The interval between the twelfth and the eighteenth dynasty must have been very considerable. The time immediately preceding the eighteenth dynasty was the period of the foreign domination generally known as that of the Hyksos, or the Shepherd kings. So much is certain, but it is absolutely impossible to ascertain from Egyptian records when this period began, and how long it lasted. The 511 years which are ascribed to it by Manetho, as quoted by Josephus, are neither to be simply accepted nor rejected, but must remain subject to future verification. The only evidence from Egyptian sources which bears upon the subject is a monument of Rameses II., dated from the four hundredth year of one of these kings of foreign origin. But a considerable number of native kings must have reigned between the last king of the twelfth dynasty and the beginning of the foreign invasion. There are numerous inscriptions which prove that sovereigns powerful in the north of Egypt had extended their dominion to the very heart of Nubia. The monuments of Thebes, southern Egypt and Nubia, might be consistent with the hypothesis of a Hyksos kingdom in the north, but the presence of equally important monuments of the Sebekhoteps at Bubastis and Tanis, kings whose names occupy an important place in the chamber of Karnak, would alone be sufficient to overthrow this hypothesis. There is in the Louvre a magnificent colossal statue in real granite of

Sebekhotep III., with reference to which M. de Rougé says: "A single statue of this excellence and of such a material shows clearly that the king who had it executed for the decoration of his temples or palaces had not yet suffered from the invasion of the Shepherds. It is evident that under his reign Egypt was still a great power, peacefully cultivating the arts." Perhaps the most interesting monument of this period is the colossal statue of the king Semench-ka-Rā (the eighteenth king of the thirteenth dynasty, according to the royal Turin papyrus), on the right shoulder of which one of the foreign kings has had his name engraved in hieroglyphic characters.

Of

Of the kings of the eleventh dynasty, only two (Nos. 57 and 58) appear on the tablet of Abydos. Very interesting inscriptions belonging to their reigns are still extant; but other kings bearing the name of Antuf and Mentuhotep are known to us, not only by inscriptions, but by their coffins in our museums. Mentuhotep III., dates have been found as high as his forty-third year. And a tablet has been found representing him as being worshipped by his successor, Antuf IV. There is a very interesting fact connected with one of the monuments of this dynasty. Many years ago,1 Dr. Birch translated a papyrus, now in the

1 In the Revue Archéologique of 1859. See Dr. Birch's paper "On the Tablet of Antefaa," in the Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, Vol. IV. p. 172.

British Museum, describing a judicial inquiry concerning robberies committed in the royal tombs at Thebes. The tombs of the kings are described as having been inspected. In one of these tombs the king Antuf-aa is reported to be represented on a tablet accompanied by his hound Behkaa. This tomb has quite recently been discovered by M. Mariette at Drah-abu'lneggah, with the picture of the king, and the dog's name Behkaa written over the picture of the animal. The inscription on the tablet is dated from the fiftieth year of the king.

Evidence like this proves that there is no exaggeration in the list of Abydos. It does not aim at presenting a complete list of kings. It only mentions those for whom Seti had a special devotion. The disappearance of Memphis and other great cities is quite sufficient to account for the absence of monumental evidence for some of the reigns. It is very probable that the earliest kings left no monuments. But for nearly every king on the tablet who is unrepresented by monumental evidence, we can produce another king omitted by the tablet, but whose reign is proved by unimpeachable evidence.

Genealogies.

The evidence of such genealogies as are found in the tombs leads to chronological results very similar to those derived from the succession of the kings. These genealogies have nothing fabulous about them, like

those against which Mr. Grote cautions his readers; they are as completely matter of fact as any recorded on the tombstones of our own churchyards.1

Manetho.

A great many writers who have treated of Egyptian chronology have endeavoured to utilize the names and numbers given in the fragments of Manetho. There is not the slightest reason for questioning the fact that Manetho had access to authentic historical records; and if his work were still extant, it would be of invaluable service to us. As it is, we are indebted to him for the notion of the division into dynasties with local origins, all of which have been accurately verified. But his work has unfortunately been lost, and the few fragments of it which remain, and which give but an imperfect notion of the whole, have been preserved by writers who do not appear to have observed strict accuracy in their quotations, and they have clearly in some instances quoted him at second-hand. The late Dr. Hincks, who had given great attention to the

1 The funereal tablets often mention the name of the father and mother and some other near relatives of the departed. One tablet seldom goes back three or more generations. And the longest genealogy which has been recovered appears to be defective rather than otherwise. Dr. Lieblein's "Dictionnaire des noms hiéroglyphiques" contains an invaluable collection of these family records arranged in chronological order.

subject, has pointed out a series of deliberate falsifications of Manetho's lists made by the early Christian and perhaps by Jewish chronologers for the purpose of bringing these lists into harmony with the Old Testament, or rather with fanciful interpretations of the Old Testament. He does not attribute these falsifications to dishonest motives, but to "mistakes or injudicious attempts to correct mistakes."

Absolute Dates.

It was once generally supposed (and I have myself written in favour of the supposition') that absolute dates might be detected on the monuments. The heliacal risings of certain stars were calculated by M. Biot as fixing the reign of one king in 1300 B.C., and of another king in the year 1444. But I no longer believe that the Egyptian texts really bear out the interpretation which furnishes the data for these cal

1 On "The Earliest Epochs of Authentic Chronology," in Home and Foreign Review, 1862, p. 420. M. Biot, in his "Mémoire sur quelques dates absolues," and after him M. Romieu and Dr. Gensler, have dealt with the Egyptian calendars as if they recorded the risings of certain stars. But the text of the calendars distinctly speaks of the transits of the stars, and never of their risings. I have discussed this question in the Chronicle, 25 Jan. 1868, and in the Transactions of the Society for Biblical Archaeology, Vol. III. M. E. de Rougé has a very important "note sur quelques conditions préliminaires des calculs qu'on peut tenter sur le calendrier et les dates égyptiennes," in the Revue Archéologique, 1864, Vol. II. p. 81.