brightest page illuminated by science in the XlXth century,—have since demonstrated its
accuracy, of the utter impossibility of reconciling Egyptian facts, geological, topographical
ethnological, hieroglyphical, and historical, with Archbishop Usher’s system of patriarchal
chronology.
“ A manuscript compilation, over which an old and valued colleague, M. Prisse, and
myself wiled away at Cairo many delightful weeks in reciprocal exchanges of our several
gleanings, under the title of “ Analecta Hieroglyphica,” condensed every cartouche, with
references to most of the historical monuments, known to hierologists up to April, 1841 •
and, as many personal friends are aware, this manuscript is still a most important ground-
text and manual to those who, like myself, are anxious to ascertain the stability of prior
investigations, before hazarding the erection of a theoretical superstructure.” (463)
What, then, is the present state of scientific opinion on the era of Men e s ? The reader
has it before him in the list on p. 682; and, without perplexing himself with vain-speculations
founded upon ignorance of the stupendous materials transferred from Egypt to Berlin by
the Prussian Mission, let him do as we do, await patiently for the publication, hourly due,
of Lepsius’s “ Book of Kings.” The authors may be pardoned when stating that, in
books, manuscript-notes, and epistolary communications from Egypt, Italy, France, Germany,
and England, they probably possess as much specific and detailed information here
at Mobile, on Egyptian monumental chronology, as most men in the world, less a dozen
European hierologists — with whom they are in agreeable accord. When, therefore, they
put forward no dogmatical system of their own, but wait for the “ Book of Kings,” they
act themselves in accordance with the counsel offered to fellow-inquirers. Should Lepsius’s
work reach their hands before the issue of the present volume, a synopsis of its chron-
ology will be appended to our essay. We may also look forward to Biot, the scholarlike
astronomer of France, for a profound investigation of the astronomical data, revealed by
Egyptian monuments, in their relations to mundane chronology ; (464) which will supersede
any future recurrence to the cyclic reveries of such youthful star-gazers as Horae.
Should, however, a qualified student desire to prepare himself for thorough mastery of
Lepsius’s “ Book of Kings,” he should commence with Rosellini’s Monumenti Storici; and,
that being fundamentally acquired, his next guide is Bunsen, Ægyptens Stelle in der Weltge-
schichte; wherein most of the royal Egyptian names, discovered up to 1845, are compared
with the classical lists, and in which the grand alteration produced by Lepsius’s resuscitation
of the Xllth dynasty (unknown to the lamented Pisan Professor, or, in 1847, to Wilkinson),
is abundantly set forth. “ There is no royal road to the mathematics,” nor is
there a straighter path to the comprehension of Egyptian chronology than the one we
indicate ; but, after these two works, the study of Lepsius, Chronologie dé' Ægypter,
“ Einleitung, 1849,” becomes imperative.
Such reader will appreciate the general correctness of the following method of verifying,
archæologically, the progressive layers in which Egyptian history stretches backwards from
the Christian era, assumed at 1853 years ago ; until the unknown-commencements of Nilotic
humanity merge into an undated, but ante-alluvial, period of geology. (465)
We gladly borrow the first points of departure, in our journey from the Christian era
backwards, from Sharpe (466) : —
“ The reigns of Ptolemy, of Darius, of Cambyses, and of Tirhakah are fixed by the Babylonian
eclipses. Hophra and Shishank are fixed because they are mentioned in the Old
Testament, since the length of the Jewish reigns, after Solomon, is well known, while those
Jewish dates are themselves fixed by the earliest of the Babylonian eclipses in the reign
of Tirhakah.. Thus are fixed [by Mr. Sharpe] in the Table of Chronology the dynasties
of Sais, Ethiopia, and Babastis. Petubastes lived in the first Olympiad; this fixes the
dynasties of Tanis.”
Thus king by king, and event by event, we ascend with precision back to Alexander the
Great, b . c. 332 ; and thence, through the XXXIst, XXXth, XXIXth, XXVIIIth, XXYIIth,
(463) Gl id d o n : ^Handbook ; London, Madden, 1849; p . 4 0 ;—conf. N o t t : Biblical and Physical History of
Man: 1849; pp. 69—86; — also Chronology, Ancient and Scriptural: South. Quart! Rev., Nov. 1850.
(464) De R ou gé : Rev. Archéol., Feb. 1853; pp. 656, 686.
(465) Gleddon: Otia; pp. 61-69.
(466) Chronology and Geography; 1849; p. 13, and table, pp. 14,15.
XXVIth, XXVth, XXIYth, XXIIId Egyptian consecutive dynasties, back to SAeSAoNK,
Shishak, founder of the XXIId dynasty ; who, conquering Jerusalem “ in the Yth year of
king Rehobo am,” (467) as is hieroglyphically recorded in Karnac, (468) enables us to establish
a perfect synchronism, between Egyptian and Judaic history at b . c. 971-3.
Prior to this date, Egyptian monuments never once refer to the Hebrews, throw not a
glimmer of light upon Jewish annals ; and with Sheshonk also ceases the possibility of fixing
any Pharaoh, to him anterior, within 5 or 10 years. Chronology^ year by year, stops in
fact at b . o . 972; as well in Israelitish as in Nilotic chronicles: although the foundation
of Solomon’s temple cannot be far removed from b. c . 1000.
Leaving Hebrew computation to ascend along its own stream, innumerable Egyptian documents—
tablets, papyri, genealogical lists, public and private, together with an astounding
mass of collateral and circumstantial evidence,—carry us upward, through the XXIst,
XXth, XlXth, and XYIIIth dynasties, reign by reign, and monument by monument, to
Ramses I. (Ramesu) ; whose epoch belongs to th e --------------- century 15th-16th b . c.
* Here intervenes a period, though for a few years only, of anarchy ; represented in the
Disk heresy, and by sundry royal claimants ; at the head of whom stands A ten ra -B a eu a n ,
or Bex-en-aten; (469) called by Lepsius “ Amenophis IY.” But upward from his father's
reign, Amenoph III, every king is known, with many events of their respective reigns,
through hieroglyphical sculptures and papyri, back to the beginning of the XYIIth Theban
dynasty, in the reign of AAHMES, Amosis, I ; computed, by Lepsius, to be about the year
1671 b . g. At this point, which begins the “ Restoration,” or “ New Empire,” after the
expulsion of the Hyksos, we lose the thread of annual chronology, for times .anterior to the
17th century, before c.
We refrain from discussion of the Hyksos, or shepherd kings. (470) They are supposed to
occupy the XYIth and XVth dynasties ; and, according to Manetho, their duration covered
611 years of time. The XIYth dynasty has not been disentangled clearly from the mutilated
lists ; and the hieroglyphical records have not yet spoken intelligibly, although they
are numerous. We pause for Lepsius ; and in the meanwhile refer the reader for a summary
of the monumental edifices of the Old and the New Empires to his published travels. (471)
To us at present this “ middle Empire” is chaos ; but, even supposing the XlVth, XYth, and
XVIth dynasties could, by a sAorZ-chronologist, be expunged from Egyptian records, it must
be remembered, by Zowy-chronologists, that the XYIIth dynasty stands erect in the 17th
century b . c. We leave the “ middle Empire’s” duration to be adjusted along a sliding scale
from zerq upward ; and next proceed to show that we possess above 1500 years of positive
monuments, behind this “ middle Empire,” by which all Septuagint computations of the
Deluge, at b . c. 3246, or 3146, or 3155, encounter a “ reductio ad absurdum.”
The mists begin to clear off as we commence ascending to the latest representatives of the
“OldEmpire” in the land of KAaM, Ham, Chemmis: viz., the Sebakhetps and Nepherhetps
of the XIHth dynasty (472) : but, at the Xllth dynasty, the glories of the olden time blaze
forth again effulgently ; (473) thanks to Lepsius’s investigations of the Genealogical Papyrus
of Turin. (474)
(467) 1 Kings xiv. 25; 2 Chron. xii. 2.
(468) Gliddon : Chapters ; p . 9.
(469) P r i s s e : Legendes de Sckai; Rev. Archéol., 1845; pp. 472-474; also his arrangement of these kings, in
Wilkinson, Handbook, p. 393 ; — L e p s iu s : Qotterkreis ; 1851 ; pp. 40-43; — De R o u g é : Lettre à M. Alfred Maury ;
Rev. Archéol., 1849 ; 120-124.
(470) Glid do n : Otia; pp. 44, 45.
(471) Briefe aus Ægypten ; p p . 364-369.
(472) B irch, in Otia Ægyptiaca; p. 8 2 ; a n d h i s Historical Tablet o f Ramses II.; 1 8 5 2 ; p . 1 9 ; — D e Roug é :
Rochers de Semné ; Rev. Archéol., 1848 ; p p . 3 1 2 , 313.
(473) B un §en : Ægypténs Stèle; ii. p. 271, seqf— D e R oügé : Annales de Philosophie Chrétiennes; xiv., xv., xvi.;
and Hincks : Turin Book o f Kings; R. Soc. of Lit.; iii., part i., pp. 128-150; h u t considerably emended in W il kinson’s
Papyrus o f Kings; 1850; “ Observations of Dr. E. H in c k s ” ; p. 55: —D e R ou g é : Le Sesostris de la
Douzième Dynastie ; Rev. Archéol., 1847; pp. 481-489.
(474) Auswahl; Taf. iii., iv., v., vi.: — most superbly recopied by Sir J. G. W ilkinson: Fragments o f the Hieratic
Papyrus at Turin; 1851 : h u t consult also the critical history of this document as displayed by Champol-
Uon-Figeac (Rev. Archéol.), with the caveat th a t the luckless disposal of these fragments is due to Se t par th alone.