’ PUBL IS HERS NO T E

LT D . b e t o E R TREN H TRUBNER Co . M S S S . U C KEGAN PA L, , , , g announce that they have still in sto ck a limite d number of the l arger e dition of the hieroglyphic te xt an d transl ation ofthe Theban Rec ension o f the B ook o f the D e a wi h the hi ero d , t i l r W B UD E which a e are in l h c vo c abu a b DR . I S g yp y y ALL G , pp d three volum es und er the title CHAPTER OF COM ING FORT H ”

BY DAY l a e in 1897 . , t E 2 Price or the ntire ork £ 103 . f W ,

V c on ains all the n wn ha ers of th T an OLUME I . t k o C pt e heb Rec ension of the B ook o f the D ea rin e in hiero l hic d , p t d g yp — nd a es ri i n f he a ri in th B ri i e . 1 5l 7 a c o o t e sh typ (pp ) , d pt p py t M us eum ro m which he have b een e i e and a lis o f f t y d t d , t i h i . Th s e i i n i s m h . m l e C a ers et c . o t e os c o e pt , (pp d t t p t hi h n u li h which has t erto b ee p b s e d .

V n in ll l r 1— 86 h U II c o a s a u vo cabu a . 3 o all e OL ME . t f y (pp ) t t hi eroglyphic texts ofthe Chapters of the Theb an Re ce nsion of the B ook ofthe D ead and t o the s uppl em entary Chapters from ' e Rec nsion which are iven herewi h in l the Sait e g t t Vo ume I . ain a u re s The vol ume cont s b o t ference .

I c n ains V U II o t . OL ME . nd lis f ha rs -xxxv1 Preface a t o C pte (i .

- 1 I U I N . xxx ii c i . NT T v . c v ROD C O (pp . ) — h His r f h f I . T e o o t e B o he e a ha . D C p t y o k o t d . Thi s Chapter is ac compani ed by eightee n plate s which ill us trate the pal aeography of the various Recensi ons ofthe Bo o k ofthe Dead from the Vth Dynasty to the Roman Peri o d .

VOL . I . ha I — i rr i I . s ris and he su ec on . C p . O t Re t III — Th m n f h a e u e o e e . . J dg t t D d — i h x rac s IV The l i n Fi l r He n . e . E ys a e ds o ave W t t t r m h T x s f o t e Pyramid e t . — h T e M a ic f he B f he ea . V . g o t ook o t D d — VI The e c n n f h B o of he ea . . Obj t a d Co tents o t e o k t D d

— - VII . The Book of the D ea o f Nesi Khonsu abou d , t 1 l 0 En i sh r n l i n . R C . 00 ( g t a s at o ) VII l The B o f r hi n i h ransla i n . I . ok o B eat ngs (E g s t t o ) — The Pa - - n li h IX . pyrus of Takhert puru ab t (E g s ransl a io n t t ) .

2 E G A F E EAD . N LISH TRANSL TION OF TH E B OOK O TH D 1 Th v l l r n r m he (pp . e o ume a so c ontains th e e s ce es f o t amo us Pa rus of Ani re res en in the Ju m en S cen e the f py p t g dg t , Funeral Pro c es sion and the El sian Fiel s which have b een , y d , r r u in ll c ol our b r ri s he min n e o c e u W . e e s M . G t p d d f y gg , t ho o - li h ra r p t t og phe . 380 0 145 on E gypt anb abalbaea

A HIS T O RY O F EGYPT

FROM T HE END 0 ! T HE NEOL I THI C PERI OD T o

T HE DE TH F C E P T R B C 0 A O A A . O L . 3

I VO L . .

E G YPT IN T HE NEOL IT HI C AND

ARC HAI C PE RIODS

Books on Izggpt anoctbaIDaea

E ‘G Y PT

NEOLITHIC AND ARCHAIC PERIODS

W ALL B A . S UD E E I G M . A I I . L . T D . . D L , , T , . T .

KEE PE R OF T HE E G YPT IAN A ND A SSYRIA N A NT IQUIT IE S IN T HE BRIT IS H M USE UM

| LEb§TRAT ED

NEW YORK HE NRY FROW DE

Q O X F O R D U N I V ER S I T Y P R E SS A M ERICAN BRANC H 1 90 2 t ) ,

I DEDICATE THIS W ORK

BY PERMISSION

UM LORD KITCHENER OF KHART ,

ETC .

- IN- HI OF THE BRITISII IN S UTH I COMMANDER C EF FORCES O AFR CA ,

A s A TOKEN OF GRATITUDE FOR MUCH

FRIENDLY AND EFFECTIVE HELP

DU I ISSI N To TH S U A R NG MY M O S E D N,

AND A s A MARK OF ADMIRATION FOR

ST NU US J UST A ND SS S I RE O , , FEARLE OLD ER.

P R E F A C E

THE present volume is the first of a group of volumes i dealing with the history of Egypt , wh ch will be published at frequent intervals in the series of Books ” on Egypt and Chaldaea . The narrative begins with an account of Egypt and her people in the latter part

the e d of Neolithic P riod , and ends with the escription

m u ae Octavi anus of her conquest by the Ro ans nder C sar , 80 . The history of Egypt as an independent

e country properly ends with the death of Cl opatra, for this great queen was the last of the independent m a c on r hs who succeeded to the throne of the Pharaohs . Each volume describes a certain period of Egyptian history, and is divided into chapters, each of which

e a rou tr ats of a dynasty, or g p of dynasties , or contains a summary of the principal characteristics which dis tin uish e g the period with which the volume is conc rned . The reign of each king is described in a number of n m paragraphs , wherein will be found not o ly an enu era

s tion of the bare fact of history, but also extracts from

and u papyri stelae and other Egyptian doc ments , which VOL I . . a X P RE FAC E

serve to illustrate the condition of the country, both civil and military , during the period of his rule .

‘ Besides such extracts there have been added a number

m H Diod orus of passages fro the works of erodotus, , m and other classical writers, which supple ent the bald m n n state ents of the hieroglyphic i scriptio s , and supply interesting and Often important information about Egypt

not and the Egyptians , only whilst they were ruled by W n their native Pharaohs , but also hilst the cou try m A was under the do ination of the ssyrians , Persians ,

Macedonians , and other conquerors .

n m the The a es and titles of each king , whether as Ra representative of Horus and Set , or as the son of ,

the s or as Horus of Gold, or as the lord of the shrine

and Uatchet of the goddesses Nekhebet , are given in the hieroglyphic characters at the head of the section

c m whi h treats of his reign , and the na es of the kings given throughout the volumes of this work form the

u e fullest King List which has hitherto been p blish d . The main facts given in this History of Egypt are

m m and derived from ancient Egyptian onu ents papyri, and the reader who wishes to study at first hand the original documents will find scattered throughout the volumes numerous references to published works in

n m he l E glish, French, and Ger an, wherein wi l find the

Egyptian texts , often with translations and elaborate introductions . The volumes are illus trated by a series of repro ductions made from (I) a large number of predynastic PRE FAC E xi

and dynastic antiquities preserved in the British Museum ; (2) from photographs of Egyptian temples m d and pyra i s, and other monuments, and of Nile scenery ; and (8) from outline drawings and tracings m m u ade chiefly fro p blished works . The photographs m A copied herein were ade by Signor . Beato , the

n has disti guished photographer of Luxor , Egypt , who kindly permitted me to make use of his work in this m anner, and the drawings and tracings reproduced in A the following pages were made by Mr . F . nderson . The greater part of the present volume is occupied with a narrative of the excavations which have been made during the last ten years on predynastic sites

r Amélineau in Egypt by Mess s . J . de Morgan, Petrie , ,

and others, and with an account of the various sources from which we derive our knowledge of the chronology I u of Egypt . t was necessary to discuss the res lts of

m e l recent excavations at so e length, esp cial y the correct J deductions which M . . de Morgan was the first to ” draw1 from them with the help of Professor Wiedemann

Jé uier of Bonn , and of M . q , because they have a most important bearing on the views which must now be taken concerning the course of early Egyptian history

and the antiquity of Egyptian civilization . It has long been held by archaeologists that the period of

1 “ Profess or Petri e h as n ow re ecte d the n am e of Ne w Rac e j , an d ad mi ts that the p eople wh om h e thu s d e scrib e d w ere p re

d nasti c E ti ans . S ee Sir J ohn E van s Pres id entid l Ad d s y gyp , res , ’ n d n 1 01 8 and Petri e D ios olis a Lo o 9 . Par L n d n , , p ; , p v , o o , 1 901 , 28 p . . xfi P RE FAC E three or four thousand years which many were content

l the l m m to al ow for rise , growth , deve op ent , aturity, and decadence of ancient Egyptian civilization was

ffi i has - insu c ent, and that the beautiful reliefs and

m the paintings , and the gigantic Pyra ids , which were

IVth ‘ works of the Egyptians in the Dynasty, could never have been produced by men who a few hundred

The years before were quite savage or very nearly so .

and correctness of these views has now been proved,

a the it is known that Men , or Menes , was not first n ki g in Egypt, and that the phase of civilization which is revealed to us by the works of the dynastic Egyptians m did not spring up ready ade, as it were, during the reign of that king . It is also certain that numbers of independent kings must have ruled both in the Delta a and in Upper Egypt long before Men , though it is quite possible that he is the first historical king who succeeded in making himself lord both of the South

The m and of the North . na es of some of these early kings of the North are preser ved on the Stele of A Palermo, and Professor Petrie has found at bydos both tombs and certain funereal Objects of the kings of

e RE KA n the South, . g. , and ; thus it is evide t that before dynastic times the Egyptians were acquainted m with the art of writing, the earliest exa ple of an Egyptian hieroglyphic which we possess being probably “ out the sign for king of the South, 1, which we find in relief on a slate object of the predynastic period ‘ Al - Am M us . from rah (Brit . , No Now the P RE FACE xiii

civilizati on of these predynastic kings of the North and kings of the South differed in many respects from

d n not that of the ynastic Egyptia s , but this is to be m wondered at, for the predynastic Egyptians the selves differed from the dynastic Egyptians in several par

ticul ars , although some writers think otherwise . The latter part of the predynastic pe riod and the age of the first three dynasties may be conveniently grouped ‘ i “ A together as a per od which can be called rchaic , during which period Egyptian civilization developed

c rapidly . The earlier predynasti Egyptians sprang from one ofthe indigenous non - Negroid races of north t Af eas rica, whilst the Egyptians of history were a people whose parents on the one side were originally

A r nd A a . of f ican , on the other side of siatic origin The descendants of the indigenous folk were conquered mm m by the i igrants , who see to have been bigger and m heavier than they, and to have been better ar ed , their

w m - m eapons being, perhaps, of etal , and the new co ers appear to have taught the men they vanquished the

arts and crafts of which , up to that time, they were

a m m ignorant, and to have dopted the selves a nu ber of Af indigenous rican customs . The civilization of the A dynastic Egyptians contained , then , an frican as well A m f as an siatic ele ent, and the in luence of the beliefs m and ideas of the predynastic Egyptians , which ade itself felt chiefly in the religious character of its m develop ent, was never eradicated from it . The immigration of the conquering people from Asia must xiv P RE FAC E have taken place between the earlier and later pre dynastic periods . But although we see that the civilization of the dynastic Egyptians rested upon a phase of civilization which had existed in predynastic times when men n could write, and that that phase rested in its tur upon a phase of civilization which existed when men t w could not write , the recen excavations hich have given us this knowledge do not help us to assign dates to either one or the other of the phases of the pre

of m dynastic civilization Egypt . The i possibility of estimating in y ears the lengths of the Palaeolithic and Neolithic Periods in Egypt is so obvious as scarcely to need mention ; that these Periods existed in Egypt ma m m y be taken for granted, when we re e ber that the evidence for their existence was accepted by the late G m h eneral Pitt Rivers , and is ad itted by Sir Jo n Evans , e m M . J . de Morgan , and oth r e inent experts . The impossibility of assigning a date to the begin nings of Egyptian civilization naturally calls attention to the fact that it is equally impossible to assign an

M a i e fi t exact date to the reign of en , . . , to the rs historic w m king of Upper and Lo er Egypt , whatever his na e ma m m y have been, or to for ulate an approxi ately exact

m m m no w syste of chronology fro the aterials available . In a chapter of the present volume an attempt has been made to describe the sources in Egyptian and Greek which may be used for this purpose and it will be seen by a perusal of the evidence that no exact P RE FAC E XV

l m em conc usions can be deduced fro th . The three a A n King Lists of Sakk ra , bydos , and Kar ak prove chiefly that Lists of this kind ca nnot be regarded as m co plete, that they only contain selections of royal

m r na es , which in one case are a ranged in a purely m arbitrary order , whilst the inscriptions derived fro A the recent excavations at bydos prove that, in the

XIXth m the Dynasty, the scribe who co piled King

mi r n m l List for Seti I . actually s ead the a es of severa

IInd D ! H ma of the kings of the Ist and ynasties e y,

of course , have been careless in reading the hieratic characters which were written on the papyrus docu

m the ent before him ; but it is unlikely, for Greek m m for s of these na es , which are given by Manetho in n m his Ki g List , indicate that the readings of the na es , as found in the documents from which he compiled his im work on Egypt , were s ilar to those given in the m I t papyrus fro which the scribe of Seti . draf ed the m m List for the ason . It ust, of course , not be forgotten ’ that Manetho s List may have been compiled from the monumental lists made at the time of the Xl Xth Dynasty ; hence these mistakes have been perpetuated

in Manetho . Thus we cannot rely absolutely upon such lists even for the correct spelling of royal names A in the rchaic Period . The Royal Papyrus at Turin

w a ould have been of the greatest value to us, but al s , the fragments into which it was broken on its ill - fated “ ” u Se ffarth the d ocument j o rney, were joined by y , and l t has been use ess ever since . The bes general authority xvi P RE FAC E

’ h M on dynastic Egyptian c ronology is , after all , anetho s

King List, even though his copyists have played havoc

two m with his figures , and one or of his dynasties see

h m b e to ave got out of place . His List ust studied

Wi th the Old Lists , and checked by the actual monu

v ments . The hieroglyphic inscriptions pro e that the m t order of the kings in any of his dynas ies is correct,

' ’ and that the lengths of many kings reigns are stated m by him with considerable accuracy, and it see s that he , at any rate , copied his archetypes with care ; since the scribe of Seti I . blundered so seriously, as we have

seen above , we cannot expect Manetho , who lived about

As In . one thousand years later, to be better formed ’ m far as it goes, Manetho s King List is extre ely

‘ valuable, but it does not enable us to get behind the m m XIXth istakes ade by the scribe of the Dynasty, as A the excavations at bydos have enabled us to do . The information which has been obtained from native m u in Egyptian on ments as to dates is , at present, sufficient to enable us to correct the mistakes in the figures of Manetho’s List which are due to the careless m ness or ignorance of copyists , and until so e other m d f eans of doing this is foun , it is idle to shu fle and m torture his figures, as any writers on Egyptian

chronology are pleased to do . The order of the n succession of the ki gs is , generally speaking , tolerably I — I XII V V . . certain ; in the periods of Dynasties . XIII X II — I — m V X . . I X I , , XXVI . XXX , co plete cer t tainty has been attained , though the exac lengths of xviii P RE FAC E

figures fit his preconceived views and theories about

B and ible history , the latter never realized the great antiquity of the civilization of the wonderful country m in which he lovingly toiled for so any years , and in m which he did such a great work . The syste s of Champollion -Figeac and Mariette showed that each of these able workers was on the right track , but viewed in the light of recent research the date assigned to m m Menes by the appears to be too re ote . Of all the

Dr m . syste s hitherto propounded, that of the late H . Brugsch has most to recommend it for p racti ca l

ur os es s p p , and it agree exceedingly well on the whole

e m r with the evidence , d rived fro various sou ces and n consideratio s , which indicates that the duration of the d n na n dynastic perio , beginni g with Me and endi g with ’ m i o 4 5 00 the close of the Ptole a c Period , was ab ut l d years . Dr . Brugsch had an unrivalled know e ge of

i m t h eroglyphic, hieratic , and de otic exts, and there is no branch of Egyptological literature in which he was

fi rst - m not a rate expert . His chronological syste , like H u w that of erodot s , allo s three generations to a 5 00 century , and contains one great gap of years between the XIIth and the XVIIth Dynasties ; but although the average of three generations per century i s l ow too , and the years given to the gap in the 4 4 00 4 4 5 5 history are too many , the or years , which he considered to be the length of the dynastic period m as a whole, do not see excessive . The dates which he assigned to kings individually were never intended P RE FAC E xix

m r and to be more than approxi ately co rect, in the earlier dynasties many of the kings may be antedated m m or postdated by as uch as thirty years . Synchronis s with Babylonian history have shown that in the XVIIIth Dynastv the date gi ven by Brugsch to

Thothmes I II m . is ore than fifty years too early, and it is of course possible that other dates may be equally k incorrect, but it is unlikely ; in any case , wor ing backwards from the XXVIth Dynasty to the beginning XVIIIth of the Dynasty, the error in the date of any n ki g can hardly be greater than this . Before the XVIIIth ma Dynasty the error y be , and probably is , m a uch greater, because there is reason to believe th t ’ n several ki gs , whose names find no place in Manetho s

e King List, reigned over Egypt during the period befor XVIIth n m the Dy asty . These facts ust of course be m m ’ m re e bered in using Brugsch s syste of chronology . No exact dates can be assigned to Egyptian kings XX VIth D and m before the ynasty , any syste which attempts to date the reigns of the kings of the earlier dyna sties otherwise than after the manner employed h m by Brugsch is bot isleading and incorrect . We do f not possess chronological data su ficient for the purpose ,

ffl s and no amount of shu ing of figure , or guesses , or m e endations , can be regarded as satisfactory equivalents m of facts . Still less can any trustworthy esti ate in years be made for the duration of the predynastic E n period of gyptian history, even if we de y the existence of a Palaeolithic Period in Egypt ; nor can XX P RE FAC E any calculations Concerning it which are based upon the rate of the deposit of mud in the Nile Valley be regarded as final , because the conditions under which it was laid down in all parts of the Valley are un

w of m m t kno n . The actual facts the case ust be ad it ed, and though these indi cate that the period of f the predynastic and dynastic civilizations covers many

how thousands of years, they do not show long that period was .

A W LL S BUDGE . A I .

LONDON

De cemb 1 3 h 1 01 er t , 9 . C O NT E NT S

PAG E

MAP OF EGYPT .

— A CH PT I CH I I I U TI S . H I A ER . RONOLOG CAL D FF C L E RC A C PTI TI UITI S OSI IS EX EGY AN AN Q E . TOMB OF R . CAVA TIONs M T I A MELINEAU G ST N BY DE ORGAN , PE R E , , AR A G, D TH S H TI E PTI S A N O ER . T E PREDYNAS C GY AN AND

TH I C U H L U T . H SI E R ONQERORS . T E AND OF P N P Y CAL C I R E I N HARACTER STICS OF THE P EDYNASTIC GYPT A S . UN N I ELEPHANT H TI G AND F SHING . BABYLONIAN AND

- PTI M H S C P A I U TU . EGY AN ACE EAD OM ARED . GR C L RE D I A . W HEAT AN BARLEY . DOMESTIC NIMALS FL NT T OOLS AND WEAPONS OF THE PALzEOLITHIC AND N ITHI I S V I T ST M EOL C PER OD . AR EGA ED ONE ACE

D S D . R R . HEADS . AFTS OF EE S BOATS WITH TAN ARDS H E S I PA LJEOLIT IC A GE . BOATS WITH A LS . IN GYPT M T S ST V TT RED E AL TOOL AND ONE ASES . PO ERY, N N N I B I T T . H ST A D LACK, PA ED, E C T E PREDY A C ’ R . I U UR L I GRAVE EL GI ON . BEL IEF IN A F T E IFE N THE PREDYNASTIC PERIOD C II —E C L H PT . PTI H H I ISTS A ER GY AN RONOLOGY. T E K NG S KKA N A . R P US OF A RA, BYDOS, AND KAR AK OYAL PA YR L V U I . H I I T M TH SI S OF T R N T E K NG S OF ANE O . ER ON J U R U OLD OF ULI S A F ICANUS AND EUSEBI S . THE

CH NI . H B TH S THIS H TUS RO CLE T E OOK OF E O . ERODO DIO DORU S S . S . THI I H T STI AND O C PER OD . T E E FE VAL

S S C O . YNCHRONISMS . YSTEMS OF HRON LOGY . DR ’ BRUGSCH S SYSTEM Xxl l C O NTE NTS

CH PT III — I IN STI S N STI I A ER D V E DYNA E . DY A ES OF DEM H I S . S US H ST GOD FOLLOWER OF OR . T E PREDYNA C N RE ND I L E I S KA . S PT K G TE , , A K NG OF OWER GY

— E CHAPTER IV. ARLY DYNASTIC KINGS

I ST N ST —M NA ND AHA E NT TA NAR F R DY A Y . E A , K E TE , ATE H ID COCHOM E S I T T . T T A A . MER, , PYRAM S A EM , HE E I N I I D S PT H G . H OR , DA C NG BEFORE S O T E

PYGMY IN EARLY DYNASTIC TIMES . THE BOOK TH IN TH I S TI M OF E DEAD E RE GN OF EM . ER HU E EM A P . N KE T S S U S N EBA OR ( ) . E , OR Q S N EBH E (Q ) .

— N - S ND N ST . B SH L E T IU BETCHA U ECO DY A Y E , , E ER BA , .

O I I TH C T U H HETE P- EKHEM UI S . R G N OF E AR O C E .

RA- - E N KA K U . N E TE A T CHNE NEB ( A ) R U S . PER AR- H N SEN . THE ORUS AND SET AMES OF A

KA -RA NEF - - N . S . A RA I T . ER K NEFE R K G EN . KA - HETCI-IEF C I S . T HA TCHA . EKER A .

— - T R I . N K E S CHE . TH RD DYNASTY EB A . S THE TEP S KKA HTE E A. A S . S TCHE I . T PYRAM D OF A RA TE S . NEFER-KA -RA HUNI . L IS T O F ILLU S T RAT IO NS

PAG E GROUP OF BONE OR IVORY FIGURES OF THE PRE DYNASTIC PERIOD 2 . BONE OR IVORY FIGURE OF A WOMAN AND CHILD OF THE DYNASTIC PERIOD BONE OR IVORY COMB OF THE PREDYNASTIC PERIOD SLATE CUTTLE - FISH OF THE PREDYNASTIC PERIOD

5 J D N I . GROUP OF SLATE OB ECTS OF THE PRE Y AST C PERIOD “ GREEN SLATE TURTLE OF THE PREDYNASTIC PERIOD

- I A G MACE HEAD OF SARGON . OF ADE

8 M -H P STI . ACE EAD FROM A REDYNA C GRAVE

" EG PTI - H TH A H I I 9 . Y AN MACE EAD OF E RC A C PER OD VARIEGATED STONE MACE -HEADS OF THE PREDYNASTIC PERIOD

- M H ENANNADU R C. 4 5 00 1 1 . A CE EAD OF ,

- AXE HEADS OF THE A RCHAIC PERIOD . PREDYNASTIC BOAT ORNAMENTED VASES OF THE PREDYNASTIC PERI OD STANDARDS ON BOATS OF THE PREDYNASTIC PERIOD BOAT WITH SAIL OF THE PREDYNASTIC PERIOD

FLINT ARROW AND SPEARa HEA DS OF THE PREDYNASTIC PERIOD xxiv L I ST OF I LL U STRAT I ONS

PAG E 18 ND N . FLINT IMPLEMENTS OF THE PALAEOLITHIC A EO LITHIC PERIODS 1 IN N I D 9 . FL T IMPLEME TS OF THE PREDYNASTIC PER O GROUP OF VASES OF THE PREDYNASTIC PERIOD

2 1 . GROUP OF STONE VASES OF THE PREDYNASTIC PERIOD

22 . ORNAMENTED EARTHENWARE Box OF THE PREDYNASTIC PERIOD DESIGNS ON VESSELs OF THE PREDYNASTIC PERIOD 24 MU TH R TI I . MMY OF E P EDYNAS C PER OD ‘ - A G T A L H . STI I 25 . RAVE A MRA PREDYNA C PER OD

G T A I . N STI I D 26 . RAVE A KAW M L PREDY A C PER O

28 .

2 9 .

30 .

31 I LIST S TI I . T A S . K NG OF E A BYDO I LIST S A 32 . K NG OF AKK RA IN LIST K 33 . K G OF KARNA 4 I P U I AHA 3 . VORY LAQE OF K NG

S N R TH - H D NAR- CE E F OM E MACE EA OF MER .

G T J T ITH I S NAR- 36 . . REEN SLA E OB EC W REL EF OF MER OBVERSE

- 3 G S T J T ITH I S NAR . 7 . REEN LA E OB EC W REL EF OF MER REVERSE

SI NAR - 38 . DE GN FROM A VASE OF MER

EMA K EBONY TABLET OF H A .

I U E U NEKHT SEM S U 4 0 . VORY PLAQE OF KING OR (

4 1 J AR A- EB . SEALING OF KING QSEN (Q H) 4 2 D . ESIGN ON A GRANITE VASE OF KING BESH 4 3 I . F GURES OF SLAIN ENEMIES FROM THE STATUE OF KING BESH

4 - A 4 . THE STEP PYRAMID OF SAKK RA

2 TH E ORI E S AB O U T T HE E GY PT I AN S AND portion of the Nile Valley which is commonly called ” E m s m gypt , and another aintained that o e tract of land lying to the west of the Nile in Northe rn Africa m m u ust be regarded as their true ho e . Each a thority produced proofs in support of his assertion , and each group of proofs was regarded as satisfactory evidence by those who accepted the theory which they were intended to support . The various theories put forward by competent men were based Upon The scientific examination of the mummified remains of the historical Egyptians ; (2) historical and geographical information derived from the hieroglyphic inscriptions (3) the philological peculiarities of the language as exhibited by the hieroglyphic texts ; and (4 ) statements made by ancient chronographers and historians . The evidence derived from the statements referred to u 4 On nder No . was , of course , ly of scientific value when supported by evidence derived from any or all of

m m NOS 1 2 the classes of infor ation sum arized in . , , 3 m and . The researches which have been ade since the times when the main theories about the original home Of the Egyptians were propounded show that in m m d each of the any of the etails were correct , and that their authors would have arrived at right conclusions had their deductions been based upon a larger number m of facts, and upon a wider field of exa ination m n l and infor ation . U fortunately, however , the fie d m available for exa ination was limited , and all the T HE E GYPTIAN L AN G U AG E AND C H RO N OL O GY 3

m n and necessary facts were not forthco i g , the pity is that the ‘ early writers on Egyptology assumed that they had solved a number of far-reaching problems in Egyptology when it was evident to all unbiased observers and honest enquirers that they still lacked the information which could only be obtained from

- data that were then non available . Speaking broadly, the propounders of theories were hampered by their V own preconceived iews , and also by ideas derived from the works of Scriptural and classical writers ; and their difficulties were increased greatly by their own efforts to make the evidence derived from the “ ancient Egyptian native writings square with that h m w ich they obtained fro foreign sources . Side by side with the question of the site of the original home of the Egyptians it was necessary to discuss the cognate s ubj ects of early Egyptian chronology and the language of the primitive

and Egyptians , and the views opinions put forward by writers on these matters were as conflicting as those x m which e isted on the original home . So e held that the language of the early Egyptians was of Aryan n origi , others declared it to be closely allied to the m Se itic dialects , especially to those belonging to the northern group , Hebrew, Syriac , and Chaldee , and

‘ Ethi o i an or others claimed for it a Berber , or p , Libyan , A or Central frican origin , according to individual fancy n or observatio . On early Egyptian chronology Opinion was hopelessly 4 AN EXACT SY STE M OF C H RON O L O GY I M PO SS I B L E

n n m divided , the principal reaso bei g that any investi gators attempted to confine the whole period of Egyptian dynastic history within the limits assigned to Old Testament history by the impossible system of

A 1 who did rchbishop Usher . Those this lost sight of the fact that they were not allowing sufficient time for

“ the rise and growth and development of Egyptian

civilization , and they wrote as if they thought that

the the wonderfully advanced state at which religion , u and art, and sculpture , and architect re , and education , and government of ancient Egypt had arrived at the beginning of the IVth Dynasty had been reached after

0 m the lapse Ofa few centuries . N syste of chronology which may at present be devised can be accurate in the m m odern acceptation of the ter , and none can ever , m with truth , pretend to be approxi ately so , except in respect of isolated periods of time of relatively limited

duration . But the system which will have the best n m m m cha ce of survival, and at the sa e ti e be the ost

m e correct , see s , judging by the evidenc before us , to be

1 J am e s Ush er w as b orn i n D ub l in on J anu ar 4 th 1 8 an d y , 5 0 , d ie d on M ar ch 20 th 165 6 at Rei ate i n Surre H a a n , , g y . e w s c o t em or ar of C am d en S el d en Sir Th om as B o d l e an d Sir p y , , y , n B et en 1 n 4 Th o m as C otto . w e 650 a d 165 he p ub li shed Anna lee

Veteri s e t Noc i Testamenti in whi ch h e ro oun d e d an im i , p p p os s b l e

st f c r on ol o for th e Bib l Thi m s em o e . s s st e w as un y h gy y , fortun atel i n ser ted i n m an e d iti on s o f the B y , y ib l e with m os t d i s astrou s r e sult s for th ereb it ain e d an auth t i , y g ori y wh ch i t

Sh oul d n ev er h ave e n o e d . The s st e m i s w orthl ess and has j y y , prov e d a s tumb ling-b l ock t o m any h on e st enq uirers i nt o Bib l e i h s tory . IN T HE PRE S E NT STATE O F E GYPTIAN KNOW L E D G E 5

that which will take into due consideration the extreme antiquity of civilization of one kind and another in the N Valley of the ile , and which will not be fettered by views based upon the Opinio ns of those who would limit the existence of the civilization of ancient Egypt 300 to a period of about 0 years . Until the year 1891 the writer in favour of assuming a high antiquity for ancient Egyptian civilization was obliged to rely for his proofs upon the evidence

furnished by the inscriptions , and upon deductions based on information supplied by texts written upon

papyri , but , thanks to the labours of the recent excavators who have examined and cleared out a

cemeteri es in number of the predynastic Egypt, it is now possible to produce objects of various kinds which prove beyond all doubt that Egyptian civilization is older by se veral thousands of years than many

p w m and Egy tologists have ished to ad it , that the existence of man in the Valley of the Nile may be

trae r c d back even to the Palaeolithic Pe iod in Egypt . But before passing on to the consideration of the pre dynastic Egyptian it will be Well to summarize briefly the principal facts in connection with the important e xcavations which have produced such remarkable

results . It will be remembered that between the years 1 870 and 1890 there appeared from time to time in the hands of dealers in Egyptian antiquities numbers of rude

m m S l figures of ani als ade of green late, with in aid eyes 6 F I RST D I S C OVE RY O F P RE DY NASTI C

and w formed of bone rings, little groups of earthen are d m vases , painted in red, with unusual esigns . Speci ens

and of these were purchased by travellers and others ,

m Rev certain exa ples were acquired , through the late . B A m u Greville Chester, . . , by the British Museu . Th s fi m a large , flat, green slate gure of a horned ani al , with u 1 1 . 8 7 inlaid eyes (No was p rchased in June , m a figure of a sheep , in the sa e material (No .

1886 S in October, ; a green late object , belonging to the class which has been wrongly called “ palettes ” 1 88 . 7 (No in July , ; and a green slate bat , in m with outstretched wings (No . the sa e year . Among the painted vases which were acquired in 1881

m n two- n may be e tioned a little ha dled vase, orna

mented with red wavy lines (No . and two

and black and red earthenware vases , two earthenware m m n pots with ost unusual orna e tations, which were presented to the British Museii m by the Egypt 1 885 Exploration Fund in (Nos . m and Besides these there re ain to , be enumerated a small earthenware vase ornamented with series of concentric rings painted in red

m fl ints m (No . and a nu ber of and s all green

slate objects , which have not as yet been satisfactorily

m O identified . The provenance of any of these bj ects

w Gebelén S was well kno n, viz . , (a town ituated on the

Of 4 70 m u left bank the Nile , about iles so th of Cairo , which marks the Site of the Crocodilopolis of the n A Greeks) and the eighbourhood of bydos . Opinions AND A RC HAI C E GY PTI AN ANTI QU ITI E S 7

differed as to the age of the g reen ! slate figures of animal s and the earthenware vases some Egyptologists boldly declared the former to be “ clumsy forgeries ” d m and the latter to be the pro uct of the Ro an period, and others believed both classes of objects to be the

- m work of a non Egyptian people , who , for so e reason m or other, had settled in Egypt during dynastic ti es . About the year 1890 it became known that certain natives in Egypt had discovered large quantities of“ 1 i e m pottery , . . , vases , j ars, bowls, saucers , etc . , so e m being of ost unusual shapes , and others being m n orna ented with unusual designs . The decoratio s on the pottery consisted chiefly of series of concentric

rings , wavy lines , which were probably intended to e repr sent water, and figures of a number of obj ects

which could not then be identified , traced in red paint . Among this pottery were a large number of vessels n u made of red and black earthe ware , the pper parts ’

being black and the lower parts red , and it was

ené rall g y agreed that these , at least, belonged to no m v m m co parati ely odern period like the Ro an . Sub sequent inquiries revealed the fact that pottery of this

in r kind was always found g aves of a certain class , which seem to have been quite unknown to anyone

and except the native dealers in antiquities in Egypt , little by little the characteristics of such graves became

1 Exampl es of th e p re dyn asti c p ottery whi ch r each ed th e Mu um i n 1 1 are N s e 89 os .

all of hi c h c am e from Ab d o s w y . 8 EXCAVAT I O N S BY N ATIVE S

m m n known generally . The ost i porta t variation in the system of sepulture employed by those who made the graves from that in use among the historical Egyptians was in the preparation of the body for

the m As l burial and its disposal in to b . we shal

no n return to this subject later on, there is ecessity to h go into details ere , and it will be sufficient to say that the bodies which were found in the graves m m d w mentioned above were not u mifie , that they ere m m m m n so eti es dis e bered , and that whe discovered in a perfect state they were always resting on their left

s side , with their knees drawn up on a level with their

h r m chins, and their ands were raised to thei faces al ost as if in an attitude of prayer or adoration . Little by little it became clear that graves containing bodies which had been buried in this fashion were to m t be found in any parts of Egypt, and that they exis ed in such large numbers that it was ‘ almost impossible m m m for the to be the re ains of any s all , isolated body n m of settlers in Egypt , or of an u i portant section of n the old population of that cou try . Meanwhile the natives in Egypt had exca vated with great thoroughness some of the sites where such graves w i n d m men ere found abun ance , and any of the older

m m of a ong the , having learned exactly what class antiquity was being demanded by European s ar an ts and m m n archaeologists , re e bered that flint k ives of fine w m ork anship , and vases and vessels of earthenware made in various shapes and painted in red with con

I O U NU S UA L M ETH O D OF B U RIA L

4 5 0 hi The knees are always sharply bent at to the t ghs , or else nearly parallel ; while the thighs are always

at right angles to the body , or even more drawn up so m that the knees touch the elbows . The ar s are always n be t, with the hands placed together before the face or

n I the b the eck . n a few cases ody is laid on the back

S l l and the knees bent harply , so that the egs are fo ded up together ; or else both knees and hips are bent

S O sharply, that the legs are folded up on either side of m n the body . The direction of inter ent was as co stant

as the attitude the body lay on the left side , w facing the est, with the head to the south and the ” 1 feet to the north . From an examination of the graves which he

— 1 The excavated Professor Petrie concluded that . s kull was o ten i ntenti ona ll removed be ore bur ia f y f l .

’ 2 The s kull was s e ara tel laced i n the rave er ha s . p y p g , p p

m i e subse uent to the buri al 3 T e l er r s s o e t m . h ow a m q .

nd and s wer e o ten removed e ore bur ia l 4 om a h b . S e f f . times the tr unh was artl c at to i eces be ore buri a l p y p f .

The whole bo a s b 5 . dy w s s ometime d i smem ered c om letel be ore buri al and arti ci all arr a n ed p y f , fi y g .

Bodi es were om times — wi a ll res ect— ca t 6 . s e th p up and

a rtl eaten p y .

A 1895 - 96 bout a year later, that is in the winter of ,

Am lineau M . é was sent to Egypt at the instance of

l e l e m M . M . arquis de Biron and his friends M Co te

d e Basseti re m Bard ac and e . Henri la and M Sigis ond ,

1 Petri e Na ad a a nd Ba llas 32 , q , p . . EXCAVAT I ONS AT ABYD O S I I he began to make excavations on a large scale at A bydos , where , notwithstanding the vast clearances m which had been ade by Mariette , a great deal of work needed to be done . Mariette excavated with thorough m I I s . ness the te ples of Seti I . and Ramese , but it is q uite clear that he never recognized the real antiquity of the Site nor even suspected the existence there of antiquities belonging to a period earlier than the

It A S Amélinea V h Dynasty . M . u has described at

of A 1 great length the results his labours at bydos , it is only necessary here to say that he discovered a number of graves of the same kind as those which a in Professor Petrie had excavated at Nak da, and one wherein the body had escaped destruction he saw that it lay on its side in the position which has already been described he also fo und large numbers of stone j ars and earthenware vessels . The pottery he described as u coarse , and the decorations upon the vario s vases he

v considered to be quite primitive , and to ha e been “ ” designed by men who were Still trying their brush 3 and educating themselves in artistic matters .

’ 1 L s Nouvel l es Foui l l es d Ab d os An er 1 e s 8 6 . y , g , 9 2 ’ Il n était oin t m om ifi é tait c ouché nu sur l e cOté l es eno u p , é , g x ram en s a l a hauteur d e l a oi trin e l e s d eu b ra s ar d evant l e é p , x p ’ ” d l tur d l nfant d an l e i n d v i s a e ans a os e e e s se e sa m ere . I bi d g , p , 1 4 p . . 3 “ Je d oi s d ire c ep en d an t q u e su r l es vases d e terre grossi ere q ue j e trouvai d an S q uel q ues s épultures j e rec onnus d e s d es sm s t out a fait rimitifs d essi n s ar d es h omm e s ui e n tai ent en p , é p q é c orse a e ss ay er l e ur c al am e e t q ui fai sai ent l eur ed u c ati on arti s ” i u I i d b . 14 t e . . q , p . 1 2 E XCAVATI O N S AT TUKH

n 1 896- 9 Amélineau i In the wi ter of 7 M . cont nued n A his excavatio s in the neighbourhood of bydos , and he was rewarded by the discovery of a large and very im m m hi portant to b , in the cha bers of w ch he found

i e m m m l a variety of objects , . . , frag ents of etal, eta

fl ints m . tools, , pottery, alabaster and arble j ars , etc ; he believed this tomb to date from a period anterior to that of the tombs which he had found during the 1 previous winter . In m M 1 897 the onth of arch , another worker entered é é the field, and M . J . de Morgan , Directeur G n ral des ’ A é l E te m m ntiquit s de gyp , decided to exa ine for hi self some of the cemeteries where graves of the kind which

has already been described were to be found . The him a spot selected by for excavating was Nak da, a locality already well known as a source of supply Ofthe

u r m m c rious potte y, which had by this ti e beco e tolerably m com on ; according to M . de Morgan , a portion of the district had already been explored by Professor Petrie

two years previously, but the explored portion only

m Tfikh et included the ce eteries of and Ball s , and the 2 Tfi kh region to the south of was virgin soil . Two

1 “ Jc cr oi s q u e l e m onument d e c e tt e ann é e app arti e nt a un e époq u e q uelq u e p e u antéri eure a c ell e d es t omb es d écouvert e s d n l a c am a n 1 — m élin eau Les Nouvell es en a t e 8 5 6 . S ee A p p g 9 9 , ’ Foui l l es d Ab d os Deuxiem e C am a n e 1 896 Pari s 1 89 y ( p g , , 7 , 4 p . 3 . 2 Deu an s au arav ant M . l e Profe sseur Flind ers Petri e avai t x p , , av e c m on autori sati on e l or un e arti e d e c c d i stri c t m ai s e , xp é p ; j s av ai s q u e s es inv e stigati ons avai ent p ort é s ur l e s né c rop ol es d e ’ T ouk h et d e Ball as et u e b i en u a an t i ntitul Na a d ah et q , q y é q T O M BS D E STROYE D BY FI RE 3

m one ce eteries were attacked , the to the south , which

belonged to the indigenous inhabitants of Egypt , and

Of the one lying at a distance a few miles to the north ,

which contained the tombs of the early Egyptians . m I portant results attended these excavations , for in a little hill situated to the north of the northern necropolis the remains of a monument built of crude bricks were f it found, and M . de Morgan was ully convinced that dated from one of the most ancient periods of Egyptian i civilization . The walls and other parts of the build ng

exhibited traces of fire , and M . de Morgan believed that an attempt had been made to destroy the building by

m m Amélineau fire so e ti e after it had been finished . M . had found at Abydos a number of tombs to d estroy m m which by fire an atte pt see ed to have been made, and this apparently shocking work he attribute d to the

m be InnIn i Coptic spoilers of to bs, who , at the g g of the r u career as Christians, set out wilf lly to destroy the monuments of the ancient Egyptians whom they called h H eathen . is views on this subj ect were at first shared c m by M . de Morgan, but subsequently he reje ted the , for he found abundant proof that whatever damage had been done to the tombs by fire had been done in very m to ancient ti es, and indeed it was soon clear his satis faction that such tombs were deliberately set Ou fire by the friends and relatives of the deceased when they laid

’ ’ Bal las l un d e s es d erni ers ou vra e s l arc hé ol o ue n l i g , g a g a s avait ” l ai ss é v i er e s l e s t err ain s situ s au sud d e Touk h J . . d e Mor an g é g , ’ E thn ra hi c P e hi s o i n P ri s 1 1 4 o r t r e a 89 . 8 . g p q , , 7 , p I 4 D I S COVE RY OF B ROKE N VASE S him in the tomb which had been specially built for him . Large numbers of vases in stone and other materials had been placed In the various chambers of the m m to b, but nearly all of the were found to be broken , m n m and M . de Morgan, on exa inatio of the frag ents , decided that they were broken and scattered about in the tomb before it was set on fire in remote days at the u n time of the f neral . The breaki g of the vases and

V m Of essels was not the work of to b robbers , for pieces m ff m the sa e vase were found in di erent roo s , and it is well known that among many peoples the custom of

and breaking vessels of pottery, figures of various kinds, at the time of the funeral is observed ; had the break

ages been the work of robbers, the various pieces d belonging to one jar woul have been found together, for they would never have taken the trouble to scatter m the . Of the identification of the builder of the great tomb

which M . de Morgan discovered we need not speak m here , and as he hi self has described it and given a 1 list of the objects which he found therein, we may pass on to note other facts in connection with the t n excava io of predynastic sites .

I m 1897 Amélinea . u n Nove ber, , M continued the 1895 work of excavation which he had begun in , and

1 ’ S e e Recher ches snr l es Ori i ne d e l E te Ethno a g s gyp , gr p hi c Pré ' hi stori ue et Tomb ean Ro al d N a h e e d a ar J . d e Mor an av q y g , p g , ec l a

c oll ab or ati on d e MM . l e Profes seur Wi ed mann J e G . é ui er et l s , q , P ri 1 Dr F u u et a s 89 . . o q , , 7 “ ” D I S C OVE RY O F T HE TO M B O F O S I RI S 1 5 his labours were crowned by the disccivery of the tomb m of a king (who he identified with the god Osiris) , to “ ” he m 1 which gave the na e Tomb of Osiris . In his Opinion the tomb dated from the time when Osiris

Un-nefer , the god of the Egyptian underworld and of the dead , actually reigned upon earth, and although it resembled in construction and fabric several of the

m Amélineau to bs which stood near it , M . saw no ” antecedent improbability in its being the veritable m sepulchre of the god . The building was in the for

S d of a house built on three i es , north , east , and south ,

n - with an i ner court , and at the north west end was a

Amélineau staircase, which M . believed to be the staircase referred to in the texts which Speak of the “ ” i e god who is at the top of the staircase, . . , Osiris . m m The to b contained fourteen cha bers of various sizes , all h of w ich were without doors, and this fact the discoverer accounted for by declaring that at the time when the tomb was built men had no knowledge either of W m m indows or doors . The greater nu ber of the cha bers m m were e pty , but so e of those that were built along the sides of the tomb contained large wine j ars , and although most of the jars had been broken , a few still possessed

r i m had thei con cal outh covers, which , however, been burnt as hard as tiles by the fire which had been kindled in the tomb at the time of burial . These jar stoppers were all stamped with one of the names of the personage

’ 1 d i ti on of the tomb will b e fo un d i n M Am eli A minute escr p . ’ ’ i is Pari s 1 8 h ff. u L T mbean d Os r 99 c a . V . . 91 n ea s e o , , , p p 1 6 T HE B E D OF O S I R I S for whom the tomb had been built this name appeared “ ” 1 to be the Horus name of some king and was written thus

2nd 1 898 Amélineau On the of January , , M . m m ‘ found in the cha ber arked D on his plan,

a skull which lacked the lower j aw, and which he believed to be the head of the god

Osiris a little later in the day the so- called ” men bed of Osiris was dug out by his . The “ bed of Osiris is a grey granite monolithic monument hewn in the shape of the

1 1 e lion b er, . . , a funeral couch supported by legs m m ’ ade in the for of the legs of a lion , with a lion s ’ h head at one end and a lion s tail at the other , whic is m in E so fa iliar gyptian funeral scenes . On this “ ” of bed is a figure the god Osiris, who wears the white crown upon his head , and holds the usual ;

m and m i e sy bols of sovereignty do inion , . . , a sceptre and At a whip , in his hands . the head of the god and at

m i fi his feet are the re a ns of gures of two hawks, which, according to the legend inscribed under each , represent

1 m iz n h The k in s of E t os se ss e d s e veral n a e s v . o e as t e r e g gyp p , , ” r en tative of Hor u s whi ch i c om m onl k n ow n a s th e ka nam p es , s y e “ ” or b ann er n am e on e as the r e re se ntativ e of the od S et on e as , p g , the l ord of the shrin e s o f the v ul ture an d uraeu s one as th e fi , ( 7 g of ol n a k i n of h e So uth n r h Horus g d o e s g t a d N o t , C an d one as son of the S un The l ast two n am e s

l i t n ithi n c artouch e s Th e r st k in to us e a are u sual y wr t e w . fi g c artouche w as Be sh .

I 8 AG E OF T HE TO MB O F O S I RI S

l out , and except for the genera style and character of the monument there is no evidence available for helping

Amélineau us to assign an exact date to it . M . first thought that the prenomen which had been chiselled out was that of Seti I the second king of the XIXth D m ynasty , but later an exa ination of the broken surface seems to have convinced him that the hiero glyphics which form the pre nomen of that king would require more space than the “ enclosing line of the m m m d cartouche contains, and that the onu ent was a e m m for the king for who the to b was built , with which m it was conte poraneous .

1 98 Amélineau fi A 8 . In pril, , M announced of cially to the A cad em ic d es Inscr ip ti ons et B elles - Lettres the “ m ” discovery of the To b of Osiris . There is no need to follo w in detail here the acrimonious disputewhich

w Amélineau n arose bet een MM . Maspero and concerni g

m f s this announce ent , and it is su ficient for our purpo e to note that the former took the View that the tomb was not that of Osiris , but only a funeral chapel which had been dedicated to the god , and that Osiris was not a u real king , and that Set and Hor s had never been A m men. ccording to M . Maspero the to b belonged to m m the sa e period as the to bs round about it , which contained the name of uo . king e arlier than the period D of the Ist ynasty , and he regarded it as the product Ofthe beginning of the Ist Dynasty or of the end of the 111rd Dynasty ; for certain reasons which he duly set forth he thought there was greater possibility ofits B E D AND TO MB O F O S I RI S C O NTE MPO RAN E O U S I Q belonging to the IIIrd or TInd Dynasty than to the a him Ist Dyn sty , and it appeared to to be a royal sepulchre which was at a later period transformed into “ ” a divine tomb That the bed of Osiris was con temporaneous with the tomb he and all other Egyptologists who had examined the monument held to m i for be i poss ble , the characteristics of its style proclaim that the period in which it was made was not more remote than that ofthe XVIIIth Dynasty ; the present writer is of opinion that it belongs to a still

d now later perio . The evidence on the subject available seems to show that the “ bed of Osiris is a COPY of an ancient monument and that this d m copy was eposited in the to b , excavated by M .

Amélineau at , some period between the beginning of the XXth Dynasty and the end of the XXVIth

b e Dynasty , by Egyptians who appear to have lieved that they Were restoring the funeral bed of

od S the g in a funeral hrine or chapel , which at that time was regarded as the genuine tomb of the god V m Osiris . This iew appears to have originated fro the

m of fact that the Egyptians , who had ade the original “ C ” d m the opy of the bed of Osiris , fin ing in the to b the m m re ains of the king for whom it was ade, and various

“ ” n m KE ENT m objects i scribed with his na e , (flh, ju ped

Amélineau to the conclusion , like M . , that they had a “ ” d m Khell t-Am iscovered the to b of enti lllll “ i e od o th . . a f e , the g Osiris in his capacity of the he d 2 0 T HE TO M B OF O I R A P O F R D S I S , I U S AU

Am m Underworld ( enti) . The istake once made was perpetuated by succeeding generations of Egyptians , and there is little do ubt that the tomb which modern m KHENT Egyptologists have proved to be the to b of , i e . . , one of the oldest known kings in Egypt, was believed by large n umbers of well -informed Egyptians to be none other than that of Osiris, and that as such pilgrimages were made thereto from all parts Of the m country . The archaic characteristics of the monu ent ’ d Amélineau i . e iscovered by M . , . , the forms of the lions m heads, etc . , are ore readily explained by the hypothesis that it is a COPY Of an old original which was made during the rule of the kings of the Early Empire than m by any other ; it, oreover, gives a hint that the m istake was a very ancient one , and that it probably dates from a period anterior to the VIth Dynasty “ With the discovery of the bed of Osiris M . ’ Amélineau s m excavations practically ca e to an end , n for although the clearing of sand , etc . , we t on for 1898 m some time after January, , no results of i portance w u m ere obtained , and whether for want of f nds or so e o ther reason , the excavations were suspended at A d by os , and then the site was finally abandoned by

Améline u M . a and his supporters . Every one who

how Amélineau d knows hard M . worke , and with what t devotion he carried on his inves igations , will regret

hi s that exertions were not crowned with greater success . m t The fact, however, re ains tha he was the first to d o A isc ver early dynastic tombs at bydos , and for this , EXCAVAT I O N S AT ABYD O S C O NTI N U E D 2 1

d if for nothing else, Egyptologists owe him a ebt of

gratitude . In the winter of 1899 - 1900 Professor Petrie applied to the Egyptian Government for permission to make A h excavations at bydos , and at length, w en the ” M Améli neau o ission had aband ned the site , he was m allowed to begin work there . His search a ong the m royal to bs , which were said to have been already

M Amélineau ransacked and partly cleared by . , was rewarded by the finding of numbers of fragments of b u inscri ed earthenware and stone vases , plaq es , stelae ,

etc . , and it is hard to arrive at any other conclusion than that the excavations of his predecessor were l carelessly, though di igently, conducted , and that he had not in his employ sufficient overseers to make the

m c A s m diggers do their work syste ati ally . ention must . be made later on of the results Obtained by Professor Petrie at Abydos both in 1899- 1 900 and

1900- 1901 , it is unnecessary to go into details here, and it will be sufficient to note in passing that the ’ w general accuracy of M . de Morgan s Vie s and state ments as laid down in his works on Les Origines d e ’ l E te u m gyp was f lly confir ed . Am ong other investigators of the predynastic and early dynastic tombs of Egypt must be mentioned V - ilkin m . v V Messrs Randall Maci er and , who ade ex ‘ cavations Al - Am at 1900 at rah the end of the year , in two cemeteries which lie between two wide valleys “ that run down from the upper desert a short distance 2 2 D I S COVE RY AT B ET KHA L L AF

‘ Al - Am m t m north of rah . One ce e ery see s to have contained about Si x or seven hundred graves which “ ‘ ranged from the very earliest New Race times through the entire middle period down to the begin ning of the ‘Late Prehistoric ’” this cemetery was in the south - west corner of the tract of land between m “ the valleys . The other ce etery contained burials of m ” al ost , if not quite , the earliest type, which continue ” IInd 1 down to the Ist or Dynasty .

1 901 enOU h In Mr . J . Garstang was fortunate g to i n IIIrd . e . find the tombs of two ki gs of the Dynasty, ,

Tcheser H - nekht Bet a a ils w e , and en at Khall f, near

Gir ah g . The reader has now before him a tolerably complete statement Of the work which has been d one in connection with the excavation of predynastic and early dynastic graves in Egypt by Europeans between 1894 1 901 w the years and . Of the work hich has been carried out by natives for the administration of the i m t G zeh Museu nothing definite can be said , excep It that it was considerable . is greatly to be regretted m n m that so uch of the native work has bee unsyste atic , but there is no doubt that the Egyptian has rescued

O m m many very fine bjects, ade by his re ote ancestors ,

m no fro oblivion or destruction , and there is equally doubt that the amount and extent of the destruction of ancient remains which he is alleged to have per

etrat d p e in recent years have been greatly exaggerated .

1 2 M an A ril 1 1 5 5 . S ee 90 . 0 , p , , pp , T HE NE W RAC E 2 3

w Notwithstandi ng all that has been said about ” the d scientific excavations, native igger deserves m so e credit, for with very few exceptions the excava tions Which have been successful owe their success largely to the information about ancient sites which he has supplied . Sufficient has been said above to indicate to the reader the class of Objects which the remarkable d graves already briefly described have yielde , and it now remains to Show how the evidence which they ff n t a ord has been i terpreted, and what deduc ions we n it are justified in drawi g from . first investigator to publish a connected series ‘ The of conclusions based upon an examination of the antiquities at first hand was Professor Petrie , who , in

Na ad a nd B llas 5 9 ff the a a . . his g , p , stated that classes

i e fl ints of things , . . , , pottery, etc . , which had been drifting into the hands of collectors and into great national collections for several years before he began to dig at “ N a S ak da , belonged to a large population pread over “ ” the whole of Upper Egypt ; and that a complete break existed “ between the Egyptian civilization and “ B d New R that of the New Race . y the wor s ace he designated the people or “ certain invaders of m fl Egypt by who the ints, pottery , stone jars , vases , n m etc . , had bee ade , and he decided that the New Race possessed an en tirely different culture to that of

the Egyptians , and had no apparent connection with m ” the . Because burials were found which intruded “ ” 2 4 T HE NE W RAC E

m m into the Egyptian to bs of the Early E pire , and because a burial of the XIIth Dynasty was superposed “ ” New on burials of the Race , and because brick tombs were built during the period of the XIIth “ Dynasty through the r uins of a town of the New ” “ Race, he concluded that the New Race lived in

a ter IVth be ore Egypt f the period of the Dynasty , and f XIIth that of the Dynasty . Because the earthenware n tables , bowls, etc . which are fou d in the later style of the “ New Race tombs appear to be copied from the — well - known forms of the Early Empire the adoption of forms being due to imitation and not to learning

m n C m fro a cient Egyptians , all the opies being ade by

not - hand, and on the wheel like the originals the ” New Race entered Egypt between the Early and m Middle E pires . The period in Egyptian history available for such an intrusion is after the Vth

th i e KI . . Dynasty and before the rise of the Dynasty , , “ B 3322 C 3000 C . R . between . and , and from the total absence of any known Egyptian Objects belonging to m this age in Upper Egypt, it seems not i probable that the dominion of the invaders covered these three

ma m re centuries , and we y approxi ately date their ” m w 3300 3000 C ains bet een and R . Because Egyptian l objects are absent , even in the ater period of the “ ’ history of the New Race , and the use of the potter s wheel is disregarded , the relations of these invaders with the Egyptians appear to have been completely m hostile , and there was no trade between the , and we

“ ” 2 6 T HE NE W RAC E

the burning at their funerals , though body was never

O Cut burnt . But the bodies were ften up , more or t less , and in some cases cer ainly treated as if they were e ” “ ” partly eat n . The New Race was connected by Professor Petrie with the Libyans because its pottery m m d rese bles in shape , and for , and ecoration , and m l m aterial that of the Kaby es , who are the odern representatives of the Libyans, and because the hunting habits of the “ New Race resemble those of “ the Kabyles , and the tattoo patterns of the New Race r esemble those of the Libyans in the tomb I 1 3 0 . u R C . 7 . of Seti , abo t He thought that the “ Egyptians were largely formed from Libyan immi grants to begin with ; the basis of the race apparently

- m being a mulatto of Libyan negro mixture , judging fro ” S m the earliest keletons at Medu . Finally he concluded that in the New Race we see a branch of the same Libyan race that founded the Amorite power ; that we have in their remains the example of the civilization of the sou thern Mediterranean at the beginning of the m 3200 C And R . use of etal , about that probably in the galleys pai nted on the pottery we see the earliest

mm of pictures of that co erce the Punic race , which was so important for some three thousand years later

on that sea . In short , we have revealed a section of n n the Mediterranea civilizatio , preserved and dated ” us for by the soil of Egypt . Certain of the conclusions which were arrived at by Professor Petrie were generally accepted by both RE S EARC H E S BY M . DE M O RGAN 2 7

but anthropologists and Egyptologists , these were of the class which were self-evident ; of the remainder many were diametrically opposed to those arrived by

m com other investigators at first hand , and any were ll bated with vigour on a sides . On the one hand

Amélineau m M . clai ed that the objects which he had f A m ound at bydos, and which rese bled those found by

Tfikl] m Professor Petrie at , dated from the ti e of ” “ t the divine kings of Egyp , and on the other, Professor Petrie declared that they were not older than 33 0 C 3000 the period which lies between 0 and R . ; ” m and the bed of Osiris, to which the for er excavator u attributed such a great antiquity, was tho ght by

M . Maspero to be a work not older at most than the XVIIIth D ynasty . At this period of doubt and uncertainty great light was thrown upon the predynastic ethnography of Egypt and the origin of Egyptian civilization by M n de organ , whose traini g as a scientific geologist and mining engineer qualified him to decide many questions on these subjects which were quite m outside the co petence of Egyptologists , and whose extensive excavations at Nakada enabled him to speak on the subj ects under discussion with peculiar 1 authority . In the year 1898 he published the second volume of his work Recherches snr les Origines d e

1 The e ar i v en on th e titl e - a e i s 1 897 b ut th e w or d i d n ot y g p g , k , a s far as I h ave b een ab l e t o fi n d out a ear in E n l an , pp g d until

1 898 . 2 8 C O N C L U S I O N S BY M . D E M O RGAN

’ l E te n d yyp , wherei he escribed the results of his d labours in the field of pre ynastic research , and set forth the conclusions at which he had arrived ; these conclusions were very different from those of Professor

now Petrie , and the evidence available shows that the eminent geologist was usually correct in his assertions . Professor Petrie’s observations led him to think that the numerous population which produced the remark able series of Objects already referred to occupied the

h of M M w ole Upper Egypt only , but . de organ showed that their remains may be found on a continuous chain of Sites which extends from Cairo in the north to WAdi

H t ma alfa in the south, wi h which also y be reckoned ’ the C ases and the Fayyfi m ; thus Professor Petrie s “ New Race occupied the whole of the Nile Valley for nearly one thousand miles instead of a comparatively small portion of it in Upper Egypt . From the list of characteristics of the Egyptians and ofthe New Race which Professor Petrie drew up for purposes of com parison , it was clear that the latter were at a lower m stage in the scale of civilization than the for er, and h m m t at the anners , and custo s, and industries, and n l ff abilities of the two peoples were e tire y di erent, and d that their physical characteristics were entirely istinct .

O d New Moreover, the bjects foun in the graves of the Race ” showed not the slightest trace of Egyptian u n infl ence , and the graves contai ed no objects which had been made by Egyptians ; but there existed con Sid erabl e evidence to Show that the historical Egyptians AS T O T HE AG E OF T HE NE W RAC E had borrowed largely from the industries of the “ New ’ Itacef The net result of all this proved that the Egyptians “ did e side e b and the New Race not liv y side, and that they did not occupy the co untry at the same time

mm i m for had there been co un cation between the , the more civilized race would have transmitted to the less m m m civilized a great nu ber of its anners and custo s, u and the results of its ind strial arts , and the use of Egyptian Objects wo uld have been adopted by the race with inferior civilization . This being so, one of the two peoples must have preceded the other in the

country of Egypt, and the first occupant could be none ’ “ ” other than Professor Petrie s New Race , because , in

spite of its less advanced degree of civilization , it had m m borrowed nothing fro the ore advanced Egyptians . “ ” a bori ines or The New Race were , then , the g ,

erha s more correctl the i nhabitants o E t p p , y, f gyp , whom the Egy ti ans found there when the entered or f p y

invad ed the countr y, and they could be nothing else . “ Having thus proved the great antiquity of the New ” S w Race , M . de Morgan went on to ho that the period assigned by Professor Petrie for their existence in

m b Of Egypt was an i possi le one, for at the end the m Early E pire Egypt was highly civilized, and its armies had advanced far into Western Asia and the SfidEn n Eastern , and its kings were ruli g over large

how m - tracts of country ; , then, could a se i barbarous l m “ ” people ike those which for ed the New Race, ” 30 T HE NE W RAC E AND T HE L I BYA N S

m d who were ar ed with flint weapons only , inva e Egypt , and expel or massacre the whole of the population of the country without leaving any trace o fit behind ? The correct chronological position having been “ ” assigned by M . de Morgan to the New Race , it remained to consider whence they came and where their m d original ho e was situate . Professor Petrie had come

u i Na ad a 64 to the definite concl s on ( g , p . ) that the New Race were Libyans and also kinsmen of the Amorites m m of Syria, and that their re ains were exa ples of the southern Mediterranean civilization of about 3200 but it is only possible to speak of the New RaCe as being Libyans in the sense that they were the north east African substratum Of the later race of historic n n m Egyptia s . Of the Libyans of predy astic ti es we

n n . S know othi g , and, as M de Morgan has hown that the ” b New Race were the a origines of Egypt , or at least the people whom the Egyptians found in Egypt when they u entered the country , it is f tile to declare a relationship “ ” 5 000 between the New Race of, say , , and the

Am m - S m i orites , for who the character of pre e itic abor

m insuffi gines of Palestine is clai ed , so far as we know, on cient evidence A similarity between early Palestinian and “ New Race pottery does not necessarily imply any Am racial connection between Libyans and orites, and, since Professor Petrie’s date for the “ New Race ” was “ b y 2000 ears b wrong at least y , yhis words , civilization of

the southern Mediterranean, we can only understand

E ti an an early civilization which was gyp , for there is as TH E I R RE L ATI ONS H I P D E N I E D 3 1 yet no proof that the primitive culture of Palestine and of

A m i s B C the egean dates fro a period which as remote as . . 5 0 00 . On the other hand , M . de Morgan declares that he is greatly troubled to find for the peoples who dwelt in the valley of the Nile b efore the Egyptians a name which will exactly express his thoughts on the subject m he cannot describe the as aborigines , or autochthones ,

h and for t ey were not born in the country, they m probably ca e from other countries , and either drove out or subjugated the men who lived in the country m before the , and whom they found on their arrival m there . Further, he is unable to e ploy the term ” m Libyans, for that would i ply a special origin, and besides we have, he thinks , no reason for placing the hearth of this human race in one country any more than in another . Though not strictly exact, he decided to use the expression indigenes for describing the “ ” a u New R ce , and this he ses throughout his book in its rel ati ve h and not absolute sense, for we know not ing whatever about the origin of this people or of those m 1 who preceded the in the Valley of the Nile . The question of the racial connection between the Egyptians and the Libyans has been discussed from a

V - craniological point of iew by Mr . Randall Maciver, who has arrived at the following conclusion The result of this whole investigation has been to show that Libya “ i and early Egypt were not un ted by any ties of race , but that they were in sufficiently close contact with

1 M n J . d e or a i t 1 C . 5 . g , , p 32 CRAN I OL O GI CAL EVI D E N C E

one another or with some common centre to have developed a culture which was in some important

is respects identical . While , however, too little known of the early civilization of the Berbers to permit of stating whether it exhibited any character

i stics r alien to Egypt, it is certain that the prehisto ic Egyptians were acquainted with developments of art ‘ A of which no trace is to be found in Libya . natural prej udice inclines the archaeologist to suppose l that it was the Egyptian who possessed the superior skil , and who supplied their products to their less civilized neighbours witho ut deriving much from the latter in f return ; but , after all , there is not su ficient evidence ” n to justify any confident assertion upon the poi t .

Lib an Notes 1 11 I ( y , pp . , n his more recent

E r li es t Inhabi tants b d os Mr a o A . work , f y , Randall s Maciver reassert these views . V Professor V iedemann thinks that the civilization which is illustrated by the Obj ects from Nakada was in some

the way related to that of western neighbours of Egypt , and that this is more evident if we consider the incontro ” vertible connection between the civilizatio n of Nakada and that which one calls the “ island civilization ” of

Greece , which preceded the Mycenaean period in the n M cou try of the northern editerranean . But with the evidence at present before us it is difficult to accept as definite or final any statement which asserts an absolute connection between the predynastic cultures m l of Egypt and Greece , for the very si p e fact that we

34 T HE C RANI OLOG I CAL EVI D E NCE

- h ' 91 f. e Med iterr anean Race . for in his , p , says “ I cannot here reproduce all the reasons brought

forward by de Morgan against the opinion of Petrie ,

me m but they seem to for the ost part just , and I accept his conclusions that we are here concerned n e with a primitive populatio , not one that arriv d at a late epoch of the old Egyptian empire ; as also I accept his opinion that we find here a civilisation anterior to that of the Pharaohs in its definite and

well known forms . But I cannot follow de Morgan

m S w ai d when he atte pts to ho , even with the of anthropolog that the prehistoric population was ff m n di erent fro the Egyptian , which he would bri g m A m i his fro sia . Many argu ents aga nst opinions may be found in his o wn discoveries at Naqada and

" n a d. elsewhere , in the physical characters of the

l a u s . sku ls described by Fouq et, well as by Petrie First of all we may note the method of burial adopted w in the necropolis of Naqada and elsewhere , so ell m n investigated by Wiede ann , who , though desiri g to A l show the siatic origin of the Egyptians, rea ly furnishes arguments favourable to the opposite

A r opinion of an f ican origin . Excavation in a necropolis of the Naqada type Shows that the men of that period had three methods of burial Either the m m grave received the disse inated and inco plete bones , or the skeleton was placed in a position recalling that u m m of the foetus , or the body was b rnt in a onu ental m ’ to b , as seems to have been the case with a royal ACC ORD I NG T o P ROFE SS OR S E RG I 35

m n to b explored by de Morga , though this has been

v Bi ssin doubted and e en denied by others . (See de g, ’ ’ es ri i nes d e l E te L A nthro o lo i e L O . . g gyp , in p g , vol ix

m v p . Wiede ann , howe er , accepts this con clusion , and also agrees that these three usages are i m unl ke the classical custo s of the Egyptians , but he believes it may be shown that they are intimatelv united with the Egyptian religion and with the

“ H as m B ook worship of Osiris and orus, learnt fro the o the Dead m f and the ritual for ulae of the Egyptians . f m m m e Re erring to dis e berment , Wiede ann stat s that ‘ the vestiges of this very ancient custom have never m co pletely disappeared, and are preserved not only in

the texts but also in actual practices . Up to a very late period the lower part of the foot of the mummy

d e h was dislocate , and in oth r cases the p allus of the corpse was cut off in order to be embalmed separately

7 m mm hi s and buried near the u y . This explains, in

O m m n pinion , the dis e berme t and disorder of the

and bodies in the graves discovered by Petrie , hence a custom which was symbolically preserved down to

As the latest epoch of Egyptian history . regards the absence of portions of the body, explained by

d ue Petrie as to a special kind of anthropophagy, with the object of inheriting the virtues of the dead , i d m W e e ann gives no satisfactory explanation , but cannot accept anthropophagy . This transforma tion of burial customs has convinced me that there has been a real evol ution up to the definite form of 36 T HE CRANI OLOG I CAL EVI D E NCE

m m m e bal ing which then re ained constant . Of this in m Fouquet, his craniological exa ination, found A m evident traces in the skulls of Beit lla , of Guebel

Silsileh , and other places . There exists , he states, in u the skulls of the r de stone epoch in Egypt , deposits m m of bitu en ixed with cerebral substance , and this bitumen could not have bee n introduced by the nasal m passages, the brain not having been re oved , but only m by the occipital fora en , after the head had been cut off; and Petrie repeatedly states that the head f was generally cut of in the graves he explored . De Morgan is compelled to admit that the burial customs

of the early Egyptians were not yet fixed . If this n ffi m d was so, it can ot be a r e that the historical Egyptians were not the descendants of those who left A N their graves at bydos , aqada , and Ballas , that is i B to say , the graves of neolithic c vilisation . esides , m t m the royal to b at Naqada, regarded as the o b

of Menes , the founder of the Ist Dynasty, clearly shows a transiti on between neolithic civilisation and a new civilisation s lowly acquiring its definite ” characters . Professor Sergi devotes several pages to a discussion of the evidence derived from craniology concerning the “ ” 1 12 New Race, which he concludes thus (p . ) Not only in this comparison of prehistor i c skulls with those of the dynasties do we find that both Show the same m m for s and therefore belong to the sa e stock , but also by

an e am m m e - cl - B x ination of the royal u mies of D ir ahari , ACCO R D I NG T O PROFE SSOR S E RG I 37

which, as I have found , yield ellipsoidal and pentagonal f m w or s as ell as one beloid . On these grounds the conviction has grown in my mind that there is no difference of race between the historical Egyptians

men h so - and the who preceded t em , the called Proto ’ ‘ ’ Egyptians of Evans , and Morgan s old race . Both

s alike belong to the Mediterranean tock, and are of

’7 A m m n frican origin . The above re arks , co i g as they m m do fro an expert craniologist, are extre ely interesting , but they leave an u neasy suspicion in the mind that the craniological measurements of predynastic Skulls cannot be regarded as possessing any very definite or absolute authority in the settlement of the question ' under considerati on h m , and t at the archaeologist ust expect b ut lit tle help from d ata which are capable of e being interpr ted in several ways . The view enunciated by Professor Wiedemann m m rese bles closely that of M . Maspero , who any years ago held the Opinion that the root - stock Of the Egyp A m tians was frican , and in his latest pronounce ent on the subject he says that the bulk of the Egypti an population presents the characteristics of the white races which one finds settled from all antiquity in the parts of the Libya n continent which are on the shores

it A r l of the Mediterranean , that originated in f ica itse f, and that it made its way into Egypt from the west or

m S - u w fro the outh west . He further s ggests that hen this people arrived in Egypt they may have found l h there a b ack race , whic they either destroyed or 38 T HE A—SIAT IC ORI G IN OF T HE

h u in drove out , and t at they were s bsequently added to number by Asiatics who were introduced either through the Isthmus of Suez or through the marshes 1 w of the Delta . The vie s of Professors Maspero and Wiedemann seem to be the deductions which we cannot

m n r m help aki g f o the facts before us , and as they are propounded by men who are both archaeologists and Egyptologists they merit serious consideration by all m m . who are interested in the atter We ust, however, note in passing that there is no reason for assuming the existence of a black or negro population , who “ pr eceded the New Race in the occupation of the n m A cou try , and that the i portance of the siatic element in the historical Egyptia n has been under stated . nOw f n We are face to face with the di ficult questio , i ‘ ’ Where did the conquerors of the Ne w Race come ” m i e m ? . . fro , Where was the original ho e of the “ ” u people who s pplanted the New Race , and who founded the civilization of the historical Egyptians ? All the evidenc e now available points to the fact that m A m these conquerors ca e from sia, and as argu ents which can be advanced in support of this statement the following may be ; mentioned (1) An examination of the words found in the early Egyptian inscriptions proves that many of them are akin to the dialects of North and North - East Africa ; but it is also evident that i n the matter of personal

1 Histoi An c nn P ri 1 4 5 4 re i e e a s 8 5 . . , , 9 , pp , 6 “ ” C O N QU E RO R S O F T HE NE W R AC E 39

‘ m m n pronouns, prono inal suffixes , idio s , etc . , the la guage exhibits such remarkable similarities to the Semitic d c ialects , that they cannot be the result of a cident . The only rational way to account for these phenomena is to assume that the language of the Semitic nations and that of the inhabitants of Egypt were descended

m mm r w fro the same co on stock , f om hich they had been m But severed at a very re ote period . it is not correct to assert that the Egyptian language is a Semitic

n the d dialect ; on the co trary , it is one of in igenous languages of North Africa which became greatly modified through Proto - Semitic infl uences ; such m m m A influences ust have e anated fro sia, and they did so at a time when the Semitic languages had not assumed the form in w hich they are known in the d r u m ol est lite at res , and when they were, ore or less , in a state of flux . 2 w ( ) The predynastic graves , of hatever kind , n contai no inscriptions , and it is clear that those who m m t ade the were unacquainted with the art of wri ing . t 4 0 B C . 0 0 M . de Morgan declares that abou . the only peoples in the world who could write were the Semitic

S and Turanian Chaldeans , who lived ide by side in m i Mesopota ia, and the Egyptians , who l ved in a country m which was at so e distance from the Euphrates , and that the systems of writing employed by all three peoples had mm n m m a co on origi , and that it is ore rational to assu e th at the art of writing was transmitted from the

eo l es ' than Mesopotamian to the Egyptian p p , to think 4 0 EVI D E NC E D E RI VE D FROM T HE ART OF W RI TI N G

d t that it was discovered by each group indepen en ly, especially as the distance between them was com

arativel m and mm m p y s all, co unication between the M l was relatively easy . any scholars have he d this w u i l b ut vie s bstant a ly for several years past , all do not agree as to the details of the manner in which the

m ff I a m trans ission was e ected . f we ssu e that the “ ” conquerors Ofthe New Race came from a country in

art n d which the of writi g was practise , it is natural that they should bring with them a knowledge of it into Egypt ; but although the fundamentals of the picture systems of writing employed in Mesopotamia

ma m e l and Egypt y at one ti e have been id ntica , it is quite certain that they developed on entirely different m ff lines , and that an i portant factor in the di erent methods of development was the material employed for u in n I m writing p rposes the two cou tries . n Mesopota ia m w the material ost used for riting upon was clay, while i n Egypt papyrus was employed ; this was p robably due to the fact that because of its fine texture and tenacity the clay of Mesopotamia was more suitable for tablets which had to be inscribed and baked, than

ma the mud of Egypt . Be this as it y, the influence of m the aterial upon the writing was soon evident , for whereas the Egyptian scribe found it was very easy to depict the curves and circular forms of natural and “ b artificial objects on papyrus , his Babylonian rother m m found it to be al ost i possible to do so , and he was obliged to make wedges impressed upon the soft clay to

4 2 T HE ART OF B RI C K MAKING tamia and the neighbouring countries from the earliest li t to the latest times . In Egypt the ear es cylinder

a D seals ppear not to be older than the Ist ynasty, and the latest in the British Museum is No . which

- m A hete I 1 600 . is inscribed with the na e of men p . , In connection with cylinder seals must also be men tioned -m the art of brick aking , and as we do not find any brick buildi ngs in Egypt much before the period mm of the Ist Dynasty , whilst they were co on in m m i m Mesopota ia fro the earl est ti es , we are justified in assuming that a knowledge of brick -making was m brought into the country fro the East . (5) It has been declared that whilst in general the

Babylonians buried their dead in a semi - embryonic n 1 m m positio , they were so eti es in the habit of burning 2 m ffi t has the partly or wholly, but su cien regard not been paid to the d ate of the tombs in Babylonia which

i s are here referred to . The glazed pottery which found with such burials, and the peculiar character of the f m m earthenware co fins and objects that acco pany the , proclaim that all such burials belong to a period subsequent to that of the rule of the Persians in Mesopotamia ; we should therefore be in error if we attempted to pro ve a connection between the predynastic Egyptians and the Babylonians by comparing a tomb

1 ‘ See Ta l or otes on th Ru ins o u e r u n l x N e M J o r a v . y , f q y (

p . 2 Kol d ewe Di e Altbab lonts hen rabber Z eits chrift fur A s y , y c G ( s riol o i e l ii 4 vo . . . 03 y g , pp BABYLO N I AN ME T HOD O F B URIAL 4 3

C 250 m B . in Babylonia of, say, , with a to b in Egypt 5 000 m of, say , . Besides this , we are assu ing that the conquerors of the “ New Race ” were akin to the u Babylonians , and it was this very people who introd ced into Egypt the custom of burying the dead lying on n h m their back at full le gt , a custo which eventually superseded the indigenous Egyptian practice of buryi ng

- m the the dead in a semi embryonic position . Fro famous Stela of the Vultures ” 1 it is clear that the early Babylonians were buried lying at full length and not in the doubled -up position which is the chief

characteristic of the earliest race of Egyptians . The facts set out in the above fi ve paragraphs make it clear that the invaders of Egypt who conquered the “ New Race and amalgamated with them came from ' East and m the , although it cannot be proved, as is so e t £3 d h t times s ated, that the Egyptians derive t eir earlies f m m n culture ro Babylonia, it is certain that a y of the most important elements of Egyptian culture were brought into Egypt by a people who were not remotely

a connected with the Babyloni ns . Where did this people come from By what route did they enter Egypt ? To answer these questions two theories have

: been propounded according to one , the conquerors of the New Race entered Egypt from the north - east by m way of the peninsula of Sinai and the Delta, aking

1 ‘ ’ E d Sarz e D u t n ld l t Pari . e c eco ver es e Cha ee . 9 a e 3 0 s , , p 7 , p , , 4 188 . 2 Homm l Th i l o 1 e e vi i z ti on th E st . , C a f e a , p . 4 4 T HE FOL L OW E RS OF HORUS

‘ their way thence up the river ; accordi ng to the m other which is certainly the ore probable , starting m in A from so e point Southern rabia, they crossed over

- Bab - al d A the straits of Man ab to the frican shore , which they followed northwards until they arrived at

a i H mmama Kusér 1 the entrance of the W d a t at , they ’ few then entered this valley, and after a days march

th ient e anc . arrived in Egypt near ‘ city of Coptos According to both theories this people was of a Proto

m i i m m m Se itic or g n , and as it is ad itted by any e inent authorities that the cradle of the S emitic Race was in

A m ma h rabia , the ho e of these invaders y quite well ave t been in the southern par of that country, and their civilization may equally well have been derived from the Sumerians of Babylonia . In favour of this latter theory the following arguments may be adduced H 1 . Tradition generally asserts that the god or us of

Behut et and his servants , or followers , who are described ANV\N\ I M N \N \ mesmu meseni z l l as or , or m[ gé i m[ a q i

- w and metal orkers, who are to be identified with

“ the Shemsu Heru k apfi j or follo wers of

H m m i e orus, who acco pany the other for of the god, . . , D a H —sa-A Horus the son of Isis k flQQeru st

Harsiesis m m ( ) , ca e fro the South and not the

r North . By the word South we are not to unde

or l A m stand Nubia Centra frica , as so e have con

) O/ J 1 Th l l f Y a I a . . 1 e o V 2 6. / ”fi k g, p L E G E N DS OF T HE ME SNIU 4 5

U tended, but the South of Egypt, or pper Egypt , when the writer is considering the matter from the standpoint of Lower Egypt . Now in the whole legend of Hor us and his mesniu we no doubt have a tradition of the invasion of Egypt from the South by “ New d the conquerors of the Race, who succee ed in overthrowing the indigenous peoples chiefly by their m n weapons of etal . The hieroglyphic inscriptio s which record this legend under diffe rent forms mention the neighbourhood of Denderah as the place where the principal battle between Horus and his mesni u and the indigenous people took place, a record of the incident / being preserved in the name of the place which the “ a- i e Egyptians called Khat neter 63 . . , the

’ ” 1 u Now god s sla ghter , according to the second

e wa Kusé r th ory the invaders made their y to , and if Wé di mmama they entered Egypt by the Ha t, they would strike the Nile at a point near the modern town

” E ena m of , which is al ost exactly opposite Denderah , h l near w ich , as we have said above , the batt e took H n place . avi g arrived at this point the conquerors occupied the country to the south as well as to the m north, but they see to have met with considerable m opposition near Thebes, and not to have advanced uch

u the m f rther than odern town of Edfu, where their m leader founded a settle ent , which continued to the

1 ’ On thi s l e e n d see Navill e M the d Horus l ates 1 2 — g , y , p 1 9 ; ’ an d Mas ero L es For erons Horus Etud es d e M thol o i e ol I V . I p , g d , y g , . 3 fi 31 . p . 4 6 HATHOR OF T HE D IVI N E L AN D

m me of latest ti es , and for d the principal seat the

B hutet worship of Horus of e . This is the legend of i H . e the fight between orus and Set , . , the struggle of the invading leader and his followers against the so “ ” called New Race . i 2 A e . . nother legend makes the goddess Hathor ( ,

“ Het- H ugk fi eru, House of the w principal seat of hose worship was at Denderah , c . ” “ - i e d m og . co e from Ta neter , . , the ivine I x: l “ in m h m land , or land of the god ; late ti es t is na e t is of en applied in the texts to Egypt, but in the earliest times it always refers to a country to the south

ma m l of Egypt, which y well be identified with So a iland A u and byssinia, or even the country f rther to the north ,

Er threa 1 e m . . . , the odern y 8 m w m . The Egyptians the selves al ays see to have had some idea that they were connected with the people g a a h of the land of Punt E] , country w ich is

“ - probably identical with the Ta neter, or the divine ” Naville land mentioned above , and M . thinks that there may have been among the Egyptians a vague and ancient tradition that they originally came from

r m the land of Punt, and that it had been thei ho e before they invaded and conquered the lower valley of ” 1 A s m u the Nile . the na e P nt is always written in the m texts without 1, the deter inative of a foreign

1 e i II n 1 1 Pt I L nd o 8 8 . 1 D ir l Ba har . o 9 . e , . , , , p PU N T AND IT S I N HABI T AN T S 4 7

d l country, it seemed as if they regar ed the peop e of that place asbeing racially connected with themselves and we are probably justified in regarding the inhabitants of Punt as a section of the invading hosts fro m Arabia which was left behind by the greater portion of the conquerors on their way from the Bab al - Mandab to

K se u r . Whether this be so or not, it is quite obvious from the representations of the people of Punt which occur on the monuments that the racial connection bet ween the two peoples must have been exceedingly

we ma i n l close ; and y note passing that the p aited , turned - up beard which is a characteristic of the Egyptian gods is found to have been worn by the inhabitants of Punt in the time of Queen Hatshepset

1 st and also by the Egyptians of the Dynasty, though m m never at a later date . It is so eti es stated that the n P conquering race , havi g passed through unt to Egypt, m ade its way onwards into Palestine , and that the Philistines (of the Bible) are probably a branch of this m n race ; such a state ent, however, ig ores all the arguments in favour of a Western or European origin for the Philistines . To suggest still further that the name of the people of Punt is in any way connected with that of the Poeni or Phoenicians , who in later m ti es founded the Punic colony of Carthage, is to n — 1 betray an ignorance of the followi gfacts . That n m the Phoenicia s were pure Se ites, who spoke a language which was almost identical with Hebrew ;

2 e . That there is no vidence that they called themselves 4 8 T HE NE W RAC E AND T HE wADi HAMMAMAT by any name which in any way resembled Pun or Punt

hoinix 8 or the Greek P ; . That the Latin adjective

n ni cu s m Poenus p is derived fro the noun , which is

Phoinix the Latin equivalent of the word , between which and the word Punt there is no resemblance or connection whatsoever .

ma the It y now be mentioned that theory, which “ would make the conquerers of the New Race enter a i mmama m Egypt by the W d Ha t, receives a re arkable confirmation in the fact that the earliest tombs and monuments of the dynastic Egyptians are found in the a i H m ama neighbourhood of Coptos, where the W d a m t i A e . a . d opens into the Nile Valley , , at bydos and Nak a, and that Manetho states that the first two dynasties

Thinite b of kings were of origin . We have riefly described the excavations which have been made in the

m of b predynastic ce eteries Egypt y_ Europeans and

m i i others , and have entioned the pr nc pal deductions , which may fairly be made from the facts which have m l co e to ight through the labours of the excavators , concerning the original homes and origin of those who

m ma now were buried in the ; and we y , in a few um m paragraphs , s marize the infor ation derived from an examination of the objects which were found in m the , and so endeavour to give the reader an idea of the physical charaqteristi cs and customs of the men u m who at s ch a re ote period, by their skill and

- m m knowledge , obtained a position of pre e inence a ong their fellows .

5 0 T AT T OO I N G

m v not of a heavy type in their build . They see to ha e tattooed their bodies with figures of animals and with

. n wavy lines , etc , but the direct evide ce for this m 1 ass u ption is not very strong . It is well known that nearly all semi - savage or barbarous peoples adorn their bodies either with painted scenes or with tattooed e v designs , and th re is no good reason for belie ing that the predynastic Egyptians formed any exception to the n m ge eral rule . The dynastic Egyptians do not see to have adopted tattooing on any considerable scale , n m although , accordi g to the exa ples quoted by W m ? Professor iede ann , they resorted to it occasionally , t but M . de Morgan thinks hat the pieces of red and h yellow ochre , w ich are found so frequently in the mb to s of the predynastic Egyptians , formed the colour m ing atter which they used in tattooing , and if this be

the m w so custom ust have been idespread . It is probable that in the daytime most of the predynastic n d Egyptia s wore no clothing of any kin , but the members of the ruling houses or families seem to have n n m wor the undressed ski s of ani als, such as goats or m gazelles , ade into drawers which they fastened round the waist with a rope or cord tied into a knot ; in any case there is no evidence that they wore long , loose , m m h m flowing gar ents . It see s that w en skins of ani als were worn it was the custom to allow the tail of the

1 Eth o ra hi e Pr éhi stori Mor an n ue . Se e J . d e 5 6 . g , g p q , p 2 it . 222 d L i d Mor an o . c . an e s u S e e J . e s Denkm l e g , p , p , p , a r,

i ii . 10 10 . 6 , 9 FI G URE S O F PREDYNAS TI C E GYPT I ANS 5 1

’ animal to hang down behind the man s back this is a characteristic of men’s dress in the early dynastic m m ti es , and survives as an i portant feature of the festal costume of kings and gods down to the latest m m period . The principal gar ent of the wo en seems to h m ave been a skirt, not very loose , which reached al ost b to the ankles, and the upper part of the ody and the m m m ar s re ained without covering . In the acco panying illustration are reproduced a few predynastic ivory m m m n figures of wo en fro the British Museu collectio , which will give the reader an idea of the general m appearance of wo en during the predynastic period . 1 2 8 4 Nos . , , and illustrate the earliest types , and Nos . , 5 6 m , and a later type , which shows the treat ent of the w 5 hair when allowed to gro long ; No . has eyes inlaid

- with lapis lazuli , by which we are probably intended to understand that the woman here represented had blue

. . 7 m eyes No belongs probably to a uch later date , for, judging by the fringed or pleated work round the n of m w m w eck the gar ent which the o an ears , at the period when she lived the people must have been able to weave linen of some fineness ; another proof of the later date of the figure is the manner in which the m hair is gathered up into a ass, and held in position l t d by a fi le which runs roun the back of the head . A ccording to M . de Morgan , the art of weaving was unknown to the earliest predynastic Egyptians, and he bases this view upon the fact that he found no woven ff stu s in any of . the graves except such as contained

Front Vi e w .

3 2 14 -3

B one or i vory fi gure of a mother and chil d ofthe early Dynastic Period i z (Full s e. ) 54 DRE S S AND ORNAME N T S

7 m metal objects in this case No . ust belong either to the period of the Ist Dynasty or that which immediately

preceded it . Predynastic women wore neck

of m laces beads ade of carnelian ,

agate , flint , and other hard stones,

m and and of li estone , shells ; m m bracelets ade of ivory , li estone ,

m - flint, and other of pearl have d also been foun in their graves . The flint bracelets prove that the makers must have possessed a marvellous facility in the working h of flint , which could only ave been acq uired as the result of

fl int- working for generations, and we may well believe that the pro duction of a flint bracelet marked

the highest point of the art . Flint m bracelets are rare in dynastic ti es , and it seems as if Egyptian women t m A then no longer wore he . number o f bone combs with short teeth have been found in pre n t 18 6 6 6 dy astic graves , but hey can

$333, hardly have been used except for m purposes of orna ent, if they were

m men known in the early period, for wo en as well as wore their hair short ; some combs are surmounted by ART I C L E S FOR T HE T OI LE T 55

fi t m el n gures of birds, but hese ust b o g to the period imm d n m which ediately preceded y astic ti es . Side by side with these must be mentioned the large numbers of bone and ivory objects to which the name pendants has been given ; they are often curved and in sh ape n m m generally resemble the claw of an a i al . So e of

end m them are pierced at the broad , and some of the

n out and t m m have otches there , all of he are orna ented

i a or with hor zontal , di gonal, zigzag lines ; it seems as mu h n m if such objects st ave been wor as orna ents , or m u m have served so e p rpose of the toilet . In the sa e l c ass M . de Morgan groups the long , hollow ivory sticks which are made in the form of rude figures of men ; the larger end is usually closed by means of a stopper m m l ade of so e resinous substance , and the hol ow

beneath is found to be filled with coloured substance , u m such as s lphur of anti ony, etc . Thus we have seen that the earliest predynastic men h m and women in Egypt dressed t e selves in skins, and

a m that their descendants , cert inly the fe ale portion of m m the at least, made the selves garments out of woven m fabrics, and that the ornaments worn by the wo en

a m consisted of neckl ces of beads ade of stones , etc . , of m m bracelets ade of flint , etc . , and of co bs , pendants ,

m v and plaques ade of bone and i ory . The ivory sticks referred to above as being filled with some coloured substance we may look upon as prototypes ht m of the or stibiu tubes of the dynastic period , m w and the presence of sulphur of anti ony, to hich 56 PRE DYNAST I C DW E L L I N G S

r n m M . de Morgan refe s , adds co fir ation to the sug gestion . The dwellings of the predynastic Egyptians were m m h 1 s all huts for ed of branc es of trees or reeds , tied w m together with t igs , and probably uch resembled the m huts , with walls for ed of reeds tied together and roofs “ ” m m c l sal atik ade of the dried leaves of pal s al ed , which are in common use amo ng the better classes of the Sfidan at the present day ; in the summer time did m they , no doubt , as the odern Egyptian does when i m U . e . he is pasturing his flocks in pper Egypt , , si ply sheltered themselves behind a mat of reeds through u m which the wind co ld easily ake its way . Of the w n d position of such d elli gs nothing can be sai , for all traces of the habitations of the predynastic Egyptians in the actual valley are buried under some forty feet of Nile mud n m . Buildi gs or houses ade of crude brick usually

n m n m contai the re ai s of etal objects , a fact which is sufficient to prove that the art of brick -making is one of the characteristics of the conquerors of the “ New ” i e m Race , . . , of the invaders fro the East . Whether the indigenous population was dense or only very large m cannot at present be said , but , judging fro the

m the m n M d e re ains of predynastic settle e ts which . Morgan id entified on the edge of the desert on both

’’ 1 hi s i a l el d Di od rus i cul us I oru a w T v ew w s a s o h b y o S ( . n i ’ ’ ' 5 u 1! r ct e t 7 1 7 9 T SK 7 65 xaM q é ew fiom d ou a s lc fo fla a 7 . E d , ) h j x p g p 3 _ (

D d ot . i , p

58 MARS HE S AND SWAMPS OF E ARLY E G YPT

in m Egypt early dynastic ti es , we are certain that the m hippopota us was, and that he was often hunted either in or near Egypt is clear from the fact that the tombs of great men often contain pictures showing the pursuit and attack of the beast by the deceased ; the

r the u wild bull , the wild boa , and all vario s kinds of - m n n ani als of the gazelle and a telope species , the lio , k leopards of various inds , the hyaena, the wolf, the k j ac al , the crocodile , etc . , were

‘

frequently hunted . The princi pal homes of such wild animals must have been the swamps and marshes which existed in many parts of the Nile Valley and in

the Delta, and it was in these that the predynastic and dynastic Egyptians sought their prey ; the formation of such can be well explained by what takes 7 place to this day 111 11123 rivers

As n to the south of Egypt . lo g ' Green sl ate ob ect re} resenting M a tti e fi sh? as the ri vers are 111 flood thei r Pred y msm Period' irregular channels are filled to

w n in A r overflo ing, but as soon as the rai s Central f ica e e d n ceas the riv rs fall rapi ly , and before lo g dry patches

n - d As the and sa d banks appear in their be s . sup ply of d m d water further i inishes , such patches grow wi er and m longer, and eventually the river beco es nothing but m m a series of lakes and arshes or swa ps , separated M ODE L S OF AN I MAL S ! 60 MARS H E S AND S WAM PS O F E ARL Y E G Y PT from each other by long reaches of sand ; want of water compels the animals and reptiles to congregate in

b and m and a out such lakes swa ps , and travellers who have seen such in the remote parts of the Atbara and of the Blue and White Niles describe the scenes as

“ ma something extraordinary . Here y be seen elephants , m n hippopota i , lions, hyaenas , pa thers , crocodiles , turtles ,

. n u etc , all livi g together in a peace which is forced pon

r n l r n i turtl e re nasti ri G ee s ate obj ect rep ese t ng . P dy c Pe od .

m mm m — the by their co on ene y thirst . What is true of the Atbara and other rivers of the kind in our own days was true for the Nile in predynastic and dynastic “ times and for long after the conquerors of the New Race had made their way into Egypt the lords of the land would be able to indulge their fancy for hunting “ i m m m b g ga e . To atte pt to enu erate the birds of

a m predynastic Egypt is hopeless , for the v rieties ust T HE O ST RIC H 6 1 have been exceedingly numerous ; the forms of a large number of s pecies have been preserved by the hieroglyphic characters of the dynastic Egyptians , but these probably only represent the varieties which , either by their habits or through the ideas which were m in m associated with the early ti es , appealed in a m special manner to the early asters of picture writing . h m Moreover , it is more than probable t at by the ti e the dynastic Egyptians had developed their system of n i writi g , several of the species of b rds of predynastic m Egypt had ceased to exist . The ostrich see s to have m m m been estee ed in a most unusual anner , for re ains of its eggs and bones are often found in predynastic graves ; the few perfect specimens which have been discovered are usually pierced at the ends and covered with designs of various kinds . It is interesting to ’ note that ostriches eggs are used in the ornamentation of churches and mosques in many parts of Egypt and

the n u in countries lyi g f rther east , to this day, and a certain amount of sanctity is generally attached to them ; they are pierced and suspended by cords attached to the roofs in prominent parts of these m edifices . In so e churches they are hung before the m altar, and the present writer has seen any which have been painted and decorated before they were so hung . Neither Christian nor Muhammadan had any good reason to give for having such things in their

r m m chu ches and osques , and no one see ed to know

er what the eggs typified , but the pres vation of the 62 FL I NT AND S TON E WE APON S

egg of the ostrich with such reverence is . no doubt, a survival of a custom which was common in prehistoric m ti es . We have now to consider the various kinds of weapons with which the predynastic Egyptian armed m m hi self when he set out to hunt wild ani als , or to m m defend hi self in war against his ene ies . The com m m m n onest and si plest for of weapo , and that with

man m which first defended hi self, was the stick or f staf ; when used as a weapon the stick was short , and m n when used as a ark of rank or dignity it was lo g . To make the short stick more effective it was weighted at h one end wit a piece of ivory or stone , which was either tied on to the stick or pierced in such a way that m on it ight fit to the end of the stick . Such stones , or m - l ace heads , as they are generally ca led , are usually m conical in shape , and are ade of several kinds of m stone , the ost favourite , however, being breccia , or “ the red and yellow plum- pudding stone ; a mace head attached to a stout stick about two feet long m mi would ake a very for dable club , and it is , no doubt , the knowledge of this fact which has caused this

accom weapon to be popular all over the world . The “ panying illust rations represent the famous mace ” head inscribed with the name of the Babylonian king “ I A B 3 0 m . . O 8 0 Sargon , of gade , about . , and a ace ” head from a predynastic grave in Egypt ; both m m are of the sa e shape , both are pierced in the sa e h m m way , and bot are ade of the sa e kind of stone , BABYL O N I AN AND E G Y PT I AN MAC E - HE AD S 63 but the former was found more than t wenty years m ago in Mesopota ia , and the latter was found at

A - bydos in Egypt a fe w years ago . Mace heads are

m m and so eti es round in shape , both round and conical were used all over Babylonia and Assyria from Sumerian times down to the period of the last Assyrian

m um t E pire , and, if S erian legend is to be rusted, the

3 2 0 8 9

- d - i r h f r on I fA a e m a r nast c ave . ead o S a o . Ma h d fr d Mace g . g ce ea o p e y g

mm great god Marduk , when he was co issioned by the gods to wage war on their behalf against Ti amat and m m the brood of fiends who she had spawned , ar ed

m l ma h mull u hi se f with a , or club , of this kind , and the

e him m n weapon help d to slay the o ster . To this day the people of Mesopotamia in their j ourneys through the desert carry with them clubs made of a short piece at 64 MAC E - HE AD O F T HE ARC HAI C PE RI O D

m m of stout stick with a head ade of bitu en and clay , and its shape closely resembles that of the club which m A is represented on so e of the ssyrian sculptures . In Egypt the club was used both by predynastic and d m ynastic Egyptians , and in one for or the other it is found on walls and reliefs wherever battle scenes are

d - d represente . The mace head figure on this page is of

i n ma e-hea of th e Ar ch ai c Perio Egypt an limesto e c d d .

peculiar interest . It was found in an early dynastic m m m grave , and is ade of hard li estone ; it is orna ented

w and ith a representation of a serpent coiled round it,

with figures of birds , and the projections on it recall m the spiked club of mediaeval ti es . It is probable that this obj ect was mounted on a long stick and then

MAC E - HE AD O F E NANNADU 7

carried about in processions or used for ceremonial

- purposes , even as some of the large mace heads An were used in Baby lonia . example of this class is w figured belo . Close by the perforation , on the top , is inscribed the record of the dedication of a temple to

Enannadu the god Ningirsu , by , a governor of Shir u 4 500 p rla , or Lagash , about . Round the object are sculptured in relief rude figures

of an eagle , lions, i etc . , wh ch are con sidered by some to form the ancient emblem of the

Shir url a city p , the m odern Tell Lo . Another form of mace - head which has been found in ‘ predynastic graves

IS 11111 5 117 11t b y M ace ! h ead in scrib ed wi th the record dedi cati on of a t em pl e to Ningi rsu b y Enan i 0 11 nadu ov ernor of La ash in ab l oni a the draw ngs , g g B y ,

B . C . 4 500 .

- 65 i t IS page , and ,

perhaps , right to group here the class of stone objects of which specimens are represented on the same page m all these are in the British Museu . The next most useful obj ect commonly employed

by the predynastic Egyptians , whether for purposes

- hi of war or peace , was the axe head, w ch was made 68 ST O NE AXE - HE ADS

No 1 . . either of flint or of some other hard

stone , and was eit her polished or left rough ; it was probably fastened to its handle by means of leathern

3 0 74 -7 thongs . Flint dag

gers , knives , spear

- heads, arrow heads,

scrapers , etc . , have been found in large m nu bers , and nearly every great museum m 3 2 0 9 2 contains nu erous examples of the various types of

No 3. . these objects . In

spite, however , of the excellence of thei r fl int weapons the predynastic Egyptians must have trapped or snared the greater number of wild 3 0 74 6 beasts which they

- A xe h ead s of th e Arch ai c Peri od , m ade of l ston variegated red and y e low e. killed , for none of FI S H I N G 69

their weapons mentioned above would be effective in the “ m ” case of big ga e , except at close q uarters, and after

the animal had been dragged down . With them hunting “ n m m was a ecessity , and it ust have for ed one of the chief sources of their food supply ; their other great source h m was the Nile , w ich ust always have contained large

numbers of fine fish . The flint harpoons which have been found prove that the early indigenous peoples of Egypt m m knew how to spear fish with such i ple ents , and the fishing scenes in the tombs testify to the fact that the Egyptians of dynastic times were as skilful in the m gentle art as their predecessors . The greater nu ber

of the fish caught , however , were probably obtained not by spearing but by reed traps built at the sides of the

u and river , and some were , no do bt, caught by the line m h m net . But there ust ave been a ti e when the pre

i and dynastic Egypt an possessed neither line nor net , when he did what the poor peasant in Mesopotamia

to l does this day . Having se ected a place on the river bank where the side is not too steep and the water is m not too deep , he fixes a nu ber of stout reeds on sticks upright in the river in such a manner that they form

m - a se i circular palisade , one end of which touches the

bank, whilst the other does not quite touch it ; by m these eans a portion of the water is enclosed . In the gap which is left between the one end of the palisade and the river -bank are placed a number of reeds slantwise with their tops pointing inwards w to ards the enclosure , and experience proves that when 7 0 RAFT S AND B OAT S the fish have once swum over them they are unable to swim back ; they are thus caught in a trap which has the merit of having water continually running through it m , and is, besides , inexpensive . Great nu bers of large fish are frequently caught in such traps along the swamps through which the Tigris and Euphrates n flow, but in the portio s of these rivers where the

n of curre t runs fast traps this kind are unprofitable , m for the strea washes the reeds out of the ground . That some such method as this of catching fish must have been employed in Egypt in the earliest times is 1 — M d e d evident for as . Morgan has rightly observe , the peoples on the banks of the Tigri s and the Euphrates and the Nile must have developed under m m the sa e conditions, since they had the sa e needs ,

the m e and they possessed sa e natural r sources , and mo m lived under al st the sa e natural conditions , in countries the soil of which had been formed in almost m m n the sa e a ner .

In his pursuit of his calling, or in quest of food , the predynastic fisherman must have discovered at a very early peri od that his labours would be much lightened if he had the means of following up his prey in the m f arshes, and his inventive aculties were soon set to

m af m work to ake a r t or boat of so e kind . The m him aterials used first of all by were , no doubt, tree m n trunks and reeds, or the leaves of so e ki d of tree resembling the palm he guided the tree trunk with his

1 it . 0 . c . 89 p , p . BOAT S O F RE E DS 7 1

ro feet and hands in the shallows , and p bably with a stick d d ffi or pole in the eeper waters , but the i culties which he must have met with in directing his trunk whenever he found himself in a current must have induced him to contrive some better and surer means of conveyance m over the waters . Shallow boats ade of reeds plaited

r d or tied together we e then probably invente , and as long as only sheets of water, like the lakes in the m Delta , or arshes , had to be traversed they suited the m purpose for which they were intended ad irably . Reed boats are known to have existed in Egypt long ” New m after the conquest of the Race , and the ention “ ”1 of the ark of bulrushes , in which Hebrew tradition declares Moses to have been placed , suggests that the knowledge of such boats existed do wn to comparatively

m m t be late ti es , though it us admitted that this portion of the story of the great law -giver may have descended

ma m from a very ancient period , and y have for ed part of a legend of an earlier hero which the later writer t in roduced into his narrative . The existence of boats in the p redynastic period has been for some years past considered to be proved by the paintings found on m conte poraneous pottery, but one archaeologist , Mr . m m l Cecil Torr , identifies as ostrich far s the re arkab e paintings which another supposes to represent boats .

1 The Bab yl oni an ver si on of th e st ory states that t h e m other “ ” Of S ar on Of A ad e l ac e d h er S OD i n a b as e t of ree d s g g p k , t » T u i shot s huri th e d oor of whi ch : Y Y v E! II

’ ‘ L Anzhro olo i e In an interesting paper published in p g ,

S ur uel ues retend ers Navi res E ti ens entitled q q p gyp , d Mr . Torr has reproduced a number of rawings of early boats from vases in the British Museum which have the great merit of being faithful 0 0 pies of the obj ects u which they represent ; acc racy of representation is , as m Mr . Torr says , an i portant consideration in the inter

i retation 1 Mr on p of the subjects . . Torr goes to point m out that though we have hu an beings, gazelles and ostriches depicted on the vases , we never have fish ; that no rowers are ever represented in the supposed boats ; and from certain lines on one side of a model of m m m a boat ade of the sa e aterial as the vases , he draws conclusions which confirm him in his opinion b that the long curved lines do not represent oats at all .

On the contrary , he thinks the curved line represents a m ra part, that the straight short lines , which are usually

laci s h the called oars, represent a g , t at gap which is seen in this row marks the path by which the m ra part is approached , and that the objects which are called cabins are nothing else than little towers on each side of the rampart ? In the accompanying

’ ’ 1 J app ell e l attenti on sur l e s i ne x actitu d es d an s l es figures d e M d M or an mm an ll M P tri ar . e c o e d s c e e s d e . e e c e ue l e d e r g , p q g é d e c on fi an ce q ue m érit ent c e s im age s e st un e c on si d erati on ’ ” im ortante our l inter rétati on d es su ets p p p j .

Pour m a art e c rois u e l es l on u e s li n e s c ourb e s ui on p , j q g g , q t

été c on si d r es c omm e r e r s entant d e s n avi res s ont e n r alit é é p é , , é é , ’ ’ l in d i c ati on d un rem art u e l es li n es d roite s l us c ourte p ; q g p s , ual ifi é es d e ram e s i nd i ent un e Sort e d e l aci s ue l a l acune ui q , q g q q

74 PRE DY N AS T I C B OAT S

t wo m w Each boat contains s all huts, hich are placed m d a i ships , and attached to one of these is a sort of m mb m m n ast , on the top of which is an e le of so e ki d in the front of the boat is placed what appears to be a m m 1 branch or bough of a tree , and in so e exa ples a rope for tying up is represented under the front of the

a bo t , and steering poles are represented at the stern . The numerous lines which project from the boat 2 vertically downwards are considered by Prof. Petrie to represent oars , and he believes such boats to be neither more nor less than rowing galleys, probably because they contain nothing which can be identified “ as sails ; he would rather refer these galleys to the ” n 3 Mediterranean tha to the Nile , and considers the pottery on which such galleys are represented to “ m E r ” have been i ported into gypt from elsewhe e . But if the vertical lines really represent oars the boats in which they were worked must have been very large

too indeed, in fact they would probably have been large to float on the Nile ; but whether this was so or not

1 l 4 B l a l 1 . a 7 No . S e e Pe tri e Na a d a nd a s . 6 , q , p , 2 I bi d 4 8 . , p . . 3 Pr ofe ss or Petrie s ay s Wheth er i t b e a s e a or ri ver b oat i s

t n Nil r l a s m ai nl w ork e d b a s ail an d im r a t . b at s a e a w p o e o y y y , s ail s w e re u s e d from th e IVth Dynas ty onw ard i n a w ell - d evel op e d

' f On th e other h an d ro in al l e hav e c har acteriz e d th e orm . w s , g g y Me d it err an ean th e m os t rel i ab l e p ow e r of pr op ul s i on on that s e a h as al a s b e en r owin an d the al l e s of th e s e a -fi ht un d e r w y g, g y g

III t l m i s at Acti um of t he e n e tian Re u bl i c of am es e s . a S a a R , , , V p , the Al eri an C ors ai rs of the Fre n ch n a v S h ow that oars we re g , y ,

n r all m ore i m ortan t th n m en ge e y p a .

78 PRE DYNAST I C BOAT S is the name which is given to the look - out place in

‘ the b oat of the Sun- god Ra ; in the Papyrus of

Ani 19 i s t , plate , the god Harpocrates seen sit ing on the mat which is stretched over the look - out Ra place in the bark of as it sails over the sky , and sometimes the place where the god usually sits is occupied by a bird . The object , however , of the bough or mat seems to have been to supply to all beholders information concerning the tribe and family of t he m h occupant of the boat . The short ast w ich was attached to the aft cabin was probably used for dis playing a flag or symbol which either referred to the

of m d country or city the aster of the boat , or eclared his rank ; the following examples of such symbols or

( 8)

(2) (3) (9) (4 )

Standards from re resentation s of oats ainted on vases of th e p b , p r n a ti ri P edy s c Pe od .

fl m M M ags are reproduced fro the work of . de organ , who has borrowed most of them from the drawings of

N a end a and B a llas boats given in g . Thus we have the

man m standard of the fro the region of two, three , four, 1 men or five hills (Nos . and the standard of the AND TH E I R S T AN DARDS 79

who adopted horns (No . and two arrows as their m 6 emble s (Nos . , and , the standard of the fish

o (N . but most interesting of all is the flag or symbol of the man who adopted as his emblem the m elephant (No . It is ore than probable that these and other symbols which were affixed to the short masts in boats s ubsequently became the em blems U of the nomes in pper and Lower Egypt , and

- the nome standards , which are so often seen depicted in the great temples of the historical Egyptians ,

“ appear to be little else than direct copies ; in any case the symbols are of indigenous or North African m mb im origin , and each ust be the e lem of an portant division of the country , which represented t he e t rritory of a great tribe , and which under the ' n m m a nome co querors fro the East beca e , though in historic times the personal element was eliminated from it . But as the predynastic Egyptian found a tree trunk propelled by his own hands and feet an unsatis — factOry means of crossing or travelling up and down

he m v u m the river, so ust also ha e fo nd that boats ade of reeds and rushes were both unsuitable and dangerous for the purpose of fishing or fowling in the thickets of m arshes , which were crowded with crocodiles , or other m m huge a phibious beasts, and as a result he ust have i set to work to build stronger craft . It cannot be sa d at present how far he advanced in the art of boat d buil ing, or whether he ever succeeded in building a boat which a crocodi le could not crush with his 8 0 E ARL Y B OAT W I TH A S AI L

m j aws , or which a hippopota us could not easily reduce to splinters ; but the probability is that his w m f boats were al ays ore or less ragile , and that they

were most frequently of very light draught , and that f they had no decks o any sort or kind . The natural assumption is that in going up stream their motive m power was the wind , but in none of the exa ples of painted predynastic pottery which have been published

ith sai l Fr om a v a e of th e r na i B oat w . s P edy st c Peri od ri i n th e B ti sh Museum . (NO.

has the representation of any sail been discovered . 1901 Early in , however, the Trustees of the British Museum purchased a large predynastic j ar on which is

an excellent representation of a boat, the shape of which is familiar to us from pictures of boats which were m At drawn in dynastic ti es . one end of it is set a m ast, whereon is a large rectangular sail , and close by the mast is a seat at the same end of the boat is what i At appears to be a steer ng oar . the other end is a

82 W HE AT AND BARL E Y

n Subseque tly the eminent botanist , Professor Schwein him a furth , pointed out to th t wheat and barley were m in their natural ho e in Mesopotamia , where they u act ally grew wild, and the obvious deduction to be made from this was that if wheat and barley existed in Egypt in predynastic times they must have been brought there from that country by the conquerors of

d e the indigenous peoples . To decide the question M . Morgan made further very careful researches with the view of ascertaining whether wheat and the remains of agricultural tools were ever found together in the same grave , and he found that they were not ; until w further trust orthy excavations prove to the contrary , we must therefore assume that the cultivation of wheat and barley was introduced into Egypt by the early invaders of the country , and if this be so, the fact forms another proof in favour of the Asiatic origin of m m new . the co ers In ost countries , certainly in those which have a winter season , the absence of cereals m b but would make it i possi le to keep flocks and herds , this was not necessarily the case in Egypt , where they have no winter in the western sense of the word ; the only period of the year when the predynastic Egyptian would find any diffic ulty in feeding his domestic m u m i but ani als wo ld be at the ti e of the nundation , m then he would , as his odern representative does to day , fall back upon the branches of trees for food for his cattle . It has been often stated that the greater number DOM E ST I C AN I MAL S 83

of the domestic animals which are depicted upon the tombs of the IVth and Vth Dynasties are of

A ma be siatic origin ; this y so , but it is probable that there is a strong strain of the indigenous cattle in

em ff th , for it has yet to be proved that the o spring of foreign cattle either did or will thrive and increase in n Egypt , except they be crossed with ative breeds . But it is a suggestive fact , however , when viewed in connection with the Asiatic origin of cattle in ancient “ Egypt, that the god Osiris is called the Bull of ” 1 Am entet the - d H see , and that cow god ess athor ( ’ 0 84 the flint cow s head, N . page ) was brought into Egypt by the invaders ; these facts show that to the men who wrote at least some of the chapters of the Book of the Dead the bull was the strongest and m m best ani al known to the , and the one best suited to

e be the type of their god . The antelope , and gazell , ahd m goat , and all the ani als of that class lived with the predynastic Egyptians ina more or less domestic n state , and the painti gs on pottery prove that they

m on a were well acquainted with the ; the other h nd, m m t the sheep , which for s such an i portan possession A m i in sia , was unknown to the . Even in the per od of “ ” m m i e the Early E pire it was the ilk calf, . . , the suck

was ing calf, and not the lamb , which the symbol of innocence and helplessness . The ram which represents the god Khnemu may have belonged to an indigenous

1 S ee Book o the D ad h I 4 L III 2 CL 12 e c a . X A . X . f , p . ; ; XXII ,

17 . 8 4 FL I N T W E APON S

species which seems to have become extinct after the XIIth period of the Dynasty . When the indigenous Egyptian Was not hunting or at war he probably spent much time in making fl t his int weapons and tools , notwiths anding the

3 0 7 5 0

3 2 ll7

34 364 34 4 5 5 34 330 3 4 379 3 4 4 5

’ rr n r h a n in h m l m Flin t a ow a d sp ea e ds , a d fl t cow s ead (No . e b e

f h o s s Hath or i n th riti sh Museum Pr nasti Perio . o t e g dde , e B . edy c d

fact that each tribe must have possessed its own skilled flint workers ; for the most beautiful or the examples which have come down to us could only have been made by men who had devoted their

lives to the art of working in flint . The art began

86 PALAE OL IT HI C AND N E O L I T HI C FL I N T S

r m 1 m m at a ve y re ote period, and it beca e ore and more prosperous until man discovered how to work metal ; the use of flint tools and knives did not at once m disappear, as ight be expected , but survived for a lengthy period, though chiefly in connection with m n m 2 religious and cere o ial custo s . In the hieroglyphic inscriptions the use of flint was commemorated long after metal tools and weapons were generally used in i ? Egypt ; thus in the hieroglyph c for sickle “ J the projections represent flint teeth, and in one of the

for es ordinary words knife , ! [111m we see that the m n last sign is the deter inative for sto e , a fact which takes us back to the time when knives were usually

i e m . . ade of stone, , flint or chert . It is generally u agreed that all the flint weapons, etc . , which have p d to the present been found in pre ynastic graves , belong

Neo li thi c e m to the P riod , but a nu ber of others , which

Pa laeoli thic have been attributed to the Period , have also been brought from Egypt ; the latter were found on the surface of the ground on plateaux lying at a b height considera ly above the level of the Nile , and n m m not in workshops or ear ines . They have for ed the

m u . and subjects of inute disc ssion and description , such m e inent authorities as Sir John Evans , and M . de Morgan have no hesitation in assigning them to the

1 “ ’ L u sage d e taill er l a pi erre r em onte en Egypte aux temps 1 1 d M or n o ci t . 0 i r J . e a . . uatern a e s . q ; g , p , p 2 s e c iall Sir J ohn E van s The Anci ent S tone I m l S e e e p y , p ements

it 1 8 an reat Bri tai n 2 nd e d . 9 . 9 d E . B . T l or Res ar h of G , , 7, p ; y , e c es M nki nd 1 1 if h Earl Hi stor o a 8 5 . 1 . i nto t e y y f , 6 , p 9 E XI S TE N C E O F A PAL AE O L I THI C AG E D O U B T E D 87

Palaeolithic Period ; but , on the other hand , Dr . Forbes “ has come to the conclusion that none of the surface ’ palaeolithic implements from Egypt and Somaliland

have yet been clearly proved to belong to that period , while the probability is that the bulk of them are of m ” “ uch later date , and he thinks that they probably XIIth D n belong to the y asty, going back perhaps , but ” 1 B y VIth . ut not probabl , to the Dynasty the late “ 2 General Pitt - Rivers discovered in 1 881 some flakes

i n s i tu of palaeolithic type , , in gravel near the Valley of m m the To bs of the Kings at Thebes , at a co paratively ” “ h dm all eol o low level , whic , as Dr . Forbes a its, g y

r m h gists who know the spot ag ee , ust ave been m ” deposited far back in prehistoric ti es . The

A e in evidence of a Palaeolithic g Egypt , the existence of which appears to Sir John Evans to be in the 3 highest degree probable , may rest on the flakes and very rude scraper- like fl ints found in the Bab al -Mulfik

r has g avels, but until it been proved that General

- was m m Pitt Rivers istaken , the apparently supple entary evidence may not be lightly thrust aside . It may , how

1 On a Col l ecti on o Stone Im l ements i the Ma er Mus eu f p n y m ( Bull . Li u M . I N 4 v e r . s I os . 3 an d Januar 20th p . , y , 2 u n l o the Anthr ol i l i S e o r a o ca Insti tute l . x . e J o v o . 2 f p g , , p 38 , t 1 882 (Di sc overy of Ch ert Impl em en s) . 3 The Anti ui t o Man an Ad d re s s d elivere d in the Town Hall q y f , , m hl n i ham Oc tob er 25th 1 899 . 1 3 . Thi s a et c o ta n s Birming , , , p p p

n résumé of th e re c ent d i sc overi es i n E t an d as an i n tere s ti g gyp , , ’ “ Boul e rem ark s L Anthro olo i e v ol . xi . 1 900 . e st crit M . ( p g , , , p é ’ ave c c ette facilité et c ette hum eur q u ont pu app r é ci er t outes l e s per ’ ” n l i l min nt arch l o u an l i s onn es q ui ont été e re at on s ave c é e é o g e g a s . 88 T HE PAL AE O L ITHI C AG E I N E G Y PT

m ever , be entioned in passing that so high an authority as Canon W . Greenwell, has no doubt whatso ever about the existence of a Palaeolithic Period in

Egypt , and the researches which Professor Sayce has m in ade Egypt, and the positions of the palaeolithic

fl ints in si tu n m which he has found co fir this opinion . In any case the question is one which only geologists

E ti an a rchaeol o ist can usefully discuss , and the gyp g m h m ust wait until t ey arrive at a decision on the atter . An m exa ination of the flint weapons , tools , and m m i ple ents of the neolithic period figured by M . de 1 2 n Morgan and Professor Petrie , shows that they i clude a number of forms and represent several methods of workmanship which are quite unknown in any country m m m m h in the sa e age . Si ilarly , any for s w ich exist among the flint implements of other countries of the neolithic age have no equivalent among those of pre dynastic Egypt , and, according to M . de Morgan , the personal effects of the men who lived in the Nile Valley present certai n well - defined peculiarities which seem to prove that the civilization of the Stone Age in Egypt ff m n su ered but very little fro foreign i fluences , and that the indigenous peoples of that country were as little affected by such things as were their followers in m dynastic ti es . In spite of the fact that most of the tools of the m predynastic Egyptians were made of flint, it see s as w if they possessed the kno ledge of working in stone,

1 i 1 —1 2 t . . 0 1 Na ad a and B ll P 1 0 . c 3 6 . a as l ate 7 E. p pp q ,

M E TAL T OOL S AND S TO NE VAS E S 9 1

u for many stone vases , r dely shaped and poorly worked ,

r it is true , have been found in their g aves . The custom of depositing stone vases filled with offerings mm d of all kinds was co on in Egypt in every perio , and it is certain that it originated among people whose object was not to offer vases and vessels but offerings whereon those who were buried were supposed to live ,

new after they had entered upon their life , until such time as they were able to provide for themselves in the world beyond the grave . The dynastic Egyptians d m n m a opted the custo , and , havi g etal tools at their mm d m co and , they succeede in producing vases of ost m delicate and beautiful for s out of very hard stones , such as diorite and haematite and the like a true idea of the variety of forms and of the excellence of the workmanship can only be obtained by examining a um m n ber of the best exa ples , a fine series of which w n m ill be found in the National Collectio . The atte pts oft he earlier people to make figures in relief or other wise were failures , but it is nearly certain that when they had been taught to use metal tools by their conquerors

m x they beca e e tremely useful workmen . Their want n of success in working in sto e was , however , counter balanced by their skill in making objects of bone and

ma m m d ivory , as we y see fro the nu erous pen ants, and m co bs , and figures of men and women , which have

o An m l come down t us . excellent exa p e of their skill ' t d au l uo e . in working ivorY is 9 bY M de Mor8 7 who

1 0 . ci t . 1 an d 1 18 . p , pp . 7 92 PRE DYNAS T I C POT TE RY describes the head of a mace found at Sil sil a ; this interesting obj ect is made out of the tusk of a hippo

otamus p , and having been sawn into shape at each end m had a hole drilled through it in the iddle . The ends m m show the saw arks quite clearly, and fro their M irregularity . de Morgan assumes that the task of sawing was long and tedious ; on the other hand, the hole by which it was fitted on to its handle was drilled

no with great regularity , and this was doubt done by m m eans of the drill used for aking hollows in vases . The pottery of the predynastic Egyptians was made ’ of without the help of the potter s wheel , which they m m had no knowledge , and the aterials e ployed by m mud the were Nile and clay ; the latter, no doubt,

m S was taken fro pecial quarries , such as those at A a m sw n and Kena , which were uch worked by the m dynastic Egyptians ; fortunately a_ very large nu ber of examples of their earthenware vessels have survived, and these proclaim that they were highly ’ m m skilled in the potter s art . Pottery ade fro the Nile mud became of a yellowish or reddis h colour when m m baked , and that ade of clay beca e a bright red ; brown and black vessels were made from paste with

m e bi - m which colouring att r, such as oxide of anganese , m m had been ixed . The ost interesting of all the classes of predynastic pottery are , of course , those m which are orna ented with incised designs , linear and bi otherwise , and paintings , and those which are d coloure , red and black . The paste of which the red

S T O N E VE S S E L S F PRE DYN S T C PE R OD E T C . O A I I , 95

98 DATI N G OF E ARLY POT T E RY LARG E L Y G UE SSW ORK

ostriches , boats , etc . This large group of pottery

belongs , no doubt, to the end of the predynastic period , . and it is most probable that the practice of making such in Egypt continued afte r the advent of the d conquerors in that country . Extende research must result in a more exact system of classification of pre

i dynast c pottery , and , when further excavations of the

Earthenware b ox of th e Pred nastic eri od ibe b es oat water etc . y P ; x , , , , ainte r d on a b ufi r un p d e g o d . cemeteries of the indigenous peoples in many o ther m parts of Egypt have been ade , it may be reasonably hoped that some chronological arrangements in group ings will be possible ; but at present much of the “ n dati g is the result of the scientific imagination , or l guesswork . During the ear y dynastic times pieces of pottery, which in shape and design recall some of the Desi ns on vessels of the Pred nasti o P ri d y e o . After d e Mor an g ( J g ) .

1 0 2 PRE DYNAST I C G RAVE S

no m m h u if they did re ains of the ave been fo nd , though they probably made habitations of reeds daubed mud d with , or rude shelters, the si es of which were m mud m for ed of , which, however, was not ade into ’ m h n bricks, for of the brick aker s art t ey were ig orant . m They were not cannibals , and their ce eteries seem to indicate that they were not a warlike race ; of their position in the scale of civilization and development we can only judge by their attempts at sculpture and w i design, which it is easy to sho were not of a h gh d h d or er . But notwit standing these facts they succee ed in m in influencing their conquerors any ways , and a number of the peculiarities which are made known to us by the inscriptions and other remains of the latter n m h m people origi ated a ong t e . The conquerors and the conquered appe ar to have been totally distinct m people , both physically and entally , and as a natural

d ff r result there was a distinct i erence in thei habits , m and anners, and customs , and capabilities ; this difference cannot be better illustrated than by a few m remarks on their burial custo s . The earliest graves in the Nile Valley consisted of n shallow hollows dug in the sandy , shi gly ground which lies on the edge of the mud deposit and stretches away to the mountains on each side of the ri ver ; such w m hollo s , though usually round , were extre ely irregular in shape , and the object of the relatives of the dead seems to have been to get the body laid away in the ground with as little trouble and loss of time as PRE DY NAST I C G RAVE S I O3

l m d cl ose possible . The graves were a e together , in fact

' they were sometimes so closethat a body lay partly in one hollow and partly in another ; whether at the period when such graves were made it was customary to delimit them or not n can ot be said , but in any case , if partitions or dividing walls ever d existe , they have since d e isapp ared . The body was put on the bare

v ground in the gra e , n lyi g on its left side , with the head usually towards the south , and the knees were bent up on a level with the top b of the reast , and the hands placed before the face ; round about the body were placed vessels m of rude shapes , ade t of coarse ear henware , A predynasti c mummy in th e British M us um Wh en oun the ecease wherein funeral offerings e . f d d d n h was lyi g on is l eft side . m were laid , and any i m l m m graves conta n flint weapons and i p e ents . So e bodies were wrapped in the skins of gazelle fastened

by i together thongs of the same mater al, and others ‘ 1 0 4 PRE DYNAST I C G RAVE AT AL - AM RAH

were both wrapped in and laid upon mats made of m m m m reeds or rushes . No atte pt was ade to um ify

and the body in the usual sense of the word, there is

' no evidence to show that efforts were made to preserve it from natural decay ; at this period the

m - custo of burning the body , wholly or partly, had

‘ - r d nasti r ave at Al Am rah n ear A dos . T he deceased l in on h i l ft P e y c g , by y g s e

d n ded b hi s v ases fl i nt w ea on s et c . Drawn b Mr d si e , a d surroun y , p , ( y . A n erson d M r an e o . after M . J . g )

b m not een introduced . In so e graves of the period, but these of course belong to the latter part of it,

fl ints pottery of a better class is found , with worked

d m of and v and pen ants ade bone i ory , etc . , and in a

fe m n very w cases etal objects are fou d . Such graves

the had no superstructures , and their position in

1 0 6 D I S M E M BE RE D BODI E S AND FL E S HL E S S BON E S

the grave in great disorder , but when it was only

t b0nes partly burn , care was taken to keep the of the

o h hands and the feet t gether , and to set the head, w ich

u m l r was sually severed fro the body , by itse f, eithe m upon the ground or upon a stone . In any graves the d m m body is found to have been is e bered , and its various

red nastic rav e at Kaw amil . Th e ones h avin been stri ed ofth eir flesh P y g b , g pp , re th r wn int o th rave Dr wn Mr An rson a t r M M r n we o e . a b de f e d e o a g ( y . . J . g ) . limbs are disposed in such a way as to occupy the least possible space ; and some graves of the earlier period have been found to contai n remains of bodies which had

m m h had been dis embered . The re ains of bodies w ich been burnt were often laid In rectangular earthenware PRE DY NAS TI C G RAVE S AT KAW AMI L 1 0 7

chests or boxes which were provided with covers , but ,

of as in the case those buried in graves , the bones were scattered about in great disorder ; the objects which are found . with such remains show that this d c ustom belongs to the end of the pre ynastic period . A m u bout this ti e also bodies , though bent p in the

r d nasti c rav at Kaw amil near Ab d s Th e deceased l in on h l f P e y g e , y o . y g is e t i in a r lin e wi th ri k Drawn b Mr An r on s de g ave d b c s . ( y . de s after M . d e M or an . J . g )

position in which the dead were bent in the earliest u predynastic graves , were b ried on their backs under constructions of earthe nware which resemble l arge m bowls inverted . Thus we see that the funeral custo s of the indigenous Egyptians were quite different from 1 0 8 DI S M E MBE RE D BO DI E S AND F L E S H LE S S BON E S

m those of the Egyptians of dynastic ti es , and that the f graves of the earlier people are entirely di ferent, both

the i m . as regards form and pos tion , fro those of later

the m m Moreover, ain divisions of the to bs of the

m m P d ti ra at Kawamil . Th e o was di s e ere and re ynas c g ve b dy b d , the fl esh havin een stri ed off th e ones w ere throw n i nto the rave g b pp , b g .

n r A nd rson after M . d e Mor an Draw b M e . . ( y . J g )

i e m mm - m dynastic Egyptians , . . , the u y cha ber, the t ff shaf or corridor, and the chapel or hall for o erings , represent funeral customs and beliefs which were un

m - known to their se i barbarous ancestors . It is possi ble

I I O RE L I G I O U S VI E W S AND BE L I E FS

live again in some form or other , and judging from the fl m m int weapons and i ple ents found in their graves , we are no doubt right in assuming that the life which they thought their dead woul d inherit after death would be lived under conditions which resembled those u i t nder wh ch they had lived upon earth . Whe her they had formulated any ideas in the earliest period as x to the e istence of a divine power cannot be said, but there is good reason for thinking that they had , and also that such ideas were not on the level with those which we are accustomed to find among peoples who

u m - are barbaro s or se i savage . ( 1 1 1 )

CHAPTER II .

Y T A CHBoNoL oaY E G P I N .

A BRI EF consideration of the descriptions of pre

e dynastic objects given in the pr ceding pages, and of

w ma m the deductions hich y be fairly ade from them , will convince the reader that it is impossible to formu

of t late any system predynas ic chronology, or even to assign any dates to the obj ects themselves , which shall t be other han approximately correct . The antiquities m referred to fall into two great classes , na ely , those which are declared to be Palaeolithic and those which

e we may rightly assum to be Neolithic . The remains d edl ared i fl to be palaeolithic cons st of int implements,

i e . . , borers and the like , which have been found on

the fl fl high plateaux in Nile Valley, and akes of int ’ which General Pitt - Rivers discovered in s ztu in the gravel stratum at the mouth of the Valley of the

Tombs of the Kings at Thebes . The great antiquity of the flint borers , etc . , has been doubted , and they have been declared to belong to the period of the VIth XIIth 1 l or Dynasty, but the archaeo ogist will have

1 S e a e bove . 8 , p 7 . 1 1 2 T HE PAL AE OL ITH I C PE RI OD IN E G YPT considerable difficulty in believing that in the time of the XIIth Dynasty, when the Egyptians were well acquainted with the art of working in metal , and when they possessed beautifully worked and finely- shaped m flint knives for cere onial purposes , there were people living on or near the plateaux close to their towns who were using in daily life flint borers and axe - heads of the types which are the result in other countrie s of ’ m man s earliest atte pts to work flint, and which represent his first step on the ladder of civilization . In the matter of the fl akes of flint which General Pitt Rivers found in s itu at Thebes there can be no reason able ground for doubt as to their very great antiquity, for the knowledge and experience in such matters possessed by this eminent man were so great that his d th n views must be accepted . A d to this e opi ion of Sir John Evans on the extreme probability of the

and existence of a Palaeolithic Period in Egypt, that of m m M . J . de Morgan , both of who base their state ents upon personal observation of Egypt and the remains of m her ancient peoples, and the case for the extre e antiquity of the flints declared by them to be Palaeo m m lithic is co plete . The neolithic re ains are of a m man much ore varied character, and they reveal to us under conditions which must be quite different from those under which he lived in the Palaeolithic Period . But although the remains of neolithic man in Egypt

m and are so any of such various kinds, we cannot m group the chronologically , except in the vaguest

1 1 4 E G YPT IAN KI N G L I S T S

d date cannot be assigne . The data required for formulating an accurate system of Egyptian chronology — 1 A m . 2 are these co plete list of kings ; . The true 3 A order of their succession ; . list of the lengths of

the reigns of the kings . We have , it is true, lists of kings who ruled during the earlier part of the

a we d period of Egypti n history, but have no efinite statements in them either as to the order in which one

r king succeeded the othe , or as to the length of each ’ m king s reign , or when the king whose na e stands first in the lists began to reign ; we have also lists of Egyptian kings written in Greek which are divided into m dynasties , and which profess to give the nu ber of the m years of the reign of each king , and also the nu ber of

the years which each dynasty lasted ; but these, like

We s the old Egyptian lists , are not infallible , as hall

see . Now let us consider what value such lists have in helping us to establish an accurate system of

ma chronology , and how far they y be trusted . The most complete native list of kings known to us m O AL AP RUS OF R N 1 is contained in the fa ous R Y P Y TU I , m which , as the na e given to it indicates, is preserved m at Turin . It originally for ed part of the collection

. Dr vetti m \ o ade in Egypt by M , the French Consul n ff Ge eral in that country, which was o ered for purchase m i n 1818 to the French Govern ent , but was declined ,

1 A c o of the hi erati c t e t i s i ven b Le sius Auswa hl d er py x g y p , ’ - ll — n d R vu A h l i i t n rk und en B . 3 6 a s ee e e rc eo o u e Wi cht gs e U , ; g q ,

Pari 1 85 0 l at e 1 4 9 . l v ii . s vo . , , , p T HE ROYAL PAPYR U S OF T URI N 1 1 5

1 and was afterwards acquired by the king of Sardinia ;

subsequently it was sent, with other things , to Turin , but on its arrival in the Museum of that city it was

found to be broken into scores of little pieces , which lay in a heap at the bottom of the box in which it had m n been packed . The docu e t is written in the hieratic

character . The nature of its contents was first recog

niz ed l e Bu lleti n by Champollion Jeune, who , in the “ Uni versel tableau (Nov . , described it as a ” chronolo i ue un canon r o a l g q , vrai y , and in spite of ’ ” e m u l tat presque co plet de destruction of the papyr s , 160 180 he was ableat to collect between and royal m m m e preno ens ; any were co plete , and many wer

m un m s e sui vent . inco plete, and certain no bre The n conditio of the papyrus was lamentable , and when Champollion had di sco vered of what priceless worth m it would have been in a co plete state , the sight of its “ mm ” m d him miseri fra enti ust have fille with grief.

7 ' 111 1 826 Se ffarth y went to Turin , and undertook to

i m e j o n the frag ents of the papyrus tog ther, and he m u for ed an uninterrupted series of s ccessive reigns, which , although restored , appeared to be an absolutely complete Royal Canon ; but his knowledge of the m hieratic character, as facts prove , was of a ost E limited description , his system of gyptian decipher m ment was faulty, and he see s to have relied chiefly upon the forms of the fragments for guidance in placing

1 - Fi i n R Ar ch l i h m lli on e ac ev . o v i P ri S e a o . v . . a s 1 e C p g , , 850 , 3 8 p . 9 . ’ “ 1 1 6 S E YPPART H S RE S T ORAT I O N U N T RUS T W ORT HY

i n w m m them hat , we ust assu e , he believed to be their

correct positions . Thus he boldly reconstructed a roll m u of papyrus of twelve colu ns or pages , each col mn containing from twenty - six to thirty names of gods or ' ’ “ n Se ffarth s restora ki gs . The worthlessness of y ” ni Rosellini n tion was soon recog zed, for decli ed to publish the “ restored ” text of the Turin Papyrus in d his great work , and stated plainly that he oubted if the fragments as placed by the learned German were in the same positions as they had been when the docu ment was intact ; and he had great difficulty in determining what g uide and what authority had been

Se ffarth m followed by y in his arrangement of the , because the fragments into which it had been broken were so small that they could not afford any great indication of the order in which they had been

1 ’ ‘ n Rosellini s originally arra ged . opinion was shared

’ 1 Ma n on t ac er o il d ub bi o c he fi n d all ora mi nac ue e c he q , ’ tuttora mi fa ran d e o stac ol o val e a di re s e l or d ine c ol ual e u ti g , , q q es

fr amm enti s on o stati in com osti si a u el m e d esi m o c h e i p , q es steva

n l m n i ua d a i nt Ed i h uel r z i o e a u scr tto n o er ero . a s a ers c e e os , q p , q p

a ir o trovavasi r id otto i n Si mi nuti ez z etti d a n on oter d ar p p p , p e ’ grand e in d i z i o d ell ord in e s uc c e ssi vo in c h e erano pri mitiv am en te

d i st Per 10 in nu ol m l l i u i sp o i . p s o n o e i s o ato eggevas s c asc un

framm ento e s es s o u n n om e s ol o d i iii framm enti si c o m on va , p p p e m n e tal ora , n é rar a e te , sc aturivano d ell e l acun e ne c es s ari am ent e

ol ut d all a d eformi ta d ell e rti h v ol n si ri c on i un ere v e p a c e eva g g .

R sta ertanto ad e sami narsi l a ri c n i unz i on e d ell e rottu re e e p , s e o g l a n n e ssi one d ei c aratte ri ab b i a tuto s rvire d i ui d a e c o , p o e g , ’ c onseguentament e ab b i a d ato autor ita a ri stab ili re i p ez z i i n q u e ll

in i uttosto c he i n un al tr L h i n m ateri a c osi im ord e o . o c e , p ,

or tante d ovrebb e es sere ri oros amente d im os trato affi nc he i l p , g ,

1 1 8 T HE ROYAL PAPYRU S OF TU RI N

1 and that the fibres of the papyrus itself did not match .

Besides this , it is clear , when the system of decipher ment of hieroglyphics proposed by Seyffarth is taken into consideration , that he could not have guided himself in his “ restoration by the readings of the t m names , and finally here see s to be no doubt that in arranging the fragments of the papy rus he employed the information which Champollion l e Jeune had published 1 824 in , and that he arbitrarily made the order of the kings in it to agree as far as possible with that given in the Greek lists attributed to Manetho . The above testimony is suffi cient to show that beyond supplying m m the na es of a nu ber of kings , many of which do not occur elsewhere , the Royal Papyrus of Turin in its present state is of no use in our investigations, for it affords us no information as to the period of the

beginning of Egyptian civilization, _ and it does not give us the order of the succession of the kings whose names it records ; we cannot even make use of the fragments of it which are inscribed with numbers

1 ’ C e s m orce au ai n si r euni s s ont enc ore suivi s d an s l arran e x , g ’ m ent S e ffarth et san s au c un e s ol uti on d e c on ti nuit ar d autr es y , é , p fragm en ts q ui s e trouvai ent ains i n é c ess airem en t i n d i q uer l a tete ’ d l XIIIe D n ti Ici l exam en au u el e m e sui li r e a y as e . q j s v é n e m e ’ erm e t as d hésiter l e ra roche m ent e st mauvai s l e s b re s d a p p , pp , fi a ru s s e r enc ontren t m al e t e croi s ouvoi r affi rm er u l p py , j p q e e s n om s d erni ers roy aux d a fragm ent m arq u é 72 d an s l e pl anche VIIe d M L i u s nt a m nt a l ur l e . e s n e so s e ac te e e ac e p p x p . C e ’ d oc u ment n a d one am e s eu au cun e e s ece d e val eu r en c c ui y x p , q ’ c on c ern e l ord re respe ctif d e s d eu x famill es d es Am en emhe e t d es S e ek h ot e XIIe e t XIIIe v e h v Re r c . u A . 5 2 p ( , p 6 . T HE TAB L E T O F ABYDO S 1 1 9

and contain the lengths of the reigns of certain kings m d n stated in onths , years , and ays, for it is u certain to m which na es they apply . Dr . Birch calculated that the papyrus when complete contained the names of

about three hundred and thirty kings , which , he

c d and declared, coin ided with the three hun red thirty ‘ kings mentioned by Herodotus . Of the greatest importance for the study of Egyptian 2 ABLET OF AB DOS chronology is the T Y , which was discovered by Dumichen in the Temple of Osiris at Abydos in 1864 ; a good idea of the general arrange m ent of the Tablet will be gathered from the following / I illustration . Here we see Seti . , accompanied by his

an I -fi d . ve son , successor Rameses I , addressing seventy

his e of predecessors , whose cartouch s are arranged in chronological order before him ; the list is ended by ’ - n n m Seti s ow name . The a es on the list are as follows ; the Roman numerals in brackets are added to indicate the dynasties to which the kings belong

5 . ese ti H p . 6 . Merbap .

7 . 8 . e h.

1 ii Bk . 100 . . 2 The te t w a s rst ub li she d b Du mi chen in Ae Z eits ch i t . r x fi p y g f ,

1 864 . 81 if n , p a oth er e c ell ent c o will b e found i n Mariette x py , Ab d os l v o . i l at e 4 3 y , . p . 1 2 0 TAB L E T O F ABYDO S

31 — - . Men kau Heru .

au 32 - Ra. Betch . Tetka

Ka- a kau . Un s .

Ba- en- neter .

tch- Ua nes . a Sent .

Tchatchai - en-Ra . Mer .

Neferk a- Ri Nebka . .

Tchesersa -eu-Ra- sa- emsaf . Mer

a eterka-Ra Tet . N .

M - Ra etches . S . enka

a-nefer-k a R .

- X [VII . . ]

eferk a- a N R . ’ feru Sene . 4 ef rk - - 3. e a Ra N nebi .

Khufu . 4 4 T - Ra- maa . etka Te f- a t R . Neferk a-Ra-Khentu

- a Ra. Kh f - en- Mer Heru . - - Ra Men kau . 4 Senefer-k a 7 . .

h k af S e ses . p 4 8 Ka- eu- Ra . .

eferk a-Ra- tererel N .

5 0 Neferk a- u . Her . k af User . 5 1 eferka-Ré - . N pepi - a h Sahu R . sen .

f rk a- a 5 2 . Sene e a . Kaka . nnu

- 3 -Ra 5 . eferfRa . N . kau

- - - r n Ra Neferk au Ra. Us e .

T HE TAB L E T OF AB Y DO S 2 3

- XVIIL 5 5 eferk au . . N Heru [ ]

- ht t- Ra — - e e . a 66 . Neferk a ari R . Neb p

-k a- Ra 6 Tcheser . 7 .

- - - 68 Aa k a Ra. [XL] . kheper

- - - - - Aa en Ra. 69 . u Ra. 5 7 . Neb kher kheper

- - a k - a R . eankh a R . 5 8 . S Men kheper

-khe eru- Ra 1 Aa . 7 . p

- kh eru-Ra 2 e . 7 . Men p

- - 73 a Ra. Sehetepab Ra. Neb Ma t

- - - 4 Tcheser khe eru a 7 . Kheper ka R . p - - en - Ra Ra sete . - - a p Nub kau R .

-kha- a Kheper R .

- - ha Ra . K kau . [XIX ]

- - - htet- a e R . a n a 75 . Ma t e R . Men p

- - - - a 6 a Ra. Maa kheru R . 7 . Men Ma t

A brief examination of this list shows that the scribe arranged in chronological order the names for which m l he had roo in the space allotted to the ist, and that he only made a selec ti on from the names in the

ma m him lists which, we y presu e , he had before , but what guided him in making this selection cannot be mm said . Some think that he wished to co emorate only such kings as were great and glorious according to the

O XIXth pinion prevalent in the Dynasty, and others that the names of legitimate kings only were given ; but it is certain that the space at the disposal of

was m he/ commemorated the sculptor li ited, and that 1 2 4 T HE T AB L E T OF SAKKARA

only a small number n of ames , which appear to have been d m chosen at ran o . From the Tablet of Abydos we learn the names of a compara tively large number of

kings , and presumably the order in which

they reigned, but it affords no informa tion either about the lengths of their reigns or the number - ofyears which their r eigns

together represent . im Of less portance , but still of consider

able interest, is the ABLET or AxxARA T S , which dates from the m m I ti e of Ra eses I . , and contains a list of forty seven royal d u names rawn p,

practically, in the same order as that employed in the

1 2 6 T HE KI N G L I S T O F M AN E T H O

— of Thothmes predecessors , and again it is not evident on what principle the selection of the names of the m u kings was ade . The great val e of the list consists in the fact that it gives the names of many kings of the KIth XIIIth XIVth XVth XVIth XVIIth , , , , , and

Dynasties , and thus supplies information which is A S a wanting in the Tablets of bydos and akk ra . From the above paragraphs it will be se en that from the ’ three selections of kings names which form the King

A a ma Lists of bydos , Sakk ra, and Karnak we y collect the names of more than one hundred kings who reigned a m w . bet een Men or Menes and Ra eses II , and that for the period which follows the reign of the last -named king we must seek for information from other

sources . Next to the lists of kings drawn up In hieroglyphics must be mentioned the famous List of Kings which

was t divided into dynasties, and which formed par of the’ great historical work of Manetho on ancient n Egyptian history . This disti guished man was born

1 S eb enn tus -neteret the at y , the Theb of 29

hieroglyphic inscriptions , and he flourished in the reigns of Ptolemy Lagus and Ptolemy Philadelphus ; hi s name seems to be the Greek form of the Egyptian “ ” M M M Ma- en-Tehuti i e of , . . , gift Thoth, or

' 1 l ut r h De P a c Is . et s . O 9 an d 28 . S e e al s o Bun s en E t , , , gyp s l l i P a e . . 11 c Vo . 70 ; an d Fra menta Hi stori corum Graecorum , p g , i 1 1 l i e d . Di d t . v o 5 . o . . , p

1 30 T HE KI N G L I ST OF MAN E TH O AC C ORDI N G T O

h A 1 d C ronicle of Julius fricanus , a Libyan who flourishe

IIIrd A D i s early in the century . . , which preserved in u A D 264 the . u Chronicle of E sebius (born , died abo t Bishop of Caesarea the version given by Eusebius contains many interpolations ; and that preserved in the Armenian rendering of his works is d m m consi ered by so e to be the ore correct . Besides A m the versions of fricanus and George , co monly called S “ yncellus, we have another known as the Old

Chronicle , and still another which is called the Book of the Sothis The above mentioned four versions of Manetho’s King List are as follows

— A ETHO As UOTED II — A A E 1 . N NE HO s OT D M Q . M T QU AF A BY UL US R C N S . BY EUSEBIU J I I U s . D I . . D I ynasty , at This ynasty . , at This . 62 1 1 60 . . Menes years . . Menes years

2 Athothis 5 7 2 Athothi s 2 . . 7

3 Kenk enes 3 1 3 Kenk nes 3 . . e 9

Uene hes 23 4 Uene hes 4 2 p . p

5 Usa hais 20 5 Usa haes 20 . p . p

2 6 Nieb aes 2 6 Miebis 6 . 6 .

1 Semem ses 18 Semem ses 8 7 . 7 . p p

ieneches 26 bienthes B 8 . U 26 8 . Eight kings in 253 (sic) Eight kings in 25 2 (sic)

years . years .

1 He gave th e trad iti on s unad ul terate d j u st as h e found them h e assum ed th e y ear of th e w orl d 5 500 t o b e that of the ’ in c arnati on of J e sus Chri s t Bun sen E t s Pla ce v l i 1 o . . . 2 3 , gyp , p . JU L IU S AFRI CAN U S AND E U S E B I U S 1 31

II D . . II . ynasty . , at This Dynasty , at This

1 Bochos 1 B . 38 . . oethos years . years

2 Kai ho 9 2 ec s 3 . . Choos

3 Binothri 3 BiO his s . . p l 4 4 1 . . T as 7 5 3 5 Sethenes 4 1 . . others 6 6 17 . . Chaires A Ne hercheres 25 7 . 7 . p nother

8 Sesochris 4 8 8 Sesochris 4 8 . 9 A 9 Chenephres 30 . nother

N -in 302 29 ine kings years . Nine kings in 7 years .

D I t m a . m ynasty II . , Me phis . Dynasty III , at Me phis .

1 h rochi 1 ch o h . ec e s Ne er es 28 . N . p years years .

2 Sesorthos 2 Tosorthro s 29 . . 3 7 . 4 4 Mesochri s 17 . . h 5 So is 1 6 5 . . yp

6 os nt si 1 6 T e a s 9 . nu . (Six others Aches 4 2 worthy of

8 e huris 30 m . S p ention)

9 Ker h res 2 . p e 6

Nine kings in (sic) Eight kings in 198

years . 1 32 T HE KI N G L I S T OF MAN E T H O AC C ORD I N G

n . IV Dy asty IV . , at Memphis Dynasty . ,

1 29 . 2 i . Soris years k ngs

2 Su hi s 63 Su hi s . p p

3 Su his 66 . p

4 encheres 63 . M

5 Ratoi ses 25 .

Bicheris 22 6 . Others

Seb ercheres 7 7 .

8 Tham hthis 9 . p

Eight kings in 274 (sic) S eventeen kings

years . years .

El e han V V . Dynasty . , at p Dynasty , at

tine . tine .

1 Usercheres . . years Sephres

8 Ne hercheres . p

4 Sisires . 5 . Cheires Rathures Others

Mencheres 7 . 8 .

9 Onnos .

Eight kings in (sic) Thirty -one

years . years .

1 34 T HE KI N G L I S T OF MAN E TH O AC C O RD I N G T O

X . X Dynasty , at Hera Dynasty . , at Hera

kleO olis kl li . eo o s p p . Nineteen kings in 1 85 Nineteen kings in 185

years . years .

. XL . Dynasty XL , at Thebes Dynasty , at Thebes

4 3 . Sixteen kings in 4 3 years . Sixteen kings in years

mm neme Ammenemes 1 6 years . A e s

D . h . Dynasty XII . , at T ebes . ynasty XII , at Thebes

1 . Sesonchosis 4 6 Sesonchosis 4 6 . years . years

2 . Ammanemes 38 Ammanemes 38 3 4 . Sesostris 8 Sesostris

4 L char Lamari s . a es 8

5 Ameres . 8

Amenemes 8 6 . Others

Sk emio hri s 4 7 . p

2 S 1 60 . 4 5 even kings in years Seven kings in years .

Dynasty XIII . , at Thebes . Dynasty XIII . , at Thebes .

4 53 r 4 53 . Sixty kings in yea s . Sixty kings in years

D . D . ynasty XIV . , at Xois ynasty XIV . , at Xois

v - Si x n 184 n - n i n 1 84 Se enty ki gs in Seve ty six ki gs , 4 4 8 . years . or years JU L I U S AFRI CAN U S AND E US E B I US 1 35

h‘ Dynasty XV . , of S ep Dynasty XV . ,

herds . Thebes .

1 1 9 . . Saites years 2 E o 4 4 . n n 3 61 . Pachnan 4 5 0 . Staan A 4 9 5 . rchles

6 A hobi s 61 . p 284 25 0 Six kings in years . kings in years .

n Dynasty XVI . , of Shep Dy asty XVI . , at

herds . Thebes .

- 5 18 190 Thirty two kings in Five kings in years .

years .

D . ynasty XVII , of Shep Dynasty XVII of Shep

herds . herds .

For ty - three kings in 1 5 1 Saites

Bnon years . AphOphi s I . D . ynasty XVI , at Thebes Archles Forty - three kings in 15 1

years . Four kings in

I Dynasty XVIII . at Dynasty XVII . , at

Thebes . Thebes .

1 Amosi s 25 years . . years .

1 2 heb ron 1 3 3 . C 1 36 T HE KI N G L I S T MAN E TH O AC C O RDI N G

3 Amen 2 1 . ophthi s 21 Amenophis

Amensis 22

5 Misa hri 1 i hr . p s 3 M p es

6 Mis hra 5 Mis hra . p g . p g

muthosis 26 muthosis 26

Tuthmosis 9 Tuthmosis 7 . 6 . 9 A 31 8 . Am n 31 menophis 7 . e ophis 9 3 7 8 . 3 . Oros Oros 6

1 Acherres 32 Achen h r 0 9 . 1 . c e ses 6 1 1 6 1 Ath B 0 . ori . athos s 39

h 12 1 1 Chen here 12 C ebres . c s 1 . 6

1 h r 12 12 Acherr s 3 A eres . e 8 . c 1 3 15 . Cherres 1 A m 14 Armesses 5 4 . 5 . r ais

15 m 1 1 5 . m 68 . Ra esses Ra esses

1 Ammeno hi 4 Amenophath 19 6 . p s 0

Sixteen kings in Fourteen kings in

Years . years .

XI D XIX . X . Dynasty , at Thebes ynasty , at Thebes

1 eth h 1 S os 5 5 . . Set os 5 years . years

2 Ra sak es 1 Ram ses 66 . p 6 p

3 Ammene h Ammene h . p p thes 20 thes 4 0 4 m 60 . Ra esses

5 Ammenemnes 5 Ammen 2 . emes 6

6 Thuoris h . T uoris 7

209 a 1 4 9 . Seven kings in ye rs . Five kings in years

1 38 T HE KI N G L I ST OF M AN E TH O AC C ORD I N G T o

t . t I . t . Dynasty XX II , at Tanis . Dynas y XXIII , Tanis

1 tu a t 5 . 1 Petub ates 4 0 . Pe b s es 2 . years . years

2 Osorcho 8 2 orthon 9 . Os .

P mm 1 ammus 1 0 3 . sa us 0 3 Ps . 4 Z t 31 . e

8 4 4 Four kings in 9 years . Three kings in years .

. i i Dynasty XXIV , at Sa s . Dynasty XXIV . , at Sa s .

B c ri 4 4 B ch ri o cho s . oc o s 6 years . years

D Dynasty XXV . , in ynasty XXV in

i . Eth opia . Ethiopia

1 ab akon 12 rs S . 1 h . . Sa akon 8 years . yea

2 Sebichos 12 2 Sebich 1 . . os 4

3 Tarkos 18 3 . Tarak os 20 . 4 4 . Three kings in 4 0 years . Three kings in years

I i i . Dynasty XXVI . , at Sa s . Dynasty XXV , at Sa s

1 Amm ri 12 . 1 t hin . e s S e ates 7 . . p years years

2 te hinathi 2 Neche sos 6 . S s 7 . p p

3 Nechao 8 3 . Neche sos 6 . p

4 Psammetichos 54 echao 8 . N

P amm 4 h 6 5 . s etichos 5 5 . Nec ao

ha P ammuthi s 6 6 . ec o 6 6 . s N hi 1 Ua hris 1 9 7 . Psammut s 7 7 . p

8 Amosis 4 4 8 . Ua hris 25 . p

9 Psammeche 9 . Amosis 4 2 . ri tes

15 163 . Nine kings in 05 years . Nine kings in years JU L I U S AFRI C AN U S AND E U S E B I U S 1 39

D I . ynasty XXVI , Persians . Dynasty XXVII . , Persians . 1 m . 6 l . m 3 Ca byses years . Ca byses years . H i s 2 M 7 . Dar us y . agoi months

tas es 36 36 p 3. Darius years . X 21 3 4 . . Xerxes the erxes 21 A 4 0 Great 5 . rtaxerxes A m m 4 rt anu 7 6 . 2 ab s . . onths . Xerxes onths A 4 i m 5 . 1 o d ano S s . 7 . 7 rtaxerxes years . g onths 1 2 . 9 . Xerxes months 8 . Darius years i n m 7 So d a os . . g 7 onths 1 8 . Darius 9 years . 124 120 Eight kings in years , Eight kings in years ,

4 m 4 . onths . months

I i . D na t X I n I . X II . s V . y y , at Sa s Dynasty XXV I , at Sa s

m r aeu Am A t s 6 . yrtaeus 6 years . y years

Dynasty XXIX . , at Dynasty XXIX . , at

Mendes . Mendes . 1 h i . e er tes 6 1 Ne herite s 6 . N p years . . p years

2 A h ri . c o s 13 2 Achori 1 3 . s

3 . m 3 Psammonthis 1 Psa mon .

1 e h rite 4 this N p e s months .

l Ne herite 4 m . s . Mouthi 1 5 . s p onths year . 20 2 1 Four kings in years , Five kings in years , 4 m 4 m onths . onths . 1 4 0 T HE O L D C H RON I C L E

Dynasty XXX . , at Dynasty XXX at

nn b enn tus eb e tus . Se S y y .

1 ektaneb es 1 8 1 kt n b 10 . . . Ne a e es N years years . 2 2 2 . Teos . Teos

3 ktaneb os 18 3 ektaneb os 8 . Ne . N

2 3 0 . Three kings in 8 years . Three kings in years

1 III — THE OL D I LE . N CHRO C .

f 4 4 3 Fi teen kings , or Dynasties

X I . 1 V . 90 Dyn . , at Tanis Eight kings in m u 1 0 . 3 XVII , at Me phis . Fo r kings in

I m i In 34 . . 8 XVII , at Me phis Fourteen k ngs IX in X . , at Thebes . Five kings

XX . , at Eight kings in

i in XXL , at Tanis . Six k ngs m XXII . , at Ta s . Three kings in

i In XXIII . , at Thebes . Two k ngs ' V l In a . XXI . , at S s Three kings n 4 4 XXV . , in Ethiopia Three ki gs in

m v n in XXVI . , at Me phis . Se e kings i n XXVII . , Persians . Five kings

XXVIII . ,

XXIX . , Tanites . One king in

F or the G re ek te t s e e Fra menta Hi stori cor um Graecor um x , g ,

v l i Di 4 . i . d . d ot 5 3 o e . . , p

1 4 2 T HE BOO K O F T HE S OT HI S

Aseth

Amosis Chehron Amemphis

Amenses

Misphragmuthosis Mi sphres

Tuthmosis

AmenOphthis Oros

Achencheres

Athoris

Chencheres

Acherres

Armaeos Ramesses Amenophi s

Thuoris

5 0 eche s os . N p

5 1 Psammuthi s T HE BOO K O F T HE S OTHI S 1 4 3

years ,

Athothi s

60 Kenk enes .

61 Uenne hi s . p

Susakeim

Psuenos

Ammenophi s Nephercheres Saites

Psinaches

68 Petub astes .

Osorthon

0 Psammos 7 .

1 Konchari s 7 .

Bokchori s 1 4 4 T HE B O O K OF T HE S OTHI S

1 4 32 A M h 2 s . . 75 . 7 Sa akon year ,

6 Seb echon 1 2 4 74 4 7 .

Tarak es 20 4 75 6

Amaes

Stephinathes Nechepsos Nechos

Psammitichos

Nechao

Psamuthes

Uaphri s

Amosis

’ An examination of the versions of Manetho s King List according to Julius Africanus and Eusebius shows

not m m that they do agree in any i portant particulars , i e m n In the n . . , in arrange ent of dy asties , le gths of the m reigns of the kings , and in the total nu bers of kings f assigned to the dif erent dynasties . Moreover, accord ing to Julius Africanus 5 61 kings reigned in about 5 524 n years , while according to Eusebius o ly about 4 4 80 4 80 361 kings reigned in or 7 years . In the Old

m v i s 84 Chronicle the total nu ber of kings gi en , and 214 0 they are declared to have reigned about years , and in the Book of the Sothis the total number of kings is 86 and the total duration of their reigns is 25 00 given as about years . Now the information which we have obtained from the Egyptian monuments

1 4 6 T HE AUT H O RI T Y OF MAN E TH O

mm u royal co and to ndertake , he would be in a position to draw hi s information from sources which were regarded as authoritative and authentic by his m brother priests . That his na e carried weight , and that his reputation for learning was very g reat for

s t n m centurie af er his death, is evide t fro the fact that impostors endeavoured to obtain circulation for their own pse udo - historical works by issuing them under

m no M fo r his na e . We have right to blame anetho

m w his m the istakes hich editors and copyists ade , and in considering his list the wonder is that the version of Julius Africanus agrees as closely as it does with the

n T he monume tal evidence . discrepancies in the numbers are due chiefly to the misreading by the scribes of the Greek letters which stood for figures ; n m t the a es , however, are generally given in correc

and ma order, as instances of this fact! we y quote those

th and XVIIIth of the XII Dynasties .

O 4 5 0 and Diodorus The evidence of Herodotus (B . ) Sic ulus 5 7) concerning Egyptian chronology

the m is interesting , especially that of for er writer .

m n m 11 0 So e of the i for ation given by Herodotus is ,

m Hecataeus but doubt , derived fro of Miletus , , as is the

Diod orus m case also with , uch of it is the result of his n own inquiries and observatio . The list of kings i n i given each of the r works is, on the whole , of little m value , for Herodotus apparently erely set down in writing the names of the kings whose buildings he

N w saw m passed on the ile in the order in hich he the , H E RO DOTU S AND DIODORUS 1 4 7

and Di odorus filled his history with a large amount of l m egendary atter from which, of course , no conclusion

d As x however , i t ma can be rawn . an e ception , , y be noted that the account of the kings who built the Pyramids in the IVth Dynasty agrees absolutely with m m m the onu ents as regards the na es of the kings , the n de h lengths of their reig s, and the or r in w ich they l Di od orus reigned, and in several passages correctly estimates the period of time which had elapsed since the beginning of the Egyptian monarchy at about 4 700

years . It will be evident from what has been said above that it is impossible from the King Lists in hieroglyphics and Greek to formulate any system of chronology which

m a m t shall be ore th n approxi a ely correct, and although the evidence derived from such lists and from the monuments of individual kings when taken together is wonderfully strong in favour of the high antiquity of li Egyptian civi zation generally, it does not enable us to fi x the period when we may assume that Egyptian A history began . The Tablet of bydos and the ver sions of Manetho ascribed to Julius Africanus and

Eusebius , and even the worthless Book of the Sothis , all agree in making Menato be the first historical king

1 S ee an int ere sting p amphl e t entitl ed Der B eri cht d es Di od or H u i n 1 F Ri i n . ber P a/mi d n Berli 1 0 b r . W von s s e om d e r e 9 . c y , , , y g

ares th e ac c ount s of Di o d orus an d Herod otus an d n otes that th e p ,

’ form er writ er say s th at the pyram i d s w ere b uil t b y m e an s of i n c li n ed l n e dr a p a s , a . 1 4 8 T HE S OTH I C PE RI OD

h of Egypt , t ough we now know that he was not the first E i ff d king of gypt , but none of these author ties a or s the information which will enable us with certainty to m t assign a date for his reign . Nevertheless , atte p s n m n have bee ade to obtain some fixed point in the Ki g, m m Lists fro which it ight be possible to deduce his date , m n m — 1 THE OTH C and the ea s e ployed have been . S I

1 Y HE R E TAT O E D 2 S NOHRONISM s 3 . T I P RI O ; . O N I N

r A TEMPLE o E GYPTI N s . Of the Sothic Period we have five mentions in the inscriptions ; three of these have been submitted to strict examination by Sir m Nor an Lockyer, and he thinks that the 27th E i hi rising of Sirius on the day of p p , in the reign

- i - Ra 3192 of Pepi Mer , took place about , and that the other risings of Sirius mentioned by Brugsch 2 took 3 B 1 2 2 ow C . 8 o 0 place about . 7 and B . 7 respectively . N ’ Pepi -Meri - Ra s name is the thirty - sixth on the Tablet

1 “ Now in b ooks on Egyptol ogy th e p eri od of 1 4 61 y e ars i s term e d the S othi c eri od an d t rul s o as i t v er n e arl c or p , y , y y r ectly m e asures the p erio d el ap sing b etween two heli ac al ri si ngs

at th e s ol sti ce on the be inni n of th e Nil e fl ood on the 1 s t of ( g g ) ,

Thoth i n th e va u Bu i t i s m erel th r ult f ha ce e e ar . t e es o c n , g y y

that 365 4 re r n i It w a s n o t then k nown that th e r o 4 X p e s e ts t . p c e s si on al m ovem ent of Sirius alm ost e x actly m ad e up th e d ifferen c e b etw een the tru e l ength of th e y ear an d the a ss um e d l ength of

3 d I h i d h ad n t an 65 4 ay s . t as b een state d that thi s p er o o y

an ci ent e i stenc e b ut w as c al cul ate d b ack i n l at er tim es . Thi s x , ” s eem s t o m e ver im rob abl e Loc er Dawn o Astrono m y p . ky , f y, 2 5 6 . p . 2 ’ M ateria ucc our ser i a l a al r i 3 v r recons tr u i n d a end er . 3 p ct o C , pp ,

64 68 se e l o Ae i Z e t . B a s . d 1 ii 0 . v . . 0 , g , . xxx p 3 Dawn o Astronom 2 2 f y , p . 6 .

1 5 0 T HE S OTHI C PE RI OD

rtsen Am se . U III and enophis L , whose ninth year (according to a calculation based upon a statement in respect of Sothis in the Ebers Papyrus) corresponds 154 5 — 1 54 2 with , we must only allow a period of 330 XIIth years , and that between the end of the and the beginning of the XVIIIth Dynasty we must only m 2 0 21 0 1 allow fro 0 to years in our calculations . That assertions of this kind must be received with caution is evident from the fact that another in

vesti ator m g , using the sa e data , declares that the true

t en 1 94 5 i e d ser s . . U . ate of III is ; , there is a difference of about seventy years in the results of the 2 calculations of the two writers on the subject . But

- S according to Censorinus , the Dog star, or irius , rose on the first day of the first month of the Egypti an year

A D 139 n . . , and therefore the precedi g Sothic Period 1 3 began in 22 this date is _ called by Theon of “ A Meno hres lexandria the era of p , who has been 3 m I identified by Prof. Petrie with Ra eses . , whose

m - e - Ra ma preno en is Men p h , and this identification y

has possibly be correct . Now Prof. Mahler asserted

’ 1 E S i st al s o d a hr s l U er t s n III . a i i s 7 . J a e e s s n d e Jahre v on

18 — 1 f ll n z 6 8 3 v . Chr a e d an u s h n d h i . mm r n 7 7 e e , . . e oc h e twa 100 Jab r e sp ater al s e s d er am n i e d rigsten greifen d e Hi storik er ” A e ten s E d u ar d M e er i n s ein en Minim ald at en ann ahm gyp , y , . i A . Z v i 1 . . . 02 xxx p . 2 S e e i ck lin i n lassi al R vi l xi 1 1 4 8 n N C c e ew v o . 0 v . 90 . a d , , p ;

Hal l Old es t Ci vi li z ti L n n 1 1 a on o Gr eece o d o 90 . 6 , f , , , p 7 3 Hi stor o E ii t l t . 33 h e re ad er S h ou d c on sul t y f gyp , p . ; M ’ r . Torr s Mem hi nd 5 3 E h th un i s a M cen ae . w ere e sat sfac tor p y , p , y

n atur e of su ch c al ul ati n i d e m on strat e d c o s s . T HE S E T FE S T I VAL 1 5 1

t i e s S e . . that a Festival , , the fe tival which was observed

at the end of a period of thirty years , which was cele brated on the 28th day of a certain month of Epiphi

Thothmes mm m in the reign of III . , was co e orated

14 70 r 1 5 0 in the year , and as a pe iod of about years probably elapsed between the reigns of Thothmes III 1 R I m . and ameses . , the two dates are , ore or less, in m m v m m agree ent . It ust , howe er, be re e bered that, as n said above , very little relia ce is to be placed on any calculations of this kind in attempting to formulate an n exact chronology , especially as authorities , both a cient m and odern , are not agreed as to the exact date in the second century of our era when the Sothic Period d ended on which they base their calculations . We

ma i y note in passing that the date ass gned by Prof.

n Thothmes I i m C e B . Mahler to the reig of I I . , . . , fro 15 03 14 4 9 to , is proved to be about half a century too low by the synchronisms of Burna - buriash and

- A uballit Am . Am shur with enophis III and enophis IV . , as we have shown below ; the arguments adduced by ’ Prof. Petrie in favour of Prof. Mahler s date for

Thothmes III ff . , to the e ect that the Set Festival celebrated by Mer - en- Ptah in the second year of his 1 206 n i reign took place , and the risi g of Sir us in

A lace‘ B 0 154 6 the ninth year of menophis I . took p . . , do

1 The Al -Bersh eh tab l e t whi ch i s th ou ht b Profess or Petrie t o , g y ’ a fford s u ch a b rilli ant c o nfir mati on of Mahl er s astronomi c al r ec oni n i s d e str o e d an d as d ata s u li e d b i t c anno t b e k g, y , , pp y r l f r ur m n v e i e d i s u se e ss o ose s of ar u e t . fi , p p g 1 5 2 T HE M I S S I ON O F UNA

’ m um not confir Prof. Mahler s arg ents , because the calculations by which these dates are arrived at both w m start, the one forwards and the other back ards, fro 14 78 , the date adopted by Prof. Mahler . This likewise is an unsatisfactory method of arriving at an t exact sys em of Egyptian chronology . In connection with the Sothic Period must be m ’ entioned Prof. Petrie s attempt to extract the means

d Mer- en-Ra of arriving at a ate for the reign of , a king

VIth r m the of the Dynasty , f o the inscription of ffi Una o cial , whose labours in the service of his royal

the end master are so well known . Near of his in scription Una says that his Majesty Mer - en- Ra sent him to the quarry of Het -nub to hew out a large t ff alabaster able for o erings ; this he did, and placing

t o it in a broad boat, he floated it down the river m d m Me phis in seventeen ays . The boat easured sixty cubits by thirty cubits , and he built the boat, or raft , and quarried the table for offerings in s eventeen days

’ m E i hi Una then in . the onth of p p says ,

‘ N W M w oo-fl g ) Q “ M M [L n i e N W W , . . , behold there was no water

thesu i e n twith on . . o the , , shoals or sandbanks, but

difficult standing the y, he adds , he brought the boat ,

l m Khanefer or raft , safe y into port at the Pyra id of 1 - - a m en R . . of Mer , in peace Prof Petrie argues fro this statement that when Una arrived off Memphis in the month of Epiphi the waters of the Nile had

1 A Hi st o E t ol i 5 or v . . . 9 . y f gyp , p

1 54 S YN C H RON I S M S

5 38 l 1 Sha ash , te ls us in one of his inscriptions that g

- b uri ash n alti y , who was one of the Kassite kings , reig ed

800 him m nchronous is years before . Fro the S y H

i 11 5 - - or . 7 buri a h t . s y . col . , , we know that Burra y was

m Puzur-A A a conte porary of shur, king of ssyria, and

m ff Puz ur- fro lines 8 . we know that Ash ur lived at

A -uballi A an earlier period than shur t, king of ssyria .

w 85 - 4 - 3 2 No . . 0 Nabonidus also tells us (Brit Mus , ,

11 20 - 24 -buri ash l 0 . 0 . 7 col ii , . ) that Burra y ived years after Khammurabi ; we have therefore to fix the period for the reign of the latter king before the information

m A - - can be of uch value to us . Now shur bani pal , king

A m C 668 62 B . 6 of ssyria , who reigned fro to , says

that the Elamite king Kudur- Nankhundi invaded Babylonia 1 635 or 1 5 35 years before he himself con ' u i e u - Nankhundi q ered Susa , . , , Kud r invaded Baby 1 m lonia about 2285 0 1 2 85 . But it was this sa e m t mm d 3 Ela i e power which Kha urabi crushe , and so he must have lived after Kudur -Nankhundi ; We may therefore at the latest place the date of his reign at

2200 h - b uri ash 00 . 7 about If, t en , Burra y lived mm i d years after Kha urab , the ate of his reign would

t B C 14 5 0 14 00 m be abou . or . We ust return for a m m A r- ub allit A o ent to shu , king of ssyria , who was

1 / i l t 4 0 1 ii i . Cu ne i n A a ol V . a e 6 0 . o rm Ins cr tio s o Vestern s v . if p f l , p , 11 2 — . 7 2 9 . 2 I bi d l . t 1 l 10 a e 6 0 0 . 6 . , p , , . 7 3 S e e e s e c i all L Ki n Letters a nd Ins cri ti ons o Kham W . p y . g, p f mura bi l i ii 2 3 v o . . . 6 ff. , p - - E 1 B U RRA B URIYAS H AND AM E N H T E P IV . 55

of the Puz ur-A A one successors of shur, king of ssyria, and whose date may be fixed by the following facts .

u m 0 On a slab in the British M seu , N .

Ramman - nirari states that he i s the great - grandson of 2 - m Ashur ub allit in another inscription Shal aneser 1 .

ma - nirari states that he is the son of Ram n L , and in 3 a nother Tuk ulti - Ninib asserts that he is the son of

m m r Shalmaneser I . fro these three state ents it is clea that Ashur - ub allitwas the great - great - great- grandfather 4 Tukulti - Now of Ninib . , Sennacherib made a copy upon clay of an inscription of Tukulti -Ninib which had been cut upon a lapis - laz uli seal this seal had been carried off m u A to Babylon by so e successf l conqueror of ssyria , and Sennacherib found it there after he had vanquished the Babylonians and had captured their city . We

m B O 705 to know that Sennacherib reigned fro about . 68 1 n , and he tells us in a few li es added to his ’ copy of the writing on Tukulti -Ninib s seal that the lapis - lazuli seal was carried off to Babylon 600 years before his own time ; therefore Tukulti- Ninib must

l 2 B . 0 1 80 have reigned at least as far back as . , and as there is no evidence to show “ that the seal was carried off m ma m during his lifeti e , we y assu e rightly that ’ Tukulti - 1 300 Ninib s date is about . But we have

1 Se e Cunei orm Inscri ti ons o s t r Asi a o l i v l We e n V . . ate 39 f p f , p , l b v . . 2 f o 7 . 2 I bi d l 1 l at . v o . e NO 4 , . p 6 , . . 3 Ibi l iii l 4 d . o . N v . ate 2 o . , p , . 4 ' Th e t e t will b e foun d i bi l i l i i . t . N 2 . d vo . a e o . x , p B - I H AM E - HE T E P I 1 56 U RRA B UR YAS AND N V .

’ seen that Ashii r-ub allit was Tukulti - Ninib s great

- - and great great grandfather, therefore he can hardly have lived less than 100 years before Tukulti - Ninib thus it is clear that the date which we must assign to the reign of Ashur -ub allit cannot be later than ‘ 14 00 the l el - Am . Now we know that Te l arna tablet at

9 was Am A Berlin (No . ) written to enophis IV . by shur ub allit m , therefore these two kings were conte poraries, Am and the date of enophis IV . cannot be later than

14 00 - buri ash . We have seen above that Burra y

Puzur-A r A was a contemporary of shu , king of ssyria ,

r of A - ub allit ma the predecesso shur , and his date y, at m fi B 0 14 30 the lowest co putation , be xed at about . . ; but we know that Burra -buriyash wrote letters to m A . enophis III , and therefore we shall be right in saying that the beginning of the reign of this king cannot be much later than This synchronism i s thus well established . The next synchronism to be mentioned is that of

Shashan I w erob oam q . , king of Egypt , ith J , king of m Israel , and Rehoboa , king of Judah, about The date of this synchronism is calculated from the

d i e . earliest certain ate or event in Syrian history, . , the 854 battle of Karkar, which took place in this battle A m hab and his allies were defeated by Shal aneser II . , A m 5 9 825 8 . king of ssyria , who reigned fro to It is well known that as far back as 893 nearly all

1 Thi s i s th e d ate ad o te d b llh a us n Profe ssor K arl p y We e . M arti i e s B C 3 v 9 0 . g . .

1 58 T HE VAL U E O F THE KI N G LIS TS

and calculations , they agree generally with the evidence which may be deduced from the discoveries concerning “ ” and n the New Race the ki gs of the Ist Dynasty , which have been made since the D a wn of As tr onomy

can was written . There be no doubt about the correct ness of many of his assertions as to the refounding and u m it reconstr ction of the largest of the te ples , and is important to note that the dates proposed by him for m the original foundings for certain te ples , although at

m m ma one ti e believed by so e to be too early, y now be r A m n regarded as p obably correct . strono ical evide ce supports the evidence derived from every other source in assigning a remote antiquity to the period when Egyptian civilization began ; but unfortunately it does not assist us in formulating a complete system of

r Egyptian ch onology with exact dates . We may now sum up the results which may be fairly m h n deduced fro the facts set fort above . The Ki g

Lists, whether written in hieroglyphics or Greek , con m m tain o issions and conflicting state ents , but the

d s evi ence of such List as a whole , when taken into consideration with the information on Egyptian history

m m ma which is supplied by the onu ents , y be regarded m as generally correct and quite credible . Fro the

m of King Lists the Royal Papyrus of Turin ust , m m course, be excluded, for the s all frag ents into which it was reduced in the box on its way to Turin were pieced together by a man whose system of hieroglyphic m n decipher ent has been u iversally rejected, and whose S YS TE M S O F C H RO N OL O G Y 5 9

knowledge of the hieratic character was so small as to be useless for the purpose to which he tried to apply it

m a d m Rou é oreover, ccor ing to the testi ony of de g ,

n r whose learni g and integ ity are beyond q uestion, and whose statement on the subject must be regarded as um final , no arg ents can be rightly based upon the position of the fragments which seem to contain the

names of kings of the so- called XIIIth and XIVth ffi b t Dynasties . The di culty which esets the Egyp o

lo i st a d g who tries to ssign a ate to the reign of Menes , d A the first king of Egypt accor ing to the Tablet of bydos, is well illustrated by the fact that Champollion - Figeac

i hi s 5 867 Boeckh 5 702 g ves as date ; , ; Lepsius , B C 3892 5 004 C 3623 . B ; Mariette , ; Bunsen , . 2320 4 4 5 5 B C Wilkinson , ; and Brugsch , or . 4 4 00 . Of these writers the only ones whose chrono

w r u n are logical vie s are to be se io sly co sidered Lepsius ,

and Mariette, Brugsch , between whose highest and lowest

e 1 100 dat s is an interval of over years . Viewed in the

i r i m l ght of ecent investigat ons , the date of Lepsius see s

m way to be too low, whilst that of Mariette , in the sa e , seems to be too high we have therefore to consider the

r B m date for Menes ar ived at by rugsch . This e inent Egyptologist based his system of chronology upon the

- well known calculation of Herodotus , that the duration of three consecutive human lives represents a century and he thought that he could determine approximately the periods of time which have elapsed between Menes

S E t nd th e e Pha hs l i . 33 . u er e ra o . . gyp o , v p ’ B R 1 60 D R . U G S C H S C HRO N O LO G Y

XIIth m and the end of the Dynasty , and fro the beginning of the XVIIIth Dynasty to the end of the XXVIth m n , by eans of the Ki g Lists and the f A pedigrees of high Egyptian o ficials . lthough this system i s open to many obj ections on the score of inaccuracy in respect of the dates of certain events

ma which y now be fixed with considerable exactness , it m mm has uch to reco end it , and is on the whole the best d that has been devised ; in any case, the knowle ge which Brugsch possessed of Egyptology in all its in branches was so vast, that a general question of this

r kind his opinion carries g eat weight, and is entitled m to the ut ost respect . The present writer here , as ’ m elsewhere , has adopted Brugsch s syste , with certain modifications which were rendered necessary by recent

e Thothmes m discoveries, . g. , the date of III . ust be brought down from 1 600 to between 15 5 0 and 15 00 the interval between the XIIth and the XVIIIth n Dy asties , as stated by Brugsch, can hardly have been

V our so long . But in iew of ignorance of the historical events which took place between the end of the XIIth XVIIth D and the end of the ynasty , it has been well n m to retain his dati g of the kings of the Middle E pire , i e KIth XIIth XIIIth and XVIth . . , those of the , , ,

Dynasties . The length of the duration of the two

i e m great gaps in Egyptian history , . . , fro the end of the VIth n KIth f m to the beginni g of the Dynasty , and ro XIIIth XVIIth D the end ofthe to the end of the ynasty , is at present unknown ; all we can now say is that

HA E III C PT R .

THE LE GE NDAR PER OD Y I .

THE fact that the ancient Egyptians of the historical period attempted to formulate their hazy ideas con cerning the predynastic period of their history and its duration is made known to us by certain of the i h vers ons of the King List of Manetho , which ave been a m preserved by George the Syncellus . The st te ents o m which refer to this peri d that are found in the , as m well as the nu bers of years which the gods , demi n gods, ki gs , ghosts , etc . , are alleged to have reigned , prove that those who drew up the materials from which Manetho compiled his King List had no correct know ledge of the duration of the Predynastic Period in

Egypt or even of the early Dynastic Period, and it is now q uite clear that even in the time of the XIXth Dynasty its history had long since degenerated into legend and a confused mass of hopelessly m A d ixed tradition . ccor ing to George the Syncellus ‘ the Egyptians possessed a fcertain tablet called the “ Old 11 3 Chronicle , containing thirty dynasties in D IVI N E DYN AS TI E S 1 63

descents , during the long period of years .

of Auritae The first series of princes was that the ,

Mestraeans the the second was that of the , and third ” 1 as of Egyptians . The reign of the gods was follows

“ EP A STOS m m H H I , to who is assigned no ti e , as he “ ” is apparent both by day and by night .

HEL OS son h I , the of Hep aistos , reigned

years . RONOS 3984 K , and the other twelve gods , reigned

years .

- D 21 EM GO S 7 . D I , eight in number , reigned years

30 2 324 The dynasties of kings reigned years , and thus we get a grand total of years for the duration of the Predynastic and Dynastic Periods in

Egypt . The Syncellus goes on to say that the period 25 14 61 of years equals times years , and that “ It relates to the fabled periodical revolution of the “ di m n zo ac a o g the Egyptians and Greeks , that is , its m m revolution fro a particular point to the sa e again, which point is the first minute of the first degree of

Ram that equinoctial sign which they call the , as it Is explained in the Genesis of Hermes and in the

Cyranni an books .

1 F a me ta H st i m For th e Gree te t se e r n i or coru Graecorunz e d . k x g , ’ B uns en E t s Place l 8 n r 34 vo . v . . a d C o Did t . 5 9 o , p ; , gyp , p 6 ; y ,

a ments Lon d on 1832 . 89 ff. Anci ent Fr g , , , p 1 64 DIVI N E DYN AS TI E S

1 According to Eusebius the duration o f the Pre dynastic and Dynastic Period s was as follows :

GODs . I . years

11 EM - GODS . D I

1 m - . De i gods h Ot er kings .

m s 3. Thirty Me phite king Ten kings of This 35 0

MANEs III . .

Total years .

3 According to Manetho and Panodorus the Divine Dynasties were as follows

ODS Panodorus I . G ( )

ar Y e s . 1 Hephaistos reigned 72 7 2} 2 80 1 . Helios 7, 3 A m n 5 6 . gathodae o 3 4 4 0 . Kronos 4 5 35 . Osiris and Isis 6 29 . Typhon

969

1 F n a Hi stori rum raeco m t m S ee ra me t co G ru o 11 5 28 c ol . 1 . g , . . p . , 2 “ After them the empi re d e sc end ed b y a l ong suc c essi on t o

Bites throu h a l a s e of ear s re ck one d I s a i n l un ar , g p y , , y , ye ars of thirty d ays to e ach for ev en n ow they c all th e m onth a ” A i en F a m ts 2 e ar . C or n c t r en . 9 . y y , g , p 3 t i 5 5 1 m n a H st G a ec . . 0 S ee F a e . r 3 3 . r g , pp ,

1 66 PRE DYN ASTI C KING S

m into Egypt ; possibly they ca e , as has been said f m E above , ro the ast by way of the upper part of the f Nile Valley . Of such chie s or kings traces have been u um m h fo nd, and a n ber of to bs whic have been declared e to be, and probably are , their sepulchres have b en 1 00 1 1 A excavated during the years 9 and 90 at bydos .

ma KHENT With these we y not now class that of , who a M was certainly a successor of Men , or enes . The

m r sign which expressed his na e [m]was , at a ve y early d fi perio , identi ed with the epithet [flhapplied to the “ Am XIXth god Osiris as chief of enti , and in the D m ynasty , and probably earlier, we find that the to b of the king Khent was regarded as that of the god . b n T E DE Possi ly the earliest ki g of the group was or , the symbol of his name being the hand With this king must also be mentioned two monarchs who

RE R0 reigned over Upper Egypt who were called , or , O KA 1 m m , and , U . Fro the evidence now forthco ing we are justified in saying that long before the unification of the M a rule of the Nile Valley under en , Upper

E i e u m Fa fim gypt , . . , the co ntry fro the yy on the north

il il a r i e S s . . to about on the south , and Lowe Egypt , , D m M the elta and a s all portion of iddle Egypt , existed m as two entirely distinct and independent kingdo s . n m w The ki gdo of Lo er Egypt was probably the older , m that is to say , it see s to have been inhabited by the

1 i Ro a l 1 r P tr e l i e 3 . and alin S ee e Tombs Par t i . at J a s s e s , y , , p g

f k i n KA d o g have b een foun . T HE FOLLOW E RS OF HORUS 1 67 descendants of the aboriginal north - east African race

Shemsu who were conquered by the Heru , or the “ i e f Followers of Horus, . . , the ounders of the historical i kingdom which had its beginn ng in Upper Egypt . This fact is proved by the use of the word SUTEN

i n the Egyptian language of the historical

“ period ; originally the SUTE N was the king of Upper

l NET Egypt , and the king of Lower Egypt was ca led

1 or BAT a word which has been conjectured to I be of Libyan origin . t is worthy of note that in the

“ group l% , which means King of the South and “ ” North , the sign for king of the South precedes “ Now that of king of the North . gradually the word

S TEN m i a r excellence U gained the ean ng of king , p , a signification which the word NET or BAT never n m acquired . The fact that the Egyptia s the selves always regarded their country as composed of two

n i e and w ki gdoms , . . , Upper Lo er Egypt, is proved by the two crowns which are usually united on the heads

of their sovereigns . The crown of Upper Egypt was

HETCHE T represented by the sign 4, and was called , “ w because of its white colour, and the crown of Lo er

1 A c c ord ingt o the versi on of th eLOl d Chr oni cl e given b y Eu seb i us

C or An i n F a m nts th d n f h d as se e c e t r e . e ast o t e o s w ( y , g , p y y g foll owe d b y a l ong su c c essi on of d i vine k i ngs wh o reign ed for

r s h l t f t as B it s It i o ib l tha Bi y ea t e as o he s e w e . s p ss e t tes

h as s om e c onnecti on wi th B ait an d if thi s e s o he robabl , b , p y

re re sents th d nast of L er E t p e y y ow gyp . 1 68 E ARL Y ROYAL T IT LE S

Egypt was represented by the sign y, and was called TESHERT , because of its red colour ; the united

n crowns were represented by y, a sig which has been m ” co monly but erroneously read Pschent , the correct d ” 1 rea ing being , of course, Sekhet . Egyptian kings of the dynastic period were never tired of calling

“ < 7 themselves Lord of the two lands, i , a title which we now know must refer to the two king

m not ATEBUI do s of the South and North , and to the ,

N M In or east and west banks of the ile . oreover, the earliest dy nastic times the king of all Egypt was

“ i e already distinguished by the title . . , lord of C C ? ” “ the city of the goddess Nekhebet , and lord of the ” “ tch t i Ua e . e . city of the goddess , , lord of Eileithyia u polis and B to , which were held to be the representa h h tive cities of the Sout and the Nort . The idea of the union of the South and the North was symbolically expressed by the hieroglyphic which was in tended to represent the tying together of the papyrus

and lotus, plants which typified the South and the “ t r i n AM A i S . e . Nor h espectively ; the s g is read T UI , ,

i two un on of the lands , and is found engraved on

the thrones of seated statues of kings . The first

on n i e instance of its use occurs a vase of Ki g Besh , . . , Kha- sekhem (Kha Betchau of the King

1 A c c ord in t o m k hm t g so e S e e .

1 7 0 KI N G S O F L OW E R E G Y PT

T H HES .

E E B N H .

- AR UATcn N .

E K A pi M H .

When exactly where these kings reigned d m sai , but it see s certain that they were independent kings of Lo wer Egypt who reigned before the time of

Mena , or Menes . A CH PTER IV .

THE ARC A C PER OD OF E G PT AN H STOR H I I Y I I Y ,

THE F ST T EE D A T ES IR HR YN S I .

THE writers of histories of Egypt and of summaries of Egyptian history before 1 894 were compelled to begin thei r narratives by stating briefly or otherwise

our IInd that knowledge of the history of the Ist , , and IIIrd Dynasties was limited to the names of the kings m n m which were derived fro the Ki g Lists , and fro a few monuments of the IInd and IIIrd Dynasties ; of the Ist Dynasty no monument whatsoever was known . n m Since that year , however, a u ber of excavations have m E M been ade in Up per gypt by essrs . J . de Morgan ,

Amélineau r , Pet ie , Quibell , Garstang , and others , and these have resulted in the discovery of the tombs of several of the k ings and officials of the Ist and IInd m m Dynasties, as well as of a large nu ber of conte

‘ n ora eous i e . p objects , . , stelae , vases and j ars , sculptured " At a slabs , ivory and ebony objects , etc . Nak da , d . . e m M J Morgan excavated a very large to b , which 1 7 2 E ARL Y DY N AS T I C KI N G S

1 was clearly that of a king whose Horus name was

AHA and A SQ, a sign now read , at bydos he was fortunate enough to secure objects inscribed with the S Horus names of the new kings T OHA W T EN or DEN AT CHAB and SEMERKHA M N V‘A ( 3°

At A Amélineau m Of bydos, M . discovered the to b the

i KHENT PER- AB - SEN early dynastic k ng m, and that of E LI )

1 : i IInd n [ Q a k ng of the Dynasty, already well k own, and also objects inscribed with the names of some o fthe

- m . above entioned kings . The next discovery in point ofimportance was that made at Hierak onpoli s In 1 897 in by Mr . Quibell, who found there , the lowest strata

m the m m of the ound of te ple of the city , re ains of n m objects i scribed with the Horus na es of two kings ,

I " i e NAR- MER his . . , f, who is also distinguished on m “ ” onuments by the appellation of Scorpion , and

KHA- SEKHEM (or Kha- Sekhemui) whose m personal na e was Besh . The name of the latter

n Am lineau mi s . é ki g was discovered by M , but it was 2 TI m read . Later, Prof. Petrie excavated the to bs of

- m several of the kings above mentioned , and the to b of a king whose personal name was MER- NEIT 28: u n m m but whose Hor s a e is unknown, and the to b of a A m QR king whose Horus na e was u, and also the

1 Se e a e 1 p g 6 . 2 S e d M e J . e or an Rech h s P ri s 1 erc e a 89 . 2 4 3 . g , , , 7 , p

1 74 E ARL Y DYNAST I C KI N G S

n t ese ti m Semti and o H p . The sa e scholar also n was the first to ide tify a third king , who has since been shown to be the same as Semerkhat mentioned A above , with the king of the bydos List who has ” m - hitherto been called Se en Ptah, and represents the ' ’ Z enémlrns of Manetho s List . The identification of the

R eh fourth king Q with e has been shown by Prof. ’ Petrie s excavations to be correct , although Herr Sethe arrived at his result by a wrong deduction , and by a confusion of the sign khent on a monument of king QA

m the E EN with the na e of king K T, who has already

m Si com been entioned . It is true that the gn fl ] is posed of three libation vases the reading of “ ebhu but which is q , the true explanation of the ’ difficulty is that king QA S personal name was Sen l , which the scribes of the XIXth Dynasty misread as “ h q eb Pi . We may now note that the names of t n 1897 four kings are hus ide tified . In the year , Herr Borchardt read a paper 2 in which he declared

Aha m that 05 , the king who built the to b at

a . . Nak da which was excavated by M J de Morgan, was a none other than Men , or Menes , the first historical

1 It i s i n terestin g t o n ote th at in th e XVIIIth Dynasty w e 1 1 l w m B ok o he Dead te t have th e form s ee o ft , ( Q l y x Q Q

14 5 . l um . v o e , p

2 Koni P ass Aka d d e Wi ssenscha ten za s re . . r S itz ung bemchte cl er g. f — rli n G es am mtsitzun v on 25 N ovemb er 1 89 . 1054 105 8 . Be , g , 7 , pp

D na ti e ( Ein n euer KOnigsnam e d er Ersten y s . ) AHA AND ME NA 1 75

1 king of Egypt . On an ivory plaque now preserved in the National Egyptian Museum at Cairo are figured a

and the boat, birds , and other objects, in top right hand corner occur the Horus and personal names of the king

m m i e Aha was who had it ade . The Horus na e , . . , , n m already well k own , but the personal na e which follows after the signs was read by Herr

“ i e 112 51 m Borchardt as Men , . . , . Of the eaning of the W m signs k there can be little doubt, for they ust

“ i e . . , Lord of the be equivalent to or represent $620

South , Lord of the North ; but it is not absolutely certain that the sign which follows them has been “ l b Men right y transcri ed as . That we are dealing

the n with a royal name is probable , but that sig which expresses this supposed royal name is the equivalent of “ Men or “ Mena is improbable another explanation of the sign and its signification has been given by ied m 2 W e ann .

Naville Ree/wel l M . in a learned paper ( , tom . xxi . , 105 t p . ) has discussed the mat er at great length , and he entirely rejects the idea that we have on the ivory

m a id entifi plaque the na e of Men , and especially the

of — a the cation king 043 with Men . On other hand, “ ” he thinks that the sign in question is men 12 2 :

1 Ac cord in t o Prof. Petri e the tomb d is cov er d b J d e Mor g e y . gan at Na ad a i s n ot th at of Aha b ut of Nit - e te the wife of Men k h p , a.

Ro al ombs Part ii 4 T . . . y , , p 2 P oc o Btbl . A h 1 1 1 fi r . S c . rc . 8 8 . , 9 , p 3 . F R D M E A 1 76 I S T YN AS TY . N

but explains its signification in an entirely different

manner . Last of all the early dynastic kings now known to us

SMA is , and it is possible that he was the

mm m men i ediate predecessor of Mena , for his na e is

tioned on some objects of Nit hetep who

na Hi s m d was the wife of Me . to b was iscovered by m Prof. Petrie, who found in it so e ivory pots and

covers , a basalt slab , etc .

F R DY F I ST ASTY . T S N ROM HI .

1 . A A EN s . 4 or M , a n 23n ]

ENA M M , or enes , is the first dynastic king of Egypt “ known to us , and the title king of the South [and] king of the North which is given to him in the

A was King List of bydos , shows that he lord of all Egypt ; whether he was the first to bring the origin ally independent kingdoms of the South and North under one sceptre cannot be said definitely, but it is m very probable , for all tradition unites in aking him 1 89 r . 7 . . the fi st king of Egypt In the year , M J de Morgan excavated a large and important tomb at ka h m n Na da, w ich , judging fro the inscriptions fou d upon the objects therein , was built for a king whose

1 78 M E NA AND AHA 4 4 00

b u d m which were inscri ed fig res of bir s , ani als , men , a

a the itsfwill boat , etc . general idea of design upon be gathe red from the followi ng illustration which ha s

m Recherches J . been traced fro that given in the of M .

d e M n organ . We have already discussed the readi g of the Horus and personal names of the king which are

h of l and given in the top right and corner the p aque, have stated that the identi fication of AHA with Mena

Iv r l a ue in scrib ed with th e n am es and titl s f h o y p q e o k ing A a . or Menes depends entirely upon the fact whether the hieroglyphic character which occurs beneath the signs 2

$ ? MEN 12 5 5 i s is , and whether it to be considered

1 n m not i can of as a proper a e or ; no final decis on ,

m . i n course , be arrived at in the atter until further f m m It i s or ation is forthco ing . , unfortunately, still

1 I M ui u d t c an har d l b e as . Jé er s es te . y THEE, q gg “ 4 400 DE E DS OF M E NA OR M E N E S 1 ] , 79 extremely doubtful if any of the objects inscribed with the name of Men or Mena which exist in various collections are contemporaneous with the first dynastic king of Egypt : most of the scarabs which bear the name belong to a comparatively late period . The

of H following extracts from the works erodotus ,

Diodorus Manetho , and are of interest “ 1 After the dead demi - gods the First Dynasty n M co sisted of eight kings . The first was enes the

Thinite - ; he reigned sixty two years , and perished by ” m n a wound . received from an hippopota us Ma etho ,

t a ents 94 Anci en Fr m . . in Cory , g , p “ To this they ad besides yt the first king yt ever

ra ned m over aunce yg was na ed Menes , under whose g n all ye lande of Aegypte except the province of Thebes m was wholly covered and overwhel ed with water, and yt no parte of the ground which lyes above the poole called Myris was then to be sene : into which poole i 7 sa l n . H 4 from the sea is d ayes y g erodotus ii . . t (Transla ion by B . Menes the fi rste Kinge of Aegypt (as the pryests

i n r ver make reporte) by alter g the course of the y , gayned all that grounde whereon the City Memphis is situated : the floud being woute before time to have his course fast by the sandy mountayne which lyeth

i 1 ‘ A c cord in t h i h e e g o C as s nat, t e N w s of Mane tho the Khu

l of th E ti an in i ti n flfi. e gyp s cr p o s ; s e e Recuei l d e

Trav w l i x . 2 fi aa v x . , o . p 3 . 2 “ A i M h 1 t Lo nd on . Pr nte d b Thom ar e 4 y as s , 5 8 . 1 80 T HE B UI L D I N G O F ME M PH I S

arde L bi a d ammin e u tow y . This Menes therefore g ppe the bosome of the ryver towards the south Region

havin e bulwark e m g cast uppe a pyle , or of Earth uch

d Furl on es after an hun red g above the City, by that

m d r ed l causin e r ver eans y the old Chane l, g the y to forsake and abandone his naturall course and runne at

randame amiddest mm the hills . To which da e also the Persians that rule in Aegypte even at this day have a dilligent eye ; yearely fortifyinge and repayringe the

m w th and u sa e y newe fresh Earth . Thro gh the which if by fortune the ryver stryvinge to recover his olde m m course , should happily ake a breach , the city Me phis

w d aun er m B ere in g to bee overwhel ed with water . y the selfe same Menes firste b earinge rule and authority in Aegypt (after yt by turning ye streame of Nilus he had made dry ground of that where erst the ryver had

— his passage) in the same plot of land was the city

itselfe ma founded and erected, which (as well y bee seene) stands in the straight and narrow places of the

countre y. More than this, to the North and West (for Eastward Memphis is bounded by the course of the river) hee caused to be d rawne out of the ryver a large and wyde poole : beinge also the founder of Vulcans

m m fa rest buildin es te ple in Me phis , one of the y g and

te of chiefest fame in all the countrey of Aegyp . 9 9 . n . R. Herodotus ii . (Translatio by B , fol . “ 1 A the fter the gods , (they say , ) Menis was first king

1 Ac c ord i ng to Di od orus th e god s an d d e mi -go d s reign e d i n Egypt 1 for ab out ears and m n f e ar see Bk . I . 4 4 . y , e or y s 5

B . 0 4 366 1 82 T HE G O D O N T HE ST AI RCAS E [ .

w ho ever , be suggested that the king whose Horus } name was NAR-MER l is to be identified with Teta; o be t whether this identificati n correc or not , it is quite certain that he lived in the early part of the period of the rule of the Ist Dynasty, and the work on the n n m m objects beari g his a e , though ore archaic than

m as AHA All that of Se ti , is not so archaic that of . the known evidence points to the fact that he is a i dynastic and not a predynastic k ng, and as on his monuments he wears the crown of the South and the crown of the North , he was certainly a successor and di not a predecessor of Menes . The credit of fin ng m m to the principal onu ents of this king belongs Mr .

b the 1 898 Qui ell , who in year excavated the site of the

n m Hierakon olis 1 i a cient te ple of p , and d scovered a m m mo m nu ber of i portant early dynastic nu ents . Among these must be Specially mentioned the great m - ace head, the sculptures of which he has figured on

B Plate XXVI . of his work . Here we see the king , in the character of Osiris , within a shrine which rests on n a flight of steps, seated on a throne , weari g the crown of the North , and holding the flail in his hand . This

flight of steps, which is also depicted upon a plaque of

Semti , is evidently intended for the staircase of the

B ook o the tomb of Osiris , which is mentioned in the f 2 d - Dea . By the side of the throne are two fan bearers,

1 Hi e k n ol I L n 1 It m d e rn n am i S ee ra o i s Part . o d on 900 . s o e s p , , ,

m l -Ahm r KO a a . 2 k S e e a e 1 5 an d Boo o the Dead vol . i . v . p g , f , , p. xxx 4 366] T HE M AC E - H E AD O F NAR- M E R 1 83 1 84 M ON U M E N T OF NAR- ME R 4 366

g: and behind are a personage called Thet the royal

- b n sandal bearer, and three attendants eari g staves ; in f men n ront are bearing sta dards , cattle , goats, etc . On another mace - head (see Plate XXVI we see the

n the w h n ki g , wearing cro n of the Sout , holdi g a plough

— i s in his hand, and followed by fan bearers ; he here

d the 1 3 h escribed by signs and 5 312 , for whic “ ” 1 reason he has been called the Scorpion King . Of m m ore i portance , however , is the green slate object 2 which i s here illustrated ; it forms the finest example of a class which has been much discussed and described

n . h duri g recent years The use of such objects , w ich

uh are peculiar to the period of the Ist Dynasty, is b ut m n m known , any suggestio s have been ade concern

Mr ing it . . F . Legge has published reproductions of

the m all known exa ples in London , Oxford , Paris , and 3 m Cairo , and, after a very careful study , has co e to the conclusion that in shape they may be a ceremonial survival of a special form of shield which was never f “ ” used in actual war are , and , like the ancilia of

m ma Ro e , y have been preserved for ritual reasons . n u On the other hand , followi g Mr . Q ibell , Professor Petrie maintains that they are highly ornamented ceremonial sur vivals of the slate p a lettes used in

1 Ju d in b th ch ar ac ter of th e w or on th e se m ace -h e ad s g g y e k , - m er s on Nar m er an d the S c orpi on Ki ng are o ne an d th e s a e p . 2 I r Mr ui b ell i n Ae ti s che t w as st d e s crib e d b i ts nd er . fi y fi , Q , gyp Z ei tschri t ol i v . v . . 8 1 fi f , xxx p . 3 e 1 H Proc ed i n s oc Bi l ii 25 . S bl Arch o . . . v . g . . , xx p

B. 0 4 - . 366] M ON U M E N T OF NAR M E R 1 87

rin h e nam e of k in Nar -m r G r e en sl ate obj ect of unk n own u se bea g t g e . r se (Reve . )

- B . 4 I 9O M ON UM E N T OF NAR M E R [ . 0 366

m by the hair ; he is, as usual, acco panied by his sandal A ’ m bearer . bove the king s ene y is a scene which is n A not easy to explai . hawk drags the head of a

the same A man prisoner, of siatic type as that of the m whom the king is about to s ite, by a rope attached to his nose ; behind the head is a group of flowers,which i 0 . e . 60 0 the has been read as , , and whole

Design fr om a l i mes tone vase of th e S corpi on Ki n g (Nar - mer scene has been interpreted to mean that the god Horus 6000 o In is bringing to the king pris ners . the lowest

men fl register are represented two in terrified ight . Yet another important object of the reign of Nar-mer m is the li estone vase with figures of hawks , scorpions , i n 1 a bow, etc . , upon it relief.

1 S ui ll Hi erakon oli s l at e 1 . e e Q b e , p , p 9 1 B 0 . 4 333] AT E T H O R AT A 1 9 1

A Athothis a ccording to Manetho , , the son of Men , reigned fifty- seven years ; he built the palaces at

m and the m Me phis, left anato ical books , for he was a ” An c i n t Fra men s . e t physician (Cory, g , p . This information seems to receive proof from a statement in the m m m Ebers Papyrus that a po atu , which was ade

m w d o of fro the cla of a g, and the hoof an ass , and m i n so e dates boiled together oil in a saucepan , was ’ m a m a ade for Tet s other, who was c lled Shesh

3 a A a . TETH T% . Ol h) , or 4% (q

Kevxév ns .

ATETH n Kenk enes , or accordi g to Manetho , , was the

a i - son of Tet , and he re gned thirty one years . Under the name of Ateth no monuments of this king are

of m known, but the result recent excavations see s to 5 1 prove that the king whose Horus name is T CHA W i s him om A to be identified with . His t b at bydos was

Amélineau it partly excavated by M . , who gave the “ n m T m a e of the o b of the Serpent King 7 M . J . de M m 2 organ printed a plan of it in his last volu e , and 1900 n h Prof. Petrie in co tinued the work w ich M . “ Amélineau had begun . It is described as a large m h cha ber twenty feet wide and t irty feet long , with

1 S ee Joa chim Das a el teste Bi tc h u eb er H ei lknncl e Berl in 1 8 0 , , , 9 , 1 0 p . 6 . 2 S M r n Recherches 1 8 . 235 ff. e J . e d e o ga , , 97 , pp 1 9 2 AT A O R UE NE PHES [ B . 0 . 4 300

m m s aller cha bers around it at its level , the whole bounded by a thick brick wall which rises seven and a h m half feet to the roof, and t en three and a half feet ore ” 1 n M Amélineau to the top of the retaini g wall . . found in the tomb a beautifully cut calcareous stone stele inscribed with the name T CHA surmounted by a hawk m and two s all ebony figures , the one representing a

m of m wo an , and the other the head a lion , of ost m 2 f m exquisite work anship . Pro . Petrie found frag ents ’ of ivory and ebony tablets inscribed with the king s

fi m n f f m na e , a portio o a relie in veined arble, and j ar ’ sealings with the king s Horus name followed by Ath 3 ma which may be his personal name . It y be n i n Kenk enes m h oted passing that , the na e w ich is h m given to the king by Manet o , ust be a corruption of

one of his names .

G ATA Odevé (q k ) , q .

ATA D , the fourth king of the Ist ynasty, is not known to us from the monuments under this name

recently , however, a theory has been put forward according to which he i s to be identified with the king m A whose to b at bydos was excavated by Prof. Petrie ,

1 S ee Ro al Tombs 8 y , p . . 2 M orc eau ravi ssan t d l s e s c u tur e arc h i u e J . a . d M x p q ( e organ . ) 3 S ee Ro al Tombs l ate s 1 3 1 8 1 y , p , , 9 , e t c .

1 T E N- S E M I O R HE S E PT I 94 T ,

w 5 1 EMT w . . ¢% or afg H S I ( G ]

EM S TI , the fifth king of the Ist Dynasty , has been long known under the name of

Hese ti w a p , hich occurs in the T blet of ( Abydos under the form 4% E ; and ( _ )

. ' l m TFOHI h th e Horus it is c ear that the docu ents whic n m f mt’” a e O s e Manetho compiled his King List were drawn up by scribes who thought that this was the correct

hi s m n n way of reading one of na es , for his tra scriptio

’ Oé o a bd i s . q was certainly based upon it It has , h however, now been satisfactorily shown t at the signs

EEEEEE are incorrect transcriptions of the old cursive LEM forms of and that the true reading of the n ame

IS m . e w Se ti On the ebony tabl t, of hich a drawing 1 m is here given , we have the Horus na e of a king

T EN DEN or , and in another part of it occurs the title

[fl ] “ King of the South , and king of the North , 7 a m Semti these facts indicate that T EN is the Horus

m m ma EN na e of Se ti , and we y therefore consider T m m m and Se ti as one and the sa e person . The to b of 2 m Amélineau Se ti was discovered by M . , who found that the massive walls of the large chamber in

1 It was rs t ub li sh ed b Prof ssor P tri e i n Ro al Tombs fi p y e e y , l t 1 p a e 5 .

e M r n S e J . d e o a Reche hes 1 2 . rc 8 . 23 g , , 97 , p S E MTI DAN C I N G BE FO RE HIS G OD 1 95

it had been covered with wooden panels , and that the pavement consisted of large slabs of red granite ;

it was finally excavated by Prof. Petrie , who found ’ i Amélineau s in it , and in the rubb sh which M . m m work en had thrown out of it , a large nu ber

m m and of i portant obj ects, frag ents of ivory ebony 1 EN the u m plaques, etc . T , Hor s na e of the king,

3 2 6 5 0

Ebon tabl et of th e ro t e fl er e a’ a re resentati on of y ' i p lzinTnfidsfibifl b efbi ozgié g g é .

was also found impressed by means of cylinder seals upon the clay sealings of vases , and inscribed upon m f frag ents of vases , etc . Of all the objects ound in this tomb the most important seems to be the ebony w tablet hich has been already referred to , and which

B m No is now in the ritish Museu ( . The

1 Ro a l T m s 1 1 o b . y , p . 1 96 S E MTI DAN C I N G B E FO RE HIS G O D i nscription s and scenes upon it are divided into two groups by means of a vertical line on the left we have the Horus name T EN side by side with the name of

“ ” Hemak a the royal chancellor Ll , and a m h m nu ber of hieroglyp ic signs , the eanings of which cannot, at present, be said to have been satisfactorily n m explai ed . To the extre e right is the sign for “ year ” j and in the uppermost register we see the

figure of a god , who is , no doubt , Osiris , wearing the w n cro n of the South , and holdi g a flail in his hands , seated upon a throne within a shrine which is set at

or the top of a staircase flight of steps . Before the m w god is the figure of King Se ti , who wears the cro ns

S and d of the outh North united, and who is ancing ; his back is towards the god, and in his left hand he holds the paddle j, and in the right the flail On each side of the king is the sign inscribed thrice , and

has n 1 this sign, as Mr . H . R . Hall poi ted out, is equivalent to 0’which is the determinative for the ” n n ab word for da ci g ( ) in other words , King Semti is performing an act of worship before his god by him mm dancing before . It was no unco on thing for

x m kings to dance before their gods, and as e a ples of the kings who observed this custom we may mention

tsen I Amsu User . , who danced before the god or Min ,

’ 1 I n J J T l er s Wa l l Dr awi n s and M onuments o E l Ka b . . y g f , pl ate 1 .

B 0 . 4 2 1 98 T HE FIN DI N G OF T HE L XIVT H C H APTE R [ . 66 attempted to gain the fa vour of the gods whom they f m f worshipped by dancing be ore the . To the left o the second register is what appears to be an early form

Hennu d f of the boat, and it is i ficult to see why this should occur on the tablet below the representation of u d m a religio s ceremony of ancing, if the king Se ti was not in some way connected with the ceremonies in which we know the Hennu boat played a most m m m pro inent part . Under the na e of Se ti and Hesepti the king is mentioned in various passages of 1 Book o the Dead the f , and in one place the occurrence m In of his na e is of special significance . the Rubric to the shorter version of the LXIVth Chapter we are told that the composition was “ found in the foundations of “ the shrine of Hennu by the chief mason during the ” ese ti reign of H p , and though we have no exact idea of “ ” what the word found here means , it is clear that in the reign of this king an important revision or discovery in connection with the literary history of the Book of the ead As ma D took place . parallel y perhaps be 8 quoted the narrative of II . Kings , xxii . , where we are told that in the reign of the good king Josiah the high priest Hilkiah said unto Shaphan the “ f n Scribe , I have ou d the book of the law in the ” m house of the Lord . We ust note that the shorter version of the LXIVth Chapter is entitled “ The Chapter of knowing the Chapters of Coming Forth by

1 Da e t 1 4 5 an d S e e m Cha ters o Co mi n Forth b t . y p f g y y , x , p , 28 5 p . . OF T HE BOO K OF T HE D E AD 1 99

’ n Day in a si gle Chapter, and we are no doubt correct in assuming with Chabas that even at that early period the Book of the Dead was so lengthy a series m of co positions , that a short chapter, which should m co prise all the essential parts of the whole work, was m LXIVth felt to be a want . To eet this want the Chapter in its shortened form was drawn up by the mm priests , probably under the royal co and and super vision ; in any case there must have been some good ’ reason for mentioning Hesepti s name in connection

ma m with the chapter in the Rubric , and we y assu e that certain important religious ceremonies were either 1 -or m i n ow first established confir ed dur ng his reig . N , the Egyptians ascribed not only certain portions of the

Book o the Dead Hese ti f to the reign of p , but also 2 In b books of Medicine . Thus the E ers Papyrus the Copy of a prescription for driving p ut the ukhed u “ disease from the limbs of a man is given according to “ a book which was found under the feet of the god

A to nubis in the city of Letopolis , and was brought ” ese ti And the king of the South and North H p . in a medical papyrus at Berlin 3 further information is added to the effect that after Hesepti was dead the book was taken to his M ajesty Sent ; now Sent was the

1 S l s o h Rub ri c t h er C X in th e S aIte Re c en si on ee a t e o C apt XX . of th e B ook of the Dea d . 2 h m i t 1 5 J a i o c . S e e o c . . 8 . , p , p

h Recu i l d e Monuments E ti ens ii l 5 —1 0 ee Bru s c e . at es 8 S g , gyp , p 7 ’ ’ ’ Br u sch Noti ce rai sonnee d un tr ai té med i ca l Le i z i 1 863 an d g , , p g, ; ’ C a Me lan s er I ari 1 2 if hab s e S . P s 8 5 5 . 6 . , g , . , , , p B . 0 4 23 2 0 0 M E D I CAL W ORK S IN THE F I RS T DYN AS TY [ . 3

fifth king of the IInd Dynasty and reigned many years m m f after Se ti , and we ust there ore understand that Sent came into the possession of a medical work which n m had once belo ged to his great predecessor Se ti .

A Usa hais Hese ti was ccording to Manetho , p ( p ) the

Uene hes n n son of p , and he reig ed twe ty years .

o cit (Cory, p . . , p .

‘ Q L D MER- PEBA MtG l ‘ ’ , B S. a o ! !

q 6 I ME RPEBA MERBAPEN or o , (0 w w 1 m the sixth king of the Ist Dynasty, see s to have occupied an important place in the historical traditions known to the scribes of

the XVIIIth XIXth ATC H I B and Dynasties, for the , 1 1 1 8 133111331 t S k a m Table of ak ra begins with his na e . M er ’p eb a' m ATOHAB His Horus na e is , and side by “ m l - l side with it he styles hi se f on his j ar sea ings, king S ” m of the outh , king of the North . The to b of this king at Abydos seems to have been partly excavated

Amélineau it by M . , but was finally cleared out by m m Professor Petrie , who discovered nu bers of frag ents

ar- i n of vases , j sealings , plaques of vory for inlayi g, etc . , I d m nscribe with his Horus and personal na es . The m m to b is a plain cha ber, with rather sloping sides, about twenty - two feet long and fo urteen feet wide ; the surrounding wall is nearly five feet thick ; t he entrance to the ! tomb was by a stairway descending

2 0 2 OR N E K T B. C. 4 200 F I RS T DYN AS T Y. HU H [

Li ebl ei n S em- eu- i e the sign proposed by is Ptah, . . ,

Sem Is priest of Ptah , which based upon the view that the figure in the cartouche at the head of this m t h paragraph has so e connection with the god P a .

h can and But t is hardly be correct, we have reason for assuming that the priests who drew up the King List h for Seti I . were puzzled by the sign , w ich they found

m h - m in the documents fro w ich they co piled the List , and that they caused the mason to cut on the wall the hieroglyphic which they thought rep resented the ancient b it sign . It is possi le that they connected with the

“ “ ” S emsu m m word or Se se , E or

1 W m d first i k pk 111’ a ord eaning chief, el est , ’ “ and m w Sem born , the like , fro hich Manetho s ” em ses u p co ld easily be derived, and the sign given i n the King List will bear this reading very well . 1 The view of Mr . H . R . Hall is that the scribes of the XIXth Dynasty understood the sign in the old documents as being equival ent to the reading

“ ” Shemsu of which is , and that this word is the “ ” base of the form Semempses given by Manetho ; M ’ m m in any case , anetho s for rests on a isread in m r g of a sign , and that sign ust rep esent the

m the Mer eb a But Horus na e of king who succeeded p .

1 ld est i vi li zati on o Greece 5 h r mb l an c e of th e e e O C . t e es e S f , p 7 ;

M F L ri f th m f in u r . G arch ai c for o p o te d o t b y . . fi

o a l Tombs R . ( y , p B 0 4 20 . . 0] PL AQU E O F E U O R NE KHT 2 0 3

? A . what was that sign ccording to Mr Hall , the sign which the scribes of the XIXth Dynasty read “ Shemsu was nothing more nor less than an archaic form of the hieroglyphic which may be read either “ ” “ Hu Nekht w an or , a vie which was based upon m n t exa ination of the i scribed ivory ablet, the text of 1 which is here re produced . To the right is the sign

Ivory pl aq ue in scribed with th e nam es and ti tl es of Hu or Nek ht (S E M S U

l Sektet year, i , and c ose by are figures of the and A m m m tet boats , which call to ind the for s of the as given

2 in the Pyramid Text of Unas ; between them is an ape of Thoth , and the legend fl To the left of the vertical line we have the names and titles of a

1 Fi r st ub li s he d i n Ro a l Tomb s l at e 1 2 p y , p . 2 T avau w t o m iii R cuei l d e r . . 2 1 li 2 2 2 e 9 n e s 9 3 . , p . , , 9 0 T 3 0 4 200 2 4 HE T O M B OF HU OR NE KHT [ .

“ king , followed by the sign which is

“ m of i e H . u evidently an archaic for . , or ’ Nekht m , that is to say, the king s na e , which was , b y the scribes of the XIXth and later Dynasties read .

“ m m m - . s or Se se Fro the j ar sealing ,

t n m Hu etc . , we learn hat the Horus a e of king or

Nekht was SEMERKHA

m Hu Semerkha A The to b of , or , at bydos , is ,

- according to Prof. Petrie , about forty four feet long

- five and twenty feet wide , and is surrounded by a wall 1 over five feet thick ; it was floored with planks of

Amélineau he wood , which M . found to be charred, and

the m Am n thought that whole to b had been burnt . o g

h m e w the stelae found in t is to b w re two of d arfs, and the bones of dwarfs were found in two chambers ; the copper bowl which was found in another chamber is the

m ! d only large piece of etal work that has been preserve .

Prof. Petrie notes that the space near the entrance to the tomb was filled to the depth of three feet with n m sa d saturated with oint ent, and that the scent of it was so strong that when cutting away the sand it could m l m A M be s e t over the whole to b . ccording to anetho, ’ “ Merpeba s son Semempses reigned eighteen years . “ ” In his reign a terrible pestilence afflicted Egypt .

o i c t . (Cory , p . . , p

1 Ro a l Tombs l ate 1 3 y , p .

2 0 6 T HE S E C ON D DYN ASTY by side with it were the signs which are to be “ n translated King of the South, ki g of the North , SEN Thus we learn that SEN was the personal name m A of the king whose Horus na e was Q. In the second cartouche given at the top of this paragraph it h will be noticed that the sign which is read e , QA HU occurs, and as we know that king succeeded , or

Semem ses p , on the throne of Egypt, it is pretty clear h m 1 that Sen and e are one and the sa e king . It seems as if the scri bes o f the XIXth Dynasty who

r m l drew up the King List for Seti I . we e as uch puzz ed by the archaic or cursive sign which they read e h as they were by the sign which they probably read Semsem

Shemsu or , and that, having no exact knowledge of the m history of the old period to guide the , they wrongly transcribed the archaic sign for l by j? According to Bi eneches Semem ses Manetho , , the son of p , reigned

- i t o c . twenty six years . (See Cory, p . , p .

M HIS . SECOND DYNASTY . FRO T

m 1 (l a- l 116 0361 (n13 1]

NE ER BA S k a BETOHAU A 3 0 7 90 9 . T IU ( ak ra) , ( bydos) , 7

E ER- BA n IInd was N T IU , the first ki g of the Dynasty , A m i n buried at bydos, and his to b was excavated

1 al T bs . 23. Roy om , p - B. 0 4 133 . ] KHAS E KHE M UI BE S H 0 7

1 189 - M Amélineau 6 9 7 . by , who found it to be a _ and building about two hundred sixty feet long , and to contain at least fifty- seven chambers ; the tomb had n d m neither been burnt nor plu dere , and therefore any objects of great archaeological value were found in it . d The earthenware vases in it contained wheat, figs, ried w m grapes , etc . they ere not closed by eans of conical s stoppers , but by piece of clay of irregular shapes which were laid over their mouths and impressed with ’ l n m m cy inder seals bearing the king s a e upon the . From the impressions upon them 2 we see that the name in the first cartouche at the head of this paragraph is the equivalent of the signs which are enclosed within a plain oval i ; beneath them are the signs On each side of this oval we have the Horus (and Set ?) name of the king $ N in m n given the for here represe ted, and it is

« 8 clear, in spite of what was first said on the m KHA subject , that this na e is to be read 3 E I m m SEKH MU . In fuller for s of the na e we h see added 7 and the ieroglyphics

O 0 m 8 . We have now recovered the Horus na e of

1l ud D the first king of the ynasty, and also the name u which he adopted as king of the So th and North , but neither of them in any way represents the name

' 1 ’ i l s d Ab d os 189 . 4 4 4 5 . L es Nouvel les F ou l e y , 7 , pp , 2 J d e M or an Recherches . 24 3 . S e e . g , , p 1 3 ee Revu e Cri ti ue Dec emb er 1 3 1 897 . 4 37 if. S q , , , p B 0 . 4 133 2 0 8 T HE S E C O N D DYNAS T Y [ .

‘ Betchau i s cartouche or which given in the second , m m t the Greek for of the na e supplied by Mane ho . w u Thanks, ho ever, to the very successf l excavations m Hierak on olis Mr ade at p by . Quibell , it is now pos

i m m Bet hau sible to give the anc ent for of the na e c . In the course of his excavations on the site of the old

Desi on ni f e h sh n th arli t u e ofthe gn a gra te vase o Kin g B s , owi g e e es s l f i f h un ri f E t symbo o th e un on o t e two co t es o gyp , etc .

m K0m- al - A m consi te ple at kh ar Mr . Quibell found a

d erabl m fl ints t e e c . nu ber of obj ects, vases , pottery, , , and among them were some fine stone vases which were m inscribed with the na e and titles of the king . In the accompanying drawing 1 we see on the right the usual

1 First ub li sh d in Hi ak n oli s late 3 p e er o p , p 7

2 1 0 T HE F I RS T C ARTO U C H E

‘ attitudes , and on the front is the register of northern enemies The features and general treatment

of the statues by the sculptor shows that his art had ,

r at that early period, arrived at a ve y high state of

A - . s u B perfection far as we now know, Neter bai , or esh , , was the first king who caused his name to be enclos ed

Figures of sl ain enemi es on th e p edestal of th e sl at e s tatue of King B esh

- Khé sek h em From ui ell H i era k on ol i s l ate x 1. ( ) . Q b , p , p

or either in an oval in a ring , and it is easy to see that w m m the oval gre out of the ring, when the na es beca e A too long to be enclosed in it . ccording to Manetho ,

B oethos - D reigned thirty eight years . uring his reign

Bub astus m a chasm of the earth opened near , and any ” o cit persons perished . (Cory, p . . , p . HE T E P- S E KHE M UI AND RA- NE B 2 1 1

H E - SEKHEMUI ET P .

The existence of this king is made known to us by 1 m statue No . at Cairo , and his Horus na e , which is given above , has been found upon fragments of 1 Ab dos m . v . stone bowls , etc , discovered at His na e has been read Hetep-ahaui but this is an

m m i n m i possible form which has no ean ng . His a e as n ki g of the South and North is, as yet , unknown to us .

- KA - A RA NEB . 4 x U % U ,

Ka i é s .

RA- NEB The Horus name of this king, , is made known ii 1 m to us by the statu No . in the Cairo Museu , and his name as king of the South and North by the a A Tablets of Abydos and Sakk ra . ccording to “ Kaiechos - Manetho, reigned thirty nine years, and A e under him the bulls pis in M mphis, and Mnevis in

H Mend esi an eliopolis, and the goat , were appointed to ”

i . o c t. be gods (Cory, p . , p Wiedemann has

i l a 2 e Ro al Tomb s Part i . te 8 6 S e y , , p , p . B 0 4 066 2 1 2 RU L E BY W OM E N L E G AL I Z E D [ . .

2 already referred 1 to the statement of Aelian that the A a- M worship of pis was established by Men , or enes , but it seems pretty certain from Manetho that some

m n of A and develop e t the worship of pis , perhaps of

m h the Mnevis also , ust ave taken place during reign of

a-k au MendeSIan ram K . The goat , or , is of course the Ram Ba-neb - Tattu U 9 of Mendes, , fifi63 which was connected in very ancient times with the worship of Osiris .

EN ETER N .

BA EN

NETER B ivwfi m. , p

The Horus name of this king is made known to 1 m us by the statue No . in the Cairo Museu , and his name as king of the South and North by the Tablets ’ A S a n of bydos and akk ra . The position of this ki g as the successor of Ka- kau is indicated by the statue

fi En- at Cairo , and is con rmed by the fact that neter i nscribed his name over that of Ra-neb (Ka-kau) on A m a stone bowl found at bydos , a frag ent of which is

the m No A now in British Museu ( . ccording

M Binothri s - to anetho , reigned forty seven years, and “ in his ti me It was determined that women might hold m l ” i t . v o . c . the i peria go ernment . (Cory, p , p

1 2 mali m 1 1 . e ti sche es ch t 1 4 i t A i u . A i ch e . H s . n G 6 . gyp , p , x

2 1 T HE S E C ON D D NAS B. 0 . 4 000 4 , Y TY [

l 7 1 . EN A EN 41g g or 4% g S T or S T, (Di — jjj (

’ This king s name is found on the Tablets of Abydos

a n m n s m m and Sakk ra , and also on co te pora eou onu ents . 1 The priest Sheri B : mentions the name both of Of m 1 king Sent and his successor on the door of his to b , and slabs from it now preserved at Oxford 2 and in the B 3 m 1‘ n ritish Museum also record his na e . Se t is also said in the Berlin Medical Papyrus 5 to have revised a certaIn m l edica papyrus , which had been found first of all under the feet of a statue of the god An ubis in the

Sekhem m city of (Letopolis) during the reign of Se ti , or

ese ti A ethenes reI ned . S H p ccording to Manetho, g “ - it s o c . . forty one year . (Cory, p . , p

a z fig( 0 u) x pm.

The name of the king is furnished by a green 6 A d “ steatite cylinder . ccor ing to Manetho , Chaires ”

n o c it . reig ed seventeen years . (Cory, p . . , p

1 ' S e e Mas ero G u d e d a Vi si teu r au Musée d e B ou l a . 31 32 . p , q , pp , 2 Le si u Aus hl l t s wa a e . p , , p 9

- 3 S e e N 1 1 2 o . 9 .

1‘ Oth er c ont em p or an e ous m onum e n ts are m e n ti on e d b y Wi e d e e m a n i n 0 . t . c 1 0 . , p , p . 7 5 S e Bru a e 1 5 l in e 2 e m ii . l ate s c h Recu eil t o . 99 g , , p ( p g , )

Le i z i 1 8 63 . p g, 6 S e E l -Ka b Pl 2 e N . . ate . O 9 , xx , N E PE R- KA- RA AND N E PE R- KA- S E KE R 2 1 5

1 - - e é C) U NEFER KA RA N 6 n9 . 41g I , ¢ px p

The name of this king is s upplied by the Tablet of

S a and e hercheré s akk ra , that he is identical with the N p M u of anetho there can be little do bt ; but , under this m m m him n na e at least, no onu ents of are know , and no m A details of the reign are forthco ing . ccording to “ M - fi ve m anetho , he reigned twenty years . In his ti e “ it is said the Nile flowed with honey during eleven ” 1 o cit days . (Cory , p . . , p .

’ : EFE - KA - E E o w r U N R K R Z e p q . 4% (if 8 ] S , x The name of this king is supplied by the Tablet of S a akk ra, and as the latter part of the Greek name ,

- o w zs G xp , is clearly the equivalent of Seker , we may assume that the king N efer- k a- Seker is to be identified ’ S esochris A with the of Manetho s List . ccording to “ h i - Sesoc r s . Manetho , reigned forty eight years His ” height was five cubits, and his breadth three cubits .

o cit (Cory , p . . , p . The better , and probably correct, reading of the latter statement is given by the Armenian ’ E Is version of usebius , where it said that the king s “ height was five cubits and three hand breadths .

“ 1 Nilum fi uvium d i eb us xi m ell e a ua er m i xto fl uxi s s e . q p

ai unt Eu seb i us . . ( ) 2 1 6 T HE TH I RD DY NAS TY

HE T HEFA O .

Traces of this king ’s name are found on the Tablet of

S a and u m B akk ra, the f ll na e is given by rugsch and

Bouri ant m r fro the Royal Papy us at Turin , but whether HETCHEFA is to be identified with the X evepns of Manetho cannot at present be said .

4% 61] TCHATOHAI 4% $ 11 , or (All. 66] (JJ 11}

k a m TCHATUHAI For this ing , whether we re d his na e ,

i A EB accord ng to the Tablet of bydos, or B I , according S a to the Tablet of akk ra , the King List of Manetho has no equivalent whatsoever in this place no contem

oraneous m m p onu ent is known .

THIRD DYNASTY . FROM MEMPHIS .

1 - 2 U . fig; Ll) NEB KA r% C) Ll

‘ NEB -KA- RA .

m IIIrd D n The na e of the first king of the y asty ,

N e e s according to Manetho , is x pq g, and we are probably right in assuming that this king is to be

NE B - KA A o identified with the of the Tablet of byd s ,

2 1 8 T HE S TE P PY RAM I D

l Bé nédite Tcheser copied by M . . Of Manetho says , “ - Tosorthrus reigned t wenty nine years . He is called A u the m sclepi s by Egyptians , for his edical know

‘

ledge . He built a house of hewn stones , and ’ i t r l e . o . c . . g eat y patronized lit rature (Cory, p , p ’ The inscriptions tell us nothing about Tcheser s

" h t rami a Sakk ara T e S ep Py d t .

e skill as a physician or as a lover of lit rature , but Manetho’s statement that “ he built a house of “ ” he wn stones received remarka ble confirm ation from the excavations which were carried out by the Prussian “ ” Minutoli m General , in in the Step Pyra id

S a m Tcheser at akk ra . This pyra id was built by to

1 R 104 . T i . S ee e uei l ol e rava uw t om . xv . c , p 2 i u an 2 ff Bo se T m l d es i ter Amm . 96 . zum e p e J p , p B 0 3 0 . . 90 ] T HE TO M B O F T C HE S E R 1 9

serve as his tomb , and it is certainly the oldest of all the la rge buildings which have successfully resisted

i and the action of w nd and weather, destruction by the

man m hand of . The steps of the pyra id are six in m 38 36 34 32 31 29 nu ber, and are about , , 1, , , and 4 feet in height ; the width of each step is from six to seven

at : feet . The lengths of the sides the base are north

352 396 the and south, feet ; east and west, feet ; and u 19 t m act al height is about 7 fee . In shape this pyra id

it s is oblong , and sides do not exactly face the cardinal m m points . The arrange ent of the cha bers inside the m pyra id is quite peculiar to itself, and the remains of m m the walls, doors , etc . , of so e of the cha bers prove that they must have formed fine examples of the art

n As and skill of the decorator of funeral buildi gs . 1 has la m Mr . Garstang discovered at Khal f a to b which m ust be that of the king, it seems that his body

v u m Tcheser can ne er have been b ried in this pyra id . m n m ust have been an able and a mighty ki g , and fro

c the fa t that the Royal Papyrus of Turin , as both m 2 3 d Wiede ann and Krall have notice , begins a new m m paragraph with his na e , it see s as if his reign

1 In thi s t omb w ere foun d b owl s an d d i he s of d i ori al ab aster s te , ,

or h r etc . c o er im l e m ents w or e d ints al ab aster tab l e s p p y y , , pp p , k fi ,

for Offer in s etc . Th e t om b c ontains a s tairc ase whi c h as sin g , , p g un d er an archw a l e a d s d o wn t o ei hte en un d er roun d c h am b ers y , g g , at a d e th o f 90 fe e t from the t o of h m s a a G arstan p p t e a t b . g,

ta lo M n l i r h t r a u . r . G arsta a s o d s o e e d t e mb f an oth e C e . c v o o g , p 7 g k i n Of th e IIIr d D n as t c all e d H EN -NE KHT g y y . 2 Ae ti sche Ges chi chte 1 2 gyp , p . 7 .

u d i ss d er a l tori enta li s h en es chi chte 1 Gr n r c G . 8 . , p B 0 . 3866 2 2 0 T H E TH I RD DY NAS TY [ .

m inaugurated a new era ; in any case , he was estee ed t d XIIth D wor hy of ivine honours in the ynasty . Tcheser is mentioned in the Westcar Papyrus with other

k f r 1 e . . eb a Sene e u kings , g , Khufu (Cheops) , N , , etc . ’ In Manetho s King List Tosorthrus is followed by

m 3 T reis 5 So hi s the na es ( ) y , and ( ) yp ,

. v n who are said to ha e reigned seven, seventee , and n d sixteen years respectively , but of these ki gs no etails n whatsoever are arrated, and up to the present the monuments have supplied no i nformation in respect of m A m the . In the Tablet of bydos the king who is ade

Tcheser- sa a the S a to follow is Tet , and in Tablet of akk ra

find Tcheser - a m m we Tet , which na e see s to be a fuller ' m the a ofAb d os for of Tet of the Tablet y .

T ET A or

TCHESER- E A T T . In the form of the name given in the second

the cartouche we have , no doubt , the base of Greek transcription of the name of the king whom Manetho ’ - T oo e m o i s n calls p , and of whom we know nothi g , except n that he is said to have reig ed nineteen years . (Cory ,

o c it p . . , p . It is interesting to note that s A m t Eusebiu , in the r enian version , says tha the six (not s even) other kings who follo wed Tosorthrus did

1 E ii i m n t l i i v . r a Di e Mar ch n d s Pa r us Wes car ates . . , e e p y , p

B A W lli B M A itt D d e . . . E. a s u L y . g ,

H S T O R O F E S A R H A D D O N S o n o f S e n n ac h e rib Kin I Y ( ) , g - i . 668 . n l t fr u f n O fA ss ria B. C 68 1 T ra s a ed om the C nei orm I scr y , p ’

n t s m . v h r i n i h Bri i M us u Po 8 0 1 s . rii t o s t e h e st , 0 6d . T g zze s ' ( Or i ental S er zer . )

A R C HA C C L A S S C S : A s s ri an T e t s b e in E t rac t s fro m I I y x , g x n a h ib A r- n - h Annal O f hal maneser II . S e n c er and ssu Ba i Pa t e s S , , l , d m s . 6 . with Philolo ic al No tes . . to g S 4 , 7

E L T H-E A R H A N G E L T h re e E n o m ium s M C H A C . c S T . I i m i in the C o tic T exts with a T ranslat o n. er al 8v0 I 1 . net . p , I p , 5

T H E B O O K O F G O V E R N O R S : T h e H i s t o ri c a M o n as ti c a

M r a. 2 vol 8 v0 0 3 . ne . OfT homas Bisho of a s . t , p g , 4

T T E PS IN E G Y PT A N . D m v s n F R S S e 8 0 et. I I y , 9 . E G PT A N R E A D N G B O O K F O R B E G N N ER S A N Y I I I .

Dem 8VO 1 1 . net . y , 5

T H E E A R L E S T K N OW N C OPT C PS A L T E R T h e I I . h D i f E t Fro m he i P T ext in t e alect O Upper gyp . t Un q ue apyrus h C od ex Oriental 50 0 0 in t e British M useum . With two collotype il i l i r m . tr t lim ted to 0 c o i m e l . facsi es S c es. ia v0 1 5 net. y 35 p I p 8 , 5

F T H E E A A w and T H E B O O K O D D . N e C o m pl ete m I v l . De v0 . Edition. n 3 o s y 8

— h m l ian T e o f h I . T e o ete E t ts t e Theb an R Vol . C p gyp x ecension of /e o t ad rint in iero l hi The B oo he D e ed h c t e . f , p g yp yp I — A o m l te ocab ul ar to The B h th I . e oo o e ead on Vol . C V D c p y f , f taining over Re erenc es . —An En lish T ranslation Ofthe Th b an R n Vol . III . g e ece sion O f The B ook o the D ead with an ntrod uction c ontainin C ha ters o n f , I g p the Histor Ob ect and Contents ofthe Boo the Resurrectio n y, j k the Judgment ; the Elysian Field s ; the M agi c O f 7 he B oo/e qf

fhe D ead & c . This vol ume i s illustrated b three l ar e fa , y g c similes O fsections Of a ri rinted in full c ol ours and 1 8 Plates p py , p , illustrating the pal aeography o f the various rece nsions Of The

he D ad fro m B 0 . 0 to D . 2 o 0 A 0 0 . B oo/e f t e . 35

Price Ofthe C om le te W or vo ls 2 1 0 1 . p k (3 ) , £ — Price of ols . I. 61 II . T e t and V ocab ular not so ld se aratel V x y ( p y) ,

I 1 0 s .

— n lation ma b e sold e . T ra s s ara l 1 P i fVol III . te I r ce o n . ( y p y) , 5 . et

LONDON KEG A N PAUL T RE NCH T RUBNER C0 . LT D . , , ,

PAT ER N OSTER HOUS E, C HA R ING C ROSS ROAD