Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 7.djvu/754

730 730 EGYPT [CHRONOLOGY. must be reduced, and as supplying fragments of historical chronology which may ultimately be united into a complete system. It has indeed been supposed that they enable us to construct an approxi mative chronology on genealogical evidence. This system, however, breaks down where we can test it, and it is therefore dangerous where it must stand alone. The great genealogy of the official archi tects gives 21 generations from the contemporary of Setee I. (Dynasty XIX. 2), to the contemporary of Darius I. (XXVII. 3); and thus, allowing three generations to a century, we should bring the birth of Setee and the beginning of Dynasty XIX. to about B.C. 1200. 1 It is, however, quite certain that, reckoning from the synchronism of Sheshonk 1., or Shishak, with llehoboam, we must allow for the intervening period at least a century more. The historical events require this. We must therefore suppose that generations, either of heiresses or of other persons who did not hold the cilice of architect, are dropped. If this method of computing by genealogies thus fails where we Lave a genealogical list, obviously it cannot be applied to dynastic lists which we do not know to be genealogical. The average length of reigns is usually different from and less than that of generations, and we cannot tell the most probable average length of reigns without knowing the law of succession of the country, and its political conditions in the period under consideration. It is there-fore especially hazardous thus to measure the Egyptian chronology before Dynasty XVIII., at which time ascending genea logical evidence fails us. (See, however, Brugsch, Hist., 2 ed. 25-27.) The preceding observations will prepare the reader to find in the following pages no definite chronological system for the period before the synchronism of Egyptian and Hebrew history at the beginning of Dynasty XXII. The essay would, however, be incom plete without a short account of the chronological views of the leading Egyptologists. M. Mariette accepts Manetho s numbers with some modifications, and makes all the dynasties but one consecutive. He thus dates the beginning of Dynasty I. B.C. 5004. Dr Brugsch, fol lowing the genealogical method, proposed by Prof. Lieblein, and treat ing the reigns of the Tablet of Abydos as generations, but making an exception for the distracted age of the XIII. -XVI I. Dynasties, when he adopts a series of years derived from Manetho, places the beginning of Egyptian history cir. B.C. 4400 2 (Hist., 2d ed. 179 1 ). Professor Lepsius adopts the 3555 years as the true duration of the thirty dynasties, and thus lowers the date in question to B.C. 3892. He reduces the length of the dynasties by making some in, part or in whole contemporary. 3 M. Chabas proposes with much hesitation the 40th century B.C. (fitudessur I Antiquite Historique, 2 ed. 15, 16). The following table gives the date of the beginning of each dynasty according to M. Mariette and Professor Lepsius. The less dednite schemes of Dr Brugsch and M. Chabas cannot be tabulated in the same manner. SI. Mariette. Prof. Lepsius. Dynast v I. B.C. . .004 B.C. SSf)2 II 17.JI ;;ii:; ( j III 4449 3308 iv. 4 _ ;;/; 3124 V 39&quot;.l 2840 VI. 370:! 2744 VII. 10,00 W2 VIII. 3500 2522 IX. ! 3o.VS 2G74 X 3249 2565 XL XII. 1 30C4 2423 2380 XIII. 2851 2136 xiv. wjs 21(i7 XV. I 2101 XVI !- 2214 - 1843 XVII. XVIII. ) 1708 1684 1691 XIX. HKii 1443 XX. 1288 1269 XXI. 1110 1091 XXII. 980 961 XXIII. 810 787 XXIV. 721 729 XXV. 715 71G XXVI. 663 685 . XXVII !i 21 525 XXVIII. 406 525 XXIX. 399 399 XXX. 378 378 Second Persian Conquest [ 340 340 ! Dr Brugsch escapes this difficulty by adding to the genealogy the reigns of Dynasty XVIII. (Hist., 2 ed. 26) as generations, and as these reigns had a shorter average length than generations, he recovers lost time. 2 Tin: apparent disagreement of this date and that given p. 27 as the result of the genealogical method is due to the higher date given in the table cited above to the beginning of Dynasty XVIII. on chronological data (for XVII. read XVIII. p. 180). The lower date of this epoch is due to thr strictly genealogic.il method in the earlier svatement, but it must be admitted that the difference i* large. 3 It must be remarked that he modifies the numbers of Manetho where they can betested by monumental evidence, but in the great periodsfor which thatevidence fails he is forced to accept them as they have comedown to us. This system is developed with much skill iu tlie C/ironoloyie der Aegypter and Konifftbueh dcr Aegypte.r. There are two weak points in all these systems. They rest to a greater or less degree upon numbers either occurring but once or due to a single authority. The sum of 3f&amp;gt;55 years, which is the foundation of Professor Lepsius s system, occurs in but a single passage, and the same is the case with the round number of 50(7 years adopted by Dr Brugsch for the doubtful period of Dynasties XIII. -XVII. ; it is taken from Manetho s 511 years of the Shepherd dominion. How if both these numbers are corrupt? If they are not their e: -ape is a marvel, considering to what authors and copyists we owe them. Again, the sums of most individual dynasties rest on Manetho s sole authority, and his lists are in a state which is at present hopeless. It is equally unfortunate that while certain dynasties are represented by monuments from which Manetho s lists can be verified, others have left little or no records. Thus we have no monuments of Dynasties I. -III. until the close of the last. Then there is an abundance of monuments of Dynasties IV., V., VI. A blank follows without a monument that we can assign to Dynasties VII., VIII., IX., X. Records reappear under Dynasty XL; of Dynasty XII. they are abundant. Under Dynasty XIII. they become scanty, and of XIV., XV., XVI., XVII. there are but a few, which may be of XV., XVI., or XVII. &quot;We have therefore three blank periods, the age before known monuments, the interval of Dynasties VII. -X., and that of Dynasties XIII. -XV II. It is significant that whereas M. Mariette s reckoning exceeds that of Professor Lepsius 1112 years in the whole sum of the thirty dynasties, the excess is no less than 966 years in the sums of Dynasties VII. -X. and XIII. -XVII. Such a dill erence between two such great authorities is a proof of the want of even probability for solving this part of the problem. Dr Brugsch, in applying tiie genealogical method to the lists of the monuments for the first and second blanks, while he rejects it for the third, is manifestly unwary. The evidence of the Turin Papyrus proves that we must not apply any such method to the third blank. How do we know that it can be applied to the other two ? It may be argued that Manetho s numbers for the reigns of the first blank are probable, but neither his lists nor the monuments throw any light on those of the second, to which, notwithstanding, Dr Brugsch allows no less a period than about 500 years. His system has also the special fault that it rests on the supposition that the Egyptian reigns are equivalent to gene rations, which, as already shewn, is by no means proved. In the following sketch of Egyptian history no dates before the Christian Era will be given until the beginning of Dynasty XVIII., when approximative chronology becomes possible. Where, how ever, we may reasonably conjecture the length of a particular part cf history, this will be stated. The traditional age in Egypt is extremely obscure. History begins with the First Dynasty. The earlier period with Manetho. who is supported by the Turin Papyrus, is mythological, the age of the divine reigns, an idea also traceable in the monuments which treat certain divinities as sovereigns. This age is held to be spoken of on the monuments as that of the Shesu-har, the servants, fol lowers, or successors, of Horns, who, in mythology, aid him in his combats with Seth (Chabas, Ant. Hist., 7, 8; Brugsch, Hist., 2d ed. 23). Manetho completely divests the time of any historical character by making it cyclical. It might be supposed that the Egyptians had some idea of records actually dating from this age, if we could accept M. Chabas s reading of the Ptolemaic inscription relating to the plan of the temple of Dendarah, in which it is stated that the original plan was found in the time of Pepi, of Dynasty VI., in ancient characters on a skin of vhe time of the Shes i- har. It appears, hcnvever, from the context that this in scription was of the time 01 Khufu, ot Dynasty IV., and consequently the parallel expression is merely used to denote remote antiquity (Diimichen, Bauurkunde der Tempelan- tafjen von Dendera, 15, tctf. xvi. ; 18, 19, taf. xv.; &amp;lt;/., on the other side, Chabas, Ant. Hist., 2d ed. 7, 8). Egyptian mythology has not been found to contain any allusion to a deluge, nor to have any connection with the Mosaic narrative in reference to the cosmogony and the early conditions of the human race. Similar terms have been pointed out, but the leading facts are wanting. Thus the Egyptian ideas of their prehistoric age have a strange isolation by the side of those of most other nations of remote civilization, which agree in one or more particulars with the; narrative of Genesis. Discoveries may, however, modify this view.
 * XVIII. of Mariette.