Egyptian New Chronology
Or Could the Biblical
history be True?
Page 4
6) Manetho's Aegyptiaca (First Book)
Back in the second section, I briefly mentioned
two lists of Egyptian Kings: the first of these, the so-called "Turin Papyrus",
was written at some time during the New Kingdom and, had it been preserved
in one piece, would have been the most precious document for the present
investigation. Unfortunately, it is now a jigsaw puzzle of many,
many, many small pieces... The actual reconstruction of the Papyrus
is therefore incomplete. In spite of that setback, it remains the
most complete list of pre-New Kingdom kings (and their reign lengths, where
still available). Other lists date from the same era and name kings
otherwise unlisted, but not always in sequence, and never with any chronological
indications... (These are the "Monumental" lists of Abydos, Saqqarah
and Karnak) Yet another, relevant for this section is the "Palermo
Stone". When it was complete, it probably included a year by year
record of the most important events in Egypt up to the end of the 5th dynasty
(1 side for dynasties 1 and 2, the other for dynasties 3, 4 and 5).
It is today in pieces, scattered in museums around the world, some parts
highly eroded. Unfortunately.
The second king list I mentioned actually represent THREE lists,
all 3 derived from Manetho's Aegyptiaca, a work written (by Manetho) during
the Ptolemaïc period (from 305 to 30 BC). The most we now have
left from this book are some excerpts included in Josephus' book on the
Jewish History (which completes the Biblical account). The books
(3) themselves are now lost, how unfortunately!!! The quotes in Josephus
gives us some insight on how complete the book was... And how it
would have most probably answered many of today's riddles.
What IS of much help, though, are those three famous king lists
that were derived from Manetho's work. Those lists were compiled
by Africanus and Eusebius (both of which were collected by Syncellus and
handed down to us). The third version also if from Eusebius, but
from an Arminian version. In this century, W. G. Waddell has re-assembled
and translated into English all those king lists in a single book "Manetho",
which I happen to have.
Since they all stem from the same original source, these 3 lists
are of course pretty similar. But some differences are quite intriguing,
while others (most of them, and probably all differences between
both versions of Eusebius) seem to be little more than simple copying mistakes.
We may also note that, in general, Africanus' data is more complete, which
is why most references to Manetho's work in modern textbooks on Egypt's
history are actually derived from Africanus.
That said, let's now move on to the specific topic of this page,
the first of Manetho's three history books, or, more accurately, what is
left of it, that is the three lists mentioned above. Manetho himself
(or maybe later commentators) divided the whole history of Ancient Egypt
(down to 342 BC) in 30 dynasties, from Menes to Nectanebo. The first
book covered the first 11 of these (and the 1st king of the 12th).
Some are well documented, like the first, whose list includes anecdotes
for many kings, while some, like the 10th is only a short resume ("n
kings of such place for x years"). The problems arise, of
course, when the dynasties described are very different in Africanus and
Eusebius. These differences, I believe, are not copying mistakes,
as is often said, but two possible readings of a single text (i.e. Manetho's
original) which I'll here try to "rebuild".
Let's first take a look at what the actual chronology has to say
about these first 11 dynasties:
dynasties 1 and 2: the "Archaic" or "Early Dynastic" Era
The first king of "Dynastic" Egypt was called Menes by Manetho
(and in various other sources). He could be the Horus Narmer known from
excavation (or a maybe a slightly later king, the Horus Aha). The
exact date of the unification of the country by Menes is unknown, but was
probably in the late 4th millenium BC (c 3200). Aha's successors
of the "archeological" 1st dynasty are mostly known by their tombs.
Their identity with "Manetho's" 1st dynasty are not open to doubt in about
half the cases, but the crucial one, Menes himself, definitely is.
The second dynasty is even worst... Only the first 5 kings (out of
9) of Manetho have been identified yet and only the 3 first are well known.
Of the many other contemporaneous kings whose remains have been found,
their actual links to the previous kings are completely unknown.
Yet, Egyptologists ascribe more than 4 centuries to that whole period,
so full of unknowns. Indeed, for these 2 dynasties, and, in general,
unlike the rest of the first book of Manetho, the latter's reign lengths,
when controlled by the Palermo Stone, often seem more credible than Turin's.
dynasties 3, 4, 5, 6: the "Old Kingdom" (or "Pyramid Era")
Off the 9 Manethonian kings of the 3rd dynasty, only "Djoser" is
definitely identified. He and his brother Nebka (and Djoser's predecessor
if he is also in Manetho) were grand sons of King Khasekhemwy, one of those
kings placed in the 2nd dynasty by modern historians. The monuments
from this dynasty are also very similar to those of the first (except the
step pyramids themselves) Then comes the 4th dynasty of Cheops (Khufu)
and the Pyramids of Gizeh... Here again, almost all we have are the
cemeteries. We then have the "sun-kings" of the 5th dynasty, followed
by the 6th, whose king "Pepy II" is said to have ruled over 90 years!!!
With these 2 later dynasties, the contemporaneous data increases, but remains
fragmentary. Over all, this period lasted about 5 centuries, and
this general length is not to be put into doubt, as it is mostly derived
from archeological documents (and from Turin, but not from Manetho).
dynasties 7, 8, 9, 10, 11: The First Intermediate Period (FIP)
Here, the data are very scarce, but seem to be confirming approximately
what Manetho has to say (except for his reign lengths): Dynasties in Memphis
(7-8), Herakleopolis (9-10) and Thebes (11). What archeology reveals
though, is that these dynasties actually were parallel, for an unknown
length of time, before Mentuhotep II of the 11th dynasty reunited the land
(and formed the Middle Kingdom). Often, Egyptologists allow at least
2 full centuries for this dark age... In the light of the available
data, that seems too much. As with most of the 2 preceding eras,
the Manethonian figures here are most certainly excessive.
Mike Sanders' chronology for this period.
Maybe one of the most surprising aspects of Mike's chronology for
this period is the identification of king Menes with Khasekhemwy ...
But, as said above, since the 3rd dynasty kings have clear links with this
earlier king, this identification automatically means that what we call
"Early" and "Pyramid" Eras actually are one and the same period of history.
This also requires that the "pre-Menes" kingdoms of Upper and Lower Egypt
had not really disappeared. As far as administration is concerned,
this has long been accepted by Egyptologists. Here though, we are
asked to believe that, shortly after Khasekhemwy (whom is indeed known
to have re-united Egypt after a supposed civil-war in the late 2nd dynasty)
completely united Egypt, his descendants (1st and 3rd dynasties) divided
it again.
But... some will say, weren't the pharaohs titled "Kings
of Upper AND Lower Egypt"?? Yes they were, throughout all of Egypt's
post-Menes history, even at times when we know for sure that there was
more than one king! The title is therefore not a problem.
But... Wasn't the Old Kingdom a time of internal peace and
unity? Well, it is more and more acknowledged that, at the least,
the 4th dynasty divided into two branches ruling simultaneously after Cheops.
Thus the idea of a multiple kingdom is far from impossible. Why couldn't
the three kingdoms of the FIP simply mirror an already ancient situation?
So... Menes = Khasekhemwy is indeed credible. As for
the other Egyptian events mentioned by Mike, they are derived from the
little that is left of Manetho's account and knowned documents from the
period, all connected to one of his cyclic (every 54 years) catastrophes.
Knowing it all made sense, I read a book on the Early and Pyramid periods
and wrote my own chronology for this era, a paper
I sent to the Mysteries of the Bible Forum back in early July... The only
thing I'd change now are the dates themselves... We should all reduce
them by 2 years since a later cycle in Mike's chronology is allowed 56
years... I don't know if he did that intentionnally, but when creating
my own 18th dynasty chronology (where this "error" appears) a 2-year gap
appeared, a strong hint that it should not have been put there. That
leaves us with Menes uniting Egypt in 2256 BC and the end of the old Kingdom
in 1773 BC.
Lets now complete the picture given in my July paper and see how
we can "squeeze" the FIP in the very short period asked by Mike's chronology
(as in 1665 BC we are firmly in the Middle Kingdom, as we shall see).
My solution for achieving such a feat involves these two axioms:
-
As explained above, the whole of Egypt was actually divided into 2 or 3
kingdoms for most of the Old Kingdom period.
-
That Manetho's First Book has been constantly misunderstood, the differences
between versions not all being copyist mistakes, but actually reflecting
two possible readings of the original.
previous page | next
page
home page
send me an e-mail!
