Fresh Batch #152: Is the 360-Day Egyptian Calendar an 18th Century Forgery?

Does a 500-Year Gap in Egypt's History Unravel Its Authenticity?

The calendars, and their mistakes, are details I used as an example of cultural diffusion, namely, that of Mexico, Egypt, and the like, having the particular quality of a 360-day year with five dead days, or intercalaries, added at the end of the year. I wrote in Spirit Whirled: Terminalia, “The Mexican year was reckoned by 18 months of 20 days each. They called the extra days dead days, when they neither performed sacrifices nor engaged in any important affairs. This means they reckoned a 365-day year, but kept a civil calendar of 360 days, just like Egypt and other cultures on different continents.”

But the way Sir Joseph Norman Lockyer phrased the subject made me consider that everything we think we know about the way these cultures reckoned their year may be chalked up to the beliefs of the archaeologists or scholars of the day, and not necessarily accurate. He wrote (Dawn Astr. p. 243.), “Whether the Egyptians brought their year with them or invented it in the Nile valley, there is a belief that it at first consisted of 360 days only, that is, 5.25 days too little. It is more likely that they brought the lunar month with them, taking it roughly as 30 days (30 x 12 = 360), than that they began with such an erroneous notion of the true length of the solar year, seeing that in Egypt, above all countries in the world, owing to the regularity of the inundation, the true length could have been so easily determined, so soon as that regularity was recognised. We must not in these questions forget to put ourselves in the place of these pioneers of astronomy and civilisation; if we do this, we shall soon see how many difficulties were involved in determining the true length of such a cycle as a year, when not only modern appliances, but all just ideas too, were of necessity lacking.

“Since 360 days do not represent the true length of the year, it is clear that any nation which uses such a year as that will find the seasons and festivals sweeping through the year. Further, such a year is absolutely useless for the agriculturist or the gardener, because after a time the same month, to say nothing of the same day of the month, will not mean reaping-time, will not mean sowing-time, or anything else.

“Still, it is right that I should state that all authorities are not agreed as to the use of this year of 360 days; at all events, during the times within our ken (Celtic word for knowledge).”

He cited Ideler, who wrote (Chronologie, i., p. 70.), “I do not hesitate to declare that the existence of such a time cycle—used without reference to the course of the sun or moon simply for the sake of simple figures—is extremely doubtful to me.”

Then Krall (Ib. p. 17.), “It is probable that the year of 360 days dates from the time before the immigration into the Nile valley, when the Egyptians were unguided by the regular recurrence of the Nile flood. In any case, this must soon have convinced the priests that the 360-days year did not agree with the facts. But it is well known to everybody familiar with these things how long a period may be required before such determinations are practically realised, especially with a people so conservative of ancient usages as the Egyptians.”

The following raises my suspicion because any time I see things like “trilingual inscriptions”, it indicates something that is too convenient for the status quo to interpret, and then write history, solving the issues that would normally arise from encountering a foreign ancient culture. Further complicating matters is the weight these trilingual inscriptions have regarding the interpretation of history, yet the lack of historical accounts for the creation of such accomplishments during the era in which they were supposedly made.

Lockyer added (Ib. p. 244.), “And on this ground, apparently, he joins issue with the authorities already quoted:—

‘The Egyptian monuments have contradicted Ideler in this respect. The trilingual inscription of Tanis testifies expressly that it has only “later become usual to add the five epagomenes;” that, therefore, the year originally had 360 days, which were divided into twelve months of thirty days each.”

There are two outcomes: 1) the trilingual inscription of Tanis is authentic and the Egyptians had 360 days, to which they later added five intercalary days, or 2) the trilingual inscription of Tanis is not authentic, and the 360-day year used by the Egyptians is still a topic of uncertainty.

Higgins wrote (Anac. Vol. I. p. 492.), “The more Rosetta triplicate stones there are found, the more the difficulty will be increased of accounting for the blindness of Clemens and Strabo.”

Then again on p. 493, “M. Champollion was sent to Egypt, by Charles the Tenth, to search for inscriptions, and of course, with the perfect approbation of the Jesuits. He kept up a close correspondence with the well-known Duke de Blancas, Ambassador from France at Rome, and his discoveries, as described by the Marquis Spineto, exhibit, in every part, a predetermination to support the Mosaic system; and this also creeps out from the Marquis perpetually in his Lectures.”

It is critical to understand that if the Rosetta stones are forgeries, then the ability to interpret the hieroglyphics is a result of fraud; it brings into question their authenticity because they correspond to Greek letters. Prepare yourself for a discovery, of an artifact or a mistake, that sets off a domino effect which will cascade into a whole era of history being established as fantasy.

Lockyer wrote (Ib. pp. 244, 245.), “Krall also argues that the expressions great and little year and their hieroglyphics referred to the years of 365 and 360 days respectively, and adds:—

‘If we inquire into the time at which the epagomenes were introduced, we can only fix approximate dates. If the calendars of the Mastabas, complete as they are, do not mention the epagomenes, whereas inscriptions of the period of the Amenamhats refer to them, this can only be due to the circumstance that the epagomenes were only introduced in the meantime, but probably nearer the upper than the lower limit. For the sake of completeness, we may mention that, according to Censorinus, the five epagomenes were introduced by the King Arminon. Louth conjectures that Arminon is identical with Amenamhat I., under whom the epagomenes are first met with. But since, between Nitokris and Amenamhat I., there is a period of 500 years void of records, and the name Arminon has nothing to do with Amenamhat, we can hardly share this view.”

Appreciate that a period of 500 years void of records is two centuries longer than the history of America. It is entirely inconsistent with reality, which means there is a coverup, or it means the chronological records accompanied by a 500-year gap are likely forgeries where massive mistakes were made. For those interested in learning about or exposing these subjects, and much more, invest in the Spirit Whirled series and The Real Universal Empire.

On the other side, we will address the controversial reason as to how the 360-day calendar could’ve been used while known to be wrong.

Become a member to access the rest of this article.