NOTE. VIEW OF M. MARIETTE, UNTENABLE. 6 395 fourteenth contemporary with the thirteenth. Dr. Brugsch goes further. He considers the ninth and tenth dynasties to have been contemporary with the eighth and eleventh, the fourteenth with the thirteenth, the seventeenth with the fifteenth, sixteenth, and part of the eighteenth, and the twenty-fifth with the end of the twenty-fourth and the beginning of the twenty-sixth. Baron Bunsen advances a step beyond Dr. Brugsch. He places the second, fifth, ninth, tenth, fourteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth in the list of collateral dynasties, regarding them as parallel to the third, the sixth, the eighth, and the fifteenth. Finally, the English Egyptologers, Sir G. Wilkinson and Mr. R. Stuart Poole, carry out the principle of contemporaneous dynasties still further than Baron Bunsen. With them the third dynasty is contemporary with the first,9 the second with the fourth and fifth,1 the ninth, tenth, and eleventh with the sixth, the twelfth and thirteenth (at Thebes), the fourteenth (at Xoïs), and the three shepherd dynasties, the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth, with the seventh and eighth (at Memphis).3 The question which of these various opinions is to be preferred, the present writer cannot pretend to determine. He thinks, however, that M. Mariette's view-that none of Manetho's dynasties are contemporary— which is contrary to that of all the other authorities, must be given up, and that the real question must be regarded as one of degree, viz. to what dynastie, appelés alternativement Entef et Montouhotep, qui luttèrent énergiquement contre les séparatistes du Delta, répresentés par les neuvième et dixième dynasties de Manéthon." 3 Ibid. p. 358. "Rien ne s'oppose donc formellement à ce que nous adoptions l'opinion proposée déjà par plusieurs érudits modernes, et qui paraît la plus vraisemblable, d'après laquelle la quatorzième dynastie de Manéthon, originaire de Xoïs, se serait élevée dans le Delta, en competition avec la treizième dynastie thebaine, pendant toute la fin de celle-ci. La division de l'Egypte en deux royaumes, rivaux et ennemis," &c. Histoire d'Égypte, p. 49. "Les deux dynasties de Héracléopolis, la neuvième et la dixième, ne sont que des maisons collaterales aux précédentes." And again of the same, earlier in the work (p. 47): Nous pourrons le mieux expliquer cette différence par la supposition de dynasties contemporaines dans la Haute et dans la Basse Égypte." 5 Ibid. p. 72. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid. p. 288. 8 See Egypt's Place in Universal History, vol. ii. "We have already established the fact that the two dynasties' (the second and third) “not only commenced simultaneously, but also that their length was the same (p. 106). "The assumption of the consecutiveness of the fifth and sixth dynasties leads to endless absurdities" (p. 208). "The kings of both the Herakleopolitan dynasties the ninth and tenth-were contemporary with the Theban kings of the eleventh and twelfth dynasties" (p. 239; compare vol. iv. pp. 499-500). For the chronology of the Hyksos period, see vol. iv. pp. 510-512, corrected in vol. v. p. 63, where the entire period of the "Middle Empire " is reduced to one of 350 years. 9 See above, ch. viii. § 7; and com. pare Biblical Dictionary, vol. i. p. 508, ad voc. EGYPT. 1 Supra, ch. viii. § 9. 2 Supra, ch. viii. §§ 12, 13. 396 EXTENT OF CONTEMPORANEITY, UNCERTAIN. APP. BOOK II. extent the earlier dynasties of Manetho are contemporary. This is a question to be determined, as far as possible, by the evidence of the Egyptian monuments; but where they fail, it is not unreasonable that arguments from probability should be brought in. For instance, it is quite legitimate to argue that the three Hyksos dynasties were contemporary, on the ground that a foreign dominion, which had no permanent effect at all on the Egyptian people, could scarcely have lasted longer than the time assigned to one of these dynasties out of the three." 6 Unfortunately, the Egyptian monuments are very defective. For the Hyksos period they are almost wholly wanting. For the preceding period, that between the sixth and the twelfth dynasties, they are scanty and indicate a period of confusion. For the time before this they are somewhat more copious; but they do not clearly settle the question of contemporaneity. Useskef, of the second dynasty, is said to be found on the monuments, together with Soris, or Shuré, and Mycerinus, or Menkera, of the fourth, and with Osirkef and Shafré, of the fifth; and again, Papi, of the sixth, appears to be contemporary with Sken-n-ré, of the eleventh. But the monuments neither furnish any general scheme of chronology, like the Assyrian Canon, nor are they sufficiently 2 4 M. Mariette boldly says: "Jamais aucun des savants qui se sont efforcés de raccourcir les chiffres donnés par Manéthon n'est encore parvenu à produire un seul monument d'où il résultat que deux dynasties donnés comme successives dans ces listes aient été contemporaines" (Lenormant, Manuel d'Histoire, p. 324). But such monuments have been pointed out by Bunsen (Egypt's Place, vol. ii. pp. 236, 237), by Sir G. Wilkinson, (supra, ch. viii. §§ 9, 13), and by Mr. Stuart Poole (Biblical Dictionary, vol. i. p. 507). 5 See Canon Cook's Essay in the Speaker's Commentary, vol. i. p. 447. On the fact of the entire absence of Hyksos influence from the monuments, see M. Mariette, Musée de Boulaq, p. 254"L'Égypte est revenue sous la xviiime dynastie avec la plus singulière persistance au style de la xim;" and M. Lenormant, Manuel d'Histoire, vol. i. p. 364—“ Aujourd'hui l'œil le plus exercé a peine à distinguer entre eux des monuments que plusieurs siècles et une longue invasion séparent." 6 "On n'a," says M. Lenormant, "de l'age des Pasteurs que des œuvres de sculpture et pas un seul monument 7 Ibid. p. 345-"L'histoire, si cruel. lement mutilée qu'elle soit pour l'époque suivante" (that following on the sixth dynasty) "induit à croire du moins que l'Égypte entre alors dans une longue série de déchirements, de démembrements, et d'affaissement politique." And p. 346-"De la fin de la sixième dynastie au commencement de la onzième, Manéthon compte quatre cent trente-six ans, pendant lesquels les monuments sont absolument muets." 8 See M. de Rouge's work, entitled "Recherches sur les Monuments qu'on peut attribuer aux six premières Dynasties de Manéthon." Paris, 1866. 9 See above, ch. viii. § 9. 1 Ibid. § 11. Compare for another monumental instance of contemporaneity, § 13. 2 M. Lenormant confesses very naïvely that "the greatest obstacle to the establishment of a regular Egyptian chronology is the fact that the Egyptians themselves never had any chronology at all." (Manuel, vol. i. p. 322: "les Egyptiens eux-mêmes n'ont jamais eu de chronologie.”) NOTE. EXACT HISTORY BEGINS WITH 18TH DYNASTY. 397 copious and exact to enable the modern critic to construct a scheme with any certainty from their details. Every attempt of this kind that has ever been made is to a large extent conjectural; and the schemes on the subjoined table, as well as all others, must be considered merely as so many competing hypotheses. 4 Egyptian history can be carried back with tolerable exactness, but not with much detail, excepting in occasional reigns, as those of Rameses II., Seti I., and Thothmes III., to the commencement of the eighteenth dynasty, from which time the whole country formed, with rare and brief exceptions,3 a single kingdom. It is certain that there was a foreign conquest before this time, and that a people quite distinct from the Egyptians had possession of the country for a considerable period. But the duration of their dominion, which is variously estimated at 260, 511, and 900 years, is wholly uncertain, and will probably never be determined. That there was an ancient native kingdom before the conquest, may also be laid down as an ascertained fact; and numerous monuments may be pointed out, such as the Pyramids, very many rock tombs, the grand hydraulic works at the Fayoum, and a certain number of temples, which belong to this period," and are capable of conveying to us a good idea of its civilization. Its duration cannot be estimated at much less than seven centuries, and may perhaps have been longer; but no exact account can be given; for to lay it down that Eratosthenes had 3 The principal exception is in the time of the twenty-first (Tanite) dynasty, when there was at Thebes a contemporary (sacerdotal) dynasty, which held Upper Egypt (Lenormant, Manuel, vol. i. pp. 323, 449-451); but it is also not improbable that in the Ethiopian time (B.C. 714-664) there were native subordinate dynasties in Lower Egypt. On the probable nationality of the Hyksos, see above, ch. viii. § 17. Compare Lenormant, Manuel, vol. i. pp. 360-61, and Bunsen, Egypt's Place, vol. ii. p. 421. 5 The arguments for the short period are well stated by Canon Cook (Speaker's Commentary, vol. i. pp. 447-8). The number 260 results from the list of Shepherd Kings in Josephus (Contr. Ap. i. 14), being the sum of their reigns as given by him. Manetho's numbers for these reigns (as reported by Africanus) raise the amount to 284. Baron Bunsen thinks that Eratosthenes reckoned the period at 350 years (Egypt's Place, vol. v. pp. 58-61). Five hundred and eleven is the duration of the Shepherd rule, according to Manetho, as reported by Josephus (1. s. c.); and this has been adopted by M. Lenormant in his Chronological Scheme (Manuel, vol. i. p. 321), and by Dr. Brugsch (Histoire d'Égypte, p. 287). The number 900 (or more exactly 953) is derived from the account which was given of Manetho's History by Africanus (ap. Syncell. pp. 60, 61). This number seems to have now no advocate. 6 See the work of M. de Rougé, uoted above (p. 396, note 8), and com. pare Lenormant, Manuel, vol. i. pp. 323-342. An inscription belonging to this early period is published in Records of the Past, vol. ii. pp. 3-8. 7 This is the estimate of Sir G. Wilkinson and Mr. R. Stuart Poole, who give respectively 660 and 637 years as that of the duration of the monarchy before the Shepherd invasion. (See above, ch. viii. § 7-17, and Biblical Dictionary, vol. i. p. 508). 8 As Baron Bunsen does (Egypt's Place, vol. i. pp. 126-135; vol. iv. pp. 498.507; vol. v. pp. 48-61). 398 SYNCHRONISM OF SESONCHIS AND REHOBOAM. APP. BOOK II. 9 It will be observed (see the Table) that exact chronology does not commence even with the eighteenth dynasty, the date for which varies among the best Egyptologers by a space little short of two centuries.1 This arises chiefly from the fact that Manetho's numbers are differently reported by different authorities. However, from the twenty-second dynasty downwards the differences in the dates are slight, not exceeding what will be found in other histories of the same antiquity. The synchronism of Sesonchis (Sheshonk or Shishak) with Rehoboam,3 helps greatly to fix the chronology from this time, from which the Hebrew, Assyrian, and Egyptian dates act as checks one upon another. There can be no reasonable doubt that Sesonchis ascended the throne within the space marked by the date B.C. 990-970. Greater exactness than this is not to be expected, and will certainly not be found, in any history of a time equally remote from us. The subjoined Table will show the chief differences in the Egyptian chronological schemes of those most learned in the subject. Manetho ap. Joseph. c. Ap. i. 14; ap. Syncell, p. 61. See Lenormant, Manuel, vol. i. pp. 360-4. 1 The date of Dr. Brugsch is B.C. 1706 (Histoire d'Égypte p. 287); that of M. Lenormant, B.C. 1703 (Manuel, vol. i. p. 321); that of Bunsen, B.C. 1633 (Egypt's Place, vol. v. p. 63); that of Mr. R. Stuart Poole, B.C. 1525; that of Sir G. Wilkinson, B.C. 1520. The extreme difference is 186 years. 2 Manetho's complete lists have come down to us in three forms1. In the Armenian version of Eusebius's work on Chronology; 2. in the Epitome of the same work given 3 See 1 Kings xiv. 25; 2 Chron. 1 Dr. Brugsch agrees nearly with these writers from the eighteenth century downwards, but differs from them widely as to the preceding period. He regards the 9th and 10th dynasties as contemporary with the 8th and 11th, the 14th as contemporary with the 13th, and the 17th with the 15th and 16th. He places the accession of Menes in A.D. 4455. 2 The conclusions of Lepsius nearly agree with those of Bunsen. 3 Mr. Stuart Poole's dates differ slightly from those of Sir G. Wilkinson, but are confessedly only approximate. He places the accession of the first dynasty in B.C. 2717, of the second in B.C. 2470, of the fourth in B.C. 2440, of the sixth in B.C. 2200, of the twelfth in B.C. 2080, of the eighteenth in B.C. 1525, &c. |