Winlock, Herbert E.: The rise and fall of the middle kingdom in Thebes (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1947)

PREFACE

VII

and purposes practically one. However, this idea did not appeal to
Wiedemann, Maspero, Petrie, Bissing or Borchardt, or to anyone
else who consciously or unconsciously believed in the long chro-
nology, and who accepted the figures in Manetho much as we have
them today. Those historians set the date of Menes at just about a
Sothic Period earlier than it actually was, and packed most, if not
all, of the extra years into the period between the Twelfth and the
Eighteenth Dynasties.
Another group of historians began to write at about the turn of
the century, and of them the most important took about two cen-
turies as the length of the interval between those two dynasties.
When we come to look into the details of the matter, however, we
find enough disagreement among modern historians to make our
heads spin round and round. The Hyksos have brought still more
confusion into the matter, for many would have more than one line
of Shepherd Kings, and most of us have taken the badly written
hieroglyphs on some scarabs as mentioning a King Sheshi when I am
now convinced that they were really attempts to write the name of
King Apopi.
Max Pieper,2 in his doctor’s dissertation of 1904 and in some later
articles, went astray because he did not differentiate between the
rulers who held Thebes only, and those who rightly belonged in the
North. Eduard Meyer3 was misled in his dealing with the Turin
Papyrus as it had been pasted together for the greater part of a
century, and he did not realize that being a northern compilation it
makes no mention whatever of the purely local kings of Thebes
belonging to the period. James Henry Breasted4 was, in his day, a
great admirer of Meyer, and his writings are largely tinged with this
feeling, though some of the American’s books in their first editions
were actually published before the final printing of the German’s.
While Raymond Weill5 resolutely set the Turin Papyrus aside, he
came to equally false conclusions, largely, it would seem, because of
his grouping of kings together whenever their prenomens were alike.
He did collect an extraordinary amount of material, and I am far
more deeply indebted to his work than the footnotes which follow
* Die Konige {wischen mittleren und neuen Reich; also ZAS, 1913, p. 97; and Pieper and
Burchardt, Konigsnamen.
3 Aegyptische Chronologic, 1904; Nachtrage %ur Aegyptischen Chronologic, 1907; Geschichte des
Altertums, I, 1913; Die altere Chronologic Babyloniens, Assyriens und Agyptiens, 1931.
4 Ancient Records of Egypt, 1903; A History of Egypt, 1st ed., 1905.
1 Journal Asiatique, 1910-1917.