(perhaps of many) years is possible in each reign when there is no direct evidence to the contrary. But the error is at all events not on the side of exaggerated numbers.

Monuments furnishing Evidence of a Succession of

Reigns.

Still more important than the monuments which mention the year of a king, are those in which two or more sovereigns of the same period are mentioned, especially if their succession or other precise data are given. Such is the treaty made in the twenty-first of his reign between Rameses II. and the king of the Cheta, wherein Rameses II. calls himself the son of Seti I., who in his turn is called the son of Rameses I.1 There is a very large number of inscriptions belonging to personages who have been born in one reign and died in another, or who have served several kings in succession. And the inscriptions of the same period naturally confirm one another, or supply details which were missing.

Thus, to take the case of the eighteenth dynasty, the sepulchral inscription of Aahmes, the son of Abana,2 gives the account of a naval officer who served three sovereigns one after the other,-Aahmes I., Amenhotep I. and Tehutimes I. (commonly called Thothmes or Thoth

1 "Records of the Past," Vol. IV. p. 25. 2 Ibid. Vol. VI. p. 5.

mosis). His father, the same inscription tells us, served the king Sekenen-Ra. Another well-known inscription, now in the Louvre at Paris,1 begins the tale of its hero in the reign of Aahmes I., and ends it in that of Tehutimes III. The tablet of Nebuaiu, now in the Museum at Bulaq, gives thanks to Tehutimes III. and his son Amenhotep II., who had honoured Nebuaiu. King Amenhotep II. himself, on a tablet at Amada, speaks of Tehutimes III. as his father. And a third and independent witness, Amenemheb,2 tells us that Tehutimes III., in whose service he was, died on the last day of the month Phamenoth, in the 54th year of his reign, and that he was succeeded by his son Amenhotep II. The entire succession of the dynasty is established on a large mass of evidence of the same kind, as may be seen at length in an excellent dissertation of Dr. Wiedeman. And the chronology of other periods has been established in like manner.

3

The most remarkable series of inscriptions which has been utilized for chronological purposes consists of the inscriptions relating to the Apis bulls, whose wonderful tombs were discovered by M. Mariette. One of these sacred animals was born in the twenty-eighth year of king Sheshonk III., lived twenty years, and died in

2 Ibid. Vol. II.
7.
p.

p.

59,

1 "Records of the Past," Vol. IV. 8 "Geschichte der achtzehnten ägyptischen Dynastie bis zum Tode Tutmes III.," in the Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Bd. xxxi.

the second year of king Pamai. Another Apis was born in the twenty-sixth year of Taharqa, and died in the twentieth year of Psammitichus I. A hundred and sixty-eight tablets in honour of this one Apis have been found, fifty-three of which are dated. Another Apis, born on the nineteenth day of the month Mechir, in the fifty-third year of Psammitichus I., lived sixteen years, seven months and seventeen days, and died on the sixth Paophi of the sixteenth year of Necho II. This bull was succeeded by another, born on the seventh Paophi of the sixteenth year of Necho II., lived seventeen years, six months and five days, and died on the twelfth day of the month Pharmuti, of the twelfth year of king Apries.

As documents of this kind bring us down past the time of Cambyses and even into the Ptolemaic period, that is, into a period of well-ascertained chronology, we are able, by means of the Apis inscriptions alone, to go back from Cambyses to the first year of Taharqa, about seven hundred years before Christ, the limit of possible error being two or three years at the utmost. And with Taharqa (the Tirhaka of Scripture), who was the last king of the twenty-fifth dynasty, begins, as Brugsch observes, the latest period of the history of the Pharaohs.

Royal Lists and their Verification by the Monuments.

The first kind of monuments which I have described is useful as furnishing the highest ascertainable monumental year of a reign; the second kind enables us besides to determine the order of succession of reigns. Both these kinds of monuments are contemporaneous with the persons and events mentioned upon them. But besides these, there are monuments giving long lists of sovereigns, all of whom cannot have been contemporaneous. Such are the famous tablets of Abydos, that of Saqâra,1 the chamber of Karnak, and some others. The royal hieratic canon of Turin (which is unfortunately in so mutilated a condition as practically to be of little use, and which enumerates many kings and gives the lengths of their reigns) is a document of the same historical character, at least from the point of view from which I am now looking at the matter.2 In the chamber of Karnak, Tehutimes III. is represented as making an offering to sixty-one of his royal prede

1 Mariette, “La table de Saqqarah," in the Revue Archéologique, 1864, II. 169.

2 It differs from the rest in being a professedly historical document. The others may rather be compared to lists of saints in Catholic litanies. That royal names should occur in this way in the prayers of private persons, as in the tablet of Saqara, is not wonderful, when we learn from the Book of the Dead (ch. 136, b. 14) that the pious dead are in the company of the kings of the North and of the South.

cessors, whose names are given. At Abydos, Seti I., together with his son Rameses, then heir-apparent, offers incense to no less than seventy-six kings.'

Royal List of Abydos.

You will at once understand the importance of such a monument, if it can be relied upon, when I remind you that the Israelites in bondage are said to have been employed in building the treasure cities (as the Hebrew meschenoth is commonly translated), or rather sanctuaries, of Pithom and Rameses. It may be considered absolutely certain that no place in Egypt ever. had the name of Rameses till the appearance of the celebrated hero of the name, who is actually represented on this monument as the son and heir-apparent of Seti I. The name of the place is as significant as the names of Alexandria, Antioch, Ptolemais, Seleucia, Washington or Napoleonville. The name of Rameses is a very peculiar one, the latter part of it consisting of the reduplicated form of the verb mes, not of the simple form, like the names Rames, Aahmes, Tehutimes, Chonsumes, and I do not believe any instance

1 Dümichen, "Die Sethostafel von Abydos (mit Abbildung)," in the Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Alterthumskunde, 1864, p. 81. Dévéria, "La nouvelle table d'Abydos, comparée aux autres listes royales de l'ancienne Egypte, redigée sous les Ramessides ou antérieurement," in the Rev. Archéologique, 1865, I. 50, and Mariette, “La nouvelle table d'Abydos," Rev. Arch. 1866, I. 73.