What people are saying - Write a review
I would like the reviewer to demonstrate how Mcnaughton is in error instead of just making pronouncements about how he is mistaken. Let's face it, modern Egyptologists have made claims about Egyptian chronology that was based on poor evidence with a view to undermining any idea of a long chronology. The original motive was to squeeze Egyptian history into biblical chronology, something that has been exposed by all reasonable scholars who have looked critically at the writing of the ancient world.Quite disgraceful, really.
Duncan MacNaughton made the fatal mistake of believing that Egyptian history spanned many more millennia than is now accepted, stretching the timeline by two additional Sothic cycles to bring the early dynasties even to 5000 BCE. He tried to use flawed lunar data to date eclipses far beyond the known limits of delta T values (because this data was not available at the time of writing).
Despite this when his dating scheme comes within the concrete dating of the late period of Egyptian history, his work is spot on. His work was harshly criticized by Otto Neugebauer, but in my mind Neugebauer was driven by a personal bias against Egyptian astronomical knowledge.
When MacNaughton derives a specific day that he claims is described by the heiroglyphic texts views attained with modern astronomical software seem to agree with his interpretations. I have greatly enjoyed checking his work against modern software. Especially the lunar eclipse of Takerat II and the "Zodiac of 880 BC".
My studies into this book are definitely limited, but from what I have seen this work deserves additional study that was stunted by Neugebauer. Although this book is fraught with errors that were pervasive for the time of writing, the author's insight has been useful to my studies.