The reader might expect a chart of key dates presented in this book, as a means of comparison with his or her presuppositions. But the author’s methodology must be well understood, before considering precise dates. The Egyptian calendar(s) must be established in the first part of the book, to secure the date and year of Neferefre’s w3gy feast, pivotal for dates before and after. The following synopsis is compiled by the editor to assist the reader’s journey through the book, and to introduce the chapters where specific Dynastic tables are found after full consideration of the evidence and anchor points that determine the dates and length of each king’s reign.
The introductory chapter, “Problems with the Historical Chronology of Ancient Egypt”, describes the ongoing yet unresolved chronological controversies within the Egyptological community throughout the 20th century to the present. This includes the dating of the Eruption of Thera which produced material for construction for a limited period in Egypt. The chapter describes the views of Egyptologists who have formed opinions on the chronology of ancient Egypt based on the comparatively incomplete inscriptional evidence, and scientists who rely on carbon-dating and other methodologies; a perceived difference of approx. 150 years. The selective reliance by Egyptologists who seek to establish the chronology of ancient Egypt on uncertain evidence and methodologies, and a rejection of alternative sources such as scientific analysis, astronomical observation, and inscriptions not fitting their presuppositions (like the Ebers Calendar), portrays a research discipline in considerable conflict.
Chapter Two reprises the author’s findings in her Reconstructed Chronology of the Divided Kingdom (Eisenbrauns, 2005). She challenges Egyptologists for generally accepting the dating methodologies of Edwin Thiele for the Israel/Judah chronology, linked to a dubious Assyrian Eponym Canon, upon which they generally rely as an accepted date for Egyptian chronological calculations. Based on her comprehensive critical analysis of all Israel/Judean textual sources she reconstructs a cogent and coherent presentation of the deliberately interlinked chronologies of Judah and Israel in the canonical Books of Kings. She establishes that a crucial encounter between Rehoboam of Judah and Shoshenq I of Egypt occurred in 977 BCE, not 925 as commonly assumed. This is the primary synchronism for establishing the chronologies of ancient Assyria, Israel/Judah, and Egypt.
In Chapters Three to Seven, Dr Tetley explains the importance to ancient Egyptians of the annual rising of the star Sothis and other means of marking the passage of time. She surveys the various calendrical images and devices known to Egyptologists. Then she examines in laborious detail one of the primary chronological puzzles among Egyptologists over the last century, which is the search to explain why various inscriptions and calendar references report some feasts apparently held out of their eponymous months in the Greco-Roman calendar. In particular she highlights the information supplied by Sir Alan Gardiner in 1906 suggesting two civil calendars, and Dr Richard Parker’s advocacy in 1950 of lunar calendars, and their subsequent irate interchanges in 1955 and 1957. She discusses the more recent workings of Winfried Barta, Jürgen von Beckerath, Marshall Clagett, Leo Depuydt, Wolfgang Helck, Heidi Jauhiainen, Rolf Krauss, Christian Leitz, Ulrich Luft, John Nolan, and Anthony Spalinger, meticulously examining the calendrical materials. From this extended narrative, describing an array of detail, contention and uncertainty, is highlighted a range of observations upon which a constructive analysis can be eventually postulated. Tetley repeatedly contends that no responsible chronology of Ancient Egypt can be ventured without a satisfactory understanding of Egypt’s calendar or calendars, by which chronological information on inscriptions, letters and elsewhere must be interpreted. This section of the book is critical for engaging with the real situation in the twin Kingdoms of Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt, and the calendrical solution that explains feasts “apparently” held out of their eponymous months.
In chapter Eight and Nine evidence is examined that supports the existence of a Calendar commencing with the month of Wep Renpet (wp rnpt). The evidence adduced relates not only to the first month of the year, but by implication other months and feasts that conform to such a calendar. Chapter eight concludes with an extensive list of evidence from many sources that validate the existence of this calendar. Chapter nine discusses in detail the famous Ebers Calendar.
In Chapter Ten, Tetley finally offers her explanation to resolve the previously described impasse. She validates the Ebers Calendar as the key document for establishing the calendrical system and a chronological fixed point for Upper Egypt by its reference to the heliacal rising of Sothis on III šmw 9 at Thebes (Upper Egypt) in the ninth year of the reign of King Amenhotep I. She then explores the documentary evidence for the Era of Menophres, and establishes how the calendar of Lower Egypt eventually supplanted the calendar for Upper Egypt, a transition recognized as the Era of Memphis (Lower Egypt). Throughout this and previous chapters Tetley’s proposals are corroborated and validated by astronomical tables supplied by Prof. Lee Casperson, and occasionally the calculations of Dr. Fred Espenek (NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center) for new moon phases. Readers will not appreciate and substantiate the remainder of this work without understanding the importance of the Sothic cycle in the formation of the Egyptian calendar, as well as the Casperson tables.
Chapters 11 to 13 study in detail dates in the reigns of Sesostris III and Amenhotep III and are pivotal to the validity of the entire work. Firstly, Sesostris III’s seventh year is linked in diaries found at Illahun to a heliacal rising of Sothis recorded at Illahun. By analyzing the seventh year date based on the Sothic cycle explicated in Chapter 10, the year can be identified as 1980 BCE, confirmed by multiple corroboration through astronomical analysis by Casperson. Also found at Illahun are papyrii (pBerlin 10282 and 10130) describing festivals dated specifically to new moons in Sesostris III’s sixth and eight years. Casperson’s tables can again be applied to the new moon dates in 1981 BCE and 1979 BCE respectively. They provide exact agreement. Of these three adjacent years, Tetley says, “that the Sothic date and the lunar dates support each other is a compelling argument for their reliability.” Chapter 12 examines the various feast dates occurring in the Illahun papyri. Tetley concludes, “The inscriptional data in the Illahun materials offer numerous dates that can be checked and corroborated by lunar phases. The confirmation of multiple and connected chronological evidence shown in the detail of this chapter affords a high level of confidence in the accuracy for the dates of the reigns of Sesostris III and Amenemhet III and provides a secure anchor for dating the rest of the 12th Dynasty, which we come to later.” Chapter 13 involves the discussion of fixed and movable w3gy feasts also from Illahun records, that is of more than academic interest. Tetley concludes the chapter by saying, “The date of a movable w3gy feast in the reign of Neferefre (Raneferef) secures a date in the Fifth Dynasty. This results in exciting implications for Egyptian chronology.”
In Chapter 14, “Securing Neferefre’s W3gy Feast Date”, the previous painstaking study of feast dates pays off, permitting the interpretation of inscriptions discovered as recently as 1982 relating to the brief reign of the Fifth Dynasty King Neferefre (aka Raneferef). Based on the previous analysis of movable w3gy feasts in chapter 13, the date of the feast is located within the 25 year range to which it applied. Alternative ranges are shown to be inadmissible, confirming the date of 2750 BCE as the earliest secure date of Egyptian chronology. This landmark discovery will be later corroborated by nine lunar dates relating to five subsequent kings in the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Dynasties.
Chapter 15 introduces the fragmentary data that comprise early Egyptian chronological constructions including the Royal Annals, South Saqqara Stone, Turin Canon, Abydos King-list, Saqqara Tablet, Karnak King-list, Papyrus Westcar, and Manetho. While providing important historical material, the deficiencies and discrepancies between these sources are also noted. Tetley then describes her approach to the reconstruction of the Egyptian dynasties. She will proceed forwards from Neferefre’s Fifth Dynasty anchor date of 2750 BCE to the Eighth Dynasty, examining inscriptional and astronomical evidence along the way. Then she will return to the Royal Annals and its prior record of Dynasties One to Five.
Chapters 16 and 17 recast the latter part of Dynasty Five, then Six and Eight (Manetho’s Seventh Dynasty is apparently a garbled list of localized reigns that seem unconnected with kings appearing in other chronological materials). These chapters exhibit Tetley’s approach, drawing on all the available (though incomplete) evidence in the materials mentioned in Chapter 15. She reports and interacts with the chronological information from fragments reported in all the latest published scholarship, confirming and occasionally contesting proposed conclusions. And, importantly for this period, she interprets inscriptional information contained on fragments in the light of the fixed and uncontested astronomical computations of lunar risings etc, of which there are nine relating to the reigns of five kings. She treats with due caution every item of information, including the occasional summaries of periods in the Turin Canon. Also important to resolve are claims for annual or biennial numbering of regnal years, and the discrepancies between the lists of kings in the Turin Canon etc. and Manetho.
Chapter 18 introduces the Royal Annals. The Cairo 1 fragment is displayed. Toby Wilkinson’s book in 2000 is acknowledged and appreciated though it doesn’t offer a chronological reconstruction. Tetley’s earlier chapters have supplied a provisional dating range, by which the possible edges of the Annals may be constrained. This brief chapter introduces the three-stage discussion that follows; the essential description and history of the Annals, which also includes charts displaying Tetley’s own reconstruction—preliminary to the detailed arguments offered to substantiate later conclusions and proposals.
Chapter 19. The fragmented chronological information about each successive king—Menes to Neferkare—in TC, AbKL, and SSS, is first reported. Inscriptional evidence known to Egyptologists is disclosed including the various uncertainties that exist. Then the discussion turns to the evidence of the Annals. Tetley fully discloses her methods of reconstruction. Some lengths—of—reign, changes of reign, Heb Sed festivals, and other chronological indicators are represented on the Palermo Stone (PS) and the Cairo 1 (C1) fragment. Cairo 5 (C5) also has a key place in the reconstruction. But the gaps in the Annals hold the greatest intrigue, and Tetley carefully explains every “gap” and consequently every length—of—reign with simplicity, associated extracts from her reconstruction, and where necessary the uncertainty of scholars about particular reigns. As with the other chronological sources, in a few cases the lengths—of—reign of some kings in the period of the Annals must be estimated from other inscriptional evidence (such as the Turin Canon), or as suggested by the overall structure of the Annals. The Annals was a two-sided stone record with a clear and discrete structure, size, format of registers, and compartments representing each individual year, many which are explicitly allocated to kings identified on the Annals. Chapter 20 completes the discussion of the recto side of the Annals, and Chapter 21 addresses the issues of the verso side. Alternative views are considered. However, the combination of archaeological findings to date, the Turin Canon and companion King-Lists, and the structure of the Royal Annals with the detail of surviving fragments offering evidence of its original form, permits a chronological reconstruction of the first four and a half dynasties that display agreement between the summaries of the Turin Canon and the reconstructed registers of the Royal Annals. Given the paucity of archaeological information about each king, the missing material of the TC, and the few fragments of the Royal Annals, this is a most remarkable contribution to the discussion for dating the earliest dynasties of Egypt.
Chapter 22 surveys Dynasties Nine to Eleven, a period when, except for a Sothic date in the reign of Mentuhotep II, extant records do not permit many of the kings reported to be accorded precise dates or lengths of reign. The Sothic date derives from a star clock on a coffin and via a Casperson Table, corroborated by the HELIAC Program, Mentuhotep II’s first regnal year is located as 2186 BCE Eleventh Dynasty dates can be confirmed, beginning in 2259 BCE. Earlier, the ending date for the Eighth Dynasty was determined at 2434, but the 18 kings named in the Turin Canon for the Ninth and Tenth Dynasities can not be more closely dated other than to say that collectively they reigned for 175 years.
Chapter 23 establishes the 12th Dynasty, drawing again on the Sothic and lunar dates ascertained in chapters 11-13. Dealing solely with chronological matters the author says, “Chapter 11 … determined that Sesostris III’s sixth, seventh, and eighth years are dated to 1981, 1980, and 1979 BCE respectively, which provide an anchor for the 12th Dynasty. The length of Sesostris III’s reign is discussed below but I first look at his accession in the year 1986 and the question of a co‑regency with Sesostris II.” Accession dates, lengths of reign, evidence for co-regencies, and specific dates for each reign and for the whole of the dynasty, is the grist of a chapter, which may be more difficult to beginners because the names of Amenemhet (I, II, III, IV), and Sesostris (I, II, III) are repeated and interlinked.
Chapter 24. As a delightful diversion, Hekanakhte’s parcel of previously unopened letters, discovered in the 20th century, contain domestic and agricultural arrangements between a land-owner and his workers in southern Egypt, with seven calendar references including two regnal years. The previous chapters relating to calendars of Upper and Lower Egypt, the Sothic rising in the seventh year of Sesostris III (chapters 11-13), and the other kings of the 12th Dynasty in chapter 23, enable Tetley to definitively date the letters, and the seasonal arrangements made by Hekanakhte. And importantly for chronological interests, the Hekanakhte Letters provide further attestation of the use of an Upper Egyptian calendar in the 12th Dynasty in Upper Egypt in the same manner that the Ebers Calendar attests to its use in the 18th Dynasty.
Chapter 25 reports of Dynasties 13 to 17, about which little can be chronologically affirmed due to the absence of records. This does not impede the chronology because dates relating to the prior 12th Dynasty and the 18th and following Dynasties are securely anchored as detailed in the relevant chapters. Meanwhile, the author states, “The 13th‑17th Dynasties await further clarification.”
Chapter 26 introduces the contested dates for the 18th Dynasty. She recapitulates the process by which most Egyptian scholars begin to compute their dates, and reports the 20th century and more recent years of debate. She notes the aversion of Egyptologists to consider the Sothic cycle and the Ebers Calendar, the assistance of astronomical data, and an absent awareness of distinct calendars for Upper and Lower Egypt; all are at the heart of the coverage in previous chapters.
Chapter 27 reinstates the correct dates for the 18th Dynasty covering the first five rulers. These include Amenhotep I, whose dates are anchored by the Ebers Calendar when rightly understood. Tetley determines each ruler’s death and the accession of his successor to the day, drawing from dates on inscriptions that are matched with astronomical observations. A notable feature within this period is the discussion of Thera’s eruption and the 150 years disparity between the dates of scientists (who advocate an earlier date) and the conventional dates cited by many in the Egyptology community.
Chapter 28-30 continue to establish the dates of the kings of the 18th Dynasty. A heliacal rising in Thutmose II’s 33rd year is one anchor point, and four other lunar references attested from various sources during the reigns of Thutmose and Amenhotep II corroborate the proposed dates of their reigns. Chapter 29 considers the regnal dates and lengths of reign between Thutmose IV and Tutankhamun. The author says, “The virtual absence of anchor points places more reliance on inscriptional and circumstantial evidence, which has considerable complexity.” It concludes with a discourse on Akhenaten’s successor. Chapter 30 covers the reigns of Ay and Horemheb which includes the end of the Sothic cycle in 1414 BCE. as viewed from Thebes in Upper Egypt, leading to the adoption of a new Sothic cycle as viewed from Memphis in Lower Egypt in 1314 BCE that would govern the future calendar of all Egypt.
Chapter 31 redates the 19th Dynasty centered in the reign of Ramesses II. Tetley’s most controversial claim challenges the conventional pivot of Egyptian chronology by determining the precise date of the famous new moon reported in a ship’s log in Ramesses II’s 52nd year. Other lunar and heliacal rising dates during the reign of Ramesses II and other 19th Dynasty kings add further unequivocal support for her key dating claim.
Chapter 32 addresses the discrepancies between Manetho’s chronology (in general accord with Josephus and Theophilus) and that which has been previously covered. Tetley demonstrates that the total number of years from Manetho’s 18th and 19th Dynasties cover the same number of years as the 18th, 19th, and 20th Dynasties known from contemporary sources and that Manetho’s 19th Dynasty in Lower Egypt runs mostly concurrently with the Theban‑based 20th Dynasty in Upper Egypt. However the listing of kings and lengths of reign between the reigns of Ahmose and Ramesses II are incompatible until Ramesses moves his capital to the Delta and builds Pi-Ramesses. Ramesses is the king of Israel’s slavery. He is followed by an almost 40 year reign of Amenophis, and then an unidentified pharaoh who reigned for one year and four months. The events mesh with the narrative of Moses in Exodus, his exile during the reign of Amenophis, and the death shortly after accession of a new pharaoh. Tetley then documents the wider framework of interlocking synchronisms between Israel and Egypt which support from both the chronology of Israel/Judah and of Egypt the claim that Rehoboam’s fifth year coincides with Shoshenq I’s 20 year. It remains for the following chapters to validate that claim by its treatment of the Egyptian Dynasties 20 to 25.
Chapter 33 Tetley sets out to “discuss the evidence that identifies the lunar anchor points within the regnal years of the associated kings of the 20th Dynasty, the dates and lengths of their reigns; proceeding from the anchor points of the 19th Dynasty established in chapter 31 and the conclusion of Twosre’s reign in 1297 BCE.” This period is “significantly informed by the chronological information attributed to Manetho in its several versions. In the case of the 20th Dynasty, the larger ‘totals’ in the Manetho versions offer greater consistency with other evidence than dates currently being presented by some Egyptologists. Ancient historians were much closer to the events and inscriptional evidence than people of our times, and their writings were intentionally preserved.” The Book of Sothis also assists in providing several key dates, which are helpfully tabled throughout each chapter.
Chapter 34 revises again the much debated 21st Dynasty of Tanite Kings. The use of lunar dates referred to on inscriptions and Karnak Priestly Annals assist the (tentative) determination of kings’ dates, although working with the incumbencies of both kings and high priests can be taxing on the new reader, especially when some dates in the records are uncertain. Nevertheless, Tetley produces a table of kings that approximates those delivered by other scholars, though the absolute dates differ in keeping with her overall chronology which also determines the astronomical period in which lunar events occur and supportive evidence adduced.
Chapter 35 looks at other attempts to reconstruct the chronology of Dynasties 22 to 25 and shows the surprising breadth of disagreement and improvisation among Egyptologists arising from not having a secure chronological framework and dismissing the usefulness of anchor points from the astronomical evidence of that period. But the chapter also serves to high-light recently found evidence, and the work or opinions of Kitchen, Leahy, Aston and Taylor, Rohl and Dodson, Jansen-Wilkeln, von Beckerath, Muhs, Frame and Redford, Broekman, Jaquet-Gordon, Payraudeau, Kaper and Demarée, Perdu, Kahn, etc. Again, it can be hard reading in a very complex and contested area, but it serves the author by preparing some of the ground in the final chapters to come.
Chapters 36 & 37. The most significant contribution here is the recognition that Manetho gives a framework of the 22nd Dynasty in two divisions (which include several unnamed kings now identified in recent years). Chapter 36 frames the reconstruction at length, and Chapter 37 finishes it. Against recent and ever-changing theories forced by the compressed chronologies advocated by Kitchen, Aston and others, the identity, length of reign and actual dates are steadily pursued. Inscriptional evidence here includes the inductions of High Priests and Apis bulls, with the given dates of induction confirmed by astronomical data of new and full moons, as well as the fixed synchronisms between various rulers within and without Egypt.
Chapters 38 & 39 examine and establish the dates of the 23rd, 24th, and 25th Dynasties using the customary methodology of the author. She says “The chronology of Dynasties 22‑25 supplies the years from Shoshenq I in 998/997 BCE to the end of the reign of Taharqa in 664 BCE which is the secure starting point for ancient Egyptian history. Every year is accounted for in this time period. It cannot be truncated to begin ca. 945 BCE.” She then concludes by showing how this Egyptian Chronology synchronizes with her previous book, The Reconstructed Chronology of the Divided Kingdom (Israel and Judah), and again advocates that the Assyrian Eponym Canon be reviewed to conform to the dates established in her work on Israel and Judah and now by the Egyptian chronology that has been conclusively established upon the inscriptional and astronomical evidence.