DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.1350#0021
SOME HISTORICAL DATA.
19
Turin Table of Karnak.
Papyrus.
(3) Antef II.
(4) Antef III.
(5) (Mentuhotep II.?)
(6) Antef IV.
Ra-neb . . .
Rasankh
Kgsb.
iS4
156
163
160
159
Lieb.
70
74
78
7i
79
72
87
73
76
88
Names on Monuments and Remains.
I6S 89
Liv.
Rois.
129 r Uah Ankh. Ra- (Ter?) seshes-ap-maa Antef or
133-J Antefa; son of last. Abbott pap. B.M. 520,
137 I 6656a. Elephantine 310. Coffin in Louvre.
130 f Ra-seshes-her-her-maa Antef., bro. of last. Coffin
138 ( in Louvre.
■* I- Neter-nefer Ra-neb-taui Mentuhotep. Several tablets-
146 J
j ,2 ) Ra-nub-kheper Antauf. (Abbott pap.) Obelisks. Tomb
j - j opened by Mariette: reigned over 50 years.
c Ra-neb-kher Mentuhotep III. Many tablets at Assuan,
4 \ Saba Rigaleh, &c.; reigned over 46 years.
queen Aah. Soba Rigaleh.
son, Antef V. Soba Rigaleh.
149 Ra-s-ankh-ka. Many tablets. Soba Rigaleh, &c.
I am far from saying that this is certainly the
truth, but it accounts for all the kings yet known,
and so far no monument necessitates our making
any addition to such a list. The principal points
on which this is open to revision are the transposition
of Mentuhotep I. and II., and the transposition of
Antef I. and IV. Also the table of Karnak might
authorise making Ra-neb-kher the second Mentu-
hotep, and Ra-nub-kheper his Antef son; but then
the order of the Karnak list, placing Rasankhha
before Ra-neb-kher, is contradicted by the Turin
papyrus and the tables of Abydos and Sakkara;
so that it is probably corrupt here. Some revision
is needful, as the accepted arrangement of Lieblein
is certainly wrong; and this order, moreover, agrees
better with the gradual development of the dynasty
and increase of the monuments than any other.
Including the other kings of this dynasty, who
appear to have preceded these, Ra-snefer-ka (Lieblein
No. 80), Ra .... (81), Ra-useren (82), Ra-neb-nem
(83), and Ana (75), there are five more; these with
the nine above make fourteen already accounted
for out of Manetho's number of sixteen for the
eleventh Diospolite dynasty. Two therefore are still
to be found, either new kings, or an additional Mentu-
hotep and Antef link to be separated from some
stated above. At all events, we are thus clear from
placing Theban Antefs in a Herakleopolite dynasty,
the Xth, as has been, done by some writers.
27. We now turn to a very different subject. It
is well known that the Egyptians used a year of
365 days; and thus losing about a quarter of a day
every year, their months retrograded round all the
seasons, recurring to the same point, as they believed,
at the end 1460 real years, or 1461 of their wander-
ing years. Actually, the period was 1508 years,
and such we must take it in calculating the relation
of the months to the seasons; although 1460 years
is the period for allusions by the Egyptians to this
cycle. The starting-point is given by the decree
of Kanobos, line 18, in 238 B.C., when a change
to a fixed calendar was fruitlessly ordered; also by
Censorinus writing in 239 A.D., and by Theon (circ.
400 a.d.). According to these, the heliacal rising
of Sirius, or the last day in the year on which it
could be seen before it was lost in the light of the
dawn on rising, was the 20th of July, and this fell
on the 1st of Payni, in 238 B.C., or on the 1st
of the month Thoth, the New Year's day of the
calendar, in the year 139 A.D. This was, according
to Theon's account, not an actual observation then,
but a dead-reckoning fixed by the cycle of 1460
years from the era of Menophres, in 1322 B.C.; and
this in its turn may have been either a dead reckon-
ing of 1460 year cycles from 2782 B.C., 4242 B.C.,
or 57°2 B-c-j or else a real observation according
to a* principle established actually in 2830 B.C.,
4338 B.C., or 5846 B.C. If the principle were laid
down, and intervening history had been confused,
the era may have been re-established from actual
observation, while the principle was older.
28. From this it is clear that if we have any
seasonal event fixed to a given point in the
wandering year, we know in what part of a cycle
of 1500 years it must have occurred. This principle
has been applied to fixing dates by calculating from
the month in the shifting calendar in which cam-
paigns were begun. But another and far older
datum is before us, in the inscription of Una, under
Pepi of the Vlth dynasty. Some time ago I noticed,
in the Pyramids of Gizeh, p. 210, how all the
transport of stone must have taken place in Egypt
19
Turin Table of Karnak.
Papyrus.
(3) Antef II.
(4) Antef III.
(5) (Mentuhotep II.?)
(6) Antef IV.
Ra-neb . . .
Rasankh
Kgsb.
iS4
156
163
160
159
Lieb.
70
74
78
7i
79
72
87
73
76
88
Names on Monuments and Remains.
I6S 89
Liv.
Rois.
129 r Uah Ankh. Ra- (Ter?) seshes-ap-maa Antef or
133-J Antefa; son of last. Abbott pap. B.M. 520,
137 I 6656a. Elephantine 310. Coffin in Louvre.
130 f Ra-seshes-her-her-maa Antef., bro. of last. Coffin
138 ( in Louvre.
■* I- Neter-nefer Ra-neb-taui Mentuhotep. Several tablets-
146 J
j ,2 ) Ra-nub-kheper Antauf. (Abbott pap.) Obelisks. Tomb
j - j opened by Mariette: reigned over 50 years.
c Ra-neb-kher Mentuhotep III. Many tablets at Assuan,
4 \ Saba Rigaleh, &c.; reigned over 46 years.
queen Aah. Soba Rigaleh.
son, Antef V. Soba Rigaleh.
149 Ra-s-ankh-ka. Many tablets. Soba Rigaleh, &c.
I am far from saying that this is certainly the
truth, but it accounts for all the kings yet known,
and so far no monument necessitates our making
any addition to such a list. The principal points
on which this is open to revision are the transposition
of Mentuhotep I. and II., and the transposition of
Antef I. and IV. Also the table of Karnak might
authorise making Ra-neb-kher the second Mentu-
hotep, and Ra-nub-kheper his Antef son; but then
the order of the Karnak list, placing Rasankhha
before Ra-neb-kher, is contradicted by the Turin
papyrus and the tables of Abydos and Sakkara;
so that it is probably corrupt here. Some revision
is needful, as the accepted arrangement of Lieblein
is certainly wrong; and this order, moreover, agrees
better with the gradual development of the dynasty
and increase of the monuments than any other.
Including the other kings of this dynasty, who
appear to have preceded these, Ra-snefer-ka (Lieblein
No. 80), Ra .... (81), Ra-useren (82), Ra-neb-nem
(83), and Ana (75), there are five more; these with
the nine above make fourteen already accounted
for out of Manetho's number of sixteen for the
eleventh Diospolite dynasty. Two therefore are still
to be found, either new kings, or an additional Mentu-
hotep and Antef link to be separated from some
stated above. At all events, we are thus clear from
placing Theban Antefs in a Herakleopolite dynasty,
the Xth, as has been, done by some writers.
27. We now turn to a very different subject. It
is well known that the Egyptians used a year of
365 days; and thus losing about a quarter of a day
every year, their months retrograded round all the
seasons, recurring to the same point, as they believed,
at the end 1460 real years, or 1461 of their wander-
ing years. Actually, the period was 1508 years,
and such we must take it in calculating the relation
of the months to the seasons; although 1460 years
is the period for allusions by the Egyptians to this
cycle. The starting-point is given by the decree
of Kanobos, line 18, in 238 B.C., when a change
to a fixed calendar was fruitlessly ordered; also by
Censorinus writing in 239 A.D., and by Theon (circ.
400 a.d.). According to these, the heliacal rising
of Sirius, or the last day in the year on which it
could be seen before it was lost in the light of the
dawn on rising, was the 20th of July, and this fell
on the 1st of Payni, in 238 B.C., or on the 1st
of the month Thoth, the New Year's day of the
calendar, in the year 139 A.D. This was, according
to Theon's account, not an actual observation then,
but a dead-reckoning fixed by the cycle of 1460
years from the era of Menophres, in 1322 B.C.; and
this in its turn may have been either a dead reckon-
ing of 1460 year cycles from 2782 B.C., 4242 B.C.,
or 57°2 B-c-j or else a real observation according
to a* principle established actually in 2830 B.C.,
4338 B.C., or 5846 B.C. If the principle were laid
down, and intervening history had been confused,
the era may have been re-established from actual
observation, while the principle was older.
28. From this it is clear that if we have any
seasonal event fixed to a given point in the
wandering year, we know in what part of a cycle
of 1500 years it must have occurred. This principle
has been applied to fixing dates by calculating from
the month in the shifting calendar in which cam-
paigns were begun. But another and far older
datum is before us, in the inscription of Una, under
Pepi of the Vlth dynasty. Some time ago I noticed,
in the Pyramids of Gizeh, p. 210, how all the
transport of stone must have taken place in Egypt