid out and aligned to the cardinal
points. The goddess Seshat played an important symbolic role in the foundation of temples (Wilkinson: 2000, 112).
year (25*) of Den's reign into compartments 30 and 31 and the actual 30th year (30*) into compartments 36
and 37. The exact course of the Sed-festival, usually celebrated in the 30th year of reign for the first time and
in the 33rd year for the second time, remains poorly known. This festival was regularly celebrated every 30
years, any exceptions that can be explained (Hornung: 2006, 10-11). The oldest document describing it
comes from the temple of Niuserre, who reigned for only 14 years. Two points emerge from this description:
the focus of the Sed-festival was the construction of a building to house the ‘thrones of the gods’ (swt-ntrw)
or the ‘palace of the God’ (‘ḥ-ntr). This building was intended to receive the king (present or past) in order to
perform the sacred ritual of the festival. The representation of the esplanade with its two thrones on each side
was the central element of this festival. Consequently, the representation of the Sed-festival in Niuserre’s sun
temple was intended to celebrate the temple itself, not the king (Nuzzolo: 2015, 366-392). Moreover, until
the 11th Dynasty, important events were counted according to censuses and not according to the king's reign
years. Decrees from Djedkare Isesi to Senedjemib Inti were found inscribed on the walls of his tomb. One
royal decree is addressed to the chief justice overseer of all works of the king and overseer of scribes of royal
documents, Senedjemib. This decree mentions the planning of a court or a pool within the precincts of the
jubilee palace built for Isesi's Sed-festival. This decree is dated to the year of the 16th cattle count, 4th month
of the 3rd season, day 28 (Brovarski; Der Manuelian; Simpson: 2002, 97-101). Consequently, Senedjemib
Inti was ordered to build the jubilee palace to celebrate the Sed-festival of the king at the end of the year 27
(= 16.5x1.6) of Djedkare (2324-2286), three years before its celebration in year 30. Similarly, the Sed-
festival of Pepy I (2236-2193) was celebrated in the 18th census, i.e. in the year 30 (= 18.5x1.6) of his reign
(Baud: 2006, 149). It is interesting to note that Qaa celebrated a second Sed festival in his 33rd year of reign
as well as a “Second Running of Apis” (Kahl: 2006, 100) and that Djer celebrated a “First Running of Apis”
in Year 36 (= 18x2) which corresponds to the 30th year of his reign. FIG. 37
As for the reign of Djer, the 44 compartments attributed to Den were calculated
from a total of 22 censuses (= 44/2) which implies a duration of 36 years (= 22.5x1.6).
The 7th and penultimate compartment of Semerkhet's reign corresponded to the 4th
census, i.e. Year 7 (= 4.5x1.6), in accordance with the 8-year total duration of the reign.
The 33 compartments after the reign of Semerkhet are attributed to Qaa. If these 33
years had corresponded to 16 censuses (= 33/2), the total length of the reign of Qaa
would have been 26 years (= 16.5x1.6) which contradicts the celebration of two Sed-
festivals (= 33 years of reign). Consequently, the 33 compartments attributed to Qaa
represents 33 years of reign. What complicates matters is the presence of two serekhs
on a shale bowl (photo opposite), that of Horus-Semerkhet in front of that of Horus Qaa
(Lacau, Lauer: 1959, 2,12), which would imply a co-regency between the two kings.
Register 4 (recto). Register 4 must begin with the reigns of Hotepsekhemy and Raneb, which are
mentioned in the king lists before the reign of Ninetjer, identified by the preserved portion of his titulary,
whose years 6-21 appear on the main fragment of the Palermo Stone (PS). The king's Horus name, written
within a serekh, is given in its correct form. The Horus name is followed by a figure of the king enthroned.
This either represents a separate title or acts as a determinative for the king's primary name. The group of
signs which follow, read tentatively as nn rnnbw, are likely to comprise a forerunner of the Golden Horus
title together with an associated name. The surviving portion of Ninetjer's titulary suggests that the original
would have spanned the width of seven compartments (each compartment being rather narrower in register 4
than in the first three registers). The first year preserved (PS) is identified as the 'third occasion of the
census', corresponding to the 5th or 6th year, depending upon whether the first census of the new reign was
carried out in the king's first or second year (Wilkinson: 2000, 119-121). The royal titulary: Ḥr-Ní-ntr nn rn-
nbw [… mwt X?] “The Horus Ninetjer, Gold-name Nen? [(his) mother X?]”, appears in the band above
between the years 19 and 25 of his reign. As the middle of his titulary is centred on the year 22 of his reign,
we can deduce that its total duration was 44 years (= 2x22), which is confirmed by the vertical line marking
the reign separation after the year 44 on fragment CF1. The next five compartments are attributed to Seth
[Peribsen] according to the almost illegible titulary (Sth [pr(w) ib sn … ] “The Seth [Peribsen …]”) starting
above Year 2 of this king (below). From the placement of his titulary, he would appear to have reigned
around 12 years (Wilkinson: 2000, 202-207). This king, well attested by archaeology, does not appear in any
of the other king lists (TC, Saq, AKL) which all place Weneg (Two Ladies name) and then Sened (birth
name) as successors of Ninetjer (Horus name). Complicating matters further is Peribsen's innovation of
choosing a Seth name, instead of the classic Horus name, and then adopting Sekhemid as Horus name. It is
therefore impossible to know to whom the 42 compartments after the 12 years of Seth-Peribsen and before
the 17 years of Khasekhemwy were assigned. This period is particularly obscure because the Turin Canon
replaced Seth-Peribsen with a succession of four kings: Weneg (Two Ladies name of Ra‘neb), Sened (birth
name), Neferkare (unknown) and Neferkasokar (unknown). However, the presence of Peribsen/Sekhemid
confirms that the parallel reigns (like those of the kings of Memphis and Thinis) were recorded in series.
176
Contemporaneous sources yield comparatively little information about the duration of reigns during
Dynasty 2. Some stone vessels from the Step Pyramid bear inscriptions citing specific events. One of them
mentions the “Fourth Occasion of the Sokar Festival” another, the “Seventeenth Occasion (of the cattle
count)”. These dates have been ascribed to Ninetjer since he seems to have been the only ruler of the dynasty
to have reigned more than 30 years. For the same reason, inscriptions mentioning a Sed-festival are thought
to refer to him (Kahl: 2006, 106-107). The main events of Ninetjer's reign are religious celebrations, such as
the festivals of Sokar, the running of the bull Apis and the biennial censuses, therefore the year 44 implies 22
censuses during his reign. As the religious celebrations were linked to the lunar calendar, they indirectly
allow us to reconstruct the chronology of this reign (the civil calendar only serves to date the duration of the
transition periods between two reigns in the Palermo Stone). Every second year is identified by the
combination of two events: the 'following of Horus' and the census. Since the 'following of Horus' probably
denotes a royal progress throughout the country, it seems likely that the two events were connected in some
way. The regular progress of the king, no doubt accompanied by his most senior officials, may have
presented the court with the ideal opportunity to assess the country's agricultural wealth and thus the amount
of taxation to be levied. We see here the tight control which the government maintained over the economic
activity of the whole country –in order to channel resources into the treasury to support the court and its
projects– and the degree to which administrative mechanisms were bound up with (and partially disguised
by) ideology. This emerges as a key characteristic of the Early Dynastic state. The height of the annual flood
of the Nile is indicated at the bottom of each compartment (Wilkinson: 2000, 120-129):
FIG. 38
FIG. 39
• [Year 1 …]
• [Year 2 (= 2*): 'Following of Horus' 1st occasion of the census].
• [Year 3 (= 3*): Appearance of the king of … beginning of the running of the bull?].
• [Year 4 (= 4*): 'Following of Horus' 2nd occasion of the census].
• [Year 5 (= 5*): Appearance of the king of Lower Egypt (bítí); 1st occasion of the Sokar?-festival].
• Year 6 (= 6*): 'Following of Horus' [3rd occasion of the census].
• Year 7: Appearance of the king of Upper Egypt (nswt); stretching the cord (at the building) 'mouth of
Horus' (somewhere in the vicinity of Memphis).
• Year 8 (= 7*): 'Following of Horus'; 4th occasion of the census.
• Year 9 (= 8*)::Appearance of the dual king (of Upper and Lower Egypt nswt bítí); (1st occasion of the)
running of (the bull) 'the son of life'/'living son'.
• Year 11: Appearance of the king of Lower Egypt (bítí); 2nd occasion of the Sokar?-festival.
• Year 13 (= 11*): First occasion of the 'adoring Horus of the sky' -festival; hacking up (the place) Shem-
ra ('the sun proceeds'), hacking up (the place) Ha ('north').
• Year 15 (= 13*): Appearance of the king of Lower Egypt; 2nd occasion of the running of the Apis bull.
• Year 16 (= 14*):: 'Following of Horus'; 8th occasion of the census.
• Year 17: Appearance of the king of Lower Egypt (bítí); 3rd occasion of the Sokar?-festival.
• Year 19 (= 16*): Appearance of the king of Lower Egypt (bítí); offering? (to) Nekhbet; djet-festival?
• Year 20 (= 17*): 'Following of Horus'; 10th occasion [of the census].
• Year 21: [Appearance of the king of Lower Egypt (bítí); 3rd occasion of the running of the Apis bull].
• [Year 22 (= 18*): 'Following of Horus'; 11th occasion of the census].
• [Year 23 (= 19*): Appearance of the king of Lower Egypt (bítí)] 4th occasion of the Sokar?-festival.
• Year 30*; Sed-festival.
• [Year 36 (= 30*): 'Following of Horus'; 18th occasion of the census].

• Year 37: Appearance of the dual king (of Upper and Lower Egypt nswt bítí); creating (an image of)
Anubis [..]
• Year 38 (= 31*): ['Following of Horus'; 19th occasion of the census] creating (the building) [...]-Seth.
• Year 39 (= 32*): [...] the estate? of Seth.
• Year 40 (= 33*): ['Following of Horus'; 20th occasion of the census].
• Year 41: [... the estate?...]
• Year 42 (= 34*): ['Following of Horus'; 21st occasion of the census].
• Year 43 (= 35*): [...]
• Year 44 (= 36*): ['Following of Horus'; 22nd occasion of the census].
It can be seen that during the first 23 years of Ninetjer there were four Sokar festivals (years 5, 11, 17
and 23) and four Runnings of the Apis bull (years 3? 9, 15 and 21?). These eight lunar festivals (highlighted
in grey) were linked to the annual appearance of the king and were never celebrated during a census, which
implies that they were celebrated during the eight intercalary years. Consequently, there were 15 (= 23 - 8)
non-intercalary years in these 23 years and thus a ratio of 1.53 (= 23/15) of the average number of censuses,
very close to the usual ratio of 1.6 (= 30/18). It is noted that during the reign of Ninetjer there is no census
'after the occasions' associated with intercalary years. Since the complete records of the reigns were not
available (before Sneferu), the engraver simplified the periodicity of the censuses by recording them every 2
years instead of 1.6! This simplification of the periodicity of the censuses modifies the duration of the reigns
since the 22nd census corresponded to the year 36* (= 22.5x1.6) of Ninetjer, not to the year 44 (= 22x2).
Similarly, the 19th census corresponded to the year 31* (= 19.5x1.6), not to the year 38 (= 2x19). The
references to the god Seth in Year 38 are probably in conjunction with a building. However, there is no
contemporary evidence for piety to the god Seth in the middle of the Second Dynasty (Wilkinson: 2000,
205). The simplest explanation is to admit that Ninetjer, who resided in Memphis (Lower Egypt), probably
installed his son Peribsen as coregent in Abydos (Upper Egypt), after his Sed-festival (Year 30*). Since
Peribsen reigned 12 years, he probably reigned 4 years as coregent, from Year 32* to Year 36* of Ninetjer,
then 8 years in parallel with Sened, likely the crown prince. At the death of Sened, who reigned for 8 years,
Horus-Khasekhem succeeded him and ended the reign of Seth-Peribsen who had become Horus-Sekhemid.
After his victory over Horus-Sekhemid, Horus-Khasekhem became Horus-Khasekhemwy.
Register 5 (recto). The best clue to the identity of the first king in register 5 (PS) is the entry for his
15th year, which records the creation of a statue called ‘high is Khasekhemwy’. We also know that he was
succeeded directly by Netjerikhet. It is interesting to note that the biennial census during the reign of Ninetjer
is no longer mentioned in the reign of Netjerikhet, but it must nevertheless have taken place because it is
closely associated with the also biennial ‘following of Horus’ mentioned from Djer onwards. In
Kbasekbemwy’s 18th year the entry indicates that the king died after 2 months, and 23 days of the calendar
(civil) year had elapsed. Although the length of Netjerikhet’s first year is not stated, we may deduce that 9
months and 12 days elapsed between his accession and the beginning of the next calendar year (Wilkinson:
2000, 130-139). Netjerikhet’s first 5 years are recorded on PS and using the same width for the
compartments, a further 13 compartments may be in the space between PS and CF1, being years 6–18.
• Year 12: 'Following of Horus'; 6th occasion of the census.

• Year 13: Appearance of the dual king; building in stone (the building) 'the goddess endures'.
• Year 14: 'Following of Horus'; 7th occasion of the census of gold and fields.
• Year 15: Creating the copper (statue) 'high is Khasekhemwy'.
• Year 16: 'Following of Horus'; 8th occasion of the census of gold and fields.
• Year 17: 4th occasion of reaching? the wall; ship-building (in?) Dua-djefa?
• Year 18: 2 months 23 days.
• Year 1: Appearance of the dual king; uniting Upper and Lower Egypt; circumambulating the wall.
• Year 2: Appearance of the dual king; introduction of the king (into) the senut(i)-shrine.
• Year 3: 'Following of Horus'; creating (an image of) Min.
• Year 4: Appearance of the dual king; stretching the cord (at the building) 'fountain of the gods'.
• Year 5: 'Following of Horus'; [...]
178
There are two major anomalies in Khasekhemwy's reign: 1) the year 18 of his reign does not include a
9th census and 2) the total duration of 17 years, 2 months and 23 days conflicts with the Turin Canon's
duration of 27 years, 2 months and 1 day. It is logical to assume that the copyist of the Turin Canon
mistakenly added a decade to the 17-year reign. In this case, there were at least 10 censuses during the 17-
year reign (= 10.5x1.6). This discrepancy between the actual number of censuses, at least 10, and the last
recorded census, the 8th, shows that the engraver of the Palermo Stone had only a partial access to the
archives and had to harmonise the number of reign years with the maximum number of censuses.
Netjerikhet’s 19th year is the first damaged compartment at the right edge of CF1. Netjerikhet’s titulary,
which is now lost, must have been in the gap between PS and CF1 with his middle compartment being his
10th or 9th year. According to the Turin Canon, Netjerikhet reigned 19 years before Sekemkhet who reigned
6 years. The identification of the first king in CFl as Netjerikhet would necessarily point to Netjerikhet's
successor as the second king. From the placement of his titulary (which begins immediately above his first
year/compartment), he cannot have reigned more than 7 years. This would agree with the archaeological
evidence for Sekemkhet. The ‘appearance of the dual king’ recorded his year of accession (Sekemkhet) in
the year after the 19th year of Netjerikhet (Wilkinson: 2000, 210-214). According to the Turin Canon, Nebka
reigned for 9 years and succeeded Sekemkhet. In the band above Nebka's Year 3 there is an almost illegible
titulary: Ḥr [s3 (nḫt) …] “The Horus [Sa(nakht) …]”. This titulary, which runs from year 3 to 7, is therefore
centred on year 5 and confirms the 9-year duration of this reign. The 24 compartments after Nebka's 9 years
must be attributed to Khaba/ Huni's 's 24 years.
Register 6 (recto). The maximum dimensions of the recto of
the CF4 fragment (opposite) are 11.5 cm high, 7.5 cm wide, and
0.81 cm thick. The upper register is damaged along the top and
slopes down to the left at the Nile height band, whereas the middle
and lower sections slope away from the Nile height band to the
right so that the lower register extends beyond the right edge of the
upper and middle registers. The first preserved column in the
upper register contains the cartouche of Sneferu, confirmed by the
presence of the serekh of Nebmaat (Nb-m3‘t), his Horus name, in
the second text column in the following compartment. In the first
compartment in the column before the heavy vertical line, the text
refers to the “second occasion of the census indicating Sneferu’s
4th regnal year (= 2.5x1.6). The middle register (register 7) is not
topped by a titulary band. This indicates that its compartments
(years 40-41) belong to the same king as those in the upper
register. Only a few signs are still legible in the lower register (register 8). It seems to preserve the remains
of a single year. The identity of the reign in question cannot be determined since there is no clear titulary
band above the register, nor any surviving royal name amongst the entries. Most likely, the year belongs to
the annals of Khufu (Wilkinson: 2000, 233-234).
Years 10-14 of Sneferu's reign appear in register 6 of the PS fragment (below). Two changes from years
4 and 5 are noted: the text in each compartment is written in 3 or 4 columns, instead of 2, and the level of the
Nile flood is indicated below each compartment, instead of the second column of the compartment.
FIG. 40
The three complete compartments of register 6 (PS) contain two innovations compared to the previous
reigns: 1) Sneferu's name is in a cartouche in the first compartment with 4 columns (on the right) as king of
the Two Lands, a usual representation, but in the third compartment Sneferu's name is split in a cartouche
surmounted by the crown of Upper Egypt and another surmounted by the crown of Lower Egypt; 2) the
number of censuses is no longer biennial as the first compartment has no census and the next two have one
(7th and 8th census). The replacement of a simple biennial census by an irregular census, for no apparent
reason, is difficult to explain, especially since the Egyptians have always been faithful to their traditions
(Wilkinson: 2000, 140-146,232-236).
Register 6
• Year 4: [...] his chapel? [...] the estate of Sneferu: date-palms? [...] silver and lapis lazuli; 2nd occasion
of the census.
• Year 5: [...] the per-wer [...] the per-nu, the senut(i)-shrine [...] (the statue called) 'Nebmaat [...]'? [...]
• Year 11: [...] creating 'the two royal children'
• Year 12: Building a 100-cubit 'adoring the two lands' boat and 60 'sixteener' royal boats (of) cedar;
smiting Nubia, bringing (in tribute) 7000 male and female live captives, 200,000 sheep and goats;
building the wall of the south and north-land (called) 'the mansions of Sneferu'; bringing 40 ships
laden? (with) pine-wood.
• Year 13: Creating 35 estates with people? (and) 122 cattle-farms; building a 100-cubit 'adoring the Two
Lands' boat (of) pine, and two 100-cubit boats (of) cedar; 7th occasion of the census.
• Year 14: Erecting (the building) 'Sneferu high of the white crown' (at) the base? of the southern
gateway, (and the building) 'Sneferu (high of) the red crown' (at) the base? of the northern gateway;
making doors for the royal palace (of) pine; 8th occasion of the census.
Register 7 (CF4)
• Year 40: [...] appearance of the king of Upper Egypt (nswt); 4th occasion of the running of Apis;
creating (a statue of) the Horus Sneferu;
• Year 41: [...] what was brought from Libya: 1100 live captives (and) 23,000? 'small cattle'; [...] Ita? [...]
At least from the penultimate year of Aha and through the end of Semerkhet’s reign, the annals record
the biennial occurrence of the “Following of Horus”, but there was no successive numbering of them.
Between Ninetjer and Khasekhemwy the annals document a dating system that was based upon a regular
biennial census (tnwt, jpt), numbered successively within a reign and coinciding with the biennial
“Following of Horus”. Whereas the “Following of Horus” is still attested for Djoser, the biennial census is
not. When it reappears under Sneferu, it is not a regular biennial event. According to the annals, the 8th
occurrence of the census followed the 7th occurrence without an intervening census-free year. If we
reconstruct the first years of Sneferu's reign according to the 25-year lunar cycle, we obtain (in 2531 BCE the
date of I Ahket 1 corresponded to the full moon of 18 May):
TABLE 103
BCE Year Census Egyptian AKHET PERET SHEMU
Sneferu cycle I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV (5)
2531 25 May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr.
2530 1 1/30 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25 25
2529 2 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14
2528 3 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3
2527 4 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 23
2526 5 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 12 12
2525 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1
2524 7 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 22 22 21 21 20
2523 1 8 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 10
2522 2 1 9 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1/30 30 29 29 28
2521 3 1+ 10 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18
2520 4 2 11 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 9 9 8 8 7
2519 5 2+ 12 2 1 1/30 30 30 29 28 28 27 27 27 26
2518 6 3 13 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 16 15
2517 7 4 14 10 9 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4
2516 8 4+ 15 29 28 28 27 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24
2515 9 5 16 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 14 13
2514 10 5+ 17 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2
2513 11 6 18 26 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 22 22 21
2512 12 7 19 16 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11
2511 13 7+ 20 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1/30 30
2510 14 8 21 24 24 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19
180
We can see that the 2nd census took place in Year 4 and that there was no census in Year 5 (2+), the 7th
census took place in Year 12 but was dated in Year 13 instead of 7+ (intercalary year) and the 8th census
took place in Year 14. This disagreement can be explained by the risk of confusion with the biennial
censuses (the 7th census would have corresponded to Year 14 and the 8th to Year 16, instead of Year 14).
Contemporaneous dates from Sneferu’s pyramid at Maidum attest a series of annual counts, recorded as rnpt
zp x “year of the xth count (census x)”, interrupted now and then by a rnpt m-ḫt zp “year after the xth count
(census x+)” (Hornung, Krauss, Warburton: 2006, 45-46). This anomaly can be explained simply by the fact
that the censuses were never biennial but were carried out in non-intercalary years, i.e. with an average
frequency of 1.6, not 2. For example, Sneferu reigned for 44 years (2523-2479), which is confirmed by
astronomy, and conducted at least 24 censuses, which implies a reign duration of more than 39 years (=
24.5x1.6) and contradicts the 24-year duration of the Turin Canon. Consequently his 8th census
corresponded to Year 14 (= 8.5x1.6), not to Year 16 (= 2x8). The biennial censuses mentioned before the
reign of Sneferu by the engraver of the Palermo Stone probably at the time of Menkauhor (2332-2324), were
extrapolated from the available records. It seems logical to assume that the archives before Sneferu, which
were more than 200 years old, were partially preserved and that the engraver reconstructed the censuses from
the total number available to him. For example, if Ninetjer had taken 22 censuses during his reign, a number
that was preserved in the annals, he engraved these 22 censuses every 2 years (note that these censuses do
not contain any details). Taking this correction into account, Ninetjer's reign lasted 36 years (= 22.5x1.6)
instead of 44 (= 22x2). It is interesting to note that below register 5 (CF1) under the first compartment
(attributed to Year 1 of Sekemkhet) appears in the band above register 6 the beginning of the title of a king.
Although most of register 6 (CF1) is so worn as to be illegible, Daressy succeeded in identifying two signs in
the titulary band: the folded cloth (s) and a figure of a king enthroned. Logic would dictate that the king in
question (whose annals appear in the corresponding register of PS) is Sneferu. Most of the register 7 (CF1)
has been worn away, although a few dividing lines and a small group of signs are still visible. Daressy
succeeded in reading just three columns of text at the extreme left-hand corner of the register: Ḫ(w)fw ... ḥn‘
níwwt.f “...Khufu; ... together with its towns...”. All that remains in the first column is the seated figure of a
king wearing what looks like the double crown. Next to this sign, at the bottom of the second column, the
cartouche of Khufu identifies the reign in question. The first two signs in the cartouche are hard to read with
certainty, but the final quail chick (w) is relatively clear. The reading Snfrw would seem to be excluded by
the height of the cartouche, and by the general shape of the first two signs. Khufu's name would seem,
therefore, to be written in an abbreviated form, lacking the usual quail chick after the initial ḫ-sign
(Wilkinson: 2000, 215-216). As the 's' of Sneferu appears above his Year 21, his titulary must have been
centred on his Year 22, confirming a reign of 44 years (= 2x22).
Register 7 (recto). This register is preserved in fragment CF2, which has a maximum height of 8.4 cm
and a maximum breadth of 9.2 cm, but only part of a single year compartment is preserved. This year seems
to record the creation and/or donation of at least two statues, one of a goddess and the other of the king
himself. The cartouche of Khufu, next to a statue of the king wearing the red crown, probably indicates that
this year does indeed belong to the reign of Khufu (accession year?). The upper parts of two consecutive
years are preserved (register 8). The absence of any royal name makes it difficult to identify the reign in
question with complete certainty. However, given that the latter part of the reign of Menkaure was recorded
on the verso of the annals, it seems most plausible that we have here (on the recto) years from the latter part
of Khufu's reign. A further indication that the two registers belong to one and the same reign may be the
absence of any intervening band for the royal titulary. Such a band would have been unnecessary if the king's
reign spanned more than one register and his titulary already appeared above the register comprising the first
part of his reign (Wilkinson: 2000: 222-226). Only a tiny fragment of the top of register 7 (PS) survives. It
shows the female determinative which would have marked the name of the king's mother211 at the end of his
titulary. This indicates that most of this register was occupied by a different king. The surviving traces of
register 7 indicate that the king' s titulary was inscribed in a horizontal line along the top of the king' s first
year (Khufu) compartment, like the titulary of Neferirkare in the verso of PS. In other words, register 7 did
not have its own titulary band: since the reign of Sneferu spanned registers 6-7, there was no need to repeat
the titulary band at the top of register 7 (Wilkinson: 2000, 146-147). The cartouche of Khufu, next to a statue
of the king wearing the red crown, probably indicates that this year does indeed belong to the reign of Khufu.
Except for the cartouche of Huni, most references to royal names seems to occur in the reigns of the kings
concerned (Wilkinson: 2000, 223). The CF2 fragment (Register 7) could correspond to Khufu Year 1.
• [Year 1?: (statue of goddess ... statue of king in red crown)] 14; beloved of [Khu]fu212 [...] 100 cubits?
211
Hetepheres I may have been a wife of King Sneferu, and the mother of King Khufu. It is possible that Hetepheres I was only a
minor wife of Sneferu and only rose in prominence after her son ascended the throne.
212
The phrase 'beloved of Khufu', may refer to a locality, since royal foundations were often given 'loyal' names of this kind.
Register 8 (recto). This register is preserved in fragment CF3 (right), which
has a maximum height of 11 cm and a maximum breadth of 9 cm, but the signs of
this fragment are heavily worn. The surviving entries comprise the lower part of
register 7 and the upper part of register 8 with an intervening titulary band. Since
CF3 adjoins the bottom of CF1, the upper register of CF3 may be regarded as
corresponding to register 7 of CF1. By comparison with the surviving portion of
register 7 in CF1, CF3 may be assigned to the reign of Khufu. Consequently, the
lower register of CF3 may be regarded as equivalent to register 8 of CF1. Daressy
showed that the cartouche is that of King Djedefre (nswt-bítí Dd.f-R‘), Khufu's
successor. Since the annals record the reigns of Menkaure and Shepseskaf on the
first register of the verso, the recto originally featured a 9th register comprising the
annals of the latter part of Khafre's reign (Wilkinson: 2000: 227-231). FIG. 41
• [Year 7?] [...] 20, month? l+x: the royal seal-bearer and god's scribe ... (of) 20 cubits and two fingers (a
block of) granite for the (king's) burial-chamber; the dual king Djedefre: he made as his monument for
[his mother] Bastet: [...] in/from/as [...]
This fragment (CF3) could be placed on the compartments dated to Year 2 of Khufu and Year 8 of
Djedefre, but this reconstruction contains an anomaly because the only readable signs in register 7 are those
indicating the level of the Nile flood. There is a similar anomaly in the previous fragment (CF2) since above
the year 5 of Djedefre (in Register 8) there is a level of the Nile flood in the band provided for the title of this
king. As the thickness of these fragments is different from that of the two main fragments, PS and CF1, it is
possible that they belonged to later copies and not to the original. After the 8 compartments attributed to
Djedefre, there are about 13 compartments (assuming an average width identical to those of the reign of
Djedefre) that must be attributed to the reign of Khafre (2448-2415).
Registers 9-10 (recto). These registers have not left any traces, but they must have existed since there
are 35 compartments left to be inserted from Year 14 of Khafre to Year 22 of Menkaure. Assuming an
average width of the compartments identical to the previous register, there are only 25 compartments
available, which requires the existence of an additional register (number 10) to cover the remaining 35 years.
In this case the width of the compartments is greater than that of register 8, which is consistent with the
width of the compartments attributed to the reign of Menkaure being three times greater on the verso of PS
than that of the recto. This hypothetical spatial reconstruction has no effect on Egyptian chronology, since all
the reigns have been dated precisely from Netjerikhet (2587-2568) to Menkaure (2415-2387).
The enumeration of months and days in two successive compartments between Aha and Djer provoked
considerable debate among the early scholars of the annals. In fact, the enumerations represent periods of
time213 (i.e. cardinal numbers), not dates (ordinal numbers). The damaged entry for Aha's penultimate year
recorded the 'Following of Horus'; from its occurrence in the first full year of the following reign, and its
subsequent repetition every second year, the 'following of Horus' had already been instituted as a regular
royal activity in the early First Dynasty. Despite a number of alternative interpretations, the 'Following of
Horus' is most likely to have been a journey undertaken by the king or his officials at regular intervals for the
purpose of tax collection (Wilkinson: 2000, 89-91). However, Egyptian archives were to preserve only
memorable events that had religious significance (construction of temples, celebration of festivals),
economic significance (levels of the Nile flood, livestock censuses) or political significance (victory over an
enemy). Unlike later documents that dated these events according to reign years, the Palermo Stone dates
them mainly according to a biennial system of 'Following of Horus' or/and 'census number', but sometimes
according to a festival number (Sokar-festival, running of the Apis bull). The periodicity of these festivals
implies that their chronological placement in the reign of the king was known, such as the Sed-festival which
was celebrated in the 30th year of reign. This dual dating system, event years (based on a periodic festival)
and numerical years (based on a periodic census), was not recorded in the annals until Djoser (2581-2562),
as shown by the numerical inscriptions that appear at that time (Baud: 2015, 54-59,94). Therefore, the
engraver of the Palermo Stone (c. 2350 BCE), who only had the census records from Sneferu (2523-2479)
onwards, extrapolated the number of compartments of the reigns presumably up to the reign of Ninetjer,
because the reign of Khasekhemwy (2598-2581), which has 17 full compartments with 8 censuses, actually
had 10 (17 = 10.5x1.6). The complete spatial reconstruction of the front of the Palermo Stone is based on the
exact location of the two main fragments (PS and CF1) according to their location on the verso, but also on
the average width of the compartments which is assumed to be the same on each register, on the lengths of
the reigns which are astronomically confirmed from Netjerikhet onwards (2587-2568) and on the titulary of
all these kings which are incised above the middle of the compartments attributed to their reign.
213
The first figure in a pair gave the portion of the calendar year that had elapsed at the death of the old king. The second figure gave
the months and days of the same calendar year that belonged to the reign of the new king.
182
RECONSTITUTED PALERMO STONE (recto right side)
FIG. 42
RECONSTITUTED PALERMO STONE (recto left side)
Register 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
184
RECONSTITUTED PALERMO STONE (verso right side)
It was assumed that the width of the compartments in the seventh register (REG 7)) was the same as in
the previous two registers (REG 5 & 6).
FIG. 43
RECONSTITUTED PALERMO STONE (verso left side)
Register 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
186
According to this spatial reconstruction, the 8 years of Menkauhor's reign could have been engraved in
the eight compartments of the last register on the verso (REG 8), which implies that the Palermo stone would
have been commissioned by Djerkare Isesi. However, as these annals were engraved for publication, their
purpose was to legitimise the king who commissioned them. It is therefore more likely that it was
Menkauhor, rather than Djedkare, because Menkauhor has an unofficial succession (he was not the son of a
queen mother) and is depicted in a Sed festival costume as was his predecessor Niuserre.
If we compare the number of compartments of the Palermo Stone (NC), the number of censuses (Ncs)
and the number of years of reign (NY) we can see that the lengths of the reigns, from Aha to Ninetjer, have
been artificially calculated based on biennial censuses (NC = 2xNcs) instead of censuses during non-
intercalary years (NY = [NC + 0.5]x1.6). The number of compartments (NC) became identical to the number
of years of reign (∆0) from the reign of Seth-Paribsen. The reign of Qaa is an exception because the 33
compartments should have been attributed to 16 censuses (= 33/2) which contradicts the 20 that are needed
to have a total duration of 33 years (= 20.5x1.6). The archives had presumably kept the second Sed festival
(= 33 years) but not the 20 censuses, which led the engraver to attribute 33 compartments to the reign of Qaa,
instead of the 40 compartments resulting from the number of censuses. The Sed festival (ḥb-sd), or Feast of
the Tail, was an ancient Egyptian ceremony that celebrated the continued rule of a pharaoh. Sed festivals
were jubilees celebrated after a ruler had held the throne for 30 years and then every 3 years after that. The
origin and meaning of this very ancient festival are obscure214. According to most Egyptologists, the Sed
festivals were held to rejuvenate the pharaoh's strength while still sitting on the throne, celebrating the
continued success of the pharaoh, but this festival could also symbolically renew the founding act of the
reign of Narmer who defeated his enemies and integrated the kingdom of Memphis into Egypt.
TABLE 104
14
King NC Ncs NY date+ ∆0 Reign C dating D1
0 10 Kings of Thinis 3350-3150
1 1st Narmer 30 - 30 30 2838-2808 3150-3060 +312
2nd ‘Aha 24 12? 20 - 20 2808-2788 3060 - +252
3rd Djer 46 23 38 Sed 38 2788-2750
4th Djet/ Wadji 9 [?] 9 - 9 2750-2741
5th Den 44 22 36 Sed 36 2741-2705
6th Adjib 6 3 6 - 6 2705-2699
7th Semerkhet 9 5? 9 - 9 2699-2690
8th Qaa /Sneferka 33 20? 33 II Sed 33 2690-2657 -2800
2 1st Hotepsekhemwy 14 7 12 12 2657-2645 2800 - +143
2nd Ra‘neb/ Weneg 14 7 12 12 2654-2642
3rd Ninetjer 44 22 36 Sed 36 2642-2606
Seth-Peribsen 12 6? 10* 12 2608-2596
4th Sened [8?] ? 7* 8 2606-2598
5th Khasekhemwy 17 8 14* 17 2598-2581 -2686
3 1st Netjerikhet/ Djoser 19 9 15* 19 2581-2562 2686 - +105
2nd Sekhemkhet 6 3 6 6 2562-2556
3rd Nebka/ Sanakht 9 4? 7* 9 2556-2547
4th Khaba/ Huni 24 ? ? 18215 24 2547-2523 -2613
4 1st Sneferu 44 27? 44 39 44 2523-2479 2613 - +90
Current Egyptologists date the first two dynasties (Dodson, Hilton: 2010, 287) mainly based on 14C
dating (Hassan, Seirrano, Tassie: 2006, 702-709) because the lengths of reigns in the Turin Canon are
unusable, but not on the dating obtained from the spatial reconstruction of the Palermo Stone despite its great
historical and chronological value. It is obvious that the dates obtained by the 14C and those obtained by the
Palermo Stone have a difference (D1) which increases the further back in time. Radiocarbonists consider
these date differences to be acceptable because they are within the range of measurement errors. However,
this objection is not acceptable, because the individual reigns must agree within plus or minus 20 years with
the values obtained by the Palermo Stone.
214
The name is taken from the name of an Egyptian wolf god, one of whose names was Upuaut (wp-w3w.t) or Sed. In late Egyptian
mythology, Upuaut was originally a war deity, whose cult centre was Asyut in Upper Egypt. His name means opener of the ways and
he is often depicted as a wolf standing at the prow of a solar-boat. One inscription from the Sinai states that Upuaut “opens the way”
to king Sekhemkhet's victory. In later Egyptian art, Upuaut was depicted as a wolf or a jackal, or as a man with the head of a wolf or
a jackal. Even when considered a jackal, Upuaut usually was shown with grey, or white fur, reflecting his lupine origins. He was
depicted dressed as a soldier, as well as carrying other military equipment—a mace and a bow. The less-formal feast name, the Feast
of the Tail, is derived from the name of the animal's tail that typically was attached to the back of the pharaoh's garment in the early
periods of Egyptian history. This tail might have been the vestige of a previous ceremonial robe made out of a complete animal skin.
215
A census dated the “11th occasion (= Year 18 = 11.5x1.6)” is probably attributed to Huni (Baud: 2015, 57). The 24th census of
Sneferu's reign corresponds to Year 39 (= 24.5x1.6).
The accuracy of the chronology of the first two dynasties can be verified in two ways, firstly by
evaluating the average duration of the reigns of a dynasty which must be similar to that of another dynasty
taking place under the same conditions of filiation and stability, and secondly by anchoring it to the year 23
of Djer (2788-2750) marked by the victory over the Asiatics (Stt) of “Canaan”, a landmark event which was
associated with an exceptional rising of Sothis dated to I Akhet 1 (Vercoutter: 1992, 213).
The eight kings of Dynasty 1 and the six kings of Dynasty 4 all succeeded each other from father to son,
through the titular queen, in a context of stability as evidenced by the length of the reigns (Dodson, Hilton:
2010, 44-45,52-53). For example, if a king becomes a father at the age of K1 years, lives with his father for
K2 years, reigns for K3 years before dying, we get the following succession:
King 1 K11 K12 K13
King 2 K21 K22 K23
King 3 K31 K32 K33
King 4 K41 K42 K43
King 5 K51 K52 K53
Total Duration (TD) of the Dynasty
For this regular succession from father to son to be stable over time, the equation about the average
values of the three periods must be satisfied: K1 = K2 = K3, which implies the general equation: the average
life span of a king (K1 + K2 + K3) is equal to three times the average length of his reign (K3). For example,
the total duration (TD) of the Fourth Dynasty was 140 years, which gives an average duration of reigns of 23
years (= 140/6) and corresponds to an average life span of 69 years (= 3x23). Similarly, the duration of the
First Dynasty was 181 years, which gives the same average length of reigns of 23 years (= 181/6). For the
average value of a dynasty not to be altered by a longer reign, the following reign must be shorter by
approximately the same value and conversely a shorter reign must be followed by a longer reign by
approximately the same value. For example, Djer reigned for 38 years, which is 15 years longer than the
average value (15 = 38 – 23, so he lived for about 84 years = 69 + 15), his son reigned for 9 years, which is
about 15 years less (23 – 15 = 8) and lived to 70 years (= 69 + 9 – 8). These calculations are roughly the
same for Den who reigned 36 years and his son Adjib who reigned 6 years. On the other hand, Semerkhet
reigned 14 years less than the average value (14 = 23 – 9, so he lived 55 years = 69 – 14), Qaa, his (or
Adib's) son, reigned 10 years longer than the average value (10 = 33 – 23).
For reasons that escape us, some kings were succeeded by two of their sons who ruled in parallel (one
over Upper Egypt, the other over Lower Egypt). In this exceptional case (which occurred twice during the
Second Dynasty), the equation between the average length of reign and the average life span is modified
because the two brothers lived at the same time and not one after the other. The average length of 23 years
applies only to the reign of one son. For example, Ninetjer reigned 36 years, 13 years longer than the average
(13 = 36 – 23, so he lived for about 82 years = 69 + 13), his son Peribsen reigned 11 years shorter than the
average (11 = 23 – 12) and his second son Sened reigned 15 years shorter than the average (15 = 23 – 8).
Both sons therefore reigned 13 years (= [11 + 15]/2) below the average. Qaa's descent is not known, but
according to the pattern established by the First Dynasty, it would seem logical to assume that this king was
the father of his two successors, Hotepsekhemwy and Ra’neb, who reigned in parallel. According to this
possibility, Qaa reigned 10 years longer than the average (10 = 33 – 23), so his two sons reigned 11 years
less than the average (11 = 23 – 12). In the case where the two sons reigned in series, and not in parallel,
their average length of reign is divided by 2. For example, Netjerikhet the first king of Dynasty 3 reigned 19
years and as he was the son of Hotepsekhemwy, who reigned 17 years, the average length of reign of these
two kings is 18 years (= [17 + 19]/2). Sekhemkhet, Netjerikhet's successor, reigned for 6 years, then Nebka
reigned for 9 years. These two reigns, which were about half of the average length (= 18/2) of this period,
would allow us to assume that Sekhemkhet and Nebka were two brothers who succeeded each other. The
average length of reign varies three times less than the average life span. For example, the life span of kings,
when there were no illness, accident or murder, varied by more or less 15 years around the average, i.e. from
54 years (= 69 - 15) to 84 years (= 69 + 15), which implies a variation of the average length of reigns
between 18 years (= 54/3) and 28 years (= 84/3). In the normal period of stability, the average value of the
reigns was 23 years +/- 5 years. A deviation from these two extreme values implies an anomaly (illness,
accident, or murder). The average reign of the eight kings of the First Dynasty was exactly 23 years, which
confirms the accuracy of this chronology.
According to the spatial reconstruction of the original Palermo Stone, Djer's reign is dated from 2788
BCE to 2750 BCE, which implies dating the 23rd year of his reign to 2766 BCE (= 2788 - 23, + 1 as there is
no accession year in Egyptian reigns). This date is anchored on a heliacal rising of Sirius which can be
precisely dated by astronomy.
188
DATING THE REIGN OF DJER (2788-2750) THROUGH ASTRONOMY
The years 1-8 and 19-27 of Djer's reign appear in the Palermo Stone (Wilkinson: 2000, 92-102,186-
193). Year 23 is particularly interesting as it mentions for the first time a royal victory against the (land of)
Setjet (in Egyptian inscriptions 'Setjet' usually refers to Canaan).
• Year 1 (= 1*):'Following of Horus'; desher-festival.

• Year 2 (= 2*): Creating 'the two royal children'.
• Year 3 (= 3*): 'Following of Horus'; censing a sacrificial victim?
• Year 4 (= 4*): Planning? (the building) 'companion of the gods'; Sokar?-festival.
• Year 5 (= 5*): 'Following of Horus'; creating (an image of) Iat.
• Year 6 (= 6*): Appearance of the king of Upper Egypt (nswt); creating (an image of) Min.
• Year 7 : 'Following of Horus'; creating (an image of) Anubis.
• Year 8 (= 7*): First occasion of the Djet-festival.
• Year 16 (= 14*): […]

• Year 17: ['Following of Horus'; …]
• Year 18 (= 15*): […]
• Year 19 (= 16*): 'Following of Horus'; creating (an image of) Anubis (= Year 7).
• Year 20 (= 17*): Circumambulating the Two Lands; desher-festival.
• Year 21 (= 18*): 'Following of Horus'; creating (an image of) Thoth.
• Year 22: Planning? (the building) 'companion of the gods'; Sokar?-festival (= Year 4).
• Year 23 (= 19*): 'Following of Horus'; smiting (the land of) Setjet (Stt).
• Year 24 (= 20*): Appearance of the king of Upper Egypt; creating (an image of the desert-god) Ha?
• Year 25 (= 21*): 'Following of Horus'; creating (an image of) Neith?
• Year 26 (= 22*): (the building) 'companion of the gods'; desher-festival.
• Year 27: 'Following of Horus'; creating (an image of) Anubis (= Year 7).
• Year 28 (= 23*): […]
To highlight this exceptional victory in Year 23, the engraver of the Palermo Stone placed it exactly in
the middle of the titulary of Djer, implying a reign of 46 years (= 2x23).
28--∣--27--∣--26--∣--25--∣--24--∣--23--∣--22--∣--21--∣--20--∣--19--∣--18
FIG. 44
This chronology of Djer's reign has two anomalies, firstly the biennial anchoring of the reigns usually
began in Year 2, not Year 1, secondly the events of years 19, 22 and 27, are exact replications of the same
events in Years 4 and 7. Wilkinson considered these multiple replications to be surprising copyist errors. In
fact, these anomalies confirm that the activity called the ‘Following of Horus’ was a tax collection linked to a
census carried out in non-intercalated years. For example, Year 28 corresponded to the 14th census (= 28/2)
according to the biennial count, but to Year 23* (= 14.5x1.6) according to the real count. Therefore the 46-
year reign lasted only 38* years (= 23.5x1.6). The copyist had to make up for the seven missing years (in
red) by replacing them with years already mentioned: Year 27 was replaced by Year 7, Year 22 was replaced
by Year 4, Year 19 (which should have been Year 17) was replaced by year 7. These replacements show that
the biennial count was an artificial count. By far the most common event recorded for the reigns of Early
Dynastic kings on the Palermo Stone is the ‘following of Horus’ (šms-Hr). From early in the First Dynasty,
this activity seems to have taken place in alternate years216. Despite several alternative interpretations, the
216
It has been suggested that the “biennial” royal progress allowed the king to exercise his judicial authority, perhaps deciding
important legal cases, as well as permitting the detailed assessment and collection of tax revenues. It may be significant that the
hieroglyph for šms, ‘following’, used in this context, represents an instrument closely associated with the goddess Mafdet, and which
can be interpreted as an executioner’s equipment. The king is likely to have been accompanied by all the senior members of the court
during these royal progresses. Hence, the ‘following of Horus’ would have presented to the Egyptian people their government on a
regular basis. The practice may be interpreted as a key element of the mechanisms of rule developed by Egypt’s early kings. It
provided a regular forum in which the common people could pay homage, both personal and fiscal, to the ruler and his circle.
‘following of Horus’ is most likely to have been a journey undertaken by the king or his officials at regular
intervals for the purpose of tax collection: compare a decree of Pepi I (2238-2195), in which the phrase šms-
Hr can scarcely mean anything other than an official tax-assessment and tax-collection exercise. the
apparently biennial royal tour of inspection allowed the government to retain tight central control over the
country’s economic resources, ensured the regular payment of taxes to the royal treasury —to guarantee the
continued functioning of the government apparatus— and reinforced the psychological ties of loyalty felt by
the Egyptian populace towards the king (Wilkinson: 1999, 220-221). The chronology of Djer's reign (2788-
2750) contains few events whose dating is verifiable: his 38-year reign, derived from his 23 censuses, and his
victory over the Asiatics in northeast Egypt (Early Canaanites). Egyptologists have long doubted the veracity
of this victory, but recent discoveries have confirmed the historicity of this event.
FIG. 45
The victory of Djer must have been exceptional since it is the first time an
Egyptian king mentioned a military expedition to “massacre the Asiatics”. It is also
the first time that a heliacal rising of Sirius is mentioned on an ivory plate. In fact,
since this astronomical event occurred regularly each year on the same date (16
July), the one mentioned on the palette is a double heliacal rising of Sirius (the
brightest star in the sky) and Venus (the brightest planet in the sky), which is an
exceptional event that occurs only every 243 years217 (Van Oosterhout: 1993, 83-
96). This astronomical phenomenon is depicted (Von Bomhard: 1999, 48-49) at top
right by three symbols: the sun Râ above a cow with a feather on her head amidst
two horns and above a papyrus swamp. The star amidst two horns (bottom left)
symbolizes a heliacal rising of Sirius (the brightest star in the sky) associated with
the goddess Hathor218, just after a rising of Orion (associated with Horus) and after
a rising of Venus (the brightest planet in the solar system), associated with the goddess Isis. The Maat feather
on her head symbolized the goddess Isis and the two horns symbolized the goddess Hathor (bottom right).
According to the Decree of Canopus (dated 238 BCE) the rising of Sothis219 (Sirius) and the rising of
Isis (Venus) could occur at the same time. On the ivory tablet of king Djer there is a connection between the
heliacal rising of Sirius, represented as a cow (Hathor) and the beginning of the flood recorded by the sign
Akhet. The hieroglyph depicting a sun (Ra‘) in the middle of two cow horns is read wpt-r‘ and means
“beginning of the year”. The Egyptian calendar began at the summer solstice at that time is the name of the
three seasons (Akhet, Peret, Shemu) of four months (of 30 days) each. Because the first season is called
Akhet “inundation”, it was a logical designation for the beginning of the year. The second season, also
agriculturally ordered, was Peret “emergence” (from December to March), whereas the final season was
Shemu “harvest” (from April to July). The Egyptian year therefore began with the expression “opening of
the year” (Wp rnpt) which referred to Sirius' heliacal rise (Spalinger: 2018, 1-13). At the bottom left of the
palette of Djer appears the ideogram of the city (an encircled cross) preceded by the Egyptian name: ‘p
“region [of] Buto”. Consequently, the three hieroglyphs on Djer's plate (top right) means:
Beginning of the year (sun Râ between two cow horns), rising of Sirius (Hathor cow) and rising of
Venus (Isis’ feather) at the beginning of the inundation (I Akhet 1). Region [of] Buto.
This exceptional event of a double heliacal rising of Sirius and Venus was inscribed on another Djer
label from the king's tomb in Umm el-Qa'ab. Similarly, the victory over the Asiatics was carved on the parts
of a rock at Gebel Sheikh Suleiman near Buhen.
217
Because 243 sidereal orbital periods of the Earth (365.25636 days —slightly longer than the tropical year) is 88557.3 days, and
395 sidereal orbital periods of Venus (224.701 days) is 88756.9 days.
218
Hathor's Egyptian name was ḥwt-ḥr. It is typically translated “house of Horus” but can also be rendered as “my house is the sky”.
219
Sopdet (spd.t) is the ancient Egyptian name of the star Sirius and its personification as an Egyptian goddess called Sopdu (“Lord
of the east”). Known to the Greeks as Sothis, she was frequently conflated with Isis as a goddess and Anubis as a god. In the oldest
Pyramid text (PT 302), Unas (2286-2256) presents himself as the son of Sirius (spd.t) next to the Two Enneads who purified
themselves for him in Mesekhtiu “Ursa Major”, a constellation already mentioned by Semerkhet (Thuault: 2020, 411-448).
190
220
The other ivory tablet of Djer (opposite picture) is divided
into four registers. At the top of the tablet is a castle with the
hieroglyph of the city attached. This castle is located in the
serekh of King Djer (left) and a view of the necropolis of Buto
(on the right side). The second register is filled, over more than
half of the surface, by the representation of a sanctuary
surrounded on three sides by a canal. A star (on the left side),
which is drawn between the horns of the sacred cow, connects
the event recorded on the tablet to an exceptional rising of
Sothis/Sirius (Sée: 1973, 72-75). This ivory tablet and the rock
carvings of the victory over the Asiatics (picture below) were re-
examined because many archaic characters are difficult to
interpret. The hieroglyph of the city's name has not yet been
identified but it could be an archaic form of Hierakonpolis
(Nekhen). In contrast, the Asiatics are Nubians. Although Djer's name does not appear on the engraving
representing victory over the Nubians, three elements make it possible to identify the pharaoh: 1) the shape
of the boat is typical of the predynastic period and the beginning of the first dynasty; 2) pearls with a serekh
topped with a nameless falcon (Cairo CG 52008), identical to that of the engraving (below on the left), were
found in Djer's tomb in Abydos on a gold and turquoise bracelet; 3) Atoti, written i t(y), which is Djer's birth
name, appears before Horus, the royal falcon (Somaglino, Tallet: 2014, 1-46).
On the picture (below left), Sirius (at the bottom right) and Venus (at the bottom left) are exactly 2°
above the horizon221 (heliacal rising in Abydos) on 18 July 2766 BCE (= -2765*).
220
Berlin Äg. Museum inv. 18026.
221
Abydos: latitude 26°11’N, longitude 31°55’E; Buto: latitude 31°12’N, longitude 30°45’E.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Yourhorizon ; https://promenade.imcce.fr/fr/pages6/724.html (arcus visionis = 8.5°).
The double heliacal rising of Sirius and Venus was observed on July 18 in 2774 BCE (Buto) and in
2766 BCE (Abydos) due to the difference in latitude222. It is noteworthy in the Pyramid texts (Dynasties 5
and 6), paralleling the story of Osiris and Isis. It was believed that the pharaoh had had a child with Sopdet223
(Sirius as goddess). This exceptional event, which will regularly be interpreted as the beginning of a new era
by Egyptian priests (called the Phoenix era by Greek historians):
TABLE 106
Djer Summer solstice Egyptian date heliacal rising of Sirius
Year BCE I Akhet 1 (Abydos) (Buto) Sirius + Venus
2850 17 July 5 August 18 July 16 July
2800 16 July 24 July 18 July 16 July
1 2788 16 July 21 July 18 July 16 July
14 2774 16 July 18 July 18 July 16 July 18 July (Buto)
23 2766 16 July 16 July 18 July 16 July 18 July (Abydos)
2700 15 July 29 June 17 July 16 July
2650 15 July 17 June 17 July 16 July
As the double heliacal rising of Sirius and Venus on the Djer tablet is dated to the I Akhet [1] in the
region of Buto, this event must be dated to 18 July 2774 BCE, corresponding to the year 14 of Djer. The
Egyptian civil calendar probably started at the summer solstice at that time, but the replication of this
exceptional phenomenon 8 years later (pseudo-Venus period) in 2766 BCE at Abydos, capital of the First
Dynasty, and corresponding to the year 23 of Djer, must have prompted the king to engrave this event on an
ivory tablet. It can be deduced from this chronological reconstruction that the Egyptian year that began at the
summer solstice, which was determined by heliacal rising of Sirius at Buto before 2766 BCE, thus began at I
Akhet 1 from this exceptional year (Year 23) produced a slight change in the Egyptian calendar. Indeed, the
Egyptian year of 365 days was beginning with the heliacal rising of Sirius, but this implied a slight two-day
time gap between the observation in the north (16 July at Buto) and that observed in the south (18 July at
Abydos). The fact of fixing the beginning of the year at I Akhet 1 had two advantages: the beginning of the
year no longer depended on observation and was therefore uniform throughout Egypt, but it had one
disadvantage: the beginning of the year was shifted by one day every four years compared to the heliacal
rising of Sirius. This civil calendar was used only to date the period, in months and days, between the date of
the king's death and the following I Akhet 1, but not to date the total duration of the reign.
If the 14C dates progress arithmetically in relation to the absolute dates of the reigns (for example 2800
/2657 = 1.05 %) it is possible to approximate the reign of the first king of Thinis around 2940 BCE.
TABLE 107
14
King date+ ∆0 Reign C Date 14C Date/R. D1
0 1st King of Thinis 2940 - 3350 - (1.14 %) (+410)
10th -2838 -3150
1 1st Narmer (Sed) 30 2838-2808 3150-3060 1.11 % +312
2nd ‘Aha - 20 2808-2788 3060 - 1.09 % +252
3rd Djer Sed 38 2788-2750
4th Djet/ Wadji - 9 2750-2741
5th Den Sed 36 2741-2705
6th Adjib - 6 2705-2699
7th Semerkhet - 9 2699-2690
8th Qaa /Sneferka II Sed 33 2690-2657 -2800
2 1st Hotepsekhemwy 12 2657-2645 2800 - 1.05 % +143
2nd Ra‘neb/ Weneg 12 2654-2642
3rd Ninetjer Sed 36 2642-2606
Seth-Peribsen 12 2608-2596
4th Sened 8 2606-2598
5th Khasekhemwy 17 2598-2581 -2686
222
The celestial equator is in light blue, and the ecliptic is in dark red. We also note on the image that the moon is almost completely
black, because it was close to the new moon, which must have made it easier to observe this double heliacal rising because of the
absence of light disturbance.
223
For example, one reads: “Your sister Isis comes to you rejoicing for love of you. You have placed it on your phallus and your seed
comes out in it, it is ready as Sopdet (Sothis in Greek), and Horus-Soped has come forth from you as Horus who is in Sopdet.”
Sopdet was believed to be wife of Sah (the star Orion) and the mother of Soped. She was also thought to have given birth to the
Morning Star (Venus), the pharaoh being described as her father in the Pyramid Texts. She was closely related to Isis, just as Sah and
Soped were related to Osiris and Horus. Those texts show that the Egyptian priests started to observe stars mainly from the 5th
dynasty, however their purpose was more theological than astronomical. For example, the invisibility of Sirius was always 70 days (7
decans of 10 days), instead of 67 days in Buto, or 62 days in Abydos, according to astronomy.
192
NARMER (2838-2808), FIRST KING OF EGYPT AND LAST PREDYNASTIC KING
Narmer's role in the formation of the state and his position as the first king of Egypt are controversial
among Egyptologists for the following reasons: 1) the predynastic kings (Dynasty 0) had ruled in Thinis over
Egypt and were buried in the necropolis of Abydos, their modestly sized tombs end with Narmer's and
precede the four times larger ones of the First Dynasty; 2) the kings of the First Dynasty built impressive
mastabas at Saqqara near Memphis, the first of which is that of King Aha. Because of these two elements
some Egyptologists believe that the first king of Egypt, called Menes in the Egyptian royal lists, was the
birth name of King Aha (Horus name). This paradox can be resolved by examining the historical context.
In the literature on Predynastic Egypt, the concept of “chiefdoms” remains a resilient feature, albeit one
frequently rebranded as “proto-states” or “proto-kingdoms” of Thinis, Naqada, Hierakonpolis (Nekhen), etc.
In such accounts the state itself is measured by investigating interdependent subsystems, while political
authority tends to be homogenised (but in an unexplained way) as a singular, dominating force. These
evolutionary approaches used to explain the emergence of the Egyptian state do not explain how these
“proto-states” could have emerged from nothing. Moreover, each archaeologist has his or her own definition
of the different archaeological periods, which prevents the validity of these different chronological models
from being evaluated, since there is no absolute date (Stevenson, Dee: 2016, 421-468).
FIG. 46
Numerous cities are linked by
archaeologists to the Predynastic period,
but if we retain only those that have
exhumed objects linked to a long-distance
trade and thus requiring an administration,
the number of Predynastic cities is very
limited: Tell es-Sekan, Memphis, Abydos,
Hierakonpolis, Elephantine and Qustul.
The standardization of objects and their
exchange throughout Egypt presupposes a
central administration and therefore a city
hall with an accounting system and
identification labels for imported or
exported products. During the Predynastic
period (2950-2850), the only building that
could have played the role of city hall is
the tomb U-j at Abydos. The numerous
serekhs throughout Egypt and in the Sinai
in the names of Iry-Hor, Ka-Hor and
Narmer, prove that these predynastic
kings, whose tombs are at Abydos, did
indeed rule all of Egypt. However, the few
Egyptian king lists that mention these
predynastic kings clearly distinguish them
from Menes/Narmer the first Egyptian
king. The Palermo Stone indirectly gives
the reason for this, for while it mentioned
(in the original) the names of the 30 kings
of Memphis and the 10 kings of Thinis
who preceded Narmer's 30-year reign, it
gives no milestones, no census of
livestock and no record of the level of the
Nile, unlike Narmer and the other kings. If
the Palermo Stone was able to preserve all
this information, it is because the city hall
of Narmer had an archive and therefore a
writing. In contrast, the administration of
the city hall at Abydos (tomb U-j) only
had proto-hieroglyphs (no phonograms).
The reign of Narmer thus constitutes a
fundamental change.
It is possible to reconstruct the emergence of the Egyptian state if we consider the major role played by
the mass migration caused by the language confusion (around 2950 BCE), called the Uruk expansion. The
Mesopotamians (mainly from Babel) who spoke Egyptian moved up the Euphrates to Habuba Kabira where
they built, by Uruk standards, a new city with a city hall at Tell Qannas, which served as a transit point to the
Mediterranean. After building Byblos, according to the same standards, these Mesopotamians went up the
Nile to a place where they built a city, surrounded by a large fortification224 like that of Habuba Kabira,
which was called the “White Walls” (Memphis). They then sailed to a second location, Abydos, where they
built a city hall (tomb U-j). Some Mesopotamians continued to sail on the Nile and founded villages,
Naqada, Hierakonpolis, Elephantine and Qustul. The purpose of this city hall was to manage the property of
the elite. Craftsmen first produced objects in obsidian, lapis lazuli, granite, diorite, steatite, jasper, carnelian,
amethyst, serpentine, porphyry and ivory, then with the access to copper mines in the north of Sinai and gold
mines in Nubia, they produced more precious objects. Still to satisfy the needs of the elite, many large wine
or oil jars were imported from southern Palestine. The serekhs that appear incised on types of pottery
indicate the role played by the royal palace (city hall), not only from the administrative and economic point
of view, but above all from the symbolic point of view as the centre of power, indicated by the brick facade
with redans characteristic of Mesopotamian temples. The primary aim of the predynastic kings'
administration was to satisfy the needs of the elite, but the provision of food for the craftsmen required the
management of agricultural resources. On the Scorpion King's Mace Head, found at Hierakonpolis (below),
the king wears the crown of Upper Egypt and holds a hoe, a symbol of the founding of a city. Above his
name, written with a logogram, is a rosette, a symbol of the agricultural prosperity brought by the king
through his management of water, as shown in the lower register. The papyrus thickets in the upper register
symbolize Lower Egypt, and the lapwings linked to the signs correspond to the hieroglyph G23 (rḫyt), which
originally referred to the people of the Delta and then meant “subjects [of the king]”. This representation,
which does not contain any hieroglyphs, clearly indicates that the king of Thinis was called Scorpion, that he
was the king of all Egypt and that he oversaw agricultural activities to be able to meet the food needs of his
servants (Midant-Reynes: 2003, 11,257,294,350-360).
FIG. 47
224
The length of the wall, the width of which reached 8 m, was traced for 150 m. This wall protected the ‘camp’ from natural
cataclysms and enemies. The wall was coated with a limestone plaster, averaging 5 cm in thickness (Belova: 2018, 1-22).
194
The rapid increase in population forced the predynastic kings to manage (c. 2900 BCE) the agricultural
resources to supply their population. In addition, the trade in precious metals, copper in the north (especially
mace heads in copper, were very common in the southern Levant at this time)225 or gold in the south, led to
plundering by the Libyans in the north or the Nubians in the south. Narmer solved both of these challenges
brilliantly. To secure the trade routes to Southern Palestine he was the first king to use a powerful police
force to destroy brigands. The Narmer Palette is misleading, it does not illustrate a conquest of Lower Egypt
by an army to unify Egypt, since the country was at peace, but the slaughter of the Libyans who had
threatened the security of Lower Egypt by their incursions. The hieroglyph tḥn.w “Libyans” appears on the
Narmer Cylinder (Heagy: 2014, 68). He thus became the protector, symbolised by a vulture on the Narmer
Cylinder, of the Two Lands, Upper and Lower Egypt, and the symbol for the following kings of the slaughter
of the enemies of Egypt. With this memorable action, Narmer became the first king of Thinis, with his white
crown, which became the symbol of Upper Egypt, to also become king of Memphis, with his red crown,
which became the symbol of Lower Egypt. Narmer was not the unifier of the Two Lands (Allan: 2014, 106-
108), Upper and Lower Egypt, but was his protector. To recall this role of protector the kings of Egypt after
Narmer added to their Horus name, the name of the Two Ladies to recall this dual royalty.
To finance the soldiers of his police force, Narmer needed to tax the merchants and therefore to have
officials and therefore a chancery (in a city hall). The primary purpose of this chancery was to record
important economic transactions as can be seen in the Palermo Stone. Two operations regularly appear in the
registers marking the reigns of the first kings: 1) the level of the Nile flood, which was measured (at
Elephantine) towards the end of September, to evaluate the harvests of the following spring and thus to fix
the level of taxation, as well as 2) the census of livestock to fix the level of levy. The census being a long
administratively operation, it was not carried out every year but only in ordinary years without intercalary
month, on average every 1.6 years (Gertoux: 2022, 125-126).
FIG. 48
225
In 1961, a spectacular collection of objects dating from the Chalcolithic period was excavated in a cave of Nahal Mishmar in the
Judaean Desert near the Dead Sea. Hidden in a natural crevice and wrapped in a straw mat, the hoard contained 442 different objects:
429 of copper (more than 200 mace-heads, jars and tools), six of hematite, one of stone, five of hippopotamus ivory, and one of
elephant ivory. Many of the copper objects in the hoard were made using the lost-wax process, the earliest known use of this complex
technique. For tools, nearly pure copper of the kind found at the mines at Timna in the Sinai Peninsula was used. However, the more
elaborate objects were made with a copper containing a high percentage of arsenic (4–12%), which is harder than pure copper and
more easily cast. Carbon-14 dating of the reed mat in which the objects were wrapped suggests that it dates to c. 3500 BCE. It was in
this period that the use of copper became widespread throughout the Levant, attesting to considerable technological developments
that parallel major social advances in the region. It has been suggested that the hoard was the sacred treasure belonging to a shrine at
Ein Gedi, some 12 kilometres away (Rowan: 2014, 223-236).
The Palette of Narmer is the first document with a few words written in hieroglyphs, which thus differs
from earlier writings with proto-hieroglyphs without phonograms. This document represents in a
pictographic way the main actions of Narmer's reign. At the very top of the Palette and on each side, there
are two huge cattle heads surrounding the name of Narmer written with two phonograms na’r “catfish” and
mer “chisel” (the name “Catfish-chisel” does not mean anything but allows the new name of Horus to be
read and pronounced for illiterate people). Narmer was the first to organise a national livestock census, an
action that was considered the most important of the reign, so much so that all subsequent kings counted
their reign actions not by the number of years but by the number of censuses. For example, Narmer, who
ruled during a 30-year jubilee (because each square in a row of the Palermo Stone represents a year of reign),
made 18 censuses (30 = [18 + 0.5]x1.6). This way of counting reigns was used until the
11th Dynasty. It is interesting to note that four bands with a cattle head are hung on
Narmer's belt (picture opposite), which seems to represent four censuses corresponding
to seven reign years (= [4 + 0.5]x1.6). The census was a huge operation, for example,
on a Narmer mace-head (below) it is even stated that there was a census of 1,422,000
goats (Millet: 1990, 53-59). This huge figure more likely reflects the total of the 18
censuses, which corresponds to 79,000 goats226 (= 1,422,000/18). This figure is still
considerable and presupposes an administration capable of registering tens of thousands
of head of livestock, which implies having a city hall to match.
Narmer's name is inscribed in a serekh (below) between the two cattle heads, later equated with the
goddess Hathor, whose name literally means “Temple of Horus (ḥwt-ḥr)”.
Narmer being the name of King Horus, the Temple of Horus on the Palette therefore refers to the
Temple city hall of Narmer. However, the serekh shows the stylized façade of a Mesopotamian-type city hall
temple (like the one at Jebel Aruda), which was not the case of the city hall at Abydos (tomb U-j), which had
smooth, unnotched walls. In fact, this representation of the city hall temple was traditional but did not
correspond to reality, since the city hall temple on the cylinder seal at Jebel Aruda had notched walls in three
226
Above the cattle census, there are three men surrounded by three hieroglyphs meaning “lunar month” (3bd).
196
parts whereas the one exhumed at Tell Qannas (14.1m x 10.2m) had smooth walls on the outside but notched
on the inside. The shape of the town hall temple represented on the Narmer Palette does not correspond to
that of Abydos (10.6m x 8.3m), but it does correspond exactly to the imposing mastaba (41.5m x 15.5m) of
King Aha at Saqqara227, which has a surface area seven times larger (643m2 instead of 88m2). This huge
mastaba (S.3357) served as a burial vault for King Aha in the Saqqara Necropolis (below), who had a three-
building cenotaph built in the Abydos Necropolis (B10-B15-B19).
It is noticeable that the lower part of this mastaba, which served as a burial vault for king Aha (2808-
2788), was built after the death of this king, the upper part with its 27 compartments, some of which were
used as storage places like the Abydos city hall (tomb U-j), must have been the city hall used by king Aha to
carry out the important operations of cattle census. For the same reasons, Narmer must also have used this
impressive city hall to carry out his national censuses rather than the one at Abydos, which was too small to
house the administration needed for the important accounting operations. This choice is confirmed by the
serekh of the Narmer Palette which represents the notched façade of this typical Mesopotamian city hall. The
second clue confirming that this mastaba was originally built by Mesopotamians coming from Uruk (or
Babel) is the presence inside the mastabas of panels with coloured rhombuses identical to those of the city
hall temples of Uruk or Uqair. In Dynasty I Egypt, mud-brick architecture was influenced by existing
Mesopotamian practices such as the complex niching of monumental facades. From the First to the Third
Dynasty, the niches of some mud-brick mastabas at Saqqara were painted with brightly coloured geometric
patterns, clearly imitating woven reed mats. For example, coloured geometric frescoes can be seen (below)
in some mastabas, such as that of Queen Merit-Neith (S.3505), which are like those of the Painted Temple at
Tell Uqair and the White Temple at Uruk (Graham: 2019, 1-46).
227
The oldest mastaba at Saqqara (S.3357) dates to the reign of Aha. It consists of five underground chambers, built in a shaft, only
1.35m deep, of which the central room was perhaps the burial chamber. The chambers, originally covered with wooden beams, have
no passage between them and are only accessible from the upper part. This part of the mastaba could therefore only have been built
after the burial of the king. In the mastaba massif, 27 compartments were made, which were partly used as storage places. The walls
of the chambers were intended to hold the mass of the superstructure in place at the same time. The lower part of the chambers was
filled with one metre of sand, on which furniture was placed. The mastaba probably stood 3 to 5 metres high. The stepped outer
façade consists of nine niches in the length and three in the width (Hendrickx: 2008, 61-88).
White Temple (Uruk) Painted Temple (Uqair) Mastaba S.3505 (Saqqara)

The notched façade of the city hall as well as its decoration with colourful geometric frescoes confirms
that the one used by Narmer (mastaba S.3357) was built by Mesopotamians from Uruk. However, according
to the Egyptian tradition collected by Herodotus (c. 450 BCE) the temple of Ptah (called Hephaestus by
Greeks) in Memphis was built by Menes (Narmer).
The priests told me that Min (Menes) was the first king of Egypt, and that first he separated Memphis
from the Nile by a dam. All the river had flowed close under the sandy mountains on the Libyan side,
but Min made the southern bend of it, which begins about 100 stadia (= 17.7 kilometres) above
Memphis, by damming the stream, thereby drying up the ancient channel, and carried the river by a
channel so that it flowed midway between the hills (...) Then, when this first king Min had made dry
land of what he thus cut off, he first founded in it that city which is now called Memphis (for even
Memphis lies in the narrow part of Egypt), and outside of it he dug a lake from the river to its north and
west (for the Nile itself bounds it on the east); and secondly, he built in it the great and most noteworthy
temple of Hephaestus (The Histories II:99).
The famous temple of Ptah could not have been built by Menes (Narmer) because it was inaugurated by
Thutmose III, even if a first version had existed before228. Egyptian tradition has equated the city hall temple
used by Menes, which later became the tomb of Aha in the necropolis of Saqqara, with the temple of Ptah in
Memphis229 built much later. According to the Palermo Stone, Narmer succeeded the 10 kings of Thinis and
the 30 kings of Memphis, which implies that the latter reigned first but in parallel to the kings of Thinis who
ruled all of Egypt. This historical context allows us to interpret the Palermo Stone, which pictorially
summarises the main actions at the beginning of Narmer's reign: securing the trade route with the southern
Levant, killing and capturing Libyan aggressors, and at the same time annexing the kingdom of Memphis,
which was economically powerful but had no armed forces to protect its merchants (symbolised by a vulture
above his throne). The kings of Memphis only ruled over their city because the crown of these kings, which
after the annexation of Narmer became the symbol of Lower Egypt, is poorly attested230. The memorable
actions depicted on the Narmer Palette were also immortalised on the Narmer macehead (below).
FIG. 49
228
The origin of the Ptah temple at Karnak remains obscure but a sanctuary dedicated to the god probably existed in the same place,
dating back at least to the 17th Dynasty, as shown by the upper part of a stela of the reign of King Antef VII Nubkheperre (1555-
1545). The temple’s foundation stela (Cairo CG 34013) dedicated by Tuthmose III (1472-1418) also implies that there was an earlier
version as on it the king says that he ‘found this temple built of brick, the columns and the doors made of wood, going to ruin’.
229
According to the Egyptian History of Manetho, the first man (or god) in Egypt is Hephaestus (Ptah), who is also renowned among
the Egyptians as the discoverer of fire. His son, Helios (the Sun), was succeeded by Sosis, Osiris, Horus, and Thulis. In succession to
the Spirits of the Dead and the Demigods, the Egyptians reckon the First Dynasty to consist of eight kings. Among these was Menes,
whose rule in Egypt was illustrious. Menes of Thinis, with his [17, or in another copy] 7 descendants, —the king called Min by
Herodotus,— reigned for 60 years. He made a foreign expedition and won renown but was carried off by a hippopotamus.
230
The Red Crown appears on two rock drawings at Wadi Qash in the Eastern Desert between L Luxor and the Red Sea (Winkler
1938 pl. XIII 2 & XVI 1/2) and on a potsherd from a black-topped vessel excavated by Petrie from Tomb 1610 at Naqada, about 36
kilometres north of Luxor (Petrie 1896 LII:75) and dated to the Naqada II period.
198
King Narmer's name of Horus appears distinctly in a serekh behind and above his head, Narmer wearing
the crown of the king of Memphis. In front of the king stands an unnamed figure in a sedan chair with a
canopy who stands before three servants, themselves above a huge census of cattle and captives (shown at
far right). Above the three servants four small figures carry standards, symbols of the nomes (Egyptian
provinces). The anonymous figure in front of Narmer can only be the king of Memphis who pays him
homage. To avoid that this former king is perceived as a co-regent, several logograms and phonograms were
added to indicate the hierarchical relationships of this new royal court. Behind Narmer there are two figures,
one directly behind him with the phonograms t[t] above his head and a second one below, a young boy
wearing sandals with a rosette and an anointing vessel in front of his head. The word t[t] is written tt on the
Narmer Palette (below left), which is a defective writing of the word t3ty meaning vizier. Narmer's name
appears in front of the king, who wears the crown of the king of Memphis, without the falcon. The four
standard-bearers are led by the vizier, this time in front of the king, and the young sandal-wearer is
surmounted by a hieroglyphic sign representing a floater, a word that reads db3 and means “to exchange, to
replace”. As the word db3(w) means “crowning”, the young boy with the rosette, sign of agricultural
prosperity, and the anointing vessel, sign of crowning, must be the crown prince chosen by Narmer (his son
the future king Aha). The Narmer Palette is the first Egyptian document written with hieroglyphs that are not
only logograms (like those of Abydos), since several logograms were used as phonograms, two to read the
name of Narmer and specify the title of the vizier and one to specify the title of the crown prince. However,
all these logograms can be read according to their pictorial representation and the Narmer Palette (below),
like most First Dynasty royal inscriptions, can be read like a cartoon page.
FIG. 50
The Palette has raised considerable scholarly debate over the years. In general, the arguments fall into
one of two camps: scholars who believe that the Palette is a record of an important event, and other
academics who argue that it is an object designed to establish the mythology of united rule over Upper and
Lower Egypt by the king. This academic debate is absurd because all royal documents were always written
to glorify the actions of the king, often boastfully, and the message had to be easily understood by anyone
who would read it, which was a real challenge because the administration of Abydos at the time of Narmer
only had a bookkeeping script using proto-hieroglyphs. Therefore, like the stained-glass windows in
churches depicting biblical events, the message was conveyed mostly with immediately understandable
scenes accompanied by some commentary such as the names of certain important people. First remark
concerning the hieroglyphs of the Palette, most of them are logograms whose meaning is directly linked to
their representation: only five logograms have been used as phonograms231 (highlighted in grey). For
example, the two logograms above the vizier's head tt did not read “pestle-loaf of bread” but t(3)t(y) “vizier”.
FIG. 51
hieroglyph description reading hieroglyph description reading hieroglyph description reading
𓂚 D34 combat ’ḥ3 𓃓 E2 bull charging k3 kḫt 𓅃 G5 falcon/Horus ḥrw
𓆢 K8 catfish n‘r 𓇉 M16 clump of papyrus mḥw 𓉗 O6 enclosure ḥwt
𓊁 O33 façade (palace) srḫ 𓊅 O36 wall jnb 𓊇 O36B fortified wall
𓋑 S1 white crown ḥd 𓋔 S3 red crown mḥw-s 𓌡 T21 harpoon w‘
𓌥 T25 floater db3 𓌻 U7 hoe mr 𓍘 U33 pestle t
𓍋 U23 chisel mr 𓎸 W9D jug for anointing ḥnm 𓏏 X1 loaf of bread t
The main purpose of the Palette is to show clearly that Narmer combines the white and the red crowns,
which was not the case before since the kings of Thinis: Iry-Hor and Ka-Hor, had ruled Egypt with the white
crown but in parallel with the kings of Memphis who had ruled their city with the red crown. As the mace
head of Narmer shows, the anonymous king of Memphis pays him homage and collaborates with him in the
general census of the cattle. Several elements of the Palette show that Narmer annexed the city of Memphis
to use his powerful administration to manage his huge cattle census. For example, at the bottom of each side
of the Palette figures are shown bowing to Narmer (powerful as a bull), but they are not defeated enemies.
The annexed city is represented either by a mastaba (O194) surrounded by a fortified semi-enclosure, or by a
rectangular palace with notched walls. At that time the only city surrounded by a fortified wall is Habura
Kabira in Syria or Memphis with its “white walls” and the only city that has a rectangular city hall with
notched walls is Memphis (mastaba S.3357 which was transformed into a burial vault after the death of king
Aha, the son of Narmer). The second element confirming the annexation of Memphis, derives from the
serekh representing the façade of the city hall with notched walls like the Mesopotamian city hall temples.
The Abydos city hall (tomb U-j) is rectangular, but its walls are smooth, whereas the Memphis city hall
(mastaba S.3357) is rectangular but has notched walls identical to those of Mesopotamian city hall temples.
Although Narmer annexed Memphis he did not merge it into the kingdom of Thinis but kept its territorial
integrity but associated it with his kingship and chose it as administrative and economic capital,
Thinis/Abydos remaining the political capital of Egypt. This original conception of kingship is reflected in
the following elements of the Palette: 1) Narmer wears alternately the white crown (Upper Egypt) and the
red crown (Lower Egypt), 2) the representative of Lower Egypt is no longer the king of Memphis but a
vizier232 under Narmer's orders, 3) the city hall of Memphis, represented by a rectangle with notched walls, is
linked to Narmer's feet by a knot, 4) the two powerful lands are represented by two felines with monstrous
necks233 but intimately intertwined, this symbolism is of Mesopotamian origin234, as can be seen on a
cylinder seal found at Uruk235 (below) dated 3500-3100 BCE by stratigraphy.
FIG. 52
These elements show that Narmer relied on the powerful administration of Memphis to manage his
cattle censuses, which were the main source of wealth for the Egyptian kingdom. This national system of
redistribution was obviously inspired by the one set up by Marduk as can be seen on the Warka Vase.
231
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Egyptian_hieroglyphs#O
232
Paradoxically the vizier is represented by a high priestess (?) wearing a leopard skin (Wilkinson: 1999, 267-269).
233
The same symbol appears on the Two Dog Palette found at Hierakonpolis and dated to c. 3300-3000 BCE.
234
These two intertwined animals may represent, for the Mesopotamians, the union of the North (Akkad) with the South (Uruk).
235
Musée du Louvre: MNB 1167.
200
Administration was now conducted on a national scale, bringing with it advantages as well as
constraints. The burden of taxation imposed by the court may have exceeded that levied by provincial rulers,
and corvée labour for royal building projects may have made increasing demands on the rural population.
But in return, a centralised administration provided a stabilising influence and, critically, a guarantee of
emergency relief in times of famine through the maintenance of central stocks of grain. At its most basic
level, political power depends upon economic control. A guaranteed income from taxation is also a
prerequisite for supporting specialist craftsmen and undertaking major construction projects. The economy,
then, emerges as the central concern of the Early Dynastic administration, for without adequate command of
Egypt’s economic resources, the state simply could not function. Hence, the annals make frequent reference
to surveys of Egypt’s resources, human, agricultural and mineral. Egypt’s agricultural resources were
exploited by the court through the mechanism of royal foundations. The actual collection of revenue, its
storage, processing and redistribution was the responsibility of a separate institution, the treasury. This was
the government department which directly managed the income of the state, and as such stood at the very
centre of the administration. It was the treasury that assessed and levied taxation, filled the government
coffers with agricultural produce, and supplied the various branches of the court with revenue to fund their
activities and commodities to sustain their employees.
Ink inscriptions on pottery vessels from the late Predynastic period make it clear that, right from the
beginning of the Egyptian state, taxation was levied separately on the two halves of the country. Inscriptions
on vessels from the tomb of ‘Ka’ at Abydos mention either Lower Egyptian or Upper Egyptian revenue. A
similar division in the collection of produce is attested in the following reigns of Narmer and Aha. The
separate collection of revenue from Upper and Lower Egypt is also indicated by a sealing of Seth-Peribsen
which mentions the seal-bearer of the Lower Egyptian delivery, probably the individual responsible for the
treasury’s income from Lower Egypt. As well as highlighting the duality which pervaded Egyptian thought,
this binary division in the treasury’s operations probably reflects geographical and topographical factors. The
physical difference between Upper and Lower Egypt would have made the collection of agricultural produce
a very different undertaking in each region. In Upper Egypt, where the fields are distributed along the narrow
floodplain, gathering revenue could have been achieved by a fleet of barges cruising slowly up-or
downstream. By contrast, access to the fields of Lower Egypt, spread throughout the Delta, would have been
far more difficult. It is quite likely that central collection points would have been established at strategic
locations, probably on the major Nile branches. In short, the collection of revenue by the central treasury
would have been most efficiently organised by dividing the country into two halves. This practice may be
reflected in the two different names given to the treasury in the Early Dynastic period. Inscriptions mention
either the pr-ḥd “white house” (Upper Egypt), or the pr-dšr “red house” (Lower Egypt). The former seems to
be the earlier name for the treasury and is first attested early in the reign of Den, on seal-impressions from
the tomb of Meryt-Neith (Wilkinson: 1999,125-133).
Contrary to later periods, the bulk of early inscriptions is concentrated around two sites: the royal tombs
of Umm el-Qa’ab/Abydos in the south, and another elite cemetery at Saqqara, in the vicinity of the state
capital at Memphis. The Abydos and Saqqara tombs provide more than three quarters of the inscribed
material. This uneven distribution is mainly a reflection of the emergence of a centralized administration.
Most early texts appropriately consist of very brief indications of private names, places, or goods and appear
on pottery and stone vessels, labels, and sealings, which could easily be transported (Regulski: 2016).
From the early First Dynasty, the name of the king becomes part of the iconography of the label. The
internal arrangement of the label does change over time, with several style phases identified throughout the
First Dynasty. During the reign of Aha, labels are divided into three or four horizontal registers (below). This
evidence proves that 1) these inscriptions were only administrative, expressing title-statements like
headlines, not grammatically correct sentences (Vernus: 2016, 105-134), and 2) the U-j tomb at Abydos and
the mastabas at Saqqara were actually city halls that were converted into tombs after the death of the king.
FIG. 53
The scenes depicted on the labels may have been intended to provide a narrative of significant events,
regular censuses, rituals or festivals that occurred during the reign of the king. The scenes were also designed
to be a visual record of the king’s divine status and a statement of his ideological and political control over
the country. From an administrative perspective, the labels may have served as a device to date commodities
or name the year in which goods were delivered or offered to a particular god. The labels are more
commonly referred to as ‘year labels’ due to the presumption that they represent some form of basic
administrative dating system. This scene depicts some sort of ceremony (linked to census), and what appears
to be a ritual offering of goods or taxes. Amongst the offerings or taxes are a trussed ox, beheaded birds and
animals, votive figurines or baboons, and food items such as bread, wine, and oil. Of significance is the
presence of two large vessels suitable for the storage of high-quality wine or oil. One vessel, which may
represent a wine jar, stands uncovered and is marked with what appears to be a crossed-line sign. The other
vessel is marked with a Y-shaped sign. As the label appears to represent this vessel as slightly smaller and
with a clay cap, may indicate that the intention was to depict some other type of storage jar. In the fourth
register the commodity to which the label was attached is named again as sty-ḥr oil. The inscription may be
read as: Finest (or first quality) sty-ḥr oil, arrivals from Lower Egypt (ỉwt mḥw) (Mawdsley: 2011, 51-68).
The Palette of Narmer was most likely written by the administration of the city hall of Saqqara whose
aim was to establish an official decree defining the functioning of the kingship: a single king wearing the
crown of Upper Egypt and that of Lower Egypt in the region of Memphis. One notices that the name of
Narmer is written above a Mesopotamian type city hall façade, the Horus
being above the crowns of Upper and Lower Egypt, on the other hand,
the name of Aha is written below a Horus and above the facade of the
city hall of even more marked Mesopotamian type, the whole being next
to a baldachin covering the Two Ladies (Upper and Lower Egypt).
The facades of the city halls correspond exactly to the facades with notched walls of the mastabas at
Saqqara. The city hall of the kings of Memphis (mastaba S.3357) was requisitioned by Narmer to become his
city hall where the high officials of his administration resided, then upon his death his tomb was built in
Abydos and this mastaba continued to be used by Aha. When King Aha died, it was converted into a
cenotaph and his tomb continued to be built in Abydos, the political capital. These cenotaphs are therefore
not tombs attributable to the kings of the First Dynasty, they are burial places of high officials, probably all
from the royal family, or tombs of queens. Moreover, the number of subsidiary tombs at Abydos is much
greater than at Saqqara, and there are no royal stelae at Saqqara, and the burial chambers of the Abydos
tombs are much larger than those of the Saqqara mastabas (Hendrickx: 2008, 61-88). Therefore, the size of
the cenotaphs in the basement of these massive mastabas at Saqqara should not be compared with the size of
the tombs at Abydos, as it simply reflects the size of the king's administration and the number of his senior
officials. The establishment of this powerful administration by Narmer, which largely contributed to the
emergence of the Egyptian State, explains why this king has been unanimously recognised as the founder of
the Egyptian dynasties. Moreover, this administration largely contributed to the diffusion of hieroglyphic
writing, even if it was a very simplistic administrative writing.
The most important reason why Menes should be taken to be the real name of the first king of the First
Dynasty is that the king lists say it, and they are remarkably accurate about later First Dynasty kings. There
is a precise correspondence between the Horus names of the last four kings of the First Dynasty in the
contemporary documents and their nbty (Two Ladies) and/or nsw-bity (Throne)
names as they appear in the king lists. The Narmer/Mn seal impression, discovered in
Abydos (opposite) has played a major role in the Menes debate. The Narmer/Mn seal
impression shows the Horus name of Narmer in a serekh alternating with the mn and
the n signs (Heagy: 2014, 59-92). In the Abydos king list, inscribed during the reign
of Sety I (1294-1283), the name of the first king of the First Dynasty is written mn-n-ỉ
(Menes) instead of Narmer. This name change reflects a change in tradition, for
Menes founded a new tradition by choosing a new name of Horus (Narmer) when he began to reign instead
of adding the title Horus to his birth name. This tradition was followed by all kings of the First Dynasty in
royal inscriptions. Djoser, the first king of Dynasty 3, preferred to choose different birth names beside his
Horus name (Netjerikhet). Egyptian king lists gradually took account of this change in tradition and from
Dynasty 4 onwards, the names of kings in royal inscriptions were the birth name rather than the Horus name.
The king lists of the first three dynasties were thus updated by the scribes from Dynasty 4 onwards.
It is logical to assume that the Egyptian archives began to be constituted from King Aha because the
second register of the Palermo Stone begins with the 24 compartments (years) of King Aha (the 30? years of
Narmer were placed at the end of the predynastic kings of the first register). We can assume that Narmer’s
reign was recorded in the annals (Kahl: 2006, 94-111), especially now following on the discovery of a “label
year” (compartment) at Umm el-Qaab citing one of his years (Williams: 2003, 142-147). In the Palermo
202
Stone, in each compartment below a king (except for predynastic kings) there is a label that describes one or
more events of the year of his reign, which makes it possible to calculate the total duration of each reign by
counting the number of compartments associated with that reign. Narmer was considered the founding king
of the Egyptian dynasties for two reasons: he was the first king of Upper Egypt to wear the crown of Lower
Egypt and he was the first to count his years of reign. FIG. 54
The Libyan Palette (opposite photo) is the surviving
lower portion of a stone cosmetic palette bearing carved
decoration and hieroglyphic writing. It dates from the
Naqada III and was found at Abydos. The interpretation of
this palette is controversial, but it seems that it represents
the foundation of seven cities by the king, as the hoe above
each city symbolises the foundation of the city whose name
would be inside the enclosure (Etienne: 1999, 149-163).
This interpretation is incorrect because the fortified towns
did not yet exist at that time, the hieroglyph that represented
them was a circle and the square and crenelated walls
represented the royal domain. Therefore, the sign above
each royal domain represented the name of the king who
had founded it. This practice of founding royal domains is
the same for the pyramids (which are royal tombs). This
identification is confirmed by the last three names above the tombs, each corresponding to a known king:
Hat, Scorpion and Double Falcon, which implies that this palette is the first Egyptian king list. If we
complete this list with the two names: Ka-Hor and Iry-Hor from the tombs at Abydos before Narmer's tomb,
which are also dated by 14C (Hendrickx: 2006, 92), we get the following list of kings of Dynasty 0:
TABLE 108
Egypt N° King meaning Birth name Horus name 14C dating reign Sumer
Dynasty 0 1 ḥr(y) Falcon/above Hor (Horus) - c. 3900 2940 - Uruk 0
2 [-]
5 [-]
6 ḥ3.t At the front Hat Hat-Hor
7 wḥ‘.t Scorpion Uhat Uhat-Hor c. 3350
8 bík.wy Double Falcon Bikwy Bikwy-Hor
[9] (Í)r(y) Guardian Iry Iry-Hor c. 3150
[10] k3 (sḫn?) Vital force Ka Ka-Hor c. 3150 -2838
Dynasty 1 1 n‘r mr Catfish-chisel Meni Narmer c. 3150 2838-2808 Kish 1
2 ‘ḥ3 Fighter Teti Aha 2808-2788
There are three missing king's names (numbers 2 to 4) in this chronological reconstruction, but they
could correspond to three names appearing in serekhs: Crocodile (msḥ), Hedju (ḥd.w) and Ny. We notice that
the first king in this reconstruction was called Horus (ḥr) and that this name meant chieftain or falcon, which
could explain why it was used as a title of royalty in the same way that the name Caesar later designated
emperors. About 60 drawings and hieroglyphic inscriptions have been discovered at a site called Wadi
Ameyra in Egypt’s Sinai Desert. Carved chronologically in stone they were created by mining expeditions
sent out by early Egyptian pharaohs beginning in chronological order with Hor, Ka (or Sekhen?), Iry-Hor,
Narmer, etc. Tallet said: We have in Wadi Ameyra an inscription giving for the first time the name of
Memphis jnb(w) ḥd “White Walls”, and it is associated to the name of Iry-Hor, a king who ruled Egypt two
generations before Narmer (Tallet: 2015).
The 10 kings of Thinis buried in royal tombs at Abydos who are mentioned in the king list of Manetho
were thus kings of Upper Egypt. On the other hand, the 30 kings of Memphis in Lower Egypt have left no
archaeological trace, since no inscription mentions these kings and the oldest tomb in the necropolis of
Saqqara, near Memphis (referenced S.3357), dates back to the reign of Aha, the second ruler of Dynasty 1.
As the Palermo Stone mentions the name of eight of these kings of Lower Egypt, this accredits their
existence. The archaeological discoveries oblige however to consider these kings of Memphis as sovereigns
of Memphis and not as kings of Lower Egypt. This hierarchy of power is in conformity with the Sumerian
conception of a single king ruling over a vast land (Mesopotamia), of which certain large independent cities,
like Uruk, were ruled by an administrator appointed by the Lord (EN). The short duration of these Memphis
rulers proves that they did not form a royal dynasty but rather an administrative succession of lords who
ruled the city of Memphis (Lower Egypt) in parallel with the kings of Upper Egypt (Thinis). The crown of
Lower Egypt symbolized their power only over the city of Memphis.
By cross-referencing historical and chronological information with that from archaeological excavations
it is possible to reconstruct the formation of Egypt as a state. The cities of Thinis and Memphis appeared
suddenly after the Uruk expansion (c. 2950 BCE), the first “lord” of Thinis/Abydos was called Horus (ḥr), a
word which means “falcon/above”. The kings who succeeded Horus added this prestigious name to their
birth name (in the same way that the name Caesar was added to the names of the following emperors), which
became their Horus name inscribed in a serekh (Van den Brink: 2001, 24-100). This first king of Upper
Egypt was buried in the city of Abydos which became a royal necropolis for the following kings. The royal
tombs of these predynastic kings (Dynasty 0) are insignificant when compared to the White Temple (22.3m x
17.5 m) in the city of Uruk, on the other hand the necropolis of Saqqara, near Memphis, contains no royal
tombs during Dynasty 0. As the dimensions of the U-j tomb (10m x 8m), the city hall of the predynastic
kings are comparable to those of the city hall temple of Habuba at Tell Qannas (14.1m x 10.2m) which had
about 1600 inhabitants, we can deduce that the city of Thinis must have had less than 2000 inhabitants. All
these kings were limited to organizing international trade and building their royal tombs in Abydos.
Egyptologists situate these commercial exchanges from the Naqada IIC period (dated to about 3500 BCE by
14
C) with city-states which (paradoxically) appear later from the First dynasty onwards dated c. 3000 BCE by
14
C (De Miroschedji: 2015, 1005). During all this period there is no trace of conflicts or rivalries between
Upper and Lower Egypt. The process of political unification evolved slowly, as more and more regions came
under the authority of a single ruler, as did the process of cultural unification, which was based on interaction
and trade rather than violence and war (Wilkinson: 1999, 46-47,154-155). The current explanation by
Egyptologists for the predynastic kings of Dynasty 0 contains serious anachronisms.
The dating of the Neolithic period (8500-3300 BCE), before the emergence of cities, is based solely on
stone vessels (Mazar: 1990, 35-91), which can only be dated by stratigraphy since they do not contain
carbon. However, this stratigraphic dating is only possible under two conditions 1) the carbon remains in the
stratum must be contemporary with the stone vessels, which can be verified if at least one other object bears
an identifiable inscription, and 2) if the date obtained by radiocarbon can be calibrated by dendrochronology.
The first condition is impossible to meet since there is no inscription before 3100 BCE and the second
condition is also not met since there are no trees older than 4500 years. For example, a jar fragment with the
serekh in Narmer's name was found in Arad in Palestine and was therefore dated around 3100 BCE (Mazar:
1990, 105-108), which shows that the stratigraphic dating is calibrated to the conventional chronology and
not to absolute chronology, since Narmer's reign can be dated indirectly by astronomy (2838-2808).
Radiocarbon dates from the prehistoric period are calibrated on pieces of wood dated to that period, but since
there are no trees from this early period, pieces of wood that have been radiocarbon dated are chosen to
calibrate the radiocarbon dates. Therefore, radiocarbon dates prior to 2500 BCE are calibrated on
radiocarbon dated pieces of wood. This calibration is therefore a self-calibration. It is easy to see that the
Neolithic period never existed (except in the imaginations of archaeologists), because international trade
over long distances, between Egypt and Mesopotamia via Syria and Palestine (Mazar: 1990, 86-89),
obviously presupposes the existence of capitals capable of organising such trade, because small farming
villages do not have the necessary infrastructure: palaces, escorts to accompany the merchants and obviously
cemeteries for the dead (the best proof of human existence). As the oldest palaces, temples and tombs are
those of Uruk and Abydos, which are dated around 3000 BCE, there could not have been international trade
before that date. Therefore, the Neolithic and predynastic periods must be merged.
The Gebelein painted linen is one of the oldest Egyptian objects and belongs to Naqada II236, a Neolithic
period dated to about 3600-3350 BCE by carbon 14. One of its preserved fragments shows the procession of
boats. It also includes elements like the later pharaonic iconography such as: a man sitting on the throne and
a kneeling figure with hands tied behind his back and a mace-head hanging under his head. The sitting man
is wearing a robe very similar to that used during later Sed celebrations (Błaszczyk: 2008, 57-61).
236
Museo Egizio S. 17138 https://collezioni.museoegizio.it/en-GB/material/S_17138
There are at least 4 boats depicted on this linen cloth: two small boats following behind two larger vessels. The two small boats are
equipped trains with 8 to 10 oars. The lines representing the oars are extended to the hull on one, stops under the hull to the other. A
similar structure to the two boats occupies the central space: 2 poles connected by two intersecting lines. The two large boats have
the same shape as the Mesopotamian flat-bottomed boats. On the bottom there are 4 rowers with their oars but other oars hanging
below the hull (like oars to represent the opposite side). The helmsman has a larger steering oar (left). Two cabins occupy the central
space. Between them a person is sitting in the same position as rowers and a black line behind it may be an indication of another oar.
The left cabin has a pole projecting from the structure. A ring is attached to it by a rope. The rear of the cab is curved. The right cabin
is different. It has 2 poles protruding from the structure and a cover 2 slope between the two poles. The boat does not have rowers but
a helmsman at the back. The curved stern rises high and ends with a decoration. Red and black horizontal lines appear to indicate the
presence of a cabin with a flat roof. In front of the cabin a character is sitting on a kind of throne. He seems to be wearing something
on his head while the rowers are bareheaded. A black line appears to indicate that he is holding an object in the hand (a sceptre? the
whip Nekhekh ?). Obviously, this is an important person.
204
FIG. 55
The dating of this painted cloth is aberrant, as the presence of a predynastic king obliges to classify this
cloth in the Naqada III period (predynastic) instead of the Naqada II (Neolithic). Moreover, as Gebelein is
located on the Nile, about 40 km south of Thebes, the procession of these large flat-bottomed
Mesopotamian-type boats probably commemorates the arrival of Egyptian-speaking Mesopotamians from
Byblos. The dates used by Egyptologists are fanciful, so their interpretations are fanciful. The basic logical
principle for understanding the appearance of the Egyptian civilisation is the same as for the appearance of
the Mesopotamian civilisation, the following three elements are closely linked: the construction of temples or
tombs city hotels, their administration, and the use of pictographic writing. When the empire of Marduk
collapsed with the Uruk expansion (c. 2950 BCE), the Egyptian-speaking Mesopotamians left their cities
(such as Babel), went up the Euphrates to Habuba Kabira237, then some joined the city of Byblos to go to
Egypt by going up the Nile to a place that became Memphis and then further south, another place that
became the first capital of Egypt: Thinis with its royal necropolis at Abydos.
The King-Priest of Tell Qannas is depicted (below left) on the impression of a cylinder seal (the part in
the frame in red has been reconstructed) above the city hall temple. The King-Priest was read EN in
Sumerian (bēl in Akkadian, ba'al in Hebrew) and the temple was read É.GAL in Sumerian, thanks to the
phonograms É “house” and GAL “big” (ēkallûm in Akkadian, hêkal in Hebrew). On Egyptian labels or rock
engravings, the King-Priest has been replaced by a falcon, read ḥor in Egyptian (Horus in Greek), above a
simplified representation of a temple city hall. The representations of the kings of Dynasty 1 are much better
executed, such as that of Djet (below right). The most frequent names of the predynastic kings are those of
Ka-Hor, Iry-Hor and Narmer-(Hor) who appear at Abydos or in the south of Sinai (Tallet: 2015, 61-67).
King-Priest (Jebel Aruda) Horus Iry (South Sinai)
FIG. 56
Horus Ka (Abydos) Horus Narmer Horus Djet (Saqqara)
237
When the Mesopotamians arrived in Egypt (c. 2940 BCE), they proceeded in the same way as they had done to found the cities of
Habuba Kabira and Byblos, creating them ex nihilo according to the standards used to found Mesopotamian city-states (such as
Uruk) and the same hierarchical structure used to administer these temple city halls. These buildings were placed under the authority
of a single Lord (EN) represented on the cylinder seals by the image of a King-Priest. This predynastic Egyptian administration
needed a script to manage these temples, so it used the same pictographic script inspired by proto-cuneiform (which was devoid of
phonograms) used by the predynastic Mesopotamian administration, the logograms being read according to their representations
The representation of a falcon (Horus) on a temple replaced the King-Priest (EN “Lord”) on a temple.
The word “falcon” (ḥr) has the meaning of “the one who is higher/chief” in Egyptian, this name (or
nickname) of the first predynastic king became the title of the supreme ruler of Egypt, as the name Caesar
became the title of the supreme ruler of the Roman Empire (Caesar was transcribed Tsar in Russian, Kaiser
in German). The predynastic king (Horus) Ka put his name in the form of a logogram of two raised arms that
read ka’ (phonogram) and meant “life force” in Egyptian. The name ka’ (k3) is written either above or below
the palace, the norm being to write it above the temple, the whole of these logograms being called serekh.
For example, the serekh of Narmer's name bear the rebus symbols n‘r (catfish) and mr (chisel) being read
Na‘r-mer as two phonograms. The Predynastic Egyptian kings did not use hieroglyphs but proto-hieroglyphs
consisting only of logograms without phonograms (immediately understandable pictographic writing), like
the proto-cuneiform of the Mesopotamian Predynastic kings. The first Predynastic king to use logograms as
phonograms was Narmer, whose birth name was Menes (in Greek), written mn(y) in Egyptian, but who
instituted the practice of bearing a Horus name different from the birth name preceded by the title Horus (he
was thus called Narmer instead of Horus-Menes). These proto-hieroglyphs imply the existence of an
administration that was used by these predynastic kings for the construction of their tombs in Abydos and to
organise international trade, such as the purchase of cedar wood from the city-state of Byblos, to the
purchase of wine jars and lapis lazuli in the south of Palestine (Moreno García: 2016, 149-169).
These predynastic kings who resided at Thinis, near the necropolis of Abydos, however, ruled over the
whole of Egypt by sailing on the Nile, with flat-bottomed boats of the Mesopotamian type, as Marduk did on
the Euphrates to inspect the city-states of Mesopotamia. An engraving in Sinai depicts the predynastic king
Iry-Hor next to a city called jnb(w) ḥd “White Walls”, the ancient name of Memphis. The absence of a
temple under the king may indicate that he was visiting the king of Memphis in his palace (made of white
walls). Another example of a representation of a predynastic king appears on an incense burner (below)
found at Qustul in Lower Nubia and dating to Naqada IIIa1, or c. 3300 BCE (Michaux-Colombot: 2010,
359-370) but of 3200-3000 BCE in the museum of the Oriental Institute238. These date discrepancies are
common among archaeologists, who are not shocked to cite carbon-14 measurements at +/- 50 years but
different of 300 years, which is logically impossible. Secondly, if writing appears with the administration of
the temples, how can it be explained that the Egyptian predynastic kings could appear before the oldest
Mesopotamian temple, the White Temple dated around 3000 BCE, there is an obvious anachronism.
FIG. 57
The Predynastic king (above) is shown wearing the crown of Upper Egypt while sailing in a flat-
bottomed Mesopotamian boat, facing a serekh of King Hor and an eight-petalled rosette (nine with the stem).
To the left of the picture there is a feline being transported in a flat-bottomed boat, to the right there is a
kneeling prisoner also being transported in a flat-bottomed boat and to the far right there is the facade of a
Mesopotamian Palace. The rosette does not correspond to any Egyptian hieroglyphs but appears on several
cylinder seals of Priest-King239 and the arms of King Marduk are covered with eight-petalled rosettes240.
238
Museum of the Oriental Institute OIM 24069 https://oi.uchicago.edu/museum-exhibits/nubia/qustul-incense-burner
239
Vorderasiatisches Museum VA 10537; British Museum 116722
240
These eight-petalled flowers clearly illustrate the agricultural prosperity brought by the Mesopotamian Priest-King, but without
this context the symbol is incomprehensible to the illiterate Egyptians. As writing was not widespread, except in the administration,
the symbols used on cylinder seals or engravings had to refer to a known context to be immediately recognised.
206
The main symbol of the administration was the rectangular façade of the temple-city hall with its
vertically notched walls and central door, a typically Mesopotamian symbol. All Mesopotamian temples built
during the reign of Marduk have without exception this characteristic facade. The temple built at Tell Qannas
by the Mesopotamians, according to the same standards as the temple of Uruk, has however an exception
concerning the facade, its outer walls are smooth (see fig. 63), only the inner walls are vertically notched.
Despite this notable difference, the impression of a cylinder seal found at Jebel Aruda shows the facade with
numerous vertical notches, which proves that the symbol of the city hall temple was stronger than the reality.
The archaeological study of the city of Habuba Kabira has profoundly changed the 'classical' view of the
birth of a city-state, which is fundamentally different from a village241.
Therefore, one city-state controlled a vast network of
villages (Castel: 2015) and could only trade with another
city-state. This logical imperative imposes three
chronological constraints: 1) Egyptian city-states came into
being after Mesopotamian city-states, which are dated c.
3000 BCE; 2) Egyptian villages that traded appeared after
Egyptian city-states; 3) Egyptian non-trading villages came
into being after their predecessors (spontaneous generation
does not exist). According to the Egyptian king lists, the first
two city-states of Egypt were Thinis, with its necropolis at
Abydos (Umm El Qa'ab), and Memphis, with its necropolis
at Saqqara, which has been confirmed by archaeological
excavations. The tombs of three predynastic kings, Iry-Hor
(B1-B2), Ka-Hor (B7-B9) and Narmer (B17-B18) have been
identified. The dimensions of these three tombs are
comparable to the dimensions of the other tombs in the
cemetery to the north, with the exception of tomb U-j. In
contrast, the tombs of the Dynasty 1 kings, except for
Narmer, are at least five times larger and comparable to the
dimensions of Mesopotamian city hall temples. It is also
noticeable that the geographical arrangement of the tombs
corresponds to the chronological arrangement of the
Egyptian king lists (Queen Meritneith was co-regent to her
young son Den), the oldest tombs being in the north and the
most recent in the south.
o [?]-Hor (?) Dynasty 0
o Iry-Hor (B1-B2)
o Ka-Hor (B7-B9)
o Narmer (B17-B18) Dynasty 1
o Aha (B10-B15-B19)
o Djer (O 326)
o Djet (Z 174)
o Merit-Neith (Y 41)
o Den (T 121)
o Adjib (X 63)
o Semerkhet (U 69)
o Qaa (Q 26)
o Peribsen (P) Dynasty 2
o
o Khasekhemwy (V) FIG. 58
241
This study has shown the following points (Margueron: 2000, 53-71): 1) The city-state results from a founding act, this creation is
planned and results from a massive transfer of population, it is not a village which mutates towards an urban state. A small village
may grow through natural increase or migration, but its growth is not planned by an administrative authority; 2) It protects itself by
surrounding itself with a system of fortifications, especially its administrative buildings; 3) It processes raw materials which it brings
from far away. It is in a situation that allows it to trade, in fact it is the primary reason for its birth. Villages that want to participate in
these exchanges depend on the administration of the city-state; 4) It is home to a hierarchical and organised population constituting
an elite that oversees the administration; 5) It dominates a space, a territory of great extent, traversed by sea (the Euphrates for
Mesopotamians, the Nile for Egyptians), requiring the use of a fleet of boats.
Some Egyptologists have attributed tomb U-j, which would be the oldest, to King Scorpion but this is
not logical for at least two reasons: 1) according to the Palermo Stone, the Turin Canon and Manetho, there
were 10 kings of Thinis before Narmer, none of whom had a particular role that could justify his tomb being
three times larger than the other nine kings; 2) tomb U-j is composed of a central court and 12 rooms, some
of which were used as a storehouse; this arrangement is more in keeping with a city hall than with a tomb.
Moreover, the dimensions of this tomb U-j (10m x 8m) are comparable to the dimensions of one temple at
Tell Qannas (14.1m x 10.2m) or another at Jebel Aruda (15.8m x 12m). The roof of the building had been
constructed of wooden beams. It is thought that the building was a. reconstruction of a model royal palace,
particularly when taking into account the slits between the chambers and the internal doorways.
Tomb U-j (city hall) FIG. 59
Tomb of Iry-Hor Tomb of Ka-Hor Tomb of Narmer
Tomb U-j, the oldest according to its geographical location, does not correspond to the last two tombs of
the last predynastic kings, Iry-Hor and K-Hor, consequently it would be more logical to assimilate it to the
city hall built at the time of the foundation of Thinis and to suppose that the 8 missing tombs, probably of the
same size, of this predynastic dynasty must be located between the city hall and the tomb of Iry-Hor. The
tomb U-j contained large quantities of Egyptian stone and ceramic vases (including many beer jugs), and in
three rooms there were nearly 800 wine jugs from the southern Levant, 125 vases and fragments of vases,
and 160 small labels, made of ivory or bone, bearing inscriptions in ink242. The presence of an ivory sceptre
and a large terracotta jar bearing a scorpion traced in ink confirms the royal status of the necropolis.
Numerous seal impressions linked to the kings of Abydos were found at Tell el-Farkha in a large mud-brick
building, confirming that the kings of Abydos also ruled over Lower Egypt (Agut, Moreno-Garcia: 2016, 74-
103). Although most of the tombs of Dynasty 0 are anonymous, the presence of the names Ka-Hor and Iry-
242
More than 430 inscribed whole and fragmentary perforated plaques form one of the largest surviving corpora of script-bearing
material from the Nile Valley. These dockets or labels range in size from about 1.0–9.5 cm in height and width, with most tending
towards the smaller dimensions. Largely on the basis of later written evidence the label inscriptions are understood as communicating
the date, quantity and quality of funerary goods or other associated commodities, as well as place names, personal names, and titles.
It is generally assumed that labels were affixed to items deposited in the tomb, such as containers of oil, clothing, jewellery,
implements and other items the deceased required for a successful afterlife. Overall, labels and label fragments are encountered at
seven cemetery sites in the lower Nile Valley, although the vast majority derive from the upper Egyptian cemetery site of Abydos.
The labels can be divided chronologically into two main phases. Of some 370 published examples from Abydos, almost 200 come
from a Predynastic / Later Predynastic cemetery (U) at this site, most being found in and around the large multi-chambered tomb U-j.
These have been dated to the Naqada IIIA1 cultural phase (c.3300–3100 BCE by 14C). The remainder date from the Naqada IIIC–
early D cultural phases (c.3100–2770 BCE by 14C), or the entire 1st Dynasty (Piquette: 2013, 213-238).
208
Hor in a serekh, as well as the name Scorpion next to a king of Upper Egypt depicted on a palette, leads to
the conclusion that these names referred to kings rather than local princes. Tomb U-j was the city hall of the
predynastic kings as shown by the presence of 46 numerical tablets (decimal system) and hundreds of labels
on Palestinian wine jars, written in proto-hieroglyphs243, a pictographic script similar to the proto-cuneiform
script used for accounting in the city hall temple at Tell Qannas; The predynastic kings used their city hall at
Abydos to administer a long-distance trade, mainly with the southern Levant to import copper and with
Nubia to import gold. Consequently, the colonial city of (Tell es-)Sakan was founded by the Egyptians to
administer the copper mines of Feynan and Timna (Tell el-Magass). In return, the Egyptians exported beer
and ceramics to the small Canaanite kingdoms, like Tell Erani, in the southern Levant (Sauvage: 2020, 43).
The relationship between the Egyptian and Canaanite city-states poses formidable problems of
interpretation because their origin and chronology are intertwined (Greenberg: 2011, 231-242). At the
beginning of the 20th century CE the Egyptian predynastic was fixed at the Naqada period (3300-3100
BCE), but with the appearance of new cities and links with those already known, it was necessary to dilate
this period into three parts: I, II and III, then to dilate again the Naqada III into four new sub-periods A,B,C
and D, then to divide these four sub-periods into two new sub-sub-periods 1 and 2. Currently the dating of
the Egyptian predynastic period is based solely on 14C dating which fixes the beginning, called Naqada
IIIA2, around 3450 BCE, and the end, called Naqada IIIC2, around 3100 BCE, corresponding to the reign of
Aha (Görsdorf, Dreyer, Hartung: 1998, 641-647).
On the basis of radiocarbon calibrated dates, EB I (Early Bronze I) lasted almost six centuries, between
c. 3700 and c. 3100 BCE. During this long timespan, important changes took place, leading to strong
differences between the beginning and the end of the period. Archaeologists therefore differentiate between
an early phase (EB IA), c. 3700-3400 BCE, a late phase (EB IB), c. 3400-3200 BCE, and a terminal phase
(Final EB IB), c. 3200-3100/3000 BCE, which is transitional with the following EB II period. The modalities
of the transition between the Late Chalcolithic and EB I are still poorly understood. According to
archaeologists, the palaces of Yarmuth and Megiddo and the granary of Beth Yerah testify that the major
cities of EB II-III Palestine were real city-states, characterized by a strong social hierarchy, a hereditary
centralized power, and the functioning of a palatial economy. The frequency of these imports is shown by
many scores of Canaanite jugs and bottles found in royal and noble tombs of the First Dynasty. In exchange,
the Palestinians received objects of prestige, mainly stone vessels, of which a rich collection originate from
the temple of Ai. These relations faded away with the beginning of EB III, when Egypt developed privileged
relations with Byblos, because of growing interest in cedar wood and of progress in navigation techniques.
Palestine was then essentially bypassed by Egyptian maritime trading expeditions. The Early Bronze
243
https://www.academia.edu/40714174/
civilization just described collapsed during the 25th century BCE. All the EB III cities were deserted, and
many were never resettled. Palestine then plunged into a kind of ‘Dark Age’, presenting for several centuries
a landscape of villages and encampments of pastoral nomads, before the re-urbanization process which
marks the beginning of the Middle Bronze I. The causes of this rather swift collapse of a civilization
apparently so dynamic are yet uncertain (De Miroschedji: 2014, 307-329). The chronological explanations of
the archaeologists on the EB II-III period are aberrant on two major points: 1) the 14C dates are not absolute
but relative (within several centuries) and 2) the Uruk expansion is dated by 14C on the period 3100-3000
BCE by Assyriologists but on the period 3400-3100 BCE by Egyptologists. For example, concerning the first
point, one can regularly read this kind of article:
The deployment of EB II track closely with recently published radiometric models from Arad, and with
Egyptian First Dynasty chronology. Finally, they offer a narrow date range, in the mid- to late 29th
century cal BC, for the introduction of the Khirbet Kerak Ware complex at the beginning of EB III; this
date is a century or more earlier than conventional dates proposed in the past (e.g., Miroschedji 2000),
and more precise than (though in general agreement with) the radiocarbon range suggested by Philip
and Millard (2000). Even if the stratigraphy of areas SA/GB is not fully representative of the large 30 ha
site of Tel Bet Yerah, the chronological sequence obtained in the area provides a sound backbone of
absolute dates accompanied with pottery assemblages and building activities in the area (Regev, Paz,
Greenberg, Boaretto: 2019, 54-75).
How is it possible to write such a contradictory sentence (to a rational mind): this date is a century or
more earlier than conventional dates proposed in the past (e.g., Miroschedji 2000), and more precise (...)
even if the stratigraphy of areas SA/GB is not fully
representative of the large 30 ha site of Tel Bet
Yerah, the chronological sequence obtained in the
area provides a sound backbone of absolute dates.
For an archaeologist, an absolute date can
therefore vary (since 1980) by several centuries
without this being a problem. The succession of
different chronological periods is ideological, for
some these periods strictly follow one another for
others they overlap over several centuries
(Milevski: 2013, 193-208). As conventional dates
are regularly shifted by 14C, some cities now
appear in the Near East Chalcolithic: 4500-3300
BCE like the Temple of Ein Gedi (opposite) dating
from about 3500 BCE (Ussishkin: 2014, 15-26).
Several temples unearthed in Canaan are now dated to the period 3500-3000 BCE. (Adams,
Finkelstein, Ussishkin: 2014, 285-305); These buildings are regularly presented as temples but there are
several indications that they were the dwelling of the local prince.
• Mesopotamian temples were built with similar dimensions and a common style resulting from a
centralised administration. The Canaanite buildings have very different dimensions: Megiddo (47.5m x
22.0m), Ein Gedi (19.7m x 5.5m), Bab edh-Dhra (12.0m x 5.7m) and have no standardised style apart
from a rectangular shape that is common to all houses.
• The purpose of a city hall temple was to administer trade relations with other cities, which involved the
use of digital tablets and labels with pictographic signs. Archaeological excavations have only
unearthed pottery and decorative objects that were characteristic of the local elite. The main purpose of
these buildings was the management of agricultural and pastoral activities by the local prince.
If we consider the historical context, the city hall temple at Abydos was built by the Mesopotamian elite
of Marduk who spoke Egyptian after the expansion of Uruk (c. 2950 BCE), in the same way the Canaanite
princely buildings must have been built by the Mesopotamians who spoke Canaanite (or Amorite) after the
expansion of Uruk. The major difference between the city hall temple at Abydos and the Canaanite buildings
is their purpose, the one at Abydos was built for the king of Egypt, who via the Nile visited all of Egypt,
while those at Canaan were built for the local princes who were independent of each other. For example,
although the buildings of Megiddo, a Canaanite city, and Sakan, an Egyptian colony, are contemporary they
had no commercial connection. The second major difference is the use of archives by the city hall temple of
Abydos while the Canaanite buildings did not need them. These archives were later used to compile king
lists. For example, Sumerian king lists only begin around 2800 BCE with the dynasty of Kish I, because after
the Uruk expansion (c. 2950 BCE) the Mesopotamian chancelleries were disorganised and only gradually
began to function again. In contrast, several Egyptian king lists begin with the 10 kings of Thinis.
210
Egyptologists have always been intrigued by the fact that some Egyptian king lists make these dynasties
begin with King Narmer, specifying that he was preceded by 10 kings of Thinis (near Abydos), themselves
preceded by 7 god-kings, the “following of Horus”, having ruled for several thousand years. For example,
the first row (badly damaged) of the Palermo Stone (c. 2350 BCE) lists the first 10 kings of Upper Egypt
with their names (missing part) before indicating the 30-year reign of Narmer. The Turin Canon (c. 1250
BCE) gave the names and reigns of the “following of Horus” in the first column (lost) then the names and
reigns of the 10 kings of Thinis in the 10 rows of column 2 (lost) indicating in summary that the god-kings
had reigned in all 23,200 years and the following of Horus: 13,420 years. Herodotus (c. 450 BCE) indicated
that the first Egyptian king had been Menes (Narmer) and that the kings who had preceded him (10 kings of
Thinis) had ruled for 11,000 years (The Histories II:99,142). In the compilation of his Egyptian chronology,
Eusebius gives a duration of 13,900 years for the reign of the 7 demigods and a duration of 11,025 years for
the reign of the 10 kings of Thinis. Consequently, the preamble to the Egyptian king lists is mythological and
has no historical value, except to have summarily preserved the antediluvian part of the Sumerian king lists.
This mythology has been perpetuated orally, which explains the many transmission errors.
Egyptian mythology gives little information on the origin of man and language, it only says that the
Ogdoad (“the Eightfold” in Ancient Greek) were eight primordial deities worshipped in Hermopolis244. This
Egyptian myth of eight primordial deities is like the Sumerian myth of the eight survivors of the universal
flood, Ziusudra (Noah) and the seven sages (Noah’s family) called apkallu245 (opposite). In several contexts
the Apkallu are seven demi-gods, sometimes described as part man and part fish, associated with human
wisdom; these creatures are often referred to in scholarly literature as the Seven Sages246.
FIG. 60
244
The eight deities were arranged in four male-female pairs. The names of Nu and Naunet are written with the determiners for sky
and water, and it seems clear that they represent the primordial waters. The names of Kekui and Kekuit are written with a determiner
combining the sky hieroglyph with a staff or sceptre used for words related to darkness and obscurity, and kkw as a regular word
means “darkness”. References to the Ogdoad date at the time of composition of the Pyramid Texts towards the end of the Old
Kingdom. This Egyptian story resembles a mythological version of the Flood with its four surviving couples (Gn 7:13).
245
Apkallu (Akkadian) and Abgal (Sumerian) are terms found in cuneiform inscriptions that in general mean either "wise" or "sage".
The Akkadian word apkallu comes from the Sumerian word AB.GAL, which means “ancestor/father” (AB) “big” (GAL). Sometimes
the sages are associated with a specific primeval king. After the deluge, further sages and kings are listed. Post-deluge, the sages are
considered human, and in some texts are distinguished by being referred to as Ummanu, not Apkallu. Apkallu and Abgal are terms
found in cuneiform inscriptions that in general mean either "wise" or "sage". The Akkadian word apkallu comes from the Sumerian
word AB.GAL, which means “ancestor/father” (AB) “big” (GAL). In several contexts the Apkallu are seven demi-gods, sometimes
described as part man and part fish, associated with human wisdom; these creatures are often referred to in scholarly literature as the
Seven Sages. Sometimes the sages are associated with a specific primeval king. After the deluge, further sages and kings are listed.
Post-deluge, the sages are considered human, and in some texts are distinguished by being referred to as Ummanu, not Apkallu.
246
The Egyptian and Sumerian mythologies of the eight primordial demigods are late and the similarities between these two
mythologies may be coincidental, however, the clear links between the mythological monsters of the First Dynasty and those of
Uruk, as well as the great similarity between the early mastabas and the Mesopotamian city hall temples, prove that there was close
contact between these two civilisations at the time of the Uruk expansion. We note that among the statuettes of the kings of Thinis
(below), they all wear (except one who wears a rounded crown like that of Marduk) the crown of Upper Egypt in the shape of a fish
head like the Sumerian Sages. There is a second important change from King Aha onwards: Egyptian kings were no longer
represented by figurines, statuettes, or on stone pallets, like the previous kings of Dynasty 0, or like the Mesopotamian Priest-King of
the very first Sumerian dynasty (Marduk). Therefore the 10 kings of Thinis, near Abydos, who preceded the eight kings of the First
Dynasty, mentioned in the king list of Manetho, were indeed kings of Upper Egypt and were therefore not mythical kings as the
Egyptologists believed..
None of these predynastic rulers corresponds exactly to the classical representation of
the kings of Egypt, even the one who wears the crown of Upper Egypt, is shaved and wears
a thick cloak while Narmer is bare-chested (like Scorpion) and has a small beard. In fact,
all three have retained some of the characteristics of predynastic Sumerian kings (EN). For
example, the golden figurine (photo right) represents abcpredynastic ruler from the Eastern
Kom, a naked standing man —57 cm high. The eyes of the statue were made of lapis lazuli
imported from Tepe Gawra near Nineveh. This may be further evidence of the important
role that trade played for the ruling elite of the growing state (Teeter: 2011, 61). Generally,
the figurines of the Sumerian predynastic kings represent them naked, but they were
bearded unlike this ruler. The middle figurine represents a man wearing a short cloak,
which could be described as, among others, embroidered, quilted or knitted. He is depicted
wearing a coloured garment which has been patterned with unusual lozenge-shaped motifs
(Vogelsang-Eastwood: 1993, 4-5). The figurine on the left wears a knitted cloak, like the
king in the middle, but its rounded crown is like that of the Sumerian predynastic kings. As
these last two kings are beginning to be similar to the kings of the First dynasty, the
analysis of their clothing and positions is instructive247. The figurine found in Abydos
which is made of ivory bears much resemblance to the object from Tell el-Farkha. It shows
a ruler wearing the crown of Upper Egypt and the Sed festival coat248.
The names and sequence of Late Predynastic and Dynasty 0 kings are much debated
topics. If a continuous sequence from tomb U-j towards the tombs of cemetery B at Abydos
is accepted, and if at the same time the tombs in-between are considered royal, there has
been a maximum of 10 kings (tombs U-i, U-f to U-h and U-t to U-x) between tomb U-j
(city hall) and tomb B1-B2 (Hendrickx: 2014, 259-278).
FIG. 61
247
The small figurine (on the left page before) made of hippopotamus tusk shows a standing man who is wearing a knee-length coat.
The 7,5 cm high object is well preserved. Its right arm is bent at the elbow. It juts out from the coat and holds an unknown object.
The pattern of the coat is striped. The man is presented with shoulder length hair or a wig. His face is round, he has got a beard and
bulging eyes in a shape of almonds. The person is shown in motion with left leg forward
248
The right hand is bent at the elbow, moves out from the coat and it probably holds a whip. The lower part of the figurine did not
survive to our times, but it is possible to assume that showed a ruler in motion. The position of the body attracts attention. The man is
shown when he bends his head which gives an impression of a very tired, stooping king. The rhomboidal pattern of the coat is
interesting as it is decorated with a braided ornament. Furthermore, the picture refers to the Sed festival tradition which must have
been celebrated during the 30th anniversary of the king’s reign. Looking closely at the figurine from Tell el-Farkha we can also
notice some similarities which are especially visible in his appearance and haircut to the limestone figurine discovered in
Hierakonpolis, dating back to the Archaic Period and it is linked with the Sed festival tradition. The representations of the king
during Sed celebrations are also known from other Early Dynastic and even earlier objects
212
The chronological succession of these 10 Predynastic tombs corresponds exactly to the 10 Predynastic
kings of whom archaeology has shown that the 9th and 10th tombs were those of Iry-Hor and Ka-Hor. As the
Libyan Palette gives the names of some kings, which correspond to the cohomological arrangement of the 10
Predynastic tombs, it is possible to reconstruct the chronological list of the 10 kings of Thinis.
TABLE 109
Dynasty N° King meaning Birth name Horus name reign Tomb (Abydos)
0 1 ḥr(y) Falcon/above Hor (Horus) - 2940 - U-i
[2] [msḥ] [Crocodile] [Meseh] [Meseh-Hor] U-f
[3] [ḥd.w] [Maces] [Hedju] [Hedju-Hor] U-h
[4] [n(y)] [Both ours?] [Ny] [Ny-Hor] U-g
[5] [p] [Stand?] [Pe] [Pe-Hor] U-t
6 ḥ3.t At the front Hat Hat-Hor U-z
7 wḥ‘.t Scorpion Uhat Uhat-Hor U-y
8 bík.wy Double Falcon Bikwy Bikwy-Hor U-x
9 (Í)r(y) Guardian Iry Iry-Hor B1-B2
10 k3 Vital force Ka Ka-Hor -2838 B7-B9
1 1 n‘r mr Catfish-chisel Meni Narmer 2838-2808 B17-B18
2 ‘ḥ3 Fighter Teti Aha 2808-2788 B10-B15-B19
According to this reconstruction, Narmer would have been the 11th king of Thinis, but also the first to
rule both Egypt and Memphis, which would explain the purpose of the Narmer Palette and the Libyan
Palette. The Narmer Palette shows the king wearing the crown of Upper Egypt, which indicated that he ruled
over all of Egypt, as did the 10 kings of Thinis who preceded him. On the other side of the Palette, he is
represented wearing the crown of Lower Egypt of the kings of Memphis, that the last king of Memphis had
given him (represented without crown on a sedan chair in front of Narmer). The Libyan Palette would thus
have been commissioned by Narmer to legitimise his succession to the 10 kings of Thinis. The name Hor
("falcon", Horus in Greek) of the first predynastic king became the title of royalty par excellence, like the
name Caesar for the Romans. The Libyan Palette was therefore the first king list, and later king lists
legitimately attributed to Narmer the first to receive the crown of Lower Egypt, which symbolized kingship
over Memphis, in addition to the crown of Upper Egypt (Thinis), which symbolized kingship over Egypt
(except Memphis). The kings of Memphis (about ten of whose names appear on the Palermo Stone), who
reigned in parallel with those of Thinis, have left no inscriptions or royal tombs.
CHRONOLOGY OF DYNASTY 0 (2940-2838) THROUGH SOME SYNCHRONISMS AND 14C DATING
Dynasty 0 is a recent creation of Egyptologists to consider, as its name suggests, the discovery by
archaeologists of the tombs of several predynastic kings. According to archaeologists, this period, called
Naqadian III, is the last phase of the Naqada culture of ancient Egyptian prehistory, dating approximately
from 3350 to 3060 BCE (based on radiocarbon dating). It is the period during which the process of state
formation, which had begun to take place in Naqada II, became highly visible, with named kings heading
powerful polities. Naqada III is often referred to as Dynasty 0 or the Protodynastic Period. Most
Egyptologists consider Narmer to be the last king of this period not the first king of the First Dynasty. He
was preceded by Meseh-Hor “Crocodile Horus”, Iry-Hor (Guardian(?) Horus), Ka-Hor (Unifier(?) Horus)
and perhaps by Serek-Hor “Scorpion Horus”, whose name may refer to, or be derived from, the goddess
Serket, a special early protector of other deities and the rulers. Naqada III extended all over Egypt and was
characterized by some notable firsts, as the first hieroglyphs, graphical narratives on palettes, use of serekhs
and royal cemeteries. However, there is a lot of uncertainty about the number of predynastic kings (Menu:
2003, 307-326), since their number varies between ten249 and three, depending on the specialists, as well as
about their chronological classification, which is impossible but estimated over a period of 3350 to 2900
BCE. The main difficulty for Egyptologists is to establish an Egyptian predynastic chronology but the
proposed chronologies all involve inconsistencies with stratigraphic dating and contradictions with the few
synchronisms with Sumerian predynastic chronology. To harmonize the dates obtained by radiocarbon
measurements (Hassan, Seirrano, Tassie: 2006, 702-709) with those obtained by stratigraphy (chronological
classification based on the style of potteries), archaeologists have subdivided the Naqadian chronological
periods into several sub-periods. There is a difference in definition between historical and archaeological
periods. For example, Dynasty 1 minus Narmer corresponds to the archaeological period Naqadian IIIC,
protohistory (Dynasty 0 plus Narmer) corresponds to Naqadian IIIA-IIIB and prehistory (predynastic period)
corresponds to Naqadian IA-IID. The duration of historical periods (D1) is dilated by radiocarbon
measurements (D2) in a ratio (D1/D2) that increases with older dates.
249
Double-Hor, Ny-Hor, Hat-Hor, Iry-Hor, Pe-Hor, Hedju-Hor, Meseh-Hor, Ka-Hor, Serekh-Hor, Narmer-Hor.
TABLE 110
14
Dyn. King Reign D1 Naqadian C dating D2 D1/D2 ∆1
-1 Predynastic period IA-IB 3900-3750
(prehistory) IC-IIA-IIB 3750-3650
IIC 3650-3500
IID1-IID2 3500-3350
0 10 kings of Thinis 2940 - (102) (132) IIIA1-IIIA2 3350-3200 290 (2.2) +410
(protohistory) -2838 IIIB 3200 -
1 Narmer (history) 2838-2808 30 -3060
‘Aha 2808-2788 20 151 IIIC1-IIIC3 3060 - 260 1.7 +252
Djer 2788-2750 38
Djet 2750-2741 9
Den 2741-2705 36
Adjib 2705-2699 6
Semerkhet 2699-2690 9
Qaa /Sneferka 2690-2657 33 -2800
2 2657-2581 76 IIID1-IIID3 2800-2686 114 1.5 +143
3 2581-2523 58 IV-V 2686-2613 73 1.3 +125
Terminology regarding the relative chronological periods within the predynastic and early dynastic
culture of Egypt is nowadays frequently used in a manner suggesting complete reliability. Nevertheless,
several fundamental problems concerning the relative chronology of the Naqada culture still exist. It has
already been stressed by several authors that no generally accepted terminology250 exists for Egypt's late
prehistory and early history. The most serious contradiction in the dating of the potteries belonging to
Dynasties 0 and 1 is the following: some potteries, which are dated in a stratum classified in a period of
Dynasty 0, are also classified in a period of Dynasty 1 at another excavation site. Similarly, other potteries of
different styles that should be classified in different strata appear in the same stratum, which is obviously
contradictory (Hendrickx: 1996, 36-69). Since stratigraphic dating is based on a classification of the potteries
according to their style, and since the strata are dated by radiocarbon measurements, the contradictions are
therefore due to these measurements. It is therefore an autocalibration, not a calibration, since the
stratigraphic dating is confirmed by the radiocarbon dating, which is itself confirmed by the stratigraphic
dating. For example, potteries and inscriptions in the name of Narmer, a well-known king, which appear on
many archaeological sites in Egypt, including in Levant (Mazar: 1990, 105-108), are dated in Dynasty 1,
which is logical, but also in Dynasty 0, which would lead to the assumption that the kings of dynasties 0 and
1 would have ruled at the same time (Hendrickx: 2006, 55-93). This conclusion is absurd because Narmer
and Aha were absolute kings who massacred their enemies and some Egyptian king lists, such as those of
Manetho and the Turin Canon, mention the 10 kings of Thinis (Dynasty 0) who preceded Narmer.
To solve this difficulty, some specialists propose to replace the “historical” chronology with a
radiocarbon-based chronology by accepting a measurement error of about a century (Manning: 2006, 327-
355). Although this solution seems reasonable, it is illogical for the following reasons: it is not an error
(greater than a century), which is random by definition, but a systematic bias of measurements, moreover,
this bias in the dating is not constant but increases exponentially from the 2nd dynasty (∆1), finally, the
predynastic kings actually preceded, and would not have been in contact with, the kings of the First Dynasty,
both according to the layout of their graves (Hartung: 2002, 87-94) and according to Egyptian king lists
which mention some of those predynastic kings. The oldest king list, written on the Palermo Stone, is very
fragmented but it mentions about 10 kings before the First Dynasty (the 30 kings of Memphis ruled in
parallel and solely over the city), which is confirmed by the Turin king list and by Manetho. It is obvious that
radiocarbon dating gives values that are exponentially overestimated from the First dynasty onwards.
However, if the dates obtained by radiocarbon dating are calibrated by those obtained by astronomy, all
durations prior to 2600 BCE are exponentially compressed. This compression of the Egyptian chronology is
consistent with the few historical data since the predynastic kings, who would have reigned for several
hundred years according to radiocarbon dating, reigned for only a few decades because they left only
mortuary monuments and a few statuettes. As there are certain synchronisms between the Egyptian
predynastic kings and their Sumerian counterparts, it is interesting to compare these two chronologies
because the Sumerian king lists give the list of kings after the Flood. Sumerian chronology has several
similarities with Egyptian chronology because the first dynasty, which “descended from heaven” according
to the Sumerian king list, is that of Kish I, around 2800 BCE, but archaeology has revealed the existence of
250
There exists quite some confusion in the terminology used for the cultural phases and the relative chronology of Egypt, generally
known as the Predynastic period. Already the term “Predynastic” in itself may cause a problem. Although it evidently refers to all
periods previous to the dynastic history of Egypt, its use is in reality reserved for the Naqada culture of (Upper) Egypt. The
terminology for the relative chronology of the Predynastic period is also far from consistent.
214
priest-kings during the “Middle Uruk” period. The Uruk period is traditionally divided into many phases.
The first two are Old Uruk (levels XII–IX, dated 3700-3400 according to 14C), then Middle Uruk (VIII–VI,
3400-3100) and finally Late Uruk (V-III, 3100-2900). The first two phases are poorly known, and their
chronological limits are poorly defined; many different chronological systems are found in scholarship
(Joannès: 2001, XV, 887-890). If we convert the years obtained by astronomy (Year*) into years obtained by
radiocarbon measurements, if 14C dating = Year*/(1 – 1/10(3170 – Year*)/335):
TABLE 110
14
Egyptian events C dating Year* Sumerian events Biblical events BCE
Ogdoad251 (BCE) (BCE) Deluge of Ziusudra Deluge of Noah 3170
8100 <= 3100 3100
4350 <= 3000 Amar-utu(k) (Marduk) Nimrod 3000
Naqada I 3800 <= 2950 Tower of Babel Tower of Babel 2950
3700-3560 <= 2940-2920 Old Uruk 2940 -
Naqada II 3560-3390 <= 2920-2890 -2890
Naqada III 3390-3170 <= 2890-2840 Middle Uruk 2890-2840
Dynasty 0 3170 - <= 2840 - Late Uruk 2840 -
Dynasty 1
Narmer -3070 <= -2810 Kish I -2810
Âha 3070-3030 <= 2810-2796 Jushur 2800-2780
This calibration of the chronology obtained by radiocarbon dating enables several synchronisms to be
confirmed with the archaeological and historical data. The Egyptian predynastic kings of Dynasty 0 appeared
shortly after the Sumerian priest-kings of Middle Uruk. The city of Uruk, with its huge White Temple, called
the Palace Sublime (É.GAL.MAḪ) in the Epic of Gilgamesh (Epic III:14-28), was built around 3000 BCE,
before the tombs of the Egyptian predynastic kings. According to the biblical text, the first cities of the
kingdom of Nimrod (Marduk) were Babylon, Uruk and Akkad (Gn 10:10) and according to Sumerian
literature, Marduk (Nimrod) built Babylon, which was later adopted by Hammurabi as the capital of his
empire. By unearthing several large temples or palaces (the religious or political role of these buildings
remains unknown), archaeology has confirmed the existence of an immense unified empire that dominated
the land of Sumer around 3000 BCE. Paradoxically, for no apparent reason, this immense empire collapsed
suddenly (Old Uruk period), and its capitals only reappear 500 years later, the White Temple in the Epic of
Gilgamesh and the Tower of Babylon in a short inscription dated 2500 BCE252:
[-] Lord (or governor) of Ba.bal253 (BARKI.BAR) son of Aḫu-ilum, the man of Ilum-beli, the man of Ur-
Kubi, builder of the temple of Marduk (dAMAR.UTU), dedicated [this...].
The first Sumerian empire logically needed a powerful administration to direct the construction of
temples and palaces. Since this unified empire collapsed around 3000 BCE and the first Egyptian dynasty
suddenly appears around this time as well and is also unified, it is logical to conclude that the powerful
Sumerian (now Egyptian speaking) administration continued to direct, with the same techniques, the temple
and palace constructions in Egypt. The first five Egyptian dynasties gradually rose in power, but the
Sumerian empire never managed to regain its unity but remained a federation of city-states in permanent
rivalry with each other.
The best attested synchronism between the Sumerian chronology and the biblical chronology is that
concerning Noah / Ziusudra. This famous figure lived 350 after the universal flood (Gn 9:28) and was king
of Shuruppak during this period, according to the Sumerian King List. The Sumerian sexagesimal system
before Gilgamesh used units whose symbol (in the shape of a sunken nail) was later confused with the
similar symbol of hundreds (in base 60), which multiplied the duration of Sumerian reigns by 60. The length
of the reigns in the Sumerian King List (N60) must therefore be divided by 60 (∆0).
TABLE 111
Deluge Deluge
Noah 350 3170 - Ziusudra 3200 - ∆0
(Nimrod) 3000-2950 Amar-Utu(k) 3000-2950
-2820 Priest-kings 2950 - 150 10 kings of Thinis 2940-2838 102
Shelah 130 2903 - -2800 Narmer 2838-2808 30
251
The Ogdoad were 8 deities (arranged in 4 male-female pairs) like the survivors of the Flood in Sumerian mythology: Ziusudra and
7 Anunnaki or, according to the Bible: Noah and his family who were 4 couples (1Pi 3:20).
252
Votive text YOS 9, 2 kept at Yale American University.
253
The name Ba.bal corresponds to the Hebrew form babil, which linguists call proto-Euphratic (Lipiński: 2001, 586). The word
ba7.ba7 can be transcribed BAR.BAR but as this name is also written UD.UD and transcribed babbar, it must be transcribed ba.bar/l,
because the r is used to vocalize the letter l in Sumerian (Lambert: 2011, 71-74).
KISH I Reign N60 /60 DYNASTY 1 & 2 Reign
-2773 Jushur 2800-2780 1200 20 ‘Aha 2808-2788 20
Eber 134 2773 - Kullassina-bel 2780-2764 960 16 Djer 2788-2752 36
Nan-giš-lišma 2764-2744 1200? 20 Djet 2752-2743 9
En-dara-ana 2744-2737 420 7 Den 2743 - 32
Babum 2737-2732 300 5
Pu’annum 2732-2718 840? 14 -2711
Kalibum 2718-2702 960 16 Adjib 2711-2705 6
Kalumum 2702-2688 840 14 Semerkhet 2705-2696 9
Zaqaqip 2688-2674 900 15 Qaa /Sneferka 2696 - 33
Atab 2674-2664 600 10 -2657
Mašda 2664-2650 840 14 Hotepsekhemwy 2657-2645 12
-2639 Arwi’um 2650-2638 720 12 Ra‘neb/ Weneg 2654-2642 12
Peleg 130 2639 - Etana 2638-2613 1500 25 Ninetjer 2642 - 36
Baliḫ 2613-2606 400 7* -2606
Enme-nuna 2606-2595 660 11 Sened 2606-2598 8
Melam-Kiš 2595-2580 900 15 Khasekhemwy 2598-2581 17
Barsal-nuna 2580-2560 1200 20 Netjerikhet/ Djoser 2581-2562 19
Samug 2560-2550 140 10*
Tizkar 2550-2535 305 15*
Ilku’u 2535-2520 900 15
-2509 Ilta-šadum 2520-2500 1200 20 URUK I Reign
Reu 132 2509 - En-me-baragesi 2500 - 900 15 Mes-ki’aggašer 2496-2490 6*
-2485 En-merkar 2490-2483 7
Agga 2485 - 625 30* Lugal-banda 2483-2463 20
Dumuzi 2463-2461 20*
-2455 Gilgamesh 2461 - 60*
-2401
-2377 Ur-Nungal 2401-2371 30
Serug 130 2377 - Udul-kalama 2371-2356 15
Labašum 2356-2347 9
LAGASH I Reign En-nun-dara-anna 2347-2339 8
Ur-Nanše 2340-2322 18 Mesḫe 2339 - 36
Akurgal 2322-2318 4 -2303
E-anatum 2318-2288 30 Melam-ana 2303-2297 6
En-anatum I 2288-2282 [6] Lugal-kigine-dudu 2297 - 36
En-metena 2282 - 30 -2261
-2252
-2247 En-anatum II 2252-2245 7
Nahor I 79 2247 - En-entarzi 2245-2240 5
Sargon (AKKAD) 2243-2187 56
-2168 Rimuš 2187-2178 9
Terah 130 2168 - Maništusu 2178-2163 15
Narâm-Sîn 2163-2126 37
-2038 (UR III) ELAM Reign
Abram 100 2038 - Ur-Namma 2020-2002 18 Puzur-Inšušinak 2040-2005 35
1963-1954 Shulgi 2002-1954 48 Kudur-Lagamar 1990-1954 36
Amar-Sîn 1954-1945 9 Tazitta I 1955 - 15
-1938 Šu-Sîn 1945-1936 9 -1940
Isaac 60 1938 - Ibbi-Sîn 1936 - 24 Tazitta II 1935-1925 10
-1912 Lurrakluḫḫan 1925-1915 10
Kindadu 1915-1905 10
Idadu I 1905-1890 15
-1878 Tan-Ruḫuratir I 1890-1875 15
The Sumerian and biblical chronologies are controversial because of the mention of a universal flood,
considered a myth by Egyptologists and archaeologists. However, archaeology has confirmed the existence
of a Kish dynasty beginning around 2800 BCE and a few tablets mention the kings En-me-baragesi and
Agga, who was a contemporary of two kings of Uruk, Lugal-banda and Gilgamesh. On several seals dated
around 2200 BCE (BM 129480; BM 89767; VA 3456), Etana254 is depicted riding an eagle to reach the
254
During the period 2800-2500 BCE the Sumerian royal lists mention only one exceptional event that occurred during the reign of
Etana, the 13th king of Kish I: Etana the shepherd, who ascended to heaven and consolidated all the foreign countries. The ancient
title of the “Legend of Etana” was “the gods drew the plan of the city.” We do not know if the name Etana, “he who went up to
216
sky/heaven (according to the Bible, the purpose of the Tower of Babel was to be the “gate of God” and to
reach the sky/heaven). The Bible states that in the days of Peleg, which means “division”, the earth was
reorganized after the failure of the Tower of Babel: To Eber were born two sons: the first was called Peleg,
because it was in his time that the earth was divided (Gn 10:25). As Peleg was born in 2639 BCE, the
“division” that occurred at the time of his birth seems to be related to a major religious event, the restoration
of the temple (at the top of the Tower of Babel) built by Nimrod and that's why the Bible quotes it.
There was a high-level of trade between Ancient Egypt
and the Near-East throughout the predynastic period of
Egypt, during the Naqada II and Naqada III phases
(Darnell: 2005, 31). These were contemporary with the
Middle Uruk (3500-3100 BCE) and Late Uruk periods in
Mesopotamia. The main period of cultural exchange,
particularly consisting in the transfer of Mesopotamian
imagery and symbols to Egypt. Some objects found in
Egypt prove that there was also a migration of people from
Sumer. The Egyptian prehistoric Gebel el-Arak Knife in
ivory, founded in Abydos (photo opposite), is dated 3400-
3200 BCE by stratigraphy. The Sumerian king, as Master
of Animals on the knife at the top of the handle, is like the
portrait of a Sumerian priest-king (EN “Lord”) with a
brimmed round hat and large beard, excavated in Uruk and
dated the same period. For example, on the impression of a
cylinder seal found at Uruk255 (below left), dated around 3300-2900 BCE, appears between two rams a
Sumerian priest-king with a beard, wearing a rounded crown and a long coat.
FIG. 62
The ships on the naval combat scene are arranged on two lines. On each one the ships are of different
types. The upper ships have a cabin, a mast with a sign on top, bow and stern emblems. They have no
similarity with other graphic representations of the same period in Egypt, but they are like the Sumerian
ships of that time. The lower ships are clearly from the Naqada II era. The three ships look the same: a
crescent-shaped hull, a seat-shaped cabin on the right, two tall and narrow structures on the left. They are
like the Egyptian ships of that time. If this object had been imported, it would not have had the Egyptian
ships, unknown in Sumer. If this object had been made in Egypt it would not have had the Sumerian ships,
unknown in Egypt. This object was therefore manufactured by a craftsman from Sumer who came to settle in
Egypt during the Urukean expansion. As a result, this craftsman came from the Sumer region (around Uruk),
without one being able to specify which city he came from, since the town of Uruk only gained importance
from the Uruk I period (c. 2500 BCE).
The two flat-bottomed boats (below left at the top of the image), presumably made of wood, with a
prow, are typically Sumerian. For example, on the impression of a cylinder seal found at Uruk256 (below
right), dated around 3500-3300 BCE, appears between two rams a Sumerian priest-king with a beard,
wearing a rounded crown and a long coat.
heaven/God”, was drawn from the legend or the legend was constructed around the name. However, there is reason to think that the
story is very old (Glassner: 2005, 82,91,121). This legend of Etana shows that it was a question of legitimizing royalty of Kish by
restoring the temple (at the top of the Tower of Babel) built by Marduk to obtain the approval of heaven.
255
Vorderasiatisches Museum, Berlin VA 10537.
256
Vorderasiatisches Museum, Berlin VA 11040.
The three round-bottomed boats (on the left),

probably made of papyrus reeds, without a prow, are
typically Egyptian. This distinction between royal,
Sumerian-type boats and Egyptian boats for navigation
on the Nile can be found on the labels (below) of the first
two kings of Dynast 1 (Piquette: 2013, 213-236).
The twelve boats buried at Abydos during Dynasty 0 were not models, as many mortuary-associated
objects could be, but viable vessels which could accommodate as many as 30 rowers. According to boat
expert Cheryl Ward, the mode of construction is unique among surviving ancient Egyptian boats. About 23
metres in length and 2 to 3 meters in width at the widest point, these boats are only about 0.6-metre-deep,
with narrowing prows and sterns. The portion of the boat hull excavated revealed thick wooden planks,
lashed together by rope fed through mortises (Mark: 2012, 107-126).
On the fresco below, found in Hierakonpolis Tomb 100, dated to the Predynastic
Period of Egyptian history, ca. 3400 BCE by stratigraphy, appears a Sumerian king
(bottom left), like the “Master of Animals” on the Gebel el-Arak Knife. This “Master of
Animals” (enlarged on the image on the right) is represented between two bulls (?).
This type of character only appears at the beginning of Egyptian history
On the stone engravings in Wadi Umm Hajalij, we notice that the boats were mainly used for the
transport of goods and animals and as there are no rowers represented these boats were perhaps towed on the
Nile. These ancient boats are comparable to Sumerian barges.
218
FIG. 63
A fleet of the oldest built wooden boats in the world (below), located in the desert sands of Abydos –
more than 13 kilometres from the river Nile– are painstakingly being excavated by archaeologists. To date,
14 of the large vessels, dating of the beginning of Dynasty 1 and estimated to be between 20 and 25 meters
long, have been identified. It is not known whether these Sumerian-type boats were used for processions on
the Nile or whether they were sacred in a royal burial site.
FIG. 64
The Egyptian State suddenly appeared during Dynasty 0 (Anđelković: 2011, 25-32) because it was built
by high officials who had worked for Marduk, a powerful Mesopotamian hunter who became a divinized
king. As the Urukeans who arrived in Egypt made extensive use of boat, first the Sumerian flat-bottomed
wooden boats and then the Egyptian curved-bottomed boats in reeds, this explains the essential role of boats
during Dynasty 0 (Vanhulle: 2014), as well as the presence of numerous Sumerian-type boats in Abydos,
then their disappearance during Dynasty 1. According to this chronological reconstruction, the first
Egyptians to arrive in Abydos (Dynasty 0) were Egyptian-speaking Sumerians who came from Uruk area
(including Babel). They probably travelled up the Euphrates to Byblos and then sailed on the Mediterranean
Sea before reaching the mouth of the Nile and sailing upstream to Abydos.
The link between Sumer and Egypt during the Urukean expansion implies that the 14C dating of the
strata of two cities linked by a synchronism must be identical. However, this elementary logical criterion is
blatantly violated for two predynastic cities: Tell el-Farkha, a city in Lower Egypt about 120 km north of
Memphis, and Naqada, a city in Upper Egypt about 80 km east of Abydos. It should be noted that of all the
predynastic cities that have been excavated, only the city of Abydos has delivered monuments, which proves
that it was a city-state. The strata, dated by 14C, of all these predynastic cities contain pottery of the same
style, the same as that of the southern Levant, which proves that there was trade among these regions. The
2019 excavation report on Tell el-Farkha (Mączyńska, Chłodnicki, Ciałowicz: 2019, 1-139) divided the
occupation of this city over a period of 1100 years (3700-2600) into seven distinct phases. We can see that
Phase 1 has suddenly aged 250 years between 2019 and 2016 (Moeller: 2016, 59-112):
FIG. 65
TABLE 112
14 14
Tell el-Farkha Stratigraphic period Abydos C (2019) C (2016) D1-2 astronomy D2-3
Phase 1 Naqada IIB–IIC 3700–3500 3450–3350 +250
Phase 2 Naqada IID1 3500–3450 3350–3250 +150
Phase 3 Naqada IID2/IIIA1 3450–3350 3250–3200 +200
Phase 4 Naqada IIIA1-IIIB 3350–3200 3200–3150 +150 ( -2950)
Phase 5 Naqada IIIB–IIIC1 Dynasty 0 3200–3000 3150–2950 +50 (2950)-2842 +200
Phase 6 Naqada IIIC2–IIID Dynasty 1 3000–2700 2950–2800 +50 2842–2660 +108
Phase 7 Dynasty 2 2700–2600 2660–2587
220
These important dating differences for the oldest phases show that the dates obtained
by carbon-14 before 3100 BCE are not reliable. Among the hundreds of objects unearthed
in Tell el-Farkha two characteristics stand out: the similarity with the objects unearthed in
Abydos shows that there was an important commercial exchange between these two cities,
a seal with an Egyptian boat imprint on it having even been found (photo on the right) and
all identifiable objects are associated with Dynasty 0, without exception. For example: a
wine jar with the incised name of the Predynastic King Iry-Hor (pictured right); a scorpion
figurine depicting the Predynastic King Scorpion I, a gold figurine of a Predynastic
anonymous King, a wooden figure of a Predynastic anonymous King wearing a crown on
his head (instead of a tiara) and a Sed festival garment; several objects: seals (Chłodnicki,
Ciałowicz, Maczynska: 2012, 267-277), jars and labels, with a single hieroglyph
(characteristic of Dynasty 0); walls of a Naqadian style mastaba; tomb in the shape of a
mastaba. The total absence of objects dating back to Dynasty I shows that the site of Tell
el-Farkha was abandoned at the end of the predynastic period, because the kings: Iry-Hor,
Sekhen/Ka, Narmer and Den left evidence of their activity as far as Palestine (Tallet,
Laisney: 2012, 381-398) and Sinai (Tallet: 2012, 1649-1658). The fact that the name Iry-
Hor appears on a jar at Tell el-Iswid, near Tanis, and on a boat above the old name of the city of Memphis
(jnb ḥd) shows that the capital of Lower Egypt was this city and not Tell el-Farkha. The interpretation of the
Tell el-Farkha site is totally different according to the dating system used:
• According to 14C dating, this site was originally a small prehistoric village, which appeared around 3700
BCE, whose inhabitants came from somewhere in Africa (?), and was gradually developed until the
beginning of Dynasty 0, around 3200 BCE. The inhabitants of this town would have suddenly used
hieroglyphs on their objects and trade with other regions, Upper Egypt and southern Levant, reached its
peak, then for an unknown reason the town was gradually abandoned (3000-2600).
• According to the synchronisms among all the regions of the predynastic period, this site appeared
suddenly, at the time of the expansion of Uruk around 3000 BCE (massive emigration of Sumerians to
Syria, Elam and to Egypt via Byblos), and functioned under all the kings of Dynasty 0 (Phase 5). When
the city of Memphis became the seat of dynastic kings, the aristocracy of Tell el-Farkha left the city to
join the capital of Lower Egypt.
According to synchronism dating, the Tell el-Farkha site was contemporary only with Dynasty 0 (phase
5), there is nothing contemporary with Dynasty 1 (phase 6) and nothing before Dynasty 0, which contradicts
14
C dating for earlier (1 to 4) and later (6 and 7) phases. Consequently, it is crucial to check whether
archaeology confirms the links between the predynastic period in Sumer (Uruk) and in Egypt (Abydos). In
fact, from the first excavations of the Naqada site by Jacques de Morgan his hypothesis of an “obvious”
Mesopotamian influence on the origins of Egypt was strongly contested257. He wrote a book (in French) to
defend his choices by explaining why the hypotheses of the Egyptologists of his time, based solely on texts
257
—Linguistics. Although a supporter of the African origin of the early Egyptians, Mr G. Maspero acknowledges a real relationship
between the Semitic idioms and the language of the Pharaohs: “It can almost be said that most of the grammatical processes in use in
the Semitic languages are found in the Egyptian language in its rudimentary state. It seems that the speech of the inhabitants of Egypt
and that of the Semitic peoples, having belonged to the same group, separated very early on, at a time when their grammatical
systems were still floating. Subjected to different influences, the two families would have treated the elements they had in common in
different ways.”
—Writing. More than four thousand years B.C.E. there were only two peoples in possession of writing in the whole world: the
Semitic Chaldeans and Turanians who lived side by side, and the Egyptians who lived in a country far from the banks of the
Euphrates. These two writings had the same origin, the figuration of objects (pictograms), and this primitive idea had been
interpreted in two different ways depending on the nature of the country where it had developed.
—Metals. From the time of the royal burials of Naqada and Abydos, that is to say from the beginning of the pharaonic arts and
customs, we find bronze in the tombs; however, the knowledge of bronze is of Asian origin. It is nowadays proved that Africa passed
from the use of stone to that of iron, without there having been the transition from bronze.
—Arts. Most of the objects and monuments of the Old Kingdom present striking analogies with similar objects and monuments
found in Chaldea (...) the tomb of Naqada itself which, by the singular serration of its plan, reminds us of the monuments of Chaldea.
—Bricks. We only come across brick monuments in the Egyptian period, the natives did not know how to use them. However, we
know what an important role raw brick played in the architecture of Chaldea, whose soil did not provide any other kind of material.
The fact that mud brick appeared only with the early Egyptians proves that its discovery is not indigenous to Egypt, and one is led to
believe that it was in the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers that the invention was made.
—Measurements. Mr C. Mauss noted that the unit of measurement used in the construction of the Tello monuments (in Chaldea) is
identical to the Egyptian cubit.
—Cylinders. In the beginning of the Egyptian kingdom (Naqada, Abydos) stamps were made with cylinder. It is only later that real
seal appeared, it took various forms but more generally that of the beetle. In Chaldea, on the contrary, the use of cylinder persisted
until the last times of the Achaemenid period.
—Burials. The indigenous tombs are simply dug in alluvial deposits, those of the Egyptian period are either built in the desert, such
as the monuments of Naqada and Abydos, the mastabas and the pyramids (...) or finally dug through geological layers such as the
wells of Saqqarah, Darchur, etc. (De Morgan: 1897, 19-23).
and linguistics, were insufficient to reconstruct a chronology of the origins of Egypt. It was necessary to keep
synchronisms with Chaldea (Sumer). Although solidly argued, De Morgan's hypothesis was gradually
abandoned under the influence of the theory of evolution, which assumed the appearance of homo sapiens in
Africa more than 10,000 years ago. Contrary to De Morgan's arguments to explain rationally the common
points between Sumer (Uruk) and Egypt (Abydos) in the predynastic period, as some Egyptologists point out
(Wilkinson: 1999, 224-225), today's Egyptologists prefer to explain these links by a “remote influence”
between these two distant regions, without explaining how and when. These explanations of a “remote
influence” are more astrological than scientific in nature. The point of view of current Egyptologists is as
follows (Tallet, Payraudeau, Ragazzoli, Somaglino: 2019, 91-93):
The study of Egypt in the predynastic period and under the first dynasties constantly raises the problem
of its relations with the outside world. As we have seen, the phenomenon of the Neolithization of the
lower Nile valley has appeared in recent years to be more complex than initially thought, clearly
combining Near Eastern and Saharan influences. The question also arose as to the very origin of
Pharaonic culture: pioneering scholars such as W.M.F. Petrie, influenced by currents of thought in the
first half of the twentieth century, had developed the concept of a superior « dynastic race » from
Mesopotamia, which would have been at the origin of Egypt. Still partly followed by predynastic
specialists such as W.B. Emery until the 1960s, this theory has now been totally abandoned, the better
knowledge of the Naqada culture having highlighted the internal logic of its evolution in the long term.
Nevertheless, the cultural influence of the Mesopotamian world was felt in the adoption of certain
iconographic motifs used by the Naqadians, such as the palace facade, which allows the name of the
king (the serekh) to be presented, the rosette motif designating royalty, or the theme of the "Master of
the animals" - a character mastering two beasts - which can be found in Tomb 100 of Hierakonpolis as
well as on the knife of Gebel el-Arak (...) The idea of the colonization of Lower Egypt by the Uruk
culture up to the time of Naqada II - before the Egyptians reconquered the region - is also largely
abandoned today. The pattern of a Lower Egyptian culture, which at that time provided the link between
the near-eastern world and the Nile Valley, with other influences reaching Upper Egypt via trade routes
into the Red Sea basin, now seems much more likely. One of the major preoccupations of these early
kings was obviously to control the trade routes that allowed the transport to Egypt of prestigious
products that the elite consumed (...) Egyptian settlements in the southern Levant developed particularly
in the final phase of the Predynastic, under Dynasty 0.
The previous explanation is typical of current Egyptologists: it is not known why the hypothesis of an
arrival of Mesopotamians in Egypt was abandoned, nor why it was replaced by a “probable influence” of the
Uruk culture on Upper Egypt through the trade routes. The “probable influence” is impossible unless we
admit that the trade routes of the Predynastic period were one-way, from Uruk to Egypt, but never the other
way around since no Egyptian objects have been found at Uruk. We can at least assume that the Egyptian
merchants were not frequent travellers and that they were content to trade with the Sumerian merchants (in
what language?), but why did the Sumerian merchants systematically return empty-handed to Uruk (what
was the purpose of this unique business?). Egyptologists find it normal that two complex and different
writing systems appear suddenly and simultaneously in two very distant regions, Uruk and Abydos, without
this posing a communication problem to continue to converse between Egyptian merchants and their
Sumerian counterparts. It is true that the simultaneous appearance, around 3,000 BCEs, of several writing
systems in different parts of the planet: 1) Sumerian cuneiform, 2) Egyptian hieroglyphics, 3) Paleo-Elamite
cuneiform/logograms, and 4) undeciphered logograms of the Indus, can only be explained by a magical or
miraculous action (such as the confusion of languages at the time of the Tower of Babel), but since these two
options are deemed implausible by Egyptologists, the only solution is to assume a mysterious influence at a
distance and at a time that is not well known. It is easy to see that these explanations based on “mysterious
influences” are not scientific but ideological.
Today's Egyptologists date the earliest Egyptian dynasties only by Carbon-14 dating and since 2000
they no longer use chronology based on absolute synchronisms and dates obtained by astronomy (Tallet,
Payraudeau, Ragazzoli, Somaglino: 2019, 416-417):
TABLE 113
14
Predynastic Stratigraphic period Abydos C (2019) astronomy
Phase 1 El-Badari (Upper Egypt) 4500–3800
Phase 2 Maadi-Buto (Lower Egypt) 3900–3400
Phase 3 Naqada I- Naqada II-A/B (Upper Egypt) 3900–3600
Phase 4 Naqada II-C/D 3600–3200 ( -2950)
Phase 5 Naqada III-A/B Dynasty 0 3200–3100 (2950)-2840
Phase 6 Naqada III-C Dynasty 1 3100–2900 2840–2660
Phase 7 Naqada III-D Dynasty 2 2900–2750 2660–2587
222
This chronological table shows that each Egyptologist has his own definition concerning the duration of
stratigraphic periods; each year the oldest Egyptian period is aged by at least a century (in a few years we
should reach the period of the African homo sapiens); the absolute chronology of the first dynasties, which
was based on astronomy, is definitively abandoned in favour of carbon-14 dates. The theory of the African
origin of the early Egyptians was first devised by palaeontologists and then adopted by archaeologists who
legitimized it using carbon-14 dating. Faced with the difficulties of establishing an absolute chronology
(determined by astronomy) for the early Egyptian dynasties, Egyptologists adopted the chronology of the
archaeologists (determined by carbon-14). Since the beginning of the 21st century, the history of Egypt's
origin is no longer written by historians but by radiocarbonists. An elementary critical examination of this
theory shows that it is a scientific fairy tale. According to radiocarbonists:
The African origins of Egyptian civilisation lie in an important cultural horizon, the ‘primary pastoral
community’, which emerged in both the Egyptian and Sudanese parts of the Nile Valley in the fifth
millennium BC. A re-examination of the chronology, assisted by new AMS determinations from
Neolithic sites in Middle Egypt, has charted the detailed development of these new kinds of society (...)
The ‘primary pastoral community’, as defined here and in earlier publications, is a phenomenon of the
Middle Holocene, but its foundations, including the adoption of a herding economy, were laid in the
preceding millennia of the Early Holocene. The origin and spread of farming in northern Africa was a
complex, protracted and regionally variable process (...) Domestic varieties of sheep and goat were
introduced to the African continent from south-west Asia, perhaps via multiple routes of transmission—
maritime and terrestrial— including the Red Sea and Mediterranean coastlines. This initial introduction
had taken place by around 6000 BC. Evidence for the economic milieu of northern Africa at this time is
subject to widely varying interpretations (...) The question will inevitably, and rightly, be asked: what
kind of historical entity is the ‘primary pastoral community’? Clearly it is inconceivable that
communities throughout the entire length of the Nile Valley, c. 1800km, shared anything approaching a
conscious social identity during the fifth millennium BC (...) we hope, at the very least, to have
demonstrated that alternative interpretations of Africa’s deep past are not only possible, but also
plausible (Wengrow, Dee, Foster, Stevenson, Bronk Ramsey: 2014, 95-111).
It is obvious that this 'primary pastoral community' never existed for at least three essential reasons:
• Trade over long distances is only possible between two city-states capable of producing goods for their
elites and exchanging them for other goods. These city-states are characterised by administrative
buildings necessary for the management of this trade. The oldest administrative buildings in Egypt are
only in Abydos and all belong to Dynasty 0. There are none in Africa outside this region at that time.
• The Sumerian objects and symbols found in Egypt, dated c. 3000 BCE, belonging to the first Egyptian
dynasties, including Dynasty 0 (“Master of the animals”), come from Uruk and not from Africa. The
oldest building excavated in Sumer is the “White Temple” unearthed in Uruk and dated c. 3000 BCE.
• Radicarbonists assume that, since carbon-14 and astronomical dating are in good agreement down to
1900 BCE, this validates carbon-14 dating down to 4000 BCE (Dee, Pope: 2016, 1-11; Marcus, Dee,
Bronk Ramsey, Higham, Shortland: 2016, 735-739). This assertion is denied for the third millennium
BCE since the dates of the reign of Djoser (2691-2671), according to carbon-14 (Bronk Ramsey et al:
2010, 1556) are about 100 years off the absolute dates (2587-2568) obtained by astronomy.
The best proof that carbon-14 dating is fanciful for the third millennium BCE is provided by the
chronology of the first Egyptian dynasty reconstructed by radiocarbonists (Dee, Wengrow, Shortland,
Stevenson, Brock, Girdland Flink, Bronk Ramsey: 2013, 1-11). According to them, the reign of Djer would
have lasted 125 years (3130-3005 BCE), which is obviously false, moreover, the double heliacal rising of
Sirius and Venus of the I Akhet 1 in the year 23 of Djer (2788-2752) is dated 18 July 2766 BCE according to
astronomy, the difference in dates is therefore 342 years! According to the theory of African origin, the first
Egyptian villages would have appeared during the Badarian period (4400-3800) and would have gradually
evolved into city-states (Abydos and Naqada in Upper Egypt, El-Farkha and Tarkhan in Lower Egypt)
during the predynastic period (3377-3218) which was thus the foundation of the Egyptian state. The
chronological pattern of radiocarbonists is contradicted by the following facts:
• Egyptian villages during the period 4400-3300 BCE (Naqada I-II) would have been populated by a few
dozen inhabitants and would have had zero population growth over more than a millennium, which is
humanly impossible. Furthermore, the potteries of this period are the same in Upper and Lower Egypt,
which proves a long-distance trade between city-states (Dynasties 1-2), yet these villages did not have
administrative buildings, which are the characteristic of a city-states (De Miroschedji: 2015, 1005).
• During the predynastic period (3300-3200 BCE) several city-
states suddenly appear in Upper and Lower Egypt and are
populated by several hundred inhabitants. For example,
Farkhan (80 km south of Memphis) a city-state, populated by
several hundred inhabitants, appeared suddenly during the
predynastic period. A very fine linen shirt has been dated
3482-3102 BCE by carbon-14 (Stevenson, Dee: 2016). The
few hieroglyphic inscriptions that have been found are those
bearing the names of predynastic kings: Hat-Hor, Meseh-Hor,
Sekhen/Ka-Hor, Narmer-Hor (Dessoudaix: 2008, 24-29).
Most of the seals are in the name of Narmer. Three large
tombs were built for the governors of this city-state
characterized by the shape of palace facade mastabas (images
on the right) identical to those of Abydos (Grajetzki: 2018,
103-112). This type of notched walls was typical of Sumerian
palaces during the Sumerian predynastic period.
The only chronological scheme that corresponds to the facts is the following: around 3000 BCE, there
was a massive arrival of several thousand migrants in Egypt who founded Abydos, the first capital of Egypt,
and Memphis, which became the capital of Lower Egypt. These migrants founded an Egyptian State like the
predynastic Sumerian State of the Late Uruk period. The town of Naqada was dependent on Abydos and the
towns of el-Farkha and Tarkhan were dependent on Memphis.
Chronology of Egyptian and Mesopotamian dynasties

TABLE 114
Egyptian Mesopotamian Dynasties
Dynasties (BCE) (BCE)
-1 Uruk 0 Shuruppak Akkad 0 Nineveh 3000-2950
0 2940 - Uruk expansion 2950-2900
-2838 Mesopotamian 2900 -
1 2838 - collapse -2800
-2660 Kish I 2800 -
2 2 2660-2587
3 2587-2523 -2455
4 2523-2389 Uruk I Ur I-II 2496-2261
5 2389-2256 Kish II-III Lagash I 2340-2222
6 2256 - Uruk II-III 2260-2222
-2124 Akkad Assyria 2243-2062
7-8 2124-2114 Lagash II 2131 -
9 2118 - -2018
10 -2032 Uruk IV-V 2062-2012
11 -1975 Ur III 2020-1912
12 1975 - Isin 1923-1765
-1778 Babylon 1800 -
13 1778 -
14 1750-1680
15 1680-1572 Kassite 1661 -
17 16 1572-1530 -1499
18 1530-1295
19 1295-1194 -1155
20 1196-1090 1155 -
21 1090-980
22 980 -
23 833 -
760 -
24 742-729
25 729-712
26 712-663
224
TABLE 115
BCE EGYPTIAN KING LIST SUMERIAN KING LIST Archaeological evidence
3170 A primordial ocean from which Deluge whose Ziusudra, king of Tethys Ocean followed by
emerged the Ogdoad composed Shuruppak, was the only survivor. Paratethys Ocean258 and last ice
of four divine couples. age dated c. 10.000 BCE.
3100 The earth was created out of The 70 great-grandsons of Noah No temple or palace of that
chaos by the god Atum. Gods (Ziusudra) arrived in Sumer. time was found in Egypt.
and God-Kings ruled Egypt. Ziusudra dwells in Shuruppak. The White Temple and the
Nimrod initiates the construction of Eanna in Uruk, as well as the
several cities such as Babel, with its Abzu Temple in Eridu, are the
huge tower, Uruk, Akkad, etc. oldest known buildings.
2950 The confusion of language led to “Uruk expansion” and sudden
the dispersion of most of the appearance of several writings:
inhabitants of Sumer (who Sumerian cuneiform, Egyptian
previously spoke Hebrew). hieroglyphics, pictograms of
the Indus Valley.
2940 Ten predynastic kings ruled in Priest-kings (EN “lord”) ruled the The tombs, or palaces, of the
Thinis, near Abydos, with the partly deserted Sumerian cities. The predynastic kings in Abydos are
title of Horus “Chief/Superior”. king lists did not keep their names. buildings similar to the White
Temple of Uruk.
2840 Narmer founded the first Sumerian cities have begun to The Palette of Narmer is the
Egyptian dynasty (by annexing repopulate. The Sumerian king lists first archaeological document
the Nubian part of Egypt). He have kept the names of the kings that confirms the accuracy of
was the first king to use the (EN) of Kish. the Egyptian king lists.
double crown.
2640 Dynasty 2 (2660-2587). First restoration of the Tour of The governor (EN) of Babel,
Babel by Etana (2638-2613). son of Aḫu-ilum, restored the
Dynasty 3 (2587-2523). temple of Marduk c. 2500 BCE.
2500 Dynasty 4 (2523-2389). Gilgamesh (2457-2401) was the An inscription in the name of
Construction of the great last Sumerian governor (EN) and (EN) ME.BARAG.SI (2500-
pyramids of Giza perfectly became officially the first Sumerian 2485), king (LUGAL) of Kish,
aligned with the cardinal points king (LUGAL) by annexing the confirmed the accuracy of the
through the stars. city of Kish. Sumerian king lists.
FIG. 66
However, archaeologists prefer to explain these large dating
discrepancies by periods during which the cities were unoccupied. For
example, the remains of a building (“Burnt Building”) unearthed at
the site of Chogha Mish, near Susa, has been dated to around 4800
BCE, but as the only contemporary feature of the city is a cylinder
seal dated to around 3400 BCE (drawing on the right)259,
archaeologists have assumed that this city was deserted (for 1400
years) after the destruction of the building and then reoccupied from
3400 BCE onwards (Barnard, Wendrich: 2008, 94-95). The interpretation on this cylinder seal is
hypothetical, but we notice that the patriarch in the middle of the flat-bottomed boat is surrounded by 3
young men and 4 women sitting (?), which could refer to Noah and his family in the ark.
The glorious reign of Marduk was mentioned late because it would have been difficult to explain to the
people of Sumer why the capitals founded by Marduk, such as Babel and Uruk, had become small villages in
the time of Gilgamesh. Indeed, if Gilgamesh boasted of having built ramparts to the city, it is because it had
not been enlarged since its foundation. Similarly, if Babel was ruled by an Akkadian governor at that time,
and not by a Sumerian king, it is because the city had lost its prestigious rank. The abrupt decline of the early
Sumerian Empire was caused by two events: the Sumerian-speaking aristocracy dominated over an
Akkadian-speaking population, which considerably weakened its power, and the Egyptian-speaking
Sumerians had reconstituted a powerful kingdom at Abydos in southern Egypt, this mass exodus to Egypt
having considerably depopulated the Sumerian cities. Unlike the early Sumerian kingdom, which quickly
broke up into a confederation of local lords (EN), the early Egyptian kingdom began immediately with a
king dominating all of Egypt and lasted almost uninterrupted until the Achaemenid Empire colonised it.
258
With shellfish on the top of mountains and erratic boulders of hundreds of tons moved over hundreds of kilometres.
259
https://iranicaonline.org/articles/coga-mis-protohistoric-site
What is the origin of the Sumerians and Egyptians?
The theory of the African origins of man, adopted by most archaeologists from 1980 onwards, was first
devised by palaeontologists and replaced the old theory placing the origin of man in East Asia (Homo
erectus). This “new” theory was based on the following facts: the oldest hominid skeletons were found in
Africa and many artifacts (stone arrowheads, carved knives, carved shards and shells, rock paintings)
appeared during the Neolithic, a prehistoric period that radiocarbonists currently date (in 2020, but there is
much controversy) from c. 10,000 BCE, end of the last ice age, to c. 4500 BCE, beginning of the Copper
Age (Chalcolithic, from c. 4500 to c. 3200 BCE). This theory, inspired by the theory of evolution, has
become much more complex as the many archaeological discoveries have been made, with each
archaeologist adding new chronological phases and new subdivisions according to the dates obtained. It is
amusing to note that each discovery of a new ancestor was each time placed at the origin of man's family tree
(of biblical inspiration!), according to the theory of the archaeologist discovering the fossil. This theory of
the origins of man assuming an original home in Africa was replaced, from 1990 onwards, by a model
assuming independent and simultaneous evolution in different African regions from “archaic local
populations” (before 10,000 BCE). Under the influence of geneticists, this theory was once again replaced,
from 2000 onwards, by a multi-regionalist model, without original home, assuming independent and
simultaneous evolution in different regions of the world from archaic local populations. The family tree of
man, with a common ancestor, having been replaced by “bushy families” (a real burning bush!) with no
precise origin, no precise place, and no precise end (Scerri, Chikhi, Mark: 2019, 1370-1372). It is the
scientific version of the old fairy tales “Once upon a time, long ago, in a faraway land where strange things
happened”. Most people are impressed by the complex family trees of multiple human lineages, with
complicated scientific names (usually in Latin for seriousness), presented in popular books, but if they were
to read serious peer-reviewed studies, they would discover that these strongly asserted claims are in fact
based on very little evidence (in fact none) that has been fabricated (Schlebusch & al: 2021).
Currently radiocarbonists support (for the most part) an African origin of the Egyptian civilization
during the Neolithic, but they are unaware that this theory, which was popular in the 1980s, has been
abandoned since the 2000s and has been replaced by the following theory: Now, the Neolithic, also known as
the “New Stone Age”, the final division of the Stone Age, began when the first developments of farming
appeared. Following the ASPRO chronology, the Neolithic started in around 10,000 BCE in the Levant,
arising from the Natufian culture260, when pioneering use of wild cereals evolved into early farming. The
geographical distribution of Neolithic “bushy families” is currently (in 2020) as follows:
It can be seen in this new chronological scheme261 (above) that the original African heartland has
disappeared (dotted line) and has been replaced by an original heartland in Eastern Asia (formerly known as
the Homo erectus theory). Radiocarbonists are not shocked by the inconsistencies and contradictions of these
evolutionist theories, because they (unconsciously) equate the appearance of “archaic human families” and
260
The Natufian culture is a Late Epipaleolithic archaeological culture that existed from c. 12,000 to 9,500 BCE or 13,050 to 7,550
BCE (depending on scholars) in the Levant. The culture was unusual in that it supported a sedentary or semi-sedentary population
even before the introduction of agriculture. The Natufian communities may be the ancestors of the builders of the first Neolithic
settlements of the region, which may have been the earliest in the world. Natufians founded a settlement where Jericho is today,
which may therefore be the longest continuously inhabited urban area on Earth.
261
This is the scheme propagated by the mainstream media (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic), but it is based on a multitude of
changing and unverified hypotheses (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans).
226
their lifespan with the appearance and disappearance of carbon-14 atoms. According to the quantum theory,
carbon-14 atoms appear suddenly and randomly after nitrogen atoms have been hit by cosmic neutrons, and
then gradually disappear after several thousand years. However, the evolution of human populations is not
governed by the laws of quantum physics. If the theory of spontaneous generation is verified in quantum
mechanics, it does not exist on our scale, moreover, the laws of genetics prohibit the crossing of different
species such as monkeys and humans. The theory of the “missing link” (between man and monkey) has
therefore been abandoned, the different families of hominids currently listed262, the last being Homo sapiens,
appeared suddenly, lived a few thousand years, then disappeared (except ours, obviously). Even though
evolutionists believe in and propagate this theory of the origin of man (despite a multitude of variants), it
remains a scientific fairy tale for the following reasons:
• Men suddenly appeared in different parts of the globe without having ancestors. Moreover, since these
men reproduced, their appearance coincided with that of their wives (the origin of women is never
studied!). This process is very similar to the modern explanation of “The birds and the bees”.
• Eight species of prehistoric “men” have been catalogued263! The analysis of their skeletons shows that
the most represented prehistoric “men” (Janssens: 1970) were those who lived an average of 15 years
(70% of Sinanthropus died at the age of 15), then Neanderthals (80% died before the age of 30, 95%
before the age of 40), Cro-Magnon men (62% died before the age of 30, 88% before the age of 40) and
Mesolithic men (86% died before the age of 30, 95% before the age of 40). These lifespans are
characteristic of the different species of apes264. Lucy's name is misleading, because if today this
Australopithecus came back, “she” would immediately be taken to a zoo under the more appropriate
name of Cheetah if she was a female ape265 (or Pongo for a male ape).
• The eight families of prehistoric man that have been recorded have three things in common: they all
appeared suddenly without any identifiable ancestors; they all lived for periods of several tens of
thousands of years with zero growth (which presupposes extremely effective methods of contraception);
and they all disappeared, except for Homo sapiens, without it being possible to determine the cause of
their mysterious extinction. The most rational explanation is to admit that these families of hominids,
except for Homo sapiens, are the ancestors of today's apes.
• The fundamental postulate of the theory of evolution of a man derived from a hypothetical “hominid” is
contradicted by the laws of genetics, which prohibit inter-fertility between two species, even if their
genetic code is close. For example, the chimpanzee, which possesses 98.4% of the human genetic code,
cannot be crossed with a human (even in laboratory). Despite this scientific evidence, paleontologists
want to continue to believe in Darwin's theory and obviously to teach it266.
• Records are made to be broken: now (2020) the origin of man would be in Greece267.
The African origin of Egyptian civilization therefore has no foundation, it is a cosmogony invented by
paleontologists. On the other hand, archaeological excavations have shown that there is a link between the
predynastic Egyptian kings (Dynasty 0) and the end of the Late Uruk period (3400-3000 BCE), more
precisely referred to as the Jemdet Nasr period, dated between 3100 and 2900 BCE, whose exact nature is
highly debated (euphemism), and it is difficult to clearly distinguish its traits from those of the Uruk culture,
so some scholars refer to it as the “Final Uruk III” period instead.
262
Most scientists currently (in 2022) recognize some 15 to 20 different species of early humans. Scientists do not all agree, however,
about how these species are related or which ones simply died out. Early human species left no living descendants. Scientists also
debate over how to identify and classify particular species of early humans (or apes?), and about what factors influenced the
evolution and extinction of each species (https://humanorigins.si.edu/education/introduction-human-evolution).
263
Homo: sapiens; neanderthalensis; erectus; rhodesiensis; heidelbergensis; Hominid from Denisova; floresiensis; naledi.
264
Chimpanzee (50), Guinea baboon (35-45), orangutan (40), gibbon (30), macaque (27).
265
Similarly, one should rather speak of “Neanderthal ape”. In fact, what paleontologists call “the odyssey of the species” is a
rehabilitation of the Tarzan myth. This myth was already propagated by Roman historians who claimed that Romus and Romulus, the
founders of Rome, had been raised by a she-wolf, which is impossible, as shown by the few authentic cases of wild children taken in,
but not raised, by wolves (Aroles: 2008, 27). Therefore, the father of the first man could not be an ape-man, nor an ape, which makes
it necessary to accept the biblical version of a creation).
266
As Silvana Condemi, paleoanthropologist and Director of Research at the CNRS, explains in her book: Néandertal, mon frère
(Grand prix du livre d'archéologie 2017), following a genetic test carried out in 2010 at the Max Planck Institute in Leipzig, we now
know that each inhabitant of Eurasia carried 1 to 4% of Neanderthal genes. What this scientist “forgets” to say about "Neanderthal,
her brother" is that the report: The Divergence of Neanderthal and Modern Human Y Chromosomes (Mendez, Poznik, Castellano,
Bustamante: 2016, 728-734) explains that the Y chromosome, the one that precisely characterizes modern man (Homo sapiens), is
not compatible with the Neanderthal one. In other words, Neanderthal could mate with a chimpanzee like Lucy, but not with a
human; we should therefore call it the “Neanderthal ape”, but this ape name, which would be logical because it is in line with
genetics, is rejected by paleontologists (and by many atheist scientists), because it would demolish their belief in a hybrid human-ape
ancestor, the founding myth of the missing link.
267
Graecopithecus freybergi is a hominin originally identified by a single mandible found in 1944. Since then, analysis of tooth
specimens, dated to 7.2 million years ago, has led to suggestions that Homo Graecopithecus may have been the oldest direct ancestor
of humans excluding the chimpanzee lineage.
227 COMPARISON OF ABSOLUTE DATES AND CARBON-14 DATES
Generally, archaeologists considered that peoples could be identified by ethnic, linguistic, and
geographical data, which made it possible to suppose that when an object had been moved that there had
been an exchange between the two identified countries and a migration, temporary or permanent, of the
merchants who had sold or exchanged that object. However, as Amihai Mazar268 points out, the
interpretation of this pivotal period in Egyptian and Sumerian history remains highly controversial, he wrote:
Sumerian influence on Egyptian culture was considerable during the Late Gerzean and Archaic periods
in Egypt. These international relations during one of the most creative periods in the history of the
ancient Near East may indicate movements of people over long distances—both by land, from
Mesopotamia westward through Syria to Palestine (Canaan) and Egypt, and by sea, connecting Elam
and southern Mesopotamia with Egypt around Arabia. Within this general framework, close though
short-term connections between Egypt and southern Palestine in EB I [3300-3050] are of particular
significance (...) The key site is Tel Erani, on the south-eastern coastal plain west of Lachish. During
EBI, Tel Erani was perhaps the largest settlement in Palestine reaching an area of almost twenty
hectares. The existence of seven occupation levels of EB I date (Strata XII-V) indicate that this period
extended over a long time. Substantial mudbrick building erected in these levels present an urban
lifestyle. Egyptian pottery and stone vessels typical of the late Pre-Dynastic and First Dynasty periods
predominate in these strata. They include a jar fragment incised with the name of Narmer, the first
Egyptian pharaoh (...) Some scholars interpret the Egyptian finds in southern Levant as merely
representing trade relations; others argue for active Egyptian colonization in southern Canaan; still
others claim that the Egyptians invaded the region (...) The aforementioned finds make possible a
correlation of EB I in Canaan with Egyptian history and chronology. The early part of EB I can be
associated with the late Pre-Dynastic Gerzean culture, while late EB I was contemporary with Dynasty
0 and the beginning of First Dynasty (Mazar: 1990, 105-108).
For a long time, archaeologists have not been able to identify the date and reasons for these migrations
“movements of people over long distances”. Two scientific fields have made it possible to clarify these
archaeological hypotheses greatly: genetics and linguistics make it possible to reconstruct the family tree of
peoples and, consequently, to propose a chronological reconstruction of movements. Genetics has brought
several surprising results (Garcia, Le Bras: 2017, 34-36,76-77,172-173):
• Sumerians and Akkadians, although having completely different cultures and languages, were
genetically and morphologically identical as demonstrated by the skeletons found in their tombs.
• There is no archaeological basis for Indo-European migrations other than imagination.
• Men come from only one type of man, so the concept of races is scientifically absurd.
The most spectacular result was brought by linguistics concerning the establishment of the family tree
of the Indo-European languages (appeared around 1500 BCE in Europe?), which showed that it was a
founding myth of the Western nations that was elaborated to replace the biblical story of the Tower of Babel
(Demoule: 2014, 593-612). According to current linguistic analyses, the first families of languages, such as
Sumerian, Proto-Elamite and Egyptian, appeared during the ancient Chalcolithic period dated around 4500-
3500 BCE by stratigraphy, which contradicts the theory of evolution on several essential points:
• There has never been a proto-language or original language (Ursprache) spoken by an original people
(Urvolk) in an original home (Urheimat), but several unrelated languages (without possible filiation)
suddenly appearing in different places on the planet. That Proto-languages remain unattested is evident.
As Nicholas Kazanas puts it: The first fallacy is that the comparative method is “scientific” and can
offer predictions (...) Another fallacy is very subtle: it is the tacit assumption that the reconstructed
forms are actual and experts in this imaginary field discuss and argue among themselves as if they are
realities. The gradual emergence of a protolanguage is an ideological dogma with no scientific basis.
• There is no material evidence that any language existed before 4500 BCE, moreover, neither the
Sumerians nor the Egyptians mention their ancestors. Therefore, it should be assumed that prehistoric
mankind communicated through growls, like monkeys. Several factual elements contradict this theory.
• Sumerian, Proto-Elamite (Desset: 2020), and Egyptian languages suddenly appear around 3000 BCE in
three places far apart from each other on the planet and are completely structured from the beginning,
there is no trace of evolution but on the contrary a progressive simplification in time of the complicated
signs (the standard variety of Sumerian was Emegir but a notable variety was Emesal).
• Humans are genetically programmed to learn any language, which is not the case for animals, provided
that their parents teach them one, otherwise the child will remain silent for the rest of his life. Reasons
that support the innateness of speech: 1) The fundamental fact that all humans eventually learn to speak
favours Noam Chomsky’s idea; 2) The speed of acquisition argument adds to this, by essentially
268
He has been since 1994 a professor at the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, holding the Eleazer
Sukenik Chair in the Archaeology of Israel.
228
bringing forth the fact that a mentally healthy child is always able to learn to speak within a few years of
being exposed to a language; 3) Further, the critical – age hypothesis, which elucidates on how the
ability to learn to speak diminishes with age, substantiates this argument, mimicking natural
maturational stages, and signalling towards biological involvement to the process of learning a
language; 4) Neurobiological findings, such as those found by conducting research on instances of
damage to the speech centre of the brain, also validate the notion of ‘innateness’ in linguistic ability; 5)
Finally, the discovery of the ‘FOXP2’ gene, believed to contain aspects that give us the ability to speak,
all but confirms the presence of a biological component to language.
These studies have shown that the theories of Indo-Aryan peoples were developed by Nazi
archaeologists and linguists for essentially ideological reasons. The ideologues of the Nazi party wanted to
eradicate Jewish-Christian culture and to replace its “myths” about the origin of man (Adam and Eve), which
contradicted the concept of races, as well as the “myth” of the confusion of languages at the Tower of Babel,
which assumed a divine origin of language and not an evolution. Although it is easy to scientifically
demonstrate that the so-called “Indo-Aryan ancestors” never existed (Danino: 2006, 1-420), post-war
archaeologists, as well as most of their Egyptologist colleagues, began publishing articles, mainly from 1980
onwards, to prove that the Old Testament text should be considered as having no historical value. The theory
of the origin of languages was modelled by Nazi linguists on the Darwinian theory of the origin of species
(including the human species), which was based on two basic assumptions: 1) a proto-language originally
evolved and 2) gradually branched out over tens of thousands of years into the present languages. Both
assumptions have been shown to be false. Firstly, Darwin confused species with varieties, for there are
hundreds of varieties of cats, but only one species of cat, and there are hundreds of varieties of dogs, but only
one species of dog. There is a fundamental difference between varieties and species, species of cats, or dogs,
can be crossed with each other, but it is impossible to cross a variety of cats with a variety of dogs.
Therefore, the evolutionary chain consists only of missing links. For example, Darwinian linguists assume
that present-day English can be traced back to a proto-English language, but it is impossible to trace this
original English language. Indeed, the English before the Christian era (the tribe of Angles) spoke Celtic
(like the Gaels), then after the Saxon invasions, the English spoke Saxon, then after the invasion of the
Normans in 1066, Saxon was gradually replaced by Norman (a Latin dialect like the Old French of the time).
There is an insurmountable contradiction in the theory of human evolution and language since the
family tree of humans is different from the family tree of languages, in short, proto-languages had been
spoken in places where there were no humans yet. The biblical account gives a logical and detailed
explanation of the Uruk expansion that is in accordance with the archaeological and linguistic facts. After the
confusion of languages, the 70 families (Gn 10:1-32), or ethnic groups, who had settled in the Babel region
(Sumer), dispersed throughout the world because they could no longer understand each other. The
construction of the tower stopped, and the city of Babel was abandoned. First point: this event was sudden,
which is in line with archaeology which notes that three perfectly functional writing systems suddenly
appeared around 3000 BCE. A system consisting of a few hundred hieroglyphic signs appeared in Egypt269,
another system of a few hundred cuneiform signs appeared in Mesopotamia270, as well as in Elam, and
finally a system of a few hundred pictographic signs appeared in the Indus Valley. The identification of the
languages spoken at that time are difficult to identify because they were not written as were Akkadian,
Amorite, Syrian, etc., but it seems logical to admit that the same ethnic group spoke the same language. The
biblical text gives valuable information because it gives the names of the 70 families, and at least half of
them have been given the names of the countries in which they settled, which makes it possible to draw a
line between a geographical area and a linguistic area271. The rarity of Sumerian names in this list of kings
proves that most of the population did not speak this new language which was mainly used by the royal
bureaucracy. It can be assumed that this aristocracy belonged to the same ethnic group as former King
Marduk. The Mesopotamians who spoke Amorite moved westward, probably by boat up the Euphrates
River, and then settled in Syria and Canaan. Those who spoke Egyptian settled in Byblos or took boats to
Egypt up the Nile. This scenario would explain several apparent anomalies. If all Mesopotamians no longer
had the same language, they still had the same culture that they spread in the country in which they settled.
269
The reading of archaic hieroglyphs is constantly being improved (Bonnamy, Sadek: 2010, 5).
270
However, these writing systems were not adapted for all the languages of the time. For example, Akkadians changed (around
2500 BCE) the value of Sumerian phonograms to adapt them to their language. Thus, the word AN meaning “god/heaven” in
Sumerian was read ilu “god” or šamu “heaven” in Akkadian.
271
It can be assumed that among the 14 families from Japhet (Ashkenaz, Javan, Elisha, Tarshish, Kittim, Dodanim, etc.) the majority
came to Europe because they spoke the same Indo-European language. Similarly, of the 30 families from Ham (Mizraim, Ludim,
Anamim, Lehabim, Naphtuhim, Pathrusim, etc.) the majority came to Egypt and North Africa because they spoke Egyptian and those
who came to Canaan (Canaan, Sidon, Jebusite, Amorite, Girgashite, Hivite, Arkite, Hamathite, etc.) spoke West Semitic (or
Amorite). Finally, of the 26 families from Shem (Ashur, Eber, Aram, Elam, etc.), those who remained in Mesopotamia spoke East
Semitic (Akkadian) or Sumerian.
The origin of the Sumerians is an enigma for historians because, according to archaeological
excavations, they suddenly appeared in Mesopotamia around 3000 BCE with predynastic kings (Uruk 0),
used a very structured cuneiform script whose oldest traces were found in Uruk and Jemdet Nasr, built
imposing temples, apparently dedicated to the cult of heaven, the oldest of which was unearthed in Uruk
(White Temple), then suddenly disappeared around 2000 BCE after the fall of the city of Ur. On the other
hand, the Sumerian king lists give lists of reigns, but which only begin around 2800 BCE with Jushur (Kish I
dynasty). These lists are historically accurate but paradoxically they begin with an extraordinarily long
period of time during which the earth would have been ruled by the gods, then a very long period of time of
10 mythical kings and, finally, a historical period that begins with the Kish dynasty. The origin of the
Egyptians is equally enigmatic for historians because, according to archaeological excavations, they
suddenly appeared in southern Egypt, shortly after 3000 BCE, used a very structured hieroglyphic script
whose oldest traces were found in Abydos, built imposing tombs in the shape of a mastaba until the 4th
dynasty, apparently dedicated to the cult of heaven, of which the oldest were exhumed in Abydos. On the
other hand, Egyptian king lists give lists of reigns, but which only start around 2800 BCE with Narmer
(Dynasty 1). These lists are historically accurate but paradoxically they begin, like the Sumerian lists, with
an extraordinarily long period of time during which the earth would have been ruled by the gods, then a very
long period of time of 10 mythical kings (these two mythical parts are extremely fragmentary) and, finally, a
historical period that begins with Narmer. The origin of the Sumerians and Egyptians is very controversial
among historians and archaeologists. The only points of agreement are as follows: Sumer is the earliest
known civilization in the historical region of Mesopotamia, modern-day southern Iraq, during the
Chalcolithic and Early Bronze ages, and the first civilization in the world along with Ancient Egypt. The
term Sumerian is the common name given to the ancient non-Semitic-speaking inhabitants of Mesopotamia
by the East Semitic-speaking Akkadians. The Sumerians referred to themselves as UN.MEŠ.SAG.GE6.GA
(“humans-head-black”) and to their land as KI.EN.GI(R) (“land-lord-noble”), meaning “land of the noble
lords” (Hallo, Simpson: 1971, 28). The Akkadians also called the Sumerians “black-headed people”, or niše
ṣalmat-qaqqadi(m), in the Semitic Akkadian language. The Sumerians were distinguished from the rest of
the population by their written language and their noble appearance because they belonged to the lordship
(EN meant “lord” in Sumerian). The Late Uruk III period saw the emergence of urban life in Mesopotamia
and the Sumerian civilization. The late Uruk period saw the gradual emergence of the cuneiform script and
corresponds to the Early Bronze Age. It was during this period that pottery painting declined, but also that
large terraced temples were constructed (built on mastabas), as copper started to become popular, along with
cylinder seals. The most problematic period in history to be interpreted is the one related to the Uruk
expansion, which was at the origin of the creation of city-states (having a temple within their architectural
complex) far away from Uruk, such as Arslantepe (east of Anatolia), Habuba Kabira (east of Ugarit), Yahya
(east of Elam), and so on (Sauvage: 2020, 35-38), because it links the decline of the Sumerian civilization
centered around Uruk (before its resurgence with the Dynasty of Kish) with the emergence of the Egyptian
civilization around Abydos (Grimal: 1988, 25-54).
The second point related to the Uruk expansion, which remains unexplained at present, is the sudden
appearance around 3000 BCE of three writing systems in several very distant places: cuneiform/pictographic
writing in Uruk (Sumer), hieroglyphic writing in Abydos (southern Egypt), and cuneiform/pictographic
writing in Susa (Elam). Specialists have long believed that cuneiform writing was invented by a brilliant
Sumerian scribe in Uruk who remained anonymous, but this belief has collapsed since the discovery of other
cuneiform writing tablets, dated around 3000 BCE, which were discovered at different sites, such as Jemdet
Nasr (26 km northeast of Kish), but the question remains open because the chronology is uncertain
(Bonfante, Chadwick et al: 1994, 29-31). The origin of Egyptian writing is also unexplained. What intrigues
Egyptologists is that the Egyptians of the past always believed that writing was the “word of the god” and
that it was a gift from Thoth, the god of wisdom and writing.
FIG. 67
Egyptian hieroglyphs (Abydos) Early Sumerian (Uruk) Proto-Elamite (Susa)

230
The dating of early writings is currently based solely on carbon-14 dating, which leads to chronological
inconsistencies between objects from the same period but dated to different times. For example, when proto-
Elamite tablets were discovered, they were classified in an undated archaic period (Scheil: 1905, 162-187).
Since these tablets were deciphered, it has been possible to verify that they were contemporary with the
archaic Sumerian cuneiform scripts (Desset: 2020). For example, current archaeologists propose the
following chronological scheme: 1) painted pottery, Susa I c. 4200-3800 BC; 2) sealings, Susa II c. 3800-
3100 BC; 3) Proto-Elamite period, Susa III c. 3100-2900 BC (Álvarez-Mon: 2020). This chronological
scheme, in line with the theory of evolution, is illogical because it assumes the existence of humans before
the appearance of the first temples, administration and writing, yet the very nature of man is divine worship,
which manifests itself in the construction of temples and tombs. Thus, since writing was necessary for the
administration of the temples (for the management of the workers and their supplies), it appeared at the same
time as the first buildings, temples and tombs. Currently most scholars believe that the earliest Sumerian
writings could date from 3400-3100 BCE, the earliest Egyptian writings from 3300-3000 BCE and the
earliest Elamite writings from 3100-2900 BCE. These three writing systems pose several insoluble problems
in explaining the origin of languages: these three systems were used to write languages that suddenly come
out of nowhere and have no connection with each other. The Sumerian syllabary has special signs for
emphatics and laryngeals, marking it as originally designed for a Semitic language with just such phonemes,
i.e., Assyro-Babylonian (Cooper: 1993, 169-205), and even more curiously the names of the first Sumerian
kings of Kish I (c. 2800-2700 BCE) have Hebrew names and most Sumerian scribes have Akkadian names,
which proves that Sumerian was spoken by the ruling class and the administration but that the entire
Sumerian population spoke Akkadian or Amorite (Hebrew). An in-depth study (El Rabih: 2017) showed that
there was a genetic relationship between Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic language families and the incredible
similarities between Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic on all levels of structure can neither be due to chance nor
to borrowing. The only plausible explanation is to admit that there was a common source in which such
similarities are found. Similarly, many linguists classify Egyptian as a Hamito-Semitic language because it
seems that originally it was mainly spoken by the ruling class and scribes, or about 1% of the population, but
that Egyptians spoke (but did not write, except the Hyksos) a Semitic language (Hebrew) that strongly
influenced the written language (Miller: 1996, 35-56). What complicates matters even more is that these
writing systems were used to record languages that were not adapted to some of their basic sounds. For
example, Sumerian cuneiform was used to write Akkadian in Akkad and Amorite in Ebla, Egyptian
hieroglyphics were used to write the Phoenician spoken in Byblos, etc. The biblical explanation (Tower of
Babel), on the other hand, is in accordance with these linguistic facts.
Archaeology shows that the first Hittites settled in Kanesh and as they spoke Hattili “Hatti language”,
according to their writings, the country was called “Hatt country”. The name Hatt is not Hittite but means
“fear/terror” in Hebrew. However, as other Hittites settled later in the cities of Hattusa (“Hatt city”) and
Carchemish (“Wharf of Kemish”), in addition they spoke other languages (Hittite texts speak of Luwili and
Nesili). Specialists prefer to speak of Hattians rather than proto-Hittites. The Bible distinguishes between the
sons of Heth who were in Canaan at the time of Abraham (Gn 23:2-20), and who therefore spoke the same
language as Abraham, and those who came later from Carchemish (1Ki 11:1). A second case that shows the
complexity of the links between the ethnic group and the geographical group is that of Mizraim “Egypt” (Gn
10:13-14). The Hebrew word miṣri (miṣrû in Babylonian, muṣrû in Assyrian) is used to designate Egyptians
in the Bible (Gn 39:1-2). This word is the dual form of maṣor, meaning a “mound” or “fortress” in Hebrew.
While most of the Egyptian ethnic group did come to Egypt because of their new Egyptian language (for
example Pathrusim and Naphtuhim), some came to Crete because of their Cretan language. The name
Kaphtor refers to Crete because this land is written Kaptaru in Mesopotamian texts dated around 2300 BCE
(Joannès: 2001, 208-210). This name does not mean anything in Akkadian but “bulb/capital” in Hebrew (Am
9:1). Among the six descendants of Mizraim “Egypt”, Pathrusim and Naphtuhim are geographical names,
not personal names, because they are plural and mean respectively “those of Pathros (Jr 44:1)” and “those of
Naphtuh”, which are not Hebrew but are transcriptions of the Egyptian words p3-t3-rsy “the land of the
south” and nỉw(t)-ptḥ272 “city created”, a primitive name of Memphis273, the word ptah became the name of
the creator god (Rougé: 1866, 231). In addition, the Bible gives information about the region of origin of
Egyptians: I will bring back the captive group of the Egyptians; and I will bring them back to the land of
Pathros, to the land of their origin, and there they must become a lowly kingdom (Ezk 29:14). Archaeology
has confirmed that the oldest Egyptian documents did indeed appear in the south of Egypt around Abydos.
It can be concluded, as the great German historian and Nobel Prize winner Theodor Mommsen did, that
archaeologists are “illiterate historians”. The reconstruction of languages must be based solely on historical
and archaeological grounds, not on incoherent chronological speculation.
272
The Egyptian word nỉw(t)-ỉmn means “city hidden” is vocalized no-Amon in Nahum 3:8.
273
Another ancient name for Memphis was inb.w-ḥd the “White Walls”.
Comparison of absolute dates and carbon-14 dates
Before 2000 BCE, radiocarbon dating therefore does not give absolute dates but relative dates.
However, it can be noted that radiocarbon dating gives dates comparable to astronomical dating, but with a
lower precision, +/- 25 years instead of +/- 5 years. Moreover, the dates obtained by radiocarbon dating are
overestimated by 160 years over the period from 2500 to 2200 BCE. This preliminary study makes it
possible to establish a method for obtaining an Egyptian chronology based on absolute dates obtained by
astronomy. Dates obtained by radiocarbon measurements form the backbone of the chronology provided
they are anchored on absolute dates obtained by astronomy. To obtain an Egyptian chronology with
maximum precision, it is necessary to start with the most recent and easiest to verify dynasties (dynasties 27
to 31) and then go back to the oldest dynasties. Chronological accuracy is crucial to understanding the link
between the “Uruk Expansion” and Predynastic Egypt (Dynasty 0). At present, radiocarbon dating places
this period around 3400 or 3100 BCE, which paradoxically implies two distinct phases of expansion (Joffe:
2000, 113-123), which is implausible. On the other hand, astronomical dating situates this period around
2950 BCE, which implies a single expansion phase (in accordance with historical facts). Chronological
accuracy is therefore essential to correctly interpret the Sumerian (Uruk) influence on predynastic Egypt
(Abydos) and to understand the reasons for it. For radiocarbonists only 14C dates are absolute:
For example, the Royal Society published an article to explain that: The Egyptian state was formed prior
to the existence of verifiable historical records. Conventional dates for its formation are based on the
relative ordering of artefacts. This approach is no longer considered sufficient for cogent historical
analysis. Here, we produce an absolute chronology for Early Egypt by combining radiocarbon and
archaeological evidence within a Bayesian paradigm. Our data cover the full trajectory of Egyptian state
formation and indicate that the process occurred more rapidly than previously thought. We provide a
timeline for the First Dynasty of Egypt of generational-scale resolution that concurs with prevailing
archaeological analysis and produce a chronometric date for the foundation of Egypt that distinguishes
between historical estimates (Dee et al: 2013, 1-10).
Because of such remarks, more and more Egyptologists are now (2020) considering using radiocarbon
measurements to obtain absolute dates in Egyptian chronology. However, the confrontation with the
conventional Egyptian chronology, some dates of which are fixed by astronomy, reverses this scientific
belief. The evaluation of the many Egyptian chronologies is currently impossible, as no Egyptologist
indicates which dating method is used, nor its margin of error. Most Egyptologists use radiocarbon dating
(Manning: 2006, 327-355) and combine it with Turin Canon (TC) chronological data to calculate their
Egyptian chronology (Redford: 1986). To evaluate these Egyptian chronologies, it is necessary to compare
them with the values (highlighted in grey) given by radiocarbon measurements (Bronk Ramsey et al: 2010,
1554-1556), as well as those (highlighted in sky blue) calculated by astronomy (Spence: 2000, 320-324).
Furthermore, it is necessary to evaluate each reigning period of this Egyptian chronology (∆2) in relation to
the one given by the corrected Turin Canon (TC), the one given by the Palermo stone (PS) and the one
obtained by astronomy (∆1). The purpose of this preliminary study is to summarily compare the dates
obtained by 14C (at least the most recent ones) with those obtained by astronomy. The detailed study of
Dynasties 4 and 5, to assess the reliability of the duration of reigns, is carried out later, and the accuracy of
the dates calculated by astronomy is assessed in the Appendix. Similarly, the calculation to transform a
number of censuses into a number of years of reign (Nc) is given later.
TABLE 116
King Astronomy ∆1 14C dating ∆2 14C gap TC Nc ∆0 corrected
4 Sneferu 2526-2480 46 2649-2629 20 +123 24 ≥39 44 2523-2479
Khufu (Cheops) 2480-2457 23 2629-2610 19 +149 23 23 23 2479-2456
Djedefre (Radjenef) 2457-2448 9 2610-2604 6 +153 8 ≥5 8 2456-2448
Khafre (Khephren) 2448-2415 33 2604-2581 23 +156 [x] ≥22 [33] 2448-2415
Baka - - - - [x] - - 2415-2415
Menkaure (Mykerinos) 2415-2388 27 2581-2556 25 +166 28 ≥19 28 2415-2387
Shepseskaf 2388 - 8 2556 - 18 +168 4 ≥3 4 2387-2383
Thamphthis (?) -2380 -2548 2 - - 2383-2383
5 Userkaf 2380-2372 8 2548-2542 6 +168 7 ≥6 10 2383-2373
Sahure 2372-2359 13 2542-xxxx +170 12 ≥12 12 2373-2361
Both radiocarbon and astronomical dating methods give the same succession of kings for dynasties 4 to 6
as Manetho's list, but the reign durations obtained by astronomy (∆1) are better than those obtained by
radiocarbon (∆2) if compared with the corrected durations from the Turin Canon (∆0). On the other hand, the
dates obtained by radiocarbon are about 150 years higher than those obtained by astronomy. It is interesting
to compare the deviation of the measurement errors for each method.
232
As the inscriptions referring to kings and their constructions are written on stone, they are not datable by
carbon-14, with some exceptions. For example, Taita I274 (1045-1000) was a king of Palistin, a Syrian land
including Hamath and Aleppo (Bryce: 2012, 128-133) and according to the Bible, as King of Hamath, he
congratulated King David when the latter defeated Hadad-ezer (in 1042 BCE) a king of Aram-Zobah (2Sa
8:5-10; 1Ch 18:9-10). Regarding the dating of Taita’s reign, a beam of Aleppo temple attributed to Taita I
has been dated275 -1045 +/- 45 by carbon-14 dating (Kohlmeyer: 2009, 190-202).
TABLE 117
SYRIA reign JUDAH reign ISRAEL reign ASSYRIA reign
Hadad-ezer 1045 - David 1057 - Aššurnaṣirpal I 1050-1031
/Taita I -1017 Shalmaneser II 1031-1019
-1000 Solomon 1017 - Aššur-nêrârî IV 1019-1013
Rezôn (Ezrôn) 1000-975 -977 Aššur-rabi II 1013 - 972
Heziôn I 975-960 Rehoboam 977-960 Jeroboam I 977-955 Aššur-reš-iši II 972-967
Tabrimmôn 960-950 Asa 957 - Baasha 954-931 Tiglath-pileser II 967-935
Ben-Hadad I 950-920 -916 Omri 931-919 Aššur-dan II 935-912
Carbon-14 dating is often controversial because of its complex calibration (see the example below for the
period 2850-2700 BP). For example, the city of Rehob was burnt in 970-960 BCE, according to carbon-14
dating (Bruins, Van der Plicht, Mazar: 2003, 315-318). As the only campaign (at that time) was that of
Shoshenq I (as attested by the biblical text), this dating contradicts that of Thiele (in 925 BCE),
consequently, Finkelstein and Piasetzky have reinterpreted the date of stratum VI (dated 2775 BP), the one
of destruction. They moved it forward to 925-915 BCE to conform to the conventional chronology
(Finkelstein, Piasetzky: 2003, 283-294). But this solution (drawing below right) is unlikely because
differences in duration between the layers VI-V and V-IV would pass without reason from 45 and 50 years
(ratio of 1) to 12 and 43 years (illogical ratio of 3.5).
Such asymmetry in duration between the strata is not realistic. In addition, the city of Dor was
controlled by the Philistines, according to the story of Wenamun (c.1085 BCE), then was led by a son-in-law
of Solomon (1Ki 4:11), implying its conquest by David. Siamun having taken Gezer on the south to offer it
to Solomon, David having already conquered Dor, the destruction by fire of the city of Dor, dated -975 +/- 5
by carbon-14 (Gilboa, Sharon, Zorn: 2004, 32-56), can be attributed only to Shoshenq I, even though the city
does not appear in his list, because many names have disappeared. However, the cities Shunem, Megiddo,
Hapharayim, Taanach and Soko, cited in his list, suppose a path including Dor. The cities of Dor and
Megiddo were also conquered by Tiglath-pileser III (Na‘aman: 2005, 223). The city of Megiddo has
undergone several destructions, but the one by fire (located in stratum VIA) is dated -965 +/- 40 by carbon-
14 (Finkelstein, Piasetzky: 2006, 377), or 1000-950 BCE by pottery (Petit: 2012, 191-207). These datings of
cities burnt by Shoshenq (980-959) during his campaign in Palestine confirm the chronology of his reign.
Radiocarbonists defending the Middle Chronology instead of the “Ultra-Low” Chronology have been
misled due to a methodological problem (only the reigns associated with many carbonaceous objects are
dateable by carbon-14) and ignorance of historical eclipses (only total eclipses over a Mesopotamian capital
city have been observed). The main dating error with carbon-14 measurements is due to a misinterpretation
of the synchronisms between different strata associated with historical events. This problem is common for
the second millennium BCE and systematic in the third millennium because of the scarcity of inscriptions.
274
“King Taita (I)” appears in the Hieroglyphic Luwian inscription: “I, King Taita, the Hero, the King of [the land] Palistin” (written
Pelešet “Philistine” in Egyptian). The name Taita is derived from the Hurrian word Taḫḫe.ta “of man”, abbreviated as Taḫḫe which
explains the T‘Y vocalization in Hebrew (Taita is named either To‘î, To‘û or Thôa in the Bible). After the collapse of the Hittite
empire (in 1185 BCE) several new kingdoms emerged (Emanuel: 2015, 11-40), 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. When Palistin (Walistin in Aramaic) 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).
275
Taita I could have appeared after 1075 BCE because it is not mentioned in any of Tiglath-Pileser I’s campaigns (1115-1076).
That's why the ARCANE project was started, its goal being: “Synchronizing Cultures and Civilizations of
the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean in the Third Millennium BC.” The conclusion of its
investigations at the end of the 5th volume is surprising (Rova: 2019, 373):
It must nevertheless be admitted that, due to the large number of artificial inventories and to the rather
rough chronological attributions of many sites’ levels, we were sometimes forced to turn comparisons
from the neighbouring regions (...) As a consequence, attributions of artefact types to the different
periods remain to a certain extent tentative (...) Calibrated absolute dates attributed to the different
periods heavily depend on those from the neighbouring regions as well. In general, they are not in
evident contradictions with the dates suggested by the few 14C data available for our region; the latter,
by themselves, would however be too few to build an absolute chronology for the whole [third]
millennium on their basis alone; furthermore, some of them are old and not particularly reliable.
Radiocarbonists defending the Middle Chronology instead of the “Ultra-Low” Chronology have been
misled due to a methodological problem (only the reigns associated with many carbonaceous objects are
dateable by radiocarbon) and ignorance of historical eclipses (only total eclipses over a Mesopotamian
capital city have been observed). The 15–20-year gap between the 14C dates over the period 1750-1350 BCE
and the dates anchored by the absolute chronology has long been ignored by radiocarbonists, as this
discrepancy has been equated with measurement errors. For example, the trees carbonized by the eruption of
the Santorini volcano (Thera) have been dated precisely in 1627 BCE by dendrochronology but around 1645
+/- 25 BCE by 14C. However, as the accuracy of the 14C measurements had been improved to +/- 8 years
(instead of +/- 25 years), it was no longer possible to match the two dates, which were approximately 18
years apart (= 1945 BCE - 1927 BCE). This conundrum was solved recently: it had to be admitted that the
calibration curve of the 14C had to be recalibrated by 18 years! (Van Der Plicht, Bronk Ramsey, Heaton,
Scott, Talamo: 2020, 1-23). For calibration purposes, chronological anchor points provide crucial tests. A
case in point of major importance is the catastrophic Minoan eruption of the Santorini/Thera volcano in the
second millennium BC, a crucial anchor for Bronze Age prehistory. The precise date of the eruption has been
debated for decades. Using a Greenland ice core chronology, the Thera eruption was originally thought to
date to around 1645 BCE based upon volcanic tephra found in the core. However, a recent and timely
analysis shows that these volcanic horizons are more likely to be the result of eruptions in Alaska rather than
Thera (McAneney, Baillie: 2019, 99–112). 14C dating obviously plays a major role in this discussion. The
debate has been and still is that 14C shows older dates than archaeological dating of the eruption, up to more
than a century. The authors of the study explain:
A key component for reliable radiocarbon calibration is the quantification and modelling of uncertainty,
as well as how we approach data from different laboratories, different trees, different regions, and
different environmental compartments. This is critical both for the construction of a robust IntCal20
curve and later calibration against it. We use the word uncertainty rather than error since it more
correctly captures the natural variations that we are concerned with. Simply put every 14C measurement
comes with a measure of uncertainty (estimated by the laboratory) which must be incorporated into the
curve fitting and calibration procedures. The
better we can understand and represent this
uncertainty the more reliable the calibration
process. Historically, from radiometric days,
the quoted error was provided by the
laboratory considering the internal
measurement processes only. When an
assemblage of dates is then formed, it
frequently becomes apparent that the scatter
in the results from the individual laboratory is
greater than had been imagined given the
quoted uncertainties on the individual
measurements (...) This development led to
major 14C (re)dating efforts of wood dated by
dendrochronology for the relevant time range
(...) The result is that indeed between ca. 3600
and 3500 calBP the calibration curve needs a
shift of about 20 BP upwards in 14C age, as
can be seen in the figure (opposite). By itself,
this confirms the original observation by Pearson et al. (2018) and so, after calibration, the calendar
dates will, therefore, become younger by a certain amount (...) Summarized, the 14C date of the eruption
can be taken as 3350 ± 10 BP (1-σ), which is an average of many dates from key sites like Palaikastro
234
and Akrotiri (Bronk Ramsey et al. 2004; Bruins et al. 2008). Calibrating this 14C date with calibration
curves prior to the present IntCal20 curve yields a calendar date of the event in the late 17th century BC,
most notably by wiggle matched 14C dates of tree rings from an olive tree killed by the eruption. This
resulted in a date of 1627–1600 BC for the event (Friedrich et al. 2006), between 100–150 years older
than previous traditional archaeological assessments. This difference between archaeology and 14C has
spawned debates lasting decades (...) With IntCal13, the posterior calendar age estimate is
approximately unimodal (i.e., shows a single large peak). In such an instance, it is reasonable to report a
single interval—here we obtain a 68.2% (1-σ) interval extending from 1658–1624 calBC (= 1641 BCE
+/- 17). However, with IntCal20 the picture is much more complex as our 14C date of 3350 ± 10 BP
hits the plateau in the curve (...) we note that the peak centered around 1625 calBC (1626 BCE +/- 19)
carries the largest individual probability.
This new calibration curve transforms the raw radiocarbon dates (BP) into calibrated radiocarbon dates
(calBP). Before 2020 the previous curve (IntCal13) gave the date of 1641 BCE but now the new curve
(IntCal20) gives the date of 1626 BCE, i.e., a rejuvenation of 15 years (= 1641 - 1626). Although this 15-
year lag depends on the position on the calibration curve and varies according to a complex relationship, this
15-year value corresponds to those measured with the 14C dates of the reigns of Neferhotep I and Ibni-Addu.
This recalibration of the 14C dates proves that only the chronology anchored on absolute dates obtained by
astronomy is an absolute chronology (+/- 0 year).
Archaeologists consider the universal flood, mentioned in the Sumerian accounts, which is dated 3170
BCE according to the Septuagint text, to be nothing more than a myth without historical value. According to
them, the movement of erratic boulders, several hundred tons over distances that can sometimes exceed a
thousand kilometres, is due to the melting of glaciers during the last ice age, which is dated at the end of the
Pleistocene around 11700 BCE, according to radiocarbon measurements. Archaeologists consider that
carbon-14 dating gives a precise age over the 50,000 years before the present (BP = 1950 CE), but since this
method is biased by certain initial assumptions, particularly on the determination of the initial quantity of
elements, they prefer to use the 40K-Ar (potassium-argon) and its derivative 40Ar-39Ar methods, particularly
to determine geological time. These methods are also applied to much more recent periods, up to Roman
times. It is therefore interesting to compare the dates provided by the two most used methods in geology,
carbon-14 and potassium-argon:
• The St Saturnin flow (Chaîne des Puys) dated by carbon-14 at 7600 BP ± 300 years using charcoal
taken from under the base plate, gave in five measurements, using massive basalts taken from the core
of the flow, a potassium-argon age of 30,000 BP ± 3000 years. The massive basalt of an Etna flow in
1971 gave, in two measurements, an apparent age of 17,000 BP ± 5000 years. In both cases, the excess
of the apparent age over the actual age is about 20,000 years and is much higher than the measurement
errors. Etna scoriate basalt, 1971, gives apparent ages much higher than 100,000 years BP which are
very dispersed.
• The domite of Puy Lacroix (Chaîne des Puys), dated at about 8000 years BP by 14C on charcoal
collected under projections, gave apparent “negative” potassium-argon ages (proportion of argon 39
slightly higher in the sample than in the air) in the order of 40,000 to 60,000 years in absolute value,
despite the presence of early crystallization plagioclase, presenting an excess of argon 40.
These dates were published in peer-reviewed scientific journals (Cassignol: 1979, 27-33; Dalrymple:
1969, 47-55; Gourinard: 1975, 83-89), and it is specified that these outliers were not due to measurement
errors but to a methodological bias that remained to be discovered. Contrary to the optimism of scientists of
that time (before 1980), the bias has still not been discovered (Sasco: 2015, 155-170,198)276 —so it is simply
ignored! To avoid contradictions, current geologists use radiometric methods, keeping only those that
provide them with “correct” dates, and reject those that provide “incorrect” dates. Evolutionists justify this
scientific imposture (which is a scientific fraud) by arguing that popular scientific journals or books for
students never mention these abnormal dates, which is unfortunately true (Lefèvre, Gillot: 1994, 145-148),
and that the dating methods that have progressed “would have made it possible to solve these aberrant
dates.” This hoped-for explanation is a scientific illusion because the calibration of the 40K-Ar dating method
has in fact proved impossible. This point is essential because the calibration (or standardization) of the dates
is an essential step in the measurement process277. Carbon-14 dating, for example, can be calibrated by
dendrochronology up to 2000 BCE (using the few 4000-year old trees) and could then be calibrated by
astronomy from 2000 BCE to 3000 BCE (in fact the oldest astronomical event is dated 2774 BCE), but
cannot be calibrated before -3000. Regarding the 40K-Ar dating method the result is worse since calibration
over the period up to 2000 BCE is impossible.
276
The author of this thesis obviously minimizes the difficulties observed.
277
For example, a letter scale that would indicate a weight of 20 g, or even -20 g, in the absence of a letter would be unusable. To use
it, it must first be calibrated or calibrated to the value: 0 g = no letter.
If we consult a few peer-reviewed scientific journals, we find the following outliers. The figures given
in the table for the five historical lava flows reflect the quantities of argon rather than the age of the rocks
listed in Dalrymple's document “40Ar/36Ar Analyses of Historic Lava Flows”, but this does not change the
argument in question. Although the apparent ages may be slightly different, they remain excessive due to
excess argon and are in the same range as those listed in the table. The argument that excess argon produces
erroneous apparent ages is therefore always correct. The dates obtained are all converted into millions of
years (106 = 1,000,000) and multiple results come from different reviews. The subject is technical but what is
important to understand is the difference in dating between historical dates, known to historians, and
archaeological dates obtained from measurements of radioactive decay. For example, in the table below the
first historical date is 1984 and the date obtained by potassium-argon measurements is 0,64 +/- 0,03 106 BP.
This means that we have the following impossible equality:
1984 CE = 640,000 BP +/- 30,000 years = ~ 600,000 BCE +/- 30,000 years!
40
Sample from: Historical date K-Ar dating (BP years)
Anorthoclase, Mt Erebus, Antarctica 1984 0,64 +/- 0,03 106
Dacite, Mt. St. Helens, New-Zealand, pyroxene 26/10/1980 0,35 +/- 0,05 106; 2,8 +/- 0,6 106
Basalt, Mt. Etna, Sicily 1972 0,35 +/- 0,14 106
Basalt, Mt. Etna, Sicily 05/1964 0,70 +/- 0,01 106
volcanic explosion, Mt. Stromboli 23/09/1963 2,4 +/- 2,0 106
Basalt, Kilauea Iki, Hawaii 1959 8,5 +/- 6,8 106
andesite flow, Mt. Ngauruhoe, New-Zealand 30/06/1954 3,5 +/- 0,2 106
Plagioclase, Mt. Lassen, California 1915 0,11 +/- 0,03 106
Basalt, volcano Hualalaii, Hawaii 1800-1801 1,6 +/- 0,16 106; 1,41 +/- 0,08 106;
22,8 +/- 16,5 106
Basalt, Sunset Crater, Arizona 1064-1065 0,27 +/- 0,09 106; 0,25 +/- 0,15 106
Basalt, Mt Etna, Sicily 122 BCE 0,25 +/- 0,08 106
We can see that these outliers with known historical dates, but also between them, are not the exception,
but the norm. Although scientists propose a rational explanation for each abnormal result, this multiplication
of cases proves that it is the method itself that is incorrect. Comparing the results obtained by the 40K-Ar
dating method with those of other methods, such as 14C, the same aberrations are obtained in the results:
14 40
Sample from: C dating K-Ar dating (BP years)
Obsidian, Medicine Lake Highlands, Glass <500 years 12,6 +/- 4,5 106
Mountains, California
Basalt, Kilauea Iki, Hawai <1000 years 42,9 +/- 4,2 106; 30,3 +/- 3,3 106
Basalt olivine, Nathan Hills, Victoria, <300,000 years 18,0 +/- 0,7 106
Antarctica
Basalt, East Pacific Ridge <600,000 years 24,2 +/- 1,0 106
<2,500,000 years 580 +/- 10 106; 700 +/- 150 106
Basalt, Akka Falls, Hawaii <2,500,000 years 32,3 +/- 7,2 106
The gigantic discrepancies between all these dates, published in many peer-reviewed journals278, show
that the potassium-argon dating method, used to determine geological ages, measures what physicists call
“residual background noise”. Moreover, since the disintegration of 40K follows a decreasing exponential law
of half-period T = 1.25 109 years? An error ∆N/No of 1% on the initial quantity No of 40K induces an error ∆t
of +/- 18.0 106 years (=∆N/N x T/ln(2)) on the age t of the sample, which means that it is not serious to
278
S. ZASHU, M. OZIMA, O. NITOH, -K-Ar Isochron Dating of Zaire Cubic Diamonds, in: Nature 323 (1986), pp. 710-712. M. OZIMA,
S. ZASHU, Y. TAKIGAMI, G. TURNER -Origin of the Anomalous 40Ar-36Ar Age of Zaire Cubic Diamonds: Excess 40Ar in Pristine
Mantle Fluids, in: Nature 337 (1989), pp. 226-229. C.L. BROADHURST, M.J. DRAKE, B.E. HAGEE, T.J. BENATOWICZ -Solubility and
Partitioning of Ar in Anorthite, Diopside, Forsterite, Spinel, and Synthetic Basaltic Liquids, in: Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta
54 (1990), pp. 299-309. G.B. DALRYMPLE -The Age of the Earth, 1991, Stanford University Press, p. 91. C.L. BROADHURST, M.J.
DRAKE, B.E. HAGEE, T.J. BENATOWICZ -Solubility and Partitioning of Ne, Ar, Kr and Xe in Minerals and Synthetic Basaltic Melts, in:
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 56 (1992), pp. 709-723. J. POTHS, H. HEALEY, A.W. LAUGHLIN -Ubiquitous Excess Argon in
Very Young Basalts, in: Geological Society of America Abstracts With Programs 25 (1993), p. A-462. A.W. LAUGHLIN, J. POTHS,
H.A. HEALEY, S. RENEAU, G. WOLDEGABRIEL -Dating of Quaternary Basalts Using the Cosmogenic 3He and 14C Methods with
Implications for Excess 40Ar, in: Geology 22 (1994): pp. 135-138. D.B. PATTERSON, M. HONDA, I. MCDOUGALL -Noble Gases in
Mafic Phenocrysts and Xenoliths from New Zealand, in: Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 58 (1994): pp. 4411-4427. P.J.
VALBRACHT, M. HONDA, T. MATSUMOTO, N. MATTIELLI, I. MCDOUGALL, R. RAGETTLI D. WEIS -Helium, Neon and Argon Isotope
Systematics in Kerguelen Ultramafic Xenoliths: Implications for Mantle Source Signatures, in: Earth and Planetary Science Letters
138 (1996), pp. 29-38.
P. BURNARD, D. GRAHAM, G. TURNER -Vesicle-Specific Noble Gas Analyses of 'Popping Rock': Implications for Primordial Noble
Gases in the Earth, in: Science 276 (1997), pp. 568-571. M. MOREIRA, J. KUNZ, C. ALLÈGRE -Rare Gas Systematics in Popping
Rock: Isotopic and Elemental Compositions in the Upper Mantle, in: Science 279 (1998), pp. 1178-1181.
236
measure ages lower than 18 million years before the present (1950 CE). It is therefore just as inappropriate to
want to measure a geological age with the potassium-argon dating method as to want to weigh a letter with a
truck scale. Chronological absurdities from radiometric dating by carbon-14, potassium-argon, argon-argon,
etc., could have been avoided if archaeologists had followed a rigorous scientific approach. Indeed, the
process of all physical measurements is based on the principle of validation by cross-checking. However, this
elementary scientific principle is not respected by archaeologists regarding the “archaic periods” before -
2800. Carbon-14 dates are currently calibrated by dendrochronology but as the oldest tree in the world is the
Prometheus, dated 2898 BCE +/- 18 years by counting the rings, it is therefore impossible to carry out this
calibration before 2800 BCE. Comparison of absolute dates with 14C dates.
TABLE 118
14
Dyn. King Reign D1 Naqadian C dating D2 D1/D2 ∆1
-1 (prehistory) IA-IB 3900-3750 years years
(protohistory) 3000 - (60) IC-IIA-IIB 3750-3650 700 (11.7) +700
IIC 3650-3500
Predynastic period IID1-IID2 3500-3350
0 10 kings of Thinis 2940 - (102) (132) IIIA1-IIIA2 3350-3200 290 (2.2) +410
(protohistory) -2838 IIIB 3200 -
1 Narmer (history) 2838-2808 30 -3060
‘Aha 2808-2788 20 151 IIIC1-IIIC3 3060 - 260 1.7 +252
Djer 2788-2750 38
Djet 2750-2741 9
Den 2741-2705 36
Adjib 2705-2699 6
Semerkhet 2699-2690 9
Qaa /Sneferka 2690-2657 33 -2800
2 2657-2581 76 IIID1-IIID3 2800-2686 114 1.5 +143
The equation of the curve showing 14C rate (in %) versus time (t in years) is of the form: A = A0(1-e-
(t+t0)/b
). Calibrating the 14C measurements by the dates from the Egyptian chronology based on astronomical
dating gives the above curve (Brown 1994, 66-79). Extrapolated part of the curve before 2800 BCE, shows
that the rate of 14C tends gradually to 0 around 3500 BCE, which implies an important consequence: before
3500 BCE calibrated 14C dating is no longer possible. Thus, because the 14C dating is not calibrated by
calculations based on astronomy the results are nonsensical because millions of years or even hundreds of
millions of years appear. For example, a piece of wood is fossilized in the Hawkesbury Sandstone, Australia,
which most geologists date to the middle Triassic, about 225 to 230 million years ago. The wood was dated
by Geochron (a commercial dating laboratory) using the 14C dating method. They determined its age to be
only 33,720 BP +/- 430 years (Hunt: 2002), however, contamination by recent microbes or fungi cannot
explain the discrepant age. Another example comes from the polystrata fossils. Tree trunk fossils are
frequently found cutting across many geological layers279 —hence the name polystrata fossils (poly = many;
stratum = layer). It is not possible that polystrata fossils were buried gradually over many thousands or
hundreds of thousands of years because the top part of any tree would have rotted away before it could be
protected by sediment. Polystrata fossils point to rapid burial and are evidence in favour of the reality of the
global Flood recorded in the Bible. This is how Derek Ager, Emeritus Professor of Geology, University
College of Swansea, trained under strict Lyellian uniformitarianism, describes some polystrata fossil tree
trunks (below) that he illustrated in his book280:
279
For example, Eroding cliffs at Joggins, Nova Scotia, reveal abundant polystrata tree trunks and horizontal coalified wood.
280
Ager’s illustration —an old print showing fossil trees that appear to be in growth position at Nant Llech in the Swansea Valley,
South Wales, UK. The trees are now preserved outside Swansea Museum.
If one estimates the total thickness of the British Coal Measures as about 1000 m, laid down in about 10
million years, then, assuming a constant rate of sedimentation, it would have taken 100,000 years to
bury a tree 10 m high, which is ridiculous. Alternatively, if a 10 m tree were buried in 10 years, that
would mean 1000 km in a million years or 10,000 km in 10 million years (i.e., the duration of the coal
measures). This is equally ridiculous, and we cannot escape the conclusion that sedimentation was at
times very rapid indeed and at other times there were long breaks in sedimentation, though it looks both
uniform and continuous (Ager: 1993, 49).
Derek Ager was no Bible believer, in fact he was disparaging of creationists, yet he could see, despite
his training, that the geological evidence pointed to rapid sedimentation and burial. Further, although
sedimentation looked ‘uniform and continuous’, he assumed that there had to be ‘long breaks in
sedimentation’. Why? To preserve the idea that life on the earth is billions of years old (theory of evolution)
—despite the evidence. In addition, Geologists have also found that some of the larger upright fossil trees
found within Carboniferous coal-bearing strata show evidence of regeneration after being partially buried by
sediments. In these cases, the trees were clearly alive when they were partially buried by sediments. The
accumulated sediment was insufficient to kill the trees immediately because of their size. As a result, some
of them developed a new set of roots from their trunks just below the new ground surface. Until they either
died or were overwhelmed by the accumulating sediments (through millions of years!), these trees would
likely have continued to regenerate by adding height and new roots with each increment of sediment,
eventually leaving several meters of former "trunk" buried underground as sediments accumulated. For these
geologists the fact that some trees continued growing during millions of years is scientifically logical! In
addition to dating, the fact of finding a scientific explanation for the formation of fossils, is another source of
troubles for geologists. For example, some sea fossils have been found on mountaintops, consequently, these
indicate that the sea once covered the mountains, as teaches the Bible. The Ammonites slab of Digne-les-
Bains is a remarkable natural site consisting of a rock stratum containing many fossilized ammonites. This
slab inclined at 60° is made of limestone. It has approximately 1500 ammonites of which 90% are of the
species Coroniceras multicostatum dating from Sinemurian (Jurassic). These ammonites can reach a
diameter of 70 cm. One can also see some nautilus, Belemnites, scallops, and other bivalves. It is estimated
that the thickness of the deposit to 20 cm was set up over a period of about 100,000 years.
As one can see on photos, the slab (44°7'10" N, 6°14'2" E) is on a mountaintop (c. 700 m). This means
that the Alps were under the ocean (65 million years ago)! However, analysis of fossil allows an even more
startling conclusion, not only the Alps were under water but the thickness of this layer of water would have
been between 3,000 and 5,500 meters. The appearance of these fossils helps us to understand the
sedimentation conditions. The excellent preservation of the shells shows information regarding the marine
dynamism having presided over the deposition conditions: a stirred medium, such as a beach, coast, where
wave action is strongly felt, tends to break the shells and leads to accumulation of fragments, forms deposits
in the form of gong or coquina. Most of the shells of the slab being intact, almost, this has led to the
hypothesis of a depositional environment quieter, deeper, and longer preserved. In addition, this deposition is
carried out above the Carbonate Compensation Depth (CCD), and therefore at an average depth281.
281
Calcite compensation depth (CCD) is the depth in the oceans below which the rate of supply of calcite (calcium carbonate) lags
behind the rate of solvation, such that no calcite is preserved. Aragonite compensation depth (hence ACD) describes the same
behaviour in reference to aragonitic carbonates. Aragonite is more soluble than calcite, so the aragonite compensation depth is
generally shallower than the calcite compensation depth. The exact value of the CCD depends on the solubility of calcium carbonate
which is determined by temperature, pressure and the chemical composition of the water - in particular the amount of dissolved CO2
in the water. Calcium carbonate is more soluble at lower temperatures and at higher pressures. It is also more soluble if the
concentration of dissolved CO2 is higher. Adding a reactant to the above chemical equation pushes the equilibrium towards the right
producing more products: Ca2+ and HCO3−, and consuming more reactants CO2 and calcium carbonate according to Le Chatelier's
principle. At the present time the CCD in the Pacific Ocean is about 4200 - 4500 metres except beneath the equatorial upwelling
zone, where the CCD is about 5000 m. In the temperate and tropical Atlantic Ocean the CCD is at approximately 5000 m. In the
Indian Ocean it is intermediate between the Atlantic and the Pacific 4300 meters. The variation in the depth of the CCD largely
results from the length of time since the bottom water has been exposed to the surface; this is called the "age" of the water mass.
238
According to the biblical account:

He has established the earth on its foundations; It will not be moved from its place forever and ever.
You covered it with deep waters as with a garment. The waters stood above the mountains. At your
rebuke they fled; At the sound of your thunder they ran away in panic—Mountains ascended and
valleys descended— to the place you established for them. You set a boundary that they should not
pass, that they should never again cover the earth (Ps 104:4-9).
Paradoxically, despite their making fun of the biblical Flood, geologists yet use the same explanation for
the formation of the Earth. In fact, the main disagreement between those who believe in geology and those
who believe in the Bible is the dating of a worldwide deluge called Deluge, in 3170 BCE, in the biblical
account (LXX) or Tethys Ocean, around 250 million years BCE, by geologists. The Tethys Ocean evolved
into the Paratethys Ocean around 30 million years BCE. It is obvious that the margin of error of these
prehistoric dates (before 3000 B.C.) is scientifically unacceptable, these carbon-14 measurements are only
the result of residual background noise, according to the definition of physicists. One could say that
radiocarbonists measure the weight of a letter with a bathroom scale, or even a truck scale.
According to the biblical account, the earth was surrounded by a canopy of water before the Flood282
(2Pi 3:5-6). Water has the remarkable property of stopping neutrons very effectively, since a 23 mm thick
screen stops 90% of neutrons (and a 46 mm thick screen stops 99%), as nuclear pools have shown.
Therefore, there was no carbon-14 before the Flood283. After the Flood, carbon-14 gradually increased in the
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, then in the water of the oceans, which regularly absorbed it, and an
equilibrium was reached 400 years later around 2800 BCE. If the radiocarbonists had calibrated their 14C
measurements to the double heliacal rise of Sirius and Venus, dated I Akhet 1 (16 July) Year 23 of Djer, and
observed on 18 July 2766 BCE at Abydos, they could have corrected the exponential dating discrepancies.
The Egyptians only observed the heliacal rising of Sirius when it was associated with an exceptional event
such as the victory over the Asiatics in the year 23 of Djer, which moreover coincided with the beginning of
the 365-day civil year.) The periodicity of Sirius being 365.25 days, the Sothic date was the same for four
consecutive years and could therefore be predicted in advance.
For example, a Sothic date was inscribed on an ointment jar. The jar
mentions the “coming of Sopdet [Sirius]” and the date of a heliacal rising of
Sirius on the beaker. The jar has been stylistically dated to the 5th Dynasty.
The inscription, palaeography and astronomical date also indicate the Old
Kingdom (Gautschy, Habicht, Galassi, Rutica, Rühli, Hannig: 2017, 69-108).
The inscription (drawing on the right) from the right column is a nominal
phrase with pw (“this”):
Ointment made for the protection of the year, month 4, Peret-season, for
the forthcoming of Sothis, month 4, Akhet-season it is, made for the 1st
day of the month.
The reason is the “forthcoming” of Sirius at the date: IV Akhet 1. The
Peret date, mentioning the protection of the year may refer to the date of
production of the oil: the ointment would have been produced eight months
in advance of the heliacal rising of Sirius. This is a classic production length
for the sacred oils in Egypt. This inscription confirms two points: 1) the heliac rising of Sirius could be
calculated precisely; 2) it was therefore not necessary to observe it to determine the date. As the heliacal
rising of Sirius took place on 16 July (coinciding with summer solstice) at that time in northern Egypt
(Heliopolis), the equation: IV Akhet 1 = 16 July is verified over the period 2409-2406 BCE during the reign
of Menkaure (2415-2387). Therefore, the civil calendar year in 2410 BCE had begun on I Akhet 1 (18 April)
and the heliacal rising of Sirius had taken place on 16 July (III Akhet 30). The preparation of the ointment
was dated IV Peret (November 2410 BCE) and was intended for the heliacal rising of Sirius on IV Akhet 1
(16 July 2409 BCE). It should be noted, however, that the calculated date of the heliacal rising of Sirius is
sometimes different from the observed date, which depends on three criteria284. The heliacal rising of Sirius
observed, and dated in the Egyptian civil calendar, thus allows us to obtain absolute dates, unlike the 14C.
282
Perhaps in the stratopause where the temperature is at present around 0°C.
283
The method of radiocarbon dating is based on the following reaction: neutron (coming from a cosmic proton of galactic origin) +
14
N (atmosphere) => proton + 14C (half-life 5730 years) => 14N + electron + neutrino. This reaction takes place in the upper
atmosphere but over time an equilibrium is established in the layer of ambient air (98.89% of 12C; 1.11% of 13C; 1.18 10-12 of 14C).
As carbon is present in the molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2) absorbed by all living beings, the rate of 14C is the same for all
organisms that breathe carbon dioxide. When an organism dies the equilibrium with the atmosphere stops and the number of 14C
atoms in its body decreases because of its natural disintegration. It suffices to measure the rate of residual 14C and compare it to the
current average rate knowing that the number of 14C atoms decreases by half every 5730 years following an exponential decrease.
284
The latitude of the place of observation (one day less for each degree of latitude less); the value of the arcus visionis (ca. 8.5° for
Sirius) and the period of observation (one day more for each additional millennium). https://promenade.imcce.fr/fr/pages6/724.html
Comparison of absolute dates and biblical dates
Anyone interested in biblical chronology is quickly confused by the very important disagreements
among experts, both religious and scientific. For example, the universal flood is dated around 2400 BCE,
according to the chronology taken from the Masoretic text. The Jews, who nevertheless use the same Hebrew
text, date this universal flood in the year 1656 of the World Age (Anno Mundi in Latin), i.e. in 2105 BCE (=
-3761 + 1656) as explained in Seder Olam. However, since there are many errors in the copies of this book
(Guggenheimer: 2005, xi-xiii,3-21,237-267), this traditional date has no scientific basis. Finally, the Jews
who had used the biblical text translated into Greek, in 280 BCE (Septuagint), calculated a Deluge date
around 3150 BCE. Because of these incomprehensible discrepancies, the biblical chronology is not taken
seriously and those who try to calculate the date of the Deluge, or the appearance of man on earth, are
ridiculed. For example, James Barr, Professor Emeritus of Biblical Hebrew at Vanderbilt University, editor
of the Journal of Semitic Studies and a strong critic of conservative evangelism, which he attacked in his
book: Escaping from Fundamentalism, began his article on biblical chronology with these words:
I fear that the reading of this paper may lead to my expulsion from this (Royal) Society: for the Society
since its foundation has been expressly devoted to “useful knowledge,” and it is doubtful whether either
Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson would have considered biblical chronology to be useful
knowledge, or indeed to be knowledge at all. The only person I can appeal to for assistance is, perhaps,
Sir Isaac Newton, whom they would both have respected. Newton devoted much time and effort to
biblical chronology, and indeed at one stage, in his early thirties, made it his “dominant concern” and
allow edit to crowd out his work on mechanics, optics, and such things. Moreover, I am encouraged by
a happy recent event: namely, that the well-known scientist Stephen Jay Gould in a recent book has also
gone back to the subject of biblical chronology and indeed has done me the honor of quoting my earlier
writings on this matter. So perhaps I shall not be expelled after all. Anyway, what I want to say is that,
though biblical chronology may in modern times seem to be an area for cranks and crackpots, in older
times it occupied some of the greatest minds. Alongside Newton we may mention Martin Luther, who
wrote a Supputatio annorum mundi or Reckoning of the Years of the World, and the great classical
scholar Joseph Justus Scaliger (1540–1609). In the English-speaking world, however, the most familiar
name is that of James Ussher, archbishop of Armagh in Ireland (1581–1656), who calculated that the
creation of the world took place in the year 4004 b.c. and, to be precise, on Sunday 23 October of that
year. This sounds laughable, but Ussher had worked it all out very carefully, and wrote two thousand
pages of Latin to explain it (Barr: 1999, 379-387).
It is true that today archaeologists consider those who seek to calculate a biblical chronology of the
world are “crackpots”. However, academic prejudice is not scientific evidence. Indeed, many theories of the
past, such as quantum theory or relativity theory, which seemed eccentric at first, have proved to be
rigorously accurate. Therefore, a scientific biblical chronology must satisfy the following criteria: use a
reference text (Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch, or Masoretic text) that comes from a critical edition, make
chronological calculations that are justified (and not assume unfounded chronological corrections), and be in
accordance with the historical chronology based on absolute dates. The first step is to determine what the
reference text for the Bible should be because, while there is a critical edition of the New Testament, there is
still no critical edition of the Old Testament. This is particularly disturbing for chronological calculations
because there were three Pentateuchs in the first century CE, the Septuagint used by Christians, the
Samaritan Pentateuch and the one used by Pharisees in their synagogues, a text that was then standardized by
the rabbis and copied by the Masoretes. Today biblical scholars choose the Masoretic text from the
Leningrad Codex (B19A), dated 1008 CE, as the reference biblical text. This Hebrew text, which is now
universally accepted (except by the Orthodox Church, which has remained faithful to the Greek text of the
Septuagint), is used for chronological calculations, but this choice is problematic for the following reasons:
• Around 25 BCE. The Apocryphal of Genesis is the only text found at Qumran that gives a chronological
indication of this book. The sentence: “Sarai was excessively cautious for 5 years” (1QapGen 19:22) is
identical to that of the Book of Jubilees (13:10-16), which implies that the writer of this apocryphal used
the chronology of the Book of Jubilees, not that of the Hebrew Bible.
• Around 40 CE. Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher, wrote that the Greek text accurately reflected
the Hebrew text (De vita Mosis II:38-40). Certainly, Philo only knew the Septuagint in Greek, but
Flavius Josephus, who also knew Hebrew, is of exactly the same opinion (Jewish Antiquities XII:108-
109). Josephus' opinion is decisive, for he had received rabbinical training on the Bible (Against Apion
I:53-54) and after the fall of the Temple (in 70 CE) he had the privilege of receiving as a gift from Titus
a collection of holy books from the Temple (Autobiography §418). It is obvious that these scrolls
(which could contain some errors) had not been corrected by Pharisee scribes, yet Josephus'
chronological data are the same as those of the Septuagint.
240
• 50-64 CE. Paul's quotations, especially those from the Epistle to the Hebrews, are largely consistent
with the Septuagint text and not with the Masoretic text. For example, in Hebrews 10:5, Paul quotes
Psalms 40:6 according to the Septuagint text: Sacrifice and offering, you did not want it, but you
prepared a body for me, while according to the Masoretic text we read: Sacrifice and offering, you did
not take pleasure in it; you dug my ears. Therefore, since Paul addressed his former co-religionists in
Hebrew to convince them of the accuracy of the Ancestral Law (Acts 22:1-5), if the quoted text had
been wrong, Paul would have made a fool of himself with these experts of the Law.
• Around 62 CE, Luke publishes his gospel and the book of Acts in which he claims to have carried out
meticulous genealogical research and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Lk 1:1-4) and quotes
Qainan, as the Septuagint (Lk 3:36; 1Ch 1:18), which is absent from the Masoretic text. It is not
possible to assume a copying error because the New Testament text comes from a critical edition. Since
his friend Theophilus was the former high priest who served in the temple from 37 to 41 CE, if this
genealogy had been wrong, Luke would have been discredited by Theophilus.
• Around 94 CE. The Pentateuch used by Josephus was written in Hebrew and not Greek (Nodet: 1996, 6-
10), because many of the proper names mentioned in his work have been transcribed directly from
Hebrew and are often different from those of the Septuagint. Although Josephus knew and cited the
Septuagint, he never cited his apocrypha but only those of the Jewish canon of his time, which was
validated by the Yabneh Academy. The Old Testament used by Josephus was therefore in conformity
with the scrolls (in Hebrew) stored in the temple in Jerusalem. However, its chronology of the patriarchs
is like that of the Septuagint text but different from that of the Masoretic text. The difference between
the lengths of the Hebrew and Greek Pentateuch is systematically 100 years, so these are not errors but
corrections (made for doctrinal reasons). The explanation usually given is that “the Jewish translators of
the Septuagint, influenced by Manetho's work, probably increased all the figures in the Hebrew text by
100 years to conform their chronology with its prestigious Egyptian rival” (Larsson: 1983, 401-409).
This explanation is contradicted by the following facts: the Samaritans did not translate their Pentateuch
into Greek since their original remained written in ancient Hebrew, yet their chronology of the
patriarchs agrees with the Septuagint's data and not with those of the Masoretic text. If the Masoretic
text was authoritative, why would the Samaritans have kept a Hebrew text with chronological data close
to those of the Septuagint? All Jewish commentators in the Septuagint pointed out that this Greek
translation of the Pentateuch was identical to its Hebrew model. According to the Letter of Aristeas
(written c. 160 BCE): “The translation was done correctly, with piety and rigorous accuracy” (§§ 310-
311); Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher, wrote (c. 40 CE) that the Greek text accurately
rendered the Hebrew text (De vita Mosis 2:38-40); Josephus confirms this appreciation:
• All the Jews together to the place where the laws were translated, and where the interpreters were, and
read them over. The multitude did also approve of those elders that were the interpreters of the law.
They withal commended Demetrius for his proposal, as the inventor of what was greatly for their
happiness; and they desired that he would give leave to their rulers also to read the law. Moreover, they
all, both the priest and the ancientest of the elders, and the principal men of their commonwealth, made
it their request, that since the interpretation was happily finished, it might continue in the state it now
was, and might not be altered. (Jewish Antiquities XII:108-109)
Can we check these complimentary remarks on the conformity of the Greek text with the Hebrew text?
As the first historical synchronization with secular history begins with Abram, the verification of
chronological data will be performed from Abram in the first part of this analysis, then before Abram in the
second part. There are several independent Jewish transmissions, those of the Septuagint (LXX), Josephus
(FJ), Masoretes (MT), Theophilus of Antioch (TA) and the Seder Olam (SO). Duplication of historical data
permits the finding of errors or corrections (highlighted in orange):
Chronology from: MT LXX FJ TA SO total Period reference
Abraham in Ur 75 75 75 75 75 2038-1963 Gn 12:4-5
Stay in Canaan + Egypt 430 430 430 430 430 430 1963-1533 Ex 12:40-41
Moses (Exodus) 40 40 40 40 40 1533-1493 Ex 16:35
Joshua 110 - 80 110 - 80 110 - 80 27 28 1493-1463 Jos 14:10;24:29
Without Judge [11] [11] 18 - 0 1463-1452 Jos 24:31
Cushan-Rishataim 8 8 8 8 0 1452-1444 Jg 3:8
Othniel 40 40/50 40 40 40 1444-1404 Jg 3:11
Eglon 18 18 18 18 18 1404-1386 Jg 3:14
Ehud 80 80 [80] 8 80 1386-1306 Jg 3:30
Madian 7 7 7 7 7 1306-1299 Jg 6:1
Gideon 40 40 40 40 40 1299-1259 Jg 8:28
Abimelech 3 3 3 3 3 1259-1256 Jg 9:22
241 COMPARISON OF ABSOLUTE DATES AND BIBLICAL DATES
Tola 23 23 [23] 23 23 1256-1233 Jg 10:2
Jair 22 22 22 22 22 1233-1211 Jg 10:3
Anarchy 18 18 18 18 18 1211-1193 Jg 10:8
Total of 300* = 300 300 307 214 287 300 Jg 11:26,30
Jephthah 6 6/60 6 6 6 1193-1187 Jg 12:7
Ibzan 7 7 7 7 7 1187-1180 Jg 12:9
Elon 10 10 10 10 10 1180-1170 Jg 12:11
Abdon 8 [8] [8] 8 8 1170-1162 Jg 12:14
[Eli] Philistines 40 20/40 40 40 40 1162-1122 1Sa 4:18
Samson 20 20 20 20 20 1122-1102 Jg 16:31
Samuel's sons [5] [5] 12 12 10 1102-1097 1Sa 8:1-3
Saul [40] [40] 20/40 20 3 1097-1057 Ac 13:21
David 40 40 40 40 40 1057-1017 1Ki 2:11
Solomon (year 4) 4 4 4 4 4 1017-1013 1Ki 6:1
Total of 480* = 480 440 (474) (467) (448) 480 1Ki 6:1
Solomon 40 40 80 40 40 1017 - 977 1Ki 11:42
Roboam 17 17 17 17 17 977-960 1Ki 14:21
Abiyam 3 6 3 7 3 960-957 1Ki 15:2
Asa 41 41 41 41 41 957-916 1Ki 15:10
Josaphat 25 - 2 25 - 2 25 - 2 25 - 2 25 - 2 916-893 1Ki 22:42
Joram 8 10 8 8 8 893-885 2Ki 8:17
[Athaliah] 7-1 7-1 7-1 6 7+1 885-879 2Ki 11:4
Joas 40 40 40 40 40 879-839 2Ki 12:2
Amasiah 29 29 29 39 22 839-810 2Ki 14:2
Uziah 52 52 52 52 52 810-758 2Ki 15:2
Yotham 16 16 16 16 16 758-742 2Ki 15:33
Achaz 16 16 16 17 16 742-726 2Ki 16:2
Hezekiah 29 29 29 29 29 726-697 2Ki 18:2
Manasseh 55 55 55 55 55 697-642 2Ki 21:1
Amon 2 2 2 2 2 642-640 2Ki 21:19
Josiah 31 31 31 31 31 640-609 2Ki 22:1
Joiaqim 11 11 11 11 11 609-598 2Ki 23:36
Zedekiah 11 11 11 11 11 598-587 2Ki 24:18
Total of 390* = 390 190* 390 (405) (385) 390 Ezk 4:5-6
The chronology of Theophilus of Antioch is considered of Hebrew origin because he used several
figures closer to the Masoretic text and Seder Olam rather than to the Greek text of the Septuagint (as for
example 6 years for Joram instead of 8 and 40 years for Eli instead of 20). There are two ways to check the
accuracy of these numbers: events dated in several chronologies must give the same date and the sum of all
the intermediate periods must correspond to the value indicated in the biblical text. The first stage of
verification showed that for the period from Abraham to Zedekiah only the Masoretic text contains no
chronological inconsistencies.
The transmission of many historical and chronological data (reigns, lifetimes, long periods, etc.) as well
as many proper names, is necessarily flawed, unless one believes in an unlikely infallibility of scribes. The
biblical text, although it has been exceptionally well transmitted, is no exception. Certain ancient Near
Eastern texts develop over time towards a reasonably stable state of transmission. However, the development
towards a single ‘stabilised’ transmitted form that marks the biblical manuscripts between the 2nd century
BCE and 2nd century CE is often considered to permit the Hebrew bible to have a unique position in the
ancient Near Eastern textual corpus. A study compared the accuracy with which ancient texts of varying
genres and languages were transmitted285 (Hobson: 2009). This study showed that the most stable texts
surveyed are those containing ritual instructions, which led, for example, to the exact transmission of the
Torah in the late Second Temple period. When one knows the difficulty of establishing a reliable
chronology, this agreement proves that the chronological data transmission has been remarkable. The second
means of checking is derived from the comparison between the sum of the intermediate values and the total
value indicated in the text.
• Period of 390 years (Ezk 4:4-6) from the 1st year of Roboam to the 11th of Zedekiah. The Masoretic
text has preserved the exact total value (Barthélemy: 1992, 22-23) because the sum of all the reigns is
285
Texts from the Neo-Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian and Late Babylonian periods that range in date from the late 8th century BCE to
the 3rd century BCE and Torah scrolls from the Dead Sea area that range in date from the 3rd century BCE to the 2nd century CE.
Texts that have been preserved in more than one ancient copy have been compared to determine how much variation occurs between
manuscripts of the same text. The accuracy with which the cuneiform texts were transmitted has been then compared with the
biblical evidence.
242
actually 390 years286 which is not the case of the 190 years indicated in the Septuagint. This period
begins when the 40-year reign of Solomon (1Ki 11:42) ended by the schism of his kingdom into Israel
and Judah. This rebellion (977 BCE) considered as a fault (1Ki 12:19) ended with the destruction of the
Temple (587 BCE). Otherwise, the 190 years of the Septuagint would have begun when the northern
kingdom disappeared (720 BCE) and would have ended at the beginning of the rebuilding of the
Temple (537 BCE). But in this case the calculation is: 720 - 537 = 183 years, not 190 years. As a result,
this duration has been changed in the Greek text for theological reasons. Similarly, the period from
Abiyam to Athaliah which is complex because of two co-regencies was also recalculated (Nolen Jones:
2007, 12-13). As the books of Ezekiel and Kings were translated during the period 190-160 BCE (Harl
/Munnich /Dorival: 1988, 111) this indicates that the Jews of that time were already producing
chronological changes and not copy errors.
• Period of 480 years since the departure from Egypt to the 4th year of Solomon (1Ki 6:1). The Masoretic
text has preserved the exact value of 480 years because the sum of all the reigns is 480 years287 which is
not the case of the 440 years indicated in the Septuagint. The value of Saul's reign in Acts 13:21, which
appeared in 1Samuel 13:1 can be deduced from the biography of Ishbaal, a son of Saul, who was born at
the beginning of the reign of his father (1Ch 8:33) since he was 40 years old after the death of Saul (2Sa
2:10). Josephus hesitated between 20 and 40 years (Jewish Antiquities VI:378, X:143) also in the sum
of the reigns (Jewish Antiquities VIII:61, XX:230). The Sinai desert belonged to Egypt because it was
in front the Wadi of Egypt, which marked the border (2Ki 24:7). The Israelites were out of Egypt when
they passed this wadi and therefore after 40 years in the desert288. According to this scheme, we obtain:
y + 475 = 480, which gives y = 5 years. The translators of the Septuagint who knew this period of 480
years, beginning with the departure from Egypt after 40 years in the desert, subtracted it, instead of
adding it, to obtain 440 years (= 480 - 40). According to the Talmud (Megilla 72cd), the duration of the
conquest of Canaan would have been 7 years and the one of the sanctuary of Shiloh 369 years, which
gives: 480 = (7* + 369* + 20 + 40 + 40 + 4)289.
• Period of 300 years from the departure from Egypt to the vow of Jephthah (Jg 11:26,30). The value of
300 years corresponds to the sum of all the reigns290. Caleb and Joshua were 40 years old at the
beginning of the exodus and therefore 80 afterwards (Jos 14:7). As Joshua died at the age of 110 (Jos
24:29) he must have stayed 30 years in Canaan. The period that followed [11] is not specified but can be
estimated. Indeed, the generation that came into Canaan with Joshua had to take possession of the land
(Jg 2:6-10). But as the previous generation had lasted 40 years (Nb 32:13), this suggests that: [40] = 30
+ x, x = 10. In fact the exact calculation gives x = 11.
• Period of 430 years for the stay in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan (Ex 12:40-41). The last
part “and in the land of Canaan” found in the Septuagint is missing in the Masoretic text. As it is also
found in the Samaritan Pentateuch written in Paleo-Hebrew, which is consistent with the context
indicating that this period of 430 years is the whole stay of the son of Israel out of the Mosaic covenant
(Ga 3:17), it had to be in the original text. This period consists of two parts: the first one starting with
Abrahamic covenant quickly followed by the bullying of Ishmael over Isaac (Gn 21:9) and ending with
the arrival of Jacob in Egypt and a second period starting with the bondage in Egypt and ending with the
Exodus. This chronological account was known because it was quoted by the Jewish chronograph
Demetrius (c. 220 BCE) who calculated that the stay in Egypt was 215 years (Evangelical Preparation
IX:21). The same value appears in a book written in Hebrew (150-50) found at Qumran, called the
Testament of Amram (Berthelot /Legrand: 2010, 207-209). However according to Josephus (c. 95 CE):
the residence in Egypt lasted 400 years (Jewish Antiquities I:185), or: 205 years (Jewish Antiquities
II:318). According to the Seder Olam (c. 160 CE): the residence in Egypt lasted 210 years because of
the lifetime of Job or maybe 400 years according to Genesis 15:13 (Guggenheimer: 2005, 37-39).
The changes of durations in the Septuagint, 390 years (Ezk 4:4-6) and 480 years (1Ki 6:1), show that
the Jews of that time were already doing chronological corrections for theological reasons. The chronology
of the period from the deluge to Abraham is based solely on the 17 verses of Genesis 11:10-26 (not found at
Qumran) and has only one synchronism with the Babylonian chronology: the Deluge (c. -3200 +/- 200). The
Masoretic text is used to establish the scientific chronology of the Bible, but there are significant differences
(highlighted in red) among the various recensions of the Pentateuch (traditional dates of original writing are
286
390 = 17 + 3 + 41 + (25 – 2) + 8 + (7 – 1) + 40 + 29 + 52 + 16 + 16 + 29 + 55 + 2 + 31 + 11 + 11.
287
480 = 300 + 6 + 7 + 10 + 8 + 40 + 20 + [5] + [40] + 40 + 4.
288
The Israelites who died in the wilderness (Nb 26:65) had desired repeatedly to die in Egypt (Ex 14:11; 16:3). This paradoxical
desire has been fulfilled.
289
In fact: 480 = 5 + 366 + 20 + 5 + 40 + 40 + 4. The conquest of Canaan lasted 5 years and the sanctuary of Shiloh 366 years (=
1488 - 1122) because it is installed just after the conquest of Canaan (Jos 18:1), in 1488 BCE, and disappeared at the death of the
high priest Eli (1Sa 4:1-7:1) in 1122 BCE.
290
300 = (110 - 80) + [11] + 8 + 40 + 18 + 80 + 7 + 40 + 3 + 23 + 22 + 18.
in brackets): Septuagint (LXX), Book of Jubilees (Jub.), Samaritan Pentateuch (SP), New Testament (NT),
Flavius Pentateuch (FJ), Masoretic Text (MT) and Seder Olam (SO):
From the Deluge to LXX (-280) Jub. (-160) SP (-130) NT (65) MT (90) FJ (95) SO (160)
Sem fathered 2 2 2 [2] 2 12 2
Arpakshad fathered 135 [-]35 135 [135] [-]35 135 [-]35
Kainan fathered 130 [-]30 [---] [130] [---] [---] [---]
Shelah fathered 130 57 130 [130] [-]30 130 [-]30
Eber fathered 134 71 134 [134] [-]34 134 [-]34
Peleg fathered 130 64 130 [130] [-]30 130 [-]30
Reu fathered 132 12 132 [132] [-]32 132 [-]32
Serug fathered 130 108 130 [130] [-]30 130 [-]30
Nahor I fathered 79 57 79 [79] 29 120 29
Terah fathered 70 62 70 [70] 70 70 70
Nahor II291 / Abraham (+60) 70 (+60) (+60) (+60)
Total: 1132 1002 352 1053
(Date of the deluge): (-3170) (-3040) (-2390) (-3030)
Normally, according to the usual rules of textual criticism, when the Greek text of the Septuagint and
the Hebrew Samaritan Pentateuch both agree against the Masoretic text, this common text must be retained.
This is even truer when there is a third important witness of weight: the Hebrew Pentateuch of Josephus
(Nodet: 1996, 72-83). It is obvious that the text of the Septuagint kept the original Hebrew version because
according to the Masoretic text the deluge took place around 2400 BCE implying an absurd consequence: the
pharaohs of Dynasties IV (2523-2385) and V (2385-2255), whose reigns can be dated by astronomy thanks
to the alignment of their pyramids, not only never underwent any flood (if the Flood had taken place at that
time all the Egyptians should have died!) but didn’t even see it.
The Masoretic text goes back to a Hebrew original (H*) written around 400 BCE but was later
canonized at the academy of Yabneh around 90-110 CE (Freedman: 1962, 91). Christian quotes of the Old
Testament are similar (90%) to the text of the Septuagint even when they have important theological
implications292. The Masoretic text did not yet authority at that time (during 50-100 CE). The biblical
manuscripts from Qumran (all dated before 70 CE) are composed of 60% of pre-Masoretic texts, 20%
Qumran style, 10% of non-aligned texts, 5% of texts supporting the Septuagint and 5% texts based on the
Samaritan Pentateuch (Schiffman: 2003, 187-192). This statistic293 shows that the Masoretic text was the
most prevalent (among the Essenes), but prior to 70 CE other recensions existed. The Masoretic version of
chapters 1-11 of Genesis is currently preferred only because of Methuselah who would have died 14 years
after the flood, according to the chronology of the Septuagint, which is obviously absurd (Hendel: 1998, 61-
80). No Hebrew manuscript of this part of Genesis was found at Qumran, thus its pre-Masoretic version is
not known, but the chronological reconstruction implies the existence of a Hebrew text (H*) near the
Septuagint294. We know that this Hebrew text was revised very early (Tov: 1992, 11, 32-35, 168, 190-197),
but it is unclear whether the corrections made by the scribes have preserved the original or, in contrast,
“canonized” an altered form295. This analysis must be performed book by book, because the Hebrew rolls of
Jeremiah (4QJerb) and Samuel (4QSama), for example, and dated c. 250-150 BCE, are closer to the text of
the Septuagint than the Masoretic text (Mébarki, Puech: 2002, 178-184). It is the opposite for the Hebrew
rolls of Exodus (4QpaleoExm) and Numbers (4QNbb). Textual criticism now favours an anteriority of the
Septuagint text Vorlage (H*) on the proto-Masoretic (Richelle: 2010, 70, 121-125) which comes from an
overhaul of this Vorlage, including chronological data from the text of Genesis 5:3-31; 8:13-14, 11:10-26
(Tov: 1992, 337-338). Several verses were changed in the Greek version either because they were felt
potentially offensive, resulting in a reduction of meaning to “protect” the text, or because they were too
291
Abraham was born 60 years after Nahor II (60 + 70 = 205 - 75), because when he left Haran at the age of 75, his father Terah had
just died at the age of 205 years (Gn 11:32-12:4).
292
As the rank of Qaïnan (Lk 3:36 # Gn 10:24). This Qaïnan (Kainam) also appears in the Book of Jubilees (Jub. 8:2) and is different
from the other Kenan (Jub. 4:14). There are also angels who pay homage (Heb 1:6; Dt 32:43 #), a body to be sacrificed (Heb 10:5; Ps
40:6 #), the nations that hope in His name (Mt 12:21 # Is 42:4), etc. There are also some cases contrary: my son (Ho 11:1 = Mt 2:15),
whom they have pierced (Zc 12:10 = Jn 19:37), etc.
293
In fact, this statistic artificially lowers the proportion attributed to the LXX because only differences being characteristic, the
Masoretic text being used as a reference (strictly speaking one should compare all the texts in relation to an original text restored).
294
Luke began his Gospel with the following remark: after carefully going over the whole story from the beginning (Lk 1:1) Shelah,
son of Cainan (Lk 3:36 = Gn 10:24).
295
The essential element that currently hinders textual criticism is the difficulty in detecting corrections, because if copy errors are
detectable by cross-checking between several manuscripts, this is not possible with corrections. For example we know that Jewish
copyists corrected the Biblical text through Rabbinic lists, but on a list of 15 or 16 referred “alterations” only 4 or 5 remain in our
manuscripts (Harl /Munnich /Dorival: 1988, 203-210). The Jerusalem Talmud (Megilla 71d), for example, reported 13 amendments
(including those of Genesis 2:2 and Exodus 12:40) made for King Ptolemy II (to 280 BCE).
244
difficult to understand. For example, according to Genesis 2:2: God concluded the 7th day his work which he
had made, and, on the 7th, he rested after all the work he had done (it seems paradoxical that God stops
working at the beginning of the 7th day) has been simplified in the text of the Septuagint: And God ended
the 6th day his work which he had done, and he rested on the 7th day from all his work which he had made.
There were also 18 scribes’ corrections of the Hebrew text called: tiqqune Sopherim (Pfertzel: 2004).
What complicates things is that the process of corrections and copying was spread over several
centuries. Although he preferred the Masoretic text, D. Barthélemy, a leading scholar of textual criticism,
explained296 that this was a religious choice because the Catholic Church, which had canonised the
Septuagint and used it until 400 CE, had then canonised the Masoretic text under the influence of Saint
Jerome, who defended a “veritas hebraicas”. E. Tov, another leading scholar of textual criticism, also
recognized that scrolls from Qumran support, in many cases, the text of the Septuagint (Tov: 1992, 114-117).
Differences in durations being 100 years they are not errors but (theological) corrections which are poorly
understood. The explanation usually given is as follows: Jewish translators of the Septuagint, influenced by
the work of Manetho, would have increased by 100 years the numbers of the Hebrew text to conform their
chronology to its prestigious Egyptian rival (Larsson: 1983, 401-409), but this is not consistent with the
historical context. Indeed, at this time, Hellenism was triumphant and the initiative of Ptolemy II to enrich
his famous library of Alexandria has encouraged foreign scholars to promote their own history. This is not a
coincidence if at this time (280 BCE) the Egyptian priest Manetho, the Babylonian priest Berosus and the
Israelite priests in Alexandria all seized the opportunity offered to them to write their “national” history.
Berosus accused the Greeks of his time (not the Egyptians) of ignoring Babylonian history (Against Apion
I:142). These historians wrote for Greeks not for Egyptians, they did not need to increase their chronology.
The durations in Genesis were not corrected by the translators of the Septuagint since they existed in ancient
Hebrew manuscripts from this period as evidenced by the text of the Samaritan Pentateuch297 written in
paleo-Hebrew around 150-100 BCE (Tov & als: 2003, 239). It is interesting to note that Paul, a converted
Jew and Hebrew-speaking (Ac 21:40), recognizing that some of his former coreligionists distrusted him,
mostly cited in his letter to the Hebrews (c. 60 CE), a text close to the Septuagint (Heb 1:6; 10:27, 11:5,
12:13), not the Masoretic text, without arousing criticism from these former Jews. Genealogies were a
sensitive issue for Jews of the first century (1Ti 1:4, Tt 3:9). Now all these recensions are consistent, apart
from the Masoretic text. Luke and Josephus insist on the accuracy of their information. Luke specifies: I
resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them in logical order to
you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know fully the certainty of the things that you have been
taught orally (Lk 1:3-4). However, he cites Qaïnan in his genealogy (Luke 3:36 = LXX Genesis 11:12). How
could these two famous writers use a different genealogy of the official Hebrew text without being roundly
criticized? This was not the case. The Jews therefore revised early a few verses for theological reasons
(perhaps as early as the setting of the text by Ezra towards 400 BCE).
Chronology is essential for testing the accuracy of a document. First Jewish chronographs such as
Demetrius (c. 220 BCE) and Eupolemus (c. 160 BCE) dated all the major biblical events from the creation of
Adam, or by age of the world (AM). However, in the Book of Jubilees (c. 160-150 BCE) the whole biblical
story is dated by jubilees of 49 years instead of 50 (Lv 25:10-11). The Book of Biblical Antiquities (LAB),
written by a Jew (pseudo-Philo) between 80 BCE and 70 CE (Perrot, Bogaert: 1976, 74, 81-92), still had
chronological data in agreement with those of the Septuagint. Finally, the Seder Olam (SO) permanently
fixed (c. 160 CE) Jewish chronology, in agreement with the Masoretic text. The Septuagint (LXX),
completed around 160-150 BCE, the Masoretic Text (TM), around 90 CE, and the work of Josephus (FJ), in
296
This is from an anti-apocalyptic, anti-sapiential, but especially anti-Christian controversy that is due the elimination of a crucial
portion at the closing of the tradition in 100 CE, that is to say, a large part of sapiential and apocalyptic materials. Never a Christian
theologian should adopt the Masoretic canon, because there is a significant break in the continuity which leads to the New Testament.
It seems to me that among the influences that humanism has exerted on the Reformation, one of the most far-reaching was the
confusion that has been established between the Pharisaical reducing of the Canon and the Masoretic textual tradition in which one
returned as a ‘humanist’ source. Gese before Origen had protested against the project that would, indeed, be one of Jerome (Letter to
Africanus §4s): « And, forsooth, when we notice such things, we are immediately to reject as spurious the copies in use in our
Churches, and enjoin the brotherhood to put away the sacred books current among them, and to coax the Jews, and persuade them to
give us copies which shall be untampered with, and free from forgery! Are we to suppose that that Providence which in the sacred
Scriptures has ministered to the edification of all the Churches of Christ, did not take care of those bought with a price, for whom
Christ died ». This preliminary comment is used to justify the choice of the biblical Committee: When the Committee of the Alliance
Biblique Universelle specified that it was responsible for the textual analysis of the Hebrew Old Testament, it intended to leave the
door open to a similar study which could focus on textual analysis of the Greek old Testament (...) It is out of fidelity to tradition that
has dominated since Jerome in the Churches of the West that the Committee focused its efforts on the Hebrew text. It was indeed to
help churches which have used it, since Jerome, to translate their Old Testament from Hebrew. But the Committee felt more clearly
the need not to spoil the Septuagint to edit the Masoretic Text. Thus the biblical Committee privileged (religious) tradition because of
the Churches, while recognizing that the text of the Septuagint should be better taken into account (Barthélemy: 1982, 110*-111*).
297
Origen points, towards 250 CE, the existence of a Greek version of the Samaritan Pentateuch, but according to E. Tov this
Samariticon would be a translation of a Samaritan revision of the LXX rather than a translation (late) of the Samaritan text.
95 CE, have very different chronological data (Hughes: 1990, 57, 267-272). Those for the period from Adam
to Deluge come from Genesis 5:3-31 and those from the Deluge to Abraham in Genesis 11:10-26:
H* LXX Jub. SP LAB MT FJ SO
(-400) (-280) (-160) (-130) (50?) (90) (95) (160)
Adam 230/700 230/700 130/800 130/800 [130]/700 130/800 230/700 130/800
Seth 205/707 205/707 105/[--] 105/807 105/707 105/807 205/707 108/[--]
Enosh 190/715 190/715 [-]90/[--] [-]90/815 180/715 [-]90/815 190/715 [-]90/[--]
Qenan 170/740 170/740 [-]70/[--] [-]70/840 170/730 [-]70/840 170/740 [-]70/[--]
Mahalaleel 165/730 165/730 [-]66/[--] [-]65/830 165/730 [-]65/830 165/730 [-]68/[--]
Yered 162/800 162/800 [-]61/[--] [-]62/785 162/800 162/800 162/800 162/[--]
Henok 165/200 165/200 [-]65/[--] [-]65/300 165/200 [-]65/300 165/200 [-]65/[--]
Mathusalem 187/782 167/802 [-]65/[--] [-]67/653 187/782 187/782 187/782 187/782
Lamek 182/565 188/565 152/[--] [-]53/600 182/585 182/595 [-]82/625 182/[--]
Noah 600/350 600/350 608/342 600/350 300/[--] 600/350 600/350 600/350
Adam-Deluge - - 1308 - 1652 - 1662 1656
[Total] [2256] [2242] [1412] [1307] [1746] [1656] [2156] [1662]
Sem 100/500 100/500 103/[-] 100/500 [-]/[-] 100/500 [100]/[-] 100/500
Deluge-Sem 2 2 2 2 2 12 2
Arpakshad 135/403 135/430 [-]35/[-] 135/303 [-]/[-] [-]35/403 135/[-] [-]35/[-]
Kainan 130/330 130/330 [-]30/[-] - - - -
Shelah 130/303 130/330 57/[-] 130/303 [-]/[-] [-]30/403 130/[-] [-]30/[-]
Eber 134/370 134/370 71/[-] 134/270 [-]/[-] [-]34/430 134/[-] [-]34/[-]
Peleg 130/209 130/209 64/[-] 130/209 [-]/[-] [-]30/209 130/[-] [-]30/[-]
Reu 132/207 132/207 12/[-] 132/207 [-]/119 [-]32/207 132/[-] [-]32/[-]
Serug 130/200 130/200 108/[-] 130/100 29/67 [-]30/200 130/[-] [-]30/[-]
Nahor I 79/129 79/129 57/[-] 79/[-]69 34/200 29/119 120/[-] 29/[-]
Terah 70/135 70/135 62/[-] 70/65 70/[-] 70/135 70/135 70/135
Nahor II (+60) (+60) 70/[-] (+60) (+60) (+60) (+60)
Deluge-Abraham - - - - - 992 -
[Total] [1072] [1072] [568] [942] [292] [993] [292]
H* LXX Dem. Jub. Eup. SP LAB MT FJ SO
(-400) (-280) (-220) (-160) (-158) (-130) (50?) (90) (95) (160)
Deluge (AM) [2256] 2242 2264 1308 [1307] 2146* [1656] 2156* 1656
Abraham (AM) [3328] [3314] 3334 1876 2064 [2309] [2008] [3208] [2008]
Abraham (BCE) [2038] [2038] [2038] 3243 [2038] [2038] [2038] [2038]
Adam (BCE) 5352 5372 4118 5307 4347 4046 5246 4046
According to this reconstruction of chronological data, corrections were performed in two steps: after
the onset of the Book of Jubilees (c. 160 BCE) durations in Genesis 5:3-31 were reduced by 100 years and
were adopted by a part of the Jews, such as Eupolemus, and by the Samaritans and then, in the academy of
Yabneh (c. 90-110 CE), durations in Genesis 11:10-26 were also reduced by 100 years and were canonized
by the rabbis298 (Pharisees). Errors (in red) are detectable because: they are random and/or they affect a
written total and/or create inconsistencies in the order of events. Methuselah is a good example: he would
have fathered Lamech at the age of 167 and would have still lived 802 years, which generates chronological
inconsistency, because in that case he would have survived the Flood by 14 years [= 802 - (188 + 600)]. It is
indeed an error since Demetrius (c. 220 BCE) dated the flood in 2264 AM (year of the world) instead of
2242 AM, 20 years later than in the text of the Septuagint. The couple 167/802 therefore comes from a
change: (187 - 20)/(782 + 20), Methuselah would have died the year of the flood (782 = 182 + 600). The
Samaritan Pentateuch corrected this error by drawing on the Book of Jubilees making Lamech die at the time
the flood as well as Methuselah (653 = 53+600, 600 = 565+35, 53 = 88 - 35). Similarly, as Abraham is
mentioned first among the son of Nahor II, the copyists of the Samaritan Pentateuch assumed he would have
been the first-born and therefore decreased the age of Nahor II from 135 to 65 (= 135 - 70). The first 100-
year shifts appeared after the restoration of the Temple (c. 160 BCE), profaned by Antiochus IV Epiphanes,
seen as a prophetic fulfilment of Daniel 9299. The Pentateuch (Temple) was copied by Sadducean scribes
while those used in synagogues were copied by Pharisean scribes. A scribe (Pharisee) at this time had such
prestige that he was called scribe of justice (1Enoch 12:4; 15:1). We note that the paternities greater than 130
years have all been reduced by 100 years, they have in fact been “Hellenized”, in agreement with the text of
Genesis 18:12 assuming a maximum of 100 years (prodigious ages were accepted, because they
298
There were disagreements between Pharisees and former Sadducees regarding "genuine" holy texts (M. Yadaim 4:6-8).
299
Josephus, a former Pharisee, applied Daniel's prophecy to Antiochus IV for proving God's providence (Jewish Antiquities X:276).
246
corresponded to heroic times of Greek mythology). But in order not to change the final age of the characters,
their remaining lifetime was increased by 100 years. If the Jewish scribes of the Septuagint (c. 280 BCE) had
corrected the text by increasing all ages 100 years, the age of Nahor should be 129 years instead of 79 and
the ages of Yered, Methuselah, Lamech and Noah would have been 100 years higher.
Genesis 5:3-31 H* (-400) LXX (-280) Jub. (-160) SP (-130) MT (90) FJ (95)
Adam 230/700 230/700 130/800 130/800 130/800 230/700
Seth 205/707 205/707 105/[--] 105/807 105/807 205/707
Enosh 190/715 190/715 [-]90/[--] [-]90/815 [-]90/815 190/715
Qenan 170/740 170/740 [-]70/[--] [-]70/840 [-]70/840 170/740
Mahalaleel 165/730 165/730 [-]66/[--] [-]65/830 [-]65/830 165/730
Yered 162/800 162/800 [-]61/[--] [-]62/785 162/800 162/800
Henok 165/200 165/200 [-]65/[--] [-]65/300 [-]65/300 165/200
Mathusalem 187/782 167/802 [-]65/[--] [-]67/653 187/782 187/782
Lamek 182/565 188/565 152/[--] [-]53/600 182/595 [-]82/625
Noah 600/350 600/350 608/342 600/350 600/350 600/350
Adam-Deluge - - 1308 - - 1662
[sum] [2256] [2242] [1412] [1307] [1656] [2156]
The chronology of the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) for the first period, from Adam to the Flood, is similar
to that of the Book of Jubilees since the total is 1307 years in line with the 1308 years indicated in the Book
of Jubilees (while the calculated sum is 1412 years!). This coincidence is not accidental because whereas the
worship in the Temple had been restored thanks to the heroic sacrifices of the Maccabees, the choice of the
high priest however had led to a disagreement about his legitimacy and various reactions of support or
rejection (the great priest being considered impious) according to religious groups: Pharisees, Sadducees,
Essenes and Samaritans (Jewish Antiquities XIII:171-172) or political groups: Hasmoneans, Hellenists and
Maccabeans. This split had a significant impact on the copying of the biblical text300. In addition, the
legitimacy of high priests was no longer respected, and a new biblical chronology appeared at the beginning
of the Book of Jubilees301.
300
Indeed, while Ezra the priest had initiated the copying process of the Law (Ezr 7:6-12), this task was then assigned to the Levites
(Ne 13:13). Although the Samaritans are syncretic, like the Jews of Elephantine, they were not related to the Gentiles (2Ki 17:24-41).
During the Jewish uprising Judah Maccabee used Samaria as his rear base (2M 15:1) which meant support in that region. Similarly,
Jews and Samaritans were both associated because during the repression by the Greeks the temples of Jerusalem and Gerizim are
both desecrated (2M 6:2). The period 168-128 BCE is extremely complex because the reports of different religious groups with the
authorities fluctuated between support and rejection regarding the high priest chosen by the Greek power. Thus, Antiochus IV
deposed the high priest Onias III (185-175) and replaced him with Jason (175-172) who was also deposed and replaced by Menelaus
(172-164) who was not Sadducee “son of Zadoc”, which was a violation of biblical law (Ezk 40:46). Menelaus then had murdered
Onias III (170 BCE) which led Jason to go into Egypt (168 BCE) and Onias IV, the son of Onias III, to found a temple in
Leontopolis (Is 19:19). Antiochus V deposed Menelaus and replaced him with Alcimus (164-161) who was considered illegitimate
and was replaced by Jonathan (161-143) by Judah Maccabee. Confusion regarding the high priest climaxed in 161 BCE since Jason
was accepted by the Sadducees but considered illegitimate by the Pharisees and Samaritans who only recognized Jonathan (the
Essenes were more radical by rejecting this high priest as impious because of Onias IV the only high priest belonging to the
legitimate branch). During the period 168-128 appeared a Rabbinic version of the Bible, copied by scribes of the Pharisees (Mk
2:16), alongside the priestly version copied by Sadducees. These two versions differed only on theological issues such as the role of
the temple, the legitimacy of the high priest and the eschatological chronology. The creation of the world is dated 2450 years prior to
entry into Canaan (Jubilees 50:4), instead of 3604 years (LXX). The rabbinical version appeared at the same time as the texts of
Daniel (in Greek) and Sirach, while now applying the murder of the Messiah (Dn 9:25-27) to Onias III (1M 1:54).
301
This is the history of the division of the days of the law and of the testimony, of the events of the years, of their weeks, of their
jubilees throughout all the world's years, which the Lord told Moses on Mount Sinai when he went up there to receive the tables of
the law and the commandment (...) God said: Listen to everything that I'm going to tell you on this mountain, and write it in a book.
This is so that their generations will know that I have not abandoned them despite all the evil which they do by disobeying the
covenant which I will establish this day on Mount Sinai between you and me for their generations. So then when all these things
happen to them, they will realize that I am more honourable than they are in all their judgments and their actions, and they will
realize that I have been straightforward with them. Indeed, you are to write down everything I tell you this day. I know their
rebellious, stubborn nature. I will bring them to the land I promised to their ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I said to them: I
am giving a land flowing with milk and honey to your descendants. They will eat and be full, and they will turn to strange gods, to
gods which cannot rescue them from any of their troubles. This will be heard as a witness against them. They will forget all my
commandments. They will forget everything that I commanded them. They will live like pagans, and be ritually unclean, and
disgraceful, and will serve their gods. This will prove to be an offence, an ordeal, an affliction, and a trap to them. Many will die and
many will be taken captive. Many will fall into the hands of the enemy, because they have abandoned my decrees, my
commandments, the festivals of my covenant, my Sabbaths, and my sacred place which I consecrated for myself amongst them, and
my tabernacle, my sanctuary which I consecrated for myself amongst them (...) I will send witnesses to them to bear witness against
them. However, they will not listen to them, and furthermore will kill the witnesses too. They will persecute those who seek the law,
and they will annul or change everything in order to do evil in my sight. I will turn my face from them, and I will hand them over as
captives to the pagans, to be made victims, to be devoured. I will remove them from the land. I will scatter them among the pagans.
They will forget all my laws, commandments, and judgments, and will go off the right path with regard to new moons. Sabbaths,
festivals, jubilees, and decrees (Nyland: 2010, 7-8).
According to this historical retrospective, the original Hebrew text of the Pentateuch was considered by
the Jews to be the same as the Septuagint, at least until the end of the first century CE, controversies over
falsification appearing with Christians and Samaritans after 150 CE. The Hebrew text, including its
chronology, was influenced by the religious literature of its time as evidenced by some differences between
the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint. At the academy of Yabneh (90-110 CE) the canon of the Old
Testament was fixed (MT) by the Rabbis of this time (Pharisees). Afterwards texts in agreement with the
Septuagint were not used anymore by Jewish authorities and were, from 90 to 135 CE, censored and
ostracized (Bodi: 2007, 57-81).
THE PERIOD OF KINGS (1097-517 BCE)

1057 977 960 957 916 893 885 879 839 810 758 742 726 697 642 640 627 609 598 588 587 539 538 l 517
a b c d e f g h i j
40 40 17 3 41 23 8 6 40 29 52 16 16 29 55 2 13 18 11 10 1 l
40
390 70
70
18x50 50
a) End of Solomon's 40-year reign (1Ki 11:42) in 977 BCE. The splitting of his kingdom in two parts
(Israel and Judah) marked the start of a 390-year period that would end with the destruction of
Jerusalem (see §c). His successors would be Rehoboam: 17 years of reign (1Ki 14:21), Abijam: 3 years
of reign (1Ki 15:1-2) and Asa: 41 years of reign (1Ki 15:9-10).
b) Jehoshaphat ruled for 25 years (1Ki 22:41-42), but we must remove the 2-year co-regency with his son
Jehoram who became king in Jehoshaphat's 23rd year of reign, and not after the 25th year. This can be
checked: Jehoram, king of Judah, who ruled for 8 years, became king in the 5th year of Jehoram, king of
Israel (2Ki 8:16-17), whose rule had begun in the 18th year of Jehoshaphat (2Ki 3:1); 18 + 5 do amount
to 23. After the death of Jehoram, king of Judah, Athaliah ruled for 6 years (2Ki 11:3), then Jehoash for
40 years (2Ki 12:1), Jehoahaz for 17 years (2Ki 13:1), Amasiah for 29 years (2Ki 14:2), Uzziah for 52
years (2Ch 26:3), Jotham for 16 years (2Ki 15:32-33), Ahaz for 16 years (2Ki 16:2), Hezekiah for 29
years (2Ki 18:1-2), Manasseh for 55 years (2Ki 21:1), Amon for 2 years (2Ki 21:19), and Josiah for 31
(= 13 + 18) years (2Ki 22:1).
c) The fall of Samaria began in Year 4 of Hezekiah (2Ki 18:9-10) and ended in his Year 6 corresponding
to Year 2 of Sargon II (720 BCE). There were 65 years between the annexation of Samaria (Is 7:8-9),
the death of King Pekah and the enthronement of King Hosea by Tiglath-pileser III during his 8th
campaign (738 BCE) and the deportation of King Manasseh (2Ch 33:11; 2Ki 17:24) and the people of
Samaria (Ezr 4:2) by Esarhaddon during the eponymy of Atarilu (673 BCE).
d) In Josiah's 13th year (Jr 25:3,11), Jeremiah began proclaiming the destruction of Jerusalem, which
happened 40 years later. This 40-year period, foretold in Ezekiel (Ezk 4:6), ends with the disappearance
of the kingdom of Israel, which had been born 390 years before.
e) Start of Babylonian's 70-year rule over all the nations. This rule started at the beginning of Jehoiakim's
reign (Jr 27:1-7), after the battle of Haran during which king Josiah was killed (2Ki 23:29), 4 years
before the battle of Carkemish (Jr 46:2), and it terminated with the destruction of Babylon. After
Josiah's death, Jehoahaz ruled 3 months (2Ki 23:31). Jehoiakim, brought on the throne by pharaoh
Necho, reigned for 11 years (2Ki 23:34,36), and afterwards Zedekiah, enthroned by Nebuchadnezzar
reigned for 11 years (2Ki 24:17-18) until the destruction of the temple.
f) In Zedekiah's 10th year (Jr 32:1) the temple was destroyed, and the people were deported to Babylon
because they deliberately broke a Jubilee, the liberation that should have occurred was postponed to the
next Jubilee (Jr 34:8-11, 13-22).
g) Destruction of the temple on the 10th day of the 5th month of Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year according to
Babylonian computation (Jr 52:12-13, 29).
h) Destruction of Babylon in 539 BCE after 70 years of slavery (Jr 25:11-12).
i) 1st year of Cyrus, the liberation from Babylon occurred.
j) End of the 70-year desolation period and of the exile (from Babylonia, but also from Assyria and
Egypt); beginning of a new 50-year Jubilee cycle.
One year after the destruction of Babylon, in 538 BCE, Daniel explained that the 70 years would also be
the length of the desolation, which was to end in 517 BCE, since the temple was destroyed in 587 BCE. The
words "desolated and devastated land" are controversial, for they can mean either a "land deserted and
without inhabitants" (literal meaning) or a "land without worshippers" (religious meaning). The biblical text
favours the second meaning. Indeed, the start (as well as the end) of the literal exile cannot be dated
248
accurately since it expands between Nebuchadnezzar's 7th and 23rd year (Jr 52:28-30) and the exile was still
going on at Esther's time (Est 2:6) around 470 BCE. However, the length of the religious exile (the period
when there were "no worshippers") is easier to settle since it ran from the destruction of the temple to the
"liberation of the captives" in the 50th year of the Jubilee (religious meaning). The words "causing desolation
(Dn 9:27)" was understood by the Jews as the disappearance of the sacrifices in the temple (and
consequently of the worshippers) and not as the disappearance of the inhabitants. When we read "by reason
of my house that is waste, while you are on the run, each one on behalf of his own house (Hg 1:1,9)", text
written in Darius' 2nd year, that is on 520 BCE, we may understand also that the temple was waste of
worshippers, not of people. This religious meaning is used in Ezekiel 29:10-12 where it is said that Egypt
would be: desolate waste (...) for 40 years. This could not be understood in a literal way (a deporting of all
Egyptian people in a foreign land would have left some traces). But the religious meaning "without
worshippers (Ezk 30:7,13)" is appropriate302, since Jeremiah states that the sign (the 40-year period was
beginning) would be pharaoh Hophra's death (Jr 44:29,30; Ezk 30:20-22), exactly as Zedekiah's death
marked the end of worship in the temple. Pharaoh Hophra (whom Egyptians were viewing as a living god)
was replaced in 570 by Amasis, a mere general, who ruled from 569 to 526. Pharaoh Hophra (Apries in
Greek) died a few years after the beginning of Amasis' reign, probably in 566, his death being reported as
occurring soon after Amasis' 3rd year. Egypt then had no visible god (Pharaoh) between 566 and 526.
Herodotus wrote: It is said however that Amasis, even when he was in a private station, was a lover of
drinking and of jesting, and not at all seriously disposed (...) when finally he became king he did as follows:
—as many of the gods as had absolved him and pronounced him not to be a thief, to their temples he paid no
regard, nor gave anything for the further adornment of them, nor even visited them to offer sacrifice,
considering them to be worth nothing and to possess lying Oracles (The Histories II:174).
PERIOD OF THE SECOND TEMPLE (517 BCE - 133 CE)
According to the biblical text, a jubilee lasted 50 years and ended with a release of the captives,
regarded as a "jubilant" year. This system was codified after the Exodus, but as Maimonides says, even if the
Sabbatical cycles (every 7 years) and Jubilee (every 50 years) were not observed, however, they were
counted. The greyed areas mark periods of reigns or events in the life of a character, the dark grey areas
indicate anchored periods and those coloured in blue refer to periods of 50 years of Jubilee cycle.
609 598 588 587 539 538 518 517 468 455 -18 29 33 l 133
a b c d e f g h i j k
31 11 10 1 70 49 13 483 4 100
70 46
18x50 50 50 9x50 50 2x50
a) Beginning of the 70-year Babylonian domination (609 BCE) which ended with the seizure of Babylon
by Cyrus (539 BCE). The death of King Josiah (2 Kings 23:29), 4 years before the battle of Carchemish
(Jr 46:2) in 605 BCE, marked the end of the Judean kingdom legitimately established. Jehoahaz was
enthroned by the people and reigned only 3 months (2Ki 23:31). Pharaoh Necho II, satrap of
Nebuchadnezzar from 609 BCE (Against Apion I:133-137), enthroned Jehoiakim who reigned 11 years
(2Ki 23:34-36). Nebuchadnezzar then enthroned Zedekiah who reigned 11 years (2Ki 24:17-18) until
the destruction of the Temple. Josiah's death marked the beginning of a period of 70 years of
Babylonian domination (Jr 25:11-12) beginning with the reign of Jehoiakim (Jr 27:1-7) after the Battle
302
The role of the Jubilee to mark the end of a captivity is a recurrent theme in the Bible. When Zerubbabel was appointed, Ezra 1:1-
3 says: And in the 1st year of Cyrus [538] (...) Whoever there is among YOU of all his people, may his God prove to be with him. So
let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and rebuild the house of Jehovah the God of Israel-he is the [true] God-which was in
Jerusalem. Zerubbabel's mission was twofold: To gather the Jews (Ne 1:8-9; 7:5) and to rebuild the temple (Ezr 3:1-2): And it must
occur in that day that there will be the root of Jesse [Zerubbabel] that will be standing up as a signal for the peoples [in 538]. To
him even the nations will turn inquiringly, and his resting-place must become glorious [the temple will be rebuilt] (...) to acquire the
remnant of his people who will remain over from Assyria and from Egypt and from Pathros and from Cush and from Elam and from
Shinear and from Hamath and from the islands of the sea. And he will certainly raise up a signal for the nations and gather the
dispersed ones of Israel; and the scattered ones of Judah he will collect together from the four extremities of the earth (Is 11:10-12).
The gathering of the dispersed ones would end by a Jubilee: The spirit of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah is upon me [Zerubbabel
according to Zechariah 4:6-14], for the reason that Jehovah has anointed me to tell good news to the meek ones. He has sent me to
bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to those taken captive [in 518/517 a Jubilee will put an end to the desolation] and the
wide opening [of the eyes] even to the prisoners (...) And they must rebuild the long-standing devastated places; they will raise up
even the desolated places of former times, and they will certainly make anew the devastated cities, the places desolate (Is 61:1-4).
According to the Gospels, Zerubbabel's mission foretold in details Jesus' one. We read in Luke that Jesus proclaimed a year of
liberation to come (Lk 4:18), and John reports that this liberation (Jubilee year) was to exceed a traditional Jubilee (Jon 8:36). This
year of liberation is linked to Jesus' death (Rm 8:2) in 33 CE, which marked a Jubilee (see Dating the death of Jesus). The Biblical
chronology, based on Jubilee cycles, then is independent from other chronologies.
of Harran (609 BCE) and ending with the destruction of Babylon. It is noteworthy that the text of
Matthew sets the beginning of the captivity "of" Babylon (Βαβυλῶνος) not "at", but after the reign of
Josiah (Mt 1:11,17).
b) During the 10th year of Zedekiah, a jubilee "to proclaim liberty" was deliberately violated (Jr 32:1),
resulting in the destruction of the Temple and deportation to Babylon. The release associated with this
jubilee occurred 50 years later (Jr 34:8-11, 13-22).
c) Destruction of the Temple dated 10/V/18 of Nebuchadnezzar (Jr 52:12,13) according to the Babylonian
reckoning (October 587 BCE). This "devastation of the temple" would last 70 years (Dn 9:2).
d) Destruction of Babylon (539 BCE) and liberation of exiles in Babylon on Cyrus' 1st year (Ezr 1:1-4) in
538 BCE.
e) End of the 70-year desolation period and of the exile (517 BCE); beginning of a new 50-year Jubilee
cycle, from the 4th year of Darius (Zc 7:1-5) in 518 BCE.
f) First Jubilee celebrated, dated to Artaxerxes' 7th year, because Ezra's text mentions that in this year
there was a tax exemption (Ezr 7:1,8,24) and a liberation of captives (Ezra 8:35). Jewish authorities
agree that the count of Jubilees must have started in this year (Strobel: 1977, 92-95).
g) Start of the 483-year period leading to the appearance of the Messiah, according to Daniel 9:25.
Nehemiah adds that the command to re-establish and to rebuild Jerusalem was issued by Artaxerxes I in
the 20th year of his rule (Ne 2:1,5,8). According to this calendar, the Messiah was to come 483 years
after Artaxerxes' 1st year, i.e., on the 13th year (= 20 - 7) after the first Jubilee of Ezra dated to
Artaxerxes' 7th year. The appearance of the Messiah foretold by Daniel then was to occur 4 years before
the end of the 11th Jubilee. Eusebius had already noted this point in his Chronicle, where he said that
Jesus started preaching on Olympiad 202:1 (29 CE), which corresponded to the 81st Jubilee according
to Hebrew tradition.
h) The sanctuary (naos) of the temple was completed in 46 years at the 1st Passover on April 30 CE (John
2:20), in agreement with Josephus (Jewish Antiquities XV:354, 380, 421).
i) Appearance of the Messiah. According to Luke 3:1,23, Jesus the Messiah came in Tiberius' 15th year (29
CE).
j) Messiah was cut off with nothing for himself at the half of the last week (Dn 9:26-27) [of years], i.e.,
3,5 years (7/2) after his appearance around October 29 CE.
k) Some coins dated during the revolt of Bar Korkhba were minted for a jubilee dated 133 CE, because the
Bar Kokhba revolt took place over a period from December 131 to September 135 during which the
Jews minted two coins one dated Year 1 for the redemption of Israel (132 CE) and another one dated
Year 2 for the freedom of Israel (133 CE).
THE PERIOD OF THE JUDGES (1493-1097)
1533 1493 1488 1452 1386 1306 1211 1193 1122 1097 1013
a b d d e f g h i j k l
40 5 25 x 8 40 18 20 20 40 7 40 3 23 22 18 6 7 10 8 40 20 y 40 40 4
[41] 80 [180]
300 l
480
450 18x50
a) Exodus from Egypt and start of 40-year wandering in the wilderness of Sinai before entering Canaan
(Ex 16:35).
b) Israel came out of the Sinai and entered Canaan; beginning of a 300-year period which would end with
Jephthah's vow (Jg 11:26,30). Caleb entered Canaan when he was 80 years old and the country was
pacified when he was 85 years old (Jos 14:7,10).
c) Joshua, the same age as Caleb, died 110 years of age (Jos 13:1; 24:29; 2Sa 19:32). The following period
[x] is unknown, but it may be calculated. Indeed, the generation which entered Canaan with Joshua was
to take possession of the country (Jg 2:6-10), now as the preceding generation had lasted 40 years (Nb
32:13), that makes it possible to suppose that: [40] = 5 + [25] + x (25 = 110 - 85). In fact, calculation
gives x = 11 years, because 300 = 5 + 25 + x + 8 + 40 + 18 + 20 + 20 + 40 + 7 + 40 + 3 + 23 + 22 + 18.
Joshua gives Israelites the pacificated Canaan country (Jos 11:23); start of the Jubilee cycle to cancel
the debts and free the captives every 50 years (Lv 25:8-11). The cycle started when Canaan was given to
the Israelites, that is 5 years after they entered the Promised Land (Dt 6:10,11; Jos 14:7,10).
d) Cushan-rishataim, a king from Mitanni (Šauštatar I) oppressed Israel for 8 years, then Othniel judged
for 40 years, then Eglon, a Moabite king, oppressed Israel for 18 years, then Ehud judged the country
(Jg 3:8-15).
250
e) Ehud started a period of peace for 80 years (Jg 3:30) in the South (Judea), which ended by 40 years of
full peace (Jg 5:31) preceded by 20 years of oppression in the North (Samaria) by Jabin (Jg 4:3), a
Canaanite king of Hazor. Ehud then Shamgar303 judge for the 20 first years of full peace and Barak the
last 40 years (Jg 3:26-31, 4:22-24).
f) The country of Midian oppressed Israel for 7 years, then Gideon judged for 40 years, Abimelech is king
for 3 years, Tola judged for 23 years and finally Jair judged for 22 years (Jg 6:1, 8:28, 9:22, 10:1-3).
g) Jair judged Israel for 22 years, but after his death no judge succeeded him and the land was given over
to oppression by Philistines, Ammonites, Egyptians, etc. This period of trouble began in 1211 and got
Israel into great distress for 18 years (Jg 10:3-13).
h) Jephthah as a judge over Israel for 6 years, Ibzan for 7 years, Elon for 10 years, Abdon for 8 years. Then
followed a 40-year period of oppression by the Philistines (Jg 12:7-13:1). The period of 176 years from
Jephthah to Solomon may be calculated in two ways, first: 176 = 480 - 300 - 4, or 176 = 6 + 7 + 10 + 8
+ 40 + 20 + 5 + 40 + 40.
i) Samson, who acted as a judge for 20 years, put an end to oppression by the Philistines (Jg 13:5; 16:31).
The ark of the covenant was captured by the Philistines, then given back to the Israelites 7 months later.
It was moved to Kiriath-jearim where it would stay for 20 years304 (1Sa 6:1; 7:2).
j) Undetermined period (x) between the temporary end of idol use and Samuel defeating the Philistines.
This period took place before Saul's reign (1Sa 7:4,13; 9:15-16).
k) Saul ruled for 40 years305 (Ac 13:21), then David for 40 years (2Sa 5:4).
l) Solomon ruled for 40 years. A 480-year period that began at the Exodus from Egypt terminated in his
4th year of reign (1Ki 6:1; 11:42).
Three-time spans in this period are controversial: the period of 5 years after the departure from Egypt,
the 480 years, and the undetermined period (x). The 5-year period can be calculated from the age of Caleb.
According to the book o Joshua, Caleb was 85 when the Israelites received the land of Canaan as their
inheritance. This was what God had promised to Moses 45 years before. The account specifies that Caleb
was 40 when he explored the country from Kadesh-Barnea (Jos 14:1,7,10). This exploration is dated to the
1st month of the 2nd year after the departure from Egypt (Nb 9:1, 13:25). Counting these years however
proves difficult, because Caleb was born in Egypt and was counting his years according to the old calendar
which began in Tishri, e.g., September/October. Then, after having come out of Egypt, years were counted
from Nisan (Ex 12:2, 23:15), e.g., March/April, and no longer from Tishri. There was therefore a 6-month
discrepancy with the former system.
39 40 41 79 80 81 82 83 84 85
1 2 40 41 42 43 44 45
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 49 50
The 50-year Jubilee system did not begin in the first year after entering Canaan, but only in Caleb's 85th
year, because Israelites were given the land only after the pacification period (Jos 1:15). It would have been
impossible to cultivate the land and then to observe Jubilee prescriptions during the war of conquest. The
conquest was quick, and the Israelites (circa 1490 BCE) only burnt three cities: Jericho, Ai and Hazor (Jos
6:1,24, 8:19, 11:11-13). Confirming exactly the biblical account, archaeology dates306 the destruction of
these three cities to the 15th century B.C.E. The first year of the 50-year Jubilee period started in Nisan but
was only celebrated on 10th Tishri of the same year (Lv 25:9-10).
The 480-year period is controversial (1Ki 6:1). We might conclude that the period began after Israel left
the country of Goshen, but this would contradict other biblical data. If we calculate the time starting before
(and not after) the 40 years in the wilderness of Sinai, we find: 40 + 300 + 6 + 7 +10 + 8 + 40 + 20 + 40 + 40
+ 4 = 515 + x (if 515 + x = 480, x = -35!). In fact, the wilderness of Sinai belonged to Egypt since it was
located in front of the torrent valley of Egypt which marked its border (2Ki 24:7). Israelites therefore
definitely left Egypt when they crossed this torrent valley (after having spent 40 years in the wilderness)307.
303
The southern part of Israel was ruled in peace for 80 years (Jg 3:30), from 1386 to 1306. Shamgar judged less than 1 year
according to Josephus (Jewish Antiquities V:197), his name (Ši-ma-qa-ri) appears in several Nuzi texts (c. 14th century BCE).
304
This 20-year period would correspond to the judicature of Samson which was characterized by peace (1Sa 7:13-15). During the
reign of Saul, the arch was located in Nob (1Sa 21:1, 22:19), a town near Qiriat-jearim north of Jerusalem (1Sa 14:16-18). After 40
years of Saul's reign (1097-1057), David decided a few years after the beginning of his reign, to bring it back from Qiriat jearim to
Jerusalem (1 Ch 13:5).
305
The length of the reign, which had to appear in 1Samuel 13:1, can be deduced from the biography of Ishbosheth, a son of Saul,
who was born at the beginning of his father's reign (1Ch 8:33) because he was 40 years at Saul's death (2Sa 2:10). Josephus gives 20
and 40 years (Jewish Antiquities VI:378, X:143), also in the sum of the reigns (Jewish Antiquities VIII:61, XX:230).
306
B.G. WOOD - Let the Evidence Speak in: Biblical Archaeology Review March/ April 2007 pp. 26,78.
307
The Israelites who died in the wilderness (Nb 26:65) had desired to die in Egypt repeatedly (Ex 14:11; 16:3). This paradoxical
wish was fulfilled.
Thus: 475 + x = 480, with x = 5 years. The translators of the Septuagint, who knew about this 480-year
period beginning at the Exodus from Egypt and ending after the 40 years in the wilderness amended the
figure to 440 years (= 480 – 40)308. According to the Jerusalem Talmud (Megilla 72cd), the time of the
conquest of Canaan would have been 7* years, and the sanctuary at Shiloh 369* years, which gives: 480 =
7* + 369* + 20 + 40 + 40 + 4309.
Occurrence of different spans between two seemingly identical events can be found also about the
ark when it was moved from Kiriath-jearim. The ark was brought to this city where it stayed for 20 years.
We also read that David decided to bring the ark back from Kiriath-jearim to Jerusalem (1Ch 13:5) after
Saul's 40-year reign. Where are those 40 years to be found? It may be that meanwhile the ark was moved to
Baale-judah, a city near Kiriath-jearim (2Sa 6:2), or to Gibeah (1Sa 7:1) according to the Vulgate310.
According to the biblical chronology, the anonymous pharaoh who confronted Moses died in 1533
BCE. The departure from Egypt, which began in Ramses city, is dated to 15/I (Nb 33:3). As the arrival in the
Wilderness of Sin is dated 15/II (Ex 16:1) and the final confrontation took place near Pihahiroth (Ex 14:9),
midway between Rameses and the Wilderness of Sin, pharaoh's death would have occurred on 1/II, which is
dated on 9/10 May 1533 BCE. A later biblical text (Ezk 32:2,7,8, Ps 136:15) mentions pharaoh's tragic death
and links it with a solar eclipse: Son of man, lift up a dirge concerning Pharaoh the king of Egypt, and you
must say to him: As a maned young lion of nations you have been silenced. And you have been like the
marine monster in the seas (...) And when you get extinguished I will cover [the] heavens (...) All the
luminaries of light in the heavens —I shall darken them on your account, and I will put darkness upon your
land. This text alludes to the Pharaoh of the Exodus, because the expression “marine monster” refers to
appoints this leader311. The expression “All the luminaries of light in the heavens [sun and moon]” has a
symbolic meaning but could be understood by Jews only if it had also a literal meaning. Since pharaoh was
considered a god (the son of the sun-god Ra) by Egyptians, the eclipse (and also the moonless night) would
have impressed the people. The only total solar eclipse in this part of the world and at this time occurred on 9
May 1533 BCE312. A total sun eclipse in a given area is very rare. Between 1500 and 100 BCE, for example,
there were only 11 total eclipses on the territory of Israel during this period, on average every 120 years. The
date of 1/II thus agrees perfectly with the eclipse date. The spring equinox is dated on 3 April in 1533 BCE
and the 1st lunar crescent after the spring equinox is dated to 10/11 April (the next one is dated to 9/10 May).
Egyptian chronology, which is based on Sothic rises, also dates to May 1533 BCE the violent death of
pharaoh Seqenenre after confronting Apopi, the Hyksos king who went off to Palestine. The other pivotal
date comes from the book of Acts where heavenly phenomena are mentioned in connection with Jesus'
death: The sun will be turned into darkness and the moon into blood (Ac 2:20). Usually, the moon does look
blood-red during a lunar eclipse (the more natural explanation for the above passage). The only lunar eclipse
which was visible from Jerusalem on a Friday between 30 and 33 CE was the one dated Friday 3 April 33
CE. Consequently, the biblical chronology is anchored on two significant events: Jesus' death on 3 April 33
CE (during a partial lunar eclipse) and the death of the Pharaoh who opposed Moses (beginning of the
Exodus), on 9 May 1533 BCE (during a total solar eclipse).
THE PATRIARCAL PERIOD (2038-1493)

2038 1963 1938 1933 1878 1788 1748 1678 1573 1533 1493 1488
a b c d e f g h i j k l
5 400 40 5
75 25 150 40 215
100 60 90 110 105 40
450
430
a) Birth of Abraham (in 2038 BCE).

b) Abraham entered Canaan when he was 75 years old (Gn 12:4-5); 430-year alien residence began (Ex
12:40-41).
308
From the departure from Egypt (1533 BCE) to Solomon's 4th year (1013 BCE) there were 520 years (= 480 + 40).
309
In fact: 480 = 5 + 366 + 20 + [5] + 40 + 40 + 4. The duration of the sanctuary at Shiloh was 366 years (= 1488 - 1122) since it was
installed just after the conquest of Canaan (Jos 18:1) in -1488 was gone at the high priest Eli’s death (1Sa 4:1-7:1) in -1122.
310
The translation in the Hill (Jos 24:33) is unlikely because ba-guibeah is translated in Gibeah (1Sa 22:6). Gibeah was
geographically near Kiriath-jearim, moreover, Saul requested the ark to be brought to him when he was in Gibeah (1Sa 14:16-18).
311
For Egypt’s help is completely useless. So I have called this one: Rahab, who sits still (...) Was it not you who broke Rahab to
pieces, who pierced the sea monster? Are you not the one who dried up the sea, the waters of the vast deep? The one who made the
depths of the sea a roadway for the repurchased ones to cross? (Is 30:7; 51:9-10)
312
This eclipse of magnitude 1.08 (covering a strip of land 250 km wide) could be seen in Northern Egypt (at the level of
Heracleopolis city) around 4.40 p.m. and lasted more than 6 minutes.
252
c) Birth of Isaac (in 1938 BCE), ancestor of the people of Israel, when Abraham was 100 years old (Gn
21:5); 450-year period began (Ac 13:17-20).
d) Isaac was weaned at 5 years old313; 400 years of affliction314 began (Gn 15:13). This period starts when
Isaac was persecuted by Agar's son315 (Gn 21:8-9) and ended with the Exodus from Egypt and the end
of slavery (Ga 4:25-29).
e) Birth of Jacob (in 1878 BCE) when Isaac was 60 years old (Gn 25:26).
f) Birth of Joseph in Jacob's 91st year since he was 130 years old (Gn 41:46-47, 53-54; 45:11; 47:9) when
Joseph was 39 (= 30 years + 7 years of plenty + 2 years of famine).
g) Israelites (Jacob and his family, 75 individuals) came to Egypt in Joseph's 40th year (Gn 45:11; 46:5-7);
beginning of a 215-year dwelling.
h) Joseph died in 1678 BCE, when he was 110 years old. Israelite chiefs appointed by Joseph and later on
by pharaohs as kings (Great Hyksos) administrated the land of Goshen for 105 years (Gn 47:6; Ex
5:14).
i) Moses was banished for 40 years (1573-1533) in Madian before coming back to Egypt316 (Hb 11:24; Ac
7:21-23, 29-36).
j) Exodus from Egypt and beginning of 40-year (1533-1493) wandering in the wilderness of Sinai before
entering Canaan (Ex 16:35). Moses stood as the last “great personality in Egypt”, because he was
considered as “pharaoh's son” for 40 years (Ex 2:15; 11:3; Dt 34:7), that is from 1613 to 1573 BCE.
k) Israel came out of Sinai and entered Canaan (in 1493 BCE); beginning of a 5-year pacification period
(Jos 14:7,10) ending in 1488 BCE and fixes the beginning of Jubilees (every 50 years). Moses died at
120 years old (Dt 34:1-7).
l) Joshua completed pacification of Canaan (in 1488 BCE).
The 430-year period is controversial, because it is written: the dwelling of the sons of Israel, who had
dwelt in Egypt, was 430 years (Ex 12:40). Jewish translators of the Septuagint were aware of this ambiguity
and chose to add an interpolation in order to prevent any misunderstanding: The dwelling of the sons of
Israel which they dwelt in the land of Egypt [and in the land of Canaan] was 430 years long. This
interpolation, that is also found in the Samaritan Pentateuch, is in keeping with the context which says that
the 430-year period covers the total span of the painful dwelling of the sons of Israel outside the Mosaic
covenant (Ga 3:17). This period does include two parts: one which started in Canaan with the Abrahamic
covenant rapidly followed by harassment of Isaac by Esau (Gn 21:9) and ended when Jacob left for Egypt.
The second period began with the slavery in Egypt and ended with the Exodus.
ARE SUMERIAN, EGYPTIAN AND BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGIES MYTHICAL OR HISTORICAL?
The extraordinary longevity of the patriarchs in the Bible poses a real problem because according to
current observations human longevity is extremely rare beyond 120 years, whereas it was the norm until
Moses. Flavius Josephus already had difficulty in explaining these longevities to Greek readers of his time:
Now when Noah had lived 350 years after the Flood, and that all that time happily, he died, having lived
the number of 950 years. But let no one, upon comparing the lives of the ancients with our lives, and
with the few years which we now live, think that what we have said of them is false; or make the
shortness of our lives at present an argument, that neither did they attain to so long a duration of life, for
those ancients were beloved of God, and [lately] made by God himself; and because their food was then
fitter for the prolongation of life, might well live so great a number of years: and besides, God afforded
them a longer time of life on account of their virtue, and the good use they made of it in astronomical
and geometrical discoveries, which would not have afforded the time of foretelling [the periods of the
stars] unless they had lived 600 years; for the great year is completed in that interval. Now I have for
witnesses to what I have said, all those that have written Antiquities, both among the Greeks and
barbarians; for even Manetho, who wrote the Egyptian History, and Berosus, who collected the
Chaldean Monuments, and Mochus, and Hestieus, and, besides these, Hieronymus the Egyptian, and
those who composed the Phoenician History, agree to what I here say: Hesiod also, and Hecatseus,
Hellanicus, and Acusilaus; and, besides these, Ephorus and Nicolaus relate that the ancients lived a
1000 years. But as to these matters, let every one look upon them as he thinks fit.
Flavius Josephus' arguments are hardly convincing, as he himself agrees at the end of his explanations.
The question of the literalness of this abnormal longevity deserves to be asked. The first question to be
answered is whether these exceptional longevity periods were considered normal at that early time, or
313
According to 2Maccabees 7:27, breastfeeding usually lasted at least 3 years (see 2Ch 31:16).
314
The 400-year period begins with the oppression of Isaac and not from his birth.
315
The meaning of the Hebrew verb is "mocking" and not "play". The Talmud (Sotah 6:6) even mentions of abuse.
316
It is possible that Moses knowing the prophecy of Neferty stated under Amenemhat I (1975-1946), similar to the 400 years'
prophecy of Genesis 15:13, wanted to achieve it in 1575 BCE (= 1975 - 400), 40 years too early.
whether they were abnormal. The genealogies of Moses and Joshua allow us to answer this question, as they
were both descendants of Jacob, Moses by Levi and Joshua by Joseph.
Character Birth to birth death age death age
Terah 2168-2038 1963 205 Dynasty 11 2118 - 1975 143
Abram 2038-1938 1863 175 Dynasty 12 1975 - 1778 197
Isaac 1938-1878 1758 180
1 Jacob 1878-1792 1731 147 1 Jacob 1878-1792 1731 147
2 Levi 1792 - 1655 137 2 Joseph 1788-1748 1678 110
-1731 3 Ephraim 1748-1728
3 Kohath 1731 - 1598 133 4 Beriah 1728-1708
-1691 5 Rephah 1708-1688
4 Amram 1691 - 1554 137 6 Resheph-Telah 1688-1669
7 Tahan 1669-1651
8 Ladan 1651-1632
-1613 9 Ammihud 1632-1613
5 Moses 1613 - 1493 120 10 Elishama 1613-1593
-1573 11 Nun 1593-1573
6 Abihu 1573 - 215 12 Joshua 1573-1533 1463 110
-1493 _ 13 Exodus 1533-1493 70
The genealogy of Joshua is not precisely calculable, but the biblical text indicates that Levi entered
Egypt when Joseph was 40 years old, in 1748 BCE, when Ephraim had just been born, and that Moses and
Joshua left Egypt in 1533 BCE. As Joshua was born in 1573 BCE and there were nine ancestors between
him and Joseph, each of the ancestors gave birth at the age of about 20 years (= [1748 -1573]/9), which is the
normal age to become a father. On the other hand, the age to be father for the four patriarchs, from Levi to
Moses, was about 55 years (= [1792 - 1573]/4). This comparison between the two genealogies shows that
that of Joshua, during his 215-year stay in Egypt, was normal in relation to the age of paternity while that of
Moses was abnormal. Similarly, the longevity of Moses' ancestors was around 135 years, whereas, as Moses
himself writes, the normal human longevity at that time was on average 70 years, or 80 years for the
strongest (Ps 90:10). This remark by Moses shows that if genetics can partly explain these exceptional
longevities (his father Amram lived 137 years, his brother Aaron lived 123 years and his sister Myriam lived
130 years), it does not explain why Joseph, who was a son of Jacob, lived only 110 years, i.e. 27 years
younger than Levi his brother. The Bible explains these abnormal longevity and abnormal late fatherhood as
miraculous. For example, although Abram was born when his father Terah was 130 years old, he
nevertheless began to laugh when the angel told him that he would have a son at the age of 100, because it
was humanly unlikely (Gn 17:17). Abraham was therefore not gullible, yet he believed in miracles
concerning Messianic genealogy (Gn 3:15). Moses knew that such exceptional longevity was miraculous, as
the example of Job proves. Indeed, to reward this faithful servant, God gave him twice as much as he had
before his terrible trial (Gn 1:2, 42:12). As Job received 140 more years (Gn 42:16) he had to live until he
was 210 (= 70 + 140) years old, which corresponds approximately to the age of Terah, Abram's father.
Terah's life span was miraculous (205 years) since he lived longer than the seven pharaohs of the 11th
dynasty (143 years) or the eight pharaohs of the 12th dynasty (197 years). Moses at the end of his life wrote
that although he was 120 years old, his sight had not weakened, and his vigour had not faded (Dt 34:7).
The abnormal longevity in the genealogy of Moses is therefore not representative of that of his
contemporaries. As the historian Herodotus reminds us (c. 450 BCE), human longevity is 70 years under
good conditions (Ps 90:10!) and a longevity of 120 years, like that of Arganthonios king of Tartessos, is
extremely rare (The Histories I:32,163). The genealogy of Abraham has only ten ancestors up to Noah who
all begot around the age of 130. This genealogy is therefore miraculous, because a normal genealogy with a
paternity around the age of 20 would have involved 65 ancestors (65 = 10x130/20) between Abraham and
Noah instead of 10. These extraordinarily long periods of longevity made it possible to have biblical
genealogies six times shorter and thus to reduce errors in the oral transmission of antediluvian events until
they were put in writing by Moses317. The presence of miracles in ancient texts is unverifiable by historians.
The only criterion available to historians is chronology. For example, according to the Bible, Abraham lived
175 years and his wife miraculously gave birth to Isaac when she was 90 years old, which is normally
impossible but unverifiable. However, according to the Bible, Abraham killed Chedorlaomer, a powerful
king of Elam, in 1954 BCE. It is possible to verify that Kudur-Lagamar (1990-1954) was a king of Elam
from the Awan dynasty who ruled the land of Akkad with Shulgi (2002-1954) from the Ur III dynasty who
317
There were only 8 intermediaries between Noah and Moses: Shem (3270-2668), Eber (2773-2269), Serug (2377-2047), Terah
(2168-1963), Abraham (2038-1863), Jacob (1878-1731), Levi (1792-1655), Amram (1691-1554).
254
ruled the land of Sumer. Similarly, according to the Bible, a pharaoh (Amenemhat I) wanted to marry Sarah
in 1963 BCE, which corresponds to the making of several copies of a magnificent Canaanite woman who is
represented as a high priestess. The biblical synchronisms with the Mesopotamian and Egyptian narratives
are therefore precisely dated and in perfect agreement. Consequently, the biblical chronology of the history
of mankind, despite its abnormal lifespans, must be considered and compared with the oldest known ones,
such as the Egyptian and Sumerian chronologies, in order to evaluate its historicity.
The origins of the Egyptian and Sumerian civilizations have the same problem, they start their kingship
with 10 mythical kings, which proves their un-historicity. This absence of ancestors is surprising because
normally the origin of a civilisation is always explained either by the continuation of a previous civilisation,
for example the Akkadians succeeded the Sumerians, or by the victory over another civilisation, for example
Narmer Palette shows the king of Egypt subduing enemies of Canaanite type, but which Egyptian documents
never identify. The only information on the origin of the Sumerian and Egyptian civilisations comes from
archaeological excavations. These archaeological excavations showed that the first Egyptian Dynasty was
preceded by Dynasty 0 (c. 2890-2840) of the Predynastic Kings, and that the first Sumerian Dynasty of Kish
(c. 2800-2500) was preceded by the powerful Uruk 0 Dynasty, which started around 3050 BCE. The
paralleling of the chronologies shows that the synchronisms before Abraham existed only with the Sumerian
chronology set out in the Sumerian King List. Two characters are particularly detailed in the two
chronologies: Noah/Ziusudra the survivor of the universal flood and Nimrod/Marduk the founder of Babel:
Character death age Character/Dynasty reign end “age”

1 Noah 3770-3270 2820 950 1 Ziusudra (3770 -
2 Shem 3270 - 2668 602 600 -3170) 600
-3168 2 King of Shuruppak (3170 -
3 Arpakshad 3168-3033 2630 538
Nimrod (Sumer) 3040 - 2950 (90?) 3 Marduk (Uruk 0) 3050-2950
4 Kainan 3033-2903 2573 460 Dynasty 0 2890-2840
5 Shelah 2903-2773 2470 433 -2820) (350)
6 Eber (“Hebrew”) 2773-2639 2269 504 4 Kish I-III 2800-2496 2222 578
7 Peleg 2639-2509 2300 339 Etana 2638- 2613 (75?)
8 Reu 2509 - 2170 339 5 Uruk I 2496-2470 2261 235
-2377 6 Ur I-II 2470-2370 2240 230
9 Serug 2377-2247 2047 330 7 Lagash I 2370-2260 2222 148
10 Nahor I 2247 - 2039 208 8 Uruk II-III 2260-2243 2222 38
-2168 9 Akkad 2243-2131 2062 181
11 Terah 2168-2038 1963 205 10 Lagash II 2131-2062 2018 113
12 Abram 2038 - 1863 175 11 Uruk IV-V 2062-2020 2012 50
-1938 12 Ur III 2020-1923 1912 108
13 Isaac 1938-1878 1758 180 13 Isin 1923-1800 1698 225
The most difficult thing for historians is to determine the historical value to be given to the lists of
kings, whether they are Sumerian, Egyptian or biblical. Before verifying the historicity of these king lists, it
is first necessary to know by whom and for whom they were written.
• Egyptian king lists were written by Egyptian priests to show the uniqueness of royalty, to magnify the
king's ancestry and confirm his approval by the gods, so they are ideological lists. For example, King
Sety I (1294-1283) had a list drawn up of the 72 kings318 who preceded him since Menes (Narmer), the
very first Egyptian king of Dynasty I. However, this list (AKL) does not give any duration of reign and
omits the names of many earlier pharaohs who were apparently considered illegitimate — such as the
Hyksos, Hatshepsut, Akhenaten, Smenkhkare, Tutankhamun, and Ay. This list of kings implies that
their names (and reigns) were archived in Egyptian temples, as confirmed by the Palermo Stone (PS)
written during the early part of the 5th Dynasty (c. 2350 BCE). The cross-checking of all these Egyptian
king lists eliminates copy errors and confirms that these lists have a real historical and chronological
value. The Turin King List (TC) is even the main element of the Egyptian chronology. Paradoxically,
the 10 mythical kings of Dynasty 0 have no chronological value, as the duration of the reigns is
abnormal, nor historical, as these kings were demigods (like those in Greek mythology), so this initial
part was invented by Egyptian priests. As the Sumerian king lists start the first kings (Kish I) after 10
mythical antediluvian kings, this similarity could explain Dynasty 0 of the Egyptian king lists.
318
The Abydos King List is a list of the names of 76 kings of ancient Egypt, found on a wall of the Temple of Sety I at Abydos. It
consists of three rows of 38 cartouches in each row. The upper two rows contain names of the kings, while the third row merely
repeats Sety I's throne name and nomen. The start of the king list, showing Sety and his son Ramses (II) on the way to making an
offering to Ptah-Seker-Osiris, on behalf of their 72 ancestors: the contents of the king list. Ramses is depicted holding censers.
• The Sumerian king lists were written by Sumerian priests to show the uniqueness of royalty, to magnify
the king's ancestry and confirm his approval by the gods, so they are ideological lists (Glassner: 2004,
69-87). These Sumerian king lists were then meticulously reproduced by the Babylonian priests. The
historical and chronological value of the first Sumerian dynasties is accepted by Assyriologists
(Joannès: 2001, 476-478). There are, however, two major differences with the Egyptian king lists.
Firstly, Sumerian king lists give the illusion of a single royalty, whereas the land of Sumer was a
federation of cities in permanent rivalry (for example Uruk dominated during 5 distinct periods), from
Gilgamesh, king of Uruk I, to Shulgi, king of Ur III. Secondly, the 10 mythical antediluvian kings
reigned before the universal flood and preceded Ziusudra, the last mythical king who continued to reign
in Shuruppak for an indefinite period, before heaven granted Sumerian royalty to Kish I. Unlike the
Egyptian king lists, which were drawn up very early (probably as early as the reign of Narmer, a
conqueror who imposed himself by military force, which was not the case with the previous kings), and
archived in the temples, the Sumerian king lists only appear from King Shulgi onwards (c. 2000 BCE).
In the text entitled: Praise Poems of Shulgi (Shulgi A) this king claims to be Gilgamesh's brother and
friend, which shows that Shulgi wanted to identify his own reign with that of the prestigious and divine
Gilgamesh. Shulgi's primary goal was to legitimise his reign by presenting himself as the worthy
successor to Gilgamesh, the prestigious king of Uruk who had defeated Agga, the king of Kish. This
genealogy of the first Sumerian kings contains several historical inconsistencies. Firstly, archaeological
excavations have shown that towards the end of the 4th millennium BCE a powerful empire dominated
the Sumerian cities of Uruk, Eridu, Ur, Kish, Girsu, etc. (Sauvage: 2020, 35). This empire was unified
as shown by the similarity of the White Temple in Uruk and the Temple of the Ocean in Eridu. In the
epic of Gilgamesh, the magnificent White Temple was called the Sublime Palace (É.GAL.MAḪ). The
name of the Sumerian king who built these magnificent temples, and who preceded the kings of Kish, is
unknown (the diggers found no inscriptions), which is very surprising. Secondly, the only known king,
according to Sumerian literature, who preceded the kings of Kish is Marduk, the founder of Babylon,
but this deified king never appears in the Sumerian king lists. Moreover, Babylon existed at the time of
Gilgamesh since an inscription dated around 2500 BCE mentions the governor (ENSI) of Ba.bal, son of
Aḫu-ilum. This inscription is extremely surprising for three reasons: 1) it shows that Babylon existed at
that time but did not play a role despite its prestigious past, 2) the name of the city is in Hebrew: Babel
“Gate of God”, a name which was later translated into Sumerian as KA.DINGIR.RA which appears in
the inscriptions of Šar-kali-šarri (2126-2101), and 3) the governor of Babylon is not a Sumerian but an
Akkadian since the name of his father Aḫu-ilum means “Brother of God” in Akkadian. Finally, the last
anomaly, the period during which Ziusudra would have been king of Shuruppak (c. 3000-2800) lasted
about 200 years, which exceeds a normal reign, moreover, during the same period as the powerful
unknown king (Marduk?) who founded the Sumerian empire (Uruk 0). What is very curious is that the
archaeological excavations of Shuruppak (Fara) have shown that there was no king in this city since the
important structures of the city, the Palace (É.GAL) and the Town hall (É.URU), did not depend on any
temple, unlike the other Sumerian cities of the time, and no deity, including SÙD, the poliad deity of the
city, was worshipped there (Joannès: 2001, 825-827). From all the above it can be deduced that Shulgi
artificially attached the reigns of Kish to Ziusudra, king of Shruppak, for ideological reasons to mask
the decline of the Sumerian cities which occurred between 2900 and 2500 BCE. Archaeological
excavations show that there was a rapid revival of the Sumerian cities around 2500 BCE. The Sumerian
literature does not give any information on this period, except for the account “Enmerkar and the Lord
of Aratta”, which says that there was only one language at the origin of humanity (Hebrew).
Contextual analysis of the king lists shows that they have historical and chronological value but that the
beginning of these lists is ideological. The Egyptian king lists are historical from Narmer, and the Sumerian
king lists are historical from Gilgamesh and partially historical before this king. Shulgi's primary goal was to
attach his own royalty to that of Gilgamesh. He chose to attach the royalty of Gilgamesh to that of Ziusudra
for two important reasons. The first reason was that by the time of Gilgamesh, the powerful Sumerian empire
had disappeared and was replaced by a feudal system of city-states, each ruled by a Lord (EN), not a king
(LUGAL). The first Lord to incorporate this title into his name was Lugal-banda “Fiery King”, the father of
Gilgamesh. Consequently, the lords of Uruk (Mes-ki'aggašer, En-merkar) and the lords of Kish (En-
mebaragesi, Agga) who had preceded Lugalbanda were not kings (LUGAL). Shulgi therefore granted them
the title of “King” posthumously to magnify the role of Gilgamesh. If we place the Egyptian kings and
Sumerian lords in parallel, we can see a major difference between the two regions: the Egyptian kings were
at the head of a unified state whose large cities were run by nomarchs (provincial governors) whereas the
Sumerian lords were part of a confederation of city-states. The power of the Egyptian kings is confirmed by
the gigantic pyramids that they had built as well as by the numerous inscriptions that they left, which
contrasts with the lords of Kish and Uruk who did not build any ziggurats and left almost no inscriptions.
256
From Gilgamesh onwards the Sumerian rulers received the title of King. For example, the texts of Ebla, from
the period ranging from Talda-Lîm (2351-2340) to Išar-Damu (2245-2213), mention the kings of Kish at
least 75 times, but without ever naming them, which shows that the title of king was honorary but did not
imply that the king of Kish was king over the whole of Sumer.
Dynasty 4 KISH URUK UR

Sneferu 2523 - En-mebaragesi 2500-2485 Mes-ki’aggašer 2490-2484 A-Imdugud 2500-2485
-2479 Agga 2485 - En-merkar 2484-2477 Ur-Pabilsag 2485-2470
Kheops 2479-2456 Lugal-banda 2477-2457 Meskalamdug 2470 -
Djedefre 2456-2448 -2450 Gilgamesh 2457 - -2450
Khephre 2448-2422 (Gilgamesh) Akalamdug 2450-2430
Menkaure 2422-2394 -2401 Puabi 2430-2410
The Sumerian king lists present the Uruk I dynasty succeeding the Kish dynasty because Gilgamesh
defeated Agga, they do not mention the other kings of the city-states, such as those of the city of Ur (who
have been revealed by archaeology and who are not mentioned in the Sumerian king lists), to give the
illusion of a single succession whereas the primacy over the other cities was only honorary and was regularly
contested319. The Sumerian kings who preceded Gilgamesh were therefore classified according to ideological
criteria. Shulgi linked the dynasty of Kish to that of Shuruppak (without king except Ziusudra) because this
king of Uruk had wanted to meet Ziusudra, so that he could tell him where the plant of youth that allowed
him to live eternally was located. The story of the flood was known orally to the Sumerians and Ziusudra
was considered by them as a real character. Although Noah lived in Shuruppak (a town about 100 kilometres
northwest of Uruk), there were at least two of his descendants (Eber and Peleg) who lived in this town in the
time of Gilgamesh. The Sumerian aristocracy did not speak Akkadian (a Semitic language close to Hebrew,
for example the name of Queen Puabi means “Mouth (word) of my father”) but understood it because it was
the language of most of the inhabitants of Sumer (when the city of Ur fell the Sumerian language ceased to
be spoken). At the time of Gilgamesh, Noah had already been dead for almost 400 years, but this Sumerian
king believed that Noah was still living in Dilmun, the island of the blessed (island of Bahrain).
Paradoxically, Gilgamesh became the model king for all Sumerian kings, especially those of Ur III320,
not because of his victory over Agga, the king of Kish, nor because of his royal lineage (his father
Lugalbanda played no role in Sumerian historiography), but because of his mystical journey guided by
Ninsun321 (his mother) to Mount Hermon in the Forest of Cedars and his quest for immortality with Ziusudra,
the survivor of the universal flood. The kings of Ur III never mention the kings of Ur who were
contemporaries of Gilgamesh, or even Marduk (dAMAR.UTU(K) “(divine)calf of the Sun”), the founding
king of Babylon, who was later deified, whereas Gilgamesh was already deified in the time of Ur III322.
Although the Epic of Gilgamesh is a legendary tale that magnifies the exploits of Gilgamesh and his friend
Enkidu, neither Gilgamesh, Enkidu, nor even Ziusudra are divine or semi-divine in character. On the
contrary, this legendary tale contains several historical elements which archaeology has confirmed:
Opening his mouth, Gilgamesh spoke and said to Enkidu: Come, my friend, let us go to the Sublime
Temple (É.GAL.MAḪ) to visit Nin-suna, the great Queen, Nin-suna, the wise, the learned, the
omniscient: she will make our steps a careful walk (...). ...) Gilgamesh steps forward to enter in front of
the Queen: Nin-suna, he says, I feel strong enough to make the long journey to (Ḫuwawa, to face) a
battle whose outcome I do not know, (to walk a path) that I do not know, (until the day I return from my
journey safe and sound, until I reach the forest) of the Cedars (Epic III:14-28).
319
When they are mentioned in the texts of Lagash, the rulers of Umma are called ENSI, like those of Lagash, whereas in their own
inscriptions they give themselves the title of LUGAL “king”, like Enlilpabilgagi (c. 2330-2310) who called himself king of Umma.
320
Several Sumerian kings invoked the protection of dBilgamesh, his name being preceded by a divine determinant. It is also
noticeable that the name originally written Gishbilgamesh was gradually transformed into dBilgamesh (George: 2003, 71-90), the
first element: Gish "tree [of life]", being confused with Bil "young" (Rubio: 2012, 3-16). An inscription on a clay tablet of Utu-hegal,
a king of Uruk IV (2032-2021), mentions the following text: Dumuzi (who is) Ama-ushumgal-ana, has pronounced my fate! He gave
me as his protector dBilgamesh, the son of dNin-suna! He filled the hearts of the citizens of Uruk, the citizens of Kullab, with joy. His
city, as one man, followed him. It fulfilled its obligations. The inscription of Ur-Namma, a king of Ur III (2020-2002), reads: A
d
Bilgamesh, from the country (named) EN.DÍM.GIG(?), his master, Ur-Namma, the strong man, the king of Ur, the king of Sumer
and Akkad, vowed (this vase) when he built the temple of Nanna. Whoever would erase this inscription, let dBilgamesh settle his fate.
Several stone weapon masses dating from the Ur III period are dedicated to the name of dBilgamesh (Gilgamesh).
321
According to Sumerian mythology, Nin-suna was first called Gula, the main goddess of healing in ancient Mesopotamia. She was
therefore the goddess of doctors, but in the Epic Nin-suna plays an essential role as interpreter of dreams (tablets I and II) and above
all as Gilgamesh's spiritual guide in his mystical quest towards the forest of Cedars on Mount Hermon
322
The existence of a "King Meskalamdug" is known from a seal discovered at the Royal Cemetery of Ur (cylinder seal U 11751,
discovered in the tomb of a queen, PG 1054), which bears the title MES-KALAM-DUG LUGAL "King Meskalamdug", however the
same name has been found inscribed on the grave goods of tomb PG 755 at the Royal Cemetery of Ur, but without the title "King".
Akalamdud is known from his tomb (Tomb 1332) and an inscription at the Royal Cemetery at Ur (LUGAL A-KALAM-DUG).
Therefore, if Gilgamesh carried out a mystical quest to find the tree of life, “which prolongs life”, his
mother guided him throughout his journey thanks to the Sun God. The Sumerian version of the Epic was thus
centred on Gilgamesh's mystical quest, which probably took place towards the end of his life, since at the
beginning of the Epic the king boasted of the main achievement of his long career was not his victory over
Agga, the king of Kish (which is not mentioned in the Epic), but the construction of an enormous rampart
around the city of Uruk consisting of a circular enclosure made of baked bricks reinforced by pilasters (Epic
I:9-22). This mystical quest took place in two stages: a first journey by land to Mount Hermon (Epic V), a
place dedicated to the deity, and a second journey by sea to Dilmun (Barhein Island), a mythical place
(where Ziusudra was supposed to live), to benefit from the tree of life. According to archaeology, Uruk
reached its maximum size during the Dynastic Archaic period (DA III). It is from this period, around 2500
BCE, that its 9.5 km long enclosure, with more than 900 semi-circular towers, covers an area of 5 km2.
Gilgamesh claims to have built this gigantic enclosure (Epic I:9-22), which is confirmed by the following
inscription of a king of Uruk, Anam (1727-1722), who presents himself as the: father of the troops of Uruk,
son of Ilân-Šeme’a, the one who restored the rampart of Uruk, Gilgamesh's former work. This wall was
destroyed by Samsu-iluna (1654-1616) in year 11 of his reign. It is also interesting to note that Mount
Hermon is called Saria(n) in the Epic, in accordance with its Phoenician name at the time (Dt 3:9). Hermon
means “consecrated [to the divinity]” in Hebrew, and the Forest of Cedars was a sacred place forbidden to
humans (Is 14:8, 37:24), guarded by a terrifying creature called Ḫuwawa (“living creature” in Hebrew?).
These two elements: 1) the circular city wall of Uruk built around 2500 BCE and 2) the exact name of Mount
Hermon at that time, confirm that Gilgamesh's journey really took place. However, this epic was not written
down for two reasons: at that time there is no evidence that annals existed, but if they had, they would have
recorded events related to royalty (such as the enthronement), political alliances with other kings and
military campaigns, three themes absent from the epic. In fact, it was King Shulgi who asked to put the
Sumerian version of the Epic in writing to legitimise his own reign. This original (lost) version was then
translated into Akkadian and then commented on and completed by the Akkadian scribes, notably the
account of the Flood (which had been transmitted orally in Hebrew). The Akkadian versions of the Epic
were then standardised and disseminated during the Babylonian dynasty of the great king Hammurabi.
Although the Epic of Gilgamesh is a legendary tale, the main characters: Gilgamesh, the king of Uruk,
his mother Nin-suna and Ziusudra, the survivor of the universal flood who had been the king of Shuruppak,
all existed since they are mentioned in several writings of that time323. Consequently, the Sumerian kings
were familiar with Gilgamesh's mystical quest to Ziusudra, the ancient king of Shuruppak and survivor of the
universal flood. It is obvious that Ziusudra is the Sumerian name for the biblical Noah to such an extent that
most Assyriologists believe that the biblical account of Genesis chapters 5 to 9 was inspired by tablet XI of
the Epic of Gilgamesh. It is true that the two stories are very similar, but the following anomalies show that
the original version was that of a biblical story.
Features GENESIS 6-9 EPIC OF GILGAMESH
Reason for the Flood Human wickedness Excessive human noisiness
Response of deity God was sorry He made man Gods could not sleep
because of his wickedness
Building time About 70 years324 7 days
Boat size 450x75x45 feet325 200x200x200 feet (unseaworthy cube)
Aftermath God promises not to destroy The gods quarrel among themselves, god Ea lies to
humanity by flood again Enlil. Utnapishtim given immortality like the gods
The most striking point of the Epic of Gilgamesh is that this narrative is imbued with polytheism, unlike
the biblical account of strict monotheism. If the text of Genesis was inspired by the story of Gilgamesh, why
is there no trace of polytheism? Similarly, the cause of the Flood is absent in the early Sumerian versions, it
323
A Sumerian text by Abu Salabikh (no. 327), dated around 2500 BCE (DA IIIa), describes a romantic relationship between the
sage Lugalbanda and Nin-suna his “doe” (Jacobsen: 1989, 69-86). Another text of proverbs, entitled the Instructions of Shuruppak,
mentions the name of Ziusudra. These tablets are contemporary with the one found in Fara (Shuruppak), where the oldest mention of
the name Gilgamesh was found in the form Gish.bilgamesh. The site of Abu Salabikh was located in the area of influence of the
kingdom of Kish, the most important political power in the northern part of Lower Mesopotamia at that time. The texts of Abu
Salabikh also show similarities with those of the later Ebla, showing the proximity existing between the Near Eastern Semitic
populations of the Archaic Dynasties. However, while the tablets on the latter site are written in a Sumerian context, the texts of Abu
Salabikh testify to a region inhabited by Semites (Akkadians before the Akkad kingdom!). The texts are written in Sumerian but 40%
of the names of people are Akkadian
324
A building time of around 70 years is clearly more realistic rather than only 7 days. In the biblical account Noah was 500 years old
when he became the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth (Gn 5:32) and 600 years old when the flood of water came upon the earth (Gn
7:6). Thus, Noah could start his construction when his sons became adults (around 30 years).
325
The current large cargo ships, designed to carry large volumes safely and stably, have the exact proportions of the biblical ark, a
ratio length/width of 6/1, which is ideal for buoyancy according to specialists in shipbuilding.
258
was the Babylonian versions that added the explanation of the excessive noise of humans that would have
upset the gods. The Sumerian scribes of the dynasty of Ur III therefore took the biblical account of the flood
as a basis for reconstructing the genealogy of Ziusudra (Noah) found in the Sumerian king lists. These lists
were copied, until Berosus around 280 BCE, with many variations, but always with the same constants: the
survivor of the flood is called Ziusudra in Sumerian, he lived 600 years before the universal flood, he is the
10th and last antediluvian character and his period of residence in Shuruppak was very long (350 years in the
Bible). There are several indications that the Sumerian king lists were faked before Gilgamesh. Firstly, the
Kish dynasty has reigning periods 60 times longer than the following dynasties. Therefore, the reigns before
Gilgamesh were multiplied by 60, which brings the reign of Jushur (2800-2780), the first king of Kish I, has
a normal duration of 20 years and has a beginning around 2800 BCE according to archaeology. Secondly, the
10 antediluvian kings would have ruled over Sumerian cities that were founded after the universal flood,
which is a clear inconsistency. The biblical account is more logical, no cities or kings are mentioned before
the Flood, only the list of the 10 antediluvian patriarchs, from Adam to Noah. If one compares List C (the
only complete list) with the 10 antediluvian patriarchs (Gn 5, 3-32, Lk 3, 36-38), there is a remarkable
parallelism with the Sumerian King List.
Character Lifespan age Character (List C), king of: City Reign/60 Berosus
1 Adam 5426-4496 930 years 1 Alulim Eridu 480 years Alôros
2 Seth 5196-4284 912 years 2 Alalgar Eridu 1200 years Alaparos
3 Enosh 4991-4086 905 years 3 [x]kidunnu Larsa 1200 years Almêlon
4 Kenan 4801-3891 910 years 4 [x]alima Larsa 360 years Ammenôn
5 Mahalalel 4631-3736 895 years 5 Dumuzi the pastor Bad-tibira 480 years Amegalaros
6 Jared 4466-3504 962 years 6 Amme-lu-ana Bad-tibira 360 years Daônos
7 Enoch 4304-3939 365 years 7 En-sipazi-ana Larak 600 years Euedôrakos
8 Methuselah 4139-3170 969 years 8 Enme-dur-ana Sippar 1200 years Amempsinos
9 Lamech 3952-3175 777 years 9 Šuruppak son of Ubar-Tutu Shuruppak 480 years Otiartes
10 Noah 3770-3170 600 years 10 Ziusudra son of Šuruppak Shuruppak 600 years Xisuthros
Noah 3170-2820 350 years Ziusudra Shuruppak 3150-2800 (350 years)
1 Jushur Kish 2800-2780
The agreement for Noah between the two lists is remarkable: he was the 10th antediluvian patriarch, he
lived 600 years before the universal flood and survived it, he lived another 350 years in Shuruppak (“the
healing place”), during a period that had no kings. According to archaeology, the first Sumerian temple was
erected around 3050 BCE (White Temple in Uruk) which implies a period of 350 years before the
appearance of the first Sumerian dynasty (Kish I). The chronological data of the Sumerian king list
concerning Ziusudra (Noah) are thus in perfect agreement with those of the Bible with one major exception:
the episode of the Tower of Babel built by Nimrod (Marduk) and which was followed by the confusion of
languages is completely ignored in the king lists. The Bible gives few details during the 350-year period in
which this event that ended the first world empire took place. However, Shem's descendants, who are
precisely dated, make it possible to date approximately what happened during this period.
Deluge 1st generation 2nd generation 3rd generation 4th generation 5th generation
Noah 2820 BCE
Japhet Gomer (Cimmerians) Ashkenaz ?? ??
Riphath ?? ??
Togarmah (Armenia) ??
Magog [6?] ?? ??
Mede [6?] ?? ??
Javan (Ionic Greece) Elishah ?? ??
Tarshish ?? ??
Kittim (Cyprus?) ?? ??
Dodanim ?? ??
Tubal [6?] ?? ??
Meshech [6?] ?? ??
Tiras [6?] ?? ??
Kush (Kish?) Seba (Meroë) ?? ??
Havilah (N; Yemen) ?? ??
Sabtah (S. Arabia) ?? ??
Raamah (S. Arabia) Sheba (Yemen) ??
Dedan ??
Sabteca ?? ??
Ham Nimrod Babel (city) ??
(Tower of Babel) Uruk (city) ??
Akkad (city) ??
Mizraim (Egypt) Lud (N. Africa) ?? ??
Anam (Egypt) ?? ??
Lehab (Libya?) ?? ??
Naphtuh (N. Egypt) ?? ??
Pathros (S. Egypt) ?? ??
Casluh ?? ??
Caphtor (Crete) Philistines ??
Put [6?] ?? ??
Canaan Sidon ?? ??
Heth (Hatti) ?? ??
Jebus ?? ??
Amor ?? ??
Girgash ?? ??
Hiv ?? ??
Ark ?? ??
Sin ?? ??
Arvad ?? ??
Zemar ?? ??
Hamath ?? ??
Elam [6?] ?? ??
Ashur (Assyria) [6?] ?? ??
Shem Arpakshad Kainan Shelah Eber Peleg
(3270-2668) (3168-2630) (3033-2573) (2903-2470) (2773-2269) (2639-2300)
Lud (Lydia) ?? ??
Aram Uz (N. Arabia) ?? ??
Hul ?? ??
Gether ?? ??
Mash ?? ??
Total: 16 95 [570] [3420] [20520]
BCE 3170 3040 2910 2780 2650
This chronological reconstruction makes it possible to date the following events:

• 3170 BCE. After the Deluge the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat (Gn 8:4). After this
incident, and probably because the climate became cooler due to the elevation of mountains (Ps 104:8),
Noah's family moved to the east (Gn 11:1-2). Berosus (c.330-260), who was well acquainted with
ancient Sumerian traditions because of his position as a Babylonian priest of Marduk temple, wrote a
historical account very close to the biblical account326.
326
After the death of Ardates, his son Xisuthros (Ziusudra) reigned 18 sari. In his time happened a great deluge; the history of which
is thus described. The deity Cronos appeared to him in a vision and warned him that upon the 15th day of the month Dæsius (Ayyar)
there would be a flood, by which mankind would be destroyed. He therefore enjoined him to write a history of the beginning,
procedure, and conclusion of all things, and to bury it in the city of the Sun at Sippara; and to build a vessel and take with him into it
his friends and relations; and to convey on board everything necessary to sustain life, together with all the different animals, both
birds and quadrupeds, and trust himself fearlessly to the deep. Having asked the Deity whither he was to sail, he was answered, 'To
the Gods;' upon which he offered up a prayer for the good of mankind. He then obeyed the divine admonition and built a vessel 5
stadia in length (5 x 157 m), and 2 in breadth (2 x 157 m). Into this he put everything which he had prepared, and last of all conveyed
into it his wife, his children, and his friends. After the flood had been upon the earth, and was in time abated, Xisuthros sent out birds
from the vessel; which not finding any food, nor any place whereupon they might rest their feet, returned to him again. After an
interval of some days, he sent them forth a second time; and they now returned with their feet tinged with mud. He made a trial a
third time with these birds; but they returned to him no more: from whence he judged that the surface of the earth had appeared above
the waters. He therefore made an opening in the vessel, and upon looking out found that it was stranded upon the side of some
mountain; upon which he immediately quitted it with his wife, his daughter, and the pilot. Xisuthros then paid his adoration to the
earth: and, having constructed an altar, offered sacrifices to the gods, and, with those who had come out of the vessel with him,
disappeared. They, who remained within, finding that their companions did not return, quitted the vessel with many lamentations,
and called continually on the name of Xisuthros. Him they saw no ore; but they could distinguish his voice in the air and could hear
him admonish them to pay due regard to religion; and likewise informed them that it was upon account of his piety that he was
translated to live with the gods, that his wife and daughter and the pilot had obtained the same honour. To this he added that they
should return to Babylonia, and, as it was ordained, search for the writings at Sippara, which they were to make known to all
mankind; moreover, that the place wherein they then were was the land of Armenia (Ararat). The rest having heard these words
offered sacrifices to the gods, and, taking a circuit, journeyed towards Babylonia. The vessel being thus stranded in Armenia, some
part of it yet remains in the Corcyræan mountains of Armenia, and the people scrape off the bitumen with which it had been
outwardly coated, and make use of it by way of an alexipharmic and amulet (Jacoby, FHG III C, pp. 378-382).
It is unlikely that Berosus would have given any credence to the biblical account of the universal flood, for the Babylonian priests
had contempt for the Jews, whom they regarded as godless.
260
• Around 3100 BCE. Noah's family, which was composed of 70 great-grandsons (Gn 10:1-32), dwelt in
Shinar (Sumer) where they remained (Noah and some of his descendants settled in Shuruppak).
• Around 3000 BCE. Nimrod, a great-grandson of Noah (born around 3040 BCE) and a cousin of Kainan,
initiated the construction of several cities like Akkad, Uruk (“White Temple”) and Babel (Gn 10:9-10).
From that land Nimrod went into Assyria and built Nineveh (with) public places, Kalhu (Nimrûd) and
Resen (Tepe Gawra?) between Ninive and Kalhu (Gn 10:11-12).
• Around 2950 BCE. When the Tower of Babel had been built God confused the language (Proto-
Semitic) of all the earth (the land of Sumer at that time), scattered the 70 families then the building
ceased (Gn 11:1-9). Most of the Sumerian cities founded by Nimrod continued to be inhabited, but the
abrupt decrease in population led to their decline for more than 300 years. The descendants of Kush
who lived in the land of Sumer and who now spoke Sumerian remained in the region, presumably
because of their technical skills acquired in building construction they formed the aristocracy and
administrative staff of the Sumerian cities. Similarly, most of those who now spoke Akkadian remained,
but others went west (Mari, Ebla) following the Euphrates, and most of those who now spoke the
Canaanite language went to the Levant (Canaan). Among the six descendants of Mizraim “Egypt”
(which means “distresses” in Hebrew), Pathrusim and Naphtuhim are geographical names, not personal
names, because they are plural and mean respectively “those of Pathros (Jr 44:1)” and “those of
Naphtuh”, which are not Hebrew but are transcriptions of the Egyptian words p3-t3-rsy “the land of the
south” and nỉw(t)-ptḥ327 “city to create”, an old name of Memphis. In addition, the Bible gives
information about the region of origin of Egyptians: I will bring back the captive group of the
Egyptians; and I will bring them back to the land of Pathros, to the land of their origin, and there they
must become a lowly kingdom (Ezk 29:14). As a result, the descendants of Mizraim who lived in the
country of Sumer, and who now spoke Egyptian, sailed west (Byblos) and then sailed to Egypt. Part of
them settled in Memphis (Naphtuh), but the most important part continued southwards and settled in
Abydos328 (Pathros). These ancient inhabitants of the country of Sumer (Shinar) formed the aristocracy
and the administrative staff of the Egyptian cities thanks to their technical skills acquired in the
construction of buildings in Sumer. The Egyptian kingdom is thus the heir of the Sumerian empire
founded by Marduk (Nimrod). Archaeology has confirmed that the oldest Egyptian documents did
indeed appear in the south of Egypt around Abydos (Thinis of Dynasty 0). Iawan's family went into the
Ionian Islands (Gn 10:4-5), Kaphtor's family went into Crete and later a part of Cretans went into a land
initially called Keftiu “those of Kefte” by Egyptians and then “Philistines’ land” (Jr 47:4). The name
Crete is written Kaptaru in Mesopotamian texts dated around 2300 BCE (Joannès: 2001, 208-210). This
name does not mean anything in Akkadian but “bulb/capital” in Hebrew (Am 9:1).
• Around 2820 BCE. When Noah, “king” of Shuruppak, died several civilizations appeared, having each
a very complex and structured language, for example the Sumerian dynasty at Kish and the first
Egyptian dynasty at Abydos (Gn 10:6), the first Elamite dynasty at Awan (Gn 10:22), etc.
According to these indications, which agree with the biblical account, Marduk (Nimrod) founded a
religious empire and ruled it as Lord (EN), he was later called Bel Marduk in Babylonian (Jr 50:2). Bel
“Lord” was the Babylonian equivalent of the Canaanite title Baal, a term which is usually translated as
Priest-King during the predynastic period. He was therefore not a king (LUGAL) in the usual sense, but
rather a religious leader as vicar of God, or Supreme Pontiff, a role similar to that of the Pope over the
Catholic Church in medieval times329. Similarly, both universal religions address prayers to a universal God
(AN)330 who has no personal name, but only a title of Lord God. Babylon, the city founded by Marduk
(Nimrod), is the symbol in the Bible of false religion as Babylon the Great (Rev 16:19). It is for this reason
that the New Testament announces its complete destruction at the end of time, even though it was practically
extinct in the first century of the Christian era (Rev 18:2-10). History with a capital H can only be
established from a reliable chronology, the backbone of History, and from authentic documents, the body of
History. According to this definition, our history began with the construction of the great tower of Babylon,
the foundation of universal religion, and will end with its definitive fall with the collapse of religions.
327
The Egyptian word nỉw(t)-ỉmn is vocalized no-Amon in Nahum 3:8.
328
Twelve boats are laid out side-by-side, next to the tomb of Khasekhemwy (2604-2587) at Abydos, in southern Egypt, more than
13 kilometres from the river Nile. The graves each contain a wooden boat that was filled in with brickwork.
329
Emperor Constantine I (who favoured the Christians) and his successors, even if baptised, also took the title of pontifex maximus.
In the winter of 382-383, the emperor Gratian, among many measures against the ancient religions, abandoned the title, while his
brother Valentinian II did not use it. The title was then not used for centuries, until Pope Theodorus I took it back in 642. Today, the
title Pontifex maximus is reserved for the pope - also known as the Supreme Pontiff (Summus pontifex) or Roman Pontiff (Pontifex
romanus). The reign of a pope is called a pontificate and the former papal domain was known as the pontifical states.
330
This Sumerian word AN means both God and sky.
Biography
Abd El-Maksoud, Mohamed
2006: Tell Heboua. L'apport de l'épigraphie, in: Revue d'Égyptologie 56.
Agut, Damien /Moreno-Garcia, Carlos Juan
2016: De Narmer à Dioclétien 3150 av. J.-C. – 284 apr. J.-C.
Ager, Derek V.
1993: The New Catastrophism: The Importance of the Rare Event in Geological History.
Aldred, Cyril
1988: Akhenaton roi d'Égypte.
Altenmüller, Hartwig
Álvarez-Mon, Javier
2020: The Art of Elam CA. 4200–525 BC.
1983: Bemerkungen zu den königsgräbern des neuen reiches, in: Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 10.
Anđelković, Branislav
2011, Political Organization of Egypt in the Predynastic Period, in: Before the Pyramids. The Origin of Egyptian
Civilization.
Archi, Alfonso
2016: Egypt or Iran in the Ebla Texts ?, in: Orientalia 65:1.
Arnold, Dorothea
1991: Amenemhat I and the Early Twelfth Dynasty at Thebes, in: Metropolitan Museum Journal 26.
Arnold, Dieter /Jánosi, Peter
2015: The pyramid complex of Amenemhat I at Lisht. The Architecture.
Aroles, Serge
2008: L'énigme des enfants-loups: une certitude biologique mais un déni des archives.
Assmann, Jan
1997: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism.
Aston, David A.
1989: Takeloth I A King of the ‘Theban Twenty-Third Dynasty’?, in: The Journal of Egyptian Egyptology 75.
2009: Takeloth II A King of the Heracleopolitan/Theban 23rd Dynasty Revisited, in: The Libyan Period in Egypt.
Bader, Bettina
2011: Traces of Foreign Settlers in the Archaeological Record of Tell el-Dab‘a, in: Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta
202.
Bailey, Leslie E.
2000: Amenhotep III and Akhenaten: an Examination of the Coregency Issues.
Baines, John
1974: The Inundation Stela of Sobekhotep VIII, in: Acta Orientalia 36.
1986: The Stela of Emhab: Innovation, Tradition, Hierarchy, in: The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 72.
Barbotin, Christophe
2008: Âhmosis et le début de la XVIIIe dynastie.
Barnard, Hans /Wendrich, Willeke
2008: The Archaeology of Mobility: Old World and New World Nomadism
Barr, James
1999: Pre-scientific Chronology: The Bible and the Origin of the World, in: Proceedings of the American Philosophical
Society 143:3.
Barthélemy, Dominique
1982: Critique textuelle de l'Ancien Testament Tome 1.
1992: Critique textuelle de l'Ancien Testament Tome 3.
Baud, Michel
2006: The Relative Chronology of Dynasties 6 and 8, in: Ancient Egyptian Chronology.
2015: Djéser et la IIIe dynastie.
Baud, Michel /Dobrev, Vassil
1995: De nouvelles annales de l’Ancien Empire égyptien. Une "Pierre de Palerme" pour la VIe dynastie, in: BIFAO 95.
1995a: Les annales royales de la VIe dynastie égyptienne récemment identifiées au Musée du Caire, in: CRAIB 139:2.
262
1997: Le verso des annales de la VIe dynastie. Pierre de Saqqara-Sud, in: BIFAO 97.
Lauer, Jean-Philippe
1960: L'Orientation astronomique dans l'Ancienne Égypte, et la Précession de l'Axe du monde, in BIFAO 60.
Beckman, Gary
1999: Hittite Diplomatic Texts.
2000: Hittite Chronology, in: Akkadica 119-120.
Bell, Lanny D.
1986: La parenté de Toutankhamon, in: Les dossiers Histoire et Archéologie n°101.
Ben-Dor Evian, Shirly
2011: Shishak's Karnak Relief – More than Just Name-Rings, in: Egypt, Canaan and Israel: History, Imperialism,
Ideology and Literature.
Ben-Tor, Daphna
2007 Scarabs, Chronology, and Interconnections: Egypt and Palestine in the Second Intermediate Period, in: Orbis
Biblicus et Orientalis 27.
2009: Can Scarabs Argue for the Origin of the Hyksos, in: Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 1:1.
Berger, Rainer
1970: Ancient Egyptian Radiocarbon Chronology, in: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London.
Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences Vol. 269, No. 1193.
Berthelot, Katell /Legrand, Thierry
2010: La bibliothèque de Qumrân 2.
Bestock, Laurel D.
2008: The Early Dynastic Funerary Enclosures of Abydos, in: Archéo-Nil n°18.
2011: The First Kings of Egypt: the Abydos Evidence, in: Before the Pyramids
Bickerman, Elias Joseph
1980: Chronology of the ancient world.
Bietak, Manfred
1991: Egypt and Canaan During the Middle Bronze Age, in: BASOR 281.
2015: On the Historicity of the Exodus: What Egyptology Today Can Contribute to Assessing the Sojourn in Egypt, in
T. E. Levy, T. Schneider and W.H.C. Propp (eds.), Israel's Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective.
2021: The End of High Chronology in the Aegean and the Levant? Recent Discussions about the Chronology of the
Middle and the Late Bronze Ages in the Eastern Mediterranean,” Part II, in: Bibliotheca Orientalis LXXVII:3/4.
Biga Vanna/ Grimal Nicolas/ Durand Jean-Marie
2016: La Syrie et l’Égypte au IIIe millénaire av. J.-C, in: Académie des Inscriptions & Belles-Lettres.
Błaszczyk, Katarzyna
2008: The Royal Figurine(?) from Tell el-Farkha, in: Studies in Ancient Art and Civilization 12.
Bloch-Smith, Elizabeth
2003: Israelite Ethnicity in Iron I: Archaeology preserves what is remembered and what is forgotten in Israel's history
in: Journal of Biblical Literature 122/3.
Bodi Daniel
2007: Les problèmes de la version grecque du livre d'Ézéchiel, in: Semitica 52-53.
Boiy, Tom
2000: Dating Method During the Early Hellenistic Period, in: Jounal of Cuneiform Studies 52.
Bonhême, Marie-Ange
1979: Hérihor fut-il effectivement roi? in: Bulletin de l'Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale n°79.
Bonhême, Marie-Ange/ Forgeau, Annie
2001: Pharaon les secrets du pouvoir.
Bonfante, Larissa/ Chadwick, John
1994: La naissance des écritures du cunéiforme à l’alphabet.
Bovot, Jean-Luc
2005: La tombe KV 55 un imbroglio archéologique, in: Akhénaton et l'époque amarnienne.
Breasted, James Henry
1906: Ancient records of Egypt: Historical documents from the earliest times to the Persian conquest. Vol. IV.
Briant, Pierre
1996: Histoire de l'empire perse. De Cyrus à Alexandre.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 263
Briend, Jacques/ Seux, Marie-Joseph

1977: Textes du Proche-Orient ancien et histoire d'Israël.
Bronk Ramsey, Christopher and al
2010: Radiocarbon-Based Chronology for Dynastic Egypt, in: Science Vol 328.
Brovarski, Edward
1987: Two Old Kingdom Writing Boards from Giza, in: Annales du Service des Antiquités de l'Egypte 71.
Brovarski, Edward /Der Manuelian, Peter /Simpson, W. K.
2002: The Senedjemib Complex: The Mastabas of Senedjemib Inti (G 2370), Khnumenti (G 2374), and Senedjemib
Mehi (G 2378).
Brown, Robert H.
1994: Compatibility of Biblical Chronology with C-14 Age, in: Origins 21:2.
Bruins, Hendrik J. et al
2008: Geoarchaeological tsunami deposits at Palaikastro (Crete) and the Late Minoan IA eruption of Santorini, in
Journal of Archaeological Science 35.
Bruins, Hendrik J. /Van der Plicht, Johannes
2019: Radiocarbon Dating Comparée of Hyksos-Related Phases at Ashkelon and Tell el-Dabʿa, in: The Enigma of the
Hyksos Volume I.
Bruins, Hendrik J. /Van der Plicht, Johannes /Mazar, Amihai
2003: 14C Dates from Tel Rehov: Iron-Age Chronology, Pharaohs, and Hebrew Kings, in: Science Vol 300.
Bryce, Trevor R.
2005: The Kingdom of the Hittites (tablet KBo IV 14).
2012: The World of the Neo-Hittite Kingdoms.
Butterlin, Pascal
2003: Les temps proto-urbains de Mésopotamie: contacts et acculturation à l'époque d'Uruk au Moyen-Orient.
Callender, Vivienne Gae
2004: Queen Tausret and the End of Dynasty 19, in: Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 32.
2011: Reflections on princess Khamerernebty of Abusir, in: Times, Signs and Pyramids.
Caminos, Ricardo A.
1952: Gebel Es-Silsillah n°100, in: Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 38
1958: The Chronicle of Prince Osorkon.
Casperson, Lee W.
1986: The Lunar Dates of Thutmose III, in: Journal of Near Eastern Studies 45:2.
1988: The lunar date of Ramesses II, in: Journal Of Near Eastern Studies 47.
Cassignol, Charles
1979: Quelques recherches sur la méthode Potassium-Argon, in: Bulletin de l'Association française pour l'étude du
quaternaire vol. 16:1-2.
Cervello, Josep
2005: The Thinite "Royal Lists": Typology and Meaning, in: L'Egypte pré- et protodynastique. Les origines de l'Etat.
Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt. Origin of the State.
Chirichigno, Gregory C.
1993: Debt-Slavery in Israel and the Ancient Near East.
Ciavatti, Aurore
2020: L’octaétéride et la chronologie de l’Ancien Empire: prolégomènes, in: Bulletin de la Société Française
d’Egyptologie 202.
Coche-Zivie, Christiane
1972: Nitocris, Rhodopis et la troisième pyramide de Giza, in BIFAO 72.
Cohen, Susan L.
2002: Canaanites, Chronologies, and Connections.
Cohen, Yoram /Singer, Itamar
2006: A Late Synchronism between Ugarit and Emar, in: Essays on Ancient Israel in Its Near Eastern Context.
Cooper, Jerrold S.
1993: Sumerian and Aryan : Racial Theory, Academic Politics and Parisian Assyriology, in: Revue de l'histoire des
religions 210:2.
Corvisier, Jean-Nicolas
2018: La vieillesse dans le monde antique : aspects démographiques et conséquences sociales, in: Cahiers des études
anciennes LV.
264
Dalrymple, G. Brent
1969: 40Ar/36Ar Analyses of Historic Lava Flows, in Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6.
Danino, Michel
2006: L'Inde et l'invasion de nulle part. Le dernier repaire du mythe aryen.
Darnell, Deborah
2005: Evidence from the Rayayna Desert and Kurkur Oasis for Long Distance Trade during the Predynastic Period, in:
Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt, Origin of the State, Abstract of Papers.
Darnell, John Coleman
2010: Opet Festival, in: UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology 12-10.
Darnell, John Coleman /Darnell, Deborah
2002: Theban Desert Road Survey in the Egyptian Western Desert, Vol. 1, in: Oriental Institute Publications 119.
Dash, Glen
2013: How the Pyramid Builders May Have Found Their True North, in: Aeragram 14-1.
2015: Simultaneous Transit and Pyramid Alignments: Were the Egyptians’ Errors in Their Stars or in Themselves?
2017: Occam’s Egyptian razor: the equinox and the alignment of the pyramids.
Dee, Michael W. /Pope, Benjamin J. S.
2016: Anchoring historical sequences using a new source of astro-chronological tie-points, in: Proceedings of the Royal
Society 472.
Dee, Michael /Wengrow, David /Shortland, Andrew /Stevenson, Alice /Brock, Fiona /Girdland Flink, Linus / Bronk
Ramsey, Christopher
2013: An absolute chronology for early Egypt using radiocarbon dating and Bayesian statistical modelling, in:
Proceedings of the Royal Society 469.
De Miroschedji, Pierre
2015: Les relations entre l’Égypte et le levant aux IVe et IIIe millénaires à la lumière des fouilles de Tell Es-Sakan, in:
Comptes rendus des séances de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 159:2.
De Morgan, Jacques
1897: Recherches sur les origines de l’Égypte. Ethnographie préhistorique et tombeau royal de Négadah.
Demoule, Jean-Paul
2014: Mais où sont passés les Indo-Européens ? Le mythe d’origine de l’Occident.
Depuydt, Leo
1995: More Valuable than all Gold: Ptolemy Royal Canon, in: Journal of Cuneiform Studies 47.
1996: Egyptian Regnal Dating under Cambyses and the Date of the Persian Conquest.
1998: The Demotic Mathematical Astronomical Papyrus Carlsberg 9 Reinterpreted, in: Egyptian Religion the Last
Thousand Years.
Der Manuelian, Peter
1987: Studies in the reign of Amenophis II, in: Hidesheimer Ägyptologische Beiträge 26.
Desroches Noblecourt, Christiane
1996: Ramsès II la véritable histoire.
2002: La reine mystérieuse Hatshepsout.
Desset, François
2020: A new history of writing on the Iranian Plateau (https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03471307/).
Dessoudeix, Michel
2008: Chronique de l’Egypte ancienne.
2010: Lettres égyptiennes. La naissance du Nouvel Empire de Kamosis à Thoutmosis II.
DiTommaso, Lorenzo
1998: A note on Demetrius the Chronographer, Fr. 2.11 (= Eusebius, “PrEv” 9.21.11), in: Journal for the Study of
Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period 29:1.
Dodson, Aidan /Hilton, Dyan
2010: The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt.
Dorman, Peter F.
2002: The Biographical Inscription of Ptahshepses from Saqqara: A Newly Identified Fragment, in: The Journal of
Egyptian Archaeology Vol. 88.
2006: 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.
Dubovský, Peter
2006: Tiglath-pileser III’s Campaigns in 734-732 B.C.: Historical Background of Isa 7; 2 Kgs 15–16 and 2 Chr 27–28
in: Biblical Studies on the Web 87.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 265
El Rabih, Massoud Makki

2017: The unity of Hamito-Semitic and Sumerian language families.
El-Sabban, Sherif
2000: Temple Festival Calendars of Ancient Egypt.
Etienne, Marc
1999: A propos des representations d'enceintes crenelees sur les palettes de I'epoque de Nagada III, in: Archéo-Nil n°9
Finkelstein, Israel /Piasetzky, Eli
2003: Wrong and Right; High and Low 14C Dates from Tel Rehov: Iron-Age Chronology, in: Tel Aviv 30:2.
2006: 14C and the Iron-Age Chronology Debate: Rehov, Khirbet en-Nahas, Dan, and Megiddo, in: Radiocarbon 48:3.
Finkelstein, Israel /Silberman, Neil Asher
2001: The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Sacred Texts.
Finegan, Jack
1998: Handbook of Biblical Chronology.
Flood, Elizabeth
2007: Biographical Texts from Ramessid Egypt.
Frame, Grant
1999: The Inscription of Sargon II at Tang-i Var, in: Orientalia 68:1.
Franke, Detlef
2013: The 13th to 17th Dynasties: chronological framework, in: Egyptian Stelae in the British Museum from the 13th to
17th Dynasties Vol I:1.
Freedman, David Noel
1962: The Masoretic Text and the Qumran Scrolls. A Study in Orthography, in: Textus 2.
Freu, Jacques
2002: La chronologie du règne de Suppiluliuma, in: Silva Anatolica. Anatolian Studies Presented to Maciej Popko.
Freu, Jacques /Mazoyer, Michel
2007: Les débuts du nouvel empire hittite. Les Hittites et leur histoire.
Gabolde, Luc
1987: La chronologie du règne de Thoutmosis II, in: Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur Band 14.
2010: 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.
Gabolde, Marc
1998: D'Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon.
2005: Akhénaton et l'époque amarnienne.
2015: Toutankhamon.
Gadré, Karine
2008: Conception d’un modèle de visibilité d’étoile à l’œil nu. Application à l’identification des décans égyptiens.
2008c: Introduction aux méthodes de l'archéoastronomie. Seconde partie : Application à la détermination de la source
astronomique d'orientation d'édifices.
Gangui, Alejandro
2015: Fixing the Shadows While Moving the Gnomon, in The Physics Teacher 53.
Garcia, Dominique /Le Bras, Hervé.
2017: Archéologie des migrations.
Gardiner, Alan Henderson
1905: The Inscription of Mes, in: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Altertumskunde Ägyptens 4:3.
Gauthier, Henri
1914: Mémoire publiés par les membres de l'institut français d'archéologie orientale du Caire. Tome 19.
1915: Le livre des rois d'Égypte.
Gautschy, Rita /Habicht, Michael E. /Galassi, Francesco M. /Rutica, Daniela /Rühli, Frank J. /Hannig, Rainer
2017: A New Astronomically Based Chronological Model for the Egyptian Old Kingdom, in: Journal of Egyptian
History 10.
Gerstenblith, Patty
1983: The Levant at the Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age.
Gertoux, Gérard
2018: Dating the Reigns of Xerxes and Artaxerxes, in: Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Series Archaeologica 40.
2020: Intercalations during the co-regency of Xerxes with Darius, in NABU 2020-4 note 130.
266
2023: Assyrian and biblical chronologies are they reliable? (https://hal.science/hal-03207471v4/document).

2023b: Mesopotamian chronology (2340-539 BCE) through astronomically dated synchronisms and comparison with
carbon-14 dating (https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03090272v6/document).
George, Andrew
2003: The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts, Volume 1.
Gilboa, Ayelet /Sharon, Ilan /Zorn, Jeffrey
2004: Dor and Iron Age Chronology: Scarabs, Ceramic Sequence and 14C, in: Tel Aviv 31:1.
Giles, Frederick John
2001: The Amarna Age: Egypt.
Glassner, Jean-Jacques
2004: Chroniques mésopotamiennes.
2005: Mesopotamian Chronicles.
Gohary, Jocelyn
1992: Akhenaten's Sed-Festival at Karnak.
Goldwasser, Orly
2006: King Apophis and the Emergence of Monotheism, in: Timelines Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak Vol. I.
Gourdon, Yannis
2016: Pépy Ier et la VIe dynastie.
Gourinard, Yves
1975: Méthode Potassium-Argon et chronologie quaternaire, in Bulletin de l’Association Française pour l'Étude du
Quaternaire 2.
Graham, Lloyd D.
2019: A comparison of the polychrome geometric patterns painted on Egyptian “palace façades” / false doors with
potential counterparts in Mesopotamia
Grajetzki, Wolfram
2018: The architecture and the signification of the Tarkhan mastabas, Archéo-Nil n°18.
Grayson, Albert Kirk
1980: The Chronology of the Reign of Ashurbanipal, in: Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie
70:2.
Greenberg, Gary
2004: Manetho. A Study in Egyptian Chronology.
Griffith, Francis Llewellyn
1900: Stories of the High Priests of Memphis. The Sethon of Herodotus.
Grimal, Nicolas
1988: Histoire de l'Égypte ancienne.
Guggenheimer, Heinrich W.
2005: Seder Olam. The Rabbinic View of Biblical Chronology.
Haas, Herbert /Divine, James /Wenke, Robert /Lehner, Mark /Wolfli, Willy /Bonani, Georg
1987: Radiocarbon chronology and the historical calendar in Egypt, in: Chronologies du Proche Orient / Chronologies
in the Near East. Relative chronologies and absolute chronology 16,000 - 4.000 B.P.
Habachi, Labib
1972: The Second Stela of Kamose and his Struggle against the Hyksos Ruler and his Capital.
Hallo, William W./ Simpson, William Kelly
1971: The Ancient Near East.
Hamilton, Caleb R.
2016: Enlightening the Enduring Engravings: The Expeditions of Raneb, in: Archéo-Nil 26.
Hamilton, Keith
2018: The Great Pit of Abu-Rawash. A layman’s Guide.
Hari, Robert
1964: Horemheb et la reine Moutnedjemet ou la fin d'une dynastie (Thèse).
Harl, Marguerite /Munnich, Olivier /Dorival, Gilles
1988: La Bible grecque des Septante.
Harper, Prudence O. /Aruz, Joan /Tallon, Françoise
1992: The Royal City of Susa.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 267
Hartung, Ulrich
2002: Abydos, Umm el-Qaab : le cimetière prédynastique U, in Archéo-Nil n°l2.
Hassan, Fekri A. /Seirrano, Alejandro Jiménez /Tassie, Geoffrey J.
2006: The sequence and chronology of the Protodynastic and Dynasty I rulers, in: Studies in African Archaeology 9.
Hayes, William C.
1951: Inscriptions from the Palace of Amenhotep III, in: Journal of Near Eastern Studies 10:1.
Heagy, Thomas C.
2014: Who was Menes?, in: Archéo-Nil n°24.
Hendel, Ronald S.
1998: The Text of Genesis.
2001: The Exodus in Biblical Memory, in: Journal of Biblical Literature 120/4.
Hendrickx, Stan
1996: The relative chronology of the Naqada culture: Problems and possibilities, in: Aspects of Early Egypt.
2006: Predynastic – Early Dynastic chronology, in: Ancient Egyptian Chronology.
2008: Les grands mastabas de la Ire dynastie à Saqqara, in: Archéo-Nil n°18.
2014: The Emergence of the Egyptian State, in: The Cambridge World Prehistory. Vol. 1.
2020: The origins of the Predynastic cultures, in: The Oxford Handbook of Egyptology.
Hendrickx, Stan /Eyckerman, Merel
2012: Visual representation and state development in Egypt, in: Archéo-Nil 22.
Higginbotham, Carolyn R.
2000: Egyptianization and Elite Emulation in Ramesside.
Hobson, Russell
2009: The Exact Transmission of the Texts in the First Millennium B.C.E. (Thesis University of Sydney).
Hornung, Erik
2006: The New Kingdom, in: Ancient Egyptian Chronology.
Hornung, Erik /Krauss, Rolf /Warburton, David A.
2006: Ancient Egyptian Chronology.
Hsu, Shih-Wei
2010: The Palermo Stone: the Earliest Royal Inscription from Ancient Egypt*, in: Altorientalischen Forschungen 37:1.
Huehnergard, John
2000: A Grammar of Akkadian, in: Harvard Semitic Museum Studies 45.
Hunt, Kathleen
2002: Carbon-14 in Coal Deposits, in: The TalkOrigins Archive.
Jansen-Winkeln, Karl
2006: The Third Intermediate Period, in: Ancient Egyptian Chronology.
Janssen, Jacobus Johannes
1961: Two Ancient Egyptian Ship's Logs.
Janssens, Paul A.
1970: Paleopathology – diseases and injuries of prehistoric man.
Joannès, Francis
2001: Dictionnaire de la civilization mésopotamienne.
Joffe, Alexander H.
2000: Egypt and Syro-Mesopotamia in the 4th Millennium: Implications of the New Chronology, in: Current
Anthropology 41.
Josephson, Jack A. /Hartwig, Melinda
2019: The Old Kingdom: Who was its first king?
Kahl, Jochem
2006: Inscriptional evidence for the relative chronology of dyns. 0-2, in: Ancient Egyptian chronology.
Kienitz, Friedrich Karl,
1953: Die politische Geschichte Ägyptens vom 7. bis zum 4. Jahrhundert vor der Zeitwende.
Kitchen, Kenneth A.
1962: Suppiluliuma and the Amarna Pharaohs.
1985: RAMSES II le pharaon triomphant.
268
1987: 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” Vol 1.
2000: Regnal and Genealogical Data of Ancient Egypt, in: The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern
Mediterranean.
2003: On the Reliability of the Old Testament.
2004: The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt.
Klotz, David
2010: Emhab versus the tmrhtn: Monomachy and the Expulsion of the Hyksos, in: Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur
39.
Kohlmeyer, Kay
2009: The Temple of the Storm God in Aleppo during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages, in: Near Eastern
Archaeology 74:4.
Krauss, Rolf
1996: The Length of Sneferu's Reign and How Long It Took to Build the 'Red Pyramid', in: The Journal of Egyptian
Archaeology 82.
2005: Moïse le pharaon.
2006: Ancient Egyptian Chronology.
Kubisch, Sabine
2010: Biographies of the Thirteenth to Seventeenth Dynasties, in: Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 192.
Kuhrt, Amélie
2010: The Persian Empire. A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period.
Labarta, Charlie
2017: Un support au nom de Sobekhotep Sékhemrê-Séouadjtaouy. Karnak Varia (§ 8), in: Cahiers de KARNAK 16.
Lacau, Pierre / Lauer, Jean-Philippe
1959: La Pyramide à Degrés Tome IV Inscriptions gravées sur les vases.
La Loggia, Angela Sophia
2016: Egyptian Construction in the Early Dynastic Period, in: Egypt at its Origins 4.
Lalouette, Claire
1986: Thèbes ou la naissance d'un empire.
1995: Thèbes. La naissance d'un empire.
Lambert, Wilfred G.
2011: Babylon: Origins, in: Wissenskultur in Orient Und Okzident.
Laming Macadam, Miles Frederick
1949: The Temples of Kawa I. The Inscriptions.
Lange, Eva
2009: The Sed-Festival Reliefs of Osorkon II at Bubastis: New Investigations, in: The Libyan Period in Egypt.
Larsson, Gerhard
1983: The Chronology of the Pentateuch a Comparison of the MT and LXX, in: Journal of Biblical Literature 102.
Lefèvre, Jean-Claude/ Gillot, Pierre-Yves
1994: Datation potassium-argon de roches volcaniques du Pléistocène supérieur et de l'Holocène (...), in: Bulletin de la
Société préhistorique française 91:2.
Le Guilloux, Patrice
2010: Le mobilier funéraire de Psousennès Ier.
Lehner, Mark
2016: The Name and Nature of the Heit el-Ghurab Old Kingdom Site: Worker’s Town, Pyramid Town, and the Port
Hypothesis, in: The Pyramids Between Life and Death.
Lemaire, André
1991: Recherches d'épigraphie araméenne en Asie mineure et en Égypte, in: Achaemenid History V.
Lipiński, Edward
2001: Semitic Languages Outline of a Comparative Grammar in: Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 80.
Mączyńska, A. /Chłodnicki, M. / Ciałowicz, K.M.
2019: Tell el-Farkha, Twenty Years of Polish Excavations.
Malinine, Michel /Posener, Georges /Vercoutter, Jean
1968: Catalogue des stèles du Sérapéum de Memphis I.
Manning, Sturt W.
2006: Radiocarbon Dating and Egyptian Chronology, in: Ancient Egyptian Chronology.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 269
Marcus, E. S. /Dee, M. W. /Bronk Ramsey, C. B. /Higham, T. F. G. /Shortland, A. J.

2016: Radiocarbon verification of the earliest astro-chronological datum, in Radiocarbon 58:4.
Margueron, Jean-Claude
2000: La naissance des cités et l'urbanisme volontaire dans l'Euphrate Syrien aux IVe et IIIe millénaires, in: Bulletin
d'Études Orientales 52.
Mark, Samuel
2012: The Abydos BG 10 Boat and Implications for Standardization, Innovation, and Timber Conservation in Early
Dynastic Boat-Building, in: The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 98.
Marshall, Amandine
2022: Childhood in Ancient Egypt.
Matthiae, Paolo
2010: Ebla. La città del trono.
Mawdsley, Lisa
2011: Two labels of Aha: Evidence of a pre-mortuary administrative function for First Dynasty potmarks?, in: Cahiers
Caribéens d'Egyptologie 15.
Mazar, Amihai
1990: Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 10,000-586 B.C.E.
McAneney, Jonny /Baillie, Mile
2019: Absolute tree-ring dates for the Late Bronze Age eruptions of Aniakchak and Thera in light of a proposed
revision of ice-core chronologies, in: Antiquity 93.
Mébarki, Farah /Puech, Emile
2002: Les Manuscrits de la mer Morte.
Mendez, Fernando L/ Poznik G. David/ Castellano Sergi/ Bustamante Carlos D.
2016: The Divergence of Neandertal and Modern Human Y Chromosomes, in: The American Journal of Human
Genetics 98:4.
Menu, Bernadette
2003: La mise en place des structures étatiques dans l’Égypte du IVe millénaire, in BIFAO 103.
2004: Égypte pharaonique. Nouvelles recherches sur l'histoire juridique, économique et sociale de l'ancienne Égypte.
2010: Quelques aspects du recrutement des travailleurs dans l'Égypte du deuxième millénaire av. J.-C. in:
L'organisation du travail en Égypte ancienne et en Mésopotamie.
Midant-Reynes, Béatrix
2003: Aux origines de l’Egypte. Du Néolithique à l’émergence de l’Etat.
Miller, Catherine
1996: Les langues de l’Égypte antique. Des mythes de l’origine au cosmopolitisme tardif, in: Égypte/Monde arabe.
Miranda, Noemi /Belmonte, Juan A. /Molinero, Miguel Angel
2008: Uncovering Seshat: new insights into the stretching of the cord ceremony.
Moeller, Nadine
2016: The Origins of Urban Society, in: The Archaeology of Urbanism in Ancient Egypt From the Predynastic Period
to the End of the Middle Kingdom.
Moeller, Nadine/ Marouard, Gregory
2011: Discussion of late Middle Kingdom and early Second Intermediate Period History and Chronology in: Ägypten
und Levante XXI.
Möller, Georg
1912: Hieratische paläographie die aegyptische buchschrift in ihrer entwicklung von der fünften dynastie bis zur
römischen kaiserzeit.
Moran, William L.
1987: Les lettres d'El Amarna, in: LIPO n°13.
1992: The Amarna Letters.
Morris, Ellen
2007: On the ownership of the Saqqara mastabas and the allotment of political and ideological power at the dawn of the
state, in: The Archaeology and Art of Ancient Egypt: Essays in Honor of David B. O’Connor II.
Mumford, Gregory D.
2013: Egypt and the Levant, in: The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant: c. 8000-332 BCE.
Münger, Stefan
2003: Egyptian Stamp-Seal Amulets and their Implications for the Chronology of the Early Iron Age, in: Tel Aviv 30:1.
270
Murnane, William J.
1977: Ancient Egyptian Coregencies. in: Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 40.
1987: The "First Occasion of the Discovery" of Akhet-Aton, in: Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 14.
1995: Texts from the Amarna Period.
Neugebauer, Otto /Parker, Richard A.
1960-1969: Egyptian Astronomical Texts I.
Newberry, Percy E.
1943: Queen Nitocris of the Sixth Dynasty in: The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 29.
Nigro, Lorenzo
2009: The Eighteen Century BC Princes of Byblos and Ebla and the Chronology of the Middle Bronze Age, in: Baal
Hors-Série VI.
Nodet, Etienne
1996: Le pentateuque de Flavius Josèphe.
Nolan, John S.
2008: Lunar intercalations and "cattle counts" during the Old Kingdom: the Hebsed in context, in: Chronology and
Archaeology in Ancient Egypt.
Nolen Jones, Floyd
2005: The Chronology of the Old Testament.
Nicholson, Paul T. /Shaw, Ian
2000: Ancient Egyptian materials and technology.
Nuzzolo, Massimiliano
2015: The Sed-Festival of Niuserra and the Fifth Dynasty Sun Temples, in: Towards a New History for the Egyptian
Old Kingdom.
2020: La pierre de Palerme et les fragments associés. Nouvelles découvertes sur les plus anciennes annales royales
égyptiennes, in: Bulletin de la Société française d’égyptologie 202.
Nyland, A.
2010: The Book of Jubilees.
Ossendrijver, Mathieu
2018: Babylonian Scholarship and the Calendar During the Reign of Xerxes, in: Xerxes and Babylonia. OLA 277.
Parker, Richard Anthony
1941: Persian and Egyptian Chronology, in: The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures LVIII/3.
1950: The Calendars of Ancient Egypt, in: Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 26.
1953: The Names of the Sixteen Day of the Lunar Month, in: Journal of Near Eastern Studies XII.
1957: The Lunar Dates of Thutmose III and Ramesses II, in: Journal of Eastern Studies XVI.
1957b: The Length of Reign of Amasis and the Beginning of the Twenty-sixth Dynasty.
Parker, Richard Anthony / Dubberstein, Waldo H.
1956: Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.-A.D. 75
Patch, Diana Craig /Adams, Matthew Douglas
2011: Egypt at Its Origins. The Fourth International Conference on Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt.
Payraudeau, Frédéric
2008: De nouvelles annales sacerdotales de Siamon, Psousennès II et Osorkon I, in: Bulletin de l'Institut Français
d'Archéologie Orientale n°108.
2009: Takeloth III: Considerations on Old and New Documents, in: The Libyan Period in Egypt.
2020: L’Egypte et la vallé du Nil Tome 3. Les époques tardives (1069-332 av. J.-C.).
Peden, Alexander John
1994: The Reign of Ramesses IV.
Peirce, Laura
2015: The Legacy of the Hyksos: A Study in Cultural Memory and Identity (BA Department of Ancient History,
Faculty of Arts, Macquarie University, Sydney).
Perrot, Charles / Bogaert, Piere-Maurice
1976: Les antiquités bibliques Tome II.
Petit, Lucas P.
2012: What Would the Egyptian Pharaoh Shoshenq I Have Seen If He Had Visited the Central Jordan Valley? in:
Palestine Exploration Quaterly 144:3.
Petrie, Flanders
1917: Scarabs and Cylinders with Names.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 271
Pfertzel, René
2004 : Les Tiqquné Sopherim clandestins présents dans les texte massorétique de la Bible hébraïque.
Piquette, Kathryn E.
2013: It Is Written”?: Making, remaking and unmaking early ‘writing’ in the lower Nile Valley, in: Writing as Material
Practice: Substance, Surface and Medium.
Polz, Daniel
2010 The Second Intermediate Period, in: Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 192.
Porten, Bezalel
1990: The Calendar of Aramaic Texts From Achaemenid and Ptolemaic Egypt, in: Irano-Judaica II.
1996: The Elephantine Papyri in English.
Posener, Georges
1936 : La première domination perse en Égypte, in Bibliothèque d’Etude, IFAO.
Postel, Lilian
2013 : Hérodote et les annales royales égyptiennes, in : Hérodote et l’Égypte : regards croisés sur le livre II de
« l’Enquête » d’Hérodote.
Prell, Sylvia
2021: The Enigma of the Hyksos: Vorderasiatische Bestattungssitten Im Ostdelta Agyptens – Eine Spurensuche, in:
Contributions to the Archaeology of Egypt, Nubia and the Levant, 11.
Pritchard, James B.
1969: Ancient Near Eastern Texts.
Quirke, Stephen
2010: The Second Intermediate Period, in: Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 192.
Read, J.G.
1996: Chronological Placements for Thutmose II, Amenhotep II, Ramesses II, in: Discussions in Egyptology 36.
Redford, Donald B.
1973: New Light on the Asiatic Campaigning of Horemheb, in: BASOR 211.
1986: Pharaonic king-lists, annals, and day-books: a contribution to the study of the Egyptian sense of history.
1997: Textual Sources for the Hyksos Period, in The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives.
Regulski, Ilona
2016: The Origins and Early Development of Writing in Egypt.
Richelle, Matthieu
2010 : Le testament d’Élisée. Texte massorétique et Septante en 2Rois 13 :10-14 :16 ; in : Cahiers de la revue biblique
76.
Rochberg-Halton, Francesca
1991: Between Observation and Theory in Babylonian Astronomical Texts, in: Journal of Near Eastern Studies 50:2.
Rougé, Emmanuel de
1866 : Recherches sur les monuments qu’on peut attribuer aux six premières dynasties.
Rova, Elena
2019: Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean Vol V
Ryholt, Kim S.B.
1997: The Political Situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period c. 1800-1550 B.C.
Sasco, Romain
2015 : Développement d’un outil chronostratigraphique pour les archives climatiques : datations absolues
(K/Ar,Ar/3Ar) et paléomagnétisme appliqués aux laves (Thèse en Sciences de la Terre).
Sauvage, Martin
2020: Atlas historique du Proche-Orient 271ncient.
Scerri, Eleanor M. L., Chikhi, Lounès, Thomas, Mark G.
2019: Beyond multiregional and simple out-of-Africa models of human evolution, in: Nature Ecology & Evolution 3.
Schlebusch, Carina M. & al
2021: Human origins in Southern African palaeo-wetlands? Strong claims from weak evidence, in: Journal of
Archaeological Science 130.
Schiffman, Lawrence H.
2003: Les manuscrits de la mer Morte et le judaïsme
272
Schneider, Thomas
1998: Ausländer in Ägypten während des Mittleren Reiches und der Hyksoszeit in: Ägypten und Altes Testament 42.
2011: Conjectures about Amenmesse, in: Ramesside Studies in Honour of K.A. Kitchen.
Scott, Allan
2014 : One Palette, Two Lands. The myth of the Unification of Egypt by the Narmer Palette.
Seidlmayer, Stephan J.
2006 : The Relative Chronology of Dynasty 3, Ancient Egyptian Chronology.
Sée, Geneviève
1973 : Naissance de l’urbanisme dans la vallée du Nil.
Sethe, Kurt
1907: Urkunden der 18. Dynastie.
1931: Sethos I und die Erneuerung der Hundssternperiode, in: Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache 66.
Shaltout, Mosalam /Belmonte, Juan Antonio
2005: On the orientation of ancient Egyptian temples: (1) Upper Egypt and lower Nubia, in: Journal for the History of
Astronomy XXXVI.
Shaw, Garry J.
2009: The Death of King Seqenenre Tao, in: Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 45.
Shaw, Ian/ Nicholson, Paul
1995: The Dictionary of Ancient Egypt.
Shaw, Pamela-Jane
2003: Discrepancies in Olympiad Dating and Chronological Problems of Archaic Peloponnesian History.
Siddall, Luis R.
2006: Tiglath-pileser III’s Aid to Ahaz: A New Look at the Problems of the Biblical Accounts in Light of the Assyrian
Sources in: ANES 46.
Siesse, Julien
2015: Throne Names Patterns as a Clue for the Internal Chronology of the 13th to 17th Dynasties, in: GM 246.
Silverman, David P. /Wegner, Josef W. /Wegner, Jennifer Houser
2006: Akhenaten and Tutankhamun Revolution and Restoration.
Simpson, William Kelly
2005: The Report of Wenamon. In: The Literature of Ancient Egypt.
Singer, Itamar
2002: Hittite Prayers.
Smith, Mark
2017: Following Osiris: Perspectives on the Osirian Afterlife from Four Millennia.
Somaglino, Claire /Tallet, Pierre
2014 : Une campagne en Nubie sous la Ire dynastie, in : Nehet 1.
Spalinger, Anthony J.
1977: Egypt and Babylonia: A Survey, in: Studien Zur Altägyptischen Kultur Band 5.
2002: Egyptian Festival Dating and the Moon, in: Under One Sky.
2018: Feast and Fights. Essays on Time in Ancient Egypt, in: Yale Egyptological Studies 10.
Spence, Kate.
2000: Ancient Egyptian chronology and the astronomical orientation of pyramids, in Nature 408.
2001: Astronomical orientation of the pyramids, in Nature 412.
Stadelmann, Rainer
2007: King Huni: His Monuments and His Place in the History of the Old Kingdom.
Steele, John M.
2007: Calendars and Years. Astronomy and Time in the Ancient Near East.
Stern, Sacha
2000: The Babylonian Calendar at Elephantine, in: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 130.
Stevenson, Alice /Dee, Michael W.
2016: Confirmation of the world’s oldest woven garment: the Tarkhan Dress, in: Antiquity 349, Volume 90.
Strobel, August
1977: Ursprung und Geschichte des frühchristlichen Osterkalenders, in: Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der
altchristlichen Literatur 121.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 273
Tallet, Pierre
2012: Sur la fondation de la ville de Memphis au début de l’histoire pharaonique. De nouvelles données au Ouadi
‘Ameyra (Sud-Sinaï), in: Comptes rendus des séances de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 156:4.
2015: La zone minière pharaonique du Sud-Sinaï II. Les inscriptions pré- et protodynastiques du Ouadi ‘Ameyra (CCIS
nos 273-335), Mémoires de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale 132.
Tallet, Pierre /Laisney, Damien
2012: Iry-Hor et Narmer au Sud-Sinaï (Ouadi ‘Ameyra). Un complément à la chronologie des expéditions minières
égyptiennes, in Bulletin de l’institut français d’archéologie orientale 112.
Tallet, Pierre /Lehner, Mark
2021: Les Papyrus de la mer Rouge.
Tallet, Pierre /Payraudeau, Frédéric /Ragazzoli, Chloé /Somaglino, Claire
2019: L’Égypte pharaonique. Histoire, société, culture.
Teeter, Emily
2011: Before the Pyramids: The Origins of Egyptian Civilization.
Tetley, M. Christine
2005: The Reconstructed Chronology of the Divided Kingdom.
2014: The Reconstructed Chronology of the Egyptian Kings.
Thiele, Edwin R.
1983: The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings.
Thuault, Simon
2020: L’herminette et la cuisse, histoire d’un taureau parmi les étoiles, in: BIFAO 120.
Toffteen, Olaf Alfred
1907: Ancient Chronology.
1908: Researches in Assyrian and Babylonian Geography.
Török, Laszlo
1997: The Kingdom of Kush.
Tov, Emanuel
1992: Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible.
Tov, Emanuel & als
2003: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov.
Turner, Erik G. /Neugebauer, Otto
1949: Gymnasium Debts and New Moons, in: Bulletin of the John Rylands Library Vol. 32.
Vacin, Luděk
2009: On Šulgi and the Death of Sumerian, in: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires n°3.
Valentin, Francisco Jose Martin /Bedman, Teresa
2014: Proof of a “Long coregency” between Amenhotep III & Amenhotep IV, in: Kmt A Modern Journal of Ancient
Egypt 24:2
Van Oosterhout, G.W.
1993: Sirius, Venus and the Egyptian Calendar, in: Discussions in Egyptology 27.
Van den Brink, Edwin C.M.
2001: The Pottery-Incised Serekh-Signs of Dynasties 0-1 Part II: Fragments and Additional Complete Vessels, in:
Archeo-NiI n°11.
Vandersleyen, Claude
1995: L'Egypte et la vallée du Nil Tome 2.
Van Dijk, Jacobus
2008: New Evidence of the Length of the Reign of Horemheb, in: Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt
vol. 44.
Vanhulle, Dorian
2014: D’un fleuve à l’autre : Contacts et échanges entre l’Égypte et le Proche-Orient au IVe millénaire.
Vercoutter, Jean
1958: Une épitaphe Royale Inédite du Sérapéum, in: Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Institutes, Abteilung
Kairo 16.
1992: L’Egypte et la vallée du Nil. Tome 1. Des origines à la fin de l’Ancien Empire.
Verner, Miroslav
1999: Die Pyramiden.
2001: Archaeological Remarks on the 4th and 5th Dynasty Chronology, in: Archiv Orientalni 69:3.
274
2006: Contemporaneous Evidence for the Relative Chronology of Dyns. 4 and 5, in: Ancient Egyptian Chronology.
Vernus, Pascal
2010: Sagesses de l'Egypte pharaonique.
2016: La naissance de l'écriture dans l'Égypte pharaonique : une problématique revisitée, in: Archéo-Nil 26.
Vernus, Pascal /Yoyotte, Jean
1998: Dictionnaire des pharaons.
Vogelsang-Eastwood, Gillian
1993: Pharaonic Egyptian clothing;
Von Beckerath, Jürgen
1964: Untersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte der Zweiten Zwischenzeit in Ägypten.
1997: Chronologie des pharaonischen ägypten.
Von Bomhard, Anne-Sophie
1999: Le calendrier Égyptien. Une œuvre d'éternité.
Waddell, William Gillan
1964: Manetho, with an English translation by W.G. Waddell.
Ward, William A.
1961: Egypt and the East Mediterranean in: Orientalia 30:1.
1991: The Present Status of Egyptian Chronology, in: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 288.
Waziri, Ayman
2016: Probability Hypothesis and Evidence of Astronomical Observatories in Ancient Egypt, in: Journal of Social
Sciences and Humanities 2:2.
Wells, R.A.
1987: The Amarna M,X,K Boundary Stelae Date: A Modern Calendar Equivalent, in: Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur
14.
Wengrow, David
2006: The Archaeology of Early Egypt.
Wengrow, David /Dee, Michael /Foster, Sarah /Stevenson, Alice /Bronk Ramsey, Christopher
2014: Cultural convergence in the Neolithic of the Nile Valley: a prehistoric perspective on Egypt’s place in Africa.
Wente, Edward Frank /Harris, Jim E.
1992: Royal Mummies of the Eighteenth Dynasty, in: After Tut‘ankhamūn.
Wente, Edward Frank /Van Siclen, Charles C.
1977: Studies in Honor of George R. Hughes, in: Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 39.
Wilkinson, Toby A.H.
1999: Early Dynastic Egypt.
2000: Royal Annals of Ancient Egypt. The Palermo Stone and its associated fragments.
2010: The rise and fall of ancient Egypt.
Williams, Bruce
2003: Review of Umm el-Qaab I: Das prädynastische Königsgrab U-j und seine frühen Schriftzeugnisse by Günter
Dreyer, in: Journal of Near Eastern Studies 62: 2.
Winters, Ryan D.
2019. Negotiating Exchange: Ebla and the International System of the Early Bronze Age. Harvard University.
Yoyotte, Jean
1956: Le nom de Ramsès “Souverain d'Héliopolis”, in: Mit Rahineh.
Žába, Zbyněk
1953: L'Orientation astronomique dans l'Ancienne Égypte, et la Précession de l'Axe du monde.

Absolute_Egyptian_chronology_From_Narmer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Absolute_Egyptian_chronology_From_Narmer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Egyptian chronology, 2838-342 BCE, through astronomically dated

synchronisms and comparison with carbon-14 dating

EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY, 2838-342 BCE, THROUGH ASTRONOMICALLY DATED SYNCHRONISMS AND

Master of crowns, Xerxes

Year 6, Master of crowns, Xerxes

Year 6, Lord of the two lands, Cambyses (II)

Year 36, Lord of the two lands, Darius (I)

Year 12, Lord of the two lands, Xerxes

ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF DYNASTIES 21 TO 25 (1090-663)

6 Psamtik III 6 months 1-2 6 months -525 203

526 Psamtik III 44/1 203

Julian day = 201 + (139 – Year*)/4 + (Egyptian day - 1)

1020 47 City of David 37 Hiram 1Ch 22:1-5

ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF THE 20TH DYNASTY (1196-1090)

ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF THE 19TH DYNASTY (1295-1194)

DATING THE REIGN OF RAMSES II (1283-1216) THROUGH MESOPOTAMIAN CHRONOLOGY

THE REIGN OF AMENHOTEP IV (1356-1340)/ AKHENATEN (1345-1340) THROUGH ASTRONOMY

Regnal year 1 month IV Akhet day 19 Horus incarnation

THE REIGN OF THUTMOSE III (1472-1418) THROUGH ASTRONOMY

Venus Jupiter Mars Sirius Phoenix Jupiter Saturn Sirius

8 Seqenenre Taa ‘War of the Hyksos’

CHRONOLOGY OF DYNASTIES 13 TO 17 (1778-1530) THROUGH ASTRONOMY

Zedekiah 598 - 11 2Ch 36:11

Year 11, II Shemu (1); we entered Heliopolis

I Akhet 23; the mighty dignitary

Year 11, I Akhet 3-birth of Seth [3rd epagomenal day]

While the end of Seqenenre’s reign (1543-

17th Dynasty beginning of 18th Dynasty 18th Dynasty

IBNI-ADDU KING OF HAZOR (1685-1665): ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY VERSUS 14C DATING

CHRONOLOGY OF THE 12TH DYNASTY (1975-1778) THROUGH ASTRONOMY

REIGNS OF SENWOSRET I (1946-1901) AND AMENEMHAT III (1901-1863) THROUGH ASTRONOMY

Calendars in 1837 BCE

Calendars in 1827 BCE

The life-size head129 (opposite figure) of

As a result, the female offering bearer in the tomb

CHRONOLOGY OF DYNASTY 11 (2118-1975) THROUGH ASTRONOMY

CHRONOLOGY OF DYNASTIES 4 TO 6 (2523-2124) THROUGH ASTRONOMY

HOW TO TRANSFORM A NUMBER OF CENSUSES INTO A NUMBER OF YEARS OF REIGN

King Djedefre North East South West Average ∆East-West

South Saqqara Stone (verso) FIG. 30

The similarity of the compartments in registers 1 to 5 of the verso allows us to

• Year 30*; Sed-festival.

• [Year 36 (= 30*): 'Following of Horus'; 18th occasion of the census].

• Year 12: 'Following of Horus'; 6th occasion of the census.

• Year 1 (= 1*):'Following of Horus'; desher-festival.

• Year 16 (= 14*): […]

White Temple (Uruk) Painted Temple (Uqair) Mastaba S.3505 (Saqqara)

Horus Ka (Abydos) Horus Narmer Horus Djet (Saqqara)

Tomb of Iry-Hor Tomb of Ka-Hor Tomb of Narmer

CHRONOLOGY OF DYNASTY 0 (2940-2838) THROUGH SOME SYNCHRONISMS AND 14C DATING

The three round-bottomed boats (on the left),

Chronology of Egyptian and Mesopotamian dynasties

Egyptian hieroglyphs (Abydos) Early Sumerian (Uruk) Proto-Elamite (Susa)

According to the biblical account:

THE PERIOD OF KINGS (1097-517 BCE)

PERIOD OF THE SECOND TEMPLE (517 BCE - 133 CE)

THE PERIOD OF THE JUDGES (1493-1097)

THE PATRIARCAL PERIOD (2038-1493)

a) Birth of Abraham (in 2038 BCE).

ARE SUMERIAN, EGYPTIAN AND BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGIES MYTHICAL OR HISTORICAL?

Character death age Character/Dynasty reign end “age”

Dynasty 4 KISH URUK UR

This chronological reconstruction makes it possible to date the following events:

Briend, Jacques/ Seux, Marie-Joseph