and that the period of 500 years is a subdivision of 1500. Ancient writers do not fix any commencements of this cycle. If the characteristics of the Tropical Year are what we suppose, the cycle would have begun B.C. 2005 and 507 : two hieroglyphic inscrijitions are thought to record the former of these epochs (Poole, Hone .-Ef/y])t{acw, p. 12 sq., pi. i, Nos. 5, 6). The re- turn of the Phffinix has undoubtedly a chronological meaning. It has been supposed to refer to the period last mentioned, but Poole is of opinion that the Phoenix Cycle was of exactly the same character, and there- fore length, as the Sothic, its commencement being marked by the so-called heliacal rising of a star of the constellation BENNU HESAE, "the Phoenix of Osi- ris,"' which is placed in the astronomical ceiling of the Rameseium of El-Kurneh six months distant from So- this. The monuments make mention of Panegyrical Months, which can only, it is supposed, be periods of thirty years each, and divisions of a year of the same kind. Poole has computed the following as dates of commencements of these Panegyrical Years, in accord- ance with which he has adjusted his chronology: 1st, B.C. 2717, 1st dynasty, {era of Menes (not on monu- ments); 2d, B.C. 2352, 4th dynasty, Suphis I and II ; 3d, B.C. 1986 (12th dynasty, Osirtasen III .' not on monuments) ; the last-mentioned date being also, ac- cording to him, the beginning of a Phoenix Cycle, which he thinks comprised four of these Panegyrical Years. The other important dates of the system of paneg}'rics which occur on the monuments are, in his scheme : B.C. 1442, 18th dynasty, queen Amen-nemt ; and B.C. 1412, 18th dynasty, Thothmes III.
Certain phenomena recorded on the monuments have been calculated by M. Biot, who has obtained the following dates : Rising of Sothis in reign of Thoth- mes III, 18th dynasty, B.C. 1445; supposed vernal equinox, Thothmes III, B.C. cir. 1441 ; rising of So- this, Rameses II, 19th dynasty, B.C. 1301 ; star-risings, Rameses VI and IX (? Meneptah I and II), 20th dy- nasty, B.C. cir. 1241. Some causes of uncertainty af- fect the exactness of these dates, and that of Rameses II is irreconcilable with the two of Thothmes III, un- less we hold the calendar in which the inscription sup- posed to record it occurs to be a Sothic one, in which case no date could be obtained.
Egyptian technical chronology gives us no direct evidence in f;ivor of the high antiquity which some as- sign to the foundation of the first kingdom. The earliest record which all Egyptologers are agreed to regard as affording a date is of the fifteenth century B.C., and no one has alleged any such record to be of an earlier time than the twenty-fourth century B.C. The Egyptians themselves seem to have placed the beginning of the 1st dynasty in the twenty-eighth cen- tury B.C., but for determining this epoch there is no direct monumental evidence, and a comparison with Scripture does not favor quite so early a date. See Chronology.
XX. Historical Chronology. — The materials for this are the monuments and the remains of the historical work of Manetho. Since the interpretation of hiero- glyphics has been discovered the evidence of the mon- uments has been l)rought to bear on this subject, but as yet it has not been sufficiently full and explicit to enable us to set aside other aid. We have still to look elsewhere for a general framework, the details of which the monuments may fill up. The remains of JManetho are now generally held to supply this want. A com- parison with the monuments has shown that he drew his information from original sources, the general au- thenticity of which is vindicated by minute points of agreement. The information Manetho gives us, in the present form of his work, is, however, by no means ex- plicit, and it is only by a theoretical arrangement of the materials that they take a definite form. The re- mains of Manetho's historical work consist of a list of the Egyptian dynasties and two considerable frag-
EGYPT
91
EGYPT
ments, one relating to the Shepherds, the other to a tale of the Exodus. The list is only known to us in the epitome given by Africanus, preserved by Syncel- lus, and that given by Eusebius. These present such great differences that it is not reasonable to hope that we can restore a correct text. The series of dynasties is given as if they were successive, in which case the commencement of the first would be placed full 5000 years B.C., and the reign of the king who built the Great Pj-ramid, 4000. The monuments do not war- rant so extreme an antiquity, and the great majority of Egyptologers have therefore held that the dynasties were partly contemporary. A passage in the frag- ment of Manetho respecting the Shepherds, where he speaks of the kings of the Thebais and of the rest of Egj-pt rising against these foreign rulers, makes it al- most certain that he admitted at least three contempo- rary lines at that period (Josephus, A2non, i, 14). The naming of dynasties anterior to the time of a single kingdom, and then of later ones, which we know gen- erally' held sway over all Egj'pt — in other words, the first seventeen, distinct from the 18th and following dynasties — lends support to this opinion. The former are named in groups : first a group of Thinites,then one of Meniphites, broken liy a dj-nasty of Elephantinites, next a Heracleopolite line, etc., the dj'nasties of a par- ticular city being grouped together ; whereas the lat- ter generally present but one or two together of the same name, and the dynasties of different cities recur. The earlier portion seems therefore to represent par- allel lines, the later a succession. The evidence of the monuments leads to the same conclusion. Kings who unquestionably belong to different dynasties are shown liy them to be contemporary (see, for example, in Rawlinson's Herod, ii, 289). In the present state of Egyptology this evidence has led to various results as to the number of contemporary dj'nasties, and the consequent duration of the whole history. One great difficulty is that the character of the inscriptions makes it impossible to ascertain, without the explicit mention of two sovereigns, that anj^ one king was not a sole ruler. For example, it has latelj^ been discovered that the 12th dynasty was for the greatest part of its rule a double line ; yet its numerous monuments in general give no hint of more than one king, although there was almost always a recognised colleague. Therefore, a fortiori, no notice would be taken, if possible, on any monument of a ruler of another house than that of the king in whose territory it was made. We can there- fore scarcely expect very full evidence on this subject. Mr. Lane, as long ago as 1830, proposed an arrange- ment of the first seventeen dynasties based upon their numbers and names. The subjoined table, after Poole, contains the dynasties thus arranged, with the approx- imative dates B.C. which he assigns to their com- mencements.