fe Itbris. Kfgtnal5 (B. (K. |fanun-. THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESENTED BY PROF. CHARLES A. KOFOID AND MRS. PRUDENCE W. KOFOID EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY AN ATTEMPT TO CONCILIATE THE ANCIENT SCHEMES AND TO EDUCE A RATIONAL SYSTEM BY F. G. FLEAY " Numbers are the only certain things ; they can be neither controlled nor perverted" An Egyptiati Princess, G, Ebeks LONDON DAVID NUTT, 270-271, STRAND 1899 All rights reserved THIS ESSAY IS DEDICATED TO THE MEMORY OF THE LATE EDWARD WHITE BENSON, D.D. LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY (IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PERMISSION* GRANTED BY HIM IN HIS LIFETIME) BY F. G. FLEAY, M.A. IN REMEMBRANCE OF THE DAYS WHEN THEY WERE BOTH DEALTRY THEOLOGICAL PRIZEMEN AND SCHOLARS OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE * As His Grace never saiv any portion of the MS. it must not be supposed that the book in any way represents his views of tlic subject thereof CEzs CONTENTS Preface Introductory 1 The Chronicler's short scheme ...... 2 The Redactor's long scheme : Dynasty xx. A. . . . 3 The Dynasties. Manetho's Vol. i 7 Tables of Dyn. i.-vi. ........ 7 Turin papyrus total for i.-vi. is 755 years, not 1765 . . 7 Easkhemka's career 9 Fictitious insertion of Dyn. xii. duplicated by Manetho . 10 Minor totals in Africanus ....... 12 The Chronicle misunderstood by Eusebius .... 14 Long and short schemes alike baaed on Sothic cycles 15 On Hordedef and Suhtes 17 Eusebius' text emended 20 Dyn. vii.-x 22 Dyn. ix. a contemporary dynasty : but not with Dyn. xi. . 25 Dyn. xi. .......... 27 Karnak list 28 Manetho's Vol. ii., Dyn. xii. . . . . . . 31 Dyn. xiii. .......... 35 Evidence of contemporaneity of Dyn. xii. and Dyn. xiii. . 36-41 Arminon and his epoch ....... 37 Dyn. xiv. .......... 43 Dyn. XV. : Khyan its first king 44 Staan the king of the 400 years' inscription ... 44 The 430 years of Ex. xii. 90 correctly reckoned ... 45 Eusebius' absurd mistake as to the Chronicle ... 45 ivi311530 VUl CONTENTS Africanus' alterations . Dyn. xvi. ..... Manetho and Josephus reconciled Conjectural restoration of this Dynasty from Berosus Dyn. xvii. ........ Chronology of the Tiaa family .... On the Hyksos ....... Table of parallel dynasties B.C. 1840-1580 . Dyn. xviii., xix. ....... Identification of list names and monumental names Explanation of their dislocated order . Mahler's determination of the epoch of Tahutmes iii. Emendation of the Mestr^an list On the date of the Exodus Amenofis of Josephus identified with Eamessu i. Menpehra (Menofres), brother of Horemhib . The year numbers in Josephus . Manetho's Yol. iii., Dyn. xx. Ramessu iii. does not belong to this dynasty The supposititious dynasty xx. A. Dyn. xxi. ....... The mummies at Deir el Bahri Dyn.icxii. Africanus' numbers emended . Dyn. xxiii., xxiv. ...... Dyn. XXV. ....... Table of contemporary kings, Dyn. xxiii.-xxvi., reconcilin the data of Manetho, Herodotus, and Chronicler Dyn. xxvi. Dyn. xxvii.-o:xix. . Dyn. XXX. The Apis-SLela? The Mythic Dynasties The Memphiie scheim . This scheme is history disguised by r seasons or years The HeliopolUe sclieme and anothe eckoning months as CONTENTS JX Sed P£KI0DS Sothic cycles began in B.C. 2779, 1318, not in 1322 Seels of the Sotliic 28 year series beginning 1 Tliotli Seds of tJie 30 year series beginning 1 Ti/bi Seds of another 28 year series beginning 1 Famenoth . On the epocli of Setaanubti (Staan) 1631 b.c Recapitulation o£ Sed epochs ." . . Sed table of month days for calculation Ancient Schemes. 1. Eratosthenes The divine reigns formed from the mortal by reckoning months as years ....... 2. The Chronicler. This scheme is Sothic . 21-year and 30-year factors ...... 3. Tlie Turin papgrus (Sothic) : based on the Memphite sums of divine reigns, but with quite different items The Abydos tablet is a slightly sophisticated copy of the Turin papyrus ....... 4. Herodotus ........ Table of the 5 long schemes Restoration of the true reckoning of Herodotus and vindi cation of his trustworthiness .... This Saite or Memphite scheme is Sothic . 5. Manetho : also Sothic, but with different termini . t). Redactor : also Sothic, but with forged interpolations to vasLke terminiis ad (p(em 'Piolema.ic The Pha3nix periods of Tacitus must be from this scheme 7. Josephus . . . . . . . His forged insertions and blunders .... 8. Africanus ......... His arbitrary alterations and mistakes The Manethonic totals in Africanus and Eusebius recon ciled ......... 9. Eusebius ......... His erroneous numeration of the Chronicle dynasties and other guesses ......... PAGE 100 101 103 105 106 107 109 111 111 115 115 117 117 121 121 122 123 124 127 128 129 130 131 133 133 136 141 141 / CONTENTS I'AGE 143 146 147 150 151 10. The Ifestreean list, or Sothis hooh (Synkellos) Genealogies Castor's sclieme ........ Date of Sargon 2470 B.C., not 3750 .... Conclusions Hypottesis as to alterations in the Turin Sclieme ; origin- ally made 1468 B.C., altered in 1318 and 1229 . . 152 Affiliation of all the ancient schemes 156 Final tables : — I. Data : dynastic numbers for 8 known schemes ; 7 of which are given from the authorities, but Manetho's is slightly conjectural. II. Results : showing contemporaneous dynasties i.-iv. from the Turin papyrus and Chronicle : vii.-xxx. from Manetho and Chronicle 160 A-ddendum on Precession reckoning and the various sacred and civil years 164 PREFACE The original intention of the present essay was to collect the numerical statements of the ancient authorities and to present them side by side so as to ascertain if possible the common source from which schemes differing by hundreds and perhaps thousands of years in their epochs for Menes had derived their origin. Should the quest prove futile the labour would not I thought be altogether in vain. For although the ancient schemes had been carefully gathered in expensive works (Lepsius' "Konigsbuch" for example) the reproductions of them in the histories in common use in England were either very incomplete or mingled with so much hypothetic guesswork as to be misleading as to what the ancients really meant : and moreover the present fashion of depreciating the ancients and throwing them aside as either grossly erroneous when genuine, or else as merely post-christian forgeries, did not appear the most likely method of getting at the truth. The first step towards my own conclusions was xii PEEFACE the discovery that no ancient authority reckoned more than twenty successive legitimate dynasties. Then on arranging the various schemes side by side I found that there were only minor differences for the twenty-four later dynasties which offered little diffi- culty against their reconciliation. But for the first six dynasties Manetho and the shorter schemes proved absolutely irreconcilable : the monumental data showed conclusively that Manetho was wrong ; but I could not determine which of the others was right. The editor of the Athencewn kindly per- mitted me to print in that periodical a trial scheme based on the Chronicler's which elicited from Pro- fessor Petrie a letter pointing out that overlaps between the fourth, fifth, and sixth dynasties were historically impossible. As all the ancient short schemes require such overlaps no 07ie of them could be admitted. It was still possible to restore the full reckoning (without overlap) from the Chronicle and the Turin papyrus combined. I tried this and found on testing the result by Sed festival dates, &c., that every condition required was satisfied as far as my knowledge extended. I now began to have hopes of getting at something like the true dates, and rewrote the whole essay. While re- arranging the tables I discovered that all the schemes were manipulated by their authors so as to get Sothic periods from their epochs for first kings PEEFACE xiii down to some important change in the condition of the country (such as the Persian conquests) or else to the monarch reo-nant when the scheme was made. I also noted the parallelism between the intervals in the human and divine dynasties. This new matter, which confirmed my previous conclusions in every detail, could not be incorporated without rewriting the whole essay a third time. The result of this continual remodelling a treatise, begun in 1892 with a transliteration somewhat like that of Brugsch, greatly altered in 1895 with that of Petrie (which I greatly prefer), and rewritten in 1898-9, has necessarily been a frequent variation in spelling : Sheshonk and Shashank, Merenptah and Mineptah, and the like, occurring sometimes even on the same page. I have been loth to change these because they often indicate the authors from, whom I derived the statements in which they occur, but I have been careful when there was the slightest doubt as to the identity of any personage not to name him by a simple numeral but to give both personal and throne names : for instance I do not mention kings of dynasties xi. and xx. simply as Antaf V. or Ramessu xii. The convenient printing of the tables on separate sheets is due entirely to the liberality of the pub- lisher : I have no claim whatever to any credit for it. The present instalment is a portion of a larger xiv PEEFACE work embracing the chronology of the Babylonians, Assyrians, Hebrews, &c., the appearance of which will depend on the sale of the present portion. Directly on the recoupment of the expense of its production the whole will be made ready for the press. I have to acknowledge the courtesy with which inquiries as to special points have been answered by Prof. F. Petrie, Prof. Sayce, Prof. Rhys Davids, Bishop Barry, Dr. E. A. Abbott, and Prof Max Mliller. I desire most emphatically to disclaim the opinion formed by one or two friends who have seen the proof sheets that I wish to lower the epoch of human civilisation : positive numbers compel me to adopt a lower epoch than that now in fashion for the intro- duction of recorded history, which I cannot trace even in monarchic lists to an earlier date than 2924 B.C., but a civilisation which could produce such work as the early sculpture of Egypt before 2500 B.C. must have required many centuries to develop. r. G. FLEAY. 27 Dafjobne Koad, Tooting, S.W. July 1899. EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY INTEODUCTORY " Although the questions of the Egyptian chrono- logy are among the most difficult, they are also among the most essential to be considered. The various data that exist need that full discussion in the light of modern knowledge of the subject which they have never yet had. " These words are Flinders Petrie's : they are weighty and they are true. From Wilkinson to Mariette dates have been attributed to Menes varying from 2429 B.C. to 5735 B.C., assigning a duration of two millenniums at the lowest or more than five millenniums at the highest to this ancient empire, each scheme differing from every other, and satisfactory only to its author. At the present time the long chronology, which places Menes at some- where about 5000 B.C., is fashionable ; fifty years ago the short system was in vogue, yet no discovery of the last half-century has been of such a nature as to require so radical a change of opinion. The one datum at the root of the sudden veering of chrono- logical ideas (the date assigned to Sargon) will be 2 EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY considered in its due place ; for the moment I confine myself to Egyptian data only, and I begin with an attempt to ascertain what were the opinions of ancient native chronologers — a matter universally neglected and even derided by great living authorities, who, while basing their whole systems on an end-to-end •elaboration of Manetho's numbers, openly declare that he is absolutely untrustworthy, and that an};^ use of his scheme has had its day. The rules that will guide me in this attempt are the following : (1) To throw aside no datum, however absurd it may seem, as useless. If it be erroneous, the datum itself may be valueless and yet the mode of the introduction of the error may be of great import- ance. (2) To reject no definite statement until it has been shown to be in direct contradiction with a higher authority. (3) As far as I can to eliminate my own personal equation. I know my tendency to prefer a high antiquity for Egypt, and have repeatedly searched my results after completing my investigation for every instance where this tendency could be traced, and given it careful reconsideration. Turning then to the ancient Egyptian schemes which are in this essay, I believe, for the first time displayed (in Table I. at the end) synchronistically, we see that only two of these extend through the whole range of the empire from Menes to Arta- xerxes Okhos. The first of them, that of the old Egyptian chronicler preserved by Synkellos, gives to this series of dynasties a period of 2324 years, as IXTEODUCTORY 3 shown by the totals hereafter given in detail ; in the items there is a deficiency of 178 years, which must be inserted somewhere. A comparison with Manetho and with certainly known history (the results of which I am compelled here to anticipate, but they are indisputable) show that the omissions are Dynasty xxi., 128 years, which is altogether dropped, and 50 years in Dynasty xviii., which brings xviii.+xix (244 + 228 years) into exact accord- ance with Manetho's xviii.+xix (263 + 209 years); these insertions are indicated by square brackets in the table, and so are all variations from traditional numbers throughout this essay. It wiU be noticed that the Chronicler admits only 20 dynasties, in- cluding Dynasty xxi. here inserted ; for the two following of 6 Tanites and 3 Tanites make only one in the usual nomenclature. The corrected version would read : xxi. 7 Tanites, 128 years | (xxi. 6 Tanites, 121 years, xxii. 9 Bubastites, 169 years) ^^ (xxii. 3 ,, 48 years; but I shall have to recur to this. Of the Manethonic schemes there can be no doubt which one is most useful for the present purpose ; it is that of the sums stated at the end of each dynasty by Africanus, and the totals of Manetho's three volumes. It is not necessary now to examine the question whether these numbers represent Manetho's own views correctly, as my present object is to explain the grand total of 3555 years expressly stated by Synkellos to be the complete sum of Manetho's dynasties. An examination of Table I. EGYPTIAN CHEONOLOC^Y will show the reader that it is impossible to evolve this number from either scheme of items as handed down from Africanus or Eusebius, nor can it be got from Eusebius' sums. If, however, we take the stated sums and totals of Africanus, and separate the dynasties for which the years are given for each king from those for which the dynastic sums only are given, arranging them in separate columns, we get the following result : Demigods Vol. i. Omitted Vol. ii. Omitted Vol. iii. Omitted Grand total Totals AVith Sums. stated items ouly 214 214 2300 = 1510 + j 783 1 [7J 2121 ) - 916 + 1306 [101] j 1060 = f 724 1 l[191]j + 135 6784 3556 2231 There is a discrepancy in each column. In vol. i. the sums of the dynasties are 7 years in excess of the years assigned to the component dynasties ; and in vol. ii. there is an error of addition of 101 years ; these do not concern us here, and will be considered by-and-by , but the difference of 1 9 1 years in vol. iii. must be explained, for it falls on the column which is the subject of the present argu- ment. If the total at the end of Manetho's third volume is correctly stated, then the total of the years from Horus to Okhos is in this reckoning 3555, and the kings in this column (i.e., those whose years are individually given in Manetho) are the only legiti- mate ones, the dynasties without kings' names being INTRODUCTOEY 5 contemporary and subordinate ; but if the items are complete, and no satisfactory explanation can be pre- sented for the missing 191 years, then this explana- tion of the total of 3555 years must be abandoned, and one of the main foundations of my ultimate result be destroyed. For 48 years of the missing 191 there is no ■difficulty. The 48 years of the Chronicler's S Tanites (Dyn. xxii.) are entirely missing in our versions of Manetho. That they must have been originally inserted in his scheme (that is to say, that his Dyn. xxii. must have been 168 years, not 120) is certain. From Dyn. xxi. to xxx. neither the Chronicler nor Manetho are in error for more than three or four years, if the insertions of 48 years in the latter and 128 in the former are made as required by the totals in each scheme ; and that Manetho should have made such an error is not credible to any one who has examined the results of modern research on this period. It will be abun- dantly proved as we go on that back as far as 1580 B.C. both Manetho and the Chronicler are accurate. But we have still 143 years to account for, and also to explain how it got into a reckoning at all which is otherwise trustworthy. Help comes here from an unexpected source : Africanus expressly states that the Exodus took place at the beginning of Dyn. xviii. in the year 1797 B.C., and Synkellos tells us that Africanus reckoned the epoch of Okhos at about fifteen or sixteen years before Alexander s coming into Egypt in 332 B.C. — i.e., at 347 or 348. From the Exodus therefore to Okhos was reckoned 6 EGYPTIAN CHliONOLOGY by Africanus at 1450 years or a year or two Jess. It will be seen from Table I. that the years actually given in Africanus' reckoning (items) from Dyn. xviii. to XXX. are 1305, which shows a deficiency of 143-5 years. He therefore (or some manipulator of his scheme after him) omitted 143 years at least from his original reckoning, which was taken from some version of Manetho, evidently from the version of sums and totals which we are now considering, in which this 143 years must have originally appeared. Still further : in the Sothis book (reckoning of Synkellos) there is a dynasty unrecognised else- where, 59. Athothis 28 years 60. Kenkenes 39 „ 61. Ouennefes 42 ,, 62. Sousakeim . . . . . 34 „ Sum . . . . 143 „ made up of 4 reigns stolen from Dyn. i. 2, 3, 4, and xxi. 7, which contains exactly the years required, and is inserted in the middle of Dyn. xx. I have no doubt that this is the same dynasty as that which must have been included in the version of Manetho which we are now considering, and also in that of Africanus. It follows that the sums version of 3555 years is now fully accounted for, and that this scheme, as well as the Chronicler's, omitted 10 of the 30 dynasties included in the end- to- end reckoning as contemporary and subordinate. There is, indeed, no total or any other indication in any ancient scheme that necessitates more I 1 SSi?i^5S s -«lll SS'"S2S5i!§S |3 giS IS S^-'-.?JiS| 1 Sf S3S'^ S4:=^-:j:s III g s'-a- 2 III 1 II ' < III \l pq M « H X' W -a 1 1 <§ i » " 1? £ja -C M » S g llllllllll :5 mm to .2» S» CC H (W S S S 3«3^o T3 K i 1 S-s;^ « s s 1-2 = §1 i.?l s ^ m & » 5, lll 15 s; H X :zi 3 dr-H 2^1 1 III "Is'ilsll eiiSaS;SS!ls 5 ^SS|2|S||S| a 1,: 00 C-. o ISI SS j3 125, 3S % 1 ^1 8- "ISI 11 s issas is|3| IStJ I^S'p'C^ooc. s SI si s gisi g?? % rM r:i ^ 1 o 1 =°Si £| I-a^S^ gig .■- aj >^ BO'S =;i >- (D lO '^ 1>1 Od CT.' 02 !2; 5 ^ 2 cfl ts] THE DYNASTIES T than 20 successive dynasties ; and there is direct evidence that the extreme short and long schemes (chronicle and Manetho-total) of old times each- omitted 10 dynasties as subordinate, though not the same 10. I will next examine each dynasty of the 30, in order to ascertain whether the monuments confirm these ancient authorities in their arrangement ; and at the same time, as far as may be, to find out what the true duration of each dynasty was ; in other words, whether the long or short chronology of the ancients is more worthy of credit. SECTION I. THE DYNASTIES. MANETHO'S FIRST YOLUME. Dyn. I.-YI. — (See Table facing this page.) The first important preliminary in this period is to determine whether the Turin total should be read as 755 years (the number given in the papyrus) ; or 1755 as several high authorities assert, on the hypo- thesis that the numeral 1 has been destroyed in this very fragmentary document. In support of this view a series of numbers, 73, 72, 83, 95, 95, 70, 74, 70, which occur on another frasfment have been assigned to the 9 kings from Mena to Send ; these 8 (with 8 EGYPTIAN CHEONOLOGY 18 years for the 9th king, say) would give us 700 years for this period ; and taking the highest numbers possible for the succeeding kings — 71 years for the rest of Dyn. ii., 57 for iii,, 103 for iv., 191 for v., and 181 for vi. — we should have a total of 1303 years, which is far short of 1755. Moreover, it is scarcely credible that this papyrus should, in every instance where direct comparison is possible — e.g., in vi. 2-4, V. 7-9, iv. 2-8 (if my arrangement is right), iii. 1-2, ii. 7 — have numbers lower than Manetho by 30, 20, 168, 19, and 17 years (254 in all), and in the instance of these 9 kings alone have an excess of 385 years. I shall, later on, give my reasons for supposing that Manetho's object was to add to the true reckoning, in order to obtain a Sothis cycle of 1461 years from Mena to Usertsen i. ; while the Turin papyrus, with a like object, diminished the true numbers to get a cycle from Mena to 46 Kamessu i. It has also been authoritatively stated that 755 years is an impossibly small number for an Egyptian scheme ; yet the Chronicler has only 736 years and Eratos- thenes 676. It is to show that 755 is a possible number that I have inserted conjectural years for i., ii. in the Turin column, which differ from Manetho's only in one instance — 36 years for Mena (Eusebius has 30). A further deduction of 26 years would give exact coincidence of 351 years for i. and ii. with Eratosthenes and 443 for i.-iv. 2 with the Chronicler as well. These two numbers are probably histori- cally wrong, but they refute the statement of *' impossibility." Another important point is my omission of v. 1-6 THE DYNASTIES 9 from the Turin reckoning altogether. Even if they had to be included the 755 years need not be given up ; we should only have to diminish the reckoning of i. 1-ii. 3 by an equivalent amount. But in fact there is no other instance in this papyrus of an abso- lute loss of a group of 6 kings, without indication either of names or numbers, or at least position, in the columns of preceding or succeeding kings. Attempts have been made to assign fragments to this vacancy, especially the fragment which I have placed in iv. ; but the exact agreement of the num- bers with Eratosthenes on the one hand for the sum, and with Manetho on the other for the smaller numbers, leaves little doubt of its true position. The difference from Manetho lies in the three successive reigns of Kheops, &c., 63, 66, 63 years respectively, which cannot be historical whether Khafra was son or brother of Khufu. These numbers are not so improbable as the 9 reigns of over 70 years each already noted, but these latter no doubt belong to a dynasty of gods. In the present case the proof is definite. Raskhemka was attached to 5 kings — Khafra, Menkaura, Shepseskaf, Userkaf, Sahura. On the Manethonian hypothesis this involves ic+63+7 + 28+2/ years, a century at the very least, and even with the true number 32 for Menkaura, Raskhemka must have served 70 years and lived for some 90 years — an extreme case. That these large numbers were priestly inventions is also evident from the fact that in the time of Herodotus, although, as we shall see hereafter, they had already been introduced, there was a concurrent tradition 10 • EGYPTIAN CHEONOLOGY assigning 50 years to Kheops and 56 to Khefren : the amount of alteration had not been definitely settled. As to the antecedent probability of such an omission in the Turin papyrus as v. 1-6, 125 years, I think it is more likely than not. If, as I hope it is by this time evident, this reckoning is a short one, and if, as I hope to show when I con- sider the schemes, which cannot be till I have gone through the details of the dynasties, all the short schemes had the aim of reducing the time from Mena to the reigning monarch to a cycle, similar omissions are to be expected in every case. Now the Chronicler omits iv. 3-end and vi. 1-5, 9-11, but gives V. in full. Eratosthenes omits v. 5-vi. 5^ vi. 9-11, but gives iv. in full (omitting Shepseskaf). So the Turin omits v. 1-6, but gives iv. and vi. in full. Fortunately they supplement each other, and from the 3 we can restore the full reckoning without the overlaps between iv. and v., or v. and vi., which they introduced. And that, at any rate as far back as the beginning of Dyn. iii., we thus get a true reckoning will be more evident if we examine the structure of the Manethonic scheme in detail. No less than 6 kings — Tlas, Sesokhris, Tyreis^ Mesokhris, Soyfis, and Akhes — are absolutely unknowai on any monument or in any early scheme ; and 3 others — Athothis, Semempses, and Boethos — are found only in the Abydos list, which was, in my opinion, the beginning of corruption on the long system. For compare the following parallels : THE DYNASTIES 11 i. 2. Athothis ii. 1. Boethos 8. Sesokhris iii. 3. Tyreis . 7. Akhes . Sum 47 years 38 „ 48 „ 7 „ 42 „ 182 „ xii. 1, Sesonkhosis . 46 years 2. Ammanemes 38 „ 3. Sesostris . . 48 „ 4. Larabares . . 8 „ Successors . 42 „ Sum 182 „ and note that Sesokhris was 5 cubits in height and 3 pahns in breadth, while Sesostris was 4 cubits^ 3 palms, 2 digits in height. Is it possible that two such prodigies should be found in the same history, and with nearly the same names, and exactly the same abnormal reigns? These two are evidently one ; and the exact correspondence of the year numbers throughout shows that the whole of Dyn. xii. was re-inserted in i.-iii. to eke out the extravagant numbers of the Saite calculation, just as i. 2-4 were used afterwards in concoctinp: the fictitious Dyn. xxa already noticed. The other 4 kings who were wanted for the 68 years still deficient were ingenuously inserted with an average of 17 years each : Semempses, 18 ;. Tlas, 17; Mesokhris, 17; Soyfis, 16. All these must surely be rejected as having no sufiicient evidence that they ever existed. There are also other indications of uncertainty and alteration in the order of the kings in this group in ii. and iii. It is most unlikely that any king in the Turin list should be omitted in the fuller list of Abydos, which was made at nearly the same time. The Abydos list has 4 kings : Teta, Sememptah, Banetern, and Neterkara, which are certainly not in the Turin ; but the other three, Uaznes, Sezes,, 12 EGYPTIAjST cheonology and Neferkara (19), which have no correspondent Turin kings in the places they how occupy, are ■exactly balanced by Neferkara, Sekerneferka, and Hezefa in the Turin lists. Moreover, two of these kings cannot be rightly placed at the end of iii., where the order is fixed by the West car and Prisse tales as Zeserti, Nebka, Heni, Sneferu, in accordance with the Sakkara list (almost the only instance of •any aid being derivable from this list beyond a general confirmation of that of Abydos). I have, therefore, indicated the true position of these three kings in parentheses. Their year numbers, 17, 26, 30, as compared with Manetho's 17, 25, 30 at the end of ii., confirm this conjecture. In like manner I identify Manetho's Kheneres with Heni [Ra], and transfer him to the end of iii. If it be objected that TJaznes and Neferkara cannot be identical, as they both occur in the Sakkara list, I reply that this blundering compilation was manifestly made after, and probably from, the Abydos and Turin lists, and that it took Uaznes from one, and Neferkara from the other : it has scarcely any independent authority. Any difierence of names can be paralleled in the Neterbau for Bezau, and Beby for Zaza in the Sakkara list, A very important question is that of the differ- ences of the actual and stated totals in Africanus. In i. Lepsius was certainly right in maintaining that the original number for Athothis was 47 years. I shall by-and-by give my reason for supposing that the alteration is due to Africanus himself Eratos- thenes had already made a still greater change to THE DYNASTIES 13 59. In iv. the original number for Bikheris was no doubt 12, not 22, and this change also was, I beHeve, made by Africanus. But we have for this Dynasty a various reading arising from a series of partial totals inserted in Synkellos, which are certainly not from the same hand as the sums and totals which I ve as yet considered . This reckoning is : Dyn. Sums i. 253 years . — ii. 302 „ . 655 iii. 214 „ . 769 iv. 277 „ . 1046 V. 248 „ . 1294 vi. 203 „ . 1497 vii. 70 days . — viii. 142 years . . 1639 years, 70 days The last column contains the figures actually stated, the others are derived from these by subtrac- tion. As all the other numbers are taken from the sums, not from the items, of Africanus, there must have been a various reading of 277 for 274 in this dynasty, and consequently one of the items has been decreased by 3. It is hard to say which one, but as Khufu has a longer reign than Khafra in each of the short reckonings, I think we should read 66 for 63 for his reign ; anyhow, 277 is almost certainly the original reading. In v. the 30-years surplus in the sum was surely an arbitrary addition by the compiler of the 3555-years total ; there is no reign to which we can add 30 years with any probability, and the agreement of the sum of 191 years (taking the last three reigns from the Turin papyrus) with 14 EGYPTIAN CHEONOLOGY the Chronicler's 190 forbids any alteration being made. I may as well anticipate after results at this point by stating that the compiler was certainly not Manetho himself, but the editor of his scheme, not very long after his death. I will call this editor henceforward the Redactor for clearness' sake. In vi. this Redactor introduced a reign of 100 years instead of a lifetime ; the reign was 94 years, as Neferkara PejDy was 6 years old at his accession. I now pass to the totals from i. 1 to iv. 2. Eratosthenes has 15 kings and 443 years, the •Chronicler has 15 generations, 443 years. These statements are manifestly identical, and the notion that the Chronicler meant 15 dynasties is absurd. It was, I think, a guess made by Eusebius ; as he has absurdly introduced the numbers 190, 103, 348, 194, which follow in the Chronicler, for his dynasties xvi., xvii., xviii,, xix., contrary to all other historical authority. He was probably misled by the notion that the Chronicler must have had 30 consecu- tive dynasties, whereas really he has but 20 in all, and I cannot find, as I have already stated, any evidence that the ancients ever reckoned any more than these consecutively. In order to get these numbers in, Eusebius had to change " 8 Tanites " (palpably the Elefantine dynasty of Manetho) into *' 5 Thebans " ; "4 Memphites " (evidently the last 4 kings of vi., Neterkara being reckoned) into a "Shepherd" dynasty of 4 kings; and "14 Mem- phites" into " 14 Diospolites," and then he could not make up his 348 years without including two more THE DYNASTIES 15 Diospolites (not now extant) in his text. His whole system is clearly vitiated by personal equation and untrustworthy, in fact scarce worth tabulating, and yet in the very latest modern system some of his most absurd numbers still figure conspicuously. Truly has Petrie said that the chronology of Egypt has never been adequately investigated. Returning to the Chronicler, he states that these 15 generations were of a " Cynic cycle," i.e., taken from some scheme which had a Sothic cycle for its basis, I shall show in a subsequent section that there were two such schemes in existence in the Chronicler's time : one of a long chronology (Saite), which cannot be the one he alludes to; the other that of the Turin papyrus. Now the Turin scheme has 18 kings for this period (average reign 25 years) ; this agrees perfectly with the Chronicler's 15 generations (average 30 years); but Eratosthenes, who clearly worked from Manetho's list, mistook the statement, and in order to get his 443 years out of 15 reigns, used the long reigns of Mena, Athothis, &c., as given by Manetho, sometimes introducing kings not in the Turin papyrus (the Cynic cycle) at all. Hence we must not look to Eratosthenes for item numbers in this period ; but his (and the Chronicler's) total of 443 years is most valuable, for the evidence that the Turin list had the same totals, considering the exact agreement thereby produced with its 755 years to the end of vi., manifestly preponderates. This total (subtracting 14 years for Nitaqerti's successors) gives 741 years from Mena to the 16 EGYPTIAN CHEONOLOGY end of that queen's reign. The Chronicler has 736 years (nearly the same amount), and Eratosthenes 676 (two Sed periods less). These differences do not need consideration just now, but I must state here that the Manethonic original total (not the Redactor's) of 1461 years, one Sothic period, clearly points to the first motive for his enormous exaggerations, just as the mention of the Cynic cycle by the Chronicler indicates the origin of the under-estimate of the ancient short chronology. In the B.C. dates of the Table I have used the Turin numbers plus the 125 years omitted in the papyrus, and have filled in the missing items from the corresponding kings in i., ii. from Manetho, thus introducing 26 more years. The maximum date for Mena would be 2956 B.C., the minimum 2904. For the justification of my mean date (2929) see hereafter under the head of Conclusions, where the existence of an earlier form of the Turin reckoning is deduced. From this point onward the Manethonic reckoning (corruptions being removed) is substantially accu- rate, all the intentional falsifications by introducing fictitious kings and exaggerated numbers to the glorification of Memphis being confined to i.-vi. by the Saite or Memphite priests. The corresponding depreciation of the Memphite reigns in the short chronology is due to the Heliopolite priests (Chro- nicle) or the Thebans (Turin). Eratosthenes the Greek followed the Theban scheme. There is a palpable objection to my arrangement of the fragment of the Turin papyrus in Dyn. iv. The only name remaining is that of Akauhor, which THE DYNASTIES 17 should appear as Menkaura. Hence the confidence with which the fragment has been assigned to Dyn. v., where it is assumed that Akauhor, whose name occurs in three farm-lists of this time, is either the personal name of Neferfra or else an independent king, other- wise unknown, between Shepseskara and Userenra. But these are merely guesses. I have met with no proof that this Akauhor may not be identical with Menkauhor v. 7, and, if this cannot be allowed, it is certain that no Akauhor occurs in any list of ancient date except the Turin, It is far more likely that Akauhor, Menkauhor, Menkaura, are all versions of one name. That Ka and Hor can be thus inter- changed is certain, as the names Radedef and Hor- dedef occur indifferently for the son of Khufu [cf. the Westcar papyrus) and for the son of Menkaura (cf. the Book of the Dead). It is the latter who is the king in Dyn. iv. The priests of Dyn. xxvi. confused him with the former, and placed him after Khafra ; the Abydos list by a similar confusion puts him next before Khafra. Another instance of names of difierent form but identical in substance is to be found in the Shepseskaf of Dyn. iv. (in Abydos), and the Shepseskara of Dyn. v. (Sakkara). [Compare Userkaf v. 1 (Abydos) and Userkheres (Manetho), which implies the form Userkara.] His misplace- ment in the Sakkara table arose from the overlap between iv. and v. introduced in the short chrono- logy. The omission of the last 58 years in iv. by the Chronicler, or of the first 62 years of v. by Eratosthenes would equally bring him to the fourth place in Dyn. vi. I cannot identify him with Suhtes, 18 EGYPTIAN CHKONOLOGY who reigned probably onh^ a few months, but Aty may be the same as Suhtes ; his pyramid was to have been called Ban, and pyramid names with Ba are found only in Dyn. v. He is not known outside the Hammamat inscription of his first year recording the fetching of stone for his pyramid. It follows that Sisires being relegated to Dyn. iv. we have for v. 8 kings and, adopting the Turin numbers for the last three of these, 191 years. The dynasty is called Elefantine (Query of Sakhebu = Heliopolite) ; but was surely of Lower Egypt. It is hardly possible that the Chronicler by his 8 Tanite kings with 190 years should have meant any dynasty but this, yet the unfortunate identification of his dynasty with xvi. by Eusebius and his consequent substitution of these numbers for the 32 Shepherds and 518 years of Manetho has vitiated almost every modern scheme of any importance, and has even led to the Chronicler being denounced as a post-Christian forger ! Note especially that the succeeding dynasty in the chronicle is Memphite, which entirely precludes its transference to the Eusebian position. Among matters confirmatory of my arrangement, but needing no detail here, because no one, I suppose, will dispute them, are the Heliopolite origin of Dyn. v. and the consequent predominance of Ra worship : also the assignment of 3 generations to the time from Khufu through Khafra and Menkaura to Userkaf in the Westcar papyrus tale which excludes Bikheris, Thamfthis and Rathoises (except as contemporary kings) ; " Thy son shall reign, and thy son's son, and then one of them" (i.e., one of v. 1-3) are the exact THE DYNASTIES 19 words : but I must say a word or two on the quarry- ing of alabaster at Hatnub by Una under Merenra because so much stress has sometimes been laid on it. The whole thing is chronologically valueless ; not only might the difficulty of landing occur within much wider limits than those which have been assigned, but our ignorance of the kind of year in use before the addition of the 5 epacts introduces an entirely unknown condition into the problem. I may add that neglecting this factor the date for Una's arrival at Memphis comes out at November 21, which would be entirely satisfactory. It is not because the result would oppose my conclusions that I leave out this matter altogether as a datum. I must not, however, omit a warning to the reader as to the uncertainty of some of the item -numbers : for instance, in i. where some read 25 years for Zefa in the Turin papyrus, others read 17 ; for Userkara in iv. where some read 6 years, others read 6 months 21 days, and others see nothing at all : for Merenra some read 4 years, others 14. But the main conclu- sions for this list do not depend on the items : they depend on the 755 years total, with which the true items must be consistent; on the 181 sum for vi. ; and in a less degree on the 443 total for i.-iv. 2. If I have been mistaken in filling in item numbers, the main thesis remains unaffected. And in regard to the few conjectural numbers inserted I may point out that nearly all textual errors — i.e., corruptions that have not been intentionally introduced — have arisen from two causes : (1) the accidental destruc- tion of a portion of the numerals either at the begin- 20 EGYPTIAN CHEONOLOGY ning or the end of a number ; (2) the misreading of n which means 10, for II which means 2, or con- versely. This latter may arise from indistinct writing or from accidental obliteration of the upper part of the n. Whenever a discrepancy of a multiple of 8 occurs this solution is generally to be looked for. Thus for Heni in iii. I read 6 years, llllll where Manetho's Kheneres has 30, non • and then 9 for Zeserti, because that gives a sum of 53 for iii, as Eratosthenes has it, and he is the only available non-Manethonic authority in this place. So I read 12 for Sneferu in iv. because I thus get a sum of 97 for iv. 1-8, the same as Eratosthenes. There may be an error of a year or two in any of these insertions — there are very few of them, all enclosed in square brackets— but if so there must be a compensating opposite error somewhere else. I take my stand on the sums and totals. All questions concerning Sed festivals will be dealt with in a separate chapter after the survey of the Dynasties has been completed. The text of Eusebius' version of Manetho requires some notice at this point. As this text stands in the Armeno-Latin version we have : 4ta dynastia Memphitorum regum xvii. . . . Quique regnarunt annis 448 6ta dynastia regum xxxi. Elephantiniorum . . . Quoriim primus Othius . . . Qaartus Pliiops . . . usque ad annum [100]. 6ta dynastia Mulier quaedam Nitocris, &c. This is palpably corrupt : the 17 kings comprise Dynasties iv. and v. ; the 448 and the 100 of Phiops THE DYNASTIES 21 make up 548, just the number needed to bring Eusebius into agreement with Africanus (if for Dyn. iv. we adopt the reading 277 not 274 in the sum) : Phiops is therefore reckoned twice : xxxi. cannot be explained ; Othius and Phiops belong to the sixth dynasty. Eead therefore : 4ta dynastia Memphitorum . , . 5ta dynastia Elephantiniorura regum xvii. Quique regnarunt annis [5]48 6ta dynastia [Memphitorum regum vi.] Quorum primus Othius . . . Quartus Phiops . , . [Ota] Mulier qua^dam Nitocris . . . Some scribe has confused the repeated " 6ta " and thus misplaced the " 6ta dynastia" ; this led to the misplacing of Phiops and his 100 years in Dynasty v., and this again to the reduction of the 548 to 448. The corruption is certainly due to copyists, not to Eusebius, and all that has been said about his split- ting the sixth dynasty and mangling its predecessors may be thrown aside. Eusebius could not have made a dynasty of one queen: as his sum "203 years " amply proves. It will be shown under the head of Schemes that from this point, 2024 B.C., the Manethonic reckoning is virtually accurate, and that (excepting one omission in Dyn. vii.— x.) that of the chronicle is equally true. For the preceding time Manetho errs grossly in excess. The true reckoning must be -evolved from the numbers of the Turin papyrus and the Chronicle (for Dyn. v.) as set forth in my final Conclusions. 22 EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY DYNASTIES YII., YIII. (MEMPHITE) : IX. X. (HERA- KLEOPOLITE) It is difficult at this point to decide on the order of treatment to be adopted ; if I take Manetho's order (as I have done), we must leave xi., which was contemporary with i.-vi,, for future consideration: if I treat of xi., I must break the continuity between vi. and vii. I can only choose the less of the two evils, and ask the reader to suspend his judgment till we (that is, as always in my way of writing, the reader and I) reach Dyn. xviii. For this group we have no items in Manetho, the dynasties not being- considered by the long school as legitimate ; but for the short school they were the only ones reckoned. The Chronicler, the Abydos list and Eratosthenes, notice no other, and even the Turin, which gives xii. in full, does so only because, as in the parallel cases of xi.-xvii., its plan was to include all dynasties legitimate or other. The notion that it meant all these to be calculated end to end is purely modern and quite incompatible with the ancient central hypothesis, that all chronology must be based on the epoch of Menes being the beginning of a period of one or more Sothic cycles which ended in the times, of the several authors of the schemes ; as is shown by definite numbers in the instances where their statements of totals have come down to us. In the present instance I will consider the evidence in the case of each scheme separately. The chronicle gives, us 14 Memphites, 348 years, between dynasties which are certainly vi. (4 Memphites 103 years; identical with the 3 kings 107 years of Eratosthenes, THE DYNASTIES O-A Neterkara being included and Pepy ii. reckoned as 94 years) and xviii. his first Diospolite dynasty. This 348 years in the chronicle reckoning includes the whole time from the death of Nitokris to the accession of Aahmes. Eratosthenes has aofainst this 16 kings and 369 years with a variant reading of 400 years : and the Turin papyrus the same years 369, but 22 kings : of these, 5 are grouped under the one king Myrtaios, so that these two schemes are practically identical. Manetho has, according to Africanus, 135 kings, which is absurd ; but his years are easily reducible to a true reckoning. For 409 years in Dyn. ix. we must read 109, just as in Eusebius xiv. we are compelled to adopt 184 and not 484. The 300 years thus omitted are wanted in xi. and thither I would transfer them : so the total remains unaltered. Also a missing 4 or 7 years required by the total of Manetho's vol. i. (according as we adopt 287 or 284 for the sum of iv.) must be inserted somewhere in this group ; it is impossible to place it anywhere in i.-vi. : I put it for vii. and reject the 70 kings of 1 day each as a late fabrication. Thus we get the following scheme : Dyn. Els. Afb. Cor. Tun. Erat. Chro. K. T. K. Y. K. y. K. Y. K. Y. K. y. A : emhat i. . 1 16 1 16 4 14 4 14 1 22 N Vll. . . 5 76 70 0,70d. ( 4^ 8 (146 1 -le 12 109|' " viii. • . 5 100 27 146 355 8 144 [ 14 348 IX. . . 4 100 19 409 1 23 X. . . 19 185 19 185 7 185J 6 180/ Sam . 34 476 136 756 31 458 22 369 16 369 14 348 24 EGYPTIAN CHEONOLOGY The numbers in Eusebius are clearly guesses and of no help to us. The king numbers in the " corrected " column are simply my own conjectures to show how the 19 = 7+12 and the 27 = 7 + 12 + 8 of Africanus may have been obtained : they will not be used in the argument, but the exact agreement between Turin and Eratosthenes in total shows that their schemes were practically identical ; while that between the totals in the corrected Manetho to the end of viii. and for the first 9 kings of Eratosthenes, 166 years, indicates the position of Akhthoes ix. 1. Again, the near coincidence of Eratosthenes' sum for his last 6 kings, 180 years (or 185 if the variant reading for No. 36 be adopted), with the 185 years of the Manethonic Dyn. x. proclaims the beginning of this dynasty, and shows that the omissions in the short schemes were made after the reign of Akhthoes. This is the only possible position for him, and indi- cates that the time omitted was included, or nearly so, in the sovereignty of the hated Hyksos, to avoid any mention of whom was apparently the motive for treating legitimate descent at all through these obscure Memphite kings. Dyn. VII.-X. — {See Table facing this page.) In the table as I have arranged it there is agree- ment between the Turin and Abydos lists for vi., 8, 11 ; viii. 2, 6 ; ix. 2 ; x. 2 ; and the four names in ra at the end ; and no disagreement whatever ; the Khety or Neby names viii. 3, 4, do not exclude the corresponding Hormeren and Sneferka. The Eratosthenes list confirms Petrie's identifications of xi'ooao-^ -rficoGOi-HOiOOoo cq Oi O O d t^ CO o zj :-fcticocccN ooir^f^o-^oo i^ -* -jD O '-0 O •«* ^ OOOOO OOiOiOiOiOlGO 00 00 t^ 1^ "-O O CO o s Ol Ol (M CQ (M G— 1 I— 1 T— 1 1—1 r^ ,^^ o t^ ^' P^ OQf, < ^^.^ O; (M -> o a o o S3 00 ■«•§-« s CD (» a S> s a 03 -«^ 00 . 00 « ■ ■ O a 's a s s ■< as ^ >s.2a!330pj2i_2 ^ Eh HmM^McKPh Sistosi Maris Sifoas Frouro Amout o CO "* i-t" --d i>^ c» oi o i-H 1 — ^ -^ ^ c3 I-? 2S S 03 !- a ^ Clj • c8 cj a> cd S a> Js! S ^ P c3 S £ g J- rj >- ® c3 S ^ ta-, =3 rf cS *- r^ n a Pep: eferk . uk; fer k iferar » « d ® O fl cs • o • C . a> '-' i CO oi o CO o i-O i-O O O O lO 1 "S j o^ 1 Ol ^ !M ?0 00 '■ 1 — 1|— 1 1 — 1 00 CO ' CO 1 !■ , ^ W >ji - , , c« • . C3 c3 cS >« 1 1 p. U ^ 1- t>i * '^ ea cd e3 d ,_^ S5 d c3 da t. • . « >, ^H V. »H a a _e8 OS 3 i-t^ c3 2; ^ <1 1 ^ ^ M 1 J g W X kJ . -ij .... .•a| : • • • • "o 00 OJ O r-H r-i CJ CO ^ ^0 O i>^ 00 O: --I OJ CO r-t CN CO -^ o --6 1—1 1— ( ■d X X 1 ■' '^ THE DYNASTIES 25 Thyosimares and Dadkasliemara, Semfroukrates and Sneferka (not Sneferka Annu however), but not Meures and Maaabra, nor Tliinillos and Tererel. It makes Khuther, " Tauros tyrannos," equivalent to Eaenka {ha the bull, ra king), as it should do, and explains Soikynios as Skhan. Petrie's position for fragment 48 before 47, i.e., for viii., 1-5 before viii. 6-x. 6, is unquestionably right. The first king of Djai. ix. who appears here as Stammenemes (? Set Amenemhat) is called Akhthoes by Manetho. Now Akhthoes is certainly a trans- literation of Khety, and the missing king in the Turin list is therefore Abmeryra Khety as Petrie has it. After Stammenemes there is an omission of 89 years, which singularly enough can be filled up by the following kings, Kameryra, Maaabra, Aa, Aahotepra, Neferhepura, and possibly Uazedra and Yapeqher. The scarabs of these kings, with those of Neby, Neferkara, and Raenka, form with one exception all the remains of these dynasties that have reached us. But the exception is important. Prince Khety ii. of Asyut '"lived under Kameryra ; he built a temple and prepared a tomb for himself He also chastised the Southerners [Tliebans], the king himself joining in the campaign, after which the people of the capital Herakleopolis came out to meet the king in triumph " (Petrie). Now a palette with this king's name was found (? at Asyut) along with copper open work with the name of Abmeryra. The two kings must be near in date, and Kameryra must come after Abmeryra, who 26 EGYPTIAN CHEONOLOGY was the first Herakleopolite king. Putting him in the first vacancy as ix. 4, his date will be about 1840 onwards, just after the Hyksos invasion, when the dissensions of the native rulers made the conquest of the country so easy. Thebes at this time had no independent ruler; Dyn. xii. ended in 1840; the Delta was in the hands of the Hyksos, but the invaders did not conquer Thebes till 1731. We have here a clear evidence of contemporary dynas- ties, but there is no evidence for the arbitrary dictum that these dynasties "must have been" ix. and xi. The statement that " the South rebelled from Ele- fantine to Qau" is dead against it. We know a fair amount of the history of the latter part of Dyn. xi., but it gives no inkling of any subjection to a Herakleopolitan rule. 1 have not inserted any of the kings in the gap in the table, because there is nothing to indicate their order. But the amount of the gap itself (89 years) requires some notice. The Turin version as we have it certainly dates from Bamses ii., and I have already pointed out that from its date for Menes, 2690, to 45 Bamses ii. is just a Sothic cycle. Now if there were an earlier version, in which there was no gap, all the kings of Dyn. ix. being duly inserted in it, it would throw back the date of Menes to 2779, and an exact Sothic cycle from 2779 brings us to 1318, the epoch of Bamses i. I think there is great likelihood of this being the true state of the case, and that there was a version containing these kings extant at that time. And so Maspero (" Dawn of Civilisation," i. 233, note, Eng. vers.) says Eh I— I i^ O Oh O X) T-H r-H CO CO Ci --C O X o 00 00':tHCO-f<-fCO cc ^ JO (M Csl .— 1 1— 1 1— 1 ^ O C^ CM !M (M (M (M cq CN >; iO CO -^ Co'aO CM O 1 CO CO CO CO I^ -f- 1 ■>! 1 aj • ' " • traim rodes tarko tted nio8 s ui M 3.2-S e3 = -ft ® O s- a Cu CC i 1— 1 C^ CO -+ lO -X) 1 ,+= ' . c3 • • &i"9 •* •'^ e3 1 « 2 CL, a s- ^ ■< li! 1 "H ® jii c += -M fl -j;^ d ^ -2 -^ a r-J cN CO '^* lO CO i>l 00 ci o 1-5 rri T-J r-H T— 1 + + + + ^ O CO 'CO O) -^ -f ->3 cS ed a ■*- , u a to V eS > Eh Ed s erkhara] tef i.] eshesherh efaa eshesapm hotep uahankh tauira ef vii. tuhotep i khkara 2 O «a'n"*:'»-"2-" -*^'=^fl t^Jj zi P ca <»,:e a> c « 3 rH OQ CO ^' io CO rsl c» ci o T-H oq 1— 1 rH I— 1 _^ m ,^ l—H .^ ^^ no u M 03 -«1 >> ;z; ^ P5 bo a a .^ •x> t— 1 o ^ ^ T-5 ■^ CM CO 00 > > > 'x^'g^ 1—1 c^i co' -t lO CO r^od THE DYNASTIES 27 that the papyrus was " written under Ramses i." We might extend this hypothesis, and suppose a third still earlier form with Dyn. v. complete, a lengthened period for Dyn. i., and a date for Menes, 2929 ; the Sothic cycle would then end in 1468 under Tahutmes iii., a likely time for chronological scheme making, when the Karnak list was made. Beyond the one incident recorded above nothing whatever is known of this group ; they may have been subordinate to any dynasties whatever so far as we know, except for a few years at a time of crisis when they claimed supremacy over Thebes. If they occupied the position usually assigned to them, where are their pyramids '? Dyn. XI. — {See Tables facing this page.) This dynasty is in its earlier portion vague and uncertain ; the Abydos list notes only 2 kings and the Turin list 6 ; the Karnak list and the monuments show 9 at least. But the date of the close of the dynasty is fixed, as Manetho's named king series makes xii. 2 follow immediately on vi. He is the only authority who traces the main suc- cession through the Diospolites and Hyksos ; Eratos- thenes and the Chronicler, as we have seen, following the Memphites and Herakleopolites. The 6 kings and 240 years given in the list of Mestrseans by the author of the Sothis book agree so exactly with the Turin papyrus that I have little doubt that in this instance (as in others when he could get no name list from Africanus and Eusebius) 28 EGYPTIAN CHEONOLOGY he had recourse to some good authority unknown to us. I have given the Karnak table in full, as it is the most complete list we have. The lines of the original are for convenience printed as columns to be read downwards : 9-13, 23, 28-30 (9 kings) certainly belong to this dynasty, and I think 7, 8, 14 do so as well ; 8 is certainly not a king of v. or vi. The order appears right. The first six items in col. 1, 2, 3 {i.e., lines 1, 2, 3 of the original) evidently form in each instance a continuous series ; then come breaks, after which the remaining vacancies were filled up with the overplus of kings still outstanding, Nos. 1-22 form a fairly continuous series, xi. coming between v. and vi., with which two dynasties it was contemporary ; but xii. 2 was omitted in its true place, and put in by afterthought, and xi. 8-12, for whom there was no room in the xi. column, were put in last, but in true order. There seems to be no room for a seventh king in the Turin list, which contained originally the 6 kings from Nebhotep to the end, but only the 2 last now remain, and these 2 are the only ones noticed in the Abydos list. The sum of 243 years (Turin) compared with the 240 of the Sothis requires 3 years to be inserted somewhere, and I give them to king 9. Perhaps the Turin list made him co-regnant with his father or with Nebtauira, and gave his coadjutors three more years. Anyway he is omitted in the Sothis. There is, however, nothing definite beyond this to oppose the Sothis book, and THE DYNASTIES 29 the long reign of Horuahankh fixes his position as the 2nd in that list. The succession is pretty certain. I have followed the Karnak list in direct order throughout. It will be noticed that the Sothis makes the first king of this dynasty Mestraim = Menes, with a date of 2724 B.C. according to Synkellos. Really there were several earlier kings than Nebhotep, besides a prince Erpaha Antepa, who ruled over the South under an unnamed king, I think Userkaf v. 1. If so, Nebkhara, whom I venture to insert in the vacancy in the Kar- nak list — he has hitherto been unplaced but certainly is very early, and all Mentuhoteps have names in Neb — was the first king to rebel ; and if this view that xi. was a dynasty that threw off the yoke of the comparatively strong kings of v. be a true one, there may possibly be some confirmatory circumstances recorded in the monuments of v. or vi. Now the reigns of Teta vi, 1, and of Horuahankh xi. 7, were on my reckoning contemporary for 22 years, 2205-2183, and the last connexion of any Mem- phite king with Abydos that I have been able to trace is the alabaster vase bearing the name of " Teta beloved by Dadet," which was found at that place. But Horuahankh captured the nome of Abydos, and opened its prisons (Stele at Elefantine : Petrie, Season 1887). This is a very strong coincidence. The capture took place some time during those 22 years. Again, for 35 years, 2145-2110, Pepy ii. (vi. 5) and Nubkheperra were contemporary. Pepy ii. built in the temple at Koptos, and two sculptured slabs of his are still extant ; but on the doorway 30 EGYPTIAN CHEONOLOGY of Usertesen i. a decree of Nubkheperra, third year (2143 B.C.) has been either built in or copied. It would appear from this that Nub took Koptos from Pepy while the building of this temple was in progress, and continued the work himself But his work was afterwards replaced by that of Usertesen i. who turned many sculptured slabs face downward to form a pavement. Here again we find no after mention of Koptos under a Memphite king, and the evidence from this double coincidence is almost invincible. Finally there are the inscriptions at Elefantine by Pepy ii. Pepy i. I Unas I Horuahankh ; the stele of Dyn. xi. was probably the earliest or at any rate the second. It is unlikely that Pepy i. should have crowded in his name and titles above the stele of Unas had the much better position of Horuahankh's tablet not been already filled. This, however, I do not regard as important. The attempts of modern chronologers to retain and explain Manetho's 43 years are futile; even the 2 last kings are known to have reigned more than 54 years on monumental evidence, and Manetho reckoned 16 kings. As 6 kings of these reigned 243 years (Turin) we cannot make the omitted numeral less than 3 without disturbing the text by un- authorised conjecture, which is quite unnecessary. The 343 years thus obtained exactly agree with my reckoning of 109 years for ix. as shown above. The relative date of the end of xi. is fixed by the E-i h-t o p-i CD o 1—1 •O -f 00 QOCO ^ 00 rH «2 1— 1 '■O 00 CO 0000°^ 00 -? 1 O 1 rH 1— 1 , OQ qj a. 2 a 'W. .f. m TD s-^ a CO -f< lO CO t^ a a a J = a CO ^ -f< <>] 00 o r^ 00 o CO -^ o "OCOiMOiOO«OiOCOO iO-* -J< O O O Oi Oi OS Oi Oi Oi 00 00 00 03 CM H S?, 0, >-l ^H a> :3 a g^ a d s n Sr ce ^ c8 «> -q s -^ -4^ o .^ ;^ c8 cS sS ^,i«l =« S C/J cc Si s ^-d a M 52; MM^ 05 o 1—1 (M CO '^ IC iC ?o x> i^D CO ^ CO THE DYNASTIES 31 16 or 14 years which elapsed between Sankhkara and Usertsen i. " After these Ammenemes (Amen- emhat i.) reigned 16 years," are the words quoted by Africanus, but 14 is more hkely ; from the death of Nitokris. The reign of Amenemhat was 29 years, 13 or 15 of which were spent by him in estabUshing his position, and founding a new dynasty. He was not a Hneal descendant or successor of Sankhkara, but his rival opponent. Dyn. xii. does not therefore succeed xi., but reduces it (for 13 or 15 years) and its successor (Dyn. xiii. as I arrange the dynasties) to a subordiuate though still by no means a contemp- tible or unimportant position. The race displaced by Dyn. xi. was probably the " new race " discovered by Petrie, who were located about thirty miles north of Thebes. Their date would be contemporaneous with Dyn iv., which agrees with the proved facts that they were later than the earlier reigns of Dyn. iv. and anterior to Dyn. xii. Their contracted burial position, which differs from that of the Medum cemetery, which was still earlier, shows that both Memphites and Thebans alike dispossessed races of an origin quite unlike then* own. THE SECOND VOLUME OF MANETHO. Dyn. XII.— (S'ee Table facing this page.) For this dynasty the Turin list unquestionably gives the true numbers, one of which is unfortunately lost and three are mutilated. The monumental data for co-regencies are : EGYPTIAN CHllONOLOGY 30. A. i. = 10. U. i. 44. U. i. = 2. A. ii. 35. A. ii. = 3. U. ii. These monumental years are reckoned from the beginnings of the co-regencies of the Kings ; the hsts usually reckon from the beginning of their sole reigns (indeed, they could hardly do otherwise without confusion). The mixing up of these methods has caused many errors and unnecessary difficulties in modern schemes, especially in the present instance, I shall have therefore to examine the reign-numbers in detail. 1. Amenemhat i. This king reigned certainly 29 years and some months, 10 of which Avere shared by Usertesen i. as co-regent. The missing numeral in Turin is probably a 1. 2. Usertsen i. There are dated monuments of this king's sole reign from his 7th year to his 41st. These date from his co-regnancy with his father. The account of his building the temple at Heliopolis is dated in his 3rd year from this epoch. More than 6 months have been lost in the papj^rus. As the co-regnancy began in the year 42 it must have lasted 4 years. 3. A. ii. The co-regnancy with U. ii. began in year 32, and the whole reign was therefore 4-1-284-3 = 35 years, which just includes the highest monu- mental data. The number 31 is calculated from the sum, all the other reigns being fixed by other con- siderations. 4. U. ii. This reign consists of 3-|-9 = 12 years. The highest monumental date is of the 10th year,, THE DYNASTIES 33 but as Manetho states that he took 9 years in conquering Asia, and as the dates have to fit in very tightly if we assign him a reign of 9 years only, I have inserted a conjectural [1] in the Turin list, as high authorities have done before me. Nevertheless, a reign of 9 years only is quite possible, in which case we should have to read [2]9 years for Amen- hotep i. and lengthen the reign of Usertsen i. by 10 years; and this would agree better with the numbers of Mauetho. The probabilities in favour of either arrangement are very equally balanced. 5. U. iii. and 6. A. iii. The missing units cannot be far from the 8's of Manetho. I make one a 7 to counterbalance the 9 corresponding to Manetho's 8 in the next reign. A co-regency occurs here between A. iii. and A. iv., but its amount is quite unknown. Turning to Manetho, the years of 4 reigns have evidently been transposed, and for [Khjakheres I would read 32 years instead of 8 (nnnil ^or llllllll). Then making the transposi- tion we get 2. Ammenemes, 32 ; 3. Sesostris, 8 ; 4. Khakheres, 38 ; 5. Ammeres, 48 ; substantially the same as the Turin. Eusebius has nearly the same numbers, but probably read 30 for 32 for Khakheres. The transposition of the numbers was introduced, I think, early ; before the time of Dyn. xxvi. ; but the corruption of 32 into 8 not till after the time of Josephus. I shall have to recur to this. The sum 42 years in Eusebius for kings 6-8 indicates a reckoning of 30 years for Ammeres ; we get thus 182 for Eusebius' total without Ammene- c 34 EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY raes, and 198 with him. This 182 was, I feel certain, Manetho's original reading. Tiie true estimate of 184 years was altered when the addition of 24 years to Dyn. XV. (of which more by-and-by) was intro- duced so as to obtain the sum of these two dynasties unaltered — 160 + 284 = 184 + 260. The stated sum in Eusebius — 245 years — is evidently corrupt, the 45 having crept in from some duplication of Seson- khosis. Eusebius' sum stated here should read 200 years. In this way, and in no other that I can dis- cover, is the total for the years of Manetho's second volume, 2222, preserved intact; and a careful inves- tigation of Eusebius' numbers shows that in every instance, however violently he may have dislocated specific items, he always carefully preserved the sums whenever any were definitely assigned. The Mestrsean list in Synkellos is worthless in itself, but is noticeable as a good example of the treatment of Manetho's numbers by post- Christian writers. Comparing it with Africanus we find : Dtn. SoTnis. Africanus. xii. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 23) 49^=100 29 j 2)_ ir- is j- ^^ !'- 13 4j f 16 ) = 1 46 1=100 [ 38 ) 48 (81 T« = "t 8 J = 16 - ( 4 } - 13 Sesostris is entirely omitted : the other numbers are disguised by alteration, but the sums are nearly ^ _ o = 3-. O) 00 o; O o :» = .•: i ^ - e - + OC X>SOCO'M^l-.-H + o »c .-H — '-J — Vi rtT— -T*OC^^C?'C0»^'M ^ ^ '- " — '""' ^ _ i ■i 1 1 3 1 . ^ l:=l 1= ^ ^ llsl 'i 1 1 b- khutaui sekbemka amenemhat shotepab fni sankbab ly Antef An smenka shotepab II II nil b . userur . . . [sekhemsuaz Sebekhotep kha[sesbR8] hatherusa khauefer Sebekhotep st st khabotep Sebekhotep uahab Aaab mernefer [A merhotep i. sankhen Sel mer ... A ,s[uaz]ka Hu ien]m[aaem st st st st merkheper merPkau »8ebeq]ka ight entries i st isahotep] idadnefer D st st snefer gllllil S 2 1 c3 °Z 1 diitSiiidjg 5c§;§;:§!^3 ^pi : :« ^IfS S^a & (|;§«lKM£33aj rt««a 3,BS,x,«^3rt««£«^ : 1 ^^i^-^0--Sr^x^ X ^ ^j ^* -j; l-,* -o i-l v^ o-I d ^ i^i rr -4 '-■:' -.d w cx5 oi d -4 <^i c^ -.*-' o eo i^^ od ^' oi rj '^ o :d w ^S'SSSS -^ 'M ^] oi ci ^M CM -M -:i ^1 cq r: c? ot CT « w w wr^ oo co Qo 00 00 x oo S S s s s S s ss ssssss s ss s'as i 1^' is ■l ■3 s gg .^_3 .2 aS, -aife^ « J 11 1 J 1 1 fill 1 -III lUiJjJiiiii ;ii rt Pi oi « PSKXP5 pSoSKS.x «aiix& £ «P=MP3~-^«M« o:bS Pi M ^ Ci CT- -* ■^ ^ - »^ s ;i2S3 22& 2 S ^S33a^SSSiSiS g t g < ^,.. ^.. -...X -2=2-- SS- 2S S5?l ??,S ij ;f5SS§5gSS??SgS? ftSS'^g:?; 5 ? ;j:§$^Sg3gSS glgftSSS THE DYNASTIES 35 right. I shall in future not notice this scheme from the Book of the Sothis for the dynasties in which Manetho gives the regnal years in detail. For these its author nearly always uses Eusebius' numbers with many alterations of his own. Dyn. XIII. — (See Table facing this page.) As this dynasty does not appear in the Chronicle, and is not reckoned in the 3555 total of Manetho's Redactor, it must be a contemporary dynasty. The only possible place for it is parallel to xii, and its successors. I place it therefore as a direct continua- tion of xi. We shall on this hypothesis for the period 2024-1580 have 3 lines of succession at least, to say nothing of xiv. and xvi., as follows : B.C. Memphite. Legitimate. SUBORDI- Hyksos, Africa- ^ATE. ETC. NUS. 2053 Amenemhat i. 2038 Nitokris dies xiii. 453 2033-4 A. i. and U. i. 2024 vii., viii. 150 xii. Usertsen, 184 xiv. 184 xii. 160 1874 ix. 109 1840 Hyksos, 109 XV. 260 XV. 284 1765 X. 185 1731 xvii. 151 1680 X. ends xvii. ends XV. ends The sums correspond exactly : vii.-x., 444 years ; xii. 2-xvii., 444 years; xiv.-xv., 444 years; all ending at 1580 B.C., when xviii. commenced : xiii. ends 1585 or 1587 B.C., when the final combined struggle against the Hyksos began. But will the items of history — and we have a good many for xiii. and more for xii. — prove to be compatible with the ancient "con- P5 < I— ( 1-4 (^ o C p '\ a i. 1 3 24 G 2 1 4 + 14 1 5 15 1. Rakhutaui M. 2. Rasekhemka I 3. Raamenemhat ( 4. Rashotepab 5. Aufni M. (j. Rasankhab (Araeny Antef Anienemhat) 7. Rasmenka M. 8. Rashotepab 9. . . . ka 10. Ranezemab M. 11. Ra8ebek[hote]p 12. Rensenb M. 13. Rafuab 14. Rasezef . . . M. 15. Rasekhomkhutaui Sebekhotep i. 16. Rauser . . . ra 17. Rafsmenkhlka Mcrmeshau 88. Ramen . . . M. 89. [Rasekhemuahkha Rahotep] M. 90. [Ramenhotep] M. 53. Ranehesi 54. Rakhathi 55. ... neb fu New heading 1. . . . ka 2. Rasuazen 3. Rasankhab 4. Rasekhemkhutaui 1 I 'A i P5 o 1 CT' ' o «o !>. 00 o: O 1 O O O lO O CO d 1 < r^ (M r? -f-C :0 1^ X ~. O r- CM Cf '^ 1-tl O I THE DYNASTIES 35 right. I shall in future not notice this scheme from the Book of the Sothis for the dynasties in which Manetho gives the regnal years in detail. For these its author nearly always uses Eusebius' numbers with many alterations of his own. Dyn. XIII. — (See Table facing this page.) As this dynasty does not appear in the Chronicle, and is not reckoned in the 3555 total of Manetho's Redactor, it must be a contemporary dynasty. The only possible place for it is parallel to xii. and its successors. I place it therefore as a direct continua- tion of xi. We shall on this hypothesis for the period 2024-1580 have 3 lines of succession at least, to say nothing of xiv. and xvi. , as follows : B.C. Memphite. Legitimate. SUBORDI- HTK80S, Africa- ^ATE. ETC. NUS. 2053 Amenemhat i. 2038 Nitokris dies xiii. 453 2033-4 A. i. and U. i. 2024 vii., viii. 150 xii. Usertsen, 184 xiv. 184 xii. 160 1874 ix. 109 1840 Hyksos, 109 XV. 260 XV. 284 1765 X. 185 1731 xvii. 151 1680 X. ends xvii. ends XV. ends The sums correspond exactly: vii.-x., 444 years; xii. 2-xvii., 444 years; xiv.-xv., 444 years; all ending at 1580 B.C., when xviii. commenced : xiii. ends 1585 or 1587 B.C., when the final combined struggle against the Hyksos began. But will the items of history — and we have a good many for xiii. and more for xii. — prove to be compatible with the ancient "con- 36 EGYPTIAN CHKONOLOGY temporaneous " reckonings of the Chronicle and the Redactor ? If they will not bear this severe test, we are driven for xiii. to the end-to -end system of the moderns. Let us examine the particular items one by one as far as space will allow. Amenemhat i. (probably, as Brugsch supposed, a descendant of the Amenemhat who with 10,000 men fetched stone from Hammamat under Mentuho- tep ii.) reigned 29 years, 14 or 16 of which were subsequent to xi. (Africanus) ; he was, therefore, for 13 or 15 years struggling to establish his supremacy over them. This he succeeded in doing 2038 B.C., when xi. became extinct. At the same time Nito- kris died, and vi., which had been greatly weakened by wars with xi. in its last half-century, also became extinct. Amenemhat established vii. and xiii. to succeed vi. and xi. in Memphis and Thebes respec- tively ; but under the suzerainty of xii., which was from this time the central supreme authority. In the later part of his reign Amenemhat left Thebes and established his royal residence at Titoui, a little south of Dahshur. Khutaui, the first viceroy of Thebes, only reigned 1 year 3 months, and his successor 6 years. In 2033 B.C. Usertsen i. was associated in the central rule, and for somewhat over 5 years Kashotepab Amenemhat i. ruled over Thebes, while his coadjutor Usertsen lived at Titoui. This follows from the appearance of his name in the Turin list for xiii. It seems incredible that any king, after an interval of 450 years, should have assumed the full double title of so illustrious a predecessor, and still more so that two successive THE DYNASTIES 37 kings should have divided his names between them, as in the usual modern hypothesis. In 2024 E-aameny Antef acceded at Thebes. I have little doubt that this was the King Arminon in whose reign the 5 Epacts were first used. These days, which were added to the sacred year of 360 days so as to get a nearer approximation to the actual course of the seasons, are first mentioned under Amenemhat i., and on his decease in 2024 were probably established by law. T shall have to recur to this when I treat of the Sed festivals. The names correspond exactly ; for that Ar may be a Greek transliteration of Ka is proved by the variants Ar-messes and E,a-messes for Kamessu ; Min is known as a contraction of Amen and An of Antef, so that Ar-min-on is a strict equivalent for E-a, ameny, Antef It is also noticeable that Dyn. xiii. appears at Karnak only under this king, until we come to the time of the Sebekhoteps. So far, then, my hypothesis as to the position of this dynasty agrees with the facts. The next 8 reigns appear to have been peaceable and to have occupied about 140 years, with an average reign of 1 7 years, the only known historical fact concerning them being the building of a pyramid at Dahshur by Rafuab. The other brick pyramid at this place was built by Usertesen iii. who, in my reckoning, was Rafuab's contemporary. But the next king — Rasekhemkhutaui Sebek- hotep i. — gives definite tests for or against my arrangement. In each of his first four years there is a Nile record at Semneh. According to modern 38 EGYPTIAN CHEONOLOGY hypotheses these records were kept in the reigns of Amenhotep iii., iv. ; then abandoned ; and revived, for four years only, under Sebekhotep i., some century afterwards at the lowest reckoning; the intervening kings having been utterly careless of establishing any memorial of the maximum rise of the river during this time. So strongly has this difficulty been felt that Rakhutaui xiii. 1 has been identified with Sebekhotep i., and "sekhem" has been interpolated into his name on very slender grounds. In my view Sebekhotep was contemporary with Amenhotep iii., whose Nile records were made in years 5, 7, 9, 14, 15, 22, 23, 24, 30, 32, 37, 40, 41, 43. There is room for Sebekhotep's 4 con- secutive years after 9 or 15 or 24 or 32. I think the most probable place is after 15. Later than this he would not be so likely to be acting as a sort of deputy for Amenhotep ; he was then probably busy in asserting his own supremacy. I make the date of his 4 years 1884-1 B.C. Maspero says : " The way in which the monuments of Sebekhotep Sekhemkhutaui and his papyri are intermingled with the monuments of Amenemhat iii. at Semneh and in the Fayum show that it is difficult to separate him from that monarch." Difficult ? Is it possible ? If it is, should not the possibility be clearly displayed ? Sekhemkhutaui also constructed a large hall in the temple at Bubastis which Usertesen iii. had rebuilt. There are no traces there of Amenem- hat iii., in whose reign I suppose the rule over this town to have passed from xii. to xiii. In like THE DYNASTIES 39 manner Tanis, where Usertesen iil. had also built, appears in the possession of xiii. 1 6 Rasmenka Mer- meshaii very shortly afterwards, as evidenced by his statues. The six reigns (14-19) seem to have been short (average 4 years), as is usual in times of struggle for supremacy. I date these as about 1884-1858. During this time— in about 1872— Set Amenemhat Abmeryra Khety (Akhthoes) was set up at Herakleopolis. He may have been named after the Diospolite ruler, or he may have been Amenem- hat iv. while yet a prince, before his accession in 1853 ; but the story of his being swallowed by a crocodile (Sebek) seems to me to be an adumbration, either of his exclusion from participation in the pyramid and temple of Hawara at the entrance of the Fayum by his sister Sebeknefru, or of his super- session by Sebekhotep iii. This is, however, mere conjecture. What is certain is that Rakhaseshes Neferhotep [? 1855-1844] is the earliest king of Dyn. xiii. who has left widely spread indications of extensive rule. His residence was north of Abydos, which agrees with the occupation of the Delta by his immediate predecessors already pointed out. He repaired the temple of Abydos, which down to Usertesen iii. was in the possession of Dyn. xii. ; he was "beloved of Sebek in the midst of Shed" {Krokodilopolis), which town was occupied by Amen- emhat iii. in the early part of his reign at any rate ; he was regent at Karnak, which had been forsaken by Dyn. xii. from Usertesen i. onward, and his monuments are found at Shut er Regal, Aswan, Sehel, and Konosso. Everything agrees with the 40 EGYPTIAN CHEONOLOGY hypothesis that the sceptre had virtually departed from Amenemhat iv. by his fifth year, although he and his sister retained the nominal sovereignty for 9 years more. Kakhanefer Sebekhotep iii. [? 1844-1840], whether brother or grandson of Neferhotep, whether sole ruler or co-regent, certainly supplements his monu- ments remarkably. North to South we find him from Bubastis and Tanis through Karnak and Gebe- len to Arqo. Those contemporary brothers (as I believe them to be) ruled from one end of Egypt to the other, and therein lay their weakness ; the Herakleopolitan was hostile ; the twelfth dynasty were retiring on the Fayum and were also hostile ; in 1840 the Hyksos swept down and expelled the thirteenth dynasty from Bubastis, Tanis, and the whole of Lower Egypt, but as yet left them Abydos and Thebes, while Herakleopolis and the Fayum,. as far as I can trace, never fell under the power of the Hyksos at all. The exact point at which Bubastis and Tanis disappear from the records of Dyn. xiii. is at 23 Bakhaka, whose date would therefore be about 1840 B.C. Between this time and the epoch of Dyn. x. we find 24 Sebekhotep iv. Bakhaankh at Koptos, 26 Bauahab, "beloved of Sebek, lord of Suuaz," and 36 Bamerkau Sebek- hotep vi. at Karnak. It would, therefore, be against the thirteenth dynasty, being still in posses- sion of Thebes and Koptos, that the Herakleopolitan Kameryra made his expedition. The internecine civil dissensions continued after the Hyksos had taken the Delta and this accounts for their singular THE DYNASTIES 41 success. Then the Sebekhoteps came to an end, and the Sebekemsafs (42, 43), who head the second series in the Karnak Hsts, continued the struggle ; till in 1731 the Hyksos, under Apepa Raaauser, took Thebes and set up the subordinate dynasty xvii. There is no further record that can be certainly allocated ; but the titles of Rahotep, who built at Koptos, are so like those of the early part of xviii. that I place him as 56. His name, Sekhemuahkha, agrees with the ...uah... of the Turin lists. If this be right Ramenhotep, with his 14 years, must come as 57, and the negro Nehesi is fixed by the new heading after 60 as certainly 58. He was in possession of Tanis and Bubastis, and must have lived in the time of the final struo-p-le when the Hyksos were expelled by '"the kings of Thebais (xvii.) and the other provinces of Egypt (xiii., x.) in a long and mighty war" (Josephus from Manetho). In 1587 Dyn. xiii. appears to have been absorbed into xvii. The connexion by descent between xviii., which certainly followed xvii. immediately, and xiii. must have been very close, as no less than half of the list of ancestors of Tahutmes iii. at Karnak is assigned to this dynasty. Such is the position of Dyn. xiii. on my hypo- thesis. I am not aware of having omitted any known record that has chronological bearing : all the facts appear to fit in, and the positions of Amen- emhat i. and Sebekhotep i. seem to give positive evidence in its favour. On the received system the difficulty of making Sebekhotep i. at all near to Amenemhat iii. is to me insuperable. 42 EGYPTIAN CHEONOLOGY As regards the list of these kings, it will be seen that I have followed the Karnak list rigidly, and so far from finding its order " wild and hopelessly un- trustworthy," I find no reason whatever to doubt its accuracy. In the Turin list I have made one inno- vation only by introducing the fragment 81-90 (Petrie) which is usually given to xiv. I get this by identifying 87 Kasnefer with 29 Rasnefer in the Karnak list, and the ...uah... of 89 then comes just whei'e E-asekhemuahka is wanted. A few other names are inserted from the monuments in brackets, not with the intention of fixing their position, but merely to show that there is room for them. These names of uncertain place have not been used as data for any argument ; but I may mention that 39 ? Sebeqka is " beloved of Sebek, lord of Sunu " ; that 49 ? Rasa Hotep occurs at Shut er Regal ; 50 ? Senbmaiu at Gebelen ; and that 51? Radadnefer Dudumes, found also at Gebelen, has a scarab of apparently about the time of Dyn x. (Petrie). But the most striking series of inscriptions is that at Aswan. Nebkherra, Mentuhotep, Amenemhat i., Usertesen i., Amen^^ihat ii., Usertesen ii., User- tesen iii., Amenemhat iii. all left inscriptions there, but under xiii. there is no notice of this kind until the family tablet of 20 Neferhotep. On my reckon- ing this would come closely subsequent to Amenem- hat iii. ; on the popular hypothesis 21 reigns and nearly 2 centuries elapsed during which there is an absolute dearth of any inscriptions whatever. How can this be explained ? a ii:^ Sa « » > Q X o ^ -*-> ai a o a >> "c P r^ o >^ -*-> r^ -* •^ (M CM rJ? .2 -15 Oh i>> .a ejected the native kings (xiii.) from Memphis, and set up his statue in the temple at Bubastis. He is clearly the same personage as Saites (or Khaites, compare Khufu = Soufis) the heq Shasa, who lived at Memphis, rendered the upper and lower regions of Egypt tributary, and occupied the Bubastite channel. The occurrence of two such exactly similar conquests by Eastern chiefs could never have passed unnoticed. The second was probably Bauserkha, who, as well as Khyan, has by some been placed in Dyn. ix., where there is certainly no place for either of these Orientals among the native Herakleopolites. Appa'aa'qnen may easily have been transliterated into Apakhnan, and I know no other name that could be ; but in this instance the order in Josephus is certainly wrong, Aausera was the earlier of the two. St'aa'n is, I think, a transliteration of Set'aa'nub (in full Set'aa'pehti Nubti'set : but shorter forms Set'pehti, Set 'nub also occur) from whose epoch the 400 years was reckoned by Bamessu ii. of which more hereafter ; and Aaseh is a very likely origin for Assis. How the names Salatis and Benon were obtained I cannot at present conjecture : Janias may o M W p 63 W w X Q ^. >■ X 1— I Tft rr i-H X f«H s W 0! e a. ^ r-i o oi— "T ^ .-H ^ -^ i-t '^f' O x> H Oi !« OQ s "= rfl =3 s P. < -so IS 2^ o CO .cq Pli cQ — 1 'M O' •+3 -f3 ^ ^ a H r-l ^ ^ IC O ^ cr. c3 >^ o -♦3 c^i X o OQ 2 a o IE (3 ^ o .2 i -^' rr' j-T V3 CO o o • « e Oi - '-S d I: M c3 00 C B *5c .4^ < O *-" _a -a Ca *"■ <» £ S ^ S-c H OO C Cm 2 4) K P g S-2 ?S s m OQ CO O OX ^ a> 00 is p^p^<^ < m^< ^ 1-^ oiri^^i -3 o OI>I o ^ t^ -n o; o: c: o 'i? CM r^ ^ t^ (M X ca 00 00 r^ !>. '-o o o ^ ,-1 r^ ^ ^ ,-( ^ THE DYNASTIES 45 be Aanub : and Arkhles looks like a variant of Herakles (Har'ka'ra). So much for the names. As for the history : there is no trace of any pos- session of Southern Egypt by Salatis as Josephus says there is ; and no monument of the two first kings : the possession of Thebes and the South was probably not obtained till 1731 when xvii. was set up as tributary to the Hyksos in the reign of Apepa i., whom we meet with as a builder as far south as Gebelen. There is a mathematical papyrus of his 33rd year, 1744 B.C. In the 17th year accord- ing to the tradition preserved by Synkellos, Joseph was made Shalit of all Egypt. This would make Jacob's descent from Palestine fall in the 26th year, 1772-1 B.C., and from this time to the Exodus of the lepers (identified with the Hebrews by Manetho) is exactly 430 years as stated in Exodus xii. 40. Under Apepa ii. the Theban viceroys began to be restive, but this may be more fitly treated later on. In the time of Aseth (but rather of Assis = Aaseh) according to Synkellos the 5 Epacts were added to the year. This is far too late ; they were in use from the beginning of Dyn. xii. : what this epoch really means I will try to show when I treat of the Sed festivals. The erroneous statements of the years in the Manet honic lists require some explanation. The "4 Kings and 103 years" of Eusebius are certainly iaken from the Chronicler's Dyn. vi., which he mis- took for xvii. as already explained ; for the same reason he shifts the place of the dynasty, this being the only one he could make of sufficiently low amount 46 EGYPTIAN CHEONOLOGY to get in the Chronicler's successive numbers 190, 103, 348, which he assigns to xvi., xvii., xviii. His violent alterations to this end are too palpable to require further notice here ; and I shall have to recur to them vi^hen I treat of his scheme in its entirety. The numbers in Africanus must be considered in connexion vs^ith those in xii., where there is a defi- ciency of 24 years, exactly counterbalancing the excess of 24 here. I have no hesitation in attribut- ing the alteration to Africanus himself He placed his date for the Exodus in the first year of Khebros, near the beginning of xviii. instead of the end, and he wanted the tradition that Joseph was made Shalit in the 17th of Apofis to agree with his reckoning of 215 years from the descent of Jacob (26 Apofis) to the Exodus. He apparently reckoned thus : 26 Apofis to end . . 35 years Dynasty xvii. . . 151 „ Amosis .... 25 „ Sura . 211 „ This is 4 years in error ; and this error is duly chronicled by Synkellos. Note, however, that Africanus makes no account of xvi., nor does any chronologer till quite recent times. Having got Apofis into position, whether accidentally or de- signedly, he crosses out the wrong years for that king's true place, leaving Pakhnan 61 instead of 37 ; thus introducing an error of 24 years counterbalanced by the 8 instead of 82 in xii. Manetho had doubt- less 184 years for xii., and teste Josepho 260 for xv. THE DYNASTIES 47 DYNASTY XVI. (HYKSOS). 32 HELLENIC SHEPHERDS, 518 YEAES (AFR.); 5 THEBANS, 190 YEARS (ELFS.). Here, again, Eusebius' statement of 190 years is taken from the Chronicler and has no historical autho- rity whatever. It has, however, afforded so convenient a loophole for modern chronologers to escape from another gap of 518 years of absolute vacuum, during which the monuments are completely silent, that the majority of them have adopted it, and, ignoring Africanus' statement that this dynasty was composed of shepherds, have, contrary to their end-to-end principles, made it a long-reign Theban dynasty con- temporary with XV. It is really a slight variant of Josephus' statement (quoted from Manetho) that the 6 kings of xv. " and their successors " occupied Egypt 511 years : by which he means not that they had supreme rule for that time, but that these years elapsed before their final expulsion. The 518 years are made up thus : Dynasty xv. 260 years Dynasty xvi. contemporary witb xviii. 1-14 . 245 „ Osarsif, during the flight of Amenofath . . 13 „ Africanus calls xv. Phoenicians and xvi. Hellenes : but Josephus has "some say they were Arabians," and every indication of race and language points to their having been really so — Arabian Semites from the Syrian desert. Is it then merely accidental coincidence that an Arabian dynasty of exactly 245 years occurs in Berosus just at this date for whom no place can be found in the canon of Kings of Babylon ? I think 48 EGYPTIAX CHEONOLOGY hardly so ; the comcidences of time and name are too exact, and therefore, rash as the conjecture may- seem, I venture to give as the Ust of Dyn. xvi. : 1-6 7 As in Dynasty xv. Mardokentes 1840 B.C. 1580 „ 260 years 45 „ 8 9 Wanting Sisimardakos 1535 „ 1515 „ [20] 28 > 10 Nabius 1487 „ 37 > 11 Parannus 1450 „ 40 12 Nabonnabus 1410 „ 25 , 13-15 16 Wanting Osarsif Exodus of lepers 1385 „ 1335 „ 1332 „ L50J 13 ' 518 years The conjectural [20] is filled in so as to make 3 pairs of reigns, 45 +20 = 28 + 37 = 40 + 25 = 65. The numbers are clearly artificial. The kings 91 lost 121 A . . f 92 lost 122 Set . . . 93 ? 123 Sunn . . . 94 A... 124 Hor . . . 95 A... (Petrie's numeration) usually placed in Dyn. xiv. may belong to xvi. ; but this is very doubtful. The strongest argument in its favour is that the names begin with A and Set. Dyn. XVII. — {See Table facing this page.) The names under Monuments (except ...zefa) are from the tombs at Thebes; "...zefa" and Turin years from a fragment of the papyrus, which fits well in here, but is generally placed with Dyn. iv., where it does not fit at all. Petrie has ably refuted this unfortunate hypothesis, but others still put it P5 CO CQ lO fi CM rt w a^ O Oh O 5 CO Ph tH O Q S Izi 09 <} ►h i/j a sq H tq (— 1 1-7 M O P-i CO xi :o --0 o l-Ht— IrHp-ti— li— IrHi— li— (i-H i-O X (M 'ijt O O ""I ^ 1 I— < 1— ( CO lO '^ Oi 1 1-H 1 ^,^ CQ « s ^ 03 ^ ^ OQ i CM (3 o 1 Q ai e3 Khamois Miamous Amesesis (ancestor Ouses (A ■ ' . , ' S .— ' -s £ 2 CO CO '^ '^ CO 00 '-' 1 s (MCQCQ CJ H E d H H O^CO CO-*^C000I^O 00 I— 1 I— 1 E^ rH (M c^ c^ oa .— 1 o o; O 1 1 rH < ^J , a ,* *• ^M 1 > "i^ (M .^ :s:S 't-i £ d d eS O Taa Taa Taa ebra a B a xn c "S pj a fl S c a a a §-a 1 a< cr cr, «5 "^ . CQ CQ72MCQ 1 1 1-H oj CO '^ o :o" t^ 00 oj o ^ ^r- "te. THE DYNASTIES 49 forward as unquestionable. He, however, assigns the fragment to Dyn. xvi. The other year- column and names are from the book of the Sothis. The sums of these two reckonings exactly coincide. Tiaa i. was cotemporary with Apepa Aaqenenra according to the tale of Apepa and Seqenenra (Sail. Pap. i.). There is no evidence that the three Tiaas were successive ; or that the intervening kings, if any, were of the same family as they. They certainly had not the same burying place. Petrie (ii. p. 3) has given an elaborate chronological table of the last century of this dynasty. I therefore insert one here for comparison. B.C. 1685 (?) Tiaa 1. reigns. 1630 (?) Tiaa Aa ii. reigus. 1626 Tiaaken iii. born. 1626 Aahhotep born. 1611 Aahhotep marries (aetat. 15). 1610 Kames (her son) born. 1609 Skhentneb (her son) born. Then 2 more children. 1606 Aahmes born. 1605 Tiaaken (setat. 23) marries Aahhotep (setat. 21). 1604 Nefertari born. Then 8 other children. 1588 Tiaaken dies («tat. 40). Kames succeeds (aetat. 22). Aahmes (aetat. 18) marries Nefertari (astat. 16). 1580 Kames dies (aetat. 30), Aahmes succeeds (aetat. 26). 1555 Aahmes dies (^tat. 51), Amenhotep succeeds (aetat. 25). 1523 Amenhotep dies. ? Aahhotep alive (aetat. 98). The chief differences from Petrie 's table are, first, I take Aahmes's age at death to be 51 ; Petrie (ii. p. 2) says that "about 55" is one of his "fixed points." Compare p. 335, where he admits that he 50 EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY may have been only just over 50. Secondly, while admitting that Aahhotep was alive in the 10th year of Amenhotep i., ^.e., in 1545, when she was 81 years old, I think (but with submission to more skilled authority) that the evidence of the lufi stele as to her living to 100 is very dubious. I regard the " 43 Shepherd Kings " in Africanus as an interpolation. Manetho may have had a state- ment that this dynasty was cotemporary with the Shepherds ; but both the 43's are discordant with the historical facts. I shall treat of these numbers further on. The Turin number for the sixth king has also been read 21 and 33 ; as either of these numbers would, if adopted, only require a readjustment of the previous reigns of which there are no historical facts known, the doubt as to the reading is of no import at present. ON THE HTKSOS, B.C. 1840-1580. We are now prepared to consider the narrative of the Hyksos invasion as extracted by Josephus from Manetho. In the time of Timaios (Tmaa, Amen- emhat iii.) ignoble men came up from the East, invaded the country, and subdued it without a battle B.C. c. 1856. After some sixteen years of insidious concentration of their power during the time of Amenemhat iv. and Queen Sebekneferu, in 1840 they made one of themselves king — viz., Salatis (Saites, Khyan, E-asuseren). He seized Bubastis, Tanis, and all the eastern part of the Delta, expelling therefrom Dyn. xiii., who under the THE DYNASTIES 51 earlier Sebekhoteps, &c., had occupied those towns. They fell back on Thebes, put an end to the enfeebled twelfth dynasty, and fixed their residence sometimes in Thebes, sometimes in the Fayum. The royal abode of Salatis was at Memphis, but at Avaris on the east of the Bubastite channel in the Saite nome, which he rebuilt and fortified, he during the summer collected his tribute, paid his troops, and exercised the garrison. For Saite perhaps we should read the nome of Supti. The usual emendation of Sethroite and the identification of Avaris with Tanis are very doubtful. Josephus says he rendered both the upper and lower regions of Egypt tributary, but neither his reign nor that of his successor has left any trace on the Theban monuments, not even an inscription of a Hyksos name or a usurpation of a Theban cartouche. It is at Bubastis, Tanis, and Memphis in the North, at Gebelen in the South, that we find monumental evidence of Hyksos kings. Thebes they have not yet ; the Fayum, as far as I can make out, they never occupied at all. Having got the Delta, their next attack was on Herakleopolis. I conjecture that they conquered Dyn. ix. somewhere about 1765-60, and established a new dynasty (x.) of vassals. The exceptionally long reigns of these kings point to a quiet indolence on their part ; they could not have shared in the war which the Hyksos waged upon the Egyptians " during the whole period of their (fifteenth) dynasty " in hope of exterminating them. If the tradition that Joseph " stood before Pharaoh" in the 17th year of Apofis, 1761 B.C., 52 EGYPTIAN CHEONOLOGY be correct, and there is not a shadow of evidence against it, and the numbers are greatly in its favour, this would come just about his time. Following up the same policy against Thebes as against Herakleopolis, I suppose that Apepa dislodged Dyn. xiii. from that province, and set up Dyn. xvii. as vassals. In this instance we know what the actual condition of the Government was from the tale of Apepa and Seqenenra. " There was no lord and king . . . Seqenenra was ur or heq (vassal) in the South . . . Apepi was sar (suzerain) in Havar." I suppose that the status was similar under Dyn. x. in Herakleopolis, but not under xiii. in the Fayum, as there is no indication of any break in this dynasty, at which we can suppose it to have come under the domination of the Hyksos, who would certainly have set up a new line of vassal princes. The time during which Apepa ii. and Seqenenra were contemporary was 1685-79 ; this fixes the date of the incidents of the tale. " When they " (the Hyksos), says Josephus, "had our rulers in their hands, they burnt our cities, demolished the temples of the gods, and inflicted every kind of barbarity on the inhabitants, slaying some, and reducing the wives and children of others to a state of slavery." Moreover, King Apepa made Sutekh lord instead of Ka, and "the foreign hordes of the Amu destroyed the ancient works, being ignorant of the god Ra," says Queen Hatshepsut in Tier inscription at Beni Hassan. She says no word of any mischief in Thebes, but only states " there had been Amu in the midst of the Delta and in Havar." This is just what one would expect if my THE DYNASTIES 53 view of this usurpation be right, but far from it if Salatis took the whole country at once as commonly supposed. This oppression at last became unendur- able, and under Seqenenra Tiaaken a rebellion took place, followed by " a long and mighty war." This king was slain in battle 1588, but his successor Al is "- fr'ag'mu'thosis (Ra'uaz*khpr"ka'mes) shut them up in Havar 1587. Then there was a junction between xvii. and xiii. ("the kings of the Thebans and the rest of Egypt ") under Aahmes, son of Kames, who laid siege to Havar (Hatuar, in the tomb inscription of Admiral Aahmes at Elkab), and accepted its un- expected capitulation in 1580, the year of his father's death, his own accession, and the epoch of the eighteenth Dyn., of which he was the first king. Much confusion is introduced into this account by some modern writers by identifying the Thummosis of Josephus with Tahutmes i. ; but this Thummosis or Tethmosis is certainly the Amoses of Eusebius, and therefore the Amos of Africanus. The length of his reign, 25 years, 4 months, is sufficient to prove this, to say nothing of the inextricable muddle in which we become involved on any other hypothesis. Dyn. X. does not appear to have submitted to xviii. till 1580; the Herakleopolites seem not to have taken any part in this war. I append a tabular compilation of the events of this time. 54 EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY XV. Et.-X. xn. XIU. 1853 Hyk. in Egypt 7. Amenemhat iv. in Delta 1840 1. Khyan 8. Queen S. dies at Thebes 1821 2. Benon 1777 3. Apepa i. 1765-60 X. established 1761 Joseph Shalit 1752 Jacob Eisode 1731 xvii. established in Fayum 1716 4. Apepa ii. 1685-79 Apepa and 5. Seqenenra 1679 5. Setaanub 1629 6. Aaseh 1587 • Shut up in ] Havar j xvii. revolts f joins with 1 xvii. 1580 XV. expelled X. joins xviii. xviii. 1. Aahmes 1555 2. Amenhotep i. Dyn. xviii. — (See Table facing tJiis page.) Before giving the years for these kings, it is neces- sary to determine their identity, as the Manethonic lists are evidently disarranged. All three of them, however, agree in their order, and must have come from a common source. I will take them in this order: 1. Tethmosis certainly =:Amos(es) = Aahmes, and cannot be Tahutmes i. ; Josephus has mistaken the name. 2. Khebron must be Kheperen — ^.e., Tahutmes ii. 3. Amenofis is of course Amenhotep i. 4. Queen Aroersis (Maara), "his sister" (Josephus), can only be Hatshepsut, sister of Tahutmes ii., not of Amenofis. This proves that the Manethonic order is wrong. 5. Misfragmuthosis must be Menkheper- kara Tahutmes iii., the "g" therein representing "ka"; he cannot be an Amenhotep. 6. Mefres or Misfris ought therefore to be Menkheprura Tahutmes iv. ; S :-. fl ro^ c3 S fl ^ S-S sj § >^"§ a 2:S J- o cs ® a ©^ a a 2 -VJ -— ^^ 1-1 CO w p3 t-i O CQ O a^ a a-2-2-g a s:3 M OB S *- *> S o 2 S Si 05 02 O o " (B oj o d :5 «-« ass o 2 2 o g 05 a-s o ^ ^-o <» 2«il=i: a 2 S § -g^ a a2"^-a a 2-S en M -< hi " '" as CM -*3 ^!Mco^(^iOcor^oo ce -=^ rt !- 03 >-. -rf ai '^5S 1 ^ SiJII'^S'" Mslsl 1 1 ssssiSs^-sjaa-^^-^s- : g ss | g | §--=- s i s j § | « 111111 ijoiiiiBii III 11 iiiiii I :^"'=^*SSS'-8S^'"-?,"'" ;s ?J S 1 1 s r . «coca aj the epochs of Am. iii., iv. will have to be thrown back a few years but no argument in the text will in any way be affected. The Seds all come right in either case. 58 EGYPTIAN CHEONOLOGY Turning to Eusebius, his exaggerated sum (taken from Chronicle vii.-x.) and his reason for falsifying this and other dynasties will be more conveniently treated of as a whole under the head of Schemes. He follows Josephus for Thotmes i., but his 28 years for Oros are difficult to understand. It would be easy to explain 4 years of the deficit by supposing a co-regnancy between him and his successor, but not 8 or 9, and there is no likeli- hood of a co-regnancy with his predecessor. Possibly we should read 38 here and 5 for Khebres. Anyhow, the sum must be kept as 348 ; and as the insertion of the two missing reigns exactly makes this up, there can be no question that they should be inserted as I have placed them in brackets. Africanus' is in this instance the most corrupt of all the lists ; the motive is explained under the head of Schemes. He has cancelled the years of Amos, but left the telltale name showing that they were given in his author : he follows Josephus as to Tahutmes i. , and understates Rathotis, thus creating a deficit of 25 + 6 + 3 = 34. On the other side he over-estimates Amenhotep i., iv., Smenkh, and Ay by 3 + 16 + 10 + 4 = 33. These are clearly artificial alterations needing no further notice as yet. All the lists concur in abbreviating Tahutmes i., lengthening Smenkh, and transposing Th. iii. with Am. ii. The original muddling of this dynasty was evidently due to Josephus. Subsequent Christian chronologers edited and " improved" his version. Month-Dates. — {See Tahle facing this page.) < n w o 1^ .^- 1 1 1 1 • 1 — 1-3 »^ Jf^ l^ '•". % % — * '— ' c*-.'-' .H « £ f-' -5 ?. -^ ^ ^ ta -^ ,^, 2 <^ El's "» &c C4-, "3 » ^ S > &e; C a.£ 2 a d 2 =3 5 drr d d.o c 1^ hj .2.2 "^ ■*^.2.2 -*^.2 '"' .2 ^.2-2 -i^.2 en ooaOcSaooooaooCoa.StDOOfloo Pij « ©oJOW'Bowa'®®©® — no .S'S'>.^..4.S.,;'?i.S*«'> >'S.^'>'>'S'x:S xrs s ^ M JS 00 *=■ 00 00 "t; ■*^ a: 5 dg^d d§ u2«66 ^ r^ cr. o o; o C 00 o i-h ic o (^tl i>. -t* H .-1 l-H lTO OOOti f-H O iOO: CO:O.JO(M rnr^COi-t^iO^i— l-H «■ ioooiitiooioo'*<-*-^'*-H es ■is eres fis hes anes 1—1 1 DC "Tj c! ja o »«s o) s 7. Amen 8. Thouc 5. Nefek 4. Amen 6. Saites 7. Psina; 3. Psous ""^ O O <© CO CO o o ^ H 1— 1 X* CO 1-1 ->* Oi CO Oi lO o !Z5 (N •* CO CO 1—1 H oc CO CO '^ 05 CO Oi ^ -** o ■< Gvl '^ r-H 1—1 CO H- 1 u I— 1 I— 1 X K-l X :/2 S S-2 " 0= S35 fl S fl <1 O Smende Psousen Nefelkh Amenof Osorkhc Psinakh Psousen PS < CO CO '^ .3i CO Oi O) 1 Oi »< (M ^ CM CM Q 1 I— i O -♦^ is isi Batatta isebkhan i. uterkara menemapt irhor nezem i. sebkhan ii, OQ a "3 1 B O CQ ID a 1^ !z; Ph !z; <^ H PL, PL, ■-H c4 CO -l a m THE DYNASTIES 7; Saites = Sa- Amen = Hirhor of the true 6 and con- secutive 9. The most important help to chronology is obtained from the mummies at Deir el Bahri. I give here dates only, as all other needful particulars are so easily accessible in Petrie, ii. 337. Kings y,iTn Kegnai. Years. B.C. Superintending Priests. XX. 7 Ramessu x. 16 1073 Amenhotep XX. 8 [Ramessu xi.] 6 1063 Hirhor Piankhi 3J [ » ] 17 1052 Pinezem i. Saamen 6 1051 ,j » 13 1044 Zet Khensuafankh J9 16 1041 Masabart >» 25 1032 Pasebkhanu ii. xxi. 4 Amenemapt 6 1026 " xxi, 1 J, 20 1023 Pinezem ii. xxi. 5 Hirhor J) xxi. 6 Pinezem i. xxi. 7 Pasebkhanu ii. 9 1000 ,, 16 993 Shasbank xxii. 1 Auaput xxii. 2 The insertion of Ramessu xi. is conjectural, no name being endorsed on the mummies in these in- stances. Petrie says the king was Pasebkhanu i. and that the name was endorsed, but gives no evidence or reference to any authority. Hirhor is known elsewhere as priest to Kamessu xi., but as priest to Pasebkhanu I have searched for him in vain. Saamen, from the way in which he is inserted between Pasebkhanu and Amenemapt, seems to be regarded by Petrie as a king of Dyn. xxi., and he expressly states on very inconclusive grounds 76 EGYPTIAN CHEONOLOGY that he is not to be identified with Herhor. I take him to be the same as Herhor and place him in Dyn. xx. immediately after Ramessu xii., but although I think this view far more probable than Petrie's, I do not say that his is impossible : in either case it is a tight fit, not too tight, how- ever, to get room for Saamen at all. If Petrie is right, he must have been co-regent with Paseb- khanu i. for 21 years and with Nuterkara for 6. If I am right, he was co-regent with E,amessu xi. (from his 18th year onward) and with Pamessu xii. whom he succeeded as sole ruler, unitinof the rival dynasties xx. of Thebes and xxi. of Tanis. On the hypothesis that xx. and xxi. were contemporary all is clear : if xxi. succeeded xx. no scheme that I have seen is even possible. The working careers of this family were long. Herhor was priest in 1063, died 1017 (46 years) ; Painezem held office from 1052 to 1009 (43 years) ; and Pasebkhanu from 1032 to 979 (53 years) at least. Dyn. XXII. — (*S'ee Table facing this page.) Eusebius and the Sothis give only 1, 2, 6 : 49 years. I adopt for the order of the kings Cecil Torr's conclusive statement. The Chronicler follows some contemporaneous line — perhaps Usarkon Mia- mun, who was king of Bubastis, while Pamaa and Shashank iii. were only satraps, as we know from the account of Piankhi's invasion. In this case Usarkon would be a rival king to Takelot ii. for 6 years, seeing that the Chronicler splits his dynasty (—1 pa P w X P q Oi 00 CO00Q0CT> 1—1 r^ •>* c oa cS s mo H s bi CQ -sj 1-5 cOOV>>itiO^(Mt^ o B t 1—1 ^ P ea c3 J- d^ c3 S t D5 s 53 a gppt^MMP^ GO Q d 1 •X'CiTOX^COt^i— IG.:Di-Haioit^(M (N m 1 CO CC to '-D CO O O Id lO O Q ^ 'O) CO C5 -* I— 1 ^ 1 Bk iO 1— 1 I— 1 -:ti -+ 1 O r-l 1 Q ^ '^3 CO -* CO «OiO '^ o lO »0 r-H , rj « o Q O ^ S -t^ -2 "-^ a) a CS PI .v^ .^H o;} ^ a a «=-2 a ^ a s s-g § a ^ g-^g g S.a s P fL| I?; PL, .»O(M , '-' 1 3 I— 1 -* i-H . 2) -t- 00 '* O -t q: yD ?, -T- a. c. ci oo £>.ii3iO I^-^(MO ?■ ;^ " r' QO to '^ lO O iaTi iO -^ O CJ « 1^ r- t^ t^ (>J (M r-. .-t r-. r- '"^ '"'" •"""""^ .-H rH r-H O00-*O'-'r-i ' ' « n > oo 1 < n 1 CI 6; I— -^^ >* gss^'s's fi i^ CT. OT g OS a X <© 01^:000 O (MQDO <= 1 g oo c»oo m 1 ooo .*? ° OOlOtD O] 1 oiriocj to 1 Q0I>"3 1 K ^ gss?s§ t>» u cc 1 1 ^ 1 M to 1 ^ * c c iiil p 1 E- S^SSi^ w 1 t- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 S •- a i 1 iillli o ills o 1 1 gggo II II g 4 1 a E Oi — 2i s •i _ o li _B 1 B s .1 g Us. a « » J s B . cc " 1 ""^1 Ipi i lilli^ i w^-StS -<-; x' oi c ^ -i — ■ ^ ~ ~' — — Ti ":> THE MYTHIC DYNASTIES 93 be the twelfth part of the sacred year of 360 days, and for these kings he has the right numbers ; but for the gods he has used lunar months of somewhat more than 29 days instead of 30, and so got his numbers here tabulated under "lunar." I have restored the true numbers between brackets. The total 11,985 is given by Manetho ; but a variant reading is 11,988, which implies 504 years for Seb, which is a multiple of 12, and therefore probably correct. These different versions of the divine reigns were mixed up in later times so as to get Sothic epochs suiting the schemes of chronologers, as we shall see when 1 treat of these various •systems. The following numerical relations are worth notice : The years of the round total 12,000 + 960 + 440 + 100 + 370 = 13,870: 19 semi-Sothic periods for 19 kings. The 30 demi-gods (20-49) reign 30 Sothic months between them. The difference for 19 kings between the round and exact reckonings is exactly 1 9 years : the average exact reign being 729 years : 729 is the cube of 9, but I do not find that this has any special significance. The demi-gods are arranged in groups of 4, in which the sum of the 1st and 4th = the sum of the 2nd and 3rd. This being true for every variant scheme must have been part of the original arrangement. Horus was therefore originally a demi-god, not one of the great gods as he appears in most late versions of the schemes. These and other numerical relations will be THE MYTHIC DYNASTIES 93 be the twelfth part of the sacred year of 360 days, and for these kings he has the right numbers ; but for the gods he has used lunar months of somewhat more than 29 days instead of 30, and so got his numbers here tabulated under "lunar." I have restored the true numbers between brackets. The total 11,985 is given by Manetho ; but a variant reading is 11,988, which implies 504 years for Seb, which is a multiple of 12, and therefore probably correct. These different versions of the divine reigns wei-e mixed up in later times so as to get Sothic epochs suiting the schemes of chronologers, as we shall see when 1 treat of these various •systems. The following numerical relations are worth notice : The years of the round total 12,000 + 960 + 440 + 100 + 370 = 13,870: 19 semi-Sothic periods for 19 kings. The 30 demi-gods (20-49) reign 30 Sothic months between them. The difference for 19 kings between the round and exact reckonings is exactly 1 9 years : the average exact reign being 729 years : 729 is the cube of 9, but I do not find that this has any special significance. The demi-gods are arranged in groups of 4, in which the sum of the 1st and 4th = the sum of the 2nd and 3rd. This being true for every variant scheme must have been part of the original arrangement. Horus was therefore originally a demi-god, not one of the great gods as he appears in most late versions of the schemes. These and other numerical relations will be 94 EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY helpful by-and-by in explaining the manner in which the ancients concocted their mystical dates for Menes ; but they do not explain how any scheme of divine reigns first originated. The usual explana- tion is that all these numbers were arbitrary inven- tions of the priests, but I do not believe in this sort of assumption. If we take the dates of the principal deities who we know were by the various chief priestly schools alleged to have been the first king of Egypt, viz., Ptah for Memphis, Ba for Helio- polis, Osiris for Bubastis (?), Thot for Hermopolis, and Amen Ba for Thebes, assuming as starting- point for Amen 1580 B.C. the epoch of Dyn. xviii., when Amen first became supreme all through the land, we shall find the following extraordinary coincidences : B.C. Epoch of B.C. Epoch of 2778 2024 1840 1630 1680 Menes i. Usertsen xii. Khyan xv. Staan xv. 5 Aahmes xviii. 2773 2023 1840 1639 1580 Ptali Ea Osiris Thoth Amenra Memphite Heliopolite Bubastite (?) Hermopolite Theban The years for the kings are those which I have shown (or tried to show ?) in the whole of the preceding investigation to have been in use under Dyn. xviii., i.e., those of the Turin papyrus as it existed under Bamessu i. without the alteration made under Bamessu ii. See further on this under the head of Schemes. Even the one year's discrepancy between 2024 and 2023 may be avoided by adopting THE MYTHIC DYNASTIES 95 as the original version of the divine dynasty the integers in the last column of the scheme table instead of the fractions in brackets, and the intro- duction of Thot 9 years before the adoption of his Sed system (see under Seds) is not a discrepancy but an agreement. It appears, then, that the intervals between the important changes of government by Dyn. i., xii., XV., xviii. are exactly the same as those assigned by the Memphite priests to Ptah, Ha, Osiris, Amen. I cannot believe this to be accidental. The divine dynasties are merely a replica of the political history of the country, setting forth the supremacy of the Memphite Ptah worshipjDers under i.-vi. ; of the Ha v^orshippers of Heliopolis (probably as Mentu Ha of Hermonthis) under xii. ; of the Osiris Delta-god under the Hyksos : and of Amenra under the Thebans of xviii. The scheme was probably made about 1560 B.C., as definite names cease at this point, and the after-dates 1467, 555, 205, do not point to any special epoch. If, however, Amen was included in the 4 others — and I cannot suppose that he stood as an odd man between two batches of 4 de mi-gods each — these dates will become 1487, the very time when Hatshepsut and Thotmes iii. were introducing a changed Sed system and getting up their ancestral tree for Karnak ; 575, a very close date for Amosis, when the Saite priests were concocting their double Sothic from Menes ; and 225, when Manetho's Hedactor was forging his Ptolemaic system : all which remains for proof hereafter. I suppose the numbers in the " year " column to indicate the true 96 EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY dates from a Memphite point of view of the suc- cessive introductions of the various deities into the orthodox hst. But these year numbers were not those set forth pubhcly. The 6 great gods were supposed to have reigns in which every month was as good as an ordinary year, and therefore their numbers were multiplied by 12 ; the 4 demi-gods headed by Harsiesis were sometimes raised to the same eminence, but sometimes dignified only by having each season made equivalent to a year • these 4 hovered between the reckoning assigned to the great gods and that of the rest of the demi- gods who never attained the monthly reckoning, the quarterly being their maximum in numeration, while the very late addition of 10 Thinite kings and 350 years, which was not made till the demi-god list was exhausted, are probably identical with the 10 Thinite kings of Dyn. i., ii. and 351 years of Eratosthenes (the Cynic cycle of the Chronicle) : which stamps these dynasties as partly mythic, although there must be a historic basis for the existence of man}'^ of their kings ; the Sed cycles requiring a history extending back to 2781 B.C. as a minimum date. These various lists were mixed up and used indis- criminately as suited the convenience of the chrono- logers. My identification of the Greek names with Egyptian divinities differs in 3 instances from that usually received. Herodotus is so positive that Herakles is an Egyptian name that I cannot admit his identity with Khons : nor can Khons come before Amenra in the list. Har*ka*ra is exactly THE MYTHIC DYNASTIES 97 transliterated by Her'ak'les ; and I believe that Har-ka was the name intended by Herodotus. The patron deity of the Herakleopolite nome, however, was Khnum, who was too important to be omitted in the list of divine kings. I take Khnum, there- fore, to have been a demigod in the original list. Har'Shef (? = Harka) was patron of Herakle- opolis. It is noticeable that the great gods (including Har) are all of Lower Egypt : Ptah of Memphis, Ra (or Turn) of Heliopolis, Asar of many places but especially of Busiris ; Har, his son, of Tanis and other towns ; while the demigods are of Upper Egypt : Anhur of Abydos (later on of Sebennytus in the North), Anup of Kynopolis and Lykopolis, Khnum of Elefantine, Herakleopolis, &c. ; Haroeris of ApollinopsJ-is, &c. &c., Min (Amsu) of Koptos and Panopolis, Thot of Hermopolis, Sebek of Krokodei- lopolis and the Fayum, Amenra of Diospolis (Thebes), Xois, &c. This points to the whole list being an amalgamation of a Memphite and a Theban system, in which the former was preferred. Such amalgamation was not possible till Dyn. xviii. : a likely time for it is the reign of Tahutmes iii. I do not believe that Shu and Amen occur twice over in the list : Sosos seems to be a variant of Sokhos or Sevekhos, i.e., of Sebek ; and Ammon (Zeus being certainly Amenra) is Min, which is a variant writing of the name Amen, as Lepage Renouf has sufficiently demonstrated. 98 EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY HELIOPOLITE SCHEME. Greek. Eg\ttian. Years. Hefaistos Helios Kronos, &c. 8 Demigods Ptah Ea Seb and the rest of the 12 — " he shineth night and day " 30,000 3984 217 The near equivalence of the 217 years of the demigods with the 214 of the Memphite scheme shows a common origin. The number 3984 is exactly double of 1992^=700 Shu + 500 Set + 433 Asar + 359 Set (Memphite): while 30,000 is a further glorification of Ra by making his 30,000 days into years, instead of his 1000 months, as in the Memphite reckoning. I hold that this scheme was subsequent to the Memphite. Ptah is vir- tually ignored, with a courteous but ineffectual mention. ANOTHER SCHEME. El'sebius. Memphite. 7 great gods including Harsiesis ) and a long succession to Bites j [8] demigods Kings 30 Memphites 10 Thinites Manes and demigods Sum Sum stated Sum without Manes 13,900 1.255 1,817 1,790 350 5,813 24,925 24,900 19,087 12,288 1,200 I 3,650 350 17.488 1 THE MYTHIC DYNASTIES 99 In this strange scheme preserved by Eusebius Hefaistos is expressly stated to have been the first man [homo) who reigned over Egypt. The origin is therefore probably Memphite. The first item, 13,900, is, I suppose, made up of 12,300 for the 7 great gods, as in the Memphite already given, and 1600 for kings of whom we hear in no other place. Neither do we of the Manes, &c., with their 5813 years. The total is 25 years in error ; doubtless the round number in such a mythic calculation is the true one. Subtracting this, we have 1230 years for the 8 demigods without Harsiesis, just one-tenth of 12,300 for the 7 gods. The next two items of kings correspond fairly to the 30 Memphite demi- gods, who have now become mortal, but this tell-tale 30 still left in the text shows whence they were derived. The total without the 1600-1-5813 inter- polated years is 17,487 against 17,488 of the earlier scheme. I think this scheme, so arbitrarily artificial, must be very late, certainly later than Manetho. On the other hand, 24,925-1-2075 (the historical period in Eratosthenes) = 27,000, the earliest Egyptian esti- mate for the processional period, whose true value is 25,868 years. 100 EGYPTIAN CHEONOLOGY SECTION III. THE SED PERIODS. After I had finished the writing of this book in 1894 I read Sir Norman Lockyer's "Dawn of Astro- nomy," and the hypothesis advanced by him that there were two solar cults, one equinoxial, the other solstitial, appeared to me to throw so much light on Egyptian chronology that I deferred publication until I could get sufficient leisure to examine the subject under this new aspect. With his hypotheses on orientation of temples to star-worship I have no concern ; they are founded on historical data which are too uncertain to yield any sure basis at present, although his classification of facts may ultimately prove very useful : but his views on solar- worship ,have resulted in my cancelling the section on Seds as I had then written it and re-arranging the matter so as to serve as a test of my results generally. This may have introduced discrepancies to the extent of one or two years at most in some overlooked passages (for I had to alter early dates by that amount, and have re-written my tables in conse- quence) : if so the dates now to be given are those to which I finally adhere. The Egyptian year {annus vagus) of 365 days is deficient by 5h. 48m. 58s. : in 1508 years or perhaps a year or so less this error amounts to a year, and the seasons occur again in their due place THE SED PERIODS 101 as at first, having passed through 365 changes of a day each in the calendar reckoning. The discrepancy between the calendar and the actual rise of the Nile was noted very early in Egyptian history, certainly as early as 2780 B.C., but it will be more convenient in treating this subject to consider first of all the manner in which they attempted to remedy this defect in later times. My reason for this procedure is that this later correction is the only one generally noticed by chronologers. A very fair first approxi- mation to correctness is obtained by taking the year as 365d. 6h. This is the Julian year : and as the star Sothis (Sirius), owing to its peculiar precessional motion, rises heliacally at intervals of very nearly exact Julian years, and this heliacal rising takes place in Egypt near the time of the Nile rising, it was naturally made the basis of their corrected year. Thus every 4 years gave them 1 day correction : every 28 years 1 week, and every 1460 years 1 year. That is to say, 1460 corrected years were equal to 1461 vague years. This period of 1461 vague years they called a Sothic cycle ; and as the times of the heliacal risings of Sirius were determined by actual observation, had they inscribed on their monuments the month-days on which this rising took place we should have no chronological difficulties at all. Un- fortunately they scarcely ever did so. We must make the best of such notices as we have. Censorinus, in his de Die Natali, which he began to write in a.d. 238, says that at the date of his writing the annus vagus began a.d. 7 Kal. Jul. (June 25), and that 100 years before it began 102 EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY a.d. 12 Kal. Aug., July 21, on which day solet canicula m ^gypto facer e exortum. " Wherefore this present year is the 100th of the canicular year." Now, from June 25 to July 21 is 26 days, which change requires 104 years; therefore there is one day error. We must read vi. Kal. Jul. or xiii. Kal. Aug. The latter correction is usually adopted be- cause Censorinus gives his date of writing an earlier part of his book as a.d. 238. He may, however, have been four years or more engaged upon it ; and it is impossible in any way to reconcile Mahler's date 1470 or (1471 as corrected by Eisenlohr) for the 28 Epifi Sed under Tahutmes iii. with a Sothic epoch of 1322 B.C. I therefore, as Oppolzer and others have done before me, adopt the other correction, which gives 1318 B.C. as the year for the commence- ment of this Sothic cycle. Moreover, we have monumental evidence that on 9 Epifi in the 9th year of Amenhotep i. there was a Sed festival, and, continuing the calculation from that year, which was certainly 1547 B.C., we find 1 Thoth 1318 for a true Sed date. The ascription of the 9 Epifi monument to Amenhotep i. has been ■disputed ; but not by any one who had not some hypothesis which it unpleasantly refuted. Other Seds mentioned but not dated are the following. I insert the dates from calculation : THE SED PEEIODS 103 B.C. 1547 Sed Day. Year of King. Sed. 9Epifi 9 Amenhotep i. 44 [1519 16 Epifi Tahutmes i. 45 1435 7 Mesore Amenhotep ii. 48 1407 14 Mesore Amenhotep iii. 49 1351 28 Mesore Tutankhamen 51 1234 22 Thoth 41 Ramessu ii. 3 1206 29 Thoth 2 Merenptah 4 926 9 Khoiak] 2 Usarkhon i. 14 All of these will be found to fall within the reiofns required ; which, considering the extreme shortness of some of them, is a strong testimony to the truth of my chronology for this period. Of course the 52nd Sed falls on Epact 5, 1323, and the new cycle begins on 1 Thoth, 5 years after, to make up the odd day over 52 weeks in the year. This would not be worth mention had not some chronolosfers of the hig-hest merit as " diofo-ers " and antiquarians fallen into the error of making Thoth 7, 14, &c., fall on Sed days. The year 1319 is the intercalary vague year, which marks the equality of 1461 vague years and 1460 fixed years : 1318 begins the new cycle. So far I have had little to add to the theory of Seds and cycles as set forth by others. I have to dissent from my predecessors in toto for the rest of this chapter. Norman Lockyer quotes from the monu- ments a statement that there was a Sed held in the ■reign of Pepy ii. on 27 Epifi; he treats this date as a discrepancy of little import, and other historians and chronologers seem to have neglected it altogether. 104 EGYPTIAN CHEONOLOGY To me it has the highest significance, for it shows- that in the Memphite period the Sed epoch was not 1 Thoth at all, for that leads to 30 Epifi, not 27. There must have been at this time an entirely different system in use. Lockyer himself has shown the probability that the names of the hieroglyphs for the seasons were changed ; that which now cor- responds to Thoth and the 3 sequent months having originally belonged to Tybi ; for Thoth, the month of Nile rise, has the sign that would naturally indicate seed time. Accordingly, if we reckon backward from 27 Epifi for 22 Seds, we reach 1 Tybi for a feast day, and this is no doubt the true reckoning. For if we reckon forward the first month-day or epoch will fall on 1 Athyr (or 1 Payni), which does not head a season group at all. It is most unlikely that any epoch should have been used outside 1 Thoth, 1 Tybi, 1 Pakhons, unless it be 1 Famenoth, as representing the winter solstice. The other 8 months are excluded. And we have a perfect right to reckon backward : the priests may have registered the day in the vague year, on which the epoch day {e.g., 1 Thoth) was celebrated : or they may have regis- tered the day in the Sothic year, on which the epoch day of the vague year occurred : and these reckonings proceed respectively forward or backward. Indeed Lockyer makes them always go backward : while Egyptologers generally reckon always forward. In my scheme they reckon forward under the Theban kings on the Thoth system, but backward under the Memphite on the Tybi method. There are also '3 monumental records of Sed festivals giving regnal THE SED PERIODS 105 years — viz., 2 xi. 9 Nebtauira i., 22 vi. 5 Pepy i., and 3 xii. 2 Usertsen i. — which fell in my calculation on 2181, 2151, 2031 B.C. respectively. Therefore the Sed epoch fell on 2781, 2751, or 2721, according as we take the Sed on 27 Epifi to have been the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd Sed under Pepy ii. I think the second date the most likely. The complete scheme for Tybi Seds is as follows : but a variation of 1 Sed either way is possible : B.C. Sed Day. Year of King. Sed. 2241 [2 Thoth Dadkara Assa 17 2181 18 Mesore 22 Nebtauira 19 2161 11 Mesore] 18 Pepy i. 20 2121 4 Mesore Pepy ii. 21 2091 [27 Epifi ,, 22 2061 20 Epifi 23 2031 13 Epifi] 3 Usertesen i. 24 The Seds in this system proceed by intervals of 30 years, not 28, and we know that for this period the little or sacred year of 360 days was in use. The system is palpably different from the Sothic in every respect. If founded on the year of 360 days, as it surely must have been (for what else was there to found onl), the cycle would be 51 weeks of 30 years each+ 12 or 13 years for the 3 odd days : (51x7 + 3 = 360); and the cycle would consist of 51x30+13 or 1543 years. Now on the ceiling in the Ramesseum at Thebes there is a representation of the heavens, which was made under Pamessu ii., and which was by most modern chronologers mistaken for a map of the stars at the end of a 106 EGYPTIAN CHEONOLOGY Sotliic cycle, at 1 Thoth. Eisenlohr has shown that this is not the case; the "anap" in the map does not occur in the Thoth month, as it should do on that hypothesis, but in Tybi. This exactly agrees with my theory of the Tybi Seds, for the end of a cycle of 1543 years from 2751 B.C. would come in 1208 or the 67th year of Earaessu ii. If 2781 were the original epoch, the results would be quite as satisfactory ; for the known fact that Ramessu ii- celebrated Seds in his 80th, 33rd, 37th, and 41st years, leaves little doubt that some one of them would be the beginning of a new Sed cycle beginning on 1 Tybi. It is possible that these frequent Seds of this king were the result of an attempt to combine the various systems in use before his time, rather than merely personal glorification, as they are usually esteemed. The singularly exact coincidence of all the known Sed dates of this second series with my system deduced on totally different grounds, and the absolute failure of any other system yet proposed to satisfy this test, gives me great confidence in the truth of my results. Yet once more, there is a third system of Seds in which a Sed is recorded as falling on neither the 27th nor the 30th, but on the 28th of Epifi. This was in 1471, the 33rd year of Tahutmes iii. Only one other Sed is known as belonging to this system, although it is possible that the undated Seds under Amenhotep ii., iii., which I have placed in the Sothic series, may be here included. The interval between the 2 Seds is 28 ; the cycle is therefore of 1460 THE SED PERIODS 107 years. If we reckon back 21 Seds from 28 Epifi it brings us to 1 Famenoth, and this is doubtless the epoch of this system. The epoch date will then be .21x28 + 1471 = 2059 B.C. 1499 1471 [21 Epifi 16 Hatshepsat 28 Epifi 33 Tahutmes iii. 20 from epoch 21 This system starts as near as observations of Sirius would permit from the foundation of Dyn xii., 2053 B.C. Even this is not all. There is, as we shall presently see, evidence that Sothic cycles were reckoned in later times from 2031 or 2024 B.C. Now cycles of 1460 years depend on actual observa- tion of heliacal risings of Sirius ; and this rising in 2059 took place on 1 Famenoth, in 2031 on 8 Famenoth. This system, then, points to a winter solstitial cult, and I may note by the way that, though not introduced here as not belonging to my present subject, I have deduced some results from this, which strongly confirm Lockyer's hypotheses on winter solstice orientation. As these later cycles are only found in priestly calculations of the Manethonic type, and were never publicly observed, exact agreement with true dates is not to be expected, and it would be sheer waste of time to examine the exaggerated numbers of this school from this point of view. Closely connected with the Sed problem is the question of the inscription under Ramessu ii. in the 400th year of Set'aa'pehti Nubti'set. E-amessu ii. 108 EGYPTIAN CHEONOLOGY reigned 1274-1207 : Set'aa therefore falls between 1674 and 1607. Now the supreme kings for thi& time were St'aa'n 1679-1629, Assis 1629-1580, Surely St'aa'n must be Set'aa'nub. But it is to A'seth (Assis) = Aa'seh that the change from the year of 360 days to that of 365 is attributed in Synkellos. This of course is absurd if taken lite- ratim : the Epacts had been in use from the beginning of Dyn. xii., but it is quite possible that the change from the Sed system, which reckoned years of 360 days (from 1 Tybi), to the- Sothic system, which reckoned 365 (from 1 Thoth) took place at this time. The only way to account for the introduction of Staan and Assis indiscrimi- nately as authors of this change is to place its exact date at the junction of their reigns. Thus- Staan promulgates the new system in his last year (1631) ; Assis (in conjunction with Kertos, his. assessor) carries it out from 1629 onwards and celebrates the first Sed of this Sothic scheme in 1603. The epoch of Staan is 1631, that af Ramses ii. 1231, his 43rd year. All the condi- tions of the problem are fulfilled ; and I ask the reader to compare any other modern chronological system and see how it fails in definiteness at this- point. This 400-year method of epoch dates at least from 2031, the Sed year of Usertsen i., which was the beginning of the use of Epacts at all. [Again, in the 30th year of Usertsen i. Amen- emhat, son of Nehera, was sent to get alabaster at Hat Nub on a Sed day. I have above assumed that the obelisk erected in the beginning of the Sed THE SED PERIODS 109 festival at Heliopolis was of the same date as the temple — 3rd year of Usertsen i. ; as there cannot be less than 28 years between 2 Seds of the same system, the obelisk must have been set up in the 2nd year. The year, however, 2031, need not be changed : it fell partly in the 2nd, partly in the 3rd year of the reign. The importance of this notice is that 2031 belonged to the 30 year system from 1 Tybi, and also to the 28 year system from 1 Famenoth : according with my conjecture in the body of the text. Addition made March 1899.] I now recapitulate these results in chronological order. 2781 or 2751 B.C. — Sed festivals were established on 1 Tybi. The only year in use was the little one of 360 days. The cycle consisted of 1543 years. There may have been observations of some star whose pre- cession was in the opposite direction to that of Sirius taken in connexion with these festivals ; but this astronomical question would require an investigation too long to be included in the present essay. The first Sed falls in the reign of Kakaa, to whom the deifica- tion of the sacred bulls is attributed by Manetho. 2031 B.C. — The Epacts were introduced into civil reckoning by Arminon (Ka Ameny Antef), and this year was long afterwards reckoned as the epoch of Arminon : Sed festival henceforth reckoned from 1 Famenoth 2059. 1631 B.C. — The 365:^ days for the year were in- troduced by Staan (Set Aa Nubti) in Sed reckonings from 1 Thoth 2779, and the Sothic cycle was adopted of 1461 years. This year was the epoch of Staan. 110 EGYPTIAN CHKONOLOGY c. 1501 B.C. — Hatshepsut revived the cycle reckoned from 1 Famenoth, 2059 ; but this was only used during her reign and that of Thotmes iii. Shortly after this the first ancestral genealogy was formed, as we have it in the temple of Karnak. 1318 B.C. — A new Sothic cycle begins in the reign of Kamessu i., Men-peh*ra. This is another epoch, that of Menofres, who is now admitted to have been this king. 1238 or 1208 B.C. — A new Tybi cycle begins in 37th or 67th year of Kamessu ii., and was celebrated by a Sed festival commemorated on a ceiling in the Ramesseum. 1231 B.C. — The 400th year from the Staan epoch was recorded in the 44th year of Kamessu ii. 571 B.C. — The Saite priests calculate Sothic cycles from Mena, 3491, to Usertsen i., 2031, and to Aahmes (xxvi. 8) 571; but the festivals of these cycles are not recorded as ever receiving public recognition. 238 B.C. — The celebrated decree of Canopus, changing the cyclic epoch from 1 Thoth to 1 Pakhons, lies beyond the scope of this essay : but it requires notice on account of the inscription at Philse, in which 1 Thoth is stated as falling* on 28 Epifi. The date at which this inscription was made must have been between 127 and 117 (Brugsch). Now if Brugsch is right in his date, this implies some reckoning unknown elsewhere : for it agrees neither with the decree nor with any hieratic calendar. No explanation that is satis- AXCIENT SCHEMES OF CHRONOLOGY 111 factory has come under my notice. But as this 28 Epifi is probably not of a Sed festival year, we need not discuss the matter further in this place, I append a table of Sed days, to aid the reader in checking my calculations : 1 8 15 22 29 6 13 20 27 4 11 18 25 2 9 16 23 30 7 14 21 28 5 12 19 26 3 10 17 24 1 8 15 22 29 6 13 20 27 4 11 18 25 2 9 16 23 30 7 14 21 28 5 1 Thoth [47 Seds of 28 years taken downwards] 30 Epifi 27 Epifi [22 Seds of 30 years upwards] ITybi 1 Famenoth [21 Seds of 28 years taken downwards] 28 Epifi SECTION IV. THE ANCIENT SCHEMES OF CHRONOLOGY. 1. ERATOSTHENES. The ancient schemes assign to Mena dates varying from 2600 B.C. to 3681. I shall discuss them in the order of these Mena dates, and not in that of their historic development ; their interconnexion being more apparent in this method. Eratosthenes, who lived under the Ptolemies 276-196 B.C., gives from Apollonius a list of 38 kings (Dyn. i.-x.) which I reproduce in full, and add the names of those which 112 EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY can be certainly identified from the other lists or monuments : Kings. Titles, &c. Years. Dyn. Kings. 1. Menes 2. Athothis 3. Athothes 4. Diabies 5. Pemfos Thebinites, Thebaios, Aionios his son. Hermogenes his son his son. Filetairos (true to friends) son of Athothis. Herakleides Sum 02 59 32 19 18 190 i. 1 2 3 6 7 Mena Teta Ateth Miebis Semempses 6. Toegar 7. Stoikhos 8. Gosormies 9. Mares 10. Anoyfis Amakos (unconquered), Momkeiri, Memfites, Telan- dros (?) Perissomakos (?) Ares anaisthetos Etesipantos Heliodoros Epikomos (hairy) Sum 79 6 30 26 20 161 ii. 1 Bezau Kaiekhos 11. Sirios Uios Kores, or Abaskantos 18 iii. 1 Nebka (?) 12. Knoubis (unenvied) Gneuros; Khruses (Khruson) 22 2 Zesersa 13. Rauosis uios Arkhikrator Sum 13 53 3 Zeserteta 14. Biyris 15. Saofis i. Komastes (reveller) or Khrematestes (money getter) Sum to here 10 29 443 iv. 1 2 Soris Soyfis 16. Saofis ii. 17. Moskhares Heliodotos Sum 27 31 97 3 4 Soyfis Menkheres ANCIENT SCHEMES OF CHRONOLOGY 113 Kings. Titles, &c. Years. Dyn. KiNGH. 18. Mousthis 33 V. 19. Pammes Arkhondes Sum 35 68 20. Apappos Megistos (all but 1 hour) 100 vi. 5 Flops 21. Ekheskosokaras 1 6 Menthesoufis 22. Nitokris Athene nikeferos Anti tou andros Sum 6 107 8 Netaqerti 23. Myrtaios Ammonodotos 22 vii. 24. Thy osi mares Krataios = Helios 12 viii. Dadkashemara 25. Thinillos Auxesas to patrion Kratos 8 26. Semfioukrates Herakles Harpokrates 18 Sneferkara 27. Khiither Tauros tyrannos 7 Raenka 28. Meures Filoskoros 12 29. Ehoimaiftha Kosmos filefaistos 11 30. Soikyniosokhos Tyrannos 60 31. Peteathyres 16 (22) Sum 166 (192) 32. Stammenemes ii. [Akhthoes = Khety] [the rest of ix. omitted] 23 ix. 1 Abmeryra 33. Sistosikhermes Herakles Krataios 55 X. 1 34. Maris 43 35. Sifoas Hermes ; uios Hefaistou 5 36. — }" (19) 37. Frouron = Neilos 38. Amouthantaios 63 Sum 180 (185) 39-91 : 53 other " Th eban " kings ; names and dates not giv en. For this list there are 2 various readings ; usually passed over in silence, but to me they seem full of signiticance. The statement in Synkellos is that he reckoned 38 kings and 1076 years from a.m. 2900 to 3045 ; 114 EGYPTIAN CHEONOLOGY a most contradictory assertion. We must of course read 3945, but this leaves the 1045 years from A.M. 2900 to 3945 irreconcilable with 1076. Again, in the list itself we find the following : 31. Peteathyres 16 years a.m. 3726 32. Stammenemes ii 23 „ a.m. 3768 . Where the years actually counted are not 16 but 42. Again, p. 233 : 36. Sifoas 5 years a.m. 3889 [36.] '37. Frouron ) ■J V a.m. 3889 38. Amouthantaios 63 ,. a.m. 3913 A.M. 3976 Instead of the second " 5 years a.m. 3889," which is an erroneous repetition from the preceding line, we are bound to insert "19 years," thus, 35. Sifoas 5 years A.M. 3889 36. — ) 37. Frouronj 19 „ A.M. 3884 38. A.M. 3913 to rectify the received text, which reckons 1076 years in all : but the other reckoning of 1045 years would require here only 14 years, not 19, to be inserted. It is clear that the shorter reckoning is the original version of Eratosthenes, and that the 31 additional years were inserted by some corrector. By doing this he obtained an agreement for Dyn. x. with Manetho's 185 years, a round number of 400 for Dyn, vii.-x., and a total of 215 for vii.-ix. This looks like the work of some post-Christian hand who made Abraham contemporary with Myrtaios, Jacob's Eisode with xi., and dated the Exodus in the 5th year of Khebron's reign. This would not be far from African us' scheme. ANCIENT SCHEMES OF CHKONOLOGY 115 Eratosthenes then reckoned 1045 years from 2600 B.C. (a.m. 2900 of Synkellos to 1555, the beginnmg of Dyn. xviii. if Aahmes be not reckoned), and he had after this a list of 53 kings, which has not come down to us. These must have been the kings from Khebron to Kambyses (xviii. -xxvi.), when for the first time a foreign power conquered the whole of Egypt in 525 B.C. Eratosthenes' scheme therefore embraced in all 2075 years: he does not count Dyn. XX., nor Amenofath xviii. 16. Referring to the 3rd scheme for the divine dynasties, which cannot have belonged to any extant chronology but that of Eratosthenes, all the others being already otherwise provided for, we find the total divine reigns occupied 24,900 years. But 24,900 = 12 x 2075 : the gods reign as many years as the men kings do months. Is not this, again, a disguising of history like that we have already met with in the Memphite scheme ? Can such an exact agreement be merely accidental ? 2. THE CHRONICLE. Ea . . . . 30,000 years Gods .... 3,984 „ Demigods . . . 217 „ Kings . . . 2,324 „ Total . . 36,525 This chronography had 30 dynasties and 113 gene- rations (geneai), and consisted of Aurites, Mestrseans, and Egyptians. As it certainty ended 341 B.C. at the accession of Okhos the Persian, its epoch for Menes is 2665. The king list is as follows: 116 EGYPTIAN CHEONOLOGY Dyn. Years. i.-iv. 15 ^eneai of the Cynic cycle 443 V. 8 Tanites 190 vi. 4 Memphites 103 vii.-x. W 348 xviii. f [9] Diospolites 1 6 194 [50] xix. 8 228 xxi. [7 Tanites 128] xxii. 1 6 „ t 3 „ 121 48 xxiii. 2 Diospolites 19 xxiv. 3 Saites 44 XXV. 3 Ethiopians 44 xxvi. 7 Memphites 177 xxvii. 5 Persians 124 xxviii. 1 Saite [6] xxix. [7] Mendesians 39 XXX. 1 Tanite 18 Total 108 (stated 113) 2324 Add 8 Demigods 217 (121) 2541 The grand total is here made up of 25 Sothic periods of 1461 years: but the numbers seem also to be based on a reckoning by units of 21 years. The years of the gods, 3984, and demigods, 217, form a total of 4201 or 200x21, the end year being reckoned as current: the demigods' 217, with the years of the two first dynasties, which I have shown under "Dynasties" to be 350, make 567 or 27 x 21 ; the remaining years to the end of Dynasty xxx. are 1974 = 94x21. The whole king period (including the demigods) is therefore 121 average reigns of 21 years each, and the subtraction of the 8 demigods gives the 113 reigns which the Chronicle assigns to the men dynasties. This does not quite agree with ANCIENT SCHEMES OF CHKONOLOGY 117 the sum of the kings in his table, but this must be examined separately. Moreover, there is another reckoning — that by Sed periods of 30 years — which also underlies the Chronicler's numbers. The time of Helios is 1000 such periods : that of the gods and demigods 140 such ; that from the first demigod to the end of what the Chronicler calls the Cynic cycle is 660 years, or 22 Seds : from this point to the commence- ment of the Sothic cycle, wrongly taken as 1322 B.C., is 30 Seds ; and from thence to the conquest of Egypt by Alexander is 33 Seds. By adding the demigods we can clearly trace the genesis of the number 217, and the meaning of genea (generation) which Eusebius and the moderns agree in interpreting as " dynasty." For 121x21 = 2541; 121 geneai of 21 years each make up the sum 2541. Now, 21 years is a very good number for an average reign, and has the advantage of 2 mystic numbers, 3 and 7, for its factors. Thus subtracting the 8 demigod reigns with 217 years, we get the 113 reigns and 2324 years stated in Synkellos. But we do not get 30 dynasties, and as the Chronicle cannot have more than 20, even reckoning xxii. as two, for vii.-x. can reckon for one only, I have no hesitation in ascribing this number to a later hand, probably Eusebius, who introduced the absurd numbering of the dynasties. This scheme was made evidently after the accession of Okhos the Persian, and very likely during his reign. Its artificial character down to xviii. is evident : the manipulation of the divine numbers 118 EGYPTIAN CHEONOLOGY as previously shown is very ingenious. From xviii. onward it accords closely with historic fact. The hypothesis that this " ancient chronography extant among the Egyptians " was post-Christian, as is sometimes asserted hy writers who are prejudiced by anti-Biblical theories, has no shadow of evidence to support it. It is a mere pronouncement eoci cathedra. In filling up the lost numbers of kings those for xviii., xxi, are certain : and for xxix. I include Mouthis (omitted by Africanus). There is still a deficiency of 5 to make up the stated 113, which is undoubtedly right. I would suggest reading vii.-x. 16 Memphites (the number in Eratosthenes: all other authorities have still higher numerals), and xxvii. 8 Persians, as all the Manethonic lists have it. 3. THE TURIN PAPYRUS. The only entry of divine reigns that has survived is that of the Shemsu Hor for 13,420 years 4- some tens or units that are lost. The similarity of this number to the 13,900 in the Eratosthenes^ scheme for 7 great gods and kings to Bites looks, as if the Turin numbers were for " [7 gods and] Shemsu Hor," these followers of Harsiesis being equivalent to the kings from Hor to Bites. But there is also a list of numbers in the papyrus : 73, 74, 83, 95,— ,95, 70, 74 ?, 70 = 325 + 309 = 634, which can hardly be anything else than years of divine reigns. They have, it is true, been assigned to Dyn. i., ii., with a vain hope of bolstering up the ANCIENT SCHEMES OF CHEONOLOGY 119 conjectural reading of 1755 for the years from Mena to the end of Dyn. vL, but are quite insufficient for the purpose. Tliis much is certain : these items are not modified or derived in any way from the Memphite scheme. But the sum of them corresponds remarkably with that scheme, which has 7 great gods (including Horus) . . 12,300 years. 8 demigods (seasons column) . . 760 (756) 4 others 370 Sum . . 13,430 (13,426) which exactly agrees with the Turin number. The Turin items would then belong to 8 out of the 12 demigods who followed Harsiesis, but not calculated in the Memphite method. I shall examine this point more fully further on. The men kings may be thus tabulated : i.- -vi. 765 xi. 243 xii. 213 xiv. [1841 Vll -X. 355 XUl. [?] XVll. 151 XV. LHJ The numbers in the first column are expressly stated, but unfortunately the terminus ad quern is not precisely known : we are not informed exactly where Dyn. x. ends, and there is not perfect agree- ment on this point in the other authorities : Manetho ends it in 1580, the accession of Aahmes : Eratos- thenes in 1555, the accession of Khebron ; the Chronicler in 1580 ; and this, I think, is also the epoch used in the Turin papyrus. If so, the years from the death of Nitokris to the accession of Aahmes would be 355 + 14 = 369, agreeing with 120 EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY Eratosthenes' 369 in number, but not in epoch. All these short schemes agree in omitting the time during which the Hyksos were supreme. But it will be said, if this system of contempora- neous dynasties be true, there ought in the Turin scheme to be similar omissions of 89 years in the other columns, and therefore in Dyn. xiii. and xv., since xi. and xiv. were almost certainly given in full. Well, I cannot say anything as to xv., as only 2 reigns can be identified in the list ; but as to xiii. there is such an omission. Eight kings at least, including the important Sebekemsafs (Nos. 39-47) are proved by the Karnak list to have reigned, of whom there is no trace in the Turin, and these kings are in my calculation contemporary with xv. This batch of kings in Dyn. xiii. and the group v. 1-5 are the only kings in the whole period i.— xvii. of whom no trace, direct or inferential, is to be found in any of the 164 fragments of this mutilated document. More- over, the full list of the short reckoning and the Manethonic reckoning from B.C. 2024-1580, which have enabled me to evolve the system now presented, indicate only the following deficiencies in the Turin list : (1) a possible lowering of the numbers in i. or ii. by 52 years, if the Manethonic numbers for those lost in the Turin list be correctly substituted. (2) An omission of 125 years for v. 1-5. (3) An omission of 89 years in ix. and its cotemporaries xiii., xv. In all other respects this document is faultless. In no one instance has a discrepancy between it and any authentic monument ever been discovered. Is it likely, then, that such an omission as 125 years ANCIENT SCHEMES OF CHRONOLOGY 121 concerning kings whose monuments exist even now could have been made by its compiler ? I think not, and in my final results I will give my hypothetic explanation. The Abydos tablet, which was set up under Kamessu ii., differs from the Turin scheme only in having 4 additional kings — Teta, Sememptah, Bezau, and Neterkara. As their united reigns make 104 years = 47 + 18 +38 + 1, this would seem to be founded on a cycle of 52x30 + 4 = 1564, instead of 52 X 28 + 4 = 1460. But this " 104 years " was made up of supposititious kings, unknown outside this table and that of Sakkara, which is merely an incomplete and not accurate copy of it. 4. SAITE (FROM HERODOTUS). The remaining schemes belong to the long chrono- logy, and are all modifications of a single scheme. As the only extant complete lists are those of Manetho, handed down in an altered form by Africanus and Eusebius, it may seem Quixotic to attempt to reproduce the earlier versions entire. Nevertheless, the indi- cations given us in stray hints in Herodotus and .Synkellos, combined with the peculiar numerical relations of the items, will, I believe, make it possible. For convenience of reference I give here a table of my ultimate results for all these Manethonic schemes : 122 EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY d™. Saite. Manetho. Kedactor. Africanus. EUSEBIUS. Sums. Items. Sums. Items. i. 253 253 263 263 252 228 ii. 302 302 302 302 297 iii. 214 214 214 214 197 iv. 277 277 27[7] 284 1 [5]48 V. 218 218 248 218 j vi. 197 197 203 203 203 Sum 1461 1461 1497 1484 1497 xi. 43 xii.l 14 — 16 16 f 16 xii. 182 182 184 160 200 1 182 sv. 260 260 260 284 250 (= xvii.) Sum 456 444 460 503 450 xvii. 151 103 (= 2CV.) : xviii. 263 263 263 262 348 317 xix. 209 209 209 205 194 162 XX. — — 135 172 XX A. — [143] [143] — — xxi. 130 130 130 114 130 xxii. 118 118 120 ]16 — [48 48 48 48] 4[9] 49 xxiii. 89 89 89 89 4t xxiv. 6 6 6 6 44 XXV. 40 40 40 40 44 xxvi. Sum 100 1003 106 1009 106 106 1272 125 129 1154 1253 Aahmes 44,6 44,6 44,6 42,0 xxvii. 120,4 124, 4 124,4 120,4 xxviii. 6,0 6,0 6,0 6,0 xxix. 20,4 20,4 20,4 21,4 XXX. Sum 38,0 38,0 38,0 38,0 229,2 233,2 233,2 227,8 ANCIENT SCHEMES OF CHEONOLOGY 123 T begin with Herodotus' scheme, derived from the Saite priests : Names. Number. Years. irERODOTU.S. Hefaistos (Ptah) Helios (Ea) and 4 Herakles (Har) and 11 Dionysos and 29 Menes to Sethos xxvi. 1-7 Sum 5 12 30 331 378 9,000 3,000 1,870 3,650 2,820 100 2,000 = 17,000-16,000 3.560=15,000-11,340 11,340 100 20,440 The numbers given by Herodotus are usually thrown aside as valueless ; I regard them as im- portant, because I believe that under them is concealed a proof that Manetho derived his dynastic items from a scheme as early at least as Amosis, xxvi. 8, B.C. 571. Herodotus says that the priests reckoned 11,340 years for 131 generations from Menes to Sethos; and, again, 15,000 years from Dionysos, whom he places at the head of his third class of deities [i.e., of the 30 demigods), to the epoch of Amosis : and, again, from Herakles, whom he puts at the head of the 12 demigods to the same epoch, 17,000 years. This gives us the numbers as I have tabulated them. The 2000 years from Herakles to Dionysos may well be a round statement for the 1870 for Horus and the other 1 1 demigods ; but cannot be identified with any other items of the Memphite scheme. He must have confused Horus, the young sun (Harsiesis) with the infant Herakles (Har- kara) ; for Herakles, the 4th demigod, cannot be 124 EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY made the head of any group of 12 deities. Then his number 3560 years for the third class is almost certainly to be identified with the 3650 of the Memphite scheme, seeing that it is not stated explicitly, but deduced from a statement which already gives one round number as an approxi- mation. But the 11,340 years cannot be right; there is no trace of such an exaggerated period of men kings to be found in Egyptian chronology elsewhere. I believe that he mistook the priests' statement, that from the time of their first king to the end of Sethos made up* 11,340 years — i.e., 378 Seds or generations of 30 years for 378 kings : and that they meant their first god-king Ba, while he understood their first man king, Menes. If this be so, and surely the mistake is likely enough, the priests reckoned 11,440 years from Ba to Amosis as I have given in the " years" column : this requires exactly two Sothic periods from Menes to Amosis, and agrees within 8 years with the list of Africanus, as we have it in the items. Even these 8 years can be accounted for. Herodotus has 25 years for Yafres xxvi. 7, Africanus 19 : and Manetho has an error of two years in his epoch for Kambyses. As every number in the years column is taken from the original scheme of the priests [cf. Lepsius, Konigshuch, I. Taf iii.), I feel no doubt that these Memphites arranged so as to get 14 Sothic periods = 14x1460 = 20,440, from Hefaistos, 2 from Menes = 2 X 1460 = 2920, and 4i from Dionysos = 9 x 730 = * Or possibly 405 Seds of 28 years. ANCIENT SCHEMES OF CHKONOLOGY 125 6570. Consequently all the corruptions In the early- dynasties i.-vi. were due to them, and not even for the unauthorised insertions in his third volume is Manetho responsible : as we shall see. I take the statement in Herodotus ii. 142, that the sun had twice risen where he now sets, and twice set where he now rises, to mean that two complete Sothic cycles had been gone through since the time of Menes ; and that the priests simply told Herodotus that the heliacal rising of Sirius had twice run through its course of change. The number of kings (341) is, I believe, a deduction by Herodotus from his way of estimating generations as three in a century, which would require 11,367 years instead of 11,340 : the true number is doubtless 331, as given before by him in chap. 100. For his total of years to the end of Dyn. xxv. is 11,340 = 378 generations of 30 years each, and the number of his kings from Ba is 5 great gods, 12 demigods, 30 of the third class; which, with 331 men kings, makes up 378 kings to correspond with these 378 generations. Moreover, the number of kings in Manetho (in- cluding his contemporary dynasties) agrees with this 331, if certain corrections, otherwise necessary, be made in them. Under the heading of Manethonic Kings I shall show that Manetho's reckoning was for vol. i. 92 kings; for vol. ii. 196; and for vol. iii. to Amosis there are 43 : total 331, exactly Herodotus' number. The 18 Ethiopians mentioned by Herodotus I take to include all foreign usurpers, viz., 6 Hyksos, XV. : 9 Semites (?) xxii. : and 3 Ethiopians, xxv. 126 EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY The priests may have said to him : " Eighteen strangers, such as Ethiopians," or words to that effect. I may also note, while mentioning Herodotus, that his historical inaccuracy of which so much has been lately alleged to his discredit, on examination is reduced to a single item — a misplacement of the pyramid- building kings : if these (Kheops, Khefren, Mykerinos, and Asykhis) are transferred from their position after Kampsinitos to their proper place after Menes, the whole of Herodotus' narrative falls into correct historical succession, and nothing is proved against him more than an accidental or at most a mistaken misplacement of a batch of notes on a definite group of kings ; probably obtained separately and with imperfect indications of their true historical relations. The B.C. dates for the chief epochs under this scheme will be Menes, 3491 ; Amenemhat i., 2031 (the important Sed festival of 3 or 2 Usertsen L); Aahmes, 1574 (should be 1580, but the erroneous reckoning for Vafres already noted has slightly disorganised this scheme) ; and Amosis, 571. From the detailed examination of the dynasties it is clear that the exaggerations in Dyn. i.-vi. were obtained by introducing kings utterly unknown to any monu- ment, by arbitrarily increasing the regnal years (sometimes absolutely in contradiction of the monu- ments), and by reckoning co-regents as if they were successions. The short chronologies had only to omit in order to obtain their mystic cycles ; the long ones had to falsify the old dates and to forge ANCIENT SCHEMES OF CHEONOLOGY 127 new ones ; but both alike persisted from Ramessu i. onward in getting by hook or crook some combina- tion of cycles to start from the first king of Egypt and end at the epoch of the regnant monarch. T). MANETHO. This system is so like the preceding that I need only note the slight variations. We have the direct authority of Synkellos (ignored by modern chrono- logers) that Manetho's first Sothic cycle (1461 years) ended in 2024 B.C. (the epoch of Usertsen i.). He therefore omitted Amenemhat i. altoo['ether. But he had the true reckoning for Vafres : which partially compensated for this alteration. His dates are Menes, 3485 ; Amenemhat i., 2024 (these two are fixed by Synkellos' statement); Aahmes, 1582; Amosis, 573 (each two years in excess) ; Okhos the Persian, 344. Every variation in the numbers here given from those in Africanus will be treated as it occurs. This scheme was formed under Ptolemy i. or ii. : but the grand total, 11,985 years (for the great gods) + 214 for the demigods + 3141 for the men kings = 15,340 = 21x730. These 21 semi-Sothics point to the end of Manetho's scheme as coincident with the end of the native monarchy. It was left to his Pedactor to include the Ptolemies in a sacred calcu- lation. 128 EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY 6. THE REDACTOR (AFRICANUS' SUMS). This is the scheme of the sums stated for each dynasty in Africanus. I have already proved that in this system (and also at first in Africanus) there was a dynasty of 143 years interpolated. Other unauthorised additions are 30 years in v., 6 years in vi. (by making the "reign" of Pepy ii. 100 years instead of his " life "), and 4 years in xxvi., which are discordant with known historical facts. The two years each added to xii. and xxii. are most likely genuine corrections of slight errors : and so is the restoration of the later part of Amenemhat's reign : but I doubt if his amount of 1 6 years is right ; 1 4 would exactly agree with the years for the last 4 kings in Dyn. vi. in the Turin list, and with my restoration of the Herodotean scheme, and with the Karnak order for xi. ; as, however, I have used this 16 years throughout this treatise 1 am fearful of introducing new errors by attempting to correct the numerous places in which it occurs : and in so small a matter (2 years) I trust this notification may be deemed sufiicient. By these additions (200 years in all) the E-edactor succeeded in throwing back the dates thus : Menes, 3683 ; Amenemhat i., 2189 ; Aahmes, 1729 ; Amosis, 575 ; Okhos the Persian being taken nearly rightly as 342, All this wanton alteration regardless of historic truth was evidently made to get Sothic cycles ending at 246, which is the epoch of Ptolemy iii., in whose reign this precious absurdity was evolved. ANCIENT SCHEMES OF CHRONOLOGY 129 The main epochs are these : B.C. Years. 3897 3683 3167 1707 Horus and demigods Menes Sesokhris = Sesostris Aahmes (end of Hyksos) 214 ] 616 1 1460 1365 1st Phcenix 2nd „ 342 Sum to Okhos Okhos the Persian, &c. 3655 95 247 Sum to Ptolemy iii. 3650 3rd „ And this agrees with Tacitus' statement that in one reckoning the Phoenix appeared under Sesostris, Amasis, and Ptolemy iii. The well known passage of Tacitus (Annals, vi. 28) on the Phoenix runs thus : There are various tradi- tions as to the number of years ; by far the most generally received is that there were intervals of 500 ; some assert that they were of 1461 [a Sothic cycle] and that the earliest birds appeared in the reigns of (1) Sesostris, (2) Amasis, (3) Ptolemy, the third king of the Macedonian dynasty. Now as Manetho wrote under Ptolemy i. or ii. he could not be the author of this latter statement : it must have arisen under Ptolemy iii., and was, I think, framed by the Redactor. No chronological scheme whatever will allow of Sothic cycles between Sesostris (xii. 3), Amasis (xxvi. 8) and Ptolemy iii. ; but if we reckon the cycles back- ward in the list of the Redactor they fall in the reigns of Amosis (xviii. 1), who drove out the Hyksos ; and Sesokhris (ii. 8), who is the Sesostris of Herodotus, a mythical double of the historical Sesostris, to whom 130 EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY the conquests of the latter have been attributed with additions, and who is in the Hst itself sufficiently iden- tified with him by his height of 5 cubits or 4 cubits 3 palms 2 inches. The same regnal years (48) are also attributed to both kings. It is, therefore, evident that the scheme of the Redactor fulfils the required conditions. And now we can easily show how this scheme was framed. Starting from Horus, 3896 B.C., the Phoenix dates are 3166 B.C. (a half Sothic from Horus) for Sesokhris ; 1706 B.C. for Amosis ; 246 B.C. for Ptolemy iii. ; and the correctness of the starting point is proved by the 3555 years total given for this scheme : for 3896 — 3555 = 341 B.C., the exact epoch of the end of Dynasty xxx. There can be surely no doubt now of the intention of the Ptolemaic chronologer who arranged this scheme. 7. JOSEPHUS. The numbers in Josephus professedly taken from Manetho are as given in the Table on the next page. The B.C. dates are calculated from Josephus' known date for the Exodus. The insertion of 60 years is necessary to obtain the given total 393 years from Tethmosis to the brothers. Josephus does not bring the Eisode in the reign of Apofis, and even makes Abraham's visit fall within the Hyksos' time in 2111 B.C. ; his 251 years for the later Hyksos may have been the origin of Eusebius' Dyn. xv. 250 years. The years for Ali*sfr'ag"mou"thosis (Ra'uaz'khpr'ka'mes and certainly not Aahmes"pahar"nub"thes*taui, whowas son of the king here indicated) are inserted to bring ANCIENT SCHEMES OF CHEONOLOGY 131 the 511 of Josephus into agreement with the xvi. 518 of his author Manetho ; some years are required for his campaigns against the Hyksos. The insertion by Josephus of Armesses Miamun and of a duplicate Y. M. B.C. Dynasty xv. Rest of Hyksos Jacob's Eisode Alisfragmouthosis Sum (stated Ml) xviii. 1-14 (Tethmosis — Armais) [Sethos Ramesses i. Armesses Miamun Amenofis [Manetho's leper Exode] Sum Sethosis Rampses ii. Amenofis ( = Merenptah) and Manetho's \ leper Exode according to Jos. j Sam 259, ■251, [7], 10 o 2199 1939 1896 1688 1681 1435 1374 1308 1288 1229 1163 618, 246, 60, 1, 66, 19, 0] 4 2 6 393, 59, 66, 518, Sethos are absolutely unauthorised ; they were put in to get his 393 years : which 393 is really the numberof years fromAahmes to the20thof Merenptah, 1580-1187. Why he went out of his way to forge this insertion is a mystery; his argument, such as it is, would have been just as good without it. I can only guess that he had made up his mind to make Merenptah the Pharaoh of Manetho's leper Exode ; 132 EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY and had he not duplicated the numbers of the two long reigns he would either have had to acknowledge that the former Amenofath or Amenofis was the Pharaoh in question (to which acknowledgment he was as averse as modern chronologers are), or else he would have had to leave him out altogether : a thing beyond the daring of any chronologer before the pre- sent century, although now it requires considerable courage to acknowledge his existence. The minuter details concerning the 2 brothers have already been discussed under the dynasties. It remains to account for the transposition of Apofis and Apakhnan in Dyn. xv. I have already shown that the order of xviii. has been disturbed by reading the kings houstrofedon ; the same explanation applies to XV. 1 . 2 3.4 6.6 having been read as 1 .2 4.3 6.6 This method of reading was used in all the extracts made by Josephus from Manetho (they extend only to Dyn. XV., xviii.), and as this kind of dislocation never occurs elsewhere, I attribute it to Josephus himself Of course he was followed by the other post- Christian writers who preferred his authority to that of the native Egyptians. Unfortunately his influence in weightier matters has extended even to the present time. ANCIENT SCHEMES OF CHRONOLOGY 133 8. AFRICANUS (ITEMS). I will now give my reasons for not regarding the items of Africanus as an accurate representation of Manetho's scheme. The express statement of 8ynkellos, that Manetho reckoned one Sothic cycle down to 2024 B.C., i.e., to the accession of Usertsen i., necessitates the adoption of the lowest numbers for i., iv., vi., and the omission of Amenemhat i. in the legitimate succession. In no other way can a total of 1461 years be obtained. Africanus' items for i.-vi. are therefore 10 + 7 + 6 = 23 years in excess over Manetho's. But passing from this Memphite period to the Theban, we find in xviii., xix., xxi., xxii., a deficiency in Africanus of 1+4 + 16 + 2 = 23 years, exactly counterbalancing this excess ; and in every instance the detailed examination of the dynasties shows that Africanus is in error. The clear inference is that he transferred these 23 years from after the expulsion of the Hyksos to before that time for some reason of his own. The following statement gives the reason : Africanus' calculation is Joseph before Pharoah 2017 in the 17th year of Apofis Jacob's Eisode 9 years 2008 „ 26th afterwards Exodus 215 years after 1797 in the first year of Khebron this In order to get the date 1797 he had not only to use the fictitious dynasty of 143 years introduced 134 EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY by the Kedactor, as I have ah'eady explained, but also to omit 23 years which he preferred to scatter over several dynasties rather than to subtract at once from the Redactors 143. This necessitated the introduction of the 23 years in i.-vi. in order not to disturb his grand total, which was doubtless already calculated. He gets his data for Jacob thus : From 26th to 61st of Apofis . . . .39 years- Dyn. xvii 161 „ Amosis 25 „ 215 These numbers are all taken without alteration from Synkellos. There is a palpable error of 4 years in the dates 2017, 2008, which should read 2021, 2012, and this error is expressly noted by Synkellos. It arose, doubtless, from Africanus writing 2017 (when the 17th year of Apofis was in his mind) instead of 2021 ; but it vitiates all his artificial alterations to that extent. Now we can see why he shifted the place of Apofis from 3 to 6 in Dyn. xv., and how the 24 years excess in that dynasty was introduced by leaving 61 years for Apakhnan in place of 37, and so necessitating^ the reduction of 24 years in Dyn. xii. All this- confusion is undoubtedly due to Africanus. Note that although he does include xvii. and xx. in his calculation, he entirely omits xvi. He also omits xiv. and xiii. For his dates are : ANCIENT SCHEMES OF CHEONOLOGY 135 6500 Creation 2839 Peleg 339 years 2551 Dyn. xi. 43 years 2500 2508 Amenemhat 16 „ 2492 xii. 160 „ 2232 XV. 284 „ 1948 xvii. 151 „ 1797 Exodus There is no room for xiii. or xiv. with their 453 + 184 = 637 years. He considers that there were two parallel streams of kings — one Memphite, the other Theban — each beginning in the time of Peleg ; but the Memphite somewhat earlier than the Theban. It were too curious and profitless to look for exact detail, but, taking a very rough approximation, this was his view : e. 2680. Menes. 1870. Building the great pyramid under Kheops. 1797. Exodus. I have noted under Dyn. xviii. the confusion he there introduced in o der to get rid of Amosis as the first king. As his numbers for i.-vi. come down to about his epoch of Dyn. xx. it • is not probable that he included vii.-x. in his legitimate kings. The only dynasties of the 10 omitted in the Manethonic reckoning which he did include were xi., xvii., xx. THE MANETHONIC TOTALS. I will now compare the totals as given in the version of Africanus (from the Redactor) with those of Eusebius. The statements in Africanus are as follows : 136 EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY Dyn. i.-ii. 565 years i.-m. 769 i.-iv. 1046 - l.-V. 1294 l.-Vl. 1497 I.-VIU. 1639, 70 d. l.-Xl. 23i)0, 70 d. 192 kings (and so Eusebius) The details for all the first volume are as follows MANETHO'S VOL. I. Y EARS. Kings. Dl-N. Afr. Cor. Eus. Cor. Afr. Cor. Eus. Cor. i. 253 252 8 8 ii. 302 297 9 9 iii. 214 197 9 8 iv. 274 277 1 448 f 300 1248 8 17) 31 \ 17 V. 248 9 vi. 203 203 6 6 1494 1497 1397 1497 49 49 79 48 vii. 0,70 4 75 70 ^ 5 4 viu. 146 100 27 27 5 6 IX. 409 109 100 19 f 1^1 19 X. 185 185 19 j XI. 43 343 43 343 16 16 16 Am. i. 16 — — 1 1 1 — 2293 2300 1900 2300 201 93 129 92 The total years in Africaims are deficient by 7, 3 of which are due to the reading 274 in iv. The true number is 277, as shown by the totals 1046 for i.-iv., &c. The total i.-viii. which requires 274 must be from a later hand than the others — prob- ANCIENT SCHEMES OE CHEONOLOGY 137 ably the Eedactor's. The other 4 years must be inserted somewhere between vii. and x. The only likely place is in vii. , where it fits in with the numbers in Eratosthenes, as we have seen under the head of Dynasties. The years in Eusebius show a deficiency of 400. Of these, 100 is almost certainly to be supplied in iv., V. He reckoned, I suppose, 248 for v., and 300 for iv., including Kerferes' 26 years in iv. 1. He ought, therefore, to have 18 kings for iv. and v., instead of which he has 17 and a most absurd 31. The text is clearly corrupt: this 31 cannot come from Eusebius' own hand. Eusebius' 275 years for vii.-ix. are important. They show that there is an excess of 300 in Africanus ix., which I have transferred to xi., where they ai-e absolutely necessary for the 16 kings, see- ing that the 6 or 7 kings of the Turin list have 243 years and the monuments testify to a large excess over 104. The retention of this 43 years and rejection of 16 kings by modern chronologers cannot be defended. Moreover, Africanus' numbers for vii.-ix. when thus corrected give a total of 259, exactly 16 in deficit of Eusebius' 275, showing that Eus. reckoned the 16 of Amenemhat i. in his 75 for Dyn. vii., the right place for them, immediately after vi. His total is there- fore a true Manethonic one ; but the round centuries of which it is partly made up are probably guesses of his own ; and the Africanus' sums are to be preferred. The kings in Africanus are 9 in excess of the number stated, and may be reconciled by reading 138 EGYPTIAN CHEONOLOGY 10 for 19 in either ix. or x. The corruption of the kings, however, seems to be deeper than this. The generally correct numbers for the years imply a fairly accurate number of kings ; and I have shown under the Dynasties that we cannot assume more than about 27 for vii.-x. I would reject the 70 kings who reigned one day each as a late insertion : take the 27 of viii. as a total of vii.-x. written in mistake, and leave out the 19s as insertions of another minor total of ix. and x. The true reckon- ing I take to be vii., 4 kings; viii., 8 or 9 kings (according as Neferkara, who was probably con- temporary with Dadkashemera, is omitted, as in Erastosthenes, or included, as in the Turin list) ; ix., 12 kings ; x., 7 kings ; in all 31 or 32 kings ; but if Amenemhat be counted in place of the contemporary 4 kings of vii,, only 28 or 29 kings. The total number for the 1st vol. of Manetho is then 93, or, if Amenemhat be relegated to his proper place in Dyn. xii., 92 exactly; 100 less than the number stated. For Eusebius I would in like manner take 19 as a total of ix.-x., and therefore omit his 4 kings in ix. ; and I would read 4 for 5 in Dyn. vii., which we know to be the true number, and so get the same total — 92. Any less amount of correction than this will not reconcile the two lists, and, if 192 be retained as the true total, Eusebius' 129 is quite inexplicable. ANCIENT SCHEMES OF CHRONOLOGY 139 MANETHO'S VOL. II. Years. Kings. Dyn. Afr. Cor. Eus. Cor, Atr. Cor. Eus. Cor. f 16 xii. 160 184 245 I 184 7 7 xiu. 453 453 60 60 XIV. 184 484 7Q 76 XV. 284 260 250 6 — 19 xvi. 518 190 32 15 5 8 xvu. 151 103 43 10 4 xvm. 263 348 16 14 16 XIX. 209 194 6 5 6 Totals 2222 2222 2267 2222 246 196 171 + 196 Of the transjDosal of 24 years from xii. to xv. enough has already been debated. The total of Eusebius imperatively demands the cancelling of the 45 years in xii. ; this also has been discussed. As Africanus and Eusebius, after these corrections, agree, and it is not possible to alter any items in this group that shall affect both of them by 101 years, it is clear that there is an error of that amount in the total stated as 2121 years; it should read 2222. But the extraordinary discrepancies between Eusebius and Africanus require further explanation. Eusebius is certainly wrong, as proved by the monu- ments. He got his errors in this way. He took his dynasties xvi., xvii., xviii., xix. from the Chronicle wrongly interpreted, and so got involved in a deficit of 316 years: to correct this he added 300 to the obscure xiv., and then transferred the 16 years of 140 EGYPTIAN CHKONOLOGY Amenemhat i. to this volume as part of xii., and so got a perfect balance, and retained the sum of 2222 years. As to the kings, xvi. and xvii. in Africanus are palpably absurd : the true numbers, as I have tried to show under the Dynasties, were probably 15 and 1 ; certainly not less than these. If we adopt these, the total becomes 196, just 100 more than is stated, compensating for the 100 overstated in vol. i. It is very tempting to reckon only xii., xiii., xv., xviii., xix. as 7, 60, 6, 16, 7 = 96, omitting xiv.,xvi., xvii. as contemporary ; but, as the years of all the dynasties are added, this would not be admissible. Eusebius, in his sum for xix., had certainly 6 kings (including Kamses iii.) ; and in xviii. he had 16 (including Amersis and Rathos) ; for xvi. he must have had 8 kings, from the Chronicler, whom he has followed exactly in the other 5 numbers. The miss- ing number required for xv. (which is the xvii. of other authors) is 19 if his total was 196, 15 if 192 (he states it as 92). Synkellos (in the " Sothis book") has also 8 kings, not 5; and 190 years for "the xvi.th dynasty of Manetho," and he nearly always follows Eusebius, if anybody. MANETHO'S THIRD VOLUME. {See Table on next page.) No totals are stated for the kings, and the 1050 for the years is given only in Africanus ; the neces- sary insertion of 191 years to get the total has already been fully discussed, and as no totals are ANCIENT SCHEMES OF CHRONOLOGY 141 given for Eusebius, any comparison becomes impos- sible. I have given the numbers, however, so as to make the table complete. Years. Kings. Dyn. Afr. Ecs. Afr. Bus. XX. 136 172 12 12 xxa. [143] — [4] xxi. 130 130 7 7 xxu. 120 49 9 3 [48] — — — XXUl. 89 44 4 3 XXIV. 6 44 1 1 XXV. 40 44 3 3 XXVI. 150,6 171 9 10 xxvn. 124,4 120,4 7 7 XXVUI. 6,0 6,0 1 1 xxix. 20,4 21,4 4 4 XXX. 38,0 20,0 3 3 1050, 2 821,8 64 54 1 9. EUSEBIUS. This author places the Exodus in 1511 B.C., the Eisode of Jacob in the 11th of Apofis, 1726 B.C. If the reigns of Amersis and Kathos are not restored as I have given them in Dyn. xviii., Joseph's standing before Pharaoh will not fall in the time of Apofis, as it must do in all these post- Christian schemes. The discrepancy between the items and the sum stated in this instance is therefore due to a scribe's omission of the reigns, and not to a different reckoning, as in the sums and items of Africanus. Note, however, 142 EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY that he has not succeeded in getting the true year of Apofis ; in fact, he could not, as his Apofis has no 17th year, his reign being reduced to 14 instead of 61, in order to get his dynasty xvii. within the Procrustean hmit fixed by his adoption of the Chronicle numbers. There are other instances of discrepancy between the sums and items : Sum. Items. Sum. Items. 252 228 xix. 194 162 xii. 245 182 XXll. 44 49 xviii. 348 317 XXVI. 167 171 In i. the sum 252 is undoubtedly the true reading, and the items must be corrected, reading, perhaps. 54 for Menes, or 34 for Menes and 47 for Athotis. In xii. the 182 is certainly from another version, but with the 16 years added for Ammenemes, it differs only by 2 years from the 200, to which I have already shown that the 245 must be reduced. In xviii. the sum is right, as we have just seen. In xix. 32 years have been deducted for Ramses iii., and 37 added to Dyn. xx., thus getting 194-32 = 1 62, as in the items of xix. and 135 + 37 = 172 for xx. In xxii. the true number is certainly xlix., not xliv., as shown by the corresponding items in Africanus. Finally, in xxvi., Vafres should probably have 19 years and Nekhao 8, as in Africanus, so that the sum would again be correct. Eusebius reckoned xiii.-xvi. (including his xv., the xvii. of Africanus) as contemporary kings thus : ANCIENT SCHEMES OF CHRONOLOGY 143 5199 Creation 2659 Peleg 2369 Dyn. xi. 343 years 2220 2026 Xll. 200 1826 XVll. 103 1723 xviii. 1-4 212 1511 Exodus If we were to include 250 years for xv., and leave out my conjectural years in xi., Peleg's dates would be equally well satisfied ; but then the totals would require a reading of ix. 400 years, which is quite inconsistent with the " 4 kings." I have put the 300 years in the only possible place. Like Africanus, Eusebius held that there were two series — one of Memphite, one of Theban kings ; his Memphites (very roughly) come thus : c. 2500. Menes. 1720. Great pyramid ; while the Hebrews were in Egypt and in the time of Joseph ! 10. THE SOTHIS BOOK. Finally, we arrive at the list of the 86 Mestrsean kings given by Synkellos with definite dates. These have never been sufficiently considered. It is true that for the dynasties given in full by Ma net ho they are inaccurate, imperfect, and have been manipulated in the most extravagant manner, very often following blindly the blind guidance of Eusebius. But for certain dynasties, xi., xvii., xix., xx., xxa. it has certainly followed some authority unknown to us, and is of considerable value. It has also been found of use for Dyn. xv., xxvi. Synkellos reckons Creation, 5500 B.C. ; Peleg, 2729-2490 ; Joseph's death, 1827 ; the Exodus, 1684. I give here his list in full, with his notes on certain kings. 144 EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY Dyn. No. Kings. Years. Sums. B.C. xi. 4 1 Mestraim (Menes) 35 2724 5 2 Kourodes 63 2689 6 3 Aristarkos 34 2626 7 4 Spanios 36 2592 8 6 } Serapis 72 2556 9 xii. 1 6 7 240 2484 23 2 8 Sesonkhosis 49 2461 3 9 Amenemes 29 2412 6 10 Amasis 2 2383 6 11 Akesefthres 13 2381 7 12 Ankhozeua 9 2368 8 xvii. 2 13 14 Armiyses Khamois 4 129 2359 2355 12 3 15 Miamous 14 2343 4 16 Amesesis 65 2329 5 xvi. 1 17 18 Ouses Eameses 50 141 2264 2214 29 2 19 Ramessomenes 15 2185 3 20 Ousimares 31 2170 4 21 Ramesseseos 23 2139 5 *22 Ramessaraeno 19 2116 6 23 Ramesse loubasse 39 2097 7 24 Ramesse Ouafrou 29 20.58 8 XV. 1 *25 26 Konkliaris suites 5 190 2029 2024 19 2 27 Baion 44 2005 3 28 Apakhnas 36 1961 4 *29 Afofis 61 1925 5 30 Sethos 50 1864 6 31 Kertos (44y. Man.) 29 1814 7 xviii. 1 *32 33 Aseth Amosis (Tethmosis) 20 259 1785 1765 26 2 34 Khebron 13 1739 3 35 Amemfes 15 1726 4 36 Amenses 11 1711 5 37 Misfragmouthosis 16 1700 6 38 Misfres 23 1684 7 39 Touthmosis 39 1661 8 *40 Amenofthis 34 1622 9 41 Oros 48 1588 10 42 Akhenkheres 25 1540 ANCIENT SCHEMES OF CHRONOLOaY 145 Dyn. No. Kings, Years. Sums. •1 B.C. xviii. 11 12 13 14 xix. 2 3 6a 5 XX. 1-3 4-5 6-7 8-9 xix. 4a, 4 xxi. 1 2 xxa. 1 2 3 4 xxi. 7 4 3 5 6 xxiii. 1 2 3 xxii. 1 2 6 xxiv. 1 XXV. 1 2 3 43 44 45 *46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 66 57 *58 *59 60 61 *62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 *74 *75 76 77 Athoris Khenkheres Akherres (? 30) Armaios (Danaos) Eamesses (Aigyptos) Amenofis Thouoris Nekhepsos Psammouthis Kertos (16 yrs.) Eampsis Amenses (Ammenemes) Okhyras Amendes Thouoris Athothis (Fousanos) Kenkenes Ouennefes Sousakeim Psouenos Ammenofis Nefekheres Saites Psinakhes Petoubastes Osorthon Psammos Konkaris Osorthon Takelofis Bokkhoris Sabakon Sebekhon Tarakes 29 26 8 9 j- 323 ((?345) 112 82 40 + 112 77 143 64+77 63 49 44 44 1615 1486 1460 1452 1443 1375 1367 1350 1331 1318 1314 1294 1249 1223 1209 1182 1132 1104 1065 1023 989 964 956 949 934 926 881 872 862 841 826 813 769 757 746 68 8 17 19 13 4 [20] 45 26 14 27 60 28 89 42 34 25 9 6 15 9 44 9 10 21 15 13 44 12 12 20 146 EGYPTIAN CHEONOLOGY Dyn. No. Kings. Years. Sums. B.C. xxvi. 1 78 Aniaes 38 725 2 79 Stefinathes 27 687 3 80 Nekhepsos 13 660 4 81 Nekhao 8 647 5 82 Psammetikhos 14 639 6 83 Nekhao ii. 9 625 7 84 Psammouthis (Psammetikhos) 17 616 8 85 Ouafris 34 599 9 86 Amosis 50 210 565 515 Notes. — 22. " lu the time of this king [2114 B.C.] Abraham went down into Egypt." 25. " 700 years of 25 kings of the cycle in Manetho called Cynic end with the 5th year of this king " [2024 B.C.]. 29. " Some say that in the 4th year of his reign [1921 B.C.] Joseph ame into Egypt as a slave; he established Joseph lord of Egypt and of ail his kingdom in the 17th year of his reign " [1906 B.C.], &c. 32. " This king added the 5 Epagomense, and in his time they say the Egyptian year was reckoned as 365 days, having before his time counted only 360. In his time the heifer was made a god and called Apis." 40. " This is Memnon, &c.," as in Africanus and Eusebius. " Ethiopians from the river Indus settled in Egypt." 46. The story of the brothers Danaos and Aigyptos is given here much as in Josephus. Danaos is called Armaios (Horemhib) ; but Aigyptos (the Amenofath of Manetho, the Amenofis of Josephus), is confused with Ramessu ii., and Ramessu i. and Seti i. are altogether omitted. 68. " This is the Poly bus husband [son] of Alexandra, celebrated by Homer in the Odyssey [iv. 126]," &c. But 49 is certainly the Polybus of Manetho. 59. " In his time earthquakes took place through Egypt ; they had not happened there before." 62. " Sousakeim took prisoners before Jerusalem : Libyans, Ethio- pians, Treglodytes." 74, 75. Same notices as in Manetho. GENEALOGIES. The genealogies of priests and others are, when obtainable in sufficient numbers, admirable supple- AXCIENT SCHEMES OF CHRONOLOGY 147 ments to other data and have been made use of by Brugsch, &c., from Dynasty xxi. to Dynasty xxvi. His appUcation of the same principle to the earh'er times fails ; not because the principle is wrong, but because sufficient data are wanting for the application. His doctrine that reigns may be taken as generations is not sound : in fact, an average reign is only two- thirds of an average generation. As to later or minor authorities, Diodorus, &c., I shall scarcely ever have to notice them, and certainly need not in this place. One name, however, Castor (c. 150 B.C.) I must specially mention as serviceable (though only indirectly) in the matter of artificial chronology, not for historic purposes ; but he throws light on the methods in vogue among ancient chrono- logers, and, moreover, has never to my knowledge been correctly edited. Castor's reckoning from Excerptor Barbaro-latinus ap. Scalig. Gods. Years. Hephaestus 680 Sol Hephaesti fil. 77 [Agatho-daemon and Cronus] | Osinosiris J 420 Orus Stoliarchus 28 Typhon 45 Demigods. Anubis 83 Apion [Hercules] 77 [6 Demigods 140] Colliguntur Deorum regna 1550 Ecynii [PIE Cynici] 2100 3650 148 EGYPTIAN CHEONOLOGY Hoec finis de 'primo tomo Manethonis habens annos 2100. Castor. Kings. Years. Africanus. i. Mineus [Menes] and 7 descendants 8 253 8 253 ii. [Boethus and] 8 others 9 302 9 302 iii. Necherocheus [Necherophes] and ] 8 others [ 9 214 9 214 IV. "Soris and] 17 others 18 214 8 274 error 3 3] V. Userkheres and] 21 others 22 258 9 248 vi. Othoes and 7 others 8 203 6 203 viii. 14 others 14 140 27 146 [error 4] ix. 20 others 20 409 19 409 (x.), xi. 7 others 7 204 35 244 Totals 115 2200 130 2300 ^^^^ ^^■~ ^^~ Castor. Years. Africanus. Years. xii. Diospolites [16]9 Diospolites 160 xiii. Bubastites 153 Diospolites 453 xiv. Tanites 184 Xoites 184 XV. Sebennites 224 Shepherds 284 xvi. Memphites 318 Shepherds 618 xvii. Heliopolites 221 Shepherds and Thebans 151 xviii. Hermopolites Totals 26[1] Diospolites 263 2013 1620 Usque ad 17'"^™ tc • [he omits vii., x.] potestatem scribil )mus habens 1520 annos. ,ur are The numbers of the dynasties (i., ii., &c.) inserted by me ; there are none in the original The scheme ends at the end of Dynasty xviii., that is, at the epoch of Menofres (Ramses i. 1318 B.C.), the beginning of a new Sothic period. As the Sothic ANCIENT SCHEMES OF CHRONOLOGY 149 period of Castor ends at the close of Dynasty xi. he probably meant the 1520 years of Manetho's vol. ii. to run contemporaneously with the last 1520 years of his vol. i. In this reckoning Osinosiris evidently includes the o gods Shu, Seb and Asar, the 420 years being 3 x 140; and 6 demigods with 140 years have dropped out as shown by the total 1550 : restoring those we have 7 gods, 8 demigods, and 115 kings [PIE] of the Cynic cycle with years 2100= 15 x 140: 130 kings in all, and 3650 years or 2 J Sothic periods (compare the mythical Dynasty iii. of the Memphite school, which has 30 demigods and 3650 years). In its present form this scheme must date after the time when the Sothic reckoning was established. But there was an earlier scheme ; Suidas under Hefaistos gives him 1680 years = 12 x 140, and this would make the total 4650 years=155x30 or 155 Seds, the demigods having 300 or 10 Seds; the gods 2250 or 75 Seds ; and the Cynic cycle 2100 or 70 Seds. The original calculation was certainly by Seds, and the change to a Sothic total shows that we have here a genuine tradition of the mythic numbers and no mere inven- tion of Castor's. The occurrence of the factor 140 in no less than four places shows that this number also had some special significance, perhaps 5 Seds of 28 years or 2 Processional degrees of 70 ; but this is beside my present purpose. Passing: to Manetho's first volume the total must read 2100 not 2200 ; the error lies probably in Dyn. xi. which should read 104 years : the omission of 3 years in Dynasty iv. is accounted for by the 150 EGYPTIAN CHEONOLOGY parallel omission of 3 years in Manetho which I have noted before ; but Castor's object being evidently to diminish Manetho's total by exactly 200 years he has left all the unit figures unchanged : this shows that he corrected the outstanding error of 4 years in Manetho by adding 4 years to Dynasty viii. not to vii. as I have done. The entire omission of Dynasty vii, is especially noteworthy. In the number of kings 17 in iv. has probably arisen from adding in the 9 kings of v. (8 + 9 = 17); Eusebius has copied this error; the 21 in v. is entirely wrong, but Eusebius here improves on him and has 31 ; 8 in vi. and 14 in viii. are genuine corrections, but the following 7 is quite erroneous. For Manetho's second volume it is clear that we must insert 150 years in Dynasty xii. and 1 year in xviii. : there is the same vacillation of one year in Manetho in this latter dynasty. The total is thus brought into agreement with the items. The names of the dynasties are also noticeable, especially his calling the Shepherds of xvi. Memphites from their seat of government at Memphis, and the Diospolite worshippers of Tahuti (Hermes), the Tahutmes' and Aahmes of xviii., Hermopolites. NOTE ON THE SUPPOSED ANTIQUITY OF BABYLONIA. There is an inscription of Nabonidos to the effect that Kudur Turgu or Kudur Bau, father of Sagarakti Burgas, lived 800 years before his time, 556 B.C. But neither after Nazri Maruttas, where Sayce places these kings, nor after Kallima Sin, where Hil23recht CONCLUSIONS 151 locates them, will the known facts admit them to be inserted. If for "8 hundreds" we read "8 sosses" the 800 years is reduced to 480 and the date of Kudur Turgu becomes 1036 B.C. He and his son would then be the two missing Elamites of Dyn. vii. I have little doubt this is a true conjecture. In like manner the inscription of Nabonidos (dating near the end of his reign) which says " The founda- tion cylinder of Naram Sin, son of Sargon, which for 3200 years no king who had gone before had seen, Samas . . . showed unto me," should read " 3 neri and 2 sosses" (1920) instead of " 3 thousands and 2 hundreds." Naram Sin's date would then be 2470 B.C. instead of 3750 as usually assumed. On this one cylinder (as I believe wrongly inter- preted) rests the stupendous chronology at present universally advocated by the Assyriologists. SECTION V. CONCLUSIONS. I WILL now state the final results that appear to me to be warranted by the evidence adduced. 1. The only two ancient schemes that have reached us which state a complete total for the whole period from Menes to Okhos, that is to say, the Chronicle and the Redactor, although widely differing in amount, agree in this : that neither of them allows of more 152 EGYPTIAN CHEONOLOGY than 20 successive dynasties, the others being regarded as contemporary. Nor can I discover any evidence that any ancient authority took a different view from theirs. The monuments on detailed examination appear to confirm their opinion. I therefore adopt the legitimate succession as indicated by Manetho (in his omission of detailed reigns for Dyn. vii.-xi. ; xiii.-xiv. ; xvi.-xvii. ; xx.) as including onlyDyn. i.-vi. ; xii: xv. ; xviii.-xix. ; xxi.-xxx. 2. There were among the ancients two schools of ■chronology (as there are now), one advocating a short, the other a long system : the differences between these are confined to Dyn. i.-vi. and Dyn. xii., xv. For the second of these periods the long Manethonic system is almost certainly right : for the first it is certainly wrong. The excess in Dyn. i.-vi. is made up of supposititious reigns (Sesokhris, Mesokhris, Soyfis, Akhes, &c.), exaggerated regnal years (Soufis, Menkheres, &c.), and reckonings of co-regnant kings as if they were independent and sole (E-hatoises, Bikheris, &c. ). In no one instance has any statement of regnal years in the Turin papyrus been proved to conflict with the monuments ; in many (such as the career of Raskhemka) the Manethonic numbers are impossible. I therefore reject Manetho as an autho- rity for Dyn. i.-vi. ; I shall presently state how and why I accept him for xii., xv. From this point onwards the short and long schemes virtually coin- cide. 3. I have reserved for this place a hypothesis with regard to the short schemes which will, I trust, explain their construction and obviate all outstanding CONCLUSIONS 153 difficulties in the way of rejecting the longer one for Dyn. i.-vi. I hiive desired to keep the body of the work free from conjecture as far as possible : but here the contradictions are so palpable that some hypothesis is absolutely necessary. Taking the Turin papyrus as our starting-point, Dyn. iii., iv., vi. present no difficulty, but the other dynasties, i.-ii., v., vii.-x. (the contemporary equivalent for xii., xv.) each show a deficiency. For vii.-x. it gives only 355 years against Manetho's 444, which are confirmed by every detail on careful examination — 89 years deficient ; for v. it has only 66 years against 190 in the Chronicle, which is certainly right as shown on comparison with Manetho's details — deficit 124 years; and for i., ii, there is again a deficit probable of not more than 52 years, as shown by comparison with Manetho's numbers, which judging from all the parallel instances where direct comparison is possible are almost certain to be in excess : I take the deficit at 26 years, half of 52. It will not do to assume that any of these deficiencies can be supplied from the destroyed parts of the papyrus ; this is precluded by the total of 755 years at the end of Dyn. vi. Hereon I ground my hypothesis. The only epochs anterior to Kamessu ii. (when we know the Turin list to have been formed and the Abydos tablet to have been erected) at which chrono- logical schemes are likely to have been made are in the reigns of Thotmes iii., when the chamber of ancestors was sculptured, and of Ramessu i., the Sed epoch of Menofres. Taking this epoch, 1318 B.C., for starting-point, 89 years will lead us to 1229, the 154 EGYPTIAN CHEONOLOGY 45th year of E-amessu ii. in the one direction, and 124 + 26 = 150 in the other lands us in 1468, the 36th of Thotmes iii., this last being, of course, liable to future correction of a few years either way. I assume, then, that the original calculation, which is the nearest approximation to the truth at present obtainable, was made for Thotmes iii. ; that when it was revised for Ramessu i. the excision was made of 26 years in Dyn. i., ii. and 124 years in Dyn. v. ; and again, when our extant Turin list was drawn up for Ramessu ii. a further excision of 89 years (out of the hated Hyksos rule) was added to the former, thus making the epochs of each of the 3 schemes exactly 1 Sothic cycle before the date at which each scheme was made. This gives the following hypothetical system : First Scheme, T. 1. Second. T. 2. Third. T. P. Epochs. Years. B.C. Years. B.C. Years. B.C. i. Menes xii. Usertsen i. XV. Khyan xviii. Aahmes 20 Aahmes 36 Tahntimes iii. 1 Eamessu i. 45 Ramessu ii. 905 184 260 20 92 2929 2024 1840 1580 1S60 1468 755 184 260 262 2779 2024 1840 1580 1318 755 184) 171/ 262 89 2690 1935 1751 1680 1318 1229 The only doubtful number in T. 1 is the 905 years, which can only be 26 years in error at most ; the numbers in T. P. are fixed by the Turin list and Mahler's calculation ; but those in T. 2 remind us CONCLUSIONS 155 so strongly of the Manethonic (Memphitic) divine dynasties as to make it worth while to examine what chancres in them would be needed to bring; them into agreement with my theory that these god-reigns are only history in disguise. Premising that the Ptah worship must be taken, as ah-eady pointed out, to begin in the 5th year of Menes, the following will give the divine dynasties (abridged) for the 3 schemes : T. 1. T. 2, T. P. Dyn. Gods. Years. B.C. Years. B.C. Years. B.C. i. Ptah 900 2924 750 2774 750 2684 xii. Ra, &c. 184 2024 184 2024 183 1934 XV. Asar, &c. 146 1840 146 1840 146 1751 Harsiesis 25 25 25 Min to Sebek 89 89 — XVUl. Amen 20 1580 20 1580 20 1580 Khons, &c. Sum 92 1468 1214 1456 1124 The numbers in T. 2 are taken unaltered from the Memphite scheme. I need only note that Manetho, who adopts them, gives a set of numbers for his men kings, which cannot be explained as in any way connected with the items of the divine dynasties ; and yet it is hardly to be supposed that the coinci- dences of the B.C. dates 2024, 1840, 1580 with the epochs of xii., xv., xviii. is accidental. He must have got his numbers from one of the early forms of the Turin list. In T. 1 the only number changed is 900 years for Ptah instead of 9000 months as in T. 2, T. P., but without some such form of the list as 156 EGYPTIAN CHEONOLOCtY T. 1 no historical reason is evident for making an epoch at 1468 B.C. at the end of the " 4 other demi- gods " ; if this be not an epoch, the historic explana- tion, with its remarkable coincidences just noticed, would have to be thrown over. If it be admitted, 2929 must be the epoch of Menes. For T. P. we have a rough but ready test. The sum of the great gods and the followers of Harsiesis must be 13,420 (months) + less than 80 for the torn off tens and units : now 1124 years x 12 = 13,488, which fulfils this condition. The only change in T. P. is the omission of 3 demigods, the sum of whose years is 89, exactly the deficit of regnal years in the Turin papyrus, and whose position corresponds with that of the Hyksos kings in the history, another remark- able coincidence inexplicable except on the hypo- thesis now advocated. I can now leave this dubious hypothesis and give my view of the affiliation of all the ancient schemes. 3IADE B.C. 1468 1318 1229 1204 1140 671 340 287 246 222 Under Tahutimes iii. Ramessu i. Ramessu ii. Merenptah Ramessu iii. Aahmes Okhos Ptolemy ii. Ptolemy iii. Ptolemy iv. T. 1 (? 1 Chron.) {? 1 Erat.) I 2 Chl-on. 2 Erat. T. 2 I T. P. Abydos Herod. Manetho I Redactor I Afr. Eus. &c. CONCLUSIONS 157 I have inserted 2 schemes, 1 Chronicle and 1 Eratosthenes, which may have served as bases of those which have come down to us ; but these are purely hypothetical and may be omitted without affecting iny argument, which is entirely independent of them. The rest of the table tells its own story. 4. The various systems of Sed festivals, as now set forth, and which must have been in use in at least 3 forms, as shown by the falling of the Sed days on Epifi 27, 28, and 30, are mainly useful in confirming dates reached by other lines of investigation. The exact agreement of the results in every case is most remarkable, and it cannot be obtained on any hypo- thesis that refuses the contemporaneity of the 10 dynasties rejected by the ancient authorities from legitimate succession. As, however, most of these were of late introduction, and only used calculated, not observed, dates, they are of little use for Dyn. i.-vi. : the exceptional system is that of the Tybi epoch, which was certainly in actual use as early as 2751 (or possibly 2781 B.C.), the epoch of its origin. This date 2751 falls in the reign of Kakau, to whom the Manethonic tradition attributes a religious innovation — namely, the deification of the sacred bulls. I have little doubt that the hieratic system, including the institution of these festivals, was organised in his time. This leaves only Dyn. i. or ii. as of doubtful duration, and the variant readings for Menes' reign (62 or 30 years) more than cover the 26 years that are possibly doubtful. The epoch of Menes cannot be far from 2929 B.C. The Sed sys- tems may be thus tabulated : 158 EGYPTIAN CHEONOLOGY Established B.C. Epoch. 2761 Kakaii 1631 Staan 1468 Tahutimes iii. 571 Aahmes 243 1 Tybi 2751 1 Thoth 2779 1 Famenoth 2069 ] 1 Famenoth 2031 / 1 Pakhons 5. I have no space even to enumerate fully the anomalies and difficulties removed by the system now proposed : such as the abolition of huge gaps of many centuries, during which the monuments are absolutely silent ; the extinction of incredible hypo- theses as to the oscillation of Egyptian art from an ideal perfection to imbecility and vice versa; as to sudden abnegation of pyramid building for centuries during Dyn. vii.-x. and as sudden resumption thereof, and the like ; the explanation of the numbers in Herodotus, and the vindication of the grand old traveller's accuracy ; the exact agreement with the chronology of the Babylonians and the Hebrews (which is, however, rather indicated than proved in the present essay) ; the satisfaction of all subsidiary tests, such as the E-amessean inscription in the 400th year of Setaanubti : all such will be evident to the careful reader. But I may draw attention to the fact that there are in this book several distinct lines of investigation, which may be by the reader, and have been by the author, examined independently — viz., the evidences of the numerical schemes, the formation of divine dynasties, the observation of Sed festivals, and the artificial use of Sothic and other cycles : the conclusions obtained from all and each of CONCLUSIONS 159 these, with only the introduction of a single unauthor- ised number, have been shown to be consistent : and if this consensus is accidental the doctrine of chances may be given up at once, and historical investigation banished from the realm of science. I have no doubt that many petty details may have to be amended, but the main theses of this essay — the contempo- raneity of the 10 illegitimate dynasties, and the exaggerations of Manetho in Dyn. i.-vi. — cannot be henceforth evaded as they are in the received systems of modern chronologers. 160 EGYPTIAN CHEONOLOGY I. DATA. Short Chronology. Long Chronology. Dyn. Turin. Chron. Erat. Man. Eed. Afr. Eus. D.G. 214 214 i. ] 508 443 I 190 253 253 263 252 ii. 1 J 161 302 302 302 297 iii. 1 53 214 214 214 197 iv. ) i 97 277 274 284 [5]48 V. 66 190 68 218 248 218 vi. 1 181 ) 103 107 197 203 203 203 vii. 736 /• 22 (14) — [4] 75 viii. 755 348 - 38 (146) — 146 100 ix. 1 355 1110 129 (109) — ■ [4]09 100 X. 1084 '^ 185 (185) 185 185 SOTH. xi. (243) 240 [3]43 16 [3]43 [3]43 xii. (213) — 129 184 184 160 [200] xiii. 7 — — (453) — 453 453 xiv. 7 — — (184) — 184 484 XV. 7 — 259 260 260 284 250 xvi. — 190 (518) — 518 190 xvii. 1 194 ] \ [50] 1 228 i 141 (151) — 151 103 xviii. xix. 323 152 ( 263 l 209 263 209 262 204 348 194 XX. — 82 (135) — 135 172 xxa. — 143 — [143] (143) — xxi. [128] ) ( 121 I 48 ) 141 f 130 1 166 130 114 130 xxii. 49 120 116 49 [48] xxiii. 19 ] 63 ( 89 J 6 89 89 44 xxiv. 44 1 44 6 6 44 XXV. 44 j 44 40 [ 150, 6 120,4 6 40 44 xxvi. xxvii. xxviii. 177 j 124 [6] 210 150,6 124,4 6 151 124 6 171 120,4 6 Eeat. Total xxix. 39 1 18 j 1045 f 20,4 20,4 20 21,4 XXX. then 1 38 38 38 20 53 kings xxxi. Totals 2324 3355, 6 3555 15 16 T le numbe rs in loops ( 3f contem Manetho porary king total. s are omi tted in th e CONCLUSIONS 161 II. KESULTS. Dtn. B.C. Dyn, B.C. i. ii. 2929 2768 xi. a xi. b 2381 2281 2038 iii. iv. V. vi. 2553 2500 2396 2205 DVN. U.C. 2053 Dyn. xiv. — xii. 1 B.C. xiii. vii. 2024 xii. 2 2024 2024 — IX. X. 1874 1765 — — — — end 1840 XV., xvi. 1840 — 1585 end 1580 XVll. 1731 — — end xviii. 1580 xvi. 1580 — — — — xix. 1317 end 1322 — — — — — — xxi. xxiii. XXV. 1108 812 717 xxii. xxiv. xxvi. 980 723 667 XX. end 1108 973 COTEMPORARY DY> . FROM Chronicle. 23 25 811 748 24 26 792 704 xxvii. xxix. 525 398 xxviii. XXX. end 403 378 340 29 397 30 end 358 340 162 EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOG^Y TABLE I.~DATA. TABLE II.— RESULTS. In Table I. I give the years assigned to each of the XXX. Dynasties by the following authorities — for the short chronology : ( 1 ) The Turin papyrus. (2) The Old Chronicle. (Sa) Eratosthenes i.-x. (36) The list in Synkellos xi.-xxvi., sometimes called the Book of the Sothis, sometimes the Mestrsean list, sometimes the traditional numbers, but usually referred to in the present work simply as " Synkellos." For the long chronology : (4) The original Manethonic numbers as deduced in the body of the essay. (5) The numbers of the Redactor's corruption as given in the actual sums stated in Africanus. (6) Africanus' own reckoning as given in his items. (7) Eusebius' reckoning. The numbers inserted in brackets in columns 2, 5 are necessitated by the totals of the Chronicle and of the 3 Manethonic volumes, so that this one page (reserving col. 4, in which the arrangement is slightly conjectural) consists of all the various sums of dynastic numbers that have been handed down in any ancient scheme that has reached us ; it is truly the table of data. (N.B. — All through the book the summation of the items of any one dynasty is called a "sum" : that of several "sums" is called a "total." This saves much circumlocution.) The numbers in brackets in cols. 6, 7 are con- jectural; £ind so passim. In Table II. I tabulate the ultimate results of my investigation. The dynasties enclosed in the thick CONCLUSIONS 163 lines are the legitimate or supreme dynasties of Manetho ; the others are subordinate and contempo- rary. Only in Dyn. i.-vi. do I reject the Manethonic numbers and adopt those of the short chronology — iii., iv., vi. from the Turin list, v. from the Chronicle. I have given the Chronicler's reckoning of the later dynasties in the lower right-hand corner. The dates in the first column may be 2383, 2283, 2040, 1587, and in the second 1767, 1587. I cannot find definite evidence on this small difference. In the present state of our knowledge of the dynasties concerned, this is of absolutely no importance. By introducing a white line here and there, this table has been made to indicate (roughly) to the eye the lapse of time from Menes on to Okhos ; each line represents one century. ADDENDUM The attentive reader will note a discrepancy between the date given in the preface 2924 B.C. and that of 2929 B.C. with which I begin my tables : the explana- tion is this. While this book has been passing through the press I have been endeavouring to solve two problems : ( 1 ) Why the divine dynasties, supposing them to be founded on history (see p. 94, &c.), should have been exaggerated irregularly, some demigods' years being taken from the " month " numbers, and others from the " seasons " ; (2) whether there is any trace in the schemes of a reckoning of the precession of the equinoxes, and, if so, to what amount. I cannot suppose, as some recent writers do, that the Egyptians of 2900-340 B.C. were acquainted with its true amount, 50"'18 in one year, or 1° in 71y. 9m. : the fact that Hipparchus (160-145 B.C.) could only state as limits 59" to 36" for the annual amount (or 61 to 100 years for 1° of jDrecession) is sufficient to disprove this. But they may have reckoned much nearer to 71 or 72 years than the Chaldees, who seen to have taken 100 years. Now consider these numbers ADDENDUM 165 Gods. Yeae s. Ptah 540U __ 75. 72 Aries entered + 3600 = 75. 48 Ra to Set 3000 = 75. 40 Har 300 = 75. 4 Anliur to Amen Sum 1200 = 75. 16 13500 =: 75. 180 4 others 370 = 74. 5 30 demigods 3650 = 73. 50 Total 17520 = 73. 240 The epochs of Ptah, Ra, and Har are just the most likelj to be distinguished in such a calculation, and the interpretation I would suggest is that when the Memphite numbers for the divine dynasties were compiled as far as Amen, 180^ of precession were supposed to have been gone through before any man king ; of which 120° were assigned to Ptah ; and so forth. Then after many observations the priests found that 75 years was too long an estimate and tried 74, which for the same reason was abandoned in favour of 73. The final reduction (under Amosis xxvi. 8 I believe) has a total of 240° of 73 years each — i.e., of two-thirds of the whole processional cycle : and it is difficult to believe that this can be anything else than a device of the priests to retain all the numerals of the older calculation for 180,° half a precession cycle, while correcting the time of 1° precession for 75 years to 73. The older scheme may date from Eamessu i. or Ramessu ii. The Egyptian approximation of 73 years when the Chaldeans got 166 ADDENDUM no nearer than 100 is very creditable. If this be so the conjectural 905 years in p. 154 should be reduced to900=12x75,asan exact multiple of 75 is required, and for the first date in Dyn. i. we must read 2924 B.C. (Mena 30 years, as Eratosthenes has it) and the "single unauthorised number" of p. 159 will dis- appear. I have not in the body of the work entered on the question of the kind of year in use at various times because I cannot adduce convincing evidence : however, to avoid the appearance of having ne- glected the question, I give here a statement of my belief, reserving all discussion for a future opportunity. Days in B.C. Dynasties. Sacred YEAR. Civil YEAR. Supreme God. 2924 2024 1840 1749 1630 i.-vi. xii. XV. Eisode Staan Memphite Theban Hyksos 360 360 364 365 365i 360 365 365 365 365 Ptah Ra Osiris Haroeris Thoth I also believe that the Egyptian deluge (the passage of the equinoctial point from Taurus to Aries) was reckoned by the Memphites at B.C. 2324 ; by the Thebans 2384 ; by the Babylonians 2334 : but I cannot discuss this till I treat of Babylonian chronology. In the table for the Memphite Divine Dynasties I have followed authority in making Horos = the ADDENDUM 167 son of Isis, and Apollo = the son of Seb : I have little doubt that these should be transposed and that Plutarch was right in making the son of Isis = Apollo. Printed by Ballantvne, Hanson <5--^ Co. London ^ Edinburgh LUAN PbKIOD 1 2 ^^^ r- HOME USE AU BOOKS MAV BE «ECAUEO AFTEB 7 DAy. -OyEAS^IAMPEDBELOW" « FORM NO. DD6. 60m. '^^^T^^S^I^^i^^i^^i^ DtKKELEY, CA 94720 ®$ iviailSSO GENERAL LIBRARY - U.C. BERKELEY BDDD77Sbl.b