Managerial economics 2nd Edition G. S.

Gupta - PDF
Download (2025)

https://ebookultra.com/download/managerial-economics-2nd-edition-
g-s-gupta/

Visit ebookultra.com today to download the complete set of

ebooks or textbooks
 We believe these products will be a great fit for you. Click
the link to download now, or visit ebookultra.com
to discover even more!

Managerial Economics 7th Edition William F. Samuelson /

Stephen G. Marks

https://ebookultra.com/download/managerial-economics-7th-edition-
william-f-samuelson-stephen-g-marks/

Managerial Economics Economic Tools for Today s Decision

Makers 7e 7th Edition Paul G. Keat

https://ebookultra.com/download/managerial-economics-economic-tools-
for-today-s-decision-makers-7e-7th-edition-paul-g-keat/

Managerial Economics 12th Edition Mark Hirschey

https://ebookultra.com/download/managerial-economics-12th-edition-
mark-hirschey/

Managerial economics and strategy Third Edition Jeffrey M.

Perloff

https://ebookultra.com/download/managerial-economics-and-strategy-
third-edition-jeffrey-m-perloff/
Managerial Economics A Mathematical Approach 1st Edition
M. J. Alhabeeb

https://ebookultra.com/download/managerial-economics-a-mathematical-
approach-1st-edition-m-j-alhabeeb/

Jaypee s Dental Dictionary 2nd Edition Priya Verma Gupta

https://ebookultra.com/download/jaypee-s-dental-dictionary-2nd-
edition-priya-verma-gupta/

Textbook of Medical Biochemistry 2nd Edition Dr. S. K.

Gupta

https://ebookultra.com/download/textbook-of-medical-biochemistry-2nd-
edition-dr-s-k-gupta/

Managerial Economics Applications Strategies and Tactics

13th Ed Edition James R. Mcguigan

https://ebookultra.com/download/managerial-economics-applications-
strategies-and-tactics-13th-ed-edition-james-r-mcguigan/

Manufacturing Processes 2nd Edition Gupta

https://ebookultra.com/download/manufacturing-processes-2nd-edition-
gupta/
Managerial economics 2nd Edition G. S. Gupta Digital
Instant Download
Author(s): G. S. Gupta
ISBN(s): 9780071067867, 0071067868
Edition: 2
File Details: PDF, 21.52 MB
Year: 2011
Language: english
MANAGERIAL ECONOMICS
MANAGERIAL ECONOMICS
SECOND EDITION

Tata McGraw Hill Education Private Limited

NEW DELHI
McGraw-Hill Offices
New Delhi New York St Louis San Francisco Auckland Bogotá Caracas
Kuala Lumpur Lisbon London Madrid Mexico City Milan Montreal
San Juan Santiago Singapore Sydney Tokyo Toronto
Published by the Tata McGraw Hill Education Private Limited,
7 West Patel Nagar, New Delhi 110 008

Managerial Economics, 2/e

Copyright © 2011, by Tata McGraw Hill Education Private Limited. No part of this publication can be reproduced or
distributed in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise or stored in a
database or retrieval system without the prior written permission of the publishers. The program listings (if any) may be
entered, stored and executed in a computer system, but they may not be reproduced for publication.

This edition can be exported from India only by the publishers,

Tata McGraw Hill Education Private Limited

ISBN-13 : 978-0-07-106786-7
ISBN-10 : 0-07-106786-8
Vice President and Managing Director—McGraw-Hill Education: Asia Pacific Region: Ajay Shukla
Head—Higher Education Publishing and Marketing: Vibha Mahajan
Publishing Manager—B&E/HSSL: Tapas K Maji
Deputy Manager (Sponsoring): Surabhi Khare
Senior Development Editor: Shalini Negi
Executive (Editorial Services): Yogesh Kumar
Senior Production Manager: Manohar Lal
Senior Production Executive: Atul Gupta
Marketing Manager: Vijay S Jagannathan
Assistant Product Manager: Daisy Sachdeva
General Manager—Production: Rajender P Ghansela
Assistant General Manager—Production: B L Dogra

Information contained in this work has been obtained by Tata McGraw-Hill, from sources believed to be reliable.
However, neither Tata McGraw-Hill nor its authors guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information
published herein, and neither Tata McGraw-Hill nor its authors shall be responsible for any errors, omissions, or
damages arising out of use of this information. This work is published with the understanding that Tata McGraw
-Hill and its authors are supplying information but are not attempting to render engineering or other professional
services. If such services are required, the assistance of an appropriate professional should be sought.

Typeset at Print-O-World, 2579, Mandir Lane, Shadipur, New Delhi 110 008, and printed at Magic International Pvt. Ltd.,
Plot No. 26E, Sector-31 (Industrial), Site IV, Greater Noida 20306
Cover Design: Meenu Raghav, Graphic Designer, TMH
Cover Printer : Magic International
The present edition of Managerial Economics is overdue. Since its first edition, published in 1990, significant
developments have come up in the corporate world, such as cost minimization through mergers and takeovers,
downsizing, globalization, etc., innovative methods of product pricing, including dynamic pricing, and the
emergence of a variety of new products. These changes led me to realize the need for revising the first edition.
Excellent feedback both from the students and faculty and persuasion from the publishers have given me
enough dividends to undertake this endeavour, and it is a great pleasure to present this much-awaited second
edition. This edition offers a thorough revision of each chapter, removes all ambiguities, incorporates the
feedback received, and adds many new concepts, theories and applications.

NEW TO THIS EDITION

The erstwhile two chapters on product pricing have been expanded to four chapters. In particular, measures
of industry concentration, monopoly power, entry-exit barriers, pricing under natural monopoly, contestable
markets, game theory, market power (dynamic pricing), asymmetric information, externalities, risk and
uncertainty have been included.
An entirely new chapter on Theory of Consumer Behaviour (Chapter 3) has been added. This covers
the ordinal or indifference curve approach to consumer behaviour, which has become so crucial not only to
explain the choice of consumption basket but also to demonstrate leisure-work choice and thereby the labour
supply, consumption-saving trade-off, return-risk trade-off, among other such behaviours.
Many new concepts, jargons and fundamentals have been introduced. These include market failures, public
goods, common goods, merit goods, bandwagon and snob effects, sunk cost, duality theorem in production
and cost, economies of scope, learning curve, transaction cost economies, backward bending labour supply
curve, Lerner index, horizontal and vertical integrations, reservation price, consumer, producer and economic
surpluses, dead weight loss, bilateral monopoly, economic rent, transfer pricing, adverse selection, moral
hazard, principal-agent problem, Coase theorem, etc.
Case studies have become an important pedagogy even in economics. Though no real-life cases have been
added, real-life examples of dynamic pricing, industry competition, mergers and takeovers, etc. have been
cited at appropriate places. Also, the chapter-end cases have been expanded to practice micro economics’
fundamentals.
To help students test their understanding of the fundamentals of managerial economics as well as to
provide ready material for short quizzes to instructors, multiple choice questions and fill-in-the-blanks
exercises have been added.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am grateful to the students and faculty alike who have sustained the textbook for over two decades and
provided heartening feedback and suggestions for revision. Further, since the release of the first edition,
I have taught managerial economics at a number of institutions, including IIM Ahmedabad, Illinois State
 viii

University (USA), Universiti Sains Malaysia, Mudra Institute of Communication, Entrepreneurship

Development Institute of India and IIM Raipur, besides delivering guest lectures on selected topics at a few
other institutions. Interactions with the students and faculty at these institutions have improved my own
understanding of the subject and I am thankful to all of them.
The entire revision work was carried out during my almost five-month stay (April 2010–August 2010)
with my children and grandchildren in Dubai, Dallas and Houston. The quality time that I spent with the
family was doubly rewarded as I could concentrate on this revision during 9–5 on week days and had the
pleasure of living with them all the time. The amicable environment and the required infrastructure were fully
available, and there were no interruptions which are so unavoidable at otherwise workplaces. Interactions and
playing with kids in evenings and weekends were so refreshing that it is hard to describe. At times of need,
help on computer matters was readily available from my well-versed children. My wife, Lalita, provided
all logistic and moral support, and instead of complaining much on depriving her on quality time with me,
she encouraged me to work on this long-pending project. My children and grandchildren took pleasure in
canvassing with their friends as how I was working on such a noble project.
The publishers, Tata McGraw-Hill, deserve sincere thanks for pursuing me for almost a decade to work on
this edition, assuring full cooperation. In particular, I appreciate the encouragement from Tapas K. Maji and
Vibha Mahajan to work on this edition and the help that I have received from Tapas K. Maji, Manohar Lal,
and others in converting the soft copies of chapters into this finished product.
I hope that the new edition is received well both by the students and faculty of managerial economics.
Needless to say, I solicit feedback from all readers of this book.

G.S. Gupta
Managerial economics is concerned with decision making at the managerial level. The book presents the
alternative theories of firm behaviour, decision making problems and different approaches to arrive at the
most appropriate answers to such problems. This is accomplished through a brief and logical discussion of
the various relevant concepts and techniques and, through hypothetical examples, to illustrate the decision-
making process. At the end of each chapter, small caseletes are incorporated for students to work on in order
to ascertain their understanding of the material presented in the corresponding chapter. The approach adopted
is a good mix of verbal language, geometry and algebra. While the emphasis is on theory and normative
answers, numerous practical examples are cited and integrated in the material presented in the text.
Managerial economics draws heavily from micro-economics, econometrics and operations research.
Accordingly, the book borrows the relevant concepts from all these disciplines and also some from macro-
economics. The approach of the text is to first pose problems relating to the decision-making process
and then seek answers. The book does not give a detailed exposition of micro-economics or of any other
disciplines,rather it accords a synthesis of all the relevant aspects of the related subjects to arrive for decision-
making problems faced by firms.
The book is written primarily for students pursuing post-graduate courses in management. It should also be
useful to those who are doing M Com and CA. Since many instructors of economics emphasize applications,
the book could serve as a good reference book for those students who are doing MA in Economics as well.
I have co-authored another book on the subject-Mote, Paul and Gupta, Managerial Economics: Concepts
and cases, Tata McGraw-Hill, New Delhi. The earlier volume, written in 1976, is concise and includes case
studies. The present text which borrows nothing from the earlier one, is uptodate, quite elaborate, presents
all the aspects of various topics concerning managerial economics and provides caselets on all decision-
making aspects as practice exercises for students. Readers interested in real-life case studies and/or in concise
material should still find the old text useful.
In the writing of this text, I have benefitted from the comments and suggestions which I have been receiving
from my students at the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad (1970-till date), Illinosis University,
USA(1982-83,1985-86), and at several other educational institutions where I have delivered guest lectures.
I express my thanks to all of them. Owing to my desire to bring out the present volume early, I had planned
to provide caselets either in a separate hand-out or in the subsequent edition of this text. I am grateful to the
referee for advising me to include the caselets here itself. A special word of thanks is due to B Sreekumar,
K Ram Babu and T Sridham for efficiently typing the manuscript and to GD Patel for his able assistance in
drawing graphs. Lastly, I appreciate the assistance of my wife, Lalita and the patience and cooperation of my
children, Indu Jaya and Manish.
G.S. Gupta
Preface to the Second Edition vii
Preface to the First Edition ix

1. Introduction 3
1.1 Economics 3
1.2 Managerial Economics 6
1.3 The Firm: Objectives and Constraints 6
1.4 Decision Process 14
1.5 Basic Principles 15
1.6 Chapter Plan 19
References 19

2. Demand and Revenue Analysis 23

2.1 Meaning of Demand 23
2.2 Types of Demand 25
2.3 Determinants of Demand 30
2.4 Demand Function 36
2.5 Demand Elasticities 39
2.6 Demand-Revenue Relationships 46
References 50
Caselets 51

3. Theory of Consumer Behaviour 55

3.1 Consumers’ Preferences 55
3.2 Consumers’ Budget Constraints 61
3.3 Consumers’ Choice 63
References 68
Caselets 68

4. Demand Estimation, Analysis and Forecasting 71

4.1 Demand Estimation 72
4.2 Analysis of Estimated Demand Function 80
4.3 Demand Forecasting 84
References 107
Caselets 107
 xii

5. Production Analysis and Inputs’ Demand 113

5.1 Meaning of Production 113
5.2 Production Function 113
5.3 Production Analysis: Long-Run 120
5.4 Production Analysis: Short-Run 131
5.5 Production Analysis: Long-Run versus Short-Run 137
5.6 Elasticity of Factor Substitution 138
5.7 Production Analysis and Input Demand: A Generalization 139
References 141
Caselets 141

6. Cost and Supply Analysis 147

6.1 Cost Concepts 147
6.2 Cost Function 153
6.3 Cost-Output Relationship: Long-Run 155
6.4 Cost-Output Relationship: Short-Run 161
6.5 Cost Output Relationship: Long vs Short-Run 165
6.6 Economies of Big Businesses 166
6.7 Estimation of Cost Function 170
6.8 Managerial Uses of Estimated Cost Functions 172
6.9 Supply Function 176
References 179
Caselets 179

7. Preliminaries on Price and Output Determination 183

7.1 Price Concepts 183
7.2 Price Determinants 185
7.3 Conditions for Profit Maximisation 193
7.4 Profit and Break-Even Analysis 194
7.5 Pricing under Different Objectives 200
7.6 Market Structure 201
References 208
Caselets 209
8. Price-output Determination–I (Pricing under Perfect Competition, Monopoly
and Monopolistic competition) 213
8.1 Pricing under Perfect Competition 213
8.2 Pricing under Monopoly 228
8.3 Contestable Markets 237
8.4 Pricing in Multi-Plant Firms 239
8.4 Pricing in Multiple Products Firms 241
8.5 Monopolistic Competition 242
References 247
Caselets 247
 xiii

9. Price–output Determination-II (Pricing under Oligopoly) 253

9.1 Price-Output Determination Models in Oligopoly Markets 254
9.2 Perfect (Explicit) Collusion (Cartel) Model 256
9.3 Competition Oriented Models 260
9.4 Tacit (Implicit) Collusion Models 263
9.5 Game Theory 270
9.6 Non-optimizing Models 277
9.7 Price Rigidity 282
References 285
Caselets 285

10. Price–output Determination-III

(Pricing under Market Power, Asymmetric Information, Externalities and Risk) 289
10.1 Market Power 289
10.2 Price Discrimination 291
10.3 Price Discrimination by Market Segments 293
10.4 Inter-Temporal Price Discrimination 302
10.5 Peak-Load Pricing 304
10.6 Block Pricing 306
10.7 Two-Part Pricing 308
10.8 Commodity Bundling 309
10.9 Transfer Pricing 310
10.10 Pricing under Asymmetric Information 313
10.11 Pricing under Externalities 317
10.12 Pricing under Risk and Uncertainty 324
References 326
Caselets 326

11. Investment Analysis 331

11.1 Meaning and Significance 331
11.2 Time Value of Money 334
11.3 Cash Flows and Measures of Investment Worth 338
11.4 Investment Analysis 354
11.5 Concluding Remarks 364
References 365
Caselets 366

Appendix A : Economic Optimization 369

Appendix B : Tables for Investment Analysis 387
Appendix C : Multiple Choice Questions 399
Appendix D : Fill in Blanks Questions 419

Index 425
MANAGERIAL
ECONOMICS
 1

P rofitability and productivity are the two important yardsticks that are applied to measure the health
of an organization/firm. The significance of achieving optimum values of these is now widely
recognized. The present volume concentrates on that part of economics which is directly relevant for the
management of a firm.

1.1 ECONOMICS
The origin of the term ‘economics’ lies in the Greek words oikon and nomos, which mean ‘laws of
households’. This marks the significance of economics to households. To understand its relevance to
managerial decision-making, a deeper understanding of its meaning is imperative.
Adam Smith, the father of economics, published his famous book “An Enquiry into the Nature and
Causes of the Wealth of Nations” in 1776. To him, economics is concerned with material wealth. The said
wealth is contained in the quantity and quality of goods and services. Thus, economics was considered
as the discipline dealing with the production, exchange and consumption of goods and services.
Alfred Marshall, in his book “The Principles of Economics”, published in 1891, defined economics
as the study of human-kind in the ordinary business of life. Lionel Robbins defined economics as a
socia1 science concerned with the optimum allocation of scarce resources among competing ends.
On combining all these facets, the subject has been defined as “a social science which covers the
actions of individuals and groups of individuals in the processes of producing, exchanging and
consuming of goods and services” (Henderson and Quandt, 1980). In brief, economics is the science
of optimization under scarcity in the process of production, exchange and consumption of goods and
services. As such, it deals with the estimation and comparison of benefits and costs associated with all
economic decisions.
In its modern meaning, economics renders help in various matters of decision-making like:
(a) Production decisions: What to produce, how much of a good to produce and how to produce a
given quantity of the chosen good?
(b) Exchange decisions: Who is the target group of buyers for each product and at what prices?
 4

(c) Consumption decisions: What and how much to (buy and) consume?
On closer scrutiny, all these questions involve the problem of allocation of scarce resources among
alternative ends. For example, the answer to (i) what to produce involves allocation of limited funds
(expected equity and debt) among alternative investment projects, (ii) how much of a good to produce
requires forecasting of demand, (iii) how to produce a good involves choice of input mix so as to
maximize profit subject to given technology (production function) and prices of inputs, (iv) how much
to consume of various goods requires the allocation of a given income (consumption expenditure
budget) among those goods so as to maximize human satisfaction (utility), and (v) whom to sell how
much involves price settings so as to maximize profit subject to given market conditions. Accordingly,
economics is known as the science of choice under scarcity. In view of this broad definition, in addition
to the above questions, economics also encompasses subjects like economic development and growth,
business cycles, public finance, unemployment, poverty, inflation, money and banking, international
trade and investment, and so on.
Ragnar Frisch has classified economics into two broad categories: Microeconomics and
Macroeconomics. Once again the term ‘micro’ and ‘macro’ have been derived from the Greek words
Mikros and Makros, which mean ‘small’ and ‘large’ respectively. Microeconomics deals with the
behaviour of individual economic units and the markets where they interact. For example, it studies
the decision making by a producer (firm) and a consumer, and the individual markets for each of the
products they produce and buys. Thus, microeconomics talks about the behaviours of buyers and sellers
of cars, quantity and price of cars, and the same for all other goods and services in the economy. In
contrast, macroeconomics is concerned with the behaviour of the economy at large (like India and
each of the other countries) and national aggregates, such as national income, general price index, total
employment and unemployment, wage rate, money supply, interest rate, national saving and investment,
fiscal deficit, exports, imports, balance of trade and foreign exchange rate, business cycles and growth
rate of an economy, etc.
Scarcity and uncertainty are the two foundation stones of economics. Economics deals with the
allocation of resources, which are scarce and versatile. Scarce, for they are inadequate to satisfy human
needs which are seemingly unlimited. Versatile, as they could be used to satisfy alternative needs. Needs,
though unlimited, differ in terms of their intensity, and thus could be ranked in the order of priority.
Choice making is thus essential, which is attempted through the process of optimization.
Scarcity does not mean shortage; rather it means the demand for that resource/item at zero price
exceeds its supply. In other words, anything which commands a price is a scarce item. Only scarce
items are economic goods, and the rest are free goods. A commodity which is a free good today in a
particular society might become an economic good tomorrow in the same society or might even be
an economic good today in some other society. For example, water which was a free good all over in
primitive society, has a price tag now in many cities but is still a free good in most rural areas. However,
scarcity, though a necessary condition for choice, must accompany other alternatives for resource uses
(versatility) to cause the problem of choice. For example, if I could do nothing else other than teach
managerial economics at my present institution, then there is no problem with regard to the allocation
of work to me. But the fact is, I can teach several other courses among other non-teaching activities, and
at many other organizations. This complicates the situation—the problem of how to use time. In other
words, because I am capable of doing alternative jobs, that is, I am versatile or I have an opportunity cost,
besides I being a scarce factor, there is a problem of determining the best use of my time. Scarcity and
versatility of resources lead to trade-offs, which binds all decisions-makers. For example, a consumer
 5

has scarce and versatile income or consumption budget. If he/she spends more on one good, less is
left for other goods. Similarly, an investor has scarce funds and time. The more these are spent on any
project, the less is left for undertaking other projects. Also, a worker has scarce time, the longer he/she
works (earns income), the less is left for leisure. Thus, all people face trade-offs.
Most decisions that we take have a time dimension. For example, an appropriate answer to the
question ‘what to produce’ would require an understanding of the market for various commodities,
among many other things, in future, which is nothing but uncertain. The decision makers have no
alternative but to assess as best as they can this uncertain market and act accordingly. If their assessment
turns out to be wide off the mark, their decisions would be far from the right. The methods of handling
such uncertainties would be dealt with later.
Markets and Governments. All economies follow a mixed economic system today, where both
the market (capitalism) and governments (communism) work hand in hand. While many goods are
traded almost in a free market, many goods in markets are regulated by governments, and some goods
are purely under governments monopoly. The mixed system exists because there are pros and cons of
each, and different countries choose a different mix depending on its choice. In a pure market economy
(capitalism), buyers and sellers are free to decide on all economic issues (like what to produce/consume)
while in a pure command economy (communism), the governments’ (planners) take all such decisions.
Such polar systems are prone to market or government failures, and result in poor outcomes. Market
failures arise due to (i) externalities (called third party effects) (ii) market power (imperfect competition:
monopoly and oligopoly) (iii) ignorance and uncertainty (iv) immobility of some factors and time lags,
and (v) presence of public goods (like national defence services and light houses in seas). Details on
these concepts are discussed later. Suffice to mention here, externalities lead to inefficient decisions as
the market based decisions ignore the costs/benefits accruing to those who are neither the producers
nor the buyers of the good in question. Public goods (the ones which are non-rival and non-excludable
from consumption), which are useful for the society, have to be available to everyone at no cost and
thus would attract no one to produce in a pure market economy. Government failures result due to
political interventions, corruption, delays, poor motivations towards performance, and so on. Due to
these, different countries operate under varying mix of the market and government. While markets
provide the forum for exchange between sellers and buyers, governments regulate those exchanges
through taxes, subsidies, wage-price controls, government monopolies, pubic sector enterprises and so
on. Accordingly, all economic units (firms, workers, consumers and investors) are required to follow the
rules of both the market (demand and supply) and government while making choices.
Principles of economics have been designed by economists on the basis of reasoning and thus follow
the cause-effect (known as inductive) approach. No two individuals are alike and thus generalization
are hard to make. However, theories are developed on the basis of some reasonable assumptions about the
behaviours of decision makers. In particular, economic theories have been derived on the basic assumption
that all decision makers act rationally. Thus, these assume that as a consumer, one maximizes satisfaction
from the bundle of goods and services one consumes, and as a worker, one maximizes the satisfaction from
work (income) and leisure it gets. Note that rationality here means the bounded rationality which means
everyone does what he/she considers the best for him/her and not what others think what is the best for him/
her. For example, as a utility maximizing consumer, one may prefer giving a charity over, say, enjoying
a personal car, if the former yields him/her more utility than the latter. Similarly, as a utility maximizing
worker, he/she could choose a lot of leisure with little income, or as an organization, one may opt for more
social service over high profits, and so on.
 6

1.2 MANAGERIAL ECONOMICS

Managerial economics is considered to be applied microeconomics. That is, it is concerned with the
applications of microeconomic principles to decision making by firms. Thus, a text in managerial
economics ought to cover:
(a) Decision variables for firms
(b) Microeconomic principles
(c) Techniques from decision sciences
The decision variables for firms have been briefly discussed in the previous section. Incidentally, it
must be noted here that ‘firm’ here includes both business and non-business ones. This is because the
decision problems are more or less the same for both the groups of firms, though, as we shall see later,
the two groups may pursue different objectives. For example, like a business firm has to choose one or
more production lines from amongst many alternative lines available to it, even a non-business firm like
a university has to decide what kind of disciplines (faculties) it should open and to what extent each
discipline should be operated, from amongst a host of disciplines available in the field of education
today. Also, managerial economics includes decision-making by all other groupings of firms, small,
medium and large; proprietorship, partnership and corporation, and public sector and private sector
firms.
The relevant microeconomic principles for the firms’ decision making include those found in the
demand theory, production and cost theory, pricing theory, and the theory of investment decisions. This
book will cover each of these subjects in sufficient detail. Macroeconomics is not altogether irrelevant
for decision making at the level of the firm. This is because the macroeconomic environment, which
includes the behaviour of national aggregates (such as, income, price, unemployment, poverty) and,
macroeconomic policy-making aspects (such as industrial policy, import quota, export promotion
and tariffs, administered prices and controls, fiscal and monetary policies) affect firms’ decisions.
Nevertheless, because, there is little that an individual firm can do to affect the aggregate economy, the
discussion of macroeconomic principles is not covered in a managerial economics course. Managers of
firms are assumed to take the economic environment as given.
Any meaningful application of microeconomic principles necessitates use of some quantitative
techniques. Some of the important techniques include methods of estimation, optimization,
and discounted cash flow techniques. These techniques have come from the fields of statistics,
operations research and finance, and thus a good manager of a firm needs to have a good knowledge not
only of economics but also of these disciplines. Accordingly, all such techniques are briefly covered in
this text.

1.3 THE FIRM: OBJECTIVES AND CONSTRAINTS

This section is presented under three subsections: firm, inputs and outputs; firms’ objectives, and firms’
constraints. A discussion of each of these follows.
Other documents randomly have
different content
 I have already stated that α Ursæ Majoris began to be circumpolar
at Denderah 4000 b.c. I may now add that γ Draconis ceased to be
circumpolar about 5000 b.c. They had the same declination (62° N.)
and the same amplitude (78° N.) 4400 b.c.
Mariette's plan shows a second temple oriented to N. 6° E., which
we may perhaps be justified in taking as N. 9° E., since his azimuth
of the great temple differs from Biot's and my own by 3°.
The corresponding declination would be 68° N. of E., the
declination of Dubhe in 4200 b.c. and of γ Draconis in 4300 b.c. The
temple may well, therefore, have been erected when both stars had
the same amplitude, the apparent difference of 100 years being due
to the uncertainty of the measures available.
The second point, then, is that when Dubhe, which, while it rose
and set, was the brightest star near the pole which did so, became
circumpolar; γ Draconis, when it ceased to be circumpolar, fulfilled
these conditions; astronomically, then, it became the natural
successor of α Ursæ Majoris.
I have before pointed out that it is not impossible that a temple
once oriented to a certain star, and long out of use on account of the
precessional movement, may be utilised for another, and be
rehabilitated in consequence, when that same movement brings
another conspicuous star into the proper rising amplitude.
This consideration at once leads to my third point, which is, that
after Dubhe became circumpolar the temple of Hathor at Denderah
would become useless—there would be no star to watch—unless a
new star was chosen.
Now, let us suppose this to have been so, and that the natural
successor of the star in question were chosen. Studying the facts as
before approximately, as final data are not yet available, we have the
declination 59¾° N. This was the declination of γ Draconis about
3500 b.c., assuming hills 2° high, which I think is too much; 3300
b.c., with hills 1½° high.
 In the present case the orientation fits γ Draconis in the historic
period, but it also fits Dubhe in the times of the Hor-shesu, the
dimly-seen followers of Horus, or sun-worshippers, before the dawn
of the historic period.
Next let us go back to the inscriptions. We found that King Pepi is
portrayed over and over again in the crypts, and, which is more
important, that the plan of the temple on parchment, dating from
the times of the Shesu-Hor, had actually been walled up in the
temple during the reign of the same king, no doubt at the ceremony
of restoration or laying a new foundation stone, as is sometimes
done to this day.
Now, Pepi's date, according to the chronologists, is 3200 b.c., a
difference of 100 years only from the rough orientation date.
We see, therefore, the full importance of the work done in Pepi's
reign. The āk of the Thigh was no longer of use; but a new star was
now available. Hathor was rehabilitated. Perhaps even the priests
alone knew that the star had been changed.
By the temple of Hathor, then, if we assume that the record is
absolutely true (and I, for one, believe in these old records more and
more), and that Cheops only described a shrine founded by the Hor-
shesu, we are carried back to circ. 5000 b.c. I am indebted to my
friend Dr. Wallis Budge for the suggestion that the position of
Denderah as the terminus of the highway from the Red Sea—which
may soon again be reached by a railway from Keneh to Kosseir!—
would have made it one of the most important places in ancient
Egypt.
It is important to note that at a very early date the traffic between
the Nile Valley and the Red Sea, and thence probably with Arabia
and South Africa, flourished, and grew to be a by no means
insignificant commerce.
According to Ebers,[57] "the oldest and most famous of all these
highways is that which led from Koptos (Keneh, Denderah) to the
Red Sea, through the valley now known as the Wady Hammamāt,
and called by the ancient Egyptians Rohanu. It was a busy high-
road, not alone for trading caravans, but from time to time for
stonemasons and soldiers, whose task it was to hew the costly
building materials from the hard rocks, which here abound, and to
prepare the vast monoliths which were finished in situ, and then to
convey them all to the residence of the Pharaohs. A remarkably
beautiful kind of alabaster, of a fine honey yellow or white as snow,
is found in these mountains." Another road led from Esneh or Edfû
to the ancient port of Berenice. We shall see in the sequel that the
temple of Redisieh on this route was dedicated to the same cult as
that at Denderah.
If the above results be confirmed, we have a most definite
indication of the fact that in the rebuilding in the times of Pepi,
Thothmes III., and the Ptolemies, the original orientation of the
building was not disturbed; and that in the account of the building
ceremonies we are dealing as surely with the laying of the first
foundation-stone as with the original plan.
In any case the consideration has to be borne in mind that the
series of temples with high northern (and southern) amplitudes at
Denderah, Thebes, and possibly other places, were nearly certainly
founded before the time at which the heliacal rising of Sirius, near
the time of the summer solstice, was the chief event of the year,
watched by priests, astronomers—if the astronomers were not the
only priests—and agriculturists alike. Now we know, from Biot's
calculations, that this became possible circ. 3285 b.c., and that Sirius
—though, as I am informed by Prof. Maspero, not its heliacal rising—
is referred to in inscriptions in pyramid times.
Subsequent research may possibly show that these temples had to
do with the heralding of sunrise throughout the year, the Sirian
temples being limited to New Year's Day.
 CHAPTER XXI.
STAR-CULTS.

The last two chapters, then, have brought us so far. There are two
principal temples at Denderah. The smaller is called the temple of
Isis. It is oriented 18½° S. of E. The inscriptions tell us that the light
of Sirius shone into it, and that Sirius was personified as Isis. We can
determine astronomically that the statement is true for the time
about 700 b.c., which was the date determined independently by
Biot for the circular zodiac referred to on page 18.
The larger temple is called the temple of Hathor. It is oriented
71½° N. of E. The inscriptions very definitely tell us what star cast
its light along its axis, and give also definite statements about the
date of its foundation, which enable us to determine astronomically
that in all probability the temple was oriented to Dubhe somewhat
later than 5000 b.c.
Now we are certain that Isis personified Sirius. That "Her Majesty
of Denderah" was Sirius, at all events in the later times referred to in
the inscriptions, is not only to be gathered from the inscriptions, but
has been determined astronomically.
It is also probable that Hathor personified Dubhe. Now this looks
very satisfactory, and it seems only necessary to test the theory by
finding temples of Isis and Hathor in other places, and seeing
whether or not they were oriented to Sirius and Dubhe respectively.
But, unfortunately for us, we have already learned from Plutarch
that Isis and Hathor are the same goddesses, although they
certainly personify different stars, if they personify stars at all.
We seem, then, in a difficulty, and at first sight matters do not
appear to be made any clearer by the fact that Hathor (and,
therefore, Isis) was worshipped under different names in every
nome.
Lanzoni, in his admirable volumes on Egyptian mythology, gives
us, not dealing with the matter from this point of view at all, no less
than twenty-four variants for Hathor!
In the temple at Edfû no less than 300 names are given with the
various local relations and forms used in the most celebrated
shrines.[58]
In the inscriptions at Denderah itself a great number of variants is
given.[59] It is important to give some of them in this place; the full
value of the information thus afforded will be seen afterwards.
Hathor of Denderah = Sekhet of Memphis.
" Neith " Saïs.
" Saosis " Heliopolis.
" Nehem-an " Hermopolis.
Bast }
" " Bubastis.
Bes-t}
" Anub-et " Lycopolis.
" Amen-t " Thebes.
" Bouto " Unas.
" Sothis " Elephantine.
" Apet
" Mena-t
" Horus " Edfû.
(female)

One variant is of especial importance in the present connection,

and is emphasised in a special inscription in one of the chambers of
the temple of Hathor—not, be it remarked, in the temple of Isis.
"Elle est la Sothis de Denderah, qui remplit le ciel et la
terre de ses bienfaits. Elle est la régente et la reine des
villes.... Au Sud elle est la reine du maître divin; au nord
elle est la reine des divins ancêtres. Rien n'est établi sans
elle.... Elle est la grande dans le ciel, la reine parmi les
étoiles."[60]
 Well may Mariette remark on this:
"Cette invocation à Sothis, dans une chambre consacrée
à la consécration de certains produits de la terre, n'a rien
qui doit surprendre. Sothis est le symbole du
renouvellement de l'année et de la résurrection de la
nature. Au lever héliaque de Sothis, le Nil sort de son lit.
Jusqu'à ce moment la terre de l'Égypte est stérile et nue.
Fécondée par la fleuve, elle va se couvrir d'une verdure
nouvelle."
But the Sothis here in question is Sirius, the star to the rising of
which the temple of Isis, and not the temple of Hathor, was directed!
We have, then, at Denderah a temple not pointed to Sirius, the
worship in which is that of Hathor, and there can be little doubt that
we have astronomically determined the fact that "Her Majesty of
Denderah" was really the star Sirius.
We can pass from Denderah to the temple of Hathor at Thebes.
The general plan of Thebes prepared by Lepsius indicates the
orientation of the temple of Dêr el-Bahari, to which I refer, the
temple in the western hills of Thebes, embellished by Queen
Hatshepset (circ. 1600 b.c.). This temple, instead of being-oriented
71½° N. of E., lies 24½° S. of E.; it can never, therefore, have faced
the star observed in the temple of Hathor at Denderah. There is also
another temple annexed to the temple of Amen-Rā, which received
the light of Sirius in former years. These temples were, in all
probability, intended to observe the same star which was
subsequently observed in the temple of Isis at Denderah.
That is one point; here is another. We have it from Plutarch[61]
that Isis = Mut = Hathor = Methuer.
The amplitude of the temple at Denderah dedicated to Hathor is
71½° N. of E. (59° N. declination). That of the temple dedicated to
Mut at Karnak is 72½° N. of E. (58¾° N. declination), which,
assuming for a moment the same star to have been used,
corresponds to a date (according to the height of the horizon) of
circ. 3000 to 3500 b.c. This is therefore later than the original
foundation of the Hathor temple of Denderah, but not far from the
date of its restoration by Pepi.
It is fundamental to the orientation theory that the cult shall follow
the star. But we have here the same cult, according to Plutarch; we
are hence permitted to suggest that in dealing with the temples of
Hathor at Denderah and Mut at Thebes we are dealing with local
names of the same goddess personifying the same star.
Two lines of argument may be followed to strengthen this
conclusion.
The first has to do with the orientation of the temple of Mut at
Thebes. There is no statement of its great antiquity, as in the case of
the temple of Hathor at Denderah. Here we find again one of the
great difficulties in our way, the impossibility of running back to the
original foundation among the many restorations effected of the
most important among the Egyptian temples. The temple of Mut is
ascribed to Amen-hetep III., but I cannot hold this to be the original
foundation, for the following reasons:—
1. With its orientation in the time of Amen-hetep III. it pointed to
no star in particular.
2. There is a series of four temples at Thebes turned to the same
part of the horizon nearly, their amplitudes ranging from 62° to
72½° N. of E. Of these temples that of Mut has the highest
amplitude; the one with the lowest but one is the temple lettered M
by Lepsius. There is no question about the real founder of this
temple, and there is not much question as to the date of the
founder, Rameses III.
Now in the time of this king a temple erected with the orientation
given pointed precisely to γ Draconis. (See Chapter XVIII.) The
amplitude was 62° N. of E.; the time, 1200 b.c. If we take the
simplest case in the orientation theory—that the amplitudes
62° N. of E.
63½° "
 68½° "
72½° "

were given to the various temples to enable observations to be

made of the same star, which was being carried nearer the equator
by the precessional movement, we can not only date the temple of
Mut, but find an explanation of Plutarch's equation Hathor = Mut.
In other words, we watch the Mut-Hathor worship provided for
from 3000 b.c. to the times of the Ptolemies.
So that here we have a very concrete case of the cult following
the star, not only in the same place, but at different places, and we
are driven to the conclusion that Hathor at Denderah and Mut at
Thebes, exoterically different goddesses, were esoterically the same
star, γ Draconis.
We are not, however, limited to a comparison between Denderah
and Thebes. We have Annu and Abydos, and other places, to appeal
to, since there are temples remaining there also facing N.E. Those at
Abydos, however, we must leave out of consideration here, as their
exact orientation is not determined. With regard to Heliopolis, and
dealing with the obelisk which tradition tells us was erected by
Usertsen I., the orientation of its N.E. face, according to my own
observations, taking the present variation at 4½° W., is 77° N. of E.
This corresponds approximately to a declination of 57½° N., which
was the declination of γ Draconis in 2500 b.c. The date given to
Usertsen I. by Brugsch is 2433 b.c.
This is very satisfactory so far, but we can go further. Here we are
landed evidently in the worship of one of the local divine dynasties,
that of Set; and we may justly, therefore, ask if Usertsen did not do
at Heliopolis what it is very probable Pepi did at Denderah—namely,
embellish an old temple which had in the first instance been used for
observations of Dubhe and appropriate it to the use of the new
Hathor γ Draconis. If this were so, then the original foundation stone
was laid about 5100 b.c.
 The next line of argument is furnished by the emblems which are
associated with the various goddesses. These obviously indicate that
they arose in a time of totemism, when each tribe or nome had its
special totem, which would be certain to be associated with the local
goddesses or the stars which they personified.
The local totem of the special warning-star in use at any time or
place may be anything: hippopotamus, crocodile, hawk, vulture, lion,
or even some other common living thing into which the totem
degraded when the supply of the original fell short.[62]
Hence, as the number of warning-stars was certainly very
restricted, they—or, rather, the goddesses which typified them—had
different names in almost every nome. Hence Egyptian mythology
should be, as it is in fact, full of synonyms; each local name being
liable to be brought into prominence at some time or another, owing
to adventitious circumstances relating either to dynasties or the
popularity of some particular shrine.
Applying this test of symbolism, we find in the case of Hathor that
the symbolism was double.
The Denderah Hathor was connected with the hippopotamus,
while at Thebes Mut was represented by a hippopotamus.
Now this symbol of the hippopotamus helps us greatly, because it
allows evidence to be gathered from a consideration of the old
constellations. I do not think it is saying too much to remark that
among these the attention of the North Egyptians was almost
exclusively confined to the circumpolar ones. Further, the mean
latitude being, say, 25°, the circumpolar region was a restricted one;
50° in diameter, instead of over 100°, as with us. But not quite
exclusively, for to them in later times, as to us now, the Great Bear
and Orion were the two most prominent constellations in the
heavens; for them, as for us, they typified the northern and
southern regions of the sky.
There can be no question that the chief ancient constellation in
the north was the Great Bear, or, as it was then pictured, the Thigh
 (Mesχet). After this came the
Hippopotamus. I had come to the
conclusion that this had been replaced on
our maps by part of Draco before I found
that Brugsch and Parthey had expressed
the same opinion.
The female hippopotamus typified
Taurt, the wife of Set (represented by a
jackal with erected tail, or hippopotamus),
and one of the most ordinary forms of
Hathor is a hippopotamus. There is
evidence that the star we are considering,
γ Draconis, occupied the place of the head
or the mythical head-gear.
Here, then, in the actual symbolism of
Hathor we find γ Draconis as distinctly
pointed to as by the orientation of the
temples.
CAPITAL, WITH MASKS OF
HATHOR WITH COWS'
EARS.
 THE COW OF ISIS.

The other symbolism is quite different; instead of a hippopotamus

we deal with a cow.
In the inscriptions at Denderah we find the star Sirius represented
by a cow in a boat. In the circular zodiac we have the cow in the
boat, the point of the beginning of the year, and the constellation
Orion, so located as to indicate clearly that, at that time, the
beginning of the year fell between the heliacal rising of Sirius and of
the stars in Orion. Sirius was Isis-Sothis.
If we go to Thebes, we pass there from the cow Isis-Sothis to Isis-
Hathor, and there we find the mythology retains the idea of the cow,
the cow gradually appearing from behind the western hills. There is
not a doubt, I think, that the basis of this mythological
representation was, that the temple which was built to observe the
rising of the star at a time perhaps somewhat later than that given
by Biot (3285 b.c.) was situated in the western hills of Thebes, so
that Hathor, the goddess on which the light was to fall in the
sanctuary, was imaged as dwelling in the western hills. At Philæ we
get no longer either Isis-Sothis or Isis-Hathor, but Isis-Sati.[63]

HATHOR AS A COW.

Now just as certainly as the hippopotamus had to do with the

constellation Draco, the cow had to do with Sirius, for Sirius was
represented as a cow in a boat.
 HATHOR, "THE COW OF THE WESTERN HILLS."

It may be gathered from this how truly astronomical in basis was

the mythologic symbolism to which we have been driven in the effort
to obtain more light; and, indeed, it is necessary for us to consider it
still more closely.
 CHAPTER XXII.
STAR-CULTS (CONTINUED)—AMEN-T AND
KHONS.

When I had the privilege of discussing at Thebes the orientation

hypothesis with M. Bouriant, the distinguished head of the French
School of Archæology in Egypt, he suggested that I should
accompany him one day to Medînet-Habû, at which place he was
then superintending excavations, and where there are three temples
dedicated to Amen.
M. Bouriant, from the first, saw that if there were anything in the
new views, the cult must follow the star; and it was natural,
therefore, that the three temples dedicated to the same divinity at
the same place should be directed to the same star. The three
temples to which I refer are the two well-known temples the lack of
parallelism of which has been so often remarked, and a third much
smaller one, built more recently, lying to the south-west. The
amplitudes I found to be as follows:—
Amplitude S. of E.
Ethiopian or Ptolemaic Temple 45°
Great Temple 46½°
Ancient Temple 51½°

On the orientation hypothesis we were dealing with a star the S.E.

amplitude of which was decreasing like that of Sirius; it was
therefore in the same quarter of the heavens.
But which star? To investigate this it was best to deal in the first
instance with the orientation of the great temple, since its building
date was supposed to be that most accurately known; and there is
not much danger in doing this in the present case, because the king
obviously had not expanded an old temple, for there it still is
alongside.
The king was Rameses III., the date, according to Brugsch, 1200
b.c., and the hills to which the temples are directed may be taken as
1° high. With these data we get the declination appropriate to the
amplitude of the temple 40° S. Now, this was nearly the declination
of the star Phact or α Columbæ in the time of Rameses III.; the
orientation date is 1250 b.c.
Taking this star, then, and correcting for heights of hills and
refraction, we get approximately the following dates:—
b.c.
Modern Temple 900
Great Temple 1250
Ancient Temple 2525

If the hills are taken as 1½° high, these dates will stand 750,
1150, and 2400.
The date 700 b.c. we have already found as the probable date of
the undertaking of the restoration at Denderah. It is the time of the
victorious march of the Theban priests northwards from their exile at
Gebel Barkal.
The date 2400 b.c. lands us in the times of the great solstitial king,
Usertsen I., about whom more in a subsequent chapter. Although
the more ancient temple is generally ascribed to Thothmes III.,
traces of the work of Amen-hetep I. have been discovered. I think
we have a case here where the eighteenth dynasty enlarged and
embellished a shrine erected by the twelfth dynasty, precisely as the
temple of Amen-Rā at Karnak has been traced back to the twelfth
dynasty.
If I am right, then, it follows that temples erected to stars
associated in any way with the chief cult, such as that of Amen-Rā,
may either be dedicated to the god or goddess personified by the
star or to the associated solar deity. Thus at Thebes we have the
temple of Mut, so-called, though Mut was the wife of Amen-Rā; and
the temples now under consideration, called temples of Amen,
though they are dedicated to the goddess Amen-t, the wife of Amen.
This may or may not be connected with the fact that the first of
them was dedicated possibly before the cult of Amen alone had been
intensified and expanded by the Theban priests—probably in the
eighteenth dynasty—into the cult of the solstitial sun-god Amen-Rā.
There is evidence, indeed, that Amen-t replaced Mut in the
Theban triad. With regard to these triads, a few words may be said
here from the astronomical point of view, though the subject, I am
told, is one on which a great diversity of opinion exists on the part of
Egyptologists.
I have collected all the most definite statements I can find on this
head, and it is certainly interesting to see that in many cases,
though not in all, the triad seems to consist of a form of the sun-
god, together with two stellar divinities, one of them certainly
associated with the heliacal rising of the sun at some time of the
year, and therefore a recognised form of Isis or Hathor. Thus we
have:—
Place. Triad.
Thebes Amen-Rā
(Greater Triad) Mut
χonsu
(Lesser Triad) χem-Rā
Tamen (? Amen-t)
Harka
Denderah Atmu
Isis
Hathor
Memphis Atmu
Sekhet
Ptah
Hermonthis Menθu-Rā
Ra-Ta (= Hathor)
Hor-Para
 Not only may this table enable us to see how Amen-t was sunk at
Medînet-Habû in the term Amen, but it enables us to consider a
similar case presented by those temples at Thebes, some of them
associated with Khons and another with Amen, referred to in
Chapter XVII.
The temple of Khons is among the best known at Karnak; the
visitor passes it before the great temple of Amen-Rā is reached. M.
Bouriant was able to prove, while we were together at Karnak, that
the temple of Seti II., nearly parallel to it, was also dedicated to
Khons; but the temple b of Lepsius, nearly parallel to both, is sacred
to Amen. It is seen at once that the main cult is the same, although
the amount of detail shown in the reference is different—we have
the generic name of the triad in one case, the specific name of the
member of the triad in the other.
As this is the first time a setting star has been in question, it is
well to point out that in this case the ancient Egyptians no longer
typified the star as a goddess but as a god—and, more than this, as
a dying god; for Khons is always represented as a mummy—the
Osiris form. Egyptologists state that both Thoth and Khons were
moon-gods. Perhaps the lunar attributes were assigned prior to the
establishment of sun-worship.
I shall show, subsequently, that the temples now being considered
find their place in continuous series stretching back in the case of
Amen-t to 3750 b.c., and in the case of Khons to possibly a long
anterior date.
In the case of Amen-t and Khons, therefore, where we are free
from the difficulties connected with the interchange of the titles of
Isis and Hathor at Denderah, the star-cults stand out much more
clearly, and we get a step further into the domain of mythology.
But what did the cults mean? What was the utility of them? What
their probable origin? The cult of Sirius we already understand.
I will deal with Amen-t first. No doubt it will have been already
asked how it came that such an unfamiliar star as Phact had been
selected.
Here the answer is overwhelming. This star, although so little
familiar to us northerners, is one of the most conspicuous of the
stars in the southern portion of the heavens, and its heliacal rising
heralded the solstice and the rise of the Nile before the heliacal
rising of Sirius was useful for that purpose!
In Phact we have the star symbolised by the ancient Egyptians
under the name of the goddess Amen-t or Teχi, whose figure in the
month table at the Ramesseum leads the procession of the months.
Amen-t, the wife of the solstitial sun-god Rā, symbolised the star
the rising of which heralded the solstice; and the complex title
Amen-Rā signified in ancient times, to those who knew, that the
solstitial sun-god Rā, so heralded, was meant.
The answer is clear, though not so simple in the case of Khons.
The setting of Canopus marked the autumnal equinox about 5000
b.c. We have found that the first Khons temple at Karnak was
possibly built as late as 2000 b.c., when the utility of the
observations of Canopus from this point of view had therefore
ceased; but it is also known that Khons was a late addition to the
Theban triad, and I shall subsequently give evidence that the
worship was introduced from the south, where it had been
conducted when the condition of utility held. The time of
introduction to Thebes was the beginning of the eighteenth dynasty,
when the priests wished to increase their power by conciliating all
worships; and we now see that with their local sun-god Amen-Rā
and the goddess Amen-t, with the Northern Mut (Isis) and the
Southern Khons, the Theban triad represented the worship of
Central, Northern and Southern Egypt.
It is an important fact to bear in mind that in the North of Egypt in
early times the stellar temples were more particularly directed to the
north, while south of Thebes, so far as I know, there is only one
temple so directed. It is suggested, therefore, that the Theban
priests amalgamated the northern and southern cults, probably for
political purposes. There is evidence that the priests were at heart
more sympathetic with the southern cults, and a further
investigation of this matter may eventually help us in several points
of Egyptian history.
It will have been noticed also that so far as we have gone,
whether discussing solar or stellar temples, we have had to associate
the cults carried on in most of them with some particular season of
the year. If I am right, in the worships at Denderah, Medînet-Habû,
and Karnak, we have a strict reference to the year, and in Egypt the
year was always, as it is now, associated with the rise of the river.
The sacred river must now occupy our attention for a while; we
must become familiar with its phenomena, and the divisions of time
and the calendar systems which were associated with them.
 CHAPTER XXIII.
THE EGYPTIAN YEAR AND THE NILE.

Our researches so far leave no doubt upon the question that a

large part of the astronomical activity of the earliest Egyptians had
reference to observations connected especially with New Year's Day.
It has been made abundantly clear, too, that in very early times the
Egyptians had a solar year commencing at the Summer Solstice, and
that this solstice was then, and is now, coincident with the arrival of
the Nile flood at Heliopolis and Memphis, the most important centres
of northern Egyptian life during the early dynasties.
In the dawn of civilisation it was not at all a matter of course that
the sun should be taken as the measurer of time, as it is now with
us; and in this connection it is worth while to note how very diverse
the treatment of this subject was among the early peoples. Thus, for
instance, it was different in Egypt from what it was in Chaldæa and
Babylonia, and later among the Jews. In the Egyptian inscriptions we
find references to the moon, but they prove that she occupied quite
a subordinate position to the sun, at least in the later times. The
week of seven days was utterly unknown amongst the Egyptians.
Everything that can be brought forward in its favour belongs to the
latest periods. The passage quoted by Lepsius from the Book of the
Dead proves nothing, since, according to Krall, an error has crept
into his translation. In Babylonia it would seem that the moon was
worshipped as well as the sun; and it was thus naturally used for
measuring time; and, so far as months were concerned, this, of
course, was quite right. In Babylonia, too, where much desert travel
had to be undertaken at night, the movements of the moon would
be naturally watched with great care.
An interesting point connected with this is that, among these
ancient peoples, the celestial bodies which gave them the unit period
of time by which they reckoned were practically looked upon in the
same category. Thus, for instance, in Egypt the sun being used, the
unit of time was a year; but in Babylonia the unit of time was a
month, for the reason that the standard of time was the moon.
Hence, when periods of time were in question, it was quite easy for
one nation to conceive that the period of time used in another was a
year when really it was a month, and vice versâ. It has been
suggested that the years of Methuselah and other persons who are
stated to have lived a considerable number of years were not solar
years but lunar years—that is, properly, lunar months This is
reasonable, since, if we divide the numbers by twelve, we find that
they come out very much the same length as lives are in the present
day, and there is no reason why this should not be so.
There seems little doubt that the country in which the sun was
definitely accepted as the most accurate measurer of time was
Egypt.
Rā, the sun, was the chief god of ancient Egypt. He was
worshipped throughout the various nomes. Even the oldest texts (cf.
that of Menkaurā in the British Museum) tell of the brilliant course of
Rā across the celestial vault and his daily struggle with darkness.
"The Egyptians," says Ranke in the first chapter of his "Universal
History," which is devoted to Egypt, "have determined the motion of
the sun as seen on earth, and according to this the year was
divided, in comparison with Babylon, in a scientific and practically
useful way, so that Julius Cæsar adopted the calendar from the
Egyptians and introduced it into the Roman Empire. The other
nations followed suit, and since then it has been in general use for
seventeen centuries. The calendar may be considered as the noblest
relic of the most ancient times which has influenced the world."
 THE ANNUAL RISE AND FALL OF THE NILE. (From Horner.)

Wherever the ancient Egyptians came from—whether from a

region where the moon was the time-measurer or not—so soon as
they settled in the valley where the Nile then, as now, like a
pendulum slowly beat the years by its annual inundation at the
Summer Solstice, the solar basis of their calendar was settled. Hence
it was Nature, the Nile—on the regulation of which depended the
welfare of the country—which facilitated the establishment of the
Egyptian year. Solstice and Nile-flood are the turning-points of the
old Egyptian year.
That Egypt is the gift of the Nile is a remark we owe to the Father
of History, who referred not only to the fertilising influence of the
stream, but to the fact that the presence of the Nile, and its
phenomena, are the conditions upon which the habitability of Egypt
altogether depends. That the Egyptian year and that part of
Egyptian archæology and myth which chiefly interests astronomers
are also the gift of the Nile, is equally true.
The heliacal rising of Sirius and other stars at the time of the
commencement of the inundation each year; all the myths which
grew out of the various symbols of the stars so used; are so many
evidences of the large share the river, with its various water-levels at
different times, had in the national life. It was, in fact, the true and
unique basis of the national life.
 In this the Nile had a compeer or even compeers. What the Nile
was to Egypt the Euphrates and Tigris were to a large region of
Western Asia, where also we find the annual flood a source of
fertility, a spectacle which inspired poets, and an event with which
astronomers largely occupied themselves.
What more natural than that Euphrates,
Tigris, and Nile were looked upon as
deities; that the gods of the Nile valley on
the one hand, and of the region watered
by the Euphrates and Tigris, on the other,
were gods to swear by; that they were
worshipped in order that their benign
influences might be secured, and that
they had their local shrines and special
cults?
The god sacred to the Euphrates and
Tigris was called Ea.
The god sacred to the Nile was called
Hāpi. The name is the same as that of the
bull Apis, the worship of which was
attributed to Mena.[64] Certainly Mena,
Mini, or Menes, as he is variously called,
was fully justified in founding the cult of
the river-god, for he first among men
appears to have had just ideas of HĀPI, THE GOD OF THE
irrigation, and I have heard the NILE.
distinguished officers who have lately
been responsible for the irrigation system of to-day speaking with
admiration of the ideas and works of Mena. Whether the Tigris had a
Mena in an equally early time is a point on which history is silent;
but, according to the accounts of travellers, the Tigris in flood is
even more majestic than the Nile, and yet the latter river in flood is
a sight to see—a whole fertile plain turned, as it were, into an arm
of the sea, with here and there an island, which, on inspection, turns
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebookultra.com