A self-verifying chronological history of ancient Egypt

Preface

In the Preface, we naturally expect the author to tell us something about his work and himself. I will avail myself of this time-honored privilege merely to say a few words about the work. As the title indicates, it is a self-verifying chronological history of ancient Egypt, from the foundation of the kingdom to the beginning of the Persian Dynasty. It covers a vast period of 3,700 years, much of which was heretofore comparatively unknown and unexplored. This field was hastily explored, usually at off -times, within the space of a few years. Armed with the ''key" to the marvelous chronological system of the ancient Egyptians, which a fortuitous discovery had placed in my hands, I entered into a lost world, all recollection of which had died out, and there made a series of discoveries, and gathered together a great mass of new historical facts, the startling and far-reaching importance of which it would be almost impossible to estimate. When I first crossed the threshold of this terra incognita, I naturally entertained many of the views and opinions concerning the Egyptians and their religion, science, and civilization, common to modern Egyptologists in general. Some of the errors and superstitions regarding the Egyptians, which were current among so-called "scientists," were of such a preposterous nature, that my native common sense recoiled from them instinctively; but there were others, which were of such a subtle character, and so deeply rooted, and so thoroughly interwoven with the terms, phraseology, and modes of expression in common use among all classes of readers, that I found, and still find, it almost impossible to completely free my mind from their disturbing influences.

The greater part of this book was written while the researches were being made. The author's point of view was constantly changing. The horizon was constantly widening. Each new discovery, each new fact brought to light, served to dispel the clouds and mists which hung over, and obscured from view, some of the most important periods of Egyptian history.

A book written under such circumstances naturally lacks uniformity and logical continuity. Although it was completed about a year ago, I could not persuade myself to publish it in its present form, but hoped to find the necessar}^ time and leisure to remold it from beginning to end. This hope, I regret to say, has not been realized. The discoveries, however, are of such a nature, that I would not be justified in longer withholding them from the world. The value of the facts made public must be my excuse for the form in which they now appear.

It is due to the reader to state, that it has been my earnest endeavor throughout to get down to the bottom facts. Prior to the date of the so-called Flood (2348 B. C.) these "bottom facts" exist, and can be found, in Egypt alone. Wherever we succeed in striking "bottom facts," we have evidence of the most convincing character, evidence which can not be successfully contradicted, evidence which may be said to verify itself. For example, the Great Sphinx, the pyramids, such as those of Nuterachi, Senoferu, Chufu, etc., the mastabas, reaching back to those of Sheri and Amten, the hieroglyphical inscriptions found in the recently opened pyramids of Unas, Teta, Meri-ra Pepa, Menthusuphis I, etc., the contemporary inscriptions of Una, Hirchuf, Aahmes, etc., the tombs and cofhns of the Antefs, the statues of the Hyksos kings, the Table of Abydus, the Tablet of Four Hundred Years, the Turin Papyrus, etc., constitute what might be called the "best" evidence, that is, evidence of such convincing and unimpeachable character that no number of modern authorities could add to its weight or credibility.

For this reason, I did not deem it necessary to encumber the text with a mass of miscellaneous citations from so-called "authorities," and thereby weaken the effect of the facts presented.

The Sothiac system of chronology is so nicely adjusted in all its parts, so perfect as a whole, that no one who has made himself acquainted with its practical workings will deny that it is mathematically accurate, self-registering, and self-verifying — a marvelous piece of mechanism indeed.

Now, as modern Egyptologists, one and all, contend that the Egyptians were altogether ignorant of the science of chronology, it will be seen that I can not use them as authorities, for my discoveries place me in direct opposition to them.

It was not so with Champollion and Lepsius.

Preface

These great pioneers in the science of Egyptology started out upon the right road. But, unfortunately, superficial skepticism has taken the place of scientific criticism. The attempt has been made to apply the Darwinian theory of evolution to the development of Egyptian civilization, during the first half of the historical period. This has led many Egyptologists to belittle and misrepresent the civilization of Egypt prior to the beginning of the Fourth Dynasty. They tell us flat-footed that the first three dynasties of Manetho were "mythical," and not historical, and thus with one fell swoop blot out and destroy five hundred and sixty-four years of well-authenticated history.

As we shall see, Egyptian civilization was fully developed at least six hundred years before the foundation of the kingdom, and the Egyptians themselves, from the earliest times, assure us, with one accord, that they derived it, in all its perfection, from their ancestors, the venerated "manes," or achiii.

A century has rolled by since the discovery of the celebrated Rosetta-stone, but the work of deciphering, translating, and interpreting the great stone book of ancient Egypt has not yet been completed.

Who can foretell how long the additional facts now brought to light will occupy the theologians and men of science of the century to come? Here are the long-lost facts which constitute the background of the historical events allegorically described in the opening chapters of Genesis; fragments, it is true, but priceless, nevertheless. The discovery that Noah,

Shem, Ham, and Japheth are Egyptian and not Hebrew words, for example, may, at first view, appear comparatively unimportant, but who can foresee the ultimate results to which it may lead? Scientists will have to account for the remarkable coincidence between the date of the Hyksos Expulsion and the date of Jacob's birth.

■ It would be a great mistake to suppose that these facts affect Egyptian and Bible history only. The coming historians of ancient Greece and Rome will be called upon to account for the well-attested facts, that the lonians (la-nini) were settled in the Grecian Archipelago and on the adjoining shores of Greece and Asia Minor as far back as the reign of Teta, or 3146 B. C; and that the Sardinians, Sicilians, Achaians, and other Mediterranean nations invaded Egypt by land and by sea during the reign of Menophthah in the year 1491 B. C, or just before the Exodus, and during the reign of Ramesses HI, or about 1417 B.C.

In the pictorial representations we see these nations clad and armed like the heroes of Homer, and, further, that the vessels in which they crossed the "Great Green" (Ua2-ur) Water (Wasser) were skillfully and artistically made. Many theories and notions which have come down to us from men who believed that writing was unknown in the times of Moses and Homer, that the ancient Egyptians were Hamites, or came from the fabled land of Puon-et, that the lyatins and lonians emigrated from the uninhabitable table-land of Aria shortly before the Trojan

War, etc., will have to yield to the inexorable logic of new and unexpected facts. Again, those Assyriologists who have published to the world artificial and fanciful chronologies of ancient Babylonia, will be forced to explain how that kingdom, which was founded by Nimrod, the son of Kush, could antedate the Hamite invasion of Western Asia, and why the native Babylonian historian Berossus did not carry his actual chronology beyond 2348 B. C, the date of that great calamity. The reader will see who, or what, the Biblical Ham really was, and that Egypt, during the two hundred and forty-two years which intervened between the Twelfth Dynasty and the Hyksos Invasion, was the school in which he and his brothers, Shem and Japheth, were educated.

A literal Flood has served as an impenetrable curtain behind which nearly two thousand years of thrilling and eventful history in ancient Egypt prior to the Hamite Invasion of 2348 B. C. was concealed from view. This book removes the curtain, and reveals the historical facts underlying the beautiful allegories, symbols, and figures of Genesis; in fact, it abounds in startling discoveries of the most profound significance relating to the earliest history of civilized man.

Eet no one think, because I have been compelled to assail some of the theories advanced by modern Egyptologists, that I do not fully appreciate the grandeur and importance of the work they have accomplished. On the contrary, I regard it, beyond a doubt, as one of the grandest achievements of the human intellect. In the galaxy of immortal scientists, none shine with a brighter light than Champollion, Lepsius, Bunsen, de Rouge, Brugsch, and Maspero. They were banded together in the cause of science and truth, which the Egyptians symbolized and personified as Thoth and Maat, and I am satisfied that no one will be more ready to accept the truth and discard old errors than those who still survive. The world is indebted to them; how much more so must I be.

To my friend, L. A. Wood, author of a remarkable work, yet unpubHshed, entitled "The Trial and Test of the Gods in Egypt," to whom I communicated many of these discoveries at, or about, the times they were respectively made, I am indebted for many valuable hints and suggestions. In fact, he is the only person known to me who seems to have anything like a true conception of the religion of the ancient Egyptians, that is, their wonderful doctrine of "Life."

Although the Egyptians engraved the mystic words, "the Way {uae), the Truth (maat), and the Life (anch),'^ in imperishable granite, Egyptologists have persistently closed their eyes to the fact ; but the author of "Osirian Christianity" has not done so.

I also wish to acknowledge my indebtedness to my wife, to whom this work is gratefully dedicated, for valuable assistance in its preparation.

ORIvANDO p. SCHMIDT.

Introduction

Modern Egyptologists, after vainly attempting to work out a consistent system of chronology for ancient Egypt, have abandoned the task in despair. This has been briefly pointed out in the chapter headed, "Present State of Egyptian Chronology."

Instead of frankly admitting this, however, some of them have resorted to the questionable expedient of trying to put the blame upon the ancient Egyptians, charging that they were ignorant of the science of chronology, and, consequently, had no chronology, or chronological system. Thus all of the otherwise excellent histories of ancient Egypt lack a chronological basis, or support. The maximum and minimum dates for the accession of Mena, the first king of Egypt, for example, differ fully two thousand years. This confusion is not confined to the Old Empire alone, but undermines and honeycombs the entire structure down to the beginning of the reign of Psammetichos. None of these histories gives us one solitary date during this period of 3,579 years, which is correct. The trouble is steadily growing, instead of diminishing, and the latest chronologies, when compared with those of Bunsen and Eepsius, are simply preposterous.

Now this work is merely a chronological, not a general, history of ancient Egypt, and, as its primary object was to supply what is wanting, restore what

1 2 Ijstrod uction has been lost — not to copy, or simply repeat, what is already familiar to every student of ancient history — the chronological element has been naturally forced into the foreground. But the reader may ask : ''Why do you attach so much importance to an accurate and reliable chronology? Is it not a dry and uninteresting subject at best?" My answer to these questions is, that history without an adequate chronological support is little better than fiction, is like music without time; in a word, chaos and discord. Chronology is dry and uninteresting only when separated from the historical events to which it relates; as, for instance, in chronological tables drawn up for ready reference, but never when used as the legitimate basis, backbone, prop, and support of history. In order to see how indispensable chronology is to reliable history, the reader is requested to examine the latest histories of Rawlinson, Brugsch, Wiedeman, Maspero, or Petrie with reference to the following special periods, to wit:

1. The 350 years of the first "ten Thinite Kings," from the accession of Mena (4244 B. C.) to the beginning of the first Memphite Dynasty (3894 B. C.)

2. The 214 years between 3894 B. C. and 3680 B. C, during which the Memphite Kings of the Third Dynasty and the Thinite Kings of the Second Dynasty reigned side by side.

3. The 148 years which intervened between the downfall of the Old Empire (2948 B. C.) and the beginning of the Twelfth Dynasty, or Middle Empire (2800 B. C.)

4. The 242 years between the close of the Twelfth Dynasty (2590 B. C.) and the so-called Hyksos Invasion (2348 B. C.)

5. The 511 years of so-called Hyksos domination over Egypt, including the 259 years and 10 months of the Seventeenth, or Hyksos, Dynasty.

6. The 22)^ years of the actual Nineteenth Dynasty, beginning with Ramesses II Miamen, and ending at the Sothiac Era, 1324 B. C.

7. The 185 years of the Twentieth Dynasty, ending 1139B. C.

8. The 220 years of the Twenty-second Dynasty, ending 789 B. C.

9. The 65 years of the contemporaneous Twenty-fourth and Twenty-fifth Dynasties, beginning 730 B. C, and ending 665 B. C.

The reader will find that the first two of these periods (erroneously estimated at 779, instead of 564, years) are characterized as "mythical," and treated accordingly.

A lot of so-called "myths" is served up to the reader, instead of historical facts.

The third period (supposed to cover 849 instead of 148 years) is in hopeless confusion and obscurity, little better, indeed, than chaos. Petrie even ventures to place the Hyk-sat-u (Hyksos) King "Achian" here.

The fourth and fifth periods are in an equally chaotic condition. The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Dynasties are regarded as successive, when, in fact, they were contemporaneous, and the sub-totals which have been ignorantly substituted for the original totals of these dynasties are accepted as genuine and correct, and the ridiculous attempt is soberly made to squeeze 136 kings and 937 years into a period of 242 years. The Hyksos Dynasty, which came in 251 years after the Hamite Invasion of Egypt, or 2097 B. C, is either placed at the beginning of the Hyksos period of 511 years, or about 100 years after it, so that, in the nature of things, nothing definite, certain, or reliable can be expected here.

When we reach the Eighteenth Dynasty, there is but little improvement. Egyptologists still cling to the date 1648 B. C, as an absolute beginning point for this dynasty, as a drowning man clings to a straw, and they cut down and bend and twist the numbers, reigns, and dates in vain attempts to make them conform to, and harmonize with, this date, which can be traced to a silly blunder made by Josephus. The Nineteenth, Twentieth, and Twenty-second Dynasties have suffered most from these unwarranted changes. In fact, the Nineteenth and Twenty-second Dynasties have been almost blotted out. The last period above-named, although comparatively recent, is in an equally chaotic condition. The epoch-title '^Rokchoris" does service as an actual king who was taken and burnt alive by the Ethiopian King Sabako. Tarako and Sabako appear upon the scene interchangeably, and their reigns are made to overlap and interfere in a most inexplicable way, so that the reader is completely bewildered and mystified. The native kings, Tephnachtis, Nechepsos, and Nechao, float around in mihihus without a place or date.

The above instances have been singled out at random, but every dynasty during the entire period of 3579 years is more or less affected by the doubt and uncertainty, not to speak of the errors, which are due to the absence of a reliable chronology. When Egyptologists bound themselves down to the a priori assumption that the ancient Egyptians were unacquainted with the science of chronology, and had no chronological system or era, they necessarily barred the way to further progress; for no sane man would seek for that which he thinks he knows does not exist. Here again we see the fatal effects of errors introduced more than 1,800 years ago. When Josephus, contended that before Abram came into Egypt the Egyptians were unacquainted with arithmetic and the science of astronomy, and that Abram himself communicated to them these parts of knowledge (see Antiquities, Book I, Ch. 8, Sec. 2), he certainly viewed the subject from the Roman and Hebrew, or, I might say, Asiatic standpoint; for he betrays no knowledge of Egyptian affairs prior to the date of Abram. But when modern Egyptologists undertake to build systems upon such false and thoroughly-exploded contentions, they are altogether inexcusable.

"Truth is stranger than fiction." At the beginning of the kingdom, or as far back as 4244 B. C, the Egyptians had the most accurate system of chronology ever devised by the ingenuity of man. It sounds like the irony of fate to say that this system was purely and strictly astronomical. In a word, they had and used the marvelous, self-verif5ang, self-registering system of chronology known as the "Sothiac."

While I am free to admit that the Sothiac system, with its peculiar and distinctive nomenclature, titles, etc., presents a number of formidable-looking difficulties to the general student, yet I am convinced that any one can easily master it by carefully perusing the first part of this work. A general knowledge of the Sothiac system is also indispensable to a correct understanding of the much-abused chronological lists of the celebrated Egyptian priest and historian, Manetho. These lists were copied by Manetho from the ancient registers preserved in the temples of ( Egypt, and, before they were systematically changed ^i and falsified by the early Jewish and Christian chronographers, were as accurate and reliable as the celebrated astronomical "Canon of Ptolemy." The fragments of the Turin papyrus still show that these ancient registers reached back to the earliest times. The reigns of Mena and his successors upon the throne were carefully registered in years, months, and days, and (what is equally important) were accurately adjusted to the Sothiac eras and epochs. The epoch-reigns, identified by appropriate epoch-titles, enable us to readjust the separate reigns to absolute dates, astronomically fixed, and thus restore the chronology upon a reliable basis.

Unfortunately, the breaks in the Turin papyrus were of such a nature as to destroy many of the epoch-reigns; but several of them, like that of lan-ab-ra of the Fifteenth Dynasty (2064 B. C.) have escaped intact, while others are indicated by parts of the stereotyped formula, ''ari-en-ef em suteniu."

The Sothiac system is fully explained in Part I of this work; but it can do no harm to add a word or two by way of introduction. The ordinary or vague year of 365 days (being about six hours short), shifted or receded one day in four years, one month in 120 years, and one entire year in 1,461 vague years. The Sothiac year grew out of, and was based on, this regular shifting of the vague year. Thus a Sothiac day was equal to four years, a Sothiac month to 120 years, a Sothiac year to 1,461 years. There were twelve Sothiac months of 120 years each, to the last of which (Mesori) twenty years were added. These twenty years corresponded to the five intercalary days of the ordinary year.

A Sothiac year, therefore, consisted of 365 Sothiac days of four years each, or 1,460 fixed years. The heliacal rising of the Dog-star Sirius, called Sothis (Sopdet) by the Egyptians, regulated the Sothiac year. Thus the 120 years during which Sothis rose heliacally in the month of Thoth of the vague year, constituted the Sothiac month of Thoth.

In the fixed year, as we shall see, Sothis rose heliacally, in the latitude of Heliopolis, on the first day of Pharmuthi, which is about July 19th; and the first day of Thoth, or the beginning of the year, coincided with the winter solstice. When Sothis rose heliacally on the first day of Pharmuthi of the vague year, which was the case in the years 4864 B. C, 3404 B. C, 1944 B. C, and 484 B. C, the year was normal; but when Mena mounted the throne, for instance, it had shifted 155 days, so that Sothis rose on the first day of Thoth, which was Hkewise the first day of the year. These 155 days represent exactly 620 years. This rising of Sirius on the first day of Thoth, 4244 B. C, marked the date of the establishment of the kingdom, and likewise the end of the 1255 years of the ''manes," or saints (achiu).

The practical working of the system may be provisionally illustrated by the epoch-reign of Amenemes I, who came about one cycle, or 1,460 years, after Menes. It came to pass that Sothis rose heliacally, that is, just before the sun, on the first day of Thoth, in the seventeenth year of the reign of this king. The great automatic, self-registering timepiece of Egypt indicated that 1,460 years had elapsed since Mena became king. Thus, after Amenemes I had reigned sixteen years (it should be fifteen or sixteen years, x months and x days) the Sothiac month of Mesore (and a Sothiac cycle likewise) came to a close, and the Sothiac month of Thoth (and a new Sothiac cycle likewise) opened. This important event happened in the year 2784 B. C. Amenemes I reigned sixteen years before, and thirteen years after, this date — in all, twenty-nine years.

This much is simple enough; but the epoch-titles assumed by, or conferred on, these epoch-kings present more difficulty. As we shall see, the government of Egypt was modeled after the solar system. Pharaoh claimed to be the successor, or vicegerent on earth, of Ra, or the sun. It was assumed that he ruled the world as Ra rules the solar system. He was the central orb, giving light, life, stability, happiness, etc., to all peoples. He assumed the titles of Ra, and, in the symbolical language of those times, thie ruling powers, with Pharaoh at their head, constituted the ^'heaven,'' just as the subject people constituted the "earth."

Again, according to the cosmic theory of the Egyptians, nothing came into existence except by generation of male and female parents, etc. Thus primeval Ra, after throwing off, or giving birth to, the planets Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Earth, Venus, and Mercury, grew old and passed away, and was succeeded by Horus, or the present sun. In the ordinary and Sothiac years, Horus, as Harpokrates {Har-pachrat) or *'Horus, the Babe," was born at the winter solstice, or beginning of the year; became physically developed, as Har-ka-nacht, "Horus, the powerful Bull," at the vernal equinox; reached his intellectual perfection, as Ra, at the summer solstice, or "heart" of the year; and eventually grew old (as) and very old (as-as), as Tum, Atum, or Osiris, at the autumnal equinox. From the vernal equinox to the autumnal equinox he was in the upper hemisphere, or sphere of light; but from the autumnal equinox to the vernal equinox he was in the lower hemisphere, or sphere of darkness. Now, as the sun of the Sothiac year reached the winter solstice in the seventeenth year of the reign of King Amenemes I, he assumed the title Nem-mestu, meaning "Re-born," in commemoration of his birth as Harpokrates. His position at the head of a new Sothiac year is indicated by the title Amen-em-het, or "Amen at the head."

But as he became identified with the Sothiac month presided over by Thoth, he received another distinctive epoch-title, to wit: Petithothis {Pa-tatahu-ti) or "The Gift of Thoth.'^

It is significant that the title assumed by Mena, one complete cycle earlier, related to the Sothiac month alone, for Athothis is the Egyptian Aa-tahu-ti, having the meaning "Hermogenes," or "Offspring of Thoth."

Now let us explain what we mean by an "epoch-reign." Kebahu, the last king of Manetho's First Dynasty, reigned twenty-six years, of which three were before, and twenty-three after, the epoch of Athyr, 4004 B. C. His epoch-reign survives in the Lists of Manetho as "Uennephis" with twenty-three years. As we shall see, Uennephis is taken from Uon-nofer, "Perfect Being," or "Perfect One," a distinctive title of Osiris, the consort of Hathor or Isis. Eratosthenes, however, used the reign before the epoch as the epoch-reign. Usertasen II and Usertasen III reigned together jointly for many years. Eratosthenes grouped the two reigns together as fifty-five years. It happened that the thirty-eight years of Usertasen III were equally divided by the epoch of Paophi, 2664 B. C. Eratosthenes had them ruling as Hermes and Herakles, that is, in the Sothiac months of Thoth and Paophi, for fifty-five years; but he also had Usertasen III reigning as Phuoro, or Nile, for nineteen years, which is his reign before the epoch

2664 B. C, or the beginning of the month of Pa-hapi, or The Nile.

It will be seen from the foregoing illustrations that we must endeavor to make ourselves acquainted with the primitive arrangement and division of the year, the names and symbols of the months and seasons, and the attributes and titles of the so-called deities who were supposed to preside over the same.

We must also examine the peculiar religious notions of the Egyptians, in connection with their theory of the formation and government of the solar system.

Manetho and his chronological lists necessarily come in for a share of our attention, for the lists were copied from the ancient registers, and, while we are enabled to restore and verify them by means of the Sothiac system, they, in turn, reflect a bright light upon the practical application of the system. The chronological numbers of Josephus have been briefly considered, because they were the indirect cause of the arbitrary changes and alterations made in Manetho's lists by the early Jewish and Christian chronographers, and as such enable us to detect the same. All this the reader will find in Part I of this work, which is introductory to Part II, where the chronological history from the foundation of the kingdom, 4244 B. C, to the beginning of the Persian dynasty, 525 B. C, that is, the work proper, will be found.

The chronological part of the work, in which grand-totals, like the 3,555 years from the beginning of the Third Dynasty to the end of Nektanebos' reign; sub-totals, like the 453 years of Theban, and

511 years of Hyksos, domination; dynastic totals, like the 263 years of the Eighteenth Dynasty; epoch-reigns, like the 2.2^ years of Seti I after 1584 B. C, and the separate reigns, combine to form a wonderfully harmonious structure, covering over 3,700 years of actual and well-authenticated history, amounts to a mathematical demonstration; and, as the reader will see, has been subjected to every conceivable test. The synchronisms afforded by the Bible narrative and by the histories of Babylonia, Assyria, Greece, etc., have been carefully applied, and, although Africanus and Eusebius have been criticised for attaching too m^uch importance to synchronisms, the remarkable results attained will speak for themselves.

In the face of much nonsense written on the subject, it is self-evident that no artificial chronological scheme could for one moment bear the "crucial test" of an absolute astronomical system, even in one particular, much less throughout its entire extent.

The epoch-reigns of Zet, or Saites, Neko II, and Nechtharebes, at the very end of the scheme, are brilliant demonstrations of this. Every discovery which was made in Egypt, or came to the author's notice while the work was in progress, has tended to support, corroborate, or verify it.

In conclusion, the reader is requested to bear in mind that the subject is novel and difficult, that the details and ramifications are myriad, and that the author has been able to derive but little assistance from other sources.

Part I

The Sothiac System of Chronology and the Chronological Lists of Manetho

AN INTRODUCTORY STUDY

PRIMITIVE ARRANGEMENT AND DIVISION OF THE YEAR

The winter solstice is the scientific beginningpoint of the year. The birth of Christ, or Christmas, should therefore be celebrated at this time. The old year dies, and the new year is born, when the sun, having reached his lowest point in the southern hemisphere, reverses his course. The name of the first month, January, is derived from Janus, a Roman, or Etruscan, god. The name, as now pronounced in English, is misleading. The correct pronunciation is ''yan-us," or, divested of the Latin termination its, "yan." We are told that Janus had two faces, looking in opposite directions; that the month of January was consecrated by offerings of meal, salt, frankincense, and wine, all of which had to be new; and that on the first of this month presents were exchanged and all enmities suspended. The temple of Janus stood near the Forum, but was in reality only an arch, or gateway, facing east and west. It seems that no one has been able to discover the nature and origin of Janus; but the reader will have no difficulty in understanding all about him when the meaning of the Egyptian an or ian^ which has come down to us in the familiar forms "lannus" and Pa-ian, has been explained.

The arrangement and division of the ancient Egyptian year was far more scientific than our own. Its beginning point was the winter solstice. Its culminating or turning point, called an or tan by the Egyptians, was the summer solstice. These two points were called "horns," and the name of one of them survives in Capricorn, ''the horn of the goat." The "northern horn" is now called Cancer, or Crab, which is symbolically the same as Ian. Compare the German "Wende" and the an of the word answer.