Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 10:15:46 -0400
To: athena-discuss@info.harpercollins.com
Subject: Re: heliacal Sirius

Stirling Newberry wrote:
> 
> >     Finally, on a tablet of ivory in a tomb of the Ist
> >     Dynasty (3300 BC) at Abydos, Sirius is saluted as the
> >     star that opens the new year and brings flooding: this
> >     shows clearly that the sidereal calendar was already in
> >     use, and consequently the date of 4236 [as distinct
> >     from the "short chronology" candidate, 1460 years
> >     later, of 2778 BC] appears to be a certainty.
> 
> This simply does not follow logically, if the Egyptians (as they almost
> certainly did) had a calaendar that dated from an event, rather than a
> fixed cycle, then the rising of Sirius would be that event, one can get
> along quite well without a fixed cycle calendar for quite some time. Having
> read several claims of how lightly the "eurocentrics" read anachronisms
> into Greek history, this is aboslutely no better.
> 
> Thus the reference is almost certainly *not* to the 360 day calendar since
> if it was in use in 3300BC Sirus' rising would have been in *the middle* of
> the year. Do the addition correctly will you?

You seem to assume that the tablet said that in 3300 BC Sirius's
rise coincided with the first day of the 365-day calendar.  Diop's
argument would appear to preclude that.  In which case the tablet
must make some general reference, much as we are discussing the
matter here, rather than dating an observed historical event.

> 
> The "average length of reign calculations have some real problems in them.
> If I pick 10 years rather than 20, then the correct date is 1885+900 = 2785
> or almost the short chronology. Any numbers that are so fudgable as these
> prove absolutely nothing.

The numbers are not fudgable.  It is an empirical matter.  I have simply
applied my own common sense in the matter to show how Diop's claim that
the short chronology would not accommodate the 90 kings that preceded
Sesostris III might make some back-of-the-envelope sense.  Given that
pharaohs ruled for life, I would imagine 20 years to be a much better
estimate of the *averge* reign than 10.  Still, depending on the nature
of the historical record, it might even be possible that the exact number
of years occupied by those 90 kings is known.  I do not know, and 
unfortunately, Diop does not say.  But he certainly implies the impossibility
of the short chronology, and it does conform with my common-sense notion
of what an average reign likely was.  If you have actual figures, and
can cite a source, I'd love to hear it.
 


> The logic that is presented is as twisted as the logic that it attacks, as
> far as can be seen from here, it is a couple of groups of bigots fighting
> it out.

I disagree.  Diop makes contentions, and he gives arguments in support
of those contentions.  It is very clear how his contentions might be
refuted.  If his facts are mistaken, that would do it.  If his arguments
are inconsistent with the known facts, that would do it too.  If an
alternative contention better fits the facts, that can be argued also.
 
 
> Stirling Newberry               allegro@bluesky.net

Regards,

Contents | Previous | Next