« PreviousContinue »
The identity of the pronouns, and especially the manner in which they are treated in the two groups of languages, he considers a remarkable fact, and goes on to say that this identity is observed even in the details which seem the most secondary. Several apparent irregularities of the Semitic pronoun, as for example, the changing of the into 7 in the affix, even find in the theory of the Coptic pronoun a satisfactory explanation. The analogies of the nouns of number pointed out by Lepsius are not less striking, for example :
Egyptian The conjugation itself is not without some analogies in and Coptic.
the two languages; the present tense in Coptic, like the imperfect of the Semitic languages, is formed by the agglutination of the pronoun at the beginning of the verbal root, and the other tenses are formed by means of a composition like those which the Aramean languages make use of. Having admitted these facts, Renan goes on to say that the problem whether these resemblances are merely such things as are to be found in all languages, or analogics which spring
from a common origin is, to say the truth, almost unsolvable. Egyptian We must then make for the language and civilization of and ,Ha. Egypt a family by itself, which may be called Hamitic. ."
· Renan, op. cit., pp. 84, 85, 89.
According to Prof. Max Müller and others, “the Egyptian Max Mül
ler's views. and the Semitic languages belong to quite different stages of language, the former to what Prof. Max Müller calls the second or Terminational, the latter to the third or Inflexional stage. In the Terminational stage, two or more roots may coalesce to form a word, the one retaining its radical independence, the other sinking down to a mere termination. The languages belonging to this stage have generally been called agglutinative. Now the Egyptian language has indeed reached this stage as regards the pronominal and one or two other suffixes. But in all other respects it most nearly resembles the languages of the first or Radical stage, in which there is no formal distinction between a root and a word.”! A theory has been put forth by Dr. Strassmaier that a relationship exists between the Accadian Egyptian, and Egyptian languages, and he printed a small list of Coptic
, Egyptian, Coptic and Accadian words which he thought to Accadian. be identical. If Egypt and Mesopotamia were conquered by branches of the same Accadian-speaking race this is only what might be expected. See his paper, Akkadisch und Aegyptisch, in the Album presented to M. Leemans. The land of Egypt was commonly called by its inhabitants Country of
Kamt, because of the dark colour of the soil, and if the colour of the ground for a few miles on each side of the Nile be compared with the Arabian and Libyan desert the appropriateness of the name Kam or Kamt is at once evident. Another old name of Egypt is Ta-meră, “ the land
2.La of the inundation,"
Jafo Beqet, apparently
two other names for the country are
'Renouf, Hibbert Lectures, pp. 55–61. The question of Fronominal forms in Egyptian has been discussed by this writer in the Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology, March, 1888, pp. 247-264, and in this paper he states that pronouns like ånuk, entuk, entuf, etc., are formed of a series of demonstrative elements; anuk=å + nu +k, entuk=en + tu + k, entul=en + tu - f.
? Etudes Archéologiques, Linguistiques et Historiques, dédiées à Dr. C Leemans, Leide, 1885, pp. 105-107.
Baqet. Upper Egypt was commonly called From
양 Ta-res or wt Ta-qemā, “ the land of the South," and Lower Egypt yang si Ta-meh, “the land of the North.”
Upper and Lower Egypt were represented in the inscriptions Native by the following:
**998.00 2,84 Egypt. The Hebrews called Egypt “Mizraim,” and the Assyrians
and Babylonians Muşur; it is given this latter name in the cuneiform despatches of Tushratta, King of Mitani, about B.C. 1550. Upper Egypt extended from Aswân (Syene) to Memphis, and Lower Egypt, beginning at Memphis, included the Delta and sea-coast.
From the earliest times Egypt appears to have been
divided into a series of districts which the Egyptians called Nomes of hesp HE, and the Greeks Nopol or Nomes. Each nome Egypt.
had its capital city and temple for worship, its own feasts, its own sacred animals and trees, and its own protecting deity. The limits of each nome were most carefully marked, and the amount of cultivated land, the amount of land available for agricultural purposes after a high Nile, and the canals with their various branches, were all known. Each nome with its independent administration, formed, practically, a small but complete state.
The number of the nomes according to classical authors varies ; Diodorus, who says (i. 54) that the nome dates from the time of Sesostris, gives thirty-six, Pliny' forty-five. The number usually given in Egyptian lists is forty-two: twentytwo in Upper Egypt, and twenty in Lower Egypt. Heptanomis, or Middle Egypt, appears to have been the district between the Thebaid and the Delta ; its seven nomes are said to have been Memphites, Heracleopolites, Crocodilopolites, Aphroditopolites, Oxyrhynchites, Cynopolites, Hermopolites. The Greater and Lesser Oases were considered to be parts of Heptanomis.
| A list of the nomes is given at the end of the chapter on Egyptian History.
? He calls them praefecturas oppidorum, (v. 9, 9). The nomes and their chief towns are given by Ptolemy, Geographiae, iv. 5, ed. Mercator, pp. 105-108.
Over the early history of Egypt there hangs a mystery The greater than that which shrouds the origin and home of the mythical
period in Egyptian ; of the period which preceded Mená (Menes), the Egyptian
History. first historical king of Egypt, nothing is known. According to Manetho a race of demi-gods and kings from This, near Abydos, and from Memphis ruled over Egypt before the advent of Mend, and these may possibly correspond with the shesu Heru or "followers of Horus ” of the Turin papyrus, the list of kings on which begins with god-kings and ends with the rule of the Hyksos at the end of the XVIIth dynasty or about B.C. 1700. The work of Manetho of Sebennytus on Early
historians. Egyptian history is, unfortunately, lost. He was alive about B.C. 271, and is said to have been a contemporary of Ptolemy I.; his Egyptian history was composed during the reign of Ptoleny II. Philadelphus, B.C. 286-247. . Extracts from this work are given us by Josephus (contra Apion. I., 14), which refer to the reigns of the kings of the XV-XIXth dynasties. In Eusebius and Julius Africanus (fragments of whose work πενταβιβλίον χρονολογικόν are preserved in Eusebius) there are given a list of Egyptian dynasties, and the number of the years of the reign of each king. This list is one of the most valuable documents which have come down to us, for Manetho, by reason of his position as priest and his knowledge of the ancient Egyptian language, had access to, and was able to make use of, the ancient Egyptian literature in a way which no other writer seems to have done. The thirty dynasties of Egyptian kings he Lists of divides into three periods, thus : Dynasties I.-XI., Dynasties Kings. XII.—XIX., and Dynasties XX.-XXX. It must, however, be understood that the Egyptian did not group the kings into dynasties, and this fact is evident from the Tablet of Abydos and the Tablet of Şaļķârah. The Tablet of Abydos, discovered by Dümichen in the Temple of Osiris, at Abydos, in 1864, gives the names of seventy-five kings, beginning with Mená or Menes, and ending with Seti I., the father of Rameses II. ; it is not a complete list, and there is nothing to show why certain names are omitted.
The Tablet of Şaşkarah, discovered by Mariette at Şakşârah, was inscribed during the reign of Rameses II., and it gives
the names of forty-seven kings, agreeing closely, in the matter of selection of names, with the Tablet of Abydos. The name of Mer-ba-pen, the sixth king of the Ist dynasty, is that which begins this list. The Tablet of Karnak was discovered at Karnak by Burton and was taken to Paris by Prisse. It was inscribed during the reign of Thothmes III., and contains the names of sixty-one kings. Notwithstanding the fact that in the arrangement no chronological order has been followed, the tablet is of great value, for it mentions the names of some of the kings of from the XIIIth to the XVIIth dynasties, and gives the names of those of the XIth dynasty more fully than any other list. The names of the kings in Manetho's list are in many instances corrupt; by the help of the monuments, however, the greater number can be corrected, and the value of the document is the more assured as more
of the historical inscriptions become known. Uncer- The chronology of Egypt has been, and must be for some tainty of Egyptian time yet, a subject of difficulty and of variety of opinion. The Chrono
fixed points in Egyptian history are so few and the gaps logy.
between them so great, that it is quite impossible to establish an accurate system of chronology: approximate dates are all that can be hoped for at present. Nearly every student of Egyptian chronology arrives at conclusions different from any of his predecessors, and how widely different they are is seen from the fact that the date given for Menes by Champollion-Figeac is 5867, by Böckh 5702, by Bunsen 3623, by Lepsius 3892, by Lieblein 3893, by Mariette 5004, and by Brugsch 4400. The system of chronology by Brugsch, which is based on the calculation of three generations to a century, is generally used throughout this book.
Mená or Menes, the first historical king of Egypt, came from This near Abydos in Upper Egypt. He left This, and
journeying northwards, arrived at the head of the Delta, Founding where, having turned the Nile out of its course, he founded of Memphis, the city of Memphis and built the temple of Ptah.