The hieroglyphical names of some of these kings may he consulted in Bunsen; hut we
borrow from Lepsius this table of the XXIth dynasty; whioh cannot become more than
slightly modified in his “ Book of Kings.” (475)
“ T h e X I I t i i M a k e t i-io n ia n D y n a s ty .
According According to the Highest year on
Manetho. Turin Papyrus the Monuments.
1. Amenemhe I alone..................... 9 y ’rs 9 Am. I ' [Afr. 16 Eus.l@] 9y’rs
2. Sesurtesen I and Amenemhe I. 7 “ 1 8. of Am. and Ses. I.
Sesurtesen I alone..................... 85 1 V46 Ses. I [Afr. 46 Eus.46J 45 “ .......... 44. of Ses.I=2 of Am.II.
Sesurtesen I and Amenemhe I I 4 « J
3. Amenemhe I I alone.................. 28 “ J. 33 Am. I I [Afr. 38 Eus.38] 3(7) “ .......... 35. Am. n = 3 . Ses.n.
4. Sesurtesen I I & Amenemhe II. 10
Sesurtesen I I alone.................... 28 “ 28 Ses. H [Afr. 48 Eus.48] (2)9 “ .......... 1 1 . — —
5. Sesurtesen H I . . ........ ............... . 38 “ 38 Ses. H I [Afr. 8 Eus. 8] 3(7) “ ......... 26. — —
6. Amenemhe H I alone........ 41 « } 42 AmJH [Afr. 8 Eus.42] 4(1) “ .......... 43. — -
Amenemhe H I & Amenemhe IV 1 I
7. Amenemhe IV alone................. 8 « 8 Am. IV [Afr. 8 9y’rs3m.27 d. 6. — -
8. Ka-Sebeknefru............................ 4 4 Sebek. [Afr. 4
co
©
to T o ta l’ 218 “ 1 “ 24 “ ”
The Xllth dynasty ends, according to Lepsius, about b. c. 2124.
What relics are extant of Xlth dynasty belong to the Enuantefs, (476) inoluding perhaps
Ba-nub-Cheper, discovered lately by Mr. Harris.
Little can here be related about the Xth, IXth, YHIth, and Vllth dynasties, to be intelligible
without a lengthy argument; but the duration of this last is ‘felicitously suggested
by Maury. (477) Solid as a rock, however, is the YIth dynasty; (478) so is the Yth on the
Turin Papyrus and through the recovery of all its kings (but one?) from the tombs opened
by the Prussian Commission at Memphis. (479) Of the IYth the vestiges surpass belief,
to persons whQ have not opened the folio plates of Lepsius’s Denkmaler; wherein the
petroglyphs of these three dynasties, earliest and grandest relics of antique humanity,
are now preserved for posterity, so long as the pyramids of Geezeh shall endure.
With the Hid dynasty Egyptian monuments cease. There is nothing extant of the lid,
nor coeval with the 1st dynasty. Their existence is deduced from the high state of the arts,
and the extensive knowledgejpossessed by the denizens of the Nile, as demonstrated by it
pyramids, sepulchres, and hieroglyphed records, of the IYth dynasty, compared with the fragmentary
catalogues of Manetho and Eratosthenes, and supported by Grtsco-Koman tradition,
MENES Egypt’s first Pharaoh—is recorded, in hieroglyphics carved, during the 14th
century B.C. at the Theban Bamesium, byEamses II, as his earliest ancestor; and, in
hieratic, on the Turin Papyrus, a document written in the twelfth—fourteenth century B. C-,
“ king MeNai, of a firm life,” is twice chronicled. (480)
By Lepsius, whose computations we adopt, Menes is estimated to have founded the 1st
dynasty of Thinites about the y ea r -----------------------— ----------- B- °- 3893.
| There is nothing incredible in such an antiquity of the Egyptian monarchy.”(481) Indeed,
long before hieroglyphical discoveries had demonstrated its natural adaptation to all the
circumstances of Egypt (when due allowance is made for pre-Menaic chiliads of years for
alluvial existence), the researches of mathematicians had pointed to similar results.
“ On supposing the 11340 years of Herodotus, taken for the Egyptian seasons of three
months, we should have 2794 solar years, according to Freret, and 2835 years, according
(475) Veber die ZuiSlfte JEgyptische KSnigsdyiiaslie ; 1858; p . 28.
(476) Leemans : LeUre d Salvolini: 1838; No. 22;— a n d LeUre d M.De . Witte : B o v . A r c h S o l., 1848, pp. W*
720; —B irch, i n Otia JEgypiiaca; p p . 80, 81; a n d Tablet o f Ramses I t ; p . 18.
(477) Chronologic des Dynasties figyptiennes: H e v . ArchO ol., 1851; p p . 166,167. _
(478) B u n s e n : JEgyptens SteOe: i i . p . 191, s e g .;— M a r i e t t e - Fragment du Papyrus Royal de Turin et la ¡«
Dynastie de ManeOum; R e v . A r cM o l., 1849; p p . 806-316;—H in c k s : Trans. B. Soo. L it ., M a r . 12, 1846; p . l » l
a n d “ O b s e r v a t io n s ” i n W ilk in s o n ’s Papyrus; p p . 68, 64.
(479) Gu d d o n : Otia; p . 38. B o r a ll d e ta ils s e e a u th o r it ie s in t h e p r e c e d in g n o t e .
(480) Column 1., fragment 1, lines 11 a n d 12; S ir G. W i l k i n s o n ’S c op y .
(481) K e n r iq k : Op.cit.; p . 110.
to Bailly. These finished at the reign of Sethos and.with the war of Sennacherib, in the
year 710 before J . o. .Following this hypothesis, the commencement of Menes fell about
the year 3504 b. o., according to Freret; and in 3545 b . c., according to Bailly.” (482)
Having thus indicated to junior students of Egyptian chronology the order in which they
should read the works of our common seniors in this technical speciality of science, we will
now reverse the process, and exhibit, from MENES downward, the stratifications in which
Time’s hour-glass has marked, historically, the consecutive events witnessed, during above
forty-three centuries, by the Egyptian “ Type of MankincJ” down to the 4th century after
the Christian era; assumed at 1853 years ago.
It is a convenient plan to group several portions of Egypt’s history into the following
separate masses, like the primary, secondary, and tertiary formations of our earth’s crust;
and to view the dynasties, in those masses included, as if they were so many distinct strata
contained in such formations. We thereby divest the subject of the perplexities and dubiousness
of arithmetical chronology; because, the viril existence of Menes, as an historical
entity, is no more dependent upon ciphers, than Owen’s Dinprnis gigantcus (in palaeontology)
hangs upon a “ b . o. 2320” of a Knight’s, or upon a “ b . c; 2348” of an Archbishop’s
diluvian phantasms.
I.—The a n t e -m o n um e n t a l period. This of course is an.utter blank in chronology. Science
knows not where geology ends, nor when humanity begins; and the definitive, or
artificial systems, current on the subject, are of modern adoption and spurious derivation.
At what era of the world’s geological history .the Kiver Nile, the Bdhr-el-abiad in particular,
first descended from palustrine localities in Central .Africa, along the successive
levels of-Nubian plateaux, through its Egyptian channel to the Mediterranean (beyond the
indisputable fact that its descent took effect after the deposition of the so-termed d il u v ia l
d r ift upon the subjacent limestone) is a problem yet unsolved. But were proper investigations,
such as those commenced in 1799 by Girard, (483) and cut short by European belligerent
interference, entered upon, in the valley of the Nile itself, by competent geologists,
the alluvial antiquity of the “ Land of Khem” could be approximately reached. (484) The
very rough estimates heretofore made by geologists yield a minimum of 7000 years for the
depositions of the present alluvium by the river Nile. The maximum remains utterly indefinite;
but, nevertheless, we are enabled to draw, from the data already known, the following
among other deductions, of primary importance to Nilotic chronology: __
1st.—Previously to the advent of the ‘‘ Sacred Kiver” no deposition of alluvium having
taken place upon the limestone, Egypt was uninhabitable by man.
2d— Since the deposition of this alluvium, there has been no Deluge, in the literal Hebrew
and genesiacal sense of the term, whether in Egypt; or in Asiatic and African countries
to the Nile adjacent’.
3d.—Humanity must have commenced in the valley of the Nile, under conditions such as exist
at this day, after a sufficiency of alluvium had been deposited for the production of vegetable
aliment, but at a time when the depth of this alluvium was at least twenty (fifty,
or more, for aught we can assert to the contrary) feet below the level of the highest,
portion of the Nile’s bed at this hour; but how much.soil had been previously deposited—
that is, what its thickness was over the limestone when humanity first developed
itself in Egypt — it is yet impossible to define.
4th— Many centuries (in number utterly unknown) must be allowed for the multiplication
of a human Type in Egypt, from a handful of rovers to a mighty nation; and for the
acquirement, by self-tuition, of arts and sciences adequate to the conception and execution
of a pyramid: thus yielding us a blank amount of chronological interval;
bounded on the one hand by the unknown depth and surface of the Nilotic alluvialj
(482) D e B rotonne: Filiations et Migrations; i. p. 198, 199.
(483) Description de Vtgypte: tom. xx. p. 33, seq.
(484) Gu d d o n : Otia; pp. 6 2 -6 9 ; and “ Geological Sections.” For the botanical argument, vide P ickering.