"Des observations nouvelles, faites sur le cours du soleil, décidèrent les astronomes à intercaler chaque année, après le douzième mois, et avant le premier jour de l'année suivante, cinq jours complémentaires, qu'on nomma _les cinq jours en sus de l'année_ ou jours _epagomènes_ (_epacts_). L'époque de ce changement était si ancienne que nous ne saurions lui assigner aucune date, et que les Egyptiens eux-mêmes l'avaient reportée jusque dans les temps mythiques antérieurs à l'avènement de Mini." Ideler[69] is of the same opinion as Maspero:-- "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." Krall remarks (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." 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." Krall also argues that the expressions great and little year and their hieroglyphics referred to the rears 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 Amenamhāts 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 Amenamhāt I., under whom the epagomenes are first met with. But since, between Nitokris and Amenamhāt I., there is a period of 500 years void of records, and the name Arminon has nothing to do with Amenamhāt, we can hardly share this view."