Khafre's Pyramid (4th dynasty) and Great Sphinx of Giza (c.2500 BC or perhaps earlier)
Ancient Egypt was a long-standing civilization in north-eastern Africa. It was concentrated along the middle to lower reaches of the Nile River, reaching its greatest extent in the second millennium BC, during the New Kingdom. It reached from the Nile Delta in the north, as far south as Jebel Barkal at the Fourth Cataract of the Nile. Extensions to the geographic range of ancient Egyptian civilization included, at different times, areas of the southern Levant, the Eastern Desert and the Red Sea coastline, the Sinai Peninsula, and the Western body (focused on the several oases). Ancient Egypt developed over at least three and a half centuries. It began with the incipient unification of Nile Valley polities around 3150 BC, and is conventionally thought to have ended in 31 BC when the early Roman Empire conquered and absorbed Ptolemaic Egypt as a state. This last event did not represent the first period of foreign domination; however the Roman period was to witness a marked, if gradual transformation in the political and religious life of the Nile Valley, effectively marking the end of independent civilizational development.
The civilization of ancient Egypt was based on a finely balanced control of natural and human resources, characterised primarily by controlled irrigation of the fertile Nile Valley; the mineral exploitation of the valley and surrounding desert regions; the early development of an independent writing system and literature; the organization of collective projects; trade with surrounding regions in east / central Africa and the eastern Mediterranean; and finally, military ventures that exhibited strong characteristics of imperial hegemony and territorial domination of neighbouring cultures at different periods. Motivating and organising these activities were a socio-political and economic elite that achieved social consensus by means of an elaborate system of religious belief under the figure of a semi-divine ruler (usually male) from a succession of ruling dynasties, and related to the larger world by means of polytheistic beliefs.
Contents
|
// if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); } //
| Dynasties of Pharaohs in Ancient Egypt |
| Predynastic Egypt |
| Protodynastic Period |
| Early Dynastic Period |
| 1st 2nd |
| Old Kingdom |
| 3rd 4th 5th 6th |
| First Intermediate Period |
| 7th 8th 9th 10th |
| 11th (Thebes only) |
| Middle Kingdom |
| 11th (All Egypt) |
| 12th 13th 14th |
| Second Intermediate Period |
| 15th 16th 17th |
| New Kingdom |
| 18th 19th 20th |
| Third Intermediate Period |
| 21st 22nd 23rd 24th 25th 26th |
| First Persian Period |
| Late Period |
| 28th 29th 30th |
| Second Persian Period |
| Graeco-Roman Period |
| Alexander the Great |
| Ptolemaic Dynasty |
| Roman Egypt |
| Arab Conquest |
Archaeological evidence indicates that a developed Egyptian society extended far, beyond the borders into prehistory (see Predynastic Egypt). The Nile River, around which much of the population of the country clusters, has been the lifeline for Egyptian culture since nomadic hunter-gatherers began living along the Nile during the Pleistocene. Traces of these early peoples appear in the form of artifacts and rock carvings along the terraces of the Nile and in the oases.
Egypt has a unique combination of geographical features. Egypt is in northeast Africa bordered by Libya, Sudan, the Red Sea and the Mediterranean Sea. At one time, it was divided into Upper and Lower Egypt. Upper Egypt was the southern half nearer the rest of Africa. The Nile was the key factor in the success of ancient Egyptian civilization. The fertile silt deposited along the banks of the Nile after the annual floods meant the Egyptians were able to practise a less labor-intensive form of agriculture. This freed up the population to devote more time and resources for cultural, technological and artistic pursuits.
Farming for the Egyptians was centered on the cycle of the Nile River. There were three seasons: Akhet, Peret, and Shemu. Akhet, the flooding season, lasted from June to September. After the flooding, a layer of silt was left on the banks, perfect for growing crops. Peret, the growing season, was between October and February. The farmers waited until the water drained away, around November, to plow and plant the rich soil. When that was done, they would irrigate the crops with dikes or canals. Shemu, the harvesting season, followed in March, April, and May. Reapers would then cut the ripe crops with wooden sickles. Women and children followed close behind to collect the fallen crops. The cycle just kept going as long as the Nile kept providing the resources which in turn kept the ancient Egyptian civilization alive. Flax plants were used to make linen which was made into clothing. Papyrus growing on the banks of the Nile River was used to make paper.
Along the Nile, in the 11th millennium BC, a grain-grinding culture using the earliest type of sickle blades had been replaced by another culture of hunters, fishers, and gathering peoples using stone tools. Evidence also indicates human habitation in the southwestern corner of Egypt, near the Sudan border, before 8000 BC. Geological evidence and computer climate modeling studies suggest that natural climate changes around 8000 BC began to desiccate the extensive pastoral lands of Egypt, eventually forming the Sahara (c.2500 BC). Early tribes in the region naturally tended to aggregate close to the Nile River where they developed a settled agricultural economy and more centralized society. There is evidence of pastoralism and cultivation of cereals in the East Sahara in the 7th millennium BC.
By about 6000 BC, organized agriculture and large building construction had appeared in the Nile Valley. At this time, Egyptians in the southwestern corner of Egypt were herding cattle and also constructing large buildings. Mortar was in use by 4000 BC. The Predynastic Period continues through this time, variously held to begin with the Naqada culture. Some authorities however place the start of the Predynastic Period earlier, in the Lower Paleolithic.
Between 5500 and 3100 BC, during Egypt's Predynastic Period, small settlements flourished along the Nile. By 3300 BC, just before the first Egyptian dynasty, Egypt was divided into two kingdoms, known as Upper Egypt (Ta Shemau) and Lower Egypt (Ta Mehu).[1] The dividing line was drawn roughly in the area of modern Cairo.
The history of ancient Egypt proper starts with Egypt as a unified state, which occurred sometime around 3150 BC. Menes, who unified Upper and Lower Egypt, was the first king. Egyptian culture was remarkably stable and changed little over a period of nearly 3000 years. This includes religion, customs, art expression, architecture and social structure.
Egyptian chronology, which involves regnal years, began around this time. The conventional Egyptian chronology is the chronology accepted during the 20th century, but it does not include any of the major revision proposals that have also been made in that time. Even within a single work, often archaeologists will offer several possible dates or even several whole chronologies as possibilities. Consequently, there may be discrepancies between dates shown here and in articles on particular rulers. Often there are also several possible spellings of the names. Typically, Egyptologists divide the history of pharaonic civilization using a schedule laid out first by Manetho's Aegyptiaca (History of Egypt).
The Egyptian and Hittite spheres of influence around the time of the 19th dynasty.
Administration and taxation
18 m (59 ft) high sandstone statues of Amenhotep III, flanking the entrance to his mortuary temple in Western Thebes - erroneously identified as the Colossi of Memnon by Greek travelers in antiquity
For administrative purposes, ancient Egypt was divided into nomes (the Greek word for "district"; they were called sepat in ancient Egyptian). The division into nomes can be traced back to the Predynastic Period (before 3100 BC), when the nomes originally existed as autonomous city-states. The nomes remained in place for more than three millennia, with the area of the individual nomes and their order of numbering remaining remarkably stable. Under the system that prevailed for most of pharaonic Egypt's history, the country was divided into 42 nomes: 20 comprising Lower Egypt, whilst Upper Egypt was divided into 22. Each nome was governed by a nomarch, a provincial governor who held regional authority. The position of the nomarch was at times hereditary, at times appointed by the pharaoh.
The ancient Egyptian government imposed a number of different taxes upon its people. As there was no known form of currency during that time period, taxes were paid for "in kind" (with produce or work). The Vizier (ancient Egyptian: tjaty) controlled the taxation system through the departments of state. The departments had to report daily on the amount of stock available, and how much was expected in the future. Taxes were paid for depending on a person's craft or duty. Landowners paid their taxes in grain and other produce grown on their property. (as established by Joseph rmp) Craftsmen paid their taxes in the goods that they produced. Hunters and fishermen paid their taxes with produce from the river, marshes, and desert. One person from every household was required to pay a corvée or labor tax by doing public work for a few weeks every year, such as digging canals or mining. However, a richer noble could hire a poorer man to fulfill his labor tax.
Ancient Egyptian constitutes an independent part of the Afro-Asiatic language phylum. Its closest relatives are the Berber, Semitic, and Beja groups of languages. Written records of the Egyptian language have been dated from about 3200 BC, making it one of the oldest and longest documented languages. Scholars group Egyptian into six major chronological divisions:
AnObelisk with Egyptian writing.
For many years, the earliest known hieroglyphic inscription was the Narmer Palette, found during excavations at Hierakonpolis (modern Kawm al-Ahmar) in the 1890s, which has been dated to c.3150 BC. However recent archaeological findings reveal that symbols on Gerzean pottery, c.3250 BC, resemble the traditional hieroglyph forms.[2] Also in 1998 a German archaeological team under Günter Dreyer excavating at Abydos (modern Umm el-Qa'ab) uncovered tomb U-j, which belonged to a Predynastic ruler, and they recovered three hundred clay labels inscribed with proto-hieroglyphics dating to the Naqada IIIA period, circa 33rd century BC.[3][4]
Egyptologists refer to Egyptian writing as hieroglyphs, today standing as the world's earliest known writing system. The hieroglyphic script was partly syllabic, partly ideographic. Hieratic is a cursive form of Egyptian hieroglyphs and was first used during the First Dynasty (c. 2925 BC – c. 2775 BC). The term Demotic, in the context of Egypt, came to refer to both the script and the language that followed the Late Ancient Egyptian stage, i.e. from the Nubian 25th dynasty until its marginalization by the Greek Koine in the early centuries AD. After the conquest of Amr ibn al-A'as in the 7th century AD, the Coptic language survived as a spoken language into the Middle Ages. Today, it continues to be the liturgical language of the Christian minority.
Beginning from around 2700 BC, Egyptians used pictograms to represent vocal sounds -- both vowel and consonant vocalizations (see Hieroglyph: Script). By 2000 BC, 26 pictograms were being used to represent 24 (known) main vocal sounds. The world's oldest known alphabet (c. 1800 BC) is only an abjad system and was derived from these uniliteral signs as well as other Egyptian hieroglyphs.
The hieroglyphic script finally fell out of use around the 4th century AD. Attempts to decipher it in the West began after the 15th century, though earlier attempts by Muslim scholars are attested (see Hieroglyphica).
Egyptian Canopic Jars in which a body's organs are placed before burial. See also: Ancient Egyptian architecture
] Achievements
Louvre Museum antiquity
See Predynastic Egypt for inventions and other significant achievements in the Sahara region before the Protodynastic Period.
The achievements of ancient Egypt are well known, and the civilization achieved a very high standard of productivity and sophistication. The art and science of engineering was present in Egypt, such as accurately determining the position of points and the distances between them (known as surveying). These skills were used to outline pyramid bases. The Egyptian pyramids took the geometric shape formed from a polygonal base and a point, called the apex, by triangular faces. Hydraulic cement was first invented by the Egyptians. The Al Fayyum Irrigation (water works) was one of the main agricultural breadbaskets of the ancient world. There is evidence of ancient Egyptian Pharaohs of the twelfth dynasty using the natural lake of the Fayyum as a reservoir to store surpluses of water for use during the dry seasons. From the time of the First dynasty or before, the Egyptians mined turquoise in the Sinai Peninsula.
The sarcophagus found in the great pyramid has been recently re-examined. According to the author Nigel Appleby ('Hall of the Gods') the holes drilled in the sides were considered to have been drilled at a speed and bore rate that cannot be reproduced today. Independent published corroboration by scientists and engineers is awaited for both of these claims.
The earliest evidence (circa 1600 BC) of traditional empiricism is credited to Egypt, as evidenced by the Edwin Smith and Ebers papyri. The roots of the scientific method may be traced back to the ancient Egyptians. The Egyptians created their own alphabet (however, it is debated as to whether they were the first to do this because of the margin of error on carbon dated tests), decimal system[7] and complex mathematical formularizations, in the form of the Moscow and Rhind Mathematical Papyri. The golden ratio seems to be reflected in many constructions, such as the Egyptian pyramids,[8] however this may be the consequence of combining the use of knotted ropes with an intuitive sense of proportion and harmony.[9]
Glass making was highly developed in ancient Egypt, as is evident from the glass beads, jars, figures and ornaments discovered in the tombs.[10][11] Recent archeology has uncovered the remains of an ancient Egyptian glass factory.[12]
Ancient Egypt has been a fertile field for scientific inquiry, scholarly study, religious inspiration, and open speculation, ranging from the use of electricity to model airplanes.[citation needed] Speculation and inquiry includes the degree of sophistication of ancient Egyptian technology, and there are several open problems concerning real and alleged ancient Egyptian achievements. Certain artifacts and records do not fit with conventional technological development systems.
It is not known why there seems to be no neat progression to an Egyptian Iron Age nor why the historical record shows the Egyptians possibly taking a long time to begin using iron. A study of the rest of Africa could point to the reasons: Sub-Saharan Africa confined their use of the metal to agricultural purposes for many centuries. The ancient Egyptians had a much easier form of agriculture with the annual Nile floods and fertile sediment delivery. They thus had no impetus for the development of agricultural implements that would have spurred the adoption of iron.[citation needed]
It is unknown how the Egyptians shaped and worked granite. A clue is found in the exquisite granite carvings of the Yoruba in West Africa. For years researchers could not fathom how they were carved so smoothly until contemporary workmen demonstrated the simple system of rubbing the quartz with sand and water.
The exact date the Egyptians started producing glass is debated. There is some question whether the Egyptians were capable of long distance navigation in their boats and when they became knowledgeable sailors. It is also contentiously disputed as to whether or not the Egyptians had some understanding of electricity and if the Egyptians used engines or batteries. The relief at Dendera is interpreted in various ways by scholars. The topic of the Saqqara Bird is controversial, as is the extent of the Egyptians' understanding of aerodynamics. It is unknown for certain if the Egyptians had kites or gliders.
Beekeeping is known to have been particularly well developed in Egypt, as accounts are given by several Roman writers — Virgil, Gaius Julius Hyginus, Varro and Columella. It is unknown whether Egyptian beekeeping developed independently or as an import from Southern Asia.
(All dates are approximate; see Egyptian chronology for a detailed discussion.)
See main article and timeline: Predynastic Egypt.
The Great Pyramid of Giza. ![Egypt was first to create glass objects.[citation needed]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image%3AEgyptian_Glass.jpg)
Egypt was first to create glass objects.[citation needed]
Ancient Egypt has inspired a vast number of English-language publications, ranging from scholarly works to generalised accounts (in addition to a large number of speculative, supernatural or pseudo-scientific explorations). A selection of generally reliable survey treatments, published within the last two decades, includes:
---
Manetho, also known as Manethon of Sebennytos, was an Egyptian historian and priest from Sebennytos (ancient Egyptian: Tjebnutjer) who lived during the Ptolemaic era, circa 3rd century BC. Manetho recorded Aegyptiaca (History of Egypt). His work is of great interest to Egyptologists, and is often used as evidence for the chronology of the reigns of pharaohs.
// if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); } //
The original Egyptian version of Manetho's name is now lost to us, but it is speculated to have meant "Gift of Thoth", "Beloved of Thoth", "Truth of Thoth", "Beloved of Neith", or "Lover of Neith". Less accepted proposals are Myinyu-heter ("Horseherd" or "Groom") and Ma'ani-Djehuti ("I have seen Thoth"). In Greek, the earliest fragments (the Carthage inscription and Flavius Josephus) write his name as Μανεθων Manethon, so the rendering of his name here is given as Manetho (the same way that Platon is rendered "Plato"). Other renderings in Greek include Manethos, Manetho, Manethos, Manethos, Manethon, and even Manethoth. In Latin we find Manethon, Manethos, Manethonus, and Manetos.
Although no sources for the dates of his life and death remain, his work is usually associated with the reigns of Ptolemy I Soter (323-283 BCE) and Ptolemy II Philadelphos (285-246 BCE). If the mention of Manetho in the Hibeh Papyri, dated to 240/1 BCE, is in fact Manetho the author of Aegyptiaca, then he may well have been working during the reign of Ptolemy III Euergetes (246-222 BCE) as well. Although he was Egyptian and his topics dealt with Egyptian matters, he wrote solely in Greek. Other works he wrote include Against Herodotus, The Sacred Book, On Antiquity and Religion, On Festivals, On the Preparation of Kyphi, the Digest of Physics. The astrological treatise Book of Sothis has also been attributed to Manetho. In Aegyptiaca, he coined the term "dynasty" (Greek: dynasteia, abstractly meaning "governmental power") to represent groups of rulers with a common origin.
He was probably a priest of the sun god Ra at Heliopolis (according to Syncellus, he was the chief priest), and was also considered an authority on the cult of Sarapis (a derivation of Osiris-Apis). Sarapis itself was a Greco-Macedonian annexation of the Egyptian cult, probably started after Alexander the Great's establishment of Alexandria in Egypt. A statue of the god was imported between 286-278 BCE by Ptolemy (either Soter or Philadelphos), where Timotheus of Athens (an authority on Demeter at Eleusis) and Manetho oversaw the project.
Aegyptiaca (also called Aigyptiaka), the "History of Egypt", was Manetho's largest work, and certainly the most important. It was organised chronologically and divided into three volumes, and his division of rulers into dynasties was a new innovation. However, he did not use the term the way we do, by bloodlines, but rather, introduced new dynasties whenever he detected some sort of discontinuity whether geographical (Dynasty IV from Memphis, V from Elephantine), or genealogical (especially in Dynasty I, he refers to each successive Pharaoh as the "son" of the previous to define what he means by "continuity"). Within the superstructure of a genealogical table of rulers, he fills in the gaps with substantial narratives of the Pharaonic rulers.
Some have suggested that Aegyptiaca was written as a competing account to Herodotus' Histories of Herodotus, to provide a national history for Egypt that did not exist before. From this perspective, Against Herodotus may have been an abridged version or just a part of Aegyptiaca that circulated independently. Unfortunately, neither survive in their original form today.
The problems with a close study of Manetho, despite the reliance of Egyptologists on him for their reconstructions of the Egyptian dynasties, is that not only was Aegyptiaca not preserved as a whole, but that it became involved in a bitter battle between advocates of Egyptian, Jewish, and Greek histories in the form of supporting polemics. During this period, disputes raged over the "oldest" civilizations, and so Manetho's account was probably excerpted during this time for use in this argument with significant alterations. Material similar to Manetho's has been found in Lysimakhos of Alexandria, and it has been suggested that this was inserted into Manetho. We do not know when this occurred, but scholars place a terminus ante quem at the first century CE, when Josephus began writing.
The earliest surviving attestation to Manetho is that of Josephus' Contra Apionem, "Against Apion". Even here, it is clear that Josephus did not have the originals, and constructing a polemics Manetho without them. Avaris and Osarsephos are both mentioned twice (1.78, 86-87; 238, 250). Apion 1.95-97 is merely a list of kings with no narratives until 1.98, while running across two of Manetho's dynasties without mention (Dynasties XVIII and XIX). Many scholars have attempted to recreate which portions were written by the anti-Jewish, pro-Jewish, anti-Egyptian, pro-Egyptian, anti-Greek and pro-Greek writers, but the conclusions have been disputed.
Contemporaneously or perhaps after Josephus wrote, an Epitome, or summary, of Manetho's work. This would have involved preserving the outlines of his dynasties and a few details deemed significant. For the first ruler of the first Dynasty, Menes, we learn that "He was snatched and killed by a hippopotamus". The extent to which the epitome preserved Manetho's original writing is unclear, so caution must be exercised. Nevertheless, the epitome was preserved by Sextus Julius Africanus and Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea (Chronicon). Because Africanus predates Eusebius, his version is usually considered more reliable, but there is no assurance that this is the case. Eusebius in turn was preserved by Jerome in his Latin translation, an Armenian translation, and by Syncellus. Syncellus recognised the similarities between Eusebius and Africanus, so he placed them side by side in his work, Ecloga Chronographica.
These last four copies are what remains of the epitome of Manetho. Other significant fragments include Malalas' Chronographia and Excerpta Latina Barbari, "Excerpts in Bad Latin". The route of transmission for the bulk of Manetho's work is given in the table below (adapted from Verbrugghe and Wickersham 2000:118).
Manetho's methods involved the use of king-lists to provide a structure for his history. There were probably precedents to his writing available in Egypt (plenty of which has survived to this day), and his Hellenistic and Egyptian background would have been influential in his writing. Josephus records him admitting to using "nameless oral tradition" (1.105) and "myths and legends" (1.229) into his account, and there is no reason to doubt this, as admissions of this type were common among historians (including Josephus). His familiarity with Egyptian legends is undisputable, but how he came to know Greek is more open to debate. He must have been familiar with Herodotus, and in some cases, he even attempted to synchronise Egyptian history with Greek (for example, equating Memnon with Amenophis, and Armesis with Danaos). This suggests he was also familiar with the Greek Epic Cycle (where the Ethiopian Memnon is slain by Achilles during the Trojan War) and the history of Argos (in Aeschylus' Suppliants). However, it has also been suggested that these were later interpolations particularly when the epitome was being written, so these guesses are at best tentative. At the very least, he wrote in fluent Koinê.
The king-list that Manetho had access to is unknown to us, but of the surviving king-lists, the one most similar to his is the Turin Royal Canon (or Turin Papyrus). The oldest source with which we can compare to Manetho are the Old Kingdom Annals (ca. 2500-2200 BCE). From the New Kingdom are the list at Karnak (erected by Thutmose), two at Abydos (by Seti I and Ramesses—the latter a duplicate but updated version of the former), and the Saqqara list by the priest Tenry.
The provenance of the Old Kingdom Annals is unknown, surviving as the Palermo Stone. The differences between the Annals and Manetho are vast. The Annals only reach to the fifth dynasty, but its pre-dynastic rulers are listed as the kings of Lower Egypt and kings of Upper Egypt. By contrast, Manetho lists several Greek and Egyptian gods beginning with Hephaistos and Helios. Secondly, the Annals give annual reports of the activities of the kings, while there is little probability that Manetho would have been able to go into such detail.
The New Kingdom lists are each selective in their listings: that of Seti I, for instance, lists 76 kings from Dynasties I to XIX omitting the Hyksos rulers and those associated with the heretic Akhenaten. The Saqqara list, contemporaneous with Ramesses II, has 58 names, with similar omissions. If Manetho used these lists at all, he would have been unable to get all of his information from them alone, due to the selective nature of their records. Verbrugghe and Wickersham argue:
Furthermore, the purpose of these lists was to cover the walls of a sacred room in which the reigning Pharaoh (or other worshiper, as in the case of Tenry and his Saqqara list) made offerings or prayers to his or her predecessors, imagined as ancestors. Each royal house had a particular traditional list of these "ancestors," different from that of the other houses. The purpose of these lists is not historical but religious. It is not that they are trying and failing to give a complete list. They are not trying at all. Seti and Ramesses did not wish to make offerings to Akhenaten, Tutankhamen, or Hatshepsut, and that is why they are omitted, not because their existence was unknown or deliberately ignored in a broader historical sense. For this reason, the Pharaonic king-lists were generally wrong for Manetho's purposes, and we should commend Manetho for not basing his account on them (2000:105).These large stelae stand in contrast to the Turin Royal Canon (like Saqqara, contemporaneous with Ramesses II), written in hieratic script. Like Manetho, it begins with the gods, and like Manetho, appears to be an epitome very similar in spirit and style to Manetho. Interestingly, the opposite side of the papyrus includes government records. Verbrugghe and Wickersham suggest that a comprehensive list like this would be necessary for a government office "to date contracts, leases, debts, titles, and other instruments (2000:106)" and so could not have been selective the way the king-lists in temples were. Despite numerous differences between the Turin Canon and Manetho, the format must have been available to him. As a priest (or chief priest), he would have had access to practically all written materials in the temple.
While the precise origins for Manetho's Kinglist are unknown, it was certainly a Northern Lower Egyptian one. This can be deduced most noticeably from his selection of the kings for the Third Intermediate Period. Manetho consistently includes the Tanite Dynasty 21 and Dynasty 22 line in his Epitome such as Psusennes I, Amenemope and even such short-lived rulers here like Amenemnisu(5 years) and Osochor(6 years). In contrast, he ignores the existence of Theban kings such as Osorkon III, Takelot III, Harsiese A and Pinedjem I and rulers from Middle Egypt like Peftjaubast of Herakleopolis. This implies that Manetho derived the primary sources for his Epitome from a local city's temple library in the Delta Region which was under the control of the Tanite based Dynasty 21 and Dynasty 22 kings. The Middle and Upper Egyptian Pharaohs had no impact upon this specific region of the Delta; hence their exclusion from Manetho's kinglist.
By the Middle Kingdom, Egyptian kings bore five different names, the "Horus" name; the "Two Ladies" name; the "Gold Horus" name; the praenomen or "throne name"; and a nomen, the personal name given at birth (also called a "Son of Ra" name as it was preceded by Sa Re'). Some Pharaohs also had multiple examples within these names, such as Ramesses II who used six Horus names at various times. Because Manetho's transcriptions agree with many king-lists, it is generally accepted that he was reliant on one or more such lists, and it is not clear to what extent he was aware of the different pharaonic names of rulers long past (and he had alternate names for some). Not all the different names for each ruler have been uncovered.
As such, Manetho did not pick consistently from the five different types of names, but in some cases, a straightforward transcription is possible. Egyptian Men or Meni (Son of Ra and king-list names) becomes Menes (officially, this is Pharaoh I.1 Aha—"I" represents Dynasty I, and "1" means the first king of that dynasty), while Menkauhor/Menkahor (Throne and king-list names, the Horus names is Menkhau and the Son of Ra name is "Kaiu Horkaiu[...]") is transcribed as Menkheres (V.7 Menkauhor). Others involve a slight shortening, such as A'akheperen-Re' (Throne and king-list names) becoming Khebron (XVIII.4 Thutmose II). A few more have consonants switched for unknown reasons, as in Tausret becoming Thouoris (XIX.6 Twosre/Tausret). One puzzle is in the conflicting names of some early dynastic rulers—though they did not have all five titles, they still had multiple names. I.3/4 Djer, whose Son of Ra name is Itti is seen as the basis for Manetho's I.2 Athothis. I.4 Oenephes then is a puzzle unless it is compared with Djer's Gold Horus name, Ennebu. It may be that Manetho duplicated the name or he had a source for a name unknown to us. Finally, there are some names where the connection is a complete mystery to us. V.6 Rhathoures/Niuserre's full name was Set-ib-tawi Set-ib-Nebty Netjeri-bik-nebu Ni-user-Re' Ini Ni-user-Re', but Manetho writes it as Rhathoures. It may be that some pharaohs were known by names other than even just the five official ones.
Thus, how Manetho transcribed these names varies, and as such we cannot reconstruct the original Egyptian forms of the names. However, because of the simplicity with which Manetho transcribed long names (see above), they were preferred until original king-lists began to be uncovered, translated, and corroborated in ancient Egyptian sites. Manetho's division of dynasties, however, is still used as a basis for all Egyptian discussions.
Volume 1 begins from the earliest times, listing gods and demigods as rulers of Egypt. We do not know what the stories inside contained, but some of the associated legends of Isis, Osiris, Seth, or Horus might have been found in here. Manetho does not transliterate either, but gives the Greek equivalents in a convention that predates him: Ptah = Hephaistos; Isis = Demeter; Thoth = Hermes; Horus = Apollo; Seth = Typhon; etc. This is one of the clues as to how syncretism developed between seemingly disparate religions. He then proceeds to Dynastic Egypt, from Dynasty I to XI. This would have included the Old Kingdom (pyramid-builders), the First Intermediate Period, and the early Middle Kingdom.
Volume 2 covers Dynasties XII - XIX, which includes the end of the Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period (XV-XVII—the Hyksos invasion), and then their expulsion and the establishment of the New Kingdom (XVIII onward). The Second Intermediate Period was of particular interest to Josephus, where he equated the Hyksos or "shepherd-kings" as the ancient Israelites who eventually made their way out of Egypt (Apion 1.82-92). He even includes a brief etymological discussion of the term "Hyksos".
Volume 3 continues with Dynasty XX and brings it to a conclusion in Dynasty XXX (or XXXI, see below). The Saite Renaissance comes in Dynasty XXVI, while XXVII involves the Achaemenid interruption to Egyptian rule. Three more local dynasties are mentioned, though they must have overlapped with Persian rule. XXXI consisted of three Persian rulers, and some have suggested that this was added by a continuator. Both Moses of Chorene and Jerome end at Nectanebo ("last king of the Egyptians" and "destruction of the Egyptian monarchy" respectively), but XXXI fits within Manetho's schemata of demonstrating power through the dynasteia well. The Thirty-second dynasty would have been the Ptolemies.
Most of the ancient witnesses group him together with Berossos, and treat the pair as similar in spirit, and it is no coincidence that those who preserved the bulk of their writing are largely the same (Josephus, Africanus, Eusebius, and Syncellus). Certainly, both wrote about the same time, and both adopted the historiographical approach of the Greek historians, Herodotus and Hesiod, who preceded them. While the subjects of their history are different, the form is similar, using chronological royal genealogies as the structure from which the narratives came. Both extend their histories far into the mythic past, to give the gods rule over the earliest ancestral histories.
Syncellus goes so far as to insinuate that the two copied each other:
If one carefully examines the underlying chronological lists of events, one will have full confidence that the design of both is false, as both Berossos and Manetho, as I have said before, want to glorify each his own nation, Berossos the Chaldean, Manetho the Egyptian. One can only stand in amazement that they were not ashamed to place the beginning of their incredible story in each in one and the same year. Ecloga Chronographica, 30While this does seem an incredible coincidence, the reliability of the report is unclear. The reasoning for assuming they started their histories in the same year involved some considerable contortions. Berossos dated the period before the Flood to 120 saroi (3,600 year periods), giving an estimate of 432,000 years before the flood. This was unacceptable to later Christian commentators, so it was assumed he meant solar days. 432,000 divided by 365 days gives a rough figure of 1,183½ years before the flood. For Manetho, even more numeric contortions ensued. With no flood mentioned, they assumed that Manetho's first era describing the gods represented the ante-diluvian age. Secondly, they took the spurious Book of Sothis for a chronological count. Six dynasties of gods totalled 11,985 years, while the nine dynasties with demigods came to 858 years. Again, this was too long for the Biblical account, so two different units of conversion were used. The 11,985 years were considered to be months of 29½ days each (a conversion used in antiquity, for example Diodorus Siculus), which comes out to 969 years. The latter period, however, was divided into "seasons", or quarters of a year, and reduces to 214½ years (another conversion attested to by Diodorus). The sum of these comes out to 1,183½ years, equal to that of Berossos. Syncellus rejected both Manetho's and Berossos' incredible time-spans, as well as the efforts of other commentators to harmonise their numbers with scripture. Ironically as we see, he also blamed them for the synchronicity concocted by later writers.
It is speculated that Manetho wrote at the request of Ptolemy I or II to give an account of the history of Egypt to the Greeks from a native's perspective. However, there is no evidence to support this hypothesis. If such were the case, Aegyptiaca was a failure, since Herodotus' Histories continued to provide the standard account in the Hellenistic world. It may also have been that some nationalistic sentiments in Manetho provided the impetus for his writing, but that again is conjecture. It is clear, however, that when it was written, it would have proven to be the authoritative account of the history of Egypt, superior to Herodotus in every way. The completeness and systematic nature in which he marshalled his sources was unprecedented. Furthermore, its influence could be seen in the way the Hellenistic Jews and their opponents considered it of prime importance in the struggle over their histories.
Syncellus similarly recognised its importance when recording Eusebius and Africanus, and even provided a separate witness from the Book of Sothis. Unfortunately, this material is likely to have been a forgery or hoax of unknown date. Every king in Sothis after Menes is irreconcilable with the versions of Africanus and Eusebius. Manetho should not be judged on the factuality of his account, but on the approach he took to recording history, and in this, he was as successful as Herodotus and Hesiod.
Finally, in modern times, the impact is still visible in the way Egyptologists divide the dynasties of the pharaohs. The French explorer and Egyptologist, Jean-François Champollion reportedly carried a copy of Manetho's lists in one hand as he attempted to decipher the hieroglyphics he encountered (though it probably gave him more frustration than joy, considering the way Manetho transcribed the names). Most modern scholarship that mentions the names of the pharaohs will render both the modern transcription and Manetho's version, and Manetho's names are even preferred to more authentic ones in some cases. Today, his division of dynasties is universally used, and this has permeated into the study of nearly all royal genealogies through the understanding of succession in terms of dynasties or houses.
The creation of a reliable Chronology of Ancient Egypt is a task fraught with problems. While the overwhelming majority of Egyptologists agree on the outline and many of the details of a common chronology, disagreements either individually or in groups have resulted in a variety of dates offered for rulers and events. This variation begins with only a few years in the Late Period, gradually growing to a decade at the beginning of the New Kingdom, and eventually to as much as a century by the start of the Old Kingdom. The reader is advised to include this factor of uncertainty with any date offered either in Wikipedia or any history of Ancient Egypt.
The first problem the student of Egyptian chronology faces is that they used no single system of dating: they had no concept of an Era similar to Anno Domini, Anno Hajirae — or even the concept of named years like limmu used in Mesopotamia. As a result, the chronologer is forced to compile a list of pharaohs, determine the length of their reigns, and adjust for any interregnums or coregencies. This leads to other problems:
A useful way to work around these gaps in knowledge is to find chronological synchronisms. Over the past decades a number of these have been found, of varying degrees of usefulness and reliability.
The attraction of alternative chronologies
Although Professor Heinrich Otten has called the current scholarly consensus a "rubber chronology" that could be stretched or shrank, by arbitrarily established lengths of co-regencies between rulers and even overlapping dynasties, the outlines and dates have not fluctuated very much in the last 100 years. This can be seen by comparing the dates when Egypt's 30 dynasties began and ended from two different Egyptologists: the first writing in 1906, the second in 2000. (All dates are in BC).[5]
| Egyptian dynasty | J. H. Breasted's dates | Ian Shaw's dates |
| 1st & 2nd dynasties | 3400 – 2980 | c.3000 – 2686 |
| 3rd dynasty | 2980 – 2900 | 2686 – 2613 |
| 4th dynasty | 2900 – 2750 | 2613 – 2494 |
| 5th dynasty | 2750 – 2625 | 2494 – 2345 |
| 6th dynasty | 2623 – 2475 | 2345 – 2181 |
| 7th & 8th dynasties | 2475 – 2445 | 2181 – 2160 |
| 9th & 10th dynasties | 2445 – 2160 | 2160 – 2025 |
| 11th dynasty | 2160 – 2000 | 2125 – 1985 |
| 12th dynasty | 2000 – 1788 | 1985 – 1773 |
| 13th to 17th dynasties | 1780 – 1580 | 1773 – 1550 |
| 18th dynasty | 1580 – 1350 | 1550 – 1295 |
| 19th dynasty | 1350 – 1205 | 1295 – 1186 |
| 20th dynasty | 1200 – 1090 | 1186 – 1069 |
| 21st dynasty | 1090 – 945 | 1069 – 945 |
| 22nd dynasty | 945 – 745 | 945 – 715 |
| 23rd dynasty | 745 – 718 | 818 – 715 |
| 24th dynasty | 718 – 712 | 727 – 715 |
| 25th dynasty | 712 – 663 | 747 – 656 |
| 26th dynasty | 663 – 525 | 664 – 525 |
All of the differences can be explained as the result of increased knowledge and refined understanding of the material. For example, Breasted adds a ruler in the Twentieth dynasty that further research showed did not exist. Breasted also believed all the dynasties were sequential, whereas it is now known that several existed at the same time. And of these revisions, the most important difference is that dates in the Old Kingdom are now placed 300 years later.
Notes
See also...