Egyptian New Chronology
Or Could the Biblical
history be True?
Page 5
What struck me while reading many books on Egyptian history is
how, after having used practically only the list of Africanus in their
"Manetho" sections, they suddenly deems Eusebius account as more credible
when they get to the FIP. Before getting Waddell book, I used to
think that, up to the 6th dynasties both lists were the same. But,
much to my supprise, the differences start much earlier: already in the
3rd dynasties we see differences!!! That, as far as I know, is never
said in any historical reconstruction. Writers use Africanus until
the FIP because of the two, he is the only one to name all the kings, as,
for dynasties 3 to 6 Eusebius only names the important ones. Then,
after dynasty 6, they mention both accounts (for which only 1 king is named
in all versions), noting how they diverge... But, if you take into
account the differences as early as dynasty 3, then almost every discrepencies
simply disappear (only Africanus' 7th dynasty remains un-echoed in Eusebius)!!!
For some unknown reasons, both chronicler simply divided differently their
dynasties... And, as we will see, it is Eusebius scheme that seems
to fit better the knowned archeological fact for dynasties 3 to 5!!!!
So I here propose that he should also be followed for the later dynasties,
and also try to see how both accounts can be rebuilt into a single one.
Let's see how these dynasties 3 to 5 are in both accounts (my emphasis):
dynasty 3, Africanus: "The 3rd dynasty comprised
9 kings of Memphis: [name of 9 kings, their reign lenghts and
anecdotes for the 2 firsts] Total 214 years."
dynasty 3, Eusebius: "The 3rd dynasty consisted of 8
kings of Memphis: [Name and anecdote for the two firsts]
The remaining 6 kings achieved nothing worthy of mention. These
kings reigned for 198 years. [in Syncellus, the Armenian version has
197 years]"
dynasty 4, Africanus: "The 4th dynasty comprised 8
kings of Memphis, belonging to a different line. [name of 8 kings,
their reign lenghts and anecdotes for the 2nd] Total 277 years."
dynasty 4, Eusebius: "The 4th dynasty comprised 17
kings of Memphis, belonging to a different royal line: [Name and
anecdote for the 3rd king, who is clearly the same as Africanus 2nd]
Of the remaining kings no achievement worthy of mention has been recorded.
This dynasty reigned for 448 years."
dynasty 5, Africanus: "The 5th dynasty was composed of
8 kings of Elephantine: [name of 9 kings and their reign lenghts]
Total 248 years."
Eusebius' 5th dynasty is clearly Africanus's 6th dynasty,
a fact that lead many to conclude that he had ignored this dynasty altogether...
Far from it! the numbers above should speak for themselves: first,
his 3rd dynasty has 1 less king (considering the difference of 17/16 years
between both lists, that non listed king in Eusebius could be Africanus'
Mesochris, with 17 years, or his Soyphis with 16 years, respectively 4th
and 5th king of the dynasty, out of 9) Then, while in Africanus Suphis
I (Cheops) is second in the 4th dynasty, he comes in third place in Eusebius...
Now it is well knowed that Cheops' grand-father was king himself (I identified
him with Manetho's Soyphis in my paper)... But it was his father
who truly started a new period of Egyptian hystory. Then, it is also
knowed that Africanu's 5th dynasty kings were offsprings of the his late
4th dynasty kings, even if they also are from a somewhat different period
of history. Now, if you add up Soyphis, the 8 kings of Africanus
4th dynasty and the 8 "declared" kings of his 5th, you get 17 kings, exactely
as Eusebius own 4th dynasty!!! (actually, it's 18 kings, as Africanus
names a 9th king in his 5th dynasty, without declaring him in the header.)
We could therefore say that Africanus divided his dynasties into historical
periods, while Eusebius kept to the strict meaning of dynasty (ie familly).
Since, from what is known of them, the two first dynasties were both familly
and "period", we can extend that principle to the firsts 5 "archeological"
dynasties (e.i. as given in every textbooks). Can we extand that
over to the rest of Manetho's first book?
I think we can, here are my findings:
dynasty 5, Eusebius: "The 5th dynasty consisted of 31
kings of Elephantine. [names the first and the 4th who] ...reigned
until his 100th year. [No total given, in the armenian version
it is specified that this 4th king held the royal office from his 6th
right down to his 100th year.]
dynasty 6, Eusebius: "The 6th dynasty. There was
a queen Nitocris [...] These rulers [including the 31st
of the 5th above, probably] reigned for 3 years: in another copy,
203 years. [Syncellus' note, and here's mine: this could mean 3 years
for Nitocris by herself, and 200 year for the previous dynasty??]
dynasty 6, Africanus: "The 6th dynasty consisted
of 6 kings of Memphis. [name of 6 kings, their reign lenghts
and anecdotes for the 1st, 4th {both identical to Eusebius' dynasty 5 anecdotes}
and 6th, who is queen Nitocris" Total 203 years."
dynasty 8, Africanus: "The 6th dynasty consisted of 27
kings of Memphis, whose rule lasted for 146 years."
In comparison, Eusebius 8th dynasty only has 5 kings. And
so modern writers tell you that his version is more credible... How
convinient for them to forget that this same Eusebius' 6th dynasty had
not 6 but 31 kings!!! That is a major difference... don't you think?
So, if we re-group as above (remember Africanus 7th dynasty as no equivalent
in Eusebius, we shall come back to it later) we get a "new" group
who consists of 32 (Eusebius) or 33 (Africanus) kings. The difference
of one king could be simply a copist error, or that one king was actually
counted twice in Africanus (e.i. in both groups, which is possible).
Let's look somewhere else for further hints: What has the Turin
Papyrus to say about this particular group of kings? Under all probability,
it is the group that begins on top of column 4: Line one as an incomplete
reign lenght which probably belongs to the first king of the 6th dynasty.
Line two is lost, but it most probably include a king mentioned after the
preceding by the Abydos list, but skiped by Manetho. Lines three
and four have reign lenghts that seem to inverse those of Manetho for his
second and third kings which are confirmed by documents, something many
have interpreted as a co-regency due to the otherwise high accuracy of
Turin. Line five has a further reign lenght of more than 90 years,
clearly Menetho's 4th king, Phiops (or Pepy II). Line six as a one
1 year reign lenght, clearly that of Manetho's 5th king, Menthesuphis.
Line seven is lost. Line eight has, was about time, a name
(but no reign lenght)! That of queen Nitocris, no less! So,
there seems to have been a further king between Menthesuphis and Nitocris.
If we now turn to the Abydos list, the only monumental list to have kept
names of FIP kings, we see after Menthesuphis a further 11 kings (that
the Queen herself is included within these 11 is not clear, but unlikely)
before we get to Nitocris' successors in Turin.
According to our analyses of dynasties 1 to 5, Africanus' 6th and
8th dynasties would represent two different phases of Egyptian history
while, forming one dynasty in Eusebius, they form only a single family
(Nitocris being singled out, not being a "king's daughter", but most probably,
a king's wife). So, if Nitocris is indeed, as in Eusebius and Turin,
to close this period, how can we place the 27th kings of Africanus dynasty
8? Here is my proposition:
-
The last traces of Pepy II occurs in his year 63, which we identified as
(1773 ± 11) BC, the end of the Old Kingdom. He still as c.
30 years to live... Some documents from the FIP seem to refer to
a senile indivial... the old king himslef?
-
Would such an old man, perhaps senile, in a time of international turmoil
really rule the land? No... At this time, appears documents
from other kings, some of them mentioned in the 11 of Abydos.
-
Earlier in the dynasty, Pepy I had taken a co-regent for his older days.
-
Well, there you have it: Pepy II himself took a co-regent, probably Menthesuphis.
But he died soon afterward. He then took another relative, and so
on... 27 in all (including Menthesuphis) all dying before the decidedly
too old man. Then, his last relative dead, the later's wife acceded
to the throne, peharps surviving Pepy II (c1743) by a 3 further years
(of Eusebius' 6th dynasty). This would require the lost Turin Papyrus
entry 4.7 to have read something like "26 further co-regents, x
years y months z days", skipping them altogether (otherwise unknown in
the list, but nevertheless possible). On the other hand, the Abydos
list only named those of consequence.
So, the idea is launched! What do you think? On to
the next group:
dynasty 7, Eusebius: "The 7th dynasty consisted of 5
kings of Memphis, who reigned for 75 days/years"
dynasty 8, Eusebius: "The 8th dynasty consisted of 5
kings of Memphis, who reigned for 100 years"
dynasty 9, Eusebius: "The 9th dynasty consisted of 4
kings of Heracleopolis, who reigned for 100 years. The 1st of
these, King Achtoes, [...]"
dynasty 9, Africanus: "The 9th dynasty consisted of 19
kings of Heracleopolis, who reigned for 409 years. The 1st of
these, King Achtoes, [...]"
Well, you'll tell me, 19 doesn't equal 14 (5 + 5 + 4)...
Yes, but here, I think is a very easy copying mistake case for 2 reasons.
1) The 10th dynasty is of 19 kings, and false doublets occur elsewhere.
2) In the greek numbers (the original text was in greek) a lower-case delta
(4) and lower-case theta (9) are not very different, just a little more
ink... (I should know, I work with greek letters everyday!)
So, if we correct Africanus so he has 14 kings of both Memphis and
Heracleopolis in his 9th dynasty, we definitely equates this "phase" of
Egyptian history with 3 distinc famillies of Eusebius, 2 from Memphis,
and therefore probably ruling one after the other, and one in Heracleopolis.
Since Achtoes is first on both 9th dynasties, one can further postulate
that the 1st Memphite and the Heracleopolitain lines started at the same
time.
previous page | next
page
home page
send me an e-mail!
