numbers, as by Browne (Ordo Stddorwn, § 489 sq.> Brandis (Rentm Attyriarttm tempora emeniata^ p. 49 sq. ; retracted, however, in his later work, 27e6er dm hut, Gewmn am der Entziff, der Auyr. Jntckr. p. 46, 78), and in the work just dted of the younger Nie- buhr. On the other hand, Lepdus {K^tdgt-Bmck da- uEgypier), Movers (die Phbmeier, ii, 1, 152 eq. [whoee arguments A. ▼. Gutschmid, Rhan, Mm., 1857, tfamki unanswerable]), Scheuchzer (Phul n. Nabotuutary, aad J. V. Gumpach (Abriss der bab,-<uijfr. Geteh, p. 98 sq.) contend for the reduced numbers. See Tirhakah.
The Tnrhakah in question is undoubtedly the Tkrkos. Tarakos of Manetho's 25th dynasty, in which, acccntl- ing to the uncorrected numbers, his reign begins 17D) (AfHcanus), 183 or 188 (Euseb. in Gr.), 185, 197, or 1S3 (Euseb. Armen.) before Csmbyses, B.C. 525 ; the ex- tremes, therefore, are B.C. 695 and 718 for Ids epoch. But we are not dependent on the lists for the time cf this king Tahatiea, The chronology of the 26tfa dj- nasty had already been partially cleared up by ftioer- ary inscriptions (now in the museums of Florence aad Leyden), which, by recording that the deceased, bom on a given day, month, and year of Neko II, lived so many years, months, and days, and died in a givea year, month, and day of Amosis, enabled ns to mess- ure tiie precise nnmbier of 3rear8 (41)flrom the epoch d the one king to the epoch of the other (B5ckh, Manetha, p. 729 sq.) ; and now it is placed beyond ftuther que^ tion by Mariette*s discovery of a number of inscrip- tions, in each of which the birth, death, day of fimersl, and age of an Apis are recorded in just the same wsj (see Mariette's own account, Beneetgnemeiit gwr kt Si Api8j trouvk dam lee softierrains du 8hrq>ktm — BtA' tin ArchM, de PAthin. Franfoit, Oct., 1855; and the selection fh>m these by Lepsius, On the 22</ Dynattjf, translated by W. Bell, 1858). There remains only a slight doubt as to the epoch of Cambyses; whether with the canon this is to be referred to B.C. 525 (the usual date), or with De Boug6 to 527, for which Von Gns- pach also contends, or 528, with Dr. Hincks (Om AeAgt of the 26M Dynasty), or even 529 (Bdckh, Mameiio, p. I 739 sq.). The main result is, that Psametik I began < to reign 138 years before the epoch of Cambyses, tbere- j fore B. C. 668 (or at most three years earlier). Now Ma- I riette (No. 2037) records that an Apis bom 26 Taharka, I died 20 Psametik 1, 12th month, 20th day; its age is ! not given. As the Apis was not usually allowed to I live more than 25 years, though some of the inscrip- tions record an age of 26 years, on this, as an extreme supposition, the interval fivm 1 Tahaiica to 1 Psametik I will be at most 81 years, and the highest possible epoch '. for Tirhakah (B.C. 697). This result, m itself; b not , necessarily opposed to the Biblical date for 14 Heze- kiah; for in the narrative itself, whQe a "Phsiaoh. king of Egypt," is mentioned, xviii, 21, this Tirhakah is styled **king of Ethiopia," and he seems to appesr on the scene as an unexpected enemy of Sennacherib (Niebuhr, vt tup, p. 72 sq. 178, 458). He may hare reigned in Ethiopia long before he became king of Egypt ; though, on the other hand, it is clear that this originally Ethiopian dynasty was contemporaneous ia its lower part with the 26th, a Saite dynasty of Lower Egypt, and probably in its upper part with the preced- ing Sdte dynasty, as Lepsius makes it. The real dif- ficulty, however, consists in this, that the '* So (K'^O), king of Egypt," whose alliance against Assyria was sought by Hoshea in his 5th or 6th year (2 Kings xrii^ 4), can be no other than one of the two predecessorB of Tirhakah, Sebek I or II, to the first of whom Ifanetbo gives 8 (v. r. 12), to the other 14 years of reign. Thus, at the earliest, the former would begin to reign B.C. 7SS, which is at least one year too low for the Biblical date. As a conjectural remedy fbr this ** desperate state of things," Yon Niebuhr, p. 459, suggests that the 50 yean of the 25th dynasty were possibly not continuous ; fill- ing this, either an error must be asQumed in the canon
CHRONOLOGY
807
CHRONOLOGY
somewhere between its 28th and its 128d year, both of which are astronomicallj attested, or else the reign of Manasseh most be reduced. On the whole, it seems beat to wait for Airthar light firom the monuments. At present these attest the 12th year of Seliek II, but give no dates of his predecessor; the genealogical connec- tion of the two and of Taharka is unknown ; of Boc- choris, the only occupant of the preceding dynasty, no monument has been discovered, and but scanty and precarious traces of the Tanite kings of the 28d dynasty, the last of whom, Zet, may even be the Sethos whom Herodotus, ii, 141, makes the hero of the miraculous defiuit of Sennacherib's army. Indeed, Isa. xix, 2 ; xzx, 4, both seem to imply that Zoan (Tanis) was at that time the residence of the Pharaoh of Lower Egypt. Here is ample scope for conjecture, and also for discoveries, which may supersede all necessity for conjecture. See So.