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 Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.12654#0193
Overview
Facsimile
0.5
1 cm
facsimile
Scroll
OCR fulltext
Sect. IV.]

THE SHEPHERD-DYNASTIES.

165

Egypt made an insurrection against them. The date
of the commencement of the Eighteenth Dynasty,
which is the latest date that we can assign to the re-
volt against the Shepherds, is about the year B.C. 1525 ;
and therefore, if Manetho's five hundred and eleven
years be correct, the latest date we can assign to the
commencement of the Fifteenth Dynasty will be about
the year B.C. 2036 ; and it seems to me most probable
that it commenced about half a century earlier.

Josephus and Africanus agree in assigning to the
Fifteenth Dynasty six Kings, though the former makes
its duration twenty-five years less than the latter. The
difference lies in the length of the reign of the third
King, Apachnas, which is stated to have been thirty-
six years by Josephus, but sixty-one by Africanus.
We cannot decide which is the more accurate of the
two copyists in this instance. There is also another
difference between these two writers; for Josephus
places Apophis, whom Africanus makes the last King
of the Dynasty, between Apachnas and Iannas, making
him the fourth King of the Dynasty. In the list of
the Chamber of Kings, a prenomen, which is shown by
the Royal Turin Papyrus to be that of Apachnas,
immediately precedes the nomen of Iannas ; and there-
fore it is most probable that Josephus is wrong in
placing Apophis between these two Kings. I say most
probable, since sometimes Kings mentioned by Manetho
are omitted in the monumental lists, although they
have left monuments, because they were not considered
legitimate sovereigns by those who made these lists.

The monuments do not enable us to decide as to the
correctness or incorrectness of the statement of Afri-
canus respecting the number of Kings, or the duration,
of the Sixteenth Dynasty. He is, however, manifestly
 
Annotationen