DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.55202#0028
II
THE RULERS OF UPPER EGYPT IN THE
ELEVENTH DYNASTY
Before beginning the stories of the different princes who made up
the two halves of the Eleventh Dynasty—that of Kings of Upper
Egypt only, and that of Pharaohs of the whole land—a word should
appear on their dates.
The question of dates in the early Middle Kingdom depends
wholly upon what we take as the first year of the Twelfth Dynasty,
or the last year of the Eleventh. Long ago an approximate date was
set for the beginning of the reign of Amun-em-het I and of the
Twelfth Dynasty. Experience proved that this date of 2000 b.c.
must be very close to being right. In fact, it fitted so well, and it was
so easy to remember, that many of us had forgotten for years that
it was only an approximation which we hated to give up. Faith in
it was shaken a bit by the discovery of the “Kahun Papyri” nearly
half a century ago, but the exact effect of these latter documents
was for a long time fogged by uncertainty.
Very recently Edgerton recalculated the date of the heliacal rising
of Sothis under an unnamed king, which is recorded in the papyri.1
From this event he established a number of dates, each from 5 to 30
years later than those which followed the acceptance of 2000 b.c.
as the start of the dynasty. He instructed his readers, however, to
make this date earlier by as many years as the reign of Se’n-Wosret 11
might eventually be found to exceed 19. This, of course, left us just
about where we already were, and did not seem to me to justify the
giving up of so convenient a date for the beginning of the Twelfth
Dynasty as was 2000 b.c.
The state of our knowledge now seems greatly improved. An
article has recently appeared, written by Lynn H. Wood, which puts
greater emphasis on the lunar data in the Kahun Papyri than on the
heliacal rising of Sothis.2 By this means he exactly places the first
year of Amun-em-het I as being 1991 b.c. This change from 2000 b.c.
1 Egerton, JNES, 1942, p. 307.
2 Wood, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 1945, p. 5.
THE RULERS OF UPPER EGYPT IN THE
ELEVENTH DYNASTY
Before beginning the stories of the different princes who made up
the two halves of the Eleventh Dynasty—that of Kings of Upper
Egypt only, and that of Pharaohs of the whole land—a word should
appear on their dates.
The question of dates in the early Middle Kingdom depends
wholly upon what we take as the first year of the Twelfth Dynasty,
or the last year of the Eleventh. Long ago an approximate date was
set for the beginning of the reign of Amun-em-het I and of the
Twelfth Dynasty. Experience proved that this date of 2000 b.c.
must be very close to being right. In fact, it fitted so well, and it was
so easy to remember, that many of us had forgotten for years that
it was only an approximation which we hated to give up. Faith in
it was shaken a bit by the discovery of the “Kahun Papyri” nearly
half a century ago, but the exact effect of these latter documents
was for a long time fogged by uncertainty.
Very recently Edgerton recalculated the date of the heliacal rising
of Sothis under an unnamed king, which is recorded in the papyri.1
From this event he established a number of dates, each from 5 to 30
years later than those which followed the acceptance of 2000 b.c.
as the start of the dynasty. He instructed his readers, however, to
make this date earlier by as many years as the reign of Se’n-Wosret 11
might eventually be found to exceed 19. This, of course, left us just
about where we already were, and did not seem to me to justify the
giving up of so convenient a date for the beginning of the Twelfth
Dynasty as was 2000 b.c.
The state of our knowledge now seems greatly improved. An
article has recently appeared, written by Lynn H. Wood, which puts
greater emphasis on the lunar data in the Kahun Papyri than on the
heliacal rising of Sothis.2 By this means he exactly places the first
year of Amun-em-het I as being 1991 b.c. This change from 2000 b.c.
1 Egerton, JNES, 1942, p. 307.
2 Wood, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 1945, p. 5.