DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.14563#0210
ANTIQUITIES.
175
It is obvious, at a glance, that if all these parallel dynas-
ties were extended in one consecutive line, the chronology
of the Egyptian empire would be expanded by thousands
of years. But on what grounds does Mr. Poole break them
up into parallel lines ? This is done chiefly upon the evi-
dence of coeval monuments. For example, in the tomb of
a high functionary near the great pyramid, are two in-
scriptions which declare that the occupant of the tomb was
" devoted to Assa," and " devoted to Unas." Now Assa was
was the fifth shepherd-king of the fifteenth dynasty, ruling
at Memphis, and Unas was a legitimate Egyptian king, the
last of the fifth dynasty, who ruled in Upper Egypt. These
two dynasties, therefore, were contemporary, which is con-
firmed by the fact that " in the Royal Turin papyrus, the
fifteenth dynasty immediately follows the sixth; the one con-
cluding, and the other commencing in the same fragment."
So James I. of England reads James VI. of Scotland, when
two dynasties were merged in one.
Again, the royal tablet of Karnac, now in the Louvre,
already referred to as containing the names of sixty-one
kings, " is divided into Diospolite [Theban] kings and kings
contemporary with them." These kings have different titles,
according to their relative rank; some being styled " Lords
of Upper and Lower Egypt," and others merely having the
title " chief" or "prince." This is as if England, Scotland,
Wales, and Ireland were independent sovereignties, but all
of British origin, and Macaulay should engross their
monarchs upon one tablet as kings of Britain; an illustra-
tion which may serve to show the nature of the evidence
of contemporaneousness from coeval monuments. This is
enough for the purposes of the present volume. I only add,
that Sir Gardner Wilkinson indorses these discoveries of
Mr. Poole in the following terms: " I have much pleasure
in stating how fully I agree with him in the contempora-
175
It is obvious, at a glance, that if all these parallel dynas-
ties were extended in one consecutive line, the chronology
of the Egyptian empire would be expanded by thousands
of years. But on what grounds does Mr. Poole break them
up into parallel lines ? This is done chiefly upon the evi-
dence of coeval monuments. For example, in the tomb of
a high functionary near the great pyramid, are two in-
scriptions which declare that the occupant of the tomb was
" devoted to Assa," and " devoted to Unas." Now Assa was
was the fifth shepherd-king of the fifteenth dynasty, ruling
at Memphis, and Unas was a legitimate Egyptian king, the
last of the fifth dynasty, who ruled in Upper Egypt. These
two dynasties, therefore, were contemporary, which is con-
firmed by the fact that " in the Royal Turin papyrus, the
fifteenth dynasty immediately follows the sixth; the one con-
cluding, and the other commencing in the same fragment."
So James I. of England reads James VI. of Scotland, when
two dynasties were merged in one.
Again, the royal tablet of Karnac, now in the Louvre,
already referred to as containing the names of sixty-one
kings, " is divided into Diospolite [Theban] kings and kings
contemporary with them." These kings have different titles,
according to their relative rank; some being styled " Lords
of Upper and Lower Egypt," and others merely having the
title " chief" or "prince." This is as if England, Scotland,
Wales, and Ireland were independent sovereignties, but all
of British origin, and Macaulay should engross their
monarchs upon one tablet as kings of Britain; an illustra-
tion which may serve to show the nature of the evidence
of contemporaneousness from coeval monuments. This is
enough for the purposes of the present volume. I only add,
that Sir Gardner Wilkinson indorses these discoveries of
Mr. Poole in the following terms: " I have much pleasure
in stating how fully I agree with him in the contempora-