A 13th dynasty model

by Jean-Frédéric

Mere symbols to keep alive the dual kingship of Lower and Upper Egypt, under the shadow of the powerful 12th dynasty. The dynasty's first king probably was appointed as the successor of the last 8th dynasty king, toward the end of Senousert I's reign, that is, circa 1642 BC ± (33+X).

So, of the first 19 kings mentioned by the Turin papyrus, #VI.6/7 most probably refer to the same individual.  Of course, being mentioned twice on the papyrus, he is also certainly counted twice in Manetho: instead of looking for 60 kings, we'll therefore look for 59.  But then, what to do of the 6 years "erased" within Amenemhat V's reign?  The easiest solution, in my opinion, would have to be a "coup d'état" by some usurper.  After six years Amenemhat would have regain his legetimate throne, perhaps with the help of his 12th dynasty superior.  This "civil war" might therefore explain the relative lack of archeological evidence for the reign of Amenemhat II.  This hypothetical "usurper" is probably to be found among the SIP kings whose exact position remains unknown, maybe SeneferibreSenousert IV as his full titulature (Horus names and Nebty name) are of a very "12th dynasty-like" style, but his monuments are sometimes descrided as much later, so this identification is not necessarily exact.  Another candidate will be discussed in the next section.

Of the papyrus's 17 remaining names, 11 of them (# 1, 3, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17) have been identified in contemporary documents, although for some of them, the evidences are slight.  Or confusing: our number 14 apparently had 2 distinc "birth names": (Amenemhat) Sobekhotep and Pentjeni, maybe the former is only a name he took on his accession, for it's more prestigious connotations.

Ameny Aamou's case is not as clear cut.  The identification with Amenemhat VI is interesting, and would place the former's son, Hornedjheritef, as a 13th dynasty king as well.  Yet, I think a place within the 14th dynasty for these 2 kings would make a lot of sense, as they dwelt in Avaris, the city from which the 14th dynasty seems to have originated and/or ruled.

We thus have a further 5 (6 if my above proposition is sound) names given on the papyrus for whom we yet have to find remains: #4, Ioufny; [#7, Sehetepibre III?;] #8 Seouadjkare; #9, Nebjemibre; #11, Renseneb; and #18, Seth.  Most hopefully, traces of these kings will eventually be found.  We have no reasons to doubt the veracity of the Turin papyrus.

After the demise of the 12th dynasty around 1537 ± (19+X) BC (and perhaps a short fight with the new 14th dynasty, Neferousobek's successors in Lower Egypt, in this model), the kings of the 13th dynasty line gain preheminence.  This coincides rather well with the greatest kings of that line.  Their rule, at least in theory, was over all of Egypt, the kings of the 14th dynasty now playing the role the early 13th dynasty monarch played.

Strickly speaking, the "Glory Years" ended during or soon after Ay I's relatively long reign (for this dynasty), but the biggest "break", in my humble opinion, came after the Hyksos invasion which probably (but not certainly) came during Dedoumes's Reign, which gives us a second period of 18 kings.  Still in my opinion, it is here, and not with the close of the 12th dynasty, that one should place the end of the Middle Kingdom.  Of the18 pTurin kings this period covers, with the possible exception of Sahator (king #21), the first 8 have been identified and correspond vaguely to this "glory" time of the dynasty, it's time of greatest acheivements.  Like Sobekhotep II before him, Sobekhotep VI also had an alternative, "less respectable", birth name: Ini.

The ten following kings are more problatic: 3 of them (#27, Seankhkhenre Seouadjtou; #29, Seouadjkare II Hori; and #36, Ibi II) are comnpletely unknown, 2 others ( #28, Neferhotep II and #30, Sobekhotep VI) we know very little of. In the biblical chronology here followed, these kings (except #36) fall in the period of Moses exile in Madian, an exile that certainly lasted several decades.  We then have 4 kings whose entries have been lost.  It was argued that king #34 was Mentouhotep 'VI' on the ground of little traces that are the only remains of line VII.12.  The previous king, then, must have been the one under which the Exodus occured, which Eusebius apparently identifies as Khaankhra Sobekhotep 'I' (see the main page for details), here therefore given as king #33, and not as "Sobekhotep I", for idependant monuments of a king "Sobekhotepre" (#10) do exist.   Only about the former Sobekhotep and king #35, Dedoumes, do we have slightly more documents, an indication of a stronger government after the "eclipse" of kings 27 to (at the least) 30.  This stronger government fits well with the problems Moses had to face against Pharaoh.  It is the Middle Kingdom's last ressurgence, right before the Hyksos storm definitely brought it to its end.  Soon, Dedoumes successor, who would be Ibi II (#36/VII.14), would be overthrown by (or he officially adopted, since no dynastic break were recorded,) the leader of the Hyksos invasion, to be identified, under a Biblical chronology scheme, with Hur.

We still have 2 kings to identify.  In order to find them, we must look at the list of unplaced SIP kings and decide which ones fits best with a mid-13th dynasty location.  We take into account these basic facts: the 13th dynasty was of Theban origin (Manetho), it began it's rule while the 12th dynasty were holding the power from Itj-Taouy, not too far south of Memphis.  In other words, the dynasty most probably began as "kings of Upper Egypt".  When the last remnants of the 12th dynasty disappeared, the 13th dynasty gained control of the whole land, with a vassal (& symbolic) dynasty (the 14th) in Lower Egypt.  For this period, they ruled in Ijt-Taouy, thus returning to the original situation of the city's foundation (by Amenemhat I, with 8th dynasty around).  When the Hyksos took control of the dynastic line, the "hyksos-ified" 13th dynasty lost its original land.  Therefore, our two kings must have ruled over all of Egypt, but with an emphasis on Upper and Middle Egypt and the Theban region.  Kings only known in Lower Egypt are thus very unlikely candidates, but kings known only in Upper Egypt really could fill in the papyrus holes.  Kings known throughout Egypt would be a bonus.

In a work on the transition from the 13th to the 17th dynasties, which accepts the conventional framework for Egyptian chronology rather than the compressed model discussed here, (and personnal communications) a fellow amateur Egyptologist, Chris Bennett, has narrowed down the list of candidates to (only listing those not already placed above):
From blocks at Deir el-Bahri (thus certainly Theban):
1) Seouahenre Senebmiou
2) Sekhaenre
3) Menthououser (if not the birth name of the above)
From Gebelein and Edfou:
4) Djedhetepre Dedmesou (if not the same as king #35 above)
 5) Djedankhre Mentemsaf
From Thebes:
6) Nerkare
7) Merankhre Mentouhotep 'V'
 

  The birth name Menthououser could, of course belong to Sekhaenre (or to any of the previous kings for whom only their throne names are known: #3, 7? ,8 ,9 and10 or even to a later 17th dynasty king), the name Nerkare comes from a disputed reading and such a king probably never existed, thus, under all probability, shortening the list to 5 possibilities.  Which is still 3 more than what we need.  We'd say that Seouahenre and Sekhaenre, because their names were found close to that of Mentouhotep 'VI', are more likely candidates, but there can not be any certainty here.  As he his not connected with the above, Mentouhotep 'V' here becomes a most likely candidate for our usurper to Amenemhat V (if Sesotris IV is indeed to be included in dynasty 17, as Mr. Bennett thinks).  The two others (or only other, Mentemsaf, if Dedmesou is identical to Dedoumes) would then belong to the Theban 17th dynasty.

Soon after the Hyksos invasion, their leader, (identified as Hur if our Biblical chronology is solid), takes over the 13th dynasty and rules Egypt. ( That the Turin papyrus accepts him as legitimate king  may seem to contradict my identification...  Yet I don't think this was a problem, while he may not have been a 'true' Egyptian, the Biblical Hur did spent most of his life in Egypt and as such could have easely been acknowledged as an "Egyptian" king, Hor II).  The dynasty thus continued its rule, but over a much smaller domain, as a rival, truly Egyptian, dynasty appears in Thebes.  The Egyptian 14th dynasty is also still in the picture and Hyksos chieftains here and there gradually take full pharaonic titles for themselves (dynasty 16)...  The last kings of the 13th dynasty therefore gradually shrink into oblivion, it's last remnant disappearing in 1389 ± (34+X) at the latest (since the longer reigns of the "Glory Years" may have seen some co-regencies, the actual end might have been a few years earlier say, 1394 ± (39+X)), by that time the invaders had chosen themselves a High King (or they did so precisely because the 13th dynasty finished).  Unfortunately, the Turin papyrus is here in such a bad condition that we will only give the little that is left.  None of the names conserved have yet been read on a contemporary document.  The lost entries, on the other hand, might be filled by almost any of the numerous "kings" the Hyksos period as produced.  (the list will be given in the sections dealing with the Hyksos period)

We here reach the last line of the Turin papyrus 7th column, and 50th line since the begining of the 13th dynasty.
Why 50 and not 60, as in Manetho?  Could Manetho himself have added ten kings to an otherwise barely known dynasty?  Or could a later copist have made the mistake (a real big one as greak letters nu(50) and xi(60) are very different)? Or should we include the first ten kings of the 8th column?  At first sight, this would bring interesting results as we have remains from 2 of the kings there mentioned...  But those remains points toward a position for these kings into the 14th dynasty, hence pTurin #VIII.1 is held as the begining14th dynasty.  This view isn't challenged here.

In fact, it seems the most reasonable solution remains to assign 50 'kings' (actually 49 for the reasons we have seen) to the 13th dynasty.  This presupposes the later assumptions:
1) Manetho himself or a later writter boosted artificially the number of kings, or another 10 kings are to be find elsewhere than on the actual version of the Turin papyrus.
2) If we keep to the number of 50, than there is no room between VII.27 and VIII.1 for a 13th dynasty total and a 14th dynasty header, even though it is clear that both dynasties ruled contemporaneously, as far as I know, noone has put that into doubt.  In other words, the papyrus hides a very important historical fact.  In the Sanders revised chronology, exactely the same thing had to have happened in the transition from dynasties 1 and 2 to dynasties 3, 4 and 5, also explained as simultaneous in the said model.
3) The above point raises a further question, for which I have no answer: How can we be sure that the 49 kings mentioned above ruled in strait dynastic succession?  In other words, could their have been any more comtemporary lines than just the two (13th and 14th dynasties) discussed here?  Many indications on the papyrus (like "son of") make it almost certain that the 13th dynasty wasn't a single family.  I supposed the power could have been transmitted through formal adoption of one's successor, thus making indeed the 13th dynasty a single line of king.  But this remains a gratuitous assumption based only on Manetho's corrupted figures.

The 14th dynasty is somewhat accessory to the Biblical model of new chronology presented in the main pages of this essay, so it will remain (almost) entirely confined to this side page.  Of it, Manetho sais (Africanus):
"The Fourteenth Dynasty consisted of 76 kings of Xois, who reigned for 184 years."
Eusebius allows them 484 years.  The shortest figure, 184 years is the only that can take into account the lenght of the Second intermediate period, unless this dynasty actually covers multiple lines ruling at the same time, 484 years being their added total.  While not impossible, the previous assumption of a single line for 184 years remains the easiest, and will here be followed (given the known things, co-regencies are here extremely unlikely).
Dynasty 14: from 1537 ± (19+X) to 1353 ± (20+X)

The dynasty began as successor to the 12th dynasty but never extended its power over more than the Delta (Lower Egypt).  It's alleged first king, Aasehre Nehesy, writes on his documents that he was the son of a king.  Which king?  In this model, he could be the offspring of any 13th dynasty king who ruled toward the end of the 12th, or an illegitimate son of either Amenemhat III or IV.  He built around Avaris, which seems to have been the dynasty's capital.  Xois could therefore be either their place of origin or their new capital after the catastrophies that surrounded the Exodus and/or the Hyksos invasion.

Of all the other readable names listed on the Turin papyrus for this period (close to the 76 mentioned by Manetho, see below), only the 5th one, Merdjefare, also left noticeable traces.  Many others are probably to be found in the list of barely known Hyksos kings which will be given in a future page.  Even these kings exact origin is unknown,  the most probable one being that of Egyptianised stock (not necessarily natives).

To be added to this short list are some other names: Ameny Aamou and Hetepibre Hornedjheritef, if they are indeed not 13th dynasty kings, as well as a certain king "Palmanothes" who is named by Arthapanus (the Jewish historian) as the father of the princess who adopted Moses and who later married Sobekhotep IV.  I unfortunately can't see any simple Egyptian equivalent to this greek name at present.

The terminal date given above falls within the time of the Hyksos High Kings (as will be shown in future pages).  Under these High Kings the 14th dynasty, as it's kings were later recognised by the Egyptians, probably held the position of (Lower) Egyptian "National" leaders, just as the various Hyksos chieftains were to there kins.

From #VIII.1 to #X.12 the Turin papyrus originally recorded at least 70 kings, a total that now only shows the words "they have functioned [...] years" then came on line X.13, a total covering both 13th and 14th dynasties.  Manetho said 76 kings...  Some have proposed that the 7th column originally extended to a 31st line, thus giving a further 4 kings, similarly, both the 7th and 9th columns could maybe also be extended by a further line, thus giving a total of 76 kings and a father to Nehesy within the 14th dynasty.

Another solution, although it gives 77 kings, exists. After listing the Hyksos High Kings (lines X.14 to X.21), the papyrus gives a further group (lines X.22 and X.30, the header and total, only have the word 'king' still readable) of 7 otherwise unknown kings who are listed as Egyptian kings, unlike the previous hyksos, but like the 14th dynasty.  These kings are not the known Theban kings listed after them either.  So who are they?  This proposition is to see them as a successor line to the 14th dynasty in Lower Egypt which would have begun it's rule after the high kings began their reign, but were nevertheless computed together with their Egyptian predecessors by Manetho.  If we absolutely want to keep the 76 kings figure, than we can bring an hypothesis opposed to the one needed above, that is that one of the so-called "lost" lines actually never existed.

None of these two solutions are perfect, and there isn't any evidence in favor or against any of them, as far as I know.  I personnally prefer the second one.

back to the main series