Chapter XXXI: Appendix: B. the Problem of Egyptian Chronology

The Egyptians that pretended so great antiquity, three hundred
kings before Amasis: and as Mela writes, 13,000 years from the
beginning of their chronicles, that bragged so much of their
knowledge of old, for they invented arithmetic, astronomy,
geometry; of their wealth and power, that vaunted of 20,000 cities;
yet at the same time their idolatry and superstition was most
gross; they worshipped, so Diodorus Siculus records, sun and moon
under the name of Isis and Osiris, and after, such men as were
beneficial to them, or any creature that did them good. In the city
of Bubasti they adored a cat, saith Herodotus, ibis and storks, an
ox (saith Pliny), leaks and onions, Manobius.

Porrum et cæpe deos imponere nubibus ausi,
Hos tu Nile deos colis.--BURTON’S _Anatomy of Melancholy_.

Notwithstanding the light thrown upon Egyptian history by the records from the monuments, the lists of the priest Manetho still form the basis of all computations of Egyptian chronology of the earlier periods. There are several reasons for this. In the first place, the records themselves, though in the aggregate wonderfully voluminous, yet, so far as deciphered, cover, after all, only scattered bits of the long periods of time involved. Mostly the individual records are the glorifications of the deeds of a single king. Some kings left scanty records, and often even these were wilfully destroyed by some subsequent ruler of another dynasty. Or, a king might leave the record of his predecessor, but substitute his own name for the rightful one in the chronicle. Even the great Ramses II was guilty of such an act as this. The fact of such tampering with the record would generally be perceptible, but it may not be so easy to determine whose was the rightful name which the falsifier erased.

Much more important than this, however, is the obstacle that arises from the fact that the Egyptians, like all other nations of antiquity, lacked a fixed era from which to reckon. They computed years with reasonable accuracy, but they never reckoned long periods consecutively from any single date. Hence the record of any particular king stands more or less by itself, or associated at most with recent predecessors. If the records of some of these predecessors have been lost, the gap may be of such a doubtful character as to throw uncertainty upon the chronology of long periods, or, indeed, of the entire remoter history. Thus it is that the records from the monuments, despite their great historic value and absorbing personal interest, do not in themselves, as yet, suffice to reveal in its entirety the history of the long succession of Egyptian dynasties. But fortunately these contemporary records have been found in many cases to accord marvellously with Manetho’s lists. Hence the faith in these lists as a whole has been greatly strengthened, and the historian of to-day, in basing his Egyptian chronology upon Manetho for the periods not covered by known monuments, is by no means working altogether in the dark. It is true that there have been two schools of opinion as to how far this reliance should be carried: one school contending very warmly that Manetho’s lists are probably in places the records of contemporaneous dynasties,--it being known that the government was in many periods divided,--and hence that the entire period of time required for the dynasties as listed must be materially shortened; the other school maintaining that Manetho himself took note of such contemporaneous dynasties and eliminated them from his list, retaining only a single line of what he regarded as legitimate succession.

For the general student, it really does not matter greatly which of these views is correct. The general accuracy of Manetho is admitted on all hands, and the monuments sustain him to the extent of making sure a long list of dynasties, whether or not his exact number be admitted. When we recall that Manetho himself was, relatively speaking, a modern, living in the third century B.C., and hence writing about periods that were, even according to minimum estimates, farther separated from his age than he is from our own, it would not seem strange if he should have made some mistakes. But it is well enough also to remember that his lists would probably not have been challenged with so much fervour in our time, had it not been for certain ulterior bearings of this question of chronology. The clew will be evident to whoever notices that in the different estimates of Egyptian chronology the older historians--those of the earlier decades of the nineteenth century--are pretty generally the ardent advocates of a lower or more recent date for the beginning of the first dynasty.

In a word, during the period when the question of the antiquity of man was still matter of ardent controversy, even the most fair-minded historian could not help letting his prejudice on that subject influence his judgment regarding Egyptian chronology. The year 2349 B.C., which his Bible margin had taught him to recall as a date when the history of mankind began anew after an all-devastating flood, stood out in his mind as a danger mark that he must not let himself be carried past if he could possibly avoid it. If he preferred the Septuagint reckoning, he gained a few centuries more of leeway, say till 3250 B.C., but this was the ultimate limit, behind which no evidence could carry him.

Meantime historians who had not this bias were unequivocally fixing the beginning of the Egyptian dynasties a thousand years or so farther back. But their reckoning could count for nothing in the general verdict so long as the old estimate of man’s antiquity was held. No sooner, however, had it come to be generally conceded that the long-authoritative dates were incorrect, than a reaction set in among the Egyptologists. Once it was conceded that man had been an inhabitant of the earth for hundreds of thousands of years, and that the years of his early civilisation must reach back into the tens of thousands, the form of the bias of the average searcher into ancient history was changed. That very human tendency which makes one like to excel his neighbour, caused the Egyptologists now to vie with their only competitors, the Assyriologists, in lengthening out their records, instead of shortening them. We do not mean that a bias was consciously admitted in one case or the other; but historians are human, and their judgments, like those of other mortals, are never altogether free from human prejudice.

The clear and simple fact seems to be, that no knowledge is at hand that enables the historian to fix with certainty the remoter dates of Egyptian history. The very most that can be done, at present, is to determine minimum dates, as is done by the most recent German writers of authority, and to content ourselves with stating these, understanding that they make no pretence to absolute accuracy. When Professor Meyer, for example, says that the minimum date for the founding of the Old Memphis Kingdom by King Menes is 3180 B.C., he does not at all imply that Mariette is wrong in fixing the same event at 5004 B.C., or about two thousand years earlier. He simply means that in the present state of knowledge he does not feel justified in choosing a definite date; he is certain, however, that the true date cannot be placed later than 3180 B.C.

Some such latitude as this we must admit, then, in dealing with ancient Egyptian chronology. Of course the amount of possible variation progressively decreases as we come down the ages; but the chronology does not become absolutely fixed until we reach the comparatively recent period of King Psamthek I, who reigned from near the middle of the seventh century before our era.

Fortunately, however, these uncertainties of exact chronology need interfere but little with our interest and enjoyment in considering Egyptian history. Chronology is, indeed, as Professor Petrie has phrased it, “the backbone of history.” But this applies rather to the general sequence of events than to the exact citation of years; and fortunately there is no uncertainty at all about the sequence of important events in Egyptian history, even from the remotest times. We may not know the exact year in which the great Pyramid was built; but we do know exactly who built it, and the names and deeds of his predecessors and successors, as well as the general epoch in which the events took place. For the purpose of any one but the specialist, we could scarcely ask more than this. And a like certainty attaches to all other of the really great epochs of Egyptian history. The general student may feel quite content with the degree of precision of the attainable records; and, paying but slight attention to the less important dynasties, may well fix his attention upon those culminating periods when the great deeds were accomplished which render the history of Egypt memorable for all generations of men. The first of these periods, and the one which now claims our attention, was the epoch of the so-called Old Kingdom of Memphis--the epoch of the ushering in of Egyptian history, as known to succeeding generations; yet also the epoch of the building of the Pyramids--the most gigantic and permanent structures ever created by human minds and human hands.

Apart from questions of chronology, the sequence of chief events in Egyptian history is now fairly established and accepted by all schools of Egyptologists. This course of history proper we have followed under guidance of specialists who have devoted their lives to the elucidation of this subject. It may be well, however, to repeat a word of warning that has already been said as to the incompleteness of the records on which this narrative is based. It is one thing to assert that the main events of Egyptian history are known in proper sequence, and it is quite another to assume that a knowledge of all the events of that history is accessible. In point of fact, it must be freely admitted that our knowledge of Egyptian history as a whole is meagre indeed. Here and there a great event or a great name stands out prominently, but there are long stretches of time between, when not so much as the name of a single man is known in many generations.

Generally speaking, however, the periods marked by dearth of records may be presumed to be periods equally marked by dearth of great events; and in one sense our history of these distant times assumes truer relation of perspective than can possibly be given to the chronicle of later periods which are replete with insignificant and bewildering details of minor events. Without scruple or regret, therefore, we may here and there condense the narrative of many generations of Egyptian history into a line or paragraph, while giving extended treatment to the deeds and accomplishments of a few great heroes who make Egyptian history illustrious.

But before turning to the history proper, it will be well to make a more detailed examination of the chronological foundations on which our knowledge rests. Eduard Meyer has outlined them succinctly.[a] From our sources of information, he says, it is evident that we can place ourselves on certain chronological ground for Egyptian history.

Manetho has rightly retained its general outline. He divides the kings, from the foundation of the kingdom by Menes until the fall of the last Darius, into thirty-one ruling houses, or dynasties. His division does not seem to be always correct; for instance, the Turin papyrus makes several more divisions out of the Ist Dynasty. Nevertheless, Manetho’s order has long been commonly accepted, and for many reasons its further retention commends itself.

The Turin papyrus just mentioned seems to have been written under Ramses III, as the name of this king appears in the accounts on the back. It contains a record of the Egyptian kings (the dynasties of the gods precede them), with a statement of the years of their reigns, and to some degree of their ages. Unfortunately the papyrus is much mutilated, and amidst numerous small fragments there exist only a few large pieces. But it is possible to obtain a general view of the papyrus by putting the most important fragments into their right places. It contains (if pages have not been torn off at the end) ten columns of from twenty-seven to twenty-eight lines, and it mentions about two hundred and twenty kings’ names, from Menes until before, or during, the Hyksos period.

These are divided into dynasties, which are sometimes specified only by a title, and sometimes by the word “reigned” being repeated after the king’s name. Under the longer lists totals are given. In the few cases where the figures of the papyrus have been verified by the help of the memorials, they have been found to be correct. However, the author is guilty of a great error in the total of the XIIth Dynasty.

The gaps in the papyrus are partially filled by the royal monumental tablets, which are altogether of a funereal character--a later king or citizen is shown offering sacrifice to the old rulers.

Three lists carry historical weight:

(1) The tablet of Seti I in Abydos, discovered in 1864 and quite complete, contains seventy-six names. The tablet of Ramses II, now in London, is a copy of this.

(2) The tablet of Tehutimes III from Karnak, now in the Louvre, very much injured and promiscuously put together, contains sixty-one names.

(3) The tablet from the tomb of Tunrei at Saqqarah (under Ramses II, discovered in 1860), contains fifty-one names, of which forty-seven remain.

Manetho’s list in its different editions comes next to these accounts. It was long thought that by putting it in its original form, we should arrive at a safe basis of Egyptian chronology. A more careful examination, however, shows us that Manetho is not to be trusted. Where we can verify his figures in the more ancient periods they are almost without exception wrong, and this from no fault of the copyists and makers or extractors; there are constant confusion and gaps in the succession of names. Numerous examples of such errors may be seen in the comparison of Manetho’s list with the monuments. It is only about the XXth Dynasty that his figures seem to be reliable. Another circumstance must be added. According to Manetho’s arrangement, the dynasties follow each other, so that he includes a Theban and a contemporaneous Hyksos family in the XVIIth Dynasty, and does not reckon each one as a separate ruling house. In truth, such contemporaneous governments did repeatedly take place, and consequently they must reduce the dates of Manetho, even if the numbers be correct. King Menes would not, according to Manetho (under Unger’s calculation), be placed in the year 5613 B.C., but considerably later.

So we must give up the search for absolute dates as hopeless, and limit ourselves to an approximate computation of the periods of Egyptian history. The genealogies of the ruling houses, as well as those of private people, are of great service, for where we can trace a pedigree through long periods, we are able to give an approximate estimate of the number of generations. Thus we arrive at the “minimum” dates, with which we must content ourselves for the present.

For the long periods from the VIIth to the XIth Dynasties and from the XIVth to the XVIIth, which are almost completely destitute of monuments, the dates are extremely problematic. The dates therefore given for the XIIth Dynasty, for the Pyramid period and for Menes, only prove that they cannot well be put later, whilst they leave the way open for any one to put them farther back.[b]

The lists of Manetho, above referred to, are so important as to require fuller notice.

MANETHO’S TABLE OF THE EGYPTIAN DYNASTIES

=======+=============+===================+=========+=======+======+======
Dynasty| Name | Capital | Province| Length|Years |Years
| of Dynasty | | | of |before|before
| | | | Years |Hegira|Christ
-------+-------------+-------------------+---------+-------+------+------
I |Thinis |Harabat-el-Madfuneh|Girgeh | 253 | 5626 | 5004
II |Thinis |Harabat-el-Madfuneh|Girgeh | 302 | 5373 | 4751
III |Memphis |Mitrahineh |Gizeh | 214 | 5071 | 4449
IV |Memphis |Mitrahineh |Gizeh | 284 | 4857 | 4235
V |Memphis |Mitrahineh |Gizeh | 248 | 4573 | 3951
VI |Elephantine |Gezireh-Assuan |Esneh | 203 | 4325 | 3703
VII |Memphis |Mitrahineh |Gizeh |70 days| 4122 | 3500
VIII |Memphis |Mitrahineh |Gizeh | 142 | 4122 | 3500
IX |Heracleopolis|Ahnas-el-Medineh |Beni Suef| 109 | 3980 | 3358
X |Heracleopolis|Ahnas-el-Medineh |Beni Suef| 185 | 3871 | 3249
XI |Thebes |Medinet Habu |Keneh } | 213 | 3686 | 3064
XII |Thebes |Medinet Habu |Keneh } | | |
XIII |Thebes |Medinet Habu |Keneh | 453 | 3173 | 2851
XIV |Xoïs |Sakha |Menufieh | 184 | 3020 | 2398
XV |Hyksos |San |Sharkieh}| | |
XVI |Hyksos |San |Sharkieh}| 511 | 2836 | 2214
XVII |Hyksos |San |Sharkieh}| | |
XVIII |Thebes |Medinet Habu |Keneh | 241 | 2325 | 1703
XIX |Thebes |Medinet Habu |Keneh | 174 | 2084 | 1462
XX |Thebes |Medinet Habu |Keneh | 178 | 1910 | 1288
XXI |Tanis |San |Sharkieh | 130 | 1732 | 1110
XXII |Bubastis |Tel-Basta |Sharkieh | 170 | 1602 | 980
XXIII |Tanis |San |Sharkieh | 89 | 1432 | 810
XXIV |Saïs |Sa-el-Hagar |Gharbieh | 6 | 1343 | 721
XXV |Ethiopian |Sa-el-Hagar |Gharbieh | 50 | 1337 | 715
XXVI |Saïs |Sa-el-Hagar |Gharbieh | 138 | 1287 | 665
XXVII |Persian |Sa-el-Hagar |Gharbieh | 121 | 1149 | 527
XXVIII |Saïs |Sa-el-Hagar |Gharbieh | 7 | 1028 | 406
XXIX |Mendes |Ashmun-el-Ruman |Dakalieh | 21 | 1021 | 399
XXX |Sebennytes |Samanudi |Gharbieh | 38 | 1000 | 378
XXXI |Persian |Samanudi |Gharbieh | 8 | 962 | 340

End of list according to Manetho

XXXII |Macedonian | | | 27 | 954 | 332
XXXIII |Greek | | | 275 | 927 | 305
XXXIV |Roman | | | 411 | 652 | 30
| | | | | | A.D.
| |Edict of Theodosius| | | 241 | 381
-------+-------------+-------------------+---------+-------+------+------

No one can help being struck by the enormous total to which Manetho’s summing up of the dynasties brings us. By means of the Egyptian priest’s lists we are in truth carried back to the times that for all other peoples are purely mythical, but for Egypt are certainly historic.

Embarrassed by this fact and finding no other means of discrediting Manetho’s authenticity and veracity, some modern writers have supposed that Egypt has been at various periods of its history divided into several kingdoms, and that Manetho gives us as successive some royal families whose reigns were in fact simultaneous.

According to these authorities the Vth Dynasty, for example, would have reigned at Memphis at the same time that the VIth governed at Elephantine. It is not necessary to demonstrate the advantages of such an arrangement. By bringing certain dates closer together and by correcting others it is possible by an ingenious and clever arrangement of the dynasties to shorten almost at will the space of time covered by Manetho’s lists; thus while, in the table, we have the date 5626 A.H., that is, before the Hegira, [5004 B.C.] as that of the foundation of the Egyptian monarchy, other writers like Bunsen do not go farther back than 4245 A.H. or 3623 B.C.

On whose side does the truth lie? The more one studies the question, the more it is seen how difficult it is to reply. The greatest of all obstacles to the establishment of a definite Egyptian chronology is that the Egyptians never had a chronology proper. The employment of an era, properly so called, was unknown to them, and up to the present time it has never been proved that they reckoned otherwise than by the years of the reign. And moreover these years were far from having a fixed point of beginning, since sometimes they began at the commencement of the year in which the preceding king died, and sometimes with the coronation of the new king. Whatever may be the apparent precision of its calculations, modern science will always be baffled in its attempts to establish that which the Egyptians themselves did not possess.[c]

BRIEF REFERENCE-LIST OF AUTHORITIES BY CHAPTERS

[The letter [a] is reserved for Editorial Matter]

CHAPTER I. THE EGYPTIAN RACE AND ITS ORIGIN

[b] EDUARD MEYER, _Geschichte der Alten Aegyptens_.

[d] W.M. FLINDERS PETRIE, from the article “Egyptology” in the New Volumes of the Ninth Edition of the _Encyclopædia Britannica_.

[g] ADOLF ERMAN, _Aegypten und Aegyptisches Leben im Alterthum_.

CHAPTER II. THE OLD MEMPHIS KINGDOM

[b] EDUARD MEYER, _Geschichte des Alterthums_.

[d] A. WIEDEMANN, _Aegyptische Geschichte_.

[e] DIODORUS SICULUS, _The Historical Library_ (translated from the Greek by G. Booth).

[f] G.C.C. MASPERO, _The Dawn of Civilisation_ (translated from the French by M. L. McClure).

[g] SAMUEL BIRCH, translation of the Inscription of Una in _Records of the Past_.

[h] H.C. BRUGSCH, _Geschichte Aegyptens unter den Pharaonen_.

CHAPTER III. THE OLD THEBAN KINGDOM

[b] H. C. BRUGSCH, _Geschichte Aegyptens unter den Pharaonen_.

[c] G.C.C. MASPERO, _Histoire ancienne des peuples de l’Orient_.

[d] HERODOTUS, _The History of Herodotus_ (translated from the Greek by William Beloe).

[e] WILLIAM BELOE, Translator of the History of Herodotus.

[f] K.R. LEPSIUS, _Letters from Egypt, Ethiopia, and the Peninsula of Sinai_ (translated from the German by Leonora and Joanna B. Horner).

[g] EDUARD MEYER, _Geschichte des Alterthums_.

[h] W.N. FLINDERS PETRIE, _A History of Egypt_.

[i] FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS, _The Works of Josephus_ (translated from the Greek by William Whiston).

[j] MANETHO, cited by Josephus.

CHAPTER IV. THE RESTORATION

[b] SAMUEL BIRCH, _Records of the Past_.

[c] G.C.C. MASPERO, _The Struggle of the Nations_ (translated from the French by M.L. McClure).

[d] G.C.C. MASPERO, _Histoire ancienne des peuples de l’Orient_.

CHAPTER V. THE NINETEENTH DYNASTY

[b] G.C.C. MASPERO, _Histoire ancienne des peuples de l’Orient_.

[c] EDUARD MEYER, _Geschichte des Alterthums_.

[d] H.C. BRUGSCH, _Geschichte Aegyptens unter den Pharaonen_.

CHAPTER VI. THE FINDING OF THE ROYAL MUMMIES

[b] G.C.C. MASPERO, _La Trouvaille de Deir-el-Bahari_.

CHAPTER VII. THE PERIOD OF DECAY

[b] G.C.C. MASPERO, _The Struggle of the Nations_ (translated from the French by M.L. McClure).

[c] G.C.C. MASPERO, _Histoire ancienne des peuples de l’Orient_.

[d] EDUARD MEYER, _Geschichte des Alterthums_.

CHAPTER VIII. THE CLOSING SCENES

[b] L. MÉNARD, _Histoire des anciens peuples de l’Orient_.

[c] DIODORUS SICULUS, _The Historical Library_ (translated from the Greek by G. Booth).

[d] EDUARD MEYER, _Geschichte des Alterthums_.

CHAPTER IX. MANNERS AND CUSTOMS OF THE EGYPTIANS

[b] J. GARDNER WILKINSON, _A Popular Account of the Ancient Egyptians_.

[c] J. F. C. CHAMPOLLION, _Descriptions de l’Égypte_; _l’Égypte sous les Pharaohs_; _etc._

[d] P. LE PAGE RENOUF, in Birch’s _Records of the Past_.

[e] AMELIA B. EDWARDS, _A Thousand Miles Up the Nile_.

[f] FRANÇOIS CHABAS, in Birch’s _Records of the Past_.

[g] E. A. T. W. BUDGE, _The Book of the Dead_.

[h] K. R. LEPSIUS, _Denkmäler_.

[i] SAMUEL BIRCH, _Records of the Past_.

[j] HERODOTUS, _The History of Herodotus_ (translated from the Greek by William Beloe).

[k] GEORG EBERS, _An Egyptian Princess_; _A History of Egypt_; _etc._

[m] G. C. C. MASPERO, _Histoire ancienne des peuples de l’Orient_.

[n] AUGUSTE MARIETTE, _Aperçu de l’histoire d’Égypte_.

[o] W. N. FLINDERS PETRIE, Numerous Works; see _Bibliography_, p. 302.