HIERATIO
PAPYRUS OF KINGS
TURIN.
i - • *
r t • ?--- *,
- ... • . . . . V. - - -' 4. - ** : . . .”.
-º-, * * * * *, r - • * f - -
Q - Y { \_*.*.*&-É.-CŞ <!'...A. Cºry *_%.º-c 3-' ' ...? - ". . Cº.
* { * - - *
Atº
{ w THE
|7 T/ - FRAGMENTs
\) @ 67 -
4. - Af
* A \ . f
QIT THE
HIERATIC PAPY RUS
AT
TUR IN
CONTAINING THE
NAMES OF EGYPTIAN KINGs,
WITII TIIE
#itratic ſingtription at the 33ack.
BY
gº - - - -
SIR. J. GARDNER WILKINSON, 1727. / 75 ºf
F.R.S., M.R.S.L., F.R.G.S., M.R.I.B.A. ; conn. MIISMI, IMIP
ACAD. OF SC. OF VIENNA; AND OF R. ACAD.
OF SC, OF TURIN, ETC.
LONDON :
PRINTED BY T. RICHARDS, 37, GREAT QUEEN STREET.
MI.D CCC.T.I.
ſº
ºs
CN}
`ss
^.
&
PREFA CE.
*
I HAVE explained in the text how attention was
first called to the Turin Papyrus of Kings by the
invaluable researches of Champollion, and how it
was afterwards arranged by Dr. Seyffarth in the
manner in which it now stands in the Turin
Museum. But as some misconception has arisen
respecting the condition of the fragments before
and after they were seen by Champollion, I think
it right to give the information which I have been
enabled to gather upon this point through the
kindness of Signor Baracco, the sub-director of
that museum. -
He states that “Champollion, having visited
Turin in 1824, saw the fragments for the first
time; when taking them from the box, where they
were mixed with those of other papyri, he selected
the largest pieces that contained kings' names,
to the number of about twenty, and carefully
transcribed them. This examination he repeated
twice during his residence at Turin, and succeeded
iv Tº R.EFA CE.
at length in collecting upwards of forty fragments.
Two years afterwards, in 1826, Dr. Seyffarth went
to Turin, and having undertaken to examine the
contents of the box, occupied three months in
arranging the fragments: taking every small piece,
one by one, and examining carefully its colour,
thickness, fibres, and writing. He was also fortu-
nate enough, while doing that, to find several little
pieces, which were wanting to complete the large
fragments before selected by Champollion, and
which had escaped his notice; and having then
pasted them all down in the way they now stand,
he made a kind of register of the whole papyrus,
in twelve columns, of which he allowed Champollion
to take the copy afterwards found among the
papers of Salvolini.” -
This, it seems, has led to an accusation against
the late directors of the Turin Museum, of having
subtracted or withheld some pieces of the papyrus,
which Champollion was not allowed to see ; but it
is only right to give the reply of Signor Baracco
to this statement, who has evidence to show that
“Champollion had free access to everything in the
Turin Museum ; that he may be considered the
principal inspector of the Egyptian part of that
collection; and that no monument was unpacked
PR.EFA CE. V
except in his presence, nor put aside without his
examining it.” What object they could have had,
in concealing some minute particle of the papyrus,
does not certainly appear; and common sense, as
well as justice, would lead us to conclude that,
having from the first put the whole of the unex-
amined fragments into the hands of Champollion,
they could have no motive or opportunity of with-
holding any one from him.
That some pieces have been so well united by
Dr. Seyffarth that they almost appear as if never
broken, cannot certainly be an argument against
the proper junction of the fragments, but should
rather be a proof of his care in their restoration;
and the omission of the marks of some of those
fissures, will not dispose many persons to doubt the
accuracy of Dr. Lepsius' copy, to which I am happy
to afford my testimony. How much I have been
indebted to that accuracy, I have mentioned in the
text; where I have also explained my reason for
publishing the present copy of the papyrus—the
want of the inscription at the back, so necessary
for verifying the juxtaposition of the fragments.
The only corrections I have made in the front, are,
the wings of a wasp in No. 88, which give another
king of the same dynasty; and also in No. 86,
vi F.R.EFA CE.
shewing that the top of the reed is not part of that
in No. 87; part of another unit at the end of the
numbers in No. 98; and some others of little
importance.
A Committee of Subscribers has united with me
to carry out this object; but the immediate pub-
lication of the Papyrus is owing to the liberality
of the Duke of Northumberland, and I have much
pleasure in acknowledging the very obliging man-
ner in which he urged its publication, and pre-
vented my incurring any expense beyond that of
being one of the subscribers.
IMEMIBIERS OF THE COMIMITTEE.
|HIS GRACE THE DUKE OF NORTHUMIBFIRLANT)
(2 copies).
THE MARQUIS OF NORTHAMPTON (2 copies).
SIR. J. GARDNER WILKINSON (2 copies).
THE REW. JOHN KENRICK.
DR. E. HINCES.
E. LANE, Esq.
S. BIRCH, Esq.
SIR JOHN HARPUR CREWE, BART.
R. HAY, Esq.
D. HIGFORD BURR, Esq.
HUDSON GURNEY, Esq.
THOMAS JOSEPH PETTIGREW, Esq.
C. RATCLIFF, Esq.
THE
TURIN PAPY RUS OF KINGS.
THE importance of any document likely to throw
light on the history of Egypt, and the succession of
the Pharaohs, makes it desirable that every facility
should be afforded for ascertaining the proper ar-
rangement of the fragments of the Turin papyrus.
This papyrus, when brought to Turin, was in
numerous small pieces; it formed part of the
Drovetti collection purchased by the Piedmontese
government; and when first seen by Champollion in
1824, was mixed with various fragments belonging
to other papyri. Having all been turned out from
the box that contained them upon a table, Cham-
pollion selected those with kings' names, and had
already transcribed rather more than forty frag-
ments before any other persons turned their at-
tention to them. Mr. Seyffarth, however, hav-
ing gone to Turin in 1826, applied himself
diligently to the contents of the box, and by a
careful examination of the fibres, and by the
fortunate discovery of some other pieces, was en-
B
Q |PAIPY RUS OF KINGS,
abled to put all the fragments together in the way
they now stand in the Turin museum. Some,
which were found to correspond, were at once
joined together, and the rest were arranged tempo-
rarily, in such a manner that, if at any future period
their real position became known, they might be
transferred to their proper places. The care with
which Mr. Seyffarth executed his task cannot be
too highly praised; and so accurately have many of
the fragments been found to fit, that the fractures
are often scarcely perceptible without careful ex-
amination, which accounts for some of them not hav-
ing been marked by Dr. Lepsius in the copy he has
published;—an omission which has led M. Cham-
pollion-Figeac” to doubt the accuracy of that
copy:—and as the fragments were broken into more
pieces, when seen by his brother in 1824, than are
indicated there, he is even inclined to question the
authority of the papyrus in its present restored con-
dition. But sufficient may be ascertained, by the
examination of the fibres, to show when the junc-
tion is really correct; and no more doubt need be
entertained, respecting the union of many of the
pieces in this, than in any other restored papyrus.
And as some misconception has arisen respecting
the arrangement in Dr. Lepsius' copy, it is only
right to state that no part of it is his own; he has
merely given the fragments in the exact order in
* Révue Archéologique, p. 464, et alib.
DR. LEPs I Us’ COPY. 3
which they were pasted down by Dr. Seyffarth, and
he is not therefore responsible for the improper
position of any one of them, as some have been led
to suppose.
The great point was to ascertain, for certain,
which of the fragments had been properly joined;
and in order to facilitate this, it was necessary that
a fac-simile should be made of all of them, with
their exact outlines, which was accordingly done by
Dr. Lepsius, and published in his Auswahl, but as
both sides of the papyrus bore an inscription, it
was equally important for the arrangement of the
parts that both sides should be copied and made
public ; and it is in order to supply the omission of
the inscription at the back that the present copy of
the papyrus has been made. This, and the neces-
sity of knowing which fragments really corresponded
(whenever that could be ascertained), induced me
to visit Turin in 1849; and permission to make
tracings of both sides of the papyrus was immedi-
ately granted me, with that liberality for which the
museum of Turin has always been so distinguished.
It was, however, suggested (though there was not
the least wish to withdraw that permission) that if
I felt satisfied with the fac-simile made by Dr.
Lepsius, it would be an advantage not to expose
the papyrus again to the action of tracing; and
accordingly a copy of Dr. Lepsius' plates having
been kindly given me by the director, Cavaliere
Barruchi, I proceeded to examine the outlines of
B 2
4 PAPY RUS OF KINGS.
the fragments, and the hieratic inscription upon -
them. Having gone over all the characters one by
one in that fac-simile, I found every reason to be
satisfied with the accuracy of Dr. Lepsius; which I
have much pleasure in having this opportunity to
acknowledge. There were indeed only two or
three places where I had occasion to add any rem-
nants of characters, which he had omitted; I have
also indicated some more of the principal fissures;
and the only additional matter of importance given
by me consists in the copy of the inscription at the
back, which is certainly very necessary in order to
determine the juxtaposition of the parts. When-
ever I have been able to ascertain, by the assist-
ance of a lens, the undoubted junction of the fibres
of the papyrus, I have indicated it by marking them
with lines drawn over the fissure; when uncertain,
I have left them without any remark; when I have
had reason to doubt their junction, or correspond-
ence with, a neighbouring fragment, I have noticed
it in writing; and the same when I have ascer-
tained that the fibres do not correspond in size, or
general appearance.
And here I ought to state that, as there has been
some difficulty in making the fissures at the back
and front exactly correspond in the printing, they
have been often omitted, and the correspond-
ence, or non-correspondence, of the fibres has not
there been noticed; reference must therefore always
be made, for this and other particulars, to the front
of the copy.
HIEROGLYPHIC PLATES. 5
The same also for the correspondence of the
fragments in the other set of plates; where I have
transferred the hieratic into hieroglyphics, in order
to facilitate the comparison of the names on the
papyrus with those found on the monuments. And
there, in order not to mislead, I have often avoided
giving the hieroglyphics, when the substitute for the
hieratic character was not quite certain; or if a con-
jecture has been offered, it has been marked by
broken lines drawn over it. I must also add that
those I have given are open to any correction that
may be required; and are offered without any pre-
tension to maintain their accuracy, in opposition to
the opinion of others; my object being merely to
give a copy of the two sides of the papyrus, and
such data respecting the junction of the fragments
as may be of use in the study of this interesting
record.
In the arrangement of Plate I, some of the frag-
ments, as Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, have been placed
differently from those in Dr. Lepsius' copy, partly
in order to bring them more easily into the same
plate, and partly because their position is uncer-
tain ; and indeed it must be borne in mind that the
whole of the fragments (excepting those shown to
correspond with their neighbours) are quite open to
any arrangement it may be found reasonable to
give them. The correspondence of the fibres is
certainly the best and most infallible guide; and it
is this which I have particularly endeavoured to
6 PAPYRUS OF KINGs.
ascertain; and whenever I have been satisfied re-
specting the junction of any parts it has been indi-
cated; or if some are left without any remark, it is
because it appeared better not to hazard a doubtful
opinion, which might tend to mislead. The next
important aid is to be obtained from the form and
the sense of the characters at the back and front.
Nor is it my object to offer any opinion on the
succession of the kings, whose names occur upon it;
but, by giving an accurate facsimile of the two sides
of the papyrus, to place before every one, interested
in the question, the whole of the evidence to be
obtained for ascertaining the real position of the
fragments.
It is certainly an authentic and valuable record;
and is more important from its treating of the
earliest periods of Egyptian history, before the
second Remeses, the third king of the nineteenth
dynasty; whose name in the inscription at the back
shows that all those kings were his predecessors;
and, in all probability, that the document was writ-
ten during his reign.
The first succession of kings consists of the gods,
who are also said by Manetho to have preceded
Menes, and the other mortal kings who reigned in
Egypt; and the last names that remain in frag-
ment No. 11 are of Seb (Saturn), Osiris, Seth
(Typhon), Horus (the elder, or Aroeris, the brother
of Osiris), Thoth, Thnei, and Horus (the younger,
the son of Osiris and Isis). The first three agree
MANETHO's GoDs. 7
well with his list, and Horus is the last of the gods
he mentions; nor is it unlikely that the occur-
rence of Horus the elder, and of his nephew, Horus,
the son of Osiris, led to the omission of the two
intervening names of Thoth and Thnei, the name
of one Horus having been mistaken for the other
by his copyists. Manetho, according to Eusebius,
says: “The first god (who ruled the country) was
Vulcan (Pthah); after him came Helios (Re, the
Sun); then Agathodaemon (Hor-Hat, or perhaps
Noum ?); then Saturn (Seb); then Osiris; then Ty-
phon (or Seth), his brother; and the last of them was
Horus, the son of Osiris and Isis. The royal authority
then continued through a long succession to Bites,
or Bytis, occupying 13,900 years; and after the gods,
heroes reigned 1255 years; then other kings, 1817
years; then other thirty Memphite kings, 1790
years; then ten Thinite kings, 350 years; then
came the reign of the Manes and demigods for 5813
years, the total of years being 11,000. And all
the years allowed by the Egyptians for the reigns
of gods, heroes, and Manes, were 24,900 years.”
The notion of Eusebius, that the years were lunar
months, is quite untenable: Vulcan might have
reigned 9000 years, the real sum, as easily as 727#;
and there would be then no necessity for reducing
the 350 years, assigned to the ten Thinite kings, to
* The sums added together make 24,925; but it is more
reasonable to suppose that the general sum is right in Eusebius,
and that some one or more of the Smaller sums may be wrong.
8 PAPY RUS OF KINGS.
below 30, which would be at the improbable
average rate of about three years for each reign.
Syncellus again, on the authority of Manetho,
gives the reigns of the gods thus:
* * 8 Mars, the demigod 28
1 Vulcan g & 727; – 9000 9 Anubis, id. . . s tº 17
2 Helios . . 80. - 992 || 10 Hercules, id. . . . 15
3 Agathodaemon 56% sºme 700 11 Apollo, id. & e g & 25
4 Khronos . 40% - 501 12 Ammon, id. . . . . 30
5 Osiris and Isis 35 - 433 |13 Tithoes, id. . . . . 27
6 Typhon . . 29 - 359 14 Zósos, id. . . . . 32
7 Horus,demigod 25 - 309||15 Jupiter, id. . . . . 20
Yrs, reduced to 994 from 12294 Years reduced to . . 189
from about 2,338.
Or, reckoning only the sum of the six gods, 11,985
years; and that of the nine demigods, 2,641 years.
The first seven names agree with the authority
of Manetho, as given by Eusebius, where Horus is
mentioned as the last of the “gods”; but the remain-
ing eight are scarcely reconcilable with probability,
since the great gods, “Ammon”, and “Jupiter”, fol-
low those of the third order. Another version of the
above list places a god between Osiris and Typhon;
but his name and the number of years are lost. The
years being calculated, according to Eusebius, as
“lunar years of thirty days each”, I have given, in
the separate column, the original numbers, from
which they must have been reduced, beginning
with the known number of Vulcan's reign, 9000
years, and ending with the 309 of Horus, which .
MANETHO's DATEs. 9
last accords so nearly with the length of his reign
in the papyrus. -
It would be vain to attempt to reconcile the
dates given by Mametho's copyists, or to suppose
that any reliance can be placed upon them respect-
ing the reign of the gods, since the years of the
kings' reigns, even in the later dynasties, seldom
agree ea actly with those on the monuments. This
should indeed be borne in mind, in all attempts to
fix any reigns in the papyrus from the number of
years, when the kings' ovals are lost; and it is
sufficient, generally, to consider the years in the
lists at most as only approximate dates. Even as
late as the 26th dynasty, Eusebius gives to Psam-
mitichus forty-five; Africanus, fifty-four years; and
great discrepancies are found in their lists in the
very names of the kings of the 18th dynasty.
On the papyrus, the number of years of the gods’
reigns has been lost, except after the name of the
elder Horus, which is followed by “300 years”, and
of Thoth, which has apparently “7,226 years”; the
former agreeing very nearly with the reign of Horus
in the restored list of Syncellus. Horus the younger
is evidently the last of these gods in the papyrus,
since the next line begins with a red character,
which shews the commencement of a new dynasty.
It has been shewn that Mametho reckons the
reigns of all the gods, heroes, and Manes, at 24,900
years; but the confused and irregular position of
mortal kings, between the heroes and Manes, renders
10 PAPY RUS OF KINGS.
the sum of 11,000 very doubtful. Nor is it easy to
discover who this Bites (or Bitys) was, who is said
to have preceded them. He is probably the same
whom Jamblichus calls a “prophet of King Am-
mon”, and may therefore be connected with the
last of the supposed demigods, Jupiter, or Amun.”
But the sum of 13,900 years, for the succession end-
ing with Bites, makes, with the 11,000 after Bites,
the total of the rule of the gods, or 24,900 years;
and argues that the reign of the seven gods occu-
pied part of, or perhaps all, those 13,900 years;
and, allowing for the three deities, Thoth, Thmei,
and the younger Horus, supplied by the papyrus,
we may conclude that the reign of the ten gods
occupied the whole of the 24,900 years. For as
the papyrus gives to Thoth a reign of 7,226(?) years,
and Horus, like his namesake, for whom he was
mistaken, had probably the number of 300 years,
there remain only 5,080 to complete the whole sum,
which may not unreasonably be given to the reign
of Thrmei:
The rule of the seven gods, according to Mane-
tho's lists, reckoned at . e * years 12,294
Thoth, in the papyrus, apparently tº e . 7,226
Thmei * * > º º g & º . 5,080
Horus the younger . t * † g º 300
24,900
* In that case the 12th god, “Ammon”, may have been in-
tended for the ram-headed Noum. If, as some imagine, the
rule of the gods signified that of the priesthoods of those deities,
the late position of Jupiter might be explained by the later rule
of the Theban priests.
REIGNS OF GODS. 11
If, again, we take the sum in the papyrus to Horus
to be about 23,200 years, we may reckon the rule
of Thmei at 3,380 years. If so, the whole rule of
the gods was 24,900 years; and we then get rid of
the Manes and heroes, beings unknown in the
Egyptian mythology. No mention, indeed, seems to
be made of them in the papyrus. On the contrary,
the “reigns to Horus”, in fragment No. 1, are
reckoned at about 23,200 (!) years, the tens and
units being erased,—and the name of Menes imme-
diately follows in the next line ; and the line before
has also the name of Horus, followed by 13,420 (?)
years, the units being lost,--which may possibly
be reckoned to the elder Horus: Thoth, Thnei,
and the younger Horus, corresponding to the sup-
posed demigods. And if the 23,200 years do not
agree with the 24,900 of the total rule of the gods,
nor the 13,420 with the 13,900 assigned to the
first succession ending with Bites, this may be ex-
plained by the uncertainty of Manetho's numbers.
I must not, however, omit to state, that Cham-
pollion read the number after the name of Thoth,
“3,226” (not 7,226, as I suppose it to be); and he
thought he could perceive “3,140 years” after that
of Thnei, as well as “400” after that of Horus (the
younger; but I will leave to others to decide, from
what remains of the hieratic, how far those, and the
other numbers he assigned to all these deities, are
borne out by the papyrus.”
* Sec below.
12 F APY RUS OF KINGS.
The fragment No. 1 should probably be arranged
after No. 2, and begin the succession of mortals
with Menes and his successor, Athóthés, the two
first kings of the first dynasty of Thinites. But of
the arrangement of the papyrus, I shall speak more
fully presently. -
Seyffarth supposes the breadth of the papyrus,
when entire, to have been fourteen inches, and to
have contained twelve columns, each consisting of
from twenty-six to thirty lines; and therefore, de-
ducting for those lines without names, from 300 to
350 kings' ovals; the remains, or positions, of about
200 of which are still traceable. Indeed it is probable
that the number 330, in the fourth line of fragment
No. 1, is that of the kings whose names were men-
tioned in this document. They agree with the
number given by Herodotus, which appears to date
to the era of Menophres (one of several kings, to
whom the name of Moeris has been applied), the
same as Sethi (or Osirei) I, and the father and im-
mediate predecessor of Remeses II, in whose reign
his papyrus was written.
The number of kings, conjectured by Seyffarth
to be between 300 and 350, agrees very well with
that of the kings in Manetho, before the nine-
teenth dynasty; who vary in the lists given by
Africanus and Eusebius, from 440 to 301 and 315;
as these do sufficiently well with the 330 kings of
Herodotus, to shew that he had in view the same
number of reigns; but the supposed breadth of the
BREADTH OF PAPY RUS. 13
papyrus, fourteen inches, seems too much, as
they seldom exceed twelve. It appears from the
column IV (in plate 2), which gives the whole of
its series of names one below the other, that the
breadth was not more than thirteen inches, and
that it contained at most twenty-two lines; for in
Some parts, as in column III, the number of lines
varied in a similar space, and that part could only
have contained twenty-one lines: the same again
in column VI, where eight lines are equal to nine
of column IV ; while, on the other hand, nine lines
of column IV, or eight of column VI, are nearly
equal to ten of column Ix, and very nearly to twelve
lines of column xI. -
If the column VII contained the fragments 72
(76 and 79), 77, and 78, one below the other, the
breadth could not have been less than 16% inches
with twenty-seven lines; but the Nos. 76, 77, 78,
and 79, are probably out of their places, and may
not come properly under No. 72.
Before noticing the arrangement of the frag-
ments, I shall introduce the names of the kings,
and the dynasties, given in the lists copied from
Manetho, down to the 19th, when the Papyrus was
written; and from these it will be seen, both by
the lengths of the reigns and the sums of the
dynasties, that implicit reliance cannot be placed
on their numbers, and that it is too much to expect
them to agree exactly with the Papyrus, which
also admits many names of kings unmoticed in them.
The early dynasties of Manetho are as follow:
:
BOOK I.—FIRST DYNASTY; OF EIGHT THINITE KINGS.
Africanus (after the Mames and
Demigods).
lèeigned uéars.
1. Ménês . e ºr
(Killed by a crocodile.)
2. Athóthis, his son • , 57.
(Built a palace at Mem-
phis, and wrote the ana-
tomical books, being a
physician.)
3. Kenkenés, his son . . 31
4. Wenephés, his son . . 23
(Built the pyramids near
Kókhômé.)
5. Usaphaedus (Saphaidus), his
SOIl • tº tº . 20
6. Miebidus, his son . . 26
7. Sesempsés, his son . . 18
8. Biênekhés, his son . . 26
(Sum, 253) really 263
Eusebius (according to Syncellus).
Eusebius (according to Armenian
Interpr.)
Yeah's. Years.
Mēnēs . e e & . 60 | Menes . * †e tº . 30
(He made conquests out of
Egypt.) . ~ : * * * *
Athóthis, his son . tº . 27 | Athothis, his son . (25 or) 27
Kenkenès, his son * . 39 Cencemes, his son . g . 39
Vennephés . e ë . 42 Wavenephis . & tº . 42
(Built the pyramids near (Built the pyramids near the
Kókhôné) town of Kho, (Cho.)
Usaphais g tº tº . 20 | Usaphaes g tº 20
Niebes (Niebais) . . . 26 Niebaes . . . . 26
Semempsés (Semenpsés) . 18. | Mempses . tº e . 18
Ubienthès . iº e . 26 || Vibethis Qe g te . 26
(Sum, 252) really 258
R
(Sum, 252) really 226
SECOND DYNASTY; OF NINE THINITE KINGS.
Eusebius.
Eusebius (Armen. Interp.)
Africanus.
1. Boëthus & º . 38
(A chasm in the earth opened
at Bubastis, many perished.)
2. Kaiekhôs . e . . 39
(In his reign the bulls, Apis
at Memphis, and Mnevis at
Heliopolis, and the Mende-
sian goat, were made gods.)
3. Binóthris . o . 47
(In this reign it was resolved
that women might govern.)
4. Tias 17
5. Sethenês . ſº 41
6. Khairés (Chaerés) 17
7. Nepherkherès . - . 25
(In whose reign the Nile is
fabled to have flowed with
honey eleven days.)
8. Sesókhris -> . 48
(He was five cubits in height,
and three in breadth.)
9. Khenerés 30
Sum . 302
Total of the two dynasties, ac-
cording to Africanus . 555
really 565
1. Bókhus
3. Biophis (Biophēs)
4.
intº kings of no note
6.
7. Under the seventh, fabulists
say the Nile flowed with
honey.
8. Sesókhris .
9. Nothing memorable.
-
Sum . . 297
Total, according to Eusebius,
of the two dynasties . 549
really 555
1. Bochus
2. Cechous
3. Biophis
..}Three others
*
i
8. Sesochris . e g . 48
-*-*
Sum . . .297
Real total of the two dynasties 523
s
3.
THIRD DYNASTY; OF NINE MEMPHITE RINGS.
i
197
Africanus. Fusebius. Eusebius (Armen. Interp.)
1. Nekheróphés . * . 28 | 1. Nekherókhis . g tº 1. Necherochis . g- &
(The Lybians revolted from (The Libyans revolted, etc.) (The Libyans revolted, etc.)
the Egyptians; on an unex-
pected increase of the moon,
they submitted through fear.) -
2. Tosorthrus tº © . 29 || 2. Sesorthus 's º 2. Sesorthus g &
(Called by the Egyptians As- (Called Asclepius, etc.) (Called Asdepius, etc.)
clepius, from his medical
knowledge; he invented the
mode of building with hewn
stone, and patronised letters.)
Tyreis . 7 [The other six did nothing [The other six did nothing
Mesókhris g 17 worthy of record.] worthy of record.]
. Sôyphis (Söuphis) 16
. Tosertasis e 19
Akhés . i.e © 42
Sèphoyris (Séphuris) 30
Kerpherés . . . . 26
Sum . 214 Sum . . 198 Sum g
Total of the three dynasties, Total of the three dynasties,
according to Africanus .. 769 according to Eusebius , 747
really 779
really 753
Real total of the three dynasties 720
FOURTH DYNASTY;
Of 8 Memphite Kings of another family. Of 17 Memphites, of another family. Of 17 Memphites, of another royal family.
Africanus. Eusebius. Eusebius (according to Armen. Interpr.)
1. Sóris . . . º , 29
2. Souphis (Suphis) & 63
(He built the Great Pyramid,
said by Herodotus to have
been made by Cheops: he was
arrogant (?) towards the gods,
and wrote the Sacred Book,
much regarded by Egyptians.) 2-y
3. Souphis (Suphis) * . 66 || 3. Suphis . e g te 3. The third was Suphis, etc. s
4. Menkherès & & . 63 (He built the Great Pyramid, S-
5. Ratoesés . * * . 25 said by Herodotus to have
6. Bikheris . & * 22 been made by Cheops : he
7. Seberkherès se g 7 . º (?) towards the
* : y : * ods, but becoming penitent,
8. Thamphthis º & . 9 #. wrote the §. Book,
much regarded by Egyptians.)
The others, kings of no note . Others
c Sum 284 Sum 448 Sum 448
Total of the four dynasties, Total of the four dynasties, Real total of the four dynasties 1168
according to Africanus . 1046 according to Eusebius . 1195

Really . 1063 Really . 1201
3.
Of Nine Elephantine Kings.
FIFTH DYNASTY;
Of Thirty-one Elephantine Kings.
Africanus. Eusebºws. Eusebius (according to Armen. Interp.
1. Userkherés 28 | 1. Othoës . ;tº º 1. Othius . - e •
2. Sephrēs . e . 13 (Killed by his guards.) (Killed by his guards.)
3. N epherkherés . . . 20
4. Sisirés 7 4. Phióps, who began to reign 4. Phiops . • º º
5. Rherés . 20 when six years old, and (From his sixth to his
6. Rathurès . 44 continued till his hun- hundreth year.)
7. Menkherès 9 dredth year.
8. Tankherès e e 44
9. Obnus (Onnus, Unus) 33
(Sum 248) really 218
Total, with the 1046 of the
four preceding dynasties
(+ 248)
e e g 1294
Really 1063+218 . 1281
(?) 100
Total, with the 1195 of the
four dynasties (+ 100) . 1295
Really 1201--100 . 1301
(The sum of 100 years for 31
kings, one of whom reigned
94 years, is quite inconsist-
ent; and these two kings are
evidently of the sixth dy-
nasty.)
.*
(?) 100
Real sum of the five dynasties 1268

SIXTH DYNASTY; OF SIX MEMPHITE KINGS.
Eusebius.
Eusebius (according to Armen. Interp.)
African vs.
1. Othoës . & . . 30
(Killed by his guards.)
2. Phius tº e . 53
3. Methusuphis . e ... 7
4. Phióps e ... 100
(Began to reign in his sixth
year, continued to his 100th.)
5. Menthesuphis . † . 1
6. Nitócris . . . . 12
(The most beautiful woman
of her time, of a florid com-
plexion: she built the third
pyramid.)
Sumº 203
Total, with the preceding
1294 (+203) * > . 1497
Really 1281–203 1484
|
Same should be repeated (?)
J
NitóCris & * e e
(The finest and most beautiful
woman of her time, of a light
complexion, with rosy cheeks:
said to have built 3rd pyramid.)
These reigned years 203
Total, with the preceding
1295 (+203) & . 1498
Really 1301-1-203 1504
(The 203 years require other kings
before Nitocris: those of Euse-
bius' 5th dynasty are the 6th.)
Nitocris * * g e
(The finest and most beautiful
woman of her time, of a light
complexion, with rosy cheeks :
the third pyramid was built by
her, having a hill before it.)
These reigned years
203
Real sum of the six dynasties 1471
# It is evident, that if Phióps reigned from his sixth to his hundredth year, he could not count one hundred years as his reign,
which are calculated in the sum 203. The hundred years given to Appapus (i. e. Phiops, or Apap, Papi, or Papa) in the list of
Eratosthenes, seem to be reckoned as his reign ; but the Turin papyrus gives less than a hundred years.
3
$

EIGHTH DYNASTY;
Of Twenty-seven Memphite Kings. Of Five Memphite Kings. Of Nine (Nineteen) Memphite Kings.
They reigned tº years 146 | They reigned e years 100 They reigned te years 100
Total, with the preceding eight Total, with the preceding 1598
dynasties . tº e 1639 (i.e. 1498 -- 100 years.) Real sum of the eight dynas-
(1497 -- 142, in which 142 Really 1504 + 100 . 1604 ties, 1471--75+100 years 1646
Really 1484 + 146 . 1630
SEVENTH DYNASTY;
Of Seventy Memphite Kings. Of Five Memphite Kings. Of Five Memphite Kings.
Africanus. Eusebius. Eusebius (according to Armen. Interpr.)
e Yo's, d. r & Yı's, d. & Yºgº,
They reigned 70 days” . 0 70 They reigned 75 days . 0 75 | They reigned * tº , 75
years are calculated for the
146 of the eighth dynasty.)
* These seventy days for the same number of kings are quite inadmissible.
of Nineteen Heracleopolite Kings. Of Four Heracleopolite Kings. Of Four Heracleopolite Kings.
Africanus. Eusebius. Eusebius (according to Armen. Interp.)
1. Akhthoës . e . & 1. Akhthóēs (Akhthus). & 1. Ochthois (Ochthovis)
(Worse than any of his pre- (Worse than any of his pre-
They reigned g years 409 They reigned g years 100 ' They reigned
*-mº
years 100
Of Nineteen Heracleopolite Kings.” Of Nineteen Heracleopolite Kings. Of Nineteen Heracleopolite Kings.
They reigned & years 185 | They reigned e years 185 | They reigned years 185
NINTH DYNASTY;
decessors: he caused many decessors, etc.)
evils to the people through-
out Egypt; he was seized
with madness, and was killed
by a crocodile.)
**sºmeº
*
TENTH DYNASTY;
* This is evidently a repetition of the number of the preceding dynasty.
s
§
The total is 1639–409-1-185-1-59–2292 (or reckoning 146 instead of 142, in the eighth dynasty, = 2296) years
and 70 days; but the totals, according to Africanus and Eusebius, and according to their summations (mostly of Syn-
cellus), and to their separate sums, and to the real numbers assigned to each reign, are as follow :

Of Sixteen Diospolite Kings.
ELEVENTH DYNASTY:
Of Sirteen Diospolite Kings.
Of Sirteen Diospolite Kings.
Eusebius.
Eusebius (according to Armen. Interp)
Africanus.
They reigned years 43
* A.
After whom, Ammenemés . 16
59
(To this point was comprised, in
Manetho's 1st book, altogether,
192 kings, 2300 years, 70 days.)
They reigned years 43
After whom, Ammenemés . 16
59
(To this point was comprised, in
Manetho's 1st book, altogether,
kings 192, years 2300, days 75.)
They reigned years 43
After whom, Ammenemés . 16
59
(To this point was comprised, in
Manetho's 1st book, altogether,
kings 192, years 2300.)
Africanus.
His total, by summations,
yrs. e yrs. *
2300 70 2292 70
by sums,
yrs. d.
2303 70
by Nos. of each reign
yrs. g
2283 70
Eusebius.
His total, by summations,
Eusebius (Armen. Interp.)
by sums, by Nos. of each reign | His total, by sums, by Nos. of each reign
yrs. e yrs. d. yrs. Cl. yrs d.
2300 75 1942 75 1942 75 1948 75
years, years.
2300 2016
years.
2690
Which show that the errors lie in the different numbers of the kings' reigns, since the three agree in the general sum
of 2300 years (70 days) for the total of years of the first eleven dynasties.
The number of kings, however, is not 192,
but, in the list of Africanus, 200; and in those of Eusebius, 129; and 133, or 143 (?)
BOOK II OF MANETHO.
TWELFTH DYNASTY;
Of Seven Diospolitan Kings.
:
(Sum 245) really 182
Africanus. Eusebius. Eusebius (aecording to Armen. Interp.)
. Sesonkhôsis . * 46 | 1. Sesonkhôsis . º . 46 | 1. Sesonchosis ſe 46
(The son of Ammanemès.) (Son of Ammenemés.) (Son of Ammenemés.)
Ammanemés (II) . . 38 2. Ammenemés . * . 38 2. Ammenemés 38
Sesóstris . & tº . 48 || 3. Sesóstris . Q • . 48 3. Sesóstris º - . 48
(Conquered all Asia in nine (He is said to have been four (He is said to have been
years, and Europe, as far, as cubits, three palms, and two four cubits, three palms, and
Thrace, everywhere erecting digits, in height: he con- two digits, in height: he con-
monuments of his conquest quered Asia in nine years, and quered all Asia, etc.)
of those nations: the Egyp- Europe, to Thrace : Egyp-
tians rank him next to Osiris.) tians rank him next Osiris.)
. Lakharès . © e . 8 || 4. Lamaris (Labaris) . . 8 || 4. Lambares (Lampares) 8
(He made the Labyrinth as a (He made the Labyrinth in (He made the Labyrinth.)
tomb for himself, in the Ar- the Arsinoîte name.)
sinoîte name.)
. Ammerés (Amerés) . . 8 || His successors reigned . . 42 His successors reigned . 42
. Ammenemés (Ammenemnés) 8
. Skemiophris, his sister .. 4
Sum 160
(Sum 245) really 182
2->
-
THIRTEENTH DYNASTY:
Of Sirty Diospolite Kings. Of Sixty Diospolite Kings. Of Sixty Diospolite Rings.
Africanus. Busebius. Eusebius (according to Armen. Interp.)
Who reigned e years 453 | Who reigned e tº 453 | Who reigned • e . 453
FOURTEENTH DYNASTY;
Of Seventy-Six Xoite Kings. Of Seventy-Six, Xoite Kings. Of Seventy-six Xoite Kings. .
Who reigned . . . 184 | Who reigned e (484) 184 | Who reigned . . . 484
FIFTEENTH DYNASTY; º
AFRIC.—Of Sia. Shepherds. EUSEB.-EUSEB. ARM. INT. Joseph Us.—Shepherd Kings. N->''
Diospolite Kings.
(These were six Phoenician foreign yrs 1. Salatis * . years 19
kings, who took Memphis, and built º yrs. •e 7TS.
3, city in the Sethroite Nome; issuing Who reigned 250 wº reigned 250 2. Brión . º * . 44
thence, they overcame the Egyptians.) | 3. Apakhnas . - . 36 7 m.
1. Saités - © . … . 19 - 4. Apôphis . * . 61
(From whom came Saite Nome.) 5. Jannas . & . 50 1 , ,
2. Bmón (Anón, Beön) © . 44 6. Assis . º s . 49 2 ,
3. Pakhnan - - . 61 -*-*
4. Staan . . . . . 50 259 10
5. Arkhlès - - - . 49 [These kings, called Shepherds, and
6. Aphóbis - - - . 61 their descendants, ruled Egypt 511
-ºm- years: then the kings of the Thebaid
284 and the rest of Egypt opposed them.)


SIXTEENTH DYNASTY;
Eusebius.
Eusebius (Armen. Interp.)
. 518 5 Theban Kings
190 || 5 Theban Kings
* This is evidently too much for the number of kings and years.
+ The seventeenth dynasty must have consisted solely of Shepherd Kings.
SEVENTEENTH DYNASTY:
Of Shepherds.
1. Saites . 19
(From whom the Saite Nome
was named; they built a city
in the Sethroite Nome, and
from thence subdued Egypt.)
2. Bmón . . . te e
Africanus.
32 other Shepherd Kings”
Of 43 Shepherd-kings, and 43 Theban
Diospolite Kings.
The Shepherds and Thebans
ruled togetherf . 151
duration of their rule.
3. Aphóphis tº tº . 14
After whom, Arkhlés . . 30
103
(These were Phoenician foreign
kings, and brothers, who took
Memphis. In their time Joseph
appears to have ruled in Egypt.)
Of Shepherds.
1. Saites te
(From whom, etc.)
2. Bnon (Anon)
3. Archles
4. Aphophis.
(These were Phoenician foreign
kings, and brothers, who took
Memphis. In their time Joseph
appears to have ruled in Egypt.)
at the same time, but of another (the 13th) dynasty. The 13th was followed by the 18th dynasty, as the 17th was.
. 190
19
103
Josephus gives 5Il years, but 625 are probably the entire
There were also some Theban kings, who ruled
§

Of Sirteen Diospolite Kings.
EIGHTEENTH DYNASTY;
Of Fourteen Diospolite Kings. Of Fourteen Diospolite Kings.
Of Eighteen Diospolite Kings.
Africanus. Eusebius. Eusebius (Arm. Interp.) | Josephus.
Yrs. Yrs, Yrs. YrS. M.
1. Amós * . (?) | 1. Amósis . 25 | 1. Amoses . 25 | 1. Tethmósis . . 25 4
(Under whom Moses (Who expelled the
left Egypt.) shepherds)
2. Khebrós . 13 | 2. Khebrón 13 | 2. Chebron 13 2. Khebrón . 13 0
3. Amenóphthis (21) 24 3. Ammenóphis. 21 || 3. Amophis º . 21 3. Amenáphis . 20 7
4. Amersis (Amensis). 22 || 4. Miphrēs 12 || 4. Memphres (Mephres) 12 || 4. Amessès . 21 9
- (His sister.)
5. Misaphris (Misphris) 13 || 5. Misphragmuthésis 5. Myspharmuthosis . 26 5. Méphrès . 12 9
or Misphragmuthès 26
6. Misphragmuthésis . 26 || 6. Tuthmósis . . 9 6. Tuthmosis . . 9 6. Mephramuthésis. 25 10
(In whose time the
deluge of Deucalion
happened.)
7. Tuthmósis . . 9 || 7. Amenóphis 31 || 7. Amenophis . . 31 7. Thmösis . . 9 8
(Supposed to be (Supposed to be
Memnon of the vo- Memnon and the vo-
cal statue.) cal stone.)
8. Amenóphis 31 8. Hörus (38) 36 8. Orus 28 8. Amenóphis . 30 10
(He is supposed to
be Memnon of the
vocal statue.)
9. Hörus 37
10. Akherrès 32
11 Rathós . * , ... 6
12. Khebrès 12
13. Akherrés 12
14. Armessés” . . 5
15. Ramessés e wº 1
16. Amenóphath (Ame-
nóph) . & . 19
# = sºmeºmºs
(Sum 263) really (259) 262
repeated and confused.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
. Akhenkhersès
(12) 16
(In his time Moses
led the Jews out of
Egypt.)
Akherrës (Athóris) 8
Kherrès. 15
Armais (or Danaus) 5
(After this, being expelled
from Egypt by his brother
AEgyptus, he fled to Greece,
and having taken Argos, he
ruled over the Argives.)
Ramessès (or AE-
gyptus). ©
Amenóphis
68
40
(Sum 348) really (323) 325
* This is Armaïs, but he was only governor of Egypt and not king. The eighteenth dynasty really ended with Horus, and the
nineteenth began with Remeses, Sethos (or Osirei) and Remeses the Great or Remesses Miamun.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
. Achencheres . 16
(In his time Moses
led the Jews out of
Egypt.)
Acherres e se 8
Cherres . 15
Armais . * . 5
Ramesses or Ægyp-
tuS te º . 68
Amenophis 40
mºmºsºme
(Sum 348) really 317
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
. Ramessés . . 1 4
16.
17.
18.
. Hörus 36 5
Akenkhrès. . 12 1
(His daughter.)
Rathótis . . 9 ()
(Her brother.)
Akenkhèrès . 12 5
Akenkhèrès II . 12 3
Armais (Danaus) 4 1
Armessès Miam-
IQ Oll . 66 2
Amenóphis . 19 6
Sethósis, called
also Ramessès and
AEgyptus . 59 ()
(Sum 393) really 392 0
Some of these last names are
§
3.
NINETEENTH DYNASTY:
Of Sir Diospolite Kings. Of Five Diospolife Kings. Of Five Diospolite Kings.
Africanus. Eusebius. Eusebius (Arm. Interp.) Jouplus -
1. Sethós . . . 51 | 1. Sethós . . 55 | 1. Sethós . , 55. After Sethos, his eldest
3. Rapsakês . . 61 |2. Rampses . . 66 |2. Rampses . 66 son,” Rampses, reigned 66
3. Amenephthès 20 |3. Ammenephthis . 40 3. Amenephthis . 8
4. Ramessès (Ramesés) 60 |4. Ammenemés . 26 |4. Ammenemes ... 26 (Josephus does not mention
5. Ammenemnés i | where the eighteenth dynasty
6. Thuóris º . 7 5. Thuóris © . 7 || 5. Thuoris º 7 ends.)
(Called by Homer Poly- | (Called by Homer Poly- | (Called Polybus, etc.)
bus, the husband of Al- bus, etc.)
kandra, in whose reign
Troy was taken.)
(Sum 209) really 204 194 (Sum 194) really 162
(In this second book of Ma-
metho, the number of kings (In this second book of Ma-
was 96, of years 2121.) netho, the number of kings
(Really 246kings,2216 years.) was 92, of years 2121.)
The totals are as follow :
Africanus. * Eusebius. Eusebius (according to Arm. Interp.)
His Total, by his sums, by Nos. of each reign. His Total, by his sums, by Nos, of each reign. Iſis Total, by his sums, by Nos, of each reign.
2121 2222 2216 (or 2213) | 2121 1967 (or 2267) 1881 (or 2181) 2121 2267 2141
* Sethos is reckoned by Josephus with the other kings who make up his 393 years, but without mentioning the dynasty.
CONTEMPORANEOUS DYNASTIES. 29
Taking the number 2,121 as the real sum of
these, and 2,300 years for the eleven first dynasties
(2,121+2,300), we have 4,421 years from the ac-
cession of Menes to the end of the nineteenth
dynasty.
It is, however, well known that many of these
dynasties, before the eighteenth, ruled contempora-
neously, as is shewn by the mention of kings on
the monuments ruling at the same time; and the
mode of numbering them, the consecutive arrange-
ment of those from the same part of the country,
and the contemporaneousness of others, have oeen
very ingeniously and satisfactorily explained by
Mr. Stuart Poole, in his Horae Egyptiacae; where he
acknowledges that it was first suggested to him by
Mr. Lane. That arrangement may be seen in the
following table, which he has obligingly communi-
cated, and which I have the more pleasure in in-
serting, as I agree with him in the contemporane-
ousness of the kings, and in the general mode of
arranging those of the same line.
Respecting the construction of the table, he ob-
serves: “The relative positions and the lengths of
most of these dynasties are founded upon some kind
of monumental authority. The rest I have placed
within approximative extremes. There are several
points of exact contemporaneousness, as in the
second and fourth and fifth dynasties, again in the
fifth and fifteenth, and in the ninth and eleventh ;
and these, with other evidence of the same nature,
30 F APY RUS OF KINGS.
enable us to adjust the general scheme of all the
dynasties. I think it probable that the ninth dy-
nasty and the eleventh commenced some time after
the sixth, and Papa may therefore have been, for
part of his reign, contemporary only with Thimites
and Elephantinites of little power. This would
account for his name being found throughout Up-
per Egypt, as well as at Mount Sinai.” [See Table.]
There is some difficulty in arranging the kings
of the seventh and eighth dynasties of Memphites,
as the Shepherds had obtained possession of Mem-
phis; but we may suppose that those kings retained
the name and claimed the rights of sovereignty,
though dispossessed of their capital; and if king
Papi (Papa) or Mai-Re of the sixth, ruled all Egypt,
we may suppose that his authority was paramount,
while an inferior king (or kings) reigned in some
other part of the country. Of the fourteenth Xoite
dynasty, the position and names of the kings are
uncertain; but it is evident that the thirteenth
ruled contemporaneously with the Shepherds till
the accession of the eighteenth, and that there was
no other seventeenth dynasty but that of the Shep-
herds. Indeed, the introduction of two different
families of kings, into the same dynasty, is opposed
to Manetho's system of arrangement; and it even
appears, that when another family of kings of the
same line came to the throne, they often formed a
new dynasty.

IIAXZ
Ë
+3
IAX | #
ț¢
~
|AX || ?
|AIX | ‘SGILIOX
*SGIJLINIOĆI
XIXIII.Ax|IIIx|IIXIX \ （-söig
*SGILITIOČIO
|XI-GITQvaeſſa H
|"SGIJLINIJĄ,
© • • • § © ® © A.-NW EIĞICITIĶI
·* SCIROJ Hā.
*SCIJ,
-III l-IŅIHL
$ËĒ5.5bj55°5§$2§§3$2§§3są
<><><><>Q：><>©©©©©<>C)©<>©
<>©<><>©<><><><><><><>©><>Q><>
tº{，Þº
%>©

THE THEBAN KINGS, GIVEN BY ERATOSTHENES, REPRESENT SOME OF
Mametho.
I. Dyn. 1. Mēnēs.
2. Athóthis.
6. Miebidus.
7. Sesempsés.
III. Dyn.
2. Tosorthrus, or
Sesorthus.
3. Tyreis.
5. Söyphis.
8. Sephuris?
IV. Dyn. 5. Ratoeses.
6. Bikheris.
2. Suphis I.
3. Suphis II.
4. Menkherès.
8. Thamphthis.
ſ
i
V
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
IXIII.
XIV.
XV.
XVI.
XVII.
XVIII.
YIX.
THESE EARLY DYNASTIES.
Mēnēs, a Thinite, a Theban, interpreted Awytos rather than Awuwos
Year of the World 2900: reigned Years
Athóthès, his son, Eppolyevns. The 2nd who reigned over the Thebans .
Athóthès . tº º º g id. . e g
Diabiès (Maibaes?) Miebidus of Manetho, pi\otavpos, or pºetapos, or
Øt)\eatepos. Son of Athóthès . º iº º gº e
Pemphôs (Sempses?) Hpak\etàms, his brother. Sesempsés of Manetho
Toigar Amakhos, Momcheiri, a Memphite, Tns avópos Treptoo ope)\ms
Stoikhos, his son, apms avato 6mtos . * * * &
Gosormiès, altmatravtos
Marès, H\toëwpos, his son .
. Anóuphis (Söuphis?) eſtucupos
Y.I.
YII.
Sirius, vvos copms, or agaokavros (should be Sisires of the ninth dyn.)
Khnubus Gneurus, Xpwoos Xpwoov vios wº º gº
Rauðsis, apxukpatwp
Biyrés iº e
Saôphis I, couaatms, or xpmaatuatms
Saôphis II e Q *
Moskherès (Menkherès 2), H\toãotos
Mosthès * g &
Pammès, Archondés
VI. Dyn.
XI. Dyn.
XII. Dyn.
THE THEBAN KINGS, GIVEN BY ERATOSTHENES. (Continued.)
. Phióps.
:
. Nitócris.
“After whom
Ammenemés.”
2. Ammenemés
3. Sesóstris.
5. Amerés.
(XIII? Dyn.)
. Menthesuphis.
|
/*
ſ
|
|
IXIX.
IXIXI e
XXII.
XXIII.
YXIV.
XXV.
XXVI.
XXVII.
IXIXVIII.
DXXIX.
XXIX.
XXXI.
YXXII.
XXXIII.
XXXIV.
IXXXV.
XXXVI.
XXXVII.
XXXVIII.
Apappus, aequatos, reigned one hour less than
. . . .execkoo'o'capas (.... Apns i. e. Mandoo. . . .)
Nitócris, a queen (Minerva Victrix)
Myrtaeus (Amuntaeus 3), Aupuwwoëotos
Thyosimarès, kpatatos o eatuw H\tos
Sethinilus, avčmoſas To Tatpuov kpatos
Semphucratés, Hpak\ms Apºrokpatns
Chuthèr, Taurus ſº º e
Meurès, pi\ookopos (Mai-iri 3) . e e
Chömaephtha (To-mai-Pthah ;) coopos (bi)\nºpatotos
Soekúnius (Sekenn-Re 3). . . . . . oxotvpavvos
Penteathyrés (Peteathyrès) e
Stammenemés . * g w g sº
e g º ºs e e is tº gº tº e º II (perhaps Sesöstris and Ammenemés II, or Osirtasen I
and Amānmhe II)
Sistosikhermès, Hpak)\ms kpatatos e
Marès (perhaps Lamarès and Amerès united in one by mistake)
Siphoas (Se-pthah), vios Hºpatatov $ e
Phrourón (or Phrurón) (Pi-aro “the river”) NetNos .
Amuthartaeus (may perhaps be Timaeus of Manetho, accordi
ng to Josephus)
YYZARS
100
34 PAPY RUS OF KINGS.
Though the names in Eratosthemes do not agree
exactly with those in the preceding lists, and his
information is very meagre, there is sufficient re-
semblance to show that they were taken from the
same source as those of Mametho.
The second and fifth dynasties are here omitted,
being contemporary with the third and fourth, and
the change from the Thinite to the Memphite line
is indicated by the first king of the third dynasty,
No. VI, being called “a Memphite.” The Memphite
line was powerful to the end of the sixth dynasty;
some, if not all, the kings of which ruled the whole
of Egypt; it was then interrupted by the invasion
of the Shepherds, who are here omitted, as well as
the remaining seventh and eighth dynasties of the
Memphite line. The Heracleopolites and Xoites,
of the ninth, tenth, and fourteenth dynasties, are
also passed over; and the Theban line begins in
the eleventh with the name of Myrtaeus, and ends
with Stammenemés, or Ammenemés, which last is
the only one of that dynasty given in Manetho's
list. The twelfth seems to begin with Amme-
nemés II, Sesostris, and Amerés, or Ammenemés
(Amun-m-he III), the Moeris of the labyrinth; but
these last are uncertain. The name of Siphoas
(Se-pthah) calls to mind the second successor of
Remeses II; and that of Phrourón, so like the royal
Egyptian title, resembles that of Pheron, the son of
Sesostris, given by Herodotus; though we can
scarcely suppose these three last to be kings of the
nineteenth dynasty.
SHEPHERDS. 35
With regard to the invasion of the Shepherds,
there is evidence of their having already arrived
in Egypt at the beginning of the twelfth dynasty,
though they did not succeed in extending their
dominion till some time after their firstirruption into
the country; and this may account for two different
periods having been assigned to their conquest of
Egypt. The Turin papyrus, however, shows that
in the reign of Amun-m-he I, something unusual
took place, from the repetition of the name of that
king; and the monuments prove that several
changes occurred in the succession at that period.
The arrangement in the Turin papyrus appears
to be: first, a prefatory summary of the number of
kings, and an explanation of the system therein
adopted, of giving the duration of their reigns, the
length of their lives, probably with their genera-
tions and dynasties, as well as the time elapsed to
the nineteenth dynasty, when the document was
compiled. But before the reign of the kings, that of
the gods, to Horus, was introduced; and it is pro-
bable that the rule of the gods, like that of the
kings, was preceded by an introductory notice,
similar to that in fragment No. 1, which is placed
before Menes and his successors. If so, column II,
fragment No. 2, should be the first part that now re-
mains of the papyrus; and the preface to the rule of
the kings, fragment 1, followed it. No. 2 contains
the names of Seb, Osiris, Seth, Horus (the elder),
Thoth, Thmei, and Horus (the younger), and in the
D 2
36 PAPYRUS OF KINGS.
eleventh and twelfth lines of fragment No. 1, is the
oval (or cartouche) of Menes, followed by those of
his successors, in the first of which may be traced
part of the name of Athothis.
Column I, fragment 1, begins line 1, “their
(years) 1(000),” or more, the “one thousand” alone
remaining; line 2 “day 30(?),” their years 1115
day...; line 3... “10 perform their royal (duties);..
/ine 4, “their .. 330 duration of (life);” line 5, ... “10
their royal (duties, or reign) their year of life
year . . ; line 6, “ . . . day 19, years 11, months 4,
days 22(?);” line 7, “ . . day 19 years 2(000 t)” or
more, the “two thousand” alone remaining; line 8,
“. . father god .. 7 their years duration of their
life ...;” line 9, “ . . Horus, ... years 1342(0?)” the
units lost; line 10, “reigns to Horus, . . . . years
23:210(?),” line 11, “king Menai (Menes) of a firm
life;” line 12, “king Menai, of a firm life, per-
formed his royal duties (reigned) ; “ line 13 “king
A(thothis)? . .” line 14, “king...” But I must
observe that the numbers in lines 9 and 10 are
not certain, and Champollion supposed that the for-
mer read “14.42(0?)”, and that in line 10, “24-200”,
or “ 24-204.” In ſºme 4 he read “320” instead of
330, and in line 7, “2-312.” In column II, he read
the first name “Bai-Önkh (the living spirit, Osiris),”
and not Seb : in the second line “Isis”; and in line
5, after Thoth, he read “ years 3226;” at the same
time assigning to all the gods their years, as “3140”
to Thnei, “400” to Horus (the younger); as well
PLATE THE FIRST. 37
as the summation of “twenty-three reigns in 5623
years. . . 28 days” in line 11; and a total in the
12th line of “13:218 years.” In column II, frag-
ment 12, the first line seems to have the number
17,718; but this does not correspond with the
fragment 11.
Column III, fragment 18, seems to contain the
last kings of the third dynasty; though neither the
names, nor the length of the reigns, agree with
those in Mametho's list, according to Africanus.
The first line gives “eight years, three months.”
In the second line of fragment 18a, the hiero-
glyphics are uncertain, and all that remain are “11
years, 8 months, 4 days, and his life 34 years;”
whence it seems, that if he was the Sephuris of
Africanus, the length he gives to his reign of thirty
years could scarcely be correct; and, judging from
the uncertainty of the length of the other reigns, it
is evident that little reliance can be placed on the
numbers in his lists. The next king reigned
twenty-seven years, two months, and one day, and
lived at least forty years; the units being lost. In
the following line the number “ 19” alone remains;
but it is uncertain whether the characters of the
royal titles, in the fourth line of fragment 18, are
a king's name.
In the next is the beginning of a new dynasty,
perhaps the fourth of Mametho. The first name is
Sora, his Soris, followed by “19 years, 1 month,
the duration of his life . . .”; then comes “Sora II”,
38 PAPY RUS OF KINGS,
and as Africanus has only one Soris, and gives him
29 years, we may conclude that the second Sora
reigned 10 years, and that the 29 years include
the two reigns. The successor of Soris in Mane-
tho's list, according to Africanus, is “Suphis, who
built the Great Pyramid,” but the fragment in the
papyrus is here broken; and it is not certain that
these are the third and fourth dynasties.
The name in fragment 19 appears to be a varia-
tion of that usually written with a syphon s, a
zigzag n, and a hand #, which, like the trussed
goose, reads “Sent”, and which is found at the
tombs near the pyramids. This is followed by
“Nofre-ke(re)” (Nepherkheres). Fragment 20 be-
gins with “ days 28”; the name in line 3 resembles
Thoth, and in the third name of line 4, the centre
character is like the leg in a trap, signifying
“theft” or “deceit”, but I have not ventured to
give it for certain as part of a king's name. In
line 8, the remaining portion of the name appears
to read “ Khem”, and some might suppose that
these were gods.
Fragment 30 contains the lives of nine kings,
which lasted 73, 72, 63, 95 : . . . .95, 70 ? 24' and
perhaps 70? years. From their great length they
might agree with those of the kings of the fourth
dynasty; but this is doubtful, as well as the pro-
per position of the fragment.
Plate II. The column IV has a continuous suc-
cession of lines, extending down the whole breadth
PLATE THE SECOND. 39
of the papyrus; and the last names are of the
three kings who closed the fifth dynasty, Men-
kherès, Tankherés (Tat of the papyrus), and Omnus
(Ouðnas); the first followed by “years 8”, the second
by “years 28”, and the third by “ years 30”, while
Manetho's list assigns to these kings 9, 44, and 33
years. The name of Tat-khere (corrupted into Tan-
kherés) has been found on scarabaei, and in a tomb
at Sakkāra ; but he was not the same as “Tat” of the
papyrus. His nomen was Assa, and he was one of
the Shepherds of the fifteenth dynasty; the simila-
rity of whose name, and his living about the same
time (contemporaneously with Ouénas), may have
led to his being placed in Manetho's fifth dynasty,
instead of Tat. Ouðmas occurs on an alabaster vase
at Florence, as well as on scarabaei in the Turin
Museum, in Dr. Abbot's collection, and elsewhere,
written with the same characters. In the line after
the name of Ouðmas, is a summation, apparently
“reigns 67 ? (from) Menes to . . . .” Africanus
gives 42 kings from Menes to the end of the fifth
dynasty, and Eusebius gives 73; but neither the
summation, the duration of reigns, nor the number
of kings in Mametho's fifth dynasty, whether taken
from Africanus or Eusebius, agree with those on
the papyrus.
Fragment No. 43 begins with the name of
Neit-akri (Nitocris), the last sovereign of Mane-
tho's sixth dynasty, and the same queen who is
40 PAPY RUS OF KINGS,
mentioned by Herodotus. Dr. Hincks has already
shown that this fragment should be attached to
No. 59 (and be placed nearly where No. 53 now
stands), since the lengths of the two last reigns
given in No. 59, “ninety (and more) years” and the
“one year” which follows, show that they apply to
those of king Phiops (Papi, or Apappus), and of
|Menthesuphis; which, in all the lists of Manetho,
and in that of Eratosthenes, are proved to have had
that marked difference of duration.
The fragment 59 begins (on the right side) with
the durations of reigns; the two last, as just stated,
being of Phiops and Menthesuphis (the Merenre
of the monuments) the immediate predecessors of
Nitocris. The names which immediately follow
Nitocris, in fragment 43, are remarkable from being
the first three Shepherds of the fifteenth dynasty,
the first of whom is placed after Papi and Merenre
in the list at Chenoboscion.
Column VI, fragment 63, seems to contain some
kings of the eleventh dynasty, the first remaining
name being of Menmoph, whose forty-sixth year is
found on a stela in the Turin Museum, and who
was contemporary with one of the Enenteſs (Nu-
tentefs) of the ninth Heracleopolite dynasty. The
next is apparently the prenomen of a king Aan,
the father, or an ancestor, of Osirtasen I.
In fragment 64, line 2, is the end of the prenomen
of Amun-m-he I, the last king of the eleventh
dynasty, followed by part of another, which should
BLATE THE THIRD. 41
be of Osirtasen I, the leader of the twelfth dynasty,”
part of whose reign was contemporaneous with that
of Amun-m-he. After his name is “years 45,”
agreeing very well with the length of his reign in
Manetho's list, “46 years”, and with the discovery
of Osirtasen's “year 44” on the monuments. In
the lines following are the “ years 10°, 19, 30” (or
more, the units being lost), and “40” (or more),
which should belong to the reigns of Amun-m-
he II, Osirtasen II and III, and Amun-m-he III.
Of these kings, Amun-m-he II reigned conjointly
with Osirtasen I and Osirtasen II; his “ year 2"
coinciding with the “ year 44” of Osirtasen I, and
his “ year 35” with the “ year 3” of Osirtasen II.
The date of the “ year 35” of Amun-m-he II has
been found on the monuments, the “ year 3” of
Osirtasen II, the “ year 13” of Osirtasen III, and
the “year 43” of Amun-m-he III.
Column VII, in plate III, fragment 72, continues
the twelfth dynasty, with the two last of its kings,
Amun-m-he IV (, “reigning “9 years, 3 months,
and 27 days”, and “Nofre-Savak-re” of the papyrus,
reigning “3 years, 10 months, 24 days”, who cor-
responds in place, though not in name, with Queen
Skemiophris of Manetho, to whom he gives a
reign of four years. Here too, in the papyrus, is
the end of that dynasty, with a summation of 203
years, in the third line; differing from Manetho's
* I am much inclined to place Amun-m-he I as the leader of
the twelfth dynasty, and Osirtasen I as the second king.
42 PAPY RUS OF KING S.
sum of 160, or, according to Eusebius, of 245
(really 182); and showing, as usual, how uncer-
tain the sums and lengths of reigns are in his lists.
After this, column VII appears to give the names
of kings who were connected with Amun-m-he I,
as his name is repeated in the fourth line, and
again, with his phonetic nomen, in the seventh and
eighth lines; and once more in the twelfth line.
The name of Amun-m-he frequently occurs on the
monuments, with those of several other kings, either
as a relation or a contemporary; and this may
account for its being here repeated on the papyrus.
The sixth name in line 5 of column VII, resembles
the fourth in the third, and also in the upper, line
on the right in the Chamber of Kings at Karnak,
which, like several of those that follow, both in the
papyrus and in the Chamber of Kings, were evi-
dently of the Sabacos and others of the thirteenth
dynasty; and several names in different parts of
the papyrus are found to agree with those in the
Chamber of Kings, and in the Abydus tablet.
The kings of the thirteenth dynasty immediately
preceded the Diospolites of the eighteenth, and were
contemporaries of the seventeenth of Shepherds;
for it is very evident that the “seventeenth being
composed of an equal number of Shepherds, and
Diospolite kings”, is an error, and even opposed to
Manetho's usual arrangement of the dynasties,
as before stated. The reason of the kings of the
eleventh and twelfth dynasties holding a position
CHAMBER OF KINGS. 43
so directly connecting their predecessors with Tho-
thmes III in the Chamber of Kings, while those
of the thirteenth are placed by themselves to the
right, appears to be from Thothmes and his pre-
decessors of the eighteenth dynasty, Amosis and
Amunoph I, deriving their rights to the throne
from the Theban Osirtasens, Sekennre and Men-
moph ; while the Sabacos, and others of the thir-
teenth, were of a different family, perhaps Ethio-
pians. One of them, resembling those already
mentioned in the Chamber of Kings, is found on a
monument at Semneh, which mentions the name
of his deceased predecessor Osirtasen III; and
another, Sabaco, the seventh in the upper line, is
found at the island of Argo.
Though the lower part of this column v11, Nos.
76, 77, 78, 79, may not (from its great length) join
on below fragment 72, it is probable that it con-
tains, like fragment 81, the kings of the thirteenth
dynasty. Many of these ovals seem to include both
the praenomen and the phonetic nomen of a king.
Among the earliest instances of the two ovals are
those of king Papi, or Maire, of the sixth dynasty;
one of the many kings who, properly or improperly,
may have received the name of Moeris from the
Greeks.
Beyond, to the left, the columns VIII and Ix
form the continuation of this part of the papyrus,
from column VII; as is proved by the correspond-
ence of the fibres.
44 PAPY RUS OF KINGS.
In column Ix, fragment 97, the first name is
remarkable from having the word “Nahsi" (sig-
nifying “Negro”), preceded by the sun, reading
Re-nahsi, or Nahsi-Re, “the negro sun” (the Re
being sometimes read after the other characters in
the praenomens of the early kings); and the last of
them, in line eight, has the remains of the name
Re-ubn-Re, which is similar to the second in frag-
ment 99, and to another, the fourth, in fragment
94. This name has obtained a more than ordinary
degree of interest, from being the same as one that
occurs on a cartouche found at Nineveh ; and a
scarabaeus, brought by me from Thebes, has the
same title attached to the name of Queen Amun-
noum-het, the wife of Thothmes III, who is therein
called “Ubn(t)re, in the foreign land.”
In fragment 101, the second name is the same as
one found by the Duke of Northumberland and
Colonel Felix in a temple at Gebel Berkel, in
Ethiopia, reading S-tore-n-Re. Some others in
the papyrus occur on scarabaei, and on the monu-
ments of Egypt; which it is unnecessary to point
out here, as they will be readily perceived in the
hieroglyphic plates of the papyrus ; where it will
also be seen, that most of the early names usually
found on the monuments are wanting in the
papyrus; owing to its imperfect condition.
In column XI, fragment 142, may perhaps be
some of the kings of the eighteenth dynasty; but
these, like so many others, are uncertain ; while
TJN KNOWN KINGS. 45
many of them in this, and even in places where
they remain entire, are quite unknown, being
probably of kings, whose short and obscure reigns
have not enabled them to record their names on
the monuments. Some may only be inserted in the
papyrus from having been of the royal family; some
may have claimed the title of king without having
actually held the sceptre; and others may have been
of the number of unrecorded Pharaohs of the Xoite
and other dynasties during the Shepherd occupa-
tion, whose names are omitted by Mametho and
the monuments.
It must, however, be evident, that in endeavour-
ing to clear up the chronology of the Egyptian
kings, care should be taken not to place too much
reliance on the uncertain records given us by (the
copyists of) Mametho. Whenever any number of
kings are found seriatim in the papyrus, the length
of the reigns, or the summations, when preserved,
almost always differ from his lists; and what is
still more decisive, those on the monuments do the
same, as we see from the names in the eighteenth
dynasty, which only in some instances agree with
those he mentions.
When many dynasties ruled contemporaneously,
a confusion of succession and of names might be
expected ; but those of the eighteenth ruled alone
throughout the country; and the lists of Thebes
and Abydus are too full, and too well preserved,
to admit of any question. Here and there in his lists
46 P APY RUS OF KINGS.
are some points of agreement with the monuments,
and some also with the papyrus; as, in the rule of
the gods, the mention of the first king Menes (which
occurs again in the monumentallists of Thebes), and
in the introduction of Oannes (Ouénas) as the last
king of the fifth dynasty; which suffice to show that
Manetho's lists, and the papyrus, were taken from
the same authentic source; but the numerous points
in which those lists differ from the monuments,
and from the papyrus, show that they are not to
be relied on, either for the lengths of the dynasties,
for the number of the kings in each, or for the
names of the kings; and all that can be obtained
from them is a general notion of the number of the
dynasties, and of the different houses that reigned,
sometimes together, sometimes successively; and
we must be satisfied, as I have already said, to con-
sider them an authority worthy of credit, only when
confirmed in some degree by the monuments.
I cannot conclude this brief notice of the Turin
papyrus, without acknowledging the obliging as-
sistance I have received from Mr. Stuart Poole;
and I feel less scruples in giving so slight an ex-
planation of the subject, since Dr. Hincks has
kindly contributed his remarks upon it; which his
well-known talents, and the great attention he has
long given to the papyrus, render doubly valuable.
They are as follow. -
OBSERVATIONS ON THE TURIN PAPYRUS,
BY DR. E. HINCRS.
“THE following observations contain the substance
of three papers which were read before the Royal
Society of Literature, on the 12th March and the
28th May 1846, and the 9th November 1848;
with such corrections as I have been led to make by
subsequent investigations. They contain my views
as to the arrangement of the fragments and the
chronological system of the author of the papyrus,
in September 1851. -
“The first point to be settled is the length of a
column of the writing. I have ascertained this as
follows. In fragment 61 are portions of two co-
lumns, numbered v and VI. The first line in VI
signifies “making up eighteen kings”. Though
the figure in the unit's place is incomplete, enough
of it remains to prove that it was an “eight”.
Opposite to the fourth line of this part of column
v1, we have, in column v, “181 (years)”, which is
evidently the conclusion of the line, containing the
summation of a dynasty. The next line in column
v terminates with “ (he passed — years in) his
reign”, as the sentence should evidently be com-
pleted. This is probably the line of which the be-
ginning is the second line in fragment 46; though
it is possible that the first line in that fragment, of
which only the portion of a red character remains,
48 PAPY RUS OF KINGS.
may contain the name of the first king, and not
the summation. In both cases equally we have
twenty-two lines in column VI. On the most pro-
bable supposition, there are nine lines containing
kings' names before the first in fragment 61, four
lines in that fragment down to the summation,
and nine opposite the names of the nine kings in
fragment 46, and 47, which joins it. On the other
supposition, there are eight lines with kings' names
above fragment 61, and ten after its fourth line.
“In order to ascertain the length of the writing
in this column, I measured the interval between
the top of the first line, on the left hand side of
fragment 61, and the bottom of the line containing
the first reign after the summation, on the right
hand side. It is 2.75 inches. To this, the space
occupied by seventeen limes must be added. The
eight lines in fragments 46, and 47, are by measure-
ment 4.25 inches. At the top of column v1, six
lines in fragment 59 are by measurement 3.5 inches;
and I allow the half of this for the other three,
giving 12.25 inches for the column.
“In corroboration of this, I observe that in the
column numbered IV there are 21 names of kings,
followed by a summation. These 22 lines occupy
by measurement 12.25 inches, the same as before,
and they appear to compose an entire column. It
is evident that there was nothing more at the top ;
and it is not likely that a new dynasty would be
commenced at the very bottom of a column.
“Again, it appears by this summation that there
were sixty-seven kings enumerated to the end of
OBSERVATIONS OF DIR. E. HIN CKS. 49
column IV ; or 46 to the end of column III. Now,
in fragment 1, the names of Menes and Athothis, the
first two kings, occupy the twelfth and thirteenth
lines, leaving eleven lines of prefatory matter. We
should thus have 46+11, or 57 lines, exclusive of
summations and headings, in the three columns.
The summations could not be less than four ; and
there were probably some extra lines. We may thus
assume, that the average length of these columns
exceeded, but did not much exceed, twenty lines.
Iregard it then as a settled point, that the length
of a column of writing was about 12} inches, which
would be filled by about 21 or 22 lines. We can-
not suppose that the number of lines should be less
than 20, and it is not likely that it exceeded 23.
I now proceed to consider the dynasties of kings
at the commencement of the papyrus. It appears
to me quite obvious, that the author first set down
the same six dynasties as Manetho did; and also
that he assigned to them the same period of 1497
years that Manetho (according to Africanus) did.
He, however, divided it differently between the
different dynasties. Their durations were, accord-
ing to
Manetho (Afr.) 253-1-302--214-1-277--248-|-203.
The papyrus 263--302--219–-284--248--181.
The sums of the first, third, and sixth dynasties
are given by the papyrus: 263 and 284 are the
sums of the separate reigns in the first and fourth
dynasties, as given by Africanus. It seems evi-
dent that Africanus, having by incorrectly adding
up these two sums, and by a mistake of five years
in his third dynasty, lost twenty-two years, added
E
50 PAPYRUS OF KINGS.
them to the true number of the sixth dynasty, in
order to make up the total of the first six dynasties
which he found in his author.
The number of the kings in the first five dynas-
ties, as given in the papyrus, is 67. There are
three statements from Manetho to be compared
with this. According to Africanus, the number of
kings are 8+9+9+8+9=43. According to Euse-
bius, 8+9+8+17+31=73. According to Castor,
8+8+9+17+21=63. The papyrus gives 11 for
the first, 21 for the fifth, and 16 or 17 for the
fourth. Supplying the numbers which the papyrus
does not determine from the Greek and Latin
authorities, we have 11+9+9+17+21=67.
That the first dynasty contained 11 reigns in the
papyrus, I infer from the following data. From
the top of the first to the top of the fourteenth
line, in fragment 1, is 7.7 inches. Now, if we deduct
from 12.25, the length of a column, .3, the aver-
age breadth of a line of writing, we have 11.95
for the sum of the intervals. As 7.7 : 11.95 : :
13: 20.2 ; whence there were 20 intervals in the
first column, or 21 lines. Of these the first 11
contain prefatory matter, leaving 10 kings' names.
Now fragment 17 contains the conclusion of the
summation of this dynasty, 263; and it is the
second line of the second column, as found by the
correspondence of the fibres, which connects it with
fragment 18, the top of the third column. The first
dynasty had then one king in the second column,
and ten in the first.
The columns to which the fragments 1, 17, and
18, respectively belong, I will call A, B, and C, to
OBSERVATIONS OF DIR. E. HINCFOS. 51
prevent confusion between the columns of my ar-
rangement and that of the existing arrangement.
Fragment 17 is the only fragment now placed in
column II, which belongs to B. Most, if not all of
the others belong to a part of the papyrus which
precedes A, and which refers to the reigns of the
gods. Fragments 2-7 appear to belong to A, though
I cannot determine in what part of it they fit in.
Column B, according to the preceding estimate
of the reigns in the dynasties, contained only 16
names of kings; 1 in the first, 9 in the second,
and 6 in the third dynasties. Two lines would
be occupied with summations; and if there were
headings to both the second and third dynasty
there would be only 20 lines in B, a less num-
ber than in any other column. It is possible, how-
ever, that there were no more. It is a full inch to
the bottom of the second line, which would give
an interval of about .7; while in fragments 75
and 85, which appear to belong to this column, the
intervals are fully .6. An average interval of 6.4
would leave room for no more than 20 columns.
It is possible, however, that fragment 44, which is
evidently out of place where it stands, may belong
to column B, coming in before the third dynasty.
The last three reigns of the third dynasty are
mentioned in the first three lines of column c, frag-
ment 18. The second name, Sãºpovets, is easy to be
identified. The former part of the name is the
element cºpi, or chyvi, which concludes the hiero-
glyphic compound. His reign was, according to
the papyrus, 31 years, 8 months, and 4 days; and
his life 34 years. His successor's, whose name is
52 PAPY RUS OF KINGS.
lost, was 27 years, 2 months, and 1 day. Africanus
gives 30 and 26 years for these reigns, losing three
years. In the sixth reign of the dynasty he was
still further astray in the opposite direction, mak-
ing it 42 years, while the papyrus only allows 8
years, 3 months. The fourth line of the fragment
contains the summation of the third dynasty, of
which the two last figures (19) are in perfect
preservation. It is of course to be completed to
219. Africanus and Castor give 214, and Euse-
bius only 198.
The fifth line of fragment 18 contains the name of
Soris, who is said to have reigned 19 years, 3 months.
Another Soris follows, the length of whose reign
is lost. Africanus gives 29 years to Soris, which
may have included the reigns of both the kings of
that name. No dependance can be placed on
Africanus's numbers in this dynasty, as he reduces
17 reigns to 9. The column appears to have con-
tained 22 lines, containing 3 kings' names of the
third dynasty, 17 of the fourth, and 2 summations.
I conjectured, in my former paper, that the
second line of fragment 30 contained the number of
years in the life of Soris I; being a continuation of
the fifth line of fragment 18. This, however, is
proved to be impossible, by the writing on the
reverse, as well as by the forms of the fragments,
which would not admit the junction which I sug-
gested. The fragments were examined at Turin,
with a view to ascertain if there could be any mis-
take ; and the forms, as they stand in the present
copy, and in that published by Lepsius, are found
to be accurately drawn. I must therefore suppose
OBSERVATIONS OF DIR. E. HIN CRS, 53
that fragment 23 is placed nearly in its proper posi-
tion. It should be moved about a third of an inch
downward. The fragment of a character which it
contains must be a part of a “nine”; the remainder
of which, the number which preceded it, and the
conclusion of the word “life”, are lost. Fragment
30 should be under fragment 23, but at some dis-
tance from it. It contains the number of years in
the lives of several kings in this dynasty, but it is
uncertain of which. I do not think that any of
the fragments 19-22 can belong to this column.
Those marked 24-29 may ; and some of them pro-
bably do.
As to the fragments 31-34, which stand as col.
IV, I can have no hesitation in adopting the exist-
ing arrangement, and calling them column D : they
contain 21 kings of the fifth dynasty, and a sum-
mation. Of the following fragments, 35-42, I can
form no satisfactory judgment: 44 and 45 appear
out of their places; but 43, 46, and 47, belong to
column E, and contain the former parts of the lines
in it: the two last contain the beginnings of the
10 last lines; and fragment 43 contains the be-
ginnings of lines 7-10, as I infer from the following
consideration. Fragment 59 contains the conclu-
sions of the first 6 lines in column E, and the com-
mencements of the first 6 in column F; the fifth
line contains a reign which exceeded 90 years, -
the units are lost; the following line contains a
reign of 1 year 1 month. We know, from Manetho,
that this remarkable conjunction of reigns immedi-
ately preceded that of Queen Nitocris; and her
name occurs in the first line of fragment 43. What-
54 B APY RUS OF KINGS.
ever be the proper position of fragments 48-56, it
is clear that they are one and all of them misplaced.
Fragment 61, like fragment 59, contains portions
of columns E and F. Its first line contains the sum-
mation of a dynasty of 18 kings, which followed the
sixth dynasty of Mametho; and this, as we have
already seen, was probably the tenth line of column
F. It is between two lines of column E; and it is
doubtful which of these is the tenth in that column.
I rather think, however, that it was the upper one.
If so, there would be, in column E, 13 kings of the
sixth dynasty, the summation of that dynasty, and
9 kings of the next dynasty, the second of whom
reigned 6 years. Fragments 61-63 contain 7 kings
of the dynasty after this; and there were probably
4 more; so that col. F would contain 9 kings of the
dynasty after the sixth, its summation (18 kings),
a heading of the following dynasty, and 11 kings
of the next, occupying 22 lines in all.
Of the position of fragments 57, 58, 65, 66, 68-
71, I can say nothing. Fragments 64 and 67 are
certainly to be connected together, and are at the
bottom of the column next before that marked VII;
but they are not in the same as that which I call F.
They contain the eight last lines of column G, which
are a summation of a dynasty, 243 years, a head-
ing, and six kings of a dynasty which is obviously
the twelfth of Manetho. Before these lines there
would be room for fourteen kings, who, with the
eleven at the foot of column F, would constitute a
dynasty of twenty-five, or two dynasties of twenty-
four, which, we shall presently see, is more pro-
bable. I cannot attempt to adjust the dynasties
OBSERVATIONS OF DR. E. HINCKS. 55
between the sixth and twelfth to what we have in
any of the copies of Manetho.
The twelfth dynasty consisted of eight kings, six
of whom were named in the column which I have
called G: the next column, H, at the top of which is
fragment 72, contains the two last sovereigns of this
dynasty, with the summation, 213 years, 1 month,
15 days: the lengths of the two last reigns are dis-
tinctly given, 9 years, 3 months, 27 days; and
3 years, 10 months, 24 days. The last alone is cor-
rectly given by Africanus, who calls it four years.
A strange mistake has been made by some French
writers as to the length of the last reign but one.
They have imagined that the nine was a fifty. It
is certainly very ill-formed; but there can be no
doubt that it was intended for a “nine”, running
below the line, while the “fifty” is always above it.
See the “fifty” in fragment 85, line three, and that
on the back of fragment 45; and see how “59” is
formed at the back of fragment 46.
It is here the place to consider the chronological
system of the author of the papyrus. Reverting to
fragment 1, I find in the fourth line the number 330,
which may well be supposed to be the number of
kings in the whole papyrus, more especially as it is
the precise number of kings which Herodotus says
that the Egyptian priests had in a book. In the next
line we have, apparently, “10 dynasties of them”;
and in the following line, “19 periods, 11 years, 4
months, and (above) 20 days”, which seems to be
the time of their united reigns. This is explained
by a statement in the next line, “the 19 periods
are 2280 years”, giving 120 years for one of the
56 PAPY RUS OF KINGS.
periods spoken of The latter part of this number
of years is mutilated; but the 2000 is perfect,
and there are evident traces of the 80. No other
multiple of 19 will answer to the portions of lines
that are preserved. We may, then, conclude, that
the author of the papyrus reckoned 2291 years as
that of the 330 kings. Now if these be the same
330, of whom a list was shewn to Herodotus, the
last of them was Moeris, the king who constructed
the lake in the Fayoum ; and we know that this
was nearly the last king in the twelfth dynasty
of Manetho. We should thus have 2291 years
from Menes to the end of that dynasty which
lasted 213 years, and which Manetho called the
twelfth, but which, it would seem, the author of
the papyrus reckoned only the tenth. Let us now
see how this number agrees with the sum of the
dynasties. I have already mentioned that both
Manetho and the author of the papyrus reckoned
1497 years in the first six dynasties. If we add
to this, 213 for the so-called twelfth, and 243 for
the preceding one, we have 1953 for eight dynas-
ties, leaving 338 for the remaining two. In this
there is not the slightest improbability: the three
dynasties between the sixth and the so-called
twelfth would last 581 years; and the reigns in-
cluded in them would be forty-two, or, on an aver-
age, fourteen years to a reign. The reigns in the
fourth dynasty average less than seventeen; those
in the fifth, less than twelve ; and those in the
sixth, less than fourteen. Those in these three
dynasties together are, on an average, just fourteen.
It appears, then, that the whole period of 2291
*
OBSERVATIONS OF DIR. E. HINCKS. 57
years, which the author of the papyrus assigned to
the 330 kings, was, in fact, occupied by ten dynas-
ties consisting of about 130 kings, and ending with
the dynasty at the close of which lived the king
who constructed the artificial lake. If we believe
Herodotus, the 330 kings ended with this king.
The conclusion seems inevitable, that the other
kings, who occupied the remainder of the papyrus,
and who were in number about 200, were, in the
judgment of the author of the papyrus himself,
contemporary with these ten leading dynasties. It
is not necessary to deny the existence of these
kings; they, no doubt, lived, and were acknow-
ledged as kings, all of them probably assuming
the title of “king of Upper and Lower Egypt”; but
wherever their place of abode was, in Heracleo-
polis, Ethiopia, or elsewhere, they did not reign
in either Thebes or Memphis; and even the Egyp-
tian chronologers did not reckon their reigns as dis-
tinct from those of the principal dynasties. Among
these contemporary kings we must include all who
follow the so-called twelfth dynasty in the papyrus,
and, by necessary consequence, all the kings who
are figured on the right hand of the chamber of
kings brought from Karnac.
A statement has been preserved, to which I am
now inclined to attach more credit than I did for-
merly, that the Egyptians reckoned all the dynasties
from Menes to Ochus as occupying 3555 years. If
from this number we subtract 2291, which the
Egyptians reckoned from Menes to the end of the
twelfth dynasty, we have 1264 from the end of the
twelfth dynasty to Ochus, or to 340 B.C. This
F
58 PAPY RUS OF KINGS.
would place the twelfth dynasty between the limits
1817 and 1604 B.C.; and I am disposed to accept
these dates as the genuine Egyptian computation.
Nor indeed do I see much reason to question their
correctness. Between the end of the twelfth dynasty
and the beginning of the eighteenth, I suppose
that an interval may have existed in which certain
kings reigned who appear in the lower line on the
left hand side of the Karnac chamber, and in the
Gournou tomb. This interval was, however, short;
and its admission is a very different thing from
admitting the pretended “middle kingdom” of the
German and French school, the existence of which
appears to me to be disproved by the papyrus. -
With respect to the 2291 years, the case is differ-
ent from what it is with respect to the 1264. I
admit the former to be the genuine Egyptian com-
putation ; but I believe it to be altogether erro-
neous, from the circumstance that the Egyptians
considered all the dynasties who at any time ruled
at either Thebes or Memphis, to be successive;
whereas, in fact, many of these were cotemporary.
One case of cotemporary dynasties among the first
ten in the papyrus, appears to me most clearly
established. The duration of the first and second
exceeds that of the third and fourth by sixty-two
years, the exact reign attributed to Menes. I infer
that the third and fourth reigned at Memphis, while
the first and second reigned in Upper Egypt, the
kingdom of Menes being divided immediately after
his death. This inference is confirmed by a very
remarkable fact. The ring of Athothis in Upper
Egypt has the same length assigned to it as the
OBSERVATIONS OF DR. E. HINCKS. 59
two first reigns of the third dynasty: this would be
the case, if, on the death of Menes, another son
had reigned at Memphis, whom Athothis succeeded,
so as to be, for the latter part of his reign, sovereign
of the entire country. Athothis and Tosorthrus
would thus be the same individual. And this seems
fully confirmed by what is said of them. Eusebius
notes respectiug Athothis, “he built the palace in
Memphis, practised medicine, and composed amato-
mical books”; and concerning Tosorthrus, “he
was called by the Egyptians, Esculapius, on account
of his skill in medicine: he also invented building
with cut stone, and attended to writing.”
There is no evidence of any other dynasties being
cotemporary, so strong as this ; nor would I ven-
ture to point out which are likely to have been so.
The fact, however, being established, that two
whole dynasties, lasting 503 years, were cotempo-
rary with others, it is fair to presume that a similar
reduction ought to be made in other instances.
In plate III we have the tops of three columns
connected together. They may be callled H, I, and
J, and exhibit the largest connected portion to be
found in the whole papyrus. Fragments 72, 72A,
81, and 97, are certainly in their proper positions
with respect to one another. 74 is misplaced, and
73 should be removed to the left, so as to be nearer
72A by about a quarter of an inch. Fragment 72
contains 13 lines, occupying 6.8 inches; below
this are at present arranged four fragments, 76-79,
which are connected. To the relative position of
these four but one objection can be made: the
interval between 76 and 77 is too great by about
60 PAPY RUS OF KINGS.
.4 inch, as appears from several known words,
which begin in the former and end in the latter.
These united fragments contain 14 lines, extending
over 7.5 inches. If this could be immediately con-
nected with the portion of fragment 72, under which
it is placed, we should have 27 lines and 14.3 inches,
in addition to about .2, the interval between the top
of line 14 and the bottom of line 13. It appears,
however, that one line at least must come in be-
tween these fragments; and I understand that the
two kings preceding the first in column I, are known
to be different from those at the foot of fragment
79. We should thus have at least 30 lines in the
column, which is far too great. It is, therefore,
necessary to transfer fragments 76-79 to column 1,
which has, in the upper fragment, 8 lines, extend-
ing over 4.2 inches. By placing the united frag-
ments under it, with a slight interval containing
one line, we should have 23 lines in the column,
and about 12.25 inches, the standard length. This
correction is a very important one, and it appears
to me absolutely necessary.
On the remainder of the papyrus, I do not feel
able to throw any light.
R1C II RDS, PRINI LR, 37, GT. QULL N S I ,
*