Site Section Links
The Third Story
The Nature of Time
Nature of Time video
The Nature of Space
The Neutrino Aether
Nature of Force Fields
Origin of Modern
Niagara Falls Issues
Climate Change Model
Climate Change Questions
Modern Mythology Material
1994 Velikovsky Symposium
Pensee Journals TOC
State of Religious Diversity
PDF Download Files
Open letter to science editors
SOTHIC DATING AND HISTORICAL RECONSTRUCTIONS
Lynn E. Rose
The El-Lahun documents were found late in the nineteenth century. El-Lahun
a city near the entrance to the Fayum, so it is well up river from, say,
Alexandria. There in the precincts of a temple of Sesostris II, already
deceased, these various documents were found. It's a large collection of
papyri. Some of these have various dates on them. Now the dates are not
always completely straightforward; sometimes it will be a date given in the
Egyptian calendar, but it doesn't say what the Moon is doing. Sometimes the
name of the king is missing. In fact, that is usually the case, but one can
put these pieces together and make an effort to determine the time when
Sesostris II would have lived and his successor Sesostris III, and Amenemhat
III. The latter two would be the ones to whose reigns most of these papyri
would belong. One very important papyrus here says that there was a heliacal
rising of Sirius on such and such a date in year 7 of Sesostris III, and
efforts have been made throughout the twentieth century to determine
astronomically when Sirius would have risen heliacally on that date. The
target area is the nineteenth century B.C. This is arrived at simply by
retrojecting the Egyptian calendar and the Julian calendar and coming up
equations between those two calendars. That is a purely computational or
arithmetical process. It does not yet involve astronomy at all. Astronomy
comes in when you try to find out the Julian date on which the heliacal
rising of Sirius would have occurred. That is the morning when Sirius can
first be seen in the east after having been invisible for a period of 50 or
or 70 days. The astronomical studies suggest that the heliacal would have
been in July, July 17th or 16th, somewhere in there. It varies slowly over
time. So it depends where you decide to come down on this.
Well, there have been four main solutions proposed in the twentieth century.
First, Borchardt and then Parker, in the nineteen-eighties Krauss, and most
recently in 1992, Luft, and these four investigators have been working with
various numbers of documents, because they were not all available at first.
In fact, it has taken Egyptologists quite a long time to print these texts.
They are finally available in Luft's book from 1992, and there are pictures
in the back of all of the important papyri. There are also transcriptions
translations. So there is a wealth of material available now that was not
available to people like Borchardt and Parker. Now what I did was go back
and check using Schoch's tables, the results of Borchardt and Parker. Some
this gets complicated, because over time it has been discovered that this or
that text can finally be read, whereas, earlier, people thought it could not
be read. There may be just enough of a surviving number to say what the date
was, and so that will be a date not available to earlier people. And in
another case, someone reconstructed a date that never did exist. It may have
existed in antiquity, but I mean it doesn't exist on the papyrus now. The
papyrus is going along, and it gives the season and the month number. Then
comes to the edge of the papyrus where it's broken off. The number for the
day of the month would have been off the edge. So that is obviously useless
and should never have been included in the data set.
I'm also changing the count if it has turned out that we now can read a text
that they thought could not be read or if they used a text that we now know
should be thrown out of the data set. Now if you approach it that way, then
Borchardt scored 7 out of 14, Parker's score is 8 out of 14, Krauss' score
8 out of 19, and Luft's score is 21 out of 36. If you take those four scores
and average them, you get a little over .500, which is good in baseball, but
very poor in the matter at hand. We should be able to do much better than
that. That's really all I want to say about the nineteenth century solutions
that had been proposed. I then took what has been called a very radical and
shocking step, but to me seems to be the only remaining alternative, and
is to move a full Sothic period-1400 and some years-forward in time and see
how things work there. You could also go back a Sothic period, but no one
except Flinders Petrie has ever seriously proposed that, and that would take
you back to the fourth millennium B.C., and that doesn't seem very
So I looked at the fifth and fourth centuries. The reason you have to move
such a large distance is because there are only certain times when the
Egyptian date reported in the text would have been at the time of the
rising of Sirius. So you have to go all the way through the Egyptian
calendar at the rate of one day every four years in order to come back to
that same date. That takes over 1400 years. So I looked for fits in the
fifth and fourth centuries.
At first I looked in the vicinity of -417, because the equation we want
apply from -420 to -417. I won't get into the details of it, but the way the
heliacal rising of Sirius moves it would be required that -417 be the first
year in which the heliacal rising of Sirius occurred on the date that is
reported. That was so so. I felt I had a better fit than Parker did, but it
still wasn't very good. So I kept studying this, and gradually I found out
more about what Egyptologists are doing. It turns out that over the past
couple of decades there have been two major shifts that they have taken on
themselves. One of these is to propose that the reign of Sesostris III did
not last 30 some years as the Turin Papyrus suggests, but only 19 years.
Previously the reign of Sesostris II had been assigned that 19 years. Now
they're assigning it to Sesostris III. That squeezes Sesostris III and
Amenemhet III closer together, and that gives us 20 years or so to play
Another change that they have made is that more and more of them are
supporting Elephantine, which is down near Aswan in Southern Egypt as the
site, the Greenwich, if you will, for observing the heliacal rising of
rather than, say, Memphis. This is important, because it's roughly true, in
fact, very close to being true, that if you move South one degree of
the heliacal rising of Sirius will occur earlier by one day. Between Memphis
and Elephantine is just about five and three quarter degrees of latitude,
which would mean a difference of five and three quarter days.
Since the rate of progression of the Egyptian calendar with respect to the
seasons is at the rate of one day every four years, the five and three
quarter days changes to 23 years. Twenty-three years later than -417 takes
us to -394. Now I played around for a while with some other dates, three
years earlier and three years later, but I won't get into that. I eventually
got to -394, which would be year 7 of Sesostris III. That led to matching up
these dates against retrocalculated positions of the Moon. There was one
other thing that I found in the course of this. That is that the lunar
feasts are often geared to the appearance of the new crescent. And the one
thing that I find interesting about this is that I would not have found this
if I had computerized it. I have computerized other things. It's just that
this project didn't seem appropriate to computerize, and so I didn't. As a
check on some of the calculations based on Schoch, I had the dates of the
appearance of the new crescent on my work sheets. That caused me to notice
what I might not have otherwise have noticed- that the lunar feasts were a
fixed number of days after the appearance of the new crescent. That is what
makes the fit work even better than I had anticipated.
I have reduced the dates on the handout to the first day of the Egyptian
month, which for them was the day on which the Moon first became invisible.
And you see the old crescent one morning, and the next you can't see it.
When you can't see it, that marks the start of the first day of the lunar
month. Then the appearance of the crescent might be on lunar day two, lunar
day three, lunar day four, and accordingly the feast in question would be a
fixed number of days after that. So, on one side of the sheet I have listed
the 36 dates that seem to be ones we should be using. Luft has 39, but one
of those that I have thrown out is where the text just doesn't say which
feast it was. People have guessed what it was, but they don't really know.
Another one is the one I mentioned where the date is going along, and then
you come to the edge of the papyrus and people have guessed what the number
was that was off the edge of the papyrus. So we don't really have a date on
there. Then there is another one that just doesn't give information that is
usable. A date is mentioned, but who knows what the Moon was doing on that
day. The text just doesn't say. So I have thrown out those three that Luft
uses and that leaves 36. As you can see, the hits are 34 out of 36.
If you compare that to what Borchardt, Parker, Krauss, and Luft did, which
averages to a little over .500, this is a much higher. Now there are two
that still miss. One of those is a case where it might have been bad
People are always talking about bad weather here, and I have found it
necessary to invoke that only in this one case. What they did was they would
watch for the disappearance of the old crescent, and if the weather was bad,
and if it was day 29 that was ending right then they would count the new day
as 30. Then they would begin a new month after day 30 had been completed.
Of course, if astronomically the month ends with day 29 and there's bad
weather, and they don't count the new month as beginning until 24 hours
then our retrocalculations are not going to fit; they'll come out too early.
This is one of those cases when it comes out one day too early. You would
almost expect some bad weather. There would have to be times when they just
couldn't get a good look at the Moon. I have one out of 36, but others have
much larger number of cases that they attribute to bad weather. The other
one might have been a copying decision, not a copying error, but a
effort to correct what seemed to be a garbled text. The problem there-I'll
just summarize the nature of it-is that if you read the texts one way, it's
all right. If you read them another way, it looks like you have a series of
months one of which is 31 days long. If the ancients felt, as modern
astronomers do, that 31-day months do not occur, then they might have said-
well, something is wrong here. One of these dates is wrong, and one way of
fixing it would leave the text in the condition that we have. So there are
ways to explain those two misses, but I am not particularly worried about
that. The important thing is that it's such a high score, 34 out of 36.
This [information] would mean that the Middle Kingdom comes all the way down
to the sixth, fifth, and fourth centuries. The twelfth dynasty itself,
counting the Middle Kingdom as eleventh and twelfth, would have run from
about -500 down to -331 when Alexander arrived. So Alexander would have been
the one to end the twelfth dynasty.
Now what are the repercussions of all this? I think there are several things
that might be said here. First of all, this has relatively little effect on
Velikovsky. You might think that moving something like that around by almost
1500 years would shake everything up, and I think it does shake everything
it shakes up the conventional chronology, for example. But it does not do
anything much to Velikovsky. For one thing, while he talked about the Middle
Kingdom a lot, it was usually just as the point in time at which the Exodus
occurred, the end of the Middle Kingdom. He never actually did very much
with the Middle Kingdom itself. I would be inclined to leave the Exodus and
the Hyksos in the second millennium. I'm not moving them. I'm just moving
the Middle Kingdom. Nevertheless, Velikovsky's references to the Middle
Kingdom would have to be amended. He actually benefits greatly from this,
because Middle Kingdom documents, not just these El-Lahun ones, but many
others, are full of calendar references, indications of 365-day years and
1/2 day months. That sort of thing cannot be from the middle of the second
millennium, or I should say the first half of the second millennium. If it's
there in the first half of the second millennium, then Velikovsky's entire
astronomical proposals go out the window. They simply cannot stand. I wrote
a short paper that was never published entitled Do Ancient Calendars
Contradict Velikovsky? That was 1974. I showed this to Velikovsky and some
others and discussed it with him. We agreed on some of the strategies for
handling this, but it never was resolved. Now I think it has been resolved,
because I found, partly by accident, that the Middle Kingdom needs to be
lowered by such a large number of years, and also because of some other
that have happened, especially Gunnar Heinsohn's decision to move the First
Babylonian Dynasty down by a great number of years and equate it with the
Persian Empire. The First Babylonian Dynasty is also full of stuff about the
Moon that is very bad for Velikovsky-29-1/2 day months, with alternating 29
and 30 days. Now that is safely down in the second half of the first
millennium, and it does no further damage.
Now that was not Gunnar's reason for doing that. As you may know, he has a
hostility to certain astronomical matters anyway. So when I do this kind of
thing I do it for a set of reasons that carry little weight with him. And
when he does this sort of thing it's for reasons that carry some weight with
me, but I don't know that much about it; so when I do it, it's for my own
reasons, which are astronomical. So we have been going along parallel
courses but the result is the First Babylonian Dynasty is lowered
tremendously, and the Middle Kingdom of Egypt is lowered tremendously, and
Velikovsky gets out of an awful of hot water. It is not a radical revision
his theory. It is actually a move that helps him tremendously. It does not
help other people. It does not help the conventional chronology at all. It
is also, well, let me put it this way-you could say that truth is consistent
with truth. You have a true proposition over here and another one over
they are going to be logically consistent with each other. If you have a
logical inconsistency, at least one of the statements involved must be
I do think that the Middle Kingdom should be lowered, but just consider if
that is true. If it's true, and you make such a move, some other theory
that is also true is not going to be challenged by this. I suggest that is
the reason Velikovsky's theories are not damaged by this at all.
Now Gunnar Heinsohn and I disagree about some things, such as the Sargonids
and the placement of the Hyksos. I'm not persuaded that they should be
lowered, either one of those. I leave them both pretty much where most
others have left them. But the other aspects of Gunnar's work seem to me to
be on the right track. He too is very little affected by this. I can move
the Middle Kingdom by almost a millennium and a half, and it doesn't do
anything to the Heinsohn theory, just as it doesn't do anything to the
Velikovsky theory. I think those results are supportive of both of them. I
might mention something else, just because I want to. And that is that if
you make these changes, the chronology is up for grabs. Almost all
chronological proposals have to be carefully reexamined. One thing this
means is that it is no longer easy to talk about things that are early or
late. I came here with the intention of counting the number of times the
word "early" was used by speakers, but eventually I stopped doing that. The
number got rather high, and I lost track. But the word "early" has been used
very, very heavily at this conference, and I suggest whenever anybody uses
word "early", you should ask them what their evidence is. It seems to me
that all of this is up for grabs. If the Middle Kingdom was ended by
Alexander, then what's early? the Old Kingdom? Well, the Old Kingdom seems
to be attached to the Middle Kingdom. If the Middle Kingdom comes down, the
Old Kingdom comes down, and at least part of the Old Kingdom would be in the
first millennium. So what happens to "early." Maybe I should stop there and
try to leave some time for questions.
(Question and answer period follows)
Stengel: Mr. Rose, I read you paper. I loved it. I think it is as important
as finding the Rosetta Stone.
Stengel: I really do. I've been simply a supporter and a reader since I was
nine years old, and I've done a lot of heavy duty research of my own. I
think you have hit the nail on the head. I think, in the interest of truth,
you should not assume that it doesn't, that your ideas here, your or
presentation doesn't affect the other areas of all histories of the Middle
East particularly. I think we have a new measuring gauge, and I think it's
time we use your gauge to prove it out further with all other civilizations.
I think it will work.
Rose: I do think that this is extremely powerful, and it does provide a tool
to use in judging other things. Maybe I could say that from the beginning of
my work on Velikovsky I avoided chronology. Even though, as an
undergraduate, I majored in ancient history and classical languages, I could
not keep up with the chronological disputes in the Velikovsky camp. There
were just too many names, too many details, too many alternative theories,
and I couldn't keep track of things. Since I got the Middle Kingdom located,
things have become much easier. For instance, I was able to sort out where I
stood with respect to Heinsohn. I had not been able to figure that out
before. Now I think I understand that much better. I also think, as you say,
that this is a strong clue that can be used as litmus paper, or whatever you
want to call it, to test some other proposal. Gardiner said that if we
abandon 1786 B.C. as the date of the end of the Middle Kingdom, if we
that firm anchor, then the entire history of the Middle East is lost-and I
think that's true. We are casting adrift and the entire history of the
Middle East is up for grabs. If this dating is solid, we can use it to
reanchor in the right place. I don't want to suggest there aren't any
consequences to use here. We can use this to exploit any clues we find to
date other things, but it doesn't have any particular effect on Velikovsky's
proposals. You have to say that the twelfth dynasty was in the Valley while
Ramses III was primarily in the Delta, but that doesn't require a big
Questioner 2: I'm sorry, I have not read your paper, so I'm just a little
confused. Are you placing the Middle Kingdom at -394 or is that for the
Rose: The -394 date is that one document from year 7 of Sesostris III that
mentioned the heliacal rising on that date. That is the fourth month of the
season of Peret, day 16.
Questioner 2: And when was the Middle Kingdom before you changed it?
Rose: Well, these four people I mentioned have four different sets of dates,
but the answer is nineteenth century B.C.and eighteenth century B.C.-like
Questioner 2: And it's now down to where?
Rose: I have the Middle Kingdom as the eleventh and twelfth dynasties. I
have the twelfth dynasty just as given on that sheet, and that would begin
-500 and end in -331 with the coming of Alexander. The eleventh dynasty is
not so well dated, but it would immediately precede that. Maybe it began
about -600 or so.
Questioner 2: I see. I see. Thank you very much.
Rose: A change of 1477 years for the Sothic date.
Questioner 3: How do you reconcile this ... astronomical dating where he, I
think he [Velikovsky] uses Venus for the heliacal rising rather than Sirius.
Rose: He suggests the Canopus decree may refer to Venus. I have always
disagreed with that, I think it is Sirius. However, I believe Ev Cochrane
still feels that it could be Venus. But it seems to me it is Sirius that is
mentioned there in the Canopus decree. It is Sirius that would be rising
heliacally on the dates mentioned in the Canopus decree. Everything fits
Questioner 3: I have another question. Have you seen a George Rollinson's
presentation of the Old and Middle Kingdom, a graphic presentation?
Rose: No. No, I haven't.
Questioner 3: He really doesn't distinguish between Old and Middle Kingdoms.
They essentially are parallel dynasties.
Rose: I'm quite open on that; I just didn't want to challenge too many
things at once. I did leave the conventional linkage between the Old Kingdom
and the Middle Kingdom, so that as I bring the Middle Kingdom down, I regard
them as in tandem. And I feel the only reason for having the Old Kingdom way
back was that the Middle Kingdom was way back. So I bring them both down,
but if someone can show that the Old Kingdom is actually contemporary with
the New or even contemporary with the Middle, I am not hostile to that. I
just did not want to change too many things at once, especially where I did
not feel confident about it. I do feel confident about the twelfth dynasty,
but that is about as far as it goes right now.
Timms: I just wanted to ask about the Sothic period-most of the text that
I've come across says 1460 years, and I guess I have never heard 1477. Is
that something new?
Rose: Well, this involves several computations. Fourteen hundred sixty is an
idealization based upon the assumption that it's exactly 365 1/4 days, but
actually the Sirius year would be a little bit longer than that. So the
computations that people like Ingham have made of the Sothic period suggests
that it would be 1452 for the Sothic period that ended in 139 A.D. Then 1454
years for the Sothic period preceding that. So they do fall short of 1460.
The 1477 comes about partly because the length of the reign of Sesostris III
has changed, and partly because Elephantine rather than Memphis is the
Heinsohn: (Partly unintelligible.) ...mythological knowledge published in
four languages, the main language is German. So ...(???)... suggests that
now...Not now, actually, it's already five or six years ago...that Sothis
should be read as Venus. So it was not only Velikovsky, but a mainstream man
...(???)... who suggests that reading. I just wrote this in because, as you
know, I see so much quicksand in that type of retro-calculation, that I do
not go against it. I hope to reach a sound chronology by different means. I
just wrote it.
Rose: Okay. I would say that the stream, the crowd, doesn't go along with
that. You know, you can have someone who is in the establishment who says
that, but the majority of Egyptologists would take Sothis to be Sirius.
Heinsohn: Oh, the majority, there's no question. But ...(???)... ...(???)...
, in the body of Egyptian texts ...(???)... . He has quite a few instances
where there is no choice but to say, "Yes, here are catastrophes." And there
are other incidents where...when the evidence is a bit more shaky. But it's
quite a convolution.
Rose: I was going to begin by saying that I may be the only Velikovsky
loyalist here, but I deleted that because of the remarks of Vine Deloria. He
and I, then, would be the only two here! Back in the seventies, I tried
everything I could think of to get Venus to fit the Canopus Decree. And I
just couldn't do it. It doesn't fit. Sirius does, and that's a large factor
in my thinking.
Questioner 4: (Question not asked from microphone)
Rose: I deny that, but...Go ahead!
Questioner 4: Now, if you take the Sothic writing as Sirius, if you do it in
the 1800s B.C. ...(???)...
Rose: That's, to use one of Velikovsky's favorite words, "incalculated." It
is calculated in. Yes.
Questioner 4: (Question not asked from microphone)
Rose: It does make a difference, but that has been included in the
calculations by people like Ingham. When they retro-calculate Sothic
periods, they have it for all dates.
Questioner 4: (Question not asked from microphone)
Rose: Well, it's difficult to visualize, but it's a matter of where Sirius
in respect to the ecliptic and the equator, and so on, and the way the North
celestial pole moves around. So they take all that into consideration. The
best figures are those of Ingham in about 1970, and that's all discussed
there. Precession is one of the things that they bring in.
Questioner 5: Well, Velikovsky said you have to use both history texts and
archeology. If this is true, you're not only going to drive the minds of
historians crazy, but the archeologists are going to jump up and down, swing
left and right. They have so many problems with this that it will take years
and years just to conceive how it could possibly work.
Rose: I agree with that. I agree. There are all kinds of problems, all
kinds of things to check. I have checked as many of them as I can think of,
including some of the archeological matters. There are scarabs of these
kings. You have to find where they've been found; what layers they're in.
I'm looking into this. The bottom line is that so far, in looking for every
kind of problem I can anticipate, I haven't found any.
Questioner 5: Well, I can give you one to start with. What about Hammurabi
and the Middle Bronze at Mari? And this connection between Hammurabi and a
king of the, (what was it?) the twelfth or thirteenth Dynasty?
Rose: Well, I've mentioned Heinsohn. And Heinsohn and I both put...Heinsohn
did it first. I want to make that plain. He put the First Babylonian
Dynasty down in Persian times. And then when I saw what he did, I wasn't
convinced, but I played around with the lunar data from the First Babylonian
Dynasty, especially Ammisduga or Artaxerxes III. And Darius the Great or
Hammurabi, according to Heinsohn's thesis. And I found that the Hammurabi
and Ammizduga data fit the time of Darius and Artixerxes III. And on that
basis I agreed with Heinsohn. So both Hammurabi and the Middle Kingdom come
down. They're still contemporaries.
Questioner 5: Yes, but if you put Hammurabi there...Remember, Hammurabi is
Middle Bronze, and you have Late Bronze on top of that, and in Late Bronze
Ugarit, at Ras Shamra you have texts of the El Amarna letters. Therefore
you're putting Hammurabi before and after Akhenaton.
Rose: There are things to be looked at there, but Hammurabi has been
mentioned by people as a general title. There are all kinds of ways of
getting out of this. I'm not proposing any. But I've looked for something
clear cut that shoots this down, and, so far, I haven't found it.
Heinsohn: ...(???)... If you look ...(???)... the first source on iron
Not just a piece of iron, but iron mines, you have it about the time of
Hammurabi. So one guy sold his iron mine to another guy. This is such a
heavy Iron Age evidence, that you couldn't make up a stronger evidence for
Iron Age, when people were trading mines back and forth. And the strata of
the Hammurabi period are always immediately beneath the Hellenistic strata.
So you dig one meter down from Alexander the Great and right there you hit
Rose: Velikovsky has a nice section in Ramses II and His Time on the ages of
Stengel: May I add one thing? I have been fortunate enough to read Dr.
Heinsohn's books in the German, and I've read them five to seven times. And
I must say, I don't see the problem between either one of your ideas. I
think they're going to be shown to be compatible. I think Hammurabi has been
totally misidentified. And we will see who Hammurabi is in just a few
months, or a year or so.
Questioner 7: How about Herodotus? Have you tried to fit his visit to Egypt
during the Persian occupation into this?
Rose: I've looked at all of that and I don't see any major barriers.
Herodotus is actually quite favorable to Velikovsky because he brings the
of the Pyramids so far down. He brings it to just before the Ethiopian
Questioner 7: ...(???)... visited Egypt in what? 450 B.C.?
Rose: His dates are not known. It might have been 450, it might have been a
little later or a little earlier.
Questioner 7: I think it was during the Persian occupation.
Rose: Yes, it would have been. But the twelfth dynasty could have been up
the river. He does mention a Sesostris. Which might have been Sesostris I.
I don't make any claim about that, but there is a Sesostris to be the one
that Herodotus mentioned, if you want one.
Questioner 7: I mentioned that the pyramids were built just a few years
before Herodotus was there.
Rose: That's what I was suggesting.
Questioner 7: Exactly. And I think that your work will help to prove this
Rose: A few centuries, maybe.
Recorded Dates, "Reduced" where Equivalent
necessary, with Possibility I for C Julian Julian
and with Possibility II for D Dates from
10090 (A) Year 03 III smw 16 Oct 13
Oct 13, -404 
10092 Year 05 II 3ht 23 Jan 22 Jan
22, -396 (3) 10009 Year 05 II prt 22
May 20 May 20, -396 (2) 10082 Year 06 I
3ht 13 Dec 12 Dec 12, -396 (3)
Year 06 II 3ht 12 Jan 10 Jan
10, -395 (3)
Year 06 III 3ht 12 Feb 09 Feb
09, -395 (3) 10130 Year 08 II 3ht 21
Jan 19 Jan 19, -393 (2)
Year 08 III 3ht 21 Feb 18 Feb
18, -393 (2) 10003 (E) Year 09 III prt 08
Jun 04 Jun 04, -392 (2) 10112 Year 10 IIII
3ht 29 Mar 27 Mar 27, -391 (2) 10412
Year 11 I 3ht 19 Dec 17 Dec 17, -
391 (3) 10165 Year 12 II smw 03 Aug
28 Aug 28, -399 (4) 10248 (F) Year 14 II 3ht
16 Jan 12 Jan 12, -397 (3) 10011 Year
16 II prt 23 May 19 May 19, -395
(2) 10016 Year 18 I smw 29 Aug 22
Aug 22, -393 (3)
10166 Year 09 II 3ht 16 Jan 09 Jan
09, -373 (2) 58065 (H) Year 09 II smw 10
Aug 31 Aug 31, -373 (4) 10018 Year 10 II
3ht 05 Dec 29 Dec 29, -373 (2) 10079
Year 10 III 3ht 05 Jan 28 Jan 28, -
372 (2) 10344 Year 11 III 3ht 24 Feb
15 Feb 15, -371 (2) 10104 Year 24 III prt
02 May 21 May 21, -358 (2) 10056 (D) Year
30 II smw 24 Sep 08 Sep 08, -352
III smw 23 Oct 07 Oct 07, -
IIII smw 23 Nov 06 Nov 06, -
Year 31 I 3ht 17 Dec 05 Dec
05, -352 (2/3)
II 3ht 18 Jan 05 Jan 05, -
III 3ht 17 Feb 03 Feb 03, -
IIII 3ht 17 Mar 05 Mar 05, -
I prt 16 Apr 03 Apr 03, -
II prt 16 May 03 May 03, -
III prt 15 Jun 01 Jun 01, -
IIII prt 15 Jul 01 Jul 01, -
I smw 14 Jul 30 Jul 30, -
351 (3) 10006 (C) Year 5 II 3ht 07 Dec 25
Dec 25, -351 (2)
III 3ht 06 Jan 23 Jan 23, -
350 (2) 10206 Year 5 II 3ht 24 Jan 10
Jan 10, -346 (2)
Chronology of the Dynasties of the Residence It-towe
-500 -x +y Amenemhet I Year 01 (ascension on II smw 9 - Sep
30 Julian?) -480 -x +y Amenemhet I Year 21 -Sesostris I,
Year 0I -472 -x +y Amenemhet I Year 29 -Sesostris I, Year 09
-471 -x +y Sesostris I Year 10 -438 -x +y Sesostris I
Year 43 -Amenemhet II, Year 01 -436 -x +y Sesostris I Year
45 -Amenemhet II, Year 03 -435 -x +y Amenemhet II Year 04 -406
-x +y Amenemhet II Year 33 -Sesostris II, Year 01 -404 -x +y +z
Amenemhet I Year 35 +z Sesostris I, Year 03 +z -403 -x +y +z
Sesostris II Year 04 +z -401 Sesostris II Year 06
+x -y -400 [Sesostris II Year 06 +x -y +1 =] Sesostris III,
Year 01 [-399 +y -2 Sesostris II Year 06 +x -Sesostris III,
Year -y] -394 Sesostris III Year 07 IIII prt 16 = Jul 13 Julian
-382 Sesostris III Year 19 -381 -x +y [Sesostris III Year
20 =] Amenemhet III, Year 01 [-362 -x +y -z Sesostris III Year
39 -y +y -z = Amenemhet III, Year 20 -x +y -z] [-361 -x +y -z
Amenemhet III Year 21 -x +y -z] -352 Amenemhet III Year
30 -351 Amenemhet III Year 31 -344
Amenemhet III Year 38 Sebeknefru's last complete year as co-
regent? -343 Amenemhet III Year 39 = Amenemhet IV, Year 0I
[replacing Sebeknefru?] -335 Amenemhet III Year 47 = Amenemhet
IV, Year 09 -334 Sebeknefru Year 1 -332 Sebeknefru
Year 3 -331 Sebeknefru Year 4 [until III smw 25 =
Oct 4 Julian