|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The use of some sort of schematic solar year would have been forced upon the Egyptians at this time as their kingdom was consolidated and organized. Government planning and taxation would necessarily have been organized around a solar, not lunar, year because annually recurring events determine the flow of agricultural produce and economic activity. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The precise circumstances of the introduction of the civil calendar are uncertain, but a range of historical years can be determined during which it must have occurred. The intercalation rule observes the 11-day difference between the solar and lunar calendars. By this rule, when the first month of the year begins within 11 days of wp rnpt, that month is counted as intercalary. The tpy rnpt could therefore fall as soon as 12 days after wp rnpt or as late as 41 (30 + 11) days later. The first day of the first month of the civil year almost certainly fell within that period, since the Egyptians must have intended the new civil calendar to run concurrently with the older lunar calendar. This first day was concurrent with wp rnpt about 2773 B.C., so the civil calendar must have been introduced between 2937 (414 + 2773) B.C. and 2821 (124 + 2773) B.C. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otto Neugebauer, in his first attack on the Sothic cycle as a means of determining the oldest date ("Die Bedeutungslosigkeit der 'Sothisperiode' fur die alteste agyptische Chronologie," Acta Orientalia, volume 17, 1938, pp. 169195), placed the introduction of the civil calendar around 4200 B.C., but after a review by Scharff ("Die Bedeutungslosigkeit des sogannanten altesten Datums der Weltgeschichte", Historische Zeitschrift, volume 161, 1940, pp. 332), he revised his estimate to 2800 B.C. (Journal of Near Eastern Studies, volume I, number 17, 1942, p. 401). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At first, agreement between the civil calendar and the original lunar calendar would have been good. Because the latter was somewhat variable, any disagreement would have been difficult to notice. Thus, it would not have been immediately apparent that the vague year of the civil calendar was slipping relative to the tropical year, because the established baseline for comparison was the highly variable original lunar calendar. This set of circumstances is probably the reason why a vague solar year was accepted. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
About two centuries would have elapsed before the discrepancy between the two calendars and with the tropical year would have become inescapably obvious. By this point, the first lunar month and first civil month would not overlap by a single day. Presumably the problem became gradually more obvious, but bureaucratic inertia postponed a decision. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Once a decision had been made to address the problem, there were very few options. One option would be to insert additional days into the civil year. This option would have been unpalatable to the government, since the entire apparatus of planning, record keeping, and taxation would have been firmly established on the basis of the civil year. |
|
|
|
|
|