Hedvig Győry: Mélanges offerts a Edith Varga „Le lotus qui sort de terre” (Bulletin du Musée Hongrois des Beaux-Arts Supplément 1. Budapest, 2001)
LEO DEPUYDT: What Is Certain about the Origin of the Egyptian Civil Calendar?
cles. It is useful to identify these two types explicitly as the two main chronological anchors of Egyptian history. To my knowledge, they never have been identified as such. Now that all handbooks agree, one easily forgets how the universally accepted dates were obtained. Outsiders may well expect an answer from Egyptologists to the question how the rough placement of Egyptian histoiy in time can be so certain. Radio carbon dates place Dynasties Four to Six roughly in 2600-2000 B.C.; a list of such dates appears in von Beckerath. 9 The dates seem slightly lower than dating obtained by other arguments. 10 But they are at least precise and consistent enough to confirm without a doubt that the Third Dynasty falls well after 3000 B.C. The chronology of Assyrian historical works makes it possible to place a Pharaoh such as Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV) in the fourteenth century B.C. This is done by means of synchronisms, that is, Mesopotamian kings mentioned in Egyptian sources and Egyptian kings mentioned in Mesopotamian sources. Von Beckerath 11 has conveniently summarized the Assyrian evidence, declaring the history of Assyria "von der Mitte des 2. vorchristlichen Jahrtausends ab zur bestdatierten des alten Vorderen Orients" (p. 59). Neither radio carbon dating nor Assyrian chronicles produce an exact chronology. But both are sufficiently precise to serve as a rough indication of the length of Egyptian history. This rough indication can then be fine-tuned by other considerations. The two anchors defend the Egyptian chronology now found in all the handbooks against extreme scepticism. They are in a sense a last line of defense. It comes therefore as no surprise that they have come under close scrutiny and even severe attack. Neither anchor is without its problems. That has led some to reject both anchors, even in recent years. In an extreme view, radio carbon dating is considered a complete fraud. I personally see no lack of receptiveness among Egyptologists and Assyriologists to new and even revolutionary ideas in chronology. Yet so far, the criticisms have not made a dent in the accepted chronology. A detailed discussion of the two anchors exceeds the scope of the present brief paper. It is common to read that Egyptian chronology is the basis for Ancient Near Eastern chronology. The reason is Sothic chronology (see below). However, 9 Beckerath, op. cit. (note 4), p. 56. 10 W. K. Simpson - W.W. Hallo, The Ancient Near East: A Histoiy, Fort Worth 1998, p. 195. " Beckerath, op. cit. (note 4), pp. 59-60.
