Notebook of notes on Cyprus, Gaza, Jericho, Egypt and Syria (chronologies)Claude Frédéric-Armand Schaeffer

Chronol. Ancien Empire etc. Scharff, Some Prehist. Vases and Remarks on Egypt. Prehistory, J. E A. XIV, 1928 p. 275.

Many scholars are sceptical about admitting relations, not in themselves incredible between finds from E. just bef. a. during 1^st dyn. & identic. or simil. finds from Jericho, Byblos, Assur, Susa, etc because Egypt. finds cannot be placed later than middle of 4^th mill. while those of Nearer As. hardly reach back to 3000, B. C. Even those who admit the relations claim Egypt in each case as the originator (E. Meyer, di ält. Chron. Babyl. Assyr. & Ägypt.) 1925.) Now, Meyer in Gesch. Altert. I, brought down Menes to 3197 B C., & allows error of 200 years on either side = 2997 - 3397. Finds of recent years have tended to confine into an ever narrower area the Nearer Asiat. culture referred to above & that without refer. to Egypt & uninfluenced by its chronol.: it is firmly fixed within the limits of the chronol. of Babyl., which at present go does not go back beyond 3000 B.C. Egyp. & N. A. works are by no means so far apart in date, esp. if we adopt the lower limit allowed by the margin of error of 200 years offered by E. Meyer for date of Menes.

{Chron. of Old Kingd. (extremely problematical owing to our lack of a Sothic date) depends for earliest period on the figure 955 in the Turin King List, of which no acceptable explanation has yet been given. This figure is taken by E. Meyer as the total of the years from the First to the Eight Dynasty. The figure of 419 derived from this for the 18 kings of the first 2 dyn. whose names have survived seems remarquably high. Lengths of lives which can be determined from the various tomb inscriptions naming kings of the 4^th & 5^th dyn. show _clearly that E. Meyer's figures represent an extraordin. high estimate._ (cf. Grundzüge 51 ff. OLZ 1928, 73). I can suggest nothing more certain in their place, but I should like to emphasize the fact that the Egypt. chronol. of the 3^rd & 4^th mill. BC. accepted by most scholars is open to the gravest doubts. The archaeol. fact that a lively interchange of products & culture betw. N. A. & E. existed just before a. during 1^st dyn. appears to me more import. precisely because it is more certain. Since Babyl. chronol. is more firmly settled