Universitätsbibliothek HeidelbergUniversitätsbibliothek Heidelberg
Metadaten

Poole, Reginald S.
Horae Aegypticae: or, the chronology of ancient Egypt: discovered from astronomical and hieroglyphic records upon its monuments, including many dates found in coeval inscriptions from the period of the building of the Great Pyramid to the times of the Persians ; and illustrations of the history of the first nineteen dynasties, shewing the order of their succession, from the monuments — London, 1851

DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.12654#0187
Überblick
Faksimile
0.5
1 cm
facsimile
Vollansicht
OCR-Volltext
Sect. IV.]

CHRONOLOGICAL REMARKS.

159

I must here deviate from my present subject, to
show how the interval between the Suphises and
Amenemha II., according to Manetho's lists, as they
have come down to us, corrected by means of the
monuments, may be compared with the system of chro-
nology which I have put forth. The successors of the
Suphises are stated by Africanus to have reigned 126
years : the Fourth Dynasty was immediately succeeded
by the Sixth, which lasted, according to Africanus, cor-
rected for reasons already stated, 143 years : at the
conclusion of the latter Dynasty, unless the seventy
days' reign of the Seventh Dynasty intervened, the
Fifteenth Dynasty commenced ; and about the same
time, the Twelfth; and Amenemha II. began to reign
in the forty-third year of Sesertesen I., the first King
of the Twelfth Dynasty. Thus the whole interval
from the accession of Mencheres to that of Amenemha
II. is about 311 years, according to the best version of
Manetho, with certain corrections ; and the interval
from the beginning of the second Great Panegyrical
Year, in the time of the two Suphises, to that of the first
Tropical Cycle is 347 years. This shows that my dates
agree in a remarkable manner with Manetho corrected
by the monuments. There is also another argument
which would lead us to the same results with reference
to the interval from the Fourth to the Twelfth Dy-
nasty. The sculptures of the time of the Fourth
Dynasty bear such a near resemblance to those of the
time of the Twelfth, that when we find a sculpture of
either of these two periods, it is almost impossible to
say to which period it belongs until we see in it a royal
name. The difference between the sculptures and
hieroglyphics of the Twelfth Dynasty and those of the
 
Annotationen