LEO DEPUYDT

CHRONIQUE

The Calendars and the Year-counts

of Ancient Egypt
This text was meant to be an encyclopedia article. But this intent did not materialize.
I am therefore most grateful to this journal’s editors for agreeing to publish the text as a
“chronicle”. The text does after all in a sense chronicle a subject of higher learning.
Ancient Egyptian calendars have a reputation of being one of Egyptology’s peskiest
subjects—if not its most pesky. The following fact is symptomatic of the subject’s place
in the field of Egyptology at large. Richard A. Parker’s The Calendars of Ancient Egypt
(1950) served as the template for the study of the subject for half a century; but the most
striking characteristic of Ricardo Caminos’s glowing review of the book for The Journal
of Egyptian Archaeology is that it says nothing at all about the book’s contents.
In some sense, the following article does not present new results. But there are at least
two reasons why a summation of the subject treated may be useful.
First, I had always been looking for an opportunity to present a treatment of the sub-
ject that reasons from first principles in Euclidian fashion and a treatment that does as
much as is possible to open up a seemingly inaccessible subject to a larger audience. To
provide such a treatment is what I have tried to do in the present article. Much if not
most writing about ancient Egyptian calendars focuses on technical points and presup-
poses a certain level of knowledge of ancient Egyptian calendars. The present article
assumes no such knowledge on the part of the reader. A bibliographical guide of sorts is
found at the end (pp. 288-294). This annotated bibliography is not comprehensive. But
the items listed should lead directly or indirectly to almost everything that is relevant to
the study of the subject.
Second, it is only in recent years that, I feel, a global model of ancient Egyptian cal-
endar history has come to coalesce in full stability. This model is squarely based on the
model promoted by Ludwig Borchardt and Richard A. Parker. Among earlier contribu-
tions to the study of ancient Egyptian calendars, those of Heinrich Brugsch and Alan H.
Gardiner and of Jean-François Champollion himself stand out as most pivotal.
In conclusion, since the mid 1990s, I have published off and on about Egyptian
calendars and I am beginning to run out of things to say. Perhaps, this text may serve as
a kind of swan song of my own engagement with the subject. The state of the article is
about anno 2011. I have not attempted to provide an update. But then, nothing earth-
shattering seems to have occurred in the study of Egyptian calendars in recent years.
Still, a few additional bibliographical references have been provided.

Chronique d’Égypte XCII (2017), fasc. 184 – doi: 10.1484/J.CDE.5.115207

271
 ÉGYPTE PHARAONIQUE

First Preamble: the two branches oF the study oF chronology,

1) time-reckoning and 2) dating
The discipline of chronology consists of two branches, the study of time-reckoning
and the study of dating. The present article entry concerns time-reckoning.
Dating is all about locating past events in the dimension of time. The study of dating
presupposes the study of time-reckoning in that one cannot understand how the events of
the past are dated without being already familiar with how time was measured.
Time-reckoning is all about measuring time. In general, measuring requires units of
measurement. The measurement of time is no exception. Principal units used in measur-
ing time are the day, the month, and the year. Generally, units of measurement relate to
another by means of a system by which integer numbers of one unit fit into other units.
Units of time are no exception. For example, in the modern common calendar, months
contain 28 to 31 days and years contain 12 months and 365 or 366 days.
The design of the systematic study of time-reckoning is to describe ways of measur-
ing time.
This naturally includes an understanding of the modern calendar and modern year-reck-
oning. Systems of time-reckoning that differ from modern time-reckoning need to be
related to modern time-reckoning to make the dating of events possible. Establishing a
relation between modern time-reckoning and ancient systems of time-reckoning is in fact
the same as dating that ancient system. The ancient system is itself an event of history
that needs to be dated just like any other event. Accordingly, the relation between ancient
Egyptian time-reckoning and modern time-reckoning is part of dating as the other branch
of chronology. This relation will therefore not be discussed in the present article.
Of the five major time units of the modern common calendar, to wit 1) the hour,
2) the day, 3) the 7-day week, 4) the 28- to 31-day month, and 5) the 365/366-day year,
the 365-day year and probably the hour are a legacy of the ancient Egyptians—though
not the 366-day leap year, which is Roman. The 28- to 31-day month is Roman and all
indications are that the week is Jewish. For obvious reasons, all calendars must have
days. None of the world’s calendars can therefore claim priority when it comes to the use
of the day. The alternation of light and dark is so striking and so deeply affects human
existence that no calendar of daily life can exist without it.

second Preamble: the two main branches oF the study oF time-reckoning,

1) the study oF calendars and 2) the study oF year-counts
The two main branches of the study of time-reckoning are the study of calendars and
the study of year-counts. Calendars are structures that regulate how days add up to
months and months add up to a year (§§1–4). Year-counts are methods of counting the
years themselves (§5).
A third branch, the study of how the time of day is measured, plays only a minimal
role in ancient Egyptian chronology (§6). Structured time-units smaller than the day,
such as hours, were used only very rarely. And hardly any historical events are dated by
them in the extant sources.
Of the two main branches, the study of calendars exhibits by far the most complexity
and will therefore take up the lion’s share of the present article. Not all that long ago,
Egyptian calendars were still regarded as a topic of both “oppressing obscurity” and
“disheartening difficulty”. A century ago, Friedrich Karl Ginzel, the author of an ency-
clopedic handbook of the chronology of all the world’s nations, confessed that the chap-
ter on Egypt had been the most difficult to write.

272
 CHRONIQUE

And yet, there is every reason to believe that circumstances have radically changed
and that much empirical evidence supports a comprehensive and eminently simple model
for Egyptian calendar history. And, as far as I know, no evidence positively contradicts
it. According to this model, which is to be presented below, Egyptian calendar history
consists of four epochs and nothing is more important to the history of Egyptian calen-
dars than what happened halfway through, around and about the fourteenth century
BCE, that is, if one disregards the creation of the calendars themselves. Around that
time, the lunar calendar was disconnected from the rising of Sirius and linked to the new
year of the civil calendar. The two calendars henceforth corkscrewed forward through
time joined to one another in a single large structure like a kind of double helix.
The four epochs are as follows.
The first epoch encompasses both prehistory (before 3200 BCE), that is, the time
before the advent of writing, and protohistory (from about 3200 BCE to about 2600 BCE),
that is, the period when hieroglyphic writing represented the Egyptian language rather
primitively and often incomprehensibly, with little or no representation of syntactic
structure. The three other epochs fall in the historical period, and last (1) from about
2600 BCE to about the fourteenth century BCE, (2) from about the fourteenth century
BCE to shortly after 30 BCE, and (3) from shortly after 30 BCE to the end of ancient
Egyptian civilization.
1. egyPtian calendar history’s First ePoch (Prehistory and Protohistory
[beFore about 2600 bce]): the calendar must have been lunar
Before the historical period, any calendar in use must have been lunar. No evidence
survives, but two considerations support the assumption. First, all the known earliest
calendars of all nations of the earth have always been lunar. Second, the Egyptian word
for “month,” Ꜣbd, is written with the hieroglyphic depicting the lunar crescent, even
when it refers to civil months (see below), which are not lunar. Therefore, when the
word for “month” came into existence, presumably some time in prehistory, months
must have been lunar.
When calendars existed only in oral tradition and practice and Egypt was not united,
the lunar calendar may well have been organized differently in different communities.
Evidently, no evidence survives as to what any possible prehistoric lunar calendar
may have looked liked. But a lunar calendar is attested in historical times and some
statements about its organization appear possible (see below). The prehistoric lunar
calendar may well have been organized similarly.
2. egyPtian calendar history’s second ePoch (ca. 2600 bce–ca. Fourteenth
century bce): civil calendar and lunar calendar coexist; lunar year
begins with rising oF sirius
2.1. The Civil Calendar, Dominant throughout Egyptian History
2.1.1. Invention
Around 2600 BCE, hardly much earlier, the Egyptians invented what is now gener-
ally called the civil calendar. It was Egypt’s dominant calendar throughout history. One
hardly imagines its invention to precede the emergence of full-blown writing around
2600 BCE. Later tradition gives much credit for intellectual advancement to Imhotep, a
sage living under Pharaoh Djoser of Dynasty 3. Did he play a decisive role in the devel-
opment of writing, a necessary precondition for the creation of the civil calendar, and
perhaps even in the development of the calendar?

273
 ÉGYPTE PHARAONIQUE

2.1.2. Basic Structure: The Simplest Calendar Ever Invented

2.1.2.1. Months and Days
The Egyptian civil calendar is the simplest calendar that has ever existed. It consists
of 12 months of 30 days plus five added days, for a fixed total of 365 days. The five
added days are called ḥryw rnpt (“added on top of the year”) in Egyptian and epagome-
nal (“added”) in Greek.
Possibly, in the earliest phase, though probably no later than the end of Dynasty 4, the
number of epagomenal days was not always fixed at five. But that would be difficult to
prove positively.

2.1.2.2. The “Seasons” of Four Months of 30 Days

The 12 months of 30 days were grouped in three “seasons” of four months or 120
days each, called Ꜣḫt, prt and šmw. The word Ꜣḫt is often thought to denote the concept
of inundation, but this association is far from certain. It is otherwise a fact that, when the
civil calendar was invented, the season Ꜣḫt coincided more or less with the inundation
season.

2.1.2.3. Civil Month Designations

Civil months did not have names as such until about the fourteenth century BCE (see
below). And even after that time, the use of names is rare, at least in writing, which is
all that remains. Rather, the twelve months are identified as first, second, third, or fourth
in their respective season and denoted as follows in transcription: I Ꜣḫt, II Ꜣḫt, III Ꜣḫt, IV
Ꜣḫt, I prt, II prt, III prt, IV prt, I šmw, II šmw, III šmw, IV šmw. For example, I prt 10 is
Day 10 of the fifth month of the year or of the first month of the second season and the
130th day of the year.

2.1.2.4. The 10-Day “Week”

Evidence survives that the civil month of 30 days was divided into three units of 10
days each.

2.1.3. The Beginning of the First Civil Year ever

It is widely assumed that, when the civil calendar was invented, new year was placed
at or close to the rising of Sirius. As the earth orbits the sun over the course of a year,
the sun is at some point positioned between the earth and the faraway star Sirius. Around
that time, Sirius is invisible from the earth for about two months. Then, in mid-July,
Sirius appears again for the first time, rising before the sun does in the early morning
and soon fading away in the sun’s bright light. This event is its morning rising, prt spdt
“coming forth of Sirius (spdt)” in Egyptian; the Egyptian name spdt is rendered as
Sothis in Greek. It is a striking event. Sirius is after all the brightest star in the sky.
Venus is brighter. But Venus is a planet.

2.1.4. The Rising of Sirius and the Flood

The rising of Sirius falls at the time of year when the Nile begins to rise. But it is
probably the rising of Sirius—and not the beginning of the flood as some have assumed—
that was chosen to fix the beginning of the first civil year. The rising after all also deter-
mines the beginning of the lunar year (see below).

274
 CHRONIQUE

2.1.5. The Civil Year as Wandering Year

Owing to the fact that the Egyptian year is always 365 days long and never 366,
that is, never includes an intercalary day like the modern calendar’s 29 February, it
wanders in relation to the year of the seasons. The year of the seasons or the solar year
is 365 days and a little under a quarter day long. Therefore, after about four years, the
quarter days have added up to about a full day by which four civil years are shorter
than four solar years and the Egyptian new year now falls about a day earlier in rela-
tion to the seasons. At a rate of one day in about four years, or 365 days in about 1460
years (4 × 365), new year returns to the same point after about 1460 years.
Starting close to the rising of Sirius, new year returned about twice to the rising in the
course of 3000 years of Egyptian history.

2.2. The Lunar Calendar until about the Fourteenth Century BCE: The Lunar
Year Begins with the Rising of Sirius
2.2.1. The Habitat of the Lunar Calendar throughout Egyptian History
Throughout the historical period, a lunar calendar was used alongside the civil calen-
dar of 365 or 12 × 30 + 5 days. But there is no doubt that the civil calendar was the
dominant calendar of daily life. By contrast, the lunar calendar was religious. One of its
most important functions was to regulate the service in the temple. Teams of priests
would relieve one another to perform the temple service. A term of service typically
lasted one lunar month.
Although two calendars were in operation in ancient Egypt throughout its history,
there was little occasion for conflict or confusion between the two. In any town, the
civil calendar would be used in the business centers whereas the lunar calendar was
restricted mainly to the dark chambers behind the thick stone walls of Egyptian temples
and temple domains. Similarly, in modern times, Jewish, Muslim, and to some extent
Christian religious life is largely regulated by a lunar calendar, but in a manner that
does not cause any conflict with the worldwide use of the modern Julian-Gregorian
calendar in all facets of life.

2.2.2. Did Ancient Egypt Have a Lunar Calendar?

As a result of its marginal character, the lunar calendar is somewhat marginally pre-
served in the extant sources. In consequence, its very existence has not always been
self-evident to all. For example, the eminent Egyptologist Alan H. Gardiner, whom few
would be able to challenge in knowledge of the written sources of ancient Egypt, dis-
puted the existence of the Egyptian lunar calendar.
Others do not think that changing the guard in the temple service after each cycle of
the moon, from new moon to full moon and back, is a principle of organization that can
rightly be called a lunar calendar. Indeed, if such was the extent to which the moon was
used for the purpose of time-reckoning, then Egypt did not have a lunar calendar.
It would in fact appear that the lunar calendar’s structure is less fully articulated than
the civil calendar’s and on occasion hardly articulated at all. And this impression does
not result from the very fragmentary representation of the lunar calendar’s articulation in
the surviving sources. Still, there are sufficient items of evidence of structured articula-
tion pertaining to lunar time-reckoning that warrant postulating the existence of a lunar
calendar.

275
 ÉGYPTE PHARAONIQUE

Among them are month names that come in a fixed sequence beginning with tḫy,
even if lunar cycles are not always explicitly named. Also among them are names of
days that always refer to days that have a numerically fixed place in the order of the days
of the month; for example, smdt consistently refers to Day 15 and falls exactly 13 days
after Ꜣbd, which is Day 2.

2.2.3. Defining Characteristic of All Lunar Calendars: The Lunar Month

What all lunar calendars share and what differentiates them from other types of cal-
endars is that they exhibit a unit of time that is on average as long as one lunar cycle.
A lunar cycle or synodic month is the length of time that it takes for the moon to return
on its orbit around the earth to the same position in relation to the sun and the earth.
Lunar cycles last on average about 29.53059 days, or 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes,
and about three seconds, ranging from 29 days and about 6½ hours to 29 days and
about 20 hours.
The moment in time when the moon is right between the sun and the earth is called
conjunction. Around conjunction, the moon is invisible from the earth for about two to
three days. In the course of a lunar cycle beginning at conjunction, the following specta-
cle unfolds in the sky. The moon first reappears briefly as a thin crescent in the evening
above the western horizon one to two days after conjunction and soon sets after the sun.
In the following days, the moon waxes and is visible in the sky ever longer. Its disk is
full and out all night halfway through the cycle. It then wanes to be last seen briefly as
a thin crescent rising shortly before the sun above the eastern horizon in the morning one
to two days before conjunction.
The unit of time lasting on average one lunar cycle is called the lunar month. The
word “month” derives from “moon.” But it alone cannot serve to denote lunar months
because non-lunar calendars exhibit units of time called months without being lunar.
The length of these units is otherwise inspired by the lunar month’s.
A calendrical lunar month obviously cannot last 29 days plus on average about
12 hours and 44 minutes. The alternation of light and dark, or of night and day, imposes
itself so strikingly on the human senses that calendars must have days and time units
larger than the day must consist of a full or integer number of days. In order to achieve
29.53059 days as the average length of the lunar cycle, 29-day and 30-day months alter-
nate in a certain pattern. Sequences of two or more 29-day or 30-day months are com-
mon. Accordingly, 12 months are about 354 days long, or about 11 days shorter than the
solar year of about 365.2422 days, and 13 months are about 384 days long or about
19 days longer than the year.

2.2.4. Differentiating Characteristics of Lunar Calendars

Lunar calendars are all fundamentally alike. They all heed the same natural cycles of
the moon and hence all exhibit lunar months as a rule 29 or 30 days long that mostly
overlap. In that regard, all lunar calendars that have ever been are more or less synchro-
nized, as it were. Still, there is room for minor structural differences. Lunar calendars
differ mainly in regard to how their structure addresses the following three questions:

(1) How is the year’s first lunar month determined? (see §2.2.6)
(2) How is the fact that 12 months are shorter, and 13 longer, than a solar year accommo-
dated? (see §2.2.7)
(3) Where does daylight of lunar Day 1 fall in relation to conjunction? (see §2.2.8)

276
 CHRONIQUE

In addition, lunar calendars also differ from one another in regard to how their months
are named. It will appear below that names have everything to do with the structure of
the relation between the civil calendar and the lunar calendar from the fourteenth century
BCE onward.

2.2.5. Lunar Month Names

Until about the fourteenth century BCE, civil months did not have what one might
call names in the strict sense. Rather, they were denoted by their ordinal number within
each of the three seasons of four months. By contrast, lunar months bore actual names.
A difference applies between the naming of lunar months before about the fourteenth
century BCE and after about the fourteenth century BCE. Before the fourteenth century
BCE, the names of the lunar months were as follows. There is some slight variation in
the naming of the months. What follows is a prominent variant for each month:

tḫy rkḥ nḏs

mnḫt rnnwtt
ḥwt ḥr ẖnsw
kꜢ ḥr kꜢ ḫnt ẖtjj
šf bdt jpt ḥmt.s
rkḥ wr wp rnpt

2.2.6. The First Lunar Month and the Straddle Lunar Month
In the perpetual sequences of lunar cycles, a certain cycle must be selected every year
as the one yielding the first lunar month of the lunar year. Since all lunar cycles are the
same, some reference-point outside the lunar cycles must serve to mark a certain cycle
as the first. Up to the fourteenth century BCE, that reference-point was the rising of
Sirius in July.
There is reason to assume that the following procedure was adopted in selecting the
first lunar month. The first lunar month began around the first conjunction or new moon
that followed the rising of Sirius. That lunar month was called tḫy. The interval between
the rising and Day 1 of tḫy differed every year. Presumably, tḫy could begin as early as
soon after the rising and as late as 29 days later.
The lunar month in which the rising of Sirius fell on a different day every year was
presumably called wp rnpt “Opener of the Year,” like the rising itself.
Although tḫy is the first month of the lunar year, the month that precedes it is not the
last of the previous lunar year. It has special status. It straddles the event that marks the
beginning of the lunar year, that is, the rising of Sirius. Part of it precedes the rising and
part of it follows the rising. It is therefore associated with the beginning of the lunar year
rather than with its end and owes its name wp rnpt “Opener of the Year” to this fact.
One might call it the zero month, even if—strictly speaking—nothing precedes what is
first in the realm of the ordinal numbers.

2.2.7. The Length of the Lunar Year

It was noted above (§2.2.3 end) that, at about 354 days, 12 lunar months are about
11 days shorter than the solar year and, at about 384 days, 13 lunar months are about
19 days longer. Years of 12 lunar months and years of 13 lunar months alternated in

277
 ÉGYPTE PHARAONIQUE

such a way that the lunar year was on average as long as the solar year. A 13th month is
necessary on average after about 2.7 years. Accordingly, a lunar year of 13 months
would be followed by either one or two lunar years of 12 months, and there would
be about 12 years of 12 lunar months and 7 months of 13 lunar months in a cycle of
19 solar years.
In each lunar year, the zero month or straddle month wp rnpt (§2.2.6) would be fol-
lowed by Month 1, tḫy, and then either by 10 more months, Months 2–11, or by 11 more
months, Months 2–12. It is not certain what Month 12, which is the 13th of the year
counting from wp rnpt as first, was called. Only 11 names besides wp rnpt are known.

2.2.8. The Beginning of the Lunar Month

In fixing daylight of lunar Day 1, one did not wait for the first crescent to become
visible one evening soon after conjunction or new moon and then begin daylight of lunar
Day 1 the following morning. There is no doubt that Egyptian lunar months began
before first visibility of the new crescent. It is not clear how a certain daylight period
was determined to be that of lunar Day 1. The most plausible possibility is that daylight
of lunar Day 1 typically began in the morning shortly before conjunction when the old
crescent, which is last visible in the morning before sunrise, was for the first time invis-
ible. Egyptian lunar months began on average about a day before Greek lunar months.

3. egyPtian calendar history’s third ePoch (ca. Fourteenth century bce–

ca. 30 bce): lunar calendar subordinated to civil calendar in the double
helix calendar; aPPearance oF Foreign calendars on egyPtian soil later on
3.1. The Single Most Important Event in Egyptian Calendar History (about the
Fourteenth Century BCE): Replacement of the Rising of Sirius by the Civil
New Year as Marker of the Beginning of the Lunar Year
3.1.1. Before about the Fourteenth Century BCE: The Civil Calendar and the Lunar
Calendar Drift Apart
At the beginning of history, around 2600 BCE, the civil calendar and the lunar calen-
dar were connected because both the civil year and the lunar year began at or close to
the rising of Sirius. But this connection was soon broken.
As was noted above (§2.1.5), the civil year wanders backward at a rate of about a
quarter of a day in relation to the solar year or year of the seasons of about 365.2422
days. So it does in relation to the rising of Sirius, for the rising returns every year after
one star year, which is very close in length to the solar year (and in Sirius’ case closer
than most stars). Conversely, every four years, the date of the rising moved forward by
one day in the civil calendar.
As the beginning of the civil year wandered away from the rising of Sirius, the begin-
ning of the lunar year remained close to it. Consequently, the civil year and the lunar
year slowly drifted apart over the decades and the centuries.

3.1.2. About the Fourteenth Century BCE: The Civil Calendar and the Lunar Calendar
Reunite
After many centuries, by about the fourteenth century BCE, the civil year had just
about returned to where it had been in relation to the lunar year around 2600 BCE. Its
new year had drawn close to the rising of Sirius on its journey backward in relation to
the solar year and the star year.

278
 CHRONIQUE

Conversely, the date of the rising fell later and later in the civil year, gradually
approaching the date of the civil new year. Eventually, around 1320 BCE, the rising of
Sirius and the civil new year came to fall on the same day and the former overtook the
latter, as it were.
But something else that is crucial happened even before the rising joined and
moved ahead of the civil new year. A key principle of the lunar calendar was that the
rising of Sirius, called wpt rnpt “Opener of the Year,” falls in the straddle lunar
month also called wpt rnpt (§2.2.6). As the civil new year approached the rising on
its journey backward, both the rising and the civil new year came to fall inside the
straddle lunar month wp rnpt, the rising of Sirius at the beginning of the month and
the civil new year at the end of the month. It is at this point that a key switch occurred,
the single most important event of Egyptian calendar history, that is, if one disregards
the creation of the lunar calendar and the creation of the civil calendar, which do not
quite belong to the historical evolution of Egyptian calendar history but rather started
it.

3.1.3. About the Fourteenth Century BCE: The Civil New Year Replaces the Rising of
Sirius as Marker of the Beginning of the Lunar Year
At some point, not only the rising of Sirius but also the civil new year, which can both
be called wp rnpt “Opener of the Year,” fell inside the lunar month also called wp rnpt.
At that point, the civil new year marked the location of the straddle lunar month wp rnpt
and therefore also the beginning of the lunar year just as much as the rising of Sirius did,
even if that was not its intent. What happened next, however, was a fundamental shift in
the perception of which event marked the beginning of the lunar year. The function of
marking the beginning of the lunar year was transferred in the minds of ancient Egyp-
tians from the rising of Sirius to the civil new year.
Importantly, this shift did not require any action at all in terms of changing the
structure of either the civil calendar or the lunar calendar. All that was needed was a
change in the minds of the people using the two calendars. There is no evidence
regarding the exact circumstances in which this shift took place. But so far, all the
surviving evidence supports the notion that the shift did indeed take place and no evi-
dence contradicts it. All evidence dated to before about the fourteenth century BCE
unambiguously points to a lunar calendar beginning with the rising of Sirius and none
points to a lunar calendar beginning with the civil new year. All evidence dated to
after about the fourteenth century BCE unambiguously points to a lunar calendar
beginning with the civil new year and none points to a lunar calendar beginning with
the rising of Sirius.

3.2. The Double Helix Calendar (from about the Fourteenth Century BCE onward)
3.2.1. Hierarchy of the Two Strands: Lunar Calendar Subordinated to Civil Calendar
As a result of the replacement of the rising of Sirius by the civil new year as
marker of the beginning of the lunar year, the lunar calendar was attached to the civil
calendar. In other words, the lunar calendar changed from being Sirius-based to being
civil-based. Whereas the two calendars were previously cycling forward through time
independently, they now corkscrewed forward in time while being attached to one
another, with the lunar calendar being subordinated to the civil calendar.

279
 ÉGYPTE PHARAONIQUE

3.2.2. Pairing of Civil and Lunar Months: Yearly or Monthly?

When the lunar calendar became linked to the civil calendar, lunar Month 1 began
around the first conjunction or new moon falling in civil Month 1. It could be any day
of civil Month 1. One might therefore assume that, in subsequent months, every lunar
month began around conjunction in the civil month with the same position in the
sequence of month names. In other words, lunar Month 2 began in civil Month 2, lunar
Month 3 in civil Month 3, and so on. However, because lunar months can be 29 days
long, it is possible for two lunar months to begin in the same civil month on Days 1 and
30. What to call the month beginning on Day 30? There are two possibilities. The lunar
month beginning on Day 30 either was or was not assigned the next name in the
sequence. If it was, lunar Month 1 was paired with civil Month 1 and both sequences of
month designations thereafter ran their independent course. This may be called yearly
pairing. If it was not, the pairing occurred every month. This is monthly pairing.
There is slight evidence in favor of the notion that monthly pairing was used. If that
was the case, there is no evidence as to how one referred to the second of two lunar
months that began in the same civil month.

3.2.3. Interactions Serving as Bonds of the Two Strands and Their Side-Effects
Four interactions between the civil calendar and the lunar calendar took place. They
are described in §3.3. The first two of these four interactions had two peculiar side-ef-
fects here called the Brugsch phenomenon and the Gardiner phenomenon. These two
side-effects are described in §3.4.

3.3. Four Interactions between the Two Strands of the Double Helix Calendar
3.3.1. First Interaction: Creation of the Civil Month Names, Partially Derived from the
Lunar Month Names (about the Fourteenth Century BCE)
Before about the fourteenth century BCE, civil months did not have names as such.
Instead, they were designated as first, second, third, or fourth month of one of the three
seasons (§2.1.2.2). Then, civil month names emerged. It seems clear that the set of civil
names on the whole is derived from the preexisting set of lunar month names, even if
several civil months received newly invented names. The derivative relation is obvious
from the names of months 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, and perhaps also 0 or 12 in the following
list, which includes the Greek version of the civil month names.
Lunar Month Names Civil Month Names
(in Greek)
1 tḫy 1 ḏḥwty (Thoth)
2 mnḫt or ptḥ 2 p n jpt (Phaophi)
3 ḥwt ḥr 3 ḥwt ḥr (Hathyr)
4 kꜢ ḥr kꜢ 4 kꜢ ḥr kꜢ (Choiak)
5 šf bdt or mn 5 tꜢ ῾bt (Tybi)
6 rkḥ wr 6 mḫr (Mecheir)
7 rkḥ nḏs 7 p n jmn ḥtp (Phamenoth)
8 rnnwtt 8 p n rnnwtt (Pharmouthi)
9 ḫnsw 9 p n ḫnsw (Pachons)
10 ḫnt ẖtjj or ḥb jnt 10 p n jnt (Payni)
11 jpt ḥmt.s 11 jpjp (Epeiph)
0 wp rnpt or r῾ ḥr Ꜣḫty 12 mswt r῾ (Mesore)

280
 CHRONIQUE

This transfer of month names from the lunar calendar to the civil calendar is the main
transfer of names in the double helix calendar. But it is not a complete transfer. First,
some transferred names have been partly changed. Second, some names are entirely
new. There are two other less prominent yet securely attested transfers, however, and
these two are complete. They are described in §3.3.3 and §3.3.4.

3.3.2. Second Interaction: Transfer of Full Moon Feasts of the Lunar Calendar to
Day 1 of the Civil Calendar (about the Fourteenth Century BCE)
In a number of instances, a lunar feast was transferred from full moon to Day 1 of the
civil month in which the lunar month in which that full moon fell began. Since a lunar
month can begin on any day of the civil month with which it is paired, from civil Day 1
to civil Day 30, full moon or Day 15 will fall on average about civil Day 1. Civil Day 1
is therefore an obvious day to which to transfer the most prominent feast of the lunar
month, namely full moon. Since full moon presumably bore the same name as the lunar
month in which it fell in being styled as “the feast of lunar month such and such” or the
like, civil Day 1 therefore came to be named both after a full moon feast and a lunar
month.

3.3.3. Third Interaction: Transfer of the Original Seasonal Designations of Civil Months
to Lunar Months (by the Sixth Century BCE at the Latest)
The main transfer of month names in the double helix calendar was from the lunar
calendar to the civil calendar (§3.3.1). However, a couple of instances are preserved,
none dating to earlier than the sixth century BCE, in which the designations of civil
months as first, second, third, or fourth in one of three seasons was transferred to the
designation of lunar months. Considering how very little evidence survives regarding
Egyptian calendars, it is altogether possible that the practice was much more widespread
than the little evidence might at first lead one to believe.

3.3.4. Fourth Interaction: Transfer of the Original Lunar Month Names to Civil Months
In the most common transfer of month names from the lunar calendar to the civil
calendar, the set of names undergoes quite a bit of change (§3.3.1). However, there is
sufficient evidence, though none dating to before the Greco-Roman period, to conclude
that the original lunar month names (§2.2.5) could also be transferred integrally to the
civil lunar calendar. This practice may possibly not have occurred outside of the temple
domains dating to the Greco-Roman period.

3.4. Two Side Effects of the Interaction between the Two Strands of the Double
Helix Calendar
3.4.1. The Brugsch Phenomenon
The Brugsch phenomenon, named after Heinrich Brugsch who first observed it in
1870, is the undeniable fact that the last or twelfth month of the Egyptian civil calendar
can be named as if it were the first. The names in question are wp rnpt “Opener of the
Year” and mswt r῾ “Birth of Re,” which otherwise also serve as names of New Year’s
Day, the quintessential calendrical beginning.
The Brugsch phenomenon seems at first contradictory. It is difficult to see how any-
one could decide to name the last month of the year as if it were the first. However, the

281
 ÉGYPTE PHARAONIQUE

phenomenon is nothing but the side-effect of another decision, namely to transfer month
names from the lunar calendar to the civil calendar. As a rule, a lunar month begins at
conjunction in the civil month of the same day, as if lunar January began at conjunction
falling on some day in civil January. For the sake of simplicity, what happens may be
explained by means of an analogy.
Imagine a lunar month named tḫy beginning at new moon on any day of civil January,
say 20 January in a certain year. If the name tḫy is transferred to civil January, the
transfer occurs backward in time. The beginning of lunar tḫy on 20 January is turned
into a beginning of civil tḫy on 1 January. Also imagine that the lunar month ending on
19 January and therefore beginning on 20 or 21 December is by definition called wp
rnpt “Opener of the Year” or mswt r῾ “Birth of Re” because 1 January or new year
falls in it. In that sense, it functions as a straddle month or zero month (§2.2.6). If lunar
wp rnpt or mswt r῾ is transferred to the civil calendar, the target of transfer must be civil
December. The result is that the last civil month is named as if it were the first. Some-
thing analogous happened in the Egyptian double helix calendar.

3.4.2. The Gardiner Phenomenon

The Gardiner phenomenon, named after Alan H. Gardiner, who first discussed it at
length in 1906 after Brugsch had earlier taken note of it, is the undeniable fact that a
feast day falling on Day 1 of a month can bear the same name as the entire previous
month. It is as if we would celebrate a feast day called January on Day 1 of February.
Like the Brugsch phenomenon, the Gardiner phenomenon seems contradictory at first
sight. And like the Brugsch phenomenon, it is just a side-effect of other decisions. But
whereas there is only one type of Brugsch phenomenon, there are two types of Gardiner
phenomenon, depending on how it was caused.
The first type concerns only the last civil month when it is called wp rnpt “Opener of
the Year” or mswt r῾ “Birth of Re.” Furthermore, the first type has only one cause. The
cause is the same as the Brugsch phenomenon’s. It is the backward transfer of lunar
month names onto civil months (§3.3.1). The result is that the last civil month can be
named as if it were the first, namely wp rnpt “Opener of the Year” or mswt r῾ “Birth of
Re.” But new year can also be called wp rnpt or mswt r῾. A civil month and Day 1 of the
following civil month are thus named alike.
The second type of Gardiner phenomenon concerns names of certain other civil
months. This type has two causes. The first cause is again what caused the Brugsch
phenomenon, namely the backward transfer of lunar month names to civil months
(§3.3.1). The second cause is the transfer of lunar feasts from a lunar month with the
same name to a feast on the civil Day 1 that as a rule falls inside that lunar month.
Owing to the first cause, a lunar month name is transferred backward onto a civil month.
Owing to the second cause, a lunar feast with the same name is transferred to civil Day
1 following that civil month.

3.4.3. Problems Pertaining to Month Names

Some of the most vexed and intensely debated problems concerning Egyptian calen-
dars have involved month names. One may wonder why names have been so central to
the discussion. One would think that calendars are all about relations between time units.
It appears, however, that the structure of the calendar is created in part by naming days
and months. Months and days acquire their distinct identity as components of a structure
in part by receiving names. And it is transfers of names between calendars that produced

282
 CHRONIQUE

the structural bond between the civil calendar and the lunar calendar in the double helix
calendar.

3.5. Foreign Calendars on Egyptian Soil (from about 500 BCE onward)
Later in the third epoch of Egyptian calendar history, foreign calendars came to be
used on Egyptian soil concurrently with the native Egyptian double helix calendar,
mainly as a result of foreign occupation. The use of foreign calendars must have been
limited mainly to expatriate communities residing in Egypt or their descendants. Two
foreign calendars prominently represented in sources dating to before the Roman con-
quest of 30 BCE are as follows.
The first is the Babylonian lunar calendar used by the Persian rulers of Dynasties 27
and 31 and their representatives, that is, from about 525 BCE to about 400 BCE and
again in the 330s BCE. The use of this calendar in Egypt is documented in papyri found
on the island of Elephantine and inscribed with texts in Aramaic, the lingua franca of the
Persian Empire and the language used by foreign garrisons stationed on Elephantine.
Some time later, with the arrival of Jewish diaspora, the Jewish lunar calendar, which is
derived from the Babylonian lunar calendar, also came to be used in Egypt, but mainly
for religious purposes.
The second is the Macedonian lunar calendar used in Greek-speaking circles in Egypt
in the decades following Alexander of Macedonia’s conquest of Egypt in late 332 BCE.
Later in the third century BCE, the structure of the Macedonian calendar was gradually
assimilated to the native civil calendar. The calendar was henceforth nothing more than
an empty shell and, in fact, is used as such in the Macedonian date on the Rosetta Stone.
It goes without saying that, after Rome conquered Egypt in 30 BCE, the Julian calen-
dar came to be used on Egyptian soil as well, but presumably mostly by the Roman
occupiers and some of those that they interacted with.

4. egyPtian calendar history’s Fourth ePoch (From ca. 30 bce): the alexandrian
calendar comes into use alongside the double helix calendar
In 30 BCE or probably rather soon after, but at the very latest by 22 BCE, a third
Egyptian calendar joined the two calendars intertwined in the double helix calendar. It is
commonly called the Alexandrian calendar because it must originally have been used
mainly in Alexandria by Greek speakers. In a sense, the Alexandrian calendar was hardly
a new calendar. It was exactly like the civil calendar, except in one single respect. Every
fourth year, a day was added at the end to make the year into one of 366 days. In that
year, there were six epagomenal days instead of five. As a consequence, the Alexandrian
calendar’s year does not wander as the civil calendar does (§2.1.5). That was after all the
purpose of adding a day every four years. When the Alexandrian calendar was created,
the new year of the civil calendar took place at the end of August. And that is where it
stayed in the Alexandrian calendar, whereas the new year of the civil calendar continued
on its backward wandering trajectory.
Presumably, the Alexandrian calendar was accepted sooner in certain circles than in
others. Among the Greek speakers concentrated mainly in the cities of Egypt, it must
have taken firm root fairly soon after its institution. In native Egyptian religion and cul-
ture, the civil calendar persevered in one way or another for a few centuries more, at
least down to some time in the fourth century CE. As a calendar used by astronomers,
the civil calendar survived more than a thousand years longer, down to early modern
times.

283
 ÉGYPTE PHARAONIQUE

The progressively expanding use of the Alexandrian calendar deserves to be described

in much greater detail. Then again, the surviving evidence is not plentiful and not easy
to decipher. We may never obtain a precise picture of the gradual demise of the civil
calendar in popular use.
But to the extent that I have studied the matter, I have the impression that the civil
calendar remained much longer in common use among speakers of Egyptian or outside
Alexandria than is now generally assumed. There was a certain tendency at some point
in modern history to assume that, outside of astronomy, the Alexandrian calendar soon
replaced the civil calendar after it came into existence. The opposite may well be the
case. Its use may well have remained prevalent among speakers of Egyptian, especially
in the country side, until the time of Diocletian, late third century CE.

5. year-counts
5.1. Relation of Calendars and Year-counts
Calendars account for how days add up to months and months add up to a year. The
year of the calendar is a cycle that perpetually returns to its beginning, a bit like a snake
biting its own tail. In other words, the year of the calendar does not refer to a succession
of years following one another in perpetuity. The year of the calendar is not located, as
it were, on a horizontal line extending in both directions to infinity.
The need is therefore for an additional time-reckoning device whose design it is to
count years in succession, that is, for a year-count. Year-counts logically presuppose
calendars because one cannot count years without knowing where they begin and end.
The calendar determines where years begin and end.

5.2. Before the Counting of Years: The Naming of Years (Early Dynastic, and
Perhaps also Prehistoric, Times)
Up to a point in time preceding the beginning of the reign of Pharaoh Ny-netjer of
Dynasty 2, it seems years could only be identified by being associated with a significant
event. Such events served for all practical purposes as the names of the years. Anyone
wishing to date an event to a certain year as it relates to other years would have to
remember a list of names of successive years. One prominent source for events serving
as the names of years is the famed Palermo stone.

5.3. The Earliest Year-count: According to Census-plus-Reign (Early Dynastic

Period and Old Kingdom)
At the latest from the reign of Pharaoh Ny-netjer of Dynasty 2 and until the end of
the Old Kingdom, years were called either rnpt sp [ordinal number] ṯnwt “year (rnpt) of
the xth occasion (sp) of the tally (ṯnwt)” (or the like) or rnpt m-ḫt sp [ordinal number]
ṯnwt “year after (m-ḫt) the xth occasion of the tally” (or the like). In other words, there
were two types of years: years of the tally and years following the tally. The year would
appear to be the civil year, not the lunar year.
What is being tallied is domestic animals or commodities. The tally or count seems to
be some kind of census. From Dynasty 4 onward, it is cattle that is as a ruled tallied. The
tallies are counted in succession as “the first time of the tally,” “the second time of
the tally,” and so on.
The years in which the tallies occur are hence called “the year of the first time of the
tally,” and so on. Years in which there is no tally are called “the year after the first time

284
 CHRONIQUE

of the tally,” and so on. It is not clear according to which pattern years of the tally and
years following the year of the tally alternate. It has often been assumed, and sometimes
still is, that the tally occurred every other year, in other words, that it was biennial. How-
ever, in the surviving evidence, there are distinctly fewer years “after the tally” than
years “of the tally” and two years “of the tally” can sometimes follow one another.

5.4. Counting Years as Regnal Years Using Predating (From the First Intermedi-
ate Period to the Roman period, with Two Interludes [see §5.5 and §5.6])
The anatomy of predating may be described by means of an analogy, using the mod-
ern calendar for clarity and simplicity. Imagine a Pharaoh coming to power on 1 Sep
2011 CE and let it also be assumed that the Egyptian new year falls on 1 January.
In Egyptian predating, Year 1 lasts four months, from 1 Sep 2011 to 31 Dec 2011.
A new regnal year begins on new year, 1 Jan 2012. From this point onward, each regnal
calendar overlaps fully with one calendar year. Together, the previous king’s last regnal
year, which lasts from 1 Jan 2011 to 31 Aug 2011, and the new king’s first regnal year,
which lasts from 1 Sep 2011 to 31 Dec 2011, form a whole calendar year.
This method of counting is called predating because the beginning of regnal Year 2
on 1 Jan 2012 precedes the beginning of the full second year of reign on 1 Sep 2012.
In predating, regnal years began on the civil new year.

5.5. First Interlude: Counting Years as Regnal Years Using Accession Dating
(New Kingdom)
For much if not all of the New Kingdom (Dynasties 18–20, about 1500 BCE–about
1000 BCE), and possibly some time before and after that, regnal years were counted
according to accession dating. In the New Kingdom, regnal Year 1 begins on the day the
king comes to the throne and subsequent regnal years begin on the anniversaries of that
day. The day in question can be any day in the civil year. Regnal years do not begin on
the civil new year as they do in predating (§5.4) and in predating of postdating (§5.6).

5.6. Second Interlude: Counting Years as Regnal Years Using Predating of

Postdating (Persian Dominion, Dynasties 27 and 31, about 525 BCE–400 BCE
and Presumably Some Years in the 330s BCE)
5.6.1. Babylonian Postdating Predated in Egypt
When Cambyses conquered Egypt around 525 BCE, Memphis in Egypt and Babylon
in Mesopotamia were for the first time part of the same empire. The primary regnal year
count of the Persian kings was the Babylonian one. In the Babylonian year-count, regnal
years are postdated (see below). In Egypt, Egyptian predating was applied to these post-
dated Babylonian regnal years.

5.6.2. Babylonian Postdating

The anatomy of Babylonian postdating may also be described by means of a modern
analogy. Imagine a ruler of Babylon assuming power on 1 Sep 2011 CE and imagine the
Egyptian new year falling on 1 January.
In Babylon, new year began around a new moon close to the spring equinox in late
March or in April, let us assume Julian 21 March for the sake of the argument. In
Babylonian postdating, the eight months from the reign’s beginning on 1 Sep 2011 to

285
 ÉGYPTE PHARAONIQUE

20 Mar 2012 are not counted but called “head (beginning) of the reign.” It is now
commonly called an accession year. This method of counting is called postdating
because the beginning of regnal Year 2 on the Babylonian new year of 21 Mar 2013
follows the beginning of the full second year of reign on 1 Sep 2012.

5.6.3. Predating of Postdating

In Egypt, the Babylonian postdated regnal Year 1 beginning on new year in the spring
was treated as the reign’s beginning and predating applied to it. In other words,
Persian-Egyptian regnal years are predated in relation to the postdated beginning of the
reign, the Babylonian new year.

5.6.4. The Two Cases of Predating of Postdating

In predating, regnal Year 2 begins before the second full year of reign. In postdating,
it begins after. In predating of postdating, either is possible. In other words, there are
two distinct cases. All depends on when the reign begins.
In case one, the reign begins between the Babylonian new year in the spring and the
Egyptian new year, say on 1 Dec 2011, using the modern analogy introduced above. The
Babylonian accession year lasts from 1 Dec 2011 to 20 Mar 2012. The Babylonian Year
1 begins on the Babylonian new year in the spring, 21 Mar 2012. At the latest by 21 Mar
2012, the Egyptian Year 1 has begun. The Egyptian Year 2 begins on the next Egyptian
new year, 1 Jan 2013; every four years, the Egyptian new year moves one day backward,
to 31 December, then to 30 December, and so on. The Babylonian Year 2 begins on the
Babylonian new year in the spring, 21 Mar 2013. The Egyptian Year 2 begins before the
Babylonian Year 2. Moreover, the Egyptian Year 2 begins on 1 Jan 2013, that is, after
the second full year of the reign begins on 1 Dec 2012. A historical example of case one
is Xerxes I’s reign (486 BCE–465 BCE).
In case two, the reign begins between the Egyptian new year and the Babylonian new
year in the spring, say on 1 Feb 2012, using the modern analogy introduced above. The
Babylonian accession year lasts from 1 Feb 2012 to 20 Mar 2012. The other milestones
are the same as in case one, except for one feature. The Egyptian Year 2 begins on 1 Jan
2013, that is, before the second full year of the reign begins. A historical example of
case two is Darius II’s reign (424/23 BCE–405/4 BCE).
A lack of evidence may prevent the assignment of a reign to either case. An example
is Artaxerxes II’s reign.
In the period between the Babylonian new year and the Egyptian new year, the
Babylonian year date is the same as the Egyptian year date. In the period between
the Egyptian new year and the Babylonian new year, the year date is one higher than the
Babylonian year date.

5.7. Counting Years according to the Era of Diocletian (from the Early Fourth
Century CE)
An era is a count of years in perpetuity starting from a Year 1. An era typically begins
with some significant event or occasion.
There were no eras to speak of in ancient Egypt until the time when ancient Egyptian
civilization was in strong decline and just a couple of centuries away from extinction.
The Diocletian era, which at some point also came to be called the Era of the Martyrs,
was created probably in the early fourth century CE. Its Year 1 begins on 29 Aug 284 CE.

286
 CHRONIQUE

The era is the result from continuing to count Diocletian’s regnal years after his death.
Its years are Alexandrian (§4.1). It was used from the early fourth century CE onward.
The Era of Nabonassar, which begins on 26 Feb 747 BCE, was used in Egypt only
by Greek-speaking astronomers, residing mainly in Alexandria. It existed at the latest
by the second century CE. But it may have been created earlier, but not much earlier.
Its years are those of the civil calendar (§2.1).
The modern common era, years “AD,” was created in Rome in 525 CE by Diony-
sius Exiguus and became commonly used only a couple of centuries later, with Bede
the Venerable playing a prominent role in its propagation. The era therefore did not
play any role in ancient Egyptian history.

5.8. Other Methods of Year-counting in Byzantine Egypt

In addition to the Era of Diocletian (§5.7), five other ways of referring to years are
attested in the papyri from Byzantine Egypt: (1) as a regnal year; (2) according to its
place in an epigraphē, a cycle of five years; (3) according to its place in the 15-year
indiction cycle; (4) according to the two consuls for that year; and (5) according to the
Oxyrhynchite Era.

6. the time oF day

Some evidence pertaining to time units smaller than a day survives, but not much.
It appears to allow for at least three conclusions.
First, the evidence does not suffice to eliminate the eminent possibility that hours or
similar time units were hardly ever used in daily life in ancient Egypt. The use of
hours may well have been very rare at best. After all, throughout history, almost all
inhabitants of ancient Egypt were illiterate farmers and their families for whom the
daily course of the sun and words for morning, midday, and evening as markers of
what time of day it is must have been amply sufficient for one to be perfectly func-
tional.
Second, all indications are that the division of the day and the night into twelve
parts first came about in Egypt and from there spread to the entire ancient world.
Third, whenever something like a division of daylight or nighttime into 12 more or
less equal portions was used in daily life, the time units in question probably never had
a fixed length as modern hours do, let alone that they would have been exactly 60 min-
utes long. The units presumably differed in length as daylight and nighttime changed
in length from season to season. One exception, however, is astronomical texts.
The two main types of evidence for time units shorter than the day are archaeo-
logical and textual. The archeological evidence consists of a few devices such as
water clocks, shadow clocks, and sun dials, marked in varying and imprecise ways.
In terms of textual evidence, three firsts may be noted. First, the partition of night-
time into twelve parts was known in Egypt at the latest by about 2100/2000 BCE,
when it appears in the so-called star clocks painted on the lids of certain coffins.
Second, the division of the day into twelve parts is evident in a text describing a
shadow clock from the reign of Pharaoh Seti I (about 1300 BCE). Third, equinoctial
hours, that is, hours that have the same length throughout the year, being about
60 minutes long, are first attested in Papyrus Cairo 86637 of about the twelfth cen-
tury BCE. The changing lengths of day and night over the course of a year are listed.
The lengths are expressed in “hours.” The numbers of the hours differ. The hours
must therefore be equinoctial.

287
 ÉGYPTE PHARAONIQUE

bibliograPhical notes

A comprehensive bibliography of ancient Egyptian time-reckoning exceeds the scope

of these notes. Still, it is hoped that the bibliographical references adduced below easily
lead to most everything that is relevant. The emphasis will be on more recent work,
especially work in which references to earlier work are plentiful, and on contributions
that support the line of argument presented in this entry. In my own work on the subject,
I have made efforts to cite most everything that has been done before.
General Surveys.—Among monographs that are surveys, the one that most overlaps
in terms of subject matter with the present chronicle is clagett 1995. Clagett makes
much effort to enable access to the subject for newcomers. A more compact overview of
Egyptian time-reckoning is Quack 2002. Belmonte’s survey (belmonte 2003, updated
in belmonte 2009) in large part covers the same ground as dePuydt 1997 and critically
discusses various points. In recent years, two new handbooks on chronology have been
published, namely von beckerath 1997 and hornung, krauss, warburton 2006.
They contain much information and bibliographical references pertaining to time-reck-
oning. The survey of ancient Egyptian astronomy in neugebauer, Parker 1960-1969
also includes material relevant to the study of calendars.
On the History of the Study of Time-reckoning.—This is not the place to review this
history. As regards the early study of calendars, suffice it to note that no insights come
close in importance to the following three (see dePuydt 2009, pp. 127-128). They made
so much else possible. The insights concern the key roles in Egyptian calendars of the
seasons, the moon, and the star Sirius. In chamPollion 1842 (posthumous), a date erro-
neously reported as “1841” in dePuydt 2009, p. 127, Jean-François Champollion (1790-
1832) communicated his discovery that the civil months typically did not have names as
such but are counted as first, second, third, or fourth month of one of three seasons. In
brugsch 1872, Heinrich Brugsch (1827-1894) for the first time adduced positive proof
that ancient Egyptians had indeed taken the moon into account for the purpose of
time-reckoning. In borchardt 1935, pp. 5-6, Ludwig Borchardt (1863-1938) interpreted
the Ebers calendar as well as excerpts from the Illahun papyri as evidence that a sequence
of lunar months adding up to a year could begin at the rising of Sirius in high summer.
In 1950, The Calendars of Ancient Egypt by Richard A. Parker (1905-1993) appeared
(Parker 1950). This work is a grand synthesis of what was known about Egyptian cal-
endars at the time. There remains now hardly a paragraph in this book that does not
require some kind of significant update. Still, to this day, Parker’s Calendars has not lost
its function as a sort of template for the discussion on Egyptian calendars. Among the
authors of contributions to the discussion of Egyptian calendars in recent decades are
Winfried Barta, Rolf Krauss, Christian Leitz, Ulrich Luft, Jürgen von Beckerath, Ronald
Wells, Anthony Spalinger, and others. Their contributions are much too many to list
here. However, the references in the present notes should indirectly lead to most of
them. Among key book-length studies are krauss 1985, luFt 1992, sPalinger 1992
and 1996, and sPalinger (ed.) 1994.
As regards Egypt in Late Antiquity, chaîne 1925 is a handbook of the chronology of
Egypt in the Christian period, grumel 1955 is a handbook of chronology in the Byzan-
tine Empire, which included Egypt, and bagnall, worP 2004 is a handbook of the
various year-counts of Byzantine Egypt.
On the Proposed Comprehensive Model of Egyptian Calendar History.—The compre-
hensive model of Egyptian calendar history outlined in this entry owes much to the works
of Ludwig Borchardt and Richard A. Parker. It may be characterized as a variation and

288
 CHRONIQUE

development of the Borchardt-Parker model. The model is described, with full references
to sources, bibliography and earlier history of the subject, in dePuydt 1997, 1999, and
2009.
On the Second Preamble.—“Oppressing obscurity” is a description found in böker
1967, p. 2341; the expression “disheartening difficulty” is found in lloyd 1976, p. 20.
Ginzel’s confession is found in ginzel 1906, pp. iv–v; it applies only to volume 1 of his
Handbuch, but by implication to all three volumes.
On §1 (Lunar Calendar in Illiterate Societies).—Over the millennia, myriads of vari-
ations of the lunar calendar have been used all over the world, almost all of them by
illiterate communities and societies like prehistoric Egypt. An awareness of these lunar
calendars puts the study of the Egyptian calendar in perspective. In that regard, Martin
Nilsson’s compilation of such calendars from anthropological reports can still inspire
(nilsson 1920). An update may be desirable. However, the spread of technology makes
one wonder how many lunar calendars still survive. Just consider the U.S.A. Nilsson
could still document countless lunar calendars used by American Indian tribes. But now,
about a century later, televisions, cell phones, watches, and electronic devices of all
kinds are everywhere, all propagating the modern common calendar and its years AD.
On §2.1 (Consistency of the Wandering Year).—It is generally assumed that this wan-
dering motion was completely regular and not disrupted by any insertion or removal of
days. Some have disputed this assumption. The matter is discussed in dePuydt 1995c
and 2007.
On §2.1.1 (Invention of the Civil Calendar).—When it comes to the earliest possible
references to the calendar, an inscription mentioning the month III šmw (Month 11) in
Djoser’s step pyramid complex is the earliest known to me (kahl 1995, pp. 70-71). This
is presumably a civil, not a lunar, month. It is difficult to assume that the seasonal month
names could be applied to the lunar calendar, as they were sometimes after the four-
teenth century BCE. The inscription is in ink and seems to be related to the building of
the pyramid. I cannot judge from the edition of the inscription whether there is a possi-
bility that the inscription was inscribed at a later date.
The origin of the civil calendar is discussed in dePuydt 2001. But it would seem that
the subject would bear further refinement, which I would hope to present at some future
occasion.
On §2.2.2 (Doubts about the Lunar Calendar).—Gardiner’s doubts about the exist-
ence of the lunar calendar is voiced in gardiner 1955, p. 21 note 4.
On §2.2.6 (Rising of Sirius as Marker of the Beginning of the Lunar Year).—The
empirical evidence supporting the notion that the rising of Sirius marked the beginning
of the lunar year before about the fourteenth century BCE is presented in dePuydt 2000,
pp. 181-183 and dePuydt 2009, pp. 124-126.
Because the lunar year began around the rising of Sirius before about the fourteenth
century BCE and the civil year wandered slowly backward by one day in four years
returning to the same point after 1460 years, the two calendars wheeled forward through
time independently. The Ebers calendar, which in relation to its diminutive size may
well be the most discussed historical source of ancient Egypt, apparently constitutes a
concordance between the civil calendar and the lunar calendar, a simple rule for estab-
lishing whereabouts the lunar calendar was in relation to the civil calendar. The details
are presented in dePuydt 1996b and 2008.
On §2.2.8 (Beginning of the Lunar Month).—When Egyptian lunar months begin in
relation to conjunction or new moon is discussed dePuydt 1998a and dePuydt 2012a.
For critical data, see bennett 2008.

289
 ÉGYPTE PHARAONIQUE

On §3.2 (Double Helix Calendar).—A color-coded representation of the double helix

calendar is inserted between pages 126 and 127 of dePuydt 2009.
On §3.2.1 (Relation between the Civil Calendar and the Lunar Calendar Subordi-
nated to It).—Once the lunar calendar became attached to the civil calendar, the compar-
ison between the two imposed itself ever more. At some point, the ancient Egyptians
discovered that 309 lunar months are about as long as 25 Egyptian civil years of 365
days. They also discovered that, of these 309 lunar months, 164 lunar months must have
30 days and 145 lunar months 29 days. The interesting problem presents itself: How can
the alternation of 30-day months and 29-day months be optimized? It would appear that
the raison d’être of the Demotic Papyrus Carlsberg 9 is exactly to regulate this alterna-
tion by an eminently simple rule, as proposed in dePuydt 1998b.
On §3.2.2 (Year Pairing or Monthly Pairing?)—In a most recent discussion of the
distinction between yearly and monthly pairing, belmonte 2009, p. 86, it is argued that,
in the double date civil IV šmw 18 = lunar III šmw 23, that is, 10 Sep 142 BCE (dePuydt
1997, p. 163), the lunar month ought to be IV šmw if yearly pairing is assumed.
This would be additional evidence for the use of monthly pairing. However, it is
assumed in belmonte 2003, p. 8, that the Egyptian new year of the year in question,
namely 28 Sep 143 BCE, was the first day of a lunar month. Then again, conjunction fell
around midnight between 26 and 27 September and Egyptian lunar months on average
begin before conjunction. At the very least, the double date in question cannot serve as
evidence in favor of either yearly pairing or monthly pairing. Monthly pairing is other-
wise deemed “illogical” in belmonte 2009, p. 85. However, the Egyptian double helix
calendar is a unique structure. One would expect it to have unique characteristics. What
is unique and without parallel is not necessarily illogical. The distinction between yearly
pairing and monthly pairing is also briefly discussed at dePuydt 2016, pp. 56-57.
On §3.4 (Brugsch Phenomenon and Gardiner Phenomenon).—The Brugsch phenom-
enon was first noted in brugsch 1870. The Gardiner phenomenon was first discussed at
length by gardiner 1906 after Brugsch had earlier noted symptoms of it.
On §3.4.3 (Two “Problems of the Month Names”).—One of the most memorable
debates on the topic of the month names was that between gardiner 1955 and Parker
1957 about the “problem of the month names”. What most hampered this debate is that
there are in fact two problems of the month names that need to be clearly distinguished
from one another.
On §3.5 (Foreign Calendars in Ancient Egypt).—The use of the Macedonian calendar
in Egypt is the subject of bennett 2011; a fifth edition of “addenda and corrigenda,”
dated to 2013, can be downloaded at www.academia.edu; the author died in early 2014
at age 60 and I take the opportunity to acknowledge here many stimulating email
exchanges that we had in the final years of his life. Bennett’s book contains a complete
bibliography on what had earlier been accomplished in relation to the Macedonian cal-
endar. A survey of the structure of the Babylonian calendar is found in dePuydt 2012b.
On §4 (Alexandrian Calendar).—Recent studies of the Alexandrian calendar are
skeat 1993, hagedorn 1994, and Jones 2000. See also bennett 2003 and 2004. The
relation between the Alexandrian calendar and the civil calendar is also discussed in
dePuydt 2016, pp. 46-52.
On §5.3 (Census-plus-Reign Dating).—Census-plus-reign dating is discussed at
length in the recent contributions by baud 2006, nolan 2003, sPalinger 1994, and
verner 2006. Nolan notes that, in 19 lunar years, there are about seven years of
13 months and 12 years of 12 months. Accordingly, the ratio of 13-month lunar years to
12-month lunar years is about 1.71 (12 : 7).

290
 CHRONIQUE

Nolan proposes that a census was skipped in a civil year whenever an intercalary 13th
month was added to the concurrent lunar year beginning around the rising of Sirius in
July. But perhaps, the year in which the census was skipped may have been the year
following the year in which a 13th month was added.
On §5.4 and §5.5 (Predating and Accession Dating).—The classic study of both pre-
dating and accession dating remains gardiner 1945, never quite updated but probably
in need of it.
On §5.6 (Predating of Postdating).—Predating of postdating is for the first time
defined, and also described in detail, in dePuydt 1995a and 1996a.
On §5.7 (Eras in Late Antique Egypt).—The Era of Diocletian is discussed in grenier
1983 and in detail in bagnall, worP 2004, pp. 63-87; the Era of Nabonassar, in
dePuydt 1995b.
On §5.8 (Other Year-counts in Late Antique Egypt).—A comprehensive survey of
year- counts in Egypt in Late Antiquity is bagnall, worP 2004.
On §6 (Time of Day).—The classic study of time units smaller than the day and of
what tools survive that were used to measure them is borchardt 1920. A survey of
recent date is found in clagett 1995. The origin of the 24-hour day is also discussed in
dePuydt 2005.
The earliest attestation of the division of the night into twelve parts in star tables
depicted on coffin lids dating to about 2000 BCE is recently described in dePuydt 2010.
It is argued that the specimens of Type T do not, as is now universally assumed, all contain
a fundamental error. One distinct possibility regarding the fundamental structure of the star
tables should have received mention in that recent study. It is that star tables may well not
be cyclical. It is universally assumed that the star tables depict the returning cycle of the
year. But there is no reason why they could not rather have depicted just one select year.

Leo dePuydt

bibliograPhical reFerences
bagnall, R.S., worP, K.A. 2004, Chronological Systems of Byzantine Egypt. Second
edition. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
baud, M. 2006, “The Relative Chronology of Dynasties 6 and 8”. In: hornung,
krauss, warburton 2006, pp. 144-158.
belmonte, J.A. 2003, “Some Open Questions on the Egyptian Calendar: An Astrono-
mer’s View”, Trabajos de Egiptología 2, pp. 2-38.
belmonte, J.A. 2009, “The Egyptian Calendar: Keeping Ma’at on Earth”. In: J.A. bel-
monte and M. shaltout (Eds.), In Search of Cosmic Order: Selected Essays on
Egyptian Astronomy. No place: Supreme Council of Antiquities (of Egypt), pp. 75-131.
bennett, Chr. 2003, “The Early Augustan Calendars in Rome and Egypt”, Zeitschrift
für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 142, pp. 221-240.
bennett, Chr. 2003, Alexandria and the Moon: An Investigation into the Lunar Mace-
donian Calendar of Ptolemaic Egypt. Studia Hellenistica 52. Leuven: Peeters.
böker, R. 1967, “Zeitrechnung. I. Ägypten”. In: Paulys Realencyclopädie der clas-
sischen Altertumswissenschaft (second edition), Second Series, vol. 18 = vol. IX.A.2,
pp. 2338-2454. Stuttgart: Alfred Druckenmüller.
borchardt, L. 1920, Die altägyptische Zeitmessung. In: E. von bassermann-Jordan
(Ed.), Die Geschichte der Zeitmessung und der Uhren. vol. 1. Berlin and Leipzig:
Vereinigung wissenschaftlicher Verleger.

291
 ÉGYPTE PHARAONIQUE

borchardt, L. 1935, Die Mittel zur zeitlichen Festlegung von Punkten der ägyptischen
Geschichte. Quellen und Forschungen zur Zeitbestimmung der ägyptischen Geschichte
2. Cairo: Published by the author.
brugsch, H. 1870, “Ein neues Sothis-Datum”. Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und
Altertumskunde 8, pp. 108-111.
brugsch, H. 1872, “Bau und Maaße des Tempels von Edfu”. Zeitschrift für ägyptische
Sprache und Altertumskunde 10, pp. 1-16.
chaîne, M. 1925, La chronologie des temps chrétiens de l’Égypte et de l’Éthiopie.
Paris: Paul Geuthner.
chamPollion, J.-F. (Champollion le Jeune) 1842, “Mémoire sur les signes employés par
les anciens égyptiens à la notation des divisions du temps, dans leurs trois systèmes
d’écriture”, Mémoires de l’Institut royal de France, Académie des inscriptions et
belles-lettres 15, pp. 73-134.
clagett, M. 1995, Ancient Egyptian Science, A Source Book, III: Calendars, Clocks,
and Astronomy. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.
dePuydt, L. 1995a, “Regnal Years and Civil Calendar in Achaemenid Egypt”, The
Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 81, pp. 151-173.
dePuydt, L. 1995b, “More Valuable than All Gold”: Ptolemy’s Royal Canon and
Babylonian Chronology”, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 47, pp. 97-117.
dePuydt, L. 1995c, “On the Consistency of the Wandering Year as Backbone of Egyp-
tian Chronology”, Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 32, pp. 43-58.
dePuydt, L. 1996a, “Egyptian Regnal Dating under Cambyses and the Date of the
Persian Conquest”. In: P. der manuelian (Ed.), Studies in Honor of William Kelly
Simpson. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, Department of Ancient Egyptian, Nubian,
and Near Eastern Art, pp. 179-190.
dePuydt, L. 1996b, “The Function of the Ebers Calendar Concordance”, Orientalia 65,
pp. 61-88.
dePuydt, L. 1997, Civil Calendar and Lunar Calendar in Ancient Egypt. Orientalia
Lovaniensia Analecta 77. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement Oosterse Stud-
ies.
dePuydt, L. 1998a, “The Hieroglyphic Representation of the Moon’s Absence
(Psḏntyw)”. In: L.H. lesko (Ed.), Ancient Egyptian and Mediterranean Studies in
Memory of William A. Ward. Providence, Rhode Island: Department of Egyptology,
pp. 71-89.
dePuydt, L. 1999, “The Two Problems of the Month Names”, Revue d’Égyptologie 50,
pp. 107-133.
dePuydt, L. 2000, “Sothic Chronology and the Old Kingdom”, Journal of the American
Research Center in Egypt 37, pp. 167-186.
dePuydt, L. 2001, “What Is Certain about the Origin of the Egyptian Civil Calendar?”
In: Hedvig győry (Ed.), “Le lotus qui sort de terre”: Mélanges offerts à Edith
Varga. Budapest: Museum of Fine Arts, pp. 81-94.
dePuydt, L. 2005, “Counting the Hours: Somebody Had to Divide up the Day, but Why
the Number 24?”, Archaeology Odyssey 2005 September/October, pp. 6-7.
dePuydt, L. 2007, “Calendars and Years in Ancient Egypt: The Soundness of Egyptian
and West Asian Chronology in 1500–500 BC and the Consistency of the Egyptian
365-Day Wandering Year”. In: J.M. steele (Ed.), Calendars and Years: Astronomy
and Time in the Ancient Near East. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 35- 81.
dePuydt, L. 2008a, “Function and Significance of the Ebers Calendar’s Lone Feast-
Hieroglyph (Gardiner Sign-list W3)”, Journal of Egyptian History 1, pp. 117-138.

292
 CHRONIQUE

dePuydt, L. 2008b, “The Demotic Mathematical Astronomical Papyrus Carlsberg 9

Reinterpreted”. In: W. clarysse, A. schoors, and H. willems (Eds.), Egyptian
Religion. The Last Thousand Years. Studies Dedicated to the Memory of Jan Quaege-
beur. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 84-85. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters en Departe-
ment Oosterse Studies, pp. 1277-1297.
dePuydt, L. 2009, “From Twice Helix to Double Helix: A Comprehensive Model for
Egyptian Calendar History”, The Journal of Egyptian History 2, pp. 115-147.
dePuydt, L. 2010, “Ancient Egyptian Star Tables: A Reinterpretation of Their Funda-
mental Structure”. In: Annette imhausen and Tanja Pommerening (Eds.), Writings of
Early Scholars in the Ancient Near East, Egypt, Rome, and Greece: Translating
Ancient Scientific Texts. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 286. Berlin and New York:
Walter De Gruyter, pp. 241-276.
dePuydt, L. 2012a. “Why Greek Lunar Months Began a Day Later than Egyptian Lunar
Months, Both before First Visibility of the New Crescent”. In: J. ben-dov, W. horow-
itz, and J.M. steele (Eds.), Living the Lunar Calendar. Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 119–71.
dePuydt, L. 2012b. “Calendar, Ancient Near East”. In: R.S. bagnall, K. brodersen,
C.B. chamPion, A. erskine, and S.R. hueber (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Ancient
History, First edition, pp. 1255-1258. No place: Blackwell Publishing.
dePuydt, L. 2016, “The Regnal Years of the “Mathematical Astronomical” Demotic
Papyrus Carlsberg 9 Reinterpreted”. In: R. landgráFová and J. mynářová (Eds.),
Rich and Great: Studies in Honour of Anthony J. Spalinger on the Occasion of his
70th Feast of Thoth. Prague: Charles University Faculty of Arts, pp. 39–60.
gardiner, A.H. 1906, “Mesore as First Month of the Egyptian Year”. Zeitschrift für
ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 43, pp. 136-144.
gardiner, A.H. 1945, “Regnal Years and Civil Calendar in Pharaonic Egypt”. The
Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 31, pp. 11-28.
gardiner, A.H. 1955, “The Problem of the Month-names”. Revue d’Égyptologie 10,
pp. 9-31.
ginzel, F.K. 1906, Handbuch der mathematischen und technischen Chronologie. vol. 1.
Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung.
grenier, J.-C. 1983, “La stèle funéraire du dernier taureau Bouchis”. Bulletin de l’In-
stitut français d’Archéologie orientale 83, pp. 197-208.
grumel, V. 1958, La chronologie. Traité d’études byzantines 1. Paris: Presses Univer-
sitaires de France.
hagedorn, D. 1994, “Zum ägyptischen Kalender unter Augustus”, Zeitschrift für Papy-
rologie und Epigraphik 100, pp. 211-222.
hornung, E., krauss, R., warburton, D.A. (Eds.) 2006, Ancient Egyptian Chronol-
ogy. Handbook of Oriental Studies 83. Leiden and Boston: E.J. Brill.
Jones, A. 2000, “Calendrica II: Date Equations from the Reign of Augustus”. Zeitschrift
für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 129, pp. 159-166.
kahl, J., kloth, N., zimmermann, U. 1995, Die Inschriften der 3. Dynastie. Ägyptolo-
gische Abhandlungen 56. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
krauss, R. 1985, Sothis- und Monddaten: Studien zur astronomischen und technischen
Chronologie Altägyptens. Hildesheimer Ägyptologische Beiträge 20. Hildesheim:
Gerstenberg Verlag.
lloyd, A.B. 1976, Herodotus Book II: Commentary 1–98. Études préliminaires aux
religions orientales dans l’Empire romain 43. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
luFt, U. 1992, Die chronologische Fixierung des ägyptischen Mittleren Reiches
nach dem Tempelarchiv von Illahun. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften,

293
 ÉGYPTE PHARAONIQUE

Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Sitzungsberichte 598. Veröffentlichungen der ägyp-

tischen Kommission 2. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissen-
schaften.
neugebauer, O., Parker, R.A. 1960-1969, Egyptian Astronomical Texts, I (1960): The
Early Decans, II (1964): The Ramesside Star Clocks, III in 2 vols. (1969): Decans,
Planets, Constellations, and Zodiacs. Brown Egyptological Studies 3, 5, and 6. Prov-
idence, Rhode Island: Brown University Press.
nilsson, M.P. 1920, Primitive Time-reckoning: A Study in the Origins and First Devel-
opment of the Art of Counting Time among the Primitive and Early Culture Peoples.
Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup.
nolan, J.S. 2003, “The Original Lunar Calendar and Cattle Counts in Old Kingdom
Egypt”. In: S. bickel, A. loPrieno (Eds.), Basel Egyptology Prize: Junior Research
in Egyptian History, Archaeology, and Philology. Aegyptiaca Helvetica 17. Basel:
Schwabe & Co. AG, pp. 75-97.
Parker, R.A. 1950, The Calendars of Ancient Egypt. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civili-
zation 26. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Parker, R.A. 1957, “The Problem of the Month-names: A Reply”, Revue d’Égyptolo-
gie 11, pp. 85-107.
Quack, J.F. 2002, “Zwischen Sonne und Mond – Zeitrechnung im Alten Ägypten. In:
H. Falk (Ed.), Vom Herrscher zur Dynastie: Zum Wesen kontinuierlicher Zeitrech-
nung in Antike und Gegenwart. Bremen: Hempen Verlag, pp. 27-67.
skeat, T.C. 1993, The Reign of Augustus in Egypt: Conversion Tables for the Egyptian
and Julian Calendars, 30 B.C. – 14 A.D. Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung
und Antiken Rechtsgeschichte 84. Munich: C.H. Beck.
sPalinger, A. 1992, Three Studies on Egyptian Feasts and Their Chronological Impli-
cations. Baltimore: Halgo, Inc.
sPalinger, A. 1994, “Dated Texts of the Old Kingdom”, Studien zur Altägyptischen
Kultur 21, pp. 275-319.
sPalinger, A., 1996, The Private Feast Lists of Ancient Egypt. Ägyptologische Abhand-
lungen 57. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
sPalinger, A. (ed.) 1994. Revolutions in Time: Studies in Ancient Egyptian Calendrics.
Varia Aegyptiaca Supplement 6. San Antonio: Van Siclen.
verner, M. 2006, “Contemporaneous Evidence for the Relative Chronology of Dyns. 4
and 5”. In: hornung, krauss, warburton 2006, pp. 124-143.
von beckerath, J. 1997, Chronologie des pharaonischen Ägypten: Die Zeitbestimmung
der ägyptischen Geschichte von der Vorzeit bis 332 v.Chr. Münchner Ägyptologische
Studien 46. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern.

294