STOP
Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World
This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in
the world byJSTOR.
Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries.
We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial
purposes.
Read more about Early Journal Content at http://about.istor.org/participate-istor/individuals/early-
journal-content .
JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please
contact [email protected].
POLITE LITERATURE.
I. — On the Age of the Eighteenth Dynasty ofManetho; By the Rev. Edward
HiNCKs, D.D.
Read December 12, 1842.
It cannot have escaped the observation of any one who has attended to Egyp-
tian literature, that a strong disposition has manifested itself, among all Conti-
nental and many British writers, to ascribe to the monuments and inscriptions
which come under their notice as great an antiquity as possible. It is to be
feared, that the disgust, which has been excited by these extravagant pretensions,
has caused many influential persons to discourage a study which appeared to
lead to such conclusions ; the opposition between which and the Mosaic history
was in many cases quite obvious. It would seem, however, to be a wiser course
to encourage persons, who were qualified by their previous studies, and who
could be depended on as believers in divine revelation, to pursue this branch of
literature ; in order that they might serve as a check to the vain fancies of un-
believers. It is not by a general denial of the existence of any knowledge of the
language, in which the monumental inscriptions are composed, that intelligent
persons will now be led to discredit the conclusions said to be derived from these
inscriptions. The main facts respecting the language can no longer be denied
with any plausibility. In order to refute in a satisfactory manner any erroneous
statement that may be hazarded, these facts must be assumed as established ; and
the inferences said to be deduced from the monuments must be shown not to be
legitimate deductions from them. They must be dealt with precisely in the
a2
4 Rev. Edward Hincks on the Age oftJie Eighteenth Dynasty ofManetho.
same manner as a numismatist would deal with the false conclusions which
another numismatist should pretend to obtain from a newly discovered medal.
This is the course which I have pursued in the papers which the Academy
has done me the honour to publish. In that on the Years and Cycles of the an-
cient Egyptians, I pointed out the fallacy of the arguments derived from the
hieroglyphical notation of the months, by which M. Biot had sought to fix the in-
troduction of the wandering year of 365 days at an epoch more than 3000 years
anterior to our era ; and I showed, from that very notation, that it could not
possibly have been introduced at any other time than the early part of the
eighteenth century before Christ. I selected the precise year, 1767, from distinct
considerations, which, though not equally forcible, appear to me to carry with them
a very high degree of probability.
In my paper on the Stele, my main object was to direct the student or pur-
chaser of Egyptian antiquities to that class of monuments, which would be most
likely to afford historical information ; and to point out criteria, by which the
relative antiquity of those which were not dated might be determined. But I
was enabled to introduce into the paper some corrections of certain prevailing
opinions, the tendency of which was to assign an extravagant antiquity to kings,
or successions of kings.
I shewed, in the first place, that no reliance was to be placed on the collection
of figures of kings, found in a chamber at Kamac, which had been assumed to
be a genealogical tablet, similar to that of Abydos ; and which, having been con-
nected with this, through the Osortasens and Amenemhes, carried up the line of
Pharaohs to a very remote epoch from the accession of the eighteenth dynasty.
I proved from contemporary monuments that the Osortasen succession, as it
really existed, was different from that said to be indicated by the figures in the
chamber at Kamac ; and, of course, that the latter could be of no authority.
The so called " Tablet of Kamac" is, in fact, a mere collection of figures of
kings, who had reigned, or were supposed to have reigned, in the various parts
of Egypt, and perhaps in Ethiopia, placed together without any regard to order
of succession.
I pointed out also the true period at which these kings reigned, to whom the
most remote antiquity had been assigned by MM. L'H6te and Letronne, on
the ground of inscriptions bearing their names being found at Karnac, on the
Rev. Edward Hincks on the Age of the Eighteenth Dynasty ofManetho. 5
reverse of blocks of stone, the fronts of which bear the name of king Horus of
the eighteenth dynasty. It was assumed by these writers, that these blocks had
been overthrown by the Hykshos, at the time of their invasion ; and, of course,
that the kings in question reigned previous to it ; and as " the captives on the
sandals" (which had been heretofore supposed to represent the Hykshos, and to
have been first used on the occasion of their expulsion), appear on the monu-
ments of these kings, these French writers have imagined, that they had dis-
covered evidence of another invasion of barbarians, anterior to that of the Hyk-
shos, of which the legend of Typhon was a memorial. The inconsistency of all
this with the chronology of the Bible is apparent. In reply to it, I stated, that
the kings in question were the immediate predecessors of Horus ; or, to speak
more correctly, were rival kings, who held Thebes in opposition to him for a
few years, during which the blocks on which their names appear were sculptured.
One of them, the king whose tomb is in the western valley at Thebes, and of
whom the name has not yet been deciphered in a satisfactory manner, died ; and
the other, Amenothph IV., who changed his name to Vach-en-aten, i. e., the
Adorer of the Sun's Disk, was at length subdued by Horus, who defaced all his
monuments, as well as those of his predecessor. Thus the interval between the
sculpturing of the two faces of these blocks was really a less number of years
than the French writers have supposed it to be of centuries ! Of these state-
ments I have not given proofs. The evidence which I have collected appears to
me, however, to amount to a complete demonstration of what I have stated ; and,
should circumstances permit me to continue my attention to Egyptian literature,
I hope to lay it before the public, together with some other observations that I
have made respecting the mode of determining the succession of Egyptian kings.
In the same paper on the Stele, I threw out some other suggestions, tending
to depress the chronological epochs of the dynasties. I stated my belief that
the kings in the former part of the Tablet of Abydos belonged to the twelfth
dynasty of Manetho, in place of the sixteenth and seventeenth ; the five inter-
mediate dynasties between that and the eighteenth lieing contemporary with
others, or altogether fictitious. I mentioned it too, as a possible supposition, that
some of the dynasties between the eighteenth and the twenty-second were in like
manner to be omitted ; and that the epoch of the eighteenth dynasty might,
therefore, be much later than it has been calculated to be on the supposition that
6 Rev. Edward Hincks on the Age of the Eighteenth Dynasty ofManetho.
all the dynasties, mentioned by Manetho as following it, really reigned in suc-
cession for the periods which he states.
What I then mentioned as a possible supposition, I now announce as a
positive fact. Since I wrote the paper on the Stdle, I applied myself to
collect the evidence respecting the time at which the eighteenth djmasty flou-
rished, which might be found in the recorded dates of facts, that were of such
a nature, that they could only have occurred at particular seasons of the solar
year. I have been able to obtain three such dates ; and they all concur in
depi-essing the era of the accession of this dynasty about 365 years below that
assigned by the continental writers ; because the three facts stated must all have
occurred about three months earlier than they would have done if this era had
been correctly assigned.
The first of these facts is the commencement of the expedition of Rameses
the Great against the Scythians, which is said to have been in his fifth year, the
eleventh month, and ninth day of the month. In the year 1522 B. C., which is about
the time that the continental writers suppose that Rameses reigned, the ninth
day of the eleventh month would coincide with the 13th July of the proleptic
Julian year, some days after the summer solstice. It is extremely improbable
that the king would have deferred till so late a season his setting out on a distant
expedition to a northern region. The time of the vernal equinox, or some time
shortly after it, would probably be that at which he commenced his expedition ;
and in order that the assigned date of the wandering year should coincide with
this, the expedition must have taken place in the former part of the twelfth
century before Christ. In 1200 B. C. this date would coincide with the 23rd
April, about twenty days after the equinox; and in 1120 B. C. it would coin-
cide with the equinox itself.
The second fact is of a similar nature. In the annals of the reign of
Thothmos III., a fragment of which, formerly at Kamac, is now in the Museum
at Paris, this king is said to have made his first campaign in the third quater-
nion of months in his twenty-ninth year (i. e. reckoning from the death of his
father ; the first year from the death of his sister). According to the French
hypothesis, this must have occurred in the beginning of the seventeenth century
before Christ, when this quaternion would have extended from the latter end of
June to the latter end of October. It is very improbable that the campaign
Rev. Edward Hincks on the Age of the Eighteenth Dynasty o/Manetho. 7
should have commenced so late in the season as this ; and when we take into
account that it is not said to have commenced at the beginning of the quater-
nion, and that it is intimated that it extended beyond the close of it into the
thirtieth year of the king, we have, I think, fully sufficient grounds for believing
that he reigned somewhat about 360 years after the French date, when the
quaternion would have extended from the latter end of March to the latter end
of July.
The third of the facts is of a diflferent nature. It is recorded on a scarabseus
in the Louvre, which has been figured by Rosellini M.R.XLIV.2, that in the
eleventh year of the reign of Amenothph IIL, the third month and first day, he
gave orders for the digging of an immense basin, 3000 cubits long, and 600
cubits broad ; and that on the sixteenth day of the same month he celebrated a
great panegyry of the waters, or of the inundation. We know from various
Steles, on which the panegyrics observed by the Egyptians are enumerated, that
they had twenty-four stated ones, occurring on the first and sixteenth days of
their twelve months ; and it can scarcely be doubted, that the panegyry of the
waters, or the inundation, was that one of this series, which occurred when the
inundation was at its height, or when the sun was about the middle of Virgo,
The basin was prepared, while the Nile was yet rising, with a view to its being
filled by it as it rose ; and when it was full it was used for the celebration of the
water panegyry. I consider the physical fact of the inundation being at its
height about the middle of Athyr, in the eleventh year of Amenotiiph III., to be
decisive as Jo the point that he reigned in the former half of the thirteenth
century before Christ. In the year 1300 B. C, the 16th Athyr would coincide
with the 27th September ; and this appears to me as late a time as we can sup-
pose that the festival of the inundation could be celebrated. It is more probable
that it would be a week or so earlier, which would bring the date down twenty-
eight years, or thereabouts. According to the French hypothesis, however, of
the chronology of this period, the eleventh year of Amenothph III. would occur
in the seventeenth century before Christ, when the month of Athyr would coin-
cide with December, and, of course, the inundation would be at an end.
Now, however contrary to prevaUing opinions the conclusion at which I have
arrived may be, I would observe that it is quite consistent with the statement of
Tacitus, that the appearance of the phoenix (which I shewed in a former paper
8 Rev. Edward Hincks on the Age of the Eighteenth Dynasty ofManetho.
took place in 1167 B. C.) was in the reign of Sesostris, or Rameses the Great ;
and also with a tradition, if it do not deserve another name, which was current
among the Egyptians in the reign of Antoninus, to the effect, that the canicular
cycle, then ending, had its commencement in the reign of Thothmos III. ; which
must, therefore, have included the year 1323 B. C. The existence of this tra-
dition is evidenced by a number of scarabasi, obviously of Roman workmanship,
and referring to the canicular cycle, on which the royal legend of this monarch
appears. If it could be proved that a single one of these scarabsei was of the age
of Thothmos, it would be decisive as to the point under consideration. I do
not, however, think this likely. Indeed, I think it very doubtful, whether the
canicular cycle existed at all before the time of the Alexandrian astronomers ;
who may have fixed its origin proleptically, as Julius Scaliger did in the case of
his cycle. Still it is to be presumed, that authentic historical data existed at
that period, from which the name of the monarch who reigned in 1323 could be
known ; and it is by no means likely that, in default of such data, the name of a
much more ancient king should be assumed arbitrarily, and the origin of the cycle
attributed to him.
It will occur to some, that the celebrated astronomical sculptures on the ceiling
of the Memnonium, as it is improperly called, at Thebes, are opposed to the
opinions which I have advanced. This, however, I by no means admit. It is
clear, that in the principal part of these sculptures, there was no intention of
describing the physical characters of the months in the time of Rameses, but
their original characters in the old fixed year ; or, as those would express it, who
dissent from my conclusions on that subject, their normal characters. This will
be acknowledged by all parties. The question is whether there be any subordi-
nate part of the sculptures from which the date of the erection can be inferred ;
and, if so, what that part is ? Mr. CuUimore says, that he has data, from which
the year 1138 B. C. may be inferred to be that of the erection ; but I have not
been able to learn what these data are. This, however, would be in perfect cor-
respondence with my views. M. Biot has fixed upon 1500 B. C, as the probable
time of the erection ; but on grounds which appear to me very unsubstantial.
He assumes that the position of the vernal equinox was intended to be pointed
out by the position of a pair of royal cartouches which stand under the names of
the months. It appears to me, that I would have an equal right to assume that
Rev. Edward Hincks on the Age of the Eighteenth Dynasty ofManetho. 9
these cartouches were intended to mark the place of any other phenomenon,
suppose the winter solstice ; and that I might thus bring down the date about
365 years from that fixed by M. Biot, so as to agree with the other evidence.
Arguments of this kind are, however, of no value ; and I should have considered
this as unworthy of any attention, if it were not for the great name of M. Biot,
and the weight which his opinion on any subject of a strictly astronomical cha-
racter must necessarily have. This makes it important that I should point out
the nature of the arguments which he uses, shewing that they are not founded on
astronomical data.
The theories of M. Biot and Mr. CuUimore are, however, not the only ones
respecting the date of these sculptures. The Bishop of Gibraltar has argued, in
a very plausible manner, for the intermediate date of 1323 B. C. His lordship
quotes a passage in one of the columns of hieroglyphics at the side of the ceiling,
in which mention is made of " the manifestation of Sothis on the third of the
celestial days." From this he infers, that at the time when the sculptures were
executed, the heliacal rising of Sirius, or Sothis, was on the third of the Epa-
gomenae ; and, as it took place on the 1st of Thoth, at the epoch of the caniculai-
cycle in 1323 B.C., the date of the ceiling could not have much differed from
that. To this, however, it was replied by Mr. CuUimore (to whom, by the way,
I am also indebted for the observation respecting the scarabaei of Thothmos III,,
alluding to the canicular cycle), that this passage did not refer to the rising of
Sirius, but to the birth of the goddess Isis, or Sothis ; which took place on the
third of the Epagomenae, according to a legend recorded by Plutarch, and to
which allusion is made in at least one other existing hleroglyphical monument.
This is certainly a possible way of explaining the passage referred to by the
Bishop ; and consequently that passage cannot be relied on, in opposition to such
plain indications of a more recent date, for the reign of Rameses the Great, as I
have adduced in this paper.
I will only add, that from a comparison of various passages On obelisks, and
in particular on the great obelisks at Kamac, combined with the statements of
Manetho, I have been led to fix the death of Thothmos II. in 1355 B. C, or
within a year or so of it. From this epoch the years of the joint sovereigns,
queen Amuneth and king Thothmos III., are reckoned. The former died about
the middle of their twenty-ninth year ; and from her death, the twelve years and
VOL. XXI. -B
10 Rev. Edward Hincks on the Age of the Eighteenth Dynasty ofManetho.
nine months assigned by Manetho to Thothmos III., whom he calls Mephres,
are to be counted. They extended a short way into his forty-second year of
nominal sovereignty. His son, Amenothph 11. reigned about 1314 B.C. His
son, Thothmos IV., the Thmosis of Manetho, commenced his reign about 1288
B. C. ; and his sons, Amenothph HI. and Amuntuonkh, reigned about 1279
B.C. The former of these died about 1248 B.C., and then commenced that
struggle between the rival worships of Amun and of the Sun's Disk, which con-
vulsed Upper Egypt for several years, and occasioned the loss of almost the whole
of the foreign conquests of the preceding monarchs.
I have not yet been able to ascertain the interval between the death of
Amenothph III. and the accession of Barneses the Great ; nor am I prepared to
give the proof of the statements which I have last made ; as they partly depend
on some general propositions, which I have established by induction from a num-
ber of passages on monuments. Before making these propositions public, I am
desirous not only of making the inductive proof as complete as possible, but also
oi collecting together as many of the corollaries from them as I can.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American Libraries
TV News
Understanding 9/11