DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.12654#0140
112
THE FIFTH DYNASTY.
[Part II.
to observe similarities in the names of the Memphites
and Elephantinites as found in the lists of Manetho,
and on the monuments. From these considerations it
appears that the Elephantinites of the Fifth Dynasty
were contemporary with the Memphites of the Fourth.
Some suppose that the Fifth Dynasty ruled at Memphis
after the Fourth. This hypothesis, however, I have
sufficiently disproved ; but I shall also have to mention
a fact relating to the latter part of the Fifth Dynasty
which would be conclusive on this point by itself if
we had no other evidence. But there is an objection
which may be urged against the manner in which I
have stated certain Kings of the Fourth and Fifth
Dynasties to have been contemporary. If the monu-
ments show Soris to have been partly contemporary
with Nufr-ar-ka-ra, how are we to explain the fact of
Manetho's making the reigns of the predecessors of
Nephercheres to have been twelve years longer than
that of Son's, unless we suppose that the Fifth Dy-
nasty commenced a little before the Fourth, which is
unlikely? But we must remember that Manetho's
numbers are incorrect as they now stand in many
places, and that he reckons co-regent Kings as if in
succession.
I have mentioned another very important record, in
which five Kings' names are placed side by side in a tomb
near the Pyramids of El-Geezeh. They are Shaf-ra,
Men-kau-ra, the King who appears to be the Thinite
Tlas of Manetho, U-seser-kef, and a much erased name
which is apparently Shura. (See Plate IV., No. 4.)
This is another strong proof of the contemporaneous-
ness of the Memphites and Elephantinites. I am
indebted to the kindness of Mrs. Lieder for a copy of
this valuable record.
THE FIFTH DYNASTY.
[Part II.
to observe similarities in the names of the Memphites
and Elephantinites as found in the lists of Manetho,
and on the monuments. From these considerations it
appears that the Elephantinites of the Fifth Dynasty
were contemporary with the Memphites of the Fourth.
Some suppose that the Fifth Dynasty ruled at Memphis
after the Fourth. This hypothesis, however, I have
sufficiently disproved ; but I shall also have to mention
a fact relating to the latter part of the Fifth Dynasty
which would be conclusive on this point by itself if
we had no other evidence. But there is an objection
which may be urged against the manner in which I
have stated certain Kings of the Fourth and Fifth
Dynasties to have been contemporary. If the monu-
ments show Soris to have been partly contemporary
with Nufr-ar-ka-ra, how are we to explain the fact of
Manetho's making the reigns of the predecessors of
Nephercheres to have been twelve years longer than
that of Son's, unless we suppose that the Fifth Dy-
nasty commenced a little before the Fourth, which is
unlikely? But we must remember that Manetho's
numbers are incorrect as they now stand in many
places, and that he reckons co-regent Kings as if in
succession.
I have mentioned another very important record, in
which five Kings' names are placed side by side in a tomb
near the Pyramids of El-Geezeh. They are Shaf-ra,
Men-kau-ra, the King who appears to be the Thinite
Tlas of Manetho, U-seser-kef, and a much erased name
which is apparently Shura. (See Plate IV., No. 4.)
This is another strong proof of the contemporaneous-
ness of the Memphites and Elephantinites. I am
indebted to the kindness of Mrs. Lieder for a copy of
this valuable record.