Janssen The Day the Inundation Began, in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 46, No. 2 (Apr., 1987), pp. 129-136

The Day the Inundation Began Author(s): Jac. J. Janssen Reviewed work(s): Source: Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 46, No. 2 (Apr., 1987), pp. 129-136 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/545016 . Accessed: 09/04/2012 11:21 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Near Eastern Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

THE DAY THE INUNDATION BEGAN JAC. J. JANSSEN,

Leiden

Rijksuniversiteit,

For Richard Parker

ALTHOUGHalmost every book on Egyptianhistorydevotes in its introduction a few lines to the impact of the Nile inundation on the origins and development of the Pharaonic state and civilization, there have been, until recently, hardly any studies dealing specifically with the subject.' The reason for this surprising lack of interest clearly is that the Egyptian sources, whether texts or representations, seldom contain any facts about the phenomenon. Even the 'Hymn to the Inundation',2 beautiful poetry as it certainly is, merely contains flowery phrases which reflect the religious feelings and concepts of the New Kingdom but no details concerning the course of the events during the inundation. Yet there has indeed been preserved a limited amount of usable material. Since it regards the day on which the actual flooding of the fields began, it seems appropriate to dedicate a discussion of the evidence to Professor Richard Parker, who has done so much to enlarge our knowledge of the Egyptian calendar and Egyptian mathematics. At least twelve texts from the Theban necropolis mention the day on which the water flooded the fields, as I will attempt to demonstrate.3 These comprise eight graffiti, nos. 850b, 856, 862, 881c and d, 1064, 1158, and 1159A, and four ostraca: O.DeM 436, O.DeM 588, O.Cairo 25306 bis, and O.Cairo 25801. Of these twelve texts, the first five have already been published by W. Spiegelberg.4 His suggestion that graff. 883 is also a 'Nilinschrift', as he calls them, is probably not correct since, as we shall see below (n. 63), its date does not suit that interpretation. To added three more graffiti: nos. 1064, 1158, and 1159A,5 Spiegelberg's data, J. Cern', I The first ones were W. Schenkel, Die Bewdisserungsrevolution im Alten Agypten (Mainz, 1978), and E. Endesfelder, "Zur Frage der Bewdisserungim pharaonischen Agypten," Z4S 106 (1979): 37-51. D. Bonneau, La crue du Nil (Paris, 1964), deals mainly with the Graeco-Roman period; B. H. Stricker, De overstroming van de Nijl (Leiden, 1956), with both the Egyptian and the Greek theories concerning the causes of the inundation. 2 See D. van der Plas, 'De hymne aan de overstroming van de Nijl' (Ph.D. diss., Utrecht, 1980). A French translation of this work will appear soon. 3 Graff. 1159B has been omitted from this study because it is mostly illegible, although it may refer to the same event. Whether that is also the case with graff. 1160 looks doubtful. 4 W. Spiegelberg, Agyptische und andere Graffiti

[JNES 46 no. 2 (1987)] @ 1987 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0022-2968/87/4602-0003$1.00.

(Inschriften und Zeichnungen) aus der thebanischen Nekropolis (Heidelberg, 1921). Previously, Spiegelberg had published the five graffiti together with three others in his Zwei Beitrdge zur Geschichte und Topographie der thebanischen Necropolis (Strasbourg, 1889), p. 16, nos. XV-XX. Oddly enough, three of these texts, nos. XVII-XIX, do not occur in the final publication (which also presents revised texts of some others), unless graff. 850b is a new version of one of them. I do not sufficiently trust these three of Spiegelberg's first version to include them in the discussion here. O. Lieblein's article in Rec. Trav. 22 (1900): 7173, was based on Spiegelberg's first edition, but his suggestions are now outdated. Eduard Meyer's notes in Abhandlungen der kin. preuss. Akad. der Wiss., Phil.-hist. Cl. 1907 (Abh. 3), pp. 39 ff., are based on the same material. Although their basis seems unreliable, they are at least an attempt at interpretation, particularly the idea of converting the dates into those of our calendar. 5 J. Cerny', Graffiti hieroglyphiques et hieratiques de la nicropole thibaine (Cairo, 1956).

129

130

JOURNAL OF NEAR EASTERN STUDIES

and two ostraca: O.Dell. 4366 and 0. Cairo 25801,' while S. Sauneron has published a third one: O.DeM 588.8 The fourth ostracon had already been included in G. Daressy's series of Cairo ostraca in the Catalogue gendral as no. 25306 bis.9 It is of importance, as will appear, to consider the location of the graffiti. The same does not hold true for the ostraca. Since they can have been easily transported, their modern provenance, even if known, provides no clue as to where they were actually written. O.DeM. 588, for instance, was discovered at the K6m of the 'Grand Puits',10 but it certainly came from elsewhere. O.Cairo 25306 bis and 25801 were found in the Valley of the Kings, but that does not necessarily mean that they were written there. Graff. 850-81, however, are inscribed, as Spiegelberg noted in his Zwei nowhere in his final publication is there a clear indication of where these texts Beitriigel-r occuron the rock high above the temples of Deir el-Bahri. From the recent publication of the CEDAE, Graffiti de la montagne thibaine, we know now that the whole group was found near the 'Village du Col',12 beside and above the sanctuary built against the flank of el-Qurn.13Because this place affords a wide view over the Theban floodplain, it seems that the authors of the graffiti related what they actually saw from a distance.14 Graff. 1064 occurs behind the Hathor temple at the northern entrance of the valley of Deir el-Medina, fairly high up on the rock.15 I am not certain whether from this point, too, the scribe could have observed much of the plain, but it seems not unlikely that it was possible. Certainly it was not the case from the spot where graff. 1158 and 1159A were inscribed, namely, beyond the tomb of Khacemwese (QV 44) at the rear of the Valley of the Queens.16 Hence, at least five, and possibly six, of the graffiti were written at places from which the beginning of the inundation could actually have been seen. This explains the wording of the texts. Since all except O.Cairo 25801 are variations on a single theme, the most convenient manner of discussing them is to present a "model" text and then note the various variations.1 Almost every one of the texts begins with a date,'" consisting of the month and day, in most instances preceded by the regnal year.19 Then follows the sentence: 6 Idem, Catalogue des ostraca hieratiques non litteraires de Deir el Mtdineh, vol. V (Cairo, 1951), pl. 25. 7 Ostraca hieratiques (Cat. G6n.) (Cairo, Cerny,, 1935), pl. 114*. 8 S. Sauneron, Catalogue des ostraca hidratiques non littiraires de Deir el Midineh, vol. VI (Cairo, 1959), pl. 21. 9 G. Daressy, Ostraca (Cairo, 1901), p. 79. I have been able to use transliteration from his Notebook 101 (p. Cern,'s 36), housed in the Griffith Institute, Oxford. 10 Sauneron, Catalogue des ostraca hieratiques non litteraires ..., p. 8. 11See Zwei Beitriige, p. 10. 12L. Aubriot and M. Kurz, Graffiti, 11.2, plan 117. 13Cf. B. Bruybre, Rapport sur lesfouilles de Deir el Midineh (1934-1935), Troisieme partie (Cairo, 1939), p. 353 and pl. 38. 14So, too, Eduard Meyer, Abhandlungen, p. 41:

"unsere Texte ...... verzeichnen deutlich einen beobachteten Naturvorgang." 15J. F61ix and M. Kurz, Graffiti, II.1, plan 52. 16Ibid., plan 18. 17Minor variations not influencing the translation are disregarded, especially since the nature of the graffiti makes it difficult to recognize every sign with certainty. 18In O.DeM 588 the month and day follow the text at the end of line 2. Sauneron's facsimile, however, shows that the upper part of the piece of limestone was flaked off, so that perhaps there a date, or merely the regnal year, is lost. The ostracon is the only one of the four which contains another item of information, namely the delivery of gypsum. There is no indication that it was in any way connected with the record of the inundation, apart from having taken place in the same month, possibly even on the same day (lost at the end of 1. 3). 19No year in graff. 881c and 1064, nor in O.DeM 436. As a result of damage to the right-hand side of

THE DAY THE INUNDATION BEGAN

01 hrw

[MWr]A pn

h.yt

A ir.n

N/~

pi

mw

131



(or A

r

(or n)

A)lis hopy

Notes a) hrw pn is absent in graff. 881d and 1158 and in O.DeM 588 (but see n. 18, above); graff. 856 has hrw n; graff. 862 and O.DeM 436 have hrw pn n; graff. 1064 even has hrw pn hrw n. In graff. 1159A the words hrw pn, or a variation of them, are lost. b) In eight instances20 the adjective E follows hcpy. What exactly does hcypy E mean? In his article "On the Meaning of the Name HCpy,,21 in which de Buck proved that hcpy indicates the 'inundation', whereas 'Nile' is rendered as itrw,22over fifty examples are listed from all periods of Egyptian history.23 In a few of them, hopy is followed by c3,24 which de Buck translates as 'great' (inundation). That it cannot designate an exceptionally high flood is clear from ex. 22,25 which mentions the C~ n tnw rnpt, 'the great inundation of every wr occurs26and is rendered by de Buck in five other the other On hand, examples year'. h.py clear in this respect, since there it is as 'high inundation'. Ex. 3 (Pyr.T. 292d) is particularly h.py stated that 'their residences (? crrwt)26a [fall] through a hIpy wr.27 The difference between hcpy cE and wr,28 the 'great' as opposed to the 'high' Karnak stela of Sebekhotep VIII, which was confirmed the is inundation, conveniently by h.py discovered after de Buck wrote his study.29In the upper register, on the right-hand side, the but in the text (faces A, 3 and king is standing before a Hapy-figure who is called Hcpy •,30 B, 3) hCpy wr occurs. Since it relates that the Temple of Karnak was flooded so that the king with his court were 'wading in it', it is obvious that an unusually high inundation is meant.31 We can thus conclude that the use of the phrase hyopyCEis not significant as regards the actual events recorded in the ostraca and graffiti.

O.Cairo25306 bis, the beginningsof the lines are lost; thus we cannotestablishwhethera regnalyear was noted. In graff.1159Aafterthe regnalyear(29), month and day as well as the first words of the sentence[* hrwpn hlyt ir.n?] arelost. 20 In the otherfour it mayalso havebeenwritten, but thenit is no longerlegible. 21A. de Buck, OrientaliaNeerlandica(Leiden, 1948),pp. 1-22. 22Althoughthereis no doubtthat this interpretation is correct,one still findsin recentpublications occasionallytranslatedas 'Nile'.The incorrect name'Nilhymnus'for whatis actuallythe 'Hymnto h.py the Inundation'is due to tradition. 23Examples51-73 containthe worditrw. 24Examples12,21, 22, and 37. 25Froma shrineat Gebelel-Silsila;cf. G. Legrain, ASAE 4 (1903):200. 26Examples3, 27, 38, 44, and45.

or, 'promising'(ex. 45) a normalinundationdoes not makesensein this context. 28A. H. Gardiner,in a note to his translationof Pap. Ch. BeattyV, 6, 10 (see n. 27 above),suggests that wr indicates the 'culmination point of the inundation' (Hier. Pap. Brit. Mus., 3d ser., I, p. 47, n. 14). Of course, the fact that the inundation was high could only be established at its culmination wr has this special meaning is point, but that not corroborated h.py by the otherinstances.

29Foundby ShehataAdamandFaridel-Shaboury duringthe 1954-56excavationsof the ThirdPylon at Karnak (ASAE 56 [1959]: 35-52). Published simultaneouslyby Labib Habachi,SAK 1 (1974): 207-14, and by J. Baines,Acta Orientalia36 (1974): 39-54, with an addition in the same periodical, vol.

37 (1976):11-20.

30 C~ also occurs in 1. 7 of face B, but since HCpy the preceding words are lost it is impossible to draw 26aSee now G. P. F. van den Boorn, "WWdc-ryt any conclusions from the occurrence.

31Baines,Acta Orientalia36 (1974):41(f) and 37 and Justiceat the Gate,"JNES 44 (1985):1-25; and PatriciaSpencer,The EgyptianTemple:A Lexico- (1976): 12(f), suggests that h'py wr refers to the graphicalStudy(London,1984),pp. 147-55. physicalinundation,h?py ' to its personification. 27 See also example 27 (Pap. Chester Beatty V, 6, In view of the instancesquoted above, this seems wr is 10), stating that a mouse during the unable to find a place of retreat. In examples h.py 44 and 45 de Buck renders wr as 'great'. This does not appear very convincing, since 'asking for' (ex. 44)

unlikely. That wr means especially 'high', in connection

with nst and other substantives,has also been argued by K. P. Kuhlmann,Der Thronim Alten

132

JOURNAL OF NEAR EASTERNSTUDIES

c) The critical word in the text is the verb hOi, which usually means 'to descend, to come/go down'. At first sight, then, the text seems to refer to the beginning of the fall of the inundation.32 However, the Wiirterbuch33also mentions a broader meaning, 'kommen'.34In this sense, it is used parallel with pri, for example, in the autobiographical texts from the Old and Middle Kingdoms," in the Horemheb Decree,36 and still later, in the Kushite Period.37 In the 'Hymn to the Inundation', it is used for the return of the migratory birds,38 and D. van der Plas refers in this connection39to the passage in the 'Report of Wenamin' (2,65), where Wenamin complains that he was already seeing the birds for the second time hiy r Kmt. The verb also occurs as 'return' in the autobiography of Harkhuf.40I do not believe that there it means 'descend' (from Yam to Egypt). Indeed, Yam was situated higher above sea-level than Egypt, but that was hardly discernible to one who traveled, as Harkhuf did, by donkey.41 We thus have to conclude that hii, apart from 'to go down', also has the connotation 'to return', 'to go back', and even in a wider sense, 'to go/come'. With this meaning the verb is construed, according to the Wb., with n or r. In our texts once an n occurs once after h3y n p3 mw (in graff. 850b), in six other instances an r.42 Therefore, the sentence can only be rendered as: 'This day, the water returned/came to inundation'.43The dates prove that this is indeed what is meant (see below). d) Two instances contain a mysterious addition at the end of the sentence, directly after h'py C3, =7 3 44 namely, the words pi . In his first publication Spiegelberg transliterated them as p3 I• I, but that looks impossible palaeographically.45The words seem to be an addition to h~py c, but I do not understand what they mean. Perhaps they should be read as 'the nw' or 'the nt', or some other word indicating the flood, but in that case they are superfluous and would violate the simple, factual character of these short records. e) In O.DeM 436 hr tr n mtrt, 'at the time of midday' follows after h'py CE.Hence, not only the day on which the water of the inundation 'came' was recorded but once even the hour. Combined with the fact that five or six of the graffiti were inscribed on the rock at a place from where the plain of the Theban West Bank could be viewed, these words suggest 37Cf. N.-C. Grimal, La stble triomphale de Pi(cankh)y (Cairo, 1981), pp. 28 ff. 38 X, 6; also in II, 2. 32 So Spiegelberg, Zwei Beitriige, p. 10. Eduard 39Op. cit. (see n. 2, above), 111and 185, n. 623. 40 See, e.g., Urk. 1, 125, 2. In the preceding line Meyerin Abhandlungen(see n. 4, above), pp. 4041, pointedout that this is improbableand does not pri is used for the outward journey. 41 I cannot agree with H. Goedicke's recent exagreewiththe dates. 33 Wb. II, 472, 23-25. Probably derived from planation of the text ("Harkhuf's Travels," JNES 40 'zuriickkehren' (Wb. II, 473, 3) but still vaguerin [1981]: 5 ff.). 42 Graff. 856 (Spiegelberg transliterated n with a meaning. 34 So, too, E. Edel in his recent study Hieroquery-mark, but the facsimile is fairly clear); graff. 862 (see the facsimile); graff. 1158; graff. 1159A; glyphische Inschriften des Alten Reiches, Abh. Akad. der Wiss. (1981), O.DeM 436 (Cern' noted: 'sic!'); O.DeM 588. The Rheinisch-Westfailische p. 22. See also D. Meeks, Ann&elexicographique, other instances are not clear at this point; graff. vol. 3 (Paris, 1982), no. 79.1807, and, for the 881c seems to say only h3y ir.n '. 43 If indeed graff. 850b contains anh.py n-which since juridicalmeaningof hii r, D. Valbelle,BIFAO 77 the inscription is barely legible, is not certain-it (1977):130. That the simpler expression iw mw was also used could be explained by pointing out that h'py could is proved, e.g., by a short text from the tomb of also be conceived as 'personality', in which case 'to' Paheri (Tylor-Griffith, The Tomb of Paheri at el is rendered by n. Kab (London, 1984), pl. III, upper register,right44 Graff. 856 and O.Cairo 25306 bis. Whether 1. 4 handside. of graff. 881d contains the same words is uncertain. 35J. M. A. Janssen, Autobiografische Texten 45 Eduard Meyer's suggestion ("herabkommen, welches das Wasser in den See machte") also looks (Leiden,1946),pp. 118-19. 36Left side, 1. 2; cf. J.-M. Kruchten,Le Dicret improbable, since in O.Cairo 25306 bis no preposid'Horemheb(Brussels,1981),pp. 179ff. tion appears between h'py c3 and pi.

Agypten (Gliickstadt,1977), p. 28. He does not, however, indicate a clear distinction between wr and c.

THE DAY THEINUNDATION BEGAN

133

that the scribenoted what he observedat a particularmoment.That event can only have been the flow of the firstwaterfromthe irrigationcanals-which themselveslay too deepfor the water in them to be seen from afar-over the soil of the basin. Of course, the point wherethis happenedis too far away from the Col for one to have been able to see the first drops, but what quickly may have caught the eye was the glitteringof the sun upon the graduallywettedfields.46 As stated above, O.Cairo 25801 presents a slightly different wording, although the meaningis the same. After the date, it states:iw p3 mw hlyt h'p[y c ?]/ in ss PE-gd. The use of iw (narrativesequentialis)after a date is quite common in texts from Deir el-Medina.47Clearly,the second line mentionsthe name of the man who has writtenthe record. Having reached these conclusions, it seems appropriate to present a brief description of how, so far as I understand it, the inundation actually worked. Although no evidence survives from Pharaonic sources, there is no reason to suggest that the sequence of events then was essentially different from that which occurred in the time before the introduction of perennial irrigation by means of dams and pumps after A.D. 1885. Accordingly, we can use the major study on Egyptian irrigation by W. Willcocks and J. I. Craig48for our comprehension of the procedure. The authors describe how, some time after the river had begun to rise, the water in the heads of the feeder canals had risen so high that it threatened to break the dams.49 Then the fellahin opened the stops by removing as much stone and earth as possible, until the water broke through the remains of the dams and rushed down the canals. At a certain point, the floor of the canals, which gradually rose relative to the ground level, reached the surface, and there, only shortly after the opening of the dams, the water began to flow onto the fields. That is the moment indicated in our texts. Willcocks and Craig state that "the filling of the basins begins ordinarily about the 12th August" (p. 304), but this can only represent an average date. They also present (p. 184) a list of dates for the lowest and the highest water levels of the river during the period A.D. 1873-1912. Those of the last ten years (1903-1912) are irrelevant to us because of the influence of the Aswan Dam, for after 1902 the lake behind the dam was emptied before the rise of the Nile began, thus pushing back the date for the minimum level by approximately one month. In the preceding thirty years the average date of the minimum level can be calculated to be the second of June-which means that the rise began on the third of June-and that of the maximum as the sixth of September. More important for our subject, however, is the wide variation of these moments over the thirty years, which appears to be up to six weeks or even more for the minimum50 and only slightly less for the maximum levels. Nor does any correlation 46 I owe this idea to Dr. R. Demaree, who has seen it still in the 1960s. 47 Several examples occur, for instance, in the 'journal of the Necropolis': O.DeM 35, 9 and 10; 38, 4; 44, 16; 45, vs. 9; 153, 16; etc. 48 W. Willcocks and J. I. Craig, Egyptian Irrigation, 3d ed. (London and New York, 1913). For the description of the course of events, see pp. 303 ff. 49 Even in the nineteenth century A.D., most of the canals were still dammed at their heads by means of masses of loose stones and earth. That sluices

occurred in Pharaonic times, as some translations will have it, seems highly unlikely. Sluices are not only fairly complicated mechanisms, but must also be built of strong wood, which in Ancient Egypt meant wood imported from Syria-Palestine or via Nubia. It is unlikely that such valuable material would have been used for sluices. 50 In 1898, for example, it fell on 23 June; in 1894 on 9 May; in 1887, even on 5 May, that is, 28 days before 2 June.

134

JOURNAL OF NEAR EASTERN STUDIES

appear to exist between the two dates,51which means that during the years of an early rise, one could reckon on neither an early nor a late maximum.52 It is particularly unfortunate that no list seems to have been published of the days on which, during these years, the actual inundation of the fields began, but from the above it is obvious that the date will have varied considerably from year to year. If, as we may suppose, the situation in Pharaonic times was not essentially different from that in the nineteenth century A.D.,53we may expect that the days recorded in the graffiti and ostraca fell around the twelfth of August. Unfortunately, of the twelve texts, only four to five can be used to establish the date of the event they record. Some do not contain a year at all (see note 19, above), in one, graff. 850b, the year is uncertain.54 Moreover, with one exception, the texts do not state to whose reign they refer. Since all very probably belong to the Nineteenth and Twentieth Dynasties, high year-dates can hardly refer to any kings other than either Ramesses II or Ramesses III, but a choice must be made by us. This leaves us with merely the following evidence: 1. Graff.862: year 1, III 3ht 3. At the end of line 3, immediatelyafter (hcpy) C~and perfectly aligned so that it clearlybelongs to the same text, we read:nsw bity B5-Rc55Hence year I of Merenptahis meant. 2. Graff.881d:year22, II ?t 5. This can be the reignof eitherRamessesII or III. 3. Graff.1158:year 18, III t 4. Again,both reignsare possible,even that of RamessesXI; but, since the inscription occurs near the tomb of Khacemwaseand those of other sons of RamessesIII, it is most likely that it was writtenby a workmanengagedin buildingthese tombs,hencethat it datesfromthe reignof RamessesIII. 4. Graff. 856: year 7, III 3t 5. Apart from those of Ramesses II and III, the reigns of Merenptahand those of severalkingsfromthe TwentiethDynastycan be considered. 5. O.Cairo25801:year 4, III ~t 20. dated the text on palaeographicalgroundsto the Cern', This causedhim some problemsin his 'Workmen',57 beginningof the TwentiethDynasty.56 becausehe conceivedthe ss P3'-kdto be the 'scribeof the Tomb' from the late Nineteenth Dynasty. He thereforeascribedthe ostraconto the reign of RamessesIII. However,sg is a very commondesignationof workmenwho wereable to write,particularlyin the graffiti,and thereare severalpersonsat Deir el-Medinabearingthis namein variousperiods.If this P5-id was not the 'scribeof the Tomb',then regnalyear 4 could be that of any other Pharaohof the Nineteenthor TwentiethDynasties. The days vary from II t 5 to III zht20, that is, forty-five days, a variation which would just be possible, as we have seen, between two successive years. The only way to use them is to convert them into the dates of our calendar. For this, we have to know the absolute regnal years of the relevant Pharaohs. Fortunately, these have recently 51 In 1882, 1883, and 1885 the minimum level was reached on 21 June, that is, 19 days late. Both in 1882 and 1885 the maximum came early, on 28 August, whereas in 1883 it was only reached on 17 September, that is, 11 days late. 52The length of the period between the maximum and minimum levels fluctuated in the thirty years recorded here from 60 days in 1895 (23 June22 August), or 68 days in 1882 and 1885, to 113 days in 1878, 118 in 1887 (minimum already reached by 5 May), and even 129 days in 1881.

53 The rise of the Nile entirely depends upon the monsoon rains on the Abyssinian mountains, a natural phenomenon which has not changed in the last three millennia. 54 Spiegelberg read 'year 12, II 5zt' (day lost), but from the facsimile this looks quite doubtful. 55The n below the b3-sign is lost with part of the cartouche, but cf., for example, graff. 978. 56 Cerny',Ostraca hieratiques, p. 91. 57 A Community of Workmen at Thebes (Cairo, 1973), p. 206.

THE DAY THE INUNDATIONBEGAN

135

been fairly well established. For the calculation, I follow a suggestion of Kitchen,58 agreeing with the lowest series proposed by E. F. Wente and C. C. van Siclen.59If we take 1279 B.C. as the year of accession of Ramesses II, and 1075-73 B.C. as that of the end of the Twentieth Dynasty,60 it seems to me that the reigns of the two dynasties are

now almost definitely established. Moreover, a difference of one or two years is of no importance here, since it cannot mean more than a variation of one day at the utmost. To convert Egyptian months and days into those of our calendar, I am using unpublished tables which Professor P. W. Pestman has kindly placed at my disposal. They list for the first day of each Egyptian month, during the period from 1300 B.C.till the end of the New Kingdom, the corresponding day in the Julian calendar. To convert them to the Gregorian calendar we have to subtract, between 1301 and 1101 B.C.,a period of eleven days.61 The results of the calculations are: 1. Graff. 862: year I of Merenptah (= 1212-1211 B.C.), III 3?ht3 = 23 August jul. = 12 August

greg. This is, almost unbelievably,exactly the date Willcocksand Craig mention as the averagedate for openingthe canals.

2. Graff. 881d: year 22, II 3ht 5. In the case of the reign of Ramesses II, that is, 1257-1256 B.C.,

this wouldbe 6 Augustjul. = 26 July greg.;in the case of RamessesIII (1161-1160B.C.),it is 13 Julyjul. = 2 July greg. Since the latterdate is clearlytoo earlyin the year,the text very probablydatesfromthe formerreign.

3. Graft. 1158: year 18, III Eht 4. For Ramesses II (1261-1260 B.C.), this would mean

6 Septemberjul. = 26 August greg.; for RamessesIII (1165-1164 B.C.),13 Augustjul. = 2 Augustgreg.The latteris moreprobable,whichagreeswith the locationof this graffito. 4. Graff.856: year 7, III gzt 5. In the case of RamessesII (1272-1271 B.C.),this is 9 September jul. = 29 Augustgreg.;in the case of Merenptah(1207-1206B.C.),it is 24 Augustjul. = 13 August greg.;in the case of RamessesIII (1176-1175B.C.),it is 16 Augustjul. = 5 August greg.;for RamessesVI, who also reignedmore than seven years,62it would be (1135-1134 B.C.)6 Augustjul. = 26 July greg. Laterreignswould meanyet earlierdates,whichis highly unlikely, whereas 29 August (Ramesses II) seems too late. Hence, either the reign of Merenptahor that of RamessesIII is best suited,but that of RamessesVI not impossible. 5. O.Cairo25801:year4, III Eht20. In the case of RamessesIII (1179-1178B.C.),this wouldbe 1 Septemberjul. = 21 Augustgreg. Comparedwith the other dates that is fairlylate in the month, and this might suggestthat a later reignis meant.An earlierone is highlyunlikely, for that would resultin a date at the veryend of Augustor even in September.The instance is, thus, too uncertainto drawany conclusions. The results are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4.

12 August (graff. 862) 26 July (graff. 881d) 2 August (graff. 1158) 13 or 5 August, or perhaps 26 July (graff. 856)

58 See Serapis 4 (1977-78): 77.

59E. F. Wente and C. C. van Siclen, in Studies Hughes (Chicago, 1976), pp. 217 ff. 60 So does J. von Beckerath; see W. Barta,

MDAIK 37 (1981) = Festschrift Habachi, p. 36. 61 R. A. Parker, The Calendars of Ancient Egypt (Chicago, 1950), p. 8. 62 See GM 29 (1978): 45 f.

136

JOURNAL OF NEAR EASTERN STUDIES

Thus, dates early in II ht probably belong to the reign of Ramesses II, those in III Ait to either the late Nineteenth or the early- to mid-Twentieth Dynasties.63 The fluctuations, however, are so wide that these data should not be used as a dating criterion for texts without year-dates.64 The results may seem fairly limited. However, the method, when applied to other evidence, may lead to some not quite insignificant conclusions. Two examples are briefly presented here. Four stelae on the West Bank at Gebel Silsila, with an almost identical text dedicated to Hapy, were erected by Seth6s I, Ramesses II, Merenptah, and Ramesses III.65 Each of the stelae bears a different date, that of Seth6s I being lost. The others are: Ramesses II: year 1, III mw 10; Merenptah: year 1, II At 5; Ramesses III: year 6, III prt 14. At first view, the progression through the year might suggest that all refer to one and the same day in the solar year, but when the dates are converted, this inference appears to be incorrect. Nor can they be related to either the beginning of the rise of the Nile or the day on which the dams were opened. So they must refer to the date on which the stela was erected, or rather, when the order to do so was issued.66 The dates belong to the political history, not to the agrarian cycle. The dates in the section headings of Papyrus Wilbour, Text A, caused the editor some trouble.67 They range from II ?t 15 to III Ait 1,68 and refer to year 4 of Ramesses V, when the it was carried out. Gardiner suggested that this happened in 1158 B.c., but, at present, a year around 1142 B.C.looks more probable. The problem hinges on the exact meaning of ft, which Gardiner translated as 'assessment' but considered as the activity of the surveyors.69 Even if that is correct, the problem is not as insoluble as he imagined, since the period mentioned definitely falls earlier than he calculated, namely, 8 to 24 July greg. During these weeks, the Nile is indeed rising, but the fields, as we have seen, are usually not flooded yet. The general conclusion may be that it is worth the trouble to convert, insofar as it is possible, Egyptian dates into those of our calendar, in order to understand what they really mean, thus following the lead Richard Parker has given us. 63 So it appears that graff. 883, if W. Spiegelberg read the date correctly as II prt (of a year 4), cannot by any means refer to the beginning of the inundation (see pp. 129-30, above). 64 For example, O.DeM 588 (II yht 12) would belong to the middle of the reign of Ramesses II; also, O.DeM 436 (same date). The latter text is ascribed by Cernyr, on account of its writing, to the Twentieth Dynasty (Ostraca hier. non litt. de Deir el Midineh, vol. V, p. 26). It seems unwarranted to reject Cern"r'sdating on the basis of our conclusions. 65 Published with translation by Barguet, BIFAO 50 (1952): 49 ff. 66 R. Stadelmann, MDAIK 37 (1981) = Fest-

schrift Habachi, p. 459, suggests that Ramesses II ordered a chapel to be built to house the stela when he returned from Nubia. 67Gardiner, The Wilbour Papyrus, vol. 2 (Oxford, 1948), p. 10. 68Those of section I, which must cover a few days up to II -t 15, are lost at the beginning of the papyrus. 69 Having once suggested that the Wilbour Papyrus was a fair copy, as opposed to the Griffith Fragments (SAK 3 [1975]: 149, n. 91), I think that the possibility cannot be excluded that it refers to an administrative activity which was carried out in an office. If this is correct, the dates-shortly after the harvest-would not be too unsuitable.