to the twentj^-fifth century. The interval between the two dates cannot therefore be greatly more or less than nine hundred j'ears, a period quite in accord- ance with the lengths of the dynasties according to the better text, if the arrangement here given be correct. Some have supposed a much greater antiquitj' for the commencement of Egyptian history (Bunsen, B.C. 3623; Lepsius, 3892; Brugsch, 4455 ; BOckh, 5702). Their system is founded upon a passage in the chrono- logical work of Syncellus, which assigns a duration of 3555 years to the thirty dynasties {Chron. p. 51 b). It is by no means certain that this number is given en the authority of Manetho, but apart from this, the whole statement is unmistakably- not from the true Manetho, but from some one of the fiibricators of chro- nology, among whom pseudo-jNIanetho held a promi- nent place {Encyc. Brit. 8th edit., "Egypt," p. 452; Quarterly Review, No. 210, p. 395-7). If this number be discarded as doubtful or spurious, there is nothing definite to support the extended system so confidently put forth bj' those who adopt it.
The importance of tliis ancient list of Egyptian kings — it being, in fact, the only completely connected line extant^requires a fuller exhibit than we find in the dictionaries of Smith and Kitto, from which a large part of the other investigations of this article is derived. The dates given by us are essential!}' those assigned by "SVilkinson in Rawlinson's Herodotus, vol. ii, chap. viii. The identifications are in part made b}' Kenrick {Egypt under the Pharaohs, vol. ii). The names of Manetho exhiliit man}' striking coincidences with the elements afforded by the latest researches and discoveries, especially Mariette's "Apis list" on the tablet of Sakkarah, Dilmichen's "Sethos list" on that of Abydos, and the "Turin papyrus," as these are given in detail b}' Unger [Chronologie des Manetho, Berlin, 1867), although we have not been able to adopt all the conclusions of this author, whose work is the most elaborate on the subject. The fact that the names in all these lists are in continuous order does not prove an unbroken succession of reigns, for such is the case in Manetho's list, although he expressly states that the several dynasties were of different local- ities. That the dynasties of the monumental lists like- wise are not all consecutive is further proved by at least two conclusive circumstances : 1. The sum of the years of those 74 reigns, to which an explicit length is assigned in the Turin roll, is 1060 ; now if to this we add a corresponding number for the other 160 reigns whose duration is not specified in the same document, and also for the 10 sulisequent names in the parallel lists down to Sethi I (B.C. 1322), we obtain a total of 3484 years for the first eighteen dynasties, or a date for Menes of B.C. 4806 ; but this would be 2144 years before the Flood, even according to the longest compu- tation of the Biblical text. See Ages of the World.
. Thinitos
21 17 Menes.
III. Memphites.
2650
[. 24T0
IV. 2440
V.
Elephantinites.
2440
VI. 2200
IX. Herraonthites.
2200
XI. Diospolites.
2200 1
Shepherds.
VIT. ISOO
XII. 20SO
XIV. Xoites.
XV. and XVI.
Vm. ISOO
X. 1750
XIII. 1920 XVIII. 1525
2080
2080
xvir.
1080
The monuments will not justify any great extension of the period assigned in the table to the first seven- teen dynasties. The last date," that of the commence- ment of the 18th dynasty, cannot be changed more than a few years. Some Egyptologists, indeed, place it much earlier (Bunsen, B.C. 1625 ; Bockh, 1655 ; Lepsius, 1684; Brugsch, 1706), but they do so in oppo- sition to positive monumental evidence. The date of the beginning of the 1st dynasty, which Poole is dis- posed to place a little before B.C. 2700, is more doul)t- ful, but a concurrence of ethnological evidence points
2. Several dynasties are wholly and designedly omit- ted in one of these monumental lists, which are given at length in the others (e. g. the 7th, 8th, 9th, 13th, 14th, and 15th), and at least one of them (tlie 11th) is alisent in all of them, not to speak of numerous gaps and discrepancies : they must therefore, if at all trust- worthy, be intended as contemporaneous lines in dif- ferent sections of the empire, precisely as were those of ]\Ianetho, who frequently dispatches an entire dy- nasty without any details whatever, as being of local importance only. See Manetho.
EGYPT
92
EGYPT
TABLE OP THE EGYPTIAN REIGNS.
Ox THE Ancient Monuments.
Turin Papyrus.
l,M«na 2, Atu(tJ
3,
4 a
5, Husapati
6, Merbat-iicn
7, Mensa-nepher
8, . . huhu
9 bau
10, . . . kau
11, . . nuter-ea IS,
13, Seneta
14, Heru-ka 15,
16, Sokaru
17, Chen(nu)ra
II, a, 1, ...
2, . . . .
3, . . . .
4, Nepber-ke-8(
karu
6, Hu-zephau 6, Babi
Tablet ofAhydos
Other Inscriptii
Designation bv most Writers.
Acces- sion. B.C.
Menes
Athothia
KenkSnes
Oueufiphes
Bien^'ches
Boptlios
Kai^chos
Bitiotllris
Tlas
Se thanes
CImires
NepherchSres
Menns, etc. 60, 30
Athothes, etc. 27, 59
39, 32
Ouenni^phes 42
Xecherophes
Mesocliris iiphis
[Tiiree names
nisplaced.] KerphCres Soris
Tosertaais Aches
Sephouris
[One misplaced.]
■^ uphia
Souphis
Menchfires
Rliatoiaes
Bichgris
Seberch^rea
Tham])this
Ousercheres
Sephres
Nepherchgrea
Sisires
Cheres
Rhathoures
Menech^rea
TanchCrea
Oiinoa