158 HIGH PRIESTS OF MEMPHIS AND HELIOPOLIS

priesthood can hardly as yet be said to have existed; the male head of every family was the priest (ḥen ka, of his ancestors, and the "Sem" and “Kherheb" priests were certainly at this time kinsmen of the deceased. We have, it is true, vague indications of the existence of a college of priests of Ra-Temu at Heliopolis, under the headship of its chief official, who was known as the "Great Two Eyes," or the “Great Seer," "Ur-maa," of Ra-Temu; this, however, must have been a very different institution from the powerful confraternities of later days, although its influence was sufficiently great to place upon the throne of Egypt a dynasty of kings who were devoted to its interests. We also find that there existed at Memphis the high priest of the god Ptaḥ, whose official title was the "Great Chief of the Hammer," Ur-kherp-hem; he must have controlled a considerable body of priests, but one which could not for a moment be compared with that of the priests of Rā even at this period. Commerce in the modern sense of the term can hardly have existed at this early time, for each of the great estates into which Egypt was divided was self-supporting, and each produced sufficient for its own needs. The common people lived on the estates on which they were born in a state of absolute dependence upon their lords, but they usually dwelt in their own towns and villages, which were situated within the boundaries of these estates. Under a strong central

CONDITION OF THE PEOPLE

159

Government the condition of such people was, on the whole, a happy one, and they appear to have been humanely treated by their lords, who were not divided from them by any differences of religion or class preju

dice; but when the central Government fell into decay and the Princes of Siut, the modern Asyût, warred against the Princes of Thebes, both families acknowledging the over-lordship of the kings at Herakleopolis,

160

THE POSITION OF WOMEN

the condition of the “sekhti,” ||
C,

0 11

i.e.,

“field man," or "fellaḥ," became indeed deplorable. He was taken from his land, and sent to fight against his fellow countrymen with whom he, personally, had no quarrel, and meanwhile his house and farm were practically left to take care of themselves; if he came back unhurt it was often to find himself the prey of some unjust steward or extortionate bailiff like Meruitensa in the story of the Peasant, who took the opportunity of the lord's absence to play the petty tyrant. To the unique position held by women in Egypt in the earliest times we have already alluded, and the passage which has been quoted from the Precepts of Ptah-hetep shows that the estimate which the Egyptians had formed of the importance of a just and proper treatment of women was far in advance of that held by other nations of antiquity, and that it was. little inferior to our own.

1 See Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch., vol. xiv., June 14, 1892, p. 459 ff.

( 161 )

CHAPTER VI.

THE SEVENTH TO THE ELEVENTH DYNASTIES.

THE information of an accurate character which we possess concerning this period is exceedingly limited, and it is impossible to give any connected account of the succession and reigns of the kings. According to the version of Manetho by Julius Africanus, the years of the dynasties of this period are as follows:

VIIth Dyn. From Memphis; 70 kings in 70 days. VIIIth Dyn. From Memphis; 27 kings in 146 years. IXth Dyn. From Herakleopolis; 19 kings in 409 years. Xth Dyn. From Herakleopolis; 19 kings in 185 years. XIth Dyn. From Thebes; 16 kings in 43 years.

The versions of Manetho given by Eusebius and others differ so much from that of Julius Africanus that it is quite clear that as far as this period is concerned the figures have been garbled; we are therefore driven to rely for information about the period of these dynasties almost entirely upon the few monuments which can with safety be assigned to it. We are not in any way helped in this difficulty by the King Lists which were compiled

VOL. II.

M

162

DYNASTIES VII.-XI.

[B.C. 3033 by the scribes of the XVIIIth and XIXth Dynasties. The Tablets of Karnak and Sakkara are of very little use for the whole period of the Middle Empire, for in them the order of the kings is much confused, and as said above, the reason in no way concerning us here, they are manifestly incomplete. The Tablet of Abydos is of considerable value here, for it gives us the names of the following kings:

1. RA-NEFER-KA.

2. © RA-NEFER-KA-NEBI.