B 442794

W
ARTES
LIBRARY
1837
SCIENTIA
VERITAS
OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
رن
THE BU
VOVAERIS PENINSULAM AMOENAML,
CIRCUMSPICE

DT
83-
8943
J
>
4
i!
EGYPT'S
PLACE IN UNIVERSAL HISTORY.
VOL. III.
CONTAINING THE FOURTH BOOK,
OR,
THE SYNCHRONISMS.
A 2
4
1
1
LONDON
PRINTED BY SPOTTISWOODE AND CO.
NEW-STREET SQUARE.

www
(*(-C0• ((=CO‹ (×(=C(C)•
=#)
(
CHAMPOLLION
•E=))
1
(
*
[0[6]
i
EGYPT'S
PLACE IN UNIVERSAL
HISTORY:
AN HISTORICAL INVESTIGATION IN FIVE BOOKS.
BY
C. C. J. BARON BUNSEN, D.PH. D.C.L. & D.D.
TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN,
BY CHARLES H. COTTRELL, ESQ., M.A.
VOL. III.
A
LONDON:
LONGMAN, BROWN, GREEN, LONGMANS, & ROBERTS.
1859.
こ
​"
ý
CHAMPOLLION.
Age after age the twin bright spheres, whom the sons of Nile revere,
Had in harmonious orbits ruled the various-circling year.
'Twas night: the dawn of day was near, that holy festal day
When the fierce power of Helios fell with perpendicular ray.
Thoughtful the Priest of Hermes then in nightly silence sate,
Watching the ordered signs of Heaven, at Egypt's southern gate,
Where Ethiopia's sacred stream with wild tumultuous flow
Breaks through the barrier rock, and foams into the vale below.
A hollow-murmuring roar far-heard proclaims the swelling flood,
That yearly draws the fruitful growth from Egypt's pregnant mud.
Then eastward his pure hands the Priest uplifts with faith sincere,
The faith which fills the soul with light, and makes the future clear;
And to the God he prayed who oft had taught him lore divine,
Plainly, or through the mystic mask of the quaintly picturing sign :
"O Thoth, if e'er on festal day thou heardst my prayer in heaven,
"If honestly I used the light that by thy grace was given,
"Now let me reap the fruits of years of thoughtful meditation,
Reading the march of deathless Gods in the mounting constellation!
"If Sothis shines before the Sun, a heavenly herald clear,
“Even on that day when thou shalt ope the gates o' the sacred year,
"Then may I surely know that all the Gods who reign sublime
"With newborn force commence to-day the march of ordered time.
"Four times ten years I've watched the sky for Sirius' heavenly birth,
"Then when the first of Thoth returned to the warm fruit-bearing earth,
A 4
vi
DEDICATION.
"And now what lacked hath been fulfilled of the mystic year complete,
"When Sothis with his morning strength the rising Sun shall greet.
"Now doth the great world-year begin, new centuries are told;
"What long my heart believed make now my fleshly eye behold!”
He said; and in the east he saw the morning's long grey lines,
Day's harbinger; and in the sky the mounting Sirius shines:
"Now," he exclaimed, "may I proclaim what in thy rays I read,
"Thousands of years of prosperous fates are to this land decreed.
"The Gods are true; by cosmic laws they guide the wheeling stars,
"And through long centuries no break the heavenly concert mars:
"Hundreds and thousands of long years thy prosperous course shall see,
"Land of the swelling flood, this fate the stars revealed to me!
"When thrice and once the circling year hath rolled its course sublime,
"The ruling Star remains one day behind its counted time.
Thus, when four times the annual tale of days is told in years,
"A year is gained, which to the Gods belongs who rule the spheres,
((
By us not counted; for by earthly laws our seasons roll:
“We rob them of the parts of time, they give us back the whole.
“The time we from their grace receive, a boon from burden free,
"We to their glory here may spend in sacred jubilee ! ”
And so it was; and feasts and years and fates, a sacred chain,
Followed the Star-to whoso knows the stars a mystery plain.
A thousand and four hundred years and sixty make complete
The sacred cycle, when in earth and heaven the seasons meet.
Twice since that time the holy Priest the complete cycle told
Before o'er Egypt's land the dark of long oblivion rolled;
Night too obscured the signs that taught the seasons' mystic lore,
"For water four, and four for growth, and four for garnered store."
Then to thy thought, immortal Thinker, genius made clear,
From types that marked the changing month, the laws that bound the year.
Thy glance perceived when first commenced the calculated round
Of years that to the starry march the fate of Egypt bound,
DEDICATION.
vii
Till with the rising Sirius' ray the swelling year began,
And in significant type the Priest beheld the numbered plan.
Thy science proved the truth of honest Manetho: thy ken
Gave back their old far-dated birth to the race of mortal men,
Who from the hoariest centuries learned with speculative awe
To read the heavens, and in the whole to read one mystic law,
Image of right and social form, which with abiding power
The knowing soul of man impresses on the fleeting hour.
Our thanks be to the Prophet paid who saw with vision clear,
In the quaint types that marked the month, the law that ruled the year ;
Then gave his thought to the learned friend that knew the starry ways,
Who from such germ brought flower and fruit, to both a deathless praise.
Have thou my thanks, my gift receive, thou Spirit keen and fine;
I give but what I got — the gold that takes my stamp was thine!
T
PREFACE TO THE THIRD VOLUME
OF
THE ENGLISH EDITION.
T
THE alteration which the author has made in the
arrangement of the contents of the Fourth and Fifth
Books, in the present English edition, will, he thinks, be
found a decided improvement upon the original German
text.
By incorporating into the Book of Synchronisms.
everything which belongs either exclusively or princi-
pally to chronological history, he hopes to have made
the parts of each volume more homogeneous, and the
whole more clear and intelligible to his readers. He
cannot doubt, also, that the new matter which will be
published for the first time in the Fifth Volume will
add considerably to the value, as well as interest, of the
whole work. Thanks to Mr. Birch's kindness and his
zeal for the advancement of Egyptian science, the author
is enabled to offer to the public a glossary of all the
roots and words in that language at present known to
us, being an addition of nearly 2000 to the glossary in
the First Volume. Yet even that glossary is acknow-
ledged to be the most complete hitherto existing, and it
is not too much to say that there is little probability of
any considerable further addition being ever made to
the one in preparation. It may safely be asserted
that we are now acquainted, at all events, with by very
far the largest portion of the Hieratic and Hieroglyphical
vocabulary, although some additional knowledge may be
X
PREFACE.
acquired by the help of the Demotic. Mr. Birch's in-
valuable labours will likewise enable the author to im-
prove his comparative etymological glossary, Chamitic,
Semitic, and Arian, which will now form a part of
the Fifth Volume.
Neither is the debt of gratitude which the author,
and, as he confidently believes, the public also, owe to
Mr. Birch, limited to this contribution. He has trans-
lated for publication in the same volume the whole of
the "Book of the Dead," or Egyptian Ritual relating
to their doctrine of the metempsychosis, or migration
of the Souls of the Departed, and their final union with
the Deity. This task has never been accomplished be-
fore, and the present achievement has surpassed the ex-
pectation of the author, as expressed at the time of the
publication of the First Volume of this work, in 1844.
Besides this, the author is enabled, by the assistance of
his learned friend, to offer an Historical Chrestomathy,
or collection of important Egyptian texts referring
to the researches of this work, and alluded to in the
course of it. This Chrestomathy, with analytical trans-
lation, will add the weight of documentary evidence to
the historical assertions and conclusions. But the author
has long been convinced that without such a Chresto-
mathy, accompanied by a Grammar and Dictionary, it
will never be possible to form a philological school of
Egyptology, and place the science of hieroglyphical read-
ing beyond the dreams of dilettantism and the impos-
tures of unscrupulous charlatans.
The Appendix of Authorities in the First Volume will
also receive in the Fifth an important supplement, con-
sisting, among other classical texts, of a new critical
edition of the extracts from the Sankhoniathonic accounts
of Philo of Byblus. The author believes that, with the
aid of Dr. Jacob Bernays of the University of Breslau,
PREFACE.
xi
he has been enabled to give the first critical text of these
very remarkable extracts, the contents of which are there
philologically examined and philosophically analysed.
Two most valuable publications have appeared within
the last few months, which the author congratulates
himself on having this opportunity of mentioning to his
readers, inasmuch as they contain two discoveries which
have not only a very important bearing upon the chro-
nology and antiquity of Egypt, but are points of the
highest interest in themselves. The long prepared and
anxiously expected work, the "Book of the Kings," has
at last appeared, and will for ever form the Thesaurus
Regius of Egyptology, and be a monument of imperish-
able merit and glory. In this splendid volume Lepsius
has established the true import of an absolute date of
the reign of Tuthmosis III., probably even the first year
of it. He has, moreover, shown that it harmonizes
with the chronological system pursued in this work and
by himself, as to the beginning of the New Empire-
a system which differs by about 200 years from that
generally adopted in 1834 upon the authority of Cham-
pollion, followed by Rosellini (Vol. II. 499–589.).
The second discovery alluded to is contained in a still
more recent publication -the Second Part of Mr. Leo-
nard Horner's account (in the "Transactions of the
Royal Society ") of researches made near Cairo, at his
suggestion, with a view to throw light upon the geo-
logical history of the alluvial land of Egypt. This very
interesting paper appears to establish the fact:
That Egypt was inhabited by men who made use of
pottery about 11,000 years before the Christian era.
Both these points are of the greatest interest to per-
sons conversant with Egyptian history. As the latter
may appear startling to the general reader, who has
xii
PREFACE.
taken for granted that the existence of man does not
date beyond six or seven thousand years, the author
feels it his duty to state, as clearly and succinctly as
possible, the particular grounds on which the above
conclusions are based, and to show that it is not a spe-
culative geological, but a positive historical, research
with which we have to deal. For the details he refers
his readers to the above-cited publications, and especially
to the great work of Lepsius, that glorious result of
twenty years' unremitted investigation and systematic
criticism.
I.
THE ABSOLUTE DATE OF THE REIGN OF TUTHMOSIS III. AND ITS
BEARING UPON THE EPOCH OF THE EXODUS AND THE LENGTH OF
THIE BONDAGE IN EGYPT.
LEPSIUS, in his "Book of the Kings" (pp. 151-169.),
has thoroughly discussed the general question of the ab-
solute dates on Egyptian monuments, with especial refe-
rence to the combined Memoirs of Biot and De Rougé
of 1853. (Mém. de l'Acad. t. xxiv.) His arguments,
his facts, and his critical remarks upon the ingenious
and learned suggestions and explanations of these illus-
trious scholars, to whom Egyptian science owes so much,
are, upon the whole, conclusive. The result at which he
arrives fully confirms the view entertained by the author
from the first, that such notations of absolute dates, re-
ferring to the heliacal rising of Sirius and to the Sothiac
cycle of 1460 years, would one day be discovered and
explained, and that they would substantiate the truth of
the system pursued by Lepsius, and in this work. But
it also justifies the author's doubts respecting the as-
sumptions, and particularly the historical assumptions,
connected with the method of Biot's latest researches on
this subject. In order to enable the reader to form
PREFACE.
xiii
a correct estimate of the value of this astronomical and
philological analysis and its really philosophical results,
it will be necessary to make some preliminary remarks
upon the theory of the equational year referred to at
pp. 67-78. of this volume.
In the first place: The commencement of the last So-
thiac cycle in 1322 B. C., which epoch is mentioned by
the ancient astronomers and their epitomists, and con-
firmed by the calculations of modern science, coincides
with the reign of Menephthah, or Menophthah, son of
Ramses II., the Pharaoh of the Exodus.
This was
called by Greek astronomers the era of Menophthes,
for the reading of the manuscript of Theon's work, Me-
nophres, can only signify a king, and must be altered
into Menophthes, as the author proposed in 1834.
Lepsius has a special chapter on this subject in refuta-
tion of Biot (pp. 117–130.).
In the second place: The date thus fixed is necessarily
an average one, a middle term, calculated for astrono-
mical purposes. It is found to correspond exactly with
the horizon of Central Egypt, immediately at the line of
junction of the Upper and Lower Egypt of the ancients.
In that quarter (latitude 28° 11') the heliacal rising of
Sirius took place on the 18th of July of the Julian year
(p. 161.). The whole length of Egypt, from Syene to
Heliopolis, being about six degrees, this difference be-
tween the extreme points makes a difference in the
Sothiac cycle of twenty-four years.
In the third place: There must have existed, in ad-
1 As in the movable year there is always the loss of a quarter of
a day, by neglecting the fraction beyond 365, the difference between
the Sothiac and the true Solar year will amount in four years to a
whole day. Hence it follows that in 365×4 (1460) years, the
neglect of intercalations occasions a loss of a whole year. Now the
difference of one degree more to the south is almost equal to the
difference of a day, or four years in the cycle.
xiv
PREFACE.
dition to their astronomical determination, calculations
for the rising of Sirius based upon various local obser-
vations, for the practical use of the celebration of the
festivals in a given place. Indeed, as Lepsius remarks,
the existence of an average or middle epoch implies the
existence of different local observations from Syene to
Heliopolis, which would afford a basis for that calcu-
lation, and serve as a confirmation and check upon each
other. There is, in fact, positive proof that such was
the case. Ptolemy, in his astronomical work, gives the
rising of Sirius on different days of the calendar.
When, therefore, we meet with constellations and risings
of stars marked on a local monument, and particularly
in a calendar, the natural course would be to interpret
it in a local sense.
On this point Lepsius now concurs entirely with Biot
and De Rougé, as to the explanation of the Theban
tables of star-risings (p. 155.).
In the fourth place: The only monuments on which we
can safely rely for finding absolute dates are the local
calendars which mark the rising of Sirius, and are con-
nected with the name of the reigning Pharaoh. The
representations of star-risings on the ceilings were evi-
dently of a decorative character, and they frequently
contain the grossest blunders, whole months being left
out for want of space, even in the very centre of them.
Some, indeed, of these representations of constellations
bear the names of different kings, though the rising of
Sirius is perfectly identical.2 This proves at least that
they were not always very accurate.
2 This applies to the star-tables on the tombs of Ramses VI. and
Ramses IX. It is true that Ramses VI., VII., VIII., as well as
Ramses IV. and V., were sons of Ramses III., and that Ramses IX.
was son of Ramses VII. We know nothing of the duration of their
individual reigus, but the interval between that of the uncle and
PREFACE.
XV
Fifthly: There are even official documents containing
notations of months or days, which cannot be cor-
rect; and such blunders must be attributed to the
workmen or painters employed (p. 159.). For in-
stance, it is notorious that the Rosetta stone, though
containing an official text engraved on granite, has a
wrong date, owing to one sign being used instead of
another. There are, indeed, official monuments of the
best Pharaonic times on which these blunders occur
(p. 165.), the same month or day being written dif-
ferently in different passages of one and the same ca-
lendar.
3
Sixthly: A blunder in the notation of the month in
monuments of the New Empire is easily detected, and
as easily corrected. It would make a difference of 120
years in the cycle; and hence the correction can be
made with certainty, supposing the name of the king
in question to be known, and the notation of the
heliacal rising of the sun to be certain. There is no
date of a Pharaoh's reign in the New Empire so ques-
tionable as to allow a candid inquirer a latitude of
120 years.
A blunder of this kind would be caused by
the simple difference of a stroke more or a stroke less.
If, therefore, by assuming it to be a blunder we are re-
lieved from an impossibility, and brought within the
period previously known, we may confidently adopt it.
Seventhly: The date in a calendar connected with
nephew may possibly not have been very considerable. Of Ramses
VIII. (Ramses IX. in Rosellini) Birch has just found in a papyrus
the seventeenth year mentioned. The translation of the whole pa-
pyrus containing this date will be given in the Fifth Volume.
3 One day in a month reckons for four years in the cycle, and a
single stroke more or less is decisive whether the month be the first,
second, third, or fourth of the tetrameny, and thus constitutes a
difference of 120 years.
VOL. III.
a
xvi
PREFACE.
the name of a king indicates his first year, so that such
a notation must mean either that it records the year of
the reign of that Pharaoh in which the building was
erected, or else that it refers to his inauguration, his
royal horoscope as it were, and consequently to his
first year. If the former of these hypotheses were the
true one, we should find such notations on a great
number of royal monuments, if not on all, whereas they
are of very rare occurrence, except in tombs and calen-
dars. As to the calendars, they appear not to have
been renewed every year, for they are by no means.
common. They would seem, therefore, to be charac-
teristic of some fixed period, which can only be the
first year of the reigning monarch.
These preliminary remarks turn out to have imme-
diate reference to the only one of the five monuments
examined by Biot and De Rougé which combines all the
requisites, and may therefore give a positive date. It
is the fragment of a calendar which contains a clear
notation of the rising of Sirius on a given day, and
belongs to the celebrated Pharaoh Tuthmōsis III.
Lepsius had formerly his doubts upon this head; but a
further examination of the different fragments of that
calendar, and of blocks worked into the walls of the pre-
sent quay of Elephantina, has convinced him that the
fragment formed part of an inscription belonging to
that monarch. This fragment, then, contains the fol-
lowing unmistakable inscription (Leps. p. 164.):
Inundation: third month (Epiphi): 4
Third day, rising of Sothis: Festival, &c.
Nothing can be clearer than that this inscription in-
4 The hieroglyphical signs for each month are given in the fron-
tispiece of this volume, and the whole theory is explained in the
text.
PREFACE.
xvii
dicates the 28th day of the 11th month of the Egyptian
year. There are 37 more days between this and the
1st of Thoth, viz, :
2 days of Epiphi.
30
""
Mesori (the 12th month).
5 intercalary days.
These 37 days represent in the Sothiac year 37 × 4=
148 years, which must elapse before Sirius rises on the
1st of Thoth. To get at the date of the monument we
must consequently add 148 to the year of the astro-
nomical epoch:
The cycle commences:
in Central Egypt, 1322 B. C.; which gives 1470 B. C.
at Elephantina (4° to the south), 1306 B. C.; which
gives 1454 B. C., or 16 years later.
But the one date is as impossible as the other. Ac-
cording not only to Manetho but the contemporary
monuments also, the interval between the reigns of
Menephthah (1322) and Tuthmosis III. is so much
greater, that there must be a mistake in the notation of
the month. Now, supposing the workmen to have cut
three of those little strokes instead of two, the inscrip-
tion would run thus:
Inundation, second month (Payni) 28th day;
and we should have to add to the respective dates of
the beginning of the new Sothiac cycle 30 days, equi-
valent to 120 years, or together 268 years. The nota-
tion would then stand thus:
Date, referred to average astrono-
mical epoch
Date, referred to rising of Sirius
at Elephantina
(1322) 1592 B. C.
(1306) 1574 B. C.
a 2
xviii
PREFACE.
As regards the beginning of the reign of Tuthmosis
III., he has himself recorded it on one of his monu-
ments, dating it from the year immediately after the
death of his father Tuthmosis I., and therefore com-
puting to himself the whole reign of his brother
Tuthmosis II. The most natural supposition would
seem to be, that in the monument in question the king's
own system is to be looked for, and not that of Manetho
the monumental historian, who divided the period of
forty-eight years between the kings de facto, assigning
twenty-two to the brother Tuthmosis II., and twenty-
six to Tuthmosis III. Again, it seems more natural to
interpret the date on this local monument according to
the local period, the rising of Sirius at Elephantina in
1306. This would make the first year of Tuthmōsis III.
1574, whereas Lepsius, adopting in both cases the other
alternative, makes it 1591, which is, according to his
system, really the second year of the de facto reign of
that Pharaoh.5
5 According to the calculation of Tuthmosis III. (from the death
of his father), the first year would be:
By the system of Lepsius.
author's tables
""
B. C.
1613
1566
According to Manetho (from the death of his brother):
By the system of Lepsius
""
author's tables
1591
1544
As to the question of local or average date, the reasons adduced by
Lepsius, as above, seem decisive in favour of the supposition that
for this Elephantina calendar the Elephantina period (1306) would
be used, for what is granted for the Theban tables must also be pre-
ferred in this local monument. There is no difficulty in supposing
that the festival was held on different days in different towns, in
commemoration of an event which necessarily happened at different
periods in each.
In order to justify his own tables, Lepsius prefers the average
year for the cycle (1322) to the local one, and the system of Manetho's
Lists (dividing the two consecutive reigns) to that of the Pharaoh
PREFACE.
xix
The author differs, therefore, from his method in both
respects. He must observe, besides, that the way in
which Lepsius arrives at 1591, or according to the other
starting-point 1613, as the first year of Tuthmosis III.,
is mainly by making Sethos, the father of Ramesses
and grandfather of Menephthah, reign fifty-one years.
We should thus have a father and son reigning con-
secutively fifty-one and sixty-six years 117, both of
them having been warriors, and the reigns of both
having commenced with a campaign, which is without
a parallel in history.
Besides which, contemporary monuments record al-
most all of the regnal years of Ramses II. down to
the very last, but of Sethos only the first. This cir-
cumstance would be capable of explanation at a period
so abounding in monuments as that was, if his reign
were a short one (the ancient List of Manetho seems to
assign to him twelve years), but it is hardly explicable
if that great and glorious monarch reigned fifty-one
years.
As regards his own chronology, the author admits
that the absolute date in question proves it to be a few
years too low. He may fairly claim the latitude of four
years, which every such calculation according to the
heliacal rising of Sirius will allow; inasmuch as this
rising (at the eleventh hour, an hour before sunrise,
which is exactly four o'clock on the 20th of July at
Thebes) represents a period of four years in the Sothiac
cycle. But he has reason to think that his chronology
is wrong by exactly eight years. Between the reigns
himself. He thus makes 1591 the first year of the sole and undis-
puted reign of Tuthmosis III. This year is:
According to the normal year (1322), the 2nd year of Tuthmōsis III.
horizon of Elephantina (1306), the 18th year.
دو
>>
a 3
XX
PREFACE.
of Tuthmosis and Menephthah there are two very
doubtful points, marked as such in the text of this
work. It was not without good grounds that thirty-
two regnal years were given to Horus, the last king of
the 18th Dynasty, instead of thirty-seven marked in
the Lists. But still it was a mistake, and the solution
is more simple. In regard to his successor, Rames-
ses I., the preference had been given in the tables to
the six years of Africanus over the nine of Josephus
and Eusebius. But Lepsius has produced an authority
which seems to prove that the original number in Afri-
canus was also nine. Thus eight years must be added
and this gives us, to a year, the very date required by
the monument.
For by thus simply restoring the two dates of Ma-
netho the conclusion is legitimately arrived at, that the
astronomical date of 1574 was the first year of Tuthmōsis
III., it being the year immediately succeeding the last
of his father's reign.
There is perhaps a further reason for supposing this
astronomical date to be the first year of Tuthmōsis. It
offers direct explanation of the 215 years of bondage,
6 The years (32) set against Acherres, the next royal name in
Africanus, were given to him (Vol. II. p. 552.) upon the supposi-
tion that the date (37) now attached to Horus in the Lists had been
absorbed by his predecessor (p. 535.), whose thirty-sixth year is
recorded on the monuments; whereas, the number now placed against
his name is only 31, and therefore evidently needs correction. The
difficulty of fixing accurately the length of Horus' reign, of which
no higher year than the seventh is found on the monuments, was not
disguised. A mark of interrogation was expressly placed against his
name (p. 530.). The author has now no hesitation in adopting the
date of the Lists, which happens to be just five years more than the
one assigned to him upon the supposition that 37 was a repetition of
the preceding reign, that of Amenōphis III.
PREFACE.
xxi
which, in the former volumes, was only arrived at ap-
proximately. This will be seen most clearly by means
of the following specific list of the 18th and 19th Dynas-
ties, calculated upon the basis of 1574 being the acces-
sion of Tuthmosis. The author will only premise that,
in spite of the very learned and ingenious vindication
of the opposite theory in the "Book of the Kings," he sees
no reason to change his division of the two dynasties.
He must still maintain the principle that Manetho
always understands by the word dynasty a reigning
family that an Egyptian dynasty, like all others, always
begins with a new stock, the first sovereign of which
was never the son or the son's son of his predecessor,
indeed not even any descendant of the previous royal
family in the male line. The doctrine of Manetho may
therefore be stated thus: that a dynasty terminated
when the issue of its chief became extinct in the male
line. Let us look to the facts in question. Amōsis
was indeed the chief of the 18th Dynasty because he
was not the descendant of his predecessor although
probably connected with him through his queen, who
was "a royal daughter." His successors were all sons
of their predecessors, but Horus left no male issue.
Ramesses I., the chief of the next dynasty, was certainly
connected by the female line with the Tuthmosis Dy-
nasty, for he was the son of a daughter of Amenōphis
III. All this is in accordance with the general ac-
ceptation of a dynasty: can it be accidental?
Eighteenth Dynasty (220 Years, 9 Generations).
1. Amōsis
2. Amenōphis, son
3. Tuthmōsis I., son
-
reigned 25 years
1633 to 1609
13
""
""
1608 1596
21
29
""
1595 1575
॥ 4
PREFACE.
xxii
4. Tuthmosis II. (with III.) rgn. 22 years
5. Tuthmosis III., Brother
6. Amenōphis II., son
7. Tuthmosis IV., son
8. Amenōphis III., son
9. Horus, dies without
male issue
years
1574 to 1553
26
""
1552 1527
29
9
"2
1526 1518
""
31
22
1517
1487
,,
37
1486
1450
""
37
""
1449 1413
27
Nineteenth Dynasty (121 Years, 6 Generations).
1. Ramesses I. (descended from Amos III.
reigned 9 years 1412 to 1404
by a daughter)
2. Sethos I., son
12
1403 1392
""
27
3. Ramesses II., son
66
1391
1325
""
""
4. Menephthah, son
20
1324
1305
""
22
5. Sethos II., son
5
1304 1300
وو
22
6. Sethos III., son
7
1299 1293
""
The annals of Tuthmosis III., the great conqueror of
the dynasty, will consequently stand thus:
The Shepherds evacuate Egypt
The great campaign in Asia
Last campaign in Asia
Year after
his father's
death.
Year after
his brother's
death.
27
5
1548
29
7
1546
41
19
1534
The great buildings at Karnak, Medinet Habu,
and other places, were commenced at this
period
1534
If the Exodus took place under Menephthah (fifth
year, 1320), the Jews had then really entered the 215th
year of their bondage; since the great buildings were
begun by the conqueror of Mesopotamia, to whom
Nineveh and Babylon paid tribute, according to the
statistical tablet of Tuthmosis III., published by Birch.
PREFACE.
xxiii
II.
THE EXISTENCE OF POTTERY IN THE DEPOSIT OF THE NILE ABOUT
ELEVEN THOUSAND YEARS BEFORE OUR ERA.
HISTORICAL Egyptologists have hitherto been unable to
avail themselves of one of the most brilliant appercep-
tions and observations connected with the great French
work on Egypt, and especially of the ingenious calcula-
tions of Girard (Mém. de l'Académie pour l'année 1817),
which appeared to him to promise an infallible key
to the history, not only of the soil, but also of the in-
habitants, of Egypt. For, waiving some objections to
the method pursued in ascertaining the depth and pro-
gressive accumulation of the deposit of mud on the
banks of the Nile and over the land subject to inunda-
tion, there was no chronological basis whatever for
ascertaining the secular increase, that is to say, the
number of inches by which the soil is raised in a cen-
tury. Such a basis can only be obtained by measuring
the accumulation from the platform of a monument of
certain date up to the surface, and calculating from it
the average rate of increase in a century. The same
causes acting constantly in the same manner, at the
same spot, furnish an ample guarantee of the correct-
ness of the calculation of such an accumulation. At the
same spot is said advisedly: for it is obvious that the
ratio of accumulation must be different in Upper Egypt
and at Cairo, the heavier particles subsiding first; and
the difference between Cairo and the end of the Delta
must be no less considerable, if we take into account the
numerous impediments there to the natural current.
The secular increase of 5 English inches for a century,
according to the French calculation, has not only no
historical basis, but is obtained, moreover, from various
observations made at distant parts of Egypt.
xxiv
PREFACE.
Mr. Horner has endeavoured to secure the requisite
twofold basis. As his fixed historical point, he selected
the colossal statue of Ramesses II. in the area of Mem-
phis (Mem. p. 74.). He found the depth of the sedi-
ment at that spot, from the present surface to the basis.
of the statue, to be 9 feet 4 inches. Now, computing
the middle of his reign (1391-1225, according to the
preceding table, and, with the difference of one year, ex-
hibited in the introduction to the "Bible-work"; or 1394
-1228, according to Lepsius) to be about 1360 B.C.,
and adding to this 1854, the date of Mr. Horner's exca-
vation, we have 3214 or 3215 years for the accumulation
of 9 feet 4 inches of sediment; and the mean rate of
increase will be, within a small fraction, 3 inches per
century.
The result of Mr. Horner's excavations, conducted
in the most careful and methodical manner, is, that
the deposit of mud under the statue of Ramesses is 30
feet of the total depth penetrated. Upon this head he
says:
"The two lowest feet (of 32) consisted of sand, below
which it is possible there may be no true Nile sediment in
this locality; and we have thus 30 feet of the latter. If
that amount has been deposited at the mean rate of 3
inches in a century, it gives for the lowest part deposited
an age of 10,285 years before the middle of the reign
of Ramesses II., 11,646 B. C., and 13,500 years before
1854."
Mr. Horner proceeds to say:
"The deeper parts of this accumulation of 30 feet of
sediment are probably more compact in structure, from
the long-applied superincumbent pressure, and therefore
their age is probably greater, on that account, than that
arrived at by the application of the chronometric scale
of 3 inches in a century, obtained by measuring the
PREFACE.
XXV
superior and specifically lighter part of the accumulated
mass. ... Remote as is the date of 13,500 years from
the present time which these probings of the soil appear
to have disclosed, they have not enabled us to attain the
hoped-for object of discovering an approximate link be-
between historical and geological time. No trace of an
extinct organism has been turned up to take the forma-
tion of the alluvial land of Egypt beyond that modern
epoch from which, in our artificial systems, we are used
to carry back our geological reckonings."
"In the lowest part," he continues, "of the boring
of the sediment at the colossal statue in the year 1854,
at a depth of 39 feet from the surface of the ground, con-
sisting throughout of true Nile sediment, the instrument
brought up a fragment of pottery now in my possession.
This fraginent having been found at a depth of 39
feet, if there be no fallacy in my reckoning, must be held
to be a record of the existence of man 13,371 years
before A.D. 1854, reckoning by the before-mentioned rate
of increase in that locality of 3 inches in a century. . .
In another pit 354 yards north of the colossal statue, at
a distance of 330 yards from the river, fragments of
pottery were found at a depth of 38 feet from the
surface of the ground. . Fragments of burnt brick
and of pottery have been found at even greater depths,
in localities near the banks of the river, ten and sixteen
miles below Cairo. At Sigiul fragments of burnt brick
and pottery were found in the sediment brought up
from between the 45th and 50th feet from the surface,
and in the boring at Bessousse they were brought up
from the lowest part, viz. 59 feet from the surface."
To these remarks the author would add the follow-
ing considerations. The operation performed, and the
result obtained, are historical, not geological. The soil
which has been penetrated is exclusively historical
xxvi
PREFACE.
soil, coeval with mankind, and underlies a monument
the date of which ean be fixed with all desirable cer-
tainty. It is a soil accumulated at the same spot, by
the same uninterrupted, regular, infallible agency of
that river, which, like the whole country through which
it flows, is a perfect chronometer. It is an agency
evidently undisturbed by any other agency, during
these more than a hundred centuries, by flood or by
deluge, by elevation or by depression. The fertilising
sediment is found in its place throughout. Under these
circumstances it would seem reasonable to suppose that
there is no material difference in the rate of secular
increase, but that, if there be any, the lower strata
would require an inch or half an inch less to represent
the growth of a century. But it may also be added,
that historical facts lead to the same conclusion, if the
space of time during which man has existed on the
face of our mother earth be measured, not by conven-
tional notions arising out of ignorance and sanctioned
by prejudice, but by facts which any one is capable of
investigating, who does not shrink from researches de-
terminable with logical demonstration and mathematical
cogency. The indisputable facts of the development
of language suffice to prove the two points at issue:
that the period commonly assigned to the existence of
mankind is much too brief, and that the real dura-
tion is not immeasurably or indefinitely long.
author would speak freely on this subject, because he
feels strongly that in the times in which we live it is
as absurd and as irreverent to ignore the linguistic
strata, as it would be to take no notice of the strata
of the earth, or for a man to set up a system of astro-
nomy of his own, without reference to the Keplerian
laws or Newton's immortal discoveries.
The
Much certainly remains to be done before the two
PREFACE.
xxvii
kinds of research bearing upon this point of chronology
are completed and consolidated. The importance of
the results obtained, and of the consequences which
seem to flow from the researches of Mr. Horner, will, it
is to be hoped, induce governments and individuals
to institute similar excavations upon the two prin-
ciples alluded to above. As regards the historical
inquiry, the author will not conceal his feeling of a
certain scientific satisfaction, in finding that the re-
searches of this work have led to identical results.
They are based principally on the history of the lan-
guages of Asia, and their connexion with that of Egypt
and they do not, in his opinion, contravene in the
slightest degree the statements of Scripture, though
they demolish ancient and modern rabbinical assump-
tions; while, on the contrary, they extend the antiquity
of the biblical accounts, and explain for the first time
their historical truth. The languages of mankind, when
once the principle of their original development and
the time necessarily required for the formation of a
new language out of the perishing remains of an old
one are understood, form the strata of the soil of civi-
lisation, as the layers of Nile-deposit warrant the ex-
istence of ages necessary for the successive formations
of the humus. It is upon this basis, supported by col-
lateral facts and by records peculiar to the history of
Egypt, that the four following theses will be established
in the Fourth Volume of this work:
First: That the immigration of the Asiatic stock from
Western Asia (Chaldæa) is antediluvian.
Secondly: That the historical deluge, which took place
in a considerable part of Central Asia, cannot have
occurred at a more recent period than the Tenth
Millennium B. C.
xxviii
PREFACE.
Thirdly That there are strong grounds for supposing
:
that that catastrophe did not take place at a much
earlier period.
Fourthly: That man existed on this earth about 20,000
years B. C., and that there is no valid reason for
assuming a more remote beginning of our race.
With these observations the author would commend
Mr. Cottrell's translation to the English public, and
offer at the same time his thanks to Professor Blackie
for his version of the dedications to Champollion and
Schelling.
BUNSEN.
Charlottenberg, near Heidelberg,
Nov. 1858.
PREFACE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
OF THE
THIRD VOLUME.
BOOK IV.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
I. The great Monumental Work of the Prussian Expedition
to Egypt and Ethiopia, published by Lepsius -
II. Relation between the System pursued in this Work, in
Reference to the Chronology, and the Dynasties of
Manetho
III. Point of View and Method of the Fourth Book
Page
IX
PART I.
THE SYNCHRONISMS OF ASTRONOMICAL AND HISTORICAL
EVENTS IN EGYPTIAN HISTORY.
SECTION I.
THE EGYPTIAN CALENDAR, AND THE DATE OF ITS INSTITUTION.
A.
The Movable Year and the Signs of the Months must have
been arranged about the Year 3285 B. C.
3
8
19
37
XXX
CONTENTS.
B.
The Canicular Cycle of 1400 Years must have been instituted
in Egypt not later than about 2800, and not earlier than
3300 B. C.
C.
Page
43
Synopsis of the Epochs of 1505 and 1460 Years
D.
1
Traces of the Distinction between a Civil and Religious Year,
and of the Notation of the Precession of the Movable Year in
the Canicular Cycle.
I. The Want of, and the Possibility of making, such a Nota-
tion without Intercalary Days -
II. Proof from the Accounts of the Movable Festivals
III. Express Testimony:
1. The Testimony of Vettius Valens as to the Double
Year
2. The Testimony of Porphyry and a Scholiast
45
50
51
53
ib.
3. The Testimony of Horapollo
54
4. The Passage in Strabo about the Intercalary Year
5. Explanation of the Passage in Herodotus about the
Sun rising twice in the West
55
58
E.
The Apis Cycle of 25 Years, and its Connexion with the
Sothiac Cycle
1
F.
The Phoenix Period
G.
The Triakontaeterida
SUPPLEMENt.
Lepsius' Discovery of the Signification of the Phoenix Period,
that it is an Accommodation of the Period of 1505 Years to
the Period of 1460 Years or Sothiac Cycle, or a Rectification
of the Julian Period
61
63
64
66
CONTENTS.
xxxi
SECTION II.
APPLICATION OF THE ASTRONOMICAL SYNCHRONISMS TO EGYPTIAN
CHRONOLOGY AND HISTORY.
A.
The Renewal of the Sothiac Cycle under Menephthah, the Son
of the Great Ramesses, in the Year 1322
B.
The Appearances of the Phoenix from the Reign of Ptolemy
Philadelphus up to Rhampsinitus
C.
Traces of the Chronological Use of the Canicular Cycle in the
Greek Traditions about the History of the Egyptians.
I. The Date of the Exodus as laid down by Clemens of
Alexandria according to the Sothiac Cycle of 1322
II. Traces of the Use of the Two Sothiac Cycles for fixing
chronologically the Length of the Empire of Menes in
Herodotus
Page
73
76
81
82
D.
The Testimony of Manetho's Historical Work in favour of the
Application of the Sothiac Cycle to History, and of the
Correctness of our Chronology.
I. Manetho divided his Historical Work according to the
Two Sothiac Cycles, not mythically, however, but
strictly chronologically
II. Manetho placed the Eleventh Dynasty in the Epochal
Year 2782 B. C.
PART II.
81
87
THE
HISTORICAL SYNCHRONISMS, EGYPTIAN BASIS: OR
HISTORICAL SURVEY OF THE NEW EMPIRE FROM AMOS
TO SHESHONK (XVIII.—XXII. DYN.).
INTRODUCTION.
I. The Historical Monuments and the Historical Sections
II. Survey of the Reigns of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth
Dynasties
97
105
VOL. III.
III. Survey of the Historical Sections during the Eighteenth
and Nineteenth Dynasties
b
107
xxxii
CONTENTS.
SECTION I.
THE CLOSE OF THE WAR OF LIBERATION; OR, FROM THE FIRST
YEAR OF AMŌSIS TO THE FIFTH OF TUTHMŌSIS NI. 86 YEARS.
A.
Page
The First Reign: Amōsis (Aahmes Ra-neb-peh). - 25 Years 111
B.
The Second Reign: Amenōphis I. (Amenhept Raserka), the
Son of Aahmes and Nefru-ari. 13 Years
114
C.
The Third Reign: Tuthmosis I. (Tetmes Ra-aa-kheper),
Brother-in-law of Amenophis I. - 21 Years
115
D.
The Fourth Reign: Tuthmosis II. (Tetmes Ra-aa-en-kheper),
elder Son of Tuthmōsis I. — 21 Years
116
*
SECTION II.
THE STATE OF PROSPERITY AFTER THE STRUGGLE FOR INDEPENDENCE,
FROM THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE SHEPHERDS OUT OF AVARIS,
IN THE FIFTH YEAR OF THE REIGN OF TUTHMŌSIS III., DOWN TO
THE DEATH OF AMENŌPHIS III. 114 YEARS.
A.
The Fifth Reign: Tuthmosis III. (Tetmes Ra-men-kheper),
younger Son of Tuthmōsis I., Brother of Tuthmosis II., and
Brother and Brother-in-law of Ha.t-as.u (Ma-ka-ra).-26
48) Years.
I. Misphra-Tuthmōsis is a Designation in the Lists signify-
ing that Misphra, the eldest of the Children of Tuthmō-
sis I., reigned a considerable Time conjointly with
Tuthmōsis III., her younger Brother
II. The Reigns of the Two Sons of Tuthmosis I. (Tuthmōsis
II. and III.) lasted Forty-eight Years. Tuthmosis III.
123
CONTENTS.
xxxiii
counted his own Regnal Years from the Death of his
Father, as he was entitled to do from the Beginning
III. The History of the Campaigns of Tuthmosis III., from
his own account of them
IV. Works erected by Tuthmōsis III.
B.
The Sixth Reign: Amenōphis II. (Amenhept Ra-neteru), Son
of Tuthmosis III.-9 Years. (Third Regnal Year.)
Page
125
130
134
135
C.
The Seventh Reign:
Tuthmõsis IV. (Tetmes Ra-men-khe-
peru), Son of Amenōphis II.-13 Years. (Seventh Monu-
mental Year.)
D.
136
The Eighth Reign: Amenōphis III. (Amenhept Ra-neb-ma),
Son of Tuthmosis IV. (Thirty-sixth Monumental Year.)
I. Amenōphis III. and his relation to the Memnon of the
Greeks and to the Exodus
II. The Edifices erected by Amenōphis III. in Nubia and
Silsilis: the Amenopheum on the Western Side of
Thebes, and the Palace of Luxor on the Eastern Side -
137
141
CONCLUSION.
Could the Exodus possibly have taken place during this
Period
144
SECTION III.
THE DOWNFALL OF THE HOUSE OF THE TUTHMŌSES IN THE POLITICAL
AND RELIGIOUS SCHISMS AND CONFUSION.
The Ninth (last) Reign of the Eighteenth, and the First of the
Nineteenth Dynasty. —44 Years.
Introduction Survey of the Dynastic Complications
Ninth Reign: The End of the Eighteenth Dynasty: Horus
(Herem Hebi Meri-amen Ra-ser-kheperu Setep en Ra), Son
of Amenōphis III., and his Works
147
148
b 2
xxxiv
CONTENTS.
Page
Horus and the Collateral and Rival Sovereigns with him:
I. Horus and his Works
III. The Tombs of the Kings of the Eighteenth Dynasty
IV. Conjectures as to the Internal History of this Period
148
II. No great Religious Movement took place in the Reign
of Horus
149
151
-
152
SECTION IV.
THE RISE AND MERIDIAN OF THE HOUSE OF RAMESSES:
MESSES I. AND THE TWO GREAT CONQUERORS, SETHOS
RAMESSES II.
85 YEARS.
A.
RA-
AND
The First Reign of the Nineteenth Dynasty: Ramesses I.
(Ramessu Ra-men Peh), Son of Athôtis and Grandson of
Amenōphis III.
B.
The Second Reign of the Nineteenth Dynasty : Sethos I.
(Sethosis, Seti Meri-en-pteh Ra-men-ma), Son of Rames-
ses I.-9 Years.
I. Seti on the Monuments
I. Representation of Seti's Exploits in the great Hypo-
style at Karnak
1. The Triumph over the Lutennu (or Retennu)
2. The Triumph over the Shasu, i. e. Shepherds
3. The Triumph over the Atsh in the Land of Amar
4. The Triumph over the Tahu, in the Land of the
Retennu
154
155
-
156
157
ib.
160
ib.
5. The Triumph over the Khet, Kheta
ib.
II. The Tomb of Seti.-The Representation of the Four
Races of Men
163
II, Sethos, the Father of Ramesses, in the Historical Tradi-
tion as restored
166
C.
The Third Reign: Ramesses II. (Ramessu : with the addition
Meri-amn (Miamû), Ra-seser-ma: frequently with the addi-
tion Setep-en-ra), Son of Sethos I.
I. Sethos, Ramses, Menephthah: or the Elevation, Culmina-
tion, and Fall of the House of Ramesses
-
170
CONTENTS.
XXXV
II. Ramses II., Son of the Great Sethosis, and his Exploits, ac-
cording to the Monuments
I. Rock-Temple at Beit-Ualli in Nubia
II. The Great and Little Rock-Temples at Ipsamboul
III. Buildings at Thebes and Luxor.
Memnonium (Ramesseum). — Karnak
The so-called
IV. The Tomb of Ramesses, the Son of Sethos
V. The Northern Wall of Defence, and the Canal of the
Red Sea
III. Historical Results of the Criticism of the Monuments
Page
172
173
L
174
177
180
ib.
181
-
SECTION V.
THE DECLINE OF THE HOUSE OF RAMESSES.-25 YEARS: THREE
REIGNS.
A.
Adjustment of the Monuments with Manetho's Statement about
the Confusion of Thirteen Years' Duration.-Flight and
Return of Menophthes, and of his Son, afterwards Sethos II.
188
Second Reign: Sethos II., the Son of Menophthes: 5 Years
Third Reign: Phuōris (Nilus) (Set-nekt) Merer-ra Ra-seser-
shau: 7 Years
191
192
B.
Historical Criticism of Manetho's Account of the Exodus of
the Israelites in the time of Menephthah
194
C.
The Connexion between the Biblical and Egyptian Accounts
of the Exodus: the 215 Years of the Bondage and the Era
of Menophthah
197
b 3
xxxvi
CONTENTS.
SECTION VI.
THE LOSS OF INDEPENDENCE UNDER THE SECOND AND LAST HOUSE
OF THE RAMESSIDES AND DURING THE REIGN OF THE TANITE
FAMILY OF THE PISHAM (XX. AND XXI. DYNASTIES), AND THE
RESTORATION BY SHESHONK, THE FOUNDER OF THE TWENTY-
SECOND DYNASTY: OR, THE SYNCHRONISM OF THE ASSYRIAN
SUPREMACY.
Introduction: Mode of treating this Period
A.
The Twentieth and Twenty-first Dynasties according to the
Monuments.
I. The Twentieth Dynasty according to the Monuments.
The Twelve Ramessides
I. Ramses III
II. Ramses IV.-XIV.
II. The Twenty-first Dynasty according to the Monuments.-
The First Tanite Dynasty
Page
206
-
207
208
218
220
B.
The End of the Nineteenth, and the Twentieth Dynasty, in
Greek Tradition.
I. Homer, Herodotus, Diodorus, Dicæarchus, and Manetho
upon the Kings of Egypt during the Period of the
Trojan War. King Nilus, Pheron, and Phuoris.-
King Proteus. Rhampsinitus the Miser, and the
indolent Kings his Successors
-
II. Historical Remains of the Traditions about the Eigh-
teenth to the Twentieth Dynasties in Pliny's List of
the Obelisks
§ I. Obelisks in Egypt:
I. In Heliopolis
II. At Memphis
III. In Alexandria
§ II. Obelisks at Rome
III. Synopsis of the Result
C.
222
-
236
237
ib.
ib.
238
240
Sheshonk, the Founder of the Twenty-second or First Bubastite
Dynasty
240
CONTENTS.
xxxvii
;
THE
PART III.
HISTORICAL CHRONOLOGY OF THE HEBREWS, FROM
THE IMMIGRATION OF ABRAHAM INTO CANAAN, UNTIL
THE FALL OF THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH, COMPARED WITH
THE EGYPTIAN SYNCHRONISMS.
INTRODUCTION.
I. Survey of the Hebrew Synchronisms generally
II. Retrospect of the Notices as to the Length of the Period
from the Exodus to the Building of the Temple
Page
215
247
SECTION I.
THE DETERMINATION OF THE PERIOD FROM THE EXODUS TO THE
BUILDING OF THE TEMPLE.
A.
The Times of Moses and Joshua, and the Time when there were
no Judges.
I. The Exodus, and the Chronology from the Departure out
of the Land of Gosen down to Eighteen Years after the
Death of Joshua
II. General Historical Elucidation of the Period of the
Exodus, and Entrance into Canaan, from the Egyptian
Point of View
III. Further Historical Elucidation. Explanation of Two
Circumstances which have hitherto been unintelligible
in the History of the Journeying through the Peninsula
IV. The Proof that Joshua's Conquest of Canaan could not
have taken place before 1280, or after 1260
V. The only satisfactory Explanation that can be given of the
sudden Reverse of the Position of the Israelites in Ca-
naan is the contemporaneous Rise of the Assyrian
Empire
252
260
263
269
271.
B.
The Period of the Judges, and those of Saul and David.
I. Principle and Method
276
II. Preliminary Distribution of the 122 disposable Years in
the Time of the Judges proper
281
b 4
xxxviii
CONTENTS.
1
III. Historical Elucidation of the Time of the Judges accord-
ing to our arrangement.
IV. The Years of Saul and David
V. Explanation of the Origin of Unchronological Statements.
Page
289
294
297
C.
The Computation of the Period from the Building of Solo-
mon's Temple to its Destruction by Nebuchadnezzar, or the
Chronology of the Kings of the divided Kingdom.
Introduction: The Chronological Difficulties, and the Attempts
at solving them
I. Comparative Lists of Kings from Rehoboam to the
Death of Ahaziah, and from Jeroboam to the Death of
Jehoram
-
II. Succession of Kings from the Accession of Jehu to the
Fall of the Kingdom of Israel
III. Chronology of the Kings of Judah from the Year after
the Destruction of Samaria to the Year of the Destruc-
tion of Jerusalem
IV. Chronological and Historical Retrospect of the Two
Series of Kings
303
307
312
318
321
D.
324
-
329
Computation of the Period from the Immigration of Jacob into
Egypt to the Exodus.
I. The Sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt must have been of
very considerable Duration
II. The Number 215 is the Measure of the Period of Bond-
age, or of the last Section of the Sojourn in Egypt
III. The Immigration of the Israelites into Egypt did not
take place under the Hyksos, but under the Pharaohs,
namely, under the Sesortosidæ, and indeed under Sesor-
tõsis I.
E.
The Computation of the Period from the Immigration of
Abraham into Canaan to the Entrance of Jacob into Egypt.
331
I. The Historical and the Unhistorical Dates.-The Method
of solving the Chronology
338
II. The Number 147 is the Traditional Historical Entry of
the Length of the Period
343
CONTENTS.
xxxix
F.
The Asiatic and Egyptian Synchronisms of Abraham and those
of his Race in Egypt.
I. The fair Claims on Egyptian and Biblical Chronology
II. The Horizon of Abraham: the War of the Babylonians
in Canaan, and the Natural Phenomenon at the Dead
Sea
III. The Hyksos and the Israelites in Egypt
G.
The Connexion between Abraham and the Reminiscences of
his Race, and the Historical Character of those Reminis-
cences
s
I. The Tripartite Division of the Series from Arphaxad to
Terah
II. The Historico-Chronological Meaning of the Dates in this
Series
III. The Starting-Points of the Chronological Reminiscences
of Abraham compared with the Commencements of the
Babylonian and Egyptian Chronology. - Conclusion
Page
348
350
355
-
360
361
367
PART IV.
THE HISTORICAL CHRONOLOGY OF THE CHINESE.
A.
Introduction.-Point of View and Method of Treatment
B.
The Origines and Primitive History down to the beginning of
the First Imperial Dynasty
373
379
382
C.
The Date and Reality of the Cycle of Sixty Years
384
D.
The Principal Points respecting the Earliest Divisions of the
Year among the Chinese
390
xl
CONTENTS.
E.
Results towards an Approximate Restoration of the Chronology
prior to Yü
Page
394
F.
The Chronological Result.
I. Historical Result in respect to the Dates of the Chinese - 405
II. General Chronological Result
406
PART V.
THE PHOENICIAN, ASSYRIAN, AND BABYLONIAN
HISTORICAL EPOCHS CONFRONTED WITH THE
DATES.
ERAS AND
EGYPTIAN
SECTION I.
THE PHOENICIAN, ASSYRIAN, AND BABYLONIAN SYNCHRONISMS WITII
THE HISTORY OF EGYPT.
A.
The Phoenician Synchronisms.
I. The Points of Contact and the Points of Controversy
II. The Date of the Foundation of Carthage
411
413
III. The Eleventh Year of Hirom and his Synchronisms with
Solomon
415
IV. The Era of the Sidonian (Modern) Tyre, and its Points of
Contact with Jewish and Egyptian Dates
421
V. The Date of the Building of the Temple of Melkarth on
the Isle of Tyre, or the Era of the Elder Tyre
428
B.
The Historical and Astronomical Synchronisms of the Assyrians
and Babylonians.
I. The Synchronism of Ninus and Semiramis with the
Twentieth Dynasty
432
II. The Possibility of fixing the Date of the Second Baby-
lonian Dynasty, or the Age of Zoroaster, and the Dates
of the succeeding Dynasties down to Alexander
III. The First Babylonian Dynasty and its Commencement in
the Year 3784 B. C.
438
146
CONTENTS.
xli
PART VI.
THE AGE OF ZOROASTER, THE BACTRIAN, AND THE HIS-
TORICAL NOTICES IN THE FIRST
CHAPTER
OF
THE
VÊNDIDAD.
A.
Bactrian Tradition and the Books of the Zend
1
B.
The Zoroastrian Tradition about the Primeval Land and
the Emigration of the Arians in consequence of a Convulsion
of Nature
*
The Journeys of the Iranians from the North-Eastern Parts
of Asia to India :
Part I.-The Primeval Land (Iran Proper, Airyana Va-
êgô), and the Expulsion from it of the Arians
Part II.—The Course of the Arians after their Expul-
sion from the Primeval Country, or the Fourteen
Localities selected by them for Habitations from Sog-
diana to India
C.
The Age of Zoroaster viewed in the Light of the Zendish and
Greek Accounts
APPENDIX.
Page
455
457
459
461
470
The First Chapter of the Vêndidâd, translated and explained
by Dr. Haug, Private Teacher in the University of Bonn.
Introduction:
I. The Age and Character of the Record -
473
II. Geographical Explanation of the Countries enumerated
479
Translation of the Record
488
xlii
CONTENTS.
- PART VII.
THE HISTORICAL EPOCHS AND DATES OF THE ARIANS
IN INDIA.
SECTION I.
THE HISTORICAL ELEMENT IN THE
VEDAS AND LISTS OF KINGS,
AND THE LOCALITIES, COMPARED WITH THE ACCOUNTS IN MEGA-
STHENES.
A.
Page
The Historical Element in the Vedas, Lists of Kings, and
Localities
509
B.
The Four so-called Cosmic Ages, and the Three Eras of
Megasthenes, when there were no Kings
518
C.
The Lists of the Age of Buddha down to that immediately
preceding Sandrokottus
532
THE
SECTION II.
HISTORICAL DATA IN THE LATER TIMES OF INDIAN HISTORY,
AND THE PRELIMINARY RESTORATION OF THE OLDER PERIODS.
A.
The Year of Buddha's Death, 543 B. C., and the Buddhistic
Notices of the Magadha Kings down to Asoka
B.
Approximate Determination of the_real Commencement of the
Kaliyuga, and the Preliminary Limitation of the preceding
Period
C.
Staurobates and Semiramis, or the Indian Synchronism for
1230 B. C.
538
545
548
CONTENTS.
xliii
D.
-
Page
The Historical Character of the Names in the Second Era 556
E.
The Close of the First Two Periods in the oldest Indian Tra-
dition, and a Preliminary Glance at the Chronological
Result
-
560
SECTION III.
THE EPOCHS OF INDIAN LITERATURE, AND THEIR APPLICATION TO
THE MORE ACCURATE DEFINITION OF THE AGE OF ZOROASTER.
A.
The Epochs of Indian Literature.
I. The Grammatical Age of Sanskrit, and the Formation
of Prose
II. The most ancient Epic Period, and the Date of the
Collection of the Vedas
B.
The Relation between the Vedic Times and that of Zoroaster,
and the Starting-Point of his Doctrine
-
565
567
574
ર
SECTION IV.
HISTORICAL SURVEY OF THE EPOCHS OF ARIAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
OF THE RESULTS OF THIS INQUIRY.
A.
Epochs of Arian Development.
I. The Development in Iran
II. The Development in India :
I. The Date of the Oldest Vedic Hymns -
1. Agni- and Váruna- Worship
sa
586
ib.
587
2. The Adoration of Ether as Indra (Zeus)
ib.
II. The Later Hymns of the First Nine Books
III. The most Modern Hymns of the First Nine Books of
the Rigveda. Most of the Hymns of the Tenth
Book
588
-
ib.
xliv
CONTENTS.
B.
Page
-
Explanation of the List of Megasthenes of 153 Kings in 6402
Years
593
C.
Historical Result of the Researches into the Arian Beginnings
596
PART VIII.
THE BEGINNINGS OF THE HISTORY OF THE IONIANS IN
ASIA MINOR, AND THE ANTIQUITY OF THEIR NAME.
THE AGE OF THE IONIAN HISTORIES AND REMINISCENCES PRIOR TO
THE OLYMPIADS.
A.
Is the Name of the Ionians found on the Pharaonic Monuments
of Egypt
B.
Date of the Ionian Settlement in Asia Minor.
I. The Antiquity of the Name of the Ionians in the Bible
and Central Asia
II. The Primeval Times of Ionia in Asia Minor
C.
603
607
ib.
The Pelasgians in Castor's Series of Maritime Powers in the
Mediterranean, and the Restoration of that Document.
Restoration of the Historical Epochs of the Thalassocra-
cies, from the Period after the Fall of Troy down to
Olymp. 74, 4.
D.
Tabular View of the Restored List of Castor, and Result of
the Present Critical Research into Egyptian History and
Ancient Chronology
612
-
633
LIST OF PLATES.
xlv
LIST OF PLATES.
BUST OF CHAMPOLLION
AMENOPH III.
JUDAH BEFORE SESEK
facing Title.
>>
p. 97
242
Pl. I. Track of the Arians from the Primeval Country to
India
facing p. 456.
The following Plates are placed at the end of the Volume.
Pl. II. Plan of Thebes.
III. Plan of the Palace at Karnak (after Lepsius).
IV. Plan and Longitudinal Section of the Palace at Karnak.
CORRIGENDUM.
Page 380. line 6. from bottom, et passim, for "Bambus Book" read "Bamboo Book."
BOOK IV.
THE SYNCHRONISMS.
VOL III.
B
EGYPT'S PLACE
IN
UNIVERSAL HISTORY.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
I.
THE GREAT MONUMENTAL WORK OF THE PRUSSIAN EXPEDITION TO
EGYPT AND ETHIOPIA, PUBLISHED BY LEPSIUS.
THERE is, probably, no other instance of a single indivi-
dual undertaking the arrangement, conduct, and control
of the preparation and completion, as well as the last re-
vision and publication, of so vast a work as that of Lepsius,
entirely without assistance, and of his having done so
much of it in a few years. Within twelve years after his
return from Egypt, the first eight of twelve large folio
volumes, containing nearly 650 lithographed plates,
some of them coloured, have been published. The
remainder, nearly 150 (Monumental Plates of the Pto-
lemies and Roman Emperors, as well as of the Ethio-
pian Kings, vols. ix. x.), are all ready-a consider-
able portion, indeed, struck off. The last two volumes.
(xi. xii.) contain inscriptions which do not exist on
the monuments: the former of these is already out.
The execution, to say the least of it, is not inferior
to that of any published work, especially any work
upon Egypt, in completeness and beauty of the draw-
B 2
4
[BOOK IV.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
ing and type. As regards the faithfulness and accu-
racy with which the monuments are copied, and—
what is of special importance, and a thing beset with
peculiar difficulties-the inscriptions on them, as well
as the separate inscriptions, it is without a parallel.
The attention which has been paid throughout to his-
tory, both in selection and arrangement, imparts to it
an especial and enduring value. It is the only work
of a like description in which this object has always
been kept steadily in view; and it is the first which
offers a satisfactory idea of the grandeur of the Old
Empire and the rare excellence of its art, especially
of its architecture. It is the only one giving an ac-
count of the discovery and identification of the Laby-
rinth; the pyramid of which Lepsius opened, partially
at least, and made a thorough investigation of all the
other tombs of the Kings of the Old Empire. Other
monuments, hitherto only known in an unsatisfac-
tory manner, are here represented for the first time in
a complete and accurate form. It redounds to the
honour of the Prussian name that the Chamber of Re-
presentatives promptly, and in an enlightened spirit,
seconded the proposition which emanated from the King,
to whom we are exclusively indebted for the journey
being undertaken, and the successful execution of this
work, which, by their cooperation, was not only com-
pleted, but was offered to the public at a lower price
than any similar work.
The following is a synopsis of it, with an accurate
account of that portion which has appeared.
Its title is
"THE MONUMENTS FROM EGYPT AND ETHIOPIA."
The Monuments comprise six parts in twelve volumes
of the largest folio.
Part I. is Geographical, Topographical, and Archi-
tectonic, and occupies two volumes (vols. i. and ii.).
I.]
5
GREAT MONUMENTAL WORK OF LEPSIUS.
10
Parts II. III. IV. contain the Historical Monuments
of Egypt in chronological order, in seven volumes (vols.
iii.—ix.).
Part V. contains the Ethiopian Monuments (vol. x.).
Part VI. the Inscriptions which do not belong to the
Monuments which are represented, that is, first of all,
the Hieratic and Demotic; then the Ethiopian, Phoeni-
cian, Sinaic, Greek, and Roman (vols. xi. and xii.).
The following Table of Contents shows the sub-
division of the purely Egyptian Monuments.
PART I.-Topography.
(Vols. I. and II.)
Representation of the country in the topographical
succession of its Monuments from North to South.
The first six consist of maps of Egypt, Ethiopia,
and the Peninsula of Sinai; with special refer-
ence, throughout, to the hieroglyphical names and
designations.
These two volumes are now complete, and contain.
more than 140 leaves. The greater part was published
in 1852; a thing never before attempted, still less ac-
complished. Some of them, especially the maps, required
long and laborious preparation, indeed, astronomical
observations and assumptions, -in order to reconcile
the contradictions which presented themselves, or to fill
up gaps which were discovered when the sheets were
put together. This is the reason why some of them
have been so long in arrear.
PART II. The Historical Monuments of the Old Em-
pire, including the Hyksos Period.
(Vols. III. and IV.)
Vol. III. Pl. 1. to 81. with Pl. 64. bis.
Vol. IV. Pl. 82. to 153.
This Part, of which almost all the contents are new, is
B 3
6
[Book IV.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
complete. It contains all the pyramids; the fields of
tombs around them most of them new discoveries--
that is, the sepulchral monuments of the Kings of the
Old Empire, from the 4th to the 12th Dynasty; lastly,
the giant work of the 12th Dynasty-the Labyrinth;
concluding with the remains and fragments of the tri-
butary Theban sovereignties while the Shepherd Kings
possessed Lower Egypt.
PART III. The Historical Monuments of the New
Empire down to Alexander, quite complete.
(Vols. V. VI. VII. VIII.)
Vol. V. From Amos to Amenōphis III., inclusive.
Pl. 1-90., with 25. bis, and 70. bis.
Vol. VI. Down to Ramesses II. inclusive, 71–172.
Vol. VII. Down to the end of the 20th Dynasty,
173-242.
Vol. VIII. Down to Alexander of Macedon, 243 to
the end; with Portraits of the Pharaohs.
PART IV. The Historical Monuments of the Ptole-
mies and Roman Emperors.
(Vol. IX.)
PART V.-The Ethiopian Monuments, from Sabaco
onwards.
(Vol. X.)
PART VI.—The Inscriptions of Egypt (Hieratic and
Demotic); those of Ethiopia and the Peninsula of
Sinai (Sinaic); the Phoenician, Greek, and Roman
Inscriptions in these countries.
(Vols. XI. and XII.)
Vol. xi. is already out, and contains Hieratic and
Demotic Inscriptions, as well as Ethiopian.
The whole makes, therefore, nearly 900 plates; and
1.]
7
GREAT MONUMENTAL WORK OF LEPSIUS.
the selling price of the few copies on sale is something
less than a hundred pounds.
It is accompanied by a text in large quarto, which is
included in the price of the work. The form and type
will be the same as those of the "Preliminary Notice"
(published in 1850) and "Introduction." The length will
not be more than twenty printed sheets to each part.
The volume which comprises the first part will ap-
pear at the same time that the plates are completed,
or very soon after; and the materials for the whole
work are already prepared.
P.S.-July, 1858. The Plates are now all complete,
with the exception of those which are to contain the
Inscriptions.
The "Book of the Kings," which exhibits for the
first time an entire list of all the Pharaonic scutcheons,
with a critical account of the dynasties and chrono-
logy adopted by Lepsius, has also now appeared.
B 4
8
[Book IV.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
II.
RELATION BETWEEN THE SYSTEM PURSUED IN THIS WORK, IN REFER-
ENCE TO THE CHRONOLOGY, AND THE DYNASTIES OF MANETHO.
I NATURALLY could not wait for the illustrations or
text of Lepsius' work before proceeding with my own,
since even with the greatest labour it cannot be com-
pleted for several years. He can hardly be expected
to interrupt the publication of the "Monuments" by
a work of a very different kind. This, almost a
superhuman task for any one man, is entirely on his
shoulders, and requires the whole of his time and at-
tention. The explanation of the texts again forms a
coherent series, and can only be taken up with perfect
confidence when the whole of the monumental materials
have been worked out and examined. This is now
nearly accomplished.
The treasures of science which will thus be thrown
open to the learned world cannot be estimated too
highly. The historical results of our inquiry, espe-
cially those of the last two Books, and the chronolo-
gical tables, will in many points be confirmed by his
work, and in none essentially altered.
But the "Book of the Kings" of my learned friend,
which has been commenced since 1835, and announced
since 1841, is more immediately connected with this
work- the entire collection of all the scutcheons of the
Egyptian kings and their families. I have announced
in the preface to the German edition its approaching
publication. The plates are only just completed, and
will appear without delay. When Lepsius went into
II.]
9
GERMAN AND ENGLISH EDITIONS.
Egypt in 1841, the whole of the royal scutcheons then
collected were placed at my disposal, and I had then
been engaged upon them ever since 1836. Expecting that
they would soon be published, I appealed and referred to
them in my researches in the first three Books of this
work, and those who have inconsiderately attacked or
thrown doubt upon some of the facts derived from that
source upon my own judgment, will, when it appears,
be convinced that I had good grounds for my state-
ments, while they had no right to doubt them, and at
all events have made a mistake. I have invariably, as
I was bound to do, mentioned the facts and data which
I borrowed from his MS. notes, as well as those which
I received from him by letter from Egypt. I have
been amply rewarded for my patience by the collation
of this invaluable collection, more than the half of which
is already completed, and which will be published at
the same time as this volume.
My readers will be able to satisfy themselves when
the supplementary volume appears, by the Introduction
to the Tables of Synchronisms, that the researches in the
fourth and fifth books are essentially independent of the
new matter, such vast quantities of which are found
in that precious "Book of the Kings," bearing upon the
main points of historical research which it is now our
business to establish. For instance, there will hardly
be any weighty differences, as to the chronology, be-
tween my learned friend and myself, arising out of any
royal scutcheon with which we are acquainted. The
difference between us arises from a different application
of the critical basis common to us both, and from a
discrepancy in our historical views of facts and records
which do not depend upon the many new discoveries
as to the names of these kings.
These differences, it is true, are not unimportant, and
it is my duty to give a short account of them to my
readers.
10
[Book IV.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
With regard to two points we are entirely at one as
to the views he has enunciated in his "Introduction" of
1847, and I have re-written the sections in the English
edition of the Second and Third Books which refer to
them, so as to make them harmonise.
The first has reference to the Lake of Moris, and
the age of the Pharoah who constructed it. I formerly
supposed the 1st King of the 6th Dynasty, Apappus
Phiops, to be the Moris of the classics, and I stated the
reasons which induced me to adhere to my previous
views, according to which the Lake of Moris was the
present Birket El Kharoon. The facts, however, which
Lepsius has adduced leave no doubt on my mind that
the builder of the Labyrinth, Ammenemes-Mares, the
4th King of the 12th Dynasty, was the real Moris,
and the lake itself a vast reservoir of Nile water, in the
upper part of the Fayoom, which has now disappeared.
But my views on this point, as expounded in the
English version, differ from those of Linant, which
Lepsius endorses, in this respect, that I do not consider
it as exclusively an artificial lake, but partly a natural
basin. I believe that the king in question found there
remains of old morasses, traces of whose pre-historical
and earliest historical existence were discovered by
Rüppel. What he did was this: he conveyed this
stagnant water, by means of the Joseph's canal, through
a dike cut in the rock, into the above-mentioned Nome,
and secured it by dams, and then regulated the irri-
gation of the country about it, at a lower level, by
means of sluices. In this way he converted the whole
of that large Nome into the paradise of Egypt, and was
enabled at the same time to convey the water to a por-
tion of the adjoining valley of the Nile.
The second point refers to the date of the Exodus of
the Children of Israel under Moses. I stated in the
German edition the grounds on which I thought the
ordinary view the more probable of the two possible as-
II.]
11
GERMAN AND ENGLISH EDITIONS.
sumptions. I placed them, however, in juxtaposition, and
left the decision open until the Fourth Book. But I have
given it as my unqualified opinion in the English edition,
that the Exodus did not take place under the Tuth-
mōses (from Tuthmōsis III. to Horus), but in the 19th
Dynasty, under Menephthah, the son of the second Ram-
In the Fourth Book, however, this question is fully
gone into, both from an Egyptian and a Biblical point
of view. It did not take place in the 16th (or even
the 18th century B.C.) but towards the end of the 14th,
and I think it tolerably certain, indeed, about the year
1320, a few years sooner or later.
ses.
As regards the immigration into Egypt, my original
conviction that it occurred in the 12th Dynasty has been
since then still more confirmed. Lepsius declares him-
self at one with me, that the Israelites did not go there
in the reign of a Shepherd King, but in that of a Pha-
raoh; and also that the reigning Pharaoh must be the
same to whom Herodotus attributes the great political
financial scheme of Joseph-that of converting all the
freeholds in the country, except the temple estates, into
crown property. This king is called Sesostris; and
I consider him, consequently, to be one of the Sesortoses
-a name which Manetho also supposes to be the origin
of the Sesostrises of the Greeks. Lepsius, on the con-
trary, thinks this Sesostris to be Sethos or Sethosis, the
grandfather of the Pharaoh in whose reign the Exodus
took place. Such an assumption seems to me to be as
irreconcilable with the historical character of Scripture
as it is with the whole views of Biblical history and the
early times from which I start. I may add, too, that it
is at variance with all the synchronisms of the Old World
with which we are acquainted.
This difference in the chronological system is in-
dependent of the question which has a bearing upon
the third point on which we are at issue: I mean the
question whether the Hyksos period (as I assume, with
12
[Book IV.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
Manetho, as represented in Africanus) lasted 922 or
929 years, or, as Lepsius supposes, only five or six cen-
turies. In this Fourth Book I have gone through, in
detail, all the reasons, which were alluded to in the
English edition of the Third, why I consider that entry
in Manetho's Lists just as correct as his measure of the
date of the New Empire from Amos to Alexander, which
results from them. Again: I am equally unable to jus-
tify the conclusion that the 18th Dynasty, instead of be-
ginning with Amos, as Africanus and Eusebius make it,
began, as Lepsius thinks according to his great Monu-
mental work, with Tuthmosis III. Amos was not the son
of a king; it is his wife who seems to have been a king's
daughter. Tuthmosis III., on the other hand, is the son
of a king (Tuthmōsis I.), and brother of Tuthmōsis II.
Now, a dynasty must necessarily always be a royal race,
starting with a new family, which may, perhaps, be
allied in blood to the old one, and comes to an end so
soon as there is no prince remaining who is descended,
in a hereditary line at least, from the founder of the
dynasty. In Egypt, no question could be raised on this
head, except in the case of heiresses as against distant
relatives. If a sovereign left no issue male, and his
daughter married, a new dynasty might be formed, or
the son-in-law might reign in right of his wife, and con-
tinue on the old dynasty. There are instances of both
in Egyptian history; but there is no instance of a new
dynasty commencing with the son of a king. In the
12th this only seems to be so from the negligence of the
epitomists; for Ammenemes I. is mentioned at the close
of the 11th. This is the doctrine I have laid down in
this work from the commencement, and have constantly
carried out, and I am compelled to persist in it. As far
as the chronology is concerned, however, this difference.
is of no importance.
The only point now remaining for discussion, on which
it is necessary to make a few remarks, is the length of
II.]
13
GERMAN AND ENGLISH EDITIONS.
the Old Empire. I believe that at the close of the first
part of the Fourth Book I have for the first time given
the key to the arrangement of Manetho's three books
of his history, and have proved also that he computed
the Old Empire at about thirteen centuries, instead
of 1076 years, which is the date of Eratosthenes.
Lepsius considers Manetho's date the more correct.
I hold that that of Eratosthenes is the only chronological
one. Lepsius has hitherto considered the 5th (Elephan-
tinæan) Dynasty as not contemporary with the 6th
(Memphite), but with the preceding one. In the Eng-
lish edition, I have given the reasons at length, why the
arguments adduced against my arrangement appear to
me inconclusive; and have shown that there are, on
the contrary, many indications that Unus-Onnus, the
last king of the 5th Dynasty, was an elder contemporary
of Phiops-Apappus, the chief of the 6th. I hope that
Lepsius will come over to my opinion as to the con-
temporaneity of the 5th and 6th, in consequence of the
schism which took place in the empire at the end of the
4th; for it seems to me that there are many points.
which baffle explanation upon any other assumption.
The case is the same with the contemporaneity of the
2nd and 3rd, instead of that of the 2nd and 1st.
Now, it can hardly be mere accident that, down to the
end of the 6th Dynasty, the series of Eratosthenes is
proved to be strictly chronological. It is probable, in-
deed, that this is true also, as regards the latter half
of the Old Empire, from the 7th Dynasty to the 11th.
For these reasons, and the others already adduced,
I adhere to my belief that Eratosthenes corrected,
throughout, all the deficiencies and blunders which
Manetho did not perceive to exist in the Egyptian
method, in respect to the continuous chronology. The
records of the Old Empire were in confusion; restora-
tions had been made which contradicted each other.
Eratosthenes discovered the only certain clue in the
14
[Book IV.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS,
archives of Thebes, where a register was kept of every
king there recognised as such, and how long he reigned.
By this means a coherent chronology could be framed
(which is exactly what we require), and it would ap-
pear whether the sovereigns recognised at Thebes were
always the legal sovereigns or not.
In the English edition I have carried out this ar-
gument more strictly and consecutively, by showing
that the kings who, in Eratosthenes, come immediately
before the 12th Dynasty, are not those of the 8th and
11th, but of the 11th only. Apollodorus tells us that
Eratosthenes only entered Theban Kings, i.e. such as
were recognised at Thebes. The Nantef family seems,
from a variety of authentic evidence, to have been a long
time dominant at Thebes before it was generally re-
cognised throughout the whole empire as the 11th
Dynasty.
I have thus recapitulated the main points of chrono-
logy on which Lepsius and myself are at issue. Though
I do not deny their importance, still they may be called
unimportant as compared with the complete agreement
in all our fundamental views of history and chronologi-
cal assumptions, as contrasted with all other writers on
the subject. I think I have shown more strongly than
ever, in the Fourth Book, how untenable and un-
founded every other system is.
other system is. This is true, indeed,
not only as regards those which rest upon rabbinical
prejudices, but such also as arise out of ignorance
of the Egyptian monuments and records. Manetho's
work is compiled from records, some of which are
still extant. Böckh, the Nestor and master of philo-
logical criticism, would never have hit upon the unfortu-
nate idea of representing the genuine historical work of
an able investigator in the time of Philadelphus, whose
age, position, and character as an author we can define
with precision, as one of systematic compromise, and
therefore in reality fabulous, if he had had access to the
II.]
15
GERMAN AND ENGLISH EDITIONS.
above monuments and records when he was composing
his ingenious work upon Manetho. That some of his
successors should have taken advantage of his great
name (and not always honestly) in order to depreciate
Manetho and Egyptian research, is matter of regret,
but not therefore excusable; for facts and records are
stronger than all theories. I have the greater satisfac-
tion, therefore, in finding that further research has
furnished a brilliant confirmation of the fundamental
view adopted by my revered friend, as it was to some
extent by Scaliger before him—namely, that Manetho's
history bears a certain relation to the Canicular cycle of
1460 years.
I think I have also proved, in the fourth
book, that his singular division of the thirty dynasties
into three books can only have arisen from his having had
in view (and upon historical grounds indeed) the expi-
ration of one of the two Canicular cycles which occur
in the course of Egyptian history. The 11th and 19th
Dynasties, with which, according to my chronology, his
second and third books commence, have this in common,
that in the Theban dynasties which precede them both
(the 7th and 19th) a Sirius cycle was concluded. The
11th is the first new dynasty in the second historical
cycle; the 20th, the first in the third and last.
The historical character, therefore, of his work is not
only unimpeached, when we find such a striking expla-
nation, but it stands out in direct contrast to the mythi-
cal or cyclical method. For, according to it, the former
cycle would have coincided exactly with the close of the
17th; the latter, with the close of the 19th. But this
is notoriously not the case.
All the monuments and facts which have come to
light in the last twenty or thirty years confirm its
historical character, as well as that of his authorities.
The Lists, therefore, which have been compiled from
it are thoroughly historical, even in the Old Empire.
In it, nevertheless, the chronological succession or cal-
16
[BOOK IV.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
culation of the length of it, is not accurate. The Canon
of Eratosthenes first gave it correctly, and Apollodorus
followed the same method by restoring the chronology
of the Hyksos period entirely from the Theban Lists of
Pharaohs who reigned there, while the Shepherd Kings
at Memphis ruled over Lower Egypt.
The notation, succession, and enumeration of the dy-
nasties themselves in Manetho deserve, therefore, the
highest respect, even with regard to the Old Empire: how
absurd then is the notion that by a dynasty he means, in
the New Empire, an epoch, and not a family having his-
torical cohesion in itself! The confusion in the 18th and
19th Dynasties is easily accounted for by the numerous
epitomes that were made by Jewish and Christian writers.
Amasis, before his elevation, may have been a poor
broken-down descendant of the eldest Necho or Psam-
metichus, and have passed for being one of the people.
This is no reason for doubting the tradition of Hero-
dotus; still less should we, on that account, be puzzled
by Manetho, who pushed his dynastic principle so far
as to make a whole dynasty out of the unfortunate Boc-
choris. He was the first and last king of his race.
The dynastic method is, in fact, the genuine Egyptian
basis of all historical writing, and not the invention of
Manetho. We find it adopted already in the Turin pa-
pyrus, which dates from the commencement of the New
Empire. On the contrary, the weak point in Egyptian
tradition is this, that the dynastic arrangement pre-
dominates so much as to throw historical chronology
into the background. It is in Eratosthenes that we
first find a chronological series, without the dynastic
division. This purely chronological method is also
foreign to the Egyptian mind, because they arranged
everything by dynasties. The methodical Hellene found
that in the archives of Thebes those who had reigned there
were recorded chronologically, that is, those who were
there recognised as kings. It was the very thing which
II.]
17
GERMAN AND ENGLISH EDITIONS.
was wanting, and of which historical research stood in
need. Hence arose not the dynastic, but annalistic,
notation, which has come down to us in a very sad
state, but still is carried on continuously as an unin-
terrupted series during the 1076 years of the Old
Empire.
The List of Apollodorus did the same for the New
Empire. Unfortunately the statement of the length of
the period, which accompanied this List of Theban Kings,
has been lost. Syncellus, indeed, did not think it
worth his while to copy the names of its 53 kings.
But it is clear that the Theban annals had not then so
much historical importance as they possessed in the Old
Empire. The Theban Kings were then tributaries:
the supreme power resided in the Hyksos at Mem-
phis. Manetho consequently computed this period by
Memphite sovereigns, and only introduced the Theban
Kings for the chronology during the struggle which
lasted 150 years for Memphis and Central Egypt.
Amos was the first lord of Memphis, for which reason
the Hyksos dynasties disappear from the scene, although
it was not till the reign of Tuthmosis III., the 5th King
of the 18th Dynasty or of the house of Amos, that
they were obliged to evacuate the frontier fortress of
Avaris (Pelusium). We shall see that the restoration
of the history of that period from the monuments con-
firms this. Amos, the chief of the dynasty, must have
possessed Memphis and the flat country below it; for
his immediate successors, if not he himself, waged war
in Asia.
In all this, therefore, there is neither contradiction
nor confusion.
In Manetho, accordingly, as well as with regard to all
the other portions of Egyptian history, a dynasty must
have meant, what the word implies, a single reigning
family, and one carried on in the male line. The husband
of an heiress might, according to the letter of the Egyp-
VOL. III.
C
18
[Book IV.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
tian constitution, equally well form a new family, as one
who had no relationship in blood, or a foreign prince.
It is true that internal dissensions and disputes, as to
the preference of the claims of heiresses or their sons,
may have caused differences of opinion in cases which
appear to be identical. What took place in any par-
ticular instance must be learned from Manetho and
his authorities. But the principle is undoubted, that a
new male line began a new dynasty, and still more,
therefore, did an entirely new princely family. A king
standing alone formed a new dynasty for himself.
Foreign rulers carried on the succession of the Pharaohs
as long as they possessed Memphis (or Memphis and
Thebes). We cannot, therefore, see how we can be
justified in making the 18th Dynasty commence with
the son, brother, grandson, and great-grandson of kings;
but, in conformity with the lists published by Africanus
and Eusebius, we recognise Amos as its chief, and Ram-
ses I., the son of the daughter and heiress of Horus, as
the chief of the 19th Dynasty. This is the only break
in the male descent.
III.]
VIEW AND METHOD OF THE FOURTH BOOK. 19
III.
POINT OF VIEW AND METHOD OF THE FOURTH BOOK.
WE have before us, in our two preceding Books, the
Egyptian chronology from Menes to the end of the reign
of Nectanebo II., nine years before Alexander the Great:
a period which, according to Manetho's computation,
embraced 3555 years.
This chronology divides itself historically into three
great masses.
First: THE OLD EMPIRE, from Menes to Amyntimæus,
including the first 12 Dynasties of Manetho and
part of the 13th: according to Eratosthenes 1076
years; according to Manetho, full two centuries
more, or 1286 years.
Secondly: THE MIDDLE PERIOD, or the period when Upper
Egypt was tributary to the Shepherd Kings, from
the time when they took Memphis till their ex-
pulsion from it: according to Manetho, 922 or 929
years.
Thirdly: THE NEW EMPIRE, from the 18th to the 30th
Dynasty: about 1300 years.
This succession of time, the vastest hitherto established
anywhere in the Old World, is now also the best authen-
ticated. It is based upon Lists of Kings, and their
regnal years; and these Lists are corroborated and
elucidated by contemporary monuments up to the 4th
Dynasty, with slight breaks; an authentication which
is as unexampled as its extent.
Hence, the critical reader has certainly no right to
deny its historical character. But he may very fairly
dispute its title to great importance in the general
history of nations, as long as it has not been submitted
C 2
20
[Book IV.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
to a further test, by being confronted with the history
of other countries. It is not from the time of Moses
and the Exodus that Egypt was first brought into con-
nexion with Asia; but the Exodus itself, with the ac-
companying incidents, was almost as great an event for
Egypt as it was for the Jews. The connexion with Asia.
was broken off after that event. They were soon after
indeed at war with the Assyrians, and, according to
Greek and Assyrian accounts, Egypt was then conquered,
or made tributary. Again: three centuries later, the
1st King of the 22nd Dynasty captured Jerusalem, ac-
cording to Scripture, in the fifth year of Rehoboam, the
son of Solomon. From that time down to Hophra-Apries,
the two histories frequently come into connexion and
collision. So likewise did Egypt and the kingdoms of the
Euphrates. The two great rulers of the New Assyrian
Empire (Sargon and Sennacherib), and those of the
New Babylonian Empire (Nabopolassar and Nebuchad-
nezzar), were mixed up with the history of Egypt.
But, long before this, Egyptian monuments of the 16th
century B. C. mentioned Babira and Ninia (Babylon and
Nineveh). The result of this contact between Egypt
and Asia must either be to produce harmony or contra-
dictions. What is the case before us? Are the Egyp-
tian monuments corroborated? We think we may ven-
ture to say, that the chronology of Egypt which we have
set up is verified when confronted with the Bible and
with the Greek accounts of Egypt and Babylon, and we
may also now add the cuneiform inscriptions of Nineveh.
Since the era of Nabonassar, the year 726 B. C., we
have to deal, generally at least, with a chronology which
is verified by astronomy. The 8th century B. C. appears
to have been the age when a general tendency displayed
itself throughout Western Asia and Europe for chrono-
logical pursuits. In addition to the era above mentioned
we have the commencement of the Olympiads in 776,
and the building of Rome in 754.
III.] VIEW AND METHOD OF THE FOURTH BOOK.
21
Beyond that date there was nothing certain in Europe,
and very little in Asia beyond the Bible; and, even there,
there is no connected chronology at farthest beyond the
time of Saul.
But there was a far earlier chronology in Babylon,
and one verified by astronomy. It went back to the
23rd century B. C., the beginning of the 2nd Dynasty.
In Assyria, it is only since the publication of the Ar-
menian version of Eusebius, and, indeed, by the enume-
ration of the dynasties which reigned in Babylon, that
we get to the 13th century, the starting-point of the
House of the Ninyads.
Most of these points, however, I have found very in-
definitely laid down.
The question arises, then - Where, in the records of
Asia are synchronisms to be found for the historical
points of contact between Egypt and Assyria and Baby-
lon: beyond the era of Nabonassar, or the middle of the
8th century B.C.? Ninus or Semiramis undoubtedly
conquered Egypt: where are the Assyrian annals which
tell us when they lived? Sesak or Sheshonk undoubt-
edly plundered Jerusalem in the fifth year of the son of
Solomon; and for this chronological datum we have to
thank the Jewish records: but there is a diversity of
opinion, to the extent of 40 years, regarding the year
B.C. to which that corresponds. Lastly:
Lastly: When did the
Exodus of the Israelites take place? When did Joseph
live? Either the historical monuments and traditions
of Egypt will tell us this, or it must remain a secret
for ever. The age of Ninus may one day, perhaps, be
established by the Assyrian Lists; but as to the date
of the Exodus, Egyptian history only can decide, for the
Bible neither gives the name of the Pharaoh of the
Exodus, nor that of his crucl predecessor. This is true
still more as regards Joseph, the imperial minister of
Egypt.
It is clear, therefore, that prior to the age of Solomon
c 3
22
[Book IV.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
no scientific chronology can be established, except
through Egypt, instead of that of Egypt being definable
by means of Asia.
The days are long gone by when anything was to be
hoped for from Chinese chronology in behalf of the
history of Asia. Still I am convinced that this is well
authenticated as far back as the 27th century B. C.; and,
from the vast antiquity of the people, it might well be
carried much further back without seeming to the critic
to be improbable. But where are the points of contact
with the history of the nations who have formed the
history of mankind and altered the face of this earth?
And where can we discover, for thousands of years,
among the Chinese, in the petrified recesses of their his
torical development, more than a slight advance or retro-
gression within immutable limits?
No sound Egyptologer, therefore, can do otherwise
than assent to that reserve as well as the requirement
on the part of the investigator of general history al-
luded to above. But he will also be justified in expecting
that, if under such circumstances Egyptian chronology
does stand the test of general history, her due claims will
not be refused, nor those of the science by which it has
been discovered, though these are still so shamefully
underrated by German scholars.
Of course such claims can only be maintained within
the limits of the synchronisms above mentioned, not
for points which lie beyond them. It will, moreover,
be the most advisable course to establish these syn-
chronisms by beginning from the lowest point and
going gradually up to the earlier periods. Starting
from the year of Alexander's conquest, we shall, there-
fore, have to examine how far the computation of the
Egyptian periods coincides with the points in the reigns
of the Persian kings which can be defined astronomi-
cally, and those of the era of Nabonassar. We shall
find in this way, as already intimated, that the highest
III.] VIEW AND METHOD OF THE FOURTH BOOK.
23
certain synchronism is the fifth year of Rehoboam, the
son of Solomon. This must coincide with one of the
years of the reign of 21 years of the 1st King of the
22nd Dynasty. But with which of them? And with
which Egyptian reign does the Exodus synchronize?
With what dynasty and what king the administration
of Joseph ?
Lastly, as regards the Assyro-Babylonian discoveries
of Rawlinson, we are fully convinced of their reality.
Hitherto, however, no proper chronology has been
discovered beyond the very modern king of Babylon
Nebuchadnezzar, and Sennacherib and his father Sargon
who are but little older. There are no series of two,
three, or several kings; and, if such lists should not be
discovered, we never shall have a real chronology of
the Euphrates kingdoms, unless where some solitary
date of a king noted in the cuneiform inscriptions
fits on to a Jewish or Egyptian reign or date. Here-
tofore we have neither found Lists of Kings nor a calcu-
lation according to a progressive era.
Ninus, even, and Semiramis are, as compared with
Egypt, very modern. According to a view which we
hope to establish in this Book, the Exodus (although
it only took place in the 19th Dynasty) was some forty
and odd years earlier than the beginning of the Dynasty
of the Ninyads.
But, with all these synchronisms, we obtain no co-
herent chronology for the Bible; for, as already re-
marked, it contains none before the time of the Kings.
The figure of Joseph stands there, isolated and alone, as
the last glimpse at the Patriarchal age. It is succeeded
by that obscure period when the Israelites were pre-
paring for the greatness and importance of becoming
a nation—a period of which their long bondage only
forms the last section. But the chronology of the
Exodus itself can only be ascertained from the Egyptian
monuments; and there is still a question as to six
c 4
24
[Book IV.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
years, even if our adjustment of Egyptian chronology
during that period be adopted. Lastly: we are cer-
tain to find in this quarter systematic contradiction to
everything historical. For the date as here fixed is
at issue with the Jewish-Christian calculation, and
at the same time attacks long-established prejudices
and hierarchical pretensions. We may, therefore, take
for granted, that any synchronism which can be proved
historically will be disputed or mistrusted a few years
longer "for the glory of God." Any one who knows
nothing about, and does not wish to know anything
about, philological research, may, without any dif-
ficulty, believe everything which he will, or is told to
believe. Any one who has no rational grounds for his
belief can never be at a loss for a doubt about any-
thing historical. Doubt becomes his nature, because he
lives in the Unhistorical and in Untruth.
We have, therefore, the more reason to be thankful
that Providence has given us the means of pointing out
an infallible astronomical point of synchronism in that
same epoch. As far as we are able to ascertain, the
Egyptians did not make use of a continuous civil æra.
But the priests computed by periods of 1460 and 1500
years; and there is authentic proof that the last Sirius
cycle ended in the year 138 of our era. It must, con-
sequently, have commenced in the year 1322 B. C.
Now this date has been transmitted to us, by the
Greek astronomers, in connexion with the name of a
king; consequently, in all probability, the name of the
very king in whose reign that cycle commenced.
The
MSS. spell it Menophres, which certainly is not,
and cannot be, an authentic name. It is probably
Menophthah or Menephthah, which differ from it but
little.
Now Lepsius has proved that there never was but
one Menephthah, and that he was the 4th King of the
19th Dynasty, the son of the Great Ramesses, the same
III.]
VIEW AND METHOD OF THE FOURTH BOOK. 25
in whose reign alone, according to Egyptian records,
the Exodus can have taken place.
From these considerations, the mere outline of which
is here given, it is obvious, that in the Fourth Book,
the Book of Synchronisms, it will be necessary to make
a threefold division.
Those which affect a given historical personage, or
fact, or epoch, are either astronomical or historical.
They are either based upon the connexion of some point
in Egyptian history with phenomena in the heavens,
which can be fixed astronomically, or upon its coinci-
dence with events or epochs in Western Asia. The
history of Egypt cannot be brought into
brought into any de-
monstrable contact with Eastern Asia, either in the
beginning, or in its constitutional development.
Of these we give the preference to the astronomical
over the historical.
But between the two we must examine the monu-
ments of the New Empire, from Amos to Sheshonk,
which have hitherto only been touched upon astronomi-
cally, that is, those extending from the time of the
chief of the 18th Dynasty, down to that of the reign
and campaigns of the founder of the 22nd, in order to
ascertain what historical matter they may furnish.
We have reserved to the Book of Synchronisms this
examination, which was originally intended to have
formed the second part of the Third Book, because, in
consequence of the peculiar nature of the monuments,
the history reflected in them must remain thoroughly
mute and unintelligible to us so long as we cannot
compare it, step by step, with the history of Western
Asia.
This is true also of the remains of Old Egyptian
traditions among the Greeks, especially in Herodotus,
which have reference to the New Empire.
The period from 1625 to 959, six centuries and a
half, is the one in which the monuments of Egypt are
26
[Book IV.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. .
on one side the most important, on the other the most
numerous. The absence of public monuments between
1270 and 980 (the latter years of Ramses III., in the
20th, and the last year of the 21st Dynasty) is as signifi-
cant as was the number of them before and afterwards.
It is a proof that the Assyrian supremacy was domi-
nant, and that Egypt was in a state of tribute.
Subsequently, after Sheshonk, we have only isolated
historical monuments, which require no further ex-
amination and criticism, as they have already found
their place in the chronological treatment of the Third
Book.
The three divisions of the present Book are therefore
as follows:
Part I. The Astronomical Synchronisms of the his-
tory of Egypt.
Part II.The History of the New Empire from Amos
to Sheshonk, according to the monuments.
Part III.- The West-Asiatic Synchronisms with the
history of Egypt.
Prefixed to the Third Part is the figure of Rehoboam,
the son of Solomon, the conquered king of Judah, in
the court of Karnak, among the monuments of She-
shonk, the Sesak of Scripture.
The Index of the Second Part is the ground-plan of
the royal palace at Thebes, commonly called Karnak, it
being the shrine to which the rulers of the New Empire
made successive additions, and where they left memo-
rials of their names.
As frontispiece of the First Part stands the hero of
this Book. Great as was the renown of Champollion, and
great as is the obligation which Egyptian history is under
to him, as being the first who restored the language of its
monuments, still the important consequences resulting
from his discoveries of astronomical synchronisms, and
III.] VIEW AND METHOD OF THE FOURTH BOOK.
27
his happy observation of a simple circumstance, obvious
to every one, upon which that discovery was based,
must in the eyes of the historian be his most valuable
and glorious achievement. An attempt is made in
the distichs to convey some idea of the effect of that
discovery. Allusion has been already made to it in
the Introduction to this work. The following brief
remarks will explain what was there said, as well as the
signs of the months, which are placed as a frame around
the picture. The choice of the scutcheons above it will
elucidate the history of Champollion's discoveries in
this department, which was given in the First Book, as
being the authority for his alphabet and adjustment of
history. On the left are the figures of Ptolemy and
Cleopatra, the names first deciphered; on the right,
Sheshonk and Alexander, as the guarantees of his system
in the most modern period: last of all the scutcheon
of Ramses II., the great conqueror, and author of the
most important monuments of the first period of the
New Empire, then the "Ultima Thule" of Egyptian
chronology.
The essence of his discovery was this. The Egyp-
tians divided their year into three seasons, one of which,
the commencement of the Inundation, regularly and
without any exception always coincided at Syene with
the solstice. But as they had neither intercalary days
nor months, but the vague year of 12 months of 30 days,
with 5 days added on as supplementary, the notation of
the first month of the Inundation every four years neces-
sarily took place one day before the right time. There
would, consequently, be a whole year in advance at the
end of 4 times 365, or 1460 years, which required to be
added, in order to bring the chronology into equilibrium.
The Egyptian calendar, therefore, must have originated
at a time when the first month of the Inundation co-
incided with the solstice. Without entering into the
28
[Book IV.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
details of this calculation, which will be discussed here-
after, the following question occurs to us:
What is the earliest date at which we find this nota-
tion of the seasons and months?
The answer to it was given several years after the
great discoverer's death by some notations of months
found in the Pyramids. The Egyptian calendar is older,
therefore than the Pyramids; so that the Canicular cycle
which commenced in 1322 must be the third, at least,
in Egyptian history; for the beginning of the second, in
2782, is subsequent to the 4th Dynasty, according to
every system of chronology based upon the monuments.
But there is evidence that the beginning of the one in
which the Pyramids were built is really the first, and
that it commenced before Menes.
It is, therefore, no idle question in what part of
the Old Empire the second Canicular cycle commenced.
At all events, we shall be able to show in which
of Manetho's dynasties he placed it. It will also be
seen that the most ancient adjustment of the Egyp-
tian year, according to our chronology, took place at that
very period of the Old Empire which is historically and
monumentally the most suitable.
It will follow, moreover, that the date of Menes can-
not be materially earlier or later, upon either astro-
nomical or historical grounds, than our calculation
makes it.
The Second Part of the Book is, as well as the First,
essentially the same as it was when it was written be-
tween 1838 and 1842. It has, however, been repeatedly
gone over since that time, and all the new matter which
has been obtained by my own researches, or through
those of other people, has been introduced into it,
especially those of Lepsius and the monuments of the
great Prussian work.
Its main feature is the most ancient and, historically,
most important synchronism of the New Empire, the
III.]
29
VIEW AND METHOD OF THE FOURTH BOOK.
Exodus. It is necessary to investigate that event,
purely from an Egyptian point of view.
In the Third Part, the chapter on the Jewish syn-
chronisms is by far the most detailed. There is not
a single point in Jewish history, from Zedekiah back to
Abraham, which is not tested chronologically, and, as
far as requisite, historically.
But those of Phoenicia, of Assyria, and of Babylon,
which are treated of in the first section of this Part,
are also intended to test, thoroughly and independently,
all the main chronological points in Asiatic history
before the Persian dominion.
Valuable as is the information derived from the labours
of other students in all these chronological researches, I
find that Niebuhr is the only one since Scaliger whose
views are really historical, independent, and to the
purpose. But the investigator who rests upon them
must not forget that in the last twenty or thirty years
a number of most valuable sources of information
have been discovered, wholly unknown or inaccessible
to them. It is the more indispensable not to conclude
without mentioning the main points, which may give
real assistance and encouragement to future generations
in making further researches.
For myself, I am conscious of having made an honest
use of the sources of information at my disposal, and of
being thankful to my predecessors for what they have
done. Nor have I advanced anything which I have not
considered and tested, according to the rule of Horace,
"for nine years.'
I have only mentioned such of my fellow-labourers
with whose method of research I can say that I agree;
but I have read everything that has come out since
that time.
I do not feel called upon here to enter the lists with
the others.
Yet it is my duty to enter my solemn protest, not
30
[Book IV.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
only against so unscientific a method of treating such a
subject, but against the immoral system of throwing out
imputations, which certain organs of public opinion in
England, and even writers of note too, have not been
ashamed to adopt.
They believe they are right-indeed, that they are
acting for the glory of God —in representing a work to
be irreligious which impinges upon Jewish or ecclesias-
tical prejudices. The answer to this is very short: that
it is an immoral practice, and unworthy of a man of
honour. In dealing with history, and historical research
which is worthy of such a name, it is no question of
favouring or not favouring any particular system, but
of discovering the sacred truth as it presents itself to
a conscientious inquirer. One might have supposed that
in the nineteenth century chronological and purely phi-
lological research would be very safe against these hate-
ful charges of being dangerous and pernicious. But as
this is not the case, and as there is no disguising the fact
that, throughout Europe, there is on the part of the
hierarchy and the priesthood, as well as of reactionary
governments who are either in league with or working
for them, a growing systematic opposition to all free
and independent research, it is necessary to tear off
the mask from the blind zealots who indulge in these
calumnies, and to tell them to their faces that, if they
attack a scientific point in an unscientific way, they
publicly brand themselves either as hypocrites or igno-
ramuses; and that, in a scientific point of view, they
hardly deserve any notice to be taken of them.
I should be truly grieved to be obliged to reckon
Mr. Richard Poole among this number, who, in his work
on the chronology of Egypt (1850) showed a sound
knowledge of hieroglyphics, and qualifications for be-
coming a sound critic. His historical research is, how-
ever, a failure from beginning to end. He has allowed
III.] VIEW AND METHOD OF THE FOURTH BOOK. 31
himself the most incredible latitude of arbitrary assump-
tion, in order not to disturb the rabbinical system of
ecclesiastical chronology in respect to the age of man
upon the earth, which he has taken under his protection.
Of course, the Hyksos Kings, and the Theban Kings their
contemporaries, with whose monuments he is acquainted,
stand very much in the way of this assumption; although
it cannot be called anything but dishonest or childish to
overlook the innumerable other arguments which render
it impossible from first to last. Here, consequently, the
most wonderful assumptions are brought into play by
Mr. Poole.
In spite of certain symptoms which are real matters
of regret, it is to be hoped that this
young scholar may
throw off these shackles; but I cannot do otherwise
than subscribe to what M. De Rougé has said of
him, in serious language and with the most friendly
intent.¹
A most pernicious spirit of ecclesiastical mistrust
prevails on this subject in an article in the "Journal of
Sacred Literature," July, 1854, only remarkable as being
very pretentious and superficial, upon Lepsius' "Letters
from Egypt," which are as modest as they are instructive.
It is generally attributed to Mr. Poole.
Unfortunately, too, we are obliged to say of Mr. Wil-
liam Osborne's work on Egypt, which appeared two or
three years ago, that, from a critical point of view, it
has no value whatever.
1 Mémoire sur quelques Phénomènes Célestes, lu à l'Academie des
Inscriptions, le 24 Décembre, 1852, p. 13. note: "M. Poole est du
nombre des jeunes travailleurs qui méritent qu'on leur dise la vérité
toute entière. Ou il n'a pas lu ce qu'ont écrit sur ce sujet les archéo-
logues récents, ce qui serait inexcusable, ou il les a lu, et ne les cite
pas, ce qui serait plus grave encore. Je n'ai pas lu le nom de Lepsius
une seule fois dans ce livre, à propos de toutes les questions traitées
si longuement dans l'Introduction à la Chronologie.""
32
[Book IV.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
I have accordingly the greater pleasure in being able
to mention the continuation of Mr. Birch's untiring
labours and instructive contributions to this depart-
ment of science. This zealous superintendent of the
Egyptian Department in the British Museum is going
on with his careful edition of the historical papyri in
that Institution. Sir Gardner Wilkinson's publication
of the Turin Papyrus is likewise a real addition to
Egyptology.
The brightest star, however, that has appeared in the
Egyptian heavens since the publication of the earlier
volumes of this work is without doubt the Viscount de
Rougé, superintendent of the Egyptian Museum in the
Louvre. I am indebted to his thoroughly sound criti-
cism of my work in the "Annales de Philosophie Chré-
tienne" for many suggestions and much instruction, as
is shown in many passages of my corrected English edi-
tion of the Second Volume. This was followed by a
beautiful explanation of the historical inscription of
the time of Aahmes, which gives authentic proof of the
chronological connexion between the 17th (Theban)
Dynasty and the chiefs of the 18th. Having already, in
1852, solved the great problein of translating a coherent
narrative — the remarkable historical romance of the
primeval times of Egypt, written in the age of Mene-
phthah, only a few years before the Exodus 2— he is
now preparing a translation and explanation of the
most important of the Sallier Papyri. This, as I learn
from himself, contains a description of the negotia-
tions between the Theban "prince," a king of the 17th
Dynasty³, and his contemporary and foe, a King
Apophis, at Abara (Uara, Avaris); and of the religious
2 Revue Archéologique, 1852.
3 See the synopsis of the 12th Dynasty in the Table of Synchronisms.
to this Book.
III.]
VIEW AND METHOD OF THE FOURTH BOOK.
33
motives which led to the war with the Set-worshippers,
who despised the other deities of the country.
The translation and explanation both of this record
(which, however, seems to have been composed only in
the 19th Dynasty, and to which we cannot positively
assign an historical character), and of the fragment
containing the campaigns of the second Ramses, which
forms the complement to an inscription still existing
at Karnak, may be shortly expected.
Thus has Egyptology far outstripped any rational
expectations which philologers and students might fairly
have entertained; and in the first thirty years after its
institution by Champollion its success has been trium-
phant beyond example. Of course we speak of the
Egyptology of which Champollion was the founder, and
which will be for ever established upon the basis of his
immortal Grammar. To mention any other is unneces-
sary, at all events out of Germany. Every man who has
laboured in this department, and whose name deserves to
be noticed, has pursued this system, and this alone: for
instance, Brugsch, in his "Travels in Egypt," 1855. As
long as Uhlemann, the present representative of Egyptian
science in Göttingen, places the dreams and conceits of
Seyffarth in the same category with the scientific la-
bours of a Champollion, Lepsius, and De Rougé, he
forfeits any title to knowledge of the foundation of
Egyptology and all claim to pronounce a critical judgment
upon it. Lepsius has already shown the insignificance
of Gumpach's attacks upon Egyptian chronology. But
when Seyffarth, in his late work on Egyptian grammar,
has had the boldness to assert that Lepsius and myself
admit Champollion's system to be fallacious and un-
satisfactory, it is about as gross and notorious a per-
version of historical truth as it would be to say that we
are guilty of considering his own figments and inven-
tions as anything but pitiable nonsense which is a
scandal to Germany.
VOL. III.
D
34
[Book IV.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
P.S. July, 1858.
The following publications,
which deserve particular notice, have appeared since
this was written:
CHABAS, F. Le plus ancien Livre du Monde, in the "Revue
Archéologique," 1858, p. 1–26.
HEATH, D. I., Rev. The Exodus Papyri: 8vo., London, 1855.
A Record of the Patriarchal Age: 12mo., London, 1858.
DE ROUGE. Le Poeme de Pen-ta-our, in the "Revue Contempo-
raine,” 1856, p. 389. Notice sur un Manuscrit Égyptien, in
the "Revue Archéologique," 1853, vol. ix. p. 385.
PART I.
THE SYNCHRONISMS OF ASTRONOMICAL AND HISTORICAL
EVENTS IN EGYPTIAN HISTORY.
D 2
37
SECTION I.
THE EGYPTIAN CALENDAR, AND THE DATE OF ITS
INSTITUTION.4
A.
THE MOVABLE YEAR AND THE SIGNS OF THE MONTHS MUST
HAVE BEEN ARRANGED ABOUT THE YEAR 3285 B. C.
It is almost universally admitted, after the various
learned investigations which have been instituted upon
the subject in our days, that there were neither inter-
calary days nor intercalary months in the civil calendar
of the Egyptians before the time of Augustus; but that
the civil year of 365 days gradually ran farther and
farther into the true solar year. A more recent attempt
to sustain the opposite view5, in which some passages in
the classics have been misunderstood and others over-
looked, must be considered entirely abortive. The fol-
lowing will suffice to show that such a notion is wholly
untenable. It is stated by
It is stated by Eratosthenes, nearly two
centuries before the reign of Augustus, that the festival
of Isis, which in earlier times coincided with the vernal
equinox, coincided in his time with the autumnal. The
only explanation of this is, that the civil year, in the
absence of intercalary days or months, passed through
4. In reference to this subject generally, we refer our readers to the
lucid and conclusive exposition in Ideler's Handbook of Chronology,
vol. i.
5 Upon the Names given to the Months by several ancient Peo-
ples. By Drs. Benfey and Stern. Berlin, 1837-8.
*
Vi
D 3
38
[BOOK IV. PART I.
ASTRONOMICAL SYNCHRONISMS.
all the seasons, inasmuch as it anticipated the solar year
by nearly one day in every four years. The consequence
of this would be, that a festival which originally fell on
the 1st of Thoth would gradually advance two, three,
four, and, at the end of 120 years, thirty days, or a
month, into the true year. Geminus, who lived 70 B.C.,
in quoting the above remark of Eratosthenes, states so
expressly in reference to his own times. How could
Ptolemy, in the age of the Antonines, have made the
astronomical calculations which he records, according
to the movable year, as Hipparchus also did, if it had
not been the Old-Egyptian year? But he expressly
designates these computations, which extended back far
beyond the Ptolemaic times, as "those according to the
Egyptians," in contrast with the Alexandrian method,
in which it is admitted that calculations were made by
fixed years from the time of the capture of Alexandria
by Augustus.
In a movable year of this sort the months, then,
must necessarily have advanced gradually through all
the seasons.
But in Egypt all the twelve months were connected
with signs of settled seasons, and, indeed, in such a
manner that, from the peculiarity of that remarkable
country, we can accurately assign the particular period
of the solar year which each of these signs was meant
to indicate, and, of course, did really indicate when the
calendar was arranged.
The Egyptians we know had three seasons, consisting
of four equal months of thirty days (a tetrameny). The
five supplemental days (epagomenæ) were added on to
the end of the twelfth. In the invariable order of these
months, Thoth being always the first, these, as the hiero-
glyphics by which the bust of Champollion is surrounded
on our frontispiece are intended to demonstrate, were
called, the GREEN SEASON, the HARVEST SEASON, and the
WATER SEASON.
SECT. I. A.]
39
SIGNS OF THE SEASONS.
M. Brugsch has since endeavoured to identify this
division of the year into three seasons with the hierogly-
sha, summer (autumn ?),
phical division into
pro, winter, and shum, summer.
www
www
The commencement of one of these, the Water Season,
or Inundation, we can accurately define, not merely his-
torically, but also astronomically."
For thousands of years past, the rising of the Nile be-
low the second cataract (Syene) always commences at
the solstice. From that time it continues to rise, until
at length it overflows. According to Herodotus, as well
as the observations of the French scholars and all travel-
lers, the inundation comes to its height after the lapse
of 100 days.
Assuming, then, the solstice to be on June 21–22.,
the inundation would be at its height a little before the
1st of October. It remains at that height for a few days,
and then gradually subsides.
As the water retires, in Upper Egypt at the beginning,
in the Delta in the middle, of October, the Egyptian puts
his seed into the moist productive ground. From 120
to 125 days after the beginning of the inundation, that
is, about the end of October, it begins to sprout. The
Water Season therefore corresponds with the four months
after the solstice, or pretty nearly with July, August,
September, and October.
The Green Season accordingly comprised November,
December, January, and February; and there remains
for the Harvest Season, March, April, May, and June.
The signs of the months, on the contrary, are as
follows:7
6 This subject is ably treated by Lepsius, Einleitung, p. 147.
et seq.
7 The names of the months (which, though new to us and only
known from the Coptic and Arabic transcripts of them, were Old-
D 4
40
[BOOK IV. PART I.
ASTRONOMICAL SYNCHRONISMS.
FIRST TETRAMENY.-The Green Season.
1st of Green Season
I. Thoth
II. Phaophi
III. Hathor
2nd
""
3rd
99
IV. Choiak
4th
22
November.
December.
January.
February.
SECOND TETRAMENY.-The Harvest Season.
V. Toby
1st of Harvest Season= March.
VI. Mechir
2nd
VII. Phamenoth 3rd
""
April.
May.
June.
VIII. Pharmuthi 4th
""
THIRD TETRAMENY.-The Water Season.
IX. Pachon
1st of Water Season
X. Paôni
2nd
29
XI. Epiphi
3rd
XII. Mesori
4th
22
July.
August.
September.
October.
Egyptian), and perhaps even the original way of pronouncing the
above hieroglyphical signs, have been satisfactorily explained for the
first time by Lepsius, who has drawn from them some very important
conclusions for the whole history of the Egyptian calendar. (Einl.
p. 133–145.; comp. p. 154. and other passages.)
In referring my readers to the text of my friend's learned and
generally conclusive researches, the following brief summary of the
astonishing results of them are here submitted. The names of the
gods of the months are recorded in the Ramesseum and at Edfoo.
FIRST TETRAMENY. The Green Season.
I. THOTH, THÔYTH, from Tet, the Hermes of the Egyptians,
probably as the opener of the year and of each month, like
Janus. Techi, however, is the goddess of the months,
probably merely an epithet of Isis.
II. PAOPE, PHAÔPHIS, i. e. the (month) of the. . . . perhaps a
name of Ptah: such is the name of the month-god, de-
signated also by the epithet Menkh, Evɛpyέrns. [Perhaps
the root is hotep, offered, offerer (Gr. öpis, in the royal
names) as an epithet of Ptah, like Ptah-Sokari (?).]
III. ATHÔR, ATHYR, ATHYRI, a name of Venus, the goddess of
the months.
IV. CHOIAK, in its complete form CHOIAHK, Arab. Kihak: the
SECT. I. A.]
41
SIGNS OF THE SEASONS.
It is clear that the months must have been thus de-
signated at a period when the 1st of Thoth fell about
the 25th of October.
It is easy for astronomers to calculate when and how
month-goddess Kahika; in Thebes, Pacht: the former
probably an epithet of the same goddess.
SECOND TETRAMENY. The Harvest Season.
V. TôBE, TÔBI, TYBI: tutelary god, Khem, Tehef-teb at
Edfoo. The second part of the word explains the name.
VI. MECHIR, EMCHIR: the jackal-idol (the Nile-horse at Edfoo),
with the addition rekh-ur, “great fire."
VII. PHAMENOTH, in Theb. PAREMHOT: explanation doubtful: the
idol also a jackal (Nile-horse at Edfoo), with the addition
rekh-si, "small fire."
This general designation of the 6th and 7th months is
very ancient. It was found by Lepsius on a monu-
ment of the 12th Dynasty (p. 154.). It alludes to a
division into the two halves of the year. According
to Plut. de Is. c. 44. the jackal was the symbol of the
horizon, as being the line of demarcation between the
upper and lower hemispheres.
VIII. PHARMUTHI refers to Termuthi, the Great Mother (t. ur
mut): the sign is a goddess with the snake. The name
she is known by is Kennen, the Snake Goddess; but Ter-
muthis occurs with this symbol.
THIRD TETRAMENY. The Water Season.
IX. PACHON, PACHONS, PASHONS, from the god Chensu, Chun-
su, Gr. Chôns (Herakles), son of Ammon and Muth.
X. PaÔN, PAYNI: the sign Hôrus with the name FENTI [possi-
bly the original signification was Typhonian (Set), "uôn,
ûn, the Opener, as Osiris is afterwards styled].
XI. EPEP, EPIP, EPIPHI: symbol, the frog-headed goddess Ap,
Ep. The Arabic form, Abib, is evidently the Hebrew
name of the gleaning month, Abib (the gleaning). At the
time of the Exodus the movable Epep would have coin-
cided with the vernal equinox.
XII. MESÔRE, MESORI, MESÔRI: sign, "Her-Ra (Horus, Sun) of
the two hemispheres: " the explanation, therefore, certainly
must be Mes-her-ra, the birth of the Sun-Horus, in refe-
rence to the winter solstice, the birth of the sun of the new
year. This is another proof that the ordinary year com-
menced on the first of Thoth.
42
[BOOK IV. PART I.
ASTRONOMICAL SYNCHRONISMS.
often in the course of the ancient history of the world
this took place. Biot, on the basis of accurate com-
putations made in conjunction with Champollion, has
given a very lucid exposition of the result. Although
their task was not finished when Champollion died,
the papers which he left enabled the great astronomer
to complete it, and the results were published by him
in 1831.8
The principal conclusions were as follows. In the
olden time 1505 solar years were almost exactly equal
to 1506 years of 365 days. Consequently every 1505
years the 1st of Thoth would fall on the 25th of October,
and coincide with the beginning of the Green Season.
This was the case in the following years B. C.:
275-1780-3285.
The evidence of the monuments renders it unnecessary
to prove that the Egyptians did not so designate their
months for the first time in the age of the Ptolemies.
They are, on the contrary, thus designated throughout
all the Pharaonic monuments; so that this notation can
be shown on contemporary monuments much earlier
than the second period, 1780 B. C.9
In so far, therefore, as the establishment of this de-
signation depends upon the above coincidence, it is
mathematically certain that it must have occurred in or
about the year 3285 B. C. According to our criticism of
the Lists and Monuments, this is the date of the 3rd
Dynasty, which was contemporaneous with the 2nd,
8 Recherches sur l'Année vague des Égyptiens. Par M. Biot.
Lues à l'Académie des Inscriptions le 30 mars, et à l'Académie des
Sciences le 4 avril 1831. 4.
9 Lepsius has shown that the signs of the months are found on the
very oldest monuments, the end of the 3rd and 4th Dynasties (Einl.
p. 220.). He found the 5 Epagomenæ, with their well-known signs,
on the monuments of the 12th (p. 146.); at all events, therefore, long
before 1780.
SECT. I. B.]
43
THE CANICULAR CYCLE.
and the traditional epoch from which the great organic
institutions of the Old-Egyptian empire dated. 10
B.
THE CANICULAR CYCLE OF 1400 YEARS MUST HAVE BEEN
INSTITUTED IN EGYPT NOT LATER THAN ABOUT 2800,
AND NOT EARLIER THAN 3300 B.C.¹
I
In order to extend our inquiry into the commence-
ment of the notation of the months by means of astro-
nomy, we must introduce into it another element-
the CANICULAR PERIOD, the Cycle of Sothis, or Sirius.
We learn from the trustworthy testimony of Censo-
rinus that the Egyptians possessed a Great Year, which
they styled the Sothiac Year, because on the first day of
it the sun rose at the same moment as Sirius-Sothis.
He states that one of these great years commenced 100
years before his time. The date at which he wrote is
the year 238, in the consulship of Antoninus Pius II. and
Bruttius Præsens. In that year, A.D. 139, the Egyptian
year really commenced with the 20th of July of the
Julian year, and in that year also Sirius rose in Central
Egypt about seven o'clock, consequently only some few
hours later than is assumed. Four years afterwards,
therefore, this heliacal rising took place about a day
after the beginning of the new year, and so, after
four times 365 years, about a whole civil year later.
Hence the Sothiac cycle appears to be a period of 1460
years; in the 1461st Egyptian year the first of Thoth
again coincided with the same day of the Julian year.
Consequently the year 1322 B. C. is the beginning of
that cycle which ended A. D. 139. The first of Thoth
10 According to Lepsius' chronology, in the 4th Dynasty.
11 Upon this point we refer our readers to Lepsius, p. 157. et seq.
44
[BOOK IV. PART I.
ASTRONOMICAL SYNCHRONISMS.
really fell in that year on the 19-20th of July. This
will appear by reckoning back from the 29th of August,
30 B.C. (the introduction of the fixed year), in which
the first of Thoth was then settled in order to introduce
the fixed year.
As the solstice, being the commencement of the inun-
dation, and consequently of the Water Season, was the
great turning point of Egyptian life, and Sirius the
brightest of all the fixed stars, it seems very natural
that the coincidence of the heliacal rising of that star
with the solstice and the inundation should be marked
and regarded by the Egyptians with especial attention
and favour. The observation of a single life was suffi-
cient to show that this coincidence fell off at the rate of
one day in every four years. The recurrence of the
coincidence at the end of 1460 years was, therefore, to
an Egyptian the most natural cycle.
Astronomers were early struck by the fact that this
star, owing to its position in relation to the latitude and
longitude, must, from the precession of the equinoxes,
have risen nearly in the same proportion later, as the
Julian year, which was about 11' 12" too long, ran more
and more into the solar year. This was the only reason
why the heliacal rising of Sirius, from 3300 B.C. down to
a few centuries after Christ, could always coincide in
Egypt with the beginning of the same day (the 20th of
July). It was the guiding star of their history.
SECT. I. C.] EPOCHS OF 1505 AND 1460 YEARS.
45
C.
SYNOPSIS OF THE EPOCHS OF 1505 AND 1460
YEARS.
In summing up these two inquiries, the first observa-
tion to be made is that the commencement of the nota-
tion of months in Egypt must have occurred at a period
when the first of Thoth fell on the 25th of October (ac-
cording to the present reckoning of the solstice at the
22nd of June), and, consequently, within the period of
the national development of Egypt in the years 1780
and 3285. On the other hand, the coincidence of the
heliacal rising of Sirius on the first of Thoth, about the
time of the solstice (beginning of the Water Season), took
place in the following years B.C.:
13222782
4242.
Of these five epochs, the year 3285 alone possesses the
astronomical peculiarity that in it, not merely the first
of Thoth falls at the very time its sign requires (the
beginning of the Green Season), but that the heliacal
rising of Sirius also coincides exactly with the solstice.
and the beginning of the inundation, and that this coin-
cidence was maintained for several centuries. This will
be seen clearly by the following table (Biot, p. 57.):12
12 From the importance of this proof we append Biot's own re-
marks upon this table, and his exposition of the singular peculiarity
of the year 3285 (Année vague, p. 57.):— “Il est possible que ce
tableau dépasse l'étendue des temps où l'année vague de 365 jours
a été réellement en usage. Le calcul qui nous l'a donné indique
seulement des concordances numériques. C'est à l'archéologie qu'il
appartient de fixer, parmi ses époques, les limites auxquelles on peut
remonter avec certitude, d'après les monumens jusqu'ici connus.
Toutefois la rétrogradation purement numérique de la notation égyp-
tienne amène ici une singulière rencontre. C'est la coïncidence, jour
pour jour, du solstice d'été de l'an -3285 avec le 20 juillet julien,
46
[BOOK IV. PArt I.
ASTRONOMICAL SYNCHRONISMS.

Year of the Julian
Period (Scaliger).
Date B. C.
Date of the movable
first of Thoth.
Date of the Summer
Solstice.
-76
-4790
+1429
-3285
+2934
+4439
- 1780
-275
4. December
1. August.
22. November 20. July.
11. November 9. July.
31. October
27. June. 13
13 The connexion between the rising of Sirius on the first of
Thoth and the above dates is as follows:
1322. Sirius rises 14-15 days after the solstice, i. e. after the in-
undation. Consequently it could not mark the beginning
of the year.
2782. Sirius rises 3-4 days after the inundation, and the distance
constantly increases. Consequently it also could not mark
the beginning of the year.
4242. Sirius rises 12 days before the inundation, and consequently
cannot serve that purpose.
conséquemment avec le lever héliaque de Sirius en Égypte. Pour
savoir à quel point cette rencontre était exacte, j'ai calculé la position
de Sirius pour cette année-là, au moyen des méthodes les plus pré-
cises que l'astronomie puisse fournir. J'ai cherché alors quelle
longitude cette position assignait au soleil au moment du lever
héliaque sous la latitude de 30°, qui était celle de Memphis et d'Hé-
liopolis; car, pour de si anciennes époques, on ne peut pas placer le
centre de la religion dans les parties les plus basses de l'Égypte. En-
fin, dans ce calcul j'ai employé l'arc de 11° pour l'abaissement du soleil
sous l'horizon au moment où l'étoile devient visible, ce qui est pré-
cisement la valeur adoptée par Ptolemée pour l'Égypte, comme l'a
démontré M. Ideler. Avec tous ces soins j'ai trouvé le soleil ex-
actement solsticial en -3285, le jour du lever héliaque de Sirius à
Memphis. Or, que le solstice arrivât aussi cette année-là le 20
juillet julien, c'est ce qui ne fait pas non plus de doute; car M.
Bouvard a calculé de nouveau ce phénomène, en introduisant dans
les formules les valeurs les mieux rectifiées des masses des pla-
nètes, ainsi que le nombre récemment adopté par M. Bessel, pour
la constante de la précession; il n'en est résulté qu'une différence de
quelques minutes sur le lieu du soleil au même instant. Enfin, la co-
ïncidence de ce 20 juillet julien avec le premier jour de Pachon vague
ne souffre pas davantage d'incertitude, étant une simple concordance
numérique de calendrier. On doit donc regarder comme indubitable
qu'en l'an-3285 Sirius se leva héliaquement sous le parallèle de
Memphis le 20 juillet, le jour même du solstice d'été, et qu'en même
SECT. I. C.] EPOCHS OF 1505 AND 1460 YEARS.
47
Hence the year 3285 is the central point of the period
at which Sirius, rising with the solstice and inundation,
might serve to mark the beginning of the year. From
it we may go down to the year 2800, and up to the
year 3800, without any considerable change. This
allows a margin of 1000 years for observations. The
early rising of the brightest of the fixed stars, however,
with the solstice, which then fell between the 10th and
20th of July, being of constant recurrence, it required
at most 100 or 120 years' observations to come to the
conclusion that the year of 365 days commenced every
four years one day too soon, and consequently was a
whole month in advance in 120 years; so that, only at
the end of 1460 years, the beginning of the 1461st year
again coincided with the heliacal rising of the star.
Biot remarks that a similar cycle might have been made
temps la notation égyptienne des mois, d'accord avec les phénomènes
solaires, marquait à ce même jour, au même 20 juillet, le commence-
ment solsticial de la crue du Nil.
"Pour bien sentir ce que la rencontre de ces trois faits a de re-
marquable, il faut considérer que le concours du lever héliaque de
Sirius avec le solstice d'été a subsisté, non pas exactement, mais
approximativement durant plusieurs siècles, avant et après l'époque
de -3285. Car en 500 ans, par exemple, ces levers n'ont dû
s'écarter du solstice que de trois ou quatre jours; et, comme leur
observation comporte au moins cette limite d'incertitude, il s'ensuit
que, pendant cinq ou six siècles avant et après l'époque précise de
-3285, Sirius pouvait, sans erreur sensible, être considéré comme se
levant héliaquement au solstice d'été. Or, que dans tout ce long
intervalle le point précis mathématique du lever héliaque solsticial
soit aussi celui où la notation égyptienne des mois est en concordance
rigoureuse avec le soleil, de sorte que le commencement de la crue du
Nil s'y trouve exactement écrit pour ce même solstice, sans erreur
au simple hasard des nombres, et qui offre bien plutôt l'apparence
d'un arrangement volontairement établi. Mais alors, pour faire cet
arrangement si juste, il devient nécessaire de supposer des observa-
tions de levers héliaques et de solstices suivies long-temps avant
l'époque où on le trouve réalisé, c'est à-dire avant —3285.
Car il
n'a pu l'être si exactement que par des moyennes prises entre de nom-
breux résultats. L'imagination hésite à remonter vers une antiquité
de tant de siècles, et cependant l'accord de lever héliaque de -3285
48
ASTRONOMICAL SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. PART I.
with the year of 360 days; the only difference being
that, in that case, the period which elapsed would have
been much shorter, as there would have been an advance
of 5 days every year, and the coincidence with Sirius
would have occurred between the 69th and 70th years.
At present, however, there is no trace of such a system.
This learned astronomer, therefore, considers the pe-
riod from 2800 to 3800 as the probable epoch in which
the monthly notation was instituted, as well as the
Sothiac cycle, providing there was then a year of 365
days.14
avec l'indication de solstice dans la notation pour cette même année
n'a pu être établi après coup, puisqu'il faudrait alors qu'en créant la
notation de l'année vague on l'eût exprès disposée de telle sorte,
qu'en retournant en arrière elle remontât juste au lever héliaque de
-3285, ce qui eût été bien plus difficile encore que de l'y adapter au
moment même. Quoiqu'il en puisse être, les cinq ou six siècles qui
précédèrent et qui suivirent cette époque mémorable, comprennent
l'intervalle de temps pendant lequel durent naître en Egypte les tra-
ditions qui, associant le lever héliaque de Sirius avec le commence-
ment de la crue du Nil, firent considérer cet astre comme le principe
excitateur des eaux du fleuve et comme portant avec lui la fécondité.
Ce fut alors seulement qu'il put intéresser assez pour devenir l'objet
d'un culte qui l'associait à tous les mystères, et le retraçait dans tous
les monuments. Ces idées n'avaient pas pu naître à des époques fort
antérieures; car alors le lever héliaque de Sirius précédait de plus
en plus le commencement même le plus faiblement perceptible de la
crue du Nil; et elles ne peuvent pas davantage être nées à des
époques fort postérieures, car dès lors le lever héliaque, s'éloignant
du solstice en sens contraire, retarda graduellement sur ce phénomène,
au lieu de le précéder, de manière qu'en 1780 il lui était déjà pos-
térieur de 11 jours, et de 23 jours en -275 sous les Ptolémées. Il n'y
a donc réellement que l'époque de -3285 qui ait pu, selon la vieille
tradition rapportée par Porphyre, faire considérer par les Égyptiens
Sirius comme ayant présidé à la naissance du monde.
tiquité de la tradition qui nous les a transmises se trouve bornée par
la date rigoureuse du phénomène physique qui leur a donné naissance.
N'est-il pas frappant de voir la notation si simple, je dirais presque
si naïve, de l'année égyptienne, remonter, par ses périodes révolutives,
précisément à l'époque exacte de ce phénomène traditionnel ? "
Ainsi l'an-
14 All doubt is removed by Lepsius' discovery of the Epagomenæ
in the 12th Dynasty (Einl. p. 146.), as remarked above.
SECT. I. C.] EPOCHS OF 1505 AND 1460 YEARS.
49
}
In examining more closely this ingenious calculation,
it appears to be fully established that the coincidence of
the heliacal rising of Sirius with the summer solstice,
and the correspondence of the months with their signs,
took place in the year 3285, i. e. nearly thirty-three
centuries before our era. Towards the end of that pe-
riod (2800), it is true that the former of these coinci-
dences still subsisted, but not so the latter. Assuming
that there was then as afterwards a year of 365 days,
the first of Thoth had advanced 120 days, and coincided
with the solstice and Sirius, but the notation of the
months had become three signs in advance.
We may
We may, therefore, suppose several cases.
first assume that, about the year 3200 or 3300, the no-
tation of months was instituted, and that the commence-
ment of the Sothiac cycle was remarked at the same
time. If so, however, it is singular, and not easy to
explain, why they did not make the most certain and
most sacred point the beginning of the year, and the
first Water month (Pachon) the first month.
year
15
This brings us to a second assumption. The signs of
the months were settled without taking into considera-
tion that there would be a time when the fourth month
after the solstice would coincide with the heliacal rising
of Sirius. It was only when this starting point of the
civil advanced nearer and nearer, that is, at latest
when the coincidence actually occurred, or about 500
years after the former period, that the idea crossed them
of the passage of the civil year of 365 days through the
solar year of 3651. Sirius and Thoth were the in-
separable characters and signs of the commencement of
a great cycle, and so they remained to the latest times.
It can hardly be, therefore, that the determination of
this cycle, an event so intimately connected with the
15 See Lepsius' explanation of this point in the Supplement at the
end of this Section.
VOL. III.
E
50
[BOOK IV. PART I.
ASTRONOMICAL SYNCHRONISMS.
whole of their religious institutions, was effected so late.
as 2782, because at that time Sirius rose three days
after the solstice and inundation. It may, however,
easily have been made at an earlier period.
D.
TRACES OF THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN A CIVIL AND RE-
LIGIOUS YEAR, AND OF THE NOTATION OF THE PRECES-
SION OF THE MOVABLE YEAR IN THE CANICULAR CYCLE.
I. THE WANT of, and the POSSIBILITY OF MAKING, SUCH A NOTA-
TION WITHOUT INTERCALARY DAYS.
THIS fact almost necessarily compels us to assume the
existence of a double year: a civil year, inseparably
connected with the land and its cultivation, which co-
incided with the 1st of Thoth, and originally com-
menced on the 20th of October; and a sacred or sacer-
dotal year, which commenced with the solstice, and
which implied indeed that in the primeval model year the
heliacal rising of Sirius was coincident with the solstice
and inundation. The question is, then, whether the
Egyptians observed a four-yearly intercalary year to-
gether with the cyclical year of 1460 years, which
started from the coincidence of the solstice and the
heliacal rising of Sirius and the swelling of the Nile at
the first hour of the first day of Thoth. To which we
reply, that the four-yearly intercalary year was assuredly
not in use, though it was noted by the priests and formed
the Unit for the great year.
When we consider the observation of the connexion
between Sirius and the year of 365 days, and between it
and the solstice and inundation, as the central point of
the astronomical, constitutional, and religious divisions
of the year among the Egyptians, there can really be
SECT. I. D. II.]
51
MOVABLE FESTIVALS.
very little reason to doubt that they had a means of
marking the progress of the cyclical year. This, how-
ever, simply means that they must have possessed a
method of counting the years of the cycle. It is true
that no trace has yet been discovered on the monuments
of the use of such a mode of calculating dates in civil
life. All that we find is chronological data according
to the regnal years of their kings. This is no argument,
however, against so natural an assumption. The monu-
ments furnish no sure evidence about the Apis period of
25 years, and yet there can be no doubt that the ancient
Egyptians did make use of it. There could be no diffi-
culty in making such a computation. As long as the
heliacal rising of Sirius coincided with the solstice, it
was only necessary to multiply the number of days
between it and the 1st of Pachon by 4, in order to get
the year of the cycle. In later times, again, religious
ceremonies furnished the readiest means of making the
same calculations. The year of 365 days was the civil
year, and most of the sacred ceremonies took place on
fixed days of the months of that year, and consequently
occurred upon them throughout all the seasons.
probable, however, though there is no proof of it as yet,
that the details of these were reckoned by the primeval
year, in which the 1st of Thoth commenced with the
heliacal rising of Sirius. Biot even fancies he has dis-
covered two proofs of it 16; but they will not satisfy
anybody.
It is
II. PROOF FROM THE ACCOUNTS OF THE MOVABLE FESTIVALS.
THE best evidence on this head would be obtained, if
we could get some more accurate knowledge of the
details of the great festival of Isis. It has been already
remarked that in the year 70 B. C. it took place a month
after the autumnal equinox; that in the time of Erato-
16 P. 146. seq.
E 2
52
ASTRONOMICAL SYNCHRONISMS. [BOOK IV. PART I.
sthenes (about 200 B. C.) it coincided with that equinox,
and, consequently, 720 years previously (900 B. c.), with
the vernal equinox. It is clear, then, that in 1322 B. C.
it must have occurred from 3 to 3 months earlier, that
is, about the time of the winter solstice.17
These movable festivals rendered it almost necessary
that a computation of the years from the beginning of
the cycle, that is, from 1 to 1460, should be made while,
on the other hand, by comparing their original place with
the actual one in the current year, they had the means
of making such a calculation. When any festival which
originally occurred on the 1st of Thoth took place on the
1st of the following month, 120 years of the cycle must
have elapsed. It was still easier to mark the cyclical year,
when, together with these movable festivals, there were
others connected with the immovable points in the year,
such as the solstices and the equinoxes. We must neces-
sarily assume that this was the case, indeed it is proved
by the festival of the Nile. The day of the civil year in
which such a festival took place, multiplied by 4, gives
the date of the year and the real beginning of the cycle.
It was easy to calculate these fixed points after nature.
had ceased to indicate the beginning of the year.
A careful examination of the monuments as well as
the hieroglyphical notices of the year will, no doubt,
furnish traces of such notations.18 It is fortunate, on
17 Lepsius (Einl. p. 62.) states that there is a complete calendar of
the festivals of the time of Ramses III., the beginning of the 20th
Dynasty, on the outside of his temple at Medinet-Aboo. There are
fragments of one of the 20th Dynasty, and some of later date, in
other places. These have been published by the late Mr. J. B.
Greene, an American, under the title of "Fouilles exécutées à Thèbes
dans l'année 1855:" fol., Paris, 1855.
18 These expectations have since been fulfilled by Lepsius' disco-
veries. In the first place he has found the key to the astronomical re-
presentations of the Pharaonic as well as Greco-Roman times, which
were previously sealed books. There will doubtless be a good deal of
obscurity on some points till we find astronomical papyri. But the
SECT. I. D. 111.] VETTIUS VALENS.
53
PORPHYRY.
(
the other hand, that records of the actual use of this
period have come down to us in the classics.
III. EXPRESS TESTIMONY.
1. The Testimony of Vettius Valens as to the Double Year.
ACCORDING to Bainbridge's quotation (comp. Ideler, i.
pp. 126. 171.), Vettius Valens (of the age of the Anto-
nines, unfortunately not yet published) expressly states
that the Egyptians made a distinction between a natural
and a civil year: "The Egyptians commenced their
(civil) year on the 1st of Thoth; their natural
at the heliacal rising (TTO) of the Dog-star."
cannot mean the then fixed year, in which the 1st of
Thoth fell on the 29th of August, but must be intended
as expressing the distinction between the civil movable,
and a fixed astronomical year.
2. The Testimony of Porphyry and a Scholiast.
year
This
Porphyry (De Antro Nymph. p. 246. ed. Cantab.) says:
"The Egyptians do not begin their year with the Water-
man, but with the Crab; for with the Crab comes the star
Sothis, which the Greeks call the Dog-star. The rising
of Sothis, however, is their new year.
"19 Absurd as
that definition was as regards later times, it was correct
in respect to the primeval times.
The Scholiast on Aratus (1. 152.) says: "The whole
constellation (of the Lion) is dedicated to the Sun,
for then the Nile rises, and the Dog-star rises at the
discovery of the year 1202 as the date of Ramses VI., in the repre-
sentation on his tomb, is most satisfactory. (Einl. p. 115.) That on
the tomb of Ramses IV. is still illegible. He having been the eldest
of four brothers must have reigned but a short time. About 1275
is the last known year of his predecessor; so that he cannot have
reigned later than about 1220. See Supplemental Volume.
19 Novμnvia in Ptolemy, the first of the Epagomenæ, consequently
the beginning of a period generally. Ideler, loc. cit. Comp. Lepsius,
notes, p. 150.
E 3
54
[BOOK IV. PART I.
ASTRONOMICAL SYNCHRONISMS.
eleventh hour (dawn). At this period the year com-
mences; and the Dog-star and its rising are considered
as sacred to Isis."
3. The Testimony of Horapollo.
The testimony of Horapollo is the most remarkable,
although no notice has hitherto been taken of it in re-
ference to this point (Hieroph. i. 8.): "In order to
represent the current year, the Hierophants drew a re-
presentation of a quarter of an acre (a land measure of
150 feet). To express it in words, they make use of the
word quarter (TéTapTov); for they say, that between one
rising of the star Sothis and another there is a quarter
of a day to be added; so that the year of God consists
of 365 days. For this reason also the Egyptians add
every four years a supplemental day; for four quarters
make a whole day." This is the reading of all the MSS.
Salmasius, however, thought the expression, "the year
of God consists of 365 days," meant the ordinary solar
year, and so concluded that the words "and a quarter"
had been lost at the end. But the year of God (the
Sun-God, consequently the solar year) is the very year
of 365 days which was in use at that epoch. Four"
years, as Horapollo says, make a day, consequently it
takes 1460 years to make up 365 days.
Here we have, moreover, the express statement that
the priests noted the current year in reference to the
cycle. Thus every four years they obtained a□ of 100
ells, or 150 feet. This notation was so important to
them that they called the year a quarter, because it
added a quarter of a day to the year of God, on which
the earth, stars, seasons, and zodiacal signs were again
in harmony.20
20 Lepsius (Einl. p. 53.) also quotes the passage ii. 89., which
expressly states the very thing we are looking for, namely that the
Eros (year-unit, quadrennial cycle) consisted of four évavroí (single
years of 365 days): τὸ δὲ ἔτος κατ' Αιγυπτίους τεττάρων ἐνιαυτῶν. Ι
SECT. I. D. III.]
55
INTERCALARY YEAR.
4. The Passage in Strabo about the Intercalary Year.
There is a passage in Strabo which certainly has been
quoted to prove that the ancient Egyptians had an in-
tercalary cycle of four years. Benfey and Stern, indeed,
have made use of it in proof of the existence of an inter-
calary cycle of 120 years with an intercalary month, as
amongst the Persians.
As the words now stand, Strabo says, in the seventeenth
book (p. 816. Cas.) 21: "In order to complete the year,
a certain portion of a year being required, the Egyptians
make up a certain period out of whole days and as
many whole years as is requisite of those fractions (of a
day) to make a complete day." These latter words cer-
tainly may mean an intercalary cycle of four years, but
cannot mean one of 120 years. If such were the case,
Strabo must have taken the Julian year, which was
already introduced into Egypt, for the Old-Egyptian
year. This would be in itself improbable, as he (p. 806.
Cas.) had said just before:
"Plato and Eudoxus,
after thirteen years' study of Egyptian history, have
found out the secret of the length of their year. They
(the Egyptians) added on to the 365 days the super-
numerary portions of the day and night." We should
have thought that Plato and Eudoxus would hardly
have required so much research to discover an inter-
calary cycle of four years.
Strabo, indeed, as appears from other passages, was
am indebted to him for a remark to me in 1850, that my view of
this passage in Horapollo explains why the palm branch, the sign
of the year, is sometimes found planted on a square.
21 Λέγονται δὲ καὶ ἀστρονόμοι καὶ φιλόσοφοι μάλιστα οἱ ἐνθαῦτα ἱερεῖς
τούτων δ᾽ ἐστὶ καὶ τὸ τὰς ἡμέρας μὴ κατὰ σελήνην ἄγειν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ ἥλιον,
τοῖς τριακονθημέροις δώδεκα μησὶν ἐπαγόντων πέντε ἡμέρας κατ' ἐνιαυτὸν
ἕκαστον· εἰς δὲ τὴν ἐκπλήρωσιν τοῦ ὅλου ἐνιαυτοῦ, ἐπιτρέχοντος μορίου
τινὸς τὴς ἡμέρας, περίοδόν τινα συντιθέασιν ἐξ ὅλων ἡμερῶν καὶ ὅλων
ἐνιαυτῶν τοσούτων (Casaub. proposes τοσαύτην), ὅσα μόρια τὰ ἐπιτρέ
χοντα συνελθόντα ποιεῖ ἡμέραν.
E 1
56
[BOOK IV. PART I.
ASTRONOMICAL SYNCHRONISMS.
aware of the excess of the quarter of a day. But,
under the former supposition, what was the meaning of
the words "they made up a certain period out of
whole days and as many whole years"? By a certain
period he may either have meant the section of time.
after which the intercalation took place, or that which
served as intercalation. If (under the supposition of a
cycle of four years) he meant to indicate the first sec-
tion, what was the use of mentioning days, instead of
saying "after
"after every four years they intercalated a whole
day"? But if he meant to give the length of the inter-
calary period, it is sheer nonsense.
66
The notion of a day being really intercalated every
four years, is contrary to all the statements of the clas-
sics. Herodotus notoriously makes no mention of any
intercalary period, and only speaks of a year of 365
days with months of equal length. His considering
such a system perfectly well adapted for establishing a
fixed year (i. 4.), does not alter the fact of the year
running on froin 365 to 365 days. Diodorus goes more
into detail, and shows more acquaintance with the sub-
ject. He says (i. 50.): 'They do not regulate their
months by the moon, but by the sun, inasmuch as they
have months of thirty days, at the end of every twelve
of which they add on five days and a quarter, and so
fill
up the cycle of the year. They have no intercalary
months, nor do they subtract days, as most of the Greeks
do." This clearly excludes intercalary days, as well as
months. For even if this latter phrase do not absolutely
prove it, yet the number of 5 epagomenæ is incon-
testable; and assuming an intercalary cycle of four
years, there would have been every fifth year 6 instead
of 5 epagomenæ. In this calculation, however, the odd
quarter is to be added.
The noteworthy scholiast on the Aratea of Cæsar Ger-
manicus (quoting evidently from the Hermetic books)
says that the notion of an intercalary day or month was
SECT. I. D. III.]
57
INTERCALARY YEAR.
an abomination to the Egyptians (ii. p. 71. ed. Lips.):
"The king was conducted by the priest of Isis to the
place which is called the most holy (Adytos), and was
compelled to swear that he would neither add a month
or day which they might be obliged to use as a fes-
tival 22, but that they should adhere to the 365 days, as
was the practice of their fathers."
Biot thinks that Strabo meant to imply that the
Egyptians were aware that there was a difference of
seven days and six hours every thirty years between the
civil and solar years, consequently twenty-nine days every
120 years, and that this was the astronomical origin of
the great festivals (Panegyries) of thirty years. Accord-
ing to this, then, they must have calculated the progress
of the cycle. But, as already remarked, Strabo's words
will not admit of such an interpretation. As they stand,
they must refer to the intercalary period of four years,
which is excluded by all the other authorities, and, in-
deed, by Strabo himself in the other passage. Hippar-
chus, it is true, had a clearer idea of the real length
of the year than as expressed by a quarter of a day;
but still, Strabo, as well as Diodorus, might consider
the system of the Greek calendar as more imperfect than
that of the Egyptians, without supposing the know-
ledge of the latter to extend beyond the quarter of a day.
We have referred repeatedly to the passage in Horapollo
which proves that they did not intercalate a day every
four years, but that they took it into account, and
marked it. Julius Cæsar may, indeed, have learned
from them the correct method of the quadrennial inter-
calation. It was the sensible and practical application
of a right observation of the length of the year, but
never acted upon in Egypt for sacerdotal reasons, for
the purpose of establishing a fixed solar year.
We have only further to remark, therefore, that Strabo
22 Quem in diem festum immutarent.
58
[BOOK IV. PART I.
ASTRONOMICAL SYNCHRONISMS.
did not express himself very happily in describing the
well-known period of four years, which the Egyptians did
not use as an intercalation, though they noted it, in order
to leave a whole year unreckoned at the end of 365
of these four years (i.e. every 1460 years). If this be
not admitted, we must assume that there is a mistake in
the text. The reading must be: "so many of these parts
(quarter days) are required to make up a year" (éviaUTóv
(ἐνιαυτόν
instead of ἡμέραν). His meaning in that case would
be, the Egyptians fix a certain period consisting of
whole parts (in reference to the quarter days which were
to be intercalated, so that there might be no odd quarter
over), and (in reference to the intercalary period) of
whole years, that is, so many as there were quarter days
required to make a whole year, i. e. four times 365 =
1460. Some hyper-ingenious emendator, who knew of
no other than the Julian intercalary period, must then
have altered the passage for the worse into the present
version of the MSS. It, however, is capable of explana-
tion, we think, upon the hypothesis above enunciated as
the text now stands.
5. Explanation of the Passage in Herodotus about the Sun
rising twice in the West.
Two points, at all events, are established: that the
Egyptians did not intercalate a day, but did take account
of it; and that from the sum total of entire days they
formed their divine or solar year, that is, the cycle of
1460 years. There is no question but that Herodotus
himself obtained information about the divine or solar
year, which he did not understand, but which he never-
theless recorded in his usual honest way.
The priests told him (ii. 142.23), that, during the
23 Εν τοίνυν τούτῳ τῷ χρόνῳ τετράκις ἔλεγον ἐξ ἠθέων τὸν ἥλιον ἀνα-
τεῖλαι, ἔνθα τε νῦν καταδύεται, ἐνθεῦτεν δὶς ἐπανατεῖλαι, καὶ ἔνθεν νῦν
ἀνατέλλει, ἐνθαῦτα δὶς καταδῦναι,
!
59
SECT. I. D. III.] SUN RISING IN THE WEST.
period from Menes to Sethos (about 773 B.C.) the sun
rose (avatεînα) four times in an extraordinary manner;
that where it then set, it had twice risen (avaтeîñαi),
and where it then rose (avarénλ) it had twice set,
without occasioning any alteration in Egypt, either as
regarded the products of the earth or river, or in refer-
ence to disease or mortality. Various attempts were made
to deduce some chronological data from this remark,
which Letronne tried to dispose of by refuting the
unphilological assumptions advanced in support of
them. He saw in it only one more, in addition to the
many notices in the classics, respecting extraordinary
natural phenomena and changes in the courses of the
stars.
There can however be no doubt, upon an unprejudiced
view of the passage, that the priests did mean to give
Herodotus a chronological statement connected with
these phenomena. His words certainly are enigmatical.
There is a mistake either in the former or latter part of
the sentence. For if the sun twice set in the east, it
must naturally have also risen at the same time twice
in the west; which makes, not four periods, but two.
We must suppose that the special facts were what he
was really told, and, as usual, reported faithfully, and
the erroneous deduction from them his own. This
furnishes us with a very striking solution. During
the course of the Sothiac cycle, the beginning of the year
gradually passed through all parts of the heavens; and
at the middle of it was at the exactly opposite point to
that of the normal solar year. When, therefore, the
priests spoke of this passage of the movable solar year
through the opposite points in the heavens, they may
have said, or Herodotus may have understood them
to mean, that the sun rose at the opposite side of the
heavens, that is, in the west, and set at the other side.
If they wished to describe the duration of two such
periods, expressing it in this way, they would have
60
[BOOK IV, PART I.
ASTRONOMICAL SYNCHRONISMS.
said that it occurred twice. We shall shortly find that
this was perfectly correct.24
Tacitus likewise mentions the number 1460 as that of
the Phoenix period, which, according to Herodotus and
others, consisted of 500 years. Ptolemy, lastly, has
clearly adopted the computation for the epoch of 25
years, for the length of a cycle of 1460 years.
If, then, all the notices regarding the Sothiac year
tend to the conclusion that the sacred ordinances were
based upon it, by the commencement of which, as being
the representation of the primeval and model year,
24 This view has latterly been corroborated by Böckh's emendation
of the passage, and Lepsius' learned explanation of it. Böckh (Ma-
netho, 36. seq.) argues that, according to Herodotus' own mode of
expressing himself, the words 0éwv must be interpreted like i. 15.;
in short that on simply means "habitations.”
"habitations." This would re-
quire ἀναστῆναι instead of ἀνατεῖλαι, which makes it perfectly intel-
ligible. It seems to me that Pomponius Mela also understood it in
this sense, for he says (i. 9.): "Mandatum literis servant, dum
Ægyptii sunt, quater cursus suos vertisse sidera..." Lepsius explains
it thus (Einl. 193.): "In the civil calendar also there was a day of
the summer and of the winter solstice, of the vernal and of the au-
tumnal equinox; they, had a northern and a southern hemisphere,
just as in the natural year. Now as these two circles gradually
change their relative positions, it will happen that the true sun, at
a fixed point in the ecliptic, the summer solstice for instance, will, at
each of these periods, rise once on the day of the summer solstice of
the civil year, at the top (v↓wμa) of the northern hemisphere; then
go down southwards, karabaire Tòv róror, as the astrologers said,
and will again go southwards for precisely the same period to the
opposite point of the winter solstice. After this it again takes up-
wards a northerly course, ἀναβαίνει τὸν βοῤῥᾶν, and lastly goes down
again to the north, when it returns to the point from which it
started; for the solstices were always considered as in the horizon,
and the vernal equinox as up in the sky (µɛσovparɛi). Now in those
years in which the sun set solstitially on the day of the civil summer
solstice (karén), it rose solstitially on the day of the winter sol-
stice (åvé¤ŋ), and vice versa. This astrologico-symbolical mode of
expression was doubtless of very ancient date, and naturally was
only understood by the priests, and took the exoteric shape of
legends, such as those in Herodotus called Egyptian, and as we find
them in a still more individualised shape also in Greek mythology."
}
61
SECT. I. E.]
THE APIS CYCLE.
all computations were made, the simple conclusion
will follow, that we require no other assumption, and
are not justified in making any. The coincidence of the
heliacal rising of Sirius with the summer solstice is the
grand fixed point of Egyptian observation. To this
point all their observations of the heavens and earth
were directed during a period of nearly a thousand years
ending 2800 B. C., the signs of which never did and never
could recur. This, then, must have been the commence-
ment of the Sothiac cycle, which, again, implies an earlier
or contemporary assumption of the Epagomenæ. Now
the year 2782 happens to be precisely the commencement
of the divine Sothiac year preceding 1322. The nota-
tion of the months, according to which Thoth (the be-
ginning of the civil year) was placed unchangeably 120
days after the solstice, may then have long been in use.
The excess of the quarter of a day, owing to the con-
nexion between its heliacal rising on the day of the
solstice and the year of 365 days, may have been long
known. The notion might therefore naturally arise of
making the coincidence of the civil year, commencing
with Sirius, the beginning of the great cycle which the
year must pass through before it could again be in har-
mony with the stars and with nature. No change was
allowed to be made: the arrangement of the festivals.
remained bound up with the model year, and the secret
of the true year was as completely kept as the key to it
was carefully preserved.
201
E.
THE APIS CYCLE OF 25 YEARS, AND ITS CONNEXION
WITH THE SOTHIAC CYCLE.
THE Apis Cycle was notoriously a period of 25 years.
It appears to me capable of proof that it necessarily had
62
[BOOK IV. PART I.
ASTRONOMICAL SYNCHRONISMS.
relation both to the lunar and solar years. As Ideler
has shown 25, there is not only a computation of the
mean anomaly of the sun from 25 to 25 years of the
Philippine era in the tables of Ptolemy, but that there
are, in the sixth book of the Almagest, tables for calcu-
lating the mean new and full moons, in which there are
progressive periods of that number of years (εικοσιπεντα-
ετηρίδες).
ETηpides). 309 mean months are only 1h 8' 33" less
than 25 Egyptian years.
To this we may add, that
the Apis cycle of 25 years thus produced the same re-
sult, in regard to the coincidence of the lunar phases
with the same days of the Egyptian year, as the Sothiac
cycle did for the recurrence of the heliacal rising of
Sirius with the beginning of the civil year.
There is a remarkable circumstance, though, as far as
I am aware, it has not been hitherto noticed, that these
tables of Ptolemy go on from 1, 26, 51, exactly up to
the 1476th year. This appears to me to depend upon
the following fact: 59 Apis cycles make up the Sothiac
year of 1460 years, with 15 years over. If they had
left off at the 58th Apis cycle, there would have been
10 years of the Sothiac cycle remaining. But this
carries us further. Originally, at least, the two cycles.
must have begun together. In the 1450th year, there-
fore, of the Sothiac year the phases of the moon would
have been nearly 3 days (2) behind the day at which
it commenced; and the renewal of the cycle offered the
simplest means of making the Apis cycle recommence
in such a way, that people should be fully aware of the
beginning of the new course.26
By this arrangement of the two systems, those of the
lunar and solar years, it might be supposed that the in-
tention was, by means of these cycles, to combine the
and that previously the civil year had been
two;
25 P. 182.
26 The discovery of the Apis tombs has led to still further expla-
nations. 1855.
SECT. I. F.J
63
THE PHOENIX PERIOD.
lunar year of 354 days. The notation of the 12 moons.
might exist just as well with it as with the year of 360
days.27
F.
THE PIENIX PERIOD,
THE Phoenix Period, as noticed by Ideler and others,
must be connected with the Sothiac cycle. Herodotus
was told in Egypt distinctly that it was a cycle of 500
years, while Tacitus also obtained certain data which
made it range uniformly with that cycle. 500 years are
so nearly a third of the Sothiac cycle (instead of 487),
that we must suppose it to be the third of the solar
year. At the end of 500 (487 years) the signs of the
months had got exactly four places wrong.
But we think this may be carried out further than
has yet been done. The commencement of the Canicular
cycle implies that the rising of Sirius corresponded
with the 1st of Thoth. But this is a displacement of
four months; for Thoth, according to his sign, begins
120 days after the ancient heliacal rising of Sirius.
Hence, it was only at the end of 487 civil years, com-
puted from the point of the proper notation of the
months, that the 1st of Thoth corresponded with the
27 Lepsius' investigations on this point will be mentioned in the
supplement. We will only notice here two very important facts.
He has proved, in the first place, that the festival of Apis coincided
with that of the Nile (Hapi is written just as well with the Apis ox
as with the Nile), and that the lunar cycle carried out by it begins
with the new moon nearest to the solstice, and consequently to the
inundation (pp. 157-160.). In the second place (p. 161.) he has
called attention to the circumstance of the Egyptian number of the
great cosmic year of 36,525 years clearly depending upon the Apis
period, and its connexion with the Canicular cycle, for it is merely
the multiple of the two (1461 +25.).
64
[BOOK IV. PART I.
ASTRONOMICAL SYNCHRONISMS.
rising of Sirius. This can be explained historically and
astronomically. It is an astronomical fact that the
notation of months is more ancient than the establish-
ment of the Sothiac cycle, and in fact by just about 500
years. In the restored Egyptian chronology we have
plenty of room for this period of time. Concurrent
with it was the lunar cycle by Apis periods, perhaps.
originally with the view of correcting the year of 354
and 360 days; twenty of these make 500 years or one
Apis cycle.
We must, therefore, conclude that the vague lunar
year was the original year. The Apis cycle was intended
to keep the solar and lunar years, perhaps even the year
of 354 and 360 days, in as regular order as possible.
G.
THE TRIAKONTAETERIDE.
It is possible that the period which occurs so often on
the monuments, the festivals of the Triakontaeteridæ,
may belong to the same category of which we have
spoken above.
All we at present know of it, however,
is from the Greek translation of the inscription of Ro-
setta, that it was one of thirty years. These festivals
are mentioned in the best Pharaonic times.28 The great
28 Lepsius, who has given the first complete explanation of the
hieroglyphic group, HEB-SET, the festival of Set (where, however,
neither the god Set nor Sothis can be signified, owing to its having
a different determinative), has demonstrated the use of it, and conse-
quently that of the cycle of 30 years, as far back as the 6th Dynasty
(Einl. p. 162.). The circumstance of the king being usually styled
"Lord of the festival of Set, like Ptah," led him to conclude that the
Triakontaeterida were especially dedicated to that divinity, and were
of Memphite origin. [Mr. Birch reads SET HEB, "celebration of
the festival." 1858.]
SECT. I. G.]
65
THE PANEGYRIES.
sacred popular festivals, the Panegyries, which are men-
tioned on the Rosetta stone, and exhibited in several
hieroglyphical representations, were holden in them.
Biot has remarked that the object may have been to
compute the cyclical years, inasmuch as after four Pane-
gyries (120 years) the difference between the solar and
civil year was just twenty-nine days. This is very pos-
sible.29
All these facts lead to the conclusion, therefore, that
the lunar year was the basis of Egyptian astronomy.
30
29 Lepsius is equally unable with Ideler to give any further ac-
count of its origin. He remarks (p. 163. seq.) that the equational
period of 120 years might just as well have been expressed by
divisions of 60 years or even less. Thirty may perhaps have been
preferred in order that every king might have a fair probability of
being styled "Lord of the Panegyries." Besides, it is worthy of
remark, that the festival of 30 years was celebrated at Patavium, as
being of Trojan origin and introduced by Antenor, whom the legends.
connected with Egypt (p. 165.).
30 Lepsius gives the most striking proof of this in Egyptian mytho-
logy, in his brilliant development of the old astronomico-astrological
year of the Egyptians. We thus obtain an explanation of the singu-
lar myth in Plutarch (De Is. et Os. c. 12.), who mentions that Hermes
played at dice with Selene, and won from her five days.
"Chronos,
i. e. Seb, the starry time, and Rhea, i. e. Netpe (Net-hur), the starry
space, were privately married and begat five children, the Planets.
The Sun discovered it, and was enraged because there was no more
room for new stars either in the heavens or in the year.
She
uttered, therefore, the curse against Netpe, that her children should
neither be born in a month nor in the year. Netpe in her dilemma
applied to the crafty Hermes, to Thoth, the god of wisdom and pri-
meval master of the astrologers. He devised the following stra-
tagem, after having himself embraced her. He, the Moon-God,
and choragus of the months and days, played in his turn with Selene,
and won back from her the 72nd part of each day of the year of
360 days as the right reading is, instead of the 70th. Out of
these parts he formed five whole days, which were added on after the
12 months, and at the end of the old year, as supernumeraries. Why
did he win them back from the moon? The sun and moon must
originally have been in harmony. Now, however, not only has the
solar year five more days than the old normal year, but the lunar
year has also five days less, 355 instead of 360. What the one gained,
VOL. III.
F
66
[BOOK IV. PART I.
ASTRONOMICAL SYNCHRONISMS.
SUPPLEMENT.
LEPSIUS' DISCOVERY OF THE SIGNIFICATION OF THE PHOENIX PERIOD,
THAT IT IS AN ACCOMMODATION OF THE PERIOD OF 1505 YEARS
TO THE PERIOD OF 1460 YEARS OR SOTHIAC CYCLE, OR A RECTI-
FICATION OF THE JULIAN PERIOD.
IN the notes to the treatise of 1838, which forms the
first section then completed of this Part, I have pointed.
out the vast gain which had accrued to this portion of
Egyptian research from the work of Lepsius. But I
have reserved for a special supplement what I consider
the most important of his discoveries connected with
this branch of the subject, inasmuch as it is the key-
stone to the restoration of the fabric of Egyptian as-
tronomy of which we are at present treating. I allude
to his demonstration (p. 196. seq.) that the ancient
Egyptians were acquainted with the precession of the
equinoxes, and calculated it in a period of 1500 years.
The first thing to which he calls attention (p. 166.)
is the fact of Petavius having already pointed out that
during the time of the Egyptian empire the heliacal
rising of Sirius in Egypt advanced in exact uniformity
with the Julian year. In about 1500 years, conse-
quently, it deviated as much from the true solstitial
point as the Julian year did from the true year, namely,
about eleven days.31 Ideler had already remarked that
then, the other must have lost. In this manner, therefore, the five
homeless planets, which were born afterwards, and the gods who
resided in them, were enabled to come into the world; on the first of
the Epagomenæ Osiris, on the 2nd Arueris, on the 3rd Typhon, on
the 4th Isis, on the 5th Nephthys. This seems to me to be the
whole purport of this allegorical myth, which is perhaps more appo-
site and clear than any other, while at the same time it throws great
light on Egyptian mythology generally."-Lepsius, Einl. 91, 92.
31 Einl. p. 165. seq.
SECT. I. SUPP.] PHOENIX PERIOD EXPLAINED.
67
the Egyptians would not fail to notice this difference so
soon as they had observed the heliacal rising of Sirius and
the solstice, during even 120 years. There appeared,
however, to be no proof that they made any use of this
knowledge. The reader must consult his work (pp. 197
200.) in order to see with what sagacity he proves
that the peculiarity in the Egyptian observations of the
precession of the solstices consisted in their not placing
it in the ecliptic but in the line of the equator, which
was also the doctrine of Eudoxus, whose connexion
with Egypt is universally admitted. It appears that
about 400 B. C. he obtained from Egypt, together with
two other spheres, a third which had reference to that
precession, the only doubtful point being whether he
understood it in the same sense as the Egyptians. Cer-
tain it is, that about 160 B. C. Hipparchus improved
upon the Egyptian idea by placing the precession in
the equator instead of the ecliptic. His assumption,
however, that this precession extended over a degree in
a hundred years, must have come from them, for it cor-
responds exactly with their calculation of the length of
the Cosmic year, which they set at about 36,000 years
instead of the correct one of about 26,000. The Egyp-
tian Cosmic year, as stated in the First Book, consisted
of 36,525 years. This is explainable by the connexion
between the above calculation of the precession and the
Sirius cycle; for, as already remarked, 36,525 is merely
1,461 multiplied by 25. It may have arisen, however,
as Lepsius thinks (p. 210.), from their making the pre-
cession a trifle less than the 360th part of the sphere.
The mythico-practical exhibition of this idea was
the combination of the Sothiac cycle of 1461 years.
with one of 1500, or three Phoenix periods of 500
years.
After Lepsius has demonstrated (p. 187.) the connexion
as well as difference between the Sothiac and Phoenix
cycles, which were connected with the 1st of Thoth,
F 2
68
ASTRONOMICAL SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. PART I.
both of them having commenced with the solstice, and
therefore with the inundation, while the Phoenix had
nothing to do with the rising of Sirius, merely connect-
ing the inundation with the sun, he shows that the 500
years form an exact solar Tetrameny, or third part of
the real period within which the year of 365 days coin-
cides with the true solar year (1506 of the latter years).
A period of 1500 years therefore appears to be a com-
plete Apis cycle. If we assume that the Egyptians
were aware that the true solar year was not a quarter
of a day longer than 365 days, but about eleven minutes
less, the Phoenix period would give them a means of
rectification similar to that which the Gregorian calendar
gives for the Julian year, only a more complete one.
This latter, we know, omits at the end of each century
one intercalary day, that is, four days too many in fif-
teen centuries, whereas the Egyptians come much nearer
to the truth with their cycle of 1500 years. 32
It is true that the existence of the Phenix cycle and
its connexion with the Sothiac furnish no proof that they
accurately understood the error in the Julian year. But
Lepsius has shown that they possessed all the elements
necessary for ascertaining it, and that, too, from the
earliest times. They divided the day (of 24 hours) into
60 parts, each of which again was subdivided into 60
parts; that is, hours of 24 minutes, and minutes of 24
seconds. They took, moreover, from the earliest times,
observations of the stars, sun, and moon. A simple
combination of these with each other and with the
wonderfully regular rising of the Nile, would suffice to
show the inadequacy of the Julian year, and at the same
time supply a continual rectification of it.
Any one desirous of forming an independent judgment
on this matter for himself must consult the fuller account
in Lepsius. The principal points only will be here
brought forward, which belong directly to our historical
32 P. 187. seq., conf. p.
213. seq.
SECT. I. SUPP.] PHOENIX PERIOD EXPLAINED.
69
*
researches, and the explanation of which does not re-
quire any further philological details.
Sothis is recorded in the 19th Dynasty as being the
beginning of the year. In the Ramesseum it is called
"the star of the beginning of the year." (Einl. p. 176.)
But the rising of Sirius is marked in the calendar as
early as the 18th century. (Tuthmosis III., Calendar
of festivals.) The Epagomenæ are found on an extant
monument of the 12th Dynasty, which will shortly have
to be examined, with its well-known hieroglyphical
notations. This is conclusive against Biot's idea that
they were first introduced in 1780, which was a very
forced one on other grounds. (Einl. p. 176.) It also
refutes another notion of his, based upon a scholion on
the Timæus of a doubtful character, that they were in-
troduced by Aseth, one of the Shepherd Kings. The
scholiast says he added 12 hours to the months, in order
to make them up to 30 days; and 6 days to the year, so
as to make it up to 365 days. Lepsius properly remarks
(p. 179. notes), that if the scholion states any fact at all,
it can only be this, that the king in question converted
the lunar year of 354 days, which was in use among his
Semitic tribes, into one of 360, by means of months
of 30 days, and then added the 5 epagomena. This
mixture of the Semitic and Egyptian element seems to
me, however, in the highest degree improbable.
Lepsius has collected from the monuments about forty
Lists on which the prescribed times for the Sacrifices of
the Dead are recorded. They all belong to the Pha-
raonic ages, and have clearly no reference to the civil or
movable year, but to the fixed year, which was kept in
harmony with the course of the sun by the epoch of
4 years and other checks. 33
As early as the 4th
Dynasty there are records of two different beginnings
of the year having been universally celebrated, but
33 P. 213.
F 3
70
[BOOK IV. PArt I.
ASTRONOMICAL SYNCHRONISMS.
they must refer to the vague and fixed year (p. 180.).
The only one of these inscriptions we shall notice here
is a very remarkable List of Sacrifices to the Dead, the
text and translation of which are given by Lepsius,
belonging to the 12th Dynasty and Old Empire 34, and
one of the most complete. It is as follows:
"Sacrifices to the Dead at all the Festivals of the
Lower World:
At the Festival of the New Year (1st of Thoth);
At the Beginning of the Solar Year (20th of July,
rising of Sirius);
At the Festival of the Great Year (close of the epoch
of 4 years, consequently on the intercalary day ?,
at all events every four years, according to the
statement in Horapollo explained above);
At the Festival of the Little Year (1st of Thoth every
new year? first new moon after the solstice);
At the Festival of the Close of the Year (last day of
of the year of 365 days);
At the Festival of the Great Panegyry (the 30-year
festival)
At the Festival of the Great Heat (the month Mechir,
see above among the names of the months);
At the Festival of the Lesser Heat (the month Pha-
menoth, see above);
At the Festival of the 5 Epagomena of the
At the Sheteta Festival.
and explains it as
harvest.']
year;
[Mr. Birch reads SHAT.. SHA,
festival of cutting food or
At the twelve Monthly and twelve Bi-monthly Festivals;
At all the Commencement Festivals of the Plain and
Mountain (?). [Mr. Birch reads, 'On all the fes-
34 Pp. 154. to 160.
SECT. I. SUPP.] PHOENIX PERIOD EXPLAINED.
71
6
tivals from the beginning on Earth till the ending
in Hades' i. e. from when the deceased lived on
Earth, till when he was put into the Hill or Tomb.']"
Though there may be some obscure points in this very
remarkable inscription, which is at all events 4000 years
old, science is indebted to the researches of Lepsius
for an interpretation of the most important, about
which there can be no doubt. We have not only the
epagomenæ, but, together with the vague year, the fixed
year, and the notation of the year every four years. We
have also the coincidence of the first new moon at the
solstice, as being the commencement of the lunar year,
with the commencement of the fixed solar year and the
rising of the Nile.
It is clear, therefore, that they possessed all the re-
quirements for making observations of the precession of
the equinoxes. But Lepsius deals with the contradiction
which Biot himself had not explained, namely, that (as
above observed) the epochs of the Sothiac cycle do not
agree with the equation of nearly 500 years: for the
former epochs occur in 1322, 2782, 4242; the latter in
1780, 3285.35 We must, therefore, assume that, at some
time or other, there was an alteration made as to the
beginning of the year. The epagomenæ must have been
added on to the last month. If, then, the 1st of Pachon
was once the beginning of the year, they must have
been added on to the month Pharmuthi, the last of the
Harvest Season; and on some suitable occasion, but in
the primitive times, have come after the end of Mesori,
or the Water Season. Now the civil and natural calen-
35 Biot, whom I have followed above, assumes the dates 1780—
3285. Lepsius (p. 212.) remarks that this causes an uncertainty of
4 years, as the solstice always fell 4 years in succession on the same
civil day. He prefers the dates of 1777-3282, because the year
3282 also a Sothiac epoch for the 1st of Pachon. In the tables I
adopt the latter assumption.
F 4
72
[BOOK IV. PART I.
ASTRONOMICAL SYNCHRONISMS.
dars coincided but once, namely, at the former epoch
(from 3285 to 3282), when Sirius rose heliacally on the
day of the solstice, and, indeed, on the 1st of Pachon.
But after the lapse of 480 years, consequently in the year
2802, it was discovered that the solstice was already 4
days in advance of the rising of Sirius on the 1st of
Thoth. It was not till the year 2787, when Sirius rose
on the 5th of Thoth, that the solstice fell on the 1st.
We can easily conceive, therefore, that an alteration
would then be made. They displaced the epagomenæ,
and celebrated the rising of Sirius 4 or 5 days earlier
than usual, so that it fell exactly on the day of the
solstice. By this means the Canicular period was al-
tered 500 years, and the new epoch commenced in 1322
instead of 1822. On this occasion, the Phoenix period
of 1500 years was also divided into three cycles of 500
years, corresponding to the division of the year into
three Tetramenies.
Lepsius assumes (p. 215. seq.) that this change in
the calendar coincides with the beginning of the 6th
Dynasty of Manetho (Phiops-Apappus), and with the
change of the seat of government, which was connected
with it, to Thebes; whereas, according to him, the other
first starting-point, the year 3782, fell in the 4th
Dynasty.
Here we differ from him; but we shall reserve the
discussion of these historical synchronisms for its proper
place in the Second Section of this Part, to which we
now proceed.
SECT. II. A.]
73
SECTION II.
APPLICATION OF THE ASTRONOMICAL SYNCHRONISMS TO
EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY AND HISTORY.
A.
THE RENEWAL OF THE SOTHIAC CYCLE UNDER MENEPHTHAH,
THE SON OF THE GREAT RAMESSES, IN THE YEAR 1322.
We have already ascertained, from the unquestionable
statement of Censorinus, that the Sothiac year of 1460
years was the 1461st, the great divine intercalary year,
the sum total of the 1460 lost quarter days, the com-
putation of which began in the year 1322. Ideler and
Biot have shown that this starting-point may also be
computed by knowing the day on which the 1st of Thoth
fell in the year of the conquest of Alexandria by Au-
gustus.
The point, therefore, is as completely proved astrono-
mically as it is by the testimony of history.
We will here cite another very trustworthy authority,
because his testimony carries us a step further, Theon,
the Alexandrian mathematician and interpreter of the
Almagest of Ptolemy, at the close of the 4th century.
Larcher has the great merit of having brought to light,
in his treatise on Herodotus (ii. 553. 2nd ed.), from a MS.
at Paris (Cod. Reg. 2390. fol. 154. 333.), the very remark-
able passage in Theon's unpublished commentary on the
Almagest.36
36 It runs thus: "If we compute the years from Menophres to
the end of the Augustan era, we get a sum total of 1605 years. If
we add to these the 100 years which had elapsed since the beginning
of the Diocletian era, we get 1705 years."
**
74
[BOOK IV. PART I.
HISTORICAL SYNCHRONISMS.
In order to understand it, we must first be aware that
the era of Augustus in Egypt ended A. D. 283; and the
Diocletian era begun on the 29th of August, 284.
Hence it is easy to determine the date before our era
of the commencement of the period which was named
after Menophres.
This period comprised, down to the
close of the Augustan era
Of which there elapsed after the Chris-
tian era
1605 years.
283
Leaving B.C. • 1322
The year 1322 B. C., consequently, was the date of the
origin of that computation of time. It is easy to see
that this is an era; but where is the King Menophres
to be found? Nowhere. The time is gone by when it
was admissible to get out of the difficulty by saying that
Egyptian kings had several names.
There never was,
moreover, at any time, a king named Menophres.
But I have already, in the Third Book, claimed a dis-
covery, which I made in 1833, that this so-called Meno-
phres (MENOOPHC) is only a slight misspelling of
Menophthah (MΕΝΟΦΘΕΩΣ).
There was, consequently, a new Sothiac cycle in the
time of Menophthah I., the son of the renowned Ramesses.
As far as the notation of months was concerned, the
epagomenæ might certainly very well have then been
introduced, the existence of which is implied in the
Sothiac cycle. Their introduction into Egypt must al-
most necessarily coincide with the discovery of the cycle
of 1460 years, or must have taken place immediately
after. For as a new course of celestial and terrestrial
phenomena began with the year 1322, nothing could be
easier than to add on the five days to the 12th month
of the year 1323 (Mesôre), or to make this addition in
the new year. But, according to the astronomical facts
SECT. II. A.] RENEWAL OF SOTHIAC CYCLE.
75
established in the First Section, the Sothiac
year could
not have been discovered and adopted in 1322. This
could only have been done in early times, the astrono-
mical limits of which have been assigned above. Sirius
then no longer rose at the time of the solstice, and
so the natural starting-point of Egyptian observations
and notations of years was lost.
The beginning of the previous Sothiac cycle would
fall in the year 2782 B. C. This date is most remarkable.
About the year 2800, Sirius still rose so nearly contem-
poraneously with the solstice and inundation (within
two or three days), that in the observation of the helia-
cal rising of the star in Egypt, about which there was an
uncertainty of from four to five days, as Ptolemy ex-
pressly states, these phenomena might be considered just
as coincident as they were 500 years earlier.
If this be true, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion
that the Egyptians must have noted this starting-point.
Having once done this, a knowledge of it could not
well be lost. Thus, in the time of Diocletian the era
was well known by the name of Menophthes, though
few people then could have known anything about the
king. Manetho, accordingly, must have found in the
Chronicles the dynasty and king under whom the
first Sirius cycle commenced. Even the priests whom
Herodotus consulted were acquainted with the two
cycles.
The question, however, is, whether we have evidence
and indications of its being actually used, the Canicular
cycle, at least, which commenced 1322 B. C., for fixing
the dates of historical events. We will endeavour to
find an answer to it, first in the Greek writers, and then
in Manetho himself.
t
76
HISTORICAL SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. PART I.
B.
THE APPEARANCES OF THE PHOENIX
FROM THE REIGN OF
PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS UP TO RHAMPSINITUS.
SINCE the researches of Biot, Lepsius has examined more
closely what information is to be obtained from the clas-
sics, and especially from a passage in Tacitus (Ann. vi.
28.), about the appearances of the Phoenix.37 As the
appearance of the bird Phoenix was a mere fable in
fact a symbol of the astronomical epoch of 500 years
which was misunderstood, we can well conceive that
announcements of the Phoenix in Egypt would be
treated like those about the Unicorn in Chinese history.
It would, indeed, have been strange, had not so mani-
fest an indication of the continual protecting care of
the Gods been intended to mark a great and happy
epoch. It would have been incredible that periods of
misery, injustice, and wickedness should have been hal-
lowed by the miraculous phenomena of the seasons.
This explains the reason of the Phoenix being frequently
announced before its time, in order to stamp and im-
mortalise some great historical phenomenon. Equally
intelligible is it that the period should be passed over
in silence, when the circumstances of the time were not
very brilliant. In the reign of Sesostris it must natu-
rally have appeared, although it was not the right time for
its appearance. We
We may
either suppose this Sesostris to
mean Sethos (whom Tacitus knew by the name of Ra-
messes, or confounded with him), or the Sesortosis of
the 12th Dynasty. When we consider that the Great
Ramesses came so close to the beginning of the Sothiac
cycle, that, in his time, they were certain to do every-
37 Einl. p. 188. seq.
SECT. II. B.]
77
APPEARANCES OF THE PHOENIX.
thing to connect him with that great leading epoch, we
shall be obliged to decide in his favour. It was, how-
ever, unavoidable that the two epochs of 1461 and 1500
years should frequently be confounded in popular nar-
ratives.
The next appearance is said to have taken place in
the reign of Amasis. This seems to be the most
natural way of explaining it. As a half Phoenix period
fell in the third year of the detested Cambyses (525),
by throwing it back a very little, they made it come at
the end of the reign of Amasis, and thus worked upon
the national feeling of the Egyptians. For, as Hero-
dotus remarks, in the reign of Amasis they were most
prosperous; and hence also everything connected with
him was of a joyous and agreeable character.
The third appearance mentioned is under Ptolemy,
"the third of the Macedonians." If, as we may fairly
conclude, this is a traditional Alexandrian account,
it must mean Ptolemy Philadelphus, which is also the
opinion of Lepsius. Tacitus himself, as we shall see,
could not have so understood it, unless he made a blun-
der in the date in copying the passage. Not only does
a Phoenix epoch fall in the reign of this king, but the
great solstitial year 275 B.C. also, in which the 1st of
Pachon coincided with the solstice.
Were it the object to make the next half Phoenix
period memorable (a forced attempt, however), they
clearly might have made a Phoenix appear in the year
25 B.C. But if the priests on the Nile sent a statement
to Rome in the reign of Tiberius that the Phoenix had
appeared in Egypt in the consulship of Paulus Fabius
and Lucius Vitellius, they must have calculated that
the gentlemen on the Tiber, who were never very deeply
skilled in the unprofitable science of astronomy, would
not test it by computation. Tacitus (who, however,
never questioned in the slightest degree the fact of the
appearance of the bird, but simply remarked: "Some
78
[BOOK IV. PART I.
HISTORICAL SYNCHRONISMS.
say it was not the right one") seems really to have been
the first Roman who ever made such a calculation, and
consequently a wrong one. He says: "There were not
so many as 250 years between the reigns of that Ptolemy
and Tiberius," instead of saying, there were 59 too many.
It must not be supposed that the introduction of the fixed
year by Augustus caused any confusion in the calcula-
tions of the priests. But in that restless state of excite-
ment in which they were, before all hope of their liberty
being restored had been abandoned, men speculated
upon the death of his misanthropic stepson, and the
Phoenix was either intended to signify that hope, or it
might, on the other hand, furnish matter of flattery for
the camarilla of the Tiber. The narrative of the elder
Pliny (N. H. x. 2.) proves how much reliance might be
placed on the superstition of the Romans after the death
of Cicero and Cæsar. He records, upon the authority
of a contemporary of the event whom he mentions by
name, that the bird appeared in the consulship of Quin-
tus Plautius and Sextus Papirius (A.D. 36), a year be-
fore the death of the suspicious tyrant, which at last
took place. But the sequel is most entertaining. The
Phoenix, in a bodily shape, was set up in the Comitium
in the year of the city 800, and a public record made of
it, though it was well known not to have been a real
Phoenix. There was, however, a real one; to doubt it
would have been an act of impiety on the part of any
distinguished Roman under an emperor who had become
devout all that the sceptics asserted was that it was
not the right Phoenix. It is clear that it had appeared
a little before its time, in order that its stuffed carcass,
which is mentioned in spite of the burning of Rome,
might give éclat to the celebration of the 800th year of
the city; and what could be more natural! The
The poet-
laureate of the old Tiberius, who died, nevertheless, soon
after, doubtless connected its appearance with the hap-
piness of the world under that emperor; and a courtier or
"
SECT. II. B.] APPEARANCES OF THE PHOENIX.
79
right-minded Quirite, in the reign of Claudius, could
not fail to introduce it into the Carmen Seculare. The
Egyptian priests, who were doubtless handsomely paid,
said to themselves: "Mundus vult decipi, decipiatur!"
- an axiom, the corresponding text for which is picto-
rially as unmistakable in the satirical Procession in
Lepsius' work, as it is in the pulpits of the fourteenth
century, and the popular epos of Reineke Fuchs.
The next epoch before Amasis, 775 B.C., occurred in
the disastrous period of the 23rd Dynasty, and we can
well understand that nothing was said about it to Hero-
dotus. The distress which prevailed at the beginning
of the next half-period, the year 1025, when they were
suffering from the Assyrian invasion, or the conse-
quences of it, precluded them from giving it any promi-
nent notice.
But I think there can be no doubt that Herodotus
speaks of the year 1275, the then next preceding com-
plete period, in which the solstice coincided with the
beginning of the second Tetrameny (the 1st of Tobi.)
meter.
Rhampsinitus, the Miser, as the priests told him, went
into the lower world and there played at dice with De-
He won something from the goddess, but also
lost something to her. In token of her favour she pre-
sented him with a scarf worked in gold. Ever after his
visit to and return from Hades, the Egyptians kept a
festival in which a priest clad in a mantle embroidered on
the same day, had his eyes bound, and being left alone
in a field, two wolves came to fetch him and convey
him two miles and a half to the temple of Demeter, and
then back again to the place where they found him.
The explanation of this festival we leave to the learned
mythologists, who (as we learn from Bähr in treating of
that passage, and from Schwenck) can tell us a great deal
about the emblems of life and death, and about every
kind of symbolical combination which it is possible to
work up from mantles and scarfs, web and woof,
80
[BOOK IV. PART I.
HISTORICAL SYNCHRONISMS.
light and darkness. Unfortunately, they could see
everything except the important point, namely, what
the Egyptians really understood by it. By the two
wolves they could understand nothing but jackals,
forms of Anubis, and as such they signified the divi-
sions of the upper and lower hemispheres. This, clearly
enough, had reference to the connexion between the
civil and natural years. Its mythical signification we
leave to those who can read and interpret the Book of
the Dead (for ourselves we are not sufficiently acquainted
even with the connected grammatical sense), or to those
who have the courage, without a knowledge of the state.
of facts, to penetrate and speculate upon the hidden mys-
teries of the world of thought and the history of long
past ages. The journey of Rhampsinitus into Hades
clearly alludes to the myth of Hermes-Thoth, so beauti-
fully explained by Lepsius, who also played at dice with
Demeter-Isis as Selene, and won from her the five days.
The game of Rhampsinitus does not seem to have been
quite so brilliant; neither could it be expected, when we
consider the time in which he lived. The highest known
regnal year of Ramesses III. is the sixteenth, according
to our calculation, the year 1275. He was succeeded
by his brother as Ramses IV., and perhaps in that
very year. We do not know how long he reigned. We
do know, however, that his younger brother and suc-
cessor had all his scutcheons erased. We may, there-
fore, consider Ramses V. in the Pharaonic history, as
the immediate successor of Ramesses III., who conse-
quently reckoned his regnal years from the year 1275
This Ramses V. we have shown in the proper
place to be the Rhampsinitus of Herodotus.38
or 1274.
38 Lepsius (Einl. p. 190.) considers him Ramses III.
SECT. II. C. I.]
81
CLEMENS OF ALEXANDRIA.
C.
TRACES OF THE CHRONOLOGICAL USE OF THE CANICULAR
CYCLE IN THE GREEK TRADITIONS ABOUT THE HISTORY
OF THE EGYPTIANS.
I. THE DATE OF THE EXODUS AS LAID DOWN BY CLEMENS OF
ALEXANDRIA ACCORDING TO THE SOTHIAC CYCLE OF 1322.
"
CLEMENS of Alexandria, as remarked in the First Book 39,
fixes the date of the Exodus, among other circum-
stances, by this statement, that it occurred 345 years.
before the Sothiac cycle. Now, as this commenced in
the year 1322 B.C.,
1322 B.C., this means that some commen-
tators made the date of the Exodus 1667 B.C. But,
upon closer examination, this does not turn out to
be a notice of its real date. Like all similar notices,
it is tantamount to the one which states that the
above year was the first regnal year of Amos, or the
beginning of the 18th Dynasty. This, according to
our tables, is forty-two years too high; for we make
this dynasty and the reign of Amos to begin in the
year 1625a much more suitable date than that of
Champollion and his school, who consider the collec-
tive numbers of the Lists of the 18th and 19th Dynas-
ties to be consecutive-which would bring us to the year
1822 B.C., and still not make Menephthah coincide with
the epoch of 1322.40
But such a mode of computation proves that, even in
the Alexandrian school, the beginning of the Sothiac
period of 1322, i. e. the era of Menôphthes, was known
and used as a fixed point for establishing chronological
dates.
39 Section III. p. 242.
40 Conf. Lepsius, who makes 1667 the 4th year of Amos. Einl.
pp. 168-171.
VOL. III.
G
82
HISTORICAL SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. PART I.
It may, however, be asked whether this system of
calculating backwards does not also prove that the
Egyptians were not acquainted with any earlier cycle,
or at least did not reckon by any other. Clearly not
So. It was more convenient to fix the interval from
the proximate starting-point of the new cycle, and it
placed a learned and conscientious father of the church,
like Clemens of Alexandria, in less danger of being
charged with heresy, if he did not calculate Egyptian
chronology farther back than was absolutely necessary.
We are, moreover, now in a position to state upon
astronomical grounds, the certainty of which is unim-
peachable, that it is utterly impossible that the Sothiac
period should have been first instituted in the year 1322.
The indispensable requirements date back beyond the
beginning of the next cycle of 2782. On the other
hand, the mere existence of an earlier cycle by no means
implies that it was necessarily used for chronological
purposes. But are there no traces in existence of such
a use being made of it?
II. TRACES OF THE USE OF THE Two SOTHIAC CYCLES FOR FIXING
CHRONOLOGICALLY THE LENGTH OF THE EMPIRE OF MENES
IN HERODOTUS.
THE transmission, by Herodotus, of the singular
tradition which has been so much canvassed, and which
was communicated to him by the priests, in reference
to the length of the period from Menes to Sethos, has
been most satisfactorily explained as a perfectly intelli-
gible, but figurative, astronomical date.
From our present point of view, however, there will
be no difficulty in proving that this date is approxima-
tively a very correct one in an historical sense. The
preliminary question is this-Did the priests make the
beginning of the empire of Menes correspond with the
beginning of the first Sothiac cycle, or did they not
intend to define the duration of the empire at all?
SECT. II. C. II.]
83
HERODOTUS.
In the former case, the calculation would stand thus:
Two Sothiac cycles make 2922 civil years (2 × 1461),
2920 tropical years,
equivalent nearly to
According to our tables, the 31-
years' reign of Sethos occurred
between 773 and 744. The
beginning of it, of course, is
meant, and therefore
Consequently, the commencement
of the Sothiac cycle took place
B. C.
From the beginning of Sethos'
reign to the fall of the empire,
Ol. 110, 1 B. C. -
773 years.
- 3693
Which gives as the duration of
the empire of Menes
340
·
4033 years.
We consider this number as a few centuries too high.
But what is that compared with the vast discrepancies
hitherto existing, owing to the perversions and blunders
of Jews and Christians ?
If the priests simply meant to say that two complete
Sothiac cycles had run out between Menes and Sethos,
exclusive of the odd years before and after, the only con-
clusion is that, at all events, neither of these periods
made a complete Sothiac cycle. The duration of the
empire from Menes to Sethos did not comprise 4× 1461
=5844 years.
Upon either assumption, however, the inquiry is
forced upon us, why did the priests mention Zet instead
of Amasis as the last king before the Persian invasion?
Any one who has followed our inquiry will at once
have a ready answer to such a question. 775 was one
of the great solstitial years; not indeed in the Sothiac
cycle, but in the Phoenix period. The last tetrameny
G 2
84
[BOOK IV. PART I.
HISTORICAL SYNCHRONISMS.
of the cycle of 1500 years, which ended in the year 276,
commenced with it. The beginning of the reign of Zet
was the last fixed point, therefore, which the priests
could notify to the inquiring Ionian. The Phoenix
cycle which began in his reign was still running on when
Herodotus was in Egypt, about 460 B.C.
Could this be accidental? Certainly not. It does not
however follow that we must therefore push up our
chronological tables two years or even more. But if
there be an error in this period, it cannot be an error
of more than a few years. Manetho, however, may
perhaps furnish us with an authority hitherto unnoticed
in support of the higher term, the beginning of the pre-
vious Sothiac cycle.
D.
THE TESTIMONY OF MANETHO'S HISTORICAL WORK IN FAVOUR
OF THE APPLICATION OF THE SOTHIAC CYCLE TO HISTORY,
AND OF THE CORRECTNESS OF OUR CHRONOLOGY.
I. MANETHO DIVIDED HIS HISTORICAL WORK ACCORDING TO THE
TWO SOTHIAC CYCLES, NOT MYTHICALLY, HOWEVER, BUT
STRICTLY CHRONOLOGICALLY.
Ir hardly requires to be specially mentioned, that a lo-
gical comparative criticism of the Monuments, Lists, and
Historians has furnished us with evidence in favour of
Manetho which has set at rest for ever all doubts as to
the historical nature of the traditions which he has trans-
mitted. Though not satisfied with his mode of pro-
cedure in the Old Empire, we at the same time came to
two conclusions: first, that the original tradition from
Menes downwards is not overlaid with cyclical, that is,
fictitious, dates; and, secondly, that Manetho did not
tamper with the original historical dates of reigns, to
SECT. II. D. I.]
85
MANETHO.
b
favour some cyclical purpose or other. So far, indeed,
we must maintain that Böckh 41, the venerated master
of philological research, has altogether failed in proving
that Manetho's Lists from Menes to Nectanebo bear the
impress of cyclical numbers. Yet we think we are not
wrong in supposing that had this sagacious critic, when
prosecuting his inquiry, been aware of the real facts
contained in the monuments, he would have abandoned
such an idea.
But he has, on the other hand, the merit of having
supplied us, not only with a great number of lucid
remarks and useful investigations, but of having also
caused more attention to be paid to the fact of the
unquestionable connexion between Manetho's work and
the Sothiac cycle than had hitherto been given to it.
Lepsius has still further corroborated this fact by his
own thorough criticism of the dynasties of the Gods.
He, as well as myself, had pursued the same method of
critical research as Böckh; but we had the advantage of
possessing a knowledge of facts in Egyptian monumental
archæology with which he was unacquainted.
We are now arrived at that stage of our inquiry
whence we can survey the last results of our criticism,
which has been carried out through all the three epochs
of the Egyptian empire by the aid of the monuments,
and are thus enabled to offer our readers a final judg-
ment upon them.
We will start at once with a question which, oddly
enough, none of our predecessors seems to have raised:
What was the principle upon which Manetho divided
his work into three books? Assuredly not for the sake
of external symmetry: in that case it would have been
divided into three decades. Neither can it have been
41 Manetho and the Dog-Star Period. Berlin, 1845. Comp. also
the laborious and sagacious researches of Plath : Quæstionum Ægypt.
Specimen. Göttingen, 1829.
G 3
86
HISTORICAL SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. PART I.
upon historical or patriotic grounds. The first book
contains the first eleven dynasties. It might seem as
though the object here was to give at least a brilliant
opening to the second book, which embraces the dis-
astrous Hyksos period. This was for a long time my
own impression. But then how are we to explain the
third book opening with the 20th Dynasty, which,
with the exception of the earlier years, was inglorious
throughout, and some time even tributary to the As-
syrians?
Looking at the question from the present point of
view of Egyptian research, the answer is not doubtful.
We now know that the first Sothiac cycle ended in the
middle of the 19th Dynasty, which was the close of his
second volume. Can this be accidental? The opening
of the history of the House of Ramesses was brilliant;
the latter reigns clouded over, and some of them dis-
graceful. They would have been very far from forming
a splendid conclusion.
Looking at his earlier dates, the idea will cross us,
whether Manetho had not the same reason for making
his first volume close with the 11th Dynasty. In other
words, whether the end of the period preceding the first
historical Sothiac cycle did not fall in the 11th Dynasty,
and whether he did not break off there for the same.
reasons as induced him to conclude the second with the
19th. A complete critical examination of his dates
has now been made; and, if the suggestion be correct,
the proof can hardly be wanting, for his 11th Dynasty
only lasted forty-three years.
Should the calculation, therefore, tally, there would
be a fair probability that the answer to the question is
found. Manetho, who computes the ante-historic period
by Sothiac cycles, would then, on the one hand, have
arranged the historical period dynastically, and in strict
accordance with the facts and dates before him; while,
on the other, he would have divided it in such a manner
SECT. II. D. II.]
87-
MANETHO.
as to make each of the first two volumes to close with
that dynasty in which a Sothiac cycle ended. In other
words, he took, as the basis of his arrangement, the
synchronism of certain reigns with the starting-points
of the two periods of 1460 years, which fell within the
chronological period.
II. MANETHO PLACED THE ELEVENTH DYNASTY IN THE EPOCHAL
YEAR 2782 B.C.
It seems then that Manetho's reason for concluding
his first volume with the 11th Dynasty was the same
as for concluding the second with the 19th, namely,
because a Sothiac period terminated during those two
dynasties.
We have only now to show that this really was his
calculation.
In the course of our criticism of his dates, after eli-
minating the blunders and palpable errors of copyists,
we have carefully noted the real remaining discrepan-
cies, as being, all of them, at least worthy, if not equally
worthy, of notice.
It was only after the chronological inquiry was con-
cluded that we reached the point where the true date
(if such exists beneath these data) must so far at least
be capable of verification as to exhibit Manetho's genuine
computation beyond all doubt. The calculation at pre-
sent stands thus:
A. The Beginning of the NEW EMPIRE, or the first
year of Amos, according to the only dates which
we can hold to be admissible, and as to which,
down to 1322, the utmost error that can exist is
only six years, coincides with
1625 B.C.
B. For the Length of the HYKSOS PERIOD, i.e. the
15th and 16th Shepherd Dynasties, and the 17th
Theban, as the only certain measure of time, we
G 4
88
[BOOK IV. PART I.
HISTORICAL SYNCHRONISMS.
come to the conclusion that there are only two
possible dates; one, that of Africanus, 518; the
other, that of Josephus, 511 years; which they
adopted as Manetho's chronology of the 16th
Dynasty.
The numbers then stand thus:
XV. Dyn. acc. Jos. 260; acc. Afric. 284; corr. 260—260
XVI.
XVII.
""
511;
""
518,
,,
511-518
151-151
Sum total, possible numbers 922-929
We remarked, in the course of the inquiry, that the
notion of Josephus about the 511 years representing
the whole period of the Hyksos race (Dyn. XV. and
XVI.) is altogether unwarranted. Manetho's date, on
which he relies, can only represent the length of the
16th Dynasty, to which Africanus assigns 518 years.
But, as the sum total of thirty-two reigns of that dy-
nasty, 511 turned out, from the evidences of a larger
number of manuscripts, to be better authenticated than
the 518 of Africanus. Our calculation, therefore, stands,
in the first place, thus:
1625
1625
929
922
2554
2547
According to Manetho, therefore, the first year of the
Hyksos period may be either the 2554th, or the 2547th
year B.C.
C. The Duration of the THIRTEENTH (Theban) Dr-
NASTY, in the Old Empire, down to its fall. All we
know from Manetho is that the sixty kings of this
family (whose names are not given) reigned 453
years a number, which we naturally could not
SECT. II. D. II.]
89
MANETHO.
consider as anything but the sum total of all the
reigns in it. From the chronological list of Era-
tosthenes, however, we learn that his last three
kings (XXXVI-XXXVIII.) belong to this dynasty,
and that they reigned 87 years. Now as we came
to the conclusion that the only tenable assumption
is, that the Hyksos Kings in Memphis did not begin
to be enumerated in the Lists till after the 63rd
and last year of the 38th King of Eratosthenes, we
have no hesitation in accepting this number as
being the actual, or very nearly the actual, number
which Manetho adopted in his lost Canon as the
length of the 13th Dynasty in the Old Empire.
This gives us for the beginning of it,
either 2547+87=2634 B. C.
or,
2554+87=2641
D. The conclusion we came to in regard to the TWELFTH
DYNASTY was, that Manetho's sum total, 245 years,
as it stands, agrees neither with the Papyrus nor
with the Monuments; but that, like the other en-
tries, it can be reduced to the chronological period
of 147 years transmitted by Eratosthenes. We
adopt the latter view most unqualifiedly; but must
here carry on the two dates.
This gives us for the first year of the 12th Dynasty
a series of four dates, according to the ascending
line :
2634
147
2641
2634
2641
147
245
245
2781
2788
2879
2886
$.
Consequently, for the last year of the ELEVENTH
DYNASTY,
2782-2789-2880-2887:
and as the two accounts agree about the length
90
HISTORICAL SYNCHRONISMS. [BOOK IV. PART I.
of this dynasty (43 years), the first year, if we
add 42, would be.
2824-2831-2922-2929.
It appeared to us, at the same time, that, on internal
grounds, the more probable of the two assumptions, in
respect to the length of the 11th Dynasty, is the one
which leads to the result previously anticipated: and
again, of two possibilities, that one which should turn
out to be preferable upon critical grounds.
This coincidence can hardly be accidental. If it be
not so, however, the following results cannot be con-
travened:
First: That we have recovered Manetho's own calcula-
tion of the whole chronology of Egypt up to the year
2782; and, in fact, taking into account how well
the other intervening points tally, that the utmost
range of possible deviation is a very narrow one.
Secondly: That this computation supplies a very satis-
factory explanation of the reasons for believing
that there was a certain connexion between the
plan of his work and the Sothiac cycle, and the
nature of that connexion.
Thirdly: That this connexion is no proof of the mythi-
cal character of Egyptian traditions since the time
of Menes, or of Manetho's mythical conception and
treatment of it; but, on the contrary, a direct proof
of the historical character of both.
Fourthly: That in recovering Manetho's own calcula-
tion we have undoubtedly recovered the true
chronology of Egypt, and, in fact, beyond the point
where the Canon of Eratosthenes commenced.
Fifthly: That the Annals most probably contained, side
by side with the computation according to the era
of Menophthes, another computation, by means of
the last kings of the 11th Dynasty, whose names
are not given by the epitomists of Manetho.
SECT. II. D. III.]
91
MANETHO.
III. THE STATEMENT THAT MANETHO ASSIGNED 3555 YEARS AS THE
LENGTH OF THE EMPIRE FROM MENES TO NECTANEBO IS
PERFECTLY SUITABLE.
We shall naturally be called upon in this place to offer
some proof that we are justified in considering the tra-
dition, that the chronology of the history of Egypt from
Menes to Nectanebo was 3555 years, came from Ma-
netho.
On this point, also, we are in a situation to offer very
satisfactory evidence. If, as we have assumed, Manetho
really set the duration of this period at 3555 years —
and if, as we think we have shown, he computed
for the New Empire,
Dynasties XVIII.-XXX. 1286
for the Hyksos Period,
Dynasties XV. XVI. XVII. 922
in all
2208 years,
1347 years:
1076
is
271 years.
his chronology of the Old Empire must
have been
the consequent discrepancy with the Canon
of Eratosthenes, of
In the Introduction to the Third Book we arrived at
the conclusion that the following dates come out as the
result of the different views from which it is possible to
start:
I. By adding up all the Dynasties from I. to XII. and
adding to them the 87 years of the 13th Dynasty
in the Canon of Eratosthenes, we obtain, under the
two different views,
Years. Days.
Imperial Dynasties, higher scale 1481+70
Collateral
27
(II. V. IX. X.)
1114
Sum total, 2595+70
92
HISTORICAL SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. PArt I.
Collateral
Or,
Imperial Dynasties, higher scale, 1481
lower
1036
""
Sum total, 2517 years.
Or,
Imperial Dynasties, lower scale,
1412
Collateral
1036
,,
99
Sum total, 2448 years.
Neither of these assumptions, therefore, tallies;
which merely confirms the view maintained through-
out that to add them all together would, in the
present state of the inquiry and in the teeth of the
monuments, be utterly preposterous.
II. Assuming the 10th (the second Herakleopolitan)
not to be contemporary, but the three others
(II. V. IX.) to be so, we get the same numbers
-185 years; consequently,
2410—2332—2263.
III. Or, if we omit both the Herakleopolitan Dynasties,
a difference of 594; consequently,
2001-1923—1854.
IV. Or, if we simply add the 2nd, as being contempo-
raneous, to the sum total of the Imperial Dynasties,
i.e. either 302 or 224 years, we obtain,
- 1783-1714-1705-1636 years.
V. Lastly, supposing the 5th only to be contempora-
neous (218 years), the result is,
1699-1630.
According to our views, each of these assump-
tions is as inadmissible and uncritical as the other.
The fact of the result not coinciding with the
SECT. II. D. III.]
93
MANETHO.
former number, 1347, which is indispensable for
our system, is merely, therefore, another confirma-
tion of the correctness of our criticism.
VI. Counting only the Imperial Dynasties, i.e. only the
Memphite and Theban after the first Thinite which
reigned in Memphis (and Thebes), the choice will
lie, as already stated, between
1481-1412.
We have shown, however, that, even supposing Ma-
netho, in the 1st and 3rd Dynasties, to have counted
the sum total of the years of reign, it was impossible in
the 4th, in the teeth of other authorities and of the
monuments: that in the 6th, on the contrary, it is more
probable that he did adopt the sum total as his chrono-
logy: that in the 8th a different assumption is justified by
the text and that in the rest, the 11th, 12th, and 13th,
there is no difficulty in adopting the sum total as the
true chronology. The choice, then, lies simply between
the two following series:-
Dynasty.
I.
Lower Number.
Higher Number,
188
253
IIL
214
214
IV.
154
154
VI.
113
203
VII.
-
conjecture 20
text 75
VIII.
142
146
XI.
43
43
XII.
176
176
XIII. (in the Old Empire)
87
87
Sum total 1137
1351
The higher number, therefore, is perfectly suitable,
if in the 8th Dynasty we give the preference to the far
better authenticated number 142 over 146.
It seems
impossible that this coincidence should be accidental.
94
HISTORICAL SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. PART I.
Manetho's computation, therefore, was as follows:
Old Empire,
length 1347 years,
Hyksos Period,
922
""
New Empire,
1286
""
Whole Period 3555
Of these three dates, those of the Hyksos Period and
New Empire I believe to be perfectly historical. In
regard to the historical chronology of the Old Empire,
on the other hand, I must decide against Manetho, and
in favour of the 1076 years of Eratosthenes, upon the
general and special grounds which have been developed
in the first two Books.
PART II.
THE HISTORICAL SYNCHRONISMS, EGYPTIAN BASIS :
OR
HISTORICAL SURVEY OF THE NEW EMPIRE FROM AMOS TO
SHESHONK (XXVIII.-XXII. DYN.).
}
3




J-BONOMI DEL
AMENOPH !!!
MEMNON
}
97
INTRODUCTION.
I.
THE HISTORICAL MONUMENTS AND THE HISTORICAL SECTIONS.
"STRANA veramente e singolare vicenda di queste cose
terrene, che dopo tanti secoli di silenzio, viva ritorni nei
fasti del mondo una storia di fatti, rappresentati e scritti
per quelli stessi che li operarono! Ed è lode tutta pro-
pria degli uomini famosi dell' Egitto, che, quantunque
vissuti in età sì remote, ci abbiano lasciato ed ancor sus-
sistano tanti monumenti parlanti delle lor glorie; mentre
in confronto sì pochi, sì rari ed incompleti se ne hanno
di molti e molti altri assai meno antichi e pur famosis-
simi regnanti d' oriente e d' occidente, dei quali cono-
sciamo le storie pel solo mezzo degli scrittori."-Rosellini,
Mon. Stor. iii. p. 64.
"Il testo tanto soprabbonda dei soliti titoli pomposi
ed enfatiche locuzioni di generale significamento, quanto
poco c' istruisce di quelle particolarità che più si de-
siderano nei monumenti storici. E questo è sfortuna-
tamente il carattere della maggior parte delle iscrizioni
storiche egiziane, le quali se molto c' insegnano rispetto
al poco che sapevasi delle antichissime storie d'Egitto,
non c' istruiscono per altro in proporzione del loro nu-
mero e della loro estensione, per difetto appunto di par-
ticolarità e d'indicazioni positive confacenti al soggetto."
- Ibid. iv. 83.
In the Old Empire, we have treated the historical
monuments of each king in the same sections in which
the restoration of the chronology is dealt with. Those
monuments supplied the evidence of the historical cha-
VOL. III.
H
98
[BOOK IV. PART II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
racter of Egyptian tradition, which we undertook to
adduce. The case is the same with the scanty con-
temporaneous remains which establish the existence of
Theban Kings in the long and gloomy Hyksos period.
It is far otherwise with the kings of the New Empire.
No one can any longer doubt, without being chargeable
with wilful and disgraceful ignorance, the historical
character of the Pharaohs of the 18th and 19th Dynas-
ties, of the Tuthmoses and Ramessides. Here, however,
there were great difficulties in restoring the chronology,
and a thorough investigation of this point, from the earli-
est to the latest dynasty, demanded the undivided atten-
tion of the investigator, as well as the reader. It seemed,
therefore, the most suitable course, not to interrupt the
unity of the chronological inquiry by an historical dis-
quisition. For, however dry to the generality of readers
an exclusively chronological inquiry may be, it becomes
simply confusing when mixed up with historical discus-
sions. On the other hand, it becomes peculiarly attrac-
tive to reflecting readers, as an exercise of the reasoning
faculties, when the fundamental method of restoring the
chronology is thoroughly carried out and submitted to
a connected test. Any one who shrinks from this may
pass over entirely the chronological portion, and admit
that the Pharaohs who are here mentioned really suc-
ceeded each other, and reigned as long as, upon the
strength of that investigation, we assume they did. We
trust that, before the close of the next ten years, re-
search, upon the basis of our restoration, will be con-
cluded.
In this manner, accordingly, the historical exposition
of Egyptian development in the New Empire will re-
quire to be provided with a considerable stock of mate-
rials, in order to be able to claim the recognition of the
strictly historical gain which Egyptological research
supplies for the six centuries and a half from the resto-
ration down to Sheshonk. We must, however, at the
INTROD. I.] HISTORICAL MONUMENTS AND SECTIONS.
99
outset, warn our readers against exaggerated expecta-
tions and false views in regard to this restoration.
In the first place, it must not be expected that we in-
tend to attempt a restoration of the Egyptian history of
those centuries of the New Empire. That history, in-
deed, is by no means lost, as has hitherto been supposed
in respect to the period prior to the Psammetici. It
speaks to us through imperishable monuments, which
record not merely the acts and works of the kings, but
furnish also honourable testimony to the remarkable
progress made in the fine arts by the nation itself.
These monuments are certainly not unfrequently wit-
nesses to the triumphs, the conquests, and other exploits
of the rulers. Contemporaneous Egyptian records of
these even are not wanting, from which we can discover
at least the names of the nations which, either as foes
or allies, took part in the expeditions of these mighty
conquerors. There must, however, be no misunder-
standing as to the peculiar historical value of these re-
cords. They are mere fragments of a tradition, which,
even if complete, would in itself offer nothing more
attractive than the sickening reflection of the same in-
ternal divisions, wars, and engagements in Chinese his-
tory. The attractiveness and vitality of all national
history depend upon the free scope given to individuals
in the development of national life. The only indepen-
dent individuality that could exist in Egypt was the
king, and, now and then, some liberal-minded priest.
In the time of the Tuthmoses, perhaps even in that of
the Sesortoses, there was no longer a nation, nothing
but torpid castes. Great occurrences in the country,
and great events in the history of the Egyptians, as a
portion of mankind, can only interest us, after the vast
disturbance of history generally, upon two grounds;
either from their intrinsic value as regards mankind, or
from their contact with the Semitic races which affected
the world at large. The Mosaic Exodus is one such
H 2
{
}
3
100
[Book IV. PART II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
instance in this epoch; and the Assyrian conquest or
supremacy in the succeeding one. We shall, therefore,
incorporate into our inquiry such synchronisms as have
an important bearing on general history.
We are neither able nor desirous of stating everything
which might be said, on the ground of Egyptian re-
search, about the history of the New Empire. We shall
bring forward such important historical matter as the
monuments of Egypt, conjointly with the biblical nar-
ratives, those of the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Greeks,
furnish us in respect of the great events of the empire.
The most important facts which these monuments con-
tain regarding the history of the kings of the New
Empire, in so far as they can now be made the subject of
historical research, must therefore be specially noticed.
The history of art and of industry, or conjectures about
unknown and unidentifiable names of conquered races,
are foreign to the object of this work, still more so of this
particular Book.
Now, as regards the strictly historical character of
these records, subject to this limitation, they possess a
value at once so great and so slight as none others pos-
sess. Where else are to be found authentic contempo-
rary monuments of considerable antiquity, erected by
sovereigns of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries B.C.,
the history of which it is our business to restore? Again,
where is there an instance of so many and such magni-
ficent monuments, which sometimes tell us little, fre-
quently nothing at all? This is the reason why we
have commenced this section with two passages from
the writings of a noble Italian investigator, our never
to be forgotten friend, Ippolito Rosellini, because they
give so correct a description of the twofold character
of Egyptian monuments. The former of the two sen-
tences was dictated by the enthusiasm which inspires
every man not altogether deadened or absorbed in
the pitiful literature of the day, when pictorial repre-
INTROD. I.]
HISTORICAL MONUMENTS AND SECTIONS. 101
sentations on monuments more than 3000 years old
speak to him of great exploits and works, in a character
which has ceased to be current for 2000 years.
The
latter was elicited by his feeling of truth, when he
became convinced that the greatest historical inscrip-
tion teaches us but little, and will, even when our
philological knowledge is more advanced, teach us but
little more. Both of them are true and apposite. Both
of them even possess an importance to history generally.
The Egyptians, as repeatedly remarked, are the monu-
mental people of the earth, as it were, the accountants
of mankind in time. They do nothing, they learn nothing,
they neither come into the world, nor go out of it, with-
out a notation of the year of the king's reign, and these
private records, in spite of the effects of destruction by
weather, by the hand of man, and natural decay, are
more imperishable, and, from the number of them, more
indelible, than the most important public monuments in
other countries. The same holds true of their writing.
Most things are repeated twice, both pictorially and by
means of phonetic signs; many of the latter again are
pictures, by the side of which Determinatives are placed
to convey the meaning of the word beyond mistake.
This in itself makes the written character prolix; the
repetition of fixed phrases renders it still more so. Little
is lost by occasional lacunæ. But comparatively little
advance also is made by what is preserved. There are
but few words in a line, and, what is still worse, little
is said in a great many lines. Inscriptions on public
buildings were not intended to convey any historical
information. They consist of panegyrics on the king,
and praises of the Gods, to each of whom all imaginable
titles are given. Historical facts are thrown into the
shade as something paltry, casual, and incidental, by the
side of such general pompous phraseology as Lords
of the World, Conquerors of the North, Tamers of the
South, Destroyers of all the Unclean and their Enemies.
H 3
102
[BOOK IV. PART II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
The case of the Papyri is certainly different. Written
history, such as the historical books of the Old Testa-
ment, was, as far as our knowledge of their writings
goes, as certainly unknown to the Old Egyptians, as it
is certain that the world-renowned muse of Herodotus
never inspired them. We have stated this clearly and
deliberately at the very outset of the inquiry into the
sources of Egyptian history. We have certainly still
much to learn before we can interpret to our satisfac-
tion the Papyri, indeed before we are in a position
thoroughly to explain the monumental inscriptions,
which are much easier to decipher on account of the
recurrence of the same phrases. Lastly, there may be
discovered in the tombs materials of which we have at
present no idea, and of a still more valuable character.
But we know already too much of those which are
preserved, to venture to hope that we shall ever find
anything different in kind; we should then recover
Manetho's work which was so early mutilated and adul-
terated. For the more we examine, and the greater
numbers of monuments we have access to, the more we
learn to know and to venerate his greatness and worth.
Concurrent with these stately monuments of the earliest
times, there must have been chronicles of the priests,
from which Manetho avowedly and ostensibly derived
his information. It seems, however, equally certain
that no one before him collected, sifted, and arranged
the scattered materials, by collating monumental lore,
the contents of chronicles, popular songs, and living
legends. Had Josephus and the Christian Fathers pos-
sessed half as much affection for historical truth as they
had zeal for defending their own traditions and doctrine,
they would not have allowed Manetho to perish. Afri-
canus probably, and Eusebius certainly, never saw
the entire historical work; Josephus saw merely extracts,
and those already tampered with and mutilated. The
Roman writers, however, in Christian times, had still
INTROD. I.] HISTORICAL MONUMENTS AND SECTIONS. 103
less feeling for history generally, less sympathy for the
antiquities of the barbarians; Varro even, the most
learned among them, and Tacitus, the greatest genius,
being no exceptions, any more than Pliny.
In an Egyptological treatise on the historical records
of the New Empire, all monuments which give any sort
of historical information must be quoted, and, as far as
that is concerned, explained. Wilkinson originated this
mode of dealing with them; Rosellini continued it more
systematically and thoroughly. Lepsius' great work,
however, is the first which gives the authorities, and is
executed with thorough criticism and precision. His text
(which is so anxiously expected) will fill up many lacunæ
in the historical exposition the bases of which are here
laid down, will correct many errors, and clear up many
difficulties. It seems the more imperative upon us only to
offer in this place sketches and fragments of the various
features in Egyptian history, and to hint at the principal
points for future research, in so far as we have gained
an insight into them. We always refer, therefore, to the
monuments themselves, according to Lepsius' plates;
and on other points to Rosellini, whose labours have
been our guide in this exposition (Monumenti Storici),
no other work being accompanied by a classical text.
Such of our readers as have access to it will not, proba-
bly, be less thankful to us for omitting everything that is
uncertain, or which does not contribute any historical
result, than they will be for what we have communi-
cated, with additions by Birch, De Rougé, and others.
The Egyptians possessed, therefore, a history; but it
was not in their monuments. The historical matter
we glean from them is not of more value than the
meagre remains of historical tradition which the epi-
tomists have rescued from Manetho. It corroborates
them, however, and proves the traditions to be really his-
torical. This is the main point for the student of history.
It must, therefore, be our first object, in this cursory
H 4
104
[BOOK IV. PART II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
historical treatise, to introduce light and shade into the
seemingly uniform and lifeless mass of events. Our
primary aim will be, to obtain genuine historical
sections, independent of changes of dynasty. The ca-
pability of distinguishing the flourishing periods of
their history, the seasons of stagnation, and the decline
of a dynasty and of the empire, and then of art, which
is evinced by its monuments, supplies, to a certain
extent, the lamentable want of individualities which we
cannot conceal, and the meagreness and imperfection
of the internal history of the people and state.
Such
sections and epochs are sometimes larger, comprising
several dynasties; sometimes smaller subdivisions, which
are easily surveyed. By this means, at all events, I think
I shall have the effect of forcing my readers to the con-
clusion that the centuries prior to Psammetichus are not
lost to history, even irrespective of the history of art.
We must not, at the same time, be blind to the fact
that the element of progress was very scanty in Egypt,
and that the nation had outlived itself; so that the New
Empire was an abortive attempt at a real restoration of
national life. Even an important power in the then
circumstances of the world appears only by fits and starts,
and the most brilliant conquests are frequently immedi-
ately succeeded by the lowest state of debasement. We
feel that everything depends on the reigning individual :
popular life is only exhibited in a state of suffering or in
mockery, and simply as a negation.
In order fully to appreciate the higher import of the
history of Egypt, we must first rise to the point of view
of universal history. Here Egypt appears as the con-
necting link between Asia and Africa, and as the instru-
ment of Providence for furthering its eternal purpose,
as forming the background and contrast to that free
spiritual and moral element which was to arise out of
Israel and of Hellas and spread over the whole world.
INTROD. II.]
105
REIGNS OF DYN. XVIII. XIX.
3
II.
SURVEY OF THE REIGNS OF THE EIGHTEENTH AND NINETEENTH
DYNASTIES.42
ACCORDING to the monuments, AMŌSIS (Aahmes), chief
of the 18th Dynasty, left behind him one son and two
daughters. The son succeeded as AMENŌPHIS (Amen-
hept) I. He had no children. After him, as third
and fourth reigns, we find
In the Lists (3.) AMESSIS (Aahmes), a daughter of
Amōsis, and (4.) Mesphres or MEPHRES (Ma-ke-phra,
or Mes.t.phra, daughter of Pharaoh ?), her daughter.
On the Monuments: (3.) TUTHMOSIS I., cousin and
husband of the heiress Aahmes, and (4.) TUTH-
MŌSIS II., the son of him and Amessis.
According to the tables and monuments, however,
these two series of reigns did not proceed harmoniously
together; for the Lists of Kings of this time mention
only the two male reigns, and the scutcheons of Amessis
are found but seldom on the public monuments.
The fifth reign is called
In the Lists: Mesphratuthmosis ;
On the Monuments: Tuthmosis III. (Ra-men-khe-
per), younger son of Tuthmosis I., consequently,
the brother of his predecessor, Tuthmōsis II.
The sixth reign (which is omitted in the Lists, owing
to some confusion which has crept in) is that of
AMENŌPHIS II., son of Tuthmosis III.
He was succeeded by his son TUTHмŌSIS IV., and he
again by his son AMENŌPHIS III., eighth king of the race.
After his death, however, a schism took place; the
42 Comp. Genealogy of the 18th Dynasty, Book III. p. 510. The
restoration of it, pp. 526–536.
106
[BOOK IV. PART II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
consequence of which is, that the reigns of his son Ame-
nōphis IV. (Akhenaten), and of two successors, Ai and
Amenankhut, are not recorded in the dynastic series.
Amenōphis IV. took the name of Akhenaten after he
became a heretic disk-worshipper. He had no male issue.
This schism would seem to have ended with the latter
reign, as this king's name contains that of the God
Ammon.43 He was succeeded by Horus, after whose death
we find a queen (probably a sister) with her husband
holding the reins of government, but we must suppose
only in the name of her son.
This son, probably the grandson of Horus through
his mother, was the founder of the 19th Dynasty, as
the first Ramesses. Lepsius' Book of Kings, now pub-
lished, shows how far the relationship between the
house of the Ramessides and the Tuthmoses can be re-
stored from the extant monuments, with reference to
the Lists, which, though corrupted by the introduction
and repetition of historical names which were misunder-
stood, are not falsified. In the mean time, the restora-
tion of the two dynasties, proposed by us in 1834 and
carried out in detail in 1845, as well as that of the 20th
and 21st, is unimpeached. So, likewise, is the separation
between the 18th and 19th. Down to Horus, it can be
shown that there is no break in the male line: with him
it clearly became extinct, he having no son. Here,
therefore, and here only, can the 19th Dynasty com-
mence. From the first Ramesses downwards we have
again an unbroken succession in the male line as far as
Sethos II. From the first Ramesses the sovereignty
passed to his son, the Great SETHOS (Seti) I., who, with
his son and successor, the renowned RAMESSES MIAMUN,
43 This is the result of the researches of Lepsius, contained in his
"Gods of the First Order," to the detailed account of which the
reader is referred. The result, the first idea of which was sug-
gested by Dr. Hincks, is generally admitted.
INTROD. III.] HIST. SECT. DURING DYN. XVIII. XIX.
107
forms the bright point in this epoch. Under MENE-
PHTHAH, son of Ramesses the Great, the fourth king of
the house, we find the power of Egypt suddenly broken;
and with his son, SETHOS (Seti) II., the male line and
dynasty became extinct, after Amenmesses had started
up as rival sovereign.
SURVEY OF THE HISTORICAL
III.
SECTIONS DURING THE EIGHTEENTH
AND NINETEENTH DYNASTIES.
THIS period of nearly three centuries and a half, which
represents the first historical section of the New Em-
pire, is again split up into five historical subdivisions or
sections.
The first Section comprises in 86 years the first
four reigns of the 18th, and the first five years of
the following dynasty. It commences (or coincides in
our view) with the reestablishment of the Pharaonic
throne in Memphis by Amōsis, and goes on to the with-
drawal of the Shepherds in the fifth or sixth year of the
reign of Tuthmōsis III. It is the period during which
the Theban rulers carried on the struggle for freedom,
successfully indeed, but yet slowly, eventuating in the
recovery of Lower Egypt.
The second Section comprises the zenith of the glory
of the empire which had again become independent,
- the period of conquests, and the recovery of the Pen-
insula of Sinai. The kings of this period are again.
four: Tuthmosis III., Amenōphis II., Tuthmosis IV.,
and lastly, Amenōphis III. — in all 114 years.
The third Section treats of the decline of the Tuth-
mōses, or the reign of Horus, who died without issue
male.
The fourth Section contains the rise and culmina-
108
[BOOK IV. PART II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
tion of the house of Ramesses, or the reign of the first
king of that name, and the two conquerors and heroes
of the family: Sethos I. and Ramesses II. — altogether
85 years.
Menephthah and his son Sethos II. form the fifth and
last period. In their reigns, the dissolution of the em-
pire was at hand, and the house of the Great Ramesses
became extinct, at least in the male line. But these
twenty-five years are of great importance to general
history. In the first reign of twenty years the renewal
of the Canicular cycle of 1460 years took place, and
the Exodus of the Children of Israel under Moses.
INTROD.]
109
REIGNS OF DYN. XVIII. XIX.
THE EIGHTEENTH DYNASTY.
Length of
Reign.
Higher Monu-
mental Year.
Generation.
Collateral Reigns.
Aahmes
I. Amōsis
II. Amenōphis
son
III. Tuthmōsis I.
cousin and
brother-in-law
IV. Tuthmosis II.
son
25
XXII.
First,
Ra-neb-peh
Amenhept
13
Ra-ser-ka
Second. {
Amessis (AAHMES), daughter of Amos, wife of
Tuthmosis I.
Tetmes
21
Ra-aa-kheper-ka
}
Tetmes
V. Tuthmosis III.
Ra-aa-en-kheper
brother Ĵ Ra-men-kheper
221
48
XLII.
Third.
Tetmes
26 J
Mesphres (Mephrês) daughter of Amessis, sister of
Tuthmōsis II. and III.: RA-MA-KA, as queen,
previously Hat-asu (Rosellini's King Amenemhe).
VI. Amenōphis II.
son
VII. Tuthmosis IV.
son
VIII. Amenōphis III.
son
IX. Horus
son
}
Amenhept
9
Fourth.
Ra-aa-kheper.u
}
Tetmes
31
VII. Fifth.
Ra-men-kheper.u
Amenhept
37
XXXVI. Sixth.
Ra-neb-ma.t
Her. Ra-usr-
32
kheper.u
Amenophis IV., son of Amenophis III., assumed
after his heresy the name of Akhenaten, and
reigned 12 years: he died without male issue, after
adopting a step-son, Ra-saa-kheperu - Kanakht.
VII. Seventh. He was succeeded by the heretic priest Ai, who
reigned 9 years, and who was succeeded by Amen-
Lankhut, who reigned 12.
Length of the Dynasty: 216 years.
110
[Book IV. PART II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
THE NINETEENTH DYNASTY.
Length of
Reign.
Highest Monu-
mental Year.
Generation.
Counter-Reigns.
Ramessu
I. Ramesses I.
II. Sethos I.
son
III. Ramesses II.
son
IV. Menôphthah
son
9
II.
First.
Ra-men-peh
Seti
12
1.
Second.
Ra-men-Ma.t
Ramessu
66
LXII.
Third.
Ramesses, a relation.
Ra-usr-Ma.t
Meri-en-pteh
Ba-en-Ra
20
IV.
Fourth.
Ta-usr, daughter of the Great Ramses, and her
husband, Si-ptah. Amenemses (Amen-messu).
V. Sethos II.
{ Meri-en-pteh
Οι
Fifth ?
Whole length of the Epoch:
Length of the Dynasty: 112 years.
XVIII. Dynasty
XIX.
>>
Altogether
216 years, 7 generations. Average, 30 years.
-
112
328
5 (4)
12 (11)
وو
22 / (28) years.
Average for a Generation, at the most 30 years, at the least 27 years.
SECT. I. A.]
111
SECTION I.
THE CLOSE OF THE WAR OF LIBERATION; OR, FROM THE
FIRST YEAR OF AMŌSIS TO THE FIFTH OF TUTHMŌSIS III.
-86 YEARS.
A.
THE FIRST REIGN: AMŌSIS (AAHMES RA-NEB-Peн).—25 YEARS.
(Pl. VII. 11.)
(Lepsius, Historical Monuments of the New Empire, vol. v.
Pl. 1, 2, 3.)
THE most important point in the history of the first
king of the New Empire is the authentic proof of his
having occupied Memphis.
We have assumed this as being a necessary con-
sequence from the fact of his appearing in the Lists as
the first Imperial Sovereign, which, according to our
fundamental assumption, implies the reconquest of Mem-
phis. But we are in a position to prove it, in two ways,
by contemporary records. The remarkable inscription
published by the elder Champollion from the posthumous
papers of his great brother, and since commented upon by
De Rougé and by Birch in his Imperial Records of Tuth-
mōsis III.44, proves that his reign commenced simulta-
neously with the recapture of Memphis. In a sepulchral
inscription of the time, a captain of the Egyptian navy
relates how he had served at Tanis (the Zoan of Scrip-
ture), under Amosis. The struggle lasted till the fifth
year of his reign. Then war broke out in the south, and
44 Champollion Figeac, l'Égypte Ancienne, p. 300. Birch in
Trans. R. Soc. of Lit. 1847, p. 323.
112
[Book IV. PART II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
he was ordered to Kesh (Ethiopia), whither also the king
afterwards repaired in order to collect the tribute.
In the first years of his reign, then, the struggle was
going on about the Delta, with Memphis as a base.
Amōsis, in his fifth year, was not master of the whole
country, but was able to fall back upon Ethiopia.
A public inscription 45, communicated and explained
by Rosellini, supplies the second proof that Amosis was
victorious, for he restored the shrines in the imperial
city which had been captured. A stele, hewn out in the
rock at the quarries of Mokattam, near Cairo, the lower
part of which is unfortunately injured, states, as though
expressly intended to prove the case for us-that in
the twenty-second year of the reign of this king
these quarries were opened, for the restoration "of the
temples at Memphis and the temple of Ammon at
Thebes." Over this inscription is the royal scutcheon
of the king, and on each side of it that of his wife.
She is the illustrious heiress with whom we became ac-
quainted when making our researches about the 17th
Dynasty—the Princess AAHMES NEFRU-ARI (the good,
glorious woman). Her titles are: "Royal Wife, Mo-
ther, Daughter, Sister." She was, consequently, the
daughter of a Theban king, and, in fact, the daughter of
an Ethiopian house, or one allied with Ethiopian blood.
The historical representations describe her as black,
unlike all the other Egyptian races. It is easy to under-
stand that in those days Theban families intermarried
with Ethiopian princes; for it was from the South only
that they received any support and reserves during the
struggle with the Shepherd Kings. It is probable
that the Ethiopian ancestress, on the mother's side,
received some provinces as her dowry: at all events, a
45 Monumenti Storici, i. 195. c. and Pl. xv. We shall in future
distinguish this portion of Rosellini's work simply by the letters
M. St.
ECT. I. A.]
113
AMŌSIS.
portion of the country paid tribute to Amōsis. Ne-
fru-ari, then, was an heiress: her husband reigned in
her right, and took the name of "Young Moon," per-
haps, in consequence of this inheritance; at any rate,
it had reference to her, and was afterwards dropped.
The monuments prove that no queen was ever held
in such honour as this Aahmes. She is styled "Divine
Spouse of Ammon;" she enjoys the distinction of the
barque of the Gods; and sits beside her son, Amenō-
phis I., as if sharing equal rank with him, the reigning
sovereign.46
In conclusion I will remark, that a passage which
Lepsius has quoted from the Alexandrian Chronicle
(Einl. p. 359. notes) would seem to furnish a remarka-
ble confirmation of my explanation of the name CHE-
BRON in the Lists, as identical with Amōsis. In that
chronicle, the sovereign under whom Moses was brought
up is called KHENEBRON, the same name obviously as
the KHENEPHRES of Artapanus. The name now stands
thus: RA-NEB-PEH. The RA was often pronounced
at the end of the name, and in a popular abridgment
the following hieroglyphics might be dropped. Now
the Egyptian n at the beginning of a word sounded
often to the Greeks (as already observed in the First
Book) like gn; thus NUB (name of a god, and signifying
gold) led to Gnub, Chnub; and thus the hieroglyphical
name might easily be altered into Chnebrôs, or Khene-
bron, or Khenephres. The historical import therefore
is, that the youth of Moses (if not the Exodus) was by
some writers connected with Amōsis.
46 Rosellini confounds a wife of Amenōphis with this Aahmes.
VOL. III.
I
114
ASIATIC SYNCIIRONISMS. [Book IV. PART II.
B.
THE SECOND REIGN: AMENŌPHIS I. (AMENHEPT RASERKA)
THE SON OF AAHMES AND NEFRU-ARI.
(Pl. VII. 12.)
13 YEARS.
(Lepsius, Historical Monuments, vol. v. Pl. 4.)
THIS second king is likewise exhibited on the monu-
ments of his posterity as enjoying especial honour; in a
Theban tomb at Gurnah, for instance. The left of the
two Colossi in front of the third Pylon of Karnak has
his name inscribed on it.47 His wife, Aah-Hept, is called
Royal daughter, wife, mother." As regards her chil-
dren's honours, all we learn is that no descendant of hers
came to the throne; for the succession passed to the
younger son of Aahmes.
66
Amenōphis I. must have been successful in the strug-
gle against the Shepherds. Unfortunately, the only
representations alluding to these wars are on a few very
small tablets in the Louvre, which Rosellini published
and illustrated (iii. 10. seq.). One of the enemy here
represented is bearded, and at all events is a northern
Asiatic or African. The king is styled in one of them
"the subduer of all hostile countries;" a general phrase
which tells us absolutely nothing, and inspires no great
confidence in the reality of his conquests.
47 It is marked with (2) on the larger Plan of the Palace, although
the figure is certainly not the work of Amenōphis, but either of
Sethos I. who built this part of it, or of Tuthmōsis III. who dedicated
the one on the right.
SECT. I. B. C.] AMENŌPHIS
115
TUTHMŌSIS I.
C.
THE THIRD REIGN: TUTHMŌSIS I. (TETMES RA-AA-KHEPER),
BROTHER-IN-LAW OF AMENŌPHIS 1.-21 YEARS.
(Pl. VII. 22.)
(Lepsius, Historical Monuments, vol. v. Pl. 12.)
In this reign we have the germ of the art and splen-
dour of the New Empire, the bloom of which only com-
menced in the succeeding one.
We find in the first place, as regent, Aahmes, "the
royal wife, divine spouse, lady of both countries, the
great royal sister." (Plate VII. 21.) She is the Ames-
ses (Amensis) of the Lists, who was entirely ignored till
the work of Lepsius appeared, as we have seen in the
preceding part. It is uncertain in whose right she
reigned probably, however, as the daughter and
heiress after her brother's death; for Tuthmōsis himself
never appears as the son of Amōsis. He was, however,
a younger brother, or the nearest kinsman. We have
consequently, with the tablet of Abydos, enumerated him
as the third ruler.
—
He is represented as having erected splendid and
artistic edifices. He it was who first commenced the
restoration and embellishment of the primeval temple-
palace of the Sesortosidæ at Karnak, on the eastern
side of Thebes. This building was the shrine of the
18th and 19th Dynasties, and remained to the latest
period of the Pharaonic power the object of royal care,
as now its very ruins have a world-wide reputation,
and are unique of their kind. We have, therefore,
appended not only a general plan of the Monuments of
Thebes, and a special one of the Palace of Karnak; but
also a ground plan, on a larger scale, of this historically
most important monument of the New Empire, together
I 2
116
[BOOK IV. PART II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
with the names of the most eminent royal founders in
chronological order. The details of the plan, never-
theless, are not so correct as the woodcut copied from
Lepsius' great work.
Tuthmosis I. built a court of columns adorned with
caryatides, immediately facing the shrine of Sesos-
tris, which now forms the centre of the building
(marked 3). He erected in front of it two obelisks of
red granite, one of which is still standing; the inscrip-
tion (in the middle row), according to which the shrine
was dedicated to Father Ammon, makes especial mention
of the two obelisks. On these the king is styled " Con-
queror of the nine bows" (pet), according to the ordinary
interpretation, Libya, the Coptic name of which is Ni-
PHAYAT, or NA-PA-UT, "the Nine Bows." Rosellini re-
marks that, as a work of art, the obelisk is very inferior
to that of the succeeding (fourth) reign. A building
in the valley of Assassif, behind the palace of Gurnah,
partly built, partly hewn out of the rock, was commenced
by him, and completed by his younger son in honour
of his father, as the inscription states. For this reason
Rosellini proposed to call it the Tuthmoseum.
D.
THE FOURTH REIGN: TUTIIMŌSIS II. (TETMES RA-AA-EN-KIIE-
PER), ELDER SON OF TUTHMŌSIS I.
(Pl. VII. 31.)
21 YEARS.
(Lepsius, Historical Monuments, vol. v. Pl. 14-28.)
WITH this king, the grandson of the founder of the
family, the reign of the third race of this royal house
commenced. Preceding him we find a female regent,
during his minority probably, of the name of MA-KE-RA,
SECT. I. D.]
117
TUTHMŌSIS II.
but which is spelled improperly in a variety of ways.
Her family name, however, was pronounced NEM. T-
AMEN or CHNUM. T-AMEN (like Chnuphis-Ammonia);
before she became regent she was called HA. T-AS. U
(Pl. VII. 23.). Her name as well as her brother's
is on the obelisks of Karnak. As we shall presently
see, a colossus in front of the third Pylon there was
dedicated to Tuthmosis II. by his younger brother
and successor.48 His wife's name was AMUN-MAI. T, "the
beloved of Ammon." Rosellini corrected the mistake of
Champollion, who took her scutcheon for that of a king.
The former, indeed, sometimes has the title of AMUN-MAI,
out of which Rosellini made a separate king, Tuthmōsis
III., the father of the so-called Moris.49
She
Between his reign and that of his younger brother
the regency of the sister again intervened, the so-called
Mesphra-Tuthmosis, whose scutcheon, however, he
carefully erased, and substituted his own name.
it was who commenced the erection of the two largest
and most artistically finished obelisks in the court
of her father, one of which is still standing (3), and
the fragments of the other are scattered around it.
There is on each side of them a single column of hiero-
glyphics, reaching all across the centre.50 On the second
side it is expressly stated that NEM. T-AMEN reigned
in the name of her father (?), which we understand
as meaning, not Ammon, but Tuthmōsis I. This may
perhaps throw some light on the name Mesphra-Tuth-
mōsis. There is certainly no great difficulty about its
derivation from Ma-ka-ra, which we have adopted in the
previous section at the suggestion of Lepsius, if we
suppose PH to be the article, prefixed to RA in pro-
48 On the Plan of the Palace marked (4).
49 Representation and description by Rosellini, M. St. xxxi.-
xxxiv. Comp. Text, iii. A., 132. seq.
50 i. 226. seq.; iii. 16. seq. Wilkinson took the right view of it.
4.
1 3
118
[BOOK IV. PART II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
nunciation (PHRA instead of RA), as was clearly the
case in the name of King UAPHRES-APRIES-CHOPHRA.
But MESPHRES, the form in which it is found in the
best MS. of Pliny, cannot be thus explained. It may
possibly be a popular distinctive name: MES. (T) PH. ARA
(Tetmes), i. e. the daughter of the king (Tuthmōsis)?
We were obliged to content ourselves in the Third
Book with proving that Mesphra or Mephra was only
the name of a queen, the grand-daughter of Amōsis,
whose reign corresponded with that of her brothers Tuth-
mōsis II. and III. Consequently Mesphra-Tuthmosis,
as the name of a single person, would be nonsense.
It can only mean Tuthmosis II. or III., as a con-
traction of two joint or corresponding reigns. We
must decide, however, in favour of Tuthmosis III., as
it is preceded by the reign of Mesphres, who conse-
quently stands in the place of the elder brother. In
the Lists, Tuthmosis IV. follows immediately after
Mesphra-Tuthmōsis (the name and regnal years of the
second Amenōphis being displaced). There is, however,
authentic proof that the Alexandrians confounded
Mesphres and Mesphra-Tuthmosis, i. e. supposed the
simple name of Mesphres to be the designation of
the third Tuthmosis himself, as sole ruler. Pliny
mentions two obelisks of Mespheres (Mesphres) at
Alexandria. These we can have no hesitation in iden-
tifying as the two lying in the port of that city at this
moment, and universally known by the ridiculous name
of Cleopatra's Needles. In the centre of each are the
name and title of Tuthmosis III., on the sides those of
the Great Ramesses. The scutcheon of Seti II. was
also introduced subsequently. The person from whom
Pliny derived his information evidently belonged to that
section of the Alexandrian school which studied Egyp-
tology-another proof that they then distinguished the
third from the other Tuthmoses by that name, which was
doubtless a popular designation, and originally not an
SECT. I. D.]
119
TUTHMŌSIS II.
unmeaning one. We must not on this account be led
astray as to what the monuments authentically teach us.
But it is explained why this name stands in our Lists
opposite to the regnal date of Tuthmosis III. We
assume this at once as a settled point, and the fact of our
being justified in so doing is one of vast importance for
the restoration of the history of the period, to which we
now proceed.
The passage in Josephus containing Manetho's tradi-
tion runs thus: "MESPHRA-TUTHMOSIS drove the Hyksos
as far as Avaris, and shut them up in it.
in it. His son, Tuth-
mosis, obliged them to evacuate it." We shall see that
Tuthmōsis III., the successor (although not the son, but
brother) of Tuthmōsis II., made conquests in Mesopo-
tamia. The fact of his undertaking such an expedition
naturally implies that he did not leave a hostile fortified
camp in his rear. Indeed the power and glory of
Egypt in the time of the third Tuthmosis prove that the
Shepherds had been completely driven out; by which
success the national spirit was raised to the highest pitch.
Here, then, Mesphra-Tuthmosis is used instead of the
simple name of Mesphres; and we must explain the
above quotation in Josephus (which is evidently strung
together out of epitomes, and not taken direct from
the original text of the historical work) in this manner.
Tuthmosis II. (the brother and husband of MA-KA-RA)
drove the Shepherds into Avaris, from which, being
fortified, they were only expelled by his great brother
and successor. His name really was Tuthmosis, whereas,
as we shall see, the successor of Tuthmōsis III. was
called Amenōphis.
The important question, therefore, has to be answered
here:
WHAT IS AVARIS ?
We must not expect to explain the name of this city
from the Egyptian, for Manetho says it was from the
beginning Typhonian, i. e. Semitic-politically and re-
1 4
120
[BOOK IV. PART II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
66
ligiously hostile. We shall show, in a subsequent portion
of the inquiry, that Typhon was the primeval Semitic
God, Seth, the creator of the human race.
The sup-
position, therefore, that Avaris, or Abaris, signifies
City of the Hebrews," harmonizes the better with our
researches. Indeed, in reading Josephus, the idea struck
me before I saw it so explained, philologically and his-
torically, in Ewald's excellent History of the Jewish
People.51 We must not, however, omit to mention that
the a-sound in Abara (Avara) is fully established; and
that it would seem to be of South-Semitic origin, and
either derived from Arabia or the peninsula of Sinai.52
It has since been read by De Rougé in the Sallier Pa-
pyrus, in the account of the declaration of war by Saken-
nen-Ra, the predecessor of Amōsis. He is there writing
to Apepi, the Shepherd King, who lived at Avara, whom
he summons to evacuate the country. I will take this
opportunity of observing that, in the oldest and most
trustworthy Arabian traditions, where mention is made
of the rule of the Amalika (the Amalekites), Abara is
especially said to be their stronghold.53
It is important to fix its geographical position accu-
rately. We have, in the first place, to bear in mind
Manetho's statement that it was in the Sethroite nome.
Sethrōe (as Salmasius emended the received name
Sethron), or Herakleopolis Parva, is unquestionably
on the right bank of the Pelusiac or Bubastite arm of
the Nile, and, consequently, outside of the Delta proper.
This statement of Ptolemy is decisive as to the position
of the nome. D'Anville erroneously placed the city, as
well as nome, within the Delta, as Strabo did, con-
sequently, on the left or western bank; owing to the
51 Geschichte des Volks Israel, i. p. 450. seq.
52 Steph. Byz. (from Uranios, Arab.): Avaða кai Avapa, City of
Petræa. The name signifies "the white." [Mr. Birch explains it
as an Egyptian word denoting the "area" or "floor," for it occurs
in passages where it is not the name of a city. 1858.]
53 Caussin de Parceval, Hist. of Arabians, Part I.
SECT. I. D.]
121
TUTHMOSIS II.
*
course of that arm being wrongly marked on the map.
The French editors of the great work on Egypt, as well
as Champollion 54, saw the mistake, and corrected it.
Now as the Arabian nome is to the east of the Delta in-
land, and further southward (to the east of Bubastis)
the nome of Phagroriopolis (Goshen), the Sethroite
nome can only be the Eastern nome on the sea. Pelu-
sium belongs to it. The nome extends as far as the River
of Egypt, where Mount Casius and the Serbonitic Lake
form the natural frontier of the country, as both the
Bible and Herodotus mention. Either, therefore, old
Avaris and Pelusium were one, or the Hyksos city must
have stood on the site of Rhinokolura. But the two
names are probably only different modes of expressing
its Palestinian origin. Though Pelusium is afterwards
understood as a Greek word (City of Mud), it may be
the same name as that of the Palestinians, Peleshites,
and Philistines; for which reason we prefer to con-
sider it and Avaris, in point of position, as one and
the same.
But Manetho did not so understand it. He
considered Avaris as a strong frontier city against the
Syrians, a Typhonic city. Had he taken our view of it,
he would naturally have mentioned Pelusium by way of
explanation; but he considered it a city which fell after
the evacuation of the Hyksos. At all events, it must
have contained within the circuit of its walls ample
means for feeding a large body of men, and, above all,
a supply of drinking water. There is but one other
place which could have fulfilled these conditions,
namely, Rhinokolura, on the "river of Egypt," which
flowed from the Idumæan mountains, and probably
ran through Avaris, if this were the site of it. Other
wise, it would have been very easy for Mesphra-Tuth-
mosis to force the 480,000 men to capitulate after
he had once shut them up there; whereas, even his son
was obliged to content himself with allowing the garrison
54 Égypte sous les Pharaons, ii. p. 80. seq.
122
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [BOOK IV. PART II.
to retire unmolested with their goods and chattels, as
we shall shortly see. Their retreat again could have
been most easily effected if Avaris stood somewhere
upon the site of El Arish, like the old Rhinokolura, for
we have no he itation in placing this city on the River
of Egypt. Towards the close of the Old Empire it was,
according to an ancient legend, the place of banishment
for criminals whose sentence of death was commuted.
This offers, therefore, an explanation of Manetho's
statement that the Shepherds "met with " that city in
the Sethroite nome.
Under these circumstances we shall leave the question
open till we have made further researches. We will,
however, remind our readers of what we said in 1845,
that Sethrōs seems to be "the Seth of the outlet "
(SeT-RU), an explanation concurred in by Lepsius in
his "Einleitung." The point is an important one his-
torically.
[Mr. Birch thinks that the name means Nome of
Set-Ra. As he has shown in the "Museum of Classical
Antiquities," vol. ii. p. 237., it is stated on the Bar-
berini obelisk that Antinoopolis is placed in the nome of
Set and Ra, which, at all events, means the Sethroites
nomos. The critical question therefore is now, what
authority can be attributed to so recent a monument?
The decisive proof can only be found in the ancient
hieroglyphical mode of writing the name of the nome.
Set-Ra would, in itself, be easily explained, for Set may
as well be coupled with Ra as Osiris is. It seems also
right to add that Avaris may have been near the old
Tanis, the Zoan of the prophets, a very ancient Pharao-
nic establishment. There must have existed, however,
a Zoan of Semitic origin, the date of the building of
which is incidentally mentioned in Num. xiii. 23. as
being seven years after that of Hebron, a very ancient
town, already flourishing in the time of Abraham.
1858.]
SECT. II. A I.]
123
SECTION II.
THE STATE OF PROSPERITY AFTER THE STRUGGLE FOR
INDEPENDENCE, FROM THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE SHEP-
HERDS OUT OF AVARIS, IN THE FIFTH YEAR OF THE
REIGN OF TUTHMŌSIS III., DOWN TO THE DEATH OF
AMENŌPHIS III. 114 YEARS.
THE
FIFTH REIGN:
A.
TUTHMŌSIS III. (TeTMES RA-MEN-
KHEPER), YOUNGER SON OF TUTHMŌSIS I., BROTHER OF
TUTHMŌSIS II., AND BROTHER AND BROTHER-IN-LAW OF
HA.T-AS.U (MA-KA-RA).—26 (48) YEARS.
(Monument XLII.)
(Lepsius, Historical Monuments, vol. v. Pl. 29—60.)
I. MISPHRA-TUTHMOSIS IS A DESIGNATION IN THE LISTS SIGNIFYING
that Misphra, THE ELDEST OF THE CHILDREN OF TUTAMŌSIS I.,
REIGNED A CONSIDERABLE TIME CONJOINTLY WITH TUTHMŌSIS
III., HER YOUNGER BROTHER.
MISPHRA, i.e. the eldest daughter of the first Tuthmōsis
and the royal heiress Aahmes (Amessis), was, as we
have seen, regent in the fourth reign, which is recorded
in the Royal Lists of the time as that of her brother
and husband Tuthmosis II. But we find in the inscrip-
tion at Wadi Magara (in the Peninsula of Sinai 55), down
to the 16th year of the following fifth reign (marked
in the Lists of Kings as that of the third Tuthmosis),
her royal escutcheon united with that of the latter king,
the younger of the two brothers, and in fact taking
precedence of him. Birch has very shrewdly remarked
that this guardianship, or rather forcible co-regency, of
55 Laborde, pl. viii. Birch, p 320.
124
[Book IV. PART II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
the elder sister and sister-in-law, must have ceased be-
tween the 17th and 26th years, inasmuch as Tuthmōsis.
is represented on a monument of this 26th year as
the sole sovereign. The fact of his afterwards causing
all her scutcheons to be erased and his own name to be
substituted, as far as he could, proves this connexion to
have been anything but a friendly one.
The name on the Lists, Misphra-Tuthmosis, is thus
satisfactorily explained. It was doubtless used originally
to indicate that it was a joint reign of Misphra and
Tuthmōsis II., the brother and sister, husband and wife.
We have already seen how the date and name became
displaced in the Lists. It is also generally admitted that
the reign of Misphra, as concurrent with those of her
brothers, ought not to be counted separately. But we
ask further, if the elder brother and sister reigned co-
ordinately, with what justice could the younger brother,
who survived them both, be prevented from counting
his regnal years from the death of his father? How
indeed could it have been otherwise, if he caused his
own scutcheons to be engraved on the monuments.
erected by her, and containing a statement of her own
regnal year, without making any change in the dates?
This point requires closer investigation. For it is
equally true, on the other hand, that Tuthmosis II. must
have his own regnal years, even according to the suc-
cession of kings on the monuments, and that his
brother, who dedicated a sitting statue to him, could
have had no intention of setting him aside as a sove-
reign.
In order to get over these difficulties we must see
first of all how long, according to the monuments, the
reign of Tuthmosis III. lasted.
SECT. II. A. II.]
125
TUTHMŌSIS III.
II. THE REIGNS OF THE TWO SONS OF TUTHMŌSIS I. (TUTHMŌSIS
II. AND III.) LASTED FORTY-EIGHT YEARS. TUTHMŌSIS III.
COUNTED HIS OWN REGNAL YEARS FROM THE DEATH OF HIS
FATHER, AS HE WAS ENTITLED TO DO FROM THE BEGINNING.
IN the present Lists 26 years are placed against
the reign of Misphra-Tuthmosis. The first proof that
this is inaccurate, as applied to Tuthmosis III., con-
sists in the fact of our possessing monuments of his
35th year. But there are two monuments, notice of
which we have reserved for this discussion, that record
in a way not to be misunderstood a length of reign in
excess of this.
The one is the inscription on the back of the colossal
sitting statue of Tuthmōsis II.; for so the king to whom
his younger brother dedicated a statue, on the third
propylon of the southern portion of the royal palace
of Karnak, is called in the inscription on the belt
beyond all doubt.
It is unfortunately mutilated, and therefore obscure.
It consists of three horizontal columns.
The first
begins with the scutcheon and title of Thothmes III.,
and the part that is missing can only have contained
some cursory remark (such as the notice of the Pane-
gyries) running on into the second column, which begins
with a mention of the southern district of Thebes, in
which he erected the statue "in the 42nd year, on the
22nd day of the month Thoth."
The lower part of this column, however, is not quite
legible, and still less intelligible. After some unde-
cipherable characters, it says: "in the name" (or "to
the name") "of the Father." The third and last column
begins with the scutcheon, not of Thothmes 1.56, but
of Thothmes II., the brother of the king who dedicated
it. If we have no right, therefore, to connect the last
56 M. St. iii. A, 125. seq. Comp. Birch, who by mistake explains
the scutcheon as that of Thothmes I.
126
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. PART II.
words of the second column directly with the preceding,
still less are we authorised to connect the name of the
brother with the apparent mention of the father, in the
sense as though Thothmes II. were father of Thothmes
III., and not Thothmes I., who was the father of the
two brothers.
Fortunately the difficulties are not so insuperable in
the most important point of the inscription, the date.
It is clear that there could not be any chronological
statement intended here, or it would have been 42
years so many months and so many days after the
father's death. We can only, therefore, view it in the
same light as all similar dates, as the date of the regnal
years of Tuthmosis III., with a statement of the month
and day on which he completed the dedication. If,
as Birch and Rosellini are of opinion, the 42 years are
to be reckoned from the death of the first Tuthmosis,
this simply implies what we from the outset
sidered as the most natural solution:
That Tuthmosis III. reckoned his regnal years from
the death of his father, although he was then a
minor, no mention being made of him on the early
monuments of Tuthmōsis II. and Misphra.
con-
This however, again, must be tantamount to saying:
That here is an instance of two brothers having an
equal right to the crown, (doubtless by the will
of their father,) and at the same time of a here-
ditary right on the part of a daughter, (though
it may be a contested one,) as the eldest child,
both of which circumstances were sources of
dreadful confusion, even in the Old Empire.
Fortunately, however, this can be proved by showing
that if our explanation be rejected an absurdity follows.
We will first of all, therefore, complete the proof that
Tuthmosis III. claimed, at the very least, 42 regnal
years.
SECT. II. A. II.]
127
TUTHMŌSIS III.
The above interpretation of the inscription is corro-
borated by the imperial record of Tuthmosis III. which
Birch has explained. It places the fifth campaign of
this warlike monarch, with which it commences, in the
29th year of his reign, the sixth in the 30th, the tenth
in the 35th. The year of the last campaign here men-
tioned, the 16th, is wanting in the mutilated monument.
But it is clear from the above, that it could not be
earlier than the 40th. Whether the 42nd above-men-
tioned was the last we do not know. As the number
26 stands on the Lists opposite to the reign of Misphra-
Tuthmōsis (i.e. originally Misphra and Tuthmōsis III.),
and is corroborated by the more accurate extract of
"25 years and 10 months" in Josephus, it might seem
more probable that this is merely a clerical error for
46 (us instead of x5), though it must be recollected
that all the epitomists give the same date, and so
reckon it in their sum total. But it may also be, that
22, 13, 26, for all these three dates are mentioned as
belonging to this period, represent three different
epochs, while the monuments give the sum total. The
elder brother obviously must have had his own term,
and Manetho might deduct this from the whole sum
total of the reign of the brother, which must have been
at least 42 years, but in all probability 48, the sum
of 22 and 26. The middle number (13) represents
consequently the length of the second epoch, that is,
the joint reign of Misphra with the elder or younger
brother. How long she reigned with the elder we cer-
tainly do not know, but in the "16th year" the scut-
cheon of the younger brother is placed by the side of
hers. This implies that the elder died at latest in the
15th year of this period (calculated after the death of
Tuthmosis), consequently 17 is a very probable number
for the real length of the first joint reign.
It is easy to prove that our second assumption, which
is at once the easiest and most natural, is also the cor-
128
[BOOK IV. PART II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
rect one. We will in the first instance pass in review
the series of reigns of the 18th Dynasty, according to
the order of the generations.
If we assume 42 or 48 years to be the chronological
years of Tuthmosis' reign, the following will be the
series of his and his brother's reigns (the third genera-
tion after Amos):
Thothmes II. (Ra-aa-en-kheper)
22 years.
""
III. (Ra-men-kheper)
46 (at least 42)
68 (at least 64).
There were, again, in the preceding second generation,
two reigns:
Amenōphis I.
Tuthmosis I. and Amessis
(Ra-aa-kheper-ka and Ma-ka-ra.)
13 years,
21
34 years,
consequently, two generations and 102 regnal years;
and that after Amosis, to whom 25 years are assigned
in the Lists, whose 22nd regnal year is authentically
known, who appears as a warrior on his accession,
and who therefore cannot have been a child. Is
this probable, or even possible? The answer to it
is furnished by a monument which Birch has already
cited with a doubt as to the chronology of the Lists
(according to their ordinary interpretation).57
hero of the sepulchral inscription relates that he served
as a captain under Aahmes, consequently at least one
year. It is probable, however, that the latter years of
this monarch were peaceable, as he commenced in his
22nd year the magnificent edifices of the Restoration
at Memphis and Thebes. Assuming, therefore, his
57 The Statistical Tablet of Karnak.
The
1
129
SECT. II. A. II.]
TUTHMOSIS III.
twenty-first year to be the last year of war, we must
assign to our hero, Amos, of war at least
5 years.
But he goes on to state that he served under
Amenōphis against the Ethiopians in the south,
and against the Amukehak, or Kehak, in the
north.
The reign of Amenōphis
He accompanied Thothmes I. in his cam-
paigns to Ethiopia and Mesopotamia (Naha-
raina)
Under Tuthmosis II. he fought against the
Shasu, i.e. the Shepherds.
-
Whether he still served in a military capa-
city under Thothmes III. is not stated indeed,
but that he enjoyed the favour of the sove-
reign as a public servant is especially men-
tioned. We must assign to this war therefore
at the very least
Whole period of service, at least
- 13
- 21
·
- 22
1
62 years.
This in itself not only exceeds the bounds of historical
probability, but even of possibility, because it implies
that this functionary was capable of active service till
his eighty-sixth year at least; so much so indeed that
(with the exception of his sixty-second year of service)
he took part in the campaigns to the very end.
We at once, therefore, come to the conclusion, either
that the 22 years of the second Tuthmosis must be
excluded from the computation altogether, or that
these, as well as the 26 years which are assigned to the
younger brother, must be the sum total of the reigns
of the brothers, consequently 48 years. This number
is an extremely probable one, inasmuch as we find
the 42nd regnal year of Tuthmosis mentioned on the
monuments.
The history of the campaigns of Tuthmosis III., how-
VOL. III.
K
130
[BOOK IV. PART II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
ever, offers direct proof that this assumption is the only
possible one.
III. THE HISTORY OF THE CAMPAIGNS OF TUTHMOSIS III., FROM
HIS OWN ACCOUNT OF THEM.
IN that magnificent edifice, the Royal Palace of Kar-
nak, at Thebes, Tuthmosis III. has recorded the history
of his campaigns, probably on two different fields. The
one commencing with his fifth campaign was sent by
Champollion to Paris, but left unnoticed, like many of
the most remarkable Egyptian monuments, in the vaults.
of the Louvre, where it was carefully copied by Lepsius,
and published in his "Auswahl." An earlier copy made
by Wilkinson, before its removal from Egypt, shows
that this is another instance of the damage caused by
the removal of the monuments. Thanks to Birch's cri-
tical translation and explanation of the inscriptions, we
can now understand what is historically the most remark-
able record of the New Empire.58 He has the merit of
having brought it under our notice, and of having laid
the foundation of a perfect explanation of it. We will
first consider it as to its bearing upon the chronological
question under discussion.
We have seen that the fifth campaign of this king
took place in the 29th year of his reign. From thence-
forth there was a fresh campaign every year, twelve in
twelve years. According to this, and indeed from the
nature of the case, the first cannot have taken place
later than his 24th year, nor more than about one
year earlier. There remain therefore 22 or 23 years
of apparently total inactivity. Now, as this is in
itself highly improbable in the case of so energetic a
sovereign, and impossible on account of the exploits
58 See Birch, Observations on the Statistical Tablet of Karnak,
in the Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature; 2nd series,
vol. ii. p. 317. seq.
SECT. II. A. III.] CAMPAIGNS OF TUTHMŌSIS III.
131
{
already spoken of, it can scarcely be accidental that this
computation, which is taken exclusively from the monu-
ments, brings us to the same conclusion as the Lists,
namely, that the 22 years are merely the date of the
reign of Mesphra and Tuthmosis II.59
59 The chronology of the Tuthmoses, after the death of the second
king of that name, is as follows:
15
CHRONOLOGY.
1-15 (at latest), joint reign:
Hat-asu, as eldest child, reigns under the name of
RA-MA-KA, with
Tetmes RA-AA-eN-KHEPER, the elder of her two
brothers (Tuthmosis II.).
7 16 (or earlier)—22 :
26
48
Ra-ma-ka and
Tetmes RA-MEN-KHEPER (Tuthmōsis III.).
23—48 (mentioned on the monuments down to the 42nd):
TETMES RA-MEN-KHEPER alone.
DYNASTIC COMPUTATION.
Mesphra (and) Tuthmosis [II.]
22 years.
26
48 years.
Tuthmosis [III.] alone
In assuming this point as established, I see in it authentic proof
of the correctness of the method I have hitherto pursued, and
especially in the 12th Dynasty.
All the Lists, from the Turin Papyrus down to Manetho, and
the monuments themselves have followed the system not unaptly
termed by us the Egyptian, in computing the length of reigns.
The Lists originally gave all the reigns in a dynasty, as well
as their dates, and perhaps even, by way of preserving the de-
tails, their sums total. The monuments contain the regnal year
of a king, on buildings of his own construction, sometimes of a
higher number than the Lists, and which cannot be admitted into
a chronological table coordinately with the dates of the Lists.
Now the question to be solved was this: Whether Manetho himself
made the deductions which were required by this state of things? No
one can entertain less doubt than I do upon this point. But it does
not necessarily follow that our present Lists contain these corrections
of the historian; neither does it follow that his method of analyzing
the Lists of the Old Empire was sufficiently critical. The confused
K 2
132
[BOOK IV. PART II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
We now proceed to analyze the historical value of
these remarkable documents.
The fifth campaign commences with conquests in the
North of Egypt. It is clear, therefore, not only that
the Shepherds had then evacuated the country, but that
they were broken up as a nation, or at all events had
abandoned Palestine. This exodus accordingly must
have taken place at the beginning of his reign.
Most of the twelve successive campaigns here enu-
merated, with the lists of the treasure, cattle, and
other booty captured, took place in the north. Birch
and others before him have offered conjectures about
particular details, into which I do not feel myself
called upon to enter. Thus much is clear, that the
northern campaigns and conquests extended as far
as Mesopotamia, which is unquestionably designated
by its Semitic name, NAHARAINA, "the land of the
two rivers." Of the other names there is no diffi-
culty in identifying, as Hincks has done, KArkhemish
(Circesium) as KARAKAMASH. SINKARA is clearly SIN-
GARA, on the Upper Tigris; and NINIA, therefore, the
ancient metropolis of the Assyrian empire, must be
NINYA, Nineveh; and so likewise BEBER (Bebel) is
the BABEL of Scripture, or BABIRU of the cuneiform
characters.
It is hardly possible to conceive that such extensive
campaigns were made, even if they were merely tempo-
rary invasions, without a considerable number of vessels
of war, and the possession of harbours in the Mediterra-
nean. We find, however, no notice of Phoenicia, nor is
there any certain trace of Tyre and Sidon. The prin-
state of the older annals, such of them at least as existed during the
New Empire, shows that no better plan could be pursued than the
one first adopted by Eratosthenes. It was simply this-that of using
the continuous series of reigns which were in the archives of
Thebes, as guides for computing the length of the Old Empire and
the Middle Period.
SECT. II. A. III.]
133
CAMPAIGNS OF TUTHMŌSIS III.
cipal struggles seem to have been with the RETENNU and
KHITA and their allies. Champollion and Rosellini sup-
posed the RUTEN to be Lydians; but it is clear that they
are to be looked for either in Palestine or Syria, or on
the northern coast of Africa. In a sepulchral inscrip-
tion at Thebes (Birch, p. 332.) belonging to this period,
they are called "northern lands behind the great sea."
They must, I think, therefore, be the Ludim, or sons of
Mizraim, of Scripture, who appear in the genealogical
table, and are mentioned by the Prophets in connexion
with Phut and Kush (Libya and Ethiopia). In all
probability the Ludim belong to the tribes of Mesopo-
tamia,60
The KHITA I have always considered to be the abori-
gines of Canaan, the Chethites or Hittites of Scripture.
The Shasu, or Shepherds, are mentioned among their
allies, and the chief of Karukamasha, i.e. Karkhemish,
Circesium on the Chaboras.
Greek writers cite the stela erected by Sesostris in
proof of his occupation of the conquered country, and
the monument at Beyroot is evidence that by these
are intended bassi rilievi deeply graven in the rock.
Such tablets were erected by Tuthmosis in Mesopotamia,
as he himself records.61 There is an inscription (illus-
trated by Birch, p. 346.) in the quarries at Turah, in
which a person in the service of the son of Tuthmō-
sis III. mentions that he erected tablets for the king at
Naharaina and to the southward in KARU. The latter
is not mentioned in the list of the Ethiopian tribes, but
it could hardly be to the south of Adulis or Axum.
60 Mr. Osburn proposes to identify the Rutenu, a tribe so fre-
quently mentioned (the Ludim of Mauritania), with the Arvadim of
Scripture, and their chief city Arad with Aradus. His supposition
that the Shairetana are the Sidonians is still more improbable. See
W. Osburn, Ancient Egypt, her Testimony to the Truth of Scrip-
ture, (London, 1846) p. 52. seq.
61 Birch, p. 345.
K 3
134
[BOOK IV. PART II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
This southern boundary, therefore, was doubtless con-
quered by Tuthmosis III.
IV. WORKS ERECTED BY TUTHMŌSIS III.
THIS king, the Moris of Champollion and his school,
is one of the most glorious of the dynasty, even as
regards the works of art which bear his name. The
figure No. 5. on our plate indicates the portion of the
temple-palace erected by him; besides which he erected
a palace at Medinet-Aboo, a portion of the edifice at
Assassif, and a temple in Amada (Nubia). There is
a beautiful statue representing him at Turin.
Rosellini remarks that there is hardly an ancient city
in Egypt and Nubia, as far as the Second Cataract
beyond Semneh, where remains of his edifices are not
found. He completed his father's and elder brother's
works at Assassif, and his brother's at Karnak. He
dedicated to the latter the third propylon on the
southern flank of the palace, the colossal sitting statue,
the important and obscure inscription on which we have
attempted to decipher above.
The principal portion, however, of that giant work
erected by Tuthmosis III. was round the shrine of
his great ancestor Sesortosis. The granite naos re-
stored by Philip Aridæus, probably after its destruc-
tion by the Persians, and the whole portion behind
it, bear his name; so that, upon the whole, about
a third of the palace owes its origin to him.
There is a long inscription from the left wall of the
enclosure of this granite shrine (the so-called great
statistical inscription explained above62), containing a
list of the costly objects dedicated by this king to
Amun-Ra. Among these, two obelisks and the purport
of the inscriptions upon them are mentioned; from which
it appears that the one now in front of the Lateran was
62 See Lepsius. Comp. Birch, loc. cit.
SECT. II. B.]
135
AMENŌPHIS II.
the largest of all the obelisks, and that it stood there.
They were both erected in front of the propylæa of the
naos, between the court of Thothmes I. (3) and the
granite shrine. The centre row of hieroglyphics on the
former only has reference to this king. The latter has
disappeared totally; the inscription, a learned explana-
tion of which was published by Father Ungarelli,
unfortunately hardly contains any historical matter.
B.
THE SIXTH REIGN: AMENŌPHIS II. (AMENHеPT RA-NETERU),
SON OF TUTHMŌSIS III. 9 YEARS. (THIRD REGNAL YEAR.)
IT
(Lepsius, Hist. Mon. vol. v. Pl. 61—67.)
It appears from the testimony of the monuments that
Amenōphis II. continued the buildings in Amada
(Nubia) commenced by his father. The walls of this
gorgeous edifice, which are still standing, are covered
with his sculptures. Here is recorded the third year of
his reign. The inscription mentions the subjection of the
country and of the princes of the Retennu or Lutennu,
identified by us among the conquests of Tuthmōsis III.
as the Ludim or Mauritanians.
We have also notified above, that Mesopotamia was, in
the reign of this son of Tuthmosis III., the northern
frontier of the empire, Karu the southern.
The greater part of the representations are simply of
a religious character, and have reference to sacrifices,
dedications, and other offerings. The dilapidated remains
of the edifice erected by him at Karnak are in the main
of the same character. But in one of these representa-
tions, where Amun-Ra is addressing the king, mention
is made of a Shepherd Race, probably referring to the
K 4
136
[BOOK IV. PART II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
Bedouins of Libya. The God is promising the king
"that he shall restrain them within their own territo-
ries." Rosellini read the name MENNAHOM.63 Cham-
pollion, however, was unquestionably right in thinking
that the first two signs contain the root mena, to pas-
ture, shepherds. He read it, KAH N NEMONE, "land of
the shepherds," but this is incorrect, both hieroglyphi-
cally and grammatically. Birch's reading, on the other
hand, "MENA TAI PET," i. e. "Shepherds, they of the nine
bows," is a happy one in all respects. The last sign of
the name occurs as equivalent to Pet, i. e. Phut.
THE
C.
SEVENTH REIGN: TUTHMŌSIS IV. (TeTMES RA-MEN-
KHеPERU), SON OF AMENŌPHIS II.—13 YEARS. (SEVENTH
MONUMENTAL YEAR.)
(Plate VII. 4.)
(Lepsius, Hist. Mon. vol. v. Pl. 68-70.)
64
THE ruins between the entrance hall and the court of
Tuthmosis I. contain some constructions of this king's.
He erected the hall supported by columns in the tem-
ple of Amada, which was built by his father and grand-
father. An inscription there states that the king
completely subjugated the foreign land of Kesh (Kush,
Ethiopia) 65, as well as many others. These Kushites
were also certainly represented in the drawing on a tomb
at Gurnah, where there are nine prisoners in fetters on
the steps of the throne.
The drawing, however, is very much
Rosellini could only read four names.66
63 M. St. iii. A. 201. Comp. 211.
64 M. St. iii. 205. seq.
65 Book III. p. 283.
damaged, and
In the last of
66 M. St. iii. p. 209. seq.
SECT. II. D. I.]
137
AMENŌPHIS III.
}
them alone could he recognise a race with which he
was acquainted, namely, "the Shepherds of Libya,"
whom he read MENNAHOM. All that can be learned as
to the others, on this tomb of Menephthah, is that they,
as well as the Shepherds, are not southern but northern
races.
It was this same king who ordered the inscriptions
on the sides of the obelisk at Karnak, now in the Pi-
azza Laterana at Rome. Among the historical notices
we find it mentioned that he laid waste the enemy's
country on the frontiers of Kesh, and subjugated the
country of the Libyan Shepherds, the land of the bows
(petu)67; and that he made a barge of the God Amun-
Ra, of cedar (ash), cut in the land of the Rutennu.
The following chronological fact is also stated, that after
the death of Thothmes III. the obelisk was 35 years in
the hands of the workmen, till the reign of Thothmes IV.
[Birch. 1858.
D.
THE EIGHTH REIGN: AMENŌPHIS III. (AMENHEPT RA-NEB-
MA), SON OF TUTHMOSIS IV. (MONUMENTAL YEAR XXXVI.)
(Plate VII. 42.)
(Lepsius, Hist. Mon. vol. v. Pl. 70—90.: end of the volume).
I. AMENÕPHIS III. AND HIS RELATION TO THE MEMNON OF THE
GREEKS AND TO THE Exodus.
THIS is the Pharaoh whose magnificent constructions
show that the art of sculpture in Egypt had in his time
very nearly arrived at its zenith. He is the monarch
67 Al. Mar. Ungarelli, Interpretatio obeliscorum urbis Romæ.
1842. Fol. 39–42. Comp. Rosellini, M. St. iii. A. 209. and i. 191.
138
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. PART II.
whom the Greeks and Romans, since the beginning of
our era, have called MEMNON, as the gigantic statue of
him in the Amenopheum (on the west side of Thebes)
is styled by them "the sounding stone," which Eos, the
mother of the Ethiopian hero, saluted at sunrise with a
clear-toned sound.
Letronne, whose sagacity and profundity of re-
search so eminently distinguish his valuable labours,
has proved the following points: that this designa-
tion of him, and all the evidence connected with it,
are of more modern date than the earthquake which
in the year 27 B. C. threw down the upper part of
the northern colossus (in consequence of a crack in
the stone); that these stories were not current after
that part of it was restored in brick in the reign of
Septimius Severus; and, lastly, that the Egyptians never
regarded it as anything but a colossal statue of their
king Amenhept Ra-neb-ma.
True it is that Hecatæus of Miletus sought for the
Memnon of the Trojan legend in Egypt. He thought,
according to Herodotus, that the sculptured figure, the
Sesostris of the latter, was a representation of Memnon.
We know now, at least, that the statue is not of Egyp-
tian workmanship. The historical character of the
Egyptian campaigns of the 14th and 15th centuries
B. C. certainly is incontestable; and for that reason we
cannot avoid entering into closer examination of the
point, after we have refuted the fabulous conjectures of
the Greeks, and the still more fabulous conjectures of
the investigators of the last and present centuries.
Whence did the Memnon come who is described in the
Odyssey as the son of Eos and brother of Priam and
the handsomest of the warriors; he whom Hesiod
first called a king of Ethiopia, and the fabulous his-
tory of whom was told by the Cyclical Epics just as he
was represented on the oldest vases and by the lyric
poets? We now know that the Memnonia of the Greeks,
SECT. II. D. I.]
139
AMENŌPHIS III.
the so-called buildings of Memnon, were simply a mis-
understanding of the word mennen which signifies vast
monuments, especially sepulchral monuments. This,
however, by no means justifies us in concluding that
Memnon was merely the name of the builder of these fan-
cied Memnonia in the dreams of the Greeks. The mis-
understanding of the word mennen explains the fabu-
lous use of the expression Memnonia, but not the origin
of the name in the Epic age. On the contrary, it is the
ancient legend alone about the enigmatical son of Eos
in Ethiopia which explains the fact of the Greeks
making a search after a king and hero of that name.
The Greeks inquired after Memnon as they inquired
after the king who was the host of Menelaus. The
difference between the two cases is, that in the former
they inquired after a prince out of the land of Ethiopia,
who undertook an expedition into Asia Minor and there
fought against the Greeks before Troy. It can be
shown that the connexion between the name and As-
syria or Media is of later date. Now it is true that the
Ethiopia of the mythical age extended northwards as
far as Phoenicia, and Joppa (Jaffa) was the most ancient
locality for the history of Perseus and Andromeda, and
the principal city of Kepheus, king of Ethiopia. This,
however, does not seem to me to militate against the
fact of Southern Egypt, and especially Ethiopia Proper,
being the home of the Ethiopians. Any one, therefore,
who will not adopt our version of the story about that
great conqueror, as being the well known journey of
the Sun-God (probably here therefore MIN, that is to
say, SET), may regard him as a conqueror who came
from Egypt, and whose warlike expeditions were kept
alive among the Achæan races in some obscure legend.
But the whole Ethiopian version of Memnon is in truth
not Homeric. But were it ever so old, the connexion.
between an Ethiopian hero and the Trojan war might
nevertheless be altogether unhistorical. Attila and
$
140
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part II.
Theodoric of Bern are historical names of the fifth and
sixth centuries, but the relation in which they stand to
each other as contemporaries in the Germanic Epos, is
just as little historical as the connexion between them
and Sigfried the hero or god of the primeval times, or
Pilgrim the bishop of the 11th century. Such a con-
nexion would leave but a few centuries for the decom-
position of the historical elements. The previous ques-
tion, however, which was raised by Jacobs, is this-
Whether Memnon was a historical personage? It is
hardly probable that the Greeks ever thought of Ame-
nōphis III. before the invention of the story about the
sounding stone being saluted at dawn by his mother-a
repetition of the old Hellenic fiction about the son of
Eos in the first century of our era. It is consolatory
to find that, in that melancholy period, poetry, ever
blooming in the Hellenic mind, could create out of a
sounding stone the salutation of the mournful son of
Eos.
We have already discussed the subject of the religious
changes which occurred in Central Egypt during the
reign of this Amenōphis or immediately after his death.
We know that political schisms took place directly after
that event, and were productive of universal disorder,
in which the House of the Tuthmoses perished. There
is, however, not the slightest ground for supposing any
general connexion between these events and a change
of religion.
It is possible, indeed, that according to the ordinary
assumption of the length of the period between the
Exodus and the building of the Temple (480 years)
the Exodus took place at this time, and that this Ame-
nōphis was the first king under whom that great event
could have taken place; for it is clear that it could not
have occurred in the reign of the third Tuthmōsis, or
at an earlier period.
But all the information we obtain from the monu-
SECT. II. D. II.]
141
AMENŌPHIS III.
ments of this Amenophis (a likeness of whom, copied
from the splendid statue of him in the British Museum,
is prefixed to this Book), about himself and the events
of his reign, is altogether irreconcilable with such a
supposition.
II. THE EDIFICES ERECTED BY AMENŌPHIS III. IN NUBIA AND
SILSILIS: THE AMENOPHEUM ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF
THEBES, AND THE PALACE OF LUXOR ON THE EASTERN SIDE.
,
THE temple in Upper Nubia (Dongola), near Soleb 68
belonged to this Pharaoh. Two bearded prisoners, and
one without a beard, are the representatives of his con-
quests. In the quarries of Silsilis are two rock-temples,
each consisting of a single block, and containing inscrip-
tions of Amenōphis. Unfortunately, his greatest work,
the Amenopheum, on the western side of Thebes, is a
total ruin. The fragments are scattered around the two
colossi of the builder. The one on the right (as you
view them) is the Memnon of the Greeks and Romans.
The Egyptian name of the building was, THE HOUSE OF
RA-NEB-MA. There was a temple attached to it, in which
we find, in later times, "priests of RA-NEB-MA" esta-
blished.69 Rosellini quotes two of the titles of the king
found among these inscriptions: "Pacificator of Egypt,
and "Tamer of the Libyan Shepherds," with the remark
that they are both repeated at Luxor. They must, con-
sequently, as he rightly observed, allude to actual histo-
rical events.
""
Two large stele at the southern end of the ruins re-
present Amun-Ra and Osiris-Sokaris as the Temple-Gods.
Rosellini considers the former to be the general patron
of Thebes; the latter as the special God of the Temple,
consequently, the Osiris of the Lower Regions, the God
of the Realms of the Departed. He remarks, also, that
68 Facsimiles in Cailliaud, Voyage à Méröe, ii. Pl. xiv. M. St.
iii. A. 214. seq.
69 M. St. iii. A. 219. seq.
142
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [BOOK IV. PART II.
Pliny (N. H. xxxv. 11.) says the Memnonium was dedi-
cated to Serapis ; which is simply the modern form of
the Ruler of the Infernal Regions.
The great edifice of Amenōphis on the east side is
better preserved the so-called PALACE OF LUXOR. The
whole of this, including the gigantic entrance-hall, was
erected by him, and dedicated to Father Ammon. One
of the principal representations of the extant sculptures
is the birth and consecration of the king, to whom all
the Gods promise gifts and honours. This very remark-
able subject has been explained by Rosellini in great
detail and very successfully.70 On one of them are two
inscriptions", recording the subjugation of the country
of the Retennu (the Ludim, in Mauritania), and the
whole human race, by this monarch.
In another portion of these remains 72, Amun-Ra is
giving him the People of the Nine Bows (the North-
African bowmen) as his possession.
His most important monuments, however, in an histo-
rical sense, are four great scarabæi. Such historical
scarabæi Rosellini happily compares to commemorative
coins. Those which record the names of kings might
perhaps be considered as small Egyptian coins; like the
kowries in Africa at the present day. I remember to have
heard Champollion express such an opinion in 1826.
These four scarabæi contain statements as to the
frontiers of the Egyptian empire under Amenōphis at
the time of his marriage with Taja. Rosellini has given
copies and explanations of two of them.73
The inscription on the one now in the Louvre states
that the king, Conqueror of the Libyan Shepherds, Hus-
band of Taja, made the foreign country of the Karai his
southern frontier, the foreign land of Nharina (Meso-
potamia) his northern. These are the precise limits of
70 Loc. cit. p. 223. seq.
71 Idem, p. 236. seq.
73 Idem, p. 260. seq.
M. R. Pl. xxxviii.—xl.
M. R. Pl. xliv.
72 Idem, p. 248.
SECT. II. D. II.]
143
AMENŌPHIS III.
the empire which Tuthmōsis III. established and his son
maintained. The inscription on the other scarabæus,
now in the Vatican, states that, in the eleventh year
and third month of his reign, King Amenhept made
a great tank or lake to celebrate the festival of the
waters; on which occasion he entered it in the barge of
"the Most Gracious Disk of the Sun." This substi-
tution, by the king, of the barge of the Disk of the Sun
for the usual barge of Amun-Ra, is the first indication
of the heresy.
He united, also, his gorgeous edifice of Luxor by a
double row of beautifully sculptured colossal Ammon-
sphinxes, in sandstone (having the body of a lion and
head of a ram), with the temple of Chunsu at Karnak.
This avenue of sphinxes was above a mile long. Rosel-
lini counted them for 240 paces, and found 60 on each
side, that is, one to every four paces: this, in a mile,
would make 500 on each side. The ground all about it
is now strewed with the fragments, on which his name
may be read some of them bear a human face. There
seems to have been a similar avenue at Thebes, also con-
structed by Amenōphis, lined with colossal sitting statues
of the lion- or cat-headed Goddess.
It has been already remarked that the southern fron-
tier of the empire in the time of this Pharaoh cannot be
accurately defined. But Ethiopia, likewise, must have
been tributary to him. The tablet of the Duke of
Northumberland, mentioned in our Introduction, when
speaking of the measures of the Egyptians, represents
him as saying, that he made a voyage on the Nile,
commencing from the harbour of BAKI, and termi-
nating at the harbour of ATALI, on the river, fifty-two
towings" (saten or skaten), i. e. towing-posts. Birch
suggests whether Atali is not ADULIS? As to the iden-
tification of Baki, we cannot even offer a conjecture.
66
144
[BOOK IV. PART II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
CONCLUSION.
COULD THE EXODUS POSSIBLY HAVE TAKEN PLACE DURING THIS
PERIOD?
WE are now arrived at the close of the Second Period
of the New Empire; and the question arises, whether it
is possible for the Exodus of the Jews to have taken
place in it? It certainly could not have done so earlier.
The oppression which led to the revolt, and ultimately
to the Exodus, commenced under a monarch "who
knew not Joseph." This, in ordinary political language,
simply means that the king had ceased to exercise any
kindness towards the Israelites. Ever since the days of
Joseph they had been quietly settled in the country,
and doubtless were scattered all over it; they had in-
creased considerably in numbers, and were a cognate
race to the detested enemies of Egypt, and originally
shepherds themselves. The Pharaohs might, indeed,
naturally apprehend that they would unite with the
Hyksos against them. This, again, is equivalent to
saying that the oppression of the Israelites commenced
after the Shepherds, of whom they had such apprehension,
had evacuated their impregnable intrenched camp at
Avaris. Even Tuthmosis III. would have been very
careful not to drive to desperation, or even ill-treat, a
manly closely united Asiatic race in the rear of the
fortresses blockaded by him, and not far from the
frontier of Egypt and Palestine. The oppression,
therefore, could not have begun in the reign of either
MAKARA or Amosis, but only during the single reign
of Tuthmosis III. We may conclude that there was
a period of undisturbed prosperity and successful
aggrandisement in Egypt for about 60 years, from
SECT. II. CONCL.] THE EXODUS OF THE JEWS.
145
his reign down to the death of Amenōphis III. It
may be that the political and religious confusion
in the time of Amenōphis was connected with the
Exodus of the Jews, although we find no trace of it.
This, however, is a mere possibility; and, in fact, only
one as regarded from a purely Egyptian point of view.
But, in such a case, what becomes of the long subjection
so strongly dwelt upon in the Bible narrative, the last
stage of which, in the childhood and youth of Moses, he
so forcibly describes, and which, according to the literal
interpretation of a passage in Genesis, lasted 215 years?
This subjection, however, could not commence before
the evacuation of the Shepherds. The above supposi-
tion, then, is at once untenable on the grounds of inter-
nal impossibility.
But there is also no authority for it in the Egyptian
annals. We know from the controversial writings of
Josephus that the question of the Exodus and the causes
of it were discussed in the Alexandrian period, and that
Manetho especially mentioned it in another passage. If
we examine carefully the notion of the Fathers, that it
took place in the 18th Dynasty, we shall find that it was
based simply on two wholly unfounded assumptions.
One is, that it coincided with the evacuation of Avaris
by the Shepherds. It is difficult to say whether this
harmonizes less with the Biblical account of the Exodus,
or with the Egyptian account of the evacuation. The
other assumption is, that the middle or beginning of
the 18th Dynasty really coincided, or, at least, may by
some manœuvring be made to synchronize, with the
480th (or 440th) year before the building of the Temple,
at which date the Biblical narrative places the Exodus.
The former view, therefore, and everything based
upon it, is purely visionary. But the assumption that
the Exodus occurred in this period is equally untenable,
and, when we examine more closely into the circum-
VOL. III.
L
146
[BOOK IV. PART II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
stances, there are considerable internal difficulties which
stand in the way of it.
Makara (Tuthmōsis II.) had already established him-
self in the centre of the Peninsula of Sinai, and caused
the quarries in the Copper-land to be worked. The in-
scriptions at Sarbut el Kadem, at Wadi Magara and
Nasb, first published by Niebuhr, since described by
Laborde, and latterly in greater detail by Lepsius,
are proof of this. According to them, Tuthmosis III.
continued the works there, as did his successors down to
Ramesses the Great inclusive.
The Copper-land extends throughout the breadth of
the Peninsula to the northward of Serbal and what is
usually known as Sinai, on the road which the Jews fol-
lowed about the middle period of their sojourn in it.
Under such circumstances, the Egyptians being in
possession of the Peninsula, and drawing their supplies
from it, and in the very neighbourhood of the principal
encampment of the Israelites, can they possibly have re-
mained there for years without a contest? Is it possible
that no attempt should have been made from Egypt to
attack them? and that the Midianites were at that time
so powerful there?
The conclusion we draw from this inquiry, of which
we now take leave, will be-that from the Egyptian point
of view there is no ground whatever for supposing that
the Exodus took place in the period before us; but that,
on the contrary, not only the Biblical tradition, but the
Egyptian also, as well as internal probability, are at
variance with it.
SECT. III. INTROD.]
147
SECTION III.
THE DOWNFALL OF THE HOUSE OF THE TUTHMŌSES IN THE
POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS SCHISMS AND CONFUSION.
THE NINTH (LAST) REIGN OF THE EIGHTEENTH, AND THE FIRST OF
THE NINETEENTH DYNASTY.
44 YEARS.
INTRODUCTION.
SURVEY OF THE DYNASTIC COMPLICATIONS.
We have explained in the preceding Book, according to
Lepsius, the dynastic relations which, after the death of
Amenōphis III., led in the reign of Horus to quarrels and
divisions. During the life of the latter, a rival sove-
reign first sprung up in the person of an elder brother,
AAKHEN- (formerly read BEKHEN-) ATEN-RA, the KEN-
CHERES of the Lists. His original name was AMEN-HEPT
RA-NEFRU-KHEPERU (IV.). He adopted this title after
having introduced the worship of the visible disk of
the sun into his new capital (El Amarna in Central
Egypt). It signifies "a worshipper of the sun's disk."
Horus outlived him, as well as a younger brother, who
received the royal dignity as Amentuankh RA-NEB-KHE-
PERU. There is palpable proof of this from Horus hav-
ing erected a palace and temple upon the ruins or
materials of the edifices of his rivals. The reign of the
former of these antagonists, at all events, must have lasted
a considerable time, for there are monuments of it men-
tioning the sixth year. These are met with only to the
southward. Ashmunin, in Central Egypt, is the most.
northern city where traces are found of the rule of
L 2
148
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. PART II.
Amenophis IV.
The seat of the second schism was
likewise in the south. The monuments of Amentuankh
and his son exist only in Ethiopia.
This is an outline, but, though merely an outline, a
faithful picture of those divisions which the recent
labours of Lepsius have extracted from the monuments.
As regards details, in the absence of any muse to unfold
to us the history of Egypt, we shall do wisely to wait
for further researches in those mute but eloquent con-
temporary records.
NINTH REIGN: THE END OF THE EIGHTEENTH DYNASTY;
HORUS (HEREM HеBI MERI-AMEN RA-SER-KHEPERU SETEP EN
RA)74, SON OF AMENŌPHIS III., AND HIS WOrks.
(Pl. VII. 43.)
HORUS AND THE COLLATERAL AND RIVAL SOVEREIGNS WITH HIM,
(Lepsius, Hist. Mon. vol. vi. Pl. 91—122.)
I. HORUS AND HIS WOrks.
IN reference to this king, the only one recognised in
the contemporary succession of kings as a legitimate
Tuthmosis, after the death of Amenōphis III., we have,
as it seems to me, a very important though only a casual.
remark by Manetho. When speaking of Menephthah,
the son of the Great Ramesses, he obscrves that "he
desired to behold the Gods as one of his predecessors,
Horus, did." Such a remark can only refer in the his-
torical work to this King Horus, who, consequently,
according to the testimony of Manetho, the high
74 That is, “Horus in the Panegyries, the Beloved of Ammon."
This is an undoubted instance of the whole family scutcheon not
being usually inserted with the name. Of all its hieroglyphics one
only is pronounced (the sparrowhawk).
SECT. III. INTROD. II.]
149
HORUS.
}
priest, was a superstitious sovereign, devoted to the
priests, and a contemplative enthusiast. From the extant
history of his reign, he would seem to have been the
victim of his own superstitious folly.
The monuments of his reign, which bear nevertheless
on the face of them evidence of the high perfection of
style which characterizes the dynasty, are principally of
a religious and mystic tendency. Rosellini mentions
the following edifices as erected by him: a richly orna-
mented temple hewn in the rock (speos) in Nubia,
not far from the Second Cataract, near Djebel Addeh,
on the east bank. Here and at Silsilis he is repre-
sented as the young Horus, suckled by his Goddess
mother.75 In the cavern temple of Silsilis, his warlike
exploits are also represented, and indeed in Kush
(Ethiopia), the seat of the revolt under Amentu-
ankh, as we have seen above.76 His gorgeous works
were at Thebes, Luxor, and Karnak. Here he con-
structed the splendid avenue of colossal ram-headed
sphinxes, raised upon pedestals, of most costly work-
manship, of which Rosellini counted fifty on each side in
a space of fifty paces. On a fragment of a wall the
king is represented with his vanquished enemies, among
whom the name BERBER is legible, signifying conse-
quently people from Nubia.
II. NO GREAT RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT TOOK PLACE IN the Reign
OF HORUS.
In giving an explanation of the mythological details,
we have spoken of Wilkinson's remark, that in this
king's time the name of the God Amun-Ra is the original
one on the monuments, whereas, in that of Amenōphis III.
and several of his predecessors in the 18th Dynasty, it
is found substituted for that of some other divinity which
has obviously been erased.
75 M. R. Pl. xliv.
76 Idem; comp. M. St. iii. pp. 277-287.
L 3
150
[BOOK IV. PART II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
It appears from the careful researches of Lepsius and
Abeken in Nubia, that no trace exists in the scutcheons
of Amenōphis I. of any such erasure having been made.
On them the name AMN was the original one. But under
Tuthmōsis III., wherever his name and likeness occur,
another God had previously been portrayed. For
instance, they found on the Nubian monuments, and
especially on those at Soleb and Semneh, the AMN (both
the name and figure of the God Ammon) on the
scutcheons of Amenōphis II., as well as those of Ame-
nophis III., upon a ground which had been chiseled out.
But, as a general rule, the throne-names also of those
two kings (Ra-aa-kheperu and Ra-neb-ma) were placed
upon a scutcheon from which another name had been
erased, in which they thought they could identify an
Amenhept.
These circumstances induce us to abandon the con-
jecture advanced in the first part of this work, that in
the scutcheons where the erasures exist the name
KHEMHEPT had originally stood. Lepsius has further
investigated the state of the case in his instructive
"Treatise on the first Circle of Gods" (p. 43.). When
the fanatical sun-worshipper caused the name and
scutcheons of these two kings to be erased, in order to
place the throne-name in their stead, it frequently hap
pened that two similar throne-name scutcheons stood
side by side. Still it is established that under Tuth-
mosis III. the name of Amun was substituted for that of
another God. It is likewise established that we find
afterwards, as well as before, Amun honoured as God,
but Khem, the Phallic God of the Egyptians (their Pan),
only in exceptional instances. Amun-Ra is represented
by the side of the figure of Khem, and that only from
the reign of Horus.
The further question arises then, whether the pecu-
liar representation of the sun, as the visible ray-emit-
ting disk, in the monuments of his rival, AAkhenaten,
SECT. III. INTROD. III.] TOMBS OF DYNASTY XVIII.
151
has not some connexion with this singular change or
occasional deviation, which ceases again on the monu-
ments of Horus? Such a representation, however,
which has nothing of the ordinary type about it, never
occurs again. We find no trace of any further religious
change connected with it. This circumstance, there-
fore, furnishes no ground for believing that any general
religious movement occurred in the reigns of Amenō-
phis and Horus; and the last shadow of plausibility
for the assumption that the Jewish exodus occurred at
that time, owing to their taking advantage of a reli-
gious crisis in the country to throw off the yoke, neces-
sarily vanishes.
The Egyptian annals, it is true, stated something
about King Bokhoris and the Jews, which we can only
refer to this King Horus on account of the name. But
the fact connected with the name of Bokhoris is not
the exodus, but the oppression, of the Jews. And as
regards Scripture, we must not forget, that, of all the
dates belonging to this portion of history, none appeared
to us better authenticated than the one which defines
two hundred and fifteen years as the time of the
bondage.
III. THE TOMBS OF THE KINGS OF THE EIGHTEENTH DYNASTY.
No tombs of the Tuthmoses or any other legitimate
kings of the 18th Dynasty have hitherto been dis-
covered. This is the more remarkable, as those of the
kings of the 19th and 20th Dynasties have almost all
been found in the Valley of the Tombs of the Kings
(Biban el Moluk). Researches on the spot have hitherto
been fruitless.
Were they interred in their own "houses," the
Tuthmōseum and Amenōpheum? Amenōphis III. had
priests in his "house" till a late period. The God of
the Dead was the chief divinity there. Was it some-
L 4
152
[BOOK IV. PART II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
thing of this kind which led Hecatæus at a later date,
as mentioned in Diodorus, to tell the story about the
tomb of Osymandyas? There is a remarkable and
striking resemblance between that fabulous tomb and
the Ramesseum, which is still in existence, and was
probably built upon a similar plan to the two above
mentioned.
IV. CONJECTURES AS TO THE INTERNAL HISTORY OF THIS PERIOD.
THERE is, however, a more important question, namely,
What was the condition of Egypt and its people in this
gloomy conclusion of the great and brilliant period of
more than two hundred years? How rapid a downfall
after soaring so high! It commenced with victorious
struggles and a glorious restoration of the power of
the Pharaohs in Memphis and the Delta. The fourth
king recovered almost the whole of the old northern
frontier of the empire by pushing the Hyksos into a
corner at Avaris. His younger brother, Tuthmōsis III.,
the grandson of Amos, ascended the throne in the
82nd year of the dynasty, and after an unsuccessful
siege induced the foreigners to evacuate the country.
In the reign of Tuthmosis II., also, the splendour and
number of the temples and palaces began to increase
considerably, in both which respects Tuthmosis III.
surpassed all his predecessors.
The empire extended to Ethiopia as far as Meroe, to
the Copper-land of Arabia in the Peninsula of Sinai,
and northwards as far as Mesopotamia. It is authen-
tically recorded that these were its limits under Tuth-
mosis III. and Amenōphis III., a fresh proof of the
impossibility of the Jews having at that time any
thoughts of returning to Palestine.
Shortly after this, however, internal disturbances
shook the foundations of the dynasty and the state.
SECT. III. INTROD. IV.]
153
DYNASTY XVIII.
Schisms in the royal family sprung up in the shape of
rivalry between Memphis and Ethiopia, the elements of
hostility being of a religious character.
But, if we inquire into the particular history of the
period, we must admit that it is for the most part lost.
The only records we possess of the state of popular life
are the works of art, and the products of industry in all
its branches, which the ruins of that age exhibit. It
would seem from these to have been a prosperous
period--an Augustan age, the culminating point of high
historical art in architecture and sculpture. All tra-
vellers are agreed that the style of the 19th Dynasty is
not so grand, although more gorgeous. The works of
Sethos alone are in pure taste. All that we know at
present of the literature is that the writing in the
papyri is most beautiful. All traces of the weal and the
woes of the people, as well as of the wisdom and cha-
racters of their priests, have disappeared. The form of
government had already probably become a stereotyped
despotism, although under popular masters.
He
154
[Book IV. PART II.
SECTION IV.
THE RISE AND MERIDIAN OF THE HOUSE OF RAMESSES :
RAMESSES I. AND THE TWO GREAT CONQUERORS, SETHOS
AND RAMESSES II. 85 YEARS.
A.
THE FIRST REIGN OF THE NINETEENTH DYNASTY: RAMES-
SES I. (RAMESSU RAMEN PEH), SON OF ATHÔTIS And
GRANDSON OF AMENŌPHIS III.
(Plate VIII. 31.)
(Lepsius, Hist. Mon. vol. vi. Pl. 123, 124.)
WE possess no monuments of Ramesses I., the chief
of the 19th Dynasty. There is at Wadi-Halfa (BEHNI
in Egyptian), at the Second Cataract, a stele erected by
his son Seti I. commemorative of the presents made by
him there to the temple of Hor-Ammon. Similar hono-
rary monuments were set up in other places by his
son or posterity.
Strangely enough his tomb in Biban el Moluk has
no ornaments at all, nor has the granite sarcophagus
still standing in the rock-chamber. It is only on the
walls of the sepulchral chamber that some of the ordi-
nary scenes representing the destiny of the soul are
painted, clearly in the king's lifetime.
It appears that his mother, the youngest daughter of
Amenōphis III. and wife of the priest AI (the Skhai of
Champollion), was not called Teti, but TII. We are not
in a condition to determine how many years of the 12 or
9, which are ascribed to Athôtis, belong to the inde-
pendent reign of Ramesses. If, however, we follow the
SECT. IV. B. I.] SETHOS I. AND IIIS EXPLOITS.
155
contemporary royal tablets, and omit Athôtis, it is
necessary to give the son more than one year, which
Lepsius seems to assign to him.
THE SECOND REIGN OF THE
B.
NINETEENTH DYNASTY : SE-
THOS I. (SETHÔSIS, SETI MERI-EN-PTеH RA-MEN-MA), SON
OF RAMESSES I. 9 YEARS.
(Plate VIII. 32)
(Lepsius, Hist. Mon. vol. vi. Pl. 124–141.)
I.
SETI ON THE MONUMENTS.
(Ros. M.R. XLVI.-LXI.)
THIS great king, still most uncritically styled by some
Menephthah, contrary to the correct reading of the
hieroglyphics on the royal scutcheons, is one of the most
remarkable and most glorious Pharaohs of the empire,
both on account of his contests and victories and the
magnificence of his palaces at Thebes, as well as the
gorgeous and important representations on his tomb.
He was, indeed, perhaps the most illustrious and cele-
brated hero of the New Empire. This glorious reign.
cannot have lasted very long, not merely according to the
Lists when properly understood, but because his edifices
as well as his tomb itself, were completed by his son and
successor. The only one of his regnal years recorded on
his monuments is the first. It is mentioned on an in-
scription of a rock-temple in the Heptanomis, dedicated
by Sethos to Pacht, known as the SPEOS ARTEMIDOS.
In order to obtain a solid foundation for our histori-
cal restoration, let us first examine what the monuments
say about him.
156
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [BOOK IV. PART II.
"The house of Sethos" in Western Thebes, com-
monly known as Gurnah, was erected by him in honour
of his father. The Great Ramesses adorned it with
sculptures. He continued the buildings of Horus in
Luxor. In Karnak he erected the vast hall supported
by pillars (7), although it was his great son who com-
pleted and dedicated it.
This gorgeous building and his tomb are the two
classic monuments for his history, and the evidence of
the high character of art during his reign.
I. REPRESENTATION OF SETI'S EXPLOITS IN THE GREAT HYPOSTYLE
AT KARNAK.
(Plan of Karnak, 7.)
HERE, on the external wall of the enclosure to the
north-east, the exploits of Sethos I. are represented, and
they are, upon the whole, in good preservation. Rosel-
lini describes their surpassing beauty in enthusiastic
terms, which we give below in his own harmonious
language. 77
77 M. St. iii. A. 320. seq. : "Nè io presumo di poter con parole, e
nè anco col mezzo dei disegni, comecchè fatti con molto sapere e
diligenza, far concepire ai miei lettori la stupenda bellezza di quelle
sculture. Solo dirò che come desse agguagliano in magistero d'arte
tutto ciò che di più perfetto produssero gli egiziani scalpelli, così con-
siderato il numero, i movimenti, l'estensione delle figure e le gigan-
tesche forme di quelle che sopra le masse grandeggiano, niuna nazione
mai al mondo, antica o moderna, ciascuna secondo l'indole e il carat-
tere dell' arte sua, osò di operare con tanto ardimento, o pervenne a
imprimere alle sue opere maggior vita, e dirò quasi maggior prestigio,
di quello che in queste nostre sculture rifulge, a comprendere di alta
maraviglia li occhi e la mente di chi le riguarda. Tutte le durezze
di contorno, i difetti di prospettiva, i mancamenti infine che può ri-
conoscervi l'arte del disegno nella perfezione che acquistò poscia per
l'ingegno dei Greci, sono altrettanti caratteri che rendono quelle
egiziane opere di una originalità inimitabile; che costituiscono un'
arte singolare, la quale non può paragonarsi a quella di niun altro.
popolo; che ti rapisce infine col magico effetto delle sue masse e con
una certa ingenuità dei particolari, senza lasciarti riflettere a tutto
quanto è difetto secondo le regole dell' arte nostra."
SECT. IV. B. I.] SETHOS I. AND HIS EXPLOITS.
157
These painted bassi rilievi represent five triumphs
of the monarch, as it would seem, over five different
nations. Each of them concludes with thanks to
Amun-Ra.
1. The Triumph over the Lutennu (or Retennu).
We have already described these people as being
identical with the Ludim of Scripture, the nation from
the coast of North Africa, skilled in archery, who are
mentioned by the Prophets in conjunction with the
Libyans. In proof of the fallacy of supposing them to
be Lydians is the fact of their being mentioned here
again with the people of the "nine bows," a North-
African race. Rosellini, in order to conceal the contra-
diction, translates them "Barbarians," and thinks that
again in this instance there may be a rapid transition
from Asia to Africa. 78
The REMNU are mentioned as a portion of the Re-
tennu. The upper part of that country is specifically
introduced. A fortress surrounded with water is cap-
tured. The chief prisoners, employed in hewing wood,
beg for mercy. Lebanon is among the places conjec-
tured, and, as the inscription says that the prisoners are
cutting down trees for the barge of Amun-Ra on the
Nile, the conjecture is highly probable.
This name
signifies "the white," alluding to its snow-capped
summit: but the Egyptians rightly considered it a pro-
per name.
2. The Triumph over the Shasu, i.e. Shepherds.
According to the inscription, the struggle took place
in the first year of his reign. It states that79 "the
defeated from the land of the Shasu (Shepherds), in the
fortress GAIMUI, to the hostile land of Kanaana
the King conquered their valley."
78 M. St. iii. A. 335.
79 M. St. iii. 340. seq. M. R. Pl. xlviii. 2.
2
158
[BOOK IV. PART II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
Here then we are in Asia, and, in fact, in Palestine.
A fortress is seen on a rock with the inscription “For-
tress of the Land of Kanaana."
There can be no doubt that the Shepherd races in
Canaan are here meant. Kanaana (Pl. XLIX. 1.), accord-
ing to our reading, corresponds exactly with the full
Hebrew form. In the following representation Rosel-
lini thinks there is a break, because the enemy has the
character of the Remnu. It states that the king has “de-
feated the Nine bows, the Shepherds, and the great
men of SHUMUI," (Champollion reads SHARI, and takes
them for the modern BISHARI,) and built a double wall
against "the lands of the unclean." But this resem-
blance and the mention of the North-Africans need not
cause any difficulty. We consider it simply as the
notice of the conquests over the Shepherd races gene-
rally, on both sides-towards Palestine and Arabia
Petræa on one side, towards Libya on the other. This
is our explanation of the double wall (eastern and
western), which the king built against the Bedouins of
that day.
In the next sculpture (Plate XLIX. 2.) the Shasu, or
Shepherds, are again mentioned in or near Canaan,
and at the same time the SHUMUI, noticed above with
the Nine bows, which proves that there is no break.80
Here there are three fortresses and two lakes, and the
last of the fortresses is stated (p. 348.) to have been
erected by Sethos, and was probably, therefore, a fron-
tier fortress.
Rosellini remarks (p. 359.) that the king's title of
most frequent occurrence means "Guardian of Egypt,"
which has perhaps some connexion with the frontier
fortresses and double wall.
When he returns in triumph, the Nile is represented
with a fortress (khetem). Rosellini says the name is
80 M. St. iii. 354.; comp. 346.
SECT. IV. B. I.] SETHOS I. AND HIS EXPLOITS.
159
destroyed, but Birch reads it Garu. As there are a river
and lake in the picture, and as the king must have been
received on the frontiers of his new country, this is
probably Pelusium or some city near it. There is also,
beyond all doubt, a bridge. (p. 362.) The priests and
grandees of the country come to meet the victorious
monarch with festivities and homage. The inscription,
which is well preserved, runs thus: "The most distin-
guished priests of the Gods, the presidents of the upper
and lower country, come to do homage to the good God
on his return from the foreign land of the Retennu,
after he has conquered and reduced to slavery many
great men. None has been seen like him except Osiris."
When adoring his majesty, and extolling the increase
of his power, they say: "Thou hast gone forth to
subjugate foreign lands, and hast trodden the world
under foot with the voice of thy truth: thine enemies.
thou hast defeated on the (first) day of thy reign, like
Ra in heaven: thou hast purified the hearts of all bar-
barians. Ra gave thee their frontiers before thee, thy
battle-axe was over the thrones of all foreign lands-
their priests were pierced by thy sword." The pri-
soners here announced to Ammon are called, in one
group, "Princes of the land of the Retennu," and in
another, "Prisoners of the Shasu," in the first year of
his reign.
The passage where the conqueror of the northern
people is mentioned as being only second to Osiris, is not
simply authentic authority for the high position of
Sethos, but it explains also the remark which we found
applied to Sesortosis-Sesostris of the 12th Dynasty in
Manetho's Lists. After mentioning the great victories
of that hero of the Old Empire, it is said that he was
celebrated on that account by the Egyptians as the
first after Osiris. (See Book II. p. 293. seq. especially
81 M. St., loc. cit., p. 366. seq.
160
[BOOK IV. PART II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
p. 302.) This is literally what is here said of Sethos.
In other words, he is described as the Sesostris of the
New Empire. This is clearly the origin of the confu
sion of the Sesostride and Ramesside legends, though
in the person of his great father, not of Ramesses
himself.
3. The Triumph over the Atsh in the Land of Amar. (Pl. LIII.)
This representation commences with the taking of the
hostile fortress. The enemy look like the Remnu.
Shepherds with cattle flying are seen not far from a fort
situated on a rock. All the rest is destroyed.
4. The Triumph over the Tahu, in the Land of the Retennu.
These sculptures are better
better preserved, but our
knowledge of the names of the conquered races is ob-
tained from inscriptions of one and the same picture.82
Their hands are tied together with papyrus leaves, which
proves them to have come from the North of Egypt.
5. The Triumph over the Khet, Kheta.
This representation is a very remarkable one. Ro-
sellini unluckily took it into his head that they were
Scythians, and the Scythians the Hyksos. We believe,
on the contrary, that philologically, as well as geogra-
phically, the choice lies only between the Khitti of the
Bible and the Kittim83, i.e. between the Hethites and the
inhabitants of Cyprus. We should without hesitation
decide in favour of the Hethites, that ancient and pow-
erful people of Canaan, among whom Abraham dwelt in
South Palestine at Hebron, did we not find express
mention made in Manetho of Cyprus having been con-
82 M. St. Pl. lvi. Conf. M. St. iii. p. 383.
.Khittaei, Citienses ,כּתִּיים כִּתִּים; חַתִּי 83
SECT. IV. B. I.]
161
SETHOS I. AND HIS EXPLOITS.
quered by Sethos. We therefore leave the point open,
as offering a possibility of the name alluding to these
islanders. The Kheta are here armed with bows and
arrows, and wear long square shields; they have no
beard, a close-fitting cap on their heads, and sometimes
a feather. The hair falls in thick clusters from the
cap on to their shoulders. (Pl. LVIII. seq.) Their long
coat is fastened with a girdle, and has short sleeves.
The king who conquered them is styled also "Tamer
of the Libyan Shepherds." (p. 394.) The Retennu do
homage to him. (p. 398.) It is said of him, that he has
twice devastated the land of the Kheta with fire. (p. 401.)
Another inscription (p. 402., comp. Pl. LVII.) seems to
say that the king carries with him the princes of the
hostile country of the Retennu after his victories over
the Kheta.
Each of the two main divisions of all these five repre-
sentations finishes with a large figure, which bears the
stamp of being the august portrait of the king. (Pl.
LX. LXI.)
Sethos is holding nine prisoners of nine different
races, four besides the above five, some of them evi-
dently negroes.
Over some of the groups (p. 409.) he is called the
Conqueror of the land of Petu, Pet, and of the Libyan
Shepherds; and it seems that NHRA (Naharina, Meso-
potamia) is mentioned as the frontier. Retennu and
Nubia are also mentioned. (p. 416.)
The nations who are grouped in three rows before
Ammon are thus arranged:
I. Southern nations: "Race of Kesh" (Ethiopia)
(p. 420.):
1. Utra-Urashu-Emrakaraka — Kuka.
2. Srani-Brabra (Berbers)-Takrrr (probably
Dakruri in Upper Nubia, as Rosellini thinks)--
Irimtata-Kurass-Urak;
3. Tururak.
VOL. III.
M
162
[BOOK IV. PART II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
II. Northern nations: The five peoples enumerated
above:
1. "Libyan Shepherds" (the Mennahom of Rosel-
2. Asi:
lini):
Khet;
Naharina;
Rtn (Upper and Lower);
Sinkar (Rosellini happily suggests Singara,
near Edessa 84);
Unut;
Pebash;
(Two illegible ending in na.)
Mennus;
Bairanut;
Unnu;
Shasu (Shepherds);
Sritu;
Punt (Pnn, land of the red granite, on the
Red Sea; perhaps Mauritania; certainly not
PŒNI, PUNI, Phoenicians);
Rhsh; and a few others obliterated.
3. Atmes:
Mensaû;
Ushah;
Nuahu;
Mehekmu;
Tinhur;
Anakm;
Memtu;
Matu;
Turt;
Sthebu;
Pekatmu.
84 Pliny, N. H. v. 24. Steph. de Urb. s. v.
SECT. IV. B. I.] SETHOS I. AND HIS EXPLOITS.
163
We maintain that, to an Egyptian, the northern na-
tions mean in fact races of North Africa, consequently
Libyans, and perhaps Mauritanians. This view was first
developed with great ingenuity and equal scholarship by
our learned friend, Colonel Mure, in a treatise which we
shall shortly be called upon to examine more closely.
Rosellini's idea, that the Rmmn, Shasu, Amar, Tahn,
and Khet in the above inscriptions must be counted
among the RTNN, and that the latter are Lydians, i. e.
Asiatics, is untenable. The inscriptions do not say so,
and Lud is not Lydia, still less Asia, which is a very
modern idea.
II. THE TOMB OF SETI.-THE REPRESENTATION OF THE FOUR
RACES OF MEN.
THE representations on the magnificent tomb of this
king in the valley of Biban El Moluk contain no his-
torical subjects, except the celebrated group of the FOUR
RACES, each represented by four men. They stand in
one row (as may be seen in Belzoni's work, who disco-
vered it), and form the following groups (Ros. M. R.
CLV. CLVI.):
First: The TAMAHU, fair-complexioned, in long clothing
of skins without girdles, with painted (tattooed)
skin, little beard, the hair artistically arranged, a
long tuft on the cheek and two ostrich feathers on
the head.
Secondly: The NEHES (Nhsu), Negroes, with their under
garments and a shawl thrown over the left shoulder
serving as a girdle, and golden bracelets hanging
from the wrist.
Thirdly: The HEM (Hemu), of a light brown colour,
well-formed men, with fine under garments, the
hair in a bag hanging down, and blue eyes. The
usual reading is Aamu (Great of the Water):
Birch suggests either the Hebrew word 'ham,
M 2
164
[BOOK IV. PART II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
people, or gojim, nations, as the derivation. The
former written with the letter Ain is the more
probable, according to the correspondence of the
two alphabets.85
Fourthly: The RET, i.e. the kind, the race, or especially
the men, a representation of four Egyptians fol-
lowed by Horus.
The simple question naturally is, whom are we to
understand by the first and third rows? We must here
give our full acquiescence in the explanation of these
representations offered by Mure, as early as 1836, in
the annals of the Archæological Institute at Rome, in
opposition to the views of Champollion and Rosellini.
He does not consider Africa, Europe, and Asia to be
here depicted, but in the first group the inhabitants of
Mauritania and North Africa generally, in the third,
the inhabitants of Palestine. Everything that has since
been advanced by Osburn and others as to it and the
names is unwarranted by philology, and at variance
with historical probability. All that we can ven-
ture to say is, that the group immediately preceding
the Egyptians probably represents the Asiatics who
were known to them, namely, the Semitic people of
Palestine, Syria, and possibly also Arabia. They ex-
hibit the high-born impress of the Caucasian race,
which we are in the habit of calling Oriental, and hence
they bear an unmistakable resemblance to the hand-
somely featured Jews, or the Assyrians and Persians on
the monuments of Nineveh and Persepolis. Thus also
the Tamahu may be considered to represent the Libyans
in the widest sense, as precisely similar representations
occur with the name of Pet, the people of the nine
bows. As Ret is not the proper name of the Egyptians,
it need be no matter of surprise that the names HEMU and
TAMAHU are not met with in the numerous representa-
85 See the Alphabet (Phonetics, M. 8.) in Vol. I. Part I.
SECT. IV. B. I.] SETHOS I. AND IIIS EXPLOITS.
165
tions of single conquered nations. At present, however,
no philological explanation of these names has been dis-
covered. The solution offered of the general appella-
tion of the Asiatics as "Great of the Water" is as
questionable as Osburn's fanciful notion (who translates
it ungrammatically "Great Water") that it means the
Euphrates, and contains an allusion to the origin of
the human race on the great river.
There is one circumstance, independent of such un-
certain names, which, as regards the research into the
old people-history, seems to me more important than
any conjectures as to their meaning. Everything com-
bines to render it probable that the extent of the cam-
paigns of the Tuthiōses and Ramessides, as well as of
the names of the people, which are in fact frequently
repeated, was, as regards general history, a very narrow
one. Wherever we discover an undoubted historical
Asiatic name, it is in Palestine or Syria. Here we have
Canaan and the Hethites, here also Damascus; and, as a
general rule, the extreme northern point seems to be
Mesopotamia (Naharina). If, then, we compare with
this limited theatre of the campaigns and conquests of
the Pharaohs of that age, the vast number of names
which are recorded as individual peoples, it is clear, in
the first place, that no great empire then existed in
Palestine and Syria, not even a single important state.
The second result, and one which is a direct consequence
of the other, is, that these monuments represent the
condition of those countries as precisely identical with
what we find in the most ancient accounts in the Bible
-single Canaanitish races, principally nomads, with a
few towns some of which were fortified.
We may
also with probability infer from it that no powerful
empire then existed on the Tigris and Euphrates, in
Mesopotamia, Nineveh, or Babylon. These two cities
are made tributary without any great effort, like the
others. Had the kingdom of Babylon been still in exist-
M 3
166
[BOOK IV. PART II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
ence, there would have been greater adhesion among
these separate races in those productive regions.
Our only hope of making any real advance as to a
knowledge of the state of these countries lies in a cri-
tical comparison of the Egyptian geography of Pa-
lestine and Syria with the most ancient Hebrew, and
with the Syrian and Canaanitish races and localities on
the oldest Assyrian monuments. We are not, however,
so far advanced at present as to be able to institute any
such comparison with a reasonable expectation of
success.
II.
SETHOS, THE FATHER OF RAMESSES, IN THE HISTORICAL TRADITION
AS RESTORED.
In the passage transmitted by Josephus out of Ma-
netho's historical work, or, at all events, all that is im-
portant in it, we learn that Sethosis, i. e. Sethos I., first
conquered Cyprus and Phoenicia and then made a suc-
cessful expedition against the Assyrians and Medes.
After this, on his return from that expedition, while
sojourning in Pelusium, he was treacherously threatened
by his brother Armais with being burnt to death, from
whom, with a few attendants, he escaped as it were by
a miracle. This campaign then, as Lepsius has rightly
remarked, does not belong to Ramesses, but to his
father. This puts an end to the fruitless search after
the supposed double of Ramesses, on whom Rosellini
especially has expended so much ingenuity, and in
whom Kenrick still believes. No such double is to be
found on the monuments, for it is beyond all question
that the cruel brother was a paternal uncle of Ramesses,
who received in his father's lifetime the merited reward
of his treachery.
If we turn back to the monuments, we find that the
SECT. IV. B. II.]
167
SETHOS I. RESTORED TRADITION.
Punt, who are not PŒNI, furnish no evidence as to the
conquest of the Phoenicians; nor do we meet with any
trace of Sidon, the ancient Tsidon of Scripture (proba-
bly therefore in Egyptian, Titun, Tintun), or of Tyre.
But Seti did conquer the land of Kanaana and the
Kheta (Hittites); and Phoenicia, according to the most
ancient phraseology, belonged to the land of Canaan.
With a Phoenician fleet, therefore, he inay very well
have gone to the island of Cyprus. Hence, it is not in
itself impossible that the Kheta and Kittæans, i. e. Cy-
prians, the Kittim of Scripture, were the same name.
If they are different names, according to all analogy of
sound, as far as we know, they must be Hittites. The
Egyptians must have written the word Kittæans with a
K instead of Ch.
But Cyprus cannot have been more than temporarily
subject to Egypt. The occupation of a remote island
in the Mediterranean must necessarily have been pe-
rilous to them. How could they retain it for any length
of time, not only without being certain of Phoenicia,
but of Crete also, which they doubtless knew as Kaphtor,
where their arch-enemies the Philistines of Palestine,
probably the remains of the northern Hyksos races
themselves, were settled? But there is no trace of any-
thing of the kind on the monuments. On the contrary,
the struggle with the Kheta lasts throughout the whole
period, and it was evidently one of primary importance
to the Egyptians. The monuments of Ramesses place
this in the clearest light.
From all these considerations, we draw the conclusion
that the statement in Manetho as to the conquest of
Cyprus arises from a misunderstanding of the Kheta
on the monuments. This assumption has everything
in its favour, and nothing against it. Long before the
time of Manetho the Hittites had disappeared entirely
from Palestine and from history, the Jewish and Philis-
tine conquests having, shortly after the time of Ra-
M 4
168
[Book IV. PART II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
messes, destroyed their power for ever. On the other
hand, in Manetho's time the name of the Kittæans, or
Kittites, was in every body's mouth in Egypt as well as
in Greece.
In imputing, however, to Manetho a misunderstand-
ing of the meaning of the name of a foreign people who
had ceased to exist, we do not derogate from his high
value as an annalist, especially as regards his knowledge
of the monuments of the kings whose history he wrote.
Such a misunderstanding is as compatible with a know-
ledge of the monuments, as a correct interpretation of
them. There is, on the other hand, nothing to be said
against the statement as to the subjugation of the Pho-
nicians. If the account of Ramesses's expedition to
Babelmandeb be historical, it may have been performed
by Phoenician sailors. But an expedition to Mesopo-
tamia, at all events, implies the submission of the Pho-
nician cities. There are to this day, indeed, scutcheons
of Ramesses on the coast.
Thus much as to the first part of the campaigns and
conquests of Seti according to Manetho.
We may
venture to assert that the monuments offer ample evi-
dence of the historical character of these notices.
As regards the campaigns "against the Assyrians
and Medes," we certainly have no records, except as to
the expedition to Mesopotamia (Naharina) and the un-
certain mention of Edessa on the Euphrates. But this
may suffice to explain Manetho's statement, if we as-
sume that Mesopotamia was the point in dispute be-
tween Egypt and an Assyro-Babylonian empire, as it
was under Tuthmosis III.; add to which, that much
that has been transmitted to us is mutilated, much
more entirely lost. The flourishing age of Assyria
only begins with Ninus, 120 years after Seti. But the
empires of the Euphrates are much older, as well as
the Bactrian state. It must especially be remembered,
however, that successful forays are not lasting con-
SECT. IV. B. II.] SETHOS I. RESTORED TRADITION.
169
quests. The son and successor of Sethos had to recon-
quer the same countries; Tuthmosis III. received tribute
from Nineveh and Babel.
The representation of the third historical campaign,
the return to Pelusium, is drawn in very marked
colours. The prominence given to his triumphant entry
into a place that every victorious Pharaoh must have
touched at on his return, his brilliant reception there,
and apotheosis, as it were, may be most naturally
accounted for by a circumstance about which the monu-
ments are silent, though it is mentioned in the annals,
the miraculous escape of the king from the mur-
derous attack of his treacherous brother.
In this manner it seems that the reign of Seti I.
emerges most satisfactorily from the obscurity of ancient
misunderstandings and fables into historical light. We
have shown in the First Book that the name of Sesostris
given by Herodotus to Ramesses, and his campaigns of
nine years' duration ascribed by Diodorus to the same
Ramesses, belong to the Great Sesortosis of the 12th
Dynasty. The confusion in the names of Sethos and
Ramesses, the father and son, in the history of the great
conquests of the 19th Dynasty, was, however, the source
of still greater blunders. These we may now hope to
rectify by combining a study of the monuments with
the criticism of Manetho and the Greek writers.
general results of these two reigns of the fourteenth
century B.C. can be developed with the same authentic
certainty as those of David and Solomon, three cen-
turies later. Our knowledge of their personality and of
their intellectual development will, it is true, always
remain as far inferior as it now is to our knowledge
of the two Jewish kings: but it must correspond
exactly with their intellectual importance to history
generally.
The
170
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [BOOK IV. PART II.
C.
THE THIRD REIGN: RAMESSES II. (RAMESSU: WITH THE
ADDITION MERI-AMN (MIAMÛ), RA-SESER-MA: FREQUENTLY
WITH THE ADDITION SeTeP-EN-RA), SON OF SETHOS I.
(Plate VII. 41.)
(Lepsius, Hist. Mon. vol. vi. Pl. 142-172.: end of volume.)
"Mox visit (Germanicus) veterum Thebarum magna
vestigia. Et manebant structis molibus litteræ Egy-
ptiæ, priorem opulentiam complexæ, jussusque e se-
nioribus sacerdotum patrium sermonem interpretari
referebat habitasse quondam septingenta millia ætate
militari, atque eo cum exercitu regem Ramsen Libya,
Æthiopia Medisque et Persis et Bactriano ac Scytha
potitum, quasque terras Syri Armeniique et contigui
Cappadoces colunt, inde Bithynum hinc Lycium ad
mare imperio tenuisse. Legebantur et indicta gentibus
tributa, pondus argenti et auri, numerus armorum
equorumque, et dona templis, ebur atque odores, quasque
copias frumenti et omnium utensilium quæque natio
penderet, haud minus magnifica, quam nunc vi Parthorum
aut potentia Romana jubentur."-Tacit. Annal. ii. 60.
I.
SETHOS, RAMSES, MENEPHTHAH: OR THE ELEVATION, CULMINATION,
AND FALL OF THE HOUSE OF RAMESSES.
RAMESSES the Ammon-loving, with the throne-name
"Helios, strength of truth," and usually with the
addition "tried by Helios," is one of those false
idols which criticism may be pardoned for having set
up. He was certainly a warrior and a conqueror. His
SECT. IV. C. I.] RAMSES II. AND HIS EXPLOITS.
171
reign was long, and the beginning of it glorious, exter-
nally, at least. The ruins of his buildings still cover
the land over which he ruled. But the name so loudly
extolled is that of the father, Sethosis. He is the
celebrated hero, second only to the divine Osiris.
His
reign was short, but triumphant to the last. He left
his monuments unfinished, but the highest honours were
paid to him, not merely by the priests, but also by the
people. Ramesses reigned above sixty-six years. He
inherited from his father a mighty empire, and an army
accustomed to fight and to conquer. With it he sub-
dued, or rather marched through, Nubia to the south,
Mesopotamia and Palestine to the north; but he left
behind him an exhausted and debilitated kingdom, and
a dynasty so shattered, that his son and successor was
obliged, in a few years, to flee the country before rebel-
lious outcasts and prisoners employed on his buildings,
and before the Palestinian hordes who joined them.
This is the concise picture which the monuments offer
of these three remarkable races, and which we with con-
fidence introduce into the history of the old world. But
what further detail have we of the brilliant appearance
of this Ramesses, who before the discovery of the hiero-
glyphics was in the eyes of many scholars the echo of a
fable; and is still perhaps in Germany, to many a specu-
lative hunter after myths and dreamy antiquarian,
a mythological hero in disguise, if not even a fallen
God, or a raindrop that has evaporated? The critical
question at present is simply this: What part of the
Sesostris-Sethosis tradition belongs to him, and what
to his father? What part of it, again, is to be abs-
tracted from both of them and given to the two great
rulers of the 3rd and 12th Dynasties, the two Sesortoses
or genuine Sesostrises ?
172
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [BOOK IV. PART II.
II.
RAMSES II., SON OF THE GREAT SETHOSIS, AND HIS EXPLOITS,
ACCORDING TO TIE MONUMENTS.
WE will first of all, again taking Rosellini as our prin-
cipal guide, go through the separate buildings, and
give an account of the historical facts they contain.
The representation of that excellent describer is unfor-
tunately sullied by his erroneous idea, that the scutcheon
of this king, without the addition in the throne-name, is
intended for the younger brother, whom he therefore
calls Ramses II., in order to distinguish him from the
Great Ramesses, whom he calls Ramses III.
The colossal statue at Memphis alone (34 feet
from head to foot), now lying on the ground at
Mit-Rahineh, which once adorned the temple of Ptah,
not to mention other reasons, might have prevented
this unprejudiced critic from falling into the error
of the French school, which to our astonishment
has been adopted by Kenrick. For in this unquestion-
able portrait of the conqueror, which corresponds in
every respect with the representations extant of him
in the museums of Turin and London, the clasp of the
girdle contains the full title, whereas there are scut-
cheons on both sides of it without the addition "tried
by Helios." The portrait of Ramses, which has all
the marks of being a likeness, exhibits the highest ideal
of the Egyptian countenance. What is supposed to be
the portrait of the brother is the well-known beautiful
face of Ramesses. It is also an error to suppose that
the two brothers, as separate individuals, are standing
before their father at Ipsambul. It is the king, once
as a mortal, and once as a divinity, giving blessing to
the king, that is, to himself. But the whole story of
two brothers Ramesses is a pure fable.
86 M. R. Pl. lxiv.-cxiv. M. St. iii. B. 1–296.
SECT. IV. C. II.] RAMSES II. AND HIS EXPLOITS.
173
66
I. ROCK-TEMPLE AT BEIT-UALLI IN NUBIA.
IN the small rock-temple of Beit-Ualli, not far from
Talmis (Kalabshe87), in Nubia, the king is represented
as Conqueror of the Nine Bows" (usually called Li-
byans), and "the heretic race of the Kesh" (Kushites).
The latter have the complete Asiatic type. In another
representation he is said to have tamed the Tehennu.
The conquered race is bearded, and of a yellowish red
complexion. These then represent his triumphs over
the people of Southern and Northern Africa. In another
representation we read, "Under the soles of thy feet are
the Sharui," a people whom we have found mentioned
in the exploits of Sethos, together with the Shasu (Pales-
tinian Shepherds) and the Nine Bows. In the repre-
sentation on the left side of the entrance of the rock,
we read (p. 33.), "The King has encompassed with war
the land of the Retennu." He is accompanied in this
campaign by two of his sons. The elder stands before
him as standard-bearer, and presents to him the African
booty (p. 34. seq.). Among the prizes is the son of
an Ethiopian king, Amenemhept, dressed as an Egyptian.
Among the animals we notice the gazelle and giraffe.
The children have three single tufts on their head, the
rest of which is shaved, as we find them at the present
day in Nubia (p. 38.). The conquered Ethiopians are
arined with long bows, such as those described by Strabo,
six feet long, made of wood, and hardened in the fire.
Amongst the objects of value are gold and precious
stones, ivory, and ebony. Champollion, therefore, very
properly calls attention to the passage in Diodorus,
where Sesostris is mentioned as imposing tribute on the
Ethiopians of ivory, gold, and ebony88- whether by
Sesostris be meant Ramesses, or his father, or even the
old real Sesostris.
7 M. R. Pl. lxiv.-lxxv.
88 Diod. Sic. i. 33. Comp. Strabo, xvii. 23.
174
[BOOK IV. PART II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
On the sculptures of this temple Rosellini invariably
found the addition, "tried by Ra." On all the other
larger monuments he is either represented alone, or oc-
casionally with the shorter form.
II. THE GREAT AND LITTLE ROCK-TEMPLES AT IPSAMBOul.
THE grandest of all the rock-temples at Ipsambul (in
Egyptian, ABSHEK89), half a day's journey from Wadi-
Halfa, on the left bank, is also the work of the great
Ramses. It was dedicated by him to Ra, and a smaller
one by his wife, Nefruari, to Hathor.90 Almost all the
walls of the rock in this gloomy cavern are covered
with the most splendid bassi rilievi. The principal
personages are the size of life. We are indebted to
the Italico-French Commission, and especially Rosellini,
for Champollion was laid up at the time with fever,
for clearing the entrance, which was choked up with
sand, and making an accurate copy of all the repre-
sentations.
The king is accompanied by three of his sons. There
is on one picture a list of the conquered nations 91, the
following names of whom are still legible: the Libyan
Shepherds; the Nhsi (Negroes); a portion of the northern
country of the Hemu; a part of Nubia; Shasu (shep-
herds); the Retennu, who have been as ill treated by
the interpreters as they were by the Egyptians; and the
Tehennu. On the clothes of one of the latter prisoners is
the plant of the south, which Rosellini explains as repre-
senting the southern portion of a country to the north
of Egypt. The complexion and features certainly look
89 Rosellini, p. 668., compares the Aboccis of Pliny, mentioned by
him with Pselcis and Primis (Dekke and Ibrim). Ptolemy has
Αβουκκίς.
90 M. R. lxxix.—ciii.
91 Pl. lxxxiii. Comp. M. St. p. 105. seq.
SECT. IV. C. II.]
175
RAMSES II. AND HIS EXPLOITS.
like North Africa. In another picture 92 is represented
his conquest over the Ethiopians and Nubians. Here
the king is accompanied by a tiger or panther. This
is, perhaps, the origin of the story about the lion,
which, according to Diodorus, is represented fighting
by the side of Sesostris. It may, however, not be in-
tended as actually accompanying him, as in the case of
Tippoo Saib, but merely as the emblem of strength. It
is here that Ramses himself, as the God Ra, sitting be-
tween Ammon and Muth, is giving life and purity to the
king, i. e. to himself, a representation which has been
explained above.
94
The largest representation is that of the campaign
against the Kheta, already identified as the great ab-
original inhabitants of Canaan, the Hittites. It contains
more than 800 figures, the central point being the
king's tent.93 The first view is an attack on a strong
hostile city. Both the armies have war chariots. Some-
times the enemy wear a thick moustache ; sometimes
the heads are shorn, with a long tuft hanging down
behind; sometimes they have a profusion of hair. They
wear also a long cloak with short sleeves. There are
some cavalry among them. Their arms, armour, har-
ness, and chariots are exactly similar to the Egyptian
(p. 157.). The name of the city is well known to us
from the time of Tuthmosis III., FORTRESS OF ATSH,
and seems to be near a river. Rosellini endeavours to
prove that it is not the same name as occurs in the
conquests of Menephthah -"Atschen in the land of
Amar"-though he admits that the difference in the
form is unimportant. But he thinks that in one case
the enemy are very like the Remnu, while in the other
92 M. R. lxxxiv. lxxxv. Comp. M. St. iii. B. 110. seq.
93 M. R. lxxxviii.—ciii.
94 M. R. lvii. lviii. lix. ciii. M. St. iii. p. 1. 389., p. 2. 157.
256.
176
[BOOK IV. PArt II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
96
they are different from them. After the fortress is
captured, envoys from the Shasu and Kheta (who in the
first instance are taken for spies, seized, and tortured)
come to sue for peace, which they obtain. There is
certainly no positive indication in this long inscription
of forty-three lines95, and on which there is the date of
the fifth year, ninth month, and ninth day, as to the
precise relation between the country of the Kheta and
Naharina (Mesopotamia ), which is mentioned in it.
But it seems clear that they were neighbouring, indeed.
adjoining countries (line 18. p. 143. seq.), and that
Atsh is described as a southern point in the land of the
Kheta. This would agree very well with Asdod, Azôt,
in the land of the Philistines. The resemblance, how-
ever, is a distant one. Atshn is in the land of Amar
can it mean the Amorites? Edessa has been proposed,
but there is no point of correspondence with it. The
names of the leaders of the Kheta are for the most part.
uncertain, those which are in good preservation do not
sound like anything historical.
The campaign, therefore, took place at the com-
mencement of his reign, peace was made at the end of
the fifth year. The temple seems to have been built
much later. On a stele between the last two pilasters
on the left, the thirty-fifth year is mentioned (p. 161.).
There is the same date in a rock inscription not far
from this shrine, where an Ethiopian prince is repre-
sented as the king's secretary and counsellor. But the
most remarkable notice is the statement it contains
(column 13. Rosellini, p. 181. seq.) that "he brought
with him out of all countries builders, as slaves of his
supremacy over all foreign lands, and erected houses
for the Gods with the sons of the land of Retennu." It is
95 M. R. Pl. c. ci. cii. Comp. M. St. iii. B. 137. seq.
96 This country is also mentioned in another picture, p. 129.
97 M. St. iii. B. i. 186. seq.
SECT. IV. C. II.] RAMSES II. AND HIS EXPLOITS.
177
1
well known that Diodorus adduces this circumstance
as forming the glory of Sesostris, that he had all his
buildings erected by prisoners of war.98
In the smaller temple the king is said (p. 173. Pl. cxi.)
"to have annihilated Pan . . . . destroyed the Nehesu
(Negroes), smote the South, and overturned the North."
III. BUILDINGS AT THEBES AND LUXOR. THE SO-Called MemNO-
NIUM (RAMESSEUM). — KARNAK.
RAMSES adorned every part of Thebes. In the vast
edifice of Amenōphis (Luxor) he erected the court and
pylon, which were already connected by the dromos of
columns of King Horus with the main building. He
erected also two obelisks, one of which is now in the
Place de la Concorde at Paris. It appears from the in-
scription, as Rosellini happily remarked 99, that this
was a restoration of the more ancient and gorgeous
buildings in honour of Ammon. It is certain, there-
fore, that these must have been built by the Theban
Kings of the Old Empire, who were much better able to
construct such splendid temple-palaces than the tribu-
tary princes in the Middle Empire. This is true also
of the adjoining constructions of the 12th Dynasty. We
have an instance of it at Karnak, in a shrine which
bears the name of Sesortesen.
On the wall behind the obelisk the king's tent is
again represented, who is at war with the Kheta, and a
repetition of the scene with the envoys, who are seized
and tortured as spies (Pl. cvr. seq.). The date of the
day and month in the fifth year is likewise the same.
It
"The great house of Ramses," his principal building,
the Ramesseum, is on the western side of Thebes.
is described by the French savans sent by Napoleon, as
VOL. III.
98 Diod. Sic. i. c. 55. seq.
99 M. St. p. 202. seq. Comp. p. 198.
N
178
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
[Book IV. PART II.
the Memnonium.
Here it was that he erected the
largest of all the colossi, the sitting figure of himself,
about forty feet high from the seat. Here is also a
repetition on the walls of the great expedition to Pales-
tine and Mesopotamia against the Kheta, but with
certain peculiarities. Some well preserved names of
leaders of the Kheta are also given 100,- Khirupasaru,
Magaruma, Tarakanasi.
In all these representations there are various par-
ticular traits, such as those described by Diodorus
after Hecatæus on the so-called tomb of Osymandyas ;
the four sons as leaders of four divisions, an attack
upon a fortress near which a river is flowing, and,
lastly, the lion by the king's side. This renders it
therefore certain that the historian obtained his in-
formation from the Ramesseum, the site of which, and
even its dimensions, correspond exactly with his ac-
count. But if Hecatæus described this war as carried
on against the rebellious Bactrians, such a statement
would seem, from the above inscriptions, to be as fabu-
lous as the name of the king. There is no authority
for Champollion's idea that the people here represented
are from the north-west of Persia, consequently Bac-
trians, or Scythian Bactrians. Rosellini, who in the
first instance read the Kheta SKHETO, and interpreted
them as Scythians, rather inclined in his last work to
the notion that they were people of Western Asia.101
It seems to us to represent nothing but a glorious
campaign against Palestine as far as Lebanon. Kanaana
(Canaan) is the only certain identification. Those that
are uncertain are, ASHT, ASHTEN, a fortress on the water
(Asdod?). REMNU cannot be explained as Lebanon.
But there are, at all events, still extant, scutcheons of
the conqueror at Beyroot, at the foot of Lebanon.
100 M. St. p. 231. seq. Pl. cix. cx.
101 M. St. iii. B. 257, seq.
SECT. IV. C. II.] RAMSES II. AND HIS EXPLOITS.
179
No. 8 on our plan of the PALACE OF KARNAK marks
the works of this king. He erected the propylæa in
front of the hall of columns, with two vast colossi
facing each other, twenty-five high, of red granite, like-
nesses of himself, and a spacious forecourt. Here are re-
presented many conquered nations.102 Among "those of
the south," the names still legible are Kesh, Arashu,
Barabara (Barabra, now in Nubia); among "those of
the north," the name which Rosellini read JUININ
(Ionians) when speaking of Sethos I. This, however, is
decidedly incorrect. The Ionians (UINA) certainly oc-
cur in early times, but written as on the Rosetta stone.
The people or country is called ARHUna or IHuna, as
our alphabet shows.
On the outer wall, on the left wing of the hall of
columns of his father, which he sculptured, there are
several inscriptions of Ramses, but sadly mutilated.
There are also wars and triumphs depicted. The
Retennu are mentioned (p. 263.), Kesh and Arashu
(p. 264.), as well as the Kheta and "the fortress of the
land of Tesh;" a chief of the land of Arutu; Iriunna;
Masi.
There are, on another wall, more than thirty lines
containing the treaty made with the KHETA on the 20th
of Tobi (the fifth month) of the 21st year of his reign.
Rosellini translated it, but with his usual modesty called
it an unsuccessful attempt. (p. 269. seq. Pl. cxvI.)
From this it appears, that on the day above mentioned,
Ramses, after defeating the rebellious Kheta, made a
treaty with their chief, Prince KHETA-SIRA (Kheta-
Prince 103), who, with other leaders of the nation, came
to him, and that mention is made of the Gods of both
102 M. St. iii. B. 260., and corresponding plate.
103 We have remarked in our treatise on the Semitic languages
that the Babylonian has a similar construction, at variance with the
later Semitism.
N 2
180
[BOOK IV. PART II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
nations. Amun-Ra appears as an Egyptian God, Sut and
Asterta 104 as Gods of the Kheta, i. e. as stated in the
first book, Set and Astarte, consequently a God whose
name corresponds with the Egyptian Seth, and a Goddess
whom we know as Syrian and Babylonian. In the land
of the Kheta, "waters" are also mentioned. (p. 280.)
It seems, as Rosellini remarks, as though the likenesses.
of the Gods were intended to mark the boundaries be-
tween the two peoples. For it says at line 27. (p. 280.)
the God Sut of the fortress of . . . Sut of the for-
tress of the land of Aranita: Sut (Ros. Sutsh) of the
fortress of the land of Chisisi ;" and the same forinula
occurs in other mutilated passages.
IV. THE TOMB OF RAMESSES, THE SON OF SETHOS.
THE tomb of this conqueror appears, from a number
of his scutcheons which are extant there, to be the third
to the right of the entrance into the valley at Biban el
Moluk. Rosellini, however, did not succeed in clearing
away the vast heap of rubbish, and only got a glimpse at
the interior in a very hurried and unsatisfactory manner.
Lepsius gives no drawing of it in his Monuments. Ro-
sellini found some of the walls wholly without orna-
ment, and it was evidently never completed. I cannot
believe, in deference to Hecatæus' description of the
tomb of Osymandyas, that he was buried in the Ra-
messeum.
V. THE NORTHERN WALL OF DEFENCE, AND THE CANAL OF THE
RED SEA.
AFTER Lepsius' researches, there can be no doubt that
Ramses restored or completed the walls of defence
104 Usually in Rosellini, SUTX, i. e. SUTKн. Perhaps the sieve, or
what looks very like it, is only a determinative. The accompanying
figure is that of Set. Rosellini twice read it Sut (p. 280. note).
Asterta (ASTARTE) is erroneously read ANTErta.
SECT. IV. C. III.] RAMSES II.: CRITICAL RESULTS.
181
which his father erected or commenced against the in-
roads of the Palestinian and Arabian shepherds. The
canal from the Nile to the Red Sea, at the first turn of
it to the east as far as Seba Biar, also bears the name
of Ramesses. It is well known that Ramses was the
name of one of the two depôts or storehouses in the
land of Goshen, which must have been erected by the
Israelites.
III.
HISTORICAL RESULTS OF THE CRITICISM OF THE MONUMENTS.
We have, first of all, not a tittle of authority in the
monuments for assuming that Ramesses was called
Sesostris, or even had such an appellation as a title of
honour. It is on the other hand expressly stated of
Sethos, his father, that, after Osiris, he was the greatest
benefactor Egypt ever had. Ramses is the son of
Sethos, and nothing else. He is the heir of his con-
quests and armies. But not only were his expeditions
confined exclusively within the same circle as those of
Sethos, but his later campaigns were to the northern
frontiers of Egypt against the Hittites, who were then
powerful in Southern Palestine. Canaan, within its
ancient boundaries, which included Phoenicia, is the
principal theatre of them. Mesopotamia (Naharina),
which would seem to have been the limit of the con-
quests of Sethos, or extreme point of his expeditions,
does not once occur in the extant monuments of Ramses.
The extreme southern point reached was Ethiopia
(Kush); but even there much fewer names of subjected
tribes occur than in the case of Sethos.
This can hardly be accidental, inasınuch as we possess
more monuments of Ramses than of any other king.
How different was the state of things under Tuthmo-
N 3.
182
[BOOK IV. PART II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
sis III.! Babel and Nineveh were conquered, and Meso-
potamia was tributary long after his reign.
The first treaty of peace of which we have an account
was made in the fifth year of his reign, the last in the
twenty-first. Now if we consider that his reign lasted
66 years, we may fairly conclude that the campaign
which ended in his fifth year was the first the young
king ever made. Again, how could he have undertaken.
distant expeditions without being sure of his immediate
northern frontier? His conquests must, at all events,
have been lost, as he had a powerful enemy to combat
not far from Pelusium.
The greatness of this Pharaoh then must depend, if at
all, upon his edifices. These certainly are marvellous.
It cannot be accidental that we possess more monu-
ments of his than of any Pharaoh, we might say almost
as many as of all the other Pharaohs of the New
Empire down to Sheshonk put together. Indeed, the
remarkable inscription at Ibsambul alluded to above
expressly says, and it is one of the main features in
the Sesostris-Sethōsis legend of the Alexandrians, that
his edifices were erected by prisoners whom he carried
off from the enemies' countries.
It is obvious that a reign of 66 years, the last cam-
paign of which, as far as is known to us, ended in the
twenty-first, supplied the despot of a wealthy land who
had a taste for building, the heir of an established power
and vast treasures, who could employ at one time
thousands of prisoners upon it, with ample means for
accomplishing something far beyond the ordinary
standard.
But these innumerable constructions exhausted the
empire to such an extent, that his son and heir was
obliged to flee the country, and from this time forth the
strength of the New Empire was essentially broken down,
in spite of the temporary success of his Ramesside suc-
cessors.
SECT. IV. C. III.] RAMSES II.: CRITICAL RESULTS.
183
The most striking proof, however, of the pitiable con-
dition of the close of his reign is his unfinished tomb.
His son and subjects cannot have had much respect for
his memory, as they did not adorn or complete his se-
pulchre, the especial house of an Egyptian, which he had
probably himself partially erected. No trace whatever
exists of any ceremony having been appointed in his ho-
nour; no trace of his being distinguished by any name to
commemorate his exploits; though he certainly makes
his God Sokari, in Ibsambul, promise him "the whole
world shall be subject to thee, and I will cause them to
love thee." 105 This, Rosellini, who is a very enthusiastic
admirer of him, thinks a proof of his having been a mild
ruler.106 But it is difficult to conceive that one should
have been beloved by his enemies and slaves, to whom
his own son and subjects refused even the last honours,
or paid them in a singularly niggard manner. It is
likewise false sentimentality to give him credit for par-
ticular lenity, because he exacted compulsory service
from strangers and prisoners in erecting his buildings.
This is no proof at all that his own faithful subjects
were better off under the burthen of such extravagant
and costly expenditure during the period of five and
forty years. The facts, indeed, are all the other way.
If that feature in the Sesostris-Ramesses period which
was connected with this panegyric belongs to this Pha-
raoh, namely, that on such occasions he compelled the
princes and chief personages among his captives to
drag his chariot, it is, as a personal trait, simply a proof
of a low haughty disposition, of a love of display, if not
of cruelty.
Not the slightest doubt, however, can be entertained
as to his harsh and cruel disposition, by any one who
feels bound to come to the conclusion that Ramses II.,
105 See inscriptions in Rosellini, 1. 20. p. 164.
106 Page 270.
N 4
184
[BOOK IV. PART II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
the son of Sethos, and no other, is the Pharaoh who
drove the Israelites to desperation by his inhuman op-
pression. We will only so far anticipate here the sequel
of proof, by stating a fact first established by Lepsius,
that Menephthah, his son, is the Pharaoh in whose
reign Moses effected the glorious Exodus. Ramses II.,
therefore, the hero of Egyptologers, the false Sesostris,
the son so celebrated at the expense of the father, is the
hard-hearted Pharaoh with whose overthrow the Book
of Exodus commences. The oppression of the Israelites
doubtless begun under Tuthmosis III., but the open-
ing remark (Exod. i. 11.), "they set over them task-
masters," &c., clearly referred to Ramses II. The reign
of the first Ramses was short. Here again it is ob-
vious that the immediate predecessor of the Pharaoh
of the Exodus is spoken of (comp. ii. 23.). In all
probability, then, we must also place to the account of
Ramses the inhuman order to destroy all the Israelitish
children (i. 22.), for we can hardly take literally the
statement as to the age of Moses at the Exodus (twice
over, forty years). Forty years is the mode of ex-
pressing a generation, from thirty to thirty-three years.
All the facts tend, therefore, to give us the same pic-
ture of an unbridled despot, who took advantage of a
reign of almost unparalleled length, and of the acquisi-
tions of his father and ancestors, in order to torment
his own subjects and strangers to the utmost of his
power, and to employ them as instruments of his
passion for war and building. On the vast amount of
tribute levied by him, the monuments shown and ex-
plained by the priests to Germanicus might naturally ex-
patiate. We possess a precisely similar list of the reign of
Tuthmosis III. He may even have overrun Asia Minor
and Mesopotamia with fire and sword, if he has not
had the credit of the exploits of Sethōsis. Any one
who has faith enough in the truthfulness of the priests
may also come to the conclusion that in those inscrip-
SECT. IV. C. III.] RAMSES II.: CRITICAL RESULTS.
185
tions, and not merely in the poetical accounts (of which
there is an instance in the Papyrus Sallier) which
doubtless were regarded as an explanation of them,
allusion is really made to the Assyro-Babylonian king-
dom, which then ruled over Media and Bactria, and
was compelled to surrender Mesopotamia to him (or
his father).
Now this king is called Ramses, and not Sesostris.
Manetho himself charged the Greeks, from Herodotus
downwards, with having made a great blunder about
Sesostris. Eratosthenes, his critic, agrees with him
in this respect as completely as do the monuments.
We must add a word of correction as to the second
confusion of persons and dates, referring our readers
generally to the criticism we have offered above in the
12th Dynasty upon the real Sesostris tradition.
If we turn back from what we actually know about
Ramses and the Ramessides to the true legend of
Sesostris, which refers to two great rulers of the 3rd
and 12th Dynasties, the difference between them, and
their entire diversity, will at once be apparent.
The
According to the unequivocal testimony of Erato-
sthenes preserved by Strabo, Sesostris, the conqueror,
was the first who subdued Ethiopia, and advanced along
the Red Sea beyond Babelmandeb, leaving behind
him columns and stele known by his name.
mention of Ethiopia is sufficient to show the impossi-
bility of Ramses being intended. Tuthmosis III., as
we have seen, was master of the country, not to speak
of indications of the Sesortosidæ having possessed it.
But there is not the slightest hint about the expedi-
tion to the Indian Ocean, or Babelmandeb at all events,
either on the monuments or in the pompous accounts
given by the priests of Thebes to the Roman general.
According to the Alexandrian version, which we have
from Diodorus, this campaign, moreover, was the first.
We have seen also that the chronology of the monuments
186
[Book IV. PART II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
allows no time for it. The real Ramses concluded in
the fifth year of his reign, when he was in all probability
barely twenty years old, a peace with his powerful ene-
mies, the Hittites of Southern Palestine.
The account of the conquests of Ramses in Tacitus
again is silent about the most striking and most cele-
brated expedition of Sesostris the one to Europe.
Neither Thrace nor any other European country is men-
tioned.
All the distinguishing characteristics, therefore, of
the Sesostris-legend in Manetho and Eratosthenes are
here wanting; for expeditions to the neighbourhood of
the Euphrates are nothing extraordinary in the history
of Egypt.
The whole may therefore be summed up in the fol-
lowing sentences:
Firstly: There is nothing in common between the Se-
sostris and Ramesside histories. Sesostris belongs
to the Old Empire, Ramses to the New.
Secondly: Sesostris is Sesortōsis; and Egyptian tradi-
tion is acquainted with two glorious rulers of the
name, the great lawgiver of the 3rd, and the con-
queror and constructor of vast edifices in the 12th
Dynasty.
Thirdly: The Sesortōsis of the 12th enjoyed divine
honours in the time of the Tuthmoses, and was at
a very early period considered by the people as
almost equal to Osiris.
Fourthly: The same passage was applied by the priests,
word for word, to Sethos, "next after Osiris."
Manetho says that he conquered Cyprus (Kittim),
Palestine, and Syria.
Fifthly: Ramesses II., his son, inherited the conquests
and riches of his father, and completed his edi-
fices. His history was confounded with that of his
father.
SECT. IV. C. III.] RAMSES II.: CRITICAL RESULTS.
187
Sixthly: Herodotus, and even later writers, did not know
how to distinguish between the historical and the
mythical, the old and the new elements. Sesostris-
Sesortōsis and Sethōsis-Ramesses were jumbled
together.
Seventhly: The statements in Manetho are authentic
and decisive in the Old Empire as well as in the
New. What he said about the campaigns and con-
quests of Sethos has come down to us; about Ra-
messes, nothing. We have no reason to believe that
the independent high priest, who protested against
Darius placing his own statue before that of "Se-
sostris,” ever thought of the Ramessides, although
the poetry and popular legends of the New Empire
may at an early period have caused a confusion in
the history.
Eighthly: The stele of Sesostris in Asia Minor, attri-
buted by Hecatæus to Memnon, are probably not
even Egyptian.
Ninthly: Ramesses was a ruler fond of display, and
cruel, who exhausted his kingdom, and left his
tomb unfinished.
Of the condition in which he left his kingdom, the
monuments, traditions, and events of world-historical
importance furnish us the picture in all its revolting
deformity.
188
[BOOK IV. PART II.
SECTION V.
THE DECLINE OF THE HOUSE OF RAMESSES.
THREE REIGNS.
(Lepsius, Hist. Mon. vol. vii. Pl. 173-206.)
FIRST REIGN (FOURTH OF THE DYNASTY).
25 YEARS:
MENŌPHTHES (AMENÔPHAT, MENŌPHTHES, Me-EN-PтеH BA-en-Ra
MERI-EN-AMN), SON OF THE GREAT RAMESSES. 20 YEARS.
(Plate VIII. 42.)
SECOND REIGN.
SETHŌS II. (RA SESER KHеPER. U MERI AMEN. SETI MERI-EN-PTеH),
SON OF MENŌPHTHES.—5 YEARS. (Plate IX. 12.107)
THIRD REIGN.
PHUŌRIS (NILUS) (SeT-NeKHT) MERER-RA RA-SeSeR-SHAU.-7
YEARS.
A.
ADJUSTMENT OF THE MONUMENTS WITH MANETHO'S STATE-
MENT ABOUT THE CONFUSION OF THIRTEEN YEARS' DU-
RATION.—FLIGHT AND RETURN OF MENŌPHTHES, ANd of
HIS SON, AFTERWARDS SETHOS II.
WE have given in the Third Book a translation of
the remarkable passage in Manetho's historical work
(or an extract from it) in Josephus, where it is stated
that the son of the Great Ramesses, Amenōphis (Me-
nōphtis), succumbed to a revolt of the lepers who were
grievously oppressed by him, under Osarsiph (or
Osarōph) Moses and their allies who were called in
from Palestine, and how he fled to Ethiopia with his
son, then five years old, and how the latter recovered
his kingdom at the end of thirteen years, by force of
arms, and reigned as Sethos II.
107 The number 5 opposite to Siphtah belongs here (viii. 4.)
C
SECT. V. A.] FLIGHT AND RETURN OF MENŌPHTHES.
189
We have, in agreement with Lepsius, pointed out
how the Menephthah and Seti II. of the monuments
correspond respectively with this Amenōphis (Menōph-
thes) and this Sethos. We find twenty years assigned
to the former in the Lists, or, more properly, nine-
teen years and six months, which accords exactly
with the account of the thirteen years' flight. For,
if even the revolt broke out at an early period, the
whole narrative implies that several years of perse-
cution, rebellion, and revolt preceded the flight of
the king. If we add these years to the thirteen of
the flight, we shall approach in the most natural way
to the date of nineteen or twenty years. The narrative
also about the son and successor tallies well with it.
Being five years old at the time of his father's flight,
as a prince of eighteen he is in a condition to recon-
quer the kingdom for his father and himself.
Do the monuments furnish us any further confirma-
tion of it? It is clear that, if the above account be
correct, there will be no extant buildings of that reign
of twenty years, nor shall we find any records of con-
quests and victories in those representations and inscrip-
tions. It is true that this is merely a negative proof.
It must, however, be admitted that if in the countless
mass of buildings, sculptures, and other monuments,
which extend down to the sixty-second year of Ram-
ses, a sudden gap is found such silence would be
eloquent testimony in behalf of some great calamity.
Now such is precisely the case. The only year of
Menephthah mentioned on the monuments is the second,
and Rosellini himself admits that, strictly speaking, no
historical monuments of his exist at all. There is a
stele at Silsilis, cut in the rock, which bears his name,
but it is one of his sons who dedicates it. The third
of the small rock-temples there met with, it is true, was
constructed by Menephthah, but in the first year of hist
reign. (p. 301.) The subjects of the inscriptions are
190
[BOOK IV. PART II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
merely religious. There is no allusion to exploits or
victories, no term conveying either the idea of glory
or promise. An inscription at Silsilis alludes to a
building being commenced, for which a quarry was
opened, where his second regnal year is mentioned.
In all the rest of Egypt there is no trace of him, except
his scutcheons, which he placed on the buildings of his
father at Thebes (as the remains which have come to
Europe testify), and then his tomb in Biban el Moluk.108
But even this was not finished either by him or
his son.
The introductory scene only is represented,
which, according to custom, the king caused to be
executed after his accession, in preparation for "the
eternal house."
This connexion between his monuments and those of
his father is unquestionably so striking, that we can
scarcely explain it, except by the above historical repre-
sentation.
But the monuments also give a positive corroboration
of the fall of the empire, under the son of the great
Ramesses. In the Lists Menephthah109 is succeeded
by an Ammenemes, whom, in reference to the succes-
sion of the kings, it was difficult to identify on the
monuments. Lepsius has discovered that in his reign
there were two rival sovereigns. One was named
Amen-Messu (Pl. VIII. 1.), who is clearly this king in
the Lists; the other, Si-ptah (son of Ptah). The tomb
of the second of these, in Biban el Moluk, exhibits him
and his wife, Taseser, in possession of royal honours.
He is also found in inscriptions at Silsilis. In one of
them a prayer is offered that their children may inherit
the throne a phraseology, as Rosellini rightly re-
marks, which is met with nowhere else in respect to the
Pharaohs110, but which can easily be explained here by
108 M. R. cxviii. M. St. 306. seq.
109 See above, Sect. II. p. 108.
110 M. St. 328. seq.
SECT. V. A.]
191
SETHOS II.
the circumstances. His royal scutcheon is also found
on the ruins of the palace at Gurnah. In that tomb
Ammon gives him the highest power, in presence of his
great ancestress Aahines-Nefruari, Seti I., and the Great
Ramesses.
There is no doubt that he or his wife, or both of
them, were of royal race, and they endeavoured to hold
the sovereignty of the Pharaohs at Thebes as rivals
during that season of misfortune. There are no dates
of years either of them or the other rival sovereigns.
We are enabled then, by the science of hieroglyphics,
not only to explain, but also to complete, the historical
tradition of Manetho, which Josephus, owing to the
bitter controversy between the Alexandrian Hellenists
and the execrated Jews, has preserved to us, and with
which it has hitherto been difficult to deal. The cow-
ardly flight of Menephthah to Ethiopia was an indica-
tion of the dissolution of the empire. Egyptian princes,
probably offsets of the royal house, endeavoured to
retain their power in the Thebaid.
SECOND REIGN: SETHOS II., THE SON OF MENOPHTHES:
5 YEARS. (Plate IX. 12.)
WE can hardly venture to hope to learn much from
the monuments about the short reign of Sethos II.
Rosellini found a brief inscription of his with the second
year of his reign, on a door-post of the rock-temple at
Silsilis. But he erected buildings at Thebes. He it
was who adorned the shafts of the columns of the great
connecting hall of King Horus, at Luxor, with his
scutcheons, by way of architectonic finishing. He
erected a small building in the fore court, which can still
be traced on the ground-plan (9). One of the inner
rooms is unfinished (p. 310.). Rosellini also found his
scutcheon on the base of the Ramses colossus at Kar-
nak. In the open space, where the obelisks of the
192
[Book IV. PART II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS,
first Tuthmosis and of Misphra stood, he also found on
a door-post, with a fragment of a wall, an inscription of
Sethos II., representing him as its constructor, with
the title of the "Tamer of the Nine Bows," consequently
the Libyans. He discovered also, farther on to the right
of the granite shrine, offerings and invocations of his,
as well as buildings erected by him. The bases of
several of the colossal sphinxes, in the great dromos of
Horus, likewise bear his name.
Probably the beautiful colossal statue of him, in
the Turin Museum, was found among the ruins.
His tomb at Biban el Moluk is adorned in many
places with his sculptures and pictures, but they were,
evidently, never completed. On the lid of the sarco-
phagus of red granite, in the shape of a mummy-case,
is his likeness, but it also was only commenced.
This circumstance is most naturally explained by the
subsequent history of his race and realm.
THIRD REIGN: PHUŌRIS (NILUS) (SET-NeKT) MERER-RA RA-
SeSeR-SHAU: 7 YEARS.
WILKINSON'S hypothesis, that he was the father of
Ramesses III. has not been confirmed. There is there-
fore no reason for not assigning him a place, as the
Lists do, in this dynasty. We know that the prayer of
Si-ptah, which contains the dedication, was not heard.
His children did not occupy the throne of their ma-
ternal grandsire. The male line, too, carried on directly
by Menephthah, became extinct with his son. After
the death of Seti II. a new name appears as his suc-
cessor. According to the scutcheons, it reads MERR-RA.
It is, however, probable that the name, as pronounced,
is contained in SET-NEKHT (the strong Set). Neither
of them accords with the Thuoris of the Lists, whom
we call PHUŌRIS Nile. The reign of this Pharaoh
must have been entered in the Egyptian annals as a
SECT. V. A.]
193
PHUŌRIS.
111
remarkable event. The learned Dicæarchus, as we
have seen above¹¹¹, computed 2500 years from the reign
of the old Sesostris to that of King Nilus, and from
thence 436 years to the first Olympiad. This would
bring Nilus to the end of the 19th or beginning of
the 20th Dynasty, to 1212 B.C., which is only 80 years
too late. This mode of computation shows that his
reign was an epoch to the Greeks. According to
the Alexandrian calculators of synchronisms, he was
contemporary with the Trojan war. Such a synchro-
nism as this, Manetho, who was acquainted with and
paid attention to Greek traditions, could not pass over
in silence. The notice in the Lists that in his time Ilion
was taken, is assuredly therefore derived from Ma-
netho; but the assumption itself is based upon the calcu-
lation of Dicæarchus or some other Greeks, and we
must always bear in mind that the Trojan synchronisms
sometimes mean the beginning of the war.
Certain inscriptions containing his name, at Biban
el Moluk, indicate the remains of buildings of this enig-
matical king. He appropriated to himself the tomb
of Si-ptah and Taseser, so much so indeed, that, with the
exception of the scutcheons in the dedicatory represen-
tations at the entrance, he caused all the others belonging
to that royal couple to be erased and his own name
substituted.
111 Book I. 111. Comp. Book II. 93. seqq., and the Appendix of
Authorities, p. 676. seqq.
VOL. III.
194
[Book IV. PART II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
B.
HISTORICAL CRITICISM OF MANETHO'S ACCOUNT OF THE
EXODUS OF THE ISRAELITES IN THE TIME OF ME-
NEPHTHAH.
AFTER the death of the Great Ramses, the royal
house and kingdom of Egypt fell into decay still more
fatally than was the case after the death of Amenōphis
III. Manetho recounted, as we have seen above, that
the reign of the weak, superstitious, and unwarlike son
of Ramesses produced a politico-religious outbreak
among the people, who were inhumanly oppressed and
persecuted, the consequence of which was an over-
whelming inroad of the Palestinian hordes. In order
to clear the country of the unclean persons, it is stated
that he collected together all the lepers and incapable
persons (i. e. those who were disabled by the leprosy) in
the quarries on the edge of the Arabian desert, in
Lower Egypt. There he imposed upon them (doubtless
as an act of sacerdotal piety, and well-pleasing to God)
severe tasks and privations, and cut them off from all
communication with the rest of the nation. Influenced
by conscience or some conscientious adviser, he resolved
however, after a time, to mitigate in some degree their
hard lot. With this view, he assigned them as a resi
dence 112 the city of Avaris, which had been deserted
since the evacuation of the Shepherds in the time of
Tuthmōsis III., the old city of the enemies of God, on
the frontiers of Palestine. The outcasts, among whom
were some priests (perhaps some of the priestly caste
112 Literally "for quarters and shelter" (karáλvoi kaì oréyny), the
former word was rendered in the German edition of the first volume
"labour," to which Dr. Fruin has properly taken exception, though
he has unnecessarily attacked it as a mistranslation, it being mani-
festly nonsense.
SECT. V. B.]
195
TIME OF THE EXODUS.
who had gone over to the Israelitish religion, certainly
worshippers of Seth), now made preparations for an
outbreak.
A priest (Osarōph, according to Fruin's probable
emendation, "approved by Osiris") of Heliopolis founded
a religious brotherhood or hetæry, based upon the abo-
lition of animal worship, and consequently in direct hos-
tility to the existing system of the popular and state
religion of Egypt. Aware of the persecution which
awaited them, they boldly undertook to restore the for-
tifications of the vast city. But not feeling sufficiently
secure even with that, they called in to their assistance
the same Shepherds whom Tuthmosis had expelled, and
seized the opportunity of invading the kingdom of
Egypt. These Palestinians were a numerous horde,
and they overran the land of Egypt from that critical
point. Menephthah collected a large army and went
out against them. But when the attack was about to
take place his courage failed him. He thought, as
stated in the Egyptian accounts transmitted by Ma-
netho, that he was entering into contest with the
Deities, and would have them opposed to him, and so
retreated upon Memphis in order to secure the sacred
animals and images of his Gods. Having done this, he
abandoned the city and the kingdom, and fled with his
wife and heir, five years of age (afterwards Sethos II.),
the sacred animals, priests, and images of the Gods, to the
king of Ethiopia, who was his friend. This son is said
to have had also the name of Ramesses, after his grand-
father, which is very possible, if that means as heir to the
throne; otherwise it is a confusion with Sethos I. We
are only acquainted with his royal scutcheons.
The king of Ethiopia placed his kingdom at the dis-
posal of his guest and friend, and stationed an Ethio-
pian army on the frontier, which, in conjunction with
the Egyptian army, was intended to protect his own
country. The Palestinians, however, desolated Egypt,
0 2
196
[BOOK IV. PAart II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
and exercised every kind of cruelty which religious
hatred and love of plunder could suggest.
This state of things lasted thirteen years, at the ex-
piration of which Menephthah returned, and his son
(afterwards Sethos II.) drove the enemy out of the
country.
Such is the historical tradition of the Egyptians, in
which nothing but some minor details are omitted.
as having nothing to do with the question, or which
are obviously misconceptions of foreign history. It
is mentioned, for instance, that a certain priest who
had a reputation for wisdom and piety gave the king
the first unfortunate advice, and then, foreseeing the im-
pending catastrophe, destroyed himself, after he had
stated in writing with prophetic spirit the duration of
the calamity. This may be strictly historical or not.
It makes no difference as to the facts of the revolt at
Avaris, the inroad of the descendants of the Shep-
herds, and the absence of the king for thirteen years.
Manetho may have obtained his information about
the foresight and prophecy of the priest from the
annals, or from songs and popular legends. What Jo-
sephus quotes and refutes as being avowedly recorded
by Manetho without good authority, is the fact of this
Osarōph being Moses, the founder of the Jewish reli-
gion. Certainly we can prove that the Palestinians,
whom Osarōph called to his assistance, cannot have
been Solymites, i. e. people of Jerusalem. We know
that Jerusalem was taken by David from the Jebusites,
and made a Jewish city. But is that any reason for dis-
puting that the Shepherds who were called to their as-
sistance came from the neighbouring Palestine? Or is
it any reason for doubting that they belonged to the
race of warlike Shepherd tribes who so long ruled
over Egypt, the country in which they first became a
nation and founded a kingdom? We think it, at all
events, no ground for disputing the historical cha-
racter of the facts contained in that statement. This
SECT. V. C.] BIBLICAL ACCOUNT OF THE EXODUS, 197
would be contrary to the principles of true criticism,
which distinguishes between what an Egyptian his-
torian reports about his own people, and what he says
about foreigners and their history.
'e
C.
THE CONNEXION BETWEEN THE
BIBLICAL AND
EGYPTIAN
ACCOUNTS OF THE EXODUS: THE 215 YEARS OF THE
BONDAGE AND THE ERA OF MENOPHTHAH.
ANY one who agrees with us in believing the actual
truth of the Biblical narrative of the Exodus, the best
proof of which is the insignificance of the doubts which
are thrown out against it, and every one who is at the
same time convinced of the historical nature of the
Egyptian traditions in this period, will find the state-
ment of Manetho just submitted to critical examination
deserving of more serious attention than Josephus has
given to it in his controversial writing.
It is undeniable, either that it is the Egyptian view
of the Exodus, or else that the Egyptian records said
nothing at all about it. It requires no further proof
that the narrative of the evacuation of the Shepherds
has nothing whatever to do with the Exodus of the
Israelites. But how can we reconcile, on the one side
with the truth of the Bible narrative, on the other with
the historical character of the Egyptian records, the
fact that so important and notorious an event should be
altogether omitted in the Egyptian annals and registers?
The Chinese version of the attack of the English will be
very different from the European one: but there is a
history of it now, and there will be a further and per-
haps a more unfettered one hereafter, should the present
imperial family become extinct or be dethroned. We
must admit, therefore, that any one who does not refer
0 3
198
[BOOK IV. PART II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
this statement of Manetho's to the Exodus is at issue
with the criticism both of the Egyptian and Jewish
history, and will find himself involved in inextricable
difficulties.
We must further recollect that we have hitherto met
with no epoch athich the Exodus could have taken
place consistently with Egyptian chronology. It was
only after the evacuation of the Shepherds in the time.
of Tuthmosis III., that the Pharaohs could have ven-
tured to oppress and ill-use the Jews. The Biblical
accounts are so indefinitely worded, indeed, that it is
impossible to say positively or to deny that the Jewish
tradition gave the length of the real bondage in Egypt.
We must, however, draw a marked distinction between
their sojourn there and the bondage. The latter period
cannot have been very short, if, at the birth of Moses
(about the beginning of the reign of Ramses), the op-
pression had already arrived at such a pitch that he was
himself in danger of falling a victim to the systematic
extermination of his race. When it is said, "Now there
arose up a new king over Egypt which knew not Jo-
seph," it is clear that this may just as well mean the
third Tuthmōsis as Ramesses I. Whether the oppres-
sion of the Tuthmoses was aggravated by the religious
fanaticism of Horus, the prototype of Menephthah, or
was relaxed when the power of the Pharaohs was on
the decline in that period of decay, and afterwards re-
vived when the first Ramesses restored order into the
state, Sethos I. and his son Ramesses were the real
tormentors of the Jews. It required only the religious
fanaticism of Menephthah to drive them to desperation.
It is, indeed, highly probable that during that long
period the Israelites spread throughout the whole
country for trading purposes, as they were wont to do.
Nor is there any thing at variance with the assumption
that the well-known representation at Thebes of the
Orientals making and carrying bricks with Egyptian
SECT. V. C.] BIBLICAL ACCOUNT OF THE EXODUS. 199
task-masters and drivers, in the time of Tuthmōsis III.,
is intended for the Jews. In like manner there may be
some historical foundation for the statement of Manetho
and several Alexandrian Greeks, that the Egyptians
detested them as much on account of the leprosy and
itch, as of their contempt for the religion and customs
of the country. The account in Exodus lays no claim
to historical completeness. Every thing in it has a
bearing but on one single point that of showing how
God delivered his chosen people with a mighty hand.
There is, however, another question which we must
ask. How was it possible that the Exodus and the un-
mistakable preparation that was made for it, especially
the interview between Moses and Aaron and the Midi-
anitish chief, the father-in-law of the former, in the
very heart of the Peninsula of Sinai, could have been
accomplished while the Pharaohs held possession of it?
We have seen that from the time of Tuthmosis II. down
to that of Amenōphis III., and even of Ramesses the
Great, the mines of the Copper-land were worked by the
Pharaohs there, in the immediate vicinity of Sinai.
Nothing is said about any affray with the Egyptian
garrison, any more than there is of their flight. Instead
of this, Moses finds a friend and ally in the chief, the
Kenite of Midian, who is mentioned above.
Again; it is now authentically ascertained that the
Great Ramesses subjugated and overran the whole of
Palestine. Extant monuments mention the provinces
and the very races and population of Palestine. Not a
word is said, however, about the Israelites, only of the
Hittites and other ancient tribes whom the Israelites
expelled when they entered the country, or conquered
and exterminated. No trace, again, of Ramses, or the
Egyptians generally, is found in the Book of Judges
Had the Exodus of the Israelites, as is usually supposed,
taken place 150 years before that conqueror, the silence
of those records which enumerate the various tribes
0 4
200
[BOOK IV. PART II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
which were reduced to the payment of tribute and to
bondage, as well as its duration, would at all events be
very remarkable, and hardly capable of explanation.
Everything, on the other hand, accords, on the suppo-
sition that Ramesses was the actual tormentor of the
Israelites, and Menephthah the Pharaoh of the Exodus:
the former all-powerful and remorselessly severe; the
latter fanatical and stiffnecked, but weak and powerless.
On a closer examination, indeed, of Manetho's account,
the difficulty vanishes as regards his silence about
their withdrawing to the Peninsula of Sinai. It is
very remarkable that the unclean persons, i.e. the Jews
and their adherents in the country, are entirely un-
noticed in that narrative. What became of them the
Egyptian record does not state. The Solymites, it says,
returned to their home when they were driven out of
Egypt at the end of thirteen years. We will not enter
into the question here as to who those Solymites were,
as they could not possibly come from Jerusalem. We
would only call attention to the fact, that the Exodus of
the Jews is not referred to in the retreat of the Soly-
mites. Now as they did not stay in Egypt, they must
have withdrawn by another route, and consequently the
one with which we are so well acquainted. It would
really appear, from the sketch of his remarks given by
Josephus (c. Ap. 34.), that Lysimachus of Alexandria did
know something about the road through the desert and
the Peninsula of Sinai from Egyptian sources. There
is but one thing about it which makes it look a little
suspicious, the mention of King Bokhoris. But Apion
himself also mentions him in connexion with the
Exodus. What could have induced Lysimachus or his
authority to connect the well-known king of that name,
who lived about the beginning of the Olympiads,
with that event? We must, therefore, look for some
other name. Now, what is the name (in the annals or
in popular use) by which our MENEPHTHAH is desig-
SECT. V. C.] BIBLICAL ACCOUNT OF THE EXODUS. 201
nated? His throne-scutcheon reads, BA-N-RA or BA-
N-HER. It is just as easy to make Bokhoris out of this
as PHU-KHOR out of PEHER in the 21st Dynasty. It is
now impossible to deny that there were such distinctive
names connected with the throne-scutcheons.113 The
Egyptian annals, then, did record the journey through
the desert of Sinai, and Manetho's statement is not at
variance with it.
But let us first of all proceed to a closer examination
of the Biblical narrative´itself.
Lepsius has very properly called attention to the
fact, that one of the store-houses which the Israelites
were compelled by Pharaoh to build on the frontier of
their country is called RAMESSES. It consequently
bears a royal name, which appears for the first time in
Egyptian history as that of the grandfather of the Great
Ramesses. It is certain, however, that this first Ra-
messes, in his short and stormy reign, neither could have
erected great edifices, nor carried on so ruthless a war
of extermination against a powerful race living close
upon their borders. Lepsius has made the further re-
mark, that the only explanation of the journey of the
Israelites is the construction of the canal to the Red Sea.
As this journey is described, they went along the eastern
bank of it, and thus were provided with water for man
and beast. Baal Zephon (i. e. the Bal (Lord) of the
north, Typhon) is the Heroonpolis of later times, i.e. the
City of HERON 114, as Set (Typhon) is translated in the
obelisk of the Serapeum. That city, placed at the ex-
tremity of the old canal which fell into the Red Sea, has
been well described by Strabo as situated in its inner-
most bay.
113 I have the satisfaction of learning at this moment, from Mr.
Birch, that Mariette has found this name as Bek-en-ran-f, which is a
direct confirmation of my assertion. (1858.)
114 Heron I consider UER-UÔN, the Great of the Opening, Reve-
lation: a title then of Typhon, as it afterwards was of Osiris.
202
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [BOOK IV. PART II.
Hence, according to the Biblical account, the period
of Bondage would be as follows:
1. The first period of Bondage, from the reign of
Tuthmosis III. after the withdrawal of the Shep-
herds, to that of Ramesses I. and Seti I.
If we
assume the middle of the single reign of Tuthmō-
sis III., which lasted twenty-six years, to be the
starting-point, we have a term of 143 years,
namely:
Tuthmosis III. (half his reign) 13 years.
Amenōphis II.
Tuthmosis IV.
Amenōphis III.
Horus
Ramesses I.
Seti I.
9
31
37
32
12
9
Sum total
143 years.
The Israelites are oppressed systematically, and
treated as dangerous foreigners.
2. The period when their oppression was aggravated
in answer to their entreaty to be relieved from
their burdens: the reign of Ramesses II: 66
years.
3. The first five or six years of Menephthah: the
period when preparation was being made for the
revolt and Exodus, the negotiations, and finally
the plagues, the last of which was pestilence, a
plague of which the Egyptians also evidently re-
tained the recollection. Several of the authorities
of Tacitus (Hist. v. 2.) stated that the Exodus took
place in consequence of a contagious sickness, by
which probably is meant a virulent leprosy, or the
plague of boils, which resembled it. As to the state-
ment about the destruction of the first-born, I be-
lieve that divine judgment was in part executed by
the Solymites, who, according to the annals, were
SECT. V. C.] BIBLICAL ACCOUNT OF THE EXODUS. 203
called in by the Israelites, and committed great
cruelties in the land. The name is not strictly
historical, as there cannot have been Solymites
before Jerusalem took the place of Jebus. But
that name was in Manetho's time current as a de-
signation of the inhabitants of Judea or Palestine.
We are, therefore, entitled to assume that the
Egyptian annals spoke of Palestinian tribes as the
invaders. It is not impossible that this invasion
was preconcerted by Moses, perhaps through the
instrumentality of the friendly Midianites in the
Peninsula of Sinai, with one of whose leading men
and chiefs he was so intimately connected. The
whole scheme of deliverance had most probably
been discussed with him. They were then masters
of one portion of this Peninsula, and we find them
in the time of Joshua in Southern Canaan. On
the journey thither they joined the Israelites, only
a part of them continuing to be dwellers in tents.
Any one conversant with the gradual formation
and practical aim of the Books of Moses, (of the
former fact every critic is aware,) will not be
surprised that Scripture makes no mention of that
invasion, and he will not on that account throw
any doubt upon its historical character. The ob-
ject of the Bible narrative is to give prominence to
the national deliverance, as it was impressed upon
the memory of the people, and kept alive in their
religious worship and customs.
The Exodus must have taken place in the first five or
six years of Menephthah. For he was thirteen years
out of the country, and a conflict ensued upon his
return. All this occurred in a reign of twenty years,
at most.
Both the Egyptian and Jewish accounts imply that
the Exodus was preceded by a period of armed, if only
of passive, resistance.
204
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part II.
On the other hand, Menephthah, according to the
Egyptian explanation, cannot well have fled before the
Palestinians to Ethiopia much earlier or later than the
seventh year of his reign of nineteen years. For he
returned at the end of thirteen years with his son,
who had grown up in the meantime. This conse-
quently limits the date of the Exodus to the time
between the second and sixth years of his reign.
Adding, therefore, together the three periods of
Bondage, we have
For the first
second
99
third -
""
Total
143 years.
66
6
215 years.
Thus, by a method of research wholly independent of
all Jewish tradition, we arrive at the precise date men-
tioned as the period of Bondage, and which, when deal-
ing with the question in the First Book, we came to
the conclusion was better warranted than any other
as the date of the sojourn in Egypt. It is true we
cannot point out the ordinance by which Tuthmōsis III.
deprived the Israelites of their liberty about the middle
of the term of his single sovereignty. But we know
that, only a few years before he assumed the reins of
government alone, his sister and sister-in-law, after
a fruitless siege, induced the Shepherds to evacuate.
Consequently our calculation cannot be wrong above
twenty years at most. We adhere, therefore, to that
date, and shall show hereafter, in discussing the Jewish
synchronisms, that the 215 years' duration of the
Bondage forms the nucleus of the other Biblical calcula-
tions and data. There also we shall have a satisfactory
answer to give to a question which our readers may
naturally ask: What becomes of the chronology between
Moses and Solomon? What are we to do with the
SECT. V. C.] BIBLICAL ACCOUNT OF THE EXODUS. 205
Bible dates of 440, 480, 593 years? The difficulties
encountered in the First Book as to each of the three
Biblical dates have proved to us that, if the Jewish
chronology between Solomon and Moses can be restored
at all, it can only be done by confronting it with the
Egyptian history.
We have already stated in the Third Book, in the
preliminary survey of the synchronisms down to the
beginning of the 22nd Dynasty 115, and it has been far-
ther carried out in the present one, that the beginning of
the last Canicular cycle of 1460 years fell within the
single reign of Menephthah in this dynasty, and conse-
quently that his twenty years' reign must include the
year 1322 B.C.
This assumption is based upon one of the simplest
textual emendations, and it is confirmed by all the
facts. Hitherto the era of the year 1322 has been called
the era of MENOPHRES (MENOPPHE). Now, there
never was such a king; but there was a King Meno-
phthes (MENOOH), whose reign will be found to
coincide exactly with this epoch, if a synchronistic
calculation be made, beginning with the lowest point,
combined with a critical examination of the Lists.
115 Book III. p. 579. Comp. Appendix of Authorities.
206
[Book IV. PART II.
SECTION VI.
THE LOSS OF INDEPENDENCE UNDER THE SECOND AND
LAST HOUSE OF THE RAMESSIDES AND DURING THE
REIGN OF THE TANITE FAMILY OF THE PISHAM (XX.
AND XXI. DYNASTIES), AND THE RESTORATION BY
SHESHONK, THE FOUNDER OF THE TWENTY-SECOND
DYNASTY: OR, THE SYNCHRONISM OF THE ASSYRIAN
SUPREMACY.
INTRODUCTION.
MODE OF TREATING THIS PERIOD.
THE whole epoch down to Sheshonk is one of the most
obscure both in the Lists and monuments. The twelve
reigns of the 20th Dynasty are entered without the
names of the kings; and while that of the second king
would appear from the monuments to be one of the
most glorious, immediately after it there is complete
silence as to further conquests. There is a manifest de-
cline in the prosperity of the nation generally, and the
erection of public buildings and monuments becomes
constantly of rarer occurrence. Under the following
dynasty, the 21st, there are, however, evident symp-
toms that the decline of the state is progressing. The
royal power appears restricted to the privileges of the
high priests, or curtailed by sacerdotal pretensions.
Historical criticism, however, must not shrink from
such difficulties. We have already given a satisfactory
explanation of the omission of the names of the kings
in extracts from the Lists of the 20th Dynasty, by mak-
ing the proper combination of the Lists with the monu-
mental names. The obscurity as to the causes of the
SECT. VI. A. I.] THE TWELVE RAMESSIDES.
207
sudden and continuous decline of the empire is removed,
however, by the light thrown on the history of the thir-
teenth century B.C. by the Assyrian synchronisms. The
want of monuments, lastly, is supplied by the applica-
tion of a considerable portion of Greek tradition, which,
after the restoration of an authentic chronology of
Egypt, could no longer have a place in the history of
that country, and appeared to be totally lost.
Our method of treating this period will, therefore, be
as follows. We shall first deal with each of the two
dynasties according to the monuments. We shall then
throw some light on those portions of the narratives of
Herodotus and Diodorus, and the Greco-Roman tradi-
tion generally, which have reference to this part of the
subject. We shall, in the last place, substantiate from
an Egyptian point of view the identity of the founder of
the 22nd Dynasty with the conqueror who captured
and burnt Jerusalem in the fifth year of Rehoboam,
the son of Solomon.
The references as to the corresponding synchronisms
in Assyrian and Jewish history will be given in the Third
Part of this Book.
A.
THE TWENTIETH AND TWENTY-FIRST DYNASTIES AC-
CORDING TO THE MONUMENTS.
I.
THE TWENTIETH DYNASTY ACCORDING TO THE MONUMENTS. THE
TWELVE RAMESSIDES.
THE explanation of the omission in Manetho's Lists
of the names of the twelve kings of this dynasty is the
more natural, as, after eliminating from it Set-nekt, who
belonged to the previous dynasty, we find that they
were all called Ramesses. Since the publication of
208
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part II.
Lepsius' Monuments, and Mariette's discoveries of the
Apis-tombs, no further doubt can be entertained that
we possess the entire number of twelve Ramesside
Kings, which I was the first to restore to this dynasty.
I. RAMSES III.
The founder of the Second House of Ramessides was
either a distant relative of the old stock or laid claim to
the throne in right of his wife. Like almost all founders
of Egyptian dynasties he exhibited at the commence-
ment great courage and skill. He disappears, however,
almost without leaving a trace behind him, after
having erected splendid buildings, and with him the
glory of the dynasty was extinguished.
According to his monuments the wars and con-
quests of his earlier period not only are not of inferior
importance to those of the second Ramesses, but they
represent him as even a greater conqueror. The
principal monuments remaining of him are the two
edifices on the west side of Thebes, at Medinet-Habu,
as shown on our plan. The smaller palace was the
royal harem, where the king played at chess with his
wives and daughters, obviously as a recreation after
his campaigns.116 Here the prisoners of the countries
of the north and south are introduced as caryatides (Pl.
CXLII. CXLIII.). The following names are legible:
Northern countries:
Rabu, bearded (p. 93.); Mashuash (p. 94.); Kheta
Amar; Gaikkrui — Skhaïrtana or SAIRTANA
(p. 96.), with the addition "on the sea;" Tuirsa
(p. 97.) "on the sea."
Southern people:
Kesh; Turses; Tarua.
116 Any one who wishes to see the details of these representations
will find them in the French work. Rosellini has omitted some of
them, as well as Lepsius, from motives of delicacy.
SECT. VI. A. I.]
209
RAMSES III.
In the larger palace, under the figures of the
prisoners we find the following names (Pl. cxxIII.) :
Bearded prisoners:
Tapitu
SHURI (Khiuri); Tirana-Terabu (s)a--
Neb(r)aana; Rebanit; Asira (country) -- Iiha,
Agaru, Khiburu, Hairenau.
Mention of his eleventh and twelfth years is found in
fragments of inscriptions.
In the large historical representations of the outer
wall, Ammon promises him the conquest of the land of
Tamh. (p. 16.) The land of Sati is mentioned after-
wards.
The representations of an action at sea, or at least
on the water, are unique. (Pl. cxxx. cxxxI.) (Mon.
Storici, iv. p. 36. seq.) The enemy are inhabitants of the
north (1. 1.), Rosellini thinks islanders (1.10.).117 But the
text speaks of a great body of water (with an expres-
sion which is also used for the Nile): water in the land,
not land in the water. A strong building, probably
therefore a captured fortress, is mentioned as his own
residence, called Makatira or Maka-Tira. (p. 44.) In
the concluding representation "the Shepherds of Pet"
(Libyans) are mentioned (p. 52.), who are met with
elsewhere (p. 59.) as a general expression for several
races118 cognate to the RNMNN.
Prisoners are repre-
sented from the foreign land of the GAÏKKRUI (p. 53.),
and from the foreign land of Rabu, allies of the former
(p. 54.). This latter country, when mentioned among
the representations of Ramses II., we thought to be
situated not far from the land of the Kheta.
"The unclean race of the Tanuna" and "the un-
clean race of the Pursata" also seem to belong to the
Gaïkkrui.
117 Comp. Pl. cxxxii. 1. 3. p. 45.
118 Mon. de l'Égypte, iii. Pl. ccxxvii. ccxxviii.
VOL. III.
P
210
[BOOK IV. PART II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
In the interior of the second great court the conflict
against the Rabu is represented. (Pl. cxxxvI. p. 64.
seq.) Here the Gaïkkrui appear as allies of the Egyp-
tians. The land of Tainah is also mentioned as a hostile
country (p. 66.),—the land of Tehen¹¹9, already spoken
of in the wars of Ramses II. (p. 70.). The inscription
states that the king passed over a river (1. 23, 24. p.
74.): 1000 prisoners and 3000 or 6000 killed are
recorded.
At the close of the pictorial representations there
follows a long historical inscription, in some places well
preserved (Pl. CXXXIX. CXL.), an epitome of which is
given in Rosellini's translation. (p. 85. seq.) Besides
"the Shepherds of Pet" and the Tehen, the following
are here introduced as conquered tribes:
Tmha
Mashausha.
(1. 27-29., comp. 42. p. 87. seq.)
The great water (the island of Rosellini) is also men-
tioned here. (1. 53-58. p. 89.)
The tomb of this king at Biban el Moluk was dis-
covered by Champollion and Rosellini, and in their
opinion it is little inferior in grandeur and beauty of
architectonical design to that of Sethos I. The beau-
tiful sarcophagus of red granite is at Paris; the lid had
been previously sent to Cambridge.
At the close of this king's reign it is very obvious
that the power and renown of Egypt passed away for
centuries. His conquests terminate in buildings, his
warlike expeditions in profuse self-indulgence and luxu-
rious living. The ornaments of the magnificent tomb
which he commenced were never finished. After his
time the number of the monuments constantly dimi-
nishes, they contain no record of glorious exploits, and
exhibit decline and decay.
119 Comp. Pl. cxxxvii. 66. p. 77. Comp. 1. 24. p. 87. of the His-
torical Inscriptions.
SECT. VI. A. I.]
211
RAMSES III.
The key to these phenomena is found in the Asiatic
synchronisms of that age.
As regards the warlike expeditions and conquests,
the earlier Egyptologers have obviously been drawn on
from unhistorical conclusions and unfounded assump-
tions to conjectures about extensive and vast conquests
in Asia, which have not been verified.
If we condense the principal groups of Asiatic names,
the brilliancy of these campaigns dwindles into a very
small compass. They did not extend beyond the Eu-
phrates. But that very contraction confers upon them
a proportionately greater importance as regards history
and mankind.
The theatre of them was Palestine, from the frontier
of Egypt as far as Phoenicia, and that, indeed, imme-
diately before the conquest of Joshua. The Israelites,
with their 2,000,000 souls and their flocks, and with
600,000 men capable of bearing arms, were already
encamped in the country to the east of Jordan, and ex-
tended northward from the Arnon, when Ramses III.
came to the throne. About the fourteenth year of this
Pharaoh's reign, Joshua passed over Jordan. This is
the synchronism which we hope to establish at the end
of this work.
While we must be upon our guard about the ex-
planation of isolated hieroglyphical names of cities or
races, it would be equally uncritical to shrink from such
an inquiry and explanation, in the face of a series of
connected and harmonious drawings, in a country well
known both geographically and historically.
I maintain, therefore, that the extant names among
the northern tribes and districts (in the reading of
which great strides have been made since the time of
Rosellini) all belong to Palestine, from its southern
frontier as far as Phoenicia inclusive. The country to
the east of Jordan, south of the Jabbok, is not touched
P
r 2
212
[BOOK IV. PART II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
upon. The journeying of the Israelites was clearly to-
wards the coast of Phoenicia.
We will first identify the PALESTINIAN names:
No
1. The KHETA are the Hittites, well known to us
since the days of Abraham, in Hebrew 'HITTIM,
and called by the Alexandrians KHETTÆANS.
one at the present day dreams of calling them
Scythians, and on this head we need only to refer
to what has been said in the former books.
They had spread already, together with this ancient
people of Southern Canaan, towards the north. We
find them, in Joshua's days, amongst the Amorites.
What remained of them became tributary to Solomon.
2. The AMAR are unquestionably these Amorites, in
Hebrew 'EMORI, in the Septuagint AMORREANS.
Josephus calls the country AMORITIS, or AMORREA.
Joshua drove them from the southern mountain
of Judah, where they dwelt near Hebron. Their
kingdom on the other side Jordan, with its prin-
cipal city Hesbon, had been previously captured.
This district to the south of the Jabbok was, how-
ever, a conquest they had made from Moab. Their
earlier settlement was to the north of that river,
towards Hermon.
3. The PURSATA were known in early times as de-
signating the Philistines, whose country is called
in the Old Testament PELESET, and the people
PELISTIM (Philistæans), which is equivalent to
PALESTINIANS. It is the name mentioned to Hero-
dotus by the interpreters at the Pyramids, when
speaking of the shepherd people of King PHILITIS,
a contraction corresponding with the PELETI of
David, who, together with the KERÊTI (Cretans),
formed a band of foreign mercenaries as body-
guards of the sovereign. Interpreters of Jewish
history have been much at issue as to the age of
SECT. VI. A. I.]
213
RAMSES III.
}
the settlement of this people. The occurrence of
their name in the time of Ramses removes all
doubt as to their being in the country before the
time of Joshua.
4. Connected as they are with these tribes, we can
have no hesitation in considering the RABU as the
Egyptian form of the REPHA, REPHEANS, REPHAIM,
or "the sons of Repha," in the Bible; a giant
race, which Joshua found in Central Palestine. In
the time of Abraham the Rephæans were settled
in the country east of Jordan, to the northward,
where we find subsequently the Ammonites and
Moabites.
There is equally little question as to the identification
of the PHOENICIAN names which occur on this king's
monuments.
1. TIRA, Tyre. We have now authentic proof that
TIRA means Tyre. In the fragment of an histo-
rical representation of the exploits of Ramses III.,
in one of the Anastasius Papyri, we read: "Tira,
the city on the sea, which receives its fish from
the sea, its grain from the land." In addition
to this, MAKATURA 120 occurs as the hieroglyphical
expression for watch-tower.121 Starting from this
assumption, the whole representation described
above of the siege and capture of the fortified city
on the sea is clear and intelligible, as announcing
120 MAK, MAKA, comes from the same root as μéya, miekel, maha,
great. In like manner the Hebrew word MIGDOL, tower, comes from
gadal, to be great. It is given in the vocabulary, in agreement
with Osburn, as the expression for MIGDOL (tower). MESTOL occurs
in the Coptic translations of the Bible (Exod. xiv. 2.) instead of
Migdol, also as designating MAGDOLUM near Pelusium. It has, how-
ever, no root in Egyptian. There are three Egyptian words for
fortress: bekhen, tekha, and khetem. Neither can it come from
ΜΑΚ.
121 See Vocabulary, Vol. I. p. 469.; the reference to Rosellini,
M. R. lx.
P 3
214
[BOOK IV. PART II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
a great fact hitherto unknown in the history of
Phoenicia.
2. TUIRSA. It cannot mean the Tyrians. First,
there is a difficulty in admitting sa as a for-
mative syllable. Yet there is not only a genc-
ral analogy in the common original stem, as sa,
sa, in a pronominal sense, but also a closer
foundation in the Coptic sa, which is prefixed to a
noun in the sense of person, maker of something,
and may consequently in the old language be af-
fixed as a derivative syllable. The second objec-
tion which may be raised is that here the Hebrew
and Canaanitish ts or z (Zor, the rock, name of
Tyre) has passed into T, as in Greek, while we
can hardly do otherwise than assume that in the
hieroglyphical spelling of Zidon the same letter is
represented with an S-sound. This is the case
also in Greek where it is written SIDON. But we
have likewise positive authority for the Aramaic
form Tura for Zor, rock. We might suppose
TUIRSA to signify the name of the Tyrians. But
Birch's explanation of it as Tarsis, the Tarsus of
the Greeks in Cilicia, a most ancient town and
harbour, is far more probable.
3. SAÏRTANA, according to the above, Sidon, the Sido-
""
nians, from Zidon, Zidoni. It lies "on the sea,'
and is named immediately before Tyre. The Ai is
contained in the root from which Zidon comes,
whence zayid, chase, zayyad, hunter. The intro-
duction of the R before the T, and after a di-
phthong, is in agreement with phonetic usage. For
that reason ZAREPAT, Sarepta, is inadmissible. The
omission of N is an objection in itself.
Before them are mentioned:
4. The GAÏKKRUI. It is clear that Rosellini's conjec-
ture of their being Phoenicians is altogether un-
SECT. VI. A. I.]
215
RAMSES III.
tenable. On such monuments as these we must
not expect to find general names, merely quite
local names. Again, the word Phoinike, to which
the old Roman form Panus also belongs, is not a
native word but Greek, whether we derive it from
the Palm, which is so called in Greek, or from
purple (puniceus color). There are some argu-
ments in favour of the former of these derivations ;
the palm is the sign of Tyre on the coins. But
Phoinix is assuredly merely the Greek translation
of 'EDOM. The Phoenicians are the "red men."
In order to get at the meaning of the name, we must
first of all account for the R as an expletive for the
double K. F cannot contain P H, for the latter is always
rendered in the hieroglyphics by P (Pilippos instead of
Philippos). Such a use of it, indeed, would be at
variance with the whole nature of the Egyptian F,
which always corresponds to V. What comes nearest
to this sound is the strong breathing which is peculiar
to the Semitic Aïn ('H). The Aïn in Greek is some-
times represented by s, sometimes by H, sometimes by
a simple breathing. In Egyptian, especially at the be-
ginning, we should rather expect to find a stronger
sound. This would give us 'HAKKU, i. e. 'HAKão, the
Hebrew name of the city to the south of Tyre, after-
wards called Ptolemais, and now St. Jean d'Acre.
This interpretation also explains the fact of the Gaïk-
krui appearing at first as enemies and besieged, and
then, in the contest with Tyre, as allies. Ramses was
obliged to take St. Jean d'Acre before he attacked
Tyre.
But the representations in the palace of Medinet-
Habu contain also the name of the principal city of
Western Syria, Damascus. Not however in the name
TAMAH (Temha), but rather in MASUAS or Masausa,
which is of frequent occurrence, or (according to the
*
P 4
216
[Book IV. PART II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
older pronunciation, MASHUASH (pronounced like the
Greek Skhoinos). The ancient name of Damascus must
have been MESEQ. The ordinary Hebrew expression,
DAMMESEQ, is self-evidently a composite word. The
original form is manifestly DARMESEQ (in the Chronicle),
as the Aramaic form DARMESUQ (the Hebrew contraction
of which is DUMMESEQ) clearly proves, for the latter
simply means "dwelling of Meseq." The hierogly-
phical spelling MASHUASH, MASHAUSHA, is a strictly
analogous strongly marked form of rendering such a
word. By this means also a very obscure expression,
never hitherto satisfactorily explained (Gen. xv. 2.;
comp. 3.), becomes intelligible. It can only mean that
Eliezer of Damascus, the steward of his house, will be
Abraham's heir, he himself being childless.122
122 The present text stands literally thus: Abraham says, upon the
assurance of God, which came to him in a vision, "I will be to thee
a shield, and thy reward shall be great" (xv. 1.):
"Filius Meseq domus meæ est Damascus Eli’hezer."
As this is not sense, commentators have ventured to take two liber-
ties. It is assumed that Meseq stands for Mesekh (pp for up),
in the sense of possession, as the word once occurs in Job (xxviii.
18.); whereas, in Zech. (ii. 9), mimsaq (from msq) bears that meaning.
Msq, however, occurs nowhere else. But another positively un-
grammatical liberty must also be taken, that of supposing DammeseQ
(P) to mean DAMMASQI (PW), Damascenes. In this way we
obtain the translation :
"Filius possessionis domûs meæ est El. Damascenus,"
which is interpreted:
"Possessor (heres) domûs (rei familiaris) meæ est El. D."
Tuch has already felt the pangs of philological conscience. Hitzig
proposes to consider the words pin as a gloss, which grew out
of one misunderstanding, and crept into the text by a second. Ewald
thinks it a proverb, with a play upon the words p and pwn ↑ 5.
I venture to propose the following solution. Meseq is still the old
Arabic name of the city of Damascus, and may originally have just
as well been so pronounced by the Hebrews, instead of the later
form Meseq, as both sounds are represented by the same letter (~).
SECT. VI. A. I.]
217
RAMSES III.
The vast excavations made by Mr. Greene in the winter
of 1854, with which I became acquainted in January,
1856, from M. de Rouge's able article upon it in the
Athenæum Français, Nov. 3. 1855, confirm and complete
what has been already stated above as to the locality,
extent, and results of the campaigns of the last con-
quering Pharaoh of the Ramesside race. There is, in a
legible inscription on the right side of the second pylon,
rescued from the sand for the first time by Mr. Greene,
In the Bible our Damask (Damaskus-stuff) is called Dammesek.
We may simply therefore suppose that, before the Masoretic punctua-
tion, the sound was undistinguished, or the letter the sign for both
sounds, as in so many other instances. Dammesek must be a com-
pound word. Or we may choose to consider it as DAR-MESEQ, the
dwelling of Meseq, for the word is so written in a passage in Chro-
nicles, and DOR-MESEQ (as well as DUMMESEQ) is the Syriac form.
As Gesenius has justly remarked, the form DAR-MESEQ is the ordinary
later solution of the reduplication. But what is Meseq or Meseq ?
It probably will not be taken for the Turanian race of the Mesekh
(Mooxo). In a subsequent page (on the Egyptian word Edom), and
(Μόσχοι).
again in the Fifth Book, I shall state my reasons for thinking it
probable that Dam- (or Dom-) Meseq is merely Edom-Meseq, i. e.
Edom of the Settlement, the indigenous agricultural Edom, as con-
trasted with Edom-Seïr, the marauding shepherd mountain-tribes,
or Edom-Kenaan, Edom of the Lowlands, i. e. Phœnician (the red,
puniceus, φοίνιξ).
If we adopt this view, Dammeseq is nothing but a very correct
marginal note, of which there are so many; the purport of which
was to give the ordinary and unmistakable word, instead of one
which had become obsolete, or no longer euphonious. In that case
the text will run thus:
2. Et dixit Abram: Domine Jahveh, quid dabis mihi? Equidem
orbus vivo, et filius Damasci (Damascenus) est domus mea
(posteri mei), ille Eliezer.
3. Et dixit Abram: Ecce mihi non dedisti semen, et ecce filius
domus meæ hereditabit me.
This gets rid also of the present disagreeable repetition. It is un-
necessary to prove that "Bayt" bears the sense of posterity.
grammatical translation of verse 2. may be:
Et filius possessionis domus meæ est ille Eliezer.
Dammeseq must under all circumstances be a gloss.
But the
218
[BOOK IV. PART II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
a passage in which the king boasts, "that he has
driven the barbarians out of Egypt with the sword."
He must therefore have found them in Egypt. The
hordes who made the inroad into Lower Egypt are
elsewhere called the TAMAHU (the white people from the
north). He says, in reference to the expulsion of the
enemy, "I have made their land (their frontier) my
own." Among the conquered nations we read AASEN,
KHETA, ATI, also KARKAMASA and ARATU. We cannot
well be wrong in agreeing with Hincks and De Rougé,
that the former of the two latter means KARKHEMIS
(Circesium), which is in Mesopotamia (on the Chaboras).
Nor is there any objection to be made against the iden-
tification of Aratu as Aradus. Some of the others ap-
pear to me hazardous. The SARTANA and TOURAS are
called "people of the sea."
The circumstance of Ramses taking Tyre is one of
very great import for the general history of that age.
II. RAMSES IV.-XIV.
As the splendour of the 19th Dynasty died out after
Ramses II., in like manner and still more so did that of
the 20th with Ramses III.; except that the latter family
occupied the throne a much longer time.
We shall give in the Fifth Book a complete survey of
the succession of the other kings of this dynasty. We
here confine ourselves to such personages and events in
that dark period as are remarkable in a historical point
of view. In order to prevent any mistake, we mark the
Ramesside sovereigns by their distinctive Egyptian
titles. It is a settled point, therefore, that the imme-
diate successors of Ramses III. (Hek-pen) were his five
sons (Ramses IV.-VIII.), and that then the son of the
last king but one ascended the throne as Ramses IX.
It was the first of these successors of the chief of the
dynasty, consequently Ramses IV., who caused the side
SECT. VI. A. I.]
219
RAMSES IV.-XIV.
inscriptions on the obelisk of Thothmes I., at Karnak,
to be engraven. He is Ra Seser Ma: Meri-Amen-hek-
Ma. On many of the monuments he placed his own
scutcheons over those of his father, which act his
On
younger brother afterwards retorted upon him.
the lateral inscriptions the king says, "He has made
all foreign lands subject to him" (western side, to the
right, 112.), which means nothing more than that his
neighbours left him at peace. For, although the tomb
is certainly one of the most magnificent (p. 120.),
it contains no historical representations whatever. The
only monument we possess of the sixth, Ra-neb-ma
(Ramses Hek-neter-An), is his tomb, which is small, in-
significant, and also without any historical representa-
tions; its execution betrays the greatest haste. The
sarcophagus exhibits the same character (p. 121. seq.).
The only monuments of his successor, Ramses VII.
(Ramses Neter-Hek-An), are two stela in the Berlin
Museum.
It is a noteworthy circumstance that his successor,
the youngest of the sons of Ramses III., is the last who
bears on his scutcheon the symbol of the God Set, once
so highly honoured, and which was so frequent in this
as well as the preceding dynasty (Meri-Set). The era-
sure of the name and sign of Set on the older monu-
ments must, therefore, have been the act of his suc-
cessors.
It is only in the later periods of this dynasty that we
meet with the contest between the Ramessides and the
priests of Ammon, who evidently had either seized upon
the royal power, or had it transferred to them by a hos-
tile conqueror. It was likewise a priest of Ammon
who ultimately overthrew the house of the Ramessides.
The whole dynasty exhibits the decline of the power of
the Pharaohs. It is true that remains of splendid build-
ings of this king have been discovered in the important
excavations at Memphis, so judiciously conducted and
220
[Book IV. PART II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
learnedly described by M. Mariette in 1853. Yet
neither this nor the gorgeousness of the private tombs
is any evidence of Egyptian independence; it merely
proves the wealth of the king and the prosperity of
private individuals.
II.
THE TWENTY-FIRST DYNASTY, ACCORDING TO THE MONUMENTS.
THE FIRST TANITE DYNASTY.
WHEN this Second House of the Ramessides became
extinct, a great revolution must have taken place in
Egypt. Not only did the Theban Dynasties disappear
for ever, and the sceptre pass into the hands of
princely families of Lower Egypt, in the first instance
indeed to one from Tan (the Zoan of Scripture), but
there seems to be no doubt that this 21st Dynasty be-
longed to the sacerdotal caste. Here, again, we must
refer to the Fifth Book for a complete survey of the
reigns. We will merely remark that Si-Amen Her-Hor
appears to be the first king in whose name we recog-
nise the Smendes of Manetho. He is called High Priest.
He is succeeded by PI-ANKH, but not as king, merely
as high priest. The successor on the throne is Pi-
SENETEM, Pusemes I., and the series closes with Pusemes
II., who is preceded by Ptukhanu.
The first of these Pharaohs, Si-amen (the Amensi
Pehôr of Rosellini), erected buildings in the temple at
Karnak, mentioned as the work of the ninth and tenth
Ramses. The king is here called "High Priest," and
at the same time "Colonel of the Archers." (p. 141.)
There is also a restoration of his at Karnak, in Horus'
great dromos of Sphinxes.
Our suggestion that this sacerdotal caste was the 21st
Dynasty appears to be confirmed by the latest dis-
SECT. VI. A. II.] FIRST TANITE DYNASTY.
221
coveries. What was known about it before the recent
researches of Lepsius was as follows: Prisse and
Birch have found monuments which prove that the last
king, Pusemes II. (the only one of the name whose
monuments are extant), had a son, who either reigned
conjointly with him (during the thirty-five years as-
cribed to him in the Lists), or endeavoured after his
father's death to defend his throne against Sheshonk,
the chief of the 22nd Dynasty. Two days' journey
from Cairo, at Fenkhi, not far from the ruins of Tanis,
there is a brick building with a scutcheon of Pisham,
who is designated on it as High Priest of Ammon and
overseer of the district of Tan. There is, also, another
royal scutcheon, with the throne-name of Tuthmosis
III. (Ra-men-kheper). The family name is Hes-
hem-kheb (Isis in Lower Egypt). Hes-hem-kheb, the
son of Pisham, is also found on a strip of leather in the
Louvre123, with RAMEN-KHEPER as a throne scutcheon.
Lepsius has discovered a Piankhu II., who clearly
belongs to the transition period when the sovereignty
passed from the Tanite to the Bubastite Kings, and who
accordingly is not recorded by Manetho. It would seem
from all this, that we must assume that the first Tanite
House originally coalesced with the priests of Ammon;
whether it was that it gained the throne through the
efforts of the sacerdotal caste, or through the influence
of the Assyrians, who restricted the power of the Pha-
raohs more and more within the limits of the sacerdotal
office, and their sovereignty to the district of Tan.
9
123 Prisse, Lettre à M. Champollion Figeac, Revue Archéol.,
1844-45, p. 723. seq. Birch, Notes upon a Mummy of the 26th
Dynasty, 1844.
222
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [BOOK IV. PART II.
B.
THE END OF THE NINETEENTH, AND THE TWENTIETH
DYNASTY, IN GREEK TRADITION.
I.
HOMER, HERODOTUS, DIODORUS, DICÆARCHUS, AND MANETHO UPON
THE KINGS OF EGYPT DURING THE PERIOD OF THE TROJAN WAR.
KING NILUS, PHERON, AND PHUORIS. KING PROTEUS. RHAM-
PSINITUS THE MISER, AND THE INDOLENT KINGS HIS SUCCESSORS.
IT is clear that Greek tradition, prior to Herodotus,
was acquainted with the Great Ramesses. He was,
however, confused with his still greater father, and
called Sethos, Sethōsis, Sesoosis, Sesothis: perhaps, even,
occasionally, in consequence of the blunder of Hero-
dotus, Sesostris. We have endeavoured in the preceding
pages to point out how the great father and his splen-
dour-loving and boastful son became confused and
merged into one in the text of the historical work,
owing to the glosses of Josephus or one of the
Epitomists. We showed also that the monuments have
placed us in a position to adjust this blunder, and to
restore to each of those two great personages his own
rights. It was Sethos (Seti I.) who had to contend with
a treacherous brother, and not Ramesses II. It was
Sethos whom the priests compared in the inscriptions
with Osiris. Lastly, it was Sethos who lived and died
as a conqueror, and left to his youthful son a warlike
army accustomed to victory.
The rediscovery, however, of the historical position
of these two heroes of the Ramesside house, who were
thus jumbled together, may also, as we think, be ren-
dered serviceable in adjusting the sequel of this history
of the Ramessides. For Herodotus, as well as Diodorus,
combines with the history of the former that of his
SECT. VI. B. I.] GREEK ACCOUNTS OF EGYPTIAN KINGS. 223
posterity and successors. On this occasion the Father
of History indulges us with the popular stories and
traditions and jokes, which convey a reflex of the times
out of the legends and songs of the people. But these
stories are doubly interesting, from the connexion in
which the Greeks and Greek ciceroni have placed them
with the Homeric legends and poetry; and yet the
vast edifices which the Egyptians showed to Herodotus,
as bearing the names of those kings, prove that we
are dealing with really historical Pharaohs.
We will therefore attempt to connect these romantic
stories with the authentic series of the 19th and
20th Dynasties. There seems to us no difficulty in
showing that we still find in Herodotus and Diodorus
three names which, from their character and subject
matter, belong to the period after Sethosis-Ramesses
down to the extinction of the brilliancy of the empire
in the third generation of the 20th Dynasty. Pliny's
list of the obelisk-kings also furnishes us with several
names of this period, and completes the proof that
that portion of Greek tradition belongs to it. In
this manner we hope to be able to separate the his-
torical material, which underlies these obscure and
hitherto impracticable traditions, from the confusion
and fables with which they have been transmitted to
us. Here again it will be the Grecian Muse, who, de-
spite all her short-comings, will reanimate the stately
monuments, which, although the inscriptions are legible,
are still mute for the purposes of history.
We have already eliminated and distinguished, in our
summary of the chronology of Herodotus and Dio-
dorus, the portions of tradition which are coherent in
themselves. The section of Herodotus which belongs.
to this period is the second.124 The corresponding por-
tions of Diodorus are the fifth and seventh.125 Between
124 Book I. p. 105.
125 Id. p. 143.; comp. 145.
224
[BOOK IV. PART II
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
these two sections a relic of the history of the Old
Empire, that is, the end of it, has been interpolated.
Both historians commence with Sesôstris-Sesôsis.
According to Diodorus, the aged monarch became blind,
and in despair destroyed himself. This would suit the
son of Sethos, the second Ramesses, who reigned more
than 66 years, and consequently must have reached an
advanced age.
Herodotus then relates the history of his son, whom
he calls Pheron. He tells us that he also was long
stricken with blindness, in consequence, indeed, accord-
ing to the belief of the Egyptians, of his having upon
some occasion, when surprised by the rapid swelling of
the Nile, in a moment of irritation against the bene-
ficent God, cast his spear into the sacred stream. The
history of the strange oracular sentence about Buto is
well known. He condemned his wife and several other
distinguished ladies to be burnt to death, and raised a
poor virtuous woman to the throne. (Diodorus states
she was a gardener's wife). The Sicilian historian has
told this story precisely as Herodotus does, and it might
have been supposed that he borrowed it, as he did many
other things, from him (destroying, however, the zest,
and giving a flowery turn to it), were it not for the
latter trait. He mentions also King Sesôsis II. (Sethos
II.), but not Pheron. They both mention that this
ruler erected two splendid obelisks in front of the temple
of Helios, which Diodorus correctly and in more detail
refers to the great temple of Helios in Heliopolis, each
made of a single piece 150 feet high, and each side 12
feet wide at the base.
With this the fifth Part of Diodorus concludes.
Herodotus, however, gives the continuation of the
history. He says that after the death of Pheron, the
throne was occupied by a man at Memphis, whom the
Greeks call Proteus; i. e. either that after Pheron-
Proteus a new Dynasty succeeded, or that Pheron was
SECT. VI. B. I.] GREEK ACCOUNTS OF EGYPTIAN KINGS. 225
a Memphite usurper, and formed the transition to the
20th Theban Dynasty. He does not give his Egyp-
tian name, but it is clear from his mentioning the works
he executed, that he is speaking of a thoroughly his-
torical monumental king. We have already paved the
way in the First Book for the explanation of the legend
of Proteus. The Hellenic writer had firm faith in the
historical character of his Homeric heroes, and generally
also in that of the foreign personages with whom the
heroic legend had connected them. Even when he dis-
putes some particular in these stories, his own argu-
ments are drawn from the same faith. Eratosthenes
of Cyrene, the Alexandrian, was the first who discarded
this whole view of the case, which, in that hypocritical
imperial age, naturally stamped him as an unbeliever.
Even Strabo, with all his enthusiasm for the founder of
geometry and geography, was dreadfully scandalised by
such a free-thinking propensity in his favourite. Homer,
indeed, had told in his beautiful language the story of
Menelaus making the acquaintance of the Egyptian sea-
god Proteus in the harbour of the island of Pharos, "be-
fore the stream of Egyptus," a day's sail from the land:126
“A faithful seer, the ancient of the deep,
Immortal Proteus, the Egyptian, haunts
These shores, familiar with all ocean's gulfs,
Neptune's attendant ever."
The first question which must have been asked by every
Greek travellerin Egypt, from the time of Psammetichus
downwards, was this: Who was Proteus, the contem-
porary of Menelaus? We have already shown how, from
this and similar elements akin to it, the story of the
detention of the real Helen was concocted127a com-
pound of Greek curiosity and Egyptian sciolism and pre-
tension. The only thing the critic has to investigate is
this: How it happened that a synchronism, true or
false, was instituted between a hero of the Greek legend
126 Odyssey, d. 384.
127 Book I. p. 101. seq.
VOL. III.
Q
226
[BOOK IV. PART II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
and an Egyptian monumental king? I believe the
Greeks to have pursued here the plan which formed the
basis of all their chronological calculations of that
period. They must have known, in the first place, how
many generations the heroes of the Trojan war lived
before the first Olympiad, or any other fixed point in
their present or immediately past history. We have
seen128 that Dicæarchus placed King Nilus 436 years
before the Olympiads, and he calculated from him the
age of Sesortōsis-Sesostris. We may now add what
was there only hinted at. The simple meaning is, that
Dicæarchus placed the taking of Troy, or the Trojan
histories generally, 436 years before the Olympiads.
Eratosthenes and Apollodorus, as we know, place
that event 407 or 408 years before the above era129_a
calculation adopted by almost all later chronologers,
especially Cato and Varro. But this computation was
not made from the Annals, simply by generations (lives)
of the Spartan kings, as they appear in the Spartan
Lists without any chronology. A generation was calcu-
lated at 33 years, or three generations to a century,
and so the above dates were computed with more or less.
care and exactitude. The main value of such an approxi-
mative calculation must naturally depend upon whether
the given series consisted of real historical personages,
or whether it consisted of members of a single family,
or persons holding official situations; or whether frag-
ments of legends were formed into genealogies, and
attached to purely ideal mythological names. The
Greeks did not make this distinction. Herodotus con-
fidently, and without any hesitation, calculated how
long Hercules lived before his time, just as if he had
been an historical prince with an authentic pedigree.
He thought the Trojan histories could be ascertained
almost as accurately as that of the Persian wars.
128 Book I. p. 111. seq.
He
129 Id. p. 119. 123. ; comp. 198. seq.
SECT. VI. B. I.] GREEK ACCOUNTS OF EGYPTIAN KINGS. 227
placed them at somewhat over 800 years before his time,
consequently, as he wrote about 460 B.C., nearly 1260
years before our era. We see, then, that the interval
which separated the Trojan histories and the taking of
Troy from the Olympiads, the starting-points of the
chronology and annals of Greece, gradually diminished.
It was more than 480 years according to Herodotus;
436
407
""
""
Dicæarchus;
the Alexandrians.
This gives us the fixed points for Greek computation.
But what was the Egyptian element in this calculation?
This the Greeks could only have learned from the Egyp-
tian priests. But it is clear that they told them nothing
on this head; for we find no connected chronology what-
ever in Herodotus and his successors before the Psam-
metici, that is, a century after the commencement of
the Olympiads.
There is, however, little doubt that the priests had
access to Egyptian annals, in which the length of reigns
was recorded, and in the New Empire the actual chro-
nology of each dynasty.
Let us here take Manetho as our standard, in the first
place, according to our restoration of him from the monu-
ments, and secondly in the shape in which he appears
in Africanus, according to the extant versions. Each
of these calculations is peculiarly valuable, from the
circumstance of our finding in the existing text of all
the extracts two synchronistic data, which have a special
bearing upon our present inquiry.
Opposite to the name of Petubastes, the first king of
the 23rd Dynasty, the following notice is affixed:
"During his reign the first Olympiad was celebrated.”
Unfortunately, it lasted 40 years. It commenced, ac-
cording to our tables 130, 829 B.C., or 53 years before
130 Comp. Book III. p. 586. The 22nd Dynasty lasted, according
to us 150 years, according to the MSS. 120 or 126.
Q 2
228
[BOOK IV. PART II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
the first Olympiad, and ended consequently, 13 years
before that epoch. This gives us a margin of from 13
to 53 years.
But against the name of Thuoris (i. e. Phuôris) Set-
nekt, the last king of the 19th Dynasty, we find this
notice :
"Who is called by Homer Polybus, the husband of Alkandra.
In his time Troy was taken."
Ac-
In the first of these two lines we evidently have
another landmark for fixing the date of the war.
cording to the above system of chronological computa-
tions, Proteus, the God, was quietly made into a king,
and Thôn or Thônis into his lieutenant at the Canopic
mouth. The Alexandrian critics, on the other hand,
made an ingenious use of it. Herodotus had stated
that Proteus was a Memphite; but the king of Egypt
at that time must have been a Theban, for the Trojan
war coincided with the period when Diospolitan Princes,
the House of the Ramessides, reigned in Egypt. Now
Homer represents Menelaus and Helena as receiving
hospitality, princely hospitality indeed, from a Theban,
who, as well as his spouse, plainly knew how to make
very royal presents to their guests. For the divine poet
sings in the fourth book of the Odyssey (verses 125-
132.), when Helen enters the hall :
"And Phylo brought her silver basket, gift
Of fair Alkandra, wife of Polybus,
Whose mansion in Egyptian Thebes is rich
In untold treasure, and who gave himself
Ten golden talents and two silver baths,
With two bright tripods, to the Spartan prince,
Beside what Helen from his spouse received;
A golden spindle, and a basket wheeled,
Itself of silver and its lip of gold."
This obviously gives us the Greek name of the king
who was contemporary with the taking of Troy; and
the same is clearly given in the second clause of the
SECT. VI. B.I.] GREEK ACCOUNTS OF EGYPTIAN KINGS. 229
above notice in all the epitomes of Manetho. There
seems to me to be an evident connexion between these
two glosses or notes about Petubastes and Proteus.
How many years, then, are to be allowed according
to this, between the commencement of the Olympiads
and the taking of Troy? The following are the dates
derived from our connected restoration of Manetho:
The length of the 20th Dynasty, from Ra-
messes III.131
The length of the 21st Dynasty
22
22nd
""
From the commencement of the reign of
Phuôris to that of Petubastes
Of the forty years' reign of Petubastes
IJ
185 years.
130
150
465
15
480 years.
The above calculation therefore, as far as the Hellenic
element is concerned, must have been borrowed from
Herodotus; and it formed the basis of Manetho's calcu-
lation. For Dicæarchus and Manetho were so nearly
contemporary as to render it at least improbable that
the latter should be cognisant of the former's computa-
tion.132
We know, on the other hand, that he studied
Herodotus very carefully; so much so, indeed, as to
have written a work upon the blunders made by him in
his Egyptian history; or if not a separate work, that a
criticism by him of Herodotus was compiled out of his
own historical work. 183 Nothing, therefore, can be more
natural than that he should have adopted his views in
fixing the important synchronism in the Trojan war
where Hellenic legends touched upon Egyptian topics.
He simply calculated back from that point, and, as we
see, according to the above datum, very accurately,
131 Vol. II. p. 573.
132 See Vol. I. p. 112. seq.
133 Id. p. 67. seq.
Q 3
230
[BOOK IV. PART II,
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
though not a whit more certainly as regards the histori-
cal starting-point, the date of the Olympiads.
It is evident that the above notice did not emanate
from the Christian epitomists, as not one of them made
the reign of Petubastes coincident with the commence-
ment of the Olympiads, the date of which they natu-
rally must have known.
We now see, much more clearly than before, that the
statement of Herodotus about the successor of Pheron
being called Proteus by the Greeks, simply means that
the king who was mentioned next after Pheron was
contemporary with Menelaus and the taking of Troy,
and consequently must be Proteus. It is probable that
the elder Hecatæus even had inquired about his name.
In short, it was a settled thing that the Egyptians
must have known King Proteus and given an account
of him, call him by whatever name they would.
We further observe that Dicæarchus, the first writer
after Herodotus who thoroughly examined into the
facts, identified another Egyptian sovereign, Nilus, with
Proteus or Polybus. He cannot well be anybody but
the Phuôris of Manetho, or rather of his epitomists; for
Manetho must have called him by his monumental
name, SET-NEKT (perhaps SETHONIS). Phuôris is not a
monumental name any more than Thuôris is, but a po-
pular name like Mesphres and others. The Egyptian
word for Nile, however, is IARU, according to our read-
ing Iaûrû, and with the article Phiaûrû. Eratosthenes,
as we have seen, when treating of the Old Empire, wrote
it Phuôrô.134 So far we have argued upon philological
grounds only that SET-NEKT (or Merra) must be the king
called by the Egyptians Nilus, i.e. Pheron, or something
like it; for Thuôris admits of no explanation, whereas
Phuôris, by the slightest possible alteration of the first let-
ter may be the Nile. We are now in a position to prove the
134 Appendix of Authorities, p. 674.
SECT. VI. B. I.] GREEK ACCOUNTS OF EGYPTIAN KINGS. 231
correctness of our emendation and interpretation. One
of the kings of the period to which, according to Homer,
the Trojan histories belonged, must have borne the ap-
pellation of Nilus or Nileus. The computation of
Dicæarchus is unexplainable upon any other supposition.
But SET-NEKT, the KHETNA (KETEN) of Diodorus, who
is entered in the Lists as the last king of the 19th Dy-
nasty, was contemporaneous with the Trojan war, ac-
cording to the computations of the classics above re-
ferred to, and Manetho himself states so in express
terms.
We shall also see that Diodorus was acquainted with
this king's name. What can the Pheron of Herodotus be
but the Egyptian name of the same king? His popular
name is alluded to, perhaps, in the story of the con-
nexion between his blindness and the sacred stream.
We shall revert to this subject hereafter in our mention
of Pliny.
The conclusion is, therefore, that Diodorus' notice of
Sesôsis II. is not a pure invention, in so far as it refers
to Sethos II., the grandson and second successor of
Ramses the Great. It certainly was not quite accurate
on the part of Herodotus to call Pheron-Phuôris-Nilus
the son and immediate successor of the Great Sesostris,
for he was Menephthah, but his son's name was Sethos
(Seti II.). Phuôris-Pheron, therefore, was the third
successor of the Great Ramses, and probably was only
a distant connexion of that family.
It is, however, now intelligible, why the priests did
not tell him the name of the intervening king. Meneph-
thah was a fugitive, and disgraced, and his reign was
unimportant to anybody but the astronomers, by whom
only, with the exception of the Lists, his name has been
recorded. The reign of Sethos II. was short, and there
was a good joke connected with Phuôris-Nilus. But
the great similarity between Sesôsis II. and Sethos II.
would lead us to infer that the story related by the
Q 4
232
[Book IV. PArt II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
priests about the blindness and the cure had reference.
to the latter. The notice in Pliny, as we shall shortly
see, is confirmatory of this view.
The Proteus of Herodotus must necessarily have
been called Ramses, for all the kings of the 20th
Dynasty, from Ramses III. to Ramses XIV., bore
that name. He must also have been a king who had
erected many splendid edifices; for Herodotus mentions
the celebrated shrine at Memphis, to the south of the
temple of Ptah, as having been built by him. Mem-
phis was in his time the principal emporium of the
Tyrian colonists; indeed, the whole district was called
after them "the camp of the Tyrians."135 In this shrine
there was a temple of the foreign Goddess Aphrodite.
This we have no doubt refers to a temple of Astarte, a
name already pointed out in the Second Book, on the
monuments of Ramses the Great. This reminded
Herodotus of Helen, who had the same appellation, and
such a coincidence gave him an opportunity of telling
the story of Paris and Helena and Menelaus at the
court of the Egyptian king136, an invention of the priests
and interpreters on the strength of some Greco-Egyptian
legends, the value of which has been already estimated.137
We think, therefore, that the priests meant by Pro-
teus the first Ramses of the 22nd Dynasty, the re-
nowned Ramses III. We must not, however, over-
look the circumstance of their calling him "a man of
Memphis." This would seem to imply that he did not
belong to the House of the Ramessides Proper, at least
on the paternal side. Diodorus says the same, but he
undoubtedly exaggerated. After a blundering interpola-
tion of the tradition belonging to a period between the
8th and 12th Dynasties, between Amasis and Mendes-
Marres, he proceeds thus: 138 "Hereupon a king was
135 Herod. book ii. 112.
137 Book I. p. 101. seq.
136 Id. 113-120.
138 Diodorus, i. 62.
SECT. VI. B. I.] GREEK ACCOUNTS OF EGYPTIAN KINGS. 233
elected from the lower orders, whose Egyptian name
was KETNA. The Greeks take him for Proteus, who lived
at the time of the Trojan war." This would indicate
either a usurper or the chief of a dynasty; if the latter,
perhaps Ramses III. We need not, therefore, suggest
that here, as in the case of Sethos I. and Ramesses the
Great, there is confusion in the legend between the father
and son. The point by which the historical position of
Proteus is determined is the connexion into which he is
brought with the commencement of a new royal house.
My explanation of KETNA being the SET-NEKT of Diodo-
rus is now fully authenticated. I had proposed to read
SETNA, but Lepsius has since proved (in his treatise on
the 1st Dynasty of Gods) that SEB (Kronos) was in later
times pronounced Keb, and was so rendered in Greek.
SETNA in like manner was afterwards changed into
Ketna.
His successor, according to Herodotus and Dio-
dorus, was the celebrated miser. He is called by the
former Rampsinitus, i. e. Ramses Neter-hek-An (our
Ramses VII.), the last but one of the sons of Ramses
III. who sat on the throne of the Pharaohs. Diodorus
calls him Remphis, i. e. with a trifling alteration, Rem-
psis139, Ramses, Ramesses, as he was in fact named on
his family scutcheon.
The character of this monarch, who had evidently
made peace with the Assyrians, is admirably drawn.
That he really left behind him the incredible sum of
400,000 talents, or nearly £700,000, we are no more
bound to believe upon the faith of Diodorus' informant,
than we are to take Herodotus' narrative in this in-
stance for history; we mean his charming story about the
adroit thief, the son of the engineer, who discovered, by
a hint from his father on his deathbed, the way into
the treasury, by taking advantage of which he ended (as
139 Id. ΡΕΨΙΣ instead of ΡΕΜΦΙΣ.
234
[BOOK IV. PART II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
is always the case in this sort of romances) by marry-
ing the king's daughter. But it is an historical fact,
that the people and the priests told the story in this way
according to their own songs. Herodotus mentions also
the works erected by him at Memphis, where he
picked up all this information, a court to the west of
the temple of Ptah, probably a western portico of that
shrine. In front of it (at the propylon) he set up two
statues facing each other, each 25 ells (37½ feet) in
height. The one that stood on the north, and therefore
faced south, the Egyptians called Summer, the other
Winter. The former was an object of adoration, the
latter an abomination. They may, therefore, have been
statues of the king and his great father Ramses III.,
the Proteus of Herodotus.
In the sequel the two historians agree perfectly with
each other and with authentic history. Herodotus
makes the good old times to end with Rampsinitus,
which were followed by disastrous days for the land of
Egypt. There is no fact in history better established,
than that these were not the days of the builders of the
Pyramids, whose history Herodotus dovetails on to them.
But we shall shortly see, notwithstanding, that his
words were strictly true.
Diodorus states 140 that Remphis the miser was suc-
ceeded, during seven generations, by a series of indolent
kings, who gave themselves up entirely to pleasure and
debauchery. Ramses VII. (Neter-hek-An) was really
succeeded by seven kings of the same name and race.
The statement, therefore, is tolerably accurate, even
though the seven kings do not represent seven genera-
tions, inasmuch as Ramses VII. and VIII. belong to the
same generation, and other kings of it may also possibly
have been brothers or cousins. Or do seven generations
mean 7 by 30 or 7 by 33, 210 or 231 years? For the
140 Diodorus, i. 63.
SECT. VI. B. I.] GREEK ACCOUNTS OF EGYPTIAN KINGS. 235
sacerdotal Pharaohs of the 21st Dynasty also performed
no exploits, and after them a new hero sprang up. This
Tanite Dynasty, however, lasted 130 years. If, of the
185 years of the 20th Dynasty, 30 are assigned to Ram-
ses and 55 to his three elder sons conjointly, there
remain 100 for the rest of the dynasty. The period
between Rampsinitus and Sheshonk, or the age of the
indolent kings, would comprise in that case exactly 230
years. In short, view it in which ever way we will, it
is an historical tradition. The latter explanation ap-
pears to me the more probable, apart from the fact of
its being exactly suitable.
Hence (Diodorus proceeds to say) the sacred annals
make no mention of their having executed any costly
works or performed any notable exploit, with one ex-
ception, that of Nileus. From him the river took its
name, which had previously been called Egyptus (as
Homer pointed out to the Greeks). This same Nileus
was the author of many salutary undertakings, and
availed himself of all the resources which the river sup-
plied. The latter remark looks suspicious, as being an
explanation of the name; against the former no excep-
tion can be taken. But this Nileus is evidently merely
a traditional Phuôrô-Nilus, the founder of the family to
which the indolent kings belonged. He represented the
synchronism of the Trojan war. The Alexandrians,
no doubt, discovered that the real Phuôrô-Nileus (the
close of the 19th Dynasty) was far too old for the
computation of Eratosthenes of the interval of 407 or
408 years between the taking of Troy and the first
Olympiad, which with them was an established date.
According to our computation, he was more than a
century too old. Set-nekt reigned from 1301 to 1295
B.C., and, as is well known, the sack of Troy took
place, according to the Alexandrians, in 1184. This
epoch, then, must have fallen within the second half of
the 20th Dynasty, which reigned 185 years, from 1294
236
[BOOK IV. PART II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
to 1110 B.C., i.e. during the time of the seven genera-
tions after Rampsinitus, the miser. Here again, there-
fore, the solution is perfectly satisfactory.
The allusion to Egyptus carries Diodorus back to the
very age in which King Egyptus is mentioned. At all
events, he then proceeds with the history of the builders
of the Pyramids, which we have examined fully in our
restoration of the 3rd and 4th Dynasties. After it
comes the history of the unfortunate Bokhoris and the
Ethiopians (24th and 25th Dynasties). He therefore,
as well as Herodotus, makes the good old times to end
with Rampsinitus. Of the exploits of Sesonkhis-She-
shonk he had heard nothing.
II.
HISTORICAL REMAINS OF THE TRADITIONS ABOUT THE EIGHTEENTH
TO THE TWENTIETH DYNASTIES IN PLINY'S LIST OF THE OBELISKS.
BEFORE submitting to examination the eclipse of the
splendour of the Egyptian empire in connexion with the
rise of the race of the Ninyads in Assyria, we will
attempt to extract some historical matter from Pliny's
account of the builders of the obelisks. This has
heretofore been considered wholly unintelligible and
useless in an historical point of view. We think we
have laid the foundation for its explanation, by re-
storing one more authentic text, and by making use of
the Greek traditions which relate to the end of the 19th
and the 20th Dynasty.
Pliny, who, as we have shown in the First Book, as
well as Herodotus, had at his disposal many authorities
which unfortunately are lost to us, possessed in respect
to the building and their dimensions, peculiarly valuable
and probably official information. This remark was
made by Perring, and we found the correctness of it in
the case of the Pyramids.
SECT. VI. B. II.] PLINY'S LIST OF THE OBELISKS.
237
The series of Pyramid-builders was as follows:141
§ I. Obelisks in Egypt.
I. IN HELIOPOLIS.
(1,2.) Mesphres (Tuthmosis II. and III., the sister of
Mesphra-Tuthmosis), XVIII., four or five.
(3-6.) Sesothis, i. e. Sethosis (Sethos, father of the
Great Ramesses, XIX. 2.), four obelisks, each 48
ells (72 feet high).
(7, 8.) Rhamesis, in whose time Troy was taken (pro-
bably Ramesses III., xx. 2.), of 140 ells (210
feet).
II. AT MEMPHIS.
(9.) The same (Rhamesis) at Memphis, where the royal
palace of Mnevis (Menes) stood 142, one obelisk, only
120 ells (180 feet) high, but each side 11 ells (16
feet) wide. There are two other obelisks in the
same city.
(10.) Marres (otherwise Zmantes (?), Mendes, i. e. Am-
menemes III.—Mœris, XII. 1.), one.
(11.) Phios (Phiops-Apappus, VI. 1.), one without
inscription, each of these was 48 ells (72 feet) high.
III. IN ALEXANDRIA.
(12.) Nektanebis (Nektanebus I., the fourth king be-
fore Alexander, as Pliny subsequently designates
him), xxx. 1.; one of 80 ells (120 feet) in height
-first erected by Ptolemy Philadelphus in honour
of his sister and consort-afterwards brought to
the marketplace at Alexandria by the Roman Pre-
fect Maximus, who cut off the apex of it, intending
141 Appendix of Authorities, p. 693. seq.
142 This must be the meaning of the words: "Idem degressus inde
(Heliopolis) ubi fuit Mnevidis (Menes) regia, posuit alium," &c. For
it is the city which Kambyses took by storm, and must be therefore
Memphis.
238
[BOOK IV. PART II.
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
to put a pyramidion of gold in its stead, which was
not done.
(13, 14.) Mesphres (XVIII. 4. or 5., see above), two in
the port, in front of Cæsar's temple, each 42 ells
(63 feet) high.
§ II. Obelisks at Rome.
1. Augustus: the obelisk of Psammetichus I., erected
in the Circus Magnus (now at the Porta del Popolo,
Circus Flaminius): 853 feet high, exclusive of the
base.
4
2. The same: the obelisk of Sesothis (XIX. 2. or 3.,
Sethos I. or Ramses the Great), in the Campus
Martius (now on Monte Citorio); 763 feet high.
We have remarked in the Appendix of Authori-
ties that Pliny has confounded these two obelisks,
for that of Psammetichus is in the Campus Martius,
and the one brought from the Circus Maximus to
the Piazza of the Porta del Popolo is the obelisk of
Seti I. (Sethos) and his son, Ramses II.; the latter
added the two side columns of hieroglyphics; what
was originally the middle one was made by his
father. The following obelisk proves that Sesothis
here means Ramesses.
3. The obelisk of the son of Sesodis (i. e. Sethosis, con-
founded with Ramesses, the son of Sethos), King
Menophthes (as we must read it, instead of Nen-
choreus; for Benchoreus, Benchoris, Bokhoris, it
cannot be), was brought to the Circus of the Vatican.
of Nero by Caius (Caligula). Pliny neither re-
marks upon the peculiarity of its having no inscrip-
tion, nor gives its dimensions. He adds, however,
that there was another, 100 ells (150 feet) high,
dedicated to Helios by the same king, by command
of the oracle, when his sight was restored.
Pliny evidently obtained the first portion of his infor-
SECT. VI. B. II.] PLINY'S LIST OF THE OBELISKS.
239
mation from some Greek writer, who gave the dimensions
in Egyptian ells. The latter part about the obelisks at
Rome, with the exception of the remark appended to it,
he got from some Roman writer, and therefore gave the
dimensions in Roman feet. He then relates, by way
of
appendix, that the king who erected the Vatican obe-
lisk dedicated another of 100 ells. But 100 ells is a
repetition of the height of each of the two obelisks of
Pheron in Herodotus, the Sethosis II. of Diodorus.
This must consequently have been added afterwards from
information derived from some Egyptian source, proba-
bly in some other learned Greek work.
Here then we have two obelisks of the Old Empire,
both of which have disappeared; of the New Empire
(18th to 20th Dynasties) the following series:
1. Three obelisks of MESPHRES (Tuthmosis II. or III.),
one of which was standing in Pliny's time at Helio-
polis; the other two at Alexandria, in the port, in
front of Cæsar's temple: each have disappeared.
2. Two of SETHOS I., or his son, Ramesses: one at
Rome.
3. Four of RAMSES III. (XX. 2) at Heliopolis, which
have disappeared.
4. After these comes the Vatican obelisk of the SON OF
SETHOSIS (i.e. Ramses). From the notice appended
to it we learn that the successor of the Great
Ramesses, who was cured of his blindness, was his
son. We must consequently conclude that there is
a confusion in Herodotus' account of the tradition
about this son of Sesothis (as he calls King Ram-
ses) and his third successor (Phuôris-Nilus), unless
we are prepared to adopt the improbable supposi-
tion that they were both struck blind, and both
cured after consulting the oracle.
7
240
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [BOOK IV. PART II.
III.
SYNOPSIS OF THE RESULT.
THE following summary will, we think, give a clear
idea of the result of our researches into the intercon-
nexion of the Greek traditions and the restoration of the
sequence of the Egyptian history in the thirteenth and
fourteenth centuries B.C.:

HERODOTUS.
DIODORUS.
DICEARCHUS and
the authorities of
PLINY.
MONUMENTS
and
MANETHO.
Sesôstris, the
Great Conque-
ror.
Pherôn, son
and successor,
who was struck
blind, and mira-
culously cured.
Obelisk of 100
ells at Heliopo-
lis.
Proteus, the
Man of Mem-
phis, who built
a magnificent
shrine in the
temple of Ptah.
Rhampsini-
tus, the rich
Miser.
Sesoôsis, the
the
Great Conque-
ror.
Sesoôsis II.,
son and succes-
sor, who was
struck blind and
miraculously
cured. Obelisk
of 100 ells at
Heliopolis.
Setna (Ketna),
the Man of
Memphis.
(in-
Rempsis
stead of Rem-
phis), the rich
Miser.
Sesôthis, Pliny,
according to the
Alexandrians.
Ramses II., the
son of Sethos,
XIX. 3.
Menophtheus Menephthah,
(instead of Nen-
coreus), son of
Sethôsis, who
was struck blind.
Obelisk of the
Sun, after his
restoration to
sight.
Rhamses,
in
whose reign Troy
was taken.
the
son, XIX.
3.: confounded
with Merri-
Phuôris, XX.
1., in whose
time Troy was
taken (Manetho
and Herodotus).
Ramses III.,
XXI. 1. (Mia-
mun).
Ramses-Neter
V., xx. 4.
C.
SHESHONK, THE FOUNDER OF
THE
TWENTY-SECOND OR
FIRST BUBASTITE DYNASTY.
WITH Sheshonk the historical importance of the monu-
ments ceases, and the consequent necessity of making a
SECT. VI. C.]
241
SHESHONK: DYN. XXII.
preliminary examination and criticism of them and the
parallel traditions. His reign supplies us also with the
first certain synchronistic point in Egyptian and Asiatic
history. It is now unnecessary to prove the general syn-
chronism between Sheshonk (Sesak) and the son of
Solomon. The tables show that the result is the same,
whether we begin from the top and follow Manetho's
Lists downwards, from the commencement of the chro-
nology of Menophthah (1322), or begin from the bottom
and go upwards from one of the fixed points in the
later Jewish history as to which there is no dispute,
under the guidance of Scripture. All the important
particulars about the monuments of his successors, as
well as those of the later dynasties, have been already
fully stated in the First Book. Sheshonk himself, as
might be expected from the Jewish records of him,
is there represented as a mighty and warlike king.
The construction of the fore-court at Karnak displays
not only his love of art, but, mutilated as it is, it fur-
nishes a proof of his having made an expedition to
Jerusalem.
The prisoners, with shields on their breasts, are
ranged in two vast groups. 148 One contains five rows of
thirteen each, making sixty-five; the other four rows of
seventeen each, or sixty-eight-133 in all. The greater
part.is destroyed or illegible. From the portions which
are in a tolerable state of preservation the following,
in the first division, can be read without the slightest
uncertainty:
Land of MAHAN MA (ii. 9.), compared by Rosellini
with the MAHANAIM of Jacob (Gen. xxxii. 2 Dung,
i.e. double camp), an ancient city on the northern
frontier of the tribe of Gad, to the north of
the Jabbok.
Land of BAITAHUARUN (ii. 11.), clearly the BET-HORON
143 M. R. cxlviii. M. St. iv. 155. seq.
VOL. III.
R
242
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. PART II.
(inn, i. e. the hollow way) of Scripture, a city
in the tribe of .Ephraim, the lower one of the
two of that name. Solomon fortified Beth-horon
(2 Chron. viii. 5.) in the vicinity of an important
defile.
Land of MAKTAÛ (iii. 1.), the Megiddo (MA-
GEDDO, LXX.) of Scripture, a strong city of
Manasseh, on the borders of Issachar, on the
Kishon, celebrated for the decisive battle in which
Josiah was defeated by Necho, and mortally
wounded.
Land of JUTAH MALK (iii. 3.) undoubtedly,
i. e. Judah, King (not King of Judah, which is
ungrammatical). A copy of the figure wearing
one of these shields is inserted in this book.

استان

Judak before SESEK
Balimandel & Walton Lathographers
London Longman & Faternoster Row
I
1
4
PART III.
THE HISTORICAL CHRONOLOGY OF THE HEBREWS,
FROM
THE IMMIGRATION OF ABRAHAM
INTO CANAAN,
UNTIL THE FALL OF THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH,
COMPARED WITH THE EGYPTIAN
SYNCHRONISMS.
R 2
7
}
1
}
245
INTRODUCTION.
I.
SURVEY OF THE HEBREW SYNCHRONISMS GENERALLY.
THERE is still in the court of the Palace of Karnak a
representation either of the son of Solomon himself,
with the tablet on his breast, or of a Jewish figure
typifying him, which forms part of the triumphal proces-
sion of Sheshonk. The knotty point in the later Jewish
synchronisms, the chronology of the Assyrian and Ba-
bylonian wars, has been already partially solved when
treating of those subjects. As regards Jewish research,
the date of their commencement cannot be accurately
determined without a previous determination of the date
of the commencement of the kingdom. As this depends.
upon the length of the so-called period of the Judges
(the republic of the tribes); so, again, is the definition
of that period dependent upon the century, and, if pos-
sible, the very year in which the Exodus took place.
The next synchronism which presents itself to our
notice in the ascending line is the fifth year of Reho-
boam, the son of Solomon, and the reign of the chief of
the 22nd Dynasty, Sesak or Sheshonk. With our pre-
sent knowledge of the history of these times this syn-
chronism offers no further difficulty. Even those who
despise Egyptology have at last been obliged to admit
that Rehoboam is the personage depicted at Karnak as
the representative of Judah among the prisoners of
Sheshonk.
Our inquiries therefore must necessarily commence
The
R 3
246
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [BOCK IV. PART III.
with an event of such signal importance to history in
general as the Exodus. We think it is already proved
that the Egyptian traditions and monuments will not
admit of our placing it earlier than the reign of Mene-
phthah, the son of the Great Ramesses. Upon this as-
sumption, one of the dates of the period of bondage.
(215 years), based upon biblical data, is explained
almost to a year, and the statement relative to the king
"who knew not Joseph" likewise becomes perfectly
intelligible.
We will now proceed to follow out those researches
which have been touched upon above, down to the close
of the kingdom of Israel.
We shall then go gradually backwards to the two
great historical personages in the early history of the
Israelites, or the days of the patriarchs Joseph and
Abraham, that is, to the immigration of the Hebrews
into Lower Egypt under Jacob and his sons, and pre-
viously into Canaan under Abraham.
This latter, the most remote synchronistic point, can
likewise be satisfactorily established by the Egyptian
annals, upon our assumption of the length of the Hyksos
period. Those who have followed us in our Egyptian
calculations are aware that the historical character of
Abraham can thus, for the first time, be demonstrated,
and his chronological position in the history of the
world be approximatively determined.
Even if some of the details should be capable of a
different and a better explanation, the earlier Jewish
history can only be properly admitted within the pale of
World-history through the restoration of Egyptian
chronology. This is a fact which nothing will be able
to gainsay.
INTROD. II.] FROM EXODUS TO BUILDING OF TEMPLE. 247
A
II.
RETROSPECT OF THE NOTICES AS TO THE LENGTH OF THE PERIOD
FROM THE EXODUS TO THE BUILDING OF THE TEMPLE.
Ir cannot be within the province of the critic to
prove from Hebrew tradition that the interval from
the Exodus to the building of the Temple was between
306 and 310 years.
For it is a settled point that that tradition, as it
stands, contains no chronology whatever; it would con-
sequently be absurd to endeavour to prove any thing
out of it. The critic, nevertheless, may naturally ask
two questions:
First: If the Egyptian monuments and chronologies
show that the Exodus must have taken place from
310 to 320 years before the building of the Temple,
how are we to account for that same tradition
making the interval extend to 440, 480, 593, and
even 722 years?
And secondly: Whether the events in the history of
Asia or Egypt, so far as known to us at present,
are more favourable to our assumption or to any
other?
Supposing no satisfactory answer could be given to
these questions, the position of the critic would remain
just where it is. It would not render the chronology a
whit more uncertain, or impair in the slightest degree
our respect for the Sacred Books. Chronology is foreign
to their purpose and vocation. They relate exactly
what tradition or later research enabled their authors
to discover in regard to the ancient times. But if a
sa isfactory explanation could be arrived at, such a
result would tell in favour both of Egyptian and
Hebrew tradition.
R 4
248
[BOOK IV. PART III.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCIIRONISMS.
Since my preliminary criticism of Jewish chronology
was published, several plans have been proposed for
computing the length of this period. One of them is
based upon the registers of generations and lists of the
high priests. We will first of all test the latter of these,
premising, however, that we have always had more
hope of getting a clue to the correct chronology by
means of the historical narratives themselves. The
Book of Joshua, as well as the Book of Judges, contains
fragments of the most ancient traditions which have
been incorporated into the new version (itself an ancient
one), which accounts have been faithfully preserved.
As regards the registers of generations, which we
have mentioned as one of the elements of biblical chro-
nology, that of the children of Levi and Aaron (1 Chron.
vi.), which is connected with the lists of the high
priests, undoubtedly bears the palm over all the rest.
These and all the others have been very ably sifted by
Lepsius, who has drawn from them conclusions from
which, as regards the pre-Aaronic times, we entirely
differ, and which can only be adopted with certain
limitations as regards the subsequent period. The
eleven generations from Aaron to Zadok cannot
represent a period of 400 still less 600 years. Sup-
posing them to be complete, they cannot represent
the series of high priests, which is no where found in
the Bible, unless that office were hereditary in one line
by the right of primogeniture. It lasted, without
doubt, till the Babylonish captivity in the house of
Aaron, as much as possible upon the principle of primo-
geniture, in one or other of the lines of Eleazar and
Ithamar, the sons of Aaron. A list of the high priests
would consequently be a certain measure of the chro-
nology of those times in a general sense, if we could
venture to assume that the one which was afterwards
adopted by the Jews-from which Josephus and Seder
Olam copied them-had any historical warranty. But
INTROD. II.] FROM EXODUS TO BUILDING OF TEMPLE. 249
how can we believe this when the Chronicles themselves,
the latest historical work in the Jewish canon, which
carefully record, as far as possible, every thing con-
nected with the priesthood, make no mention of it?
Added to which, there are instances, beyond all cavil, of
the office of high priest being at that time administered
rather in a collegiate form, as will shortly appear in
greater detail. It is singular that this list squares as
little with the hypothesis of a period of from 440 to
600 years, as do the registers of generations, whereas it
accords perfectly with our hypothesis. It may, perhaps,
be admitted that the sacred breastplate of the high
priest, as well as the tabernacle, the service of which
was inseparably combined with it, lasted, without a
break, through the stormy times of the Judges. This
is implied by the mention of these priests at the taber-
nacle, which of course is merely a casual remark, and,
as Hengstenberg rightly observes, no impartial critic
will doubt the fact.144 Assuming, then, the existence
of such a succession, it may be considered as equivalent
in those times to a series of generations, just as much
so as a succession of hereditary kings. It is true that a
high priest was liable to be deprived of his office, but
in other respects he was subject to much fewer vicissi-
tudes than a king or a captain of the host. It is clear
that the succession by primogeniture was not practicable
in all cases. A child or a boy might become king, but
not high priest. Under these circumstances the office
passed to the nephew, of which there are instances on
record. In the time of Saul, David, and Solomon, there
were always two appointed conjointly, the high priest
proper, and probably his deputy or substitute. There
are also instances in those times of their being deprived
of their offices. Saul caused Ahimelech, the son of
144 Pentateuch ii. 74. Comp. Selden de Successione in Pontif. i.
10. p. 153., and other passages on the whole subject.
250
[BOOK IV. PART III.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
Ahitub the high priest, to be put to death for having
given bread to David in the tabernacle, when he was a
fugitive. Again, shortly before the time of Ahimelech,
after the third year of Saul, his brother Ahiah was
chosen high priest. When Solomon came to the throne
he removed Ab-Iathar, and appointed in his stead Zadok,
who had previously anointed him by command of
David (probably as his deputy). Ab-Iathar was re-
moved because he had sided with Absalom.
The following genealogical table gives the entire suc-
cession. According to Josephus (Antiq. v. 11.) the
line of Ithamar first enjoyed the honour of high priest-
hood in the person of Eli, and retained it down to
Zadok, with whom it passed back to the elder branch,
that of Eleazar. The following is taken from the his-
torical books of Scripture:
Eli,
Phinehas,
Ahitub
(1 Sam. xiv. 3.).
Ahimelech,
(1 Sam. xxii. 11.)
slain by Saul when
high-priest.
Ab-Iathar,
(1 Sam. xxii. 20.) re-
moved by Solomon.
Ikabod,
born after his father's death,
after the battle at Eben-Ezer
(1 Sam. iv. 11. 19—21.).
Ahiah,
high priest under Saul, after the second
year of his reign, in the war against the
Philistines (1 Sam. xiv. 3.).
Zadok,
first priest, with Ahimelech, under David
(2 Sam. viii. 17.): anointed Solomon.
It is clear then, that as Ahiah and Ahimelech repre-
sent one generation, so also do Ab-Iathar and Zadok, or
as a cousin would have done in both cases. Now Jo-
sephus states that from Aaron to Zadok 145 inclusive
there were 13 priests; but this number can only be
obtained by reckoning Ahimelech and Ahiah, Ab-Iathar
145 Antiq. xx. 9.; comp. x. 8. Comp. Lepsius' Einleitung, p. 274.;
comp. p. 368.
INTROD. II.] FROM EXODUS TO BUILDING OF TEMPLE. 251
and Zadok, as 4. Lepsius, therefore, is quite right in
considering these 13 as equivalent to 11 generations,
which, on an average of 30 years, would make 330, of
33, 366 years. We must not, however, forget that
Aaron himself cannot have many years computed to
him, as we shall see more in detail hereafter.
The second period which can be computed is that
from the appointment of Zadok, the high priest of Solo-
mon, to the carrying away of Jehoiadah, the high priest
under Zedekiah. This comprises 414 years, assuming
Zadok (who from the above must have been far ad-
vanced in years) to have lived to 1010 B. C., or 424
years, if he lived 10 years longer (17 after his appoint-
ment). Josephus gives a list of 17 high priests be-
longing to this period (according to his own names,
though he says 18 in the text). Supposing Jehoiadah
to have held office about half his average term, when
Nebuchadnezzar put an end to the temple-service, we
have in something more than 400 years, 16 high
priests, averaging 22 years each. But supposing the
circumstances to have been similar to those in the other
case, these 17 would represent at most 13 or 14 gene-
rations, which would make the average of that period
30 to 31 years.
The result of the examination of these registers of
generations and successions is at variance with the ordi-
nary hypothesis, but in perfect conformity with our own.
Here then we take leave of the calculations, which
never can be any thing more than approximative, and
proceed to consider the positive chronological data which
the historical books of the Jews supply for that period.
This we propose to divide for our present purpose into
three historical sections:
The times of Moses and Joshua;
The so-called time of the Judges and the Kings of
the undivided kingdom;
The time of the Kings of the divided kingdom.
252
[BOOK IV. PART III.
SECTION I.
THE DETERMINATION OF THE PERIOD FROM THE EXODUS
TO THE BUILDING OF THE TEMPLE.
A.
THE TIMES OF MOSES AND JOSHUA, AND THE TIME WHEN
THERE WERE NO JUDGES.
I. THE EXODUS, AND THE CHRONOLOGY FROM THE DEPARTURE OUT
OF THE LAND OF GOSEN DOWN TO EIGHTEEN YEARS AFTER
THE DEATH OF JOSHUA.
THE Connected narrative in the last four books of Moses
implies that he died on Mount Habarim, close to the
eastern edge of the northern point of the Dead Sea,
in the fortieth year of the Exodus, the same year,
according to this account, in which he arrived there.
But mention is also made of several protracted con-
quests having been accomplished during his time. The
whole land of the Emorites on this side the Jabbok was
taken possession of, and their allies the Midianites were
utterly overthrown. The army, indeed, passed the
Jabbok, and conquered the land of the King of Basan
and the western country on the Jordan (Batanæa and
Aulonitis) eastward and northward as far as Hermon,
that is, as far as the entire northern frontier of the later
Jewish state. We have no chronological data whatever
as to any of these conquests. But some light is thrown
upon them by the very fact of these expeditions having
SECT. I. A. I.]
253
TIMES OF MOSES AND JOSHUA.
lasted several years. This is still more true in consi-
dering their internal arrangements. We learn that after
passing over Jordan, two tribes and a half, about a fourth
of the two millions or two millions and a half of souls,
were firmly settled in the country on the other side of
it. But to make such a distribution of the territory,
and a regular settlement in it, required no inconsider-
able number of years. When, therefore, we learn from
the historical account that Joshua led the people over
Jordan forty years after the Exodus, that is assuredly
an historical number, and not, as in other instances,
merely a mode of expressing an indefinite number of
years. But it is equally certain that they could not
have reached the frontier of the country east of Jor-
dan only in the fortieth year after the Exodus, but
must have done so as early
as early as the third year, an
inference resulting from the facts of the journey
through the Peninsula of Sinai. The career of Moses
closed on the northern point of the Dead Sea, over
against Jericho. The position of Mount Pisgah is
clear from the description, as well as from its retaining
its old name down to the time of Eusebius. The
larger portion of those thirty-seven years and a half
must therefore be assigned to Joshua.
But there are further proofs that his leadership on
the other side Jordan commenced long before they
crossed over. In the first place, the name of Moses is
never mentioned in any expeditions beyond the north-
ern points of the Dead Sea. Joshua's campaigns in
Canaan and the consequent settlement of the other
seven tribes and a half, according to the express tes-
timony of old tradition, only lasted five or six years.
As Ewald has sagaciously remarked, this follows from
the words of Caleb, in the Book of Joshua (xiv. 7-10.;
comp. last verse). The land had rest, it is said; each
tribe had taken possession of its own inheritance, and
the borders of each were marked out. Caleb was at that
254
[BOOK IV. PART III.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
time eighty-five, and forty-five years had elapsed since
Moses sent him into the Promised Land as a spy. Now,
as according to the consistent narrative of the compiler,
the journeying of Moses had lasted forty years at the
time of his death, five (or rather six) years must have
elapsed since the second year of the Exodus, in which
Caleb was sent out.
From that time forward nothing definite is related of
Joshua's acts or arrangements from the old authentic
source. The addition made to the course of the histo-
rical narrative is doubtless actually true; but these
occurrences did not take place during the life of Joshua,
but immediately after the great leader's death.
If then we admit, as we are bound to do, the forty
years between the Exodus and the entrance into Canaan
Proper, that is, the country westward of Jordan, as a
fixed chronological date, the greater part of the above
thirty-seven years and a half must be assigned to
Joshua.
The Bible notoriously assigns no date to the leader-
ship of Joshua, or to the period when the tribes were
without any common leader or direction.
Josephus, on the contrary, gives very distinct dates
for both these epochs. These must either be pure inven-
tions or be derived from some ancient strictly historical
records. Reference is often made to such records in
the historical books of Scripture, which indeed aver
themselves to be extracts or compilations from some.
larger work.
Josephus assigns
To Joshua, after the death of Moses -
To the intervening period before the Meso-
potamian supremacy commenced
-
25 years,
18 years.
The biblical accounts indicate clearly enough that
these periods together occupied the time of a gene-
ration. The next epoch,
The next epoch, that of the supremacy of
SECT. I. A. I.] TIMES OF MOSES AND JOSHUA.
255
Mesopotamia, only commenced after the death of the
elders, "who lived long after Joshua;" a remark which
occurs not only at the end of the later detailed narra-
tive (Josh. xxiv. 14-31.), but which is also repeated
word for word in the older short account (Judges ii. 7.).
The indefinite, and consequently unhistorical, dates in
these books are moreover always round numbers, based
in fact upon the unit of forty years, as being the length
of a generation; for instance, forty, twenty, eighty —
a generation, a half generation, two generations.
The old tradition, which was committed to writing at
an early stage, must have contained several such dates;
it is more than probable even, as Lepsius has pointed out,
that the key to the whole period between the Exodus
and the building of the temple was not lost in Hillel's
time.
As regards the twenty-five years of Joshua, nothing
is said as to how many belong to his leadership on this
side Canaan, how many in Canaan itself. From what
has been stated above, however, we shall not be justified
in concluding that he lived more than one year in Ca-
naan after the tribes were established in the country
on this side Jordan, Canaan Proper consequently
seven years.
Eighteen, therefore, of his twenty-five years must
belong to the period of his administration on the other
side.
The only mode of defining chronologically the per-
sonal leadership of Moses is to limit it by the traditional
notice of the length of the leadership of Joshua. As
the latter lasted eighteen years over Jordan, there
remain twenty-two for the personal leadership of Moses.
Of these, the whole of the first two after the Exodus,
and the greater part of the third, belong to the jour-
neyings backwards and forwards in the Peninsula of
Sinai. There remain, therefore, nineteen entire years.
for the gradual conquest and settlement of the country
256
[BOOK IV. PART III.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
east of Jordan to beyond the northern point of the
Dead Sea.
Now, in what relation do these historical forty years
before the passing over Jordan stand to the prophecy
in the Book of Numbers (xiv. 20-24.), compared
with the further details at verse 26-35.? It is as
follows:
"And the Lord said, I have pardoned, according to
thy word: But as truly as I live, all the earth shall
be filled with the glory of the Lord. Because all
those men which have seen my glory, and my miracles
which I did in Egypt, and in the wilderness, have
tempted me now these ten times, and have not hear-
kened unto my voice; surely they shall not see the
land which I sware unto their fathers, neither shall any
of them that provoked me see it: But my servant
Caleb, because he had another spirit with him, and
hath followed me fully, him will I bring into the land
whereunto he went; and his seed shall possess it."
The only foundation for the hypothesis of the forty
years in the wilderness, as well as for the restriction of
the expression, "in the wilderness," to the desert in the
Peninsula, is this prophecy. Upon such an interpreta-
tion of it there would not be quite a whole year remain-
ing for the conquest of the country beyond Jordan.
For it was only at the latter end of the last year that
the Israelites reached the border of the Jewish territory
east of Jordan, about five months before the close of
this supposed fortieth year. But this prophecy, when
considered without prejudice, and even giving to it the
widest sense, says nothing more than that no Israelite,
with the exception of Joshua and Caleb, shall see the
Promised Land. There is here no connexion whatever
between the life of Moses and the forty years, but
merely with the fact of the people not entering the
Promised Land. The above general interpretation of
SECT. I. A. I.] TIMES OF MOSES AND JOSHUA.
257
the prophecy, however, is very doubtful. The decla-
ration of Jehovah refers to the ten men who accompa-
nied Joshua and Caleb on their mission to Canaan. The
utmost historical meaning it can bear in this connexion
is, that the generation of grown up persons who came
out of Egypt as inen, and who were then yearning after
Egypt again, should die without entering into Canaan.
It must indeed be understood, in reference to divine jus-
tice, as especially applicable to the authors of the rebel-
lion which then broke out, and to their contemporaries
who were especially active in it. The young men of the
people under twenty years of age are excepted by name.
The passage even in the Book of Judges (ii. 7.) already
quoted says that there were other elders, besides
Joshua and Caleb, who lived some time after passing
over Jordan, and that several of them outlived Joshua:
"And the people served the Lord all the days of Joshua,
and all the days of the elders who outlived Joshua, who
had seen all the great works of the Lord that He did
for Israel." This implies that many of the elders, i. e.
of the leaders of the people, outlived Joshua, and a con-
siderable time too. Others of the people necessarily
therefore did so likewise. At the end of forty years, how-
ever, the heroes of the Exodus, who had fought against
Amalek and overcome all resistance, must assuredly all
of them have been more than sixty when they passed
over Jordan. "The days of our years are threescore
years and ten, and if by reason of strength they be
fourscore years," says the ninetieth psalm, which is
attributed to Moses. Taking them as a body, therefore,
that generation had already passed away, although
some others besides Joshua and Caleb were still living.
The prophetic utterance of Moses at the critical mo-
ment at Kadesh, when the people wanted to go back to
Egypt, was completely fulfilled.
It forms no part of this subject to carry out these
views in detail, or to explain the journeyings in the
VOL. III.
S
258
[BOOK IV. PART III.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
Arabian desert during their sojourn of two and a half
years in the Peninsula. For the illustration of these
points I venture to refer my readers to my translation
and exposition of the Bible, a portion of which has
already appeared.
We will conclude the allusions here made with a
tabular survey of the forty years and the leadership of
Joshua.
The Forty Years of the Exodus and Conquest.
1. The Forty Years of the Exodus, and the Wanderings to the
Jordan.
Years of the Exodus.
I. 1320. 15th Nisan: Exodus from Egypt.
II. 1319. "2nd month: " Departure from Sinai.
III. 1318. "1st month :" Death of Miriam. Jour-
ney from Kadesh to Akaba. One
month's rest at Hor (period of
mourning).
""
""
IV. 1317.
V. 1316.
VI. 1315.
Towards the middle of the year: Ar-
rival at the brook Zered, on the
eastern edge of the southern point
of the Dead Sea.
The advance to beyond the northern
point of the Dead Sea, over against
Jericho.
XXII. 1299. End of the leadership of Moses.
XXIII. 1298. The first year of Joshua's leadership
(18 years).
XL. 1281. The last (18th) year of Joshua, in the
land east of Jordan. Completion of
the conquest and settlement.
End of the forty years, from the Exodus to the En-
trance into Canaan, six years after the last campaign
of Ramses III. in Canaan (1287).
SECT. I. A. I.]
259
TIMES OF MOSES AND JOSHUA.
2. The First Seven Years in Canaan.
Years of the Exodus.
XLI.
1280. Joshua's passage over Jordan.
XLII. 1279.
XLIII. 1278.
XLIV. 1277. Joshua's six years' war in Canaan.
XLV.
1276.
XLVI. 1275.
XLVII. 1274.
Death of Joshua, in the twenty-fifth
year of his leadership, the forty-
seventh of the Exodus.
If we add to these the 18 intervening years before
the Mesopotamian supremacy, we arrive at the year
1256, the 65th after the Exodus. This is the last
year that the people were in a state of undisputed in-
dependence, before the transition from a republican to
a monarchical government. Of the 306 years (1320—
1014) to the commencement of the fourth year of So-
lomon there remain therefore 241: of these, as we shall
see, 66 belong to the time of the Kings -22 to Saul,
41 to David, 3 to Solomon,
which added to the
65 after the Exodus make 131. For the time of the
Judges, therefore, i. e. the time of the foreign supre-
macy, when the struggle was constantly renewed under
valiant leaders and a certain sort of independence ex-
isted under a loose federal government, 175 remain. We
have now to show in detail that the historical traditions of
the times of the Judges enable us really to estimate the
period at this number of years, with that amount of
probability which a cautious investigator has a right to
expect, and that the ordinary calculation is as unautho-
rised by the Scripture accounts, as it is irreconcilable
with general history.
24
s 2
260
[Book IV. PART III.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
II. GENERAL HISTORICAL ELUCIDATION OF THE PERIOD OF THE
EXODUS, AND ENTRANCE INto Canaan, FROM THE EGYPTIAN
POINT OF VIEW.
WE have seen that, according to the general history
of Asia and of Egypt, the period between the Exodus
and the Building of the Temple cannot have been much
more than 300 years.
The lines of demarcation are sharply drawn on both
sides. We must refer to the chapter on the chronology
of the Kings, for proof that the year of the Building of
the Temple, the fourth of Solomon's reign, must be
exactly and positively the year 1014 before our era.
This is ascertained by the agreement between a simple
and logical criticism of the notices of the Jewish kings
of the divided kingdom, and the dates of Assyrian and
Egyptian history, some of which are astronomically de-
termined. It is, however, so nearly in accordance with
the ordinary hypothesis, that we may venture to take
this point for granted.
But the starting-point, about which I was by no
means clear at the outset of this work, has since then
been so indisputably connected with the reign of Me-
nephthah, the son of Ramses II., by Lepsius' thorough
investigation and lucid exposition of the subject, that
there can be no question as to a difference of more than
two or three years. It appears from the researches in the
third, and especially from those in the present Book, that
he must of necessity have been king at the commence-
ment of the last historical Sothiac cycle in 1322. Hence
it follows that the first year of Menephthah cannot have
been later than 1322. It would, of course, be a mere
accident, if this should turn out to be the very first year
of his reign. The period commencing with a new So-
thiac cycle might equally well be called that of Me-
nophthes, even if it occurred towards the close of his
reign.
SECT. I. A. II.] TIMES OF MOSES AND JOSHUA.
261
But, under actual circumstances, the Exodus must
have taken place in the first years of Menephthah, be-
cause, in the Egyptian annals, thirteen years are occu-
pied with internal disturbances and the invasion of the
Palestinians, prominent among which occurrences are
the Exodus and the preceding movements of the Israelites,
terminating in the withdrawal of at least two millions.
of souls, according to positive data, the fighting men
among them having armed themselves in secret.
Now, as Menephthah reigned nineteen or twenty
years, and, before these had elapsed, returned from
Ethiopia with a son of eighteen and recovered his
throne, the Exodus cannot certainly be placed later
than 1317, or the ninth year of his reign from 1325.
For it took place concurrently with the invasion of the
Palestinians, as those notices state, and as the history
of the Exodus intimates at least. It was brought about
in consequence of the harsh and cruel oppression and
persecution of the professors of another faith, which the
same Pharaoh, who was a superstitious bigot, had sys-
tematically practised for several years. But, independ
ently of this, these negotiations, the secret armament
and interviews, cannot have claimed less than one or
two years.
Taking all these circumstances into con-
sideration, we cannot reckon the portion of Menephthah's
reign prior to the Exodus at less than between four and
six years. It is obvious from the whole account in the
Book of Exodus that it did not happen in the first
years of it.
Moses returned from the Peninsula of
Sinai whither he had fled, after the death of the king
during whose reign his flight took place. This first
tyrant therefore was Rinses II. Moses now sees that
the system of oppression is aggravated, he witnesses the
unavailing complaints and despair of the people, and
then he receives the Divine mission to set them free.
Serious plagues occur, and repeated entreaties are made,
and proofs are evinced of the power of the Spirit which
s 3
262
[BOOK IV. PART III
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
was in Moses. Fresh interviews take place with Jethro
at Sinai, everything in short which forms part of a silent
but universal conspiracy, the object of which was to
throw off an intolerable foreign yoke. All this required
time.
Lepsius has fully established that, either by accident
or as an isolated tradition, the Exodus is placed in the
Jewish Book of Seder Olam in the year 1314.
Our period must therefore be restricted within 306
years, from 1320 to 1014.
Again, the time of the Judges is limited, both back-
wards and forwards.
We have pointed out that there are good grounds for
supposing that the anarchy which broke out on the
death of Joshua, that is, the breaking up of the whole
constitution, terminated in the 65th year of the Exodus;
consequently, if the latter took place in 1320, in the
year 1256.
The reigns of Saul and David, however, with the ad-
dition of the first three years of Solomon, comprised
66 years. Deducting therefore 65+66, or 131 years,
from these 306, there remain 175 for the so-called time
of the Judges; i. e. from the time when the Israelites.
became tributary to the Assyrians, in the 19th year
after the death of Joshua, to the end of the supremacy
of the Philistines and the judgeship of Samuel, when
Saul was elected king. Favourable circumstances how-
ever occasionally occurred, during which this foreign
supremacy was suspended, and they enjoyed a respite
from the state of tribute, and short periods of independ-
ence. During these revolts, or the breathing time which
they obtained from them, we may suppose there were
Judges, either general or special, for Canaan and the
country east of Jordan, who represented, together with
the high priest, the unity of the people in itself, and
more especially as regarded their relations with other
nations when they were in a state of subjection. The
SECT. I. A. III.] TIMES OF MOSES AND JOSHUA.
263
Judge was a Hebrew governor, recognised as such by
the dominant powers, as was afterwards the case in the
instance of Nehemiah.
Now, if it should turn out that the dates and facts in
the Book of Judges, which have evidently been trans-
mitted as historical, cannot be compressed within the
limits here assigned to them, the solution of the problem
must be abandoned.
If, on the contrary, it should appear that these limits
correspond exactly with the traditional dates and facts,
and by the application indeed of a simple method of
arrangement, we may consider it as a hopeful sign for
the investigation generally, and a guarantee that a per-
fectly certain solution of the principal points has been
obtained. In a word, that, in reference to the biblical
narrative, the tradition which forms the groundwork of
it is strictly historical, although it was from an early
period misunderstood.
III. FURTHER HISTORICAL ELUCIDATION. EXPLANATION OF Two
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH HAVE HITHERTO BEEN UNINTELLIGIBLE
IN THE HISTORY OF THE JOURNEYING THROUGH THE PENINSULA.
THE Exodus is an historical fact which occurred in
an historical age, and was governed by notorious great
events, and circumstances of importance to general his-
tory. Such are also the conquest of the country east of
Jordan, and the occupation of Canaan, which was peopled
by brave and warlike races. In attempting to under-
stand and explain the connected narrative transmitted
to us, in accordance with this and the nature of the
sources from which it was supplied, we find ourselves
obliged to take into serious consideration certain grave
questions which, in the course of it, offer themselves to
the notice of the honest and cautious investigator. He
cannot in these times make what is incredible credible
by theological miracles, nor be silenced by the authori-
tative dicta of certain German critics who are still in-
Uor M
*
$ 4
264
[Book IV. PART III.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
For from the
fected with a morbid mania for myths.
very fact (which Aristotle was obliged to remark upon)
of theologians taking no account of cause and effect,
nor allowing any to be taken, they destroy all faith in
the historic truth of a glorious foretime, and deprive
the history of our race of its brightest ornaments.
These new-fashioned mythologers, however, frequently
conceal, under the perplexing charm of the word myth,
a lamentable amount of superficial prejudiced criticism.
The only difference between their decisions and those
of their theological predecessors is in the direction which
they give to them.
The historical investigator, who has merely to deal
with real histories and historical realities, will neither
be afraid of old women's prejudices, nor shrink from
the labour which careful research demands of him.
The elevated goal he has in view, the discovery of
truth, is his compensation for persecution and con-
tempt, and encourages him to reflect and to meditate,
which the two above-mentioned systems frivolously, not
to say mischievously, eschew.
The readers of a philosophical work or a history will
not fail to ask for an explanation how it was that a king
of Egypt, possessing a large army which a few centuries
before had made all Asia to tremble, incalculable trea-
sures, and a well organised system of administration,
did not pursue the Jews still farther, and annihilate
them in the wilderness? Why he did not attack them
during the two years and a half in which they wandered
backwards and forwards, apparently without a plan, in
the Peninsula of Sinai, where the Pharaohs had had a
firm footing for centuries, nay, thousands of years, and
which was subject to the Pharaonic power of Ramses II.
just as much as Libya was, and more even than Pales-
tine.
I hardly think they will be satisfied with the simple
Maou
SECT. I. A. III.] TIMES OF MOSES AND JOSHUA.
265
answer that Pharaoh and his host were all overwhelmed
in the Red Sea.
If there is any historical fact well established it is
this— that, however great the loss sustained by the
Egyptians in horses and riders in their hasty pursuit
through the foaming waves, the Pharaoh himself did
not perish; and we are not authorised in stretching
the expressions in the connected epic narrative of the
Book of Exodus beyond the limits of the original autho-
rity which has been faithfully transmitted to us, the
song of praise of Moses and Miriam. Admitting, how-
ever, that the Pharaoh did perish, what prevented his
successor from avenging so disgraceful a defeat? These
war chariots and riders collected in such haste could
have formed but a very small part of the Egyptian
forces. The question remains where it was, and it can
only be answered by the circumstances of the world at
that time.
Chronology compels us to assume that the Palestinian
hordes made their incursion contemporaneously with
the Exodus. There is no time for any considerable in-
terval between the two events. Their invasion and
dominion were merely the conclusion of those formidable
movements which lasted 13 years, in anticipation of
which, according to the Egyptian accounts, the seer or
statesman of the weak-minded king put an end to him-
self in despair, in order not to be a witness of inevitable
disasters. It is matter of indifference whether he did
so or not, and whether he really foresaw the calamities
and their duration. Assuming them to be both inven-
tions, they were inventions in consequence of actual
occurrences, and that is all with which we have any
concern. To the student of history the evidence in
that case is all the more conclusive. The number
13 is not one of the mythical dates with which Strauss
and Baur deal as frivolously as Hengstenberg.
266
[BOOK IV. PART III.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
We are not called upon to assume that Moses and his
fellow-conspirators, who evidently had quietly made the
preparations necessary in the Peninsula to insure the
success of their vast undertaking, called in to their as-
sistance those cognate tribes. Manetho himself says
nothing of the kind, he simply says they were the
Hyksos races, who had been previously expelled. There
can be no doubt that the Hyksos Kings of the earlier
part of the Hyksos period were Arabs. The Hyksos
of the 15th Dynasty (260 years) have Arabic names,
and they correspond exactly with the rule of the
Malika (Amalekites), which, according to Arab tra-
dition, lasted 300 years in Egypt. For Manetho states
that the first reign of this dynasty was preceded by
a period when there was no king, and the conquering
tribes had the mastery; during which the Egyptian
annals continued to enumerate their own Pharaohs of
the 13th Dynasty. The Arab tradition of 300 years,
therefore, approaches very nearly the genuine chrono-
logical date, and this may have been the sum total of
Africanus, which cannot be accounted for by the dates
of the kings of that dynasty, namely, 284.
On the other hand the second Hyksos dynasty is
decidedly Palestinian. The ruling tribe were Pales-
tinians. We see indeed that they considered Pelusium
as their principal city, and that, after the convention
with Tuthmōsis, they settled in Southern Palestine.
This coincidence is an important one; first, as a fact in
the general history of those times, and as throwing
further light on that obscure period; and, secondly, as
an explanation of the great catastrophe of the Baby-
lonian empire under Menephthah, in which the Exodus
of the Israelites forms but a transient episode. The
events which were passing in Lower Egypt were natu-
rally known in Southern Palestine by means of the
The Israelites had made no secret of their
wish to withdraw, and Pharaoh, in spite of his orthodox
caravans.
Muu
SECT. I. A. III.]
267
TIMES OF MOSES AND JOSHUA.
t
superstition, was clearly placed in great perplexity
thereby.
The Palestinian races invaded Egypt. We can
neither be surprised nor led astray by Manetho's state-
ment that they came from Jerusalem, considering the
general ignorance of the old world about the Jews, an
ignorance which was shared even by a Tacitus. The
invasion and then disastrous occupation of the country
were disgraceful events, which the Egyptian writer re-
corded simply because they were inscribed with charac-
ters of blood in the pages of the history of his country
and people.
This fact, and this alone, is a satisfactory answer to
the above question.
The same Providence which in a moment of imminent
peril had delivered the chosen people, the people of man-
kind, also protected them from pursuit and molestation
during the next two years. And does not this fact also
offer the only explanation of a circumstance hitherto
almost unnoticed, which occurred at the beginning of the
third year, but which must certainly have given many
an earnest inquirer serious cause for reflection? I
mean the incontrovertible resolution of the people,
when encamped at Kadesh-Barnea on the frontier of
Southern Palestine, to return to Egypt. What? The
people who had witnessed the giving of the Law on the
mountain of the Lord, who had fought valiantly and
victoriously against Amalek, and were also jealous to
excess of their republican liberty! Is it possible that
this people, after so many wonderful deliverances, could
forget in two short years the shame of bondage, the tor-
ment of slavery, the murder of their children, and the
pangs of their wives and sisters, to such an extent that
they yearned again for the chains which they had rent
asunder by their valour and with their blood?
The whole narrative is a fable, or this is impossible.
Kadesh-Barnea was only five days' march from the
268
[Book IV. PART III.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCIIRONISMS.
border of Egypt. It was known, therefore, in the camp
what was passing there. The people had no wish to
return to bondage. Their object rather was to share
the rich booty with their kindred tribes, and with them
to take signal vengeance on the dark children of Ham,
instead of struggling with daily privations on the con-
fines of an inhospitable land, and without having any
end or object in view.
Here lay the great peril and difficulty which Moses
had to encounter. This wonderfully great man cer-
tainly must have felt the same ardent longing for the
freedom of his people, which more than a 1000 years
afterwards inspired Mattathias and his heroic sons, espe-
cially Judas Maccabeus. But it was not for the mere
sake of throwing off this external bondage that he had
instigated them to revolt and withdraw from Egypt.
His higher aim was to deliver them from the bondage
of a debasing superstition, when he impressed upon them
the moral law as a national law, and awakened in them
the consciousness of the eternal connexion between the
spirit of man and the Divinity. There exists no moral
law for a nation of slaves.
This work, commenced with so much enthusiasm,
and carried out with a patience truly divine, was in
infinitely greater jeopardy from the Israelites combining
with the other idolatrous kindred races, who were steeped
in the grossest sensuality, against the Egyptians, than
it was from the bondage itself with all its debasing
accompaniments. This was the danger which preyed
upon his mind to its inmost core.
Hence the sudden resolve to push on at once round
the Gulf of Akaba into the country north of Jordan,
instead of negotiating any longer with the Edomites.
It was evident that the direct road to Canaan was im-
possible, owing to the difficulties to be encountered.
The course adopted was, therefore, the only possible
SECT. I. A. IV.] TIMES OF MOSES AND JOSHUA.
269
{
one, consequently he was sure of deliverance by it, for
God's work could not fall to the ground.
Hence, also, the serious importance which attached
to their momentary vacillation. Instead of destroying
the mutineers without hesitation or mercy, as happened
to Korah and his company, and afterwards to the
instigators of the rebellion, Moses and Aaron threw
themselves upon their faces to pray for enlightenment.
That was an act of pusillanimity, culpable doubt as to
their divine vocation, which had been confirmed by so
many deliverances. It was an act of faithlessness which
nothing could repair. It was the reason indeed why
Moses did not enter into the Land of Promise.
In this manner every feature in the biblical narrative
is made clear. The foundation of it is historical, and
it requires an historical explanation.
IV. THE PROof that JoshuA'S CONQUEST OF CANAAN COULD NOT
HAVE TAKEN PLACE BEFORE 1280, OR AFTER 1260.
Ir results from our chronological computations, with-
out any reference to the connexion between Joshua's
conquest and the history of those nations at that time,
that it must have taken place within the five years.
between 1274 and 1270.
But, in truth, the Egyptian monuments which record
the victories of Ramses III., the date of which is
astronomically established within a very few years, only
adınit of the possibility of such a conquest after the
1280, in which he overran Canaan as a conqueror, and
took Tyre, as the walls of Medinet-Habu, on the western
side of Thebes, still testify.
year
How could it have been made when, in consequence
of a great conqueror having sprung up on the Tigris
in the year 1273, a vast empire was founded in Assyria,
which had rendered Egypt tributary as early as 1257?
We have fixed both these events chronologically, and
270
[BOOK IV. PART III.
WEST •
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
have also illustrated them without reference to the
biblical histories of the Exodus and the occupation of
Canaan, so that it is unnecessary here to discuss them
any further.
Is it possible that the coincidence which exists be-
tween three different investigations, carried out inde-
pendently of each other, can be accidental ?
The Scripture narrative loses nothing by being placed
in juxtaposition with general history. Its clear stream
flows on unmixed through the troubled waters of all the
people-histories of the 14th and 13th centuries. It nei-
ther loses its solemnity by being intelligible, nor its charm
by being credible. It may do so in the eyes of the
scoffer and theologian. Here, however, we have nothing
to do either with the one or the other; we have merely
to deal with the serious, but unfettered and consequently
rational, domain of history.
Earlier chronologers took their duties more easily, and
might do so even to a certain extent. The history of
those times was an open field, like our map of Africa fifty
years ago, dotted about with a few isolated, extraordinary,
and romantic figures. Asia itself, the land of primeval
civilisation, was an uninscribed tablet.
an uninscribed tablet. Moses and
Joshua were carried hither and thither, where people
pleased and when they pleased.
Now the case is altered. Centuries, and even decades,
are filled with facts and events. Shadows become persons;
legends reality; and fables remain fables, the delusions
mere phantoms. The Western Asia of those days espe-
cially has fixed lines drawn through it, there is a limit to
conjectures which run counter to the state of the times.
For anything which cannot be made to dovetail into
them there is no place. But, on the other hand, what-
ever does fit in is brought, not by accident, into its pro-
per connexion, and into living communion. It is like
a limb which has been reset, which comes into its right
place because it shows that it possesses vital powers.
SECT. I. A. V.] TIMES OF MOSES AND JOSHUA.
271
It is brought into the eternal connexion of cause and
effect.
Chronology makes an opening for history, but history
must not only give life to chronology, she must also
confirm it. When she does this, we may confidently
acquire belief in them both.
But the most palpable evidence, that which is de-
rived from the turn of events immediately after the
conquest of Canaan and the death of Joshua, has not
yet been taken into account.
V. THE ONLY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION THAT CAN BE GIVEN OF
THE SUDDEN REVERSE OF THE POSITION OF THE ISRAELITES IN
CANAAN IS THE CONTEMPORANEOUS RISE OF THE ASSYRIAN
EMPIRE.
THE doubts which have been thrown upon the actual
truth of the narrative in the Book of Joshua and the
first chapters of Judges, in respect to Joshua's occu-
pation of a large portion of Canaan, the settlement of
the five tribes and a half within their historical borders,
and the consolidation and extension of that conquest
immediately after Joshua's death, have been trium-
phantly overcome by the searching criticisms of the
historical school. The very discrepancies between the
original documents from which that narrative was com-
piled in its subsequent systematic and epic form, and
the present text, are equally strong arguments in favour
of its truthfulness, as is the general accordance between
them. The enumeration in the 12th chapter of Joshua
of the thirty-one kings or chiefs who were subdued by
him is either a contemporaneous, or what is equivalent
to a contemporaneous, authority. It omits various de-
tails which are found in the other account obtained
doubtless from popular legends and ballads, while it
contains the names of the kings and their territories
which are not given in the other, although they are
perfectly correct both geographically and historically.
*
272
[BOOK IV. PART III.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
In an enumeration of names and places such as this
there is no poetical element. It must of necessity be
either strictly true, or an impudent fabrication. It is
clear that it cannot be the latter, from the authentic
account given of the state of the country when they
took possession of it in the 1st chapter of the Book of
Judges; in the 12th verse of which an episode is intro-
duced relating to the personal history of Caleb, which
contains evidently original traits, and where mention
is made of Kirjath-Sepher (the city of writing). We
thus see that the hostile relations which had existed
between the Israelites and the native Canaanites, who
were not exterminated, had resolved itself in the low
countries into one of tribute and subjection. In these
but few cities or districts had been captured, but of
those which were captured not one was recovered.
The Canaanites agreed to recognise the Israelites as the
lords of the land, and were satisfied to hold under
them according to a stipulated arrangement. Hence
it appears that towards the middle of the eighteen years
immediately following the death of Joshua, when there
was no unity among the tribes, that is, from 1273 to
1256, they were still recognised as the dominant power
in Canaan. The two tribes and a half, who were settled
on the other side Jordan, formed indeed, like a living
wall, a stronger barrier than the river itself against the
inroads of the Arabs and other cognate Eastern races
into the Land of Promise. Ten years after, in 1246,
we find them tributary to a Mesopotamian satrap,
about whom we shall shortly have occasion to offer
some further remarks. They remained, moreover,
in
this state of subjection and dependence, at the mercy
of their neighbours by whom they were plundered and
annoyed, for 175 years. Saul not only found the
whole army disbanded, but even their arms and the
smiths removed. During this period they seemed to
have enjoyed a respite for thirty years at most, and
SECT. I. A. V.] TIMES OF MOSES AND JOSHUA.
273
these at distant intervals of short duration. Occa-
sionally a hero, or man of God, sprang up among the
people, who attacked the tyrant, defeated his troops,
repelled the inroads of the invading hordes, and disap-
peared again in a short time, barely leaving a trace
behind him. All is unchanged except the names of
those to whom they paid tribute; the loss of freedom,
the oppression, the insecurity of their relations, re-
mained the same.
Under David Israel rose again to the same height of
power in which Joshua had left them; their boundaries
indeed were considerably extended towards the north,
the south, and the east, but that only for a short time.
However much of this may be explained by the in-
conceivable imperfection (unexampled as it was in the
old world) of their federal constitution, without fede-
ral law or federal tribunals, without native leaders or
a federal council; however much may be ascribed to
their relapse into the barbarous demoralising nature-
worship of the Canaanites; all this, even, is insufficient
to account for the two phenomena above alluded to,
the sudden reverse of all their relations in Canaan, and
their continued loss of independence.
But when we recollect that the empire of Nineveh,
which was founded in the year 1273, the year after
they passed the Jordan, had in the next sixteen years,
down to 1257, extended itself over the whole of Western
Asia, as far as Syria and Palestine, indeed to Egypt
itself, all becoines intelligible.
A vast empire, the strength of which consisted in a
numerous and warlike army and the defenceless con-
dition of all its neighbours, must have paralysed a rising
state. As long as that supremacy lasted, there could be
no prospect of its vitality being restored.
All the populations and tribes of Canaan were neces-
sarily hostile to the invading Israelites. The feeling of
revenge was strengthened by hatred of the Jewish peo-
VOL. III.
T
274
[Book IV. PART III.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
ple, who kept haughtily aloof from all other people and
from their gods. Despotism was then in its infancy as
an art of government, that is, as the art of suppressing
liberty by police force, and committing illegal acts
with a certain semblance of legality. But it was aware,
from the instincts at all times inherent in it, that the
easiest mode of governing is by creating divisions, and
that the most certain mode of destroying another's life
is by a brother's hand. Semiramis, the mighty con-
queror, according to a popular story which there is no
reason to question, was not an Assyrian by birth, but a
Philistine from Askalon, be the romantic circumstances.
of her childhood as they may. She first appeared, at the
court and with the army, as the wife of the Assyrian.
satrap of Mesopotamia or Syria. She was, therefore, of
the same race as those nations which were thirsting for
vengeance, and which the Israelites had neither been
able to conciliate, nor extirpate or subdue. She was
withal fanatical for the bloody and profane worship of
the Fish-goddess Derketo.
Under such circumstances can we wonder that the
state of things in Israel was as we find it, without being
told why it was so ?
We shall learn the details from the dispositions made
during the period of the Judges, to which we now pro-
ceed. We must bear in mind the following historical
facts at the same time, which occurred during the first
sixty-five years:
First The Exodus can only have occurred between
1324 and 1320 (between the second and sixth years
of Menephthah), according to the authentic history
of the House of the Ramessides and of Egypt of
which we are in possession.
Secondly: Their remaining undisturbed in the Penin-
sula can only be explained by the circumstance of
Egypt being then (as its contemporaneous annals
SECT. I. A. V.] TIMES OF MOSES AND JOSHUA.
275
inform us) engaged in severe contests, and sub-
jected to an iron bondage.
Thirdly: The great turning-point in the history of the
journey and of the people is the departure from
Kadesh, after their resolution to go back to Egypt
had been with difficulty overcome.
Fourthly Canaan could neither have been conquered
seven years earlier than 1280, nor seven years
later the former, on account of the Egyptian ex-
pedition to Palestine; the latter, on account of the
power of Assyria, which, as early as 1257, ex-
tended to Syria, Phoenicia, and even Egypt. The
conquest of Canaan and the loss of their unity took
place between this extension of the Assyrian power
and the passing over Jordan, which certainly re-
quired more than fifteen years.
Fifthly: These conjunctures offer the only explanation
of the sudden failure of the great work so grandly
and so successfully commenced, and of the total
decay and dissolution of the independent power of
Israel in Asia for almost 200 years, indeed for
ever, with the exception of a few lucid intervals.
Sixthly: The whole narrative is strictly true through-
out, but we possess only shreds and fragments of
the external historical portions. The Exodus forms.
an episode in a vast tragical, political, and religious
struggle, internal and external, between Egypt
and to a certain extent that part of Africa bor-
dering on the Nile, and Western Asia; which
episode has only been transmitted to us in books
which, owing to the higher object they had in view,
touch but lightly, or not at all, on the external his-
tory and immediate causes of the events.
This is not the place for entering into these views in
detail: but the evidence adduced will not only suffice.
to establish the correctness of our chronology of Jewish
}
T 2
276
[BOOK IV. PART III.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
as well as Egyptian history, but also to explain the
events which have been adjusted according to it, and of
which the mutual action has been established.
B.
THE PERIOD OF THE JUDGES, AND THOSE OF SAUL
AND DAVID.
I. PRINCIPLE AND METHOD.146
THE previous observations have not only supplied us
with the chronological framework for the period between
the death of Joshua and the institution of monarchical
government, but have also shown us the historical ele-
ments of vitality and power which must be taken into
account during this epoch of 200 years.
It has been shown in the First Book how impossible
it is to adjust existing dates from themselves alone, so
as to form a chronological, and still less an historical,
whole. An extraneous framework was required, in order
to justify any hope of succeeding in the attempt to ex-
tricate the historical facts from the confusion of two
series of dates having no connexion with each other.
The simplest plan will obviously be this: gradually
to apportion the period of 175 years between the
Judges and the Monarchy down to the Building of the
Temple, and then to see what is the conclusion to be
drawn from the different possible assumptions. Such
of them as produce an impossible result within the given
period must be at once rejected. If truth can be dis-
covered at all, it will come out of itself when the inad-
missible hypotheses have been abandoned. Two prelimi-
116 Compare for this and the following chronological chapters the
synchronistic tables of my Bible-work, vol. i.
SECT. I. B. I.]
277
TIME OF THE JUDGES.
nary conditions are indispensable: first, that all the
dates which are obviously historical shall be taken into
account; and then that the whole result obtained
through them will stand the test of history. For if we
give up the dates we lose all hold on chronology; while
on the other hand, if they lead to any conclusion at
variance with history, all the dates in the world will
not help us. We might indeed insist upon a third con-
dition that an explanation should be given as to how
the present tradition could have grown out of an his-
torical one, without abandoning the tradition of Scrip-
ture, which is thoroughly historical and honest.
This will be illustrated by a closer inspection of the
first group of dates after the eighteen years during
which the Israelites were in a state of disunion.
Dates between the Time when they first became tributary
and the Death of Gideon.
Supremacy of Mesopotamia (Kusan-Ris'ha Yrs. Yrs.
thaim)
8
Othniel defeats Kusan-Ris'hathaim: the
land at rest
40
Supremacy of Moab
18
Ehud defeats Eglon: the land at rest
Supremacy of Jabin: Northern Canaan at
80
rest
20
Barak and Deborah defeat his army: De-
borah Judge -
40
Supremacy of Midian
7
Gideon defeats the Midianites: Judge
40
Generations: 1+2+1+1
5
Four periods of subjection
53
We may,
in the first place, confidently state that the
idea of the years of independence, reckoned by genera-
tions of forty years, being added to the authentic years.
of subjection is inadmissible. There is no room for
T 3
278
[BOOK IV. PART III.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
them in the people-history of Asia, even after reducing
the 40 years for a generation to 33 or 30. According
to the latter calculation even, we should have to add to
the above 150 years 53 years for the former period
during which there was not a single fact to record,
which would make 203 years to the death of Gideon.
This would not even leave space enough for the period
from the time of Saul to the end of the fourth year of
Solomon, which is strictly historical. The following
dates of this period, reckoning from below, are well
established, and we shall corroborate them more fully
hereafter:
The reign of Saul
22 years.
David's reign 40 years and 6 months - 41
The first 3 years of Solomon's reign
3
The above series, from the cessation of the state
of anarchy down to the death of Gideon, com-
mences with the year
Deducting from this, according to the ordinary
calculation, to Gideon's death
1255
203
We get to the year 1052
But the first year of Saul was certainly
So that down to the death of Gideon we have
already a deficit of
1080
28
We have then still to account for all the time be-
tween the death of Gideon and that of Samuel. But
even then we shall see, upon closer examination, that
there are still 30 years wanting, even up to the com-
mencement of the forty years' supremacy of the Philis-
tines, in which we have to find a place for Samson, Eli,
and Samuel, who, according to Scripture, occupied a
period of 20+20+40, that is, 80 years.
If the application of this method leads to such im-
possibilities (and the historical critic could expect no
SECT. I. B. I.]
279
TIME OF THE JUDGES.
other result), the opposite method, namely, the total re-
jection of the periods of tranquillity and independence,
would drive us to an historical absurdity. Did we take
into account merely the 53 years during which they
were in subjection, and consider them to represent the
first period, from the death of Joshua to that of Gideon,
there would be no space left for the lives and exploits
of these heroes, who would lose all the glory of having
effected the deliverance of the people. The only result
of their successes and victories would be a direct transi-
tion from one state of bondage to another. We have,
however, ample evidence that Gideon, the last of them,
exercised the office of Judge in the land after he
had delivered it from foreign supremacy, and that he
maintained its independence. After declining to make
the appointment of Judge hereditary, he erected a
shrine for himself, and left behind him, by several
wives, seventy sons, one of whom, Abimelech, murdered
his brothers, and reigned despotically in Sichem for 3
years.
These were the considerations which induced us to
say, in our preliminary criticism in the First Book, that
all we could do in the first instance was, to report the
results of the existing systems, and to show that they
are inadmissible. Our readers will recollect that
upon these data, and in early times too, 306 years
were converted into 440 (11 generations), into 480
(12 generations), into 592 (480+111 1 year for Sham-
gar), and, still carrying on the same process, into 722
years.
The simple duty of the historical critic, therefore,
is to endeavour to devise some method by which an
approximate distribution of the traditional, historical,
and systematic dates in that sharply defined epoch
may be effected. For there certainly cannot be an error
of more than 10 years in the 306 which we assume to
be the length. of it. The commencement and first 60
T 4
280
[BOOK IV. PART III.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
years are firmly fixed in the groove of general history
by the pivots of authentic synchronisms. Its close is
equally well established, not only by the historical
character of all the dates after Solomon, and by the
connected series of historical traditions, but also by the
points of contact between Jewish and Egyptian history.
The only circumstances which could render the task
a hopeless one would be, if we should find the ground-
work of the period unhistorical, or the traditional dates.
spurious, and the events connected with them either
fictitious or misinterpreted myths. But no writer de-
serving any notice as an historical critic has ever pro-
pounded such a theory, although the mythomania has
beguiled some German scholars, who are in other re-
spects entitled to consideration, into making assertions
and assumptions, which, when stripped of their obscu-
rity and the cloudiness of the mythical system, amount
to something pretty nearly as absurd.
It would certainly be no trifling gain, if we could
obtain a foundation for the distribution of the middle
period under discussion; such a foundation as would
enable us to connect the higher series from the Exodus
to the cessation of the anarchy, with the lower one
from Saul to the third year of Solomon inclusive, and
admit of its being represented in the chronological
tables of ancient history. The dates stand thus:
Length of the period from the Exodus to
the third year of Solomon, from 1320
to 1015
Of these the period between
the Exodus and the end of
the 18 years when there were
no Judges, comprises
Between the beginning of
Saul's reign and the end of
Solomon's third year -
65 years.
306 years.
66
131
SECT. I. B. II.]
281
TIME OF THE JUDGES.
Leaving for the middle period, the
of time the Judges
The traditional historical data between the
first supremacy (that of Mesopotamia)
and the end of the last (that of Midian)
are
Which leaves for the indefinite period
of independence and for the sole judica-
ture of Gideon, as well as that of all his
successors down to the resignation of
Samuel, the last of the Judges
175 years.
53
122 years.
II. PRELIMINARY DISTRIBUTION OF THE 122 DISPOSABLE YEARS IN
THE TIME OF THE JUDGES PROPER.
THE specific dates of the Judges which have come
down to us, running on in an uninterrupted series from
Abimelech, the son of Gideon, to the close of the last
Judgeship before Samson (Abdon), comprise fully 79
years, assuming there to have been no gap between the
different Judges.
The series is as follows:
Time of Abimelech, son of Gideon, down to the Year
before the Philistine Supremacy and Samson.
Abimelech
Tola
Jair -
Jephthah
Ibzan
Elon
Abdon
3 years.
23
22
6
7
10
8
79 years.
Which leaves, of the disposable years, 43. With these
43 the following epochs correspond:
282
[BOOK IV. PART III.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
A. The Years of Independence in the ear-
liest time.
1. Time of independence after Othniel's
defeat of the Mesopotamians
2. Time of independence after Ehud's
defeat of the Moabites
3. Time of independence after Deborah's
conquest of Northern Canaan
4. Time of independence after Gideon's
defeat of the Midianites
B. The Years assigned to Samson, Eli, and
Samuel, certainly must correspond
with the period when they were tribu-
tary to the Philistines, which is called
40 years.
We cannot, however,
claim for these three Judges a less
period than the full term of the Philis-
tine supremacy (40 years), (on ac-
count of the number of events which
occurred in it), instead of the syste-
matic dates of 20+40+20
X
X
X
X
40 years.
Consequently we have enough for this one period, but
only 3 years for the four preceding states.
This is much too little even for Gideon alone. Hence
the supposition hitherto adopted as being the most
natural one, that these specific dates of the Judges
before Samson represented a continuous series, turns out
to be impossible.
But did the Judges, from Abimelech to Abdon, really
constitute a single series? May not some of them have
been contemporaneous ?
To assume a synchronism between Ephraim and
Judah is clearly inadmissible. In almost all the ac-
counts the two principal tribes, the northern and
SECT. I. B. II.]
283
TIME OF THE JUDGES.
southern, are mentioned together, and the whole of
Canaan is almost necessarily equally interested in
bondage and in freedom.
But is this the case when we compare all Canaan, the
territory of the nine tribes and a half, with the country
to the east of Jordan and its two tribes and a half
(Reuben, Gad, and half Manasseh)? Certainly it was
so in Gideon's time. It is clear that that popular hero
from Ophrah rescued the northern country on this side,
as well as that to the east of Jordan, from the Arab
Midianites, and there exercised undivided authority. But
Abimelech, his son, the slayer of his brothers, was no-
thing more than the tyrant of Sichem, the birthplace of
his mother. What have the three years he ruled there
to do with the times of the Judges? In fact he has no
more right to be called a Judge at all, than Tarquinius
Sextus has to be reckoned among the consuls.
The next Judge mentioned, Tola, of the tribe of
Issachar, is certainly spoken of in the Book of Judges
(x. 1, 2.), as a Judge who arose after Abimelech, and
"dwelt in mount Ephraim." His 23 years must there-
fore undoubtedly be computed in the chronology which
goes down to Samson, Eli, Samuel, and Saul, that is, in
the history of Palestine Proper, the land on this side
Jordan.
But Jair of Gilead, to whom 22 years are given, and
30 sons, owners of the villages of Jair in Gilead (Argod),
was assuredly only a man of the country on the other
side. There is no record connecting him in any way
with Palestine.
The next hero, Jephthah, also belonged to Gilead (xi.
1.), the "mighty man of valour," to whom 6 years are
assigned, who put an end to the supremacy of the Am-
monites in his own country. They had oppressed for
18 years all the children of Israel who dwelt beyond
Jordan (x. 8.). They had also, doubtless, made incur-
284
[BOOK IV. PART III.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
sions to the other side of the river (ver. 9.), but their
pretensions went no further than to demand the restitu-
tion of their old country (xi. 4-27.). These 18 years,
as well as the 6 years of Jephthah the deliverer of
Gilead, have nothing to do with Palestine.
We have, therefore, the following series for the country
beyond Jordan :
Jair, Judge in Manasseh beyond Jordan
The supremacy of the Moabites in the
land beyond
Jephthah
22 years.
18
6
46 years.
And what have we in Palestine Proper after Abime-
lech?
First of all, Tola, the next Judge men-
tioned after Abimelech, the man of
Issachar (x. 1, 2.) -
Then the three mentioned successively
after Jephthah (xii. 8-15.):
23 years.
Ibzan
Elon
Abdon
• 7
10
8
Total 48 years.
The series on the other side, therefore, ends almost
contemporaneously, and Jephthah and Abdon are
actually contemporaries, as well as Tola and Jair.
Ibzan and Elon with their 17 years correspond to the
18 years of the Ammonites, with whom also the Philis-
tines are mentioned (x. 7—9.).
Our computation of the 122 years, therefore, will
now stand thus:
SECT. I. B. II.]
285
TIME OF THE JUDGES.
122 years.
3 years.
Disposable time, with specific dates -
Of these there belong to Abi-
melech
The succession of Judges in
Palestine, to Samson inclu-
sive
To these there are to be
added, for Samson, Eli, and
Samuel, to fill up the time
of the supremacy of the
Philistines
48
40
91 years.
91
31 years.
Leaving to complete the periods transmitted
in the dates of the epical system
These periods, according to the above, are:
Time of Othniel
single (40)
Ehud
""
double (80)
Deborah
99
single (40)
Gideon
""
single (40)
The enigmatical portions of this are the 80 years in
which the land had rest, from the time when Ehud de-
livered Israel from the hands of Moab by slaying Eglon.
This date renders it impossible to make any strictly
historical estimate of the whole series. For it is not
only clearly out of the question to believe in the reality
of these twice 40 years, but the three single 40 years of
tranquillity and independence are equally inadmissible.
There is but one way of explaining the whole account,
which is by the system of twelve heroes in twelve genera-
tions of 40 years each, to which we have already alluded at
the opening of this discussion, and which we shall make
perfectly clear before the conclusion of it. A link was
wanting to Samson, and so they doubled the period of
Ehud in order to fill up
the gap.
286
[BOOK IV. PART III.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
After deducting for Gideon 17 of the 41 disposable
years, there remain 24 to be equally divided between
Othniel, Ehud, and Gideon, 8 to each, as appears in the
tables in my Bible-work. We thus obtain something
which is avowedly only an approximate arrangement.
But for this purpose the simple equal division is the
most advisable.
We are not quite so deficient in data when making the
distribution of the 40 years of the Philistine supremacy
under Samson, Eli, and Samuel.
The statement that in the period immediately pre-
ceding Saul the supremacy of the Philistines lasted 40
years (Judges xiii. 1.), has nothing whatever to do with
the series of epical dates of generations. It is con-
nected with the date of 18 years of the supremacy of the
Philistines and Ammonites, which is strictly historical,
to which Jephthah put an end (x. 8—17.), and with the
other dates of the duration of the foreign dominion
which we have taken into account all together. In an
internal sense, also, there cannot be a stronger contrast
than between these 40 years and the epical notations of
the length of a hero's life or generation. There are no
facts or events with which to fill up the outline of the
one, whereas in the other case there are specific per-
sonages and generations which harmonize with the long
period of subjection. These are:
Samson of Dan, "Judge in the days of the
Philistines" (xv. 20.; xvi. 30.)
Eli, the high priest, Judge in the same
period (1 Sam. iv. 18.) -
Samuel, the seer," his successor, Judge
66
-
till the appointment of Saul (iii. 19.; xi.
20 years.
40
15.; xv. 12.)
20
Of these three personages, the reality of the first hav-
SECT. I. B. II.]
287
TIME OF THE JUDges.
ing held the office of Judge is, from the facts before us,
undoubtedly questionable. He is a popular hero, who
attacks Philistines as well as lions whenever he has an
opportunity. But his bearing and position are not those
of a Judge, that is, of a recognised President of the
nation. His 20 years coincide, therefore, with the first
half of the 40 years' supremacy of the Philistines, that
is, with Eli, the high priest and Judge. Hence we re-
quire 40 years for Eli and Samuel together.
There are,
indeed, so many specific historical notices of the acts and
exploits of the above-mentioned heroes, especially Eli
and Samuel, as would require that number of years to
contain them.
The distribution we propose to make must be con-
sidered as approximative only, seeing that the Bible gives
no historical account of it. There being no statement
of the time when the term of 7 months that the ark was
in the hands of the Philistines, and afterwards 20 years.
at Kirjath-jearim (1 Sam. vi. 1., vii. 2.), concluded, we
cannot deal with it. Josephus says, in his "Antiquities"
(vi. 13.5.), that Samuel presided over the people as Judge
12 years.
There is no reason for disbelieving this
statement. The other 28 years, accordingly, would
belong to Eli, whose term of office was evidently a long
one.
In the next ten years we shall probably obtain some
Assyrian synchronisms for one or the other. In the
meantime we can point out, even now, several historical
events of a very suitable character, which square with
our adjustment of this period in people-history.
Before proceeding to examine these more closely, we
will give a summary of the results already obtained.
The following is the chronological solution we have
established:
Length of period from the Exodus to the
Building of the Temple
306 years.
288
[BOOK IV. PART III.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
These are made up from the existing data in the follow-
ing manner:
A. From the Exodus to the Passage
over Jordan
-
40
65 years.
B. From Joshua's entry into Canaan
to the end of the interval of
anarchy after his death (7+18) 25
C. The time of the Judges:
I. Supremacy of Mesopotamia
Othniel, independence and
rule of the Judges
II. Supremacy of Moab
Ehud
8
15
7
18
25
7
III. Supremacy of North Canaan - 20
Barak and Deborah
IV. Supremacy of Midian
Gideon
Abimelech, Gideon's son
V. Concurrent chronological data
for Canaan and East Jordan:
7
47
· 17
3
Tola 23
Jair
22
Ibzan 7
Ammonite
48
46 48
Elon 10
Abdon 8
supremacy 18
Jephthah
6
40
VI. Supremacy of the Philistines
(rule of the High Priests)
Probable distribution of these
Eli
years:
-
28
1240
}
Samuel (acc. to Josephus) - 12
D. From the commencement of monarchical
government to Building of Temple:
Saul
22
David
41
66
Solomon
3
Total number of years of the Disunion
306
SECT. I. B. III.]
289
TIME OF THE JUDGES.
11
III. HISTORICAL ELUCIDATION OF THE TIME OF THE Judges
ACCORDING TO OUR ARRANGEMENT.
THE whole period coincides with that of the Assyrian
supremacy in Western Asia. This commenced, as we
have seen, in 1273, and was progressive during the first
32 years till the death of Semiramis, 1222- the 52nd
year of Ninus, or the Derketadæ. From this time forth
the ordinary voluptuous harem-life of the rulers pre-
vailed, and paved the way for the fall of the Assyrian
empire. It must, at the same time, not be forgotten, that,
till towards the middle of the 8th century B.C., Media
and Babylon themselves were tributary provinces of the
empire; and that, even in the last reign of the dynasty
that of Sardanapalus (whose identity with the Phul
and Tiglath-pileser of Scripture is unquestionable), the
northern part of the empire became tributary, and a
portion of the population was carried away into Assyria.
Now, if the once mighty empires of Asia were tributary,
if the Egyptian monuments have not a single feat of
arms to boast of during these centuries, we should be
drawn to the conclusion that Egypt was conquered, even
if such a conquest were not attributed first to Ninus and
then, with numerous details, to Semiramis. The native
kings were suffered to retain their thrones, but as tri-
butaries.
In times like these how could Palestine make peace
but by "presents," that is, by payment of regular tri-
bute? And who can Kusan-Ris'hathayim be but the
Assyrian satrap of Mesopotamia, i, e. the Aramaic por-
tion of the district between the two rivers? It is a
curious coincidence, indeed, that the popular tradition
about the personal history of Semiramis mentions such
She is there stated to have been, in the first.
instance, the wife of Onnes, "the principal of the king's
a name.
VOL. III.
U
290
[BOOK IV. PART III.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
councillors and satrap of all Syria." (Diod. according to
Ctesias, i. 4.) He saw the lovely Philistine maid —
whose name signifies "the hovering (the pigeon) of the
height (heaven)," an epithet of the Goddess Derketo
in an official tour to Gaza; he fell in love with her, and
received her from her foster-father, who was an inspector
of the royal troops, as his wife.
But we do not require the help of such a tradition
which, however, can hardly be a religious myth) to
establish the fact of all Mesopotamia having been, at a
very early stage, an appurtenance of the empire of Ninus,
and having necessarily been governed by a satrap on
the Euphrates. He must have kept an eye upon Pales-
tine, even if it were not placed immediately under his
charge, like the Roman governor under the satrap of
Syria.
This relationship did exist, however, in the time of
Nehemiah (iii. 7.). Certain workmen, who were em-
ployed by Nehemiah, the governor, in repairing the
ruins, are said to belong "to the throne (Kisse') of the
governor on this side the river" (i. e. speaking as a
Persian or Assyrian, literally, on the other side of the
stream, the Euphrates).
The name Kusan-Ris' hathayim, however, seems not
to have any other meaning. It has hitherto been an
enigma to all expositors, and the explanation of it in
Gesenius' Dictionary-"most insolent Ethiopian "—re-
quires a mark of admiration after the mark of interro-
gation. What had the Kushites to do in Mesopotamia
at that time, especially if they signify men from Southern
Arabia?
The dual termination, indeed, is a proof that the name
signified a duality, namely Mesopotamia, the land of the
two rivers, Naharaïna, as the man in the Book of Judges
is once called "king of Aram," and another time "king
of Naharayim." Mesopotamia, in fact, i. e. East-Syria,
as contrasted with the Syria of Damascus, is called
SECT. I. B. III.]
291
TIME OF THE JUDGES.
properly Aram-Naharayim, the high land between the
two rivers.
We may consider Ris'hathayim, from the analogy of
the Arabic, Resata, kingdom, to mean the land of the
two kingdoms (this side and that side). It seems to us,
however, more natural to suppose that Kusan is the
well-known Hebrew or Aramaic word Kes, Kisse,
throne, judgment-seat. It is the very expression used
in the passage of Nehemiah above alluded to. An is
the person-ending, which we also find as a Canaanitish
form in the Philistine word seren, prince; in Hebrew,
sar. This formative syllable is not unfrequently used
in the Bible in the same sense. 147
It probably also oc-
curs on Assyrian monuments. The explanation of
Ris, therefore, is res, ros = chief, president. The Assyro-
Arabic name for river is Set (used in Hebrew only in
the sense of alarm, outbreak, but signifying originally
fluctuation); it is found in the present Arabic name of
the Pasitigris, Sat-el-Arab. In Assyrian, therefore, it
was pronounced Kusan-res-Satain, i. e. first judge (go-
vernor, satrap) of Mesopotamia.
But whether this be the explanation or not, the so-
called king of Mesopotamia can have been merely an
Assyrian satrap, and the phenomenon can only be ac-
counted for, and, as I believe, the name also, by the
coincidence of the Assyrians being then dominant in
these districts.
This synchronism, however, is the key to the whole
Jewish history of the time. Let us for a moment dis-
passionately compare the epoch of Joshua with the state
of Israel at the end of the 18 years of anarchy after his
147 See Movers, Phoenicians, ii. A. p. 5. note 20. He remarks that
Kus and Kusan are interchanged (Hab. iii. 7): Yeter and Yitran
(1 Chron. vii. 38., compared with verse 37.; Gen. xxxvi. 26.):
Qayin and Qeïnan (Gen. iv. 1., v. 9.): Loth and Lothan (Gen.
xiii. 1., xxxvi. 20. 29.).
v 2
292
[BOOK IV. PART III.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
death, and keep steadily in view that we are dealing with
a strictly historical narrative. The conquest by Joshua
of the whole of the highlands is authentic, and the best
accounts after his death state that the inhabitants of the
plain were, for the most part, tributary to the Israelites.
Suddenly everything is changed. The native inhabi-
tants lift up their heads; Israel has to fight on both
sides of the river for a bare existence; they become
tributary, indeed, in which condition they remain during
175 years with only occasional intermissions, and those
of short duration.
Much of this, certainly, may be accounted for by the
total absence of a rational federal constitution, with a
federal tribunal and federal power. There are two con-
siderations which will enable the historian to compre-
hend how such institutions could fail to exist, con-
sistently with the great and profound political views
which formed the basis of the Mosaic constitution.
One is the tenacity with which they adhered to a tribe
life as being the extension of family life; the other, the
thorough incompatibility of clear insight and the rude
and savage state of this the only people of universal his-
tory. But in the present case the transition is too
rapid. It can only arise from a total change of external
relations.
Such were the rise and establishment of the Assyrian
power. The old inhabitants of Canaan, including the
cities of Phoenicia with Sidon at their head, mortally
exasperated as they were, must necessarily have at-
tached themselves to that supremacy as well as the
Israelites. But they would not forget when an oppor-
tunity offered to bring forward their grievances against
the Jews. Everything that occurred in Nehemiah's
time must, as was intimated above, have also happened
then in one shape or the other. Now the conquest of
Asia was complete in the 17th year of Ninus, and what-
ever the appearance of things in Egypt may then have
SECT. I. B. III.]
293
TIME OF THE JUDGES.
been, whose star so suddenly paled at the very mo-
ment when the sun was rising on the Tigris, Pales-
tine at least must have at that epoch very soon felt
the influence of Assyria. It was nearer, and formed
a bridge to Egypt.
This too when Semiramis overran Egypt, which
Ninus had conquered, and from thence advanced upon
Ethiopia-herself a Philistine from Gaza or Askalon,
and apparently a fanatical worshipper of the Queen of
Heaven, who was called in the old world Astarte!
The first shape, therefore, in which the Assyrian su-
premacy was exercised over the Israelites was through
the satrap of Mesopotamia. No mighty empire of
Damascus then existed, and in Eastern Syria there can
never have been an empire coexistent with Assyria and
Babylonia.
Precisely as might have been expected this Pacha
abused his power. He drove the Jews to desperation,
and was expelled by Hothniel, never to appear again,
either he or his successor, as an oppressor of Israel.
Although we have no further explanation of the mode
in which they were subjected to tribute on the three
next occasions, by the Moabites and Midianites from the
other side Jordan, and between the two by the Northern
Canaanites, their aggressions must necessarily have had
some connexion with the Assyrian domination, and,
even if not directly instigated by that power, they must
have been acquiesced in, and liberally paid for, by "the
king of kings." There is no other way of accounting
for the historical fact transmitted to us.
The maxim,
"divide et impera" is so congenial to the feelings of
all tyrants and autocrats, that we may be sure Semi-
ramis was not displeased to see the old races make head
again against the new intruders. Her successors were
obliged, nevertheless, to strain every nerve to subdue
merely the northern portion of the realm of Israel, when
the people at length resolved to establish a monarchical
U 3
294
[Book IV. PART III.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
form of government, as a means of deliverance from their
state of disunion as tribes and from sacerdotal rule.
Between the supremacy of Midian and the ascendency
of the Philistines, which Samson struggled against with
heroic courage, but which was not overthrown till the
time of Saul and David, the judicature of Gideon inter-
vened. This, with the 3 years of his son, the tyrant of
Sichem, we suppose to have lasted 13 years. He was
succeeded by the series of Judges in Israel from Tola to
Abdon, the well authenticated length of whose judica-
ture was 48 years.
Ewald has ingeniously shown that the Philistines
must during that period have received reinforcements
from the islands of the Mediterranean, especially Cyprus
and Crete (Kaphthor and Kittim), to have enabled
them to acquire such an ascendency. These troops
who returned from foreign service were probably the
class of body-guards or Swiss mercenaries of the king
of Assyria, the so-called Krethi and Pelethi, that is,
Cretans and Philistines.
In a word, we have here an intelligible history in a
suitable period, instead of an unintelligible chaos during
a period devoid of all historical facts. Instead of an
isolated narrative wholly at variance with the real his-
tory of Asia and Egypt, and which, in spite of the
inexhaustible, because unfounded, devices of theo-
logians, can never be made to harmonize with it, we
have an organic connexion which removes the possibility
of any doubt as to its reality.
IV. THE YEARS OF SAUL AND David.
We propose in conclusion to say a few words upon
WE
the chronology we have adopted for the reigns of Saul
and David. From the time that the monarchy was
established we have specific strictly historical dates.
When a consciousness of constitutional unity is felt,
SECT. I. B. IV.] YEARS OF SAUL AND DAVID.
295
the conception of a regular progression in time is
evinced, which, in the purely prophetical form of the
earlier portions of the Bible narratives, is thrown into
the background.
At first sight it certainly seems as if no date were
assigned to the reign of Saul.
The only passage in which it is mentioned proves in-
deed that it once was known. But it is so unintel-
ligible that it is omitted in the Alexandrian version
altogether. Theological expositors and translators have
been contented with mistranslating it.
It is the 1st verse of the 13th chapter of the First
Book of Samuel. The following is De Wette's transla-
tion of it, the hiatus in the text at the beginning being
marked by asterisks :
(6 * * * years old was Saul when he became
king, and two years he reigned over Israel."
This honest translation, however, leaves us in the
dark, as does De Wette himself in his "Archæology,"
where he arbitrarily makes him 40 years old. The
older translators rendered it, "Child (son) of one year
was Saul." It is hard to say here whether it was more
foolish to make Scripture speak of a child-king of a
year old, or to make their fanciful child, by way of
being sentimental, as "innocent as a babe of a year
old."
Others again, who, like Meyer, connect the above
words with those which follow and translate and inter-
pret them in this way,
"Saul reigned one year, and when he had reigned
two years over Israel (he chose him three thousand
men of Israel, &c.),"
are doubly culpable, for they know, or ought to know,
that the former words can only refer to Saul's age when
he began to reign.
U 4
296
[BOOK IV. PART III.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
This must have been 40, and may very well have
been 50. For, as was mentioned in the First Book,
when he died his son Isboseth was 40 (2 Sam. ii. 10.);
if then he reigned but 20 years, he must have been at
least 18 at his accession, for we are not told that Isbo-
seth was his eldest child. A still stronger argument
in favour of this view is the circumstance of Saul im-
mediately upon his accession giving his son Jonathan
the supreme command over a considerable body of
troops. Josephus, however, tells us that he reigned
20 years, 18 of which were in the lifetime of Samuel
(Antt. vi. 13. 5.; conf. 14. 9.). Most commentators
have adopted this date, Ewald among the rest.
But it would seem as if this enigmatical verse might
help us to a closer computation. Undoubtedly there
are two numbers lost, and, therefore, according to the
old system of notation, two letters. The easiest way of
explaining this is by supposing the numerals which are
wanting to be the same letters as the last of the preceding
word. In that case the first would be an N, i. e. 50
(the preceding word being BEN, son, child); the second
a K, i. e. twenty. The text has, BEMOLKO USTÊ, i. e.
"when he became king, and two.” We suppose there-
fore that it ran: BEMOLKO K USTÊ or BEMOLKO VK USTÊ,
i. e. "when he became king, K (20) and two," or,
"when he became king, and K and two."
The restoration would then be as follows:
66
Fifty years old was Saul when he began to reign,
and two and twenty years he reigned over Israel." 148
It is unnecessary to go into much detail as to the
148 Upon the grammatical question as to the use of Sanah (year)
in the first part of the verse in the singular, and Sanim (years) in
the second in the plural number, compare the exactly similar pas-
sage in Gen. xii. 4. (Gesenius, Lehrgeb. p. 699.)
SECT. I. B. V.] UNCHRONOLOGICAL STATEMENTS.
297
*
length of David's reign. It is stated expressly (2 Sam.
v. 4, 5.)
"David was thirty years old when he began to
reign, and he reigned forty years.
In Hebron he
reigned over Judah seven years and six months, and
in Jerusalem he reigned thirty and three years over
Israel and Judah." (Conf. 1 Kings ii. 11.)
Following in this instance the ordinary rule, which
was doubtless pursued in the chronological tables of the
Jews, that of computing the year which had commenced
to the king who came to the throne, we cannot with
any propriety pass over the six months, but must make
David reign 41 years, and his son Solomon 39. At pre-
sent they are each made to reign 40, a consequence of
the epical system which prevails in the connected nar-
rative. But the above passage gives us a clue to the
original strictly chronological date, which we must
adopt in our tables. This is the only process in accor-
dance with the spirit of the historical tradition trans-
mitted to us. For all the following dates are strictly his-
torical. The turning-point, however, is not the division
of the kingdoms. The tendency of this was rather to
destroy the feeling of unity as regarded life, and conse-
quently also as regarded time. The real turning-point
is the introduction of monarchical government, as being
the symbol and warranty of that consciousness.
V. EXPLANATION OF THE ORIGIN OF UNCHRONOLOGICAL STATEMENTS.
WE are enabled so far to fill up the outline which
has been traced out for us through general history,
for the time of the Judges and the whole period from
the Exodus down to the Building of the Temple, so as
to bring into account each of the historical dates which
have been transmitted to us.
298
[BOOK IV. PART III.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
With this fact before him an historian assuredly can-
not agree with the theologians, who set a higher value
upon a systematic narrative worked up out of records.
and living popular traditions, than they do upon the
original records themselves. Such a procedure is at
variance with all the fundamental principles of his-
torical criticism. But apart from this circumstance,
which has little or rather no weight with them, we will
simply state that the general history, which is esta-
blished upon irrefragable testimony and monuments
which cannot be misunderstood, can find no space for 400,
440, or 480 years, still less for the 592 or 600 and odd
years for which there is apparently far better warranty.
By persisting, therefore, in their present system, they
will make a broader distinction than has hitherto been
done between the history of revelation and general
history, between faith in it and reason and the con-
sciousness of truth. This is a consideration which we
must leave them to deal with for themselves.
We
The result, however, at which we have arrived will
not allow us to agree with the modern mythagogues
and dreamers about cyclical numbers, who see ghosts
in broad daylight, and had rather give up all historical
reality in despair than take the trouble of eliminating
it from the admixture of unhistorical traditions.
may with equal confidence assert that no such terrible
confusion prevails, that the historical reality which is
covered with a very thin veil is easily unmasked, and
that the Sacred Records furnish ready to our hands the
most precious clues and resting-places in making such
a restoration.
We know of no ancient tradition, of a similar kind,
which has preserved with so much fidelity the records
at its disposal, at the very points where the living tra-
ditions of several generations or centuries had led to a
totally different version, different combination, and dif
ferent representation.
SECT. I. B. V.] UNCHRONOLOGICAL STATEMENTS.
299
One thing, however, we may fairly be called upon to
account for by our researches. If the case be such as
it is represented, we are bound to show how the author
or authors of the systematic narrative of the above.
events happened to arrive at that precise representation
of them with which we are dealing.
I think the best way of meeting this demand, in
furtherance of the purpose of this Book, will be to lay
before our readers, in a summary manner, the simple
idea which, with all its child-like simplicity, is truly
sublime and epical. It will then be obvious to any
unprejudiced mind, that what has been hitherto called
ancient chronology is, even in this domain, merely an
illegitimate combination of historical and unhistorical
data; a combination which at once spoils and destroys
both history and poetry, and which deviates more and
more from the truth in proportion as the process to
which it is submitted is of a more fundamental and
logical character.
The view upon which the connected narrative pro-
ceeds, in the history between the Exodus and the Build-
ing of the Temple, appears at once in the title of the
historical books, "the earlier Prophets" as contrasted
with "the later Prophets," that is, those who have re-
corded their prophecies in books. It is the indications
and proofs of the direct operation of the Spirit of God
on the minds of enlightened seers which it was the in-
tention to point out and to have recognised as existing
in very early times. The aim and purpose of its authors
was not to make a compilation of the dry annalistic
entries of ordinary external events. Their object was to
bring into notice the guidance of the people of God from
generation to generation, and that, too, with a confident
feeling that these evidences of the power of the Spirit
would be intelligible to all men, because they are
grounded in the inmost nature of man and the eternal
moral government of the world. This spirit manifests
*
300
[BOOK IV. PART III.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
itself also in their popular songs, legends, and traditions,
and the narrators made a free use of every trace of
this popular spirit, in incorporating it into their descrip-
tions. Hence, as might be expected, there sprang up
an Epos, which was an intermediate step between Mythos
and strict history. It exhibits no trace of the influence
of those mythological fictions which give historical form
to the idea of the relation between the Divine and
human. It is this which marks its superiority to every
heathen Epos, not excepting even altogether the Hellenic.
Its basis is historical, exclusively historical; the shape
in which it is composed is strictly popular epic, by gene-
rations of forty years. Moses, for instance, the great
man of God, is, at the beginning of the Epos, when he
receives the divine call and enters on his sacred office
as leader and saviour of the people, exactly 80 years old
(twice 40) (Ex. vii. 7.).
Towards the end of the period Eli ruled 40 years, the
next 40 are divided between Samuel and Saul; after
that there are the 40 years of David, and then the 40
of Solomon.
Such a synopsis of the data in the connected narrative
gives us a representation of twelve generations computed
regularly by forties or twice twenties. The historical
dates in the authentic traditions remain as they are
wholly unaffected by it.
We have not twelve heroes, twelve older prophets,
but an unbroken succession of prophets, that is, men
of the spirit, in twelve generations, in twelve cantos as
it were, or twelve sections.
Again we have 12 times 40, or 480 years, represent-
ing the period down to the building of Solomon's temple,
the three additional years in which, between it and the
death of David, will not create any difficulty. We shall
also see at once how 440 might have been made out
of it.
SECT. I. B. V.] UNCHRONOLOGICAL STATEMENTS.
301
The Leaders of the People of God in the Twelve Generations of the
Men of the Spirit in Israel, from Moses to David.
MOSES.
The Exodus and Journeyings
in the Wilderness, 40 years,
I.
II.
or into the 41st year.
(Num. xxxiii. 38.)
(The Books of Moses.)
JOSHUA.
Conquest of Canaan
by Joshua. .25 yrs.
under Caleb
and others. 18
(The Book of Joshua, and
the first two chapters of
Judges, which also repcat
the death of Joshua.)
HOTHNIEL.
III. The Mesopotamian and his
defeat
(Judges, iii. 11.)
Years.
GIDEON.
40 VII. Deliverance from Midian.
(viii. 28).
40
43
TOLA'H,
23 years.
(40)|| VIII.
YIPHTHAH.
YAIR,
22 years.
|(40)
6 years.
(In all 51 years.)
ELON,
10 years.
ABDON,
8 years.
IBZAN,
7 years.
40
IX.
Altogether
•
SAMSON
25 years (40)
•
•
20
(xv. 20.; xvi. 31.)
Close of the Book of Judges.
ELI,
IV.
EHUD.
Defeat of Moab.
40
X.
the High-Priest.
40
80 years."
(iii. 30.)
V
EHUD.
Moab at rest.
The first real hero is Samgar,
then a woman, Deborah, who 40
XI.
delivered them from the oppres-
sion of the kings of North Ca-
naan.
DEBORAH
BARAK
and
VI.
of Ephraim of Naphthali.
Conquest of North Canaan.
(1 Sam. iii. 19.)
SAMUEL,
the High-Priest and Seer.
(1 Sam. vii. 15.; vi. 1.;
vii. 2.; viii. 1.)
The first king, “20 years
(1 Sam. xiii. 1.)
DAVID,
the King and Psalmist.
"20 years
SAUL.
40
(v. 31.)
40
XII.
"40 years, 6 months."
Sam. v. 4, 5.)
2
40
"40 years." (1 Kings, ii.
11.)
No one can say that our arrangement is an arbitrary
one, or that the recurrence of 40 years can be ascribed
Years.

302
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [BOOK IV. PART III.
to accident. In the case of nine generations we have
the number 40 in the text of the narrative (although,
as we have seen, it is at variance with the historical dates
of the records). For the generation of Joshua Scripture
tradition gives no date at all. The historical dates
transmitted by Josephus state it at 43. Those for the
eighth generation make 51, for the following one 25 +20
or 45.
According to this, the only great personage to repre-
sent two generations was Ehud. The Epic compiler
evidently meant to include Samgar in the second. He
is introduced, without any further notice, after Ehud,
who is spoken of in Deborah's song of praise, as the last
man of God, and Judge before her; then comes Deborah
herself, their deliverer from the yoke of North Canaan.
The writer, however, who introduced Ehud only, may
have thought it more advisable to make the whole con-
sist of 11 generations instead of 12. In that case his
number would have been 440 instead of 480 years.
But the 480 years, mentioned in the Hebrew text as
the date from the Exodus to the Building of the Temple,
necessarily grow into 591, if they are to be considered
historical, when the sum total of the years of foreign
supremacy is added to them.
is added to them. These comprise, as ap-
pears by the table in our First Book, 111 years.
But where do the 592 come from, which are adopted
by most of the old chronologers?
It can hardly be accidental that they are only just one
year more than the above sum total; which one year is
easily explained. Samson (Judges iii. 31.) has no date
assigned to him: but still he must have had one year,
and that one is really credited to him.
Proceeding on this principle, Julius Africanus made.
the numbers up to 722 years. What was there, indeed,
to prevent him ?
SECT. I. B.]
303
DIVIDED KINGDOM.
B.
THE COMPUTATION OF THE PERIOD FROM THE BUILDING OF
SOLOMON'S TEMPLE TO ITS DESTRUCTION BY NEBUCHAD-
NEZZAR, OR THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS OF THE
DIVIDED KINGDOM.
INTRODUCTION.
THE CHRONOLOGICAL DIFFICULTIES, AND THE ATTEMPTS AT SOLVING
THEM.
THE task which the old synchronists had here to perform
was difficult enough in itself. Theological prejudices
and rabbinical dishonesty rendered the difficulty in-
superable. But the record itself, which has nothing to
do with these impediments, has furnished the means of
solving it.
In the succession of kings of the divided kingdom
there was one great fixed point, the destruction of Sa-
maria and the northern kingdom in the ninth year of
Hosea, the last king of Israel. This is so specifically
and so repeatedly stated as being the sixth year of
Hezekiah, king of Judah, that no doubt could be thrown
on this synchronism. Equally little doubt was there as
to the starting-point, the year after Solomon's death.
For the first year of Jeroboam must also be the first
year of Rehoboam, according to the historical narrative.
There was rebellion instead of bondage. This is ex-
pressly stated in computing the dates of the first kings.
What could the interpreters and synchronists do?
The sum total of the regnal years of the kings of Judah
is 260, whereas the dates of the kings of Israel as cer-
tainly amounted only to 241 years, 7 months, and 7
days. After several abortive attempts, a very ques-
tionable plan was at last adopted for getting over the
304
[BOOK IV. PART III.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
difficulty. The existence of a double interregnum in
the northern kingdom was assumed as one of 11 years
after the death of Jeroboam, and one of 9 years prior to
Hosea's reign. Apart from the gratuitous character of
this assumption, the history renders such a fabrication
of two historical epochs wholly inadmissible. Accord-
ing to the clear words of the narrative, Jeroboam II. was
succeeded by his own son Zachariah. Shortly after
his accession we hear of disturbances, but none at all
prior to that event. Had any such taken place, could
they fail to be noticed? Sallum, the murderer of Za-
chariah, is mentioned as having reigned one month;
how then could there possibly have been an interregnum
of 10 years, before the seven-months' reign of Zachariah,
without its being recorded also?
Thus much as to the first supposititious interregnum.
How stands the case with the second, after the death of
Deborah ?
Hosea slew King Pekah, but neither one, nor even
several, adventurers, who usurped the throne after his
death. A conspirator either seizes the throne imme-
diately after he has murdered the king, or not at all.
If the above interregnum of 10 years existed, the whole
account of this act of Hosea must be rejected as untrue.
For, as it was successful, Hosea must have become king
directly after the murder, or a struggle must have
ensued with some third person. But such a third per-
son or persons must first be discovered, their existence
being entirely unknown both to history and historical
criticism.
It can only be attributable to the insinuating language
in which De Vignoles has couched his argument, and
to his dexterity in glossing over facts, that has induced
even De Wette to acquiesce in such a solution. Ewald
has the merit of having severely denounced so uncritical
a mode of dealing with the subject. He argues that
Omri, who is said to have reigned twelve years, would
SECT. I. B.]
305
DIVIDED KINGDOM.
seem to have reigned sixteen; for it appears from the
computations of the narrator that the struggle with the
rival king, Tibni, lasted four years, to which the twelve
of Omri are to be added (1 Kings xvi. 15.; comp. 23.).
It must be admitted that there is no other way of ex-
plaining the parallel years of reign of the kings of Israel
and Judah which follow immediately after. But then
another question arises, whether this parallelism is cor-
rectly made. It does not agree with others which come
after. There are so many contradictions, and so much
confusion in the MSS. in respect to those parallelisms,
the origin of which has been well explained by Ewald
as arising from the existence of different comparisons of
the regnal years of the kings of Judah and Israel, made
at an earlier date, that the above question is not only
justifiable, but one which must be entertained. But it
turns out that Ewald himself is obliged to propose
several considerable alterations, in order to make the
computations of the period harmonize-and these of a
very
serious kind. There can be no doubt that the nar-
rator had not the records themselves before him, merely
retrospective Jewish and retrospective Israelitish chrono-
logical tables and extracts. Several circumstances seem
to indicate that the dates in these lists were not written
in words, but in letters, according to the numerical
value they had in early times. The point for critical
consideration therefore is, precisely as in the case of
Manetho's chronological tables, whether the alterations
proposed are trivial or serious, probable or improbable.
A Samekh, for instance (D, 60), may easily have been
mistaken for a Mem (2, 40), as they are difficult to
distinguish, and easily confounded. But it is not pro-
bable that a Mem (40) should have been made into a
Lamed and Têt (, 39); although there is only a dif
ference of one between them. But moreover, if such
alterations are necessary, a further strong doubt is
raised as to whether the course pursued is the right
VOL. III.
X
306
[BOOK IV. PART III.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
one.
I have therefore endeavoured to find a more simple
solution. In order to explain the origin of the confusion
which now prevails in the Books of Kings, and which,
indeed, has been admitted by most of the Christian
rabbis of our days, we must take two circumstances
into consideration. In the first place, it is always
hazardous to compute the length of a reign by whole
years, unless it be accompanied by a notation of the
year, month, and day any king came to the throne, and
when he ceased to reign, which notation would give the
exact length of the reign. Otherwise the notation of a
given year by the name of a king is very incomplete,
and may easily become the source of error, and espe-
cially so if the regnal year of a king of one country be
compared with that of another contemporary king.
But, in the second place, as we shall shortly see, it turns
out that the parallel in the kingdom of Israel was very
early one year in advance, which in process of time,
owing to the inaccuracy continuing, grew into two years.
Supposing a king of Judah to have come to the throne
in the eleventh month of any given year, and his con-
temporary of the kingdom of Israel in the first month
of the third previous year, in what way is the parallel
notation of reigns to be made? If by the current years,
that is one mode of computation; if by the date of the
actual reign, that is another mode. They are both
comparisons, and both equally warranted; but, by mixing
the two together, terrible confusion arises.
The main point, however, to be borne in mind is, that
the so-called historical books of Scripture do not profess
to give any history whatever in the ordinary sense.
They have so little concern with kings as such, that the
epic formula is constantly repeated: "Now the rest of
the acts, &c., and all that he did, are they not written
in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah!"
That is to say, "Any body who wishes to know these
may read the chronicles; but they have very little
SECT. I. B. I.]
307
DIVIDED KINGDOM.
interest for us; our duty being briefly to record the
words of the men of God and the dealings of God, the
true King, with His people." The ordinary view taken
of these books is a false one, and so is the title given
them, "historical books," by which the narratives from
Joshua to Solomon are known. They are called col-
lectively "the earlier prophets," in order to distinguish
them from the men of God whose writings only date
from after the reign of Solomon.
We will cite but a single instance of incorrect copy-
ing, an ancient one already noticed, that of Mem in-
stead of Samekh, 40 instead of 60. Jeroboam did not
reign forty-one, but sixty-one years. By this alteration
the history of the time, as well as the chronology, is at
last put upon a right footing.
Generally speaking, however, owing to the manifest
contradictions in the comparative computations, we may
make what is a very natural assumption, that the Jewish
compiler was better acquainted with the history and
chronicles of his own kingdom than with those of the
northern kingdom.
The following tabular view is intended to place the
reader in a position to form an independent opinion for
himself.
I. COMPARATIVE LISTS OF KINGS FROM REHOBOAM TO THE DEATH OF
AHAZIAH, AND FROM JEROBOAM TO THE DEATH OF JEHORAM.
JEHU, the bold mutineer, slew Jehoram, the son
of Ahab, and at the same time Ahaziah, the king of
Judah, his relative and ally, who was on a visit to Je-
horam. It seems as if the two sovereigns were slain
on the same day. At all events, their deaths must have
taken place in the same year, the one preceding the
reign of Jehu over Israel.
Here, then, we have a chronological break, and a
resting-place in the adjustment of the chronology as well
as the history.
x 2
308
[BOOK IV. PART III.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
KINGDOM OF JUDAH.
Solomon
Chronol.
B. C.
Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, begins to reign,
"41 years old; reigned 17 years." (1 Kings
xiv. 21.)
1st year. Revolt of the ten tribes
1
978
5th Conquest of Jerusalem by Sheshonk
5
974
17th
†
17
962
""
""
Abijam, the son of Rehoboam, begins to reign,
"In the 18th year of Jeroboam; reigned 3
years." (xv. 1.) (Here comes the question,
whether the 18th year is the year of the new
chronology, from the death of Solomon? or
from the actual accession of Jeroboam? whe-
ther months are reckoned or only days? (See
the 21st year of Jeroboam)
1st year
3rd,
† -
2228
18
961
20
959
Asa, the son of Abijam, begins to reign, "In the
20th year of Jeroboam; reigned 41 years."
(xv. 9.)
1st year
2nd (comp. Jerob. 21. 22.)
3rd
4th
5th
""
""
""
دو
Probably in the 13th year (in which Osor-
kon died). War with Serach (see sequel).
15th year. Restoration of the service of the
Lord, soon after the war. (2 Chron. xv.
10.)
25th year. End of the, peace. (2 Chron.
21
958
22
957
23
956
24
955
25
954
35
1
xv. 19., 5 instead of 15)-
45
934
26th year. War with Baasha,
War with Baasha,
instead of
(26 instead of 36). (2 Chron. xvi. 1.)
27th year. (Zimri, king 7 days.) (1 Kings
46
933
xvi. 15.)
47
932
28th year
48
931
SECT. I. B. I.]
309
DIVIDED KINGDOM.
KINGDOM OF ISRAEL.
† 979.
Difference
from
Judah.
'Real
Year.
Jeroboam, King of Israel, "Reigned 22 years."
(1 Kings xiv. 20)
1st year. Declaration of Independence
18th year. Abijam begins to reign in Judah
(xv. 1.)
978
961
(Hitherto the two calculations tally: see
Abijam.)
20th year (last year of Abijam)
21st First year of Asa
959
958
""
But according to 1 Kings xv. 9., 958 is
the 20th year of Jeroboam (see Abijam);
the error here is entirely on the part of the
Jewish comparison of the years of Israel.
22nd year †
Nadab, his son, "In the 2nd year of Asa,
reigned 2 years." (xv. 25.) 956 is Asa's 3rd
year: consequently the computation of the
kings of Israel is in arrear
1st year (corresponding with the 3rd of Asa)
2nd †. Slain by Baasha, “in the 3rd year
of Asa." (xv. 28.)
""
It should be "in the 4th year:
year in arrear
957
956
955
" still one
1
The house of Jeroboam is destroyed by
Baasha, the son of Ahijah, of the house of
Issachar.
(The House of Baasha.)
Baasha, son of Ahijah, "in the 3rd year of Asa,
24 years." (xv. 23.) The year after
Nadab's death must be 954-5th year of Asa,
consequently -
From this point down to Omri, inclu-
sive, and again, subsequently, a new record
is used, which is comprised throughout in
the naked form of a chronological table.
The word "reigned" is omitted.
24th year. † (According to what precedes
and follows, considered as the 25th year of
Asa 934), consequently
Elah, the son of Baasha, "in the 26th year of
Asa.... 2 years." (xvi. 8.) This would give
933, but as it must be 931 (28th year) conse-
quently:
1st year
1-2 954
-2 932
-2 931
*
ترد
x 3
310
[BOOK IV. PART III.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
KINGDOM OF JUDAH.
Asa-continued.
29th
31st
دو
""
33rd ""
34th year
38th
>>
40th
41st
>>
""
t
·
·
.
Jehoshaphat, son of Asa, begins to reign, 35
years old "in the 4th year of Ahab; reigned
25 years." (xxii. 41.)
1
Chronol. B. C.
49
930
51
928
53
926
54
925
58
921
28
60
919
61
918
1st year (corresponding to the 2nd year of
Ahab)
62
917
17th year
78
901
18th
79
900
>>
25th
86
""
893
SECT. I. B. I.]
311
DIVIDED KINGDOM.
KINGDOM OF ISRAEL.
Difference
from
Real
Year.
Judah.
Elah-continued.
""
2nd †. Slain by Zimri, who is himself slain
7 days afterwards by Omri (xvi. 15—22),
who calculates this as his own 1st year.
(The house of Omri.)
Omri, "in the 31st year of Asa .... 12 years,
6 years in Tirzah and 6 in Samaria." (xvi.
23.) According to the above, this year must
be called the 27th, consequently there has been
a leap of 4 years, and the chronology, instead
of being two years in advance, is therefore
2 years in arrear. The chronology here
adopted as the basis assumes 4 years for the
time of the struggle with Tibni, the rival king
(xvi. 21.), as not being included in the above
12 years. But the very specific nature of this
date of 12 years, with the additional remark
that half of it belongs to Samaria, of itself
makes this highly improbable. But what settles
the question is the fact that in that case the
last year of Jehoram, king of Israel, and of
Ahaziah, king of Judah, would have an interval
of 4 years between them, whereas they must have
died in the same year, indeed on the same day.
1st year (instead of 31st year of Asa)
(928)=29, or B. C., 930
-
7th year (removal of seat of government to
Samaria)
12th year, † (corresponding to the last but
one, or 40th year of Asa)
Ahab, the son of Omri, begins to reign; 1st year
"in the thirty and eighth year of Asa, reigned
<<
twenty and two years." (1 Kings xvi. 29.)
It should be "in the 41st year of Asa." The
computation is therefore again in arrear, not 2
but 3 years.
1st year
4th
""
+2
930
1
921
919
*
3
918
915
""
21st War with Damascus, in which Je-
hoshaphat is his ally
898
897
896
22nd year, †. Falls in the battle against the
king of Syria
Ahaziah, son of Ahab, begins to reign. 1st year
"in the 17th year of Jehoshaphat, and reigned
2 years." (xxii. 51.) This 17th year corre-
sponds with our 901. Consequently
2nd year
6
895
x 4
312
[BOOK IV. PART. III.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
KINGDOM OF JUDAH.
Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat, begins to reign.
"in the 5th year of Joram, the son of Ahab."
(xxii. 5.) "32 years old was he when he began
to reign, and he reigned 8 years." (2 Kings
viii. 16, 17.) Son-in-law of Ahab (viii. 18.),
and consequently brother-in-law of Ahaziah,
king of Israel.
5th year of Joram, king of Israel 890, con-
sequently two years too little.
1st year
2nd
""
8th 十一
​""
Ahaziah, son of Jehoram, begins to reign "in
the 12th year of Joram, king of Israel." (viii.
25.) "Two and twenty years old was he
when he began to reign, and he reigned one
year." (ver. 26.)
12th year of Joram, king of Israel 883, again
two years too little.
Chronol.
B. C.
87
892
88
891
94
885
1st year
95
884
At the beginning of the 2nd year, the 1st of
Athaliah, he is slain by Jehu
96
883
-
II. SUCCESSION OF KINGS FROM THE ACCESSION OF
Athaliah, mother of Ahaziah who was slain
by Jehu, widow of Jehoram, and daughter of
Omri, king of Israel, destroys all the royal seed
of the house of Judah, but Joash, the king's
son, is saved by the High Priest, and concealed
six years, during which she reigns. (xi. 3.)
This, therefore, explains these six years, being
reckoned from the day of the death of Ahaziah,
who only reigned one year, and died at the
beginning of the year 883.
1st year
6th
""
Joash, son of Ahaziah, is chosen king, "in the
7th year" (xi. 4); consequently "he was 7
years old when he began to reign, in the 7th
year of Jehu, and reigned 40 years." (xii. 1.)
1st year
""
Chronol. B. C.
96
883
101
878
102
877
124 855
138
841
40th,, †. Slain by his own servants (xii.
141
838
23rd
37th
""
SECT. I. B. II.]
313
DIVIDED KINGDOM.
KINGDOM OF ISRAEL.
Difference!
from
Judah.
Real
Year.
Joram, the son of Ahab (2 Kings iii. 1.; comp.
viii. 16.), consequently the younger brother of
Ahaziah, begins to reign "in the second year
of Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat" (2 Kings
i. 17.), "in the 18th year of Jehoshaphat, reigned
12 years." (iii. 1.) Here we have two state-
ments positively contradicting each other. One
corresponds to the year 891 (consequently +3),
the other to 900 (consequently -6). There-
fore
1st year
5th
""
12th,,
†. Wounded at the battle of Ra-
moth, against the king of Syria, receives a
visit from Ahaziah, king of Judah.
Jehu,
at the suggestion of Elisha, causes a revolt,
slays Joram with his own hand, and
causes Ahaziah, king of Judah, to be put
to death. Here, therefore, there is a syn-
chronism to a day
+3
894
890
883
JEHU TO THE FALL OF THE KINGDOM OF ISRAEL.
(The House of Jehu.)
Jehu begins to reign, reckoning from the year
after the murder of Joram (in 883).
66
Reigned 28 years." (x. 36.)
1st year
Difference Real
from
Judah.
Year.
882
28th year †
1
1
1
Jehoahaz, son of Jehu, begins to reign, "in
the 23rd year of Joash, king of Judah (855),
and "reigned 17 years." (xiii. 1.)
The comparison is only one year behind, con-
sequently
1st year
17th,, t-
855
854
838
$
314
WEST ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. PART III.
KINGDOM OF JUDAH.
Amaziah, son of Joash, begins to reign "in the
second year of Joash, son of Jehoahaz, king of
Israel: he was 25 years old when he began to
reign, and reigned 29 years." (xiv. 1, 2.)
2nd year of Joash, king of Israel
contradictory.
1st year
836, is not
Uncertain when, Amaziah slew the Edomites in the
Valley of Salt, and destroyed Salah (Petra), which
he called Joqthêl (vanquished by God). (xiv. 7.)
Elated by this he challenged Joash, king of Israel,
to combat: he was defeated and taken prisoner,
Jerusalem burnt and razed. (xiv. 11—14.) Still
he left the kingdom to his son, evidently not in a
very bad condition; hence this misfortune must
have happened early, at all events before the death
of Joash.
16th year (= to the year that Joash died).
"Lived after the death of Jehoash, king
of Israel, 15 years." (xiv. 17.) In reality
14 years. As before, there is again a dis-
crepancy of only one year.
17th year
29th
">
t
Uzziah (called also Azariah), the son of Ama-
ziah, "in the 27th year of Jeroboam :
""
(Here 10 lost years are restored from
below, as in the succeeding comparison:
27 should be 17.)
"was 16 years old, and reigned 52 years." (xv.
Chronol. B. C.
142
837
157
822
158
821
170
809
1, 2.)
1st year (aged 16)
171
808
28th
""
(aged 43)
198
781
38th
208
771.
""
وو
48th (aged 63). The year of Jeroboam's
death
218
761
49th,, (year of Zachariah's reign)
219
760
52nd, † (aged 67 = 3rd year of Menahem)
757
SECT. I. B. II.]
315
DIVIDED KINGDOM.
KINGDOM OF ISRAEL.
Difference
Real
from
Year.
Judah,
Jehoash, son of Jehoahaz, begins to reign, "in
the 37th year of Joash, king of Judah.... 16
years." (xiii. 10.)
The above year is 841, consequently the com-
parison is 4 years behind
-4
Ewald reads "in the 39th year," as does the
Aldine version of the Septuagint (839), which
would, therefore give -2.
1st year
16th,, t
Jeroboam II., son of Joash, begins to reign "in
the 15th year of Amaziah, king of Judah
41 years." (xiv. 23.) Instead of 41 (N) read
61 (D) (see Introduction).
1st year (17 instead of 15, consequently a
difference of 2 years)
837
822
+2
821
13th year of Jeroboam (= 14 years after the
death of Joash)
14th year of Jeroboam (=1st year of Uzziah)
| |
809
808
| |
781
761
>>
760
41st year (stated to be last year) -
61st (48th year of Uzziah)
""
Zachariah, son of Jeroboam, began to reign.
"in the 38th year of Azariah, king of Judah
(Uzziah) (xv. 8.), "reigned 6 months"
:
(Here there is manifestly a recovery of 10
or 20 years that were lost the 38th year
of Uzziah is=771. Difference, 11 years.)
Then Sallum, his murderer, "1 month, in the
39th year of Uzziah: " reducing the years that
are wanting by 1. (xv. 13.)
(The House of Menahem.)
Menahem, from Tirzah, succeeds "in the 39th
year of Azariah, reigned 10 years." (xv. 16, 17.)
1st year
10th,,
十一
​759
750
316
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [BooK IV. PART III.
KINGDOM OF Judah.
Chronol.
B. C.
Jotham, the son of Uzziah, begins to reign "in
the 2nd year of Pekah, the son of Remaliah,
25 years old, reigned 16 years.” (xv. 32, 33.)
1st year (instead of 746, 10 or 11 years dif-
ference)-
16th year †
Ahaz, the son of Jotham, king "in the 17th
year of Pekah, 20 years old, reigned 16 years.”
(xvi. 1.)
The 17th year of Pekah is 731.
1st year (instead of 731, 9 or 10 years in ad-
vance
12th year
16th,, †
-
Hezekiah, son of Ahaz, begins to reign "in the
11
756
741
740
729
725
3rd year of Hosea." (xviii. 1.)
25 years
old, and reigned 29 years." (ver. 2.)
Here the chronology agrees exactly to a year.
1st year (corresponding to 4th year of Hosea)
724
2nd
3rd
""
""
5th
6th
723
""
""
722
دو
""
4th
""
""
"seventh year of Ho-
721
720
sea.") (xviii. 9.) Agrees exactly
5th year, (corresponding to 8th year of Hosea)
"ninth year of Ho-
sea" (xviii. 10.); the year that Samaria
was taken)
6th
After a good deal of confusion, therefore,
the two chronologies again harmonize, in
the year of the siege and capture of Sama-
ria, which forms an epoch in the history.
In the year before the accession of Heze-
kiah, the Jewish comparison of the regnal
years of the kings of Israel is still in arrear
the 10 years which were lost in the reign of
Jeroboam II., from below? (The other half
of the 20 years had been brought in above?)
In the following year, the accession of He-
zekiah, the calculation is only one year be-
hind (just as it was at a very early stage).
But in the 4th and 6th years of Heze-
kiah's reign the comparison is perfectly
right.
719
SECT. I. B. II]
317
DIVIDED KINGDOM.
KINGDOM OF ISRAEL.
Difference
from
Real
Year.
Judah.
Pekahiah, son of Menahem: "in the 50th year
of Azariah, reigned 2 years." (xv. 23.)
1st year
""
2nd †. Slain by Pekah, captain of the
guard. (xv. 25.)
The House of Menahemn destroyed.
Pekah, "in the 52nd year of Azariah, reigned.
20 years." (xv. 25.) The 52nd year of Uzziah
is 757.
1st year
17th
""
20th †. Murdered by Hosea -
""
Hosea, the murderer of Pekah, begins to reign
"in the 12th year of Ahaz" (xvii. 1.), i. e. in
the year 729: consequently 2 years in arrear.
1st year (acc. to former calculation 729)
2nd
">
""
4th
""
""
5th
""
""
6th
""
19
7th
(
""
""
727)
726)
725)
""
724)
723)=6th
year of Hezekiah, but according to xviii. 9.
4th year of Hezekiah
Salmanassar attacks Hosea, and makes him
pay tribute (xvii. 3).
Hosea makes an alliance with Pharaoh
Sevekh (So, properly Sva') (xvii. 4.). Be-
ginning of the siege of Samaria, which
lasted 3 years (xvii. 5.).
8th year, second of the siege
9th
third
Samaria is taken, and the people carried
away to Assyria and Media (xvii. 6.).
749
748
747
731
728
727
725
724
723
722
721
720
719
YA
318
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [BOOK IV. PART III.
III. CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS OF JUDAH FROM THE YEAR
AFTER THE DESTRUCTION OF SAMARIA TO THE YEAR OF THE
DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM.
Hezekiah:
7th year, or the year after the destruction of
Samaria
29th year †
Manasseh, the son of Hezekiah, aged 12 years,
reigned 55 (xx. 21.—xxi. 1.):
1st year
55th,,
+
Amon, son of Manasseh, aged 22, reigned 2 years
(xxi. 19.):
- 719
-
- 696
- 695
641
1st year
2nd †
""
Josiah, son of Amon, 8 years old, reigned 31
(xxii. 1.):
1st year
99
·
• 640
·
· 639
years
638
31st † at the battle of Megiddo (xxiii. 29.) 608
Jehoiakim (whose name previously was Eliakim),
younger son of Josiah, made king instead
of his father by Necho, aged 25 years,
reigned 11 (xxiii. 36):
1st year
3rd
-
607
Battle of Karchemish (last year of
Nabopolassar, comp. Jer. xxv. 1., xlvi. 2.).
Jehoiakim pays tribute
4th year 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar
=
11th deposed
92
Jehoiakin (Jeconiah), king, aged 18, reigned 3
months (xxiv. 8.).
- 605
- 604
- 598
Nebuchadnezzar burns and pillages the palace
and temple, and carries away Jehoiakin to
Babylon, with his mother and court, in the
8th year of Nebuchadnezzar (xxiv. 12.).
Zedekiah (then Mattaniah), the uncle of Jehoiakin,
SECT. I. B. III.]
319
KINGDOM OF JUDAH.
is made king in Jerusalem as a tributary,
aged 21; he reigned 11 years (xxiv. 18.) - 597
1st year, the year after Jehoiakin was made
prisoner, and carried away by Nebuchad-
nezzar in his 8th year (xxiv. 12.), conse-
quently in the year
- 596
8th year: Zedekiah rebels against the king
of Babylon (xxiv. 20.; comp. xxv. 1.)=
Nebuchadnezzar's 16th year-Hophra 2 - 589
9th year, 10th month, 10th day. Nebuchad-
nezzar lays siege to Jerusalem (xxv. 1.) 588
11th year, 4th month, 9th day. Nebuchad-
nezzar storms Jerusalem (xxv. 2, 3.). Ze-
dekiah has his eyes put out
11th year, 5th month, 7th day. The temple
and palace burnt (xxv. 8. seq.)
-
586
There are no internal difficulties or contradictions in
this chronology. It harmonizes, also, from beginning to
end with the Egyptian, which offers several synchronisms
with it, and these of an important historical character.
It is likewise directly corroborated by the repeated
references in the last 20 years to the years of Nebu-
chadnezzar, that is, the era of Nabonassar, which has
astronomical warranty.
The difficulties and contradictions which some have
supposed to exist here, are such only in appearance.
We shall prove this to our readers in the clearest man-
ner, by collating all the notices which refer to this
period, first out of the Book of Kings, and then out of
the Book of Jeremiah.
2 Kings xxiv. 12. Nebuchadnezzar's 8th year, con-
sequently 597 the year of the 3 months of
Jeconiah (Jehoiakin).
2 Kings xxv. 8. Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year, con-
sequently 586 the year of the sack of Jerusa-
lem; consequently Zedekiah 11.
"
320
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. PART III.
The perfect accord between these two data, and
between them and the Jewish chronology, is self-
evident.
The following are the data in the Book of Jere-
miah :
1. Jer. xxxii. 1., the 10th year of Zedekiah is said
to coincide with the 18th of Nebuchadnezzar ;
according to this again, therefore, the last year of
Zedekiah coincides with the 19th of Nebuchad-
nezzar.
2. The accordance is the same when, in Jer. xxv. 1.,
the 4th year of Jehoiakim is said to coincide with
the 1st of Nebuchadnezzar, i. e. the year 604. The
battle of Circesium was certainly won by Nebu-
chadnezzar, but when he was heir to the throne.
It was here that he received the news of his father's
death, and hastened with a troop of horse through
the desert to Babylon, to take possession of the
throne. This year, therefore, in unison with the
invariable law of the canon, is reckoned as the last
of Nabonassar, and corresponds with the 3rd of
Jehoiakim.
3. The statement, therefore, in Jer. xlvi. 3., intro-
ductory to the prophecy about Nebuchadnezzar's
approaching victory over Pharaoh-Necho, that
this battle took place in the 4th year of Jehoia-
kim, must have been owing to a blunder in
respect to the history. But it evidently was not
written by the first editor, Baruch, the scribe of
Jeremiah, but by some later compiler of the pro-
phetic writings.
4. The case is the same with the subsequent entries
in the 52nd chapter, which was added, after the
time of Ezra, to Baruch's version. Here the above
8th year is called the 59th, and the year of the
sack the 19th (instead of the 18th); the other data
in this chapter must, therefore, be interpreted on
SECT. I. B. IV.]
321
DIVIDED KINGDOM.
the same principle, that is, be pushed back one
year.
They are as follows:
1. The 7th year, in which Nebuchadnezzar carried
away 3023 Jews from Jerusalem. This must be
the 6th:
2. The year in which he carried away 832, the 18th,
must be the 17th.
3. The year in which Nebuzaradan carried away 745,
the 23rd (ver 30.) must be the 22nd.
4. The 37th after the captivity, in which Evil-Mero-
dach took Jehoiakin out of prison, must be the
36th. There is direct proof in this case of the
correctness of our assumption. This year, the
first of Evil-Merodach, is established by the astro-
nomical canon to be the year 561, or the 36th after
Jehoiakin was led away captive.
IV. CHRONOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RETROSPECT OF THE TWO
SERIES OF KINGS.
As regards, first of all, the chronology, we have only
found it necessary to make a single alteration in the
date of a reign, which will explain all the entries in the
two lists. The new chronological epoch commences
with Jehu (882). Here the two series must have
agreed, and they do so. In the next sixty years (down
to Jeroboam II., 821) the chronology of the kingdom
of Israel is actually only one year behind, and
only in one entry, which is manifestly corrupt, four
years.
Upon the accession of Hezekiah (724), we find every-
thing again in the ordinary channel, that is, the chrono-
logy of the kingdom of Israel is two years behind the
correct date of that of Judah.
But in the interval, almost a century, from the acces-
sion of Jeroboam II., there is a discrepancy of 20
years. This arises, according to our view, from an error
VOL. III.
Y
322
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [BOOK IV. PART III.
of transcription at an early date, and one which very
easily might have been made in the regnal years of
Jeroboam, 41 instead of 61. The chronicler, in making
the comparative estimate, hit upon the most natural
way of getting over it, namely, by dividing the 20
years between the two kingdoms. The consequence
was, that the chronology of Judah was 10 years in
advance of the true date, that of Israel 10 years behind
it. This made the accession of Ahaz, the father of
Hezekiah, to occur in 731, instead of 740; that of Pekah,
king of Israel, who was slain by Hosea, in 757 instead
of 747.
The two together make a difference of 20 years, and
they accordingly furnish an argument in favour of our
restoration.
But the statement in the text, "that Amaziah, king of
Judah, the contemporary and rival of Joash, king of
Israel, reigned 15 years after the death of Joash," is
positive testimony in that behalf. Ewald very justly
remarks that this entry must have been made design-
edly, inasmuch as there is no other of a like kind in
the whole list of kings. This may easily be accounted
for on our hypothesis. The author of this systematic
connected narrative was aware of the confusion in the
chronology, but did not see clearly how to get out of the
difficulty. He accordingly inserted the above remark,
which he found in some other record, as being an esta-
blished fact, that Amaziah reigned 15 years after the
death of Joash, king of Israel.
This is the precise result of our chronological restora-
tion. But the whole course of the internal history of
the two kingdoms bears very direct evidence to the fact
that upon our hypothesis all the dates drop into their
proper places.
In the first place, as already remarked, from the
reigns of Hezekiah and Hosea onwards, all runs
smoothly, both as regards the history and chronology.
SECT. I. B. IV.]
323
DIVIDED KINGDOM.
But even at the accession of Jeroboam II., when this
confusion which lasted a hundred years commenced,
there would seem to be no other way of explaining the
singular fact, that during the two long contemporary
reigns, the fifty-two years of Uzziah, king of Judah, and
the sixty-one of Jeroboam, king of Israel, both king-
doms were powerful abroad, and never came into colli-
sion with each other.
The date of the accession of Jeroboam II. is not
known, but there is nothing at variance with the hypo-
thesis which is required by our chronology, that he was
a very young man at that time, perhaps ten or twelve
years old. Joash began to reign in Judah at seven.
Uzziah, we know on the other hand, to have been
sixteen at his accession. His father had had time to
recover from the serious consequences of his thought-
less war against Israel, when governed by the youthful
Jeroboam. The house of Jehu indeed had no deep-
seated religious rancour against a royal house of Judah
which professed the worship of Jehovah.
Uzziah, therefore, (as our accounts assume,) might,
on his accession, have been at the head of a strong con-
stitutional state, as well as in possession of a well-filled
treasury.
The conquests of Jeroboam were probably made in
his riper years, not before the reign of Uzziah conse-
quently. They were no bar to the prosperity of Judah,
any more than the prosperity of Judah was a bar to the
prosperity of Israel. Jeroboam conquered the country
to the north; Uzziah extended his kingdom to the
south and west.
Y 2
324
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [BooK IV. PART III.
C.
COMPUTATION OF THE PERIOD FROM THE IMMIGRATION OF
JACOB INTO EGYPT TO THE EXODUS.
I. THE SOJOURN OF THE ISRAELITES IN EGYPT MUST HAVE BEEN
OF VERY CONSIDERABLE DURATION.
EVERY one who has reflected seriously and earnestly
upon the different accounts of the length of the sojourn
of the Israelites in Egypt collected by us in the First
Book will have come to the same conclusion as our-
selves, that the 430 years of the Hebrew version (Ex.
xii. 40.) are better authenticated than the 215 years of
the Septuagint and Samaritan version: but even the
origin of that date becomes matter of grave considera-
tion, when we compare it with the 400 years and four
generations, which are assigned to it in the prophetical
passage of Gen. xv. 13. We are now in possession of
very different materials for solving the problem. We
have found a framework of general history, and it only
remains for us to make the sacred tradition fit into
it. We will first pass in review the historical facts
which compel us to infer that their residence in Lower
Egypt was of very long duration.
The time required for a single family to grow into a
people of at least two millions, is of itself sufficient to
force us to such a conclusion. The criticisms of Tuch
and Ewald show beyond all doubt that the number of
seventy persons, children and grandchildren of Jacob,
including himself, was an historical tradition.
The first 33 (Gen. xlvi. 15.), exclusive of him, are
only 32. namely, his six sons by Leah with their 25
grandchildren (ver. 9—14.), and Dinah. Then 16 are
enumerated (ver. 18.), namely, Gad and Asher and their
children. After them (ver. 22.) 14, namely, Joseph and
SECT. I. C. I.]
325
THE SOJOURN IN EGYPT.
his two children, and Benjamin and his ten children:
and last of all (ver. 25.) 7 are mentioned. Dan with one
son, and Naphtali with four. Consequently, 33+16+
7=70. (ver. 27.) Exclusive of Jacob and Joseph and
his two children, there remain 66, which is the exact
number of those who "came in." (ver. 26.)
This whole number, it is true, did not include
Jacob's daughters-in-law, supposing it not to be
admitted that the sons were all widowers when they
went into Egypt. Tradition may have given the pre-
ference to the number 70, because it was repeated in
the number of the Elders, who judged the people under
Moses. But it is an authentic and well corroborated
number, neither an invention nor a myth. The ac-
curacy of the tradition is obvious, from the express
mention being made of the members of Jacob's house-
hold who died before they left Canaan. We shall show
forthwith that Benjamin might very well have had ten
children at that time, as is stated in the 21st verse.
Bohlen's hasty and uncritical notion, that the number
is a pure invention, is unsupported by history, and it
is gratifying to see that Duncker has again in this in-
stance exhibited the tact and judgment of an historian.149
This is the second record we possess from the patriarchal
history of the race of Abraham, and it is more au-
thentic than the earlier one, which is the story of the
war between the four kings and the five, rounded off
into an epic form by oral transmission. (Gen. xiv.)
In the same account of the journey, however, it is
also stated (Gen. xlvi. 6. 32.), that Jacob took with him
his cattle and the goods which he had gotten in Canaan.
This means, therefore, his bondsmen and servants, and
his maids. Abraham had 318 persons of his household
fighting men. We may, therefore, fairly estimate the
dependents of Jacob at between 1000 and 2000. But
149 Comp. Ewald, Hist. i. 527. seq. Antiq. p. 287. seq. Tuch on
Genesis xlvi. 8—27.
प्र
Y 3
326
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. PART III.
the increase of this class of persons must have been
considerably slower than that of their masters, for they
could not marry without obtaining permission, which
must have depended upon the want of labourers.
Egypt was at that time thickly populated, even though
the pastoral district may have been uninhabited. This,
however, does not mean exclusively the land of Goshen,
the limits of which were very much curtailed to the
north and east by the wilderness, to the south and west
by the great cities, especially Heliopolis. Joseph made
his brethren and nephews the chief herdsmen or rulers
of the royal flocks. (xlvii. 6.) The royal pasture
grounds were evidently scattered through the whole of
Lower Egypt, and two or three years afterwards the
Crown possessed the whole of the land except the temple
property of the priests (xlvii. 22.): and what fertile
pasturage there was in the Fayoom very soon after!
It has been supposed, and, as I think, without the
slightest grounds, that the Israelites in the time of
Moses were exclusively limited to Goshen, or as it is also
called, the district around Raamses. This unnecessarily
increases the difficulty of explaining the account of the
Exodus, if it does not even render the explanation im-
possible. It is, as we have seen from the outset, not
historical. All the Egyptian traditions in Manetho and
the Alexandrian writers are, indeed, based upon the as-
sumption that the Jews were scattered at that time over
the whole of Egypt, or at least of Lower Egypt. This
is the reason why they were an abomination to the
Egyptians, whose Gods they despised; and they conse-
quently stigmatised them by the opprobrious name of
lepers and unclean. The whole history of this marvel-
lous race proves them to be adepts in trafficking all over
the world, but as far as blood was concerned they were
already superior to the Egyptians, as all the Semitic races
are still superior to their posterity, to say nothing of
the Iranians. The reason why no mention is made about
SECT. I. C. I.]
327
THE SOJOURN IN EGYPT.
them and their history, in our narrative of the Exodus,
except in Goshen, is simply the epic unity which throws
everything into the background which had no reference
to the one divine act of their deliverance.
We must not form a lower estimate of the matter than
it deserves. The Exodus was an episode in the civil
and religious war by which Egypt was distracted for
years, and from which it never recovered.
More than 600,000 fighting men withdrew under
Moses, after a protracted, and at length not a bloodless
struggle. They withdrew, as it is said, "with a mighty
hand and an outstretched arm."
The first and accurate numbering of the people, ac-
cording to the muster-rolls from which the so-called
fourth Book of Moses was gradually composed, the num-
bering on Mount Sinai, mentions 603,550 fighting men
of twenty years old, exclusive of the tribe of Levi. When
the Israelites, were encamped on the Jordan, near Jericho
according to our computation about the 22nd year of
the Exodus, that is, more than twenty years after the first
numbering the muster-roll showed 601,730 men ca-
pable of bearing arms above twenty years of age. (Num.
XXV. xxvi.) It is quite clear that this muster-roll must
either be a contemporary record, or else an impudent in-
vention and imposture. Here there are no expedients to
resort to of oral tradition or epic embellishment. No-
thing can be more dry or meagre than the account, and
it is impossible to regard it in any other light than
authentic. The number itself is perfectly credible, re-
gard being had to its relation to the previous numbering.
The Israelites had suffered heavy losses by sickness
and war, by hardships and necessarily severe discipline.
This will account for the falling off in the number of
grown-up men, although the births had unquestionably
increased, and although they had been settled beyond
Jordan for the last sixteen or eighteen years in comfort-
able quarters.
Y 4
328
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [BOOK IV. PART III.
There is consequently no necessity for Ewald's sup-
position that the first census comprised their allies the
Kenites, the kinsfolk of Jethro. Not a word is said of
their being incorporated into the eleven tribes. Such
an assumption might have been requisite had their
numbers materially increased.
If the grown-up men of the eleven tribes, between
twenty and fifty, amounted to 600,000, the whole body
of the twelve tribes must have numbered at least two
millions. Besides these there may perhaps have been
half a million of Palestinians of the Hyksos race, and
the other mixed multitude who joined them when they
left Egypt.
It is just as easy or impossible to explain how these
people could subsist with their flocks, or by means of
their flocks, for two years and a half, as it would be in
the case of 250,000. That is to say, in the present state of
the country it would be an utter impossibility, admitting
even all the extraordinary interpositions which are re-
corded in the narrative.
But it is quite evident that things were then in a very
different state, inhabited as the country was by warlike
and powerful Arab races, and when the Pharoahs had
established Egyptian colonies there for many centuries.
Indeed the accounts given by intelligent travellers in
that part of the world, for the last 70 years, prove that a
few thousand years of neglect and devastation are enough
to bring a country into its actual state of desolation.
There is no want of either springs or brooks, or cultiva-
ble soil; but the former are wasted in morasses or the
sand, the latter is swept away by the violence of the
torrents where nothing is supplied by the hand of man:
whereas the construction of terraces, of dams, and of
dykes, not only preserves a supply of water and pro-
ductive soil, but improves and increases them.
It was this which made Yemen, many centuries be-
fore the time of Moses, for a long period the paradise of
SECT. I. C. II.]
329
PERIOD OF BONDAGE.
Arabia, and which laid the foundation of that mighty
and civilised empire, which, like the glory of the Fayoom,
disappeared from off the face of the earth when the
dams were broken through. There is authentic evidence
of this in the inscriptions which have lately been dis-
covered.150
The two countries are similar in every respect, in so
far at least as to offer the possibility of giving a satis-
factory explanation of the Israelites having subsisted
for two years and a half in the Peninsula of Sinai, with
the Tabernacle as a centre, and after the country had
bcen parcelled out right and left according to the settled
order of the tribes. Besides which, the caravans at that
time brought regular supplies of many of the necessaries
of life, and Ezion-Geber, the port on the Red Sea, which
was surrounded by a very fertile district, might also
have furnished them with provisions in abundance.
II. THE NUMBER 215 IS THE MEASURE OF THE PERIOD OF BONDAGE,
OR OF THE Last Section OF THE SOJOURN IN EGYPT.
We have already so thoroughly established the truth of
this proposition by a connected criticism of the Egyptian
monuments, both royal and national, as well as by the
statements of Manetho, for which there is authentic war-
ranty, that it will be unnecessary on the present occasion
to do more than briefly adduce the last results of the
Egyptian evidence, for the sake of corroborating that sup-
plied by Jewish history.
Their bondage could not have commenced as long as
the Hyksos occupied Avaris, and consequently not till
after their withdrawal. This event took place in the
single reign of Tuthmosis III., which commenced B.C.
1544. Now that monarch had set out on his fifth
campaign to Asia as early as 1538, which therefore
150 See the Outlines of the Philosophy of Language and Religion,
vol. i. Himyaric Inscriptions.
330
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [BOOK IV. PART III.
makes the date of the first, at latest, 1542. Supposing
these campaigns to have been directed towards Phoenicia,
or to the Euphrates, he must have expelled the Hyksos
from Avaris as early as the second year of his reign, or
1543. But the bondage need not necessarily have com-
menced on that account in 1542, only it could not have
commenced earlier. Adding on 215 years to this date,
the Exodus would have taken place in 1326, that is,
six years earlier than we have assumed, one year before
the accession of Menephthah. It is unnecessary, however,
to fix upon the year 1542 as the beginning of it. The
earlier campaigns can hardly have reached beyond the
frontiers of South Palestine, their object being to cut off
the supplies of the besieged Hyksos. The first mention
made of actual conquests in Asia (Mesopotamia), or Mau-
ritania (Ludim), was during the later campaigns, which
lasted till 1527. Adding 215 years from that
year, the
Exodus would have taken place at the earliest in 1313.
But Tuthmōsis may have commenced his persecution.
of the Israelites as soon as he had expelled the Shepherds.
and had made a few successful campaigns in Asia, by
which Egypt was relieved, and then have continued his
campaigns in Asia. There is, consequently, nothing to
interfere with our assuming that the 215th year before
1320, or 1535 (the tenth year of the single reign of
Tuthmōsis III.), was the year in which the bondage
commenced. It is singular also that no buildings are
known to have been erected by that powerful and ener-
getic Pharaoh prior to his tenth year. The forced
labour required for these buildings must naturally have
been the hard task-work to which the Israelites were
subjected.
The remarkable coincidence between the historical
possibilities and facts, and the biblical tradition of 215
years, and the year 1320 as being the year of the
Exodus, evidently gives a totally different character to
that date. That the coincidence should be accidental,
SECT. I. C. III.] PERIOD OF IMMIGRATION.
331
it is difficult to believe. The Scripture date of 215
years is intended to mark the length of the bondage,
the earlier portion of the sojourn in Egypt could not
have been in reality one of bondage under the Pharaohs.
When Lower Egypt was in the hands of kindred races
from Palestine and Arabia, it is barely possible that the
descendants of Jacob who were already settled there
could have been their bond-servants. The Bible, in-
deed, not only never intimates any such thing; but on
the contrary, expressly states that it was a Pharaoh who
imposed the yoke upon them, that it was a king
"who knew not Joseph," — a ruler of the empire which
had been reconquered from the confines of Upper Egypt.
A writer, therefore, whose object it was to fix the
date prior to the bondage, and who had no chrono-
logical data to guide him, would not be unlikely to
make the whole term of the sojourn double that of the
bondage: and hence the origin of the 430 years.
truth, this is the process by which the length of the
period immediately preceding, between the immigration
of Abraham into Canaan and the journey of Jacob into
Egypt, is made up. It again is fixed at 215 years,
although, as we shall see, according to the strict dates
of the Bible, it can only be 130.
In
The 430 years, consequently, have not grown out of
the four prophetic centuries or generations spoken of
in Abraham's vision - how indeed could they have
done so ?
We are once more, therefore, thrown back upon
Egyptian chronology and history.
III. THE IMMIGRATION OF THE ISRAELITES INTO EGYPT DID NOT
TAKE PLACE UNDER THE HYKSOS, BUT UNDER THE PHARAOHS,
NAMELY, UNDER THE SESORTOSIDÆ, AND INDEED UNDER SESOR-
TÕSIS I.
THE Bible narrative is derived from a purely au-
thentic tradition about the immigration, dating from
332
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. PART III.
the days of Jacob and Joseph. Any attempt to couple
it with the notion of Joseph having been a Shepherd
King himself, or the minister of a Shepherd King, would
deprive it of its historical basis.
I have already, in my preliminary treatment of the
question of synchronisms, when illustrating the history
of the 12th Dynasty, established this proposition, which
is self-evident to any person of common sense, and
familiar with the Bible. Since that time, Lepsius, in
his "Introduction," has completed the proof.
The result, however, when applied to Egyptian his-
tory, is simply this, that Joseph was the minister of one
of the Sesortosidæ.
The question is, which of the first three Sesortosida
was the real "Sesostris," in whose reign, according to
Herodotus, that vast and important change was made
in the rights of property in Egypt, by which the
whole of the real estate, excepting the lands of the
priests, became the domains of the crown. This has
been discussed at some length in a previous volume.
It appears from Lepsius' discoveries at Semneh in
Upper Nubia, above Wadi Halfa, that Sesortosen III.
erected fortifications and other works of gigantic extent
there, and that the greatest hero of the Tuthmosis
family, the third of the name, paid divine honours to the
memory of his great ancestor in two temples.
Rougé has ingeniously shown that this attribution of
divine honours to the Pharaoh of the empire after the
restoration is unique in Egyptian history. Tuthmosis.
IV. erected also the temple of Amada in Nubia to the
same Sesortosen, in which country we find another
temple dedicated to him, where he is styled "The God,
the great Lord of Nubia!"
De
This third Sesortōsis (with the throne-scutcheon: Sun,
Diadem, Adorations, Ra Sah Karu) is, consequently, the
most eminent personage in the second period of the
12th Dynasty, and not his elder co-regent, Sesortōsis II.
SECT. I. C. III.] PERIOD OF IMMIGRATION.
333
Ra Sah Kheper). Amenemha IV., however, who built
the Labyrinth, and made Lake Maris, is the hero of the
third, as Sesortōsis I. is of the first (which lasted forty-
nine years). We have, therefore, three great kings:
Sesortōsis I. the founder, Sesortōsis III., and Amen-
emha IV. The vast buildings erected by the latter
seem to have weakened the empire, which shortly after
fell into decay. It was the real conqueror and hero
who raised the power of the family to its culminating
point; but it was the first who enriched it by laying
a tax upon all the land in the country except the
temple estates. In his reign Joseph collected the
treasures, and founded the financial prosperity of the
empire, which furnished Sesortōsis III. with the means
of erecting those gigantic works high up in Nubia, and
enabled Amenemha IV. to undertake the grandest of
them all, by which Egypt acquired the most fertile of
its provinces.
In one meagre epitome of Manetho's criticism of
Herodotus, this is said to have been done by the great
hero, to whom he applied certain of the main features
in the Sesostris-tradition of Herodotus, and others to
Sethōsis the father of Ramses II., the hero of the 19th
Dynasty. It by no means follows, however, that
Herodotus did not also introduce some circumstances
connected with the reign of the first Sesortosis into his
history of Sesostris, as he has mixed up the Sesortosen
traditions with those of the Ramessides.
Joseph might just as well have been made vicegerent
by the second or third, as by the first Sesortōsis. The
question is settled, however, in favour of the first by a
very unexpected and singular discovery. We find that
this sovereign was first of all co-regent with the founder
of the dynasty, Amenemha I., and afterwards reigned
alone twenty-three years, so that he seems to have
reigned in all forty-five years. The monuments testify
to his colonisation in the heart of the Peninsula of
1
334
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [BooK IV. PART III.
Sinai, and to his conquests over the Kushites. His two
obelisks and the remarkable tombs in Upper Egypt,
with their Doric pilasters, display a similar picture of
power and civilisation. The high estimation in which
he was held among the great Pharaohs of the New
Empire, is evinced by the fact of Rameses the Great
causing his name to be engraved on the sitting statue of
this old ruler, which now adorns the Berlin Museum.
There is authentic proof that in his reign a terrible
famine raged in Egypt.
We are indebted to Birch for this unforeseen con-
firmation and more accurate determination of the syn-
chronism of Joseph and the first Sesortosis, by deci-
phering a remarkable tomb-inscription of the lieutenant
of Amenemha, which was published in the great work
of the Prussian expedition. The person entombed states
that he was governor of a district in Upper Egypt
under the above king, and is made to say:
151
"When, in the time of Sesortosis I., the great famine
prevailed in all the other districts of Egypt, there was
corn in mine."
Nobody would venture to build up a synchronism
upon such a notice as this; but admitting that Joseph
was vicegerent of one of the three Sesortosidæ, and
that he owed his power and consideration to his fore-
sight in providing against the seven years of scarcity,
no one will contend that such a notice is not deserving
of very great attention, and it must turn the scale in
favour of Sesortosis I.
But the more I think over the development and
chronology of Egypt, the more convinced I am that
the juxtaposition of these two personages is certain
and incontrovertible. The proof is completed by the
present restoration of the Jewish chronology in the
151 Leps. Mon. of Pruss. Exp. iv. 122. Comp. Brugsch, Travels."
SECT. I. C. III.]
335
PERIOD OF IMMIGRATION.
3
periods between Abraham and the immigration of Jacob,
and from thence to the Exodus as the sequel will
show.
In proceeding to arrange more exactly in our tables
the date of the famine and the administration of Joseph,
we must limit ourselves to the 23 years of the sole
reign, for the Pharaoh of Joseph was clearly sole
monarch of Egypt. None indeed but a sovereign of
this character could have raised a discreet Palestinian,
the former slave of one of his chief officers, to the post
of viceroy. Of these 23 years we must at all events
claim 14 as the critical years, seven of plenty and
seven of scarcity. Immediately after his happy inter-
pretation of Pharaoh's dream, Joseph travelled through
the country to make the necessary arrangements for
establishing storehouses, and for laying up the quota
which was taken from the people who had been blessed
with an excess, or the fifth part of the harvest, which
they were obliged to furnish at a stipulated price. Had
a longer period intervened between the interpretation
and its fulfilment, had not the extraordinarily favour-
able nature of the inundation at the ensuing solstice
immediately verified the words of the gifted and prudent
seer, the Pharaoh would not have intrusted him with
so much power.
But which was the year of the Dream? Most pro-
bably the year of the accession, or the first year of the
sole reign of Sesortosis I. The whole transaction is
characteristic of a ruler who had just entered on the
zenith of his power. The solemn dedication of the sove-
reign in the temple of Ptah at Memphis was probably
connected with sleeping in the temple (Incubation),
and certainly with some exciting religious ceremonies.
It was more natural that he should have a foreboding
dream then than at any other time. Assuming this to
be the case, all the rest tallies. The whole narrative
shows that the seven years of scarcity all occurred in
336
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. PART III.
his reign. Towards the end of the second of these,
Jacob went with all his family down into Egypt, and
the Pharaoh who provided for them was clearly the
same who made Joseph ruler throughout all the land,
and honoured him as the saviour of the country, and the
founder of the financial prosperity of Egypt.
Seventeen years after this Joseph is in a very dif
ferent position. There is nothing more thoroughly his-
torical than the description of the funeral procession
which Joseph ordered for conveying the embalmed
body of Jacob with great state from Goshen to Hebron.
(Gen. 1.) He did not, however, personally request
the Pharaoh's permission to make this solemn procession,
nor for those who accompanied it to return into Egypt,
but did it through some of his household. It is said
(ver. 4, 5.): " And when the days of his mourning were
past, Joseph spake unto the house of Pharaoh, saying,
If now I have found grace in your eyes, speak, I pray
you, in the ears of Pharaoh, saying, Let me go up I
pray thee and bury my father, and I will come again.
This was not the language which Joseph would have
used had he been "ruler over all the land of Egypt.
He is a wealthy man, and in the enjoyment of high
consideration, but far from being one "who stood before
Pharaoh," as he is said to have done (xli. 46.); and far
from going as the "alter ego" of the king throughout
all Egypt to make all his arrangements with the fullest
powers, he causes an unpretentious personal supplica-
tion to be made to the reigning sovereign through some
of the courtiers, and begs a good word from them in
his behalf, when he says, "If now I have found grace
in your eyes, speak I pray you in the ears of Pharaoh."
""
According to our tables, Sesortosis I. became sole
ruler in the year 2755. The year in which Jacob came
into Egypt (the second year of famine), consequently,
would be 2747 or 2746, the 9th or 10th year of his
reign.
SECT. I. C. III.]
337
PERIOD OF IMMIGRATION.
If, therefore, we had a fixed date for the age of
Joseph when, in that solemn world-important moment,
he stood before the first Sesortosis in the first year of
his reign, we should have a turning-point for the whole
chronology of the Abrahamites, which perhaps might
lead us up to the immigration of Abraham itself.
Now Scripture expressly tells us in narrating the
wonderful effect which Joseph produced by the inter-
pretation of Pharaoh's dream (xli. 46.):
"And Joseph was thirty years old when he stood
before Pharaoh king of Egypt. And Joseph went
out from the presence of Pharaoh, and went through-
out all the land of Egypt."
He had consequently been from 12 to 13 years in the
country, for he was sold thither when his brethren
were tending their flocks in Sichem, and his father sent
him to them (xxxvii. 12—36.). It would seem that he
was thus sent immediately after he had been keeping
the sheep in common with his brethren, as is implied in
the narrative about his dreams (xxxvii. 5-11.). But
the whole story is thus introduced (verse 2.):
(6
Joseph, being seventeen years old, was feeding the
flocks with his brethren."
This brings us then to the year 2768. But Joseph's
birth took place 30 years, at all events, before his eleva-
tion to power, consequently in or about the year 2785.
The year of his birth, again, is fixed by the tho-
roughly historical, though purely personal, account of
Jacob's servitude with his maternal uncle Laban in
Mesopotamia. We take this, therefore, as a starting-
point for computing the first period of Jewish history.
VOL. III.
2
338
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [BOOK IV. PART III.
THE COMPUTATION OF THE
D.
PERIOD FROM THE IMMIGRA-
TION OF ABRAHAM INTO CANAAN TO THE ENTRANCE OF
JACOB INTO EGYPT.
I. THE HISTORICAL AND THE UNHISTORICAL DATES.-THE METHOD
OF SOLVING THE CHRONOlogy.
JACOB, as Scripture informs us, married Leah, the
elder daughter of Laban, after a servitude of seven years,
and a week afterwards her lovely and beloved sister
Rachel, in consequence of which Jacob bound himself
to overlook Laban's flocks for seven more years. It was
in the last of these fourteen years that Rachel, after so
many years of barrenness, bore him a son, Joseph, the
twelfth child and the eleventh of the sons that Leah
and the two handmaidens of his wives had borne him
in the meantime. This date is very accurately laid
down in the simple narrative (Gen. xxx. 25.):
"And it came to pass, when Rachel had borne
Joseph, that Jacob said unto Laban, Send me away,
that I may go unto mine own place, and to my
country."
Laban, however, persuaded him to stay, and inquired
upon what terms he would serve him for a further
period. The terms were agreed upon. They were
advantageous to Laban, but Jacob became a rich man,
which created ill humour and murmuring. Laban
being ill-disposed towards him, Jacob fled away se-
cretly with his wife and children and all that he had.
Laban hastened after him, and a parley ensued between
them, in the course of which Jacob said (xxxi. 41.):
SECT. I. D. I.] HISTORICAL AND UNHISTORICAL DATES. 339
"Thus have I been twenty years in thy house;
I served thee fourteen years for thy two daughters,
and six years for thy cattle."
It is very easy for complacent critics to say that
these dates are mythical, whereas the only thing about
the matter which looks mythical is our ignorance of the
history of those times.
But how old was Jacob when he was sent, twenty years
before, into Mesopotamia? He was evidently a grown-up
man of about twenty years, certainly not much more or
less. He was sent by his father to his maternal uncle,
at the pressing desire of his mother. Rebecca could
not bear the idea of his marrying one of the daughters
of Heth, whom she abominated. (xxvii. 46., xxviii. 1, 2.)
Jacob, upon his arrival, immediately made himself use-
ful, like a resolute and powerful young man. (xxix.
8—10.)
Looking therefore at the after-connexion between
this family history of Joseph and the early history
of the Edomites (Esau, the elder brother, is also called
Edom, and is the patriarch of that primeval race), in
which the young suitor is a man of forty, and cele-
brates his nuptials with two sisters at about fifty, our
calculation cannot be wrong above two or three years.
But what signification it has in reference to the history
of Esau, and the number forty which is connected with
it, we shall see hereafter in the sequel.
Jacob must consequently have been born when his
father was about six and thirty. For it can hardly be
a historical fact, that Abraham, who was far advanced
in years, and who might have expected his death every
day after the birth of Isaac, and who had so earnestly
and so long desired to see an heir of his body-it can
hardly be historical that he should have lived to see this
only son of his old age a man of forty, a time of life at
which in Palestine men were commonly grandfathers.
If we will only deal with the principal narrative in a
z 2
340
[BOOK IV. PART III.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
spirit of confidence as being true, and therefore possible,
there will be no difficulty in unravelling the origin of
the unhistorical portion of it. This solitary heir of the
patriarchal emir could not have been at most more than
sixteen when the faithful Eliezer was commissioned to
seek a wife for him from his own land and his own house.
This gives us accordingly a fixed date for the birth of
Isaac, and likewise the 25th year of the immigration of
Abraham, and the latter therefore must correspond with
the 2876th year B.C.
As regards Abraham's age at the immigration, it is a
matter of no moment for the chronological arrangement
of the above all-important event.
According to the present systematic narrative, Isaac
was born when his father had reached his hundredth
year. This is a statement with which an historian can-
not deal any more than he can with the ages of the four
patriarchs. According to this epical account,
22
Abraham lived
Isaac
Jacob
Joseph
99
,,
175 years.
180
147
110
Here it is not a question of a solitary exception in
the case of one individual. It is true that no instance
can be adduced demonstrably historical of any one
reaching the age of 180; such a case, however, as an
exception, would not contravene the laws of nature.
But that the three patriarchs should have lived, one after
the other, 150 years and even more, and the viceroy
Joseph, their successor, 110, cannot be historical. There
must be a means of detecting some blunder here, or else
the historical nature of the narrative will be liable to
grave suspicion. None but those who still cling to the
infatuation that the antediluvian patriarchs, as well as
Noah and Shem, lived from 600 to 1000 years, have any
excuse to offer for such purely childish delusions, per-
SECT. I. D. I.] HISTORICAL AND UNHISTORICAL DATES. 341
sistence in which can only be productive of doubt and
unbelief.
But there is no country in which it is so improbable
that a man of a hundred years old should have a son as
in a land of early development like Syria and Canaan.
But are we compelled on that account to regard these
four dates of the ages of the patriarchs, and the state-
ment about Abraham, as pure inventions? No one who
admits the strictly historical character of the principal
branch in the family narrative of this period will come
to such a conclusion.
If Joseph were the representative of an Egyptian
Pharaoh towards the close of the empire of Menes, if
his father Jacob, with all his household, went down into
Egypt in his time, settled there, and was solemnly in-
terred by him, Jacob is just as historical a personage as
Joseph himself, and so therefore was his grandfather,
who first immigrated into Canaan.
But then this family must also have possessed an era,
as was always the case among the noble Semitic races,
and this era must have been that of the immigration of
Abraham. Indeed, the very consciousness of the family
having formed a whole, separated off from the other races,
and personally dedicated to God the Creator of heaven
and earth, and that it had a future, all turns upon that
question.
Again, if Joseph formed a distinct era as being the
personage who elevated not himself only, but the whole
house of Jacob, to the lofty position which he won for
them in the land of civilisation and of plenty, that era
must have been computed by the years of his father.
If by simply following out these two assumptions the
above dates should be susceptible of a natural explana-
tion; and if at the same time the computation, the car-
dinal point of which was the synchronism of the first
year of Sesortosen's reign and the 30th year of Joseph's
age, reckoning backwards should harmonize with it,
z 3
342
[BOOK IV. PART III.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
such a result can hardly be said to be merely acci-
dental.
There are several other points which must be taken
into account in discussing this question.
Joseph died in the 110th year (that is, as we shall
presently see, of the era of Jacob), and had great
grandchildren—the grandchildren of his two sons,
Manasseh and Ephraim were born in his lifetime.
(Gen. 1. 22-26.) We know that when he was 30
years old, Pharaoh gave him to wife the daughter of
the high priest of Heliopolis, and that she bare him
these two sons, both indeed within seven years after his
marriage. For it is expressly stated (xli. 50. seqq.):
"And unto Joseph were born two sons before the
years of famine came, which Asenath the daughter
of Potipherah priest of On bare unto him. And
Joseph called the name of the first-born Manasseh
and the name of the second called he Ephraim."
If then the second, Ephraim, was already born in his
36th
year,
it is singular that the fact of Ephraim having
grandchildren in his lifetime should be adduced in
proof of his having attained to a great and happy old
age. For it is not probable that the sons and sons'
sons of the former viceroy, who possessed such trea-
sures and was a man of such high consideration, would
have had much difficulty in finding wives. If therefore
we suppose the marriage of the first to have taken place
in Joseph's 54th year, that of the second in his 74th,
we are not going beyond the bounds of custom and pro-
bability. In the cases of the sons of the kings of Judah,
the 16th year is the one mentioned as the ordinary
year in which they married.
If Joseph died in the 110th year of Jacob, he lived
to the age of 78, and the narrative bears its natural sig-
nification. But if 32 years are to be added to this, his
great-great-grandchildren ought also to have been men-
SECT. I. D. II.] TRADITIONAL LENGTH OF THE PERIOD. 343
tioned, in order to show that he also was a highly
favoured patriarch.
II. THE NUMBER 147 IS THE TRADITIONAL HISTORICAL ENTRY OF
THE LENGTH OF THE Period.
THE subjoined table of the dates of the house of Abra-
ham, from the immigration into Canaan down to the
journey to Egypt, is so framed as to show the main
features of the two series, in juxtaposition: the chrono-
logy, as it has been transmitted to us, on one side,
and the same restored upon the basis of the Scripture
dates themselves, on the other.
The reader will here find an account taken of every
date which occurs in the Scripture narrative. Whatever
is determined upon grounds of internal probability, such
as the births of Isaac and Jacob, is placed in brackets.
There cannot, therefore, be an error of more than two or
three years at most. Those which are placed in paren-
theses are such as arise out of the entries in the Bible in
reference to years of marriage. These are consequently
in themselves thoroughly authentic. All the other
dates are taken directly from the Bible. In the history
of Abraham we find two predominant numbers, the
75th year (that of the immigration) and the 100th, the
birth of Isaac. In this interval so many events oc-
curred also, as to require a considerably long sojourn in
Canaan prior to his birth.
We assume therefore
75 as the year before the birth of Isaac;
25 as the duration of the sojourn in Canaan; and,
consequently,
51 as the first year of the settlement in Canaan.
But there is also a place for the 100th year (which is
said to be that of the birth of Isaac), as the year
z 4
344
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. PART III.
in which Abraham died. This again cannot be acci-
dental. The computation backwards, the turning.
point of which is so historically important and well-
established, leads directly to the same conclusion.
According to this Jacob died in the 147th year, not
of his own life, but of the era from the immigration of
Abraham. Joseph again, in the 110th year, not of his
own age, but of the era of Jacob, from whom (as Israel)
the whole race derived their name, as do their remark-
able descendants down to this day.
Isaac is said to have lived 180 years. According to
our restoration, the 180th year of Abraham (calculating
from his birth) would be the year of the immigration
(130); and so this date was assigned to the father
of Jacob, as being the last year in which he could
have died.
The following, however, is a more simple solution :
Isaac's 80th year, according to the restoration we have
inade independently of any reference to his age, is the
105th of the immigration. If Abraham, therefore (as
it is stated), went into Canaan at the age of 75, the
180 must have grown out of the 105.
The important result of our restoration to general
history is this:
The immigration of Abraham, which has become so
memorable, coincides with the beginning of the last
quarter of the 29th century B. C. (2877); which corre-
sponds in our tables to the first years of the reign
of the 28th king of Eratosthenes in the Empire of Menes,
the 8th Dynasty of Manetho.
But the period which we proposed to compute com-
prises 147 years.
The years enumerated in it are obtained from two
sources. The one is an authentic chronology, from the
year of the immigration into Canaan; the other, the
family histories of Abraham and his son and grandson.
These family histories, the main branch at least
SECT. I. D. II.] TRADITIONAL LENGTH OF THE PERIOD. 345
which carries the line down to Joseph, possess not only
an historical value, but one also which is determined
chronologically. They contain, however, also an admix-
ture of the old hereditary reminiscences about the ori-
ginal connexion of the house of Abraham and Jacob,
first with the North-Arabian races (Ishmael and the
nations descended from Keturah); and, secondly, with
their immediately cognate races, the Edomites, who then
lived around the Dead Sea. Israel ("the struggler with
God") and Esau ('Hesav, the hairy, shaggy) are pri-
meval mythological names, just as Edom, the other
name of Esau, is a purely popular name.
Further notices connected with this subject will be
adduced in the Fifth Book out of Sankhuniathon.
At present, we cannot follow up the whole web any
farther, although we believe we are justified in saying
that it is capable of being unravelled to the very last
thread.
346 TRADITIONAL CHRONOLOGY.
From the Immigration of
Years of
Abraham.
Years of the
Immigration.
Years of Isaac.
Years of Jacob.
Birth.
(— 75)
(— 25)
(— 60)
1
75
1
Immigration.
Journey to Egypt.
100
25
Birth of Isaac.
101
26
1
140
65
40
Marries Rebecca,
160
85
60
Birth of Esau
and Jacob.
175 †
160
75
200
125
100
214
129
114
(231)
146
131
(280)
(205)
180
(250)
215
(190)
(307)
(207)
15
Quarrel with Esau about the
:
blessing is sent into Mesopo-
tamia to marry.
40
or a few years later, 46, 47,
or 48.
54
Rachel brings forth Joseph.
71
Joseph sold into Egypt.
130
Entrance into Egypt.
147 †
Abraham to that of Jacob.
347
RESTORED CHRONOLOGY.

Chronol.
of Abra-
ham's im-
Years of
migration. Abraham.
Isaac.
Jacob.
Joseph.
(Manasses and
his posterity.)
1
(50)
25
75
26 76
1
Isaac marries
Rebecca.
41
788
91
[16]
50
100 †
(25)
60
(110)
35
Jacob born,
after 20 yrs.
barrenness.
61
(111)
36
1
79 (129)
54
[19]
Enters the ser-
vice of Laban.
85
(135)
60
92 (142)
67
(7 +7 +6.)
(25)
Marries Leah
and Rachel.
32
Joseph born,
last of 14 years'
service.
93 (143)
68
33
1
First of hired
98 (148)
73
service.
38
6
Last of 6 years'
hired service.
Flight.
105 (155)
109
80 †
45
13
49
17
Sold into Egypt.
122
62
30
Becomes vice-
roy and marries
the daughter of
123
63
124
130 (180)
70
Immigration.
2990
64
the high priest.
[31]
Birth of Manas-
ses.
(32)
38
2nd yr. of famine.
The brothers,and
afterwards Jacob,
immigrate.
1. Manasses.
7.
""
17. Birth of Ma-
khir, eldest son of
Manasses.
Makhir, 7 yrs.old.
Birth of Perez,
eldest son of Ma-
khir,in his 18th yr.
Joseph's great-
grandson,
12 years old.
140
80
48
147
87 †
55
(98)
66
(110)
78
348
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [BOOK IV. PART III.
E.
THE ASIATIC AND EGYPTIAN SYNCHRONISMS OF ABRAHAM
AND THOSE OF HIS RACE IN EGYPT.
I.
THE FAIR CLAIMS ON EGYPTIAN AND BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY.
It is, as it seems to me, a very reasonable claim to make
at the outset upon Egyptian research and everything
connected with it, that it should establish the reality
and correctness of the chronology which is either repre-
sented by, or is dependent on it, by proving a living
connexion, or accordance at least, with other facts in
the earliest history of mankind.
But I am not sure whether many of those who make
such a claim have considered the consequences result-
ing from it. It gives investigators a right, indeed it
imposes on them the duty, of inquiring how the case
stands with the rabbinical chronology, which many
conceive themselves bound to defend as biblical or
ecclesiastical, just as their predecessors did the motion
of the sun round the earth, or some other similar ab-
surdities.
It is a right we purpose to exercise on the present
occasion, and a duty we intend to fulfil, only in so far
as necessary to substantiate our chronologico-historical
assertions in regard to Egypt.
The ordinary chronology, then, we declare to be
devoid of any scientific foundation; the interpretation,
indeed, by which it is accompanied, when carefully in-
vestigated, makes the Bible a tissue of old women's
stories and children's tales, which contradict each
other. When confronted with authentic chronology, it
generally leads to impossible results. It does not har-
SECT. I. E. I.]
EGYPTIAN AND BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY. 349
monize with anything which historical criticism finds
elsewhere, and which it is under the necessity of recog-
nising as established fact. It is, as regards the religious
views of educated persons, the same thing as the stories
in the Vedas about the world-tortoise are to those who
are supposed to believe them-a stone of stumbling, and
it will become more and more so every ten years. For
it contradicts all reality, and necessitates the denial of
facts which are as clear as the sun, or if it does not succeed
in that, compels them to be passed over altogether as
matters of no moment. In countries where research
cannot be prohibited by the police, or is not punishable
by excommunication, this indeed in the long run becomes
exceedingly laughable, but it does not on that account
cease to be immoral.
How stands the case then with the ordinary chro-
nology?
The date of Moses and the Exodus is supposed to co-
incide with the epoch when the power of the Pharaohs
was at its zenith, a time in which conspiracy could not
have ventured to break out into open rebellion, and still
less have done so with success. The conquest or occu-
pation of Canaan takes place, according to the same
chronology, in or before the periods when the country
was overrun by conquering armies. The age of Joseph,
lastly, and the journey of Jacob into Egypt coincide with
the Hyksos period: Abraham, indeed, must coincide with
the same period, if with any at all. And all this is said
to be for the honour of God and of the Bible, though
neither of them know any thing about it.
Our restoration, on the contrary, is based upon the
internal and historical data of the Bible itself, and is
not complete until their historical value and origin have
been submitted to an honest test and analysis. But what-
ever discovery is made by these means, will, when con-
fronted with the critical history of ancient Asia and
Egypt, take its place as an organic member in the
350
[BOOK IV. PART III.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
body of general history, and thus will make its position
secure.
Having now arrived at the starting-point of the chro-
nological history of the principal personages in the
Jewish narrative, we will endeavour to demonstrate this
as regards its main features, without forestalling its
illustration in the Fifth Book.
II. THE HORIZON OF ABRAHAM: THE WAR OF THE BABYLONIANS IN
CANAAN AND THE NATURAL PHENOMENON AT THE DEAD SEA.
Two great events occurred in the life of Abraham
which rest on a firm historical footing, and are entirely
independent of Jewish history-the fall of Sodom and
Gomorrah, and a contest between five chiefs of South
Canaan and Arabia Petræa, and four princes of Southern
Babylonia.
The great natural phenomenon is so vividly narrated
and so intimately connected with the life of Abraham,
that it is just as ridiculous to deny the synchronism, as
it is to doubt of the truth of the historical fact itself.
Ewald's criticism has so emphatically marked and
established the historical character of the narrative in
the 14th chapter of Genesis, that it is needless to say
anything more about it.
As regards the coincidence between the date we have
assigned to Abraham and the above contest-the impor-
tance of which is not to be estimated by the limited
resources of Abraham, whose simple object was to punish
a horde of plundering marauders, but by the extent of
country affected by it—we cannot be called upon to do
more than prove the negative side, namely, that there
is nothing in the Babylonian chronology, as now known
to us in its general features, at all at variance with it.
This we can do emphatically, when comparing it with
the ordinary assumption. Owing to a mistake in a
letter in the Hebrew text, the immigration of Abraham
SECT. I. E. II.]
351
THE HORIZON OF ABRAHAM.
is fixed at the year 2212 (or 2211) B. C.; according to
the unsupported hypothesis of Eusebius, in the year
1240 before the Olympiads, or B.C. 1943. Any attempt
to carry it farther back than 2212, by pursuing this
system, will be impossible, on account of the date of
the Deluge. The immigration of Abraham cannot be
placed much earlier, for fear of falling into the rab-
binical flood, which is supposed to have occurred in the
year of the world 1656, that is, about 2328, or at
most 2344 B.C.
But we know that from this year Babylon had become
subject to the powerful dynasty of Zoroaster, the king
of the Median empire, which ruled there 224 years, con-
sequently down to 2011. All the conventional chrono-
logies of theologians consequently arrive at an impossi-
ble date, inasmuch as the king of Elam (Khedorlaomer),
as well as the king of Shinar (Amraphel), are no more
Bactrians than they are Germans (that is, did not speak
Zend or Vedic), but have a completely Semitic type,
namely, Babylonian, i. e. Chaldean. For the same rea-
son all the computations of the Christian rabbis are
out of the question beyond the year 2010, and they are
moreover unfounded. The only foundation for the sub-
sequent calculations is, that they suited the Byzantine
chronographers.
If, on the other hand, we look at our own assump-
tion, which places the immigration of Abraham at about
2876, apart even from all internal arguments, the
horizon we obtain for the above narrative is in every
way suitable.
Babylonian history, as already shown, dates from
very early times, but the chronological era arising out
of it commences only 1550 years before the Bactro-
Median rule in Babylon, consequently 3784 B. C., i. e.
190 years before Menes. The immigration accordingly
occurred in the year 908 or 909 of the Babylonian
chronology, or 642 years before the Median conquest;
352
[BOOK IV. PART III.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
Our narrative harmonizes entirely with this horizon
of Western Asia.
The essential point in an historical sense is this. The
whole of Canaan and the country east of Jordan, from
Basan onwards, was then tributary to the king of
Elam (i. e. Southern Babylonia, originally the country
to the eastward of the southern portion of the Tigris,
Susiana); and not it only, but Arabia Petræa also,
Petra, and the adjacent cities. (Gen. xiv. 5-7.) The
allied kings of the five cities on the Dead Sea formed
consequently but an inconsiderable section of the re-
volted tribes; and the expedition of Abraham, after
the action fought between them and the Babylonians
who had advanced to the south (of Kadesh), was simply
directed against a detachment of them.
Khedorlaomer, king of South Babylonia, is said to
be the leader of the attacking party. The kings of
Shinar (Babylonia) and of El-lassar, probably Artemita
(Dastagerda) to the north of Ktesiphon, as well as
a king "of the Peoples" (Goijim) whom it is not
easy to identify, are mentioned as his allies. But
Khedorlaomer seems to have been the superior lord.
Now there was at that time no other empire in
Western Asia but the Babylonian, and here we
meet with a remarkable circumstance. All the Baby-
lonian and Assyrian dynastic arrowheaded inscriptions
hitherto deciphered refer to South Babylonia, indeed
to the country east of the Tigris, that is, Susiana, as
being "the cradle of the sovereignty." There, too,
are the ruins of vast cities, to which Rawlinson first
called attention. Babylon, the historical city, is accord-
ing to all authorities, of comparatively modern date, if
indeed it was not founded by Nebuchadnezzar. Semi-
ramis doubtless added to it; but how modern is the
time of the Ninyads in the empires of Western Asia!
Their oldest sacred legend, mentioned by Berosus,
accords also with this reference in the inscriptions;
SECT. I. E. II.] THE HORIZON OF ABRAHAM.
353
namely, that the first dawn of civilisation was in
Southern Babylonia, and that the teachers of mankind
came from the shore of the Persian Gulf.
This horizon, however, will not suit any other date
of Abraham but our own. Zoroaster had overthrown
the Chaldean empire in the 23rd century (long before
the rabbinical Abraham).
But there is still more cogent proof, both negative
and positive, of the natural phenomenon connected with
the history of Abraham, by which two, or more pro-
bably four, of the five cities in the valley of Siddim were
overwhelmed. We must take care not to confound
this event with the depression of the land and the sea
which took place in primeval times, the consequence of
which was the formation of a lake almost 1500 feet
below the level of the Mediterranean. We are now
dealing with an occurrence of comparatively modern
date, an enlargement of the asphalte lake on the
border of which these towns were situated.
The period when this event took place, in which
earthquakes and volcanic action doubtless played an
important part, was, according to the narrative, towards
the end of the first quarter of a century of Abraham's
immigration, consequently about the time of the birth
of Isaac, in the year 2854.
It will be seen below that the genuine Phoenician
story borrowed by Justin from Trogus Pompeius is
deserving of some credit. We showed that its histo-
rical value consists in "the statement that the fathers
of the Phoenicians were compelled by an earthquake in
the region of the Assyrian lake" to migrate from thence
to the coast of the Mediterranean. It is precisely from
the neighbourhood of that lake that Abraham and Lot
departed.
At all events, this Phoenician or Edomite migration.
must have taken place in the 29th century; that is, in
the same century as the immigration of Abraham; for
VOL. III.
A A
354
[BOOK IV. PART III.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
the chronology of the shrine of Melkarth in the island
of Tyre commences towards the year 2750, our know-
ledge of which we owe to the careful researches of
Herodotus. According to the statement made to Alex-
ander by the Phoenicians, there was a still older shrine
in that country. At all events, a system so thoroughly
Phoenician could not have been developed there in less
than a century. When the settlers arrived, they pro-
bably established themselves in Southern Phoenicia.
Akko, at least, which is to the south of Tyre, flourished
at a very early date. Indeed, it is not a question of
centuries as regards civilisation, for the Southern Ca-
naanites, though immoral, were not a barbarous people.
Nothing, therefore, can harmonize better. We should
have been obliged to fix the date of the occurrence
which set these tribes in motion in the early part of
the 29th century, even had not the time of Abraham
driven us to the same conclusion.
But how stands the case with the rabbinical calcu-
lation? Abraham, who was a witness of that destruc-
tive phenomenon, lived in the beginning of the 23rd
century, that is, in the latter part of the fifth century
of the above era, which commenced in 2750, or a cen-
tury after his birth.
We must, however, beware of dealing so loosely with
the respect due to Scripture, and of placing it at vari-
ance with historical facts as well as human reason, in
order to make it square with some favourite system of our
own. It is no longer of any avail to tell men of sense
that an attack is made upon the Bible; because the above
chronological system is shown to be erroneous for the
very purpose of proving that the Bible is a rational
book, and the traditions it contains true, and therefore
possible.
SECT. I. E. III.] HYKSOS AND THE ISRAELITES.
355
III. THE HYKSOS AND THE ISRAELITES IN EGYPT.
FROM Our present point of view, it is no more ne-
cessary to prove that the Hyksos reigned in Egypt
during the long period we have assumed, than it is to
show that they ever were there at all; and that it is
not all an invention of Egyptologers from hatred of the
Bible, as some wiseacres and boys in England have
archly insinuated.
When in the year 1845 I first asserted that the rule
of these North-Arabian and South-Palestinian races
must have lasted nine centuries, I was simply carrying out
a principle which had proved authentic so far, namely,
that the entries in Africanus are, upon the whole, the
only correct transcript of Manetho's dates. My as-
sertion was corroborated by the number of the dynasties,
not one of which could be omitted without disturbing
the dates of all that came after. It was corroborated
also by the numerous royal names which are found not
only in the Turin Papyrus, but also in the most ancient
official lists; and, lastly, by the contemporary monu-
ments of the princes of Upper Egypt, who belonged to
that period.
In the second volume of this work, published in 1854
(pp. 405–496.), when this subject was recast, I
strengthened the philological evidence, and brought
forward much new monumental matter. At pp. 451-
455. I have summed up the principal points, with a
view of showing that the 2017 years which De Rougé
has assigned to this period are preferable to the 518
of Josephus, which are purely visionary, and which
would brand the whole exposition of the honest Afri-
canus as false throughout.
It is, therefore, equally impossible for me to accept
the 662 years, namely:
Xxx
A A 2
356
[BOOK IV. PART III.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
15th and 16th Dynasties (260+251)
17th Dynasty
511
·
151
662
This
The 17th Dynasty was wholly Pharaonic.
has been established by De Rougé and Lepsius from
the evidence of contemporary monuinents, which leave
no doubt as to the direct connexion between it and
Amos, the chief of the 18th. The reading of one
of the Sallier Papyri has put us in possession of a
summons sent by Ra-Skennen Atnaken, the last prince
of the 15th Dynasty (Vol. II. p. 494-496.), to the
Hyksos king, Apophi, to evacuate Avaris, which has
supplied us with Old-Egyptian evidence for this his-
torical fact. Now, as we have not the slightest ground
for supposing that the number 518, assigned by Afri-
canus to the second Shepherd Dynasty, represents the
sum total of the reigns of the 15th and 16th, and as
there is no question about the right reading of Ma-
netho's Lists of the 15th (260 years), we have the three
following fixed points to furnish the length of the period
between the fall of the last Pharaoh of the Old Empire
and Amos:
15th Dynasty
260 years.
518
16th
17th
""
""
Length of the whole period
151
929 years.
Now, if we take this number into our computation,
placing before it Manetho's date of the length of the
Old Empire, which is best authenticated, and after it
the date of the New Empire, we get the number 3555,
the genuineness of which has never been questioned
on sound grounds, and which has been verified in a
variety of ways.
We have strengthened this evidence in the concluding
SECT. I. E. III.] HYKSOS AND THE ISRAELITES.
357
chapter of our researches into Egyptian synchronisms
in the present Book, by a very remarkable coincidence
with the tripartite division of the books of Manetho.
In restoring, therefore, the thread of Jewish chrono-
logy, which here breaks off altogether, the only his-
torical conclusion to which we could arrive was this,
that as the Israelites can only have gone into Egypt
under a Pharaoh, and that one a Sesōstris (in which
Lepsius agrees), so they did not go out of it under
Sethōsis, the grandfather of Menephthah, the Pharaoh
of the Exodus; but under the real historical Sesōstris
of the Old Empire, a Sesortōsis. This assumption was
not only brilliantly corroborated in 1854 by the dis-
covery of the mention of a famine in the reign of the
first Sesortōsis, but was also more accurately defined
and brought within the range of chronological adjust-
ment.
The two assumptions, therefore, with which we have
to deal are independent of each other. One is that
Jacob went into Egypt in the reign of a Sesortōsis, and
that Moses brought out the people in the reign of
Menephthah; the other-that the duration of the
sojourn in Egypt was 1434 years, namely,
from 2754-the ninth year of Sesortosis I.
1320=the eleventh year of Menephthah,
to
1434 years.
For the former of these hypotheses must have been
maintained, even had the length of the Hyksos period
proved shorter than we suppose.
But, in looking back on the second question from our
present point of view, we must also throw into the scale
all the further evidence which has been discovered of
the essential correctness of the date assigned to Abra-
ham. For this has been arrived at by calculating up-
wards from below, and the period to which it goes
3.
A A 3
358
[BOOK IV. PArt III.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
depends itself very materially upon the length of the
Hyksos period.
In the face of such evidence it seems to us hardly
deserving a serious answer, if it should be argued that
it is impossible to believe in such a period of almost
1500 years; that the people could not have retained
so long the reminiscences of their fathers, their language,
and other traditions. I would simply ask by what stan-
dard it is proposed to test it. This can only be decided
by the genius of the race and by the circumstances of the
case. Now the Jews as a race have ever been, through-
out their whole history, peculiarly tenacious of remi-
niscences. They were precluded by the ordinances of
Abraham from being affected by any overwhelming
external influences, and they were, when they went
into Egypt, in a transition state from a pastoral, to
what was mainly, if not exclusively, an agricultural, life.
Lastly, it is a period not devoid of epochs. The con-
cluding one of 215 years, which we know was one of
bondage, exhibits a people making a strong effort to
rise from the very first, a people capable of great exer-
tion, but keeping aloof from all the other Semitic
races. In the earliest epoch we have again two cen-
turies (2747-2540) when they quietly developed and
extended their relations under the Sesortoside and
down to the fall of the Old Empire. We have then the
929 years of the Hyksos rule, and the first 85 after the
restoration, from Amos to Tuthinōsis III. and the final
evacuation of Egypt by the Shepherds (1625-1540).
These at least were not years of bondage and com-
pulsory labour, with however little favour the rulers
and their officials may have regarded the Asiatics. For,
as already remarked, they had spread in the meantime,
either from necessity or their natural love of barter,
throughout the whole of Egypt, in the capacity of iti-
nerant traders. During the Hyksos period their rulers
were people of a kindred race, inferior to them in civi-
SECT. I. E. III.] HYKSOS AND THE ISRAELITES.
359
lisation, and to whom they doubtless made themselves.
very useful by their knowledge of the country and its
resources.
All these circumstances therefore, down to the last
period of 215 years, contributed on the one hand, through
the rite of circumcision and the promise of a glorious
future, to their isolation and independence; on the
other, to furnish them with the means of keeping up
their own reminiscences, and to guard them against de-
spondency and the abandonment of the privileges of their
race. These latter 215 years were certainly evil years,
especially the last 70. So much the more naturally did
they throw off any habits they might have contracted
from the Shepherds, and the canal of the oppressor sup-
plied fresh means of endurance. Before the scheme
of exterminating them could be carried out, Moses ap-
peared, and awakened the nobler feelings in the bosoms of
the exasperated people. By secret arming and by union
the Exodus was accomplished.
We do not, however, see why the Hyksos might not
just as well have been 929 as 662 or 518 years in pos-
session of Lower Egypt, and have held the rest of the
country in a state of tribute.
We would say, on the contrary, that they must have
stayed there the full nine centuries, for 1400 years are not
too long for a single family to grow into a people of from
two to two millions and a half. Add to which, it takes
a very long time to account for a purely historical tradi-
tion being merged in pre-Abrahamitic reminiscences of
an historical and mythological character, and to allow
the possibility of a narrative which grew out of this
medley being rounded off into a systematic shape. We
inust suppose it to have been completed in all its pre-
sent essential features in the time of Moses, unless we
resort to the utterly untenable notion of its being a pure
invention. We know nothing of the state of the lan-
guage at the time of the immigration, or of the language
▲ A 4
360
[BOOK IV. PART III.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
of the Canaanites at that epoch. But we possess records
of the Hebrew tongue since the days of Moses, which
from its tenacious character, of which the Arabic fur-
nishes another instance, renders it quite conceivable
that the language spoken by the historical Hebrews
in Palestine, for instance in David's time, did not
differ much from the Phoenician or the old Canaan-
itish. Abraham probably adopted that idiom, if he did
not bring it with him; and under these circumstances
there is no difficulty in supposing that it possessed a
very close affinity with the Phoenician.
We might, therefore, have confidently stated that no
valid argument could be adduced against the length we
have assigned to the Hyksos period, even did not the
monuments and strictly historical accounts and tradi-
tions, as well as all the synchronisms, make any such
consideration wholly superfluous.
F.
THE CONNEXION BETWEEN ABRAHAM AND THE REMINIS-
CENCES OF HIS RACE, AND THE HISTORICAL CHARACTER
OF THOSE REMINISCENCES.
ABRAHAM is the earliest Hebrew personage whose date
can be fixed chronologically. There is no chronology,
indeed, in the strict sense of the word; and the accounts
of his forefathers and ancestry belong therefore, pro-
perly, to the domain of the Origines, or to the Fifth Book.
But in order that any confidence may be placed in our
historical and chronological view of the personal and
family history of this Patriarch of three religions, it is
absolutely necessary to prove that the name and accounts.
immediately preceding him are historical, and that the
dates connected with them may be applied to determining
SECT. I. F. I.] SERIES FROM ARPHAXAD TO TERAH.
361
approximatively the epochs of migration, and their
duration.
In the following Book we shall be able to understand
the meaning of the reminiscences relative to Arphaxad
(that is, the life of the race on the borders of Armenia,
in Arrapakhitis); where the accounts of the Origines
must be tested from the beginning downwards, and
where the entries relative to Abraham appear as offsets.
from the traditions and researches respecting the Ori-
gines.
I. THE TRIPARTITE DIVISION OF THE SERIES FROM ARPHAXAD TO
TERAH.
over.
ARE there any extant authorities and means of testing.
Hebrew chronology prior to the migration of Abraham?
This is a question which it is now impossible to pass
There exists, as we shall see, a strict chronology
of the Babylonian empire (in South Babylonia), dating
back to the year 3784 B. C., consequently 908 years
before the immigration of Abraham. Must not he
and his forefathers, the sons of Arphaxad and Eber,
have had some still earlier reminiscence ?
If we
seriously believe that the genealogical form refers to in-
dividuals, exactly 215 years (290-75) elapsed between
Arphaxad and the immigration of Abraham, a number
with which we are already well acquainted, and the his-
torical correction of which we have obtained in the
length of the period immediately preceding Moses. How
stands the case in reality?
From the immigration of Abraham and the institu-
tion by him of religious ordinances, the consciousness of
moral personality, and, as a natural consequence, the
consciousness of personal chronology, may be said
to date. At the very commencement of the traditions
from the primeval times down to the Flood, transmitted
and stereotyped through Abraham, we find strictly as-
tronomical dates, and adjusted, indeed, according to a
cycle of 600 years, a system of computation treated of
362
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [BOOK IV. PART III.
under the head of the Babylonian Origines. These, as
we see at once, go down to Noah and Shem (exclusively),
to each of whom one such term is assigned. The only
natural assumption, therefore, is, judging by the ana-
logy of all other phenomena and the clear laws of
development, that the interval between Arphaxad the
son of Shem according to that tradition, and Terah, the
father of Abraham, is neither astronomical nor personal.
In other words, that the tradition proceeds by historical
and geographical epochs.
And so we find it in reality. Here the series is com-
pleted, the first link of which was pointed out in the
First Book.
We have no intention of forestalling by these inci-
dental remarks, or by the accompanying synoptical
table (pp. 364, 365.), what we shall have to say in the
Book of the Origines about the whole period from Adam
to Abraham.
Our sole object is to exhibit the framework in which
the elevated figure of Abraham is set, according to the
conception of the primeval times and primeval world,
and to indicate the background from which he emerges.
There is no other way of showing clearly from our
present point of view, in how prominent a form this
holy and faithful personage stands out in the earlier
traditions, and with what truth it may be said that the
more modern history of mankind commences with him.
The following table, when critically examined, divides.
itself into four parts. The first section passes from a
general geographical notice to historical notices. Ar-
phaxad is clearly the district of Arrapakhitis. Its posi-
tion is particularly suitable as the starting-point of the
settlements and reminiscences of the race of Abraham.
It is one of the south-western slopes of the mountain
range by which the primeval seat of the human race
was surrounded, and on which the inhabitants of the
northern plains took refuge in their flight. It was
however, to that half of it to the westward of their
SECT. I. F. I.] SERIES FROM ARPIAXAD TO TERAH.
363
original residence that the Semitic races, as a body, re-
sorted, and these settlers, who became so prominent
a feature in history, successively advanced westward
from Arphaxad, the starting-point of the Abrahamitic
reminiscences. The settlements of Elam (the race subse-
quently located in Southern Mesopotamia, or Babylonia)
were much more to the southward — originally to the
east of the Tigris. This is presumable from the name
of the Elymæans (Media in the south, Susiana in the
north), that of the land of the Choaspes, with the more
modern city of Susa. Here, according to the royal in-
scriptions of Babylonia and Nineveh, was the cradle of
their dominion. Assur, the race mentioned next, settled
originally on the Upper Tigris itself, but still to the
east of that river (Kurdistan). The first district we
meet with proceeding westward is Arrapakhitis, the
frontier chain of Southern Armenia and North Assyria;
not on the Tigris, however, but nearer to the sources
of the Euphrates, which runs much farther eastward.
The two races which come after Arphaxad are both to
the west of it. Lud, the one first mentioned, is the
most western of all. Lud is the representative of the
Semitics who went into Asia Minor and settled there,
but afterwards passed the Halys when they founded
the Lydian empire. The Greeks were acquainted with
the patriarchs of this race, under the names of Ninus
and Bel (Assur and Elam). According to both those
traditions, therefore, the first Lydian settlers came
from the Semitic settlements in the east. The last-
mentioned race is that of the Aramæans, or Highlanders,
who first settled on the upper part of the Euphrates
and Tigris district, and then passed through Mesopo-
tamia Proper (" Aram of the two rivers "), the lowland
(where is Mash-Mons Masius) which falls gradually
towards Syria, afterwards called Aram. The name of
Uz in Nedjid proves that its offsets extended as far as
North Arabia.
Then come three entries (B), which are, beyond a
364
[Book IV. PART III.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
&
A. SEM.
'HELAM
(Elam, Elymæi),
Stem of the Baby-
lonian Empire, east
of the Tigris in
Susiana (South Ba-
bylonia).
ASSUR,
Stem of the Em-
pire of Ninus, on
the Upper Tigris.
ARPAKH SAD,
(Arrapakhitis), i. e. the prim-
eval land of the Kasdim
(Chaldees), the frontier moun-
tains of Armenia towards
Assyria.
438 years.
LUD,
Lydi, i. e. the ori-
ginal inhabitants
of Asia-Minor,
Pontus and Cap-
padocia, as far as
the Halys, where
the historical Ly-
dians were seated.
'ARAM,
i. e. the original "Highland," south-
west of Armenia (Ar-Minn), the
country between the sources of the
Euphrates and Tigris. (Mesopotamia
Proper is 'Aram-Naharaim; 'Aram is
the latest name of Syria).
B.
SELA'H,
"the Mission."
433 years.
'HEBER,
"the settler over the river (Tigris),"
464 years.
PELEG
(derivation, partition),
239 years.
'HUZ (Uz),
North Arabia
(Nedjid).
'Hul Geter Mas
(uncertain, probably
about Lebanon).

YOQTAN
(Father of 13 South-Arabic races).

SECT. I. F. I.]
365
SERIES FROM ARPHAXAD TO TERAH.
C.
Re'HU,
District of the Shepherd, country of Edessa (Rohi).
239 years.
SERUG
(in Osroëne, Sarug, west of Edessa).
230 years.
D.
NA'HOR
Goes to Ur of the Kasdim (Chaldees).
148 years.
TERA'H
Leaves Ur of the Chaldees and goes to 'Haran (Karrä).
a day's journey south of Edessa.
275 years (70 + 205).
366
[BOOK IV. PART III.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
doubt, not geographical but historical, the Mission, the
Partition, the Passage.
"The Mission" (Sela'h) repre-
sents the epoch of the first descent from the heights of
the wild mountain country. "The Partition" is clearly
the branching off of the race which passed into South
Arabia (the Joktanidæ). "The Passage" ('Heber) must
be the passage near the Upper Tigris in a south-western
direction. These are followed once more by (C), geo-
graphical entries: Re'hu= Rohi, the old name of Edessa,
and Serug Sarug, the district lying somewhat to the
west of it.
As the former entries can only allude to bodies of
emigrants who passed through the above countries-for
had they stayed there permanently they would have come
into collision with, or have been merged in, the Aramæans
—all the circumstances conspire to show that these latter
represent stationary and permanent settlements. Here
were the districts of the Skirtus and the Belus, once so
flourishing (the two confluents of the greater Belekhus
(Belekh) where Orfa or Edessa and Karrä (Haran)
were afterwards founded): further to the south-east was
the ancient Osroëne, the identity of which with Serug
(Sarug, Srug) Buttmann has so ingeniously pointed
out. A little more to the south-east was the primeval
city of Resen, mentioned in Genesis (x. 12.) as having
been built by Nimrod, the Rezaïna of Ptolemy, on the
Chaboras. In the same latitude, but nearer to the
Tigris, is the district where Nisibis was situated, not
far from which was Ur of the Chaldees. This is another
instance of the genius of D'Anville, who marked on his
map almost every one of these places on the spot where
they were found by Niebuhr, and latterly by General
Chesney and Captain Lynch, after so many years of
neglect, to the shame of Europe be it spoken, and as
Ritter had fixed them upon scientific grounds.
When we come to Serug it is as manifest that these
colonists are no longer mentioned as pastoral races, as it
SECT. I. F. II.]
367
SERIES FROM ARPHAXAD TO TERAH.
is that the adjacent Skirtus district (Edessa) is intro-
duced.
All at once we find ourselves in Ur of the Chaldees,
that is to say, between the eastern confluents of the
Chaboras and Tigris; the difference, however, being that
Ur does not serve as a guide or finger-post to us,
as Edessa and Sarug did in the other case. The next
two names again (Na'hor and Terah) are not geogra-
phical any more than Abraham is. A vast deal of
ingenuity has been wasted upon their etymology, simply
because it was not employed in the right direction.
We should have naturally expected to find names of in-
dividuals mentioned immediately before the personal
chronology of Abraham, and we hope to be able to prove
that Terah and Na'hor were really the names of his
father and grandfather.
II. THE HISTORICO-CHRONOLOGICAL MEANING OF THE DATES
IN THIS SERIES.
WE will now take a glance at the dates. Here the
first step undoubtedly must be to abandon the views
and system adopted by the narrator, from the impossi-
bility of an historian dealing with men who beget chil-
dren like other people at the age of thirty, and live
more than 400 years afterwards. Those upon whom
this consideration fails to make an impression may still
be staggered by the fact, that, upon this calculation, the
patriarch Noah lived down to the time of Abraham,
without troubling himself about the history of the world.
But we shall be equally bound to discard the complacent
and irreverent solution that these high numbers are
mere arbitrary inventions. Neither can we venture, like
the authors of the Septuagint, to falsify the text, and,
in order to get rid of the disproportion, add on every
occasion a hundred years to the ages of these geographi-
cal patriarchal monsters at the time of their marriages.
368
[BOOK IV. PART III.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
We have, therefore, but one alternative; to ascertain
which of the two is the really traditional date, that of the
ages after the birth of the first son, or the whole date: to
ascertain, in other words, whether the narrator had the
authority of tradition for the former date, and, in order to
assist his chronology, added at random thirty or forty
years to their ages when the first son was born; or
whether he found the whole sum total recorded, and de-
ducted from it whatever suited his purpose. The fact of
his not stating the sum total would incline us to adopt
the former view; but, in the immediately preceding
entries about Noah and Shem, we can prove that the
complete sum total is the actually traditional date.
each case it is 600 years, which was shown to be the
original Chaldaic equation between lunar and solar
years. We must, therefore, assume that it is so here
also.
In
There is a remarkable closeness between the first three
(geographico-historical) dates, Arphaxad, Sela'h and
Eber:
Arphaxad
Sela'h
'Heber
438 years.
435
464
Supposing Arphaxad to represent the duration of
the Semitic settlement in Arrapakhitis, the mountain
district above Assyria, prior to the memory of man,
"the Mission" would represent the commencement of the
journey towards the plains three years before the close of
this migration, and 'Heber would represent the period
when the migrating race passed over the Upper Tigris
on their way to the valleys of Upper Mesopotamia. The
year 464 would in that case be the one in which they
entered Mesopotamia Proper, and the tribe must have
remained in a compact body 239 years before a portion
of them commenced the great migration southward, the
result of which was the foundation of the primeval
SECT. I. F. II.] SERIES FROM ARPHAXAD TO TERAH. 369
kingdoms of Southern Arabia, the kingdoms of the
Adites in Yemen, who believe that they came from the
sacred north, and once lived in a glorious garden of the
earth which they are to restore. The first part of the
above table would consequently give us 464 +239=703
years. The settlement of that portion of the tribe
which remained behind we must consider as being
between the Tigris and Chaboras, that is, again in the
country about Nisibis, the Ur, which was called in
later times Ur of the Chaldees, or Kurds.
Now, inasmuch as the entry relative to the first mem-
ber of the fixed period of colonisation is again exactly
239 years, we may fairly assume that this term, and the
one mentioned as a division of it, are merely two differ.
ent versions of one and the same chronological period.
When the great Arab migration took place, (which may
perhaps not have been voluntary, but a consequence of
the pressure of the Aramaic race, or of the Turanians,) a
portion of those who stayed behind in Mesopotamia may
have settled in the beautiful western valley of the Skirtus
about Edessa. But the advance upon Sarug more to the
west and south we must suppose to represent a new
period, and one therefore of 230 years.
This would make in all 933 years down to Nahor,
the grandfather of Abraham.
Before we submit the dates in the latter portion to
closer examination, we propose to lay before our readers.
in a synoptical form the whole genealogical table, in-
cluding Abraham and his nephew Lot.
VOL. III.
B B
370
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [BOOK IV. PART III.
NA'HOR
(sets out from Sarug to Ur of the Chaldees).
148 years (29 + 119).
TERA'H
sets out from Ur to 'Haran (Karrä), that is,
back towards Osroëne, on the way to Canaan.
He lived 205 years. At the age of 70 he
begets three sons in Ur.
Sarai: ABRAM,
the Hebrew ('Hibri), sets
out with Terah from Ur
to Haran.
NAHIOR.
HARAN,
† in Ur before the
Exode.
ABRAHAM,
to Canaan, 75 years old (50),
Sichem, Bethel, 'Hai, Egypt,
and 'Hebron (Kiriath-Arba),
where Sarah dies among the
Hethites.
Milkah: LOT: Yiskah
sets out with Terah
to Haran,
to Canaan.
There are here four points which cannot be historical.
Terah has a son in Ur, who dies there before the tribe
goes to Haran. This son is named Haran. His son,
Lot, accompanies Terah to Haran, as he afterwards ac-
companies Abraham to South Canaan. We need not be
astonished that Nahor, which is a purely personal name,
should be also given to the grandson. But there is some
difficulty in understanding how it can be an historical
fact, that the name of a district, to which the father
goes subsequently, was given to the son, who never went
to Haran at all. We are here passing from a geographi-
cal statement about settlements to personal history,
and the obvious inference is, that the name of the son
must originally have been an intimation that the house
of Terah, in South-Western Mesopotamia, came from Ur
of the Chaldees. It is, however, a wholly unimportant
point, both chronologically and historically. The only
thing is, to prevent the clear stream of the history from
SECT. I. F. II.] SERIES FROM ARPHAXAD TO TERAH. 371
being polluted and rendered liable to suspicion by a
jumble of this description.
The case is the same as regards the dates. The 148
years of Nahor, and the 205 of his son, cannot be histo-
rical; but why may they not be years of a chronological
series?
In the first place, from what has just been remarked,
the 148 years of Nahor must be held to typify the 148th
year of the settlement on the Skirtus, which is said to
have been 230 years, and which therefore lasted 82
years longer; for the Abrahamitic or Hebrew chrono-
logy does not proceed through the former from Serug,
but through Nahor from Ur in Chaldæa.
The date of the year 70, first connected with Terah,
is doubtless traditional. It forms a marked contrast
with the previous entries of age at the birth of the eldest
son, which vary from 29 to 35 years. Neither can it be
the archetype of the 75 years of Abraham, when he begat
Isaac, for that was an event quite out of the ordinary
course of nature which has reference to the age of 75,
and not to the 100 years afterwards mentioned.
The year 70 must therefore be the 70th year of the
chronology of Ur, which must have commenced with
Nahor.
We may fairly assume that Nahor did not seek for a
new home until he had a son grown up. We shall
therefore fix the immigration at the time when that son
entered into manhood. It is expressly stated that the
sons of Terah were established in Ur, but no such state-
ment is made as to Terah himself. He lived there until
his immigration into Haran on his way back to Canaan.
Nahor begets Terah in Serug: birth of Terah
Nahor sets out for Ur, with Terah, then 13
years old
1
13
Terah begets Abram at about the age of 25:
birth of Abram
26
BB 2
372
[BOOK IV. PART III.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
Terah begets a second son (Haran) (Abram 5) 30
(Haran begets Lot) at about the age of 25
(Abram 30)
Terah sets out from Ur to Haran with Abram
his son (and his wife Sarai), and with Lot
his grandson, in the year 70 (Abram 45), or
somewhat earlier.
Terah dies (Abram 45)
55
70
(Abram migrates to Canaan, 5 years afterwards, at
the age of 50.)
Admitting these three persons as well as the original
tradition about them to be historical, no one will dis-
pute that this is the natural arrangement. If there be
any error in it, it can only be to a very trifling extent.
It gives us the very year 70 as being the traditional
date connected with Terah, that is, the year of his death.
We are told that his intention was to go from Ur to
Canaan, but that he only got as far as Haran. He was
overtaken by death before he expected it. Our restora-
tion, however, shows it to be highly probable that he
died immediately upon his arrival in Haran, at all events
a very few years after.
But this same method of adjustment supplies us with
a simple, as well as very striking, explanation of the year
205.
If the year in which Terah the patri-
arch of the house of Abraham went
with his father to Ur was the thirteenth
of the chronology of Terah, and if in
the chronology of Serug the emigra
tion of Nahor represents the year
the year 70 of the chronology of Terah
148,
70
is the year
218.
13
makes exactly
205 years.
Consequently the year of the immigration
of Terah
SECT. I. F. III.] STARTING-POINTS OF CHRONOLOGY. 373
III. THE STARTING-POINTS OF THE CHRONOLOGICAL REMINISCENCES
OF ABRAHAM COMPARED WITH THE COMMENCEMENTS OF THE
BABYLONIAN AND EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY. CONCLUSION.
THE Pre-Abramitic chronology therefore gives
from Arphaxad to the birth of Nahor
from the birth of Nahor to the death of
Terah
from the death of Terah (the 45th year of
Abram) to the emigration
933 years,
70
5
1008 years.
Now as the first year of the immigration (the 51st
of Abraham) coincides with the year - B. C. 2877,
the commencement of the history of the
race of Abraham can hardly be placed
higher than
-
1008,
3885, or in
round numbers about B. c. 4000.
The chronology of Menes begins B. C. 3623,
the chronology of the first Babylonish
Dynasty earlier by
161 years,
consequently - B. C. 3784 years.
These two epochs, therefore, are both posterior; but
they represent at this early stage the commencement
of a vast empire, which, as can be conclusively shown
in the case of Egypt, it required, not centuries, but
thousand of years to build
up.
Now, if, in thus placing these dates in juxtaposition,
we are bound to bear in mind that the whole calcula-
tion of the sojourn of Abraham's forefathers and their
history in Mesopotamia is not based upon any strictly
chronological authority, like the two eras above men-
tioned; still less are we authorised in considering: hese
BB 3
374
[BOOK IV. PART III.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
narratives and dates as mythical, that is to say, pure
inventions. They bear throughout the stamp of being
real, not ideal, and are marked by a total absence of
systematic adjustment, which betrays the origin of all
mythical dates. With the exception of the father and
nephew we have no real personages, but we recognise
the meaning and value of the names and dates, when
once we comprehend that it is not the object of tradition
to do more than record the epochs of the progressive
onward movement of these people to the southward
and westward. Historical reminiscences necessarily form
the basis of these epochs, which must be considered
true where the unit is a generation, and there is no
object in making any nearer definition.
The tradition then respecting the antecedents of
Abraham in Mesopotamia forms a suitable background
for a strictly historical personality, and for the com-
mencement of a real chronological series arising out
of it.
In the second place, the date which we have thus
obtained, both for Abraham himself as well as the
earliest reminiscences of his ancestors in Mesopotamia,
fits remarkably well into our framework of the most
ancient people-history, according to the authentic data
in respect to Egypt and Babylon.
Thirdly, these reminiscences of the race from which
issued Abram, the son of Terah, the man of Ur of the
Chaldees, are of vast importance to general history.
They form the primitive history of the noblest and
most intellectual of the races who withdrew from the
Asiatic despotism which was springing up in the south,
as they had done at an earlier period from their original
home, owing to a voluntary forward impulse, or from
being driven to it by some extraneous cause.
Insignificant as the race then was, it contained with-
in it 3500 years ago the hope of Asia, just as 200
years ago the Pilgrim Fathers were the hope of Europe.
SECT I. F. III.]
375
CONCLUSION.
and bore with them the most prolific germ for the future
of mankind.
We have therefore discovered the existence of chro-
nological systems in perfect harmony with each other,
the construction of which can only spring from a con-
sciousness of the regular development of the germs of a
national life bearing the promise of a great future.
Such an age of already civilised peoples and races must
naturally have been preceded by a series of historical
developments, and of historical if not actually chrono-
logical reminiscences; a series which is now computed by
epochs, but at an earlier stage only by strata of language,
and by epochs of mythological consciousness.
This is the domain of the Origines, and the first
topic to be treated of in the Fifth Book, to which
portion of our work a further discussion of it must be
reserved.
BR 4
1
1
i
PART IV.
THE
HISTORICAL CHRONOLOGY OF THE CHINESE.
I
}
1
} ་
!
379
A.
INTRODUCTION.-
POINT OF VIEW, AND METHOD OF
TREATMENT.
IT has been more than once remarked in the course
of this work that the connexion between the Chinese
and the Egyptians belongs, in several of its phases, to
the general history of the world. The Chinese lan-
guage is the farthest point beyond that of the formation
of the Egyptian language, which represents, as com-
pared with it, the middle ages of mankind, the Turanian
and Chamitic stages of development.
The Chinese,
who migrated before the deluge, have no reminiscences
any more than the Egyptians, of the great catastrophe
which we know by the name of the Flood of Noah.
Their chronology is very intimately connected also in
several respects with the solution of the problem now
before us. An explanation must be given of the reason
why it commences at a later period than Egyptian
chronology, much later, indeed, than is generally sup-
posed. Search must be made in other quarters than
the extant regular chronology, for proofs of that vast
antiquity which the numerous records of language
compel us to assign to the Origines of the Chinese.
The merit of the researches hitherto made in this
direction belongs almost exclusively to the French, from
the Jesuits in the early part of the 18th century down
to Silvestre de Sacy, the critical editor of the researches
of Father Gaubil in 1814. Gaubil's first astronomical in-
vestigations were published under the name of Souciet,
a few years before those of Fréret, which formed an epoch
in science, appeared in the Transactions of the Academy
of Paris, in the year 1736, though written in 1733.
380
[BOOK IV. PART IV.
CHINESE CHRONOLOGY.
All the great French astronomers, among others
Laplace and Pingrè, have directed their attention to
this subject.
The Germans have contributed to it no-
thing but the treatise of Ideler, which, like every thing
written by him, contains valuable and profound re-
search, but it is certainly less successful than his pre-
vious works.
In the following pages I shall take the above as my
text-book, but shall only discuss such points as have an
immediate bearing on the present inquiry. In order to
make the subject more intelligible to such of my readers
as have not pursued these studies, I shall give a com-
pendium of the principal epochs in Chinese history,
according to the views which, in so far as necessary,
are fully established by the following researches.
FIRST EPOCH. THE PERIOD BEFORE YAO.
Confucius, from a proper feeling that this period was
unchronological, did not mention it in his commentary.
The reigns which have been assigned to it by the
older chronologers, four of 332 years, or three of 241,
according to the valuable canon of the Bambus-book,
and by more modern chronologers, sometimes thirteen
with 966 years, sometimes twenty-eight with 2526.
are mere incoherent fragments of traditions or fictions of
an earlier date.
SECOND EPOCH. YAO AND SHIN.
The reigns of these two princes of Shen-si are
usually computed at 150 years; but the canon of the
Bambus Book assigns to them 156. According to the
mythical version of the Shuking, these rulers are not
only placed in personal connexion with each other, but
also with the founder of the first imperial dynasty TA-
Yu, that is, the great and good Yu. In order to make
this in some degree possible, others, Pan-ku for instance,
A.] POINT OF VIEW AND METHOD OF TREATMENT.
381
have reduced the period to 120 years. But as a first
step to a restoration of a rational view of Chinese chro-
nology, we must admit that there is a gap here which
has been patched up and artificially united. Imperial
history and imperial chronology commence with Yu.
Yao and Shin belong to the special history of the original
seat of the race, the northern district Shen-si. There
is no certain chronological connexion between them.
THIRD EPOCH. THE IMPERIAL DYNASTIES.
The following are the dates of the canon in the
Bambus-book:
I. Dynasty Hia. First Emperor,
Yu: Duration
II. Dynasty Shang. First Em-
peror. . twenty-eight reigns
in fifteen generations. Duration
III. Dynasty Tsheû. Length of the
first eleven reigns
Twelfth King Yeû-Yang: his
sixth year is the identical day
and year of the eclipse of the
sun of 776 B. C., as recorded in
the Shi-king.
Consequently the first year of
Yeû-Yang is 781
CONFUCIUS lived under this
dynasty, and he recorded the ob-
servations of the solar eclipses
Years. Beginning
B.C.
432 1991
509
509 1559
1050
269
from 481 B.C. upwards to 720
(551-479).
IV. Dynasty Tsin.
Length, 255-
207
49
255
V. Dynasty Han. Length from 206
B.C. to 264 A.D.
469
206 to
A.D. 264
382
CHINESE CHRONOLOGY. [Book IV. PART IV.
B.
THE ORIGINES AND PRIMITIVE HISTORY DOWN TO THE
BEGINNING OF THE FIRST IMPERIAL DYNASTY. 152
ACCORDING to Lit-se, one of their most distinguished
writers, the universe sprang from the union of the male
primeval power, Yang, and the female, Yin. Originally
the male principle alone existed. The existence of
æther marks the great beginning. An organized All
formed itself out of chaos, the finer parts mounting up
(heaven), the lower remaining below (earth).
Pu-An-ku, the primeval man, came out of the mun-
dane egg; he lived 18,000 years.
Then came the reigns of heaven - the reigns of
earth the reigns of men, during myriads of years.
Sui-shin, one of these old rulers, discovered fire, took
observations of the stars, and investigated the five
elements.
These were succeeded by the Five Rulers, who are
mythical representatives of historical epochs in the
primitive history prior to Yao, as recorded in the
annals of Shen-si, the original district of the race.
I. FоHI, the Great, Brilliant (Tai-hao): cultivation
of astronomy and religion, as well as writing. He
reigned 110 years. Then came 15 reigns.
II. SHIN-NONG (divine husbandman).
Institution
152 For the details I refer my readers, in addition to the Shuking
and the French writers, to Guzlaff's "History of the Chinese Em-
pire down to the Peace of Nanking," edited by Professor R. F.
Newman. It is a classical authority for the modern and most mo-
dern history. In the earlier portion there is all the simplicity of
Herodotus, but its great blot is the repudiation of Confucius.
B.]
383
ORIGINES AND PRIMITIVE HISTORY.
of agriculture. The knowledge of simples applied as
the art of medicine.
III. HOANG-TI (great ruler) came to the throne in
consequence of an armed insurrection (new dynasty),
and was obliged to put down a revolt. In his reign the
magnetic needle was discovered; the smelting of copper
for making weapons, vases of high art, and money;
improvement in the written character, said to be bor-
rowed from the lines on the tortoise-shell. It consisted
of 500 hieroglyphics, of which about 200 can still be
pointed out. He established fixed habitations through-
out his dominions, and the astronomical cycle of 60
years, in the 61st year of his reign. Musical instru-
ments. It was in his time also that the fabulous bird
Sin appeared. The empire was considerably extended
to the southward.
The next two emperors seem to have been his de-
scendants. Under the former of them, SHAO-HAO, the
heresy of god- and demon-worship is said to have
sprung up,; but this can only be true as regards the
corruption of the primitive worship of the dead, that is,
the worship of the Shin, the spirits of the departed.
For this, the only vital element in their religion at the
present day, is a primitive dogma, associated with the
worship of the heaven and earth. In the reign of the
latter of the two, TSHUEN-HIÜ, the conjunction "of the
five planets" is recorded.
These were followed by an elective emperor of another
race, KAO-SIN, or the Black Ti-ko. He had a great love
and knowledge of music, and lived an effeminate life.
His posthumous son was appointed by Yao governor
of the province of his maternal ancestors. The old
ballad-book, Shi-king (iv. 3. 3.), speaks of the mother,
as being the ancestress of the second Imperial dynasty,
Shang.
The eldest of the sons of Kao-sin was dethroned on
account of his excesses, and YAO elected in his stead.
384
[BOOK IV. PART IV.
CHINESE CHRONOLOGY.
Yao and Shin-nong form the junction between the old
history of the aboriginal country and imperial history.
In his time the celestial globe was made on which the
constellations are represented. The computation of
years had fallen into confusion.
SHIN, the son of poor parents, a man of enormous
stature, was chosen by Yao as his son-in-law and suc-
cessor. The Shuking contains some ancient maxins.
of them both, which are difficult to understand. Yü,
the great son of Kuen, a governor and director of the
water-works, succeeded Shin: they reigned a consider-
able time conjointly. According to tradition we then
come to the first Imperial dynasty. The question now
to be considered is, whether we can find an astro-
nomical check for this period, the close of which is ob-
viously historical, although the tradition is wanting in
strictly historical coherence.
C.
THE DATE AND REALITY OF THE CYCLE OF SIXTY YEARS.
FRERET, in his clever and learned treatise, has, I
think, advanced the most irrefragable proofs that the
astronomical cycle of 60 years, which the Chinese first
made use of, as we have seen, in the 61st year of
Hoang-ti, and the 76th recurrence of which they will
celebrate in 1864, is a primitive institution, and the
key to their whole astronomical system. I think that
not only our Chaldean researches, but also the Egyptian,
authorise us in deciding that the Chinese system is the
most ancient form of a primitive and very simple
equation of lunar and solar years.
C.]
385
CYCLE OF SIXTY YEARS.
The Triakontaeteride of the Egyptians, or the great
festivals of the period of 30 years, lead to the cycle of 60
years; for, as already remarked (p. 64.), there is no other
way of explaining them but by reference to that cycle.
The half period was celebrated in order to give each
king the possibility of taking part in it. Plutarch, in
his work on Isis and Osiris (chap. 75.), unquestionably
alludes to this cycle, when he says that the 60 eggs,
and the 60 years that the crocodiles lived, were ad-
mitted by persons skilled in astronomy to be symbolical,
to be the first measure or lowest unit of the equation of
years. At the end of every 60 years there was exactly
a difference of half a month between the fixed solar
and the vague civil years.
The Indian cycles appear to have commenced with
the rude equation of 5 years, but doubtless they made
use of one consisting of twelve times that number, or
60 years, as a corrective formula. There is, on the other
hand, no proof of their being acquainted with the
Chaldee cycle of 600 years, which evidently was of a
later date, when they had made an advance in science.
As regards the Chinese, it is fully established in the
first place (Ideler, 214.) that they possessed a lunar
year, which they regulated by the solar year of 3651
days. It is further established that they possessed a
sexagesimal cycle for days, months (of 5 years, 5 × 12
=60), and years.153 The cycle for days implies a year
of 6 x 60=360 days, as well as a fixed lunar year. The
Metonic cycle of 19 years=235 synodic months (19 ×
12 [228]+7 intercalary months) only occurs after the
time of Han. Still they must have possessed, pre-
153 Martini (Historia Sinica, p. 14. ed. Monac.) asserts that the
Egyptians computed by the era of 60 years of Hoangho. See De
Vignolles, Miscellanea Berolinensia, t. iv. 37., on the Cycle of Months.
Comp. Ideler, App. ix. The monthly cycle now commences with
the third month, then goes to the 15th, &c. Before the time of Han
what is now the first month was the third.
VOL. III.
C C
386
[BOOK IV. PART IV.
CHINESE CHRONOLOGY.
viously to that time, a cycle for the same purpose of
equation, and everything tends to the conclusion that it
was one of 60 years (60 years=60 × 12[720]+22=742
months).
1. The cycle of 60 days can be explained by it.
2. The cycle of 60 years must have been so arranged
that after a certain time the annual cycle was again
coincident with the first daily cycle. It is true that
there seems to be no direct mention of it in the Shu-
king, and the notation of the annals by means of it,
from the time of Yao downwards, might afterwards have
been introduced by calculation. Still it is universally
admitted that this system is well adapted to the old
chronology.
3. Ideler himself admits (158.) that one circum-
stance can be explained by it, which is unintelligible
on any other, namely, that the year as arranged by
Yü gradually got into such disorder, that, instead of
beginning at the sign of the Waterman, it receded into
the middle of the sign of the Archer (137.).
=
4. Fréret supposes that it must have been computed as
follows: 60 tropical years=742 months-2 days and
20 hours. Consequently in 600 years 7420 months-
28 days 1 small lunar month of 29 days, with far less
error than the Julian intercalary period, which is 1 day
in excess every 125 years.
Now the following divisions of time were in use
among the Chaldees (Ideler, 78. seq.):
1. The 12-yearly year according to Censorinus, an-
nus Chaldæus, as the cycle for the fertility of the
years.
Scaliger made the remark that the 12-yearly zodiacal
cycle, which is in use among the Tatars (Mongols, Mand-
shus, Igurians), the inhabitants of Thibet, the Japanese,
and Siamese, dated from the earliest times. Among
the Tataric populations, however, this is a cycle of 60
years (12 x 5). Of the Indians we have already spoken.
C ]
387
CYCLE OF SIXTY YEARS.
ú
2. The cycles of 60 years
sossos.
600 years-3600 years.
SAROS.
NEROS.
600 years give an excess
with far greater accuracy
Now when we find that
of exactly one lunar month,
than the Julian year, such a cycle must have been in-
dispensable when that of 60 years was in use, and conse-
quently must have been employed by the Chinese, or at
all events have been known to those from whom they
borrowed the latter.
Josephus also calls 600 years the great year, which
may have been observed by the patriarchs.
The cycle of 6×600=3600 does not belong to this
simple system of equation of the solar years of 3651
days and the lunations. Wherever the lunar year is the
one in general use, it is only necessary to intercalate
months, not years as was the case with the Egyptians.
The cosmic year of the Chinese of 129,600 years, men-
tioned by Tshu-hi after Shao-kang-tsi (Neumann, p. 59.),
also implies the periods of 60 and 600 years.
For 129,600 years = 216 × 600
= 2160 × 60 (2160
X (2160 = 6 × 360, a
multiple which cannot be accidental).
It further results from all this, as Ideler has admitted
without remark, that, in spite of the objections made to
it by himself and Letronne some years ago, the year of
360 days has in reality great astronomical significancy,
inasmuch as 360-12 x 30. The three decades into
which the Chinese month is divided also imply a refer-
ence to 30, the number of days in a month, as being
the standard for the year. In the "little" month the
decade consists of only nine days.
The scientific problem thus offered for our solution is
the following. It is admitted that the Chinese, from the
earliest times, made use of a sexagesimal cycle for the
division of the year=6 × 60 days, and they marked the
years by a cycle of 60 years running concurrently with
the cycle of days.
c c 2
388
[BOOK IV. PART IV.
CHINESE CHRONOLOGY.
7
This cycle, therefore, must have been originally insti-
tuted at a time when the first day of the daily cycle co-
incided with the first year of the annual cycle, i. e. when
they commenced on the same day.
Ideler (273.) thinks it impossible to ascertain this,
owing to the irregularity of the old calendar. But it
does not seem to be irregular in this particular point,
and it would, at all events, be worth while to examine to
what period such a calculation would bring us. It
would then be requisite to collate the result with the
astronomical observation and the chronological data of
the annals, previously to which many preliminary re-
searches must be made.
As regards astronomical observations, Laplace (Ex-
position, p. 400.: see Ideler, § 338.) found that the
notice about the size of the sun's shadow, from the
observation of the Viceroy Tsheû-kung about 1100 B.C.,
was singularly correct. This prince, the brother of Wu-
wang the founder of the Tsheût dynasty, measured
the shadow at the solstice.
The date of the most ancient astronomical entry in
the Shuking (chap. Y hiün) is the first year of Tai-kia,
the second ruler of the Shang. (Gaubil, Lettres édifiantes,
p. 322., id. 272.) But the most important one is in the
first chapter of that record. The signs of the four car-
dinal points of the year are there noted in the time of
Yao. Ideler (iv. 297. seq.) found that they are
exactly correct for a period of about 4000 years before
1837, i.e. about 2163 B.C., and we shall see that accord-
ing to the most trustworthy authorities that is the
exact date of his reign; although, according to the
chronology of the Celestial Empire now in vogue, which
has been framed on no critical basis whatever, it is
placed in the year 2300.
The question therefore arises, whether these earlier
observations cannot be applied for fixing the chrono-
logy. But here we must be specially careful not to con
C.]
389
CYCLE OF SIXTY YEARS.
found retrospective calculations with actual contempo.
rary annalistic notices. The rules of criticism are
very simple. It is easy to calculate backwards eclipses
of the sun (correctly or incorrectly) as the Romans and
Egyptians have done. But appearances of rare OC-
currence, and which are difficult to calculate, such as
many of the planetary conjunctions, must either be pure
inventions or contemporary notations of some extraordi-
nary natural phenomena.
One instance that may be cited is the traditional
observation 154 of a conjunction of five planets (among
which the sun and moon are mentioned) on the first
day of Litshin in the time of Tshuen-hiü, the second
successor of Hoang-ti.155
Suppose this should have been the great conjunction
of the three upper planets, which recurs every 794
years and 4 months, and to which Kepler first turned
his attention in reference to the year of the nativity of
Christ.
It took place in the following years:
The one which occurred in historical and Christian
times was in November, 7 years B.C. Consequently the
conjunctions prior to it occurred
in
Y.
M. D.
794 4 12
7 10 12
786
6
0
794 4 12
and the conjunction in the time
of Tshuen-hiü in
1580 10 12
794 4 12
2375 2 24
According to the official Chinese tables, as given by
154 Ideler, p. 128. seq.
155 Gaubil, Traité, p. 269. Comp. Cassini and Kircher.
CC 3
390
[BOOK IV. PART IV.
CHINESE CHRONOLOGY.
Ideler, he reigned from 2513 to 2436; but the dates
vary to the extent of more than 200 years; and the
year 2375 comes within the limits of these deviations.
D.
THE PRINCIPAL POINTS RESPECTING THE EARLIEST
DIVISIONS OF THE YEAR AMONG THE CHINESE.
1. In the second dynasty the DAY commenced at mid-
day.156 Wu-wang, the founder of the third dynasty,
fixed it at midnight.157
2. The WEEK of seven days (Zi=7) was only used for
astrological purposes; its antiquity is proved by the 28
lunar stations. We know that it depended originally
upon the four lunar phases, but it was connected in China.
as elsewhere with a certain succession of the planets.
Ideler states that, according to Gaubil, the characters of
one of the seven planets (from the sun to Saturn) were,
in early times, annexed to the characters of the station.
He professed to have discovered that the use of this was
first authentically recorded on the monument of Sigan-
fu, erected A.D. 781, but Gaubil says that Confucius
mentions the Zi-week as being in use in the time of
Tsheû (the third dynasty).
3. The Chinese began to reckon their SOLAR YEAR of
365 days from the day of the winter solstice, which
they fixed by observation of the longest shadow on the
ground at midday. 158
4. The CIVIL YEAR commenced at the lunar month
in which the sun enters Pisces. This consequently is
156 Gaubil, Lettres édifiantes, p. 330.
158 Ib. Observations, ii. 138.
157 Ib. Traité, p. 34.
D.]
391
DIVISIONS OF THE YEAR.
determined by the conjunction in the Waterman (the
previous full moon). (The beginning of the first moon
is the new moon in the Waterman, consequently the ver-
nal equinox is the full moon of the second moon, the
autumnal equinox the full moon of the eighth. The
solstice coincides with the full moon of the fifth and
tenth months.)
The Chinese have four SEASONS, of three months each
(first, second, and third moon of the season). They are
divided into six sections (zi tshi), of 15 to 16 days.
Hence they divide the ecliptic into 24 equal zones, each
containing half a sign.
1. Zi tshi.
4.
""
7
10
13
16
39
"}
29
19
19
""
22
Winter solstice, 21. Dec. = Capricorn, be-
ginning.
Beginning of Spring, 5. Feb.=middle of
Capricorn 45 days before the equi-
=
nox: Sidsuen the first new moon of
the year.
=
Pisces intervenes.
Vernal equinox, March 22.=Ram, be-
ginning.
Beginning of Summer, May 5.=middle of
the Ox.
Summer solstice, June 22. = the Crab, be-
ginning.
Beginning of Autumn, Aug. 5.=middle
of the Lion.
Autumnal equinox, Sept. 22. Balance,
beginning.
Beginning of Winter, Nov. 5.=middle of
the Archer. 159
Their civil year, then, begins in the month nearest to
the middle of the Waterman. It is said to have been
instituted by Tshuen-hiü (2513-2436, see above), that
159 Ideler, 335.
cc 4
392
[BOOK IV. PART IV,
CHINESE CHRONOLOGY.
is, by one of the kings anterior to Ta-Yü, the emperor
of the first dynasty.160
The Great Yü farther ordained that the first month
of spring, that is, the month in which the sun entered
into Pisces161, should be the first of the year, consequently
45 days before the equinox, equal to Feb. 5. It is stated
in the annals that during the second dynasty, Shang
(1766-1154) [1740-1122], the beginning of the civil
year was brought forward one month, that is, to about the
7th of January, consequently the year began when the
sun entered the sign of the Waterman.
In the third dynasty, Tsheû (1122-314), it was again.
brought forward a month, and therefore it began in the
month in which the sun entered Capricorn, or about the
7th of December. All this is based upon old traditions
and notices of solar eclipses which have been preserved
in the commentary of Zo-Tshuen upon Confucius' An-
nals of the Collateral Dynasty. This commentary was
written in the year 500.162 In the reign of the Tsin,
which only lasted 48 years, the beginning of the year
was pushed back one sign. (Ideler, N.). But it would
seem, nevertheless, that the system of Yü was always
adhered to, namely, that the month with which the year
commenced, should be called the vernal month.
In the time of the Tshei therefore, the beginning of
spring in the civil calendar fell in the middle of the sign
of the Archer, or about the 7th of November.
In the time of the Tshin (255–207 B.C.) a further
retrogression of one month is said to have taken place.
All this is explainable by the cycle of 60 years,
in which every 600 years there was an error of a month.
According to the ordinary assumptions the calculation
certainly does not hold good.
160 Gaubil, Observations, i. 182.; Traité, 261.
161 Gaubil, Traité, 21.
162 Ib. 232. 238. 243.
D.]
393
DIVISIONS OF THE YEAR.
Taking the year 2200 as the beginning of the first
dynasty, Hiü,
1 month was lost in the year 1600
2 months were lost
""
3
were lost
(the 166th year of
the Shang.)
1000 (the 38th year of
the Tsheû.)
400 (it took place under
the Tshin (255
-207), it must therefore have occurred after 256
and before 206 (the same year in which the Han
succeed.)
It is, however, obvious from a variety of considera-
tions, that the supposed beginning of the Great Yü can-
not be sustained. We would merely remark here, that,
according to Cassini, the great solar eclipse mentioned
in the annals during the reign of Shin (the predeces-
sor of Ta-Yü) occurred on the 25th of October, 2007,
which, according to the genuine tradition, was the 16th
year before the accession of Yü. This assumption
(1991 the first year of the first dynasty), calling it
in round numbers 2000 B. C., would make these periods
to have commenced in the years
2000 1400 800
200:
which is very nearly the first year of the Tsin. Now,
as this dynasty reigned but a short time (48 years),
the coincidence may be considered as complete.
A permanent improvement was made in the calendar
during the reign of this dynasty.
*
394
CHINESE CHRONOLOGY. [BOOK IV. PART IV.
E.
RESULTS TOWARDS AN APPROXIMATE RESTORATION OF THE
CHRONOLOGY PRIOR TO YÜ.
FROM the remarks made at the commencement of this
discussion respecting the ordinary Chinese chronologies,
in which there is a discrepancy of two centuries and a
half, and of which the official one is the worst, it is clear,
not only that the current views upon this subject are
untenable, but also that it is possible to make an ap-
proximative restoration.
The story in the Shuking is altogether valueless,
in so far as regards the personal connexion between
Yao and Yü. Yü is made to save the country from the
great inundation in the time of Yao when he was
viceroy, by erecting enormous dams and cutting through
rocks, and then, after Yao and Shin are both dead,
he becomes emperor himself, and enjoys a long reign.
This is utterly impossible. In one passage Yao's suc-
cessor is called Shin-Yü.
The difference between the commencements of the
respective reigns of Yao and Yü is as follows:
according to Semakuang, 2357 and 2207-
""
""
Panku,
2303
99
150 years,
2183120
Bambus-book, 2147 1991-156
99
that is, in the very authority which is in other points
so valuable, the difference is greater than it is in the
latest systems.
We have Yü's own unquestionably genuine account
of the labour employed upon the great work by
which he saved the country in the inundation. After
E.]
395
APPROXIMATE RESTORATION.
the Egyptian monuments there is no extant contem-
porary testimony more authentic, and none so old as the
modest and noble inscription of that extraordinary man.
It is true that it has now become illegible, but a copy
was made of it about 1200, in the time of the Song,
which has been preserved in the high school of Si-an-fu,
and in the Imperial archives at Pekin. Hager has
given a tracing of it.168 Only those who are unacquainted
with the subject can entertain any doubt as to its
originality.
As regards the interpretation, the correctness of the
transcript of the primitive characters into the ordinary
written signs is essentially authenticated by Chinese tra-
dition and research. Yü the Great is as much an histo-
rical king as Charlemagne ; and the Imperial tribute-roll
of his reign in the Shuking is a contemporary and pub-
lic document, just as certainly as are the capitularies of
the king of the Franks. The inscription itself, which is
the most ancient in the world next to those of the Old
Empire in Egypt, is perfectly trustworthy and intelligible,
and evinces the vast antiquity of writing in China;
for its characters are perfectly conventional, even
at that early time, and the meaning is quite clear.
The French version indeed of Father Amiot, published
by Hager, is not in the true sense of the word a trans-
lation. It is a transcript of the simple text, in which
considerable interpolations have been made without any
authority for them in the original, which is the purest
and most authentic sample of the ancient Chinese.
Klaproth's 164 is the first which deserves to be called a
163 Monument de Yu, ou la plus ancienne Inscription de la Chine,
suivie de trente-deux formes d'anciens caractères chinois, avec quel-
ques remarques sur cette inscription et sur ces caractères, par Joseph
Hager. Paris, 1802, fol. Klaproth (p. 25.) compared it with an-
other copy which he found in a Chinese work.
164 Inscription of Yü, translated and explained by Julius von
Klaproth. Berlin, 1811, 4to.
396
[BOOK IV. PART IV.
CHINESE CHRONOLOGY.
translation, and some parts even of it might be rendered
more accurately. The literal version on the opposite page
will show the monumental form of the inscription 165, and
enable those who have any acquaintance with the lan-
guage to understand the philological principle upon which
my accompanying translation is based. The aim has
been to give it the concise character of the original, and
to mark the division into three stanzas, which correspond
with each other almost like strophes. The speech of the
emperor already quoted out of the Shuking was my
guide in rendering the first. A comparison of the two
will convince every one that the author of the Shuking
had this inscription before him.
Translation.
"The venerable emperor exclaimed with a sigh: 'Ho!
assistant
Counsellor 166 The islands, great and small, up to the
mountain's top,
167
The door of the birds and of beasts 168, all is over-
flowed together,
Is swamped: be it thy care to open the way, to let off
the water.'
"I had long forgotten my house, I lived on the top of
Yo-lu, in anxiety and weariness my body was consumed,
my spirit had no rest: I walked, I turned back, I
settled, I ordained: Shoo-a, Yo, Tai, Shen are the begin-
ning and end of my numerous works.
66
My task is completed: my sacrifice I have offered
165 The asterisks in the text mark the end of the several sentences
or verses.
166 This is generally translated, helpers, counsellors, in the plural
number, but neither in the Shuking, nor in this inscription, is the
plural used.
167 The lowlands and valleys are already overflowed, nothing but
the mountain-tops, the forests, and caverns, are out of the water.
168 Door, i.e. habitation, lair, resort. `.
E.]
397
APPROXIMATE RESTORATION.
IX.
VIII.
VII.
VI.
V.
IV.
III.
II.
I.
QUIES
*
IN MARE
DIRIGI
FINIRE
SUA
FUGERE
PENETRA-
RE
SECUNDUS YO
COR
FRANGERE OBLIVISCI
INUNDARI
INSULA
PARVA
VENERAN-
DUS
DOMUS
CIRCUM-
JUNCTIO
FLUI
(=cum, præ-
IMPERA-
TOR
positio)
SALTARE
VESTIMEN
TUM
SACRIFI-
CARE
TAI
NON
MORARI
AURIS
SUMMUS
DICERE
(=tu, tua)
VERTEX
*
SEMPER
PARARI
TRISTITIA
SEN
NON-ESSE YO-
INTELLI-
AVIS
SUSPIRANS
GENTIA
CURRERE
CIBUS
FINIRE
*
PRINCIPI HORA
UM
LU
*
VIAM APE- BESTIA
RIRE
ADJUVANS
CONFICI
TENEBRE
FINIS
IRE
*
ALTISSI-
MUS MONS
AURIS
(=et, conj.)
GERMINA-
RE (= nota
genitivi)
CONSILIA-
RIUS
DECEM-
MILLIA
REGNA
MUTARE
OPUS
VENIRE
SCIENTIA
TOLLERE
PORTA
PRIESTO
MERIDIES
MULTITU- RECTUM
DO
LABOR
JAM DIU
MIXTUM
GUBERNA-
RE
*
IPSA
FLUVIUS
LABOR
STABILIRE CORPUS
TOTUM
CORPUS
INSULA
398
[BOOK IV. PART IV.
CHINESE CHRONOLOGY.
in the second month: trouble is at an end, the dark
destiny is changed: the streams of the south flow
down to the sea: garments are prepared, food is pro-
vided, all the nations have rest: the people enjoy them-
selves with gambols and dancing." 169
All the confusion or ignorance of the missionaries
arises from their believing that this event referred to
the Flood of Noah, which never reached this country.
Chinese writers have never considered this great
work of Yü as anything more than the deliverance
and preservation of the country from the rising and out-
break of several streams.
In a short Chinese account of it published by Klaproth
is the following:170
"In the sixty-first year of the reign of the Emperor
Yao, serious mischief was caused by inundations. The
emperor took counsel with the great men of the empire,
who advised him to employ Kuen to drain off the
water. Kuen was engaged upon it for nine years
without success, and was condemned to be imprisoned
for life. His son Yü was appointed in his stead. -
At the end of nineteen years he succeeded in stopping
the inundation, and made a report to the emperor upon
the subject."
But the historical truth of the fact is fully proved
both by the inscription and the work of Yü itself.
The inscription was on the top of the mountain Yu-
lu-fun, in the district of Shen-shu-fu. Owing to its
having become illegible in early times, it was re-
moved to the top of an adjoining mountain. The
original was discovered, as already mentioned, in the
169 This may have been an exclamation: Provide garments, pre-
pare food, live at ease, all ye nations- let the people indulge in
gambols and dancing.
170 Asia Polyglotta, (2nd edit.) p. 32. It contains also the de-
tailed illustration from the work of the learned disciple of Confucius,
Meng-tsö.
E.]
399
APPROXIMATE RESTORATION.
beginning of the 13th century, and transcribed into
more modern characters.171 The former locality tallies
exactly with the very interesting description of the
empire in the time of Yü which we find at the opening
of the second book of the Shuking.172 It is a public
statistical document, which, if not made in his reign,
was, at all events, drawn up immediately after his death,
and it will bear comparison with the Monumentum
Ancyranum of Augustus.
It may be presumed, after this verification, that in
future nobody will seriously doubt the strictly epic de-
scription of the Shuking in the Canon of Yü, where
we read:173
"The emperor said: 0 thou Governor of the four
mountains of the empire!
The swelling flood is producing mischief:
It spreads itself far and wide:
It surrounds the hills, it overflows the dams:
Rushing impetuously along it rises up to heaven :
The common people complain and sigh."
Upon this Kuen is at length recommended: for nine
years he is employed on the work, but accomplishes
nothing. The emperor, who was in his 70th year, then
promises his throne to any one who will find a remedy for
the evil. Yü-Shin, an unmarried man, is proposed: which
is simply a mythical combination of Yi and Shin, in order
to connect the great deliverer with the two old empe-
rors, Yao and Shin. In a subsequent passage, the per-
son selected is called simply Yü. The punishment of
Kuen is then mentioned in the second chapter, the
Canon of Shin.174 In the following section (the Deli-
171 Klaproth, Monument of Yü, p. 24–28.
172 Shuking, p. 108–115., Medhurst's edit., Shanghai, 1846.
173 Ibid. p. 9-12.
174 Ibid. p. 27.
400
[BOOK IV. PART IV.
CHINESE CHRONOLOGY.
berations of Yü the Great) the emperor thanks Yü175
in the following terms: "In the time of the great in-
undation thou performedst thy promise and completedst
thy work." Here we have an authentic standard for
testing the value of the stories in the old Shuking.
They seem to be a compilation of fragments taken from
dry authentic records and historical ballads. The
historical version is the later form, and hence it is in
several places at variance with the historical facts.
This Yü, whose name is written with the same
signs, was the founder of the first Chinese dynasty, and
took the throne-name of Hia. With him, therefore,
Chinese history proper commences. Stronger proof
cannot be given of the loose and unhistorical manner in
which his reign has been joined on to that of the great
Emperor Yao, the hero of the traditions of the early
empire of the Shen-si, than the story we have quoted
from the Shuking. But this is no reason for doubting
the historical character of Yao. Ideler's calculation of
the astronomical passage in the Shuking, before alluded
to, settles that question. (Supplement, iv. 297. seq.)
In the first chapter of Yao the four zodiacal signs
are recorded, namely, the equinoxes and the solstices,
with which the four cardinal points of the year coincided
in his time. Two of these still bear the same name.
The other two are explained by an authentic tradition
emanating from learned men in the time of the Han (Sta-
tions 25 and 4, 11 and 18). Ideler computed the con-
stellations backwards for 4000 years, from 1837 to 2163
B. C. This latter date only differs by 16 years (2163 in-
stead of 2147) from the entry in the Bambus-book of the
commencement of Yao's reign; in other words, the year
2163 was 16 years prior to his accession. According
to Panku, Yao began to reign in 2303, and consequently,
according to the usual traditional length of his reign, it
175 Shuking, p. 50., Medhurst's edit., Shanghai, 1846.
E.]
401
APPROXIMATE RESTORATION.
lasted till 2202; according to the Semakuang, he reigned
from 2357 to 2256.
The question is, whether Ideler's calculation holds.
good for a longer series of
longer series of years. When Gaubil says
that very little reliance can be placed on this entry, be-
cause we cannot be sure that the places of the stars were
at that time accurately observed, all doubt on that
head is removed by Ideler's computations. Gaubil was
obliged to be circumspect. In pursuance of orders from
Rome, the Jesuits did not venture to dwell too much on
the antiquity of observations which reached beyond the
Flood. But Fréret, also (397.), thinks there is an uncer-
tainty to the extent of three degrees, which leaves a
margin of 210 years.
The most ancient account is in the Shuking, chap. Y
hiün, of the 12th month of the first year of Taikin, the
second ruler of the Shang (second dynasty).176 Fréret 177
says that, according to this, the only chronological
systems respecting the commencement of Yao's reign
on which reliance can be placed are those of the Bam-
bus-book and the Semakuang. But even then there is
still the discrepancy between 2145 (2147) and 2357.
In order, therefore, to fix the date more definitely, re-
course must be had to the most ancient astronomical
data. It has been stated that, from the entry in the
12th moon of the first year of Taikin, the second king
of the Shang (who, according to the Annals, reigned
from 1753 to 1721), the date of Yao's accession must be
either 2357 (according to the Semakuang and the
Annals), or 2147 [Fréret, 2145] (according to the
Bambus-book).
The difference, 210 years 3 astronomical degrees.
In favour of the former it is urged that the solar
eclipse in the sign Fang in the first year of Tshong
Kang, the fourth ruler of the Hiü (according to Sema-
176 Gaubil, Lettres édif. p. 328. seq. Id. 272.
VOL. III.
D D
177 P. 393.
402
CHINESE CHRONOLOGY. [BOOK IV. PART IV.
kuang and the Annals, 2159-2147) took place in the
year 2155 the fifth year of Tshong Kang.
But against this the following objections are very
properly raised:
1. That before the time of the Han, Fang was called
Ho, Ta-ho (fire, great fire).
2. That the eclipse was a very partial one, less than
an inch. But the one mentioned here filled everybody
with alarm, and the astronomers were punished for not
having prognosticated it.
3. That during the 13 years of Tshong Kang's reign,
and the 27 of his son (40 in all), two usurpers held the
supreme power. Yeu Tsho and the emperor lived in
the desert; the whole story about troops being sent
against the two astronomers is, consequently, a popular
fable, like many others in the Shuking.
4. It seems that the first time a computation was
made of the zodiacal signs, in reference to this eclipse,
was by an astronomer, A. D. 600. In the oldest records
of eclipses 178 no mention is made of the signs. The
whole entry thus far is of a doubtful character.
It was in following out this train of reasoning that
Fréret was struck with the idea of attempting to carry the
chronology further, by making use of the cycle of 60
years. 179
His conclusions are as follows:
1. The reform of the calendar occurred in the year
104 of our era.
2. We possess two certain astronomical observations
of solar eclipses prior to the Christian era:
On the 6th of September, 776 (in the time of the
Tsheu, according to the Shuking), and on the 7th of
Aug. 198 (in the time of the Han). According to the
calendar, the latter lasted from the 10th moon of the
second year of a cycle of 60 years to the 6th of the
40th year of the 9th cycle of the former.
178 Fréret, 396. N.
179 P. 398.
E.]
403
APPROXIMATE RESTORATION.
The interval 211,085 days
Lunations according to the cycles
=7148 lunations.
≈ 7145
3 lunations.
3. Consequently there is an intercalation of three
months beyond the ordinary intercalation = 89 days.
This is equivalent to 87° 40'. Now as 2° 48′ 60
years, 87° 40′ 1880 years, for the above interval.
Consequently 104+1880-1984 is the commencement of
the old calendar, which, according to the Bambus-book,
is the eighth year of Ta-Yü.
Consequently the accession of Yü, 1991, was the
commencement of a regular chronology and adjust-
ment of the year: and hence the accession of Yao
was either +120=2111, or +156=2147.
We now give the proof which has been alluded to
above. It ought to result from this, that the loss of the
third month in the chronology of the Chinese, before
the reform of the calendar under the Han, took place
during the reign of the Tsin, which lasted 47 years.
The fact of the first being lost under the Shang, and
the second under the Tsheû, does not decide the
question between the two entries, for these two Houses
reigned a long time, and the epoch in which the loss of
the month took place is not recorded. But the brief
epoch of the Tsin settles it in favour of the Bambus-
book. Now, if, upon the adjustment of the calendar by
the cycle of 60 years in the year 981, the new moon of
the month preceding the vernal equinox took place in
the 15th degree of the Waterman, and if the calcula-
tion of the Bambus-book is confirmed by it
1. The loss of the first month, after 1880
years 180, occurred in the year 1358 B. C.
This is the 201st year of the Shang.
180 60 years = 2° 20′= 68 hours.
626/
40
45
""
""
100 years
4 days 17 hours.
DD 2
404
CHINESE CHRONOLOGY. [Book IV. Part IV.
2. The loss of the second month (1358 minus 627)
occurred in the year 731 B. C.
Which year is the 319th of the Tsheût, who began
to reign in 1050.
3. The loss of the third month 105 B. C. (731 minus
626).
The ordinance that the beginning of the year should
be thrown back to the tenth month was issued by the
last king but one (246-210, that is within 4 y ars
the end of the Tsin dynasty). In the year 210, con-
sequently, there were only 5 days wanting.
According to the common chronology the dates would
run thus: 181
Yü's accession
One month lost
Two months lost-
Three months lost
2207 B. C.
1581
954
328
Now, as the Tsin began to reign in the year 255, the
loss of the third month would have taken place 73 years
previously.
It would be sufficient for our purpose to adduce this
proof of the correctness of the calculation in the Bam-
bus-book. But I am convinced that additional evidence
might be offered. The most important thing would be
to ascertain whether more accurate data cannot be
obtained about the epochs when the recession of the
vernal equinox in the signs of the ecliptic took place
in the reigns of the Shang and Tsheû.182
181 Ideler, 335. N.
182 See Gaubil, Traité, 232. 238. 243.
F. I.]
405
HISTORICAL RESULT.
F
THE CHRONOLOGICAL RESULT.
I. HISTORICAL RESULT IN RESPECT TO THE DATES OF THE
CHINESE.
THE general historical and chronological result of our
previous researches into Chinese chronology may be
summed up in the following terms:
I. Systematic Chinese history and chronology hardly
go back as far as the year 2000 B. C., i. e. to the reign of
Yü (1991).
II. This is the point at which the history of China,
or of the empire, commences. For Yü was the founder
of the dominion of the kings or princes of Shen-si in
Southern China as far as the great river, inasmuch as
he diverted the course of the Yellow River, and thereby
rendered the fertile plains between the rivers capable of
cultivation. The general statistical survey of the em-
pire which was made in his reign, containing the details
of the designs and institutions of that truly great
emperor, proves that the foundation of the empire was
really laid by him.
III. The Shen-si dynasty, however, possessed annals
of an earlier date, at the head of which were the
Great Fohi and the Emperor Hoangti, and a still earlier
history before their time.
IV. This earlier history is subdivided into two
parts:
First, that within the country itself:
Secondly, the Primeval time proper, or life of the
Chinese people in their aboriginal country, Northern
Asia, the country of Kienlung, and the mythical river of
the North.
V. All the geographical traditions of the Chinese, as
DD 3
406
[BOOK IV. PART IV.
CHINESE CHRONOLOGY.
may be seen in Ritter's work, refer to this immigration
from the West.
VI. The inundation, therefore, in the reign of Yao
had just as much to do with Noah's Flood, as the dams
he erected and the canals he dug had to do with the
Ark. The learned Jesuit Fathers were well aware of
this, but they were prevented by orders from Rome
from publishing the truth. The fact of so absurd an
idea being accepted by the English and Scotch mis-
sionaries, and even by Morrison himself, is a very me-
lancholy instance of the way in which the sound judg
ment of learned men may be warped by rabbinical
superstition and the intolerant ignorance of their
Churches, in the investigation of historical truth.
II. GENERAL CHRONOLOGICAL RESULT.
WE shall content ourselves with expressing the ge-
neral result in the following terms:
1. It was assumed, as Fréret has shown, so early as
in the reign of the Han, that 742 lunations, 22 of which
were intercalated, are equivalent to 60 years. They
were, therefore, not aware that there was any flaw in
that calculation, and consequently could not know how
to correct it.
2. In like manner, the only cycle in use among the
Turanian races, in Old India and Thibet, was that of
60 years, and in the form 12 × 5.
3. In the Chaldee chronology, on the other hand, a
cycle of 60 × 10 years was employed (10 sossi being
equivalent to one saros), and Josephus styled the epoch of
600 years which grew out of it the Great Patriarchal
year. It was necessary to observe this to understand
the order of the constellations.
4. In reality, the intercalation of an extraordinary
lunar month of 29 or even 30 days, every 600 years,
produces on the whole a closer approximation between
F. II.]
407
GENERAL CHRONOLOGICAL RESULT.
26
the current years and the tropical, than the Julian inter-
calation. For the latter makes an excess of one day
every 128 years, whereas the intercalation of a month of
30 days in 600 years produces a deficit of only 1
day (30 days instead of 281), in a month of 29 days
aizie
1 day.
5. If we would explain the neri of 600 x 6=3600 years
by the same system, we must suppose that the later
Chaldees were aware that the equation of this epoch is
not perfectly accurate, and that they at the same time
computed the duration at 5 days, so that it was only
after the occurrence of 6 of those epochs that the year
was again brought into complete equilibrium, inasmuch
as they were obliged to omit the extraordinary interca-
lation at the end of the 3600 years.
6. As regards the reciprocal relations between the
Chaldees and Chinese, the following points may be con-
sidered as established:
a. The earliest Chinese chronology rests upon a con-
ventional basis peculiar to itself, that of limiting the
lunar year by a cycle of 600 years, which is common to
the whole of North Asia and the Chaldeans; and probably
(as it is also met with in India) to the Bactrians also:
this basis is historical.
b. The communication took place before the Chaldees
invented the cycle of 600 years.
c. The Chinese observation is based upon the use of
the Babylonian gnomon.
DD 4
PART V.
THE
PHOENICIAN, ASSYRIAN, AND BABYLONIAN ERAS AND
HISTORICAL EPOCHS
CONFRONTED WITH THE EGYPTIAN DATES.
1
411
SECTION I.
THE PHOENICIAN, ASSYRIAN, AND BABYLONIAN SYNCHRO-
NISMS WITH THE HISTORY OF EGYPT.
A.
THE PHOENICIAN SYNCHRONISMS.
I. THE POINTS OF CONTACT AND THE POINTS OF CONTROVERSY.
Down to the present time neither the historical monu-
ments nor the chronicles of either nation have furnished
us with a direct synchronism between any Phœnician
and Egyptian events. Ramses III. conquered Tyre; but
nobody has told us in what year of Old Tyre the con-
quest was made. We cannot, however, avoid making a
few observations upon the Phoenician dates on the
present occasion, because they may possibly supply, or
at least be supposed to supply, arguments against our
view of the very high antiquity of the commence-
ment of People-history. We hope, however, that they
will strengthen our assumption, by proving its absolute
necessity. There was an era both of ancient and mo-
dern Tyre, and there were registers in the temples of
that city of the third millennium B. C. Out of these
Menander of Ephesus compiled a historical narrative,
extracts from which, as given by Josephus, will be found
in our "Appendix of Authorities." But there is, besides
this, a more special authority as to modern Tyre (the
Tyre of the thirteenth century). Our determination of
the date of Solomon is an important point for Egyptian
history in two particulars, both for the computation
*
412
BOOK IV. PART V.
WEST •
ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
backwards and forwards. We have, in one case, the
son of that monarch brought into contact with the
Egyptian conqueror; in the other, the building of the
Temple calls upon us to settle the question how long a
period has intervened between the Exodus and that
event. We assumed the building to have been com-
menced some ten years later than the ordinary computa-
tion. Since that, Movers, the most recent investigator
of Phoenician history, for whose soundness as a critic
the highest respect must be entertained, has felt com-
pelled to place it 45 years later still than is ordinarily
computed, and he accordingly disputes the date I have
assigned to Solomon. The only argument advanced
against me seems to be the assertion that the determina-
tion of the date of Hiram necessitates the adoption of his
view, which, as we shall see forthwith, is founded on a
mistake. The other charge against me is pretty much
of the same character, namely, that I have made ar-
bitrary alterations in the "Canon" of Manetho. This
is the name which Movers gives even now to the Lists
made by Africanus and Eusebius out of Manetho, which
rarely agree with each other; and in which, even in the
New Empire, there are many gaps, in the 20th Dynasty
for instance, where all the names of the Ramessides are
omitted. This is a view of the case for which I certainly
was not prepared. Any one at all conversant with
hieroglyphical research must be aware that, in spite of
the devastation of so many centuries, the extant con-
temporary monuments furnish us with dates of reigns
higher than those transmitted in the Lists. These, he
thinks, can be got over by supposing there to have been
collateral reigns in these instances, some of which I have
myself admitted. But he forgets that I have only done
so twice in the 12th Dynasty, and in the computation of
the length of the reign of Tuthmosis III. But in both
of these cases it was the monuments themselves, and the
contradictory entries in the records, which justified me,
SECT. I. A. II.] FOUNDATION OF CARTHAGE.
413
42
Does he seriously
and indeed compelled me to do so.
mean to argue that we are bound to adhere to the
150 or 153 years assigned by the Epitomists to the
dynasty of the Psammetici, when the sepulchral inscrip-
tion of a man who lived during it, and who states his
age in years, months, and days, as well as the number
of years the kings reigned in whose time he was
born and died, makes it 159 or 160, instead of the 150 or
153, not of Manetho's "Canon," which is unfortunately
lost, but of two Lists which contradict each other, and
are evidently full of errors of transcription? Fortunately
we have now a sacred Apis who gives still more decisive
evidence against Movers. But his chronology is in a
most unfortunate plight, for I find that even my own.
calculation is too low, as the following researches will
show. The year of the building of Solomon's Temple
(969 in Movers) I no longer make 1003, but 1014,
which very nearly agrees with the chronology generally
adopted.
This difference of opinion, however, shall not deter
me, before I test his system, from expressing the
high respect I entertain for his sound Phoenician re-
searches, to which I am so much indebted, and for which
I have great pleasure in offering my thanks, both as
regards the chronology and mythology.
II. THE DATE OF THE FOUNDATION OF CARTHAGE.
Ir might, indeed, seem as though the assumption,
about which there is no doubt, that Carthage was
founded in the year 813 or 814, was at variance with
all our previous Jewish chronology. It is, however,
rendered certain, both from concurrent testimony and
from concordant calculations.
Aristotle says that Utica was built 287 years before
Carthage. Pliny states (likewise from native sources of
information) that the shrine at Utica was consecrated
414
[BOOK IV. PART V.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
1178 years before his time, that is, in the year 1100
B.C., or a year later. Putting the two notices together,
we must come to the conclusion that Carthage was built
in 813 or 814 B.C. (1199-287).
The well-known statement in Justin (xviii. 3.) also
brings us to one of these two years. When, according
to the few extant MSS., he says 72 years before the
building of Rome, this computation, which makes it
825 or 826, would only be so far deserving of attention
as to induce us to see whether we must decide in favour of
813 or 814. It cannot weaken the authority of the two
other writers, or create any doubt in our minds.
If the informant of Pompeius Trogus is to be relied
upon, and if he did not miscalculate, he certainly could
not have written LXXII, but LXII: 753+ 62 makes 815,
which may very easily have arisen from some other mode
of computing the dates which were to be compared.
In calculations of this kind, which depend upon a
comparison of native and foreign eras, a difference of one
year is no difference at all. The entry in Justin, when
thus interpreted and corrected, certainly gives the
preference to 814 over 813, and we therefore assume
that 814 B. C. is the year of the commencement of the
Carthaginian era.
What makes the whole calculation so important for
our chronology, however, is this, that Josephus has
given extracts from Menander's Phoenician Annals, in
which the flight of Elissa from Tyre seems to be placed
in the seventh year of the reign of her cruel brother
Pygmalion, the king of that country. The whole
passage is full of difficulties, but its immense importance
to us consists, as will be apparent forthwith, in its giving
the following synchronism-the 4th year of Solomon
11th (or 12th) year of Hirom.
In Menander's Annals of Phoenician history, ex-
tracted from the primeval registers of Tyre, Solomon
and Hirom are mentioned as contemporaries. Now,
SECT. I. A. III.]
415
HIROM AND SOLOMON.
Josephus' main object was to show that the stories he
quoted from Jewish history, and the date assigned by
him to Solomon, agreed with these Tyrian Annals. This
would have compelled the spiteful Alexandrians and
incredulous Romans to desist from rejecting the despised
traditions of his people as barbarous and incredible
fables, and from writing such nonsense as even his con-
temporary Tacitus was still writing about them.
A closer examination of the relation between the
dates of Hirom and Solomon, will also assist us in
settling the date of Carthage.
III. THE ELEVENTH YEAR OF HIROM AND HIS SYNCHRONISMS
WITH SOLOMON.
OWING to the importance of the points now under
discussion, we have inserted in the "Appendix of Authori-
ties" the extracts made by Josephus from the historical
works of Dius and Menander. Movers has submitted
these invaluable fragments to critical examination. In
reference to this we subjoin the following synopsis of
the whole series of Tyrian rulers, from Hirom to the
foundation of Carthage.
Abibalos (Abi-Bahal, of whom Baal is the father)
was succeeded by
Hirom (HURAM, the Bel- Regnal
snake?)
Baleastartos
(BAHAL-
Lived.
Accession.
Years.
34
53
in 20th year.
43
37th
22
9
29
21st
ASTAROTH), his son 7
-
Abdastartos (servant of
Astarte), his son
Popular rising: headed by the four sons
of the royal nurse, the murderers, the
eldest of whom became king:
Anonymous (government
seized by the slaves?) 12
in
year.
62 years.
416
[Book IV. PArt V.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
Brought forward
Regnal Years.
62
Lived.
Accession.
12
54
""
42nd year.
Astartos, son of Baleas-
tartos
Astarymos
(ASTARIM,
Astartier), his bro-
ther, is dethroned and
murdered by his bro-
ther
Pheles (the beautiful)
Dethroned and slain by
Eithobalos (proximity of
Baal)
Balezaros (BAHAL ZOR,
9
54
46th
""
0 8 m. 50
50th
""
32
68
37th
""
i. e. Melkart), son
Myttonos (MUTTON, Gift,
6
45
40th
i. e. of Baal), son
9
32
24th
""
56
10th
""
Phygmalion (Smith of the
Most High, Sculptor) 47
Sum total
177 years and 8 months.
In order to test these dates which have come down to
us in the translation of Josephus and Rufinus, we must
notice the two following remarks of the former of these
writers:
First of all upon that of Menander:
"In the seventh year of Pygmalion his sister fled,
and founded the city of Carthage, in Libya."
Then follows his own calculation:
"From the reign of Hirom (i. e.
from the first year of Hirom)
-
to the building of Carthage 155 yrs. 8 mths.
"From the 12th year of Hirom
(the year of the building of
the Temple), to the building of
Carthage
-
143 yrs. 8 mths."
SECT. I. A. III.]
417
HIROM AND SOLOMON.
We see at once that these two latter sums agree per-
fectly. They are also corroborated by another state-
ment in the same work of Josephus (ii. 2.), where he
says that the period between the accession of Hirom
and the building of Carthage was 150 years. Assuming
these dates to be correct, there are 18 regnal years
wanting. For, if there was an interval of 155 years
and 8 months between the first year of Hirom and the 7th
of Pygmalion (or 143 years and 8 months between the
12th of Hirom and the great event in the 7th of Pygma-
lion), the sum total, from the beginning of Hirom's reign
to the end of Pygmalion's, which lasted 47 years, must
be 195 years and 8 months, and not 177 and 8 months.
Movers, in order to get over the deficit of the 18
years, adopts the dates of Syncellus, and alters the 6 years
of Balezar into 8, and the 9 of his successor, Mytton,
into 25.183 Eusebius tries to get out of the scrape better,
by making the 9 into 29. But his entire omission of the
tyrant's reign is quite inadmissible, while at the same
time he gives Baleazar 17 years instead of 7.
doubtedly there is something suspicious about the 12
years assigned to the tyrant, inasmuch as the same
number follows directly after. Instead of 12, therefore,
we only give him 10 years, and thus obtain + 20 — 2
= 18 years.
Un-
It is hardly possible that the copyists should have
made such serious blunders in the MSS. of Josephus
(which are corroborated by Rufinus), as to alter a 6 into
8, and 9 into 25. There is no instance of such blundering.
From the beginning of Hirom's reign, then, to the
death of Pygmalion, we have 195 years.
The Tyrian chronology adopted in our tables is calcu-
lated according to this restoration.
It now remains for us to consider the most important
of all chronological data we mean the one about the
183 Movers, Phoenicians, ii. A. 138. Comp. B. 149–158.
VOL. III.
E E
418
[BOOK IV. PArt V.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
era of Tyre, where Josephus mentions the synchronisms
of the building of the Temple.18 He says, without
further comment, that the eleventh year of Hirom,
which he here makes parallel to the fourth of Solomon,
was the two hundred and fortieth from the building
of Tyre. This is not a calculation, but a fact. He found
it so stated in the Phoenician Annals of Menander, which
he had before him, and which must have reckoned by
years from the building of Tyre.
But it is obviously his own computation that it was
this identical eleventh year of Hirom which was then
current (as he, Josephus, expresses himself) when the
Temple was built, and not an earlier or later one. Not
only did the Tyrian Annals not give the synchronistic
year, but they never even mentioned the building of the
Temple at all. If they had, Josephus assuredly would
not have forgotten to tell us of such a treasure.
says plainly, that the synchronism is his own calcula-
tion, for, in his work against Apion, he makes it the
twelfth year. And whichever of the two is the correct
date-it may be even a third date-the important point
to us is this, that
But he
The 11th year of Hirom was the 240th after the
building of Tyre.
This being established, we may perhaps be able to
compute the synchronism for ourselves, by the same
biblical data from which the Jewish historian must him-
self have calculated it.
Movers is good-natured enough to suppose that Jose-
phus found the twelfth year of Hirom recorded some-
where or other, as the Phoenician synchronism corre-
sponding to the building of Solomon's Temple; (in the
other passage, therefore, he must have found the
eleventh year;) but he cannot help admitting that,
in the citation from Menander, nothing whatever
is said about the building of the Temple, still less
184 Ant. viii. 3. 1. Comp. Movers, ii. B. p. 138. note.
SECT. I. A. III.]
419
HIROM AND SOLOMON.
about the year; that Dius likewise does not mention
it; the former, in fact, simply says that Solomon
was a contemporary and friend of Hirom. If Jose-
phus found the synchronism in some other author,
and repeated it on his authority, it is clear that he
gave the names of the authorities who said nothing.
whatever about the building of the Temple, and yet did
not give the names of those who supplied such welcome
data and so important for settling the chronology. This
would have been an oversight which nobody was less
likely to commit than Josephus, especially in a contro-
versy with the well-read and spiteful Alexandrian, who
cared nothing about Jewish chronology.
The assumption may be well founded, or it may not;
at all events, there is no authority for it; it rests
exclusively upon Josephus' chronological assumptions in
respect to Jewish history, that is, upon statements in the
Bible. Now, what did he find there respecting Hiram,
or Hirom? Four entries, well adapted, we might sup-
pose, to give him a clue, and also to make him think.
They are as follows:
1. Hiram sent workmen to David, and cedar wood,
to build him a palace at Jerusalem. (2 Sam. v. 11.;
1 Chr. xiv. 1.)
2. He did the same to Solomon for building the
Temple, and indeed when making his preparations for
hewing the stone (1 Kings v. 12. seq.; 2 Chron. ii.
3—16., comp. ix. 10, 11.)
3. After the works were completed, he received from
Solomon twenty villages in Galilee, and this came to
pass at the end of twenty years.
4. After that he sent him seamen for his fleet at
Ophir. (1 Kings ix. 10-14. 26-28.)
Hiram, therefore, must have been living at all events
in the 24th year of Solomon's reign.
On the other hand, it is impossible to determine the
precise date of the building of the cedar house of David.
*
EE 2
420
[BOOK IV. PArt V.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
We are quite ready to agree with Movers that it does
not follow from the place where this is noticed in the
Book of Kings, that the building commenced immediately
after the royal residence was removed from Hebron to
Jerusalem, in the eighth year of David's reign, though
that fact is mentioned immediately before it. It must,
however, be admitted that it is not very probable David
should wait till the end of his reign to provide a suitable
house for himself and his numerous wives. Whoever
insists upon this, would do more wisely to invent, like
Tatian, and other ecclesiastical writers, a second Hiram,
in spite of its positive impossibility. The historical
critic, however, will suppose that Hiram, as the celebrated
friend of Solomon, is here mentioned instead of his
father Abibalos. At all events, the first year of Hiram
cannot be placed later than the 30th of David, even if,
out of regard for the Jewish chronologers, rather than
from historical probability, we should be prepared
to admit that the Indian fleet was fitted out by Solomon
in the very year in which he gave to Hiram the twenty
villages in Galilee, the price of the labourers and the
assistance supplied by him, and that this was also the
year of his death. We might indeed assume the very
reverse, for it is mentioned that Hiram was very dissatisfied
with the bargain when he saw the twenty villages, and
called them "dung." Yet it would seem, from the
Phoenician accounts, that they contrived to be on friendly
terms. The chronicle states that he received besides a
considerable sum of money from Solomon. He was
probably reimbursed by the partnership with the Jewish
king in the Indian trade, of which the latter had the key.
Now, looking at the question immediately before us,
the date of the foundation of Carthage, we cannot
disguise the fact that the flight of Elissa is chro-
nologically very loosely connected with the compu-
tation of the era of Carthage, which, as we have seen,
must, according to the best authorities, date from
SECT. I. A. IV.] ERA OF THE SIDONIAN TYRE.
421
814 B. C. It will be necessary, therefore, to make a
special calculation of our own, in order to see what
number of years elapsed between her flight into Africa
and the consecration of the new city which had to
be built in the meantime. Now we learn that the
colony of patricians which Elissa took with her set-
tled first in the old city of Byrsa, (not "Cow-hide,”
but "Citadel," namely "Bozra,") whether they built
the city itself, or, as seems certain, found there an
ancient Phoenician settlement. Around this citadel they
afterwards built, in the circle (Ma'hal, whence Magalia),
the new city (Kartharasa, whence the Karkhedon of the
Greeks, Carthago of the Romans); and it is admitted
to be this new city, the dedication of which, after it
had been walled in, gave rise to the era of Carthage.
This accordingly may just as well have happened 60
years as 20 after the flight of Elissa. By attempting to
combine the two events, we lose the true year for both
one and the other, and throw everything into confusion.
The celebrated passage in Josephus, then, gives us no
new information about the era of Carthage, but it is not
directly at variance with it; on the contrary, it confirms
it as far as it goes. Neither does it tell us anything
more than we know from the Bible about the date of
Solomon.
But it gives us positive data for the era of the
Sidonian Tyre, which is so important, and which we now
proceed to consider.
IV. THE ERA OF THE SIDONIAN (MODERN) TYRE, AND ITS POINTS OF
CONTACT WITH JEWISH AND EGYPTIAN DATES.
THE eleventh year of King Hirom was the two hun-
dred and fortieth after the building of Tyre.
This is all the information we derive from Josephus
in aid of the Tyrian chronology.
But the value of the Tyrian era, as well as of every
£7
E E 3
422
[BOOK IV. PART V.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
other era, in reference to general history, consists in its
enabling us to incorporate it into the general history of
nations. In this point of view, Tyrian and Jewish
chronology, to a certain extent, mutually assist each
other. But a third point has been hitherto wanting for
verifying the system we have pursued with regard to
them both. The era of Carthage does not supply this,
as has been thought by some, any more than it can
itself be determined with anything like accuracy by the
Tyrian series.
We will now endeavour to show that the Egyptian
chronology does, to a certain extent, supply the means
of fixing the limits somewhat more accurately than
has been possible heretofore, and that it explains more
especially the origin of the Tyrian era.
Jewish history possesses two points of synchronism
with Tyre-Solomon and Hirom, and Ahab and Ithbaal,
or Ithobaal, whose daughter Jezebel Ahab married. We
shall point out, upon the basis of the previous research,
that there is a perfect concordance between our dates of
the two Jewish kings and the Tyrian accounts, whereas
Movers' assumptions, which differ so materially from
the common Jewish chronology, involve us in inextri-
cable difficulties.
We think that the year 1014 is proved to be the year
of the building of the Temple on coherent critical
grounds, and it differs very little from the ordinary
computation. But this date is the result of research
based upon the Bible, and such it remains. It cannot
be said that we have authentic proof that this is the year.
The fact of Movers having adopted the year 969, or 45
years later, shows that a little further examination of
the point may not be wholly supererogatory.
The commencement of the Tyrian era has now been
pretty generally fixed at about 1250, and this date has
been adopted by Duncker in his ancient history, with a
soundness of judgment and historical tact for which he
SECT. I. A. IV.] ERA OF THE SIDONIAN TYRE.
423
V
is so eminently distinguished. We think we can show
that the more accurate date is 1254. No one has yet
attempted to explain it historically. Justin (xviii. 3.)
remarks, and it certainly was not an invention of hist
own, that Tyre was founded by the Sidonians, who fled
thither when the king of Askalon captured their city,
and that the date of its foundation was the year before
the sack of Troy. Did we but know at how many years
before the Olympiads, or the building of Rome, Pompeius
Trogus computed that event; and whether, like Era-
tosthenes, he adopted 1183 (1184), 407 before the
Olympiads, or 1209 like the Parian register, or like
Herodotus, Thucydides, and others, some intervening
date between 1250 and 1270!
The above remark of Justin may probably be very
important to us hereafter, but it can never form the
starting-point of serious research, because it is alto-
gether unsupported.
The Assyrian era of Ninus and Semiramis is in the
same category. The latter we think may be determined to
a year, and that it coincides with the year 1273 B. C., the
date which Movers also adopts for it. But he considers the
Semiramis of the 13th century as a mere corruption of the
myth of the Goddess Derketo, or Semiramis, interspersed
with a few historical traits of a later Queen Semiramis-
Atossa of the eighth century. This, we think, a pure
delusion on the part of the ingenious critic. To history
it is wholly indifferent what fables may have been mixed
up with the stories of the childhood or youth of the his-
torical Semiramis. The fact of the existence of a con-
quering queen in the early period of the Assyrian em-
pire is just as historical as the foundation of the empire
of the Franks by Charlemagne, in spite of all the fables
that have been interwoven into the personal history of
that great German king. If the name of Semiramis is
the stumbling-block, then almost all the Assyrian and
Babylonian kings must be set down as mythical, Nebu-
EE 4
424
[BOOK IV. PArt V.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
chadnezzar and Nabonadius, as well as Sardanapalus,
for they are all names and titles of gods, just as much
as Semiramis is, which signifies in Assyrian "the
fluttering," and may mean the divine dove, and a
queen.
But as early as the 17th year of Ninus, that is in
1257, the Assyrian empire embraced the same vast
extent of territory which we find it occupying at its
downfall in the eighth century. After the death of Se-
miramis, indeed, many of her conquests were lost, Egypt,
for instance, which, together with Syria, Asia Minor, and
Palestine, including Phoenicia, was made tributary in
those 17 years. Diodorus (ii. 2. on the authority of
Ctesias) mentions all these countries, as well as Cilicia,
among the conquests of Ninus during that period.
This synchronism may appear at first sight not very
suitable for the commencement of a new era of Tyre
about the middle of the 13th century. A new era im-
plies the commencement or restoration of independence,
but not conquest. Now the Island of Tyre, on which the
Sidonians after their expulsion settled, was indeed all
but impregnable, but it acquired its importance from
the city on the mainland over against it, as has been
very well pointed out by Movers. The Tyre, the era
of which commenced in the 13th century, must, in the
time of which we are treating, have comprised both the
island and the city in one. The island was the im-
pregnable marine citadel. It protected the docks and
warehouses, and the communication was kept up in every
direction by means of a port on the north and south sides.
But assuming the Phoenicians and Assyrians to have
been on friendly terms, how are we to account for
Askalon making conquests in Phoenicia at a time when
the vast Assyrian empire had already stretched out
its arms over all Western Asia, either as a patron
or conqueror? How do we know that the Sidonians
were not driven out at an earlier period?
SECT. I. A. IV.] ERA OF THE SIDONIAN TYRE.
425
There is an extant Egyptian record which may pos-
sibly throw some light upon this obscure point, if we
make use of it in conjunction with what we have dis-
covered from the monuments of Ramses III.
In making our survey of those historical monuments of
Egypt, a papyrus roll was mentioned, now in the Ana-
stasi collection of the British Museum, of the same date
as this very king, and therefore coeval with them and
just as trustworthy as they are, but containing more.
valuable and historical matter. The following passage,
which is perfectly intelligible, occurs in it:
"Tira, the city on the sea, which receives fishes from
the water and grain from the land."
These words cannot mean that Tyre obtained its fish
from the sea, and its grain from the mainland. This
would be a wretched platitude. But they become sig-
nificant and important when we know that the Tyre on
the mainland, with the rich pastures behind and around
it, and the Island-Tyre, the Queen of the Ocean, together
formed Tyre.
This explains, also, the superscription of the tower,
on which the name of Ramses was engraved, and which
he had captured. It was the citadel (Maka) of the Tyre
of the mainland. Nature has marked its position with
indelible characters, by a steep isolated rock, fifty feet
high, which rises abruptly out of the plain, a mile to the
southward of the present peninsula of Tyre, close to the
sea shore. A mile further to the southward, the site of
the ruins of the old city, it is a dead flat.
This rock,
now forms the centre of the Roman aqueduct, which
conveyed the water to the peninsula, and is consequently
the tower captured by Ramses, Maka-Tira.
It is true that the Philistæans (Purusata) took part in
this expedition against Tyre, and it is possible therefore
that Askalon may have done so, though it is not men-
tioned. But they were the antagonists and enemies of
#
426
[BOOK IV. Part V.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
the Egyptians, and some of them are represented in
fetters amongst their prisoners.
The war of Askalon against Sidon must consequently
have taken place after Ramses III. conquered a por-
tion of Phoenicia, that is, after 1274. But why may
not the king of Askalon have been the ally of Assyria?
A close connexion is represented as existing between
the city and Queen Semiramis, which connexion may in
reality very well be historical. The expedition of
Askalon against Sidon may also very well have been
undertaken somewhat later by an understanding with
Assyria.
There is
Together
Here then we have not merely an historical Egyptian
fact, but an equally historical Assyrian fact.
an historical connexion between the two.
they combine to throw light upon the obscure history
of the origin of the Island-Tyre, just at the most
critical period, and they harmonize with the statement
in Justin.
According to our tables, Ramses captured the for-
tresses of Tyre on the mainland in the year 1287, after a
naval action, in which the inhabitants of Akka (St. Jean
d'Acre) took part.
The people of Askalon therefore might very well
make war against Sidon, between 1260 and 1250. And
it was either the year in which the Sidonians, after their
expulsion, settled on the island, or the subsequent
revival of the whole of Tyre, island and mainland, which
gave rise to the institution of the Tyrian era.
Now the date of the commencement of this era,
which we deduce from the statement that the eleventh
year of Hirom is the two hundred and fortieth of that
epoch, tallies perfectly with such a connexion. It
is true that the era might be placed a few years too
high, or a few years too low, as the synchronism of the
eleventh year of Hirom and the fourth of Solomon
rests only on the authority of Josephus. But, to say
SECT. I. A. IV.]
427
ERA OF THE SIDONIAN TYRE.
the least of it, there is nothing in the assumption to
warrant us in deviating from the common chronology
by forty and odd years, as Movers has done.
We propose, therefore, at once, in spite of the slight
discrepancy in the date which cannot be entirely got
over, to take a cursory view of the relation between the
previous assumptions and the result of our comparative
criticism.
In the first place, the circumscribed limit of the epoch,
as determined historically, puts Movers' chronology
entirely out of the question. He makes the eleventh
year of Hirom 969; consequently the era would com-
mence in 1218. The latest date at which we have
found it possible to fix its commencement is 1250, and
this would therefore still be thirty-two years later.
Assuming, then, as shown in our chronological tables,
in agreement with the statements and computations of
Josephus, that the year 1014, the fourth of Solomon,
was the eleventh of Hirom, the Tyrian chronology will
stand thus:
Year of Tyre.
Foundation of New-Island-Tyre
1st year of Hirom
11th year of Hirom (4th of Solomon)
1
B. C.
1254
230
1025
240
-
1015
263
34th (last) year of Hirom
992
264
1st year of Baleazar (7 years)
991
271
1st year of Abdastartos (9 years)
981
280 -
1st year of the Tyrant (11 years instead
of 12)
974
292
1st year of Astartos (12 years)
964
304
313
331
1st year of Astarymos (11 years)
1st (and only) year of Phele (8 months)
1st year of Ithobal (32 years)
952
943
942
363
1st year of Balezar (6 years)
910
369
1st year of Mytton (29 years instead
of 9)
904
378
1st year of Pygmalion (47 years)
875
428
[BOOK IV. PArt V.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
B. C.
-
869
829
Year of Tyre.
384
424
7th year of Pygmalion
47th year of Pygmalion
Now this series of synchronisms harmonizes also
perfectly with the contemporaneity of Ahab and his
father-in-law Ithobal, the father of Jezebel.
V. THE DATE OF THE BUILDING OF THE TEMPLE OF MELKARTH ON
THE ISLE OF TYRE, OR THE ERA OF THE ELDER TYRE.
THE supreme Patron God of the Tyre so well known
to us in history was Melkarth; as the supreme Goddess
of Sidon was Astarte. This, as Movers has rightly re-
marked, is direct proof that Tyre was not originally a
Sidonian colony.185 We admit, indeed, as a historical
fact, that the city was rebuilt by the Sidonians about
the middle of the 13th century, and doubtless by the
Patrician races who had been previously driven out.
But the difference in their religious observances can
be accounted for by another circumstance, which is
equally authentic, and transmitted to us by Hero-
dotus, one which harmonizes as well with our general
view of ancient people-history, as it is at variance with
the ordinary rabbinical assumptions.
The account in Herodotus (ii. 43, 44.) is deserving of
especial attention, on account of the trouble he took to
obtain it.
The many thousand years which the Egyptian priests
claimed for the history of their country, and the high
antiquity they assigned to Hercules, furnished him with
matter for serious reflection. For, if this were true, how
could he be the son of Alcmena, whose age he thought
he knew perfectly well. He resolved, therefore, to probe
the matter to the bottom; and he did so with his usual
ingenuity. He tells his story in the following words: 186
185 Movers, Phoenicians, ii. A. p. 167.
186 ii. 43, 44.
SECT. I. A. V.] ERA OF THE ELDER TYRE.
429
"Now, being anxious to obtain as clear an insight as
possible into these matters, I embarked on board a ship
bound for Tyre, in Phoenicia, where I heard there was a
temple sacred to Hercules." He then enters into con-
versation with the priests of the temple about its date,
who told him that "it was as old as the building of
Tyre, and that Tyre had been inhabited for two thousand
three hundred years." If we adopt the usual date (the
year 460) for Herodotus' visit to Egypt, the date of the
building of Tyre would be 2760 B. c.
This, according to our Egyptian computations, is the
synchronism of the first period of the 12th Dynasty, 13
years before Jacob's journey into Egypt, and 116 years
after Abraham's immigration into Canaan. It will also
appear in the next Book that even Phoenician mythology
supplies some authority for this early date of the shrine
at Tyre; and that astronomical considerations prevent
the possibility of fixing it at an earlier epoch.
Now, if it should turn out that the immigration of
Abraham can be established as an historical fact, as well
as the natural phenomenon at the Dead Sea, by which
the cities of the plain were destroyed, this would furnish
a very satisfactory explanation of the commencement of
the era of Old Tyre. The building of that shrine was
obviously connected with the original settlement of the
Phoenicians. But, according to the official answer given
to Alexander by the Tyrians, there was a still older
shrine there, a temple of Melkarth on the mainland.
Whether this was true, or was merely an invention of
theirs to get rid of the Macedonian's artful inquiry, who
would have gladly given proof of his veneration for
Melkarth-Hercules, and whom they accordingly paid in
his own coin; still, from the obvious political unity
between the island and city of Tyre, we may safely
assume that the foundation of the two shrines took
place at the same epoch in the same century.
We are now able, for the first time, properly to appre-
430
[BOOK IV. PART V.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
ciate and understand the tradition transmitted by Justin,
which, like all the information about the Phoenicians in
his 18th book, was doubtless derived from excellent
native sources: That the earliest settlers on the Phoeni-
cian coast came from the neighbourhood of the Dead
Sea, from which they were driven by an earthquake.
This we take to be the historical gist of the passage
(xviii. 3.): 187
"The Tyrian people were akin to the Phoenicians,
who, being visited by an earthquake, left their homes
and settled, first, on the Assyrian Lake, from whence
they moved to the sea coast, where they built a city, to
which they gave the name of Sidon, owing to the
abundance of fish; for Sidon signifies 'fish' in Phoe
nician."
Now Sidon does not literally mean "fish," but "the
city of fishermen." The Assyrian inland sea (Assyrium
Stagnum) is certainly not the Sea of Galilee, but the
Dead Sea. The people who bordered upon it were
EDом, and РнOINIKE is a literal translation of EDOM, the
Reddish, Red-a designation which there are several
reasons for supposing to be aboriginal. Adam may per-
haps be the same name.188
About the time, therefore, of the immigration of
Abraham, the children of Edom were driven away by
an earthquake from the Syrian inland sea, the original
formation of which, by a subsidence of the ground below
the level of the ocean, is a fact belonging to the pre-
Adamite world.
It does not, however, necessarily follow that the
authority from which this information was derived
made this the original home of the Edomites. If
general tradition and the formation of language point
187 This passage will be explained more in detail in the Preface to
the Fifth Book.
188 Compare what is said above, under Ramses III., as to the name
of Damascus.
SECT. I. A. V.] ERA OF THE ELDER TYRE.
431
alike to the mountains of Armenia as the birthplace of
the Arab as well as Canaanitish races, we have probably
especial evidence, and that native evidence, to the same
effect as regards Edom, and consequently the Phoenicians.
Alexander Polyhistor189, the learned freedman and in-
timate friend of Sylla, quotes the following story out of
a work of one of his contemporaries, Apollonius Molon,
a native of Caria, a man in his time held in high repute
both at Rhodes and at Rome, and whom we learn from
Josephus to have been a learned writer, hostile to the
Jews. 190
"MAN (anthropos, i. e. Adam, Edom) was
driven with his sons, after the Flood, by the inhabitants
of the country, from their home in Armenia, and they
gradually moved on through the sandy regions, to the
then uninhabited mountainous district of Syria. This
took place three generations prior to Abraham the Wise,
whose name signifies Father's Friend. He had two sons,
one by an Egyptian wife, the patriarch of the twelve Arab
princes; the other, named Laughter (Gelos, consequently
the Laugher, i. e. Isaac), by a native woman. Laughter
had eleven sons; and a twelfth, Joseph, from whom the
third (of the Patriarchs), Moses, is descended."
The first explanation of this story is found indeed
in the Bible; but it has obviously another derivation,
quite independent of that, direct from Phoenician his-
tory. Movers very aptly identifies the mountainous
district of Syria here mentioned as Southern Judæa,
the region of Hebron, the home of the children of
Enak, who built there Kiriath-Arba, afterwards called
Hebron. At all events we have a pre-Abrahamitic mi-
gration of Edom, that is to say, of the ancestors of the
Red Men (Phoenicians), to the coast. They held South
189 In Euseb. Præp. Evang. ix. 19., where the reading was Melon
before Gaisford's correction.
190 Jos. contra Ap. ii. 7. and several following chapters. Comp.
Movers, ii. A. p. 50. seqq.
432
[BOOK IV. PArt V.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
Judæa, and all the region about the Dead Sea, part even
of Arabia and Lower Egypt, perhaps.
In the days of Abraham these children of Edom
wandered from the Dead Sea to the coast. A century
afterwards we find the old island-shrine of Melkarth in
existence, the relation between which and Esau we shall
treat of in the Fifth Book.
There is evidence throughout of a connexion between
oldest people-histories; and the history of Phoenicia
proves at all events that Abraham, if he were an histori-
cal personage, cannot have lived later than the founda-
tion of their oldest temples, but more probably about a
century earlier.
B.
THE HISTORICAL AND ASTRONOMICAL SYNCHRONISMS OF THE
ASSYRIANS AND BABYLONIANS.
I. THE SYNCHRONISM OF NINUS AND SEMIRAMIS WITH THE
TWENTIETH DYNASTY.
NIEBUHR, in his masterly treatise of 1819 on the
historical advantages derived from the Armenian trans-
lation of the Chronicle of Eusebius, has proved that the
Dynasty of the Ninyads in Berosus (Berôssos), the
great historian of the Babylonians in the third century
B.C., in perfect accordance with Herodotus, cannot have
been established more than 526 years before the era of
Nabonassar. The contrary theory, that the Assyrian
empire is of vastly higher antiquity, is based upon the
authority of Ctesias, a confused and uncritical writer,
whom, moreover, we only know through the version of
Diodorus. Unfortunately this view of history has been
SECT. I. B. I.]
433
NINUS AND SEMIRAMIS.
so universally adopted in all the school-books, down to
the publication of Duncker's work, that historians have
not been tempted to denounce it because it has no foun-
dation, nor theologians because it is at variance with
Scripture. Generally speaking, indeed, the study of the
old people-history of Asia has been totally neglected
by German philologers and historians, Movers only, and
a few younger scholars, having followed in the track of
Niebuhr.
Here we have simply to deal with it as to its bearings
on the synchronisms.
The term assigned by Herodotus to the Assyrian
dominion in Upper Asia (ii. 145.) is, as we know, 520
years. He does not specify how long the Median
anarchy, or their first period of independence, lasted,
during which they had no kings.
The accession of Deioces is the first definite date we
obtain from him. This took place in 709, which throws
back the commencement of the Assyrian dominion
beyond the year 1229. But his dates of the kings of
Lydia show that his calculations must have gone back
far beyond that time, and we glean from them what he
considered the date of Ninus, and the length of time
that the Median independence lasted. Agron, his first
He was the son
king of Lydia, began to reign in 1221.
of Ninus, to whom the legends of Asia Minor, as we
learn from Ctesias, assigned a reign of 52 years. If
Herodotus adopted this date, he must have made the
accession of Ninus to take place in 1273 (1221+52).
Calculating downwards, and deducting the 52 years
of the Assyrian dominion, this would make the date
of the revolt of the Medes 753. They were the first,
he says, who threw off the yoke of the Assyrians, and
the other people of Upper Asia soon followed their
example. We shall see in the sequel that, according to
Berosus, the Babylonians did so in the year 747. The
language of Herodotus and the computations of Berosus
VOL. III.
FF
434
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [BOOK IV. PART V.
are therefore in perfect accordance. In this manner
also the date of 1273 is established, and we now know
that Herodotus made the term of the Median inde-
pendence 44 years (753-709). 191
Eusebius, in citing from Berosus Alexander Poly-
histor's list of the dynasties of Babylon, which we shall
examine more closely hereafter, gives, after the dynasty
of the Arabs (the fifth), one of 45 kings, who reigned
526 years; among these, and to all appearance at the
head of them, stands the name of Semiramis. It was,
consequently, an Assyrian dynasty.
Here, unfortunately, as is generally the case with the
careless extracts of Eusebius from Polyhistor, he omits
the regular quotation of dynasties and their regnal
years. He then proceeds: "After these kings (says
Polyhistor) Phul reigned over the Chaldeans; he is
mentioned in Jewish history by the same name, and
is said to have gone into Judea. He then mentions
that Sennakherimos (Sennacherib) reigned." Here an
explanation must be found why Sennacherib, the con-
temporary of Nabonassar, happens to be omitted in the
list of Babylonian kings in the Canon of Ptolemy,
although his son, Assaradinos (Esarhaddon) is included
in it.
The general idea here to be borne in mind, in respect
to the connexion between the Assyrian and Babylonian
kings, is this:-The meaning of an Assyrian dynasty
being dominant in Babylon for 526 years is simply
that Nineveh, as the metropolis of the Assyrian empire,
then governed Babylon and Media. But these kings of
the race of Ninus, or the Derketadæ, naturally did not
reside in Babylon, but among their own people at
Nineveh, the city of Ninus, on the Tigris, opposite
Mosul. Babylon itself, according to the custom of those
191 For further details see researches by Johannes Brandis, ex-
ecuted with admirable clearness and care under the title of Assy-
riorum Tempora emendata, (1853) p. 3. seqq.
SECT. I. B. I.]
435
NINUS AND SEMIRAMIS.
countries, was governed by a satrap, or viceroy, and one
who doubtless exercised very great independent power.
Sennacherib, therefore, reigned over the whole empire
as supreme lord, and resided at Nineveh, the Assyrian
metropolis. After various successful struggles with the
Babylonian princes, who had hitherto acted under
Nabonassar with the same extensive independent powers,
he invested his son Assarhaddon with the sovereignty of
Babylon. The struggles, however, with these princes
still continued, till at length Nabopolassar, the father of
Nebuchadnezzar, who became satrap of Babylon in the
hundred and twenty-third year of Nabonassar, not
only made himself independent, but, in alliance with
the Medes, checked the career of the almost universal
empire of the Assyrians, and raised Babylon into
the seat of empire of Western Asia.
His history,
according to Berosus, was as follows:-Sardanapalus,
king of Assyria, commanded him to march against the
Medes, who had revolted. Instead of this he made an
alliance with Cyaxares, and marched with him against
Nineveh. Babylon, therefore, became entirely inde-
pendent upon the destruction of that city in 606. Of
the regnal years of the kings of Assyria, from Phul to
Sardanapalus, not one is given in the extracts from
Polyhistor, except those of the last three-Assaradin,
Samuges, Sardanapalus. No reliance can be placed on
any of the other data. Even as regards the length of
the reign of Sennacherib the data are incomplete. Nor
do the extant remains of the Jewish chronicles, unfortu-
nately, throw much more light upon his history. It is
clear enough that Sennacherib was coeval with the
later years of Hezekiah. But no chronology can be
framed upon that. In what year of Hezekiah he first
encamped before Jerusalem, in what year he set it on
fire, and what was the date of his second advance upon
it when he was obliged to retreat, cannot be determined
at all from the extant Jewish notices. We might be
FF 2
436
[Book IV. PArt V.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
tempted to conclude from the statements in the Book of
Kings, that he was murdered immediately after his
retreat, and consequently before the embassy of Mero-
dach-Baladan, and the death of Hezekiah. But this
would be an erroneous conclusion, as appears from the
account of Polyhistor.
We should thus have been without any guide, had
not Rawlinson's and Layard's discoveries at Nineveh
come to our assistance. From these we learn that the
name of Sennacherib's father was Sargina, the Sargon
of the Jews, Sarghun of the Arabs, and that he founded
a new dynasty. Here again the prophetic views of Nie-
buhr have been verified in a wonderful manner. He
supposed the commencement of the era of Nabonassar
to be the commencement of a new dynasty, and, as we
shall see, this is the only mode of solving the enigma.
It will appear from our tables what a satisfactory
shape this knotty point of Jewish, Israelitish, Assyrian,
Babylonian, and Egyptian synchronisms assumes, as soon
as we discard all unauthenticated assumptions, and follow,
for the history of the Babylonian kings, only the Canon ;
for the reigns of the Pharaohs, the Egyptian lists and
monuments; and lastly, for the kings of Judah and
of Israel, more especially, the chronicles of the king-
dom of Judah, and the historical accounts in the
Prophets.
In respect to this latter point, we would refer to our
illustration of the dates of the kings in the Divided
Kingdom given above, in the Third Part of this Book.
As regards the Egyptian dates, we have already shown
that, after the year 1276, the public monuments gradually
disappeared altogether, and that they ceased to orna-
ment even the royal tombs. The succeeding dynasty,
the 21st, exhibits similar decline. Sheshonk, at length,
the chief of the 22nd, threw off the Assyrian yoke.
He figures indeed as a conqueror in Palestine and Syria,
which countries, as well as Mesopotamia, he brought
SECT. I. B. I.]
437
NINUS AND SEMIRAMIS.
within the influence of Egypt. Owing, as it would
seem, to mutual feelings of personal obligation, a bond
of union, which was cemented by a matrimonial alliance,
was formed between the two sovereigns when the
royal house of Assyria had sunk into a state of effe..
minacy. This explains on the one hand the undoubtedly
Assyrian names which occur in the genealogy of the
house of Sheshonk; and, on the other, the hierogly-
phical ornaments in the gorgeous chambers of the royal
palace at Nineveh. The remains of this beautiful ivory-
and-enamel work (which was not executed in Egypt)
now adorn the British Museum.
As regards the Assyrian dates, there is only one
trifling inaccuracy which has found its way into Nie-
buhr's calculations. The era of Nabonassar down to
the accession of Nabopolassar is stated at 103 instead
of 122 years, because he followed Syncellus, whose
chronological entries will not bear any comparison
with those of the Canon of Ptolemy. In consequence
of this, Niebuhr placed the fall of Babylon, which
according to the Canon occurred in 417, a few years
too high. Assuming, therefore, 747 to be the year in
which the great Assyrian empire came to an end,
every historical fact recorded by the classics respecting
the era of the Ninyads is satisfactorily explained. Na-
bonassar gave to Babylon a respectable provincial inde-
pendence, although it was not the complete independence
of Babylon the Great. The history of all the Asiatic
monarchies is the same. Formed by great conquerors
and supported by powerful armies, after a single reign
or a few generations during which the energy of the
founder still survives, they sink under the internal weak-
ness of all despotisms, and the enervating luxury of
harem-life. The heads of the dominant race, the military
nobility, become gradually corrupted, and the empire,
built up on an artificial basis, only awaits the first
shock from without to yield to some new and enter-
FF 3
438
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. PART V.
prising conqueror. Thus Babylon fell; thus fell Nine-
veh before it, thus fell Persia after it, and so even,
though in a different manner,
different manner, fell the empire of
Alexander.
But the more this striking coincidence appears to
confirm Niebuhr's restoration of Assyrian chronology,
the more we feel bound to ascertain whether the calcu-
lation of Berosus cannot be brought into more general
accordance with the Bible, and be placed generally upon
a more satisfactory footing.
In order to do this, we must make a thorough resto-
ration of his Babylonian dynasties, commencing from
their chronological starting-point. Such an investiga-
tion will also have an important bearing upon the dates
and position of Egypt.
II. THE POSSIBILITY OF FIXING THE DATE OF THE SECOND Baby-
LONIAN DYNASTY, OR THE AGE OF ZOROASTER, AND THE DATES
OF THE SUCCEEDING DYNASTIES DOWN TO ALEXANder.
CALLISTHENES, to whom, as the favourite of Alexander,
all the treasures of Babylon were thrown open, had op-
portunities of consulting their astronomical observations
dating back 1903 years before that monarch's time. This
date is certain, from its being given in the Latin text of
the Commentary of Simplicius in Aristotle's work upon
"Heaven." Neither is its accuracy to be impugned on
account of the Greek text of the genuine Simplicius,
discovered by Peyron and edited by Brandis, containing
a mythical entry of myriads of cyclical years. 192 instead
of the year 1903.
'
192 Böckh, Metrologische Untersuchungen, p. 36.: and his Manetho,
p. 113. Niebuhr, by an oversight, says 1905. The text of Simpli-
cius in the Codex Taurinensis (in Brandis' Scholia ad Arist. p. 503 a. :
preceded by an account of the astronomical observations transmitted
by Callisthenes), runs thus : ἃς (παρατηρήσεις) ἱστορεῖ Πορφύριος ἐτῶν
εἶναι χιλίων καὶ μυριάδων τριῶν ἕως τῶν ᾿Αλεξάνδρου τοῦ
Μακεδόνος σωζομένας χρόνων. The Latin translation, made in the
13th century by G. de Moerbeka, runs thus: "Quales narrat Porphy-
rius esse annorum mille et nongentorum trium usque ad tempora
SECT. I. B. II.]
439
BABYLONIAN DYNASTIES.
The following list of Babylonian dynasties in Poly
histor's extracts from Berosus is given in the Armenian
version of Eusebius and in Syncellus. 193
The First Dynasty of 86 Chaldean kings, said to
have reigned in cycles of lunar years 34,080 years, we
shall at present pass over. After this, says Polyhistor,
the calculation by sari, neri, and sôssi, and every
thing mythical, ceases. In Berosus the computation
by solar years commences.
This observation would
lead us to suppose that, in the second dynasty, an
alteration was made in the calendar, marking an astro-
nomical epoch. As before, Berosus gave all the kings'
names and their regnal years, consequently according
to a fixed system of chronology.
(Second Dynasty, Median kings [" tyrants,"
i. e. foreign rulers]): Zoroaster and his
7 successors)
8 kings
. 224 years.
[A marginal note in the MS. says 234.
Syncellus assigns to the 7 successors of
Zoroaster 190 years: 34 therefore be-
longed to the founder of the Dynasty,
or, if the marginal note is correct, 44.]
(Third Dynasty, no names, probably natives,
therefore, Chaldeans):
11 kings (the date in the MS. blank-the
marginal note fills it up with 48: read 64
or if the reading of the note be
adopted 54).
288 years.
Alexandri Macedonis servatas." The Aldine edition gives the same
date, which is merely a re-translation back into Greek, p. 123.
There is no authority for 31,000 years in the old accounts.
Lepsius (Einl. p. 9. note 1.) has noticed how easy it is to make
χιλίων καὶ μυριάδων (1) τριῶν, out of χιλίων καὶ ἐννεακοσίων (3) τριῶν.
193 iv. 2. Conf. Sync. p. 78. 92. The corrected text will be found
in our "Appendix of Authorities, Vol. I. p. 715. seqq.
FF 4
440
[BOOK IV. PART V.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
Brought forward
288 years.
49 kings
(Fifth Dynasty, Arab kings):
- 458
(Fourth Dynasty, Chaldean kings):
9 kings, 245 years: Syncellus, who gives
six names194, has in both MSS. 215
(Sixth Dynasty, Assyrian kings):
45 kings
Among these Semiramis is especially
mentioned.
(Seventh Dynasty, Assyrian kings):
- 215
- 526
After Nabonassar (B. C. 747), native
kings, feudatories of the Assyrians.
Supposing the first year of Sargon=the
first year of the Canon, we have the fol-
lowing series:
Sargina (Sargon, Arkean in the Canon:
read Sarkean) reigned till the year 44
Sennacherib: reigned 18, read 28
years First year -
Canon
slain B.C. 676: year of the
Coeval with the fifth year of Esar-
haddon (Assaradin) in Babylon.
Assarhaddon (from the year 675=73
of the Canon) to
Saosdukhin (Samuges ?) 21 years to
Sardanapalus, brother of Samuges :
1 year (=Kiniladan 2)
-
45
72
98
99
- 102
1487 years.
194 All the six kings mentioned by Syncellus have Chaldee
names, and are doubtless therefore as spurious as the following 44
Assyrian kings, from Belus to Konkolerus, "who is also Sarda-
napalus," with 1460 years. The whole concoction comes from
Cephalion, as appears from the Armenian version of Eusebius cap. 15.
Unfortunately Moses of Chorene also, i. 16., does not go any farther.
SECT. I. B. II.] BABYLONIAN DYNASTIES.
441
Brought forward
Sardanapalus burns himself to death
in the palace, 626. End of the
Assyrian empire
Length of the dynasty
(Eighth Dynasty, Chaldee kings):
5 kings.
1. Nabopolassar (Scythian period)
2. Nabokolassar, son, 43 years
22 years -
(Nabukodrossor,
zar)
3. Illoarudam, son, 2 years (Evil-
merodach of the Bible)
- 1487 years.
- 122
122
- 123
Nebuchadnez-
- 144
- 187
(Neri-
- 189
- 193
209
87
4. Nerigassolassar, 4 years
glossor)
5. Nabonadus, 17 years
Last year of Nabonadus, capture of
Babylon by Cyrus (Ol. 60, 1)
Length of the dynasty
(Ninth Dynasty, Persian kings):
10 kings, from Cyrus to Darius
Codomannus.
First year of Cyrus, in the Canon 210
Last year of Darius Codomannus 416
Length of the dynasty
Length of Dynasties II-IX.195
207
1903 years.
195 II. Medes
224 (234)
A
III. Chaldees (48)
64 (54)
961
IV. Chaldees
458
V. Arabs
215
VI. Assyrians and Ninyads
526
VII. Assyrians (2nd. Dyn.)
122
VIII. Chaldees
IX. Persians
87
207
1903
442
[BOOK IV. L'ART V.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
The period, therefore, comprised between Zoroaster,
the Median conqueror of Babylon, and the fall of the
Babylonian monarchy, or the year before Alexander
the Great, was 1904 years: i. e. within one year of
the exact period from which Callisthenes stated that
the Chaldeans possessed observations of the stars, or a
regular calendar. It is indeed the very period since.
which, according to the testimony of Berosus on which
we may rely, they possessed a solar year, regulated of
course by cycles. Reducing this to years B.C., we obtain
the following:
Zoroaster to Alexander (exclusive)
First year of Alexander (417 of the
Canon) Olymp. 112, 2
B. C.
-
First year of Zoroaster, or beginning of
the Median Dynasty in Babylon
corresponding with the 385th year of
the 2nd Shepherd Dynasty, or the
1521st year of Menes.
1903 years.
331
2234,
The Egyptian synchronism for Ninus and Semiramis
can therefore even now be established on a firm founda-
tion.
961
Deducting from the above period of 1903 years,
the length of the first five dynasties
this makes the first year of Ninus, before
Alexander
add from Alexander to the Birth of
Christ
942 years:
331
which makes the first year of Ninus B. c. 1273.
The Epitomists have not mentioned what was the
length assigned to the reigns of Ninus and Semiramis by
Berosus, in accordance with his Annals, and by Polyhistor
after him. Herodotus, we know, says but very little
SECT. I. B. II.]
443
BABYLONIAN DYNASTIES.
in his "Nine Muses" about this, the most brilliant and
important portion of ancient Assyrian history. This
may have arisen either from his having meant by
Assyrian histories, to which he refers, a separate work
of his own which is lost, or from his having intended
to enter in greater detail into the subject in a subsequent
Book but never did so.
We now proceed to examine more closely the first
great epoch of the Assyrian empire, the beginning of
which we have just determined. Castor and Cephalion,
the authorities made use of by the chronographers,
assign to Ninus
to Semiramis (Diodorus according to Ctesias,
Castor, and Cephalion)
52 years,
42.
The only way of making these dates harmonize with
anything we know about the history of Semiramis, is by
supposing that the 52 years represent the sum total of
the first two reigns, Semiramis having reigned jointly
with Ninus after his tenth year, and subsequently as
sole sovereign. The successor is said to be her son.
It was Ninus however, and not Semiramis, who, when
sole occupant of the throne, conquered Egypt, he having
established the empire in its entire extent in his 17th
year. Egypt, as well as Syria and Phoenicia, is espe-
cially mentioned among the subjugated or tributary
countries, as has been already remarked when treating
of the Phœnician synchronisms.
The first year of the Assyrian era (1273 B. C.) is
between three and six years after the last known success-
ful campaign of Ramses III. The conquest of Egypt
may therefore have occurred at a very early date. At
all events, the coincidence of the dates is very remark-
able. All at once, historical events cease to be recorded.
The erection of public monuments is discontinued almost
in an instant. We know of no internal reasons for
such a change. The same dynasty reigned for a cen-
444
[BOOK IV. PART V.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
tury after. The key to it will be found in the rise of the
Assyrian empire.
Semiramis overran Egypt, and, as we learn from
the Assyrian annals, made a victorious campaign into
Ethiopia (Kush).
All this harmonizes; but it can only be explained
by our chronology, which differs from that of Cham-
pollion by about two hundred years. Egypt became
tributary to Assyria, which at that precise period
was at the zenith of its power. No conquest, no fur-
ther campaign, barely even a trace, indeed, of public
monuments. The foundation of the tomb of Ramses
III. was laid, but the sculptures were never executed.
The satisfactory concordance between the chronology
of the two states which has hitherto existed is a natural
consequence of this system. The fact of Tuthmōsis III.
making Nineveh as well as Babylon tributary in the
16th century, although his successors were unable to main-
tain their supremacy, and the circumstance of Egypt,
on the other hand, becoming tributary to the Assyrians,
and then being again triumphant two centuries after-
wards in Asia, become intelligible. As the expedition of
Tuthmosis III. took place when Nineveh was weak (for
Babylon was at that time governed by a national dy-
nasty, the fourth, and at all events, therefore, was not a
province of Assyria); so the campaign of Semiramis is
explainable by the rapid decline of the Pharaonic dy-
nasty, which, debased as it was by sensuality and ava-
rice, squandered the resources of the country, and
exhausted the energies of the people.
At this stage of the inquiry, we cannot refrain from
touching upon the remark made by Herodotus (ii. 145.)
when stating the duration of the Assyrian supremacy,
to the effect that Hercules (the father of Belus, the
father of Ninus) lived about 900 years before his
time.
SECT. I. B. II.]
445
BABYLONIAN DYNASTIES.
Niebuhr's calculation in the spirit of Herodotus is
this:
Hercules
Belus
Ninus and the Ninyads.
Duration of the independence of the
Medes, before they had kings
Four Median kings (i. 130.) and the
Scythian supremacy 128+28 - 156
or according to the regnal years in
Herodotus:
33 years.
33
520
X
Deioces
53
Phraortes 22
Cyaxares 40
Astyages 35
150
Cyrus down to the conquest of Babylon
(Olymp. 60, 1.)
20
From Olymp. 60, 1 to 90, 1, which
period Niebuhr, in his history, con-
siders as the age of Herodotus
(not 84, 1, the date assigned in
his first Lecture.)
120
876
Assuming, as is done in our tables, for the
ante-regal period in Media (see p. 434.) 44
Hercules lived before the time of He-
rodotus
. 920 years.
If, on the contrary, we follow the usual chronology,
and consider Olymp. 84, 1 (444 B. C.) as the age of
Herodotus, this gives 24 years less, that is, 852 +
44 896, which is even more suitable.
At all events this solution appears to me sufficiently
satisfactory, for the purpose of corroborating and eluci-
dating the Assyrian chronology of Herodotus.
416
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [BOOK IV. PART V.
III. THE FIRST BABYLONIAN DYNASTY AND ITS COMMENCEMENT IN
THE YEAR 3784 B. C.
It will easily be understood that, in treating this sub-
ject in a strictly chronological sense, we should leave the
first dynasty entirely out of calculation. Yet it is pretty
clear, that neither the chronology nor the history of
the Chaldees can have originated at the epoch of the
Median conquest of Babylon, in 2235 B. C. For astrono-
my has always been considered as the special province of
the Chaldees, at all events, as compared with the other
peoples of Asia, and the history of Babylon must have
commenced with a native dynasty. The fall of that
dynasty was the end of the first section of its popular
and constitutional history, and, what is too important
to be passed over unnoticed, they then discontinued the
practice of computing by lunar cycles.
This first dynasty is said to have had 86 kings. They
correspond to 84 kings of Media, who, according to the
Bactrian calculations, preceded Zoroaster. But it is said
to have reigned for a period of years which is entirely
mythical: according to the extracts of Syncellus,
9 Sari, of 3600 years, consequently 32,400 years.
2 Neri, 600
,,
""
,,
8 Sôssi,,, 60
""
1,200
480
Altogether, 34,080 years.
which is the precise number stated by him.
But in the extract of Eusebius, this era is, with equal
distinctness, fixed at 33,091 years. Niebuhr suspected
that Eusebius, owing to his not understanding the
right number which he found recorded, may have
deducted from it the first four dynasties. But, in
the first place, this will not account for the dis-
crepancy. For the date of the third dynasty we have
found to be perfectly correct, and we may, therefore,
confidently assume that Eusebius' first four dynasties
SECT. I. B. III.] FIRST BABYLONIAN DYNASTY.
447
lasted 945 years. But the difference between the num-
bers in Eusebius and Syncellus is 989 years; besides
which, we can see no reason why Eusebius should have
taken the trouble of making that supposed deduction.
But may not both the dates be taken from Berosus,
and be perfectly correct? We know very well what
Syncellus' sum total signifies. It is nothing more than
the result of computations by lunar cycles, and conse-
quently it gives the length of the period in lunar years.
As Berosus must necessarily have considered the first
dynasty to have been wholly, or in part, historical, and
clearly did so consider it, and as the length of the solar
year must not only have been well known to him, but to
the Chaldeans generally for two thousand years before
his time, he probably gave the length of the period in
solar years.
It is easy to calculate that 34,080 lunar years, i. e.
408,960 lunations, make very nearly the number given
by Eusebius.
But ought we not to be able to compute it with per-
fect accuracy, according to the system of the Chaldeans?
Without arguing the question here which is fully
entered into by Ideler 196, whether the methods adopted
by astronomers and chronologers for more than a cen-
tury for solving the Chaldean enigma be or be not
admissible, we must always bear in mind, looking at it
from a philological and critical point of view, the undeni-
able fact, that the Babylonians did compute their earliest
history by the above-mentioned periods. The middle
one of the three, that of 600 years, is especially men-
tioned by Josephus as the great year.
In the passage
which has been so frequently commented on 197, he
says that the patriarchs must have lived so long to
enable them to adjust the year, and establish a sys-
tem of astronomy and geometry; inasmuch as the
196 Handbook, i. 195 — 225. 197 Antiq. i. 3. 9., comp. 8.
448
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [BOOK IV. PART V.
great year only terminates at the end of six hundred
years. Every attempt, whether ancient or modern,
to explain away the primitive use of these cycles, or
even to reduce their years to days, are mere fancies and
feints, more worthy of Byzantine monks like Anianus
and Panodorus, than men of science in the present day.
We may also add, that they are all more or less deficient
in sound foundation, both philological and historical.
As regards the lower unit of the three periods, that of 60
years, Fréret, in his noteworthy critical treatise of 1736 on
Chinese chronology, has shown that 60 solar years are only
2 days and 20 hours less than 742 lunar months (namely,
12 × 60 720, and 22 intercalary months).
Bearing these two facts in mind, therefore, we shall
have no difficulty in understanding that, supposing the
difference to be three days with a trifling error, nothing
could be more natural than for a people who reckoned
by fixed lunar years to assume that, by the ordinary
intercalation of a month after ten of these periods,
the sun and moon would be brought into perfect har-
mony. To ascertain what the amount of actual error
was, may have been a later step in advance; as was,
without doubt, the one from a cycle of 60 to a cycle of
600 years.
It may here, indeed, be stated by anti-
cipation, that the oldest Chinese chronology, which, in
spite of the scepticism of Ideler, we agree with Fréret in
thinking was the key to their earliest system of astronomy
(which is again the result of the multiplication of 5 and
12), is nothing more than the oldest deposit of Chaldean
wisdom in Upper Asia.
It must, however, be obvious to any one but partially
acquainted even with the state of Babylonian science,
and after what Lepsius has proved in respect to the
earliest division of time and observations of the stars in
Egypt, that it cannot be matter of surprise if the Chal-
dees were not satisfied with the equation of the cycle of
600 years, but wished to render it more complete by the
SECT. I. B. III.] FIRST BABYLONIAN DYNASTY.
449
introduction of one consisting of six such periods. Even
the intercalation of a month of 29 days made, according
to the former calculation, an excess of 16 hours. For
the real difference is only 680 hours in 600 years, which
is equal to 28 days 8 hours. After six revolutions of
this cycle the difference therefore becomes exactly four
days. But if a whole month of 30 days were intercalated
every 600 years, there would be, at the end of 3600 years,
an excess of 10 days. We do not, however, pretend
to know what adjustment they intended to make with a
cycle of 3600 years. They could practically easily ascer-
tain the relation between true time and their cycle of
60 years every 600 years. The adjustment by cycles of
3600 years must always be a matter of theory, and this
was incomplete.
The practical system is that of 60 and 600 years; and
the existence of these two, we think, has not only been
proved, but satisfactorily explained.
Now, if we apply this equation of 742 months and
60 solar years to the difference between 34,080 lunar
and 33,091 solar years, the number that results is
33,069. If, therefore, the number in Eusebius is
strictly accurate, and if the Babylonians were unac-
quainted with any other system of adjustment, our result
would only be 21 years in excess, which, in such high
numbers, may almost be considered as equivalent to
identity. But if we make the solar year of 365 days
the basis of equation, without any intercalation, the
408,960 lunar months are equal to 33,091 years, leaving
out the fractions, or absolutely 33,092 years and 2
months. The latter assumption is evidently, therefore,
the correct one.
Now, what do these 33,091 years comprise? First of
all, the reigns of the first two kings, Euechius and Chô-
masbelus. To the former 4 neri are assigned, to the latter
4 neri and 5 sôssi. This makes, in lunar years, 5010
years; and there are consequently 28,980 years over,
VOL. III.
G G
450
[BOOK IV. Part V.
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS.
It is obvious, therefore, that the separation was not
made here between the mythical and historical periods of
the first dynasty. We should probably have found it
in the later series of kings, had their names been
transmitted. Polyhistor did enumerate them all, but
Christian epitomists had not time! We might be
tempted to suppose that the former of these names was
Nimrod (Nebrôd, in the Septuagint). But the Christian
chronographers, and still less Josephus, would certainly
not have failed to mention it; and they were acquainted
with the work of Berosus. It would have been the
greatest triumph to them, inasmuch as it would have
furnished the most ancient confirmation of Scripture, in
respect to Asiatic histories, from their own native
chronicles. But nobody throws out a hint even to that
effect.
When we find in Syncellus the words, "Euechius,
who was also called Nimrod;" or in Cedrenus, "Nimrod
is also called Euechius;" this simply means that the
later Christian chronographers did not find him among
the historical kings. Both, indeed, are said to be the
first kings of Babylon, the one in the Bible (which, how-
ever, does not say that he was a Babylonian), the other
by the Babylonians. They are the same king, but under
different names! Rawlinson's discoveries would seem
to have established the fact that Nimri was a Scythian
(Turanian) race, which made incursions and conquests
in Southern Babylonia. Nimrod, therefore, probably
belonged to that race. In the Book of the Origines it
will be seen what is the consequence of this, and it will
also be noticed in the historical arrangement of the lan-
guages. The whole story in the Bible, and the position
which has been assigned to it, becomes thus for the first
time intelligible.
At all events the name of Nimrod was not one of those
of the kings of the first Chaldee dynasty. There is,
however, another way of explaining the commencement
SECT. I. B. III.] FIRST BABYLONIAN DYNASTY.
451
of the historical and chronological date of Babylon, by
supposing that the historical period is represented by
the excess of the sum total over the number of complete
sari.
Now, in the first place, 9 complete
sari make
Deducting these from the whole
number
32,400 years.
34,080
1,680 years.
the remainder is
If the whole period were mythical (which, however,
after what has been said above, is historically untenable),
what was the use of having fractions? The earlier, purely
mythical, calculation about the Origines of mankind,
before and after the Flood, consists of 120 complete sari.
The 1680 lunar years, however, are very nearly
equivalent to 1550 Julian years.
The year 1550 before Zoroaster would, therefore, be
the date of the commencement of the era; and as the
reign of that Median conqueror began in the year 2234
B. C., the chronological and historical age of Babylon
would commence in the year 3784 B. C., that is, exactly
200 years after the creation of Adam, according to the
ordinary interpretation of the numbers in the Hebrew
text.
But, what is a much more important point for the
most ancient people-history, the first year of Menes, ac-
cording to our tables, is coincident with the hundred and
sixty-first year of the Babylonian era. Nimrod's con-
quests of Semitic Asia, or at least of Mesopotamia, in the
widest sense, were consequently made in the earliest part
of the first dynasty, or else in the unchronological,
though historical, foretime of Babylon. At all events,
the tradition in the Book of Genesis is verified, that
Babel is older than Assur and Nineveh. Ninus and the
supremacy of the Assyrians date from the year 2511
of the Babylonian era, coeval with the 2350th after
GG 2
452
WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [BOOK IV. PART V.
Menes. Assyria doubtless possessed its own archaic
annals (in part, also, strictly historical) prior to Ninus;
but, judging by the Greek accounts, which were ostensibly
derived from Assyrian sources, it possessed no ancient
chronology. Herodotus, who had paid especial attention
to Assyrian history, and whose chronological datum for
the commencement of the Ninus dynasty is so happily
verified, could not ascertain any Assyrian dates prior
to Ninus, or any names but that of Belus (Bel), their
primeval ancestor, and Hercules, his progenitor.¹
198
198 An acute young scholar, Herr von Gutschmid of Dresden, in
an article in the Rheinische Museum, viii. p. 252. seq., has at-
tempted a new mode of completing the dates of the duration of
the third dynasty. Like Niebuhr, he starts from the number 1903
of Callisthenes; but, instead of making use of it to determine the first
year of the second Median dynasty, he applies it to the third, which
he supposes to be Chaldean. According to him it commenced 2234
B. C., and its eleven kings reigned 258 years; for it is necessary to
supply that number in order to get to the year 2234. He thinks it
an argument in favour of his calculation, that according to it the first
Chaldean dynasty of 86 kings began to reign exactly 36,000 years
before the capture of Babylon by Cyrus. If this were so, Berosus would
have dressed up his whole history in two cyclical numbers-the ante-
diluvian portion in one 432,000 years, i. e. 120 sari, the modern
portion down to the natural close of the conquest of Babylon, in
one of 36,000 years, or 10 sari. From which the following synopsis
results:
Ten Antediluvian Chaldean kings, 432,000 years.
After the Flood :
I. Dynasty of 86 Chaldean kings - 34,080 years.
II.
""
546
8 Medes
11 [Chaldeans]
49 [Chaldeans]
9 Arabs
t
دو
- 1518
- 1273
224
""
2458 B.C.
III.
[258]
- 2234
>>
IV.
458
- 1976
V.
245
VI.
""
VII.
VIII.
""
45 [Assyrians]
[ 8 Assyrians?]
526
-
""
122
6 Chaldeans
87
747
625-538
""
14
36,000
I think that our explanation of these computations is more satis-
factory.
PART VI.
THE AGE OF ZOROASTER, THE BACTRIAN,
AND
THE HISTORICAL NOTICES IN THE FIRST CHAPTER OF
THE VENDIDÂD.
a 63
455
A.
BACTRIAN TRADITION AND THE BOOKS OF THE ZEND.
MANY years elapsed after the talented Anquetil made
the discovery of the Zendavesta before the researches
on that head were established upon a firm foundation.
The labours of Benfey, Spiegel, Westergaard, and
Haug have been added to those of Burnouf, and
we now possess still more extensive investigations by
the last three writers into the records of the Za-
rathustrian religion. The unfortunate notion that
Zoroaster's King Gustasp was Darius the son of Hys-
taspes has been abandoned by men of learning, and it
would now be as unscientific to controvert such an idea,
as it formerly was to advance it. We have intimated in
the First Book that the central point of the old Arian
dominion was Bactria. Haug has very recently also
maintained that the language of the Zend books is
Bactrian. A. W. Schlegel's treatise on the origin of the
Hindoos, which appeared first in 1835 in the Trans-
actions of the Royal Society of Literature, and then in
his own celebrated "Essais," forms the turning-point
for the correct view of the relation between the Indians
and the northern parts of Eastern Asia. Prior to this
(in 1832), Ritter, in the Introduction to his "Asia," had
made a beginning towards connecting the predominant
Indian legend about the Sacred Mountain of Meru with
the geography of the highlands of Eastern North-Asia,
with which we are acquainted.
We take up the subject with the advantage of having
two fresh resting-places. In the first place we have
additional proof of the correctness of the fact already
assumed by Niebuhr :
G G 4
456
THE AGE OF ZOROASTER. [Book IV. PART VI.
That in the year 1903 before Alexander, or 2234
B. C., a Zoroastrian king of Media conquered Babylon,
and that the dynasty which he founded there reigned
more than 200 years.
Bactria however, and not Media, was the original
seat of Zoroastrian lore. This, in itself, compels us to
inquire whether the date of the great founder of that
religion must not be placed much earlier; and, in endea-
vouring to fix that date, we have obtained important
vantage ground.
In the second place, we can now institute our historical
inquiry upon a more certain philological basis. Dr. Haug
has kindly complied with our suggestion to give us the
benefit of his valuable researches, in a new critical
translation of the celebrated record which forms the
opening to the Vêndidâd, or Code of the Fire-worship-
pers of Iran.
The text and explanation are given in
an appendix to this Section.
His labours have confirmed the conviction which we
had long entertained:
That the nucleus of this Record dates from the
most ancient times, and that its contents are nothing
less than the reminiscences of the passage of the old
Arians to India-in other words, the succession of the
foundation of fourteen kingdoms, the last and most
southern of which was the land of the Five Rivers (the
Punjab).
During this inquiry we shall answer in turn all the
questions not yet settled in respect to the epochs of Ario-
Iranian, as well as Ario-Indian, civilisation.
In order to lay before our readers a synoptical view
of the results of our investigation of the above document,
and to show its importance as regards general history,
we have subjoined a sketch prepared by Dr. Petermann
in illustration of Haug's Commentary.

5/0
80
515
75
60
70
65
40
35
30
a c
25
VARENA
GHN
Kur
A
SPIA
SEA
Teheran
RAG
RAGHA
Ispahan
{
FAR SLAN
GUIF
5/0
$
60
2-
Attreek
NISAI
ཊྛི + ?
TSCHAKHRA
JT
R
ST
Yezd
こ
​Aral Sea
Amu Daria
!
Oxus
MQURU
MỘ U
میں نے
BONHARA
Mer Sebah
N
J'
}{u
HAR OYU
DERAT)
Lake
Ilamoon
EKERETA
LINTAN
HÊ TUMAT
Helmund
な
​KHO KAN D
༈}f
L
Syr Daria Jarartes!
AIRYANA-VED JÔ
Samarkand
Highland
SUGHDHA
BAKHDI
Balkh
=
الا لالالالا
of
Pamer
}
U. B
V
CABOOL
Vehrkana
Trahandah
Â
KHNENTA
(KANDAHAR
HARAAITI
(ARACHOS LA)
Bolan Pass
B
IIIS AN
→
5/5
60
London, Longman & Cº
Indus
Khyber
Pass
Indus
Issyk Kul
+
HAPT
HINDU
(P IT M
A BI
Sutlej
a
40
135
30
Hastinapura
Delhi
The
TRACK OF THE ARIANS
from the
PRIMEVAL COUNTRY
to
INDIA
The modern names of Provinces &c, are inserted in light
Characters
65
70
75
25
حمید
B.]
457
TRADITION OF THE PRIMEVAL LAND.
B.
THE ZOROASTRIAN TRADITION ABOUT THE PRIMEVAL LAND,
AND THE EMIGRATION OF THE ARIANS IN CONSEQUENCE
OF A CONVULSION OF NATURE.
Two successful efforts of the critical school have at
last established the value, and facilitated the under-
standing, of the celebrated first Fargard or section of
the Vêndidâd. One of these was the study of the Bac-
trian language (commonly called Zend) and the Zend
books, which was commenced by Burnouf and continued
by Benfey, Spiegel, and Haug. The other circumstance
which facilitated the explanation of the above record
was the eminently successful decipherment of the first
or Bactro-Medo-Persian cuneiform writing of the Achæ-
menidæ by Burnouf and Lassen, and latterly by Rawlin-
son's publication and elucidation of the inscription of
Bisutun. Among these inscriptions the most important
in its bearing upon that record is the list of the Iranian
nations who were subject to Darius in Nakshi-Rustam.
Ritter, in 1838199, materially assisted in explaining the
geographical portion of it. Here, howevever, insur-
mountable difficulties already presented themselves, as
to the explanation of the names of individual countries.
According to Burnouf we were completely in the dark
as to at least three out of the fourteen provinces men-
tioned between Sogdiana and the Punjab. In the only
volume of Spiegel's translation of the Avesta hitherto
published, which Brockhaus's edition had made so
much more generally accessible, we have the Vêndidâd,
which of course begins with the very record in ques-
199 Erdkunde, viii. 29. seq., 84. seq.
458
THE AGE OF ZOROASTER. [BOOK IV. PART VI.
tion. He has been principally guided in the interpreta-
tion of it by the Pehlevi version, which, however, is of
very little assistance as regards the particular points
alluded to above. But it should be generally known
that he agrees with Rhode in thinking that it contains.
the history of the gradual dispersion of the Arians. 200
The first argument in favour of it is that Sogdiana is
called the Primeval land. The fact of the Punjab being
as unquestionably the most southerly, as Sogdiana is the
north-easterly, tends to strengthen this opinion.
Four things, however, are wanting to constitute posi-
tive proof. It ought to be shown, first, that the
thirteen intervening countries come in their natural
geographical succession; secondly, that the turn to the
north-westward is explainable upon political grounds;
thirdly, that these countries really exhibit marks of
Arian conquest and colonisation; and, fourthly, that the
favourable and unfavourable qualities assigned to those
localities correspond with their actual position. Dr.
Haug's treatise supplies the philological and geo-
graphical proofs. In referring our readers to that
work, it is incumbent upon us to establish the historical
importance of the record in question. I start, there-
fore, upon the assumption that the opening of that sacred
code contains as certainly an historical tradition of the
Arians, about their wanderings, expeditions, and con-
quests, as does the 14th chapter of Genesis an historical
account of the oldest recorded war between Meso-
potamia and Canaan. The historical and geographical
tradition therein contained became confused and ob-
scured in early times, but we think we can point out
which are the additions and which the original text.
The Fargard is divided into two great parts, one
comprising the immigration from the eastern and
north-eastern primeval country to Bactria, in conse-
200 Spiegel, Avesta, i. p. 59. seq.
B. I.]
459
JOURNEYS OF THE IRANIANS.
quence of a natural catastrophe and climatic changes;
the other, the subsequent extension of the Arian do-
minion through Eastern Central Asia, which terminated
in the occupation of the Punjab.
THE JOURNEYS OF THE IRANIANS FROM THE NORTH-
EASTERN PARTS OF ASIA TO INDIA.
PART I.
THE PRIMEVAL LAND (IRAN PROPER, AIRYANA VAÊGÔ), AND THE
EXPULSION FROM IT OF THE ARIANS.
THE text of the opening of this record, as restored,
removes all doubt as to the following passage containing
the genuine description of the climate of the primeval
land, Iran Proper:
"There Angro mainyus (Ahriman), the deadly,
created a mighty serpent, and snow,
the work of Deva-ten months of winter are there,
two months of summer."
The following passage, which is irreconcilable with
the above:
"the warm weather lasts seven months,
and winter five," &c.
was added on by a later editor, traces of whose ignorant
tampering are discernible throughout. In fact, the
passage is omitted in the Huzûresh, or Pehlevi trans-
lation and Lassen, in his Indian Archæology201, has
given it as his opinion that it is an interpolation.
The Fathers of the Arians (and consequently our
own, as we speak the same language) originally, there-
fore, inhabited aboriginal Iran Proper, the land of
Pleasantness, and they only left it in consequence of a
201 i. 526. note.
460
[Book IV. PARt Vl.
THE AGE OF ZOROASTER.
convulsion of nature, by which a great alteration in the
climate was effected. The expression "Serpent" is
obscure. It may possibly mean volcanic eruptions,
which can only have played a subordinate part in the
great convulsion, although they made a permanent
impression.
The country of the sources of the Oxus and Jaxartes,
therefore, is the most eastern and most northern point
from which we have to start, as the land of the sources
of the Euphrates formed the primeval seat of the
Semitic races. Wherever the Indians may have fixed the
dwelling-places of their northern ancestors, the UT-
TARA-KURU, we cannot venture to place the primeval
seats of the Arians anywhere but on the slopes of the
Belur-Tagh, in the highland of Pamer, between the 40th
and 37th degrees of N. latitude, and 86th and 90th de-
grees of longitude. On this western slope of the Belur-
Tagh and the Mustagh (the Tian-shang, or Celestial
Mountain, of the Chinese) the Harô-berezaiti (Albordsh)
is likewise to be looked for, which is invoked in
the Zendavesta, as the principal mountain and the
primeval source of the waters. Lassen has remarked
(loc. cit.) that at the present day the old indigenous in-
habitants of that district, and generally those of Khasgar,
Yarkand, Khoten, Turfan, and the adjacent highlands,
are Tadshiks who speak Persian, and who are all agri-
culturists. The Turcomans either came after them and
settled at a later period, or else they are aborigines
whom the Arians found there.
When the climate was altered by some vast disturbance
of nature, the Arians emigrated; they did not, however,
follow the course of the Oxus, or they would have come
in the first instance to Bactria, and not to Sogd. Their
course, therefore, was more northerly.
As regards its present climate, it is precisely what our
record describes it as having been when the change
B. II.]
461
SETTLEMENTS OF THE IRANIANS.
produced by the above commotion took place: it has
only two months of warm weather.
PART II.
THE COURSE OF THE ARIANS AFTER THEIR EXPULSION FROM THE
PRIMEVAL COUNTRY, OR THE FOURTEEN LOCALITIES SELECTED BY
THEM FOR HABITATIONS FROM SOGDIANA TO INDIA.
IF the halting-places of the Arians between Sogdiana
and the Sutledj should actually turn out to be men-
tioned in their natural order, this implies, in an historical
sense, nothing less than the conquest of fourteen coun-
tries, and the foundation, of as many kingdoms, in the
whole of the eastern part of Central Asia and India
Proper, in the country of the Indus and its confluents.
But it implies not only immigration, but the conquest,
the expulsion or subjugation, of the old inhabitants,
and the formation of a dominant Arian population. We
have direct testimony that the Arians found original
inhabitants in India, and the study of their language
renders it certain that these were Turanians. The same
must be assumed with even greater assurance as regards
the intervening countries, the principal abodes of the
Turanians (Scythians and Turcomans). But the proof
of the Iranians having sojourned there a considerable
time is established by the fact of our finding, at the pre-
sent day, the original stock of the native population to
be everywhere Arian. We see, indeed, evidence of the
main direction taken by these travellers having been
southerly. But on the southern bank of the Caspian
is a group, the nucleus of the Arian Media. Of Persia
there is as yet no trace, which supplies additional proof
of the fallacy of the assumption, that the Vêndidâd,
as well as the Zoroastrian doctrines, is of Persian
origin.
462
THE AGE OF ZOROASTER. [BOOK IV. PART VI.
1. The Settlement in Sogdiana (Samarcand).
(II. verse 5.) "As the second best of the regions and
countries I created. GAU, in which Sogdiana
is situated.
Upon this Ahriman, the Deadly,
created pestilence, which is fatal to sheep and small
cattle."
Sughdha is pre-eminently the country: as being
the home of the Fire-worshippers. The name was af-
terwards spelt Sugdia, and commonly Sogdiana. It
is in the 38th degree of latitude, where Marakanda
(Samarcand) is situated, a paradisiacal land, fertilised
by the river Sogd: so that Sogd and Paradise are used
synonymously by later writers.
The course of the Arians was now to the south-west.
2. The Settlement in Môuru (Merv, Margiana).
(III. verse 6.) “The third best land is the mighty
and pious MôURU (Maru, Marw)
created there wars and marauding expeditions."
Ahriman
This is Margiana (from the river Margus), now
Marghab (Margus-water), Margush in the cuneiform in-
scriptions: a fruitful province of Khorassan surrounded
by deserts.
3. The Settlement in Bakhdi (Bactria).
(IV. verse 7.) "The fourth best land was the for-
tunate BAKHDI, with the lofty banner: here Ahriman
created buzzing insects and poisonous plants."
Bakhdi is certainly Bactra (though Burnouf had
doubts about it), the land of the Bactrians. The "tall
plumes" indicate the Imperial banner (mentioned also
by Firdousi), and refer, consequently, to the time when
Bactria was the seat of empire. Up to this time nothing
is said about Media, though she conquered Babylon
in 2234.
B. II.]
463
SETTLEMENTS OF THE IRANIANS.
4. The Settlement in Nisaya (Northern Parthia).
(v. verse 8.) "The fifth best land is NISAYA; there
Ahriman created unbelief."
This is the Nisaia of Ptolemy, famous for its breed
of horses, commonly called Nisa, the renowned district
of Northern Parthia, bordering on Hyrkania and Mar-
giana. The city of Nisæa is situated on the Upper
Oxus. "Unbelief" signifies the apostasy from pure
Fire-worship. Here, therefore, the first schism takes
place.
5. The Settlement in Haroyu (Aria).
VI. verse 9.) "The sixth best land was HAROYU,
the pourer out of water; here Ahriman created hail
and poverty."
Haroyu is Herat, of which frequent mention is made
subsequently, Hariva in the cuneiform inscriptions.
Its name has no connexion with the Arians, but comes
from the river now called "Heri," abounding in
water. The Greek district Aria comprises the larger
portion of Segestan, and forms part of Southern Kho-
rassan.
6. The Settlement in Vêkereta (Segestan).
VII. verse 10.) “VÊKERETA, in which Duzhaka is
situate e; there Ahriman created the Pairika Khnâ-
thaiti."
This country is the home of Rustem. Dushak is the
capital of Segestan. To the south-east of it is the land
of the Parikani 202, known to the ancients as a part of
the Saken country (Sakastene). The greater part of it
is now a desert, but it was once cultivated. Here again
202 Herod. iii. 94. Comp. Ritter, viii. 59. Recent travellers have
also found nomadic tribes between Media and Gedrosia, who wor-
shipped the Peris (Fairies), but were fire-worshippers also.
464
[BOOK IV. PArt VI.
THE AGE OF ZOROASTER.
there may be allusion to a schism, which, in that case,
would be the second historical one.
7. The Settlement in Urva (Cabul).
(VIII. verse 11.) URVA is proved by Haug to be
Cabul, the identity of which was previously unknown.
8. The Settlement in Khnenta (Candahar).
(IX. verse 12.)
situated."
"KHNENTA, where Vehrkâna is
According to Haug, by this country Candahar is to
be understood: Vehrkâna cannot be Hyrcania, as gene-
rally supposed, but is the city now called Urghândâb,
situated in Candahar. The curse of Ahriman was
pæderastism, a vice known historically to be un-Arian
and Turanian.
9. The Settlement in Haraqaiti (Arachosia).
(x. verse 13.) HARAQAITI, denominated the Fortu-
nate; the Harauwatis of the cuneiform inscriptions,
the Arachosia of the classics. The work of Ahriman here
was the burying of the dead. Another apostasy there-
fore from the true faith.
10. The Settlement in Hêtumat (district of
Hilmend).
(XI. verse 14.) "HÊTUMAT, the wealthy, the splendid,”
is the valley of the present Hilmend, the Etymander of
the classics. The mischief inflicted here by Ahriman
was the sin of sorcery.
11. The Settlement in Ragha (Northern Media).
(XII. verse 16.) "RAGHA with the three races" is
doubtless the Rhago of Strabo and Ptolemy, the greatest
city in Media, south of Teheran. This north-eastern
B. II.]
465
SETTLEMENTS OF THE IRANIANS.
portion of Media includes the passes of the Caspian.
The possession of these passes was a protection to the
other Arians, and at the same time the key to the
whole of Media, and therefore Persia. The district.
is called also Choana (Qwan).
Ahriman established here unbelief in the spiritual
supremacy of Zarathustra - another schism.
another schism. At all
events another portion of ancient Arian history.
12. The Settlement in Kakhra (Khorassan).
(XIII. verse 17.) KAKHRA is held by Spiegel and
Lassen to be the district of Kihrem mentioned in Fir-
dousi. Haug identifies it with the city of Karkh in
Khorassan. The evil done by Ahriman was the burning
of the dead. This was therefore an illegal practice,
like the sin of the Arachosians, who were so profane as
to bury their dead. All this implies the organization
of an hierarchical power in Sogd and Bactria, although
not a sacerdotal caste.
13. The Settlement in Varena (Ghilan).
(XIV. verse 18.) "VARENA with the four corners."
Haug has shown it to be Ghilan. The curse of Ahri-
man was irregular menstruation.
14. The Settlement in Haptu-Hindu (Punjab).
(xv. verse 19.) The Land of the SEVEN HINDÚS,
that is, the country between the Indus and Sutledj.
In the Vedas the country of the Five Rivers is also
called the Land of the Seven Sindhús, that is, the seven
rivers. The traditional Greek names also are seven.
The Indus and the Sutledj are each formed 203 by the
203 According to this view, it stands thus :
}
1. Kophen (Kubhâ)
2. Indus, Upper
3. Hydaspes (Bidaspes)
I. Indus.
II. Hydaspes.
VOL. III.
H II
466
[BOOK IV. PART VI.
THE AGE OF ZOROASTER.
junction of two arms, which, in their earlier course
were independent rivers. But it is not only unneces-
sary to suppose, as Ritter does, that the country
extended as far as the Sarasvati, but such a supposition
would be at variance with history. It is now ascer-
tained from the Vedas that the Arians passed the Sutledj
at a very late period, and settled in what is now India.
It was not till their fourteenth settlement, after the
emigration from the primitive country in the north,
that they passed the Hindu-Kush and the Indus. The
previous resting-places form an unbroken chain of the
primitive abodes of the Arians (the Free or the Land-
owners).204 The last link in those earlier settlements
is the land of the Afghans, on the western slope of the
Hindu-Kush. Lower down to the westward there is
but one settlement necessary to secure their previous
possessions, namely, the two districts of Ghilan and
Masandaran, with the passes of the Caspian. This set-
tlement more to the north-west (Ghilan and Masan-
daran) forms therefore also a connected group.
Putting these two groups together, we shall find that
there is no one single fertile district in the whole of
Eastern Central Asia of which our Arian ancestors did
not possess themselves, except Southern Media and all
Farsistan or Persis. Now as history exhibits the
Arian race spread throughout the whole of Media, but
4. Akesines (Asikni)
III. Akesines.
5. Hyarotis (Hydraotis, Iravati, Parusni) IV. Hydraotes.
6. Hyphasis (Vipasa)
7. Saranges (Upper Satadru —
Ghara
Sutledj,
V. Hyphasis.
204 Arya, in Indian, means Lord. Its original meaning was equi-
valent to Upper Noble. The popular name Arja is derived from it,
and means, “Descended from a noble." I will only add that Ari in
Egyptian means "honourable " (in Nefruari). But ar might mean
to plough; for the Arians were originally and essentially an agricul-
tural, and therefore a peasant, race.
B. II.]
467
SETTLEMENTS OF THE IRANIANS.
as dominant only in Persia, it follows that Ghilan and
Masandaran formed the nucleus of these ancient posses-
sions which afterwards became so important and cele-
brated. There cannot therefore be a more unfortunate
theory than the one which makes Persia the original
seat of Zoroaster and his doctrine.
History, as already remarked, as well as personal ob-
servations at the present time, supply unequivocal evi-
dence of the Iranian having been the popular language in
all these districts. The names in the document before us,
moreover, when compared with Sanskrit, turn out to be
regular ancient formations, although, like the old Bac-
trian formations, as preserved in India, they have been
gradually weakened down. We know, lastly, from the
inscriptions of the Achæmenidæ, several of them which
have become historical and geographical designations at
a later period.
It is impossible, nevertheless, under these circum-
stances, to consider the Vêndidâd as a modern fiction,
or as a fragment of some geographical compendium. The
fact of their having suddenly retraced their steps from the
southward, and formed a connected north-eastern group
about the Caspian Sea, would be inexplicable, supposing
it to be a fiction. The awkwardness of the concluding
verse being tacked on to it is also evidence of the genuine-
ness of the one with which it originally concluded.
We
may therefore venture with the greater confidence
now to repeat what was stated at the outset, that the
document before us is an ancient record of the passage
of the Iranians from the primeval land to India. It has,
however, suffered by the interpolations of prosaic geo-
graphical remarks, some of which even are absurd, and
which may without any difficulty be eliminated from
the original text.
The more closely we examine it, the more unreason-
able it seems to doubt its historical signification. What
can be the meaning of the phrase, Ormuzd created one
II II 2
468
THE AGE OF ZOROASTER. [Book IV. PART IV.
district after another, and Ahriman corrupted them, but
that the God of the Iranians gradually directed them
towards these spots, which, as contrasted with the
deserts and steppes of Turan, might be termed Blessed;
but which, nevertheless, were not without drawbacks and
disadvantages, unlike their sacred home, the pure prime-
val country? It is true that the later editor treated it
as a compendium of geographical information, and as he
found that many places were left out, in palpable viola-
tion of the strictly geographical mode of treating all
the preceding genuine data, he added these vapid words:
"I created as the sixteenth best of the districts and
lands, I who am Ahura Mazda, the dwellers on the
borders of the sea, who have no ramparts. Whereupon
Angrô Mainyus, the Deadly, created snow, the work of
Dêva, and earthquakes, which make the land to tremble.
There are also other countries and lands, which are for-
tunate, renowned, lofty, prosperous, and brilliant."
So then this agricultural and intellectual race, who
have been uninterruptedly masters of the world since
the date of the Persian dominion, and the mightiest
engine of civilisation, composed a record of their wan-
derings and their dispersion as a reminiscence of the
early conquest of Asia as far as the land of the Indus-
a record which has been preserved for us by the followers
of the founders of the religion of the Arian East, and one
worthy of taking its place by the side of the biblical
accounts of the journeyings of the Abrahamitic patri-
archs, and which stands in the first rank in its bearings.
on the history of the world.
After having thus intimated the grounds of our belief
in the genuineness and importance of this tradition, we
return once more to the main object of our inquiry-
the starting-point, or primeval land, and the vast con-
vulsion of nature which occasioned the above migrations.
After they arrive at their Second happy abode un-
favourable circumstances are mentioned, some of them
B. II.]
469
SETTLEMENTS OF THE IRANIANS.
of natural origin, which, even if unaccompanied by
great climatic changes, might have induced these ener-
getic Arian races to emigrate, and some of them seeming
to imply their having retreated before the attacks of the
Turanian hordes.
The description would indicate the high-land of
Northern Asia, the land of the Altai and the Chinese
Himalaya. There is no question as to the historical
character of this tradition. From what other source
could it have emanated? It would simply have been
mentioned that their ancestors went in quest of a
warmer climate. The country is never described as one
of poetical ideal perfection. There is besides, as we
shall shortly see, the corroboration which this tradition
receives from the most ancient traditions of India.
Must not, therefore, the biblical tradition represent the
tradition of the Western aborigines (the Hamites and
Shemites), the Turanian one that of the Eastern tribes in
the primeval land? One is the complement of the other.
The vast climatic change which took place in the northern
countries is principally, though not exclusively, attri-
buted in the Bible to the action of water. In the other,
the sudden freezing up of the rivers is the cause assigned,
that is, upheavings and alterations in the lower stratum.
Ten months of winter is the climate of Western Thibet,
Pamer, and Belur, at the present day, and corresponds
with that of the Altai country, and the district east of
the Kuenlung, the Paradise of the Chinese. In short,
effects are described, not causes-indeed, isolated facts
out of a great whole, one only out of a variety of
phenomena occasioned by this historical convulsion of
the globe.
From all that we are able to ascertain about the
history of the earth, it is obvious that this would in-
clude a vast flood, like that of Noah, the waters rising
up from below, accompanied by great depressions in the
soil, and the formation of inland seas like the Caspian.
и п 3
470
THE AGE OF ZOROASTER. [BOOK IV. PART VI.
But as will appear in the following section, there is
evidence in the Vedas, however slight, that the Flood
does form a part of the reminiscences of Iran.
C.
THE AGE OF ZOROASTER VIEWED IN THE LIGHT OF THE
ZENDISH AND GREEK ACCOUNTS.
PHILOLOGICAL and historical criticism has long ago set
at rest the unfortunate theory that Vîstâspa, who is men-
tioned in the books of the Zendavesta as the royal patron
of Zarathustra, was the father of King Darius Hys-
taspes, and we will not pander to the prevailing supine-
ness by giving it a fresh contradiction.
The name of Zoroaster is already known to us as a
royal name, from the Armenian edition of Eusebius in
the Chaldean lists of Berosus. It is the name of the
Median conqueror of Babylon, who vanquished the realm
and city of the Chaldees, and founded the second Baby-
lonian dynasty in the year 2234 B.C.
The king can only have received this title from being
a follower of Zarathustra, and professing the religion
of the Prophet: the title of "greatest minstrel" is in
character with that of the founder of a religion, not with
that of a conqueror.
But he was preceded by a series of 84 Median kings.
Media again was not the historical birthplace of the
religion and language of the Zend books, but Bactria,
the seat of a primeval kingdom.
Taking all these circumstances into consideration, the
date of Zoroaster, as fixed by Aristotle, cannot be said
to be so very irrational. He and Eudoxus, according
to Pliny (N. H. xxx. 2.), place him 6000 years before
C.]
471
ZENDISH AND GREEK ACCOUNTS.
the death of Plato; Hermippus, 5000 before the Trojan
war. We may consider the latter date as derived from
the same source with that of the above two writers,
who were men of the greatest learning, and the keen-
est investigators of any age. Hermippus himself had
translated the writings of Zoroaster. As Pliny intro-
duces his name without anything to identify him, we
must suppose him to mean the so-called Peripatetic,
the pupil of Callimachus, one of the most learned Alex-
andrians, and not, as Preller supposes, Hermippus of
Berytus, who seems to have written upon astrological
topics. The latter indeed could not well be mentioned
by Pliny, as he was a pupil of Philo, the grammarian
of Byblus, and lived therefore in the reign of Hadrian,
or at the earliest in that of Trajan. Why should a
date which has the authority of such men as these
be treated with contempt, more especially as the per-
sonality of the Prophet is not under consideration, but
simply the foundation of the religion connected with
him? The two dates above mentioned essentially agree
- for 6000 years before the death of Plato (Ol. 108, 1;
B. C. 348) brings us to about 6350, and the date of
Hermippus is 6300, according to the common Alexan-
drian chronology of the Trojan war, 407 or 408 before
Ol. 1-1184 B. C.
At the present stage of the inquiry the question
whether this date is set too high cannot be answered
in either the negative or affirmative. All that we
know from Berosus is that another dynasty of 84 kings
reigned in Media before that of Zoroaster, whose names
were given by Polyhistor. In the mean time we do not
even know whether he conquered Media (that is, from
Bactria), as he afterwards captured Babylon, or whether
his family was Median. The determination of the age
of the founder of the religion depends upon the answer
to the following question, Whether the appearance of
Zoroaster in Bactria is to be placed before or after the
# н 4
472
[BOOK IV. PART VI.
THE AGE OF ZOROASTER.
emigration from Bactria? In the latter case the only
rational explanation would be, that a schism broke out
in the country of the Indus, in consequence of which
the adherents of the old Fire-worship (the devotees of
Agni) retraced their steps.
The old songs of the Zendavesta 205 described him
as follows: "He it is who offers words in songs, who
promotes purity by his praise: he, upon whom Ahura
Mazda conferred the good gift of eloquence- he was
the first in the world who made the tongue subser-
vient to the understanding: he is the only one who
understood the doctrines of the supreme God, and was
in a condition to transmit them." The king, Kava Vîs-
tâspa, patronised him. He was a priest of the Fire-
worshippers, and found the doctrine of a duality of good
and evil already in vogue. Nevertheless, the name of
Ahriman does not occur as yet in the oldest records.
What is understood by evil is evil thought (akô manô),
or falsehood, and this is contrasted with good thought,
which is identical with the good principle. An absolute
personification of the good principle is hardly to be
found in the songs of Zarathustra. Zoroaster opposed
the faith in the Gods of Nature, as the highest beings.
He found in existence the faith in good spirits, Ahuras,
the Living, who are also called the "Dispensers of Wis-
dom" (Mazdas). At their head he placed the One holy
God, "Ahura Mazda," Ormuzd, "the highest Spirit."
He is the Lord of all the Powers of Nature, Creator and
Sustainer of all Existence. He rules over earthly and
spiritual life-by which latter Zoroaster understands a
better state on this earth. His great axiom, so full of
intelligence, was that "the highest Trinity (drigu) is
Thought, Word, Deed." These three he considers to be
pure in the pure, evil in the evil: from the thought
emanates the word, from the two together the deed.
205 Haug, Deutsch-Morgenländ. Zeit. ix. p. 685.
Append. Introd. I.] CHARACTER OF THE VÊNDIDÂD. 473
APPENDIX.
THE FIRST CHAPTER OF THE VÊNDIDâd,
Translated and explained by Dr. HAUG, Private Teacher in the University
of Bonn.
INTRODUCTION.
I. THE AGE AND CHARACTER OF THE RECORD.
THE Vêndidâd, the code of the present Parsees, commences
with a passage, the purport of which is geographical. Its great
importance has already led several persons to attempt an ex-
planation of it, among whom Burnouf, Lassen, Ritter, and
Spiegel are the most conspicuous. A great portion of it,
nevertheless, still remains unexplained; first, because the study
of the Zendavesta is still in its infancy, and, secondly, because
this particular chapter presents peculiar difficulties. These
consist, not merely in identifying the names of countries, but
more especially in explaining the words which occur but seldom
(some of them but once, and that in the same chapter), and
which are used to designate the different creations of Ahriman
for the purpose of counteracting the good principle. An attempt
will here be made to give a new explanation of the passage, in
so far as compatible with my present knowledge of the Zenda-
vesta, which is still incomplete.
At first sight, this opening Fargard does not seem to have
any close connexion with the rest of the Vêndidâd. But upon
a more careful investigation of the purpose for which the last
digest of the Zendavesta was made, the introduction will be
found to harmonize perfectly with the rest. An enumeration
is here made simply of Arian countries, and almost exclusively
of those in which the faith of Zarathustra was more or less pre-
dominant. The editor meant to indicate the extent of country
in which the law of Mazdayasna was in force. But there is an-
other question to be considered--whether this passage formed
474
[BOOK IV. PArt VI.
THE AGE OF ZOROASTER.
part of the ancient code which the editor of the present Vên-
didâd found in existence, or whether he composed it himself or
inserted it out of some other work. The Vêndidâd has very
clearly undergone various processes of composition, of which
three main steps may be distinguished: Avesta, Zend, and
Pâzend.206 The Avesta must be considered as the original
groundwork of the code, which, although of very ancient date,
is still almost all of it post-Zarathustrian, as will appear here-
after. In course of time several explanations and interpreta-
tions of the laws sprang up, which, as they emanated from
competent authority, gradually acquired as much weight as the
original, the traditional divine revelation, and were incorporated
with it. This is the Zend, or the explanation. But in these
explanations there were many things unintelligible to after
generations, which gave rise to other further explanations
known by the name of Pâzend. After these brief notices I
resume the consideration of the questions immediately before
us. The first Fargard was probably incorporated into the general
text by the second or third commentator, the author either of
the Zend or of the Pâzend. For the large works composed on a
regular system, such as the groundwork of the Vêndidâd seems
to have been, were apparently products of the second or third
period a phenomenon which may be traced not only in the
history of the Zarathustrian literature but of the Vedic also. 207
But this chapter was certainly not composed by a later editor,
as is evident from the ancient supplements that were made
to it, but it was borrowed from some old work of the Avesta
period, perhaps an early Iranian history (as was also the second
chapter of the Vêndidâd).
If we examine this chapter purely in reference to its con-
tents, we may distinguish an original document and several
supplements, added for the purpose of explanation or cor-
rection. The original, after a short preliminary remark that
206 Avesta means Direct higher Knowledge, Divine Revelation ;
Zend means the explanation of this; and Pâzend the Supplements
to the Zend, or further explanation of the Zend doctrine. All the
three steps exist in the present Zend-Avesta, or more properly
Avesta-Zend. See upon this subject my treatise on these names in
the Morgenländ. Zeitsch. vol. ix. p. 694. seq.
207 I postpone to a future occasion the more detailed and complete
exposition of these views.
Arrend. INTROD. I.] CHARACTER OF THE VÊNDIDÂD.
475
Ahura Mazda converted the inhospitable and uninhabitable
world, which before was a sort of desert, into a place fit for
habitation, briefly enumerates sixteen best countries or Para-
dises, created by Ahura Mazda, each of which was specially
distinguished by some noteworthy property. Certain counter-
creations of Angrô Mainyus were then recorded in special con-
trast to these, but without any further description of any of
them. The additions have generally been considered as mere
glosses, and the argument used in support of this view is that
in the Huzûresh-translation 206 several of them are omitted.
But judging even from the etymological peculiarities, they must
be older than the last version of the Vêndidâd, or at least than the
last collection. At the very outset several difficulties present
themselves. The expression, "nôit kudat shâitîm," required a
fuller explanation; and it seemed remarkable that, while in the
introductory sentence the creations of Ahura Mazda are men-
tioned, not a word is said of the counter-creations of Angrô
Mainyus. An attempt was made to get over these difficulties
by means of a supplement (verse 2.), but this, unfortunately,
was not more intelligible than the introduction. The words
of the original, ver. 4., “two months of summer, ten of winter,'
did not appear to the later interpreter as suitable to the first
Land of Blessing, the real paradise. They therefore altered
them into seven months of summer and five of winter, which,
however, was in direct contradiction to the words of the ori-
ginal, a thing of frequent occurrence in the Vêndidâd, and a
manifest indication of its being a later modification of expres-
sions which either appeared out of character or too strong.
Compare Vênd. 3, 135. and 137 seq.; 6, 93–100. and 5, 1
49.; 6, 102-106.; 13, 80-96. and 97-105. of Spiegel.
But this change had not yet banished the severe cold from
Paradise. Its existence must be admitted, and attempts were
made to describe its effects in more detail, for the following
words, "cold as to water," to the end of this verse, are ad-
ditions of the Zendist. In the first place, these details are
out of character altogether with the original; and secondly,
the words sareta âpô do not dovetail into the dva hamina of
203 This is the name of the translation of the Zend-Avesta into
Pehlvi (a mixture of Semitic and Iranian), in the time of the Sassa-
nidæ. See my treatise on the Pehlvi language and Bundehesh,
Göttingen, 1854, p. 5.
476
[BOOK IV. PART VI.
THE AGE OF ZOROASTER.
the original, but into panca zajana of the supplement. At
verse 8., we find after the fifth Place of Blessing, NISAI, the
remark, "which" (lies) "between Môuru and Bâkhdhi." This
can hardly belong to the original; as there was no predicate to
NISAI, it seemed necessary to make one. The reason why the
Zendist, quite contrary to the general rule, thought it neces-
sary to add a description of the situation of the place may be
the frequent recurrence of the name of NISA, so well known to
us in the Greek writers. Under no circumstances can any
great weight be attached to it. The whole fifteenth verse is a
palpable addition of the Zendist. The sins of sorcery, men-
tioned in ver. 14. as a creation of Angrô Mainyus, required
further comment. The concluding verse (21.) is also probably
the addition of a later editor, in whose time the Arian territories
were perhaps considerably extended.
After these remarks it may be assumed as tolerably certain
that the additions are of much more modern date than the
original. They bear evident marks of an age in which the old
traditions had already ceased to be quite intelligible, and required
various explanations. The mode in which this was done is a
clear proof that the expositors themselves had not always very
correct notions upon these subjects.
As regards the original text, it is unquestionably of great
antiquity, and one of the oldest compositions of which the
present Vêndidâd consists. But in its present shape, even after
eliminating the later additions, it is decidedly after the time of
Zarathustra, and posterior to the so-called Gâthâs, or songs, in
which the greater part of the genuine maxims and doctrines of
Zarathustra have been transmitted. The principal ground for
this opinion is that Parseeism may be traced in it in a much
more developed and systematic shape than in the songs of Zara-
thustra. While the latter never employ the name of Angrô
Mainyus to represent the evil principle209, in the former the
evil genius is always introduced by that name, which has become
already his proper name, on every occasion when in opposition to
the good spirit, Ahura Mazda, he produces evil to counteract the
good creations. In the Gâthâs there is no such contrast as this,
and one too carried out with the utmost minutiæ, especially in
physical matters. They simply exhibit the general antagonism
209 Only in Jas. 45., 2., is an "Angra" (black) put in opposition to
Mainyus Spanyâo, the whiter or more holy spirit.
APPEND. INTROD. I.] CHARACTER OF THE VÊNDIDÂD.
477
between good and evil thoughts, words and deeds, truth and
falsehood, although this is very sharply marked. Indeed the
opposition between the two spirits is so far worked out even in
the first Fargard, that particular words are used to express the
especial creative power of each of them. The creation of the
good spirit is called fra-thwercz (properly, to fabricate, the
Vedic tvaksh, from which comes the name of the artificer of
the Gods, TVASHTAR, Greek TEUX-w), that of the evil spirit
fra-kerent (properly, to cut, to carve). This is very strong evi-
dence of its post-Zarathustrian origin, as no such distinctions
are found in the Gâthâs; dâ is used for the creation of both
spirits, urvata to express both their doctrines, &c. &c. In the
later writings, on the contrary, these distinctions are observed
throughout. For instance, mrû, to speak, is always used for the
good spirit, and in the same signification du only for the bad.
The head of the bad spirits is called KAMEREDHA, that of the
good, VAGHDHANA.
Though after this evidence no doubt can be entertained that
the chapter belongs to the post-Zarathustrian period, this by
no means implies that it is generally of modern origin. The
whole tenor of it would lead us, on the contrary, to conclude
that it must be very old. A certain historical date, however,
can hardly be given to it. From the names of the countries
mentioned, it is clear that when it was composed not only geo-
graphical information was very restricted, but also that the
actual Arian territory was of much more limited extent than
we find it afterwards. At all events it is older than the
foundation of the Median empire by Deioces (708 B. C.), inas-
much as several important provinces of Media, such as Atro-
patene (Aderbeigân), and several important cities, such as
Egbatana (Hagmatana in the first cuneiform writing), are not
mentioned. This would not have been the case here, where
Arian civilisation and Zarathustric faith were widely spread,
had Media then exercised that influence over Iran which she
attained under Deioces. At the date of its composition the
Arians probably had only just begun to spread through the
provinces of Media. Further proof of its high antiquity will
be found in the predicate of Bactra, erédhwo-drafsha, with
the tall banner. This would seem to refer to a time when
Bactra was the centre of an empire, for it can only mean the
imperial banner, the Kâvyânî-direfsh, or banner of the Kaja-
478
[Book IV. PART VI.
THE AGE OF ZOROASTER.
nians, which is mentioned in the Shâhnâmeh. But the power
of Bactria had been broken down by the Assyrians long before
Deioces (about 1200 B. C.). We may therefore place the date
of the original at a period anterior to the Assyrian conquest.
If, however, we look a little more closely into the scanty notices
in this connexion, we shall find that the geography of the Zend-
avesta was not limited to the countries mentioned in this chapter.
The whole globe used to be divided into seven Karshvares
(i. e. cultivable districts), the names of which frequently recur
in the Jeshts (It. 10, 15. 67. 133. they are called Areza, Sava,
Fradadhafshu, Vîdadhafshu, Vouru-baresti, Vouru-garesti, and
Qaniratha). This account must be very ancient, inasmuch as
the seven-surfaced or seven-portioned earth is mentioned already
in the Gâthâs, and in fact in the first (Jas. 32, 3.). In
Jas. 29, 7. mention is also made of the earth and its six re-
gions (gavôi khshvîdeméa urushaêibjo).210 The circumstance
of this old mythological division of the earth being omitted in
this chapter is an argument in favour of the historical character
of the original, and its great value for ancient Arian history.
The two passages which contain the best evidence of the geo-
graphical knowledge of the compilers of the Zendavesta are in
Jeshts 131, 143. 144., where mention is made of the countries of
the AIRYA (Iranians), the TUIRYA (Turanians), the SAIRIMA
(Sarmatians), the SAINI (probably the Sanni of the classics, to
the west of the Caspian, or perhaps the Sakini?), and of the
DÂHI (the Daher or Daer of the classics, in Hyrcania). The
first three of these were the best known and the most important.
We find in the Legend of Shâhnâmeh (i. p. 58. ed. Macan
Turner), the three sons of Ferêdûn, Ireg, Tûr, and Selm, men-
tioned as their patriarchs, and among them the whole earth was
divided. The nature of this division, by which Selm received
the western countries (the Sarmatian district), Tûr, Turkestan
and China, and Ireg, Iran, as their respective portions, looks
like an ancient geographical arrangement. If this passage be
supposed to contain a list of all the nations known to the Zend-
avesta, we find in one place (It. 10, 14.) hardly any which do
not belong to Iran. They are Aiskata, Pouruta, Môuru, Harôyû,
Gâu, Sughdha, and Qâirizem. Of these seven, four are mentioned
210 See my note on these passages, The Gâthâs, or Songs of
Zarathustra, i. p 85. 162.
ATTEND. INTROD. II.] GEOGRAPHY OF THE VÊNDIDÂD.
479
in the first Fargard, the other three it is very difficult to iden-
tify. Qâirizem is doubtless the Uwarazmiya of the cuneiform
inscriptions (Chowaresmia) at the east of the Caspian; Aiskata
is perhaps the district of Astabene, with its capital Asaak (in
Hyrcania); Pouruta is probably only another form of Parthuwa
in the cuneiform inscriptions (Parthyene), which may be ex-
plained by the phonetic laws of the Bactrian language.
II. GEOGRAPHICAL EXPLANATION OF THE COUNTRIES ENUMERATED.
WE now proceed to analyse the countries mentioned in this
list. The earth is considered as having been at first sterile,
with the exception of the original Iranian country, Airyanem
Vâegô, that is, Iran pure and simple. It is the first mentioned
of the sixteen here enumerated. The only curse upon it seems
to have been the ten months of winter, which implies that it
was a very northern or very elevated region. It is impossible
in the absence of further particulars to identify it more accu-
rately. It seems, however, indisputable, that the Iranians came
from an extraordinarily cold district. The second Fargard of
the Vêndidâd leads to the same conclusion, where the years of
Jima are reckoned by winters, and the curse of winter is por-
trayed in the strongest colouring. After the Airyanem Vâegô
come a series of countries which can be ascertained histori-
cally. In the enumeration of these as far as the eleventh
Land of Blessing we observe that the direction is from north-
east to south-west, and we are in some degree authorised in
considering them to be the districts first peopled by the Iranian
races, which is also in exact accordance with the Iranian legend.
But at the twelfth Land of Blessing the direction is altered.
Some countries in the north-west, and others in the south-west
are mentioned, possibly in the order in which Iranian civilisation
was introduced.
The Second best country is Gâu, with the district of Sughdha.
Gâu is not, as Burnouf thought, a nomen appellativum here.
in the sense of earth. The first objection to this is its fre-
quent repetition in another list of the names of countries
(It. 10, 14.): and the second, a comparison with verses 10
and 11., where Duzhakô-shayanem and Vehrkânô-shayanem
are respectively preceded by a real proper name. Its literal
meaning certainly is earth, or specifically land, like the Ger-
480
[BOOK IV. PART VI.
THE AGE OF ZOROASTER.
man Gau, Armenian Gaw-ar, land, province. This use of a
general expression for a particular country reminds us of the
use of urbs for Roma, and shows that the Gâu in question
must have been a metropolis of Iranian civilisation. The site of
it is clear from the word in apposition, Sughdô-shayanem.
Sughdha is evidently Sogd, Sogdiana, the Fire-land, that is, the
land where the sacred fires were especially lighted. Its curse,
like that of the original country, was of a physical nature, a
murrain in the cattle.-The Third Land of Blessing is Môuru,
with the predicate strong and true, the former of which seems
to allude to its physical strength, the latter to its piety
and morality. Its curse was war and marauding expeditions,
meaning probably the razzias which the warlike inhabitants made
against each other and their enemies. The country itself is the
present Merv, the Margiana of the classics, Margush of the in-
scriptions, to the south-west of Sogdiana, the place of wild ani-
mals, especially birds, as its name implies. This appellation will
not surprise us when we recollect that, according to the Vêndi-
dâd, birds, as well as trees, water, and fire, necessarily formed
part of a good Ahura-Mazdian country.-The Fourth Land of
Blessing after Môurû is Bâkhdhî, the fortunate spot, which we
must necessarily identify with the modern Balkh, the Bactra of
the cuneiform writings and the classics. The difference in the
terminations tra and dhi is easily accounted for by supposing
Bâkhdhî to mean principally the capital of Bactria, Bactra the
country itself. It is even possible that the one was in vogue
in Eastern Iran, the other in Western Iran or Media. As
far as the sense goes it makes but little difference, Bak-tra is
the most fortunate, Bâkh-dhî, the fortunate spot. The predi-
cate srîra, that is, fortunate, exactly suits the name; the other
adjective has been already mentioned. The curses inflicted
on this fortunate spot by the evil spirit, consisted of swarms
of insects and poisonous plants.-The Fifth country is Nisâi or
Nisâya according to the cuneiform inscriptions, the Nisæa of the
classics. As they mention more than one Nisæa (I only allude
to the Nisaa north-east of Parthyene, and the celebrated Campi
Nisæi in Media) it is somewhat difficult to specify very accurately
the locality here alluded to. The text itself would appear indeed to
help us out of the difficulty by the accompanying words, "which
lies between Môuru and Bâkhdhî,” but in reality they create the
difficulty. Classic writers were unacquainted with any Nisea
APPEND. INTROD. II.] GEOGRAPHY OF THE VÊNDIDÂD. 481
situated between these two countries: the Nisea which was so
celebrated for its breed of horses, the present Nishapur, the pro-
vince of Nisâya in the cuneiform inscriptions, lay to the north-
east of Parthyene, to the west of Aria (Herat). It would seem
that this is the Land of Blessing here alluded to, from the great
reputation for beauty and fertility which it has enjoyed down to
the present time. The name properly signifies "settlement,"
for which reason it is one of so frequent occurrence. The curse of
this beautiful region was the unbelief of its inhabitants.-After
Nisâya comes Harôyû, the Sixth country, the Stream-Land,
with which its predicate, Dispenser of water, accords exactly.
It is the Aria of the Greeks, Hariwa of the cuneiform inscrip-
tions, the present Herat. Its curse is hail-storms, which produce
poverty.
The Seventh country is Vaêkereta, which signifies the Dis-
figured, or waste, with the Duzhaka, or Hell-district. At first
sight it seems a singular title for a good land created by Ahura
Mazda, but it has a meaning when we think of an arid desert
country, interspersed here and there with patches of fruitful
soil. The Huzûresh translation makes it Cabul; but the names
are unsuited to this beautiful district. The name "Duzhaka”
suggested to the modern commentators, Burnouf and Lassen,
Segestan (the land of the Saki), the capital of which is called
Dushak. This is the right interpretation, for the nature of
Segestan (the Drangiana of the classics) is quite in character
with this etymology, consisting as it does of parched sandy
deserts. A perfectly conclusive argument, and one which has
never yet been adduced, is the notice of the Pairika being
attached to the hero Keresâspa. This Keresâspa (the owner of
lean horses) is the Gershasp of the Parsees, who according
to the Shâhnâmeh lived in the time of Feredûn, and passed for
being the ancestor of Neriman, Sâm, Zâl, and Rustem, who
governed Segestan as vassals of the crown of Iran (see Shâh-
nâmeh, ed. Turner, iv. p. 2333.). The name of Keresâspa
figures in the Jeshts, not alone however, but in connexion either
with Naremanâo (Nerîman) (It. 5,37. 15, 27. 19,38—44.) or with
Sâma (It. 13, 61. 136.); it is only in the brief notice in It. 23,3.
that these are omitted. Though it has not the form of a pa-
tronymic, yet, from its being applied to two individuals of the
same race, it cannot belong to any given person, but must be a
family name. As its meaning is "owner of lean horses,” it would
VOL. III.
I I
482
[BOOK IV. PART VI.
THE AGE OF ZOROASTER.
apparently refer to some residence of this family, where the
pasturage was not very good, which again is in accordance with
the nature of Segestan. In It. 5, 37. Naremanâo Keresâspa
begs of the Ardvî sûrâ anâhitâ (the spotless anâhitâ, celestial
primitive water, the Anahit of the Persians211), at the foot of the
valley (vari, a valley with a river) Pisanô, 100 male horses,
1000 cows, and 10,000 neat cattle. At 15, 27. he offers a
prayer to Vaju, to give him strength to slay the Hitâspa (who
keeps the horses confined). The fullest details about this
hero will be found It. 19, 38--44. He is the third possessor of
the "lustre" (qarenô) which King Jima enjoyed so long. "He
was the mightiest among the mighty, until a woman who did
not profess the Zarathustrian religion embraced him. This
powerful woman followed Keresâspâ with extended feet, sleep-
less, and continually watching him. He slew the serpent
Sravara, who swallowed up men and horses. He slew
Gandarewa with the golden heel, the Hitâspa, the Arezô-
shamana, who was embraced by the woman (verse 42.), the
Snâvidhaka, who undertook, as soon as he was grown up,
to make the earth his wheel and the heaven his chariot, to
carry away the white spirit (Ahura Mazda) from heaven,
and the black spirit (Angrô Mainyus) from hell, and yoke
them both to his car."212 The woman who attached herself to
the hero Naremanâo Keresâspa can be no other than the Pairika
mentioned in this verse. Though in the Vêndidâd (comp. 19.
5. W.) she appears as a creation of Ahriman, it would seem
from the passage in the 19th Jesht just cited (comp. also
specially ver. 42.) that, subsequently at least, this Pairika no
longer passed for a female monster, but was considered the
protecting Genius of heroes, who were indebted to her for their
supernatural strength. It is remarkable that at the present day
in the valley of Pishin (the Pisanô of the Keresâspâ legend)
the stories about the beautiful Peris, and the belief in them,
still exist (see Ritter's Geography of Asia, vol. viii. p. 60.). As
this valley lies to the east of the river Hilmend in the vicinity
of Segestan, this is an additional reason for thinking Vaêkereta
and Segestan to be identical, which latter must have extended
211 Upon this subject see Windischmann's admirable article on the
Persian Anahita or Anaitis, in the Transactions of the Philological
(1) Class of the R. Bavarian Academy of Sciences, vol. viii. part i.
212 We have here the portrait of an overbearing giant.
APPEND. INTROD. II.] GEOGRAPHY OF THE VÊNDIDÂD. 483
much further to the castward than it now does, during the
ancient rule of the Keresâspa dynasty.
The Eighth Land of Blessing is Urvâ, the Land of Plains.
Up to this time we have been at a loss how to identify it. The
Huzûresh translation on this occasion, as is generally the case
indeed when there is any great difficulty, leaves us in the lurch,
for it only transcribes the name. As the districts mentioned
immediately before and after are all in the south-eastern part of
Irân, we are very naturally led to look for Urvâ in this locality.
The epithet, abounding in rivers or streams, implies a fer-
tile district; its very name, "breadth," would signify a wide,
open, champaign country. All this is suitable to Cabul, which
lies to the north-east of the seventh Place of Blessing. It would
be, moreover, a singular circumstance that the Iranian ethnology,
in a region so fruitful and so early brought under cultivation,
should be unknown, while several adjoining countries are spe-
cially mentioned. All this, however, would not be sufficient to
establish the identity of Urvâ and Cabul, were it not that Urvâ
can be worked out from the name of Cabul itself, which is one
of very ancient date. The word Cabul consists of ka and bul,
just as Zâbul consists of za and bul (the ancient name of the
whole or part of Segestan in the Shâhnâmeh). Bul is a muti-
lated form of urva 213, which will be more easily understood by
considering the form vuuru, which corresponds to the Sanskrit
uru, wide, and which occurs in Zend with uru and urvu.
Kâh in Modern Persian signifies grass, hay, so that the entire
word means "the grassy plain," "champaign, pasture-land" 214,
while Zâbul signifies "the plain of men," "the land of men or
heroes" (zah in Modern Persian signifying "male offset").
The Ninth land is Knenta, with the district of Behrkâna.
Burnouf supposed this to be the nomen appellativum, but ac-
cording to the general character of the whole catalogue this.
idea is incapable of proof. It must be the name of a country
situated in the south-east of Iran. But Vehrkânô-shayanem
99.66
213 The word bul-ghâk, loud violent noise, bul-kâmeh, strong
desire, &c., prove that " uru," vôuru," really become bul in Modern
Persian. In the Zendic compounds it is exactly vôuru, wide.
214 In the Veda, urvara means fruitful field, in Zend, a tree: it is
at all events connected with uru. The meaning in Zend is the
derivative one (comp. Mod. Pers. darcht, tree, with the Arm. tarchid,
garden). The original meaning of urvâ probably was plain, field.
1 1 2
484
THE AGE OF ZOROASTER. [BOOK IV. PArt VI.
seems to militate against this. Vehrkâno is phonetically pre-
cisely the same word as Hyrcania, which is to the south-east of
the Caspian, so that we are carried all of a sudden to a totally
different part of Iran. But we know no other Hyrcania to the
south. Many forcible arguments may be advanced, nevertheless,
against this now generally received opinion. First, It is in
itself a singular thing that the Ninth country should be found in
the neighbourhood of the Caspian, while the two immediately
succeeding (ten and eleven) are again in the south-eastern part
of Iran. Secondly, Vehrkâna cannot in this instance signify
a country, but must either be a city or a river in Khnenta.
This is perfectly clear when we compare verse 5. Gâum Sughd-
hô-shayanem, and verse 10. Vaêkeretem Duzhakô-shayanem,
with Khnentem Vehrkâno-shayanem, in both which cases Gâu
and Vaêkereta are the countries, Sughda and Duzhaka cities
within them (see on this subject note to verse 5.). Thirdly,
We know of no Khnenta in Hyrcania. We remain in the
south-east in the vicinity of Cabul. To the south-west of the
meadows of Cabul, and to the east of the sandy deserts of Se-
gestan, stretch the beautiful plains of Candahar, watered by
the river Urghandab. Here we must look for Khnenta; indeed
it is contained in the name of Candahar itself. The word
Kandahar must be in the first place divided into Kanda and har.
Kand comes from the Modern Persian, khanden, hhandiden,
to laugh, and then is used metaphorically for, to bloom, flourish ;
har=hâr, string, string of pearls, pearl. The whole word
consequently signifies either "chaplet of flowers" or "string of
pearls," which is a thoroughly Oriental mode of expressing a
charming country. In the Darius inscriptions it is spelled Gan-
dâra, a contraction from Gandahâra, the kh being softened down.
to g; whereas in the present name, Kandahar, the original form,
Khnento-hâra, is still more faithfully retained. There is no diffi-
culty again in identifying Vehrkâna as the name of the river
Urghând-âb, as Ritter spells it (Geography of Asia, vol. viii.
p. 160.). In Modern Persian it becomes Gurgân. The initial
g-sound seems lost, which is easily accounted for in long words;
the d is inorganic, as frequently occurs with dentals; and ab
means water, so that the word signifies "the river of the wolf-
country" or wolf-ravine (the upper course of which is in the
mountains). There is, however, in Kandahar a city called
Urghândab. The evil created here by the bad spirit was
unnatural passion.
Append. Introd. II] GEOGRAPHY OF THE VÊNDIDÂD.
485
The Tenth land is the Happy Haraqaiti, abounding in water,
in which the Arachosia of the classics and the Harauwatish of
the cuneiform inscriptions, to the southward of Cabul, may be
identified. The curse of Ahriman there was the burial of the
dead, which is strictly prohibited in the Zendavesta, as being
the greatest desecration of the sacred earth.
After Haraqaiti comes the Eleventh land, the luxurious bril-
liant Haêtumat, by which is to be understood the valley of the
present river Hilmend, to the west of Arachosia. It means
the "bridged-over," because it had a number of bridges, the
building of which is mentioned in the Zendavesta as a most
meritorious act. The prevailing evils here were the Jâtu sins
(see note to verse 15.).
A change of direction now ensues.
in the south of Iran are enumerated.
Almost all the countries
The next in succession
are the few districts in the north-west, which come within
the sphere of the old Arian civilisation. The Twelfth land
is called Raghâ, with the predicate of thrizantu, i. e. "hav-
ing three races.' We find it mentioned again in the Zend-
avesta, and indeed in Jas. 19, 18., where there is the following
remarkable passage:-"What sort of lords (ratavô) are these?
The lord of a nmâna (family, household), the lord of a vis
(district), the lord of a zantu (race, tribe), the lord of a country,
the fifth (lord) Zarathustra. Among the countries which
(profess) religions different from that of Zarathustra, the Zara-
thustrian Raghâ has four lords. What are these lords? The
lord of the family, of the district, of the tribe, and the fourth
Zarathustra." It is clear from this, that the inhabitants of
Ragha did not recognise Zarathustra as their supreme lord, as
was the case with the other Iranians (certainly, the eastern and
southern), but that they considered him as a being inferior to the
real lord of the soil, though superior to the heads of tribes. This
is the reason why they are mentioned as possessing "other than
the Zarathustrian faith," i. e. the faith mentioned in the present
Zendavesta, one specifically represented by the Zend doctrine.
They were looked upon therefore as renegades, a sort of Shiites.
This is a clue to the meaning of the curse of Ahriman, Ragha's
doubt as to the Supreme, or the spiritual supremacy of Zara-
thustra. Raghâ is undoubtedly the Rhage of the classics in
Media, and the Rei of the present day in the vicinity of Tehe-
rân, which was so celebrated in ancient times.
The Thirteenth land is Kakhra, with the same predicates,
I I 3
486
[BOOK IV. PART VI.
THE AGE OF ZOROASTER.
•
strong and pious, which we find given to Môuru. Spiegel
suggests the district of Kihrem mentioned in Firdousi, but we do
not know where this was. Turner's glossary to the Shâhnâmeh
(iv. p. 2313.) merely describes "Tshihrem as a place in Iran."
Buller's lexicon, voce karkh (the circle, from the Zendish kakhra,
the wheel), states that it is also the name of a city in Khorassan.
This seems to me more appropriate than an entirely indefinite
place like Tshihrem. To judge by the predicate, ashava (true,
pious, religious), the inhabitants of Kakhra were faithful and
zealous adherents of Zarathustra. It is a striking circumstance,
therefore, that the practice of burning the dead, though only
partially, should have existed there. The epithets of "pious" and
"religious" probably refer to their recognition of the spiritual
supremacy of Zarathustra, as contrasted with the inhabitants of
Raghâ.
With respect to the Fourteenth country, Varena, various
opinions have been advanced (see Spiegel, translation of the
Vêndidâd, p. 66. note 1.). But inasmuch as the few clues
which are to be found in the Zendavesta itself have not been
systematically followed up, it was not likely that the right one
should have been hit upon. Varena is the birthplace of the
hero Thraêtaona, the Ferêdûn of the Iranian legend (see also
It. 15, 23. 17, 33.). His act of heroism which has been the
most eulogized, the murder of the infamous tyrant Zohak, is
invariably supposed in the legend to have taken place on the
Albors, or more properly on the mountain of Demavend, to
the south of the Caspian; the recollection of it indeed is
kept up to this day, by the annual jubilee for the victory of
Ferêdûn. The origin of the legend is seen at once to be
mythological, for Thraêtaona is the Trita of the Veda, the
slayer of the dæmon Vritra, who prevents the clouds from pour-
ing out water; but there can be little doubt that some im-
portant event in the earliest history of the Iranians was worked
up with it, mythology and heroölogy being very frequently
mixed up together in the earliest legendary history. The
name Varena is also borrowed from mythology. It is identical
with Varuna, and signifies heaven. Allusion is made to it in
the predicate kathru gaosha, "with four corners," which must
mean the four corners of heaven. But in the legend the act
of heroism above mentioned was connected with a specific.
place upon the earth, and gave to it the legendary name which
we must endeavour to discover. The mention of Mâzanian
Append. Introd. II.] GEOGRAPHY OF THE VÊNDIDÂD.
487
and Varenian Daêvas, in the conflict with whom the heroes ask
aid from the Gods, furnishes another clue (It. 10, 69. 97. 134.
5, 22. 13, 71. 137.). There is frequent mention in the Shâh-
nâmeh of the Dive of Mâzenderân, the expedition against
whom of Kai Kawu being the one best known. The Mazanian
Daêvas of the Zendavesta must be these Dive of Mâzenderân,
as the latter word evidently grew out of the former (nâzaynja)
by the addition of the termination "an." But as they and
the Varenians (Varenya) are usually mentioned together, we
have a certain right to expect to find Varena in the neighbour-
hood of Mâzenderân. Ghilân, which is also a mountainous.
district, joins to the westward the latter mountain country,
the inhabitants of which are, to the present day, remarkable
for their lawless habits and daring character. The analogy
of sound would also identify it with the Varena of which we
are in search, it being a well-known law that the initial v of
the Old Iranian usually becomes g in Modern Persian. Here
the curses of Ahriman were secret charms, the practice of
many of which we know to have been attributed to the Dive
of Mâzenderân. The plagues by which the country was de-
solated not of an Arian character, that is, such as are not
met with in the old Arian countries were earthquakes and
volcanic eruptions, similar to those which took place there.
The Fifteenth country is Hapta-Hindu, which is divided
into eastern and western. By this is meant the Indus country,
called in the songs of the Veda, sapta sindhavas, or the seven
rivers. These consist of the Sindhú, with its eastern conflu-
ents, Vitastâ (Hydaspes), Asikni (Akesines), Parushnî (Hydra-
ortes), Vipâs (Hyphasis), Satadru (Hesydrus), and the western,
Kubha (Kophen), which comes from Cabul. The curses of
the country are the sorceries of Ahriman and excessive heat,
which accords with the southern part of the Indus district.
The Sixteenth country has no specific name. Its inhabitants
are the dwellers near the sea coast, who do not require any
ramparts. Their curses are winter and earthquakes. As the
Caspian was the sea nearest to the Old Iranians, we must here
understand the shores of that sea. The Indian ocean is out of
the question, in consequence of the mention of cold. But the
most probable supposition is that the author had in view the
boundaries of the earth, and that ranha means the circum-
ambient ocean.
II 4
488
THE AGE OF ZOROASTER. [Book IV. PART VI.
Translation of the Record.
THE FIRST FARGARD OF THE VÊNDIDÂD.215
1. AHURA MAZDA said to the hallowed Zarathustra:
"I created, most holy Zarathustra, into a delicious spot
what was hitherto wholly uninhabitable. For had not
I, most holy Zarathustra, converted into a delicious
spot what was hitherto wholly uninhabitable, all earthly
life would have been poured forth after Airyana-Vaêgô.
2. [“Into a charming region (I converted) one which did
not enjoy prosperity, the second (region) into the first; in op-
position to it is great destruction of the existing cultivation.]
3. "As the first best of regions and countries, I, who
am Ahura Mazda, created Airyana-Vaêgô of good capa-
bility; thereupon, in opposition to him, Angro Mainyus,
the Death-dealing, created a mighty serpent and snow,
the work of the Daêvas.
4. "Ten months of winter are there-two months
of summer.
["Seven months of summer are there; five months winter
there were; the latter are cold as to water, cold as to earth,
cold as to trees; there (is) mid-winter, the heart of winter;
there all around falls deep snow; there is the direst of
plagues.]
5. "As the second best of regions and countries, I, I
Ahura Mazda, created Gâu, in which Sughdha is
situated. Thereupon, in opposition to it, Angrô Main-
yus, the Death-dealing, created pestilence, which is fatal
to cattle, small and great.
6. "As the third best of regions and lands, I, I
Ahura Mazda, created the strong, the pious Môuru.
215 In the transcript AE is equivalent to Ê, and ao to ô. The pas-
sages in brackets are the additions of the Zendic editor.
APPENDIX.] FIRST FARGARD OF THE VÊNDIDÂD. 489
Thereupon Angrô Mainyus, the Death-dealing, created
in opposition to it war and pillage.
7. "As the fourth best of regions and countries, I, I
Ahura Mazda, created the happy Bâkhdhî with the tall
banner. Thereupon Angrô Mainyus, the Death-dealing,
created in opposition to it buzzing insects and poisonous
plants.
8. "As the fifth best of regions and countries, I,
Ahura, I, Mazda, created Nisâi [between Môuru and
Bâkhdhi]. Thereupon Angro Mainyus created in
opposition to it the curse of unbelief.
9. "As the sixth best of regions and countries, I,
Ahura Mazda, I created Harôyu, the dispenser of water.
Thereupon Angrô Mainyus, the Death-dealing, created in
opposition to it hail and poverty.
10. "As the seventh best of regions and countries, I,
Ahura Mazda, I created Vaêkereta, in which Duzhaka
is situated. Thereupon Angrô Mainyus, the Death-
dealing, created in opposition to it the Pairika Khna-
thaiti, who attached herself to Keresâspa.
11. "As the eighth best of regions and countries, I,
Ahura Mazda, created Urvâ, abounding in rivers.
Thereupon Angrô Mainyus created, in opposition to it,
the curse of devastation.
12. "As the ninth best of regions and countries, I,
Ahura Mazda, created Khnenta, in which Vehrkâna is
situated. Thereupon Angrô Mainyus created, in opposi-
tion to it, the evil of inexpiable sins, pæderastism.
13. "As the tenth best of regions and countries, I,
Ahura Mazda, created the happy Haraqaiti. Thereupon
Angrô Mainyus, the Death-dealing, created the evil of
inexpiable acts, the burial of the dead.
14. "As the eleventh best of regions and countries, I,
Ahura Mazda, created Haêtumat, the wealthy and bril-
liant. Thereupon Angro Mainyus, the Death-dealing,
created in opposition to it Jâtu sins.
490
THE AGE OF ZOROASTER. [Book IV. PART VI.
15. [" And he (Angrô Mainyus) is endowed with various
powers and various forms. Wherever these come, on being
invoked by one devoted to Jâtu, there the most horrible Jâtu
sins arise; then spring up those which tend to murder and the
deadening of the heart; powerful are they by dint of concealing
their hideousness and by their enchanted potions.]
16. "As the twelfth best of regions and countries, I,
Ahura Mazda, created Raghâ with the three races.
Thereupon Angrô Mainyus, the Death-dealing, created
in opposition to it the evil of unbelief in the Supreme.
17. "As the thirteenth best of regions and countries,
I, Ahura Mazda, created Kakhra the strong, the pious.
Thereupon Angrô Mainyus, the Death-dealing, created
the curse of inexpiable acts, the burning of the dead.
18. "As the fourteenth best of regions and countries,
I, Ahura Mazda, created Varena with the four corners,
-to him was born Thraêtaona, the slayer of the destruc-
tive serpent. Thereupon Angrô Mainyus, the Death-
dealing, created in opposition to him irregularly recur-
ring evils (sicknesses) and un-Arian plagues of the
country.
19. "As the fifteenth best of regions and countries,
I, Ahura Mazda, created Hapta Hindu, from the eastern
Hindu to the western. Thereupon Angrô Mainyus,
the Death-dealing, created in opposition to it untimely
evils and irregular fevers.
(20. "As the sixteenth best of regions and countries,
I, Ahura Mazda, created those who dwell without ram-
parts on the sea-coast. Thereupon Angrô Mainyus,
the Death-dealing, created in opposition snow, the work
of the Daêvas, and earthquakes which make the earth to
tremble.)
66
(21. There are also other regions and countries,
happy, renowned, high, prosperous, and brilliant.")
APPENDIX]
491
NOTES TO THE FIRST FARGARD.
NOTES.
Verse 1. [2.] 3. 4. Shâitim.-Airyana Vaégô.
1. Shâitîm. This word has given the commentators a great
deal of trouble. Westergaard writes it joined with Kudat ;
Spiegel and the MSS. write it separately. I can find no au-
thority for uniting them. We have in the Jeshts, some parallel
passages. At 17,6., shâiti (vocative) is a predicate of Ashi;
at 22, 2., upa aêtam khshapanem avavat shâtôis urva ishaiti
yatha vîspem imat yat guyô anhus: "in this night comes the soul
(of the pious deceased) to the precise degree of happiness which
it experienced in life." In It. 22, 20., avavat ashâtôis is used in
the same connexion as here respecting the impious soul, in the
sense of unhappiness. The superlative shâistem, which occurs
so often in the third Fargard, has the same derivation as shâiti;
there its meaning is clearly the most agreeably. They are both
derived from a root, shi, of frequent occurrence in the Zend-
avesta, corresponding exactly to Sanskrit kshi, to inhabit.
Hence shâiti is an abstract substantive of the causal form shây.
The abstract derivative from the simple stem is pronounced
shiti. Hence the strict meaning of shâiti is inhabitancy,
housekeeping, or even hospitality. Shâistem is a superla-
tive formed directly from the causative (direct comparative
and superlative formations of this kind are found in the Veda),
and literally means most habitable, a sense which agrees
perfectly with the context of the similar passage in the third
Fargard. The Huzûresh translation reads here âsân, easy,
comfortable, and in the margin it gives as a synonyme,
niyûk, good; in Fargard 3., the superlative âsântûm, most
easily, most comfortably. The general sense is not incor-
rect, though somewhat vague, as is not an unusual thing with the
Huzûresh translators, and in consequence of which they are
very apt to mislead. Shâiti, however, is preserved in the Modern
Persian shâd, joyous. The following is the gloss to the passage
in the Huzûresh translation:-" Had this happened (had the
people been drawn after Airyana Vaêgô), the world would have
been unable to go on; for it could not have continued in its pro-
per condition from one zone to the other (from kishver to kish-
ver)." In the sequel this translation offers a short introduction
492
[Book IV. PART VI.
THE AGE OF ZOROASTER.
to the repertory of the countries which now commences. They
are placed in their regular order. The word ginak216, by which
asô (region) is rendered, signifies a place where men are not
stationary; rústak, by which shôithra (country) is rendered, on
the contrary, signifies a place where they are stationary (hence
the former implies the open plain in which men roam about, the
latter fixed habitations, which when combined form villages
and cities); it is, in fact, whole regions which are enumerated,
and after some of them also the river Hêtômend (Haêtumat).
The meaning of the verse is this: In the earliest time, Airyana
Vaêgô was the only cultivated country; all the rest was a
desert. But as there was a danger of Airyana Vaêgô being over-
flown by every living thing that existed in this desert, habitable
regions were created in other parts of the earth. Asô râmôdâitîm
cannot, as has hitherto been supposed, be airyanem-vaêgô, as in
that case the hypothetical expression vispô anhus-frâshnvât
would have no meaning, because it would be in direct contradic-
tion to its premiss; but we must necessarily understand a
country which offers a contrast to the paradise. The expres-
sion asô, from the same root as astvão, existing, earthly, astis,
being, bodies, derived from as, to be, and therefore having no
connexion with the Vedish âsâ, country, clime, with which it
has been compared, signifies something existing, in short, a
specific part of all earthly existence in which there is life. The
sense of "country" is in the first place derivative. An objection
might be raised to this derivation, that the s in the root as gene-
rally becomes h in Zend; but there are instances of s becoming
s, for instance as (he was), the imperfect of as, to be.
2. There is no Huzûresh translation at all of this verse. In
the glosses which precede the translation of the third, no refer-
ence is made to it whatever. Spiegel does not think that they
formed part of the original text; Westergaard, on the other
hand, seems to think them genuine; at all events he does not
put them within brackets. They are notices of the Zendic
editor himself, as remarked in our Introduction. Instead of
mashimârava (Spiegel), or mas mâ rava (Westergaard), readings
which convey no satisfactory meaning, I propose to read mas
mârava. Mas is the same as maz (comp. mash, Jas. 34, 9.
32, 3., and my note upon it). Mârava is referrible to a root
216 The characters are perhaps more correctly read, gawak.
APPENDIX.]
493
NOTES TO THE FIRST FARGARD.
mare, and here, according to the tenor of the whole context,
comes from one signifying "to die," causative "to kill." Sha-
tham, which only occurs in this passage, belongs to the root shi,
khshi, which, when it passes into the Gûna form shai, frequently
drops the radical i; for instance, khsha-thra, lordship. The
meaning of the passage is this: Ahura Mazda transformed into
a delightful region those districts which had previously been
deserts, and therefore not an agreeable residence; but to all
these there were evils attached, which were drawbacks to their
being inhabited. The expression, "I created into a first the
second region," may mean the desert, the waste, I raised
into a paradise, or at least into a country next to a paradise.
Thus the sixteen countries enumerated would be first countries;
those less good, secondary, as countries of the second class. The
words paoirim bitîm may, however, have alluded to the suc-
cceding countries, so that "et cætera" required to be supplied
(the first, second, et cætera).
3. The name of the first country is Airyanem Vaêgô. By
this is to be understood the original Arian home, the paradise
of the Iranians. The ruler of this happy land was King Jima,
the renowned Dshemshêd of the Iranian legend, who on that
account is called srûtô airyênê vaêgahi, "the renowned in Airy-
ana Vaêgô" (Farg. 2.); a title borne also by Ahura Mazda
himself. Ahura Mazda and Zarathustra here adore the celestial
source of water, the Ardvî sûrâ anâbitâ (It. 5, 17. 104.). Here
Zarathustra prays to the Drvâspâ (the patroness of horses, It.
9, 25.), and to Ashi (17, 45.). Thus Airyana Vaêgô becomes
altogether a mythical country, the seat of gods and heroes,
where there is neither sickness nor death, frost nor heat, as is
the case in the realm of Jima. In the chapter before us, how-
ever, we may still discover the historical background. In
Airyana Vaêgo there are ten months of winter. But winter, as
being one of the curses of Ahriman, has no connexion with the
paradise in which, according to the legend, only happiness and
bliss were found. This notice, however, is exactly suited to
regions in the far north, or in a very high situation, and it is a
primeval reminiscence of the real cradle of the Iranians. Thus,
in the legend of Airyana Vaêgô, the real historical reminiscence
of their early home has been merged in the description of a
happy paradisiacal original state of mankind, such as is presented
to us in various popular tales. As regards the etymology,
494
[BOOK IV. PART VI.
THE AGE OF ZOROASTER.
vaêgô (thema, vaêganh) has nothing to do with the Sanskrit
vîga, seed, origin, as hitherto supposed, first, because such a
meaning is unsuitable to the name of a country, and, secondly,
because it is not found in this sense in the oldest Sanskrit
(biga, Rv. V. 4, 9, 13., with the predicates dhânya and akshita,
must have the signification of possession). It is, however, still
retained in the Modern Persian words wêz and wêzheh, according
to the Burhân-i-qati, the special, particular, then in the sense
of pure, unmixed, and also in the Armenian vigak, possession.
Indeed, we find it used also in the Modern Persian sense in
Bactrian; for instance, It. 19, 92.: "Yat (kavaêm qarenô) astvat-
eretô frakhstâiti haka apat Kasuyât astô mazdâo ahurahê vîspa-
taurvayto puthrô vaêdhim vaêgô yim vârethraghnim yim barat
takhmo Thraêtaono yat azhis dahâkô gaini; "which (the Kavi-
brightness 217), the Awakener of the Earthly 218, produced from
the water Kasuya, he who was sent forth, the son of the all-
conquering Ahura Mazda, the watchful, the pure, which was
borne by the brave Thraêtaona when he slew the destructive
serpent." This passage, as well as the Modern Persian, proves
the word vaêgô to be properly an adjective, and a closer exami-
nation of the name Airyanem Vaêgô brings us to the same
conclusion. The whole context shows that Airyanem cannot
be an adjective, but must be a substantive, and, in fact, an abs-
traction of airya, Arians; hence it signifies Arianship, or the
Arian country. Vaêgô (the neuter of an adjective vaêgão)
is its adjective, and it designates the original home as being
that of all the Daêvas and Daêva-worshippers, as well as a
country exempt from the curses of the evil spirit, pure Arian.
This pure unmixed Arian country forms at the same time a
contrast to Iran, which has acquired historical celebrity. The
root is probably the Sanskrit vik, to divide, separate.—Azhim
raoidhitem, Spiegel translates great serpent. But great is
rather too vague a meaning. The Huzûresh translation has
217 The whole tenth Jesht is dedicated to this "Brightness."
Jima first bore it, from him it passed to the most distinguished heroes
of the Foretime, and through it alone they were enabled to perform
such wonderful exploits. It is something like the Tarn-cap in the
German myth.
218 This is Saoskyans, Sosiosh, the Persian Messiah, who awakens
the dead at the last day.
APPENDIX.]
495
NOTES TO THE FIRST FARGARD.
rûtîk, the same word, but in the Pehlvi dialect. Had the in-
tention been to express the sense of "great," mah or kabir
would certainly have been selected. Rût, in Parsee-Pehlvi,
means "river," in Modern Persian rûd. Rûtîk is an adjective
derived from it (in Pehlvi k is commonly affixed to words end-
ing with vowels) and means consequently "flowing," "running."
This translation is quite correct. Raoidhita comes from the
root rudh "to run, to flow;" and, though no longer found in
the verbal form (perhaps raodhat, It. 19, 40., might be connected
with it), there is a variety of evidence showing that it must
once have co-existed. The Righantavas use rohita, as nadî-
nâma, to express river, and likewise rodhakâkrâh, and again
there is the Modern Persian rûd, river. The Raoidhita in
question occurs as the name of a mountain in It. 19, 2. In It.
10, 126. we have a superlative upa-raodhistô, the predicate of
Rashnu razista (the most perfect justice, the judge of the dead,
according to the doctrine of the present Parsees). Hence, it
here means "flowing, or made to flow." When applied to a
serpent this can only refer to its emitting poison. How the
idea of a serpent emitting poison was obtained from the words
Airyana vaêgô is difficult to say; from some volcano, possibly,
or spring of hot water. It may possibly also mean winter in
general. Zyam, the accusative of zyâo, does not mean literally
winter, as has been supposed, but snow. The real word for
winter is zima, from a root zi= Sanskrit hi, to pour, the rainy
or snowy season; zyâo, on the contrary, from its formation,
means "something pouring out," snow. Compare χειμών,
winter, and xɩov, snow, from the same root. It is quite clear,
from the termination of verse 4., that it is distinct from zîma.
4. In respect to the supplement, see above. Askare, as Wes-
tergaard correctly spells it (Spiegel makes two words of it, as
kare), is the third person plural of the imperfect or so-called
aorist, from as, to be; the sk is, what so frequently occurs, merely
another reading for sh, which is interchangeable with s; strictly,
it ought to be asare. This preterite form is here used instead
of the present, which circumstance, added to the peculiarity of
the form, is an argument in favour of the supplement being
very ancient.
Adha must, from the context, mean here,
there, and not then, as in the Veda. (Comp. It. 10, 93. 94.
114.)
496
THE AGE OF ZOROASTER. [Book IV. PART VI.
Verse 5. Sughd, Sogd (Sughdhô-shayanem).
Although the meaning of the word shayanem is very simple,
there have been so many mistakes made about it, that it will be
necessary to devote a few words to it here. It is an abstraction
from shi, “to dwell," and signifies "the dwelling, dwelling-place,"
and "country, district." For instance, in It. 10, 13.: adhât vîs-
pem âdidhâiti airyo-shayanem sevistô: "thereupon the mightiest
(Mithra) enlightens the whole Arian country." 10, 15.: Qanira-
them bâmîm gava-shayanem: "the shining Qaniratha (name of
the seventh keshvar), the land of cattle." 10, 4.: râma-shayanem
hushayanem airyâbyô danhuby ô (Mithrem yazamaidê): "we wor-
ship Mithra, who provides a charming habitation, a good habi-
tation for the Arian countries." As being the last member of a
composite word, the first of which contains a name, it betokens
the place where the first is found; airyô-shayanem, for instance.
If the composite word be an adjunct to a substantive, it must
necessarily be used in the sense of an adjective (it becomes
Bahuvrîhi). Thus Gâum Sughdhô-shayanem properly means
Gâu, having for its dwelling-place Sughdha; i. e. Gâu, whose
residence is Sughdha. This residence, kaт' çoxýv, must ob-
viously mean the capital, and there is every appearance of
Sughdha having been a metropolis. After this analysis, it will
appear that Vehrkâna in v. 14. (Knentem Vehrkânô-shayanem)
cannot possibly be a country, but must be the name of the
capital of Khnenta, or at all events of the main river.-The
name Sughdha does not come from sukta, pure, nor is it the
original name of a river, as Burnouf has made it; no such
meaning attaches to it in the Bactrian. The root suk in the
Zendavesta, as well as in the Veda, signifies "to burn," and
from it comes sukhra, burning bright, red, as applied to fire,
and it is still found in the Modern Persian surkh, red. Sughdha
itself, however, can hardly be a mere past participle passive,
inasmuch as there was no reason for the softening down of k
into gh, and of ta into dha. Such changes occur only when
there is a weak sound in the following syllable. Comp. dregvô-
debis (instrum. plur. from dregvâo, liar, bad), where d takes the
place of t on account of the b; and azdebis (instrum. plur. from
asti, bodies), where the double consonant st, on account of b, is
weakened into zd. It should rather be divided into Sugh, Suk,
=
APPENDIX.]
497
NOTES TO THE FIRST FARGARD.
and dha. Dha is identical with dha in idha, here, adha, there,
tâdha, in that place, and signifies consequently a where, a place
in which something is. Suk is the Burning, fire; hence it
means a place of fire, or land of fire, which is perfectly intel-
ligible, from the great veneration with which fire was regarded
by the Iranians, and the great merit which attached to the
lighting and watching it. Skaiti is an ἅπαξ εἰρημένον. The
Huzûresh translation has kûrk, beetle (gawartak is after-
wards used in the same sense, Modern Persian, gaward), which
attacks sheep and cattle. It is clear that it here means a dis-
case of cattle, but what the beetle has to do with this is diffi-
cult to say (Spiegel translates it gad-fly). They may possibly
have supposed that the disease was occasioned by an insect.
Cognate with skaiti is the Modern Persian suk, sick in English,
siech in German, and perhaps scabies.-By daya is meant
small cattle, or perhaps young calves; at all events, it is put in
opposition to gava. It comes from dhâi, "to suck." Comp.
dâjo, Jasna, 29. 2., with my remark.
Verse 6. Môuru.
This word is a corruption of Margush, as we find it spelled
more archaically in the first cuneiform character. This is intel-
ligible when we recollect that maregha, bird, becomes marû in
Parsee (there must have been an original form, mareghu),
whereas the Modern Persian has retained murgh, which is nearer
to the original. The change was effected thus: the final u
acted upon the a of the first syllable, and made it into ô, as fre-
quently happens in Bactrian: comp. paru, much, in the Median
cuneiform character, Bactrian pouru. The clear a of the first
syllable being thus thickened, the consonant gh was less audible
in pronunciation, and gradually was dropped altogether. For
the meaning of it, see above.-Maredhâ comes from mared, to
murder, in the Jasna, and means murder, war.-Windischmann
derives Vîthushanı (Münch. Gelehrte Anzeigen Philos.-philolog.
Klass, 1855, i. No. 4. p. 29.) from tush, to be quieted, so that
with the prefix vi it signifies un-rest. I cannot acquiesce in
this, although it is preferable to Spiegel's rendering, “evil re-
ports," which arises from his misunderstanding the Huzûresh
VOL. III.
K K
498
THE AGE OF ZOROASTER. [Book IV. PART VI.
version.219 There is no connexion between it and vîthushi, It.
16, 15., which is simply the feminine participle present of vîdvâo,
"the knowing." On the other hand, vîthisi, It. 10, 80. (ac-
cording to all the MSS.), which is like gata, slain, killed, would
seem to have an analogy with vîthushâm in this text. Its
original form is somewhat difficult to discover, because we have
observed a change of sound previously unknown, first noticed by
myself (see the Zeitschr. der d.-morgenländ. Ges. ix. p. 693.).
This vithusham is a feminine formed by means of â from the
well-known vîtare, by, over (in Modern Persian, guder), and
thus stands for vîtare-â. In this form the e, which was pro-
nounced short, would disappear; the r passed into the original s,
out of which it always grew in the neuter formations of re,
kardshvarer vazdvare, &c. for instance, and by this transition the
sound a was also thickened. The explanation is still more
simple if we assume sâ, shâ, to be the ending, in which case it
would have come from vîtarshâ. Ar must then have become
ush; as hunustâ evidently grew out of hunaretâ; gâgerebustrô of
gâgerebartara; and Zarathustra of Zarathatara. According to
this, vîthusha signifies, going through, passage, incursion, and
this agrees perfectly with the word maredha, murder, which un-
questionably has that meaning, as mared mcans murder in Zend.
In this way the parallel passages above cited can be satis-
factorily explained.
Verse 7. Bâkhdi.
This name is derived from bagha, lot, luck, and signifies pro-
perly "fortunate spot," an appellation very suitable to Bactra,
to which the epithet srîrâ, the lucky, is applied.-Eredhwô-
drafsha is applied adjectively to an army (haênâ) as in It. 1,
11. 4, 4. 13, 136. It signifies "with the tall banner," not " with
uplifted banner," which is uzgereptô-drafsha.-Bravarem. The
Huzûresh translation has dûr-kakât, a word the meaning of
which I have not yet been able to ascertain for certain. Kakât
is the same as the Modern Persian kakâd, "crown of the head,"
and “ 'peak of a mountain dûr means far-but the characters
may be also read gôr, which would signify desert, tomb, so that
the whole would mean "barrow," "cemetery," the most unclean
is not the Hebrew N, to speak, but stands for boy, labour,
219
trouble.
APPENDIX.]
499
NOTES TO THE FIRST FARGARD.
66
of places in the eyes of the Parsees. Anquetil translates it
"ants," which seems to be sheer guesswork; Spiegel, vora-
cious animals." He gets this etymology from the Vedic bharv,
to consume, to eat, which is applied to the Fire-God Agni, who
consumes the wood. (Rv. 1, 143, 5. 6, 6, 2.) But as this root
is of very rare occurrence, and may be a provincialism, I think
it preferable to derive it from the Sanskrit bhram (Latin
fremo), to wander about, originally to hum, to buzz, from which
comes bhramara, the bee, as well as the German bremse, gadfly.
There is nothing unusual in the transition from m to v.-The
explanation of usadhaska is more difficult. The Huzûresh trans-
lation and Spiegel do not notice it. Windischmann (loc. cit.
p. 29.) reads usdhaska, as does one MS., and he compares it
with the Sanskrit uddansa, bug. Plausible as this derivation
seems at first sight, there are many objections to it. The pre-
position ut must before d have been changed to z (comp. uzdatâ,
uzdaêza), and not one of the MSS. has a z; besides which, it is
difficult to understand why the n, which is so necessary here,
should not be found in a single reading. The word nurtu which
follows immediately after may lead to its real meaning, which
Spiegel has very properly placed within brackets, as it is clear
from the whole context that it is a later addition for the purpose
of explanation. It exists in Modern Persian (nurtu stands for
nartu), and signifies a stump, bough of a tree, and is likewise
the name of a tree The Sanskrit nrtû, worm, is too far-
fetched. Hence usadhaska seems to be the name of some
noxious plant. It may be identical with the Vedic oshadhi
plant, the pronunciation of which, even, is much more like it
than uddansa.
Verse 8. Nisâim.
The thema is Nisâya, from ni and si, to lic, in the sense of
establishment, settlement. Vimanôhîm is an adjective, formed
from vîmanôhya, from vî-manô, doubt, unbelief, Mod. Pers.
gumân, in the same sense. In proof that unbelief is here spoken.
of, compare the remarks about Raghâ in the Introduction.
Verse 9. Harôyu.
Spiegel translates vis-harezanem, the predicate of Harôyu,
which is rich in houses." This, however, is a decided mistake,
K K 2
500
THE AGE OF ZOROASTER. [Book IV. PART VI.
as vis here has not the full signification of vis, dwelling, vicus.
The Huzûresh translation is on the whole right; it renders it
by vis shakûn, i. e. soaked with water. Vis in Zend means
"juice;" for instance, Jas. 10, 1.: vis apam, the juice of the
waters (from the drops of Homa); Vênd. 5, 36.: yatha vazghaskit
vis-huskô tarô yâre meretô, like a frog which is dead for a whole
year, with its juices dried up: Vênd. 20, 3., vis-kithrem signifies
a remedy. It was afterwards used in the sense of poison; comp.
It. 19, 40. and Bundeh. p. 9. 1. 1., ed. Westergaard; from which
came the Sanskrit, visha, Latin, virus.-Harezanem, from harez,
Sanskrit, srg, to dismiss; Mod. Pers. hesh-ten, to leave, means
dismissal, discharge. This predicate, discharging juice or water,
agrees very well with the name Harôyu, which means "stream-
ing freely.”—Saraskem is still preserved in Parsee, srisk, Mod.
Pers. sirishk, drop. It. 5, 120. 16, 10., we find a present participle,
saraskintaê (dat. sing. masc.), and saraskintyâo (gen. sing. fem.),
with words signifying to rain (vâr), and to snow (snaêzh).
There must be a connexion between it and our saraska and
sirishk, and accordingly it properly means "dropping." Rain-
drops never do harm except when they fall on the ground in a
frozen state in the shape of hail. As in the passage before us
saraska is mentioned as a curse, we cannot after these remarks
understand any thing else by it but hail. This is confirmed also
by the derivation, which is from the root sar, whence comes
sareta, frozen. Driwika cannot be referred to anything but
driwi, poverty (whence Mod. Pers. derwish). Drbhika in
Vedic (Rv. ii. 14, 3.), a designation of the dæmons, Vrtra, who
keep off the rain, corresponds to it.
Verse 10. Vaêkereta.
The Huzûresh translators understand the Pairikâ Khnathaiti
to signify "idol worship." The origin of this meaning is pro-
bably to be sought in some old reminiscence of the worship of a
Pairikâ. In the valley of Pishin, to the east of Segestan,
fairies, the Paricani of the classics, are to this day worshipped by
the natives. The word upanhakat is applied to something which
sticks permanently, and attaches itself to a specific person. It is
very common, for instance in Jesht 19., in which is eulogized the
"brightness" which settled upon various heroes of antiquity,
and accompanied them all their lives. Now the Pairika who
APPENDIX.]
501
NOTES TO THE FIRST FARGARD.
attached herself to Keresâspa does not seem to have been ori-
ginally considered as an evil genius, for to all appearance the
wonderful exploits of that hero were performed under her
influence.
Verse 11. Urvâ (Kabul).
Aiwistâra is here without a predicate, though at verse 18. we
find anairyâ danhēus aiwistâra, and at verse 20. taozhyâ dan-
heus aiwistâra. Judging from these adjectives, it is a word of
more general signification, which must imply "misfortune,"
"evil." There are two possible derivations for it.
It may
come from the root stare, to strew, and aiwi, about. It is used
principally of strewing about the baresma (It. 13, 27. 94.) and
the barezis, which is synonymous Ved. barhis. (It. 5, 102.).
But it also means to upset, to throw down, in which sense we
find it applied specially to the discomfiture of evil spirits (Vênd.
19, 2., staretô, overthrown). It is still found in the original
sense of strewing, in the Mod. Pers. word bister, bed, mattress,
which comes from aiwi-stara. This, however, will not do for
our aiwistâra, whereas the meaning we adopt would suit it
very well. There is, however, another possible derivation. We
may divide it into aiwis-târa, from the root tar, to pass through,
whence comes tarô, diagonally through, perverse, bad; It. 8, 8.
39., the causative, titârayêiti, is used of driving away the
Pairikas. The Mod. Pers. has a word bistâr, weak, unsteady,
which is certainly a mutilated form of aiwistâra. From which
of these two roots it is derived, it is difficult with certainty to
decide. As regards the sense it is almost the same thing; in one
case we have the idea of upsetting, in the other, that of driving
through and expelling, and in them both that of devastation and
wasting. This is alluded to in the predicate anairya (verse 18.),
which is not applied here in the proposed sense of "bad," as
Spiegel supposes, but is to be taken in its original meaning,
"not Arian,” as contrasted with "Arian." The anairyâ aiwis-
târa are devastations of an Arian country by wild and barbarous
tribes.
Verse 12. Khnenta (Kandahar).
Narô-vaêpaya, literally "sowing of men," i. e. Pæderastism.
This is a vice most strictly prohibited, and considered as an in-
expiable sin, Vênd. 8, 32. The pathicus is termed viptô.
KK 3
502
THE AGE OF ZOROASTER. LBOOK IV. PART VI.
Verse 13. Haraqaiti (Arachosia).
Nasuspaya may be divided into nasu-spaya, removal of the
dead, and nasus-paya, preserving the dead. The latter is un-
doubtedly the right meaning. We must understand by it the
burial of the dead, which notoriously was considered in the
Zarathustrian religion as the greatest desecration of holy earth.
Verses 14. 15. Haêtumat (Hilmend).
Agha yâtava, Jâtu sins. The Parsees have lost the real
meaning of it; they understand by it murder. In general in
the Zendavesta the Yâtavô are classed with the Pairikâo (It. 1, 6.
8, 44. 3, 5. 5, 13. 19, 29.) and evil spirits. They are not, how-
ever, considered spiritual beings, but men; for instance, 8, 44.:
yâtavô mashyânam, the Jâtus among men. The adjective
yâtumat of frequent occurrence is derived from yâtu by means
of mat, which we find equivalent to yâtu; for instance, It.
15, 56. nôit yâtavô, nôit yâtumâo, "not Jâtus, not Jâtu-like."
Vênd. 21, 17. and. It 3, 16., yâtumaiti is an epithet of gahi, a
rival; Jas. 61, 3., zandam (a shameful wretch) and yâtumatam
are synonymous. But in Vênd. 20, 1. we find it between
yaokhstivat (provided with means) and raêvat (rich) as a predicate
of physicians. Vênd. 3, 41., yâtughnî, the murder of a Yâtu,
is mentioned with ashavaghni, the murder of a pure person, and
like the latter is regarded as an expiable crime. In Mod. Pers.
yâtu exists in the form of gâdû, meaning " enchanter": gâdû-
sukhun (one who speaks magical words) means, on the contrary,
a poet. It would be difficult from these notices to get a clear
idea of the nature of the Jâtus, did not the Vedas on this, as
well as many other obscure points, supply us with fuller infor-
mation. The last song (104.) in the seventh book of the
Rigveda furnishes the best clue to it, and the same is repeated
in the Atharva-veda with some slight alterations (8, 4.). It is
an address to the two Gods Indra and Soma, who are invoked
to destroy the evil dæmons, Râkshasah and Yâtudhânâh. I
will give the most salient points. They injure the life of
man (ver. 15.), they destroy them by charms (mâyâ, 25.), they
change themselves into birds, fly by night, pollute sacrifices
(18.) and spoil the butter (21.). They are both male and
APPENDIX.]
503
NOTES TO THE FIRST FARGARD.
female (24.); they take the form of owls, vultures, dogs, and
other animals (22.). The author of the song curses any one who
calls a person who is not a Jâtu, a Jâtudhâna. Indra will slay
such calumniators (16.). Any one conversant with German
mythology will see at once that there is a connexion between
these Jâtus and our witches. The name, too, exactly suits such
an idea and nature. Yâtu means a going or wandering up and
down, in the concrete, one roving backwards and forwards. In
the Veda they are usually called Yâtu-dhâna, i. e. those whose
nature it is to move about, to wander up and down at night.
Yâtumat has the same meaning, as we find in the Zendavesta. It
is one disposed to witchery, as the popular German belief like-
wise is that a special tendency to it is requisite. At verse 15.
their nature is somewhat more particularly described. They are
in league with Angrô Mainyus, as in the German superstition
they are with the devil. He practises a number of deceitful
tricks, and appears under a great variety of forms, If these
arts are communicated by him to those who are disposed to
sorcery, (with us also the witches are instructed by the devil,)
they then become perfect adepts in witchery, and set out under
the most hideous shapes to execute their deeds of murder and
destruction.-Aêm is connected with Angrô Mainyus. In
regard to dakhstem, see my notes on Jasna 34, 6.-Paiti-daya is
derived from di, to see (common in the Zendavesta), and paîti.
It is the thing which offers itself to the sight, the form, and is
still retained in Mod. Pers. paidâ, obvious.-Some MSS. have a
better reading for kavaka, kavakit, which is only an inaccurate
way of pronouncing kvakit. The meaning is, "wheresoever.
-Zaoyêhê: It. 13, 23. 148., the plural zaoâyo is a predi-
cate of the Fravashi. It means literally "worth invoking,
"worthy of veneration"= Sanskr. havya, as is clear upon
comparing 13, 23. and 24. In the passage before us, zaoyêhê is
a genitive absolute, used adverbially in the sense of invocation.
Comp. zaveng gasatâ, Jasn. 28, 4., with my note.-Khstami is the
Mod. Pers. shtâm, hideous, ugly; kat, or kadha, as some
MSS. read it, is identical with the Sanskrit kad, to conceal,
cover, and it occurs also in Zend in derivatives. Madha-kha
can come from nothing but madha madhu, sweet, intoxicating
drink. This refers to enchanted potions by which the devotees
of Jâtu injure man. See the note to Jasna 48, 10., upon Madha
as a name of the Soma in a bad sense.
""
KK 4
501
THE AGE OF ZOROASTER. [Book IV. Part VI.
Verse 16. Ragh. (Rhaga, Rei).
We have already offered some remarks upon this verse in the
Introduction (p. 485.).
Verse 17. (Kakhra (Karkh in Khorassan).
Nasus-pakya, more correctly written nasus-pakaya; pak,
to cook coquere, here signifies the burning of the dead (see
Windischmann, loc. cit. p. 30.).
Verse 18. Varena (Ghilan).
Arathwya, adjective from ratu. This word, which is iden-
tical with the Sanskrit rtu, signifies first a regularly recurring
period (literally, a course), a time of the day or year, then a
law, ordinance (for the sake of regularity). In the latter sense
it was frequently used in the concrete, and signified the law-
giver, the leader of the ranks, the leader (for further particulars
see the glossary to the songs of Zarathustra). According to
this, the adjective rathwya, as well as the negative of it,
arathwya, may bear the three following significations :-First,
regularly or irregularly recurring, It. 10, 67.: Mithra pro-
ceeds rathwya kakhra hakimnô, "followed by the regularly re-
curring wheel," i. e. of the sun. It. 5, 2., the Anâhitâ brings
milk to those who are pregnant, rathwîm paêma, " at the right
time, at the regular time":-Secondly, lawfully or unlawfully,
It. 10, 30. 31. to worship rathwya yasna, "with the prayer
prescribed by law: "24. 47. : arathwya khshathra, "unlawful
dominion: "Thirdly, recognising or not recognising Zarathustra
as the Supreme Being; i. e. orthodox or heretical, Afrigan 1,
16, 17.; rathwyô-mananhem, and arathwyô-mananhem, with
orthodox or unorthodox views, and in like manner rathwyô-
vakanhem and arathwyô-vakanhem, rathwyô-skyaothnem, and
arathwyô-skyaothnem. The arathwya dakhsta in the verse
before us is used in the second sense, and signifies the deceit-
ful arts of Ahriman as forbidden and unlawful. Perhaps we
may understand by them diseases.
APPENDIX.]
505
NOTES TO THE FIRST FARGARD.
Verse 19. Hapta Hindu (Indus country).
Garemâum, or, as it is read more correctly in some MSS.,
garemaom. This accusative implies the existence of a nomina-
tive, garemu or garemâva, which does not occur again in the
Zendavesta. Whether it has the same meaning as garema,
heat, is questionable. What was the object of such a new and
very strange-looking formation, if the simple garema would
answer the purpose? It is probably an error of transcription for
garenaom, from garenu, fever (It. 13, 131.). The m, instead of
n, might easily occur, owing to the accusative ending in m. In
connexion with arathwya it signifies fevers which do not come
on at definite periods, but are intermittent and irregular, some-
times at one time, sometimes at another, and which assume
the form of pestilence.
Verse 20. World-Ocean.
وو
Upa aodhaêshu ranhayâo. Spiegel is wrong in translating it
"in the East of Ranhâ." On comparing the parallel passages
we see at once that Ranha here is not the name of a particular
place, but means a lake or sea generally. For instance, It. 14,
29. 16, 7.: Karô masyô upapô yô ranhayâo duraê-pârayáo
gafrayâo, the fish, kar, which is in the water, in the broad sea
(properly, with distant shores), the deep; 15, 27.: upa gudhem
ranhayâo Mazda-dhâtayâo, in the deep of the sea created by
Mazda; comp. further 5,81. 10, 104. The corresponding word
in the Veda, rasa, signifies generally "water, " moisture,"
(Rv. 4, 43, 6.) and then it seems to have become the name of a
river, of which we know nothing more (Rv. 5, 53, 9.). Every-
thing seems to show that in the Zendavesta it does not mean
a river—the subsequent remarks in the verse before us would
not be suitable - but a lake or sea. Probably it is the Great
Ocean. Aodhaêshu. It. 12, 18. 19., we find a contrast
between upa aodhâeshu ranhayâo and upa sankê ranhayâo.
Sanka is probably identical with the Sanskr. sankha, muscle,
and signifies the bottom of the sea: aodhaêshu offers a tempting
similarity to udaka, water; but the dh creates a difficulty:
besides, it would be remarkable if the ordinary word for water,
âfs, were not used here. It is identical with the Sanskrit
avadhi, border, and signifies, in contradistinction to the bottom
506
THE AGE OF ZOROASTER. [Book IV. Part VI.
of the sea, the sea shore.--Asârô, without ramparts; comp.
sâra, protection, It. 5, 77. 14, 46. 12., with the Sanskrit
sarma, refuge. Taozhya must not be compared with the Sans-
krit tushâra, cold, but is derived from tug, to shake, to swing,
which is retained in the Armenian in the form tuzh-yel, to
punish. In the passage before us it is the adjective to aiwis-
târa. By these shocks we are probably to understand earth-
quakes.
Verse 21. Concluding verse.
Gufra is derived from gub, to say, to speak, and means cele-
brated; comp. Vênd. 21, 13. In regard to frasha, see the note
to Jas. 34, 9., in my work "The Gâthâs, or Songs of Zara-
thustra, published, translated, and explained."
PART VII.
THE
HISTORICAL EPOCHS AND DATES OF THE ARIANS
IN INDIA.
509
SECTION I.
THE HISTORICAL ELEMENT IN THE VEDAS AND LISTS OF
KINGS, AND THE LOCALITIES, COMPARED WITH THE AC-
COUNTS IN MEGASTHENES.
A.
THE HISTORICAL ELEMENT IN THE VEDAS, LISTS OF KINGS,
AND LOCALITIES.
HISTORICAL research upon India has shared pretty
nearly the same fate as the geological investigations
about the antiquity of the earth, which were set on foot
almost at the same time. Sir William Jones was the
Buffon of Indian chronology, and he, as well as the un-
critical Wilford even, reckoned for a considerable period
among their followers the students of the Romantic and
Indo-Germanic school in France, and more especially in
Germany. The enthusiasm excited in favour of Sans-
krit, owing to its important bearing on philology and
the pantheistic, semi-mystical, semi-poetical philosophy,
exercised no very favourable influence on the criticism
of German investigators. This period was succeeded
by one of sober research under Colebrooke and Wilson,
and their adherents Burnouf and Lassen. All the
members of the more modern German Sanskrit school,
as represented by Benfey, Roth, Max Müller, and Weber,
have maintained the same standard of criticism. In
regard to dates, a reaction has evidently taken place,
and it is now in full swing. Its prevailing feature is
doubt as to whether there is any thing historical in the
Indian accounts prior to Alexander the Great, and the
510
ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [BOOK IV. PART VII.
decision indeed is against it. In my opinion the task of
the historical critic is far from being concluded, but no
remedy is to be looked for so long as Indian chronological
research is carried on apart from the history of the
Iranian Arians, and the rest of Central Asia.
True it is that the Sanskrit Indians have, of all the
Arian races, the least turn for historical pursuits. With
them everything resolves itself into the ideal and sym-
bolical, and then assumes a fantastic shape.
But what right have we to extend this to the Vedic
Indians, between whose intellectual tendencies and lite-
rature and that of the other Indians there is so marked
a contrast, that it seems as if a deep chasm divided
them ? The former are merely Iranian Arians who
crossed the Indus, as regards their language, their cus-
toms, and religious observances.
How, indeed,
The few extant, but therefore more valuable, re-
mains of their tradition prove that these Iranian Arians
had not forgotten their earliest times. These will be
brought into notice in the Fifth Book.
could these reminiscences have been entirely lost in
India at so early a date as that of the oldest Vedas,
which are the monuments of Arian life in the country
of the Five Rivers? For these Iranian Arians had not
then adopted strictly Indian habits; they were not yet
wholly immersed in the moral intoxication of Brah-
minical life, for whose votaries the realities of the world
and the sanctity of history possessed no attractions or
value.
According to the views of many modern Indian
critics, indeed, all inquiry into the earlier times of India
is a hopeless task, not only owing to the dreadful con-
fusion (which cannot be denied) in the epic traditions
with which we are at present acquainted, as well as the
subsequent narratives, but because no authentic records
have ever existed at all. We know enough, it is said,
of the history of Indian literature to make us scout such
SECT. I. A.] THE VEDAS AND LISTS OF KINGS.
511
an idea as that annals once existed, which now are lost,
to which Megasthenes may have had access. Any critic
accustomed to biblical and Egyptian researches would
see at once the serious flaw in the reasoning by which
such a conclusion was arrived at. Weber's learned sy-
nopsis of Indian literature may suffice to prove how
much of it, even down to the titlepage, has perished.
But assuming there never were Indian annals, strictly
historical chronicles, there may still have been genea-
logical registers containing more or less connected
dates, accompanied by historical popular ballads, and
that indeed in Vedic times, or at least very soon after.
Such records, connected with their royal houses, are
cited in both the epic histories. This is sufficient proof
that several such existed, and, in fact, that though they
exhibited considerable discrepancies in details, their
common origin and the existence of a sort of settled
framework are undeniable. There is no other way of
explaining the common element in the long tradition of
their primitive ages, which does not possess, and can
never have possessed, any mythological meaning what-
ever, or any meaning but an historical one.
This com-
mon historical element is found in the old hymns, as
compared with the Puranas and the epic narrators.
How else can the occurrence of single isolated dates in
our Sanskrit records, in reference to the length of certain
periods, be accounted for, to say nothing at present
about Megasthenes? Dates which are entirely inap-
propriate to all known traditions, astronomical as well
as poetico-historical, recommend themselves, on the con-
trary, in preference to all others, in the estimation of
the greatest critics. This, in the opinion of two com-
mentators of the highest order, Wilson and Lassen, is
especially the case as regards the commencement of the
Kaliyug, an era said to have been current nearly 5000
years (3102 B. C.). We believe we shall be able to
prove that it cannot have commenced till the tenth cen-
512
[BOOK IV. PART VII.
ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES.
tury before the Christian era, so that an extant very
noteworthy date in the Brahminical books, although
unsupported elsewhere, fixing it at about 1400 B. C.,
comes very close to the historical truth, as contrasted
with the assumption of the present systein.
Anuvansa, i. e. lists of kings, and genealogies, called
Gôtra-vansa 220, if they contained the succession with a
few short detached notices about the heads of tribes,
were the groundwork on which the compilers of the
earlier portions of these gloricus legends based their nar-
ratives. There may have been hundreds of these which
have long since perished; we have, indeed, direct evi-
dence that such was the case. The Mahâbhârata con-
tains two lists of kings of the race of the Moon which
differ from each other. In one of them distichs are
quoted from an older record, an Anuvansa in which
facts were given as well as names. 221 I will, however,
at once admit that in my opinion none of these Sanskrit
sources of information have any historical value, ex-
cept in so far as they relate to matters within a cer-
tain range of sharply distinguished epochs. Personal
history can only be introduced as an exceptional case,
and even then the details are very doubtful. In the
epics, Visvamitra is a king; it is true that his name
occurs also in the Vedas, but there he is a minstrel in
the service of several kings and tribes in the Indus
country. All the ballads in the third book of the Rig-
veda are attributed to Visvâmitra, or, rather, the suc-
cessors of Visvamitra. On other occasions two names
occur connected with each other, but the son of a hero
in the epos is the father in the Vedas. The Vedic Gods,
in the Sanskrit period, are completely thrown into the
background by others of whom the Vedas either know
nothing at all, Siva for instance, or else use their
names in a totally different sense, as is the case with
220 Lassen, i. 494.
221 Id. p. 495.
SECT. I. A.]
513
THE VEDAS AND LISTS OF KINGS.
བྱུཝཱ
ནསཝཱ ཝཱ
Brahma and Vishnu. For these reasons, therefore, the
history of the early times may be regarded as sys-
tematically adulterated or adjusted by the Brahmins
themselves in those epic poems, and in the notices an-
nexed to the ancient hymns. A large portion is bor-
rowed from historical sources, and dressed up in an ideal
shape. There is a striking instance of it in their
fantastic system of the ages of the world and its cata-
strophes; this we find most complete in the Manu,
which is probably a patchwork posterior to Buddha.
Not the slightest trace of this nonsense about millions
of years is discoverable in the Purânas and the older
lists of the two epics. We have four eras, with a num-
ber of kings who reigned 1000 years and upwards, to-
gether with others who only reigned 30 or 40. But
there are no cosmical eras; the first even does not
appear in that shape: and yet it is this compara-
tively modern nonsense which has induced almost all
recent investigators to regard the original portion of
the tradition of the four epochs as a poetical version of
the Ages of the World, and to think themselves relieved
from the necessity of instituting further researches.
The older tradition carries us from the region of dreams
into the periods of strict history. The distinction of
epochs strengthens the basis of the assumption that we
are now, generally speaking, on historical ground, what-
ever may be the value of some particular details.
For it is very true that its value must first be tested
in those details. To expect to find anything better in
the chronicles, which have themselves grown out of these
epical descriptions, would be hopeless. It would be very
like attempting to restore the history of the Franks and
of Charlemagne from the romance of the "Gesta Fran-
corum," instead of from contemporary sources. They
all connect the history of their royal race with the
mythical generation, just as the "Gesta" connect the
Franks with Æneas and Ascanius.
VOL. III.
L L
514
ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [Book IV. PART VII.
Now, if even in the Sanskrit the older tradition be
the sober one, and the pure fiction its later form, so in
the oldest hymns of the Vedas we are not only on
strictly historical ground, but contemporary subjects
are very frequently treated of. It is true that notices
of this kind are only casual, yet, even with our present
partial knowledge of these primeval lays, they do not
contain so little historical matter as is generally sup-
posed. It is clear from what has been published by
Roth and Weber, by the one on the historical matter in
the Rik, by the other in the corresponding passages in
the Jasus, that these historical remarks deserve our
most serious consideration.
But even here the palpable discrepancies are evident.
proofs of the systematic and popular recasting of the
old tradition.
This mutilation of the ancient history commences, it is
true, with the original stock of the two epics, the Râmâ-
yana, or narrative of the exploits of Râma, and the Mahâ-
bharata, the groundwork of which seems to be the great
war of extermination between the Royal races in Kuruk-
setra. Both these epics were for a long time transmitted
orally, that is, were sung.222 Indeed the Mahâbhârata, in
its present shape, bears on the face of it evidence of
three fourths being a new composition. It embraces
the whole of India, whereas the other epos only notices
the northern parts as Arian. Every thing to the south
of the Vindya mountains is represented as desert.
The best chronicle, that of Cashmir, was only com-
posed in the year 1125 of our era, and yet it evidently
contains a general historical tradition about Cashmir
from 1182 B. C., that is from the reign of the so-called
third Gônarda. The learned author nevertheless com-
plains bitterly that the accounts are very contradictory;
and so late as 600 years before his time the thread of
222 Lassen, i. 482. seq.
SECT. I. A.] THE VEDAS AND LISTS OF KINGS.
515
the narrative breaks off, so that he is obliged to make
one of his kings reign 300 years.223 The Buddhistic
annals are just as uncritical as the Brahmanic in respect.
to the period prior to Buddha.
As regards the Purânas (" antiquity "), of which we
possess eighteen, it appears from an old account of their
contents that the ancient form has been totally altered,
and the present composition is of very late date.224 They
are especially connected with the Mahâbhârata, the epos
of the third era, which is itself of a very prosaic character,
but represent every thing in the sense of the subsequent
religious worship, whether that of Vishnu or of Siva.
The sources whence their information as to the later
periods was derived were oral traditions and written
documents, composed out of those which referred to the
current era. The Mahabharata contains allusions to
Buddhism, which became dominant in the time of
Asoka (about 250): indeed the mention of the zodiac
proves their date to be posterior to the Christian era.
Lassen compares the older Purânas with the Logo-
graphers. Their authors belonged to the sacerdotal
caste, as did the authors of the heroic poems.
225
We must, indeed, conclude from the above, that, if we
cannot establish from extraneous sources the reality of
the four great eras of Indian history, it is impossible
to restore its framework at all. All we can hope is, that,
if by any other means such a framework can be esta-
blished, traces of historical matter may be discovered in
these confused traditions and poetical narratives. It will
never be possible to settle the main question, whether
the four eras were historical, and what was the peculiar
characteristic of each. There might possibly be a rea-
sonable expectation of culling out from the confused
223 Lassen, Masterly Criticism, i. 473 seq.
224 Ib. 479. seq.
225 Ib. 481. seq.
L L 2
516
ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [BOOK IV. PART VII.
mass a few items towards filling up the outline which
had been obtained.
There is one important circumstance which seems to
justify such an expectation. Amidst all this confusion,
the nucleus of these descriptions exhibits unmistakable
marks of organic progress in the Arian countries which
are successively introduced: locally, from the Indus to
the Ganges country, and to Bengal (Behar); and intel-
lectually, in the progressive establishment and working
out of Brahminism.
It is clear that the first epoch of the Arian kingdoms.
in India only comprises the country of the Seven Rivers
(the country of the five rivers, or Punjab); and to that
locality also all the narratives of the first period refer.
The horizon of the succeeding narratives is as un-
mistakably the country of the Sarasvati, whence we
are carried into the northern part of the Doab, or
country of the Two Streams, between the Yamuna and
the Ganges. It is also beyond a doubt that the passage
of the Sutledj forms the commencement of a fresh era
in the life of the Arians: here originated the institutions
of caste and Brahma-worship. It may indeed at first
sight seem questionable from these descriptions, whether
not only the foundation and establishment, but also the
decline, of the Arian kingdoms which were formed in
Hindostan belong to this second era, or whether the
decline did not take place in the third. Upon closer
examination, however, we shall find conclusive reasons
in favour of the former being the more correct view.
The removal of the royal residence to the confluence
of the Sona and Ganges, that is, to Pataliputra (Pali-
bothra), is the first step towards the extension of the
empire to the frontier of Behar on the Ganges, beyond
the Vindya mountains. It is at this last stage of Arian
progress that we find all the kingdoms and heroes, im-
mediately preceding the fourth and last era. There
cannot be a sharper line of demarcation drawn than
SECT. I. A.] THE VEDAS AND LISTS OF KINGS.
517
between the third and fourth eras. The last three steps
again seem in direct contrast to the first. The state of
civilisation of India Proper and that of the Indus coun-
try are in such direct contrast to each other, that it would
seem as though the primeval times were becoming con-
stantly more and more alien from, and even antagonistic
to, its later phases.
Now though we may choose in the first instance to
leave the question in abeyance at this point, when and
why the line was drawn between the third and second
eras, still these so-called cosmic eras so obviously coin-
cide with the progressive territorial extension, as well
as local and historical epochs, that this in itself would
induce us to suspect that, upon the whole, this history
has not been tampered with to such an extent as modern
Indian investigators, in their despair, seem inclined to
assume. There is no evidence either that tradition had
lost sight of the great epochs, or that they were pure
inventions. On the contrary, our preliminary view is
quite compatible with the admission or assumption that
more recent events have frequently been substituted for
those of ancient date, and that many incidents in the
epic narratives are mere poetical inventions. Where
detached ballads and the pedigrees of princely families
are the only sources of information, genealogical forgery
and myth will not be wanting; and where a new priest-
hood, founded upon a strict system of caste and a new
mythology, holds the literature of a country in its hands,
everything of more ancient date will be systematically
falsified. This, however, is not inconsistent with the
fundamental view which I feel myself called upon to
entertain that the cosmic eras are merely the most
modern phase of this Brahminical adulteration; namely,
a sublimated representation of the four real great
epochs of Arian life in India, as it appeared originally
to the imagination of the nation at large in the
fourth.
LL 3
518
ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [Book IV. PART VII.
We come to this same conclusion after examining
more closely the story about the destruction of the
world which is three times repeated. These mythic
ages are notoriously separated by cataclysms of thou-
sands of years. Now, if we regard the form of the
cosmic ages in the light of mythical offsets of real
eras, we may also assume that these descriptions of the
destructions and eclipses of the world have also grown
out of the fantastic versions of traditional catastrophes
which really occurred in India during the first three
epochs.
There are two facts which have not been made use of
for the purposes of history, which convert this assump-
tion into certainty, as well it would seem, as that of
the four ages themselves. One is the account of Mega-
sthenes as compared with the cosmic ages, which first
come under notice in the Code of Manu, and with that
portion of the epic narrative which is historical. The
second is the history of the language and literature in
the existing records. When instituting the former of
these inquiries we shall also have an opportunity of
saying a word about the synchronisms.
B.
THE FOUR SO-CALLED COSMIC AGES, AND THE THREE ERAS
OF MEGASTHENES, WHEN THERE WERE NO KINGS.
ACCORDING to Manu, the world had passed through
three ages (Yuga); for about 5000 years, therefore,
we have been living in the fourth. The synopsis is as
follows:
Satya (Krita), 4800 years of Gods (reckoned
each at 360 human years)
1,728,000.
SECT. I. B.]
THE KINGLESS AGES.
519
3600 yrs of Gods, each=360 human 1,296,000.
Trêta
Dvâpara 2400
Kali
- 1200
""
,,
22
29
99
864,000.
432,000.
22
In the first book of Manu (composed but little ante-
rior to the Christian era) these names are explained as
follows:
I. Truth
prevailing Piety.
II. The three sacrifi-
cial flames
""
Knowledge.
III. Doubt
Sacrificial worship.
""
IV. Sins
22
Liberality.
Max Müller thinks, and Lassen agrees with him, that
the original meaning of this was connected with the
changes of the moon:
First quarter-second quarter-third-wane.
But the same idea might, nevertheless, be expressed,
as is implied by the traditional explanation:
That the second period represents the zenith of the
power and prosperity of India, which in the third began
to decline, and in the fourth was still further obscured,
and ultimately became almost evanescent.
The three critical questions we have to answer will,
consequently, be these: Whether this originally referred
to the epochs of Indian history, of which there are
extant accounts; whether they correspond with the
historical turning-points; and whether these can be
pointed out.
The absurd Brahminical dates clearly refer to the
equally unhistorical number of twelve thousand years,
which, according to the modern Pârsee Books, is to be
the term of the human race; after the fourth and last
LL 4
520
[Book IV. PART VII.
ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES.
period of which the redemption from the power of evil
is to be effected.
The fact of there being an error of fully two thousand
years in the calculation of the starting-point of the
current era, is sufficient proof how little acquaintance
the Brahmins had with the history of their own country.
Assuming, as they have done for a tolerably long
period, that this era commenced on the 18th of Fe-
bruary of the year which corresponds with 3102 B. C.,
the reign of Sandrokottus, king of Palibôthra, the con-
temporary of Alexander and Seleucus, commenced in
the year 1503 B. C. The date of Buddha, who is just
as historical a personage as either of these two great
sovereigns, is in precisely the same category.
But, modern and confused as these epic poems may
be, we have no right to charge them with anything
so absurd as this era. The best proof of the recent
date and corruption of these poetical rhapsodies is
furnished by the accounts of Megasthenes, the well-
informed, and indeed learned, envoy of Seleucus Ni-
canor, who, after the short war with Sandrokottus,
maintained friendly relations at the court of Pali-
bôthra between Syria and India, and effected a matri-
monial alliance. It is now perfectly clear, thanks to
Schwanbeck's excellent arrangement of the fragments
of his work, that the nonsensical stories there told
about extraordinary animals, and men without noses
or mouths, are taken verbatim from the Sanskrit tra-
ditions. It is true that we cannot give Megasthenes
credit for much criticism; still we must do justice to
the fidelity of his narrative. Arrian, in his Indian
history, has, among other extracts, transmitted very
valuable fragments of the lists of kings which Mega-
sthenes found means of consulting; his statements,
indeed, about the Indians themselves, were the principal
source from which both the Greeks and Romans de-
rived from that time forth all their information. We
SECT. I. B.]
521
THE KINGLESS AGES.
are especially indebted to Lassen for having established
their genuine character and importance.2
In following out the line of criticism which has been
thus marked out, we must begin by restoring the text
of the principal passage.
227 We find it there stated, in
the first place, that between the reign of Dionysus, who
226 Zeitsch. für die Kunde des Morgenl. vol. v. (1844), p. 232—259.,
remarks upon Benfey's attempt, in the same volume, to restore the
list of Megasthenes. Lassen afterwards propounded the same views.
in his great work (i. 509. seq.), which Duncker has likewise adopted.
•
227 Arriani Indica, ix. 9. p. 320. Did.: 'Aπò µèv dǹ Acorúσov Ba-
σιλέως ἠρίθμεον Ινδοὶ ἐς Σανδρόκοττον τρεῖς καὶ πεντήκοντα καὶ ἑκατόν,
ἔτεα δὲ δύο καὶ τεσσαρακόσια καὶ ἑξακισχιλία. (The MSS., which
are evidently all from one source, as appears from there being the
same lacuna in each directly after this, have Teσσаpákovτа. In all the
MSS. of Pliny (vi. 2..), which are, in other respects, independent, the
number of kings is 153 (154), and 6401 (6402) years, the same
number as Solinus (Polyh. 53.) also gave.) 'Ev dè TOÚTOɩɩ Tρìg Tò πãv
εἰς ἐλευθερίην . τὴν δὲ καὶ ἐς τριηκόσια, τὴν δὲ εἰκοσί τε ἐτέων καὶ
EkaTÓV. There can be no doubt as to the meaning of this passage,
when we compare it with the parallel passage in Diodorus.
He says
(ii. 38. end), at last, a long time after Dionysus, kazaλv@eions tñs
ἡγεμονίας δημοκρατηθῆναι τὰς πόλεις : and then a little lower down
(c. 39.), after speaking about Hercules, the ruler in the 15th genera-
tion: ὕστερον δὲ πολλοῖς ἔτεσι τὰς πλείστας μὲν τῶν πόλεων δημοκρατη
θῆναι, τινῶν δὲ ἐθνῶν τὰς βασιλείας διαμεῖναι μέχρι τῆς ᾿Αλεξάνδρου
diabáσews. Megasthenes, therefore, who was also Diodorus' autho-
διαβάσεως.
rity, cannot have repeated Brahminical dreams about former ages
and cataclysms, but simply stated that the succession of kings was
three times interrupted by the overthrow of the existing dynasties,
and the establishment of a republic. The first number, however,
which is lost, must have been less than 300, as we read in the second
part of the sentence, "even as long as 300 years." Now supposing
the lost number to have been diŋkória, the omission can be explained,
and the sentence may be naturally restored, somewhat in the following
manner: Εν δὲ τούτοισι τρὶς ΙΣΤΑΝΑΙ ἐλευθερίην, τὴν μὲν ἐς διη-
κό σια, τὴν δὲ καὶ ἐς τριηκόσια, τὴν δὲ είκοσί τε ἐτέων καὶ ἑκατόν. The
word iorávaι is used as it is by Herodotus, instead of the ordinary
one, kaðiσtávai; the first two letters were left out because the copyist
thought the repetition of the two preceding letters was a mistake.
In this way both the word and whole passage became unintelligible,
and an attempt was made to correct it with éλɛvƉɛpíŋr by means of a
preposition.
522
ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [BOOK IV. PART VII.
was succeeded by Spatembas, and that of Sandrokottus,
there were 153 kings. The best MSS. of Pliny give
the same number, as borrowed from the same passage.
They are said to have reigned 6042 years; all the MSS.
of Pliny have 6451, except one, which has 6452.
The
latter number therefore is better authenticated than
that of Arrian, all the extant MSS. of which are copied
from one source, as appears by the lacuna in this
passage. There are a few words left out in the sentence
quoted; but, as Duncker remarks, the meaning evi-
dently is, that the succession of kings was three times
interrupted by the introduction of self-government,
which Diodorus, in two parallel passages, calls the estab-
lishment of a democracy in the separate cities or states.
But, by a slight emendation of the text, the passage not
only states so unequivocally, but subjoins also that the
first of these periods lasted 200, the third as much as
300 years, and the last 120. All this reads rational
enough. The critical conclusions we draw from it, in
the first place, are these:
"
I. That the list of Megasthenes did not, as Lassen
supposes, commence with the Trêta228, or second
age, but with the first, just like the Sanskrit ac-
counts; for three breaks in the series of kings
imply that there must have been four series.
II. That the whole series is considered as a single one,
and indeed a purely Indian series, one complete as
regards the particular one which went down to
the Maghada empires, and in so far historical. The
calculation of Megasthenes commences with the
beginnings in the Indus country, and goes down
to the accession of Sandrokottus.
III. That the mode of procedure here adopted is pe-
culiar to this list exclusively. No other known
Indian tradition contains any succession. What-
228 Zeitsch. v. 254. seq.
SECT. I. B.]
523
THE KINGLESS AGES.
ever may be the historical value of the number of
the reigns and their duration, we know, at all
events, what must be the greatest possible number,
as we have a given date for the starting-point.
IV. That the interruptions in the monarchical series
were occasioned by the extinction of some ancient
royal houses, and more extensive royal kingdoms,
the formation of which was always the aim of the
Indian Arians, although they were never able
to realise national unity. The consequence was
periodical interregna, intervals of revolution and
internal conflict, out of which new kingdoms sprang
up. Revolutions of this kind must have either
arisen from internal circumstances, or from attacks
originating or directed from without.
V. That in examining the lists of princes which obviously
formed the groundwork in Megasthenes' lists of
the royal series, we shall have to consider the pos-
sibility, the probability indeed, of there having been
lists of reigns contemporaneous with each other,
which were incorporated into a consecutive series
in India, as it is certain there were in Egypt.
The mythical names and dates will also have to be
eliminated.
VI. That we stand upon historical ground, and that we
are not dealing, as in the case of the Brahminical
computations, with purely fantastical inventions of
worlds and world-eras. Yet, at the bottom even
of these, there is obviously some matter of fact, and
that too in many points which seem to be mere
astronomical dreams, or the result of observations
inaccurately made, or transmitted without reflec-
tion. We will take a single instance, the tradi-
tional change in the position of the seven stars in
the Great Bear. I candidly confess my difficulty in
believing that this is a pure invention. I refer it
to an observation of the north pole, and the altera-
524
ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [Book IV. PART VII.
tion occasioned by it in the position of that splen-
did constellation, which would present as remark-
able an appearance to the Indians or their authori-
ties, as it did to the Phoenicians. Unhistorical
dates are also not unfrequently mere stopgaps.
VII. That we must consider the term of a thousand
years, adopted by Megasthenes for mythical reigns,
or derangements in the royal lists which cannot
be chronologically defined, as a mythical number.
For it occurs at least three times in the old Indian
history, as representing an undefinable lacuna.229
VIII. That the three dates of the interregna (200-
300-120) are simply and solely the historical ex-
pression for these lacunæ, out of which the Brah-
mins have made catastrophes of 400, 300, and 200
years of Gods, according to what is obviously on
the face of it a fictitious system.
IX. That should the conclusion be forced upon us that
the list of Megasthenes also contains a similar my-
thical computation at the end of one of the first
three periods, we shall be bound to discard them
from chronological criticism, inasmuch as the whole
term has been computed in the three historical
dates.
X. That it would be unscientific to expect to find
authentic chronology in his list, or any historical
connexion in the Brahminical traditions. In the
one case, however, we have, after the mythical
beginnings, a succession of time progressive and
historical; in the other a reminiscence of the fall
of the reigning houses, which occurred three times,
and of the great epochs of Indian history which
were thereby separated off and defined.
Now it is obvious that this list must have included
mythical names and dates, although traditional, and of
229 Lassen, i. 709.; comp. 503.
SECT. I. B.]
525
THE KINGLESS AGES.
genuine Indian origin, when we consider that we have
153 kings in 6402 years, giving an average of twenty-
two years to a reign. The following synopsis will show
what is the value of the historical matter in the first
period.
Megasthenes stated that the first king was DIONY-
SUS. He found a rude population in a savage state,
clothed in skins, unacquainted with agriculture, and
without fixed habitations. The length of his reign is
not given. According to Diodorus, he died in India.
The introduction of civilisation and agriculture is a
natural allusion to the immigration of the Arians into.
a country inhabited by Turanian races. Dionysus was
succeeded by his colleague SPATEMBAS, who reigned
fifty-two years, which term was assigned by Diodorus to
Dionysus, whom he evidently considered a human king.
Spatembas was succeeded by his son BUDYAS, who
reigned twenty-two years; and he by KRADEUAS.
Fifteen generations after Dionysus HERCULES reigned.
According to the extracts from Diodorus he built
several cities, one of which was Palibôthra. He had
numerous sons, to each of whom he left an Indian
kingdom; and a daughter, Pandæa, to whom he likewise
bequeathed a realm.
Now all this is obviously pure Indian tradition. DIO-
NYSUS is the elder Manu, the divine Primeval Man, son
of the Sun (Vivasvat). He holds the same position in
the primeval history of India as does Jima or Gemshid,
another name of the primeval man, in the primeval Iranian
world. According to Arrian, no human date of reign is
assigned to him in the list of Megasthenes, as there is to
his successors. Here then we have a reign of Gods, an
epochal entry, the Indian term for which was a thousand
years, recurring, as already stated, at least three times
in these commentaries.
SPATEMBAS is the epithet of the younger Manu
(Svayambhuva, the self-existent), who is looked upon
526
ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [Book IV. PART VII.
by the Indians as the progenitor of all their kings. 230
The fifty-two years allude to the fifty-two weeks of the
solar year.
BUDYAS is Buddha (Mercury, son of the Moon),
husband of Ilâ (Earth), who was daughter of Spatembas.
It signifies "the awakened." The twenty-two years
should be probably twenty-eight, the four weeks of the
phases of the moon.
The present Sanskrit lists suppose the races of the
Moon to be derived from him (Kandravansa), and from
it the kings of Magadha (Palibôthra, Pataliputra, above
Patna on the Ganges) are descended. On the other
hand, in the books of Manu, the race of the Sun is
descended directly from Manu. In the authorities of
Megasthenes the two descents seem to be mixed up
together. The race of the Moon would not give prece-
dence to the race of the Sun (the kings of Ayodhya,
Aud).231
Buddha was succeeded by PURÛRAVA, which in Me-
gasthenes must have been written PRAREUAS, instead
of the present reading, Kradeuas. Purûrava means
"the glorious." He appears in the Veda as a mythical
personage, the husband of Urvasî, a celestial water-
nymph (Apsaras, or Apsarâ, i. e. Undine). In the epics
he is represented as a powerful ruler and great con-
queror, who, however, perished in consequence of his
own presumption. He was the author of the system of
castes (from varna, colour, already mentioned in the
Veda race232, that is, difference of origin). Before his
time there was only one undivided Arian people, and
only one God was worshipped, Narayana. His royal
residence was Pratisthâna, at the confluence of the
Jumna and Ganges (Allahabad). Here, therefore, we
230 Lassen, Zeitsch. v. 254.
231 Ib., Beilage A. to Alterth. i.
232 According to Haug, Varena means in Zend faith, religion.
Morgenl. Zeitsch. viii. 766. n. 1.
SECT. I. B.]
527
THE KINGLESS AGES.
have got beyond the whole of the earliest period of civi-
lisation in the Indus country, with which the Indian
reminiscences commence. The date of the settlement in
the country of the Five Rivers, the formation of sepa-
rate confederations into kingdoms, the advance towards
Sarasvati and then into the Indian Mesopotamia (the
Doab), on the most southern point of which Pratisthâna
is situated, are all anterior to Purûrava.
It is possible that the whole of this may be unhistori-
cal: but it is the general tradition, and therefore perhaps
the tradition of the learned men at the court of San-
drokottus.
The first era commences, then, with an historical fact,
the immigration of the Arians, with which is connected
the ideal expression of the creation of man in various
forms of one and the same myth.
Now what was the termination of this era? I think
it is marked by the statement that the ruler in the fif
teenth generation was no less a personage than HER-
CULES, who was especially worshipped in the country of
the Surasêns. Lassen has shown that this again is not
Greek fiction. The Indian Hercules is KRISHNA, the
king in the land of the Prasians (the Easterns), with
the royal residence at Mathura. It is possible that the
notion of his posterity being descended from him and
his own late-born daughter Pandæa is, as Weber thinks,
a misunderstanding of the old myth of the creation of
the world in connexion with a female.
It appears
also in the history of Pragâpati.233 The historical sense
is, that the renowned race of Pândava, with whose
downfall the third era concluded, or perhaps even the
princely house of Pandiva (Pandya), whose residence
was Madura (the later Mathura) in the southern
country of the Ganges, were descended from Krishna's
daughter. According to Sir William Jones, in his
233 Weber, Ind. Lit. p. 212. note 2.; comp. with p. 133. note 2.
528
ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [Book IV. PART VII.
treatise on Indian Chronology (Works, iv. p. 209.), the
sacred books expressly place an Avatâra between the
first and second eras. This impersonation, however,
which does not exist in the Vedas, is Krishna. Possi-
bly also the third divine hero, Râma, the extirpator of
the royal races, is introduced by way of demarcation
between the second and third eras. Lassen points out
this position of Râma as being an ancient tradition. 284
It is clear that, according to Megasthenes, Hercules-
Krishna did not form a starting-point. The statement
that his sons governed various kingdoms, and that the
Pândava (elder or younger), the heroes of the third
era, were descended from his late-born daughter, would
look more like a termination. This is also in accordance
with the history of Krishna,
bharata.235
as related in the Mahâ-
The first era, then, is represented by Megasthenes as
having fourteen generations of human kings, with a
God as the founder, and a God as the destroyer of the
dynasty, in all fifteen or sixteen generations.
Now, if we compare with this view of the subject the
Arian tradition under discussion, we shall find, instead
of Krishna, some of the patriarchs of the human race.
In it, after Purûrava of the race of the Moon, in a line
to which the ancestors of the kings of Magadha (Pa-
libôthra) are said to belong, follows Arus, whose son
NAHUSHA (the man, human ?) is represented as being
under the ban, on account of his overbearing character.
Upon the death of his grandson, the highly honoured
Yayâti, the partition of the world commences. He left
his kingdom to his youngest son, Puru286, and to his
other four sons the rest of the earth.
234 i. 501. note. "At the end of the Trêta-yuga, in Mahâb. i.
cap. 2. v. 272., is placed the extermination of the Ksatriya by Parasu
Râma.”
235 iii. 275. v. 15. 872. seq. Lassen, Alterth. i. p. x. note.
236 In like manner, in Firdusi, when the earth is partitioned
among the three sons of Ferêdun, the youngest, Iredsh, obtains the
SECT. I. B 1
529
THE KINGLESS AGES.
YADU, father of the Yadava, the people of the South:
TURVASU, lawless races who were addicted to un-
natural propensities, Mlekha (hence the Beloochees):
the Yâvana are also said in some of the books to
belong to them :
DRUHYU, the progenitor of the inhabitants of the
deserts by the sea, who had no kings:
ANU, the patriarch of the Northern people.
These four names are primeval; they occur in the
hymns of the Rigveda in the same order. For our
purpose the second and fourth are the most important.
With respect to Turvasu, Max Müller has remarked in
the "Outlines" that it seems to contain the tribal
name of Turan and Turk. Turvasa, in the celebrated
battle song of the Rigveda, the leader of the races who
are the enemies of Indra, seems to be connected with
it. 237 Originally, therefore, the Turanians are meant by
it; so that from an Indian point of view the south-
east of India might very well be assigned to this race,
it being then inhabited, from the Vindya mountains,
by Turanian races.
But the sovereignty of the North is assigned to ANU.
If this means any historical tribes whatever (which is
very doubtful), they might be the Bactrians, or people
of the North of Mesopotamia, more especially therefore
the Assyrians. At all events it is a remarkable coin-
cidence that the first God and the divine ancestor of
the Assyrian kings is called ANU. 238
original home country, i. e. Iran. The two others, Selm and Tur,
obtain the western and eastern countries; Tur, indeed, Turkestan
and Tshin (China).
237 Roth, on the Lit. and Hist. of the Veda, p. 94. In the Zend
books the Turanians are styled Firdusi's TÛIRYA, i. e. the foes or
antagonists of the Arians. Turvasu means "one who possesses the
treasures of his enemy," and Turvasa "one who conquers when he
pleases." (Haug.)
238 According to Rawlinson, King Salman's name means "image
of Anu,” and Telani (the Telane of the Greeks), the cradle of the
VOL. III.
M M
530
ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [Book IV. PART VII.
་
Now, according to the Sanskrit traditions, the pa-
triarch Yayâti reigned a thousand years.239 Here then
we have the same conclusion, but under different names.
The above remarks may suffice to prove the two
points under immediate consideration: first, that the
tradition of Megasthenes is really an Indian one, even
according to the extant Brahmin traditions; secondly,
that there is a break at the fifteenth king, in so far as
the tradition of Hercules-Krishna forms the transition
to a new race of princes. It is, however, still uncertain
whether it is a simple break in the first period or the
close of it. The Brahminical tradition would favour
the former supposition, inasmuch as it evidently makes
but one section in the first period with Yayâti. It
contains a succession of names after Yayâti of Indian
races, in the form of the hero of the same name, who is
placed at the head. In the first place, for instance,
PURU, in the list of the race of the Moon of Ayodhya
(Aud), which has been already noticed. There was
evidently a break at Puru. This, therefore, is the oldest
genuine Indian name of a king, and from him a totally
new world proceeds, acccording to the tables of the
Moon-race, given in the Mahâbhârata. YAYATI, there-
fore, represents the interval between the era of the
primeval world which is altogether unhistorical, and
the Indian foretime proper. The name itself signifies
"advancement, progress."
There can hardly be any history in all this, cer-
tainly no Indian history. It must depend upon the
character of the sequel of the tradition whether the
royal house, "Anu's hillock." The comparison between it and the
Merman teacher, Oannes, proposed by Rawlinson, has also struck
other commentators. But as there is here no question about simi-
larity, but the very name itself, and as the North must mean the
Semitic Lords of Northern Asia, we consider it justifiable to notice
the coincidence.
239 Lassen, Alterth. i. p. xviii. n. 4.
SECT. I. B.]
531
THE KINGLESS AGES.
whole period is to be discarded, or be considered as a
stopgap to a lacuna in the historical reminiscence of
the real beginnings. We have, however, a right to
regard it in the light of a clearly distinct First period.
The connexion between it and the most ancient Indian
kingdoms was expressed by 200 years in the list of
Megasthenes. The first era, therefore, concluded with
a kingdom in the Punjab, of which only very vague re-
miniscences had been preserved.
The second era in our Indian traditions evidently
commences with the Sarasvati period and its kingdoms.
Its great heroes are the BHARATA, and the Râmâyana
is the epic representation of it and its violent end.
In the third, the Pankâla (the five races), the con-
querors of the Bharatidæ, struggle with the Kuru, and
the latter again with the Pândava, after whose war of
extermination the last era ensues. In the Vedas Panka
Krshtayas and Panka Kshitayas (the five agricul-
tural countries, or the five habitations in the concrete
sense) represent the Arian races and then the human
race generally.
As the first era closes with Krishna-Hercules (ac-
cording to Megasthenes), so probably does the second
with Râma. As the Râmâyana is the epos of the former
epoch, so is the Mahâbhârata the epos of the third.
Here it is the princes themselves who, by their conten-
tions, bring about their own downfall.
The mythical thousand years here intervene again, as
in the former case, between one epoch and the other.240
It is needless to enter into any further proof of the
240 From Haug's communication it appears that the period of a
thousand years is mentioned in the late Pârsee books, and is called
Hazâreh, i. e. Chilias; this is the time of the Prophets. Each
of the three great prophets has his Hazâreh: Osheder-mah (well-
governing Moon), Osheder-bâmi (well-governing Dawn), and lastly
Sosiosh (who awakens the dead at the last day). See Haug, Gött.
Gel. Anz., Dec. 1853.
M M 2
532
ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [BOOK IV. PART VII.
correctness of these views, inasmuch as it does not lead
to any chronology. We have only to bear in mind that
the reminiscences of three long historical periods, full
of great events and locally definable, offer a confirma-
tion of these accounts. The length of the period we
do not know, but the three intervening periods alone
comprise together 620 years, according to historical,
not epical, data.
If the conclusion to be drawn from these observations is
that the cosmic eras were mutilated forms of real epochs,
and the cataclysms were intervening periods of mis-
rule, and that whatever historical matter the epic poems
contain, be it more or less, is upon the whole circum-
scribed within the first three ages, and progresses
organically during these it will certainly be worth
while to see whether it is really so hopeless a task to
define the starting-point of the Fourth. The fact of
the Brahminical starting-point, 3102 B. C., being in
error by more than a thousand years at the time of
Alexander and Buddha is sufficient to put them al-
together out of the question. The only certain point
is that Kandragupta, the Sandrokottus of Megasthenes,
ascended the throne of Palibothra in the kingdom
of Magadha beween 320 and 312, and I have no hesita-
tion in agreeing with Lassen that this event took place
in 315. But how are we to proceed any farther?
Certainly only by commencing from below, and calcula-
ting upwards.
C.
THE LISTS OF THE AGE OF BUDDHA DOWN TO THAT IMME-
DIATELY PRECEDING SANDROKOTTUS.
SANDROKOTTUS overthrew the house of the Nanda.
The Brahminical traditions respecting this royal house
SECT. I. C.] LISTS FROM THE TIME OF BUDDHA.
533
are very confused and contradictory. The notices of the
earlier dynasties of the kingdom of Magadha are im-
practicable in a chronological point of view, and some-
times the dates of reigns are omitted.
I. Bârhadratha Dynasty.
If we discard the first six of the first dynasty 241,
who are evidently ancient chiefs of tribes, and refer
with full confidence the real patriarch, Brihadratha,
the seventh on the list, with his two successors, the
great Garâsandha and his son Sahadîva, to the third
age242, and supposing there to be a great lacuna here,
of which we find obvious traces, if we make our series
commence with the so-called tenth king we get the
following list.
It begins with Somâpi and ends with a King Ripun-
gava. The latter is slain by his first minister, whose
son, Pradyôta, ascends the throne, and becomes the
chief of the dynasty which is named after him.
This list, as regards the chronology, is impossible
throughout, and as regards history doubtful. Its object,
evidently, was to make a continuation from the third to
the fourth period, and it does not furnish the slightest
intimation as to which of the successors of Somâpi was
the first who possessed a kingdom.
for it does not re-
cord a single act or distinct event connected with any
one sovereign.
It is true that some of the registers have dates of
reign attached to them, but which? The more com-
plete list of twenty kings gives 924 years, and one of
these reigns lasted 100, another 80 years, both being
preceded and succeeded by long reigns. The smaller
number is 850, making an average of 42 years to a
reign, while the other makes 163.
241 Lassen, i. p. xxxi. seqq.
242 See Lassen's masterly deductions, as to the historical contents
of the stories about Garâsandha, i. 607. seqq.
M M 3
534
ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [Book IV. PART VII.
In the list of Matsya an attempt was made to get over
these difficulties by reducing the sum total to thirty-
two kings. But it is evidently less trustworthy than the
list of the royal houses itself, and the discrepancies in
the entries of years of individual reigns evince the igno-
rance and tampering of the compilers. Now, as all the
Purânas make a thousand years to elapse between the
great war and the last of the Bârhadratha, Wilson pro-
poses to adopt this as the authentic date. 243 Lassen also
thinks that there is nothing improbable in the lengths
of reigns, with two exceptions. He concludes, there-
fore, that the list has come down to us in an incomplete.
state: yet, forsooth, the thousand years which are men-
tioned on two other occasions in the old Indian traditions,
and cannot be considered chronological, approximated to
the truth in this instance! I must confess that I cannot
here agree with these two ingenious scholars. The
thousand years, as we have seen, simply mean that the
length of the interregnum is indeterminable. Even did
we include the 120 years, the whole length of the inter-
regnum, in that thousand, it would not mend the matter.
After deducting them, there would still remain nearly
900 years, a term to which we should be compelled to
refuse any credibility.
The purpose of some of the fabricators of the list, who
added these unfortunate dates, was evidently a dis-
honest one, that of getting as near as possible to the
mythical thousand years of interregnum. Yet none of
them has anything to record in all these eight, nine, or
ten centuries, not a word to say about twenty or thirty-
two kings. And how stands the case with the names
and succession? According to the Mahâbâhrata the
predecessor of the last king (Ripungaya, who was de-
throned), who is called in the former lists Visvagit, is
243 i. 700.; comp. xxxii.
SECT. I. C.] LISTS FROM THE TIME OF BUDDHA.
535
identical with Ripungaya. The two predecessors of the
supposed Visvagit, to whom forty and eighty regnal
years are assigned, are omitted altogether in one of the
lists, while they have totally different names in the
others. From this I conclude that the genealogy of the
kings of Magadha represented the Bârhadratha as their
ancestors, in order to patch up some sort of connexion
between the reigning house, previously to the interreg-
num and the end of the great war, and an ancient royal
family. The addition of the regnal years was also a
figment of later date.
The case of the following dynasties is not much better,
although there is less discrepancy in the different lists,
and they all give the regnal years.
II. Dynasty: Pradyôta, 5 kings
138 years.
Here commence the accounts of Buddha, and the
Buddhistic lists have a claim upon our attention. Ac-
cording to them a king of this dynasty reigned in the
time of Buddha at Uggayini (Ozene ?) whom he suc-
ceeded in converting.
273
The average of 27 years is obviously too high,
according to the standard of the historical times of
India, for us to accept it as authentic.
III. Dynasty: Saisunâga, 10 kings
360 years.
The corresponding Buddhistic list of the kings of
Magadha must on no account be mixed up with this,
there being, as we shall see, external as well as internal
reasons why we should place implicit confidence in it.
Yet it is externally corrupt. The last two kings, Nan-
divardana and Mahânandi, belong to the house of Nanda,
indeed Mahânandi is clearly the founder of it, in fact he
is the great Nanda himself. No critic need be reminded
that reigns averaging 36 years are out of the ques-
tion.
M M 4
536
ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [Book IV. PART VII.
IV. Dynasty: Nanda, the founder, and after him his
sons, successively, nine in number. Some of
the lists assign to Nanda alone, some to him
and his sons together (the only sensible propo-
sition)
88 years.
In the Ceylon lists there is evidently some confusion
here. They make Kalasôka, the last king of the pre-
ceding dynasty, succeeded by nine brothers who reigned
altogether
22 years.
According to the commentary attached to this list,
these nine brothers are the nine Nandas, which nine
brothers, successively reigned, altogether
22 years.
Some of the Brahminical lists assign 88 years to the
father, 12 to the sons, in order to make up 100 years,
which number is then very quietly placed in the ordi-
nary chronological epilogus.244
It is hardly necessary seriously to sum up such entries
as these. By way of example, however, we give the
Purâna list (according to Lassen, i. 501.):
I. Bârhadratha
II. Pradyôta
20 (or 21) kings - 1000 years.
5
138
""
III. Saisunâga
- 10
360
""
IV. Nanda
9
100
29
1598
The beginning of the Kali, supposing
the accession of Kandragupta to
be B. C.
315
1913 B.C.
Under these circumstances Wilson and Lassen have
given the preference to a Brahminical account which is
wholly uncorroborated, and which is as follows:
1015 years elapsed prior to the accession of Nanda.
244 Comp. Lassen, i. p. xxxiii. xxxiv., and ii. 63. seq.
SECT. I. C.] LISTS FROM THE TIME OF BUDDHA.
537
This would give the following date for the beginning
of the Kali:
Down to Nanda
Nanda's reign
Making therefore to the accession
of Kandragupta
Consequently, B. C.
1015 years.
88
1103 years.
315
1418
It must be admitted, that an isolated chronological
entry, not based upon any dates of reign, however
reasonable it may be in itself, is certainly evidence
enough of the precarious nature of the lists. But that
in itself would be sufficient reason why a critic could
not place confidence in it, even were it not at variance
with facts supported by other extraneous authority.
That it is so is apparent from the chronology of
Buddha, the first certain resting-place beyond the time
of Alexander, which we now proceed to examine.
538
[BOOK IV. PART VII.
SECTION II.
THE HISTORICAL DATA IN THE LATER TIMES OF INDIAN
HISTORY, AND THE PRELIMINARY RESTORATION OF THE
OLDER PERIODS.
A.
THE YEAR OF BUDDHA'S DEATH, 543 B.C., AND THE BUD-
DHISTIC NOTICES OF THE MAGADHA KINGS DOWN TO
ASOKA.
LASSEN, in his masterly treatise, at once ingenious and
learned, has proved that the tradition of the Singalese
is the only one worthy of notice. According to it, in
the year 543 B. C. Buddha escaped from the curse of
earthly existence by death, after having arrived at a
full sense of self-annihilation (Nirvâna.) 245
The task we are about to undertake is to show the
possibility of establishing the true chronology from this
fixed point down to Kandragupta, or 315 B.C.
The Buddhistic list of kings, with which the most
authentic accounts of him personally connect that great
founder of a religion, is the list of the kingdom or house
of Magadha, which was then seated to the south of
Pataliputra, in Ragagriha, so called after an ancient
city to the north of Amritsir in the Upper Punjab.
The house of Samudradatta, from Mithila (Vidêha),
consisting of 25 kings, the last of whom was named
Dîpankara, reigned there in the first instance. It
was succeeded by the house of Bhattiya, called also
245 Lassen, ii. 51-61. The objections advanced by Weber are
insignificant; and his own view appears to me wholly inadmissible.
SECT. II. A.] MAGADHA KINGS DOWN TO ASOKA.
539
Mahâpadma, "abounding in stones," which was the
Brahminical epithet of the first of the Nanda kings, the
son of Mahanandi and a Sûdrâ.
But, as Bhattiya lost his independence, the dynasty
commences with his son Bimbisâra, who reigned 52
years, and was succeeded by his son Agâtasatru, who
reigned 32 years. The seventh king after Bimbisâra
was named Sisunâga, who reigned 18 years, and was
succeeded by Kalâsôka (with 28 years), whose son
Bhadrasêna (with 22 years for himself and his nine
brothers) was the predecessor of Nanda.
The most curious feature in this is, that we have
three names in common. The founder of the corre-
sponding Brahminical dynasty of Magadha, Sisunâga,
is here the last but one, and, indeed, the overthrower
of the previous dynasty, at the head of which stand
Bimbisâra and Agâtasatru, there the fourth and fifth
successors of Sisunâga (with 28 and 25 or 27 years of
reign). Whatever explanation may be offered of the
confusion in the Brahminical lists, the Buddhist tra-
dition is proved to be in every respect the historical
one. According to it Bhattiya became tributary to
the king of Anga, but his enterprising son, afterwards
King Bimbisâra, expelled the tax-collectors of the king
of Anga, by whom the country was oppressed, defeated
the king himself, and made Kampa, the capital of Anga,
his royal residence until his father's death. The latter
had made him king in his fifteenth year, which is a
satisfactory explanation of the long reign of 52 years.
Now Bimbisâra was in childhood the friend of
Buddha, and only five years younger. This entry,
which is a purely biographical one, seems to me to
deserve to be kept steadily in view. It makes the
prophet 20 years old when Bimbisâra was invested
with royal authority. Buddha himself was the son of
Suddhodana, of the race of the Sakhja kings of Deva-
daha, and styles himself the Sramana Gautama, the co-
540
[Book IV. PART VII.
ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES.
lonist of the race of the holy patriarchs of the kings of
the eastern country, Gotama, a name which occurs in
the Veda as belonging to a celebrated family of min-
strels. Now as Buddha only began to dedicate himself
to serious reflection in his 29th year (the 10th of the
reign of Bimbisâra), but became in his 35th year an
awakened (Buddha), and died at 56, the twenty-first of
his public teaching, the chronology would stand thus,
supposing him to have died in 543, and that he was
then 56:
Buddha, born - 5 years before the birth of Bimbisâra
,, retires (29)
B. C.
-
- 598
Bimbisâra 24 - 10th year of reign 569
""
-
30 - 16th
- 563
""
""
41 - 27th
- 543
""
the first year of Bim-
Lassen makes it 603,
,, appears as teacher (35)
dies aged 56 in the 21st
year of his teachership -
Now if Buddha died 543 B. C.,
bisâra's reign must be 578 B. C.
apparently at variance with his own data, and adopts for
the Nandas the 88 years of the Brahmins. But this is
obviously nothing more than the number required to
make up the 100 years, as we find twelve years assigned
to the sons. It is, at all events, an impossibility as re-
presenting a single reign, and that too the reign of an
elected king.
The list is as follows: 246
I. The House of Bhattiya:
1. Bimbisâra: reigns 52 years: first year B. C. 578
Murdered by his son and successor
2. Agâtasatru: reigns 32 years: first year
Murdered by his son and successor
3. Udayabhadra (Udaya): reigns 16 years: first
year
Murdered by his son and successor
4. Anurudhaka (Munda): reigns 8 years: first
year
Murdered by his son and successor
246 Comp. Lassen, ii, 63.
527
·
- 526
-
• 495
• 494
479
- 478
- 471
SECT. II. A.] MAGADHA KINGS DOWN TO ASOKA.
541
5. Nagadasaka: reigns 24 years: first year B. c. 470
Murdered by his successor
End of the dynasty of the Parricides.
II. The House of Sisunâga:
1. Sisunâga: reigned 18 years: first year
2. Kalâsoka: reigned 28 years: first year
3. Bhadrasêna and 9 brothers: 22 years
The last of the brothers, Pingamakha, was
dethroned by Nanda
·
447
- 446
428
- 400
·
III. Nanda and his sons. Nanda, who was not a
person of princely extraction, rebels against
Pingamakha as leader of a local revolt, cap-
tures Pataliputra, and becomes king
Nanda's younger brother is dethroned and
murdered by Kandragupta. Length of
Nanda's reign 66 years. Last year
IV. The House of the Maurya.
accession
·
Kandragupta's
379
378
- 313
- 312
The following is the historical value of these details.
We have, in the first place, down to Kandragupta, two
series of rulers of the princely houses of the Kshattriya.
Bimbisâra and his house (4 successors) reign 132
years, or an average of 26 years. Of these, Bimbisâra
reigned 52; having, as heir-apparent, been, after the
conquest of Kampa, invested by his father with royal
authority in his 15th year. This is a corroboration of
the biographical accounts which we have followed above.
It leaves 80 years for the four successors, an average
reign of 20 years each. Beginning with the son of
Bimbisâra they were all parricides. The family was not
opposed to Buddhism, but remained Brahmins. Agâta-
satru built Ragâgriha, the more modern city of that
name.
The second Kshattriya dynasty ascended the throne,
when Sisunaga, as minister and military chief, in con-
542
ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [BOOK IV. PART VII.
sequence of the universal detestation of the parricidal
family, slew the last king. The family itself was descended
from a mother of inferior rank, who had been super-
intendent of the dancers of a king of Likhavi at Vaisali,
and subsequently became his wife. His son is properly
the first Asoka, but the Brahmins, from hatred towards
the second who was the great patron of the Buddhists,
called him only Kâkavarna, the Raven-black. He it was
who removed the royal residence from Ragâgriha in the
south to Pataliputra. He was succeeded by his eldest
son Bhadrasêna, who is said to have had nine brothers,
his successors.
The fall of Pingamakha, however, the last of these, is
more important than the fall of the Bimbisâra family.
Upon the accession of the Nanda, which now took place,
there was unquestionably a stain in the royal blood.
All the accounts, Brahminical and Buddhist, agree that
he was a man of low extraction, and that there were no
more Kshattriya kings. The former indeed aver that
it was only the mother who was a Sudrâ, in order to
keep up the connexion with the old royal family. One
argument in favour of this is, that the last two Brah-
minical-Sisunâga kings are called Nandivardhana and
Mahananda. But the whole list is untrustworthy. The
Buddhist account, that Nanda was a man of great courage,
who took advantage of a riot in his village to make a
general arming of the mob, and then instigated them to
take into their own hands the conduct of their affairs,
is more credible. The people lent a ready ear; he
declared war against Pingamakha, took Pataliputra, and
became king. After a brief reign he was succeeded by
his brothers.
The most difficult point in the chronology now re-
mains to be considered, the age of Nanda. It formed
an epoch, inasmuch as the computation of the 1015
years, from the beginning of the Kaliyuga, goes down to
his coronation. He ruled over "the whole earth." We
SECT. II. A.] MAGADHA KINGS DOWN TO ASOKA.
543
have seen above that the Singalese registers of the Bud-
dhists assigned to the sons of Kalâsoka 22 years, and to
the Nanda brothers also 22 years, which is explained
by a late commentator as meaning that the Kalâsoka
brothers were the Nanda. Consequently this made 44
years. The Brahminical lists assign to Mahânanda (i.e.
"the great Nanda") 40 or 43 years; and 12 to
Sumâlya, the son of the great upstart (Mahâpadma).
Our calculation makes it 66 years, which agrees as well
as could be expected with the history, as far as we know
it, and the above numbers. It requires more than some
20 years for an adventurer to form a great empire, and
for the dynasty which he founded to be overthrown.
Lassen prefers 88 years, a number to which our objec-
tions have been already stated, and.one which must be
rejected on account of the trustworthy statement, that
the great Nanda's reign was brief.
Kandragupta dethroned the last Nanda and took Pa-
taliputra. After the murder of Porus by Eumenes, the
general of Eudemus I., in the year 317, Sandrakottus,
who was present, seems to have placed himself at the
head of the popular party, to have taken immediate
possession of the empire, and then to have directed his
forces towards the Ganges. I agree with Benfey, there-
fore, in making the last year of the Nanda 313, and
consequently the first of Kandragupta 312.
This series of kings forms a bright spot in the history,
and we are enabled to restore it with tolerable precision.
Besides the Indian accounts we have always Greek
synchronisms, either through the Seleucidæ or from the
inscriptions of the Great Asoka.
To the kingdom of Kandragupta (the kingdom of the
Prasians, that is to say, of the Easterns) also belonged
the Peninsula of Guzerat; it extended on the north as far
as the Indus 247, and on the south its sovereignty was ac-
247 Lassen, ii. 211. seq.
{
544
[BOOK IV. PART VII.
ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES.
knowledged as far as the mouths of the Ganges, and the li-
mits of Kalinga. His grandson and second successor was,
when prince, viceroy over the Uggayini. He may be said
therefore to have conquered the whole of Aryâvara. His
forces consisted of 600,000 infantry, 30,000 cavalry,
and 900 elephants. He died in the 24th year of his
reign, consequently B. C. 289. He was succeeded by Vin-
dusara, who reigned 28 years, consequently until B. C.
261. His successor, Asoka, is the great Buddhist king.
His inscriptions, in which the Buddhist doctrines are
earnestly inculated, and the 84,000 Buddhist sanctuaries
(Kaitya), that is to say, partly temples and partly tu-
muli (Stûpa, whence Topes), which he is said to have
erected, are in the present day the greatest monuments
of Buddhism. He was crowned in Pataliputra in the
third year of his reign (B. C. 258), and openly seceded
from the Brahminical to the Buddhist religion, con-
verted, as it seems, by the son of his brother, whom he
had murdered.
His reign of thirty-seven years was the meridian of
the empire of the Maurya. Immediately afterwards (B. C.
225) the partition took place and its downfall ensued.
Having arrived at this point, we shall discontinue
the adjustment of the chronology from below, and pro-
ceed to an approximate definition of the earlier epochs.
We have seen that Alexander found in India a great
and mighty empire, which, although seated at the con-
fluence of the Yamuna and Ganges, nevertheless pro-
tected the northern frontier.
We have seen that the age of Buddha is established,
and with it that of Bimbisâra also, the chief of the dy-
nasty which overthrew the kings of Pradyôta.
We can no longer calculate upon accurate chronology,
but the question is whether we can determine the cen-
tury in which, after bloody and destructive contests
and a period of anarchy, the greater princely kingdoms
are again found to exist.
SECT. II. B.] COMMENCEMENT OF THE KALIYUGA.
545
B.
APPROXIMATE DETERMINATION OF THE REAL COMMENCE-
MENT OF THE KALIYUGA, AND THE PRELIMINARY LIMI-
TATION OF THE PRECEDING PERIOD.
AFTER having established, reckoning upwards, a fixed
point for the accession of Kandragupta, by the year of
Buddha's death, 543 B.C., and, through it, that the first
year of Bimbisâra was 578, the earlier dates will stand
thus.
Bhattiya, the father of Bimbisâra, cannot be included
in our calculation from above, as we find no chronolo-
gical notice about him; indeed, the imperial succession
in Magadha clearly only begins with his great son.
We must consequently proceed with the Pradyôta
kings. The 138 regnal years of these five sovereigns we
cannot take for granted quite so readily as our prede-
cessors have done, since we have found the Buddhist lists
in a much better state than the Brahminical, and they
only assign 68 years to this dynasty.
We have therefore:
First year of Bimbisâra
Last year of the Pradyôta Dynasty
(68 years)
First
B.C.
578
579
646
Prior to these is the Barhâdratha Dynasty of Somapi,
down to Ripungaya, said to be 20 kings. We have seen
above that three kings at all events must be omitted.
The harmony of the lists is certainly an argument in
favour of the others. We accordingly suppose it to have
consisted of 17 kings, who reigned on an average 20
years each, making consequently 340 years. From this
we should obtain the following dates:
VOL. III.
N N
546
[Book IV. PART VII.
ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES.
B. C. 647
986
Last year of Barhâdratha (340)
First
99
""
But here we meet with another circumstance which
requires to be noticed.
It is highly probable that during the interregnum the
exiled princes of the Bârhadratha family continued their
lists as though they still possessed the realms of their
forefathers and kinsmen. The 120 years of the inter-
regnum are consequently probably included in the
general sum total of 340 years, which would leave only
220 for our computation.
In that case the calculation would stand thus:
Last year of Bârhadratha (220 years) B. c. 647
First
99
866
We shall consequently place the two limitations side
by side.
The next step we are enabled to get over, at all events,
by the aid of Megasthenes, in whose list of the time of
anarchy (which intervened between the third and fourth
periods) we find 120 years. According to the above
computation, we obtain the following data:
Last year of Anarchy (120 years) B.C. 987 867
First
1106 986
99
39
This would therefore bring the beginning of the
Kaliyuga up to 986 or 866. We can no more doubt
the historical character of the close of the third period,
and consequently of the kingdoms of the Kaurava and
Pandava, than we can believe in any chronology formed
from such data. We may possibly be able a few years.
hence to compute, like Herodotus, by generations or
average lengths of reigns; but we are certainly not in a
condition to do so now.
This, however, is by no means requisite for our pur-
pose; a reasonable approximation will suffice.
SECT. II. B.]
547
COMMENCEMENT OF THE KALIYUGA.
Now, as we have 120 years of anarchy after the third
era, and 300 before it, and as we find at the close of the
former a protracted war of extermination of the ruling
family, we may safely conclude that we are within the
narrowest bounds, if we set this epoch preliminarily at
500 years.
Hence, the computation upwards from
below would stand thus:
The last year of the third period,
close of the great war after the
battle at Kuruksetra
B.C. 1107 987
First year of the Kaurava (500
years)
1606 1486
Within this period, which is characterized by great
exploits, by rigid Brahminism, and the gradual obduracy
of absolute power after the total loss of popular free-
dom, we meet with the grand form of Garâsandha. He
was the son of the Patriarch of the Barhâdratha, the
Magadha-ruler Brihadratha, and grandson of Vasu, the
proper founder of the family. With his son Sahadîva,
the first section of the race concludes. As Lassen has
acutely remarked, Garâsandha is the historical person-
age among the heroic kings of the Mahabharata.248
The Pândava are already on the scene, and it was his
wars and conquests which occasioned the great popular
movement that took place immediately before the era
of the five Pândava kings. He drove the Yâdava from
their settlements on the Yamuna, and brought 86 kings
prisoners to his royal residence.
It is a circumstance of twofold importance that this
ruler belonged to the family which carries us down to
the time of Alexander. He must necessarily have been
entered in the list which Megasthenes obtained at the
court of the sovereigns who were descended from him.
His age, and everything connected with it, must
248 Lassen, i. 602. seqq.
NN 2
548
ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [BOOK IV. PART VII.
have been computed in the supposed 6402 years between
the immigration of the Arians and the reign of Sandra-
kottus.
From our present point of view we can only say with
regard to the date of his reign, that he must be placed at
all events two centuries prior to the downfall of the
Pândava. Between him and that closing event there
intervenes the decline of the house of the Kaurava, and
then the final struggle.
We may possibly succeed in making a closer approxi-
mation to the true date by means of an inquiry into the
Indian synchronism of Semiramis.
C.
STAUROBATES AND SEMIRAMIS, OR THE INDIAN SYNCHRO-
NISM FOR 1230 B.C.
MEGASTHENES was assured by the men of learning
at the court of Palibôthra that Dionysus was the
only conqueror who had appeared in India anterior to
Alexander, neither Cyrus nor Semiramis having crossed
the Indus. Although the latter had certainly made pre-
parations for an expedition, she had died before they
were completed. How much of this historical informa-
tion was flattery to Alexander and his great generals,
to the envoys of Seleucus, the King and Lord Seleucus,
how much was sheer ignorance, is matter of uncertainty.
A feeling of shame on account of the event itself
it cannot have been, for the inroad of Semiramis was of
short duration, and its termination most honourable to
the mighty and brave king (Hhavirapati, i. e. resolute
prince, or, more properly, Shorapati, "Lord of the
Oxen ") who soon drove her back across the Indus, and
SECT. II. C.] INDIAN SYNCHRONISM WITH SEMIRAMIS. 549
it redounded also to the credit of the Indian people
generally.
But the shadowy reminiscences of this great event,
hitherto entirely overlooked, which our present Sanskrit
sources of information would seem to contain, confirm the
idea that the memory of it had really passed away. This
certainly makes it highly probable that the vast abyss of
desolation and confusion which divides it from the Pân-
dava age (the third), intervenes between that inroad and
the beginning of the present era.
The reality of that invasion is now indisputable. We
know that Semiramis is no more a mythical queen, than
her giant constructions are idle fictions. Duncker has
had the tact and courage to follow out the views of
Niebuhr on this head, and to make a stand against such
contemptible prejudices.249 The whole country on the
right bank of the Upper Indus, the site of the present
Peshawur, opposite Attock (Taxila), and still higher
up, was tributary to the Assyrians, as it afterwards was
to the Medes and Persians.250
Semiramis captured here, on the Kophên (the Cabul
River, the Kubhâ of the Rigveda), the city of the
same name, as we are informed by Pliny.251 But the
celebrated black obelisk from Nineveh in the British
Museum, a monument at least of the 9th century B. C.,
establishes the payment of tribute, the Bactrian camel
being found side by side with the Indian rhinoceros and
Indian elephant.
Without attaching implicit faith to the monstrous num-
bers of Ctesias, and to his stories about camels dressed
up in the garb of monsters, we cannot fail to recognise
the historical truth in the account of Diodorus (ii. 16-
19.). Semiramis fitted out an armament in Bactria,
and crossed the Indus with a vast force. The Mahârâgân
249 Ar. Gesch. i. 282. seq.
251 Nat. Hist. vi. 25.
250 Arrian, Ind. i. 1.
NN 3
550
[BOOK IV. PART VII.
ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES.
of that day, the great "Ruler of the Earth," had taken
up a position there also with a vast force, especially
formidable from the number of his archers and ele-
phants. At first he retreated, but soon drove back the
Assyrians in total disorder to the river, which they
had great difficulty in crossing after immense loss.
Semiramis concluded an armistice, made an exchange of
prisoners, and retreated into Bactria with a third of the
army she had brought against India.
This Indian expedition took place in the latter part
of the reign of that remarkable woman, consequently
between 1235 and 1225. There must, therefore, have
been a Samrâg, or supreme king, at that time in India,
whose rule extended as far as the Indus. His seat of
government must have been in the district to the south
of the Sarasvati, in the country of the Two Rivers.
This circumstance, therefore, excludes, in the first
place, the time of confusion during the interregnum,
and consequently, the 120 years of Megasthenes. But,
from what we have seen above, it will also exclude the
first centuries of the new empire, the period of the
younger Bharatida. In fact these sovereigns neither
left behind them any records of glorious exploits,
nor were they said ever to have possessed extensive
power.
No such pretensions, indeed, were made by the
princes of any other royal house. In order to prove
this, we must enter into a little farther examination,
and say a few words upon the race of the Kuru.
We can prove that a new epoch commenced in the
Ayodhya line of the Moon race with the 17th king. The
old race of Bharata died out with Samvarana.252
252 The
Kuru family succeeded, by which name some have
understood the river Kur, others Koresh (Cyrus).
Uttara-Kuru, as appears from the list of the patriarchs
252 Lassen, i. p. xxiii. seq. n. 18.
SECT. II. C.] INDIAN SYNCHRONISM WITH SEMIRAMIS. 551
of the family in their primitive home, simply means the
most northern Kuru. Two entirely separate series are
traced from the supposed King Kuru, of which that of the
Purânas appears at the same time as that of the Pau-
ravas, which was said to be connected with Kuru.253 As
regards the lists of the Mahâbhârata254, I disagree with
Lassen, who gives the preference to the longer one, the
second, because it is composed in prose, records the
names of the wives, and refers to the genealogical
registers. Neither can I agree with Wilson that credi-
bility attaches to it, because the epic narrative mentions
an old Indian king, who, after hearing the shorter
account of his ancestors, listened with still greater
pleasure to the more detailed one, which commences
with the founder Manu. I see nothing in this but a
wish on his part to hear a great many fables and stories
about the Gods; and it is not improbable that the
author himself is the person who puts these words into
the king's mouth. The first, shorter account, begins
not with Manu, but Puru, and concludes with the last
genuine descendants of Kuru. It contains also the
names of the younger sons of the kings, and here and
there adds a few historical remarks. This is the very
reason why I think it must be the more ancient, and
that the second, on the contrary, is fiction dressed up
in an epic form.
The continuation of the royal list, indeed, beyond the
genuine Kauravas, is open to grave suspicion, a sus-
picion common to this list and the Purânas. Lassen 255
himself admits that the names in the first simple list
are repeated here, and the continuation contains some
with remarks attached to them, seemingly of a sym-
bolical, and consequently of an ideal, character the
great hero Arguna (the white), for instance, in con-
253 Lassen, p. xxiv.
255 Ib. i. p. 594.
254 Ib. i. p. 594.
N N 4
552
[BOOK IV. PART VII.
ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES.
tradistinction to Krishna, the black. The more simple
list certainly does not profess to be a complete gene-
alogy, for this remark is attached to the name of the
first personal ancestor, Aviksit, the successor of Kuru,
who is the representative of the Kuru people:
"Of the race of the sons of Aviksit, these were the
most remarkable for their virtues." 256
This is an honest announcement, and one which
supplies a valuable clue to the criticism of the whole lists.
The tradition was not coherent, or had ceased to be so
before the date of the authorities to which we have
access. We possess only the heroes of the race, not a
continuous history. What appears to be so is mere
arbitrary falsification of the later genealogy of am-
bitious royal houses. Lassen is in error in thinking
there is a lacuna in the shorter list. The following
names are precisely what they are stated to be in the
words quoted above. They come in the following
order:
I. Aviksit, with his younger brother Ganamegaya,
and three others.
II. Pariksit, with seven brothers.
III. Ganamegaya with Bhimasêna, and five other
brothers.
IV. Dhritarashtra (Stadtholder), with the brothers
Pandu and Bahlika (i.e. the Bactrian, from Balkh, the
later form of the name of the city), and five others.
V. Kundika, with Hastin, and three other brothers.
VI. Pratîpa, with two brothers.
The
VII. Devâpi, with Santanu and Bahlika.
eldest of these three brothers retired, either voluntarily,
or being compelled to do so by the Brahmins, and
Santanu became king, it is said, after Devâpi had suf-
fered himself to be led astray by false teachers.257
With these brothers the list closes.
256 Lassen, i. p. xxiv. n. 19.
The sequel in the
257 Ib. i. p. xxiv. n. 21.
SECT. II. C.] INDIAN SYNCHRONISM WITH SEMIRAMIS. 553
other list and in the Purânas is simply an arbitrary addi-
tion. The genealogy of the Pandu is appended to that of
the Kuruidæ, Pandu being son of Vikitravirya, the second
son of Santanu. From him descended the hero Arguna,
as did his brave rival Duryodhâna from his elder brother
Dhritarashtra," and 99 others," in order to make up the
number of the hundred Paladins. Then comes Pariksit
and 29 successors, the last of whom, Ksemaka, "dies in
the Kali," i. e. the pretenders to the crown of the Pan-
dava race in the period of anarchy and afterwards, ad
libitum. Nothing is recorded of them, but it is note-
worthy that the 24th in the series is called Satanika,
exactly like Pariksit's grandson (the third in the series),
and his son Udayana, the name which, according to
some authorities, was borne by the son of the elder
Pariksit. The whole race is said to be begotten by
Brahmins and warriors. 258
There are many other proofs of the historical cha-
racter of the kings of the older list. In the first place,
the hymns of the Rigveda (only indeed the later tenth
book) mention Devâpi and Santanu as brothers, the
elder of whom embraces the sacerdotal profession, and
becomes, according to ancient custom, the first Brahman
(Purôhita, "President " 259) of the king his brother.
The old Vedic commentator, Yâska, mentions them as
being sons of Rishtisêna. This cannot be said to be in
contradiction to our list, which, as we know, only pro-
fesses to record the great and celebrated rulers of the
The third brother is not mentioned in the
Rigveda, but the list states that when Devâpi retired
Bahlîka obtained a vast empire. This must mean that
he emigrated and became king of Bactria. As he
joined Devâpi, the elder brother who was perverted by
false teachers, Zoroastrianism evidently here comes into
play.
race.
258 Lassen, i. p. xxvi. n. 26.
259 Ib. i. p. 596.
554
ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [BOOK IV. PART VII.
The two lists agree as to these brothers, and they
both mention a third brother, Bahlîka, the Bactrian,
who in the shorter one appears under the name of the
younger brother, Dhritarashtra. In both the imme-
diate predecessor is King Pratîpa. In the former, how-
ever, the order of the common names is different:
Bhimasêna is not the younger brother, but the king;
Dhritarashtra is omitted, and only appears afterwards
as elder brother of Pandu, and father of Duryodhana.
We possess, therefore, historical fragments of an age
which was brought to a close by the war of extermi-
nation among the rulers of Kuru and those of the race
of Pandu. There is no historical connexion between
them, no historical synchronisin, but there are indica-
tions of a religious schism which exercised an influence
over Bactria.
It is equally impossible to connect the history of
these two races with that of the mightiest people in the
latter portion of this age, the Pankâla, who, to judge
from the situation of their country, probably immigrated
before the Kuru.260
In the last period the Pankâla also appear by the side
of the Kuru in the great battle of the princes, the
people of the five races, whose city, Hastinapura, in
the Upper Doab, is situated on the Ganges, north-east of
Delhi (Indraprastha), on the Yamuna. They were the
most powerful people of that day, for they extended
through the whole Southern Doab beyond Benares, as
far as the river Karmanvati, which was for a long time
considered the frontier line of the two tribes.
To cross
over it was an accursed thing; on the other side were
the impure Turanians.
We were compelled to make this digression in order
to show that the only king we have remaining is the
Garâsandha of Bagadha, the Barhadratide, in whom was
260 Lassen, i. p. 598.
SECT. II. C.] INDIAN SYNCHRONISM WITH SEMIRAMIS. 555
centred a vast imperial power at the time of the down-
fall of the then kingdom of India.
We have only to ascertain whether this imperial
power extended in a backward or forward direction.
The son of Garâsandha was Sahadiva, his predecessor
was Brihadratha. The latter founded the empire;
under the former it fell into decay. The father pos-
sessed powerful vassals, such as the king of Kedi. He
had princes among the impure races who were subject
to him, from the eastern part of India, north-east of
Palibôthra. Their foreign names are given by the side
of the Sanskrit.
Even Bhagadatta, indeed, the king of the Yavana,
the uncontrolled autocrat of the West, is said 261 to have
bowed the knee before Garâsandha. The origin of the
name of the Yavana must either be traceable to post-
Alexandrian times, or be an ancient inaccurate desig-
nation of a people and state who pushed on towards the
Mediterranean. To the northward the districts on the
Sarayu and the Gomati formed a part of his kingdom.
He, therefore, must have been the king who opposed
Semiramis on the Indus, or she was not opposed at all.
Assuming, therefore, the synchronism: Garâsandha
the Indian expedition of Semiramis
1230 B. C.,
this makes his date precisely that which, from the
Indian point of view, would appear the most pro-
bable.
Of the extent of the period anterior to him we cannot
venture to form an estimate. But the power of the
empire of the seven kings of the cognate race of the
Moon, in Pratisthana, and afterwards in Hastinapura,
from the reign of Pariksit to that of Santanu, must
have gone back farther than Garâsandha.
We have during this period a schism connected with
the history of Bactria, and the immigration into it.
261 Lassen, i. pp. 551. 609.
556
ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [Book IV. PART VII.
Before proceeding to examine farther the connexion
between these two events, we are anxious to offer
another proof of the historical character of the second
era.
D.
THE HISTORICAL CHARACTER OF THE NAMES IN THE
SECOND ERA.
Ir the whole Indian history, as embodied in the re-
miniscences of the people, be not a pure fiction, it
follows from what we have already seen, that the second
age must commence with the oldest accounts of the
holy land of the Sarasvati. For here it is clear that the
first establishment of the Brahminical system took place,
between which and the religion of the oldest Vedic
hymns there is a greater difference, in various respects,
than there is between the religious systems of the
Brahmans and Buddhists. Buddha was much more of
a Brahman than the fathers of the Brahminical system
were teachers of the old Vedic religion.
In fact, we find ourselves in the most ancient India,
among the first race which stands before us as purely
Indian. It is the race of the Puru or Paurava kings,
to which in the time of Alexander two princely races
belonged, on which account they were both called by
the Greeks Porus.
In the Magadha Moon race, as well as in the royal
series of Megasthenes, Puru follows immediately after
the above-mentioned last patriarch to whom the
partition of the world is due. In the first authenti-
cated list of kings of the Mahâbhârata, there are but.
eight names down to Ilina, after whom there is an
unmistakable gap, as
as we shall see forthwith. The
SECT. II. D.] HISTORICAL NAMES IN THE SECOND ERA. 557
second list contains 17 kings after Puru, the last two
of which are Tansu and ILINA, the predecessors of
Dushyanta, with whom the first empire closes. Those
names are obviously not to be considered a succession
from father to son. For if, as we have seen, the list
only contained names of great historical importance in
the following period, it would still less represent a gene-
alogical succession here. But it is so stated in plain
terms, for it seems to refer occasionally to a king
who is not mentioned in the list.262 The following are
the names:
I. Pravîra
II. Manasyu S
third and fourth kings in the second
list.
It begins with Ganamegaya, who abdicates and
becomes a priest. He was succeeded by Prakinvat,
whose name implies that he was the conqueror of
the East. He could not have been omitted in the first
list, had there not been two separate Puru lines.
III. Sakta.
IV. Raudrasva. Had ten sons, the eld-] In the se-
cond list
est was:
V. Rikeyu, with the epithet Anadrishti. 10 and 11.
VI. Matinâra, son.
It is recorded of him, as it was
of Ganamegaya in the first list, that he offered up many
horses in sacrifice.
VII. Tansu, with a brother Druhyu,
VIII. Ilina.
both great con-
querors.
The old Anuvansa, which is cited in our list, has this
passage (xxi. N. 13.):
"Sarasvati bore to Matinâra a son, Tansu: with the
daughter of the king of Kalinga Tansu begat Ilina." In
the first part we have a clear intimation that the
country about the sacred Sarasvati was the centre of
262 Lassen, i. p. xx. 8.
558
ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [BOOK IV. PART VII.
the empire. The story of the connexion with a king-
dom of Kalinga (in Bengal) is clearly, however, an after-
thought of later times. For many centuries after this
there was no kingdom beyond the river Karmanasa,
which was much more to the north, and falls into the
Ganges a little below Benares.
IX. Dushyanta. The old tradition 263 very clearly
states that, with this king, a race and a kingdom came
to an end. His supposititious son Bharata, the father of
Bhumanyu, is merely the name of the primitive race,
which seems to signify in its first sense the globe. The
country here indicated is Central Hindostan, the country
of the centre (Madhyadesa or Aryâvarta, court of the
Arians).
Here, then, we come to a second race and kingdom,
that of the Bharatidæ, obviously only a governing power
at a later period. The list is as follows:
[BHARATA, the first ruler of the globe (Kakravartin),
who on that account is called also Sarvadamana (all-
controlling) and Sarvab-hauma (world-governing), had
a great many sons, all of whom, however, die off, i. e.
do not establish kingdoms. Last of all he begets]
I. Bhumanyu, who (like Bharata) is also entered in
the second list and the Vishnu Purâna as well as this
one.
II. Diviratha.
III. Suhôtra, "conqueror of the whole earth; Lord of
a happy kingdom." He had three sons.
Several
IV. Agamidha - Purumidha - Sumidha.
hymns in the Rigveda are addressed to the two former.
Here Lassen admits that the second list is obviously adul-
terated, two kings being introduced between Suhôtra and
Agamidha. The first of them clearly belongs, like the
supposed patriarch of the whole list, Ganamegaya, to
the next period, the kingdom of the Kuru.
263 Lassen, i. p. xxii. n. 15.
SECT. II. D.] HISTORICAL NAMES IN THE SECOND ERA. 559
V. Samvârana, succeeded by Kuru in both lists.
Lassen has incontrovertibly shown 264 that the rule of
the Bharatidae ceases with Samvârana. The Bharata are
driven from the Indus country westward by the Pankâla.
Lassen has given the tradition word for word. We pro-
pose to examine it in conjunction with one of a similar
character, in order to show that the separation of the
periods by interregna, in which Divine vengeance exer-
cises destructive power, is ancient and original. Before
doing this, however, we will examine a little more
minutely the list of the Râmayana which concludes
with Râma.
This list of kings of the Sun-race of Ayodhya con-
sists of 35. The first three we discard as mythical.
The Vishnu Purâna states in regard to Anaranya, the
father of Prithu (5), that he lived in Trêta, and con-
quered the Asura in the east; between him and Râma,
therefore, 31 reigns intervene.
Of these we must at once strike out the 29th
and 30th, Nahusha and Yayâti, the two patriarchs of
the Moon-race. In the Vishnu Purâna, Râma, reckoning
from Prithu (5), is the 58th. The harmony, however,
between the two lists continues only where some coherent
legend has preserved the continuity of the succession,
which is not the case except in the following groups:
A. Sagara
Asamanyas -
Ansumat
Dilipa
Bhagiratha -
B. Aya
Dasaratha
-
Râma
R. 14 V. P. 38 from Manu.
15
39
16
40
17
41
18
42
w w
32
60
33
61
34
62
It must here be borne in mind that the Bharata name
264 Lassen, p. 589. seqq.
560
[BOOK IV. PART VII.
ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES.
occurs in the Ramayana only together with that of the
successor, Asita (12, 13.), and not at all in the list of
Vishnu Purâna.
E.
THE CLOSE OF THE FIRST TWO PERIODS IN THE OLDEST
INDIAN TRADITION, AND A PRELIMINARY GLANCE AT THE
CHRONOLOGICAL RESULT.
In order to prevent any misunderstanding, we repeat
that we have not the slightest intention of establishing
or corroborating any evidence in favour of the chrono-
logy by means of data taken from the epic tradition.
The following remarks are only made with a view to di-
recting attention to some noteworthy features in that
tradition, as being facts the value of which is in the
first instance left undecided, but which at all events
have nothing to do with the nonsensical dates and theo-
ries of Manu.
It has been already pointed out that the great histo-
rical lacunæ in the succession of the Indian kingdoms
have been indicated mythically by the old tradition. A
thousand years are assumed, at the expiration of which
a new section commenced. It is at the same time
on record in the first two periods, that a God appears,
who, during these thousand years punishes the over-
bearing and wicked in expiation of their crimes. The
God, or hero, who performs these acts of vengeance is
Hercules-Vishnu at the end of the first period, Râma,
the hero of the Axe, at the end of the second.
There were also different versions of this break in
the sovereignty of the princes. At the end of the
second period mention is made of the break of a thou-
sand years in the reign of the Bharata. The length
SECT. II. E.]
561
CHRONOLOGICAL RESULT.
of the epochs is identical. A long historical order of
things comes to an end, and everything is broken up in
confusion. The style of the mythical record is different;
but the sense is the same. They both imply that the
length of the period of anarchy is undefinable.
The tradition about the descent of the Kuru from
the Bharata, given word for word by Lassen (i. 590.),
is as follows:
"To Riksu (the son of Agamidha) was born Sam-
vârana, the patriarch of a royal race. During his
reign there was great confusion. There were plagues
of famine, of pestilence, and of war. The great con-
queror Pankalya overcame him. Samvârana fled with
his children and friends into the neighbourhood of
the great river Indus, and pitched his tents in a wood
on the mountain. Here the Bharata lived a thousand
years in an inaccessible district. At the expiration of
this period a holy man consecrated the Puruide as uni-
versal lord over the whole warrior race. The descend-
ant of Bharata again took up his royal residence in the
glorious city. Samvârana's wife, the daughter of the
Sun, bore him Kuru, whom his subjects elected king,
from his being well acquainted with the law."
We have accordingly a close with the thousand years,
and then the election of a king, Kuru, belonging to
the old race; i. e. a democracy during the interregnum.
Now, if we examine the other tradition of the close of
the second period, we find that the Axe-God Râma,
Parasu Râma, appears as the avenger. We read of him
in the Mahabharata: 265
"Parasu Râma repeatedly destroys the pride of the
warriors and the royal races."
Now as regards the Divine Avenger at the end of the
first period, the Hercules of Megasthenes, who reigned
fifteen generations after Dionysus and Spatembas, he is,
as Lassen has shown, in every respect identical with
265 Mahâbhârata, xii. 48. seq. Lassen, Zeitsch. v. 257.
VOL. III.
00
562
[Book IV. PART VII.
ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES.
Vishnu the Club-God. He, however, does not appear
in the character of enemy of the royal race; whereas
Râma in the next period overthrows it. He is repre-
sented on the contrary as the founder of the Indian
kingdoms, as far as Pandæa in the south, the race
of which is descended from him and his own daughter.
This is evidently the expression of a belief in the moral
government of the world. The existence of this faith
can be pointed out as early as the old hymns of the Rik,
where Váruna punishes sin by disease and death, but
Indra destroys the wicked. We must, therefore, consider
as an ancient dogma the declaration made by Vishnu
in the Bhagavadgîtâ266 (in Christian times perhaps),
"As often as Right slumbers and Wrong raises up its
head, I create myself." It is eternal Divine Justice, by
whom human affairs are kept in equilibrium, announcing
herself.
Historical criticism accordingly concludes on various
grounds that the four mundane eras of Manu are
nothing but the fabulous sacerdotal offset of the eclipse
of the traditions about four historical ages, that is to
say, four states with successive interregna, which were
really passed through. It is true that the first age con-
tains only general mythical representations of the divine
progenitors, with minute details towards the close. But
this in no wise detracts from the reality of the period
itself. We know, indeed, that the second period com.
mences previously to the old settlement in the country
of the Five Rivers, on the Sarasvati, the holy land of the
Brahmins. There must consequently have been a long
antecedent period commencing with the immigration of
the Arians, and which implies that they crossed the Sutledj.
We subjoin, therefore, a synopsis of the epochs prior
to those already established.
Calculating upwards from below we had arrived at the
266 Bhagavadgitâ, iv. 7. Lassen, i. 488.
SECT. II. E.]
563
CHRONOLOGICAL RESULT.
year 1606 (1486) B.C.=first year of the Kuru (Kaurava),
as the commencement of the third period, which, sup-
posing it only to have lasted 500 years, extended to the
year 1107 (987) B.C. In this period we have shown
the probability of Garâsandha being the contemporary
and opponent of Semirainis; therefore the age of Garâ-
sandha=middle of 13th century B. C. Hence, we must
B.C.
place his predecessor, the founder of the line, at about
1280.
Immediately anterior to the third period there inter-
vened, according to Megasthenes, a break of 300 years;
consequently, the End of the second period was about
1900 (1800) B.C. If again we assume the most moderate
term possible for the length of this period, we have in
round epochal numbers, Beginning of the second period
=2400 (2300) B. C. That is to say; the beginning of
the settlement in the district of the Sarasvati cannot fall
later than about 2600 or 2500 B. C.
It is hardly necessary to remark that, to limit the
length of the monarchical period to about the double of
the intervening times of anarchy is by no means the
most probable computation. The epochs in which the
historical feeling was in progress must, in fact, be
supposed of much longer duration than the interregna
which caused the breaks between them. The remarks of
Megasthenes upon the length of time that the dissolution
of the kingly government lasted, and of the independence
of the separate municipalities, give it an air of greater
historical probability, from the fact of his stating of the
first two that they extended to as much as 200 or 300
years. In speaking of the last republican epoch he
uses a different phraseology; it was a period of 120
years. The earlier epochs of this kind lasted in one case
longer, in the other a shorter time, and their longest
duration was 200 and 300 years.
It is, therefore, highly probable that the second period
did not commence later than about the beginning of
002
564
[BOOK IV. PART VII.
ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES.
the third millennium B. C., so that we must assign to
each of the two middle periods (the second and third)
an average of about 300 years.
The approximate determination of the epochs will in
that case take somewhat the following shape:
End of the third era about
Duration of this period 800 years
Commencement of it therefore
Second interregnum prior to it
B. C. 1100-1000
800- 800
B.C.
1900-1800
300- 300
Consequently beginning of 2nd inter. B. C. 2200-2100
Second period anterior to it, 800 yrs.
Beginning of second era therefore
Prior to it, first interregnum of
Consequently end of 1st period
800-800
B. C. 3000-2900
120- 120
B.C. 3120-3020
Lastly, as regards the length of the first period from
the immigration of the Arians into the country of the
Indus down to their advance to the land of the Saras-
vati, we have no standard whatever from our present
point of view by which to estimate it. All we can say
is, that peculiar habits of life were contracted in the
land of the Five Rivers, and that out of the religion
there instituted, allusions to which are found in the
oldest Vedic hymns, the Brahminical system, with a
new mythology, and the introduction of castes, gradu-
ally grew up on the other side of the Sutledj.
Hence, if we place the Arian immigration at about
4000 B. C., and add another thousand years for what
was Arian rather than historical life, we shall certainly
err again on the side of too great limitation, rather than
of too great an extension of time.
This fact will be more clearly established if we forın
a correct idea of the vast difference between the oldest
Vedic hymns and all other Indian compositions. For
this purpose we will examine first the epochs of the
latter.
SECT. III. A. I.]
565
SECTION III.
THE EPOCHS OF INDIAN LITERATURE, AND THEIR APPLI-
CATION TO THE MORE ACCURATE DEFINITION OF THE
AGE OF ZOROASTER.
A.
THE EPOCHS OF INDIAN LITERATURE,
Ar the outset of these inquiries we have termed the
history of language and of written composition the
second main element of authentic chronology, and, to a
certain extent, the touchstone of other computations.
We now proceed to apply this element to the solution
of our problem, commencing from below, and so pro-
ceeding upwards.
I. THE GRAMMATICAL AGE OF SANSKRIT, AND THE FORMATION
OF PROSE.
STARTING from below, we have here, in the first place,
PANINI, the founder of the present system. His age
has been fixed 267 at -
B. C. 350
Before him stands YASKA, the author of the Nirukta
(interpretation) of the Vedic tongue. This work is
based upon Nighantavas (the organized), i. e. the col-
lection of obsolete Vedic words, arranged according to
contents, works which were obviously used in the
schools. The first part of the Nirukta contains merely
267 Weber's objections to the system adopted by Böthling, Roth,
and Lassen seem to me of no weight. The authority is of recent
date, but it is not encumbered with internal contradictions and unhis-
torical assumptions, like the Buddhist tradition, on which Weber
bases his arguments.
003
566
ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [BOOK IV. PART VII.
an explanation of grammatical forms and difficult
words; the second, the names of the Gods. Passages
of the Veda are also quoted word for word. The gram-
matical expressions are so far perfectly simple; not a
trace is to be found of the later artificial, almost alge-
braic, terms for the moods, tenses, cases, &c., which
were in common use after the time of Pânini. There
being this great difference between them, it is impos-
sible to agree with Roth, who dates it only fifty years
before Pânini. It must be at least
-
B. C. 450
In his time the use of the Vedic texts in the religious
services was already established. But the right under-
standing of many Vedic words and ideas was even then
totally lost.
Before Yâska there were three older schools of gram-
marians (Prâtisâkhya 268), which, being confined ex-
clusively to the teaching of the pronunciation, esta-
blished the rules of writing employed in the Veda.
Assuming a century for these together
550
These grammarians, however, cite thirty others of
earlier date, each according to their different schools,
of the more northern or southern, eastern or western
races, among which are the Kambôga, represented in
the Hindu-Kush. Allowing only a century for them
again, we bring down what is demonstrably the begin-
ning of the grammatical age to -
650
By proving in this way the existence of grammar
about the end of the second century and a half of the
Bharadrata period, which extended, as we have seen,
from about 1000 to 650, the date of the formation of
prose may certainly be placed in this obviously im-
portant epoch. The oldest Sanskrit prose we possess is
in the Brahmana, or books of ritual, and in the Upa-
nishad, or philosophical treatises, the language of which,
268 The Prâtisâkhya to the Rik has been in part published by Max
Müller in his manual of the Rigveda. Leipsic, 1857.
SECT. III. A. II.] EPOCHS OF INDIAN LITERATure.
567
on the whole, differs but little from that of the epics.
Of the Brâlimanas, the oldest and most important is
the Aitareya-Brahmana, which is full of historical
information, but unfortunately it is not yet published.
II. THE MOST ANCIENT EPIC PERIOD, AND THE DATE OF THE
COLLECTION OF THE VEDAS.
THERE are at least two separate epochs, which can
be clearly distinguished in the two epic poems. The
latest extant version of them I should not be disposed
to refer to an earlier date than that of the Asoka; it
contains allusions which imply the existence of Alex-
ander and Buddha. Weber, in his instructive lectures
on the history of Indian literature, has shown that this
is more decidedly the case with Manu's code, owing
to the unmistakable allusions to the Buddhist nuns.
Here, also, it will be necessary to institute a special
inquiry, philological, philosophical, and political, in order
to see whether we are justified in considering these
marks of later origin in the two epics as interpolations
and adulterations of the original text. My reason for
thinking so is the high, and even political, position of
the Brahmins in respect to their kings, which pervades
the whole book. On the other hand, I should not be
disposed to assign any very great antiquity to the nucleus
of it, even if it be anterior to Buddha.
Now, as the original plan of the two epic poems goes.
down to the fall of the race of princes after the great battle
of Kurukshetra, it is obvious that they must also have
been composed in the Bharatide epoch.
The 120 years
of interregnum barely suffice to account for the complete
substitution of mythical for historical and the pre-
dominance of the mythical. The eighth century, there-
fore, must be considered as the highest possible date
that can be assigned to it.
004
568
ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [BOOK IV. PART VII.
The question is, whether the collection of Vedic texts
to which the grammarians had access, belongs, even in
part, to the earlier Bharatide epoch, that is, the begin-
ning of the Kaliyuga?
We must here first of all eliminate the present fourth
Veda-the Atharva. Manu does not mention it among
the Vedas; therefore, the collection is of very recent date.
As regards the contents however, one third consists of
hymns which are common to it and the Rik; the other
two thirds older hymns, side by side with those of
more modern date, all in the Vedic language. It is
consequently a supplementary collection, as was the
tenth book of the Rigveda before the Atharva, and their
contents are very similar.
Our collections of the three other Vedas certainly
belong to the oldest period of the Kaliyuga; and there
evidently existed smaller collections prior to these, espe-
cially of the hymns of the Rigveda. The date of the
complete collection is generally supposed to be much
older: namely, that to which the calendar at the head
of the Vedas, from the astronomical references and
data it contains, would seem to belong. This we have
no hesitation in agreeing with Colebrooke and Lassen
to be about 1400 B. C. But there is no proof that the
calendar and the collection of Vedas were made at the
same time.
There are, on the contrary, two points about which
there is no dispute. First, that the compilers had com-
pletely lost sight of the original meaning of the old hymns,
to a greater extent even than the compilers of our Book
of Psalms had of the oldest psalms. They treat them
as hymns made for the purposes of public worship,
whereas it is clear that many of them, and in fact the
very ancient, were not liturgical at all, but the outpour-
ings of the free natural inspiration flowing out of the
whole material life and the great events of the poet's
SECT. III. A. II.] EPOCHS OF INDIAN LITERATURE.
569
own time, and the experience of the tribe and of the
people. Not only is the scene of these songs, the Indus
country, unknown to the compilers, but likewise the
religion. Brahma and Brahminism had dispelled the
old religious ideas. The highest Vedic Gods, Agni,
Váruna, Indra, had degenerated into Gods of the
second order, into mere guardians of the world. The
form of the language, lastly, is not only different and far
inore ancient, but the language of the Vedas is a living
language; that of the compilers is more modern, but
one already become petrified and obsolete among the
people-a learned language.
The cleft between Vedic literature and Sanskrit litera-
ture is a vast one. It implies the occurrence of great
events, that is to say, nothing less than the conclusion of
either the second or third era. It is easy to show that the
former of these is the only one possible. Sanskrit was
a dead language already in the time of Buddha. He
lived in the Sanskrit country; yet he did not preach in
Sanskrit, but in Pali. A language does not die out
except in consequence of some great events. Thus, the
Hebrew became a thoroughly sacred language only after
the Babylonian captivity; Latin ceased to be spoken by
the people after the total dissolution of the Roman civi-
lisation of the Western Empire, between 600 and 900.
The word Sanskrit, indeed, signifies the complete, i. e.
learned language, in contradistinction to the popular
idiom.
No such event took place between the time of Buddha,
when the written language (the Sanskrit, as the more
modern Vedic) was demonstrably no longer spoken by
the people, and the beginning of the Kaliyuga. But there
is also a vast cleft between this beginning and the down-
fall of the earlier kingdoms-a period of 120 years
without kings, preceded by protracted and destructive
wars.
570
ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [BOOK IV. PART VII.
If, accordingly, at the close of the third era, Sanskrit
must have ceased to be the popular language; this very
third era must be considered as the period when it
reached its zenith. This again implies that the Vedic
language was extinct, and the time when it ceased to be
the popular language must therefore be the close of the
second era.
When the Arians crossed the Sutledj, they
took with them the language of the country of the Five
Rivers. The Brahminical system sprang up. Different
kingdoms were formed in the Doab. The old language
of the Indus country gradually died away, and the new
form, which was less rich, became the fixed popular
speech, as contrasted with the Vedic, "the language of
the seers." The name Sanskrit, "the perfect language,
implies indeed the existence of an incomplete, i.e. popu-
lar language. Thus we have the following epochs :
Old-Bactrian Indus-language:
I. Popular language: First epoch.
II. Learned
""
Second
""
Ario-Indian Gangetic language:
III. Popular language: Third epoch.
IV. Learned
22
Fourth
و,
The language of our Zend books is the Old-Bactrian of
the home country worn down, that is, East-Iranian. It
forms a contrast to the Vedic as well as Sanskrit lan-
guages. That of the first cuneiform character on the
contrary is Median, or West-Iranian of a later epoch.
The organic law by which these changes were go-
verned will be intelligible from the subjoined tables
of parallelism. (Pp. 572, 573.).
The prominent feature here is the existence of a uni-
versal organic law-the greater toughness of a language
in new settlements, as compared with its uninterrupted
flow in the mother country.
SECT. III. A. II.] EPOCHS OF INDIAN LITERATURE.
571
The same type is also manifest earlier in Chamism,
which became fixed in Egypt, while it expanded into
Semitism in the mother country, and at a later period
in the Anglo-Saxon of the fourth century A. D., as com-
pared with the progress of Saxon in the German mother
country.
The duration of a stage of language does not depend
so much upon length of time, as upon the occurrence of
great political and social changes and disturbances.
572
ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [BOOK IV. PART VII.
Immigration of the Norwegians into Iceland,
about 880 A.D.
MOTHER Country.
NEW COUNTRY.
The oldest Edda songs.
The Scaldic songs in Snorro The language of the Prose Edda.
Sturleson, which refer to Nor-
way.
Snorro
Sturleson's
(about 1200).
Chronicle
The Danish and Swedish heroic Modern Icelandic.
songs and ballads.
New Scandinavian language.
Swedish.
Danish.
1
SECT. III. A. II.] EPOCHS OF INDIAN LITERATURE. 573
Immigration of the Arians into the Indus country,
about 4000 B.C.
MOTHER COUntry.
NEW COUNTRY.
The language of the old Zend
books (Bactrian), first stage.
The second stage of language,
the Median (inscriptions of the
Achæmenida).
First Era.
Oldest Vedic songs: the Old-
Bactrian living language
(Kandas).
Second Era.
Beginning of the formation of
the later so-called Sanskrit
language.
End of the period: the Vedic
language dies out.
Third Era.
The Vedic language no longer
the popular idiom. The stage
of language afterwards called
Sanskrit a living written lan-
guage.
Parsee, as pure Persian: Pehlevi End of the period: the second
mixed with Semitic.
Modern Persian.
stage of language dies out
among the people. Beginning
of the use of popular tongues
(Prakrit, Pali) as written
languages.
Fourth Era.
"Sanskrit," the learned or per-
fect language, the universal
written language; at the same
time the living popular lan-
guages.
574
ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [BOOK IV. PART VII.
B.
THE RELATION BETWEEN THE VEDIC TIMES AND THAT OF
ZOROASTER, AND THE STARTING-POINT OF HIS DOCTRINE.
THE Brahminism of the Sanskrit books is the mythico-
pantheistic form of Vedic naturalism, whereas the Zoroas-
trian books place a Supreme God above the powers of
nature. Magism is an outbirth of later development
common to them both. What the later Zend books are
to Zoroastrianism, the Atharva-Veda is to Brahminism.
Prayer has become a charmed formulary; thanksgiving,
execration and curse; spirit, form; life, death.
But, in searching after the historical connexion, we
soon lose our way in what appears impenetrable ob-
scurity. Two very different paths present themselves.
Proper original Zoroastrianism may be placed after
the religious schisms which sprang up in the Indian
life of the Arians. In that case the religion which Zo-
roaster found in existence is the old form of the oldest
Brahminism on the Sarasvati. Or we may assume that
the original Zarathustra founded a new religion before
the migration into India, as a mere counterpoise to the
earliest Bactrian naturalism, and that the Arians when
they migrated carried with them this primitive Zoroas-
trian religion on their great conquering expeditions, the
last scene of which was the Indus country.
The generally received opinion269 that the Brahmins
who migrated into India left Persia on account of the
change introduced by Zoroaster is in this case altogether
untenable. Upon such a supposition Persia would be
as great an anachronism as is the idea of the Brahmins
269 See upon this Max Müller's explanation in my "Outlines,"
iii. p. 112.
SECT. III. B.] VEDIC TIMES AND ZOROASTER.
575
migrating. Even Burnouf himself seems to have given
this up, by the admission that the Zend in its forms and
grammar approached nearer to the language of the
Vedas than the Sanskrit does.
But the question is, whether this compels us to adopt
Max Müller's view, that the Zoroastrians left India in
Vedic times. Apart from the fact that such an assump-
tion is wholly at issue with the tradition of the migra-
tions of the Arians, inasmuch as, instead of beginning
with India, they ended with it; there is this difficulty
which meets us at the outset, that we should be under
the necessity of supposing a previous migration of the
Arians to the Indus country, so that the one in ques-
tion would have been a retrogression.
These are the reasons why Müller's theory has not
met with any favour. The fuller explanation of his
views has not yet been published. We will endeavour in
the meantime to show what are the arguments which,
according to our view of the case, may be adduced in
support of it. From the information already supplied by
Roth out of the Rik, it may be shown that there are
allusions in some of the Vedic hymns to an antago-
nistic schismatic religion in the country; to one,
indeed, the principle of which was fire-worship, then
in force in the Punjab. We find the following in
the war song of Vasishtha (v. 16.)270: "Indra struck
down half of the men, the drinkers of sacrificial
butter who repudiate Indra, the perverse. Indra re-
pelled their fury with double fury: on his way the leader
halted (ran straight away from him)."
Of the three Gods, Agni, Indra, and Váruna, it
appears from other passages, that they worshipped only
Agni, fire. The conflict took place on the Sutledj, and
Sudas, king of the Tritsu, of the race of the Bhârata
(iii. 3, 4. v. 11.), the worshipper of Indra, and sub-
270 Roth, On the Lit. and IIist. of the Veda, p. 98.
576
[BOOK IV. PART VII.
ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES.
duer of the heretics, was obliged to cross the stream to
attack the enemy.
The residence, therefore, of the
worshippers of Indra was no longer in the Punjab,
although they had friends and allies there. "Yamuna "
(it is said, v. 19.) "and the Tritsu remained faithful
to Indra." The battle itself was fought at the con-
fluence of the two arms of which the Sutledj is formed.
Among the enemy in this battle of the ten princes, as
it is styled in another hymn, we find (v. 14.) the
Anu or Anaver (the men of Anu), and the Druhju,
who, being inhabitants of the north and west, when
the earth was partitioned among the sons of Yayati, are
mentioned together with the Turvasu (south-east) and
Yadu (south). The enemy are the stronger, they are
said to be like lions, and the friends of Sudâs weak and
miserable. Here then we have hymns of the first age
immediately after the passage of the Sutledj. The re-
ligion of the Arians, who went towards the Sarasvati,
is not Brahminical. The sacerdotal minstrels are only
inspired men, called Rishi or Kavi; singers bearing the
latter name are subdued by Zarathustra in the Gâthâs.
These hymns, therefore, belong to the later half of the
Vedic period, that is to say, the beginning of the second
era, an epoch which we think cannot be placed later
than between 2500 and 3000 B. C. We must accordingly
suppose that the minority returned to Iran. They
may indeed really have done so subsequently. Mention
is made, as we have seen in the last section of the third
era, of a connexion between India and Bactria, and
one founded upon a religious duality which was con-
stantly in antagonism. Of the three brothers: Devâpi,
Santanu, and Bahlîka, the eldest retired and went back
again, the youngest proceeded to Bactria, or at least
obtained his name "the Bactrian," from his connexion
with the oldest seat of the Zoroastrian religion in the
land of the Arians.
Such, according to that assumption, would have been
SECT. III. B.]
VEDIC TIMES AND ZOROASTER.
577
the state of the case at the beginning of the second era.
In fact, it appears, from Haug's researches, that the oldest
Zoroastrian writings, the Gâthâs or songs, were com-
posed in the same lyric form as the Vedic hymns. The
actual proof of this will be found in Müller's edition
and explanation of the five Gâthâs of Yasna.271
There are other circumstances also which seem to
favour this view. First, it is undeniable that the word
for Gods in the Veda (Deva) is only used in reference
to bad spirits. The great Vedic God, Indra, is in the
eyes of Zoroaster an evil spirit, Aindra (Ander in the
Bundehesh). In like manner Kavayas (from Kavi)
signifies in Zarathustra's songs 272 the life-destroying
servants of the Devas, evil spirits, whereas in the Veda
it signifies the same as Risi, and is the name of the min-
strels in the sacred songs. Hasma, indeed (Soma),
mentioned in the later Zendavesta only in a good sense,
has a very bad signification in the Gâthâs, namely, that
of a charmed potion, by which the Dêva-worshippers
acquired strength. This difficult passage is thus ren-
dered by Haug (Jasna, 48, 10.): "When will they come,
the men of courage? When will they pollute the in-
toxicating potion, by which black art the idol-wor-
shippers obtain strength, and by the evil spirit of the
countries?" This must, we imagine, be intended to
mark the antagonism between Zoroastrianism and the
religious system of India. Again, the forms of the
Zend are decidedly younger than those of the Veda.
Lastly, the mention of Herat and its river by the name
of Haroyu would seem to be a transcript of the Indian
name Sarayu. Haraquati, however, the name of
Arachosia, is unquestionably the same word as Saras-
271 Müller, loc. cit. p. 113., derives the name of Zend from Kan-
das, by which Panini designates the Vedic language, i. e. the
metrical.
272 Jasna, 32, 14. with Haug's note in his treatise on the Gâthâ.
Comp. 46, 11.
VOL. III.
PP
578
ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [Book IV. PART VII.
vati.
Indian names, therefore, were arbitrarily trans-
ferred to new localities; and the fact of the Zendic
aspirate (H instead of S) being clearly of more modern
date than the Indian would seem to be in accordance
with it.
How is this to be reconciled with the only certain
fixed point in the whole inquiry, namely, the fact of the
Arian Indians having come from Bactria; and that
India is not the mother country of the Bactrians, but,
vice versâ, Bactria the mother country of the Indians?
We must, perhaps, regard the consequences of that an-
cient schism somewhat in the following light. We must
suppose three Arian sects to have existed during that
epoch. First, to the eastward, the inhabitants of the
Sarasvati district and the Northern Doab, who were
inclined to Brahminism and the principle of sacerdotal
caste. Then, to the westward, the emigrating Zoro-
astrians, or old Agni-worshippers, who adopted Zoro-
astrianism in Bactria under the influence of the inspiring
minstrelsy and dogmas of Zarathustra. Lastly, between
the two, in the Punjáb, the adherents of the Old-
Bactrian natural religion, without its semi-polytheistic,
semi-speculative, sacerdotal additions, which soon be-
came predominant in India Proper.
We should then have further to answer the question,
whether the schism in the Punjab really went the whole
length of Zoroastrianism (Müller calls the emigrants
Zoroastrians), or whether it only paved the way for it, by
the rejection of the Gods who were introduced at a later
date, especially Indra, so that the real establishment of
Zoroastrianism took place in Bactria? Now, from the
fact of Zarathustra himself, the founder of the spiritual
religion, as a Bactrian, appearing in the Zendavesta as the
subject and friend of the Bactrian king, Vistâspa-the
latter of these two views would clearly seem to be the
only admissible one. In that case the work of Zoroaster
was dovetailed on to the faith of the Arians of the
SECT. III. B.] VEDIC TIMES AND ZOROASTER.
579
Indus country, who returned to Bactria, in such a way
that he induced them to abandon altogether their
natural religion, and adopt his ethical creed.
We here see at once the difficulty of the whole
assumption. Zoroaster's work was called forth by an
Indian schism. The exclusive adherents of Agni left
the Punjab, and returned, in order to be converted by
him to a new faith. For they knew no more of Ahura
Mazda, the only good God, than the pre-Zoroastrian
Bactrians could have known.
In
We gain nothing, therefore, by the theory of the retro-
gression, it only helps to make the explanation of the con-
text more difficult. But if we look at the matter a little
more closely, what necessity is there for adopting such
a theory? Certainly not the circumstance of some
Iranian localities being called by Indian names, For
the fact of the Iranian forms being younger than the
Indian is fully accounted for just as easily by the
organic laws of secondary formations. The Norwegian
forms, for instance, are new as compared with those of
the Icelanders, who nevertheless were certainly Nor-
wegian emigrants of the 9th century of our era.
the mother country the roots and forms of a language
wear off, while the settlers retain the old element. But
the original sense of the two common names was merely
the general one of "rivers," so that it may have been
applied to different rivers. But it certainly is a more
natural supposition that this took place in Iran earlier
than it did in India; for we have no reason to think
that those Iranian countries previously bore other
Iranian names. As little do we learn of the retrograde
movement from India to Bactria. The immigration of
the Iranian Arians into the Indus country is, on the
contrary, an uncontroverted fact. How improbable it
is, lastly, that the names of Iranian districts, which we
find in the old record of the Vendîdâd, should only
$
PP 2
580
ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [BOOK IV. PART VII.
have been given to them on the occasion of this ima-
ginary return, as a reminiscence of the country from
which they had been expelled! It is an assumption
irreconcilable with any sense whatever of the above
record of the Arian journeyings in Central Asia, and
it offers no explanation of the origin of Zoroastrianism.
Now, if we allow this whole theory to pass, we fall
into the dilemma above alluded to. Either Zoroaster
founded his religion before the great emigration from
Bactria, or about 1000 years afterwards. What is the
argument in favour of the former? The language of
the oldest portions of the Zendavesta, High-Bactrian,
approaches very near to the Veda language, i.e. the oldest
East-Iranian, which was preserved in the Punjáb, and
between them there is, strictly speaking, only a dialec-
tical difference. Ahura Mazda must originally have
been pronounced Asura Medhah, i. e. living dispenser of
wisdom; just as the ancient form of Haroyu (Herat)
was Sarayu, of Haraqaiti (Arachosia) Sarasvati, of
Hindu Sindu, and lastly Soma of Homa.
As regards the religion, the Agni or fire-worship, of
which mention is made in the Vedic hymns, it must be
considered as a remnant of the original pre-Zoroastrian
doctrine, which, therefore, might have been the conse-
quence of a recantation of the faith in Ahura Mazda
and of the ethical principle, with the retention of fire-
worship. The supposition that there were two Zoroasters,
an original one, and one of more recent date who was
the inventor of Ahura Mazda, is certainly inadmissible.
The name of Zoroaster is inseparable from the doctrine
of Ormuzd according to all the traditions, which doc-
trine is the distinctive mark of Zoroastrianism.
On the former supposition, therefore, the immigrat-
ing Arians were Zoroastrians who relapsed from the
faith, although pure fire-worshippers. When they left
Bactria the Gods were still called Dêva, which is in
perfect accordance with the historical fact of the pre-
SECT. III. B.]
581
VEDIC TIMES AND ZOROASTER.
Zoroastrian period, that the Helleno-Italian races do
not understand the word in any other sense. The
genuine Bactrian Zoroaster, and probably his prede-
cessors, the Old-Iranian fire-priests, applied the name to
cvil spirits, of whom Indra also was one, and by this ap-
plication of it abandoned the usage of the primitive times.
Even the Zendic writings show how deeply natural re-
ligion had taken root among the Bactrian Arians.
Zoroaster had made the worship of nature subordinate
to faith in Ahura Mazda. He did not extirpate it.
Fire-worship, especially, continued to be a sacred symbol.
The worship of Mitra, the sun, was not eradicated alto-
gether from their religious consciousness; possibly indeed,
as Haug supposes, the Armenian Anahit is really the
female Mitra-Goddess of Herodotus, and her worship
perhaps formed a portion of the Bactrian creed.
Where then is the great difficulty in supposing that
when the Arians came into the country of the Five
Rivers they had ceased to be pure Zoroastrians? For
that is the conclusion to which we should be driven. In
truth there is express mention made of three deviations
from the true faith during the long course of conquest,
the first of which, in early times, would seem to have
been a very general one, whereas the other two merely
consisted of holding in abomination the burning, and
even burying, of the dead. There is nothing so easily
lost as the spirit of a religion, the spiritual element of a
creed. All the religions of the world have been spiritual
at the commencement. But we can in this instance,
more especially, understand the occurrence of such a
relapse, considering the naturalistic feelings which pre-
vailed among the Iranian people.
Zoroaster's attempt to reverse the ancient religious
ideas, even to the extent of converting the old Light-Gods
of the ether into evil spirits, was never thoroughly
PP 3
582
ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [BOOK IV. PART VII.
carried out in Bactria. Some of the names of the
Gods were retained.
May not this practice have been
abandoned when the Arians reached the Indus many
centuries after?
In that case it is true that we should be compelled to
assign a very high antiquity to Zoroaster. If the immi-
gration of the Iranian Arians into the country of the
Indus took place about 4000 B. C., we must fix the date of
their emigration, and consequently pretty nearly that of
Zoroaster, at least at 5000. But Aristotle and Eudoxus,
the best of all the old commentators, agree in placing
him very considerably later.
Lastly, the above-cited Zendic record of the jour-
neyings of the Arians would in that case be strictly
historical, if, as it would seem, it represents them at the
time of their first movement as worshippers of Ahura
Mazda.
With all this we cannot conceal the fact that the
establishment of these views is not unattended with
difficulties. But what is the objection to the second
hypothesis, that Zoroaster was posterior to the emigra-
tion to the Indus country? In that case it would be
perfectly natural that the Vedas should only use Dêva
in its original sense, and know nothing whatever of
Ahura Mazda or Asura Medhah. The circumstance of
the whole tradition being connected with the revelation
of Ahura Mazda to Zarathustra is no argument against
it, any more than it is against the historical credibility of
the traditional accounts of that migration, and its results
themselves.
In the absence of further information, therefore,
we must adhere to the conclusion which recommends
itself as the most natural and simple. And thus the
main theory is established:
That Bactria is the cradle of the Zoroastrian doctrine,
and that Zoroaster belongs to a very early age.
SECT. III, B.]
583
VEDIC TIMES AND ZOROASTER.
We have tested and established the incontrovertible
fact:
That in the year 1903 before Alexander, consequently
B.C. 2234, a Median dynasty sat on the throne of
Babylon, which it retained for more than two centuries,
and that the first of these rulers bore the name of Zoro-
aster in the Babylonian annals.
At that time, therefore, the seat of Zoroastrianism
was no longer in Bactria but in Media. It had already,
indeed, taken a different shape from what we find in the
old Zoroastrian records. Chaldee Magism certainly
dates from the Median dynasty at Babylon. For in
the Gâthâs of Yasna the work of Zoroaster is called
Maga, and those who promote it Magava. But this
"greatness," or this "great work," was really not the
application of charmed formulæ and invocations, but it
is embodied in the great precept; "the Trinity is
thought, word, and deed. 273 What a difference between
this and the Magism in vogue at Babylon B. C. 2234, and
which afterwards doubtless was mixed up with old
Semitic traditions!
Thus, if so early as twenty-three centuries before our
era Zoroastrianism occupied such a very different posi-
tion, none but those who pay no attention to what has
taken place, and who see nothing in the great reality of
history but empty phrases and formulæ, will find it
an unreasonable assumption that the date of the founda-
tion of the Zoroastrian doctrine reaches back between
4000 and 3000 years. True it is they may set up the
absurd chronology which has grown out of rabbinical
misunderstanding of the Bible against every other trust-
worthy tradition, and even against the Bible itself.
At all events we do not want any theory of a mi-
273 Haug in Ewald's Jahrbuch of 1853, and in his "Zoroaster,"
in the Zeitsch. der Deutschen Morg. Gesell. 1855.
Pri
584
ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [Book IV. PART VII.
gration from India back to Bactria; so far from it, it
would lead us into inexplicable difficulties and contradic-
tions.
The Arian epochs therefore, upon the whole, will
bear this relation to the chronology of Egypt:
I. The emigration from Sogd to Bactria and beyond
it, after they separated from the rest of the Arian
people who shaped their course westward, took
place before B. c. 5000, consequently before the
time of Menes.
II. The immigration into the Indus country, about
4000 B. C.
III. Zoroaster's reform in Bactria, about the time of
Menes, or half a century later.
But as to any connexion between the Arian times and
those of Egypt, we cannot assume that any such existed
at all. Not only has Egypt nothing to do with the Arian
movement, but the latter exercised no influence what-
ever over the Semitic mind in a religious or political
sense before 2234. Moreover, the Iranian development,
after the immigration into India, did not come into con-
tact with the Indian. Lastly, the reform introduced
by Zoroaster produced no schism among the Iranian
Arians, still less had it any connexion with the migration
which terminated in the Punjab. No reaction indeed
took place from India upon Bactria.
The Vedic language is stereotyped Bactrian. The
Zend is the continuation of this Old-Bactrian tongue in
Bactria and Media, with two phases of which we are
acquainted; one of them the language of the Zend
books, the other that of the cuneiform inscriptions from
Cyrus and Darius down to Artaxerxes II.
The Sanskrit, lastly, is the weakened prose form of the
Old-Bactrian, the poetical form of which exists in the
hymns of the Rigveda. These hymns were transmitted
orally. Literature proper only commences with the
SECT. III. B.]
585
VEDIC TIMES AND ZOROASTER.
Sanskrit, and that, indeed, after it had become a learned
language. Both Vedic and Sanskrit were, in the first
instance, living languages spoken by the people, and
Sanskrit only became the sacred language at the be-
ginning of the fourth age, or about the year 1000 B.C.
This is the outline which has been gradually obtained,
and in which the epochs of Ario-Indian development
will take the following shape.
}
586
[BOOK IV. PART VII.
SECTION IV.
HISTORICAL SURVEY OF THE EPOCHS OF ARIAN DEVELOP-
MENT, AND OF THE RESULTS OF THIS INQUIRY.
A.
EPOCHS OF ARIAN DEVELOPMENT.
I.
THE DEVELOPMENT IN IRAN.
A. THE date of the Arian emigration from the north-
east of the primitive land. Age of the end
of the great Plutonic disturbances of the earth,
and climatic changes. Formation of the stem
of the Arian language in its most general sense
B. C. 10000 to 8000
B. The date of the gradual separation of the Arian races
(Germans, Slaves, Pelasgians) 8000 to 5000
C. The date of the gradual extension of the Irano-
Arian race in Central Asia
5000 to 4000
4000
3500
D. The immigration into the Indus country
E. Zoroaster's Reform
II.
THE DEVELOPMENT IN INDIA.
FIRST ERA.
Life in the country of the Five Rivers, - 4000 to 3000.
I. THE DATE OF THE OLDEST VEDIC HYMNS.
CONQUERORS live as conquistadores, as equals among
SECT. IV. A. II.]
587
DEVELOPMENT IN INDIA.
equals, as free-settlers (vaisya), in small districts.
Here, in consequence of Haug's researches and the fore-
going inquiry, we shall have to distinguish two epochs
at least.
1. Agni- and Váruna- Worship.
a. There are many hymns extant in which Agni is
extolled as the supreme God, or as the sacred symbol
of the highest God, and in which the existence of fire-
worship is implied. About a fifth of all the hymns of
the Rigveda refer to him exclusively, and most of the
ten books open with hymns addressed to Agni. Here
we find glimpses of those elements which were developed
in later times by the side of the Agni of the earth,
the Agni of heaven (Mitra, sun), and the Agni of the
clouds (lightning) or water. The sacrifice to Agni
consisted in melting pure butter in the fire.
b. Concurrent with this was the worship of the
Vault of Heaven as a special deity, Váruna (Ouranos).
In the most ancient times human sacrifices were offered
to him, subsequently no especial sacrifice. Váruna, at
a later date, was viewed rather in a moral sense. He
is the eternal government of the world, physical as well
as moral. He tries the heart and judges man.
It may,
however, be a question whether we have here two con-
secutive epochs, or merely two concurring elements.
2. The Adoration of Ether as Indra (Zeus).
There is no doubt that this belongs to a later time.
It also has its own peculiar sacred symbol-the sacri-
fice of Soma, an intoxicating potion, consisting of
fermented juice of plants mixed with milk. It is,
however, a syınbol also of human inspiration, and in so
far the symbol of God as spirit. In this form, however,
it reminds us of the Turanian Shamanism, the product
of ecstatic excitement.
588
ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [BOOK IV. PART VII.
II. THE LATER HYMNS OF THE FIRST NINE Books.
THIS is the age when more extended political com-
binations were formed, partly republican and partly
regal, in which the people had considerable rights with-
out caste and without an especial priesthood. Possibly,
the substitution of Indra-worship for that of Váruna
may belong to this second epoch.
III. THE MOST MODERN HYMNS OF THE FIRST NINE BOOKS OF THE
RIGVEDA. MOST OF THE HYMNS OF THE TENTH BOOK.
PASSAGE of the Sutledj: emigration towards the Saras-
vati: a schism in two opposite directions. The sec-
tion which worshipped Agni only and rejected Indra,
and accordingly fell back upon Zoroastrianism, retained
possession of the old settlements in the land of the Five
Rivers. The other, which advanced towards Brah-
minism, predominated in the land of the Sarasvati,
Modern India.
About
B. C. 3300-3200
To these principal epochs of the first era
succeeds:
The First Interregnum: Fall of the
Arian power in the Indus country,
consequent upon a war with the
kingdoms on the Sarasvati, which
lasted, according to Megasthenes, 200
years
Beginning of second era
200- 200
B.C. 3100-3000
About the year 3000 B. C., therefore, the schism must
have taken place, when all India beyond the Sutledj
adopted Brahminism, and the religious views, forms, and
habits of Bactria were for ever abandoned. The monu-
ments of the language of that period are hymns orally
transmitted.
SECT. IV. A. II.]
589
DEVELOPMENT IN INDIA.
SECOND ERA.
The establishment of the religion of Brahma from the
land of the Sarasvati as far as the Doab,
from B. C. 3000 to 1900.
I. Formation of the Kingdom of the Puru
Movement eastward, and conquests (Mati-
nara, Tansu, Ilina). Brahma supreme
God and Brahminism. Complete system
of castes. Retention of the Vedic worship.
(Hymns of this period?)
II. Kingdom of the Bharata in the land of the
Centre (Central Hindostan). Under Suhô-
tra, the third king in the list, the kingdom
becomes powerful externally. The succes-
sor and younger son of Suhôtra is said
to have composed hymns. After Samva-
rama, however, it ceases to be a kingdom,
the Bharata being overwhelmed by the ad-
vancing power of the Pankala.
Length of the two periods at 800 years
End of the second period of the
kingdom
3000
800
B. C. 2200
Then follows the Second Interregnum: the
period when the rule of the princes on the
Sarasvati and in the Doab was annihilated.
The anarchy lasted as long as 300 years
Beginning of the third era
300
B. C. 1900
During the second age the composition of the Vedic
hymns continued, but after that period the language
ceased to be spoken.
Commencement of the smaller collection of hymns by
families of minstrels, and consequently the probable date
of the introduction of written composition.
590
ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [Book IV. PART VII.
THIRD ERA.
Re-establishment of vast empires as far as Behar (Ben-
gal): rigidity of Brahminism, from 1900 to 987.
-
During this age (probably about the year 1400 B. C.,
to which the Vedic calendar points) the three books of
the Vedas were made into one collection. The living
prose language, from the beginning the language of
writing, was the second phase of the formation of the
Ario-Indian tongue, which, when it became subsequently
a learned language, received the name of Sanskrit.
The duration of the third age, from 1900 B. C. on-
wards, is divided into two epochs, which are not sus-
ceptible of further chronological definition.
I. Supremacy of the Pankala and Kuru.
II. Power of the Pandava. Bloody struggle between
the Kaurava and Pandava.
The whole duration, assuming it at 800 years, gives
for the end of the third era (great battle of the princes
in Kuruksetra)
The length of the Third Interregnum,
stated by Megasthenes to be 120 years
Beginning of the Kali about
-
B. C. 1100
120-120
B. C. 980
Synchronism of the third era: the kingdom of Gâ-
rasandha and the invasion of Semiramis
1230
This circumstance settles the question as to the date
of the commencement of the Kaliyuga being placed
earlier. After Gârasandha, the downfall of his kingdom
ensued, followed by the murderous war of the princes
of the Kaurava and Pandava. The third era nust
have lasted, therefore, till about 1100, and the Kali-
yuga cannot well be placed higher than about 980.
The peculiar hymns of Atharva, annexed at the be-
ginning of the next era to the older collection as the
Fourth Veda, may belong to the end of this third era.
SECT. IV. A. II.]
591
DEVELOPMENT IN INDIA.
The date of the interregnum is that of the formation
of the more modern Arian popular languages, and,
consequently, in the first place, the Prakrit, as a contrast
to which the sacerdotal-royal learned language received
the name of the Perfect or Sanskrit.
FOURTH ERA.
From the formation of the new realm of the Magadha
down to Kandragupta,
from 986 to 312
I. The dynasty of the Barhadratha oc-
cupies the throne towards the end
of the interregnum
Reign of 17 kings at an average
length of 20 years, making 340,
therefore until
II. The Pradyota dynasty.
ment
Length 68 years: End
III. Beginning of the reign of Bimbisâra,
the son of Bhattiya
Buddha appears as a teacher, aged
35
Death of Buddha
Last year of King Nagadasa
986 B. C.
647
Commence-
646
579
578
563
543
447
446
379
378
313
312
IV. Beginning of the House of Sisunâga
End of reign of the last king of the
House of Sisunâga
V. The Nandas, beginning
Length of reigns of the father and
his sons 65 years, to-
VI. The House of the Maurya. Beginning
of Kandragupta
As the Indian literature of the Veda language (that
is, the popular language of the first era) commences.
about the end of the second era, so the literature of the
Sanskrit language, the popular language of the third
592
ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [Book IV. PART VII.
era, commences in the fourth. As early as in the
Atharva Veda we find passages in prose. The poetry
probably commenced with songs descriptive of the
Foretime. But we can only conjecture that it existed.
from the fact of such songs being worked up in the two
epics. The most ancient portions of them, however,
may also be Vedic, i. e. composed in the Old-Bactrian
language. The epics themselves cannot well be placed
earlier than the 7th century. In their present extent
and form, however, they certainly belong to a period
little anterior to Alexander. Their strong Brahminical
colouring precludes us from placing them later in the
brilliant age of Asoka.
The Prose epochs, according to the above, are as
follows:
1. The prose pieces in the Atharva, and the [ 900
Aitareya Brahmana of the Rigveda
800
2. Later portions of these formations till about 700
3. Oldest grammatical works -
4. Complete grammatical system
650
350
The last result relative to the history of Indian lite-
rature may, therefore, be stated somewhat in the follow-
ing manner:
Sanskrit is the learned language of the Brahmins of
the fourth era, but was originally the deposit of the po-
pular language of the third, as contrasted with the Veda
or Old-Bactrian language of the Indus country, which
ceased to be spoken at the end of the second era.
When the hymns of the three old Vedas were collected,
the oldest written composition sprang up, and the second
phase of it was avowedly a contrast, as the popular
Arian tongue. Midway between the two stands the
Iranian-Bactrian or Zend, which might, therefore, be
called Middle-Bactrian, if the whole development on
both sides the Hindu-Kush be considered as one.
SECT. IV. B.] THE LIST OF MEGASTHENES.
593
B.
EXPLANATION OF THE LIST OF MEGASTHENES OF 153
KINGS IN 6402 YEARS.
WE are now arrived at the point from which we may
proceed with some confidence to restore the accounts of
Megasthenes, and to examine the degree of historical
credibility to which they are entitled.
The tradition ran in this wise:
That according to authentic statements 153 kings
reigned in India in 6402 years, ending with Sandro-
kottus, and during four ages, which were interrupted
by democratical interregna of 200, of 300, and of 120
years.
It is needless to repeat that there can be no question
about restoring the true chronology of the Indians
by means of this list. But we must not overlook the
fact that it stands alone amongst all the foreign and
native accounts of India, in giving a chronology which
is considered as consecutive, and a certain connected
number of reigns, followed by three successive breaks
the separate years of reign being also noted. The
sum total of these regnal years, moreover, was not a
round number, but an historical one, 6402 years.
The first or mythical age, the list of kings and dates
of the Arians in the Indus country, according to the facts
adduced above, will stand thus:
;
Beginning; Manu-Dionysus
End; Krishna-Hercules
Years.
1000
1000
Between these intervened thirteen human reigns, the
first three of which, however, were mythical, and con-
sequently had mythical dates annexed to them:
VOL. III.
Q Q
594
ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [Book IV. PART VII.
Years.
2000
52 (weeks.)
28 (days.)
Brought forward
Spatembas, as the solar year
Budyas, as the moon
Prareuas-Purûrava (rising sun)
X.
We do not know the date that was assigned to
him, but it naturally was mythical; none of the
names can be historical till after him; at all events
the dates of their reigns are expressed in num-
bers which corresponded to human reigns. Sup-
posing the whole 13 to average 23 years each,
we get about
300
We have
minus
and there reinain
Sum total
2300
6402
2300
4102 years.
Now we do not know whether this was a section of
the first age, or the very close of it. We are without
any further details.
But upon analysing the extant lists of kings of the
royal house of Magadha we find that, according to our
present Brahminical accounts, there were about 48
reigns in 1600 years down to the close of the Nanda
(reckoning the kings of that race as ten reigns, although
they only comprise two generations). In reality, how-
ever, we have only about 32 kings, who reigned 553 or
673 years.
The beginning and end of the list, therefore, (the first
and fourth age) must have comprised about 65 kings
and 3900 years. There remain consequently, for the two
middle ages, 88 kings in 2500 years, that is, on an
average,
44 kings and 1250 years for each age, and an average
length of reign of 28 years.
SECT. IV. B.] THE LIST OF MEGASTHENES.
595
In this computation we presume that the text of
Megasthenes is to be understood as though the 620
years of the interregna, when there were no kings, are
not to be comprised in the 6402. If, on the other hand,
we deduct the 500 years of the first two interregna
from the 2500 years which are to be placed to the ac-
count of the middle ages, and we cannot exclude this
alternative, we have on an average,
44 kings in 1000 years with an average length of
reign of less than 23 years.
It has been already mentioned that the extant Brah-
minical lists assign more than this number of kings
to each of the two middle ages, and that we may con-
sider 800 years as the probable date.
Now, as our computation is based upon the extant
Brahminical lists of kings of this very kingdom of Ma-
gadha in which Megasthenes obtained his statistics, we
may conclude that in the main the calculation is correct.
At all events it appears from the criticism of the list of
Megasthenes,
That the document we have before us is not a de-
scription of mythological developments, which were not
worked up into the shape of narratives about historical
kings and events until a later period. The older Indian
computation, after deducting the first age, which was
almost mythical, stands upon an historical basis, in
tampering with which the Brahmins made it non-
sense.
But we may also set it down as proven :
That here, as well as in Egypt, the Greeks obtained a
more satisfactory reply to their rational inquiries after
a chronology, than the one which our Brahminical au-
thorities were able to extract from their records.
It is clear, at all events, that, in addition to the indi-
vidual personages, circumstances, and events, which are
Q Q 2
596
ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [Book IV. PART VII.
decidedly historical, down to the very latest tradition,
this fundamental one has been preserved:
That the history of the Arians is computed by series.
of royal reigns, with continuous reference to the con-
templated unity of one Indo-Arian kingdom; but that
this regal succession was interrupted by three long
epochs of anarchy, when the regal form of government
was suspended.
All this is compatible with the existence of much
that is unhistorical and uncritical in the details.
C.
HISTORICAL RESULT OF THE RESEARCHES INTO THE ARIAN
BEGINNINGS.
We will first analyse the purely chronological result.
The oldest records and traditions of the Bactrian
foretime, and of that of the "Five Rivers" or Indus
country which grew out of it, are in harmony. We
mean by this the record of the wanderings of the
Arians, of the immigration to Bactria from the primi-
tive country down to the immigration to the country of
the Five Rivers east of the Indus; then the oldest tradi-
tions of the Zend books, of which the hymns only can
be referred to Zarathustra himself; and, lastly, the histo-
rical hymns of the Rigveda.
If the Zoroastrian religion were Median as early as the
23rd century B. C., and were advancing towards the
second stage of language as compared with the Vedic,
Zoroaster the Bactrian cannot be placed later than
3000 B.C. Nor can we venture to place him further
back than 4000, if the immigration into India cannot
have taken place earlier than this period; and conse-
SECT. IV. C.]
597
HISTORICAL RESULT.
quently the exodus to the south of Bactria cannot
be placed higher than 5000. But neither can it be
placed later. For between it and the passage of
the Indus, not only must the conquest of the inter-
vening countries have taken place, but twelve vast
countries were gradually peopled, and kingdoms founded
on the road towards India; besides which a body of
settlers pushed on to the Caspian, and laid the founda-
tion of what was subsequently the Median kingdom,
and through it of the Arian kingdoms of Persia, which
grew out of Media. All this part of Asia became so
thoroughly Arian by the expulsion or extermination of
the aboriginal Turanian populations, that it has re-
mained so to this hour, the nucleus of it at least, as
being the oldest inhabitants.
This fits in most conveniently to the framework of
general history, which the facts connected with lan-
guage have obliged us to extend to nearly 20,000 years
B. C., and which Egyptian research has enabled us,
counting from below, to carry up to the oldest Pyra-
mids, and even to Menes, i. e., up to the time when
Egypt was a united kingdom with an established written
character, consequently almost to 4000 B. C.
Now there existed, prior to the year 4000 or 5000,
the following epochs of Arian life, counting from below:
First, the epoch of the common life of the Arians in
its widest sense, that of the Iranians, Greeks, Italians,
Germans, Slaves, and Celts. The existence even of the
oldest of this series, the Celts, implies that the Semitic
and Arian element was entirely separated, that the
western and eastern polarisation was complete.
Secondly, the epoch of this very separation and the
migration from the primeval country.
Now if our reasons for dating this exodus at about
9000 or 10,000 B. C. be sound, there will be space
enough for the most colossal of all linguistic formations,
the Arian, to its very zenith (that is, the Vedic which
Q Q 3
598
[BOOK IV. PART VII.
ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES.
they brought with them out of Bactria), but not more
than enough.
That gives us the framework for the place of Egypt
on this side, reckoning from below.
But our researches into the Arian Origines are no
less important and decisive as regards the task of
establishing the internal position of Egypt in general
history, and with it the oldest epoch of Asiatic civilisa-
tion since the great catastrophe in Northern Asia.
The two great formative branches of the human race,
the Semitic and Arian, exhibit indelible marks of their
common origin, in language and religion, in the re-
miniscences of the antediluvian foretime, and the civilisa-
tion of the primeval world, which were interwoven into
the traditions of each.
Each commenced a course of independent develop-
ment, by which humanity was raised one step higher,
at the very point where Egyptian civilisation, when
considered as a portion of the general progression of the
human race, became stationary.
As their condition prior to the separation was stereo-
typed in the valley of the Nile, so Babylon forms the
point of junction for the separate Arian and Semitic
systems of religion and of thought.
The strongest influence exercised over mankind by
Magism emanated from Chaldea, though its origin was
Arian, that is Zoroastrian. We can find no root for
Mag, the Magian (the mighty), in Hebrew or Chal-
dee. The reason why this influence was so strongly
exercised by the Chaldee arose partly from its more
western position, and partly from the preponderance of
Chaldean astronomy and astrology over those of the
Arian as well as Old-Egyptian populations.
The great historical position and influence of Abraham,
the Hebrew, belong, at all events, to a later age than
Zoroaster. But not only is there no indication of the
race of Abraham having been affected by the modifica-
SECT. IV. C.]
599
HISTORICAL RESULT.
tion produced in the old natural religion of Asia by
means of Indo-Bactrian minstrels and founders of re-
ligious systems, but everything testifies to the contrary.
There is no certain proof that the Zendavesta contains
a single Semitic idea, or single Semitic word, 274 nor even
the name, indeed, of a single country peopled by Semitic
races.
In order to complete our Arian researches we have
only to cast a glance at the traditions of the Pelasgo-
Hellenic Arians of Europe.
274 The only word which it is possible with any certainty to refer
to the Semitic is tanûra, oven, stove; in Hebrew, tannûr. But the
Semitic origin of even this is doubtful, and the first mention of it
occurs moreover in the Vêndidâd.
QQ4
!
PART VIII.
THE
BEGINNINGS OF THE HISTORY OF THE IONIANS IN
ASIA MINOR,
AND THE ANTIQUITY OF THEIR NAME.
!
€03
THE AGE OF THE IONIAN HISTORIES AND REMINISCENCES
PRIOR TO THE OLYMPIADS.
THE reasons why, after the restoration of Egyptian
chronology, it is impossible to suppose that the epical
story of Troy was composed as late as 1200 B. C., or
earlier than 1500, must be reserved for the concluding
part of this work. Upon an impartial review of the
Homeric question, it will hardly be maintained that it
could have required less than from three to five cen-
turies to obliterate so entirely the feeling of historic
reality which must have taken place, when the author
of the Iliad, that is, the principal portion of it, ventured
to deal with the popular legend in so poetical and un-
reserved a manner.
But the chronological questions immediately con-
nected with the Egyptian dates of the New Empire
must be brought under discussion at once.
They are three in number; the date of the name of
the Ionians on the Egyptian monuments; the date of
the Ionian settlement in Asia Minor; and the possibility
of explaining and restoring the epochs of maritime su-
premacy which Diodorus borrowed from Castor, and
Eusebius from Diodorus. It is notorious that a thalas-
socracy is there mentioned which it has hitherto been
impossible to deal with and to explain.
х
A.
IS THE NAME OF THE IONIANS FOUND ON THE PHARAONIC
MONUMENTS OF EGYPT?
THIS question has been investigated with great inge-
nuity in the most recent treatises upon the subject, both
604
[BOOK IV. PART VIII.
HISTORY OF THE IONIANS.
from the Egyptian and Hellenic point of view. I once
thought (mainly owing to what Salvolini had said about
the hieratic spelling of the name in the Sallier papyrus)
that this was the case. My opinion is now decidedly
changed.
After the researches that have taken place, Egyptolo-
gers are agreed that in the time of the Ptolemies the
hieroglyphical name of the Greeks was the same as the
demotic and Coptic. At that time they were never
called anything but UININ, UIININ, which must be
Ionians, like IUN (Hebr. YAVAN).275 The three bas-
kets placed one over the other in the Rosetta stone,
and in the two corresponding bilinguar inscriptions at
Philæ, which in the hieroglyphical writing follow after
the Phonetic hieroglyphics UI (or even AU), must
consequently be read phonetically, NN. It shows,
however, the introduction, in this period of decline, of
the most arbitrary innovations, for here the basket is
phonetic. It reads NEB or NIM, and signifies either
lord or all. The motive for this innovation is not
difficult to divine. The rulers of Egypt prided them-
selves on being of Hellenic extraction, and so they
coined the basket into a phonetical hieroglyphic, as N,
but respectfully intimated, at the same time, that the
Greeks were their masters. This, however, did not
preclude them from affixing to the name the old and
very contumelious determinative of foreign people, the
stake or gallows. De Rougé has called attention to
another circumstance which helps to explain it. We
find on the Pharaonic monuments of the best times (as
will be minutely entered into below) a scutcheon con-
taining a list of peoples, with only two signs in it, the
papyrus stalk (the symbol of Lower Egypt, and sign of
275 According to the phonetic law given in the First Volume, the
I may originally have been sounded at the beginning, so that the
most ancient pronunciation may have been IUINn.
A.]
605
AGE OF THE IONIAN HISTORIES.
the countries and people to the north of Egypt), and
the three baskets. De Rougé observes, and I think
with great truth, that this must signify, "the northern
people all," or "the northern lords." He thinks it,
therefore, very natural that, in expressing the names of
the Hellenes in those flattering terms, they had this old
scutcheon in view. It may also explain why the name
came to be written with those two signs only, on a stela
at Memphis of the very latest Ptolemaic age.
"The
northern lords" were intended to represent the idio-
graphic sense of Hellenes. Any person conversant with
the language would know the pronunciation of it from
the demotic.
Now the simple question at issue is, whether this
authorises us in concluding that the name of the
Ionians can be identified on these Pharaonic scutcheons.
Lepsius, to whom we are indebted for the first complete
statement of facts in the paper read by him before the
Royal Academy at Berlin, on the 19th of July, 1855,
an epitome of which was given in the Reviews of the
day, thinks it does authorise us.
The learned author has argued the point with his
usual ingenuity, but still I cannot acquiesce in his
conclusions.
The facts are these: The scutcheon with "the north-
ern people all," is found at the head of a list of names of
eight countries, beginning with Upper and Lower Egypt,
and usually, indeed as early as the time of Tuthmosis
III., concluding with a name which refers to the Libyan
Shepherds, and which Lepsius now reads MENAT NU
MENT.276 In another sepulchral inscription of the reign
of Amenōphis II. other scutcheons follow, but the above
276 The last scutcheon but one must also, we think, be a northern,
in fact, a Libyan one. Lepsius considers it a southern one, on
account of the second sign and dark complexion of the men. But
this complexion suits the Libyans perfectly, though they have never
for that reason been considered a southern people.
606
HISTORY OF THE IONIANS. [BOOK IV. PART VIII.
eight never recur, except in the time of Tuthmōsis IV.
and Amenōphis III. Whatever may be the conventional
signification of the combination of the two Egypts with
foreigners, either conquered or tributary nations, no-
thing seems more natural than that they should all be
headed by the general designation of northern races, as
being just as much lawful subjects of Egypt as those
tribes whose names are afterwards entered separately.
I think that a confirmation of this opinion is furnished
by the fact of the Kesh (Ethiopians) being, in the time
of Sethos I., mentioned after the above nine scutcheons
as the first of the southern tribes whose names follow.
On the monuments of the former great sovereign, at
Gurnah, these southern names come immediately after
the scutcheon of Upper Egypt, but the northern, with
the scutcheon which we read "Northern people all,"
after that of Lower Egypt.
The same thing occurs upon the whole on the monu-
ments of Ramses II. and Ramses III. On the buildings
erected by Sheshonk at Karnak, lastly, where there are
140 scutcheons, containing names of countries, they are
headed by the two Egypts; then come the southerns;
and after them the northern people. The whole con-
cludes with the general scutcheon, to assert, as it were,
a sort of claim even to those who are not mentioned by
name, like the et cetera in the titles of sovereigns of
the present day.
Lepsius thinks that in every instance this general
scutcheon means the Ionians, which, hieroglyphically,
seems to me inadmissible, and, historically, neither
demonstrable nor comprehensible.
I feel bound, therefore, to express my conviction that
the name of the Ionians is not found on the Egyptian
monuments of the Pharaonic times with which we are
acquainted. All the conjectures and conclusions which
have been based upon such a theory must consequently
fall to the ground.
B. I.]
607
ANTIQUITY OF THE NAME.
B.
DATE OF THE IONIAN SETTLEMENT IN ASIA MINOR.
I. THE ANTIQUITY OF THE NAME OF THE IONIANS IN THE BIBLE
AND CENTRAL Asia.
As regards the Yavanas, the corresponding Indian
name for the Greeks, which is also brought again under
discussion, it would be better to pass it by altogether
without notice, as there are other indications that all
the passages where it occurs are not only post-Buddhistic
but also post-Alexandrian.
There still remains the testimony of the genealogical
table in the Book of Genesis. We shall show elsewhere
that the nucleus of this table, the Aramæan reminiscences,
is of very ancient date, but that the details about the
non-Semitic families immediately succeeding this Abra-
hamitic original cannot go back further than the Jewish
horizon of the tenth century. This is evident also from
the notices about the particular members of the race of
IYUN or YAVAN. This, however, as a general name
of a race, is primeval — it is found in the time of the
Achæmenidæ in Persia, and in the Book of Joel, the
Seer of the tenth century.
II. THE PRIMEVAL TIMES OF IONIA IN ASIA MINOR.
HERE again the best evidence is the native evidence,
that of Ionian history itself. Niebuhr was the first to
point out that the ordinary view was untenable of the
Ionians having only come there, after the Doric migra-
tion, through the Attic settlers in Ionia. It is clear
from the narrative itself that they found most of the
cities already in existence, the foundation of which is
ascribed to the Codridæ, and of which the league of the
twelve Ionian cities was composed.
That settlement, when reduced to its proper propor-
tions, is not on that account the less historical. It as
608
[Book IV. PART VIII.
HISTORY OF THE IONIANS.
certainly dates at earliest from the middle of the tenth
century (950-930), not the middle of the eleventh, as
Lycurgus does from the time of the first Olympiad,
and not two centuries later.
There is nothing which dovetails better into this
chronology, as now restored, than the Maritime supre-
macy of the Pelasgian Ionians from 1060 to 975. We must
bear in mind here, as everywhere else, that the Ionians
were a sea-faring people on the coast. The Pelasgi, the
masters of the country in their rear, were supreme by land.
They had established friendly relations with these races,
the "divine Pelasgi" of Homer, to whom they bore a
closer resemblance in language, religion and written
character, than to the barbarous Karians and all the
other tribes. Doubtless also they had settled long be-
fore in the neighbouring islands. There seems, however,
every reason to suppose that their road there also lay
along the coast. Starting from Phrygia they got to the
Euxine, or Bosphorus, and into the Propontis; being
expelled thence, or probably in search of a more genial
climate, they gradually reached the Hellespont and the
northern point of Ionia, the bay of Smyrna.
These earliest movements belong to the Hellenic fore-
time, as the Argonautic expedition with Jason (that
is, the Ionian) at its head is placed in the Hercules
epoch, that is to say prior to the second millennium B.C.,
nearer to the year 3000 perhaps than 2000.
There is no other way of finding room for the pri
meval times of Minos. We require indeed this space
of time for the Trojan war and the old Æolian settle-
ments which succeeded the fall of Troy and the kingdom
of Teucer, as Niebuhr has clearly stated. As the back-
ground of the Attic settlements in Ionia was the pri-
mitive life of the native, i. e. Asiatic, Ionians, on these,
then Pelasgian, coasts; in like manner the historical
Æolian colonies were merely a junction with the earlier
settlements of mixed Achæan races, who lingered in the
B. II.]
609
PRIMEVAL TIMES IN ASIA MINOR.
S
Troad after the fall of Ilium, and thence dispersed
among the islands.
It would be labour in vain to attempt to bring this
ancient time within the pale, by applying the reduc-
tion of the dates, which had been raised at least a
hundred years and appeared at latest in the time of
Lycurgus, to the enumeration of the generations down.
to the Trojan war. They contain too many mythical
names indicative, not of generations but of epochs.
The Trojan war was not later, but earlier, than the
Greek computation of it.
There are many reasons for supposing that the great
chasm in the Grecian dates occurred immediately before
the expedition of the Heraclidæ. Down to that point it
has been evidently the aim of all modern writers, as
noticed by Niebuhr, to extend the ancient dates. But
as we have seen throughout, and in conformity with the
general character of primitive reminiscences, this ten-
dency to extend the dates is preceded in the earlier
narratives by the opposite tendency to contract them.
Great isolated events and isolated elevated personages,
separated by many centuries, are brought nearer to each
other from the absence of any thing worth recording in
the intervening space.
How could the stories of the fall of the great Pelasgic
city of Troy have been so altered in the memories and
songs of the Ionic people, as to enable one of the vast
geniuses of the human race to create the nucleus of the
Iliad in about the year 900 (later it could hardly be,
and certainly not earlier, namely, a generation or a
generation and a half after Ionia had gained her inde-
pendence by the aid of reinforcements arriving from
Attica)? How could rigid Pelasgism in religion and
customs be so rapidly lost and gradually merged in
Ionianism, as was the case early in the tenth, possibly
even in the eleventh, century? Lastly, what was the
connexion between the great Pelasgo-Hellenic struggle
VOL. III.
RR
610
[Book IV. PART VIII.
HISTORY OF THE IONIANS.
in the Troad and the supremacy of the Ninyads in Asia
Minor which commenced in 1260 ? The Assyrian
dominion was still paramount about 1150 (Eratosthenes'
date of the Trojan war): 1230, the date of Thucydides,
is even more impossible.
Its historical date, however, may be the middle of
the second Millennium, and that of Minos from 2000 to
2500. At all events the period from 1270 to 1200 is im-
possible, that of 1184 is equally so.
Now it is clear that during this whole period we must
consider the great body of the Ionians to have been
settled on the coast, as they gradually pushed on towards
the Mediterranean. They never were Pelasgi, any more
than the Germans were Scandinavians; but there need
not on that account be much more difference between the
two former languages than there is between the latter.
That marvellous and ancient monument of Grecian
genius, the figure of the weeping Niobe on the rock of
Sipylus in Magnesia is assuredly also Ionian, for the
Grecian soul breathes in it already, as evinced by the
drooping head and folded hands-an expression of feel-
ing never found among Asiatic barbarians, any more
than it is among the Egyptians. It is not the Egyptian,
however, but the Phrygian, which forms the background
of art, in statuary as well as architecture. This was
specially pointed out by Leake in 1828, and by Ains-
worth in 1842, in respect to the Treasury of Atreus and
the Lions at Mycena.277
The intercourse between Egypt and the Ionians ex-
tends, as we have seen, at least as far back as the earliest
Olympiad, 100 years before Psammetichus.
It was
disturbed by the invasion of the Ethiopians and re-
established by Psammetichus the Great after he had put
an end to the anarchy.
277 See the excellent article on Phrygia in Pauly's "Alterthums-
wissenschaft" (v. 1569. seqq.) by Otto Abel, a talented youth so
early taken away from us.
B. II.]
611
PRIMEVAL TIMES IN ASIA MINOR.
But the Ionians must have traded with them, during
the supremacy of the Pelasgi by land, and gradually
have expelled the Phoenicians, if Zêt at the beginning of
his reign could think of making use of their assistance
in fitting out his fleet (of which there are many indica-
tions), and of granting them permission to establish a
factory at the mouth of the Bolbitine arm of the Nile.
For on the spot where, according to Strabo, the Milesians.
in the time of Psammetichus built "the Milesian wall,"
we must suppose the factory of the 8th century, the old
Naukratis to have stood, if we may venture to call it by
such a name. At that period, cut off as Egypt was then
from all external communication, the later city of Nau-
kratis, far inland (Nomos Naukratites) in the neigh-
bourhood of Sais, is of course out of the question.
This strengthens very materially Niebuhr's arguments
against Wolf's assertion that the art of writing was of
recent origin among the Greeks, because it could not
date farther back than the time of Psammetichus, owing
to their inability to obtain any papyrus from Egypt
before that time. He has shown that there is no autho-
rity for the notion of the Egyptians having so strictly
prohibited all foreign trade before his reign, that the
Phoenicians at all events traded with them, and thus the
Greeks might consequently have bought papyrus from
them. We now, however, learn that, after the year 770
at least, the Ionians had direct communication with them,
that is to say, a century before Psammetichus. And
why should they not have had it considerably earlier,
indirectly at least, through the Phoenicians? But as
regards the Egyptians, a papyrus leaf fastened inside
the lid of the tomb of a Nentef (7th Dynasty), with a
Hieratic inscription upon it, has been discovered!
RR 2
612
HISTORY OF THE IONIANS. [BOOK IV. PART VIII.
C.
THE PELASGIANS IN CASTOR'S SERIES OF MARITIME POWERS
IN THE MEDITERRANEAN, AND THE RESTORATION
THAT DOCUMENT.
OF
RESTORATION OF THE HISTORICAL EPOCHS OF THE
THE THALASSO-
CRACIES, FROM THE PERIOD AFTER THE FALL OF TROY DOWN TO
OLYMP. 74, 4.
NIEBUHR has left the 36th chapter of the first book
of the Chronicle of Eusebius untouched, so that there
is still something new for criticism to glean. Nor will
such a gleaning be of trifling value should we succeed
in restoring the connected series of Castor's epochs
by means of the epitome of Eusebius, now for
the first time accessible in an authentic shape. We
think this is possible, and we hope here to establish
briefly, but conclusively, the proposed restoration, so as
to place the Egyptian epochs on a firm basis, and to
illustrate one of the most obscure points in the history
of the New Empire, and its relation to the Ionians.
We shall first give the text, and with it the notices
in Syncellus, thankfully availing ourselves of what
Mai has introduced in his second Roman edition from
the Vatican MSS. of Hieronymus.
Our restoration, in accordance with the views of
Scaliger, of Selden, and of Heyne, starts with a twofold
assumption. First, that these are not extracts from
the different books of Diodorus' history, but a connected
epitome made by Diodorus from Castor's two books
about the powers which possessed the supremacy at
sea. We shall return hereafter to the proof of the
former of these assumptions (which may be called self-
C.]
613
THE PELASGIANS IN CASTOR'S SERIES.
evident). The second assumption is that Castor gave
us in this account a chronologically coherent series of
the maritime powers. Upon the latter point, however,
it is necessary to come to a thorough understanding at
the outset. Castor, as a man of sense, could not com-
pose such a series upon any other principle than that of
making his repertory of the more important maritime
powers in the Mediterranean (not merely the Egean as
Egypt and Carthage testify) in such a manner that the
new epoch at all events did not begin after the previous
one had ended. The beginning of an epoch must have
been marked by some epoch-making event, but the
date annexed to it does not express the real time that
the maritime supremacy in question lasted; simply
the interval between the commencement of it and the
commencement of the next. Incidentally, indeed, the
end of one might coincide with the rise of another,
in which case the assigned date would give the length
of the first. Here, therefore, the critic must take into
consideration each particular case. For instance, the
last epoch, the maritime supremacy of the Æginetæ,
ended naturally in the year before the memorable one of
the Persian expedition. In this case, therefore, the
date expresses the real length. The following year saw
the rise of the Thalassocracy of Athens. The same
must also be true of the 30 years of the Egyptian mari-
time supremacy, judging by the history of that country
at home and abroad. This is the only reason why 45
years were assigned to the Carthaginian supremacy,
because that of the Egyptians sprang up in the 46th.
But we are not to suppose that the term "Thalas-
socracy," during this whole period, was meant to imply
any general supremacy at sea. Nothing of the kind
existed until the Romans were masters of the world.
That of Athens, even, was restricted within very narrow
bounds. It is much nearer the truth to say, as Heyne
has remarked with his peculiar historical insight, that
RR 3
614
[BOOK IV. PArt VIII.
HISTORY OF THE IONIANS.
all it means is, that at a given time a given city held
the supremacy by sea, whether for the protection of its
commercial shipping, or for piracy, or the establishment
of new colonies.
If it can be shown that this general view of the case
is correct in a sufficient number of instances, it must be
true generally in others, when it can only be proved
that there is no objection to be made against the dates
which arise out of it.
*
A few years ago, M. Charles Müller, the learned
editor of the chronological fragments of the Greek
classics in Didot's collection, combated the whole of the
views here enunciated. He holds that to attempt to
prove that this list represents a continuous series is
ridiculous. Castor's dates, it is true (which he thinks
are only Diodorus'), are not favourable to his hypo-
thesis, which is that the epochs prior to the Olympiads
were computed by cycles of 63 years. It is a pity that
this should have prevented the learned critic from
thoroughly examining the fragment in question, and
those of Castor generally, without having made up his
mind beforehand. Since, however, he has expressed
himself so strongly against every attempt to proceed in
the course chalked out by the above-mentioned scholars
and pursued by myself, I cannot do less than declare,
in opposition to him, that I have no faith whatever in
the existence of his so-called cycle of 7x9 years (an
idea casually thrown out, and not a happy one, by
Otfried Müller). I consider the whole theory, as
applied to the older Grecian as well as Egyptian and
Babylonian history, to be entirely erroneous. We
know nothing at all about a cycle of 63 years, still less
of its actual use. But Müller himself would seem to
us to have demonstrated that it can only be found in
the traditions of the genuine Greek chronographers,
by skilfully grouping the dates, and using the signs
+x and -x. Not one of the principal dates of the
C.]
615
THE PELASGIANS IN CASTOR'S SERIES.
primitive times of Greece that have come down to us,
such as the 407 years from the first Olympiad to
the year of the Doric immigration, and the 80 years
to be deducted from it to the fall of Troy, is a
cyclical number. It is true that the classics, from
Herodotus down to Erastosthenes, expressly tell us that
they and their predecessors calculated by generations
computed at from 30 to 33 years, properly speaking,
331. It must frequently happen that in reckoning by
centuries (three generations), the numbers 60, 66, and
67 will occur; and, therefore, 63 may perhaps also
occur. But the oldest known cycle, that of 9 years,
soon gave way to the Metonic cycle of 19 years, and
there are indications that epochs were computed back-
wards by this cycle. If there were any other, it could
only be one of 60 years, which we meet with in pri-
meval Asia, among the Semitic and Iranian races, as
well as the Chinese. Plutarch, as we have seen, was
acquainted with it, and calls it the original cycle known
to all astronomers. We can indeed hardly imagine
that, instead of using the real solar year as prescribed
by the seasons, a number should have been chosen for
an approximate computation of old epochs, expressing
lunar years, which are confessedly inaccurate and diffi-
cult to correct.
It will, however, be admitted by all critics that the
truth can only be discovered in these researches gene-
rally, and in the record now under discussion especially,
by a patient and thorough examination in the abstract,
and the concrete. Apart from the question of the value
or valuelessness of his own cycle, Müller would have
done better to institute such an examination, rather than
declare it at the outset a silly undertaking.
The mode of conducting such an inquiry is laid
down by the nature of the record itself. The only
fixed chronological datum it contains is the last year,
the one before the expedition of Xerxes and the rise of
RR 4
616
[BOOK IV. PART VIII.
HISTORY OF THE IONIANS.
the maritime supremacy of Athens. How long after
the fall of Troy the first maritime supremacy commenced
is not stated, and, even had it been, it would have given
us no assistance, owing to the unhistorical character of
the period.
We must, therefore, calculate backwards from the bot-
tom, beginning at the seventeenth, as long we meet with
no impediment. One occurs, however, at the thirteenth
(the Samians), where the date is wanting. This is the
only lacuna in the dates. Should we succeed in finding a
fixed chronological starting-point for one of the earlier
epochs, we shall endeavour to calculate down to the
above-mentioned lacuna, beginning from the top, in
order to discover the extreme limit it can possibly have
in that direction. Thus, calculating from the bottom, we
obtain the utmost limit in the other direction, and we
have then only to make a further calculation upwards,
from the highest point which has been ascertained with
certainty, until we come to the first epoch.
In making these computations it will soon be apparent
whether we are in the right track or not, whether we are
dealing with an historical succession of time, or only
with isolated and confused data. Should it turn out
that the strictly chronological points thus established
correspond with historical epochs, and these continuous
epochs, the correctness of our assumption is proved; if
not, it falls to the ground. We first give the text.
Eusebii Chronicorum liber prior,
cap. XXXVI.
Ex Diodori libris breviter de temporibus maria imperio
tenentium.
Maris imperium post Trojanum bellum tenuerunt:
I. Lydi [qui] et Mæones annis XCII.
Λυδοί οἳ καὶ Μαίονες ἐθαλασσοκράτησαν ἔτη Β.
(Sync. p. 172. C.)
C.]
617
THE PELASGIANS IN CASTOR'S SERIES.
II. Pelasgi annis LXXXV.
Πελασγοί β' ἐθαλασσοκράτησαν ἔτη ΠΕ. (Sync.
p. 180. D.)
III. Thraces annis LXXIX.
Τρίτον ἐθαλασσοκράτησαν Θράκες ἔτη ΟΘ. (Sync.
p. 181. B.)
IV. Rhodii annis XXIII.
Τέταρτον ἐθαλασσοκράτησαν 'όδιοι
πέμπτοί· — ἔτη ΚΓ. (ib.)
V. Phryges annis xxv.
κατὰ δέ τινας
Φρύγες πέμπτοι ἐθαλασσοκράτησαν ἔτη ΚΕ· — κατὰ
δέ τινας * ἔτη* 5 (scil. sexto loco, non quinto).
(Desunt thalassocratia VI.-XI.)
VI. Cyprii annis XXXIII.
VII. Phonices annis XLV.
VIII. Egyptii ann[is xxx].
Hieron. ad a. 1232.
IX. Milesii annis [xviii].
1268.)
(Hier. ad a. 1150, XXXII.)
(Id. Hier. ad a. 1174.)
(Annum suppeditant codd. Vat.
V. Mai ad p. 327.)
(Annus debetur Hieron. ad a.
X. [ Corinthii] annis LXI. (Male lacunam supplent codd.
Hieronymi scribentes Cares, ad a. 1286.)
XI. Lesbii annis [LXVIII].
1344.)
XII. Phocenses annis XLIV.
(Annum supplet Hieron. ad a.
Δωδέκατοι Φωκεῖς ἐθαλασσοκράτησαν ἔτη ΜΔ. (Sync.
p. 239. B. Deest XIII.)
XIII. Samii annis..
XIV. Lacedemonii annis II. (Id. ad a. 1503.)
Λακεδαιμόνιοι ἐθαλασσοκράτησαν ἔτη ΙΒ. (Sync. p.
238. C.)
XV. Naxii annis X.
Νάξιοι θαλασσοκράτησαν ίε, ἔτη Τ· καὶ μετ᾿ αὐτούς.
XVI. Eretrienses annis xv.
Ερετριεῖς ίς, ἔτη Ζ.
(Id. ad a. 1514.)
(Sync. p. 247. Β.)
XVII. Æginetæ annis x. (id. ad a. 1531) usque ad Alexandri
(1. Xerxis, ut id. in canone) transmissionem.
Ἐθαλασσοκράτησαν Αἰγινῆται ἔτη I. (Sync. p. 247. B.)
618
[BOOK IV. PART VIII.
HISTORY OF THE IONIANS.
A.
Calculation downwards from VII.-XII.
VII. THE CARTHAGINIANS.—45 Years.
First year, B. C. 814:
before Olym. i. 39 years.
Last year, 770:
Olym. ii. 3.
Assuming the list of Castor to have been neither an idle
invention nor an unmeaning medley, it will scarcely be
necessary to prove that the Phonices of the 7th epoch
much be a translation of the corresponding Greek word
which occurs already in Herodotus (v. 46.) without any
addition in the sense of Punic, itself surely a corrup-
tion of Phoinikes. It is as impossible for Castor to have
placed the great maritime power of the Phoenicians after
the Trojan war, so much after it indeed, as it is for it to
have been omitted in a list of maritime powers before the
Trojan war. But it is not entered in that very recent
compilation, except as the supremacy of the Sido-
nians, and afterwards as that of the Tyrians. We have
already shown that the later era of Tyre dates from
1283, that is, not after the Trojan war, but either during
or before it.
The epoch of the beginning of the maritime supre-
macy of Carthage can be no other than that of the be-
ginning of our chronology, consequently 814 or 813,
fifty and odd years after the flight of Dido in the
seventh year of Pygmalion.279 That this was really
Castor's view will appear from the sequel.
VIII. THE EGYPTIANS. -30 YEARS.
First year, B. C. 769:
Ol. ii. 4.
Last year, 740:
Ol. x. 1.
Supposing 814 to have been the first year of the Cartha-
ginians, the epoch of the Egyptians begins in the 46th
year after, consequently in 769. According to our
279 Book IV. p. 413–421.
C.]
619
THE PELASGIANS IN CASTOR'S SERIES.
tables this is the second year of Zêt, and the period
closes with the end of this reign and of the dynasty.
We have already explained the grounds on which the
30 years here assigned, if they have any reality at all,
must fall in the reign of Zêt. If its duration be con-
nected with the rise of the Milesians, Castor may have
computed from the fourth year of Zêt, so that the
maritime supremacy of the Egyptians only ended in the
third year of the unfortunate Bokkhoris. Certainly not
later. For dissensions at home and preparations for the
Ethiopian war must very soon have compelled him to
abandon the supremacy by sea, if indeed he did not do
so from the very first, as he did Zêt's reform of military
feudalism.
IX. THE MILESIANS.-18 YEARS.
First year, B.C. 739:
Ol. x. 2.
Last year, 722:
Ol. xiv. 3.
In examining this series the idea naturally occurs to us
that Zêt probably purchased the fleet from the Milesians,
the early Ionian traders with Egypt, or that he had it
built and equipped by them, and that they took it back
when the absurd notion of Egypt being a naval power
without possessing trading vessels and sailors of her own
had been abandoned. At all events, our knowledge of the
history of Miletus does not furnish us with any special
occasion for such an epoch. Eusebius, on the contrary,
as appears in Hieronymus and the Armenian version, in
the Canon of the year 1267 or 1268 (749 or 748 B. C.),
appended this remarkable observation, which is as
follows in Mai's edition:
"Mare obtinuerunt Milesii construxeruntque urbem
in Egypto Naucratem.”
The naval power of Egypt is stated to have com-
menced in the year 1232 (784 B. C.). To any one
620
[BOOK IV. PART VIII.
HISTORY OF TIIE IONIANS.
acquainted with the arbitrary mode of proceeding
pursued in the canon, it will cause no surprise that
the interval here is 36 years instead of 30. The
account of the building of the Greek city of Nau-
cratis is certainly derived from the same source as the
more meagre synopsis in Eusebius of the seventeen ma-
ritime powers in the 36th chapter of the first book of
the Chronicle. The well-known passage about Nau-
cratis in Herodotus (ii. 178. seq.) proves its high
antiquity, the name itself being unquestionable proof of
it having originally been a Greek settlement. Amasis,
who was a Philhellene, allowed the Greeks who came to
Egypt to settle there, or, if they did not choose to settle
and colonise, to erect altars and plant groves. Of
these one settlement was Milesian. In old times, how-
ever, says Herodotus, Naucratis was the only trading
and free port in Egypt, i. e. as Baehr has rightly argued
in opposition to Soldan, long before the time of Amasis.
Nothing short of a declaration upon oath that they
were driven in by want of provisions saved those who
landed anywhere else from severe penalties (in earlier
times they would have been put to death). In that case
the vessel was obliged to be taken to the Canopic mouth,
or the cargo brought in boats to Naucratis.
"So
great," adds the historian, "were the privileges of Nau-
cratis." We may now venture to state that "the old
time" was the age of Zêt above mentioned, barely 250
years, it is true, before the more liberal policy of Amasis
in respect to trade was adopted, but still sufficiently far
off for the Greeks, who, as we learn from Herodotus, had
no very intimate acquaintance with Egypt before the
time of Psammetichus.
C.]
621
THE PELASGIANS IN CASTOR'S SERIES.
X. THE CORINTHIANS. — 61 YEARS.
First year, B. c. 721:
Ol. xiv. 4.
Last year, 663:
Ol. xxix. 2.
The name of the naval power which arose in Olymp.
14, 4 is omitted in the Armenian text, so that there
must have been a lacuna in the Greek, or the name, even
the very first letter of it, must have been illegible. It is
hardly necessary to say that the word "Cares" with
which Hieronymus has filled it up cannot be right. From
the time when Ionian and Dorian settlers from Hellas
took possession of the coast of Caria, the Carians were
excluded from the sea; and least of all can they have
been a naval power from the 14th to the 31st Olympiad.
Minos had already deprived them of their maritime su-
premacy.
The Corinthians, on the other hand, cannot have been
omitted in Castor's list, supposing it to have any histo-
rical value at all. Thucydides, in the passage about the
development of the naval power of the Hellenes (i. 13,
14.), represented the Corinthians as being the first
who built triremes in Hellas, adding, that they began to
do so "at least 300 years before the close of the Pelo-
ponnesian war," that is, 704 B. C. "The earliest naval
action with which we are acquainted," he goes on to
say, "was fought between the Corinthians and Corey-
ræans, at most 260 years before the above period," that
is, 664 B.C. (according to others 665, Ol. 28, 4).
The Corinthians were defeated, and it can hardly be a
mere accident that, according to our computation from
above, the tenth epoch ends exactly in the year 663, or
Ol. 29, 2. But this is not the only point of agreement.
All the rest harmonizes likewise. The fact of the
Corinthians being mentioned in Castor, 18 years before
the triremes were built, is not inconsistent with the
statement of the great historian. They might be con-
622
[BOOK IV. PART VIII.
HISTORY OF THE IONIANS.
sidered at that time as a naval power, although they had
no triremes, just as in more modern days naval engage-
ments could be fought without three-deckers.
XI. THE LESBIANS.-68 YEARS.
First year, B. C. 662:
Ol. xxix. 3.
Last year, 595:
Ol. xlvi. 2.
Any one bearing in mind what has been said in
respect to the tenth naval power, would perhaps imagine
that the eleventh must be that of the Corcyræans. I do
not mean to try to get over this apparent difficulty by
suggesting that Castor did not include the Adriatic, or
that he even, as Heyne thinks, confined himself to the
Ægean. Such a supposition seems to me inadmissible,
on account of the mention of the Egyptians. But why
may we not suppose that he considered the rising power
of the Lesbians at that epoch as more important than the
contemporary one of the Corcyræans in a distant sea?
XII. THE PHOCEANS.-44 YEARS.
First year B. c. 594:
Ol. xlvi. 3.
Last year, 551:
Ol. lvii. 2.
The maritime adventures of the Phocæans are uni-
versally known. The destruction of Phocæa, which
gave birth to Massilia, occurred in Ol. 60, 2=539 B. C.
The period, therefore, is entirely suitable.
As the date of the duration of the next naval power
(the Samians) is lost, we cannot carry on our calcula-
tions from above any further. We have, however,
ascertained that the highest point to which the Samian
epoch can extend is the year 550. The lowest point
we may hope to discover when we ascend from the fixed
ending point in Castor's list up to the lacuna.
C.]
623
THE PELASGIANS IN CASTOR'S SERIES.
B. The Computation upwards from XVII-XIV.
XVII. THE ÆGINETÆ.-10 YEARS.
First year, B. c. 490:
Ol. lxxii. 3.
Last year, 481:
Ol. lxxiv. 4.
After the year 480 the naval supremacy of Athens
commenced, consequently the last year of that of Ægina
was 481. For the number 10 is perfectly authenti-
cated from its agreement with the Armenian version,
the two books of the Chronicle, and with Hieronymus.
The 20, and even 25 years, therefore, adopted by several
earlier writers and editors of the Canon of Eusebius,
must be abandoned, as resting on no authentic grounds.
The Æginetæ clearly could have no supremacy at
sea before they became independent of Epidaurus (Her.
v. 83.). Heyne gives Ol. 69 as the epoch of the revolt.
It was probably in 69, 1, therefore, for the Æginetæ
had invaded Attica before Ol. 70, 2.
XVI. THE ERETRIANS.-7 Years.
Last year, B. c. 491:
Ol. lxxii. 2.
First year, 497:
Ol. lxx. 4.
The date of Eusebius, 15 years, would seem the best
accredited, as being the same as that of the Armenian
version, both in this place and in the Canon, as well as of
Hieronymus. But all the MSS. of Syncellus have 7,
which appears from what follows to be the right date.
The starting-point which we obtain from it tallies
exactly with the remark of Herodotus (v. 99.), in
reference to the period from Ol. 50 to 69: "Eretria
was then flourishing." There is historical evidence, also,
that their naval supremacy lasted after the epoch of the
Ægineta. The Eretrians sent twenty ships in aid of
624
[BOOK IV. PART VIII.
HISTORY OF THE IONIANS.
Miletus, and burnt Sardes, for which reason the expe-
dition of Datis and Artaphernes (Ol. 72, 3-490 B. C.)
was especially directed against them and the Athenians.
XV. THE NAXIANS.-10 YEARS.
Last year, B. C. 498:
Ol. lxx. 3.
First year, 507:
Ol. lxviii. 2.
The evidence adduced by Heyne as to the naval
supremacy of the Naxians is very striking.280 We may,
perhaps, obtain certain data as to its commencement, if
we start upon the assumption that Lygdamis, the
tyrant of Samos, assisted Pisistratus on his third re-
storation to power at Athens in Ol. 60, I=B. C. 540.
Now he was in all probability expelled by the Lacedæ-
monians the same year in which they assisted the
Alcmæonida to expel the Pisistratidæ, under Cleomenes,
Ol. 67, 2 or 3 B. C. 510. Nothing, therefore, can be
more suitable than the supposition of the epoch of this
thalassocracy having commenced Ol. 68, 2=B. c. 507.
XIV. THE LACEDEMONIANS.-12 YEARS.
Last year, B. C. 508:
Ol. lxviii. 1.
First year, 519:
Ol. lxv. 2.
Here, again, the date of Syncellus is preferable. In
the first place, a maritime power of two years' duration,
or one which, at all events, is succeeded by another at
the end of two years, is in itself not very intelligible.
The history, moreover, is decisive in favour of exactly
12 years, namely the reign of Cleomenes, which began
in 519, and whose power, both by land and sea, was
destroyed in 508.
In other words, according to the calculation which
naturally arises from the ending point of the whole
280 Diod. v. 52. : καὶ ναυτικάς τε δυνάμεις ἀξιολόγους συστήσασθαι.
Suid. s. v. Ναξιουργὴς κάνθαρος (a particular sort of vessel): Κρατί
νος δὲ λέγει, ὅτι θαλασσοκρατοῦντές ποτε Νάξιοι ἐχρῶντο αὐτοῖς.
C.]
625
THE PELASGIANS IN CASTOR'S SERIES.
series, the supremacy of the Lacedæmonians coincided
with the reign of the first Cleomenes, the only epoch
in the older period which appears suitable for it.
This gives us a date for the thirteenth naval power,
the Samians, for which none has been transmitted:
as the highest limit 551 B. C.
99
lowest
519
29
The length of it may be therefore restored by a
natural inference.
XIII. THE SAMIANS.[31 YEARS.]
Last year, B. C. 520:
Ol. lxv. 1.
First year, 550:
Ol. lvii. 3.
Nothing can accord better with what we know of the
history of Samos than this epoch. It was in Ol.
58, 1 (B. C. 548), the year of the burning of the
Temple of Delphi, that the Samians intercepted the
magnificent cauldron presented to Croesus by the Lace-
dæmonians. They had also intercepted, in the preced-
ing year (Ol. 57, 4 549), the splendid coat of mail
sent by Amasis to the same Lydian king. But the rule
of Polycrates (01. 62-64, 3-532-522) represents
the zenith of the naval supremacy of the Samians.
Strabo (xii. p. 821. A.) expressly mentions the tha-
lassocracy of the Samians under Polycrates. Lastly,
the commencement of it is ascertained with certainty
by another historical circumstance. The democratical
form of government was not adopted till long after the
assassination of Demoteles, the last king. The govern-
ment then fell into the hands of the geomors or land-
owners (Plut. Zn. Gr. 57.). The victory over the
Megaræans at Perinthus was the occasion of the adop-
tion of the democratical constitution. The date of this
action has not been hitherto known. But as the demo-
cratical government was probably the cause of the naval
VOL. III.
S S
ནན
626
[BOOK IV. PART VIII.
HISTORY OF THE IONIANS.
supremacy of the Samians being considerably ex-
tended, we may fairly suppose that this naval victory
was chosen by Castor as the commencement of that
epoch.
Having thus filled up the only lacuna in the dates of
our text, and adjusted the discrepancies in some of the
readings of the extant dates from VII. to XVII. by a
regular series of calculations, it only remains for us to
attempt to restore the dates of the first six epochs.
This, of course, can only be done by computing them
backwards.
C. Computation of Castor's Epochs VI.-I.
VI. THE CYPRIANS.
33 YEARS (Hier. 32.)
Last year, B. C. 816:
before Ol. i. 40.
First year, 847 (846):
before Ol. i. 72.
There is no want of evidence that the Cyprians
carried on a trade by sea, as well as that they had a mari-
time supremacy in early times.281
V. THE PHRYGIANS.
25 YEARS.
First year, 872 (871):
before Ol. i. 97.
Last year, B. c. 848 (847):
before Ol. i. 73.
The offering of King Midas at Delphi preceded that
of Gyges (720).
281 Eustath. ad Perieg. 508. : ὀλβιώτατοι δὲ νησιωτῶν οἱ Κύπριοι·
Strabo
λέγονται δέ ποτε θαλασσοκρατῆσαι καιρόν τινα καὶ αὐτοί.
(xiv. p. 1003. c.) gives us this testimony of Eratosthenes as to the
antiquity of their commerce by sea, and the naval supremacy which
was the consequence of it.
C.]
627
THE PELASGIANS IN CASTOR'S SERIES.
IV. THE RHODIANS.
23 YEARS.
Last year, B. c. 873 (872):
before Ol. i. 98.
First year, 895 (894):
before Ol. i. 120.
It would be a misunderstanding of Syncellus if, from
his remark" that some had assigned the fifth place to
the Rhodians," the conclusion were drawn that the
MSS. in which there is a discrepancy, assigned the
fourth place to the Phrygians. The corresponding re-
mark in these MSS. is, after making the necessary
emendation, that some had entered them sixth in the
list of naval powers. This implies that they must have
supposed the name of some power to have been left out
before the Rhodians. We cannot deal with this state-
ment, owing to the series of Syncellus not being con-
tinued again till the twelfth place. No alteration, there-
fore, need be made, although it does seem more natural in
itself that the Phrygians should follow after the non-
Hellenic powers, without the interpolation of the Rho-
dians, who in that case would stand at the head of the
Hellenic states, which now succeed without a break until
we come to the Carthaginians.
Much may be said on the other hand in favour of a
naval supremacy of the Rhodians from 895-873. It
was after the death of Codrus (about 960 or 950, ac-
cording to the corrected chronology), that Dorians from
Megara settled in Rhodes, and Strabo speaks in very ex-
press terms of further and uninterrupted expeditions
of the Rhodians. They went to Iberia, where they
founded Rhode (Rhodez), on the slopes of the Pyrenees,
and to the south of Italy, where they founded Parthe-
nope. They possessed in the Iberian sea the Balearic
Isles, and seemingly, for a long time, Corsica also
(Kyrnos), on which they were driven.282 This implies
282 Strabo, xiv. p. 968. : ᾿Αλλὰ καὶ πρὸ τῆς Ὀλυμπιακῆς θέσεως
συχνοῖς ἔτεσιν ἔπλεον πόῤῥω τῆς οἰκείας * * * ἐπὶ σωτηρίᾳ τῶν ἀνθρώπων
ss 2
628
HISTORY OF THE IONIANS. [Book IV. PART VIII.
not merely that they possessed considerable commerce,
but a naval force to protect it. In assuming, therefore,
that Strabo's expression, "they had ships many years
before the establishment of the Olympic games," means
a very distant epoch, I must at the same time remark,
that by the establishment of the Olympic games I can
only understand 776. The imaginary Iphitus, before
880 (who at the same time is made the contemporary
and ally of Lycurgus), is entirely out of the ques-
tion, and the testimony of Aristotle remains unim-
peachable. 283
III. THE THRACIANS.
Last year, B. c. 896 (895):
before Ol. i. 121.
79 YEARS.
First year, 974 (973):
before Ol. i. 199.
The reading to which Scaliger and Casaubon gave the
preference (annis xix.), now falls to the ground as a
matter of course. The date in the Armenian version
and the Canon also ad a. 1015), as well as in Hie-
ronymus and Syncellus, is 79. The dates of II. and I.
are also in favour of this reading. We know of but one
epoch in the history of the Thracians in this period: the
settlement of those who emigrated from the Strymon to
Asia, in Bebrykia (the country of the Phrygians), the
present Bithynia (land of the Thynians). This migra-
ἀφ' οὗ καὶ μέχρι Ιβηρίας ἔπλευσαν, κἀκεῖ μὲν τὴν Ρόδον ἔκτισαν, ἣν
ὕστερον Μασσαλιῶται κατέσχον, ἐν δὲ τοῖς Ὀπικοῖς τὴν Παρθενόπην, &c.
The asterisks mark where the name of a country or place is wanting,
and one too of the masculine or neuter gender, so that it cannot be Zapdw.
It is probably Kúproc: for the Balearics (Gymneta) are mentioned
directly afterwards as Rhodian colonies. To make sense of it, it
must be restored somewhat as follows: καὶ οὕτω ποτὲ κατέσχον ἐπὶ
Κύρνον, ἐπὶ σωτηρίᾳ τῶν ἀνθρώπων.
πί
283 Here again Duncker has taken the right view, and briefly and
conclusively placed the reader in a position to form an opinion for
himself (loc. cit. iii. 352. seq. note; conf. p. 381. seq.). Here again
Clinton has come to a weak conclusion.
C.]
629
THE PELASGIANS IN CASTOR'S SERIES.
tion, however, is said by Herodotus 284 to have been
caused by the movements of the Teucrians and Mysians,
who drove them out of Thracia Proper. This clearly
brings us to the time when the non-Hellenic people were
still independent in Asia Minor and Pontus as far as the
coasts. Now Eusebius, in the Canon, places this event
at the year 1036 of Abraham, i.e. B. C. 971 or 970.
Syncellus does the same. Eusebius has even fixed the
date of the beginning of their maritime supremacy at
the year of Abraham 1012, i. e. B. C. 994. Those who
have paid attention to these data in his Canon, which
was extracted from Castor's list, know that they are
full of inaccuracies, arbitrary assumptions and difficul-
ties, and consequently that they are of no value in a
chronological point of view, apart from the fact that
Eusebius does not confirm the chronological interpreta-
tion of the above list. But what is the origin of his
date of the emigration from the Strymon to Bithynia,
which is placed only 25 years later? Taken literally
it is wholly incompatible with a supremacy of 79 years,
for it breaks it up in the middle. It was a more plau-
sible supposition that the supremacy was the result of
the emigration. It is, however, more probable that
the maritime supremacy was brought to a close by
the advance of the Teucrians and Mysians, which was
the cause of the Thracian migration into Asia.
II. THE PELASGI.-85 YEARS.
First year, 1059 (1058):
before Ol. i. 284.
Last year, B.C. 975 (974):
before Ol. i. 200.
Menecrates of Elæa, the pupil of Xenocrates, a school-
fellow of Hecatæus (about 315), stated, according to
284 Herod. vii. 75. : Οὗτοι δὲ (Thraces) διαβάντες μὲν ἐς τὴν ᾿Ασίην
ἐκλήθησαν Βιθυνοί· τὸ δὲ πρότερον ἐκαλέοντο, ὡς αὐτοὶ λέγουσι, Στρυμό
νιοι, οἰκέοντες ἐπὶ Στρυμόνι· ἐξαναστῆναι δέ φασιν ἐξ ἠθέων ὑπὸ Τευκρῶν
τε καὶ Μυσῶν.
ss 3
630
[BOOK IV. PART VIII.
HISTORY OF THE IONIANS.
Strabo (xiii. 21.), in his work upon the foundation of
cities, the following fact: That the whole of the coast now
called Ionian, from the slope of the mountain of Mycale
onwards (opposite to Samos), was, as well as the neigh-
bouring islands, originally inhabited by the Pelasgi.
Strabo himself says, in the same passage, that when the
Æolians, soon after the fall of Troy, expelled the Pelasgi,
already enfeebled by that war, from the spot where they
afterwards built Kyme, they halted at Larissa, 70 stadia
from Kyme, a Pelasgic city still in existence in his time,
although in ruins.
Here, then, we have an authentic account of a circum-
stance to which the connected restoration of the list of
Castor leads as a matter of course.
The naval supre-
macy of the Pelasgians could at that time have existed
nowhere but in Ionia. Added to which, the only feasible
solution of the enigma of an Ionian seafaring people
existing prior to the colonies from Attica in the tenth
century is, that the Ionians then inhabited Ionia, but
subject to the Pelasgi, who were masters of the coun-
try in their rear. This was their historical residence,
restricted more or less by the Carians and Lelegæ, who
pushed on from the interior, and subsequently by the
Lydians. This was the view taken by Herodotus in
the well-known passage (i. 56.) where he said of the
Ionians, as contrasted with the Hellenic Dorians,
that they were of Pelasgic race, and occupied their
country. The general context will not allow us to
restrict this expression to the Ionians from Attica. It
must at the same time be admitted that he did not
carry out this view any further. He says, indeed, in a
subsequent passage (vii. 94.), that the Ionians of
Achaia were called, prior to the Doric migration,
66
Pelasgian dwellers on the coast." Now no one be-
lieves that the Ionians were Pelasgians, or that Hero-
dotus considered the Ionian and Pelasgian language as
identical. Here again, then, the same solution is the most
C.]
631
THE PELASGIANS IN CASTOR'S SERIES.
natural one.
The Pelasgians were the original inhabi-
tants both of Ionia and the Peloponnese, and of Hellas
generally. The Ionians settled on the coast with their
consent, acknowledging them to be the lords of the
soil, and so they passed for being a part of the Pelasgi
until they became independent.
We may, therefore, call this naval power the Old-
Ionian. The trading vessels, the foundation of their
maritime supremacy, as well as the manning and
management of the ships of war, were in the hands of
the Ionians.
We cannot enter here into any further description of
the consequence which this may have upon the history of
the Ionians and the Hellenes generally. We shall treat
hereafter of some particulars which are directly connected
with our researches.
Unless we have failed altogether in our restoration of
Castor's lists, we have not only established the proper
date for the Pelasgic Ionians before the Doric migration,
and the movements to which it gave rise, but also
proved where they were settled, a fact hitherto undeter-
mined. Doris was the primitive seat of the Ionians.
They reached it doubtless by the coast road from the
Black Sea or the Bosphorus; a course to which, there-
fore, their legends allude.
It is hardly necessary to remark that there is no
reference to the Tyrrhenians in this epoch. It is true,
they were also called Tyrrheno-Pelasgi, and rightly so, as
I conclude upon philological grounds. But apart from
the fact of the essential word, Tyrrhenians, not being
used in our list, the colonisation by the Tyrrhenians from
the coast of Lydia is expressly stated by Diodorus (xiv.
113. p. 727.) to have occurred prior to the Trojan
war.
$ 94
632
HISTORY OF THE IONIANS. [Book IV. PART VIII.
I. THE MAONIANS.-92 YEARS.
Last year, B. c. 1060 (1059): First year, 1151 (1150):
before Ol. i. 285.
before Ol. i. 376.
Castor naturally either simply called the people
Mæonians, or he added their modern name of Lydians
for the benefit of his unlearned readers.
The starting-point of the whole series must be prior
to the old Æolic emigration and conquest. This is
usually placed in the year 1124, a conclusion arrived at
by pushing up the dates about a hundred years. If we
fix it between 1000 and 1050, this epoch accords very
well, not only for its starting-point, but also for its
duration down to 1060 B.C. at least; for the maritime
supremacy of the Mæonians might have continued after
the rise of that of the Pelasgi, although it is improbable,
owing to their close propinquity. We may rather say,
with reasonable certainty, that the rise of the naval
power of the Pelasgo-Ionians may have caused the down-
fall of that of their Mæonian rivals.
As regards Castor's date of the year of the fall of
Troy, as well as of that of the return of the He-
raclidæ, Müller's assumption that he made the former
1208 (1207), the latter 80 years later, 1128 (1127),
seems to me by no means established. There is no
proof that he did not follow the then pretty gene-
rally adopted date of Eratosthenes. At all events,
there is no trace here of systematic or even cyclical
calculations. The naval supremacy of the Lydians
belongs to the age of the Sandæ or Heraclidæ in Lydia,
long before the Mermnadæ, and has nothing to do with
the Dorian expedition of the Heraclidæ, or the migra-
tions to Asia to which it gave rise. It was earlier
than all those movements, and so it must have been
if it deserves the name of historical.
D.]
633
RESTORED LIST OF CASTOR.
Lastly it is clear that the date of the first naval
power in Castor has not the slightest connexion with
this event either chronologically or historically.
D.
TABULAR VIEW OF THE RESTORED LIST OF CASTOR, AND
RESULT OF THE PRESENT CRITICAL RESEARCH INTO
EGYPTIAN HISTORY AND ANCIENT CHRONOLOGY.
Now what is the result of our present chronologico-
historical criticism?
In carrying out the assumption of a continuous chro-
nological series, we have met with no contradictions;
on the contrary, wherever we had any reason to expect
it, we find a striking accordance with other traditions
about which there is no suspicion. No man of
common sense can suppose this to be mere accident.
Nor will he deny that the chronology is Castor's,
whose two books upon this subject are expressly
quoted, and who, being a Rhodian, lived in the
centre of the Egæan traditions. Besides which, how
could they be attributed to Diodorus? Unfortunately,
owing to the loss of books VI.-XI., we have not his
account of the very period under discussion, from the
fall of Troy to the year of Xerxes' expedition. But
supposing even that he entered the thalassocracies se-
parately in the place where each came under discussion,
all such data put together would never have made such
a list as ours. What can have been the meaning of the
number 45 annexed to the Punic supremacy, which
lasted for centuries with increasing power? It can
only have originated owing to the next epoch in the
list (the Egyptians) having commenced exactly in the
634
[Book IV. PART VIII.
HISTORY OF THE IONIANS.
46th year after the commencement of the Carthaginian
supremacy. Again, at the end of the fifth book (v. 84.),
mention is casually made of the maritime power of the
Carians having been particularly great in the age after
the fall of Troy. Castor, however, as we have seen,
evidently placed that supremacy, and with good reason,
before the taking of Troy, namely, before Minos, who
put an end to it. Diodorus, therefore, must some-
where have introduced Castor's list as a synopsis, and
have followed in his own special historical narrative
the writer whose work he had before him, traces of
whom can constantly be pointed out. In his connected
enumeration of the generations of old Egyptian kings
he never notices the list of five Egyptian legislators
given at i. 94. Sasychis, the second on it, is not once
named in the narrative. Nor is there any mention
of the Egyptian naval power and Zêt-Sethos.
Eusebius, therefore, composed the 36th chapter of the
first book of his Chronicles out of Castor's list, which
was epitomized by Diodorus, and actually called by him
an abridgement. The series thus acquired he then,
in a very careless and arbitrary manner, introduced
into his wretched Canon, and frequently forgot to give
the dates. Still, as we have seen, he has recorded for
us in that chapter a fact in the history of the Milesians.
not mentioned in the Canon, namely, the building of
Naucratis.
The only objection which can be raised against our
conclusions from Grote's point of view would be this
very agreement of the oldest dates which we have
obtained, not with those adopted by Castor and the
other chronographers for Troy and the Doric migrations,
but with the corrected dates of those events which we
have elicited by dint of critical research. Looking
at it as matter of historical criticism (for I will not
waste another word upon the new-fangled cycles), it
may be asked how can Castor have been right in his
D.]
· 635
RESTORED LIST OF CASTOR.
data about the oldest thalassocracies in the age prior to
the Doric emigration, or soon after it, when he has
avowedly fixed that cardinal point about a hundred
years too early? My answer is, for this very simple
reason: because, fortunately, he does not assign any
causal relation between them and the fall of Troy, or the
return of the Heraclidæ. He, an inhabitant of Rhodes,
derived his dates from local written information (com-
putations by generations), and judiciously works them
up into a series in the sense which we have discussed.
The clearest proof that very rational isolated notices
and computations about the date of the return of the
Heraclidæ were in existence is found in Plutarch's
account, which is about a hundred years lower than the
systematic one, and it agrees perfectly with the cor-
rected date for Iphitus and Lycurgus.
With all this there must always be uncertainties to
the extent of twenty-five or thirty years. But the more
settled points we obtain, the greater the probability of our
approximating nearer to the truth. A great step,
however, is already gained, if we can show that there
really are in existence approximative dates of Hellenic
history prior to the Olympiads, as can be indeed shown
in the case, for instance, of the historical Hesiod.
We will, therefore, close this inquiry with a synop-
tical restoration of the epochs of Castor.
636
[BOOK IV. PART VIII.
HISTORY OF THE IONIANS.
Castor's Epochs of the Naval Powers in the Mediterranean, in the
Age after the Fall of Troy, down to the year vrior to Xerxes'
Expedition.


Succession.
Name of the
Starting-Point.
Last Year.
Naval Power,
and its
Duration.
Historical Epoch.
Olympiad. B.C.
Olympiad.
B.C.
I.
The Mæonians
Before
(Lydians)92. Olymp. I. (1150)| Olymp. I.
1151
Before
1060
(1059)
Rule of the Heraclidæ
in Lydia, prior to all
the Greek emigrations.
376
(375)
285
(284)
II.
The
Pelasgi
284
(Tyrrheni-
(283)
1059
(1058)
200
(199)
ans) 85.
975 Lydian emigration to
(974) Tyrrhenia: close of
the ante-Ionic emi-
gration.
III.
The Thracians
199
974
121
896
79.
(198)
(973)
(120)
(895)
Occasioned by the colo-
nisation of the Strymo-
nian Thracians in Bi-
thynia.
IV.
The Rhodians
120
895
98
873
After the Phoenician
23.
(119)
(894)
(97)
(872)
Rhodians were ex-
V.
The Phrygians
97
872
73
848
25.
(96)
(72)
VI.
The Cyprians
72
847
40
(847)
816
33 (32).
(71)
(846)
VII. The Carthagi- 39
814
Olymp. II.
nians 45.
3
VIII. The Egyptians Olymp. II.
30.
4
769
X. 1.
IX. The Milesians X. 2.
739
XIV. 3.
18.
X.
The [Corin- XIV. 4.
thians] 61.
721
XXIX. 2.
pelled date of the
:
settlement in Iberia
and South Italy.
Probably in the zenith
of the Midas kings.
770 Commencement of the
chronology of Car-
thage, about 65 years
after the first landing.
740 From the second, or at
latest fifth, year of Zet
(Sethos), the last king
of the 23rd Dynasty.
-Naucratis.
the
722 Probably as having
succeeded to
Egyptian fleet.
663 Corinthian settlement:
foundation of Syra-
cuse and Corcyra, 733
(XI. 4.).
Fatal sea fight against
the Corcyræans, 665
(XXVIII. 4.).
Cypselus Tyrant, 658
(XXX. 2.).
D.]
637
RESTORED LIST OF CASTOR.

Succession.
Name of the
Starting-Point.
Last Year.
Naval Power,
Historical Epoch.

and its
Duration.
Olympiad. B.C.
Olympiad. B.C.
XI. The Lesbians XXIX. 3.
662
XLVI. 2.
595
68.
XII. The Phocæans XLVI. 3.
44.
594
LVII. 2.
551
Phocæa destroyed, 539
(LX. 2.).
XIII. The Samians LVII. 3.
550
LXV. 1.
[31].
520 Seize the Egyptian and
Lacedæmonian ships,
XIV. The Lacedæ- LXV. 2.
monians 12.
519
LXVIII. 1.
508
XV. The Naxians LXVIII. 2.
10.
507
LXX. 3.
549, 548.
Thalassocracy
under
Polycrates, 532, 522
(Olym. LXII.-LXIV.
3.).
The reign of Cleomenes
II. down to the set-
tlement in Attica.
498 The Tyrant Lygdamis
expelled by Cleomenes,
510 (Olym. LXVII.
3.).
XVI. The Eretrians LXX. 4. 497
7.
LXXII. 2.
491
XVII. The Ægineta LXXII. 3. 490
10.
Herodotus expressly
says that Eretria was
at this time flourish-
ing.
LXXIV. 4. 481 Independence of Epi-
daurus, Olym. LXIX.
Invasion of Attica,
LXX. 1.
Predominant naval
power in the expe-
dition of Darius.
(480. Olymp. LXXV. 1. Expedition of Xerxes.
Athens.)
Maritime supremacy of
XVII. Epochs of naval supremacy before the battle of Salamis in 673 years,
from 1151 to 481 B. c. inclusive,
376 before Olymp. I. to Olymp. LXXIV. 4. inclusive.
638
[BOOK IV. PART VIII.
HISTORY OF THE IONIANS.
This chronological series stands alone in the traditions
which have come down to us of the oldest history of
the Hellenes and their predecessors on the coast of
Asia Minor. It is worthy of the most celebrated chro-
nographer since Eratosthenes. But his "Two Books.
upon the States which exercised Naval Supremacy" (or
had a naval force) must have contained something beyond
a mere formal chronology. They must be regarded as
an historical disquisition, not simply upon the starting-
points of these seventeen epochs, and the events which
each of them called forth, or to which they gave rise;
but also upon the actual duration of each of these naval
supremacies. For it is clear that the dates here entered
merely express the interval between two thalassocracies
-the time which elapsed from the beginning of one to
the beginning of the next, in the same or a totally
different part of the Mediterranean. The Tyrrhenian
supremacy at sea lasted for centuries, so did the Car-
thaginian. They both extended beyond the point here
fixed upon as the close of them, namely, the expedition
of Xerxes. It is probable that Diodorus even omitted
these disquisitions and dates in the above-cited passage.
We may, therefore, sum up the general historical
results in the two following sentences.
Our restoration of the epochs of Castor enables us to
show that, in the oldest cities of the later Ionian
League, as early as about the middle of the eleventh
century, the names of the Ionians stand in that list
among the Pelasgi. This we consider to be a farther
confirmation of what Niebuhr insisted upon, and Cur-
tius has proved, namely, the early existence of Ionian
cities.
But the theory of the Ionians having had intercourse
with Egypt in the 18th and 19th Dynasties, is as com-
pletely destroyed as is that of an early communication
with India, even supposing it to have been carried on
exclusively by sea through the Arab tribes. Not a trace
D.]
639
RESTORED LIST OF CASTOR.
of the name of the Ionians is found on the monuments,
even in the time of Sheshonk. The first certain proof
of it is 200 years later, namely, in the reign of the
sacerdotal king, Zêt, the last of the 23rd Dynasty, 100
years before the reign of the great Psammetichus. The
monuments, lastly, do not mention the name of the
Ionians in the Pharaonic times. The phonetic spelling
of it in the Ptolemaic age is an innovation, in direct
contravention of the rules of the genuine hieroglyphical
system.
END OF THE THIRD VOLUME.
LONDON:
PRINTED BY SPOTTISWOODE AND CO.
NEW-STREkt square.

H
1
Plan
of
THE BES
The Kings Tombs
Bap chaletuk
ジ
​omains
rket
Addern Tomba
El-mut el-dul
Drah Abu Negga
222 22
mbs without
{
と
​་
Inscriptions
Old Qunah
Temp. Sethos L
cuteas
Queens Jor
Bub el.Hagi Hàmmed
"Ther & Vet
QPtolem I.
Ouract Migrat
སྟའུ། །
Madinat Haba
I The fome
Piolon.Temp.
I.
Elyut
Taffel, Later Tambs
el trocha
་
1. Thothmes III Ramses III.
B
AT. Ramses I
Thiotvenad
Amenoph IIL
Kapı el-Hettur
Skapi
Memnons Statur
Memorie
m³el-Fessad
Embankment
M
ab
E
M
Hom
Com el-Birāt
Saramal
Schama Tama
Modern
N
Caral
finazo
Tondon, Longman & Cº
μάχοι
R
Hamses II.
dmenoph III.
J A
n
Z
i e
e h
Modern, Ganal
p I 9
#
وه و دوره
Modern Canai.
Fega el-Fokara
四
​KARNAK
Scale of English Yards.
+
200
400
600 800
LD00
2000
Tnpraval by E.Weller.


109
Yards
12 13
8
10
6
1
Like
50
8
100
5
200 Fards
4
1 15
[
6
+
I
1 Sesurtesen
Thothmes III:9- Set [I]
13 Psammenchus
"? Amenhept 1×6 Amenhept III 10 Kamses lill-Mexander
3 Thothunes 17 Set 1 11 Sheshonk 15 Philippus
4Thothmes 115 Ramses II 12 Tirhaka
16 Ptolem³ Physcon
PLAN AND LONGITUDINAL SECTION
OF THE PALACE AT KARNAK.
IIII

IP.
11
8
。
12 13
10
11
II.P.
MP.
IV.P.
VP.
3
50
100 Fards
PLAN OF THE PALACE AT KARNAK,
(AFTER LEPSIUS.)
15
]
2
J
3
}
A
r
$

W
دی کر ان پر شده ایم
,*


3 9015 06722 8042
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
WORKS IN GENERAL LITERATURE
VIRGINIA'S ITAND a Poem By MARGUERITE A.
TYRA DOMESTICA: Christian Songs for Domestic
Edification. Tranflated from the German of O J. E Sport
RICHARDA
| YRA GERMANICA Translated from the German
FRINE WINKWORTI-AGIU,
KWORTIS NGŨ Fitting of the fin TĂ
each
MORAL EMBLEMS from JACOB CATS and
BERT FARLIE Woodent Illasciitione by lo
PASSING THOUGHTS on RELIGION. "By the
Author of Amy Herbert
Ccond Buttrom
Lep HVO, 68.
STORIES and TALES by the Author of Amy Herbert.
ew and cheaper Göllected Edition
AMY HERBERT
GURTRUDE
UGHTER
9 vola crown Svo
HARINE ASHTO
MARGARET PERCIVAL
ANDION FARSUNAGE
CONYBEARE and HOWSON'S Work on the
and FRISTLES
Kourth Edition, Maps, Plates, Wooden
ols: square crOWE
BUNYAN'S PILGRIM'S PROGRESS
strations on Steel and Wood Hot Designa b L BENNETTS
KINGSLEY
IR JOHN HERSCHEL'S ESSAYS
non and Quarterly Renews, with Addresses, and other Piec
MR. A. HAYWARD'S BIOGR
TICAL ESSAYS, reprinted from Reviews
PEOPLE'S EDITION
POETICAL WORKS; complete in One
PEOPLE'S EDITION
DIF the Music printed with
mrfect Edition.
PEOPLE'S
AIRS Music cat
Volume
London
E