{"1": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3715", "width": "2395", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0001.jp2"}, "2": {"fulltext": "^-6\\n.0-\\n,V^\\no.\\n1\\nC^^ V\\ns\\n.\\\\v", "height": "3623", "width": "2368", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0002.jp2"}, "3": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3623", "width": "2368", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0003.jp2"}, "4": {"fulltext": "Digitized by the Internet Archive\\nin 2010 with funding from\\nThe Library of Congress\\nhttp://www.archive.org/details/selfverifyingchrOOschm", "height": "3623", "width": "2167", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0004.jp2"}, "5": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3654", "width": "2248", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0005.jp2"}, "6": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3639", "width": "2221", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0006.jp2"}, "7": {"fulltext": "A SELF-VERIFYING\\nCHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY\\now\\nAncient Egypt\\nTHE FOUNDATION OF THE KINGDOM\\nTO\\nTHE BEGINNING OF THE PERSIAN\\nDYNASTY\\na isoofe of Startling mm bttit^\\nBY\\nORLANDO P. SCHMIDT\\nCINCINNATI, O.:\\nGEORGE C. SHAW\\n1900", "height": "3654", "width": "2243", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0007.jp2"}, "8": {"fulltext": "TWO COPIES RECEIVED,\\nLibrary of Cen\u00c2\u00bbr\u00c2\u00abtfc\\nOffle. of th,\\nNOV 1 7 im\\nReglsttr of Copyright*.\\nCOPYRIGHT, 1899,\\nBY ORLANDO P. SCHMIDT.\\nPRESS OF\\nCURTS JENNINGS,\\nCINCINNATI, O.\\n51684\\nSeUJWO COPVi", "height": "3639", "width": "2221", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0008.jp2"}, "9": {"fulltext": "PREFACE\\nIn the Preface, we naturally expect the author to\\ntell us something about his work and himself. I will\\navail myself of this time-honored privilege merely to\\nsay a few words about the work. As the title indi-\\ncates, it is a self-verifying chronological history of\\nancient Egypt, from the foundation of the kingdom\\nto the beginning of the Persian Dynasty. It covers\\na vast period of 3,700 years, much of which was here-\\ntofore comparatively unknown and unexplored. This\\nfield was hastily explored, usually at off -times, within\\nthe space of a few years. Armed with the key to\\nthe marvelous chronological system of the ancient\\nEgyptians, which a fortuitous discovery had placed\\nin my hands, I entered into a lost world, all recollec-\\ntion of which had died out, and there made a series\\nof discoveries, and gathered together a great mass of\\nnew historical facts, the startling and far-reaching im-\\nportance of which it would be almost impossible to\\nestimate. When I first crossed the threshold of this\\nterra incognita, I naturally entertained many of the\\nviews and opinions concerning the Egyptians and\\ntheir religion, science, and civilization, common to\\nmodern Egyptologists in general. Some of the errors\\nand superstitions regarding the Egyptians, which\\nwere current among so-called scientists, were of\\nsuch a preposterous nature, that my native common\\nsense recoiled from them instinctively; but there were\\n3", "height": "3654", "width": "2243", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0009.jp2"}, "10": {"fulltext": "4 Preface\\nothers, which were of such a subtle character, and so\\ndeeply rooted, and so thoroughly interwoven with\\nthe terms, phraseology, and modes of expression in\\ncommon use among all classes of readers, that I found,\\nand still find, it almost impossible to completely free\\nmy mind from their disturbing influences.\\nThe greater part of this book was written while\\nthe researches were being made. The author s point\\nof view was constantly changing. The horizon was\\nconstantly widening. Each new discovery, each new\\nfact brought to light, served to dispel the clouds and\\nmists which hung over, and obscured from view, some\\nof the most important periods of Egyptian history.\\nA book written under such circumstances natu-\\nrally lacks uniformity and logical continuity. Al-\\nthough it was completed about a year ago, I could\\nnot persuade myself to publish it in its present form,\\nbut hoped to find the necessar}^ time and leisure to\\nremold it from beginning to end. This hope, I regret\\nto say, has not been realized. The discoveries, how-\\never, are of such a nature, that I would not be justified\\nin longer withholding them from the world. The\\nvalue of the facts made public must be my excuse\\nfor the form in which they now appear.\\nIt is due to the reader to state, that it has been\\nmy earnest endeavor throughout to get down to the\\nbottom facts. Prior to the date of the so-called\\nFlood (2348 B. C.) these bottom facts exist, and\\ncan be found, in Egypt alone. Wherever we succeed\\nin striking bottom facts, we have evidence of the\\nmost convincing character, evidence which can not", "height": "3639", "width": "2221", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0010.jp2"}, "11": {"fulltext": "Preface 5\\nbe successfully contradicted, evidence which may be\\nsaid to verify itself. For example, the Great Sphinx,\\nthe pyramids, such as those of Nuterachi, Senoferu,\\nChufu, etc., the mastabas, reaching back to those of\\nSheri and Amten, the hieroglyphical inscriptions\\nfound in the recently opened pyramids of Unas, Teta,\\nMeri-ra Pepa, Menthusuphis I, etc., the contemporary\\ninscriptions of Una, Hirchuf, Aahmes, etc., the tombs\\nand cofhns of the Antefs, the statues of the Hyksos\\nkings, the Table of Abydus, the Tablet of Four Hun-\\ndred Years, the Turin Papyrus, etc., constitute what\\nmight be called the best evidence, that is, evidence\\nof such convincing and unimpeachable character that\\nno number of modern authorities could add to its\\nweight or credibility.\\nFor this reason, I did not deem it necessary to\\nencumber the text with a mass of miscellaneous cita-\\ntions from so-called authorities, and thereby\\nweaken the effect of the facts presented.\\nThe Sothiac system of chronology is so nicely ad-\\njusted in all its parts, so perfect as a whole, that no\\none who has made himself acquainted with its prac-\\ntical workings will deny that it is mathematically\\naccurate, self-registering, and self-verifying a mar-\\nvelous piece of mechanism indeed.\\nNow, as modern Egyptologists, one and all, con-\\ntend that the Egyptians were altogether ignorant of\\nthe science of chronology, it will be seen that I can\\nnot use them as authorities, for my discoveries place\\nme in direct opposition to them.\\nIt was not so with Champollion and Lepsius.", "height": "3654", "width": "2243", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0011.jp2"}, "12": {"fulltext": "Preface\\nThese great pioneers in the science of Egyptology\\nstarted out upon the right road. But, unfortunately,\\nsuperficial skepticism has taken the place of scientific\\ncriticism. The attempt has been made to apply the\\nDarwinian theory of evolution to the development of\\nEgyptian civilization, during the first half of the his-\\ntorical period. This has led many Egyptologists to\\nbelittle and misrepresent the civilization of Egypt\\nprior to the beginning of the Fourth Dynasty. They\\ntell us flat-footed that the first three dynasties of\\nManetho were mythical, and not historical, and\\nthus with one fell swoop blot out and destroy five\\nhundred and sixty-four years of well-authenticated\\nhistory.\\nAs we shall see, Egyptian civilization was fully\\ndeveloped at least six hundred years before the foun-\\ndation of the kingdom, and the Egyptians themselves,\\nfrom the earliest times, assure us, with one accord,\\nthat they derived it, in all its perfection, from their\\nancestors, the venerated manes, or achiii.\\nA century has rolled by since the discovery of the\\ncelebrated Rosetta-stone, but the work of decipher-\\ning, translating, and interpreting the great stone book\\nof ancient Egypt has not yet been completed.\\nWho can foretell how long the additional facts\\nnow brought to light will occupy the theologians and\\nmen of science of the century to come? Here are the\\nlong-lost facts which constitute the background of\\nthe historical events allegorically described in the\\nopening chapters of Genesis; fragments, it is true,\\nbut priceless, nevertheless. The discovery that Noah,", "height": "3639", "width": "2221", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0012.jp2"}, "13": {"fulltext": "Preface 7\\nShem, Ham, and Japheth are Egyptian and not He-\\nbrew words, for example, may, at first view, appear\\ncomparatively unimportant, but who can foresee the\\nultimate results to which it may lead? Scientists\\nwill have to account for the remarkable coincidence\\nbetween the date of the Hyksos Expulsion and the\\ndate of Jacob s birth.\\nIt would be a great mistake to suppose that these\\nfacts affect Egyptian and Bible history only. The\\ncoming historians of ancient Greece and Rome will\\nbe called upon to account for the well-attested facts,\\nthat the lonians (la-nini) were settled in the Grecian\\nArchipelago and on the adjoining shores of Greece\\nand Asia Minor as far back as the reign of Teta, or\\n3146 B. C; and that the Sardinians, Sicilians, Acha-\\nians, and other Mediterranean nations invaded Egypt\\nby land and by sea during the reign of Menophthah\\nin the year 1491 B. C, or just before the Exodus,\\nand during the reign of Ramesses HI, or about 1417\\nB.C.\\nIn the pictorial representations we see these na-\\ntions clad and armed like the heroes of Homer, and,\\nfurther, that the vessels in which they crossed the\\nGreat Green (Ua2-ur) Water (Wasser) were skill-\\nfully and artistically made. Many theories and no-\\ntions which have come down to us from men who\\nbelieved that writing was unknown in the times of\\nMoses and Homer, that the ancient Egyptians were\\nHamites, or came from the fabled land of Puon-et, that\\nthe lyatins and lonians emigrated from the uninhab-\\nitable table-land of Aria shortly before the Trojan", "height": "3654", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0013.jp2"}, "14": {"fulltext": "8 Preface\\nWar, etc., will have to yield to the inexorable logic\\nof new and unexpected facts. Again, those Assyri-\\nologists who have published to the world artificial\\nand fanciful chronologies of ancient Babylonia, will\\nbe forced to explain how that kingdom, which was\\nfounded by Nimrod, the son of Kush, could antedate\\nthe Hamite invasion of Western Asia, and why the\\nnative Babylonian historian Berossus did not carry\\nhis actual chronology beyond 2348 B. C, the date of\\nthat great calamity. The reader will see who, or\\nwhat, the Biblical Ham really was, and that Egypt,\\nduring the two hundred and forty-two years which\\nintervened between the Twelfth Dynasty and the\\nHyksos Invasion, was the school in which he and his\\nbrothers, Shem and Japheth, were educated.\\nA literal Flood has served as an impenetrable cur-\\ntain behind which nearly two thousand years of thrill-\\ning and eventful history in ancient Egypt prior to\\nthe Hamite Invasion of 2348 B. C. was concealed\\nfrom view. This book removes the curtain, and re-\\nveals the historical facts underlying the beautiful alle-\\ngories, symbols, and figures of Genesis; in fact, it\\nabounds in startling discoveries of the most profound\\nsignificance relating to the earliest history of civilized\\nman.\\nEet no one think, because I have been compelled\\nto assail some of the theories advanced by modern\\nEgyptologists, that I do not fully appreciate the gran-\\ndeur and importance of the work they have accom-\\nplished. On the contrary, I regard it, beyond a\\ndoubt, as one of the grandest achievements of the", "height": "3639", "width": "2221", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0014.jp2"}, "15": {"fulltext": "Preface 9\\nhuman intellect. In the galaxy of immortal scientists,\\nnone shine with a brighter light than Champollion,\\nLepsius, Bunsen, de Rouge, Brugsch, and Maspero.\\nThey were banded together in the cause of science\\nand truth, which the Egyptians symbolized and per-\\nsonified as Thoth and Maat, and I am satisfied that\\nno one will be more ready to accept the truth and\\ndiscard old errors than those who still survive. The\\nworld is indebted to them; how much more so must\\nI be.\\nTo my friend, L. A. Wood, author of a remark-\\nable work, yet unpubHshed, entitled The Trial and\\nTest of the Gods in Egypt, to whom I communi-\\ncated many of these discoveries at, or about, the times\\nthey were respectively made, I am indebted for many\\nvaluable hints and suggestions. In fact, he is the\\nonly person known to me who seems to have any-\\nthing like a true conception of the religion of the\\nancient Egyptians, that is, their wonderful doctrine\\nof Life.\\nAlthough the Egyptians engraved the mystic\\nwords, the Way {uae), the Truth (maat), and the\\nLife (anch), in imperishable granite, Egyptologists\\nhave persistently closed their eyes to the fact but the\\nauthor of Osirian Christianity has not done so.\\nI also wish to acknowledge my indebtedness to\\nmy wife, to whom this work is gratefully dedicated,\\nfor valuable assistance in its preparation.\\nORIvANDO p. SCHMIDT.\\nMapi^ehurst, Ke;nton Co., Kentucky,\\nJuly 19, 1899. j", "height": "3654", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0015.jp2"}, "16": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3639", "width": "2221", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0016.jp2"}, "17": {"fulltext": "INTRODUCTION\\nModern Egyptologists, after vainly attempting\\nto work out a consistent system of chronology for\\nancient Egypt, have abandoned the task in despair.\\nThis has been briefly pointed out in the chapter\\nheaded, Present State of Egyptian Chronology.\\nInstead of frankly admitting this, however, some\\nof them have resorted to the questionable expedient\\nof trying to put the blame upon the ancient Egyp-\\ntians, charging that they were ignorant of the science\\nof chronology, and, consequently, had no chronology,\\nor chronological system. Thus all of the otherwise\\nexcellent histories of ancient Egypt lack a chrono-\\nlogical basis, or support. The maximum and mini-\\nmum dates for the accession of Mena, the first king\\nof Egypt, for example, differ fully two thousand years.\\nThis confusion is not confined to the Old Empire\\nalone, but undermines and honeycombs the entire\\nstructure down to the beginning of the reign of\\nPsammetichos. None of these histories gives us one\\nsolitary date during this period of 3,579 years, which\\nis correct. The trouble is steadily growing, instead\\nof diminishing, and the latest chronologies, when\\ncompared with those of Bunsen and Eepsius, are\\nsimply preposterous.\\nNow this work is merely a chronological, not a\\ngeneral, history of ancient Egypt, and, as its primary\\nobject was to supply what is wanting, restore what", "height": "3654", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0017.jp2"}, "18": {"fulltext": "1 2 Ijstrod uction\\nhas been lost not to copy, or simply repeat, what\\nis already familiar to every student of ancient his-\\ntory the chronological element has been naturally\\nforced into the foreground. But the reader may ask\\nWhy do you attach so much importance to an accu-\\nrate and reliable chronology? Is it not a dry and\\nuninteresting subject at best? My answer to these\\nquestions is, that history without an adequate chro-\\nnological support is little better than fiction, is like\\nmusic without time; in a word, chaos and discord.\\nChronology is dry and uninteresting only when sepa-\\nrated from the historical events to which it relates; as,\\nfor instance, in chronological tables drawn up for\\nready reference, but never when used as the legiti-\\nmate basis, backbone, prop, and support of history.\\nIn order to see how indispensable chronology is\\nto reliable history, the reader is requested to examine\\nthe latest histories of Rawlinson, Brugsch, Wiedeman,\\nMaspero, or Petrie with reference to the following\\nspecial periods, to wit:\\n1. The 350 years of the first ten Thinite Kings,\\nfrom the accession of Mena (4244 B. C.) to the be-\\nginning of the first Memphite Dynasty (3894 B. C.)\\n2. The 214 years between 3894 B. C. and 3680\\nB. C, during which the Memphite Kings of the Third\\nDynasty and the Thinite Kings of the Second Dy-\\nnasty reigned side by side.\\n3. The 148 years which intervened between the\\ndownfall of the Old Empire (2948 B. C.) and the be-\\nginning of the Twelfth Dynasty, or Middle Empire\\n(2800 B. C.)", "height": "3639", "width": "2221", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0018.jp2"}, "19": {"fulltext": "Introduction 13\\n4. The 242 years between the close of the Twelfth\\nDynasty (2590 B. C.) and the so-called Hyksos In-\\nvasion (2348 B. C.)\\n5. The 511 years of so-called Hyksos domination\\nover Egypt, including the 259 years and 10 months\\nof the Seventeenth, or Hyksos, Dynasty.\\n6. The 22)^ years of the actual Nineteenth Dy-\\nnasty, beginning with Ramesses II Miamen, and end-\\ning at the Sothiac Era, 1324 B. C.\\n7. The 185 years of the Twentieth Dynasty, end-\\ning 1139B. C.\\n8. The 220 years of the Twenty-second Dynasty,\\nending 789 B. C.\\n9. The 65 years of the contemporaneous Twenty-\\nfourth and Twenty-fifth Dynasties, beginning 730\\nB. C, and ending 665 B. C.\\nThe reader will find that the first two of these\\nperiods (erroneously estimated at 779, instead of 564,\\nyears) are characterized as mythical, and treated\\naccordingly.\\nA lot of so-called myths is served up to the\\nreader, instead of historical facts.\\nThe third period (supposed to cover 849 instead\\nof 148 years) is in hopeless confusion and obscurity,\\nlittle better, indeed, than chaos. Petrie even ventures\\nto place the Hyk-sat-u (Hyksos) King Achian here.\\nThe fourth and fifth periods are in an equally\\nchaotic condition. The Thirteenth and Fourteenth\\nDynasties are regarded as successive, when, in fact,\\nthey were contemporaneous, and the sub-totals which\\nhave been ignorantly substituted for the original", "height": "3654", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0019.jp2"}, "20": {"fulltext": "14 Introduction\\ntotals of these dynasties are accepted as genuine and\\ncorrect, and the ridiculous attempt is soberly made to\\nsqueeze 136 kings and 937 years into a period of 242\\nyears. The Hyksos Dynasty, which came in 251\\nyears after the Hamite Invasion of Egypt, or 2097\\nB. C, is either placed at the beginning of the Hyksos\\nperiod of 511 years, or about 100 years after it, so\\nthat, in the nature of things, nothing definite, certain,\\nor reliable can be expected here.\\nWhen we reach the Eighteenth Dynasty, there is\\nbut little improvement. Egyptologists still cling to\\nthe date 1648 B. C, as an absolute beginning point\\nfor this dynasty, as a drowning man clings to a straw,\\nand they cut down and bend and twist the numbers,\\nreigns, and dates in vain attempts to make them con-\\nform to, and harmonize with, this date, which can be\\ntraced to a silly blunder made by Josephus. The\\nNineteenth, Twentieth, and Twenty-second Dynas-\\nties have suffered most from these unwarranted\\nchanges. In fact, the Nineteenth and Twenty-second\\nDynasties have been almost blotted out. The last\\nperiod above-named, although comparatively recent,\\nis in an equally chaotic condition. The epoch-title\\n^Rokchoris does service as an actual king who was\\ntaken and burnt alive by the Ethiopian King Sabako.\\nTarako and Sabako appear upon the scene inter-\\nchangeably, and their reigns are made to overlap and\\ninterfere in a most inexplicable way, so that the reader\\nis completely bewildered and mystified. The native\\nkings, Tephnachtis, Nechepsos, and Nechao, float\\naround in mihihus without a place or date.", "height": "3639", "width": "2221", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0020.jp2"}, "21": {"fulltext": "Introduction^ 15\\nThe above instances have been singled out at ran-\\ndom, but every dynasty during the entire period of\\n3579 years is more or less affected by the doubt and\\nuncertainty, not to speak of the errors, which are due\\nto the absence of a reliable chronology. When\\nEgyptologists bound themselves down to the a priori\\nassumption that the ancient Egyptians were unac-\\nquainted with the science of chronology, and had no\\nchronological system or era, they necessarily barred\\nthe way to further progress; for no sane man would\\nseek for that which he thinks he knows does not exist.\\nHere again we see the fatal effects of errors intro-\\nduced more than 1,800 years ago. When Josephus,\\ncontended that before Abram came into Egypt the\\nEgyptians were unacquainted with arithmetic and the\\nscience of astronomy, and that Abram himself com-\\nmunicated to them these parts of knowledge (see\\nAntiquities, Book I, Ch. 8, Sec. 2), he certainly viewed\\nthe subject from the Roman and Hebrew, or, I might\\nsay, Asiatic standpoint; for he betrays no knowledge\\nof Egyptian affairs prior to the date of Abram. But\\nwhen modern Egyptologists undertake to build sys-\\ntems upon such false and thoroughly-exploded con-\\ntentions, they are altogether inexcusable.\\nTruth is stranger than fiction. At the begin-\\nning of the kingdom, or as far back as 4244 B. C, the\\nEgyptians had the most accurate system of chro-\\nnology ever devised by the ingenuity of man. It\\nsounds like the irony of fate to say that this system\\nwas purely and strictly astronomical. In a word,\\nthey had and used the marvelous, self-verif5ang,", "height": "3654", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0021.jp2"}, "22": {"fulltext": "1 6 Introd uction\\nself-registering system of chronology known as the\\nSothiac.\\nWhile I am free to admit that the Sothiac system,\\nwith its peculiar and distinctive nomenclature, titles,\\netc., presents a number of formidable-looking diffi-\\nculties to the general student, yet I am convinced\\nthat any one can easily master it by carefully perusing\\nthe first part of this work. A general knowledge of\\nthe Sothiac system is also indispensable to a correct\\nunderstanding of the much-abused chronological lists\\nof the celebrated Egyptian priest and historian,\\nManetho. These lists were copied by Manetho from\\nthe ancient registers preserved in the temples of\\nEgypt, and, before they were systematically changed\\n^i and falsified by the early Jewish and Christian chro-\\nnographers, were as accurate and reliable as the cele-\\nbrated astronomical Canon of Ptolemy. The frag-\\nments of the Turin papyrus still show that these an-\\ncient registers reached back to the earliest times. The\\nreigns of Mena and his successors upon the throne\\nwere carefully registered in years, months, and days,\\nand (what is equally important) were accurately ad-\\njusted to the Sothiac eras and epochs. The epoch-\\nreigns, identified by appropriate epoch-titles, enable\\nus to readjust the separate reigns to absolute dates,\\nastronomically fixed, and thus restore the chronology\\nupon a reliable basis.\\nUnfortunately, the breaks in the Turin papyrus\\nwere of such a nature as to destroy many of the epoch-\\nreigns; but several of them, like that of lan-ab-ra of\\nthe Fifteenth Dynasty (2064 B. C.) have escaped in-", "height": "3639", "width": "2221", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0022.jp2"}, "23": {"fulltext": "Introduction 17\\ntact, while others are indicated by parts of the stereo-\\ntyped formula, ari-en-ef em suteniu.\\nThe Sothiac system is fully explained in Part I of\\nthis work; but it can do no harm to add a word or two\\nby way of introduction. The ordinary or vague year\\nof 365 days (being about six hours short), shifted or\\nreceded one day in four years, one month in 120\\nyears, and one entire year in 1,461 vague years. The\\nSothiac year grew out of, and was based on, this reg-\\nular shifting of the vague year. Thus a Sothiac day\\nwas equal to four years, a Sothiac month to 120 years,\\na Sothiac year to 1,461 years. There were twelve\\nSothiac months of 120 years each, to the last of which\\n(Mesori) twenty years were added. These twenty\\nyears corresponded to the five intercalary days of the\\nordinary year.\\nA Sothiac year, therefore, consisted of 365 Sothiac\\ndays of four years each, or 1,460 fixed years. The\\nheliacal rising of the Dog-star Sirius, called Sothis\\n(Sopdet) by the Egyptians, regulated the Sothiac year.\\nThus the 120 years during which Sothis rose heliac-\\nally in the month of Thoth of the vague year, con-\\nstituted the Sothiac month of Thoth.\\nIn the fixed year, as we shall see, Sothis rose\\nheliacally, in the latitude of Heliopolis, on the first\\nday of Pharmuthi, which is about July 19th; and the\\nfirst day of Thoth, or the beginning of the year, coin-\\ncided with the winter solstice. When Sothis rose\\nheliacally on the first day of Pharmuthi of the vague\\nyear, which was the case in the years 4864 B. C,\\n3404 B. C, 1944 B. C, and 484 B. C, the year was", "height": "3654", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0023.jp2"}, "24": {"fulltext": "1 8 Introd uction\\nnormal; but when Mena mounted the throne, for in-\\nstance, it had shifted 155 days, so that Sothis rose on\\nthe first day of Thoth, which was Hkewise the first day\\nof the year. These 155 days represent exactly 620\\nyears. This rising of Sirius on the first day of Thoth,\\n4244 B. C, marked the date of the establishment of\\nthe kingdom, and likewise the end of the 1255 years\\nof the manes, or saints (achiu).\\nThe practical working of the system may be pro-\\nvisionally illustrated by the epoch-reign of Amene-\\nmes I, who came about one cycle, or 1,460 years,\\nafter Menes. It came to pass that Sothis rose heliac-\\nally, that is, just before the sun, on the first day of\\nThoth, in the seventeenth year of the reign of this\\nking. The great automatic, self-registering time-\\npiece of Egypt indicated that 1,460 years had elapsed\\nsince Mena became king. Thus, after Amenemes I\\nhad reigned sixteen years (it should be fifteen or\\nsixteen years, x months and x days) the Sothiac\\nmonth of Mesore (and a Sothiac cycle likewise) came\\nto a close, and the Sothiac month of Thoth (and a\\nnew Sothiac cycle likewise) opened. This important\\nevent happened in the year 2784 B. C. Amenemes I\\nreigned sixteen years before, and thirteen years after,\\nthis date in all, twenty-nine years.\\nThis much is simple enough; but the epoch-titles\\nassumed by, or conferred on, these epoch-kings pre-\\nsent more difficulty. As we shall see, the government\\nof Egypt was modeled after the solar system. Pha-\\nraoh claimed to be the successor, or vicegerent on\\nearth, of Ra, or the sun. It was assumed that he ruled", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0024.jp2"}, "25": {"fulltext": "Intr OD UCTION 1 9\\nthe world as Ra rules the solar system. He was the\\ncentral orb, giving light, life, stability, happiness, etc.,\\nto all peoples. He assumed the titles of Ra, and, in\\nthe symbolical language of those times, thie ruling\\npowers, with Pharaoh at their head, constituted the\\nheaven, just as the subject people constituted the\\nearth.\\nAgain, according to the cosmic theory of the\\nEgyptians, nothing came into existence except by\\ngeneration of male and female parents, etc. Thus\\nprimeval Ra, after throwing off, or giving birth to,\\nthe planets Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Earth, Venus, and\\nMercury, grew old and passed away, and was suc-\\nceeded by Horus, or the present sun. In the ordinary\\nand Sothiac years, Horus, as Harpokrates {Har-pa-\\nchrat) or Horus, the Babe, was born at the winter\\nsolstice, or beginning of the year; became physically\\ndeveloped, as Har-ka-nacht, Horus, the powerful\\nBull, at the vernal equinox; reached his intellectual\\nperfection, as Ra, at the summer solstice, or heart\\nof the year; and eventually grew old (as) and very old\\n(as-as), as Tum, Atum, or Osiris, at the autumnal\\nequinox. From the vernal equinox to the autumnal\\nequinox he was in the upper hemisphere, or sphere of\\nlight; but from the autumnal equinox to the vernal\\nequinox he was in the lower hemisphere, or sphere\\nof darkness. Now, as the sun of the Sothiac year\\nreached the winter solstice in the seventeenth year of\\nthe reign of King Amenemes I, he assumed the title\\nNem-mestu, meaning Re-born, in commemoration\\nof his birth as Harpokrates. His position at the head", "height": "3654", "width": "2218", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0025.jp2"}, "26": {"fulltext": "20 Introduction\\nof a new Sothiac year is indicated by the title Amen-\\nem-het, or Amen at the head.\\nBut as he became identified with the Sothiac\\nmonth presided over by Thoth, he received another\\ndistinctive epoch-title, to wit: Petithothis {Pa-ta-\\ntahu-ti) or The Gift of Thoth.\\nIt is significant that the title assumed by Mena,\\none complete cycle earlier, related to the Sothiac\\nmonth alone, for Athothis is the Egyptian Aa-tahu-ti,\\nhaving the meaning Hermogenes, or Offspring\\nof Thoth.\\nNow let us explain what we mean by an epoch-\\nreign. Kebahu, the last king of Manetho s First Dy-\\nnasty, reigned twenty-six years, of which three were\\nbefore, and twenty-three after, the epoch of Athyr,\\n4004 B. C. His epoch-reign survives in the Lists of\\nManetho as Uennephis with twenty-three years.\\nAs we shall see, Uennephis is taken from Uon-nofer,\\nPerfect Being, or Perfect One, a distinctive title\\nof Osiris, the consort of Hathor or Isis. Eratos-\\nthenes, however, used the reign before the epoch as\\nthe epoch-reign. Usertasen II and Usertasen III\\nreigned together jointly for many years. Eratos-\\nthenes grouped the two reigns together as fifty-five\\nyears. It happened that the thirty-eight years of\\nUsertasen III were equally divided by the epoch of\\nPaophi, 2664 B. C. Eratosthenes had them ruling as\\nHermes and Herakles, that is, in the Sothiac months\\nof Thoth and Paophi, for fifty-five years; but he also\\nhad Usertasen III reigning as Phuoro, or Nile, for\\nnineteen years, which is his reign before the epoch", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0026.jp2"}, "27": {"fulltext": "Intro D uction 2 1\\n2664 B. C, or the beginning of the month of Pa-hapi,\\nor The Nile.\\nIt will be seen from the foregoing illustrations\\nthat we must endeavor to make ourselves acquainted\\nwith the primitive arrangement and division of the\\nyear, the names and symbols of the months and\\nseasons, and the attributes and titles of the so-called\\ndeities who were supposed to preside over the same.\\nWe must also examine the peculiar religious no-\\ntions of the Egyptians, in connection with their theory\\nof the formation and government of the solar system.\\nManetho and his chronological lists necessarily\\ncome in for a share of our attention, for the lists were\\ncopied from the ancient registers, and, while we are\\nenabled to restore and verify them by means of the\\nSothiac system, they, in turn, reflect a bright light\\nupon the practical application of the system. The\\nchronological numbers of Josephus have been briefly\\nconsidered, because they were the indirect cause of\\nthe arbitrary changes and alterations made in Mane-\\ntho s lists by the early Jewish and Christian chronog-\\nraphers, and as such enable us to detect the same.\\nAll this the reader will find in Part I of this work,\\nwhich is introductory to Part II, where the chrono-\\nlogical history from the foundation of the kingdom,\\n4244 B. C, to the beginning of the Persian dynasty,\\n525 B. C, that is, the work proper, will be found.\\nThe chronological part of the work, in which\\ngrand-totals, like the 3,555 years from the beginning\\nof the Third Dynasty to the end of Nektanebos\\nreign; sub-totals, like the 453 years of Theban, and", "height": "3654", "width": "2218", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0027.jp2"}, "28": {"fulltext": "22 Introduction\\n511 years of Hyksos, domination; dynastic totals, like\\nthe 263 years of the Eighteenth Dynasty; epoch-\\nreigns, like the 2.2^ years of Seti I after 1584 B. C, and\\nthe separate reigns, combine to form a wonderfully\\nharmonious structure, covering over 3,700 years of\\nactual and well-authenticated history, amounts to a\\nmathematical demonstration; and, as the reader will\\nsee, has been subjected to every conceivable test.\\nThe synchronisms afforded by the Bible narrative and\\nby the histories of Babylonia, Assyria, Greece, etc.,\\nhave been carefully applied, and, although Africanus\\nand Eusebius have been criticised for attaching too\\nm^uch importance to synchronisms, the remarkable\\nresults attained will speak for themselves.\\nIn the face of much nonsense written on the sub-\\nject, it is self-evident that no artificial chronological\\nscheme could for one moment bear the crucial\\ntest of an absolute astronomical system, even in one\\nparticular, much less throughout its entire extent.\\nThe epoch-reigns of Zet, or Saites, Neko II, and\\nNechtharebes, at the very end of the scheme, are\\nbrilliant demonstrations of this. Every discovery\\nwhich was made in Egypt, or came to the author s\\nnotice while the work was in progress, has tended to\\nsupport, corroborate, or verify it.\\nIn conclusion, the reader is requested to bear in\\nmind that the subject is novel and difficult, that the\\ndetails and ramifications are myriad, and that the\\nauthor has been able to derive but little assistance\\nfrom other sources.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0028.jp2"}, "29": {"fulltext": "PART I\\nThe Sothiac System of Chronology and the\\nChronological Lists of Manetho\\nAN INTRODUCTORY STUDY\\nPRIMITIVE ARRANGEMENT AND DIVISION\\nOF THE YEAR\\nThe winter solstice is the scientific beginning-\\npoint of the year. The birth of Christ, or Christmas,\\nshould therefore be celebrated at this time. The old\\nyear dies, and the new year is born, when the sun,\\nhaving reached his lowest point in the southern hemi-\\nsphere, reverses his course. The name of the first\\nmonth, January, is derived from Janus, a Roman, or\\nEtruscan, god. The name, as now pronounced in\\nEnglish, is misleading. The correct pronunciation\\nis yan-us, or, divested of the Latin termination its,\\nyan. We are told that Janus had two faces, look-\\ning in opposite directions; that the month of January\\nwas consecrated by offerings of meal, salt, frankin-\\ncense, and wine, all of which had to be new; and that\\non the first of this month presents were exchanged\\nand all enmities suspended. The temple of Janus\\nstood near the Forum, but was in reality only an\\n23", "height": "3654", "width": "2218", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0029.jp2"}, "30": {"fulltext": "24 Self-Verifying Chronological\\narch, or gateway, facing east and west. It seems that\\nno one has been able to discover the nature and origin\\nof Janus; but the reader will have no difficulty in un-\\nderstanding all about him when the meaning of the\\nEgyptian an or ian^ which has come down to us in\\nthe familiar forms lannus and Pa-ian, has been ex-\\nplained.\\nThe arrangement and division of the ancient\\nEgyptian year was far more scientific than our own.\\nIts beginning point was the winter solstice. Its cul-\\nminating or turning point, called an or tan by the\\nEgyptians, was the summer solstice. These two\\npoints were called horns, and the name of one of\\nthem survives in Capricorn, the horn of the goat.\\nThe northern horn is now called Cancer, or Crab,\\nwhich is symbolically the same as Ian. Compare the\\nGerman Wende and the an of the word answer.\\nThe scientific division of the year was into four\\nparts. This fourfold division was made by the winter\\nsolstice, vernal equinox, summer solstice, and au-\\ntumnal equinox, represented respectively by the first\\nday of the months of Thoth, Choiahk, Phamenoth,\\nand Paoni, and coinciding approximately with De-\\ncember 2 1 St, March 21st, June 21st, and September\\n2 1 St of our mode of reckoning.\\nThe equinoxes also served to separate the upper\\nand lower hemispheres. The upper hemisphere was\\nsymbolized as Har, or Horus; the lower as Set, or\\nSeth; and it was but natural that the former was asso-\\nciated with light and goodness, the latter with dark-\\nness and evil. These conceptions were old and al-", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0030.jp2"}, "31": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 25\\nready crystallized when the Pyramid Texts of Unas,\\nTela, and the Pepas were engraved, about 3146 B. C.\\nThe same idea controlled the arrangement of the\\nday, in which the horizon took the place of the equa-\\ntor, and in which midnight was the winter solstice,\\nsunrise the vernal equinox, noon the turning point, or\\nwende, and sunset the autumnal equinox.\\nThe life of man, from birth to death, served to\\nillustrate the course of the sun alike in the day and\\nthe year. At the winter solstice the sun was born as\\nHar-pa-chratj or Harpokrates, Horus the babe; at\\nthe vernal equinox, or sunrise, he was Ka-necht, the\\npowerful bull; at the summer solstice, or noon, he\\nwas Ra, that is, fully matured physically and intellect-\\nually; and at the autumnal equinox, or sunset, he was\\nTurn, Atum, and Osiris. These distinctive names were\\nvaried by numerous other poetical and symbolical\\ntitles, which are quite confusing to the beginner, many\\nof which will be commented on and explained in this\\nwork.\\nIt seems that each of these four divisions of the\\nyear was presided over by one of the so-called gods\\nor personifications. I was first led to this conviction\\nafter examining the astronomical tablet misnamed\\nStela of Cheops Daughter, published in Maspero s\\nDawn of Civilization. The tablet is divided into\\nfour horizontal sections, the uppermost of which con-\\ntains five standards, to wit: the ibis, or Thoth; the\\nsparrow-hawk, or Horus; two wolves, or jackals, or\\nthe twins; that is, the double-faced Janus of the sum-\\nmer solstice; and the mummy Osiris. As the eminent", "height": "3654", "width": "2218", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0031.jp2"}, "32": {"fulltext": "26 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nEgyptologist, Maspero, has spoken of this tablet, as\\nfollows\\nOne would like to possess some of those copper\\nand golden statues which the Pharaoh Cheops con-\\nsecrated to Isis in honor of his daughter. Only\\na representation of them upon a stela has come down\\nto us my unsupported opinon might not have\\nweighed much with the general public, but, fortu-\\nnately, the spade has turned up the missing evidence\\nin ancient Babylonia, where it lay buried for centu-\\nries. I now notice, for the first time, in Smith s\\nAssyrian Discoveries, page 404, etc., that an as-\\ntronomical tablet shows the following method of ar-\\nranging the year\\ni. From the ist day of Adar to the 30th day of\\nlyyar, the sun is fixed in the season of the great god-\\ndess and the time of showers and warmth.\\n2. From the ist day of Sivan to the 30th day of\\nAb, the sun is fixed in the season of Bel, and the time\\nof the crops and heat.\\n3. From the ist day of Elul to the 30th day of\\nMarchesuan, the sun is fixed in the season of An-u,\\nand the time of showers and warmth.\\n4. From the ist day of Kislev to the 30th day of\\nSebat, the sun is fixed in the season of Hea, and the\\ntime of cold.\\nThus each of the four seasons in Babylonia had its\\ntutelar deity. The Cushites brought this arrangement\\nwith them from Egypt, and it was but slightly modi-\\nfied to suit the seasons of Babylonia. The first season,\\ncalled the season of the great goddess, i. e., Isis,", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0032.jp2"}, "33": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 27\\nor Hathor, commenced at the vernal equinox, and\\ncorresponded to the Egyptian months of Choiahk,\\nTybi, and Amhir. The second season, or the season\\nof Bel, commenced at the summer solstice, and cor-\\nresponded to the Egyptian months of Phamenoth,\\nPharmuthi, and Pachons. These months were sacred\\nto Ra, who is here represented by the Babylonian Bel.\\nIn like manner, the season of Anu commenced at the\\nautumnal equinox, and covered the Egyptian months\\nof Pa-uon-i, Epiphi, and Mes-har-i, of which Turn, or\\nOsiris, was the tutelar deity. The city of On, or AnUy\\nwas the ancient site of Osiris. The symbol, or hiero-\\nglyph, which stands for Ami, is placed at the head of\\nthis season, and always marks the western horizon\\nand autumnal equinox.\\nThe season of Hea commenced at the winter sol-\\nstice. Hea was the god who knew all things, the\\ncounterpart of Thoth. Thus we learn that each of the\\nfour divisions of the year had its appropriate symbol,\\nthe same represented on the so-called Stela of\\nCheops Daughter.\\nBy the side of the fourfold division of the year,\\nwhich was strictly scientific, there was another divis-\\nion into three seasons of four months each, which\\noriginally corresponded approximately to the actual\\nseasons in Egypt. There are really but three seasons\\nin Egypt: the season of the inundation, when the\\nvalley of the Nile is an inland sea dotted with island-\\ncities the field season, devoted to agriculture and the\\ndry season, in which the grain is stowed away in an-\\nticipation of the next inundation.", "height": "3654", "width": "2218", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0033.jp2"}, "34": {"fulltext": "28 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nThe first season was called the Sha-et season. The\\nword sha-et means field, and the hieroglyph with\\nwhich it is written represents a field covered with\\ngrowing plants. This season commenced, in the fixed\\nyear, at the winter solstice, and embraced the months\\nThoth, Paophi, Athyr, and Choiak. These names,\\nhowever, were not given to the months originally.\\nThe primitive scientific enumeration was as follows:\\nthe first month of the Sha-et season, the second month\\nof the Sha-et season, and so on to the fourth month\\nof the Sha-et season. In the inscriptions, the months\\nare invariably designated in this way, and never by\\ntheir names. From the 21st of December to the 21st\\nof April, the Egyptians were engaged in agricultural\\npursuits, and Egypt itself was a field teeming with\\ncrops and plant-life in general. Although this season\\nwas appropriately called the Field Season, it did not\\nactually begin immediately after the inundation, but\\nwas made to agree with the beginning of the year ac-\\ncording to the scientific division.\\nThe second season was called the P ru-et Season,\\nfrom p ru-et, p ru-e, pWo, meaning grain or gran-\\nary. The four months of this season were long after-\\nwards named Tybi, Emhir (Mechir), Phamenoth, and\\nPharmuthi. Wilkinson rendered them in the Coptic\\nTubeh, Emshir, Baramhat, and Baramudeh.\\nThis season was distinctively hot and dry. The\\nfields, which had been verdant with luxuriant vege-\\ntation, were now as parched and barren as the sur-\\nrounding desert itself. The Nile was at its lowest", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0034.jp2"}, "35": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 29\\nstage, a succession of sluggish channels winding their\\nway among sandbars.\\nAll that remained for the people to do was to store\\nthe harvests, particularly the grain, in the granaries,\\nrendered treasure cities in the authorized version of\\nScriptures. A better, or more descriptive, name than\\nP ru-et, or PWo, could not have been devised for this\\nseason.\\nThe third season was called the She, that is, Sea,\\nor She-mou, season, which is equivalent to the high\\nwater, or inundation, season. This season comprised\\nthe months Pachons, Payni, Epiphi, and Mesori.\\nThe month of Pachons of the fixed year com-\\nmenced about the 21st of August. The Nile reaches\\nits lowest stage about the 21st of June, and then be-\\ngins to rise at Elephantine, which is on the southern\\nfrontier of Egypt. It continues to rise for about one\\nhundred days, at the end of which period, or about the\\n1st of October, it reaches high-water mark, and\\nresembles an inland She, or sea. After remaining\\nstationary for some time, moistening and fertilizing\\nthe fields, it begins to slowly recede. The annual in-\\nundation has been so often described in ancient and\\nmodern works, and is already so familiar to every class\\nof readers, that we feel justified in omitting any further\\ndescription of it, merely wishing to call attention to\\nthe fact that the season characterized by this remark-\\nable phenomenon of nature was most appropriately\\nnamed by the ancient Egyptians.\\nModern Egyptologists, disregarding the plain", "height": "3654", "width": "2218", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0035.jp2"}, "36": {"fulltext": "30 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nmeaning of the hieroglyphs, have changed the field\\nseason into the water season, the grain season into\\nthe field season, and the water season into the dry\\nseason, in order to make them agree with their pre-\\nconceived theories regarding the Egyptian year and\\nseasons. The word She, or sea, for example, is fol-\\nlowed by the three wave-lines, which stand for mou,\\nwater, and are always used as the determinative for\\nwater. Thus there is no excuse for rendering it the\\ndry season.\\nWhen the Egyptian year was divided into these\\nthree seasons of four months each, Sothis, or Sirius,\\nrose heliacally on the first day of Pharmuthi, of the\\nvague year, which then coincided with the 19th of\\nJuly. The first historical cycle and the beginning of\\nMenes reign date from 4244 B. C, when Sothis rose\\nwith the sun on the first day of Thoth. This fact\\ndemonstrates that the primitive arrangement and di-\\nvision of the year was made long before Menes reign,\\nand certainly not later than 4864 B. C, during the\\n1,255 years of the Ach-i-u, or Saints, erroneously\\nrendered heroes.\\nWe have fixed the Rising of Sothis at, or about,\\nthe 19th of July, which is the mean date, and requires\\nsome explanation. When the year was divided, the\\ncenter of Egyptian civilization was around the city of\\nAnu, or On, afterwards called Heliopolis. Before the\\nkingdom was founded, this city was the capital of the\\nprincipality called Ta-dnu, Land of On, and Ta-dn-\\nnuf, Ivand of the City of On. Tha-annut (or", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0036.jp2"}, "37": {"fulltext": "History of Aiscient Egypt 31\\nTheanut, as it was pronounced in Lower Egypt), gave\\nrise to the Greek forms The-einites, Thenites,\\nThynites, and Thinites, which led to the error of\\nassuming that Mena came from the Httle town of This,\\nnear Abydos, in Upper Egypt.\\nThe absolute astronomical dates which will be es-\\ntablished throughout the entire course of Egyptian\\nhistory, from 4244 B. C, to 525 B. C, where we con-\\nnect with the accurate astronomical Canon of\\nPtolemy, render it certain that the observations were\\nmade in the latitude of Heliopolis, and that Aim, and\\nnot This, was the capital, or center, when the division\\nof the year was made.\\nTHE TWELVE MONTHS\\nLong before 4244 B. C, when the kingdom was\\nestablished, the Egyptians had divided their year into\\ntwelve months of thirty days each. Five intercalary\\ndays were added to the last month, Mesori, which,\\nthus, had thirty-five days. This year of 365 days\\nlacked about six hours of being complete. It was the\\nso-called vague, or shifting, year, in common use\\namong the Egyptians, the great, automatic, self-\\nregistering timepiece of the Sothiac year. For this\\nreason, it was regarded as sacred, and preserved in-\\nviolate and unchanged. By the side of this vague year,\\nthere was, from time immemorial, a fixed year of\\n365J days, carefully regulated by astronomical ob-\\nservations, and notably by the heliacal rising of Sothis.\\nThe division of the year into twelve months of thirty", "height": "3654", "width": "2218", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0037.jp2"}, "38": {"fulltext": "32 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\ndays each, supplemented by a little month of five\\nintercalary days, was more scientific than might be\\nsupposed at first blush. It is a well-estabhshed fact that\\nthe motion of the earth around the sun is more rapid\\nin winter than in summer. Hence there are but ninety\\ndays between the winter solstice and the vernal equi-\\nnox, the dates of which are commonly fixed respect-\\nively at December 21st and March 21st. Placing the\\nbeginning of Thoth at the winter solstice, the first of\\nChoiak would approximately coincide with the spring\\nequinox. It is true that the beginning of Phamenoth,\\nin the fixed year, did not exactly coincide with the\\nsummer solstice, but the agreement was close enough\\nfor all practical purposes. If we w^ere to place the be-\\nginning of January at the winter solstice, where it be-\\nlongs, the beginning of July would also be a day or\\ntwo before the summer solstice. The practical advan-\\ntage of uniform months of thirty days each would\\ncertainly outweigh these slight discrepancies. The\\ngreat advantage of this arrangement of the year and\\nmonths, from the Egyptian point of view, was the\\nRising of Sothis on or about the first day of\\nPharmuthi of the fixed year. Owing to his uniform\\nbrightness, Sirius, or Sothis, was at all times the most\\navailable fixed point in the heavens by reference to\\nwhich the earth s position in her orbit could be easily\\ndetermined.\\nThe names of the months are so important, in con-\\nnection with their recession in the Sothiac year, that\\nthey will be now considered separately, beginning\\nwith Thoth.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0038.jp2"}, "39": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 33\\nFirst Month of the Sha-et Season, called Thoth.\\nThe arrangement and division of the year, as\\nhanded down to the Egyptians from the prehistoric\\nage, was purely scientific; hence it was ascribed to\\nThoth, the Lord of Writings, the symbol and per-\\nsonification of wisdom and science.\\nThe first month of the year, which was likewise the\\nfirst month of the first season and first division of the\\nyear, was called Thoth. The Sothiac year, with which\\nwe are chiefly concerned, was regulated by the heliacal\\nrising of Sirius. In the fixed year Sothis rose heliac-\\nally on the first day of Pharmuthi, and the winter sol-\\nstice coincided with the first day of Thoth but it was\\nalmost the reverse of this in the Sothiac year. The\\nRising of Sothis, on the first day of Thoth, marked\\nthe beginning of a new Sothiac year. This took place\\nduring the period covered by this work, in the years\\n4244 B. C, 2784 B. C, and 1324 B. C. Each of these\\nyears, therefore, marks the beginning of a Sothiac\\nyear, or cycle, and constitutes an important era.\\nAs the Egyptian Government was patterned after\\nthe solar system, the king who happened to reign at\\nthe beginning of one of these epochs was regarded as\\nan epoch-king, and received an appropriate epoch-\\ntitle. Pharaoh was supposed to rule the world (two\\nlands, two hemispheres, upper and lower hemispheres,\\netc.), as Horus did the planetary system, and was de-\\nscribed as being in the same Sothiac months or signs,\\nand as sharing the same successive stages of growth,\\ndevelopment, and decay, from birth to adolescence,\\nmaturity, old age, and death. As a natural result of", "height": "3654", "width": "2218", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0039.jp2"}, "40": {"fulltext": "34 Self-Verifying Chronological\\nthis, we find a bewildering variety of epoch-titles\\nborne by successive epoch-kings. Some of these titles\\nare simple and transparent. Thus Mena, who headed\\nthe Sothiac cycle, 4244 B. C, was called Athothis,\\nor Aa-tahu-ti. The meaning of this title is Offspring\\nof Thoth, or, as Eratosthenes rendered it in Greek,\\nHermogenes. Menes, the first king of Egypt,\\nreigned sixty-two years after the epoch 4244 B. C,\\nunder the epoch-title of Athothis. In this instance,\\ntherefore, the title was taken from the name of the\\nso-called tutelar deity, Thoth, and explains itself.\\nIt usually happened that the reign of an epoch-\\nking did not begin with the epoch, but was divided by\\nit into two unequal parts. In such cases we have the\\nreign before the epoch (the epoch-reign according to\\nthe Turin Papyrus and Eratosthenes), the reign after\\nthe epoch (the epoch-reign according to Manetho),\\nand the entire reign. Thus Zet, or Saites, the Sethon\\nof Herodotus, reigned forty-four years, of which six\\nyears were before the Sothiac Epoch, 724 B. C, and\\nthirty-eight years, after it. All these numbers survive\\nin the lists, and appear at three distinct reigns.\\nThe heliacal rising of Sothis on the first day of\\nPharmuthi of the vague year, for instance, correctly\\nmarked the year 3404 B. C. in the Old Empire.\\nSecond Month of the Sha-et Season, called Paophi.\\nAs Horus was born at the winter solstice, he was\\nrepresented in the month of Thoth as a youth wear-\\ning the sidelock, and in the month of Paophi as a re-\\nclining sphinx. His distinctive title in this month was", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0040.jp2"}, "41": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 35\\nKen, Brave/ (Kiihn), or Ken-ken, Very Brave.\\nThe Greeks identified him with their Herakles. King\\nAtoth, of the First Dynasty, who reigned thirty-one\\nyears after the beginning of the Sothiac month of\\nPaophi, 4124 B. C, therefore, received the epoch-title\\nKenkenes, i. e., Ken-ken. The name Paophi, how-\\never, is Pa-api The Nile. The corresponding sign\\nof the zodiac is still known as Aquarius. The Nile\\nwas also called Pa-ior, The River, which explains\\nPhuoro, or Neilos, the epoch-title given to\\nUsertasen III in the List of Eratosthenes during the\\nnineteen years of his reign before the epoch of Paophi,\\n2664 B. C.\\nThe king who reigned at the beginning of the\\nSothiac month of Paophi, 1204 B. C, a Ramesses of\\nthe Twentieth Dynasty, was familiarly known to the\\nclassic writers as King Nile. As his reign extended\\nfrom 1207 B. C. to 1168 B. C, he was on the throne\\nat the date of the Fall of Troy, 1181 B. C.\\nThird Month of the Sha-et Season, called Athyr.\\nAthyr is known to be a form of Hathor. Ha-et\\nHar originally meant House of Horus, that is, the\\ncosmic abode from which he emerged at sunrise. In\\nthe year, it was the sign immediately below the equa-\\ntor, from which Horus arose at the vernal equinox,\\nwhen he crossed the equator and entered the upper\\nhemisphere. In the Stela of Cheops Daughter,\\nHathor is represented as a mermaid, half-woman, half-\\nfish (compare the Grecian notion of Aphrodite rising\\nfrom the foam of the sea).", "height": "3654", "width": "2218", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0041.jp2"}, "42": {"fulltext": "36 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nThis sign, which was the House of Horus, be-\\nfore the vernal equinox, was simply Hus-et/^ the\\nAbode, and Hus-iri, the Abode of the Eye, after\\nthe autumnal equinox. Isis and Osiris are the Greek\\nforms of Hus-et and Hus-iri. Haet and hus axe the\\nprototypes of house and hut.\\nThe epoch-king of Athyr, 4004 B. C, was\\nKebahu, the last king of Manetho s First Dynasty.\\nHe received the epoch-title Uen-nephis, that is,\\nUon-nofer, Perfect One, or, as some might prefer,\\nPerfect Being. Kebahu, the king, was identified\\nwith Osiris, the consort of Isis, and not with Hathor,\\nand received one of the distinctive titles of Osiris, to\\nmark him as an epoch-king.\\nWe shall see why the birth of Adam was fixed at\\nthe epoch of Athyr, 4004 B. C, by the later Bible\\nchronologers.\\nFourth Month of the Sha-et Season, called Choiak.\\nThe symbol of Choiak in the Stela of Cheops\\nDaughter is an agricultural ofifering. The hiero-\\nglyph for Bast (Bastet) seems likewise to represent\\nan offering of the same nature.\\nAt the beginning of this month, Har-ka-necht,\\nHorus, the powerful Bull, crosses the equator, and\\nenters the northern hemisphere, awakening the vege-\\ntable world to life. In the Old Empire, Chem, or\\nMin, and the Mendesian Ram (Ba-ncb-ded) served as\\nsymbols for this month but they were afterwards sup-\\nplanted by Bastet, the goddess of Biibastis. All of\\nthese were simply personifications of the generative,", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0042.jp2"}, "43": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 37\\nor procreative/ power in nature, for which reason\\nthe symbol Bastet was itself sub-symbolized as a cat.\\nIn the same way this month was also associated\\nwith the manhood of Horus. Macrobius says: Hae\\nautem setatem diversitates ad solem referuntur,\\nqualem ^gyptie proferunt ex adyto die certa, quod\\ntunc brevissimo die velut parvus et infans videatur:\\nexinde autem procedentibus augmentis, sequinoctio\\nvernali similiter atque adolescentis adipiscitur vires\\nfiguraque juvenis ornatur, etc.\\nPa-ta-hast-et, or Petubastis, the Gift of Bast/\\nfor example, was the epoch-title of Osarkon II from\\nand after the epoch of Choiahk, 964 B. C.\\nKrst Month of the Peru -et (P ro) Season, called\\nTybi.\\nThe name Tybi is derived from the teh of Tef-teby\\none of the designations of the lion-headed goddess\\nTef-nuty who was undoubtedly the tutelar deity, i. e.j\\nsymbol, of this month.\\nThe king of the Twenty-second Dynasty, who\\nreigned at the beginning of this Sothiac month, 844\\nB. C, bore the name Pa-mui, The Lion, which he\\nmust have assumed before the epoch, for he ascended\\nthe throne in 848 B. C. Here name and epoch-title\\nwere identical (as they were with Unas), presumably\\nbecause four years only intervened between his as-\\ncesslon and the epoch.\\nThe epoch 844 B. C. divided Pa-mid s reign of\\nseventeen years into two parts, to-wit four years be-\\nfore, and thirteen years after, the epoch, both of which", "height": "3654", "width": "2218", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0043.jp2"}, "44": {"fulltext": "38 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nhave been unwittingly preserved in the Pseudo-Sothis\\nList of Syncellus, so that his date can be fixed with\\nmathematical certainty.\\nShortly after the close of the Twenty-second Dy-\\nnasty, we find, in the same Sothiac month, a king of\\nMemphis and Sais bearing the name Tef-necht, or\\nTephinachtis, that is, Victorious Tef-nut.\\nIn the Turin papyrus- the name of Zoser-sa-f, who\\nreigned to the epoch of Tybi, 3764 B. C, heads a\\nrubric, and is written in red ink. He is the Soyphis\\nof Manetho, the An-soyphis of Eratosthenes. Ua-\\nless he ceased to reign in 3764 B. C, Zoser-teta is the\\nname borne by him after the epoch. Manetho ren-\\ndered this name Tosortosis, or Sesortosis. It has\\nalso come down to us in the forms Sesonchosis and\\nSesostris, which are evident corruptions. Dikaear-\\nchos mentions this Sesortasis, and fixes his date at\\n2,500 years, in round numbers, before King Nile/*\\nthat is, at about 3707 B. C.\\nSecond Month of the Peru^-et Season, called\\nEmhir.\\nThe name Mechir, generally applied to this month,\\nis confusing. According to Wilkinson, the Copts\\ncalled it Imshir, which varies but little from the orig-\\ninal Egyptian, Em-hir or Am-hir. Hir is the highest\\nsign in the sun s apparent annual course; therefore,\\nwhen Horus reached it on the first day of this month,\\nhe was said to be em hir (from hir, above, high\\nthat is, in the highest sign. This month enjoyed an\\nunusual variety of descriptive titles. We find one", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0044.jp2"}, "45": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 39\\nking bearing the title Ameris, a corruption of the\\nGreek form Amiris (from Am-hir-i), In this sign\\nthe sun was in his greatest splendor, Chufu who\\nreigned at the beginning of the Sothiac month of\\nEmhir, 3644 B. C, bore the epoch-title Mechiris,\\nMechir-i, now Bicheris, and the title ffir, which ex-\\npressed it in one word. As the sun ascended through\\nthis sign during this month, to immediately descend\\nthrough it in the following month, Emhir and Phame-\\nnoth were regarded as twins, and represented as\\ntwin wolves facing in opposite directions. Emhir was\\ncalled Rohk-ur, great heat, while Phamenoth was\\ncalled Rohk-nes, little heat. King Bokchoris, whose\\nconnection with great heat has given rise to a\\nlegend as tragic as it is touching, is but a slightly-\\nmodified Rokchoris {Rohk-ur 4). Egyptologists have\\nsought in vain for a king bearing this name, but they\\nmay be assured that they will never find him, for his\\nname was Zet, the Sethon of Herodotus, and his\\nepoch-title Rohk-ur-i/ or Rokchoris, alone gave rise\\nto the silly story that he was burnt alive by Sabako.\\nThird Month of the Peru -et Season, called Phame-\\nnoth.\\nThe Greek form of the name of this month,\\nPhamenoth, is as misleading as Mechir. The Copts\\npronounced the name Paramhat, which leads un-\\nerringly to the original Pa-ra-am-hat, meaning the\\nsun at the middle, or heart of his course. This\\nhighest point was the an or ian (turning point)\\nwhich we have already explained while treating of", "height": "3654", "width": "2218", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0045.jp2"}, "46": {"fulltext": "40 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nJanus. On the first day of Paramhat the sun began\\nto retrace his course, and was, therefore, Hkened to a\\ncrab. As the highest sign was compared to the face\\nQiir), which is above the body, so was this highest\\npoint, to the crown, which is worn on the top of the\\nhead. The king of the Fourth Dynasty, who had the\\ngood fortune to head this Sothiac month, 3524 B. C,\\nwas called Cha-f-ra, the Crown of Ra {i. e., Ra, his\\ncrown and also bore the title User-hat in com-\\nmemoration of the sun s arrival at the hearty or middle,\\nof his course.\\nThe Hyksos king who came 1,460 years later re-\\nceived the title Paian, since converted into Baian. A\\nsuccessor of this king called himself Chian, or, as I\\nconceive it, Ach-ian, and, besides the customary titles,\\nbore the unusual title Hyk-satii, Ruler of Foreign\\nCountries, from which Hyksos is derived.\\nIn the Stela of Cheops Daughter the two wolves\\nserve to mark this great turning point. King Neco s\\ntitle, Nem-ab-ra (ab for hat), Renewed is the Heart\\nof Ra, had direct reference to this middle point,\\n604 B. C.\\nFourth Month of the Peru -et Season, called Phar-\\nmuthi.\\nParamudeh of the Copts resembles the Greek form\\nPharmuthi so closely that it affords us but little as-\\nsistance in discovering the original form of the name.\\nThe first of this month, in the fixed year, coincided\\nwith the rising of the divine Sothis. When the sun\\nbegan to descend he was no longer Horns, but", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0046.jp2"}, "47": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 41\\nRa the old primeval Ra, Horus was the son of\\nIsis and Osiris; but this primeval Ra was the son of\\nNeith, the ^great mother. Instead of Sa-neit, he was\\ngenerally called Sa-muthi, or, with the definite article,\\nP sa-muthi, which was rendered Psamuthis by the\\nGreeks. We might be tempted to believe that Phar-\\nmuthi was simply a modified form of Phrasamuthi,\\nwere it not for the fact that Ra at this time was sup-\\nposed to embark in his boat, or ark, on his southward\\njourney. In the Stela of Cheops Daughter there\\nis a representation of this ark, or great bark, which\\nmakes it more probable that Pharmuthi stands for\\nthe sun in his bark. There are hundreds of allu-\\nsions to the two barks of Ra, Semkutet and Madet, in\\nthe Pyramid Texts. A celebrated queen of the\\nEighteenth Dynasty bore a name which is rendered\\nMut-em-ua, but means Muth in the bark, which is\\nanalagous to Pa-ra-em-mud-et, the only difference\\nbeing that the mother (Neith) is substituted for her\\nson Ra. If one simple fact had been heeded, to wit,\\nthat this great mother was called Neith at Sais, Isis\\nat Busiris, Hathor at Anu, Muth at Thebes, etc., many\\nvoluminous works on the religion of ancient Egypt\\nwould not have been written and published.\\nIn the Table of Abydos, the last king of the\\nFourth Dynasty is called Shepses-ka-f (Sebescheres)\\nbut in the lists of Manetho his place is usurped by the\\nunintelligible title Thamphthis, which appears as\\n^Tammes in the list of Eratosthenes. This is an in-\\nstance in which an epoch-title has found its way into\\nthe lists by the side of the real name of the Pharaoh;", "height": "3654", "width": "2218", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0047.jp2"}, "48": {"fulltext": "42 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nfor, as we shall see, when we come to examine the\\nepoch-reigns, Shepseskaf reigned nine years after the\\nbeginning of the Sothiac month of Pharmuthi, 3404\\nB. C, under the epoch-title of Tsamuthis.\\nPammes and Thamphthis bear but a faint re-\\nsemblance to Psamuthis, yet it is possible to follow\\nthe successive changes which have led to these cor-\\nruptions in the original Greek. Eratosthenes trans-\\nlates Pammes Archondes, from archon, which refers\\nto Ra, the son of Neith, who had passed the summit\\nof life and was growing old.\\nThe Hyksos king who reigned one cycle after\\nShepseskaf y to wit, 1944 B. C, received the title\\nAsas/ meaning very ancient, which now appears\\nin the lists as Assis, Ases, and Aseth. The name of\\nthis king was Set-nuhti, rendered Sethos by Mane-\\ntho. The form Aseth is a blending of Asas and Seth.\\nThe celebrated Tablet of Four Hundred Years dates\\nfrom Set-nuhti and the epoch 1944 B. C.\\nPsamuthis, who now fills the place of Psametichos\\nII of the Twenty-sixth Dynasty, was the epoch-king\\nof Pharmuthi, 484 B. C. As there was no place for\\nhim in the Persian Dynasty, some one substituted\\nhim for Psametichos II.\\nFirst Month of the She-mou Season, called Pa-\\nchons.\\nThere seems to be no difference of opinion among\\nEgyptologists as to the derivation of the name Pa-\\nchons; they all concede that it is derived from Chons,\\nthe moon, who, according to Theban notions, was the", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0048.jp2"}, "49": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 43\\npeace-loving son of Amen and Muth. As we shall\\nsee, he was substituted for Seh, or the earth. The\\nmoon seems to move more swiftly than any of the\\nplanets, owing to the fact that she revolves around\\nthe earth. It was this swiftness of motion which gave\\nrise to the name Chons. On the first of this month\\nthe sun entered the last sign in the upper hemisphere.\\nAt the end of this month he ended his career as\\nHorus, and became Turn, Atum, or Osiris. In order\\nto understand why the moon was associated with this\\nmonth, we must bear in mind that, in the formation\\nof the solar system, the earth belongs here, and the\\nmoon simply takes the place of the earth. In the four-\\nfold division of the year, Bel or Ra presided over the\\nmonths of Phamenoth, Pharmuthi, and Pachons.\\nThe titles descriptive of the Sothiac month of\\nPachons are Amen-ir-tais, Amyrtaios, Ammono-\\ndotos, the Gift of Amen (lit. Amen makes the\\ngift Aahmes, child of the moon, Pa-ta-chons,\\nPetichons, the Gift of Chons, all of which will\\nreceive our attention in the part of this work devoted\\nto the epoch-reigns.\\nSecond Month of the She-mou Season, called\\nPaoni or Payni.\\nThe beginning of this month, as we have seen,\\ncoincides with the autumnal equinox. Ra crosses the\\nequator and enters the lower hemisphere, where he\\nbecomes Turn or Osiris. Uon-as, Ancient One, as\\nwe have also seen, was a title of Osiris. Paoni and\\nPayni are forms of Pa-uon-i. The last king of Mane-", "height": "3654", "width": "2218", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0049.jp2"}, "50": {"fulltext": "44 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\ntho V s Dynasty, who headed this Sothiac month,\\n3146 B. C, reigning sixteen years before and eigh-\\nteen years after the epoch, assumed the title itself,\\npure and unchanged. In fact, Uonas seems to have\\nbeen his only name and only title. The inscriptions\\nrecently discovered in his pyramid contain the fol-\\nlowing passage\\nUp-uk huset-uk em pet em abii en pet enthuf as diu\\nuatha^ Thou takest thy place in heaven, among\\nthe planets of heaven, behold! thou art the evening\\nstar. Uonas, as Pharaoh, represented the sun just\\nabove and below the equator, which was equivalent\\nto the western horizon in the day, and the above allu-\\nsion to him as evening star was for the purpose of\\nsymbolically marking this position. It was not in-\\ntended that any but the initiated should imderstand\\nthis. Thothmes III, epoch-king in 1704 B. C, intro-\\nduced a new epoch-title, Cha-em-uas, Chamois,\\nCrowned in Thebes, but also bore the title\\nHar-em-acJm, Harmachis, Horus on the Hori-\\nzon, which is so plain that it requires no further\\nexplanation.\\nWe have seen that Anu stood as the tutelar deity\\nof the fourth division of the year, which commenced\\nat the autumnal equinox, and we find that Thothmes\\nIII was the first to assume the title Hyk-ami, Ruler\\nof On.\\nIn the Third Cycle this epoch fell in the Ptolemaic\\nperiod, where Ptolemy Euergetes appears to remind us\\nof Uon-nofer, the Good Being, a title used inter-\\nchangeably with Uon-as.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0050.jp2"}, "51": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 45\\nThird Month of the She-mou Season, called\\nEpiphi.\\nEpiphi is plainly Apapi as pronounced in Lower\\nEgypt. Ap-ap was the giant snake, or great\\ndragon, the symbol of evil and wickedness, the lord\\nof darkness, the great adversary of Osiris, in one\\nword, the Egyptian devil.\\nNofer-ka-ra Pepa, the Phiops of Manetho, who\\nreigned from his sixth to his one hundredth year (not\\none hundred years) was the epoch-king of Epiphi,\\n3044 B. C, and is called Apappus in the List of\\nEratosthenes. Apappus is not, as some might sup-\\npose, a Greek form of the monumental Pepa, which\\nManetho rendered Phiops, but Ap-ap-i. There can\\nbe no mistake about the identity of Apappus, for\\nhis phenomenal reign of one hundred years could only\\nbelong to Nofer-ka-ra Pepa, whose pyramid at Sak-\\nkara has furnished us with a volume of ancient hiero-\\nglyphic inscriptions, in which his name appears hun-\\ndreds of times.\\nIt is hard to say when and why Set became identi-\\nfied with Apap. The Hyksos kings had a fancy for\\nthe names Set and Apapi; one of them bore the name\\nSet-nub-ti, or Sethos, and two of them the name\\nApophis. They identified Set with their Sutech, and\\nthe unquestioned fact that these Aamu (Hamite) in-\\nvaders of Egypt were serpent-worshipers makes it\\nvery probable, indeed, that Sutech was regarded as the\\ngreat serpent. Be this as it may, it is certain that\\nimmediately after the Hyksos Expulsion Set and Apap\\nwere looked upon as almost identical.", "height": "3649", "width": "2261", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0051.jp2"}, "52": {"fulltext": "46 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nOne of the most interesting epoch-reigns to be\\nfound in the annals of Egyptian history is that of\\nSeti L This king reigned thirty-six years (including\\nhis joint-reign with Ramesses I) in the month of\\nPaoni and twenty-three years in the month of Epiphi,\\nthat is, from 1620 B. C. to 1561 B. C, the epoch being\\n1 584 B. C. The first thirty-six years of his reign were\\ngiven to Sa pa-uon-i, which now appears as Spanios,\\na name characterized by Bunsen as preposterous and\\nnonsensical. Thus we see that, according to the\\nEgyptian way of thinking, Seti I, during these thirty-\\nsix years, reigned as the Son of Paoni. His reign\\nas Osiropis will be explained under the appropriate\\nhead.\\nIn the good old times, as shown by the so-called\\nStela of Cheops Daughter, Ptah, bandaged as a\\nmummy, stood for this month, which agrees with the\\nancient conception of Ptah as the creator of the visible\\nworld, who here precedes the birth of Har-pa-chraff\\nthe infant Horus. It was for this reason that Seti\\nwas also called Mer-nu-ptah, Menophthah, Beloved\\nof Ptah.\\nFourth Month of the She-mou Season, called\\nMesori.\\nThe birth of the infant Horus occurred at the end\\nof the year, or the winter solstice. The birth of Ho-\\nrus, Mes-har-i, gave its name to this month, which\\nwas the last month of the Egyptian year. Unfortu-\\nnately, the epochs of Mesori, 2924 B. C. and 1464\\nB. C, both fell in periods of anarchy and obscurity,", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0052.jp2"}, "53": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 47\\nand, to add to the confusion, the separate reigns of\\nthese periods are now entirely wanting in Manetho s\\nlists.\\nHarpokrates was identified by the Greeks with\\nHerakles, while Har-pa-chrat, Horus the Infant,\\nwas called Sem-su, the eldest, by the Egyptians.\\nEratosthenes has a king, No. 26, whose name now\\nreads Semphrukrates, translated ^Herakles Har-\\npokrates, with a reign of eighteen years. It is plain\\nthat this is an epoch-title, and that the name Semph-\\nrukrates was originally Sempsu-Harpokrates, both\\nof which have come down to us in these forms. At\\nthe bottom of these lies the original Sem-su Har-pa-\\nchrat, The reign of eighteen years exactly fills out\\nthe interval between 2942 B. C, when the Seventh\\nDynasty came to an end, and the epoch of Mesori,\\n2924 B. C. This reign further shows that the first\\nking of the Eighth Dynasty reigned at least eighteen\\nyears, although there were in Egypt at this time at\\nleast three separate and distinct lines of rulers.\\nThe date of the succeeding epoch of Mesori was\\n1464 B. C, or just twelve years after the death of\\nMenophthah. The reign of Chamois (Cha-em-uas),\\nCrowned in Thebes, reached to this epoch.. The\\nking to whom this title belonged was Sa-ptah, son of\\nPtah, who was afterwards deposed and driven from\\nEgypt by Set-necht.\\nThe last epoch of Mesori coincided with the birth\\nof Jesus; but an error of several years was made when\\nthe Christian Era was determined and established,\\nwhich was centuries afterwards.", "height": "3649", "width": "2261", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0053.jp2"}, "54": {"fulltext": "48\\nA Self- Verifying Chronological\\nTHE SIGNS OF THE ZODIAC DERIVED\\nFROM THE SYMBOLS OF THE\\nEGYPTIAN MONTHS\\nThe signs of the zodiac, to which we have been\\naccustomed from earliest childhood, were derived\\nfrom the symbols of the Egyptian months. The\\nscience of astronomy, as taught in Egypt, was carried\\nto Babylonia and surrounding countries shortly after\\nthe Hyksos Invasion, and, although it was changed\\nin many particulars to conform to new conditions and\\nlocal notions, many surviving features enable us to\\ntrace it back to its original home on the banks of the\\nNile.\\nEor reference and comparison, the months and\\ncorresponding signs are now placed in parallel lines:\\nMonths.\\n1. Thoth\\n2. Paophi\\n3. Athyr\\n4. Choiahk\\n5. Tybi\\n6. Emhir\\n7. Phamenoth\\n8. Pharmutlii\\n9. Pachons\\n10. Paoni\\n11. Kpiphi\\n12. Mesori\\nTHOTH OR CAPRICORN\\nAfter the downfall of the Old Empire, 2948 B. C,\\nThebes gradually gained the ascendency, until, under\\nthe Eighteenth, Nineteenth, and Twentieth Dynas-\\nSigns.\\nApproximate Dates.\\nCapricorn\\nDec. 21 to Jan.\\n21.\\nAquarius\\nJan. 21 to Feb.\\n21,\\nPisces\\nFeb. 21 to Mar.\\n21.\\nAries\\nMar. 21 to Apr.\\n21,\\nTaurus\\nApr. 21 to May\\n21.\\nGemini\\nMay 21 to June\\n21.\\nCancer\\nJune 21 to July\\n21,\\nIveo\\nJuly 21 to Aug.\\n21,\\nVirgo\\nAug. 21 to Sept.\\n21.\\nLibra\\nSept. 21 to Oct.\\n21,\\nScorpio\\nOct. 21 to Nov.\\n21.\\nSagittarius\\nNov. 21 to Dec.\\n21,", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0054.jp2"}, "55": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 49\\nties, it became the capital of Egypt. At the time of the\\nExodus, Thebes was called No, The City, and No-od^\\nThe Great City. The Thebans placed Amen at the\\nbeginning of the year, and, as the goat was one of the\\nsymbols of Amen, this horn of the year became\\nCapricorn, from capeVy goat, and cornu, horn.\\n7\\\\t the head of the Second Cycle, 2784 B. C, we find\\nAmen-em-het (Amenemes), Amen at the head, who\\nassumed the additional title Nem-mestu, Reborn,\\nAgain-born. The hidden, or concealed, God was\\ncalled Men. His symbol, or hieroglyph, was the bolt.\\nWhen the Egyptians cried out to the invisible and hid-\\nden God, entreating him to manifest, or reveal, him-\\nself, they used the exclamation, ^^AmenT\\nPAOPHI OR AQUARIUS\\nWe have seen that the name of the second month\\nwas Pa-api, The Nile. The definite article Pa, pre-\\niixed to Api, shows that this name originated after the\\nOld Empire. Aquarius, The waterman, is certainly\\nan adaptation of Pa-api. The two wave-lines used to\\nrepresent Aquarius are taken from the three wave-\\nlines employed by the ancient Egyptians to represent\\nmou, water.\\nATHYR OR PISCES\\nAs Haet-har, Hathor, was the house, or abode,\\nfrom which Horus arose at sunrise, so was Hns-et,\\nIsis, the abode into which Turn retired at sunset.\\nHathor and Isis represent the sign immediately below\\nthe equator, the former at sunrise and the vernal\\nequinox, the latter at sunset and the autumnal equi-", "height": "3649", "width": "2261", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0055.jp2"}, "56": {"fulltext": "50 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nnox. On the so-called Stela of Cheops Daughter\\nHathor is pictured with the head and upper body of\\na woman, and the lower body of a fish, rising, appar-\\nently, out of the cosmic ocean. It is natural, there-\\nfore, that she was identified with Venus Aphrodite,\\nwho was supposed to rise from the foam of the sea.\\nThe conception of Venus as morning and evening\\nstar, and of Hathor and Isis, was necessarily a dual\\none. For this reason, the house of Horus and the\\nhouse of Turn, although, in fact, one, were repre-\\nsented as two fishes. Pisces still stands for these\\ntwo fishes of ancient Egypt.\\nCHOIAHK OR ARIES\\nMost Egyptologists derive Choiahk from Ka-\\nMr-ka, Chief Bull (lit. Bull above Bull In the\\nTable of Abydus the second king of Manetho s Second\\nDynasty is called Ka-kau, rendered Kaiechos by\\nManetho. Inverting Manetho s softening process, a\\nform resembling Choika, Choiak, might be easily\\nevolved from Ka-i-ka. Of one fact there can be no\\npossible doubt this month symbolized the reproduc-\\ntive power in nature. As we have already seen, a va-\\nriety of symbols was employed in dififerent parts of\\nEgypt, such as the Apis-bull, Mendesian-ram, Bubas-\\ntite-cat, etc.\\nThe Cushites, who founded the first kingdom in\\nBabylonia, were derived from the original Hamite\\nsettlement in the Delta, and naturally adopted the\\npeculiar notions of that section of Egypt, their prin-", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0056.jp2"}, "57": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 51\\ncipal city being Avaris, on the Pelusiac branch of the\\nNile, afterwards occupied by the Hyksos. Aries, the\\nram, is the famous Mendesian-ram, whose worship\\nis said to have been instituted by Kaiechos. The\\ngolden calf of the Hebrews was another Lower\\nEgyptian symbol of this month.\\nTYBI OR TAURUS\\nAlthough the name Tybi seems to be derived from\\nTef-teb, one of the forms of Tef-nut, this month was\\noriginally sacred to Horus Ka-necht, the powerful\\nbull, whom no one could withstand. Taurus, the\\nbull, is a survival of this powerful bull.\\nEMHIR OR GEMINI\\nEmhir and Phamenoth both represent the highest\\nzone traversed by the sun in his yearly course the\\nzone through which he ascends in the month of Emhir\\nand descends in the month of Phamenoth. These two\\nmonths, therefore, were symbolized as twins, twin-\\nwolves, great heat, and little heat, etc. The\\nsign Gemini now alone preserves the most ancient\\ndesignation, twins. One of these wolves, on a stan-\\ndard, and facing left, can be seen in the famous repre-\\nsentation of Chufu I and Chufu II, in the peninsula of\\nSinai, where it marks the Sothiac month of Em-hir,\\n3644 B. C, for the wolf of Phamenoth faces to the\\nright.\\nUnder the wolf of Chufu there is a representation\\nof Har-ti-ma, Horus the Lancer; in other words,", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0057.jp2"}, "58": {"fulltext": "52 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nHorus, with the lance directed against the most north-\\nern point in the heavens to which the sun is allowed\\nto attain, and prepared to thrust it back when it\\nreaches that point.\\nPHAMENOTH OR CANCER\\nThe first day of Phamenoth marks the turning-\\npoint, an, or ian, in the sun s course above the equator.\\nCancer, or the Crab, is the appropriate symbol of the\\nsun s backvv^ard, or retrogade, course after the sum-\\nmer solstice. This turning-point, or highest horn,\\nwas sometimes called cha, crown, sometimes hat,\\nheart. The title of Cha-f-ra, User-hat, Wielding\\nthe Heart, marks this point in the Sothiac year,\\n3524 B. C, as does the later title, Pa-ian, mark it in\\n2064 B. C.\\nPHARMUTHI OR LEO\\nThe lion is supposed to symbolize the fierce heat\\nof the July sun. Rohk-nez, little heat, would hardly\\nseem to agree with this idea of fierce heat, were it not\\nthat great heat and little heat are merely dis-\\ntinctive names for the twin-months, both of which\\nwere distinguished for the fierce heat of the sun, which\\nwas rendered still more oppressive and unbearable by\\nthe total want of moisture and desert-like barrenness\\nof the land. Rohk-ur and Rohk-nez were twins, of\\nwhom one now retains the name Gemini and the other\\nLeo.\\nPACHONS OR VIRGO\\nThe virgin, who now takes the place of Chons,\\nis more ancient than the Theban notion of the gentle", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0058.jp2"}, "59": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 53\\nand peace-loving son of Amen and Muth. This month\\nwas originally represented by Seh, whose consort was\\nthe virgin Nut, whom the Greeks called Rhea.\\nThe name of Nut is generally followed by pet,\\nheaven/* or hir, the determinative for heaven, which\\ndemonstrates that from the earliest times she was re-\\ngarded as the heavenly virgin. When Bunsen wrote\\nhis famous work, Egypt s Place in Universal His-\\ntory, it was supposed that the conception of Osiris\\nwas a comparatively recent one; but the inscriptions\\nin the pyramids of Unas, Teta, Pepa, etc., show that\\nOsiris, Seh, Nut, and nearly all the other so-called\\ndeities of ancient Egypt, date from the prehistoric\\nage. The idea of the father, the virgin, and the\\nson, is also prehistoric, and, although the triad,\\nat dififerent historical epochs, bore different names,\\nit was, in fact, always the same. Thus we find Seh,\\nthe father. Nut, the virgin, and Osiris, the son, in the\\nPyramid texts, just as we afterwards find Amen, the\\nfather, Muth, the mother, and Chons, the son. In\\nall these triads, we must bear in mind that father,\\nvirgin, and son, are symbols, not entities or re-\\nalities.\\nVirgo, who now lends her name to this sign of the\\nzodiac, is the heavenly Nut, the virgin mother of\\nOsiris, who was called the perfect one and the an-\\ncient one, and symbolized light and goodness, con-\\ncord or harmony, peace and happiness. This virgin,\\nthe great mother, the queen of heaven, the in-\\nscrutable Neith, whose veil no mortal could lift and\\nlive, had such a hold on the minds of the inhabitants", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0059.jp2"}, "60": {"fulltext": "54 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nof Lower Egypt, that the Theban notions of Amen,\\nMuth, and Chons were never able to supplant it. This\\naccounts for the Babylonians and those who have ob-\\ntained the signs of the zodiac from Babylonia, having\\nthis primeval virgin. The substitution of Chons, the\\nmoon, for Seh, the Earth, was the result of evolution,\\nbut not in the direction contended for by Darwin.\\nPAONI OR LIBRA\\nSince we know that the beginning of the month\\nof Paoni coincided with the autumnal equinox, when\\nthe sun was balanced over the equator, and not with\\nsome other season of the year, as supposed by Egyp-\\ntologists who have preceded me, the perfect applicabil-\\nity of Libra, or the Balance, is manifest. The Egyp-\\ntians had a variety of expressions, illustrative of the\\nsun s position over the equator. As we have repeat-\\nedly stated, the equator of the year occupied the same\\nposition as the horizon of the day.\\nHar-em-achu, Horus on the horizon, therefore,\\nwas equivalent to Libra, or the sun over the equator.\\nWe have also shown that, when the sun sank below\\nthe equator, or horizon, he became Osiris, and that\\nthis month bore one of his titles, Pa-uon-i.\\nThe primitive arrangement of the months was\\npurely scientific, and therefore ascribed to Thoth.\\nMany symbolical notions were engrafted on the orig-\\ninal scientific scheme in the course of succeeding cen-\\nturies, but in the case of Libra the scientific idea has\\ncome down to us unaffected by the thousands of years\\nwhich have elapsed since it was first evolved.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0060.jp2"}, "61": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 55\\nEPIPHI OR SCORPIO\\nApap, the giant snake, Selk-et, the scorpion,\\nand the hippopotamus, the hog, and other brutal and\\nferocious animals, were symbols of Typhonic Set,\\nthe lord of darkness. In the Pyramid Texts (which\\nare nearly one thousand years older than the estab-\\nlishment of the kingdom of Babylonia by the tra-\\nditional Nimrod), Selke appears, written phonetically,\\nSelket, and followed by the picture of a scorpion as\\na determinative. The idea of the scorpion, there-\\nfore, is as ancient as that of Apap, and both are equally\\nEgyptian. It is probable that the boa-constrictor of\\nSouthern Egypt was at the bottom of the Upper\\nEgyptian symbol Apap, while the Scorpion of Lower\\nEgypt was the corresponding symbol in the Delta. The\\nfact that Ptah fills this place in the Stela of Cheops\\nDaughter indicates that the idea of the serpent,\\ndragon, and scorpion, is a later modification, or,\\nI might say, corruption, of the primitive scientific ar-\\nrangement. After the Egyptian priests commenced\\nto use the symbols of wickedness to terrify and in-\\ntimidate the uneducated masses of the people, they\\nnaturally sought out and adopted the most repulsive\\ncreatures they could find. Did not Dante, In his In-\\nferno, succeed in reaching the utmost extremes In this\\nfield of typhonic monstrosities to which the most\\nmorbid imagination could aspire to go?\\nMESORI OR SAGITTARIUS\\nThe name Mesori is not the symbol from which\\nSagittarius was derived. The ideas associated with", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0061.jp2"}, "62": {"fulltext": "56 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nthe last month of the year were necessarily com-\\nplicated. The old year expired, to be followed by the\\nbirth of the new year. Osiris, the symbol of light\\nand goodness, concord and harmony, etc., was mur-\\ndered by Typhon, the old serpent, the red dragon,\\nthe symbol of darkness and wickedness, etc., to be\\nin turn slain by the avenging dart of the youthful\\nHorus, whose birth at the end of this month is ex-\\npressed by Mes-har-ir The Babylonians repre-\\nsented this according to their own notions. It is\\nplain, however, that Sagittarius, the Archer, rid-\\ning over the prostrate form of the wounded serpent,\\nis this same avenging Horus. The Egyptians them-\\nselves sometimes represented this sign as Sate^ the\\narrow, which was in turn emblematic of the dis-\\nsipation of darkness by the rays of light shot forth\\nby the new-born sun.\\nFORMATION OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM\\nThe nebular hypothesis, which was first ad-\\nvanced in modern times by the German philosopher\\nKant, was the A, B, C, of the ancient Egyptian\\nscience of astronomy. The old sun, called Ra, was\\noriginally evolved out of a nebula, or chaotic mass.\\nThe planets, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Earth, Venus, and\\nMercury, were portions of this old sun, successively\\nlifted up, or thrown ofif, in the form of rings like\\nthose still revolving around Saturn. Upon collapsing,\\nthese rings, obeying a well-known law of nature,\\nformed globes and condensed into planets. As Sat-\\nurn was the outermost planet known to the Egyp-", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0062.jp2"}, "63": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 57\\ntians, time did not begin until he commenced to\\nrevolve in solitary grandeur around Ra. The extract\\nfrom Manetho transmitted by Eusebius, according\\nto which no time was assigned to Hephaistos (Ptah),\\nthe architect or modeler of the solar system, shows\\nthat there was as yet no succession of day and night,\\nno revolution of a planet around the central mass, no\\nstandard by which time, as we understand the term,\\ncould be measured. Saturn, therefore, became iden-\\ntified with time, and he is certainly the planet origi-\\nnally known to the Grecians as Chronos. This\\nplanet in the course of time evolved a planetary sys-\\ntem of his own, a beautiful system of moons and rings,\\nand in this way became at first a subordinate Ra, and\\neventually a subordinate Horus. Now, as the planets\\nwere composed of matter torn off from the body of\\nRa, and lifted up on high above his equator, this\\nprocess was appropriately, though symbolically, de-\\nscribed as a bii th. Thus Ra gave birth to Saturn,\\nand in this sense was called the father of Saturn. This\\nnotion of generation and birth was transferred and\\napplied to successor, so that Osiris, who was iden-\\ntified with the planet Venus (Isis), was sometimes\\ncalled the son of Seb, that is, the successor of the\\nplanet Seb (Earth).\\nJupiter, who was also a secondary sun, was like-\\nwise called Ra and Horus; in fact, owing to his size\\nand brilliancy, was pre-eminently the Horus among\\nthe planets. Mars, or Menthu, was the third planet\\ngenerated by Ra, so that Seb, or the Earth, was still\\na part of the sun for many years after the birth of", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0063.jp2"}, "64": {"fulltext": "58 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nMenthu, This fact gave rise to a legend, according to\\nwhich Ra once reigned upon the earth. Thus there\\nwere three planets above the earth; and this was an-\\nother reason why they were each denominated Horus,\\nfrom har, or hir, above.\\nThe earth (being man s habitat and point of obser-\\nvation) became the equator of the solar system as\\nknown to the ancient Egyptians. Saturn, Jupiter,\\nand Mars were above the earth, or man s plane of ob-\\nservation, and, therefore, in the upper hemisphere.\\nVenus, the star of Isis and Osiris, the star which\\nconveyed the ^BemC (Phoenix, Venus) of Osiris;\\nand Mercury, the star of Set or Typhon; and Ho-\\nrus, the new sun, the babe of the winter solstice, were\\nbelow the earth, and, therefore, in the lower hemi-\\nsphere. It must be borne in mind, however, that this\\nscience, in its original purity and perfection, came\\nfrom primitive man, from the venerated ach-i-ii, or\\nsaints, and was prehistoric. In the course of cen-\\nturies the Egyptians were no longer able to fully un-\\nderstand or grasp it. The facts were obscured by a\\ncloud of symbols, legends, and allegories dexterously\\nwoven around them by cunning priests.\\nOur mental vision enables us to follow the suc-\\ncessive formation of Ra, or the old sun, and the\\nplanets, down to Mercury. Since Mercury was\\nformed, Ra ceased to generate any additional off-\\nspring; but, instead, slowly condensed to his present\\nlimits and became Har, or Horus, the new sun. In\\nother words, he gave birth to a son, or successor, who\\nbecame the ruling sun of the solar system. The", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0064.jp2"}, "65": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 59\\nlegends relating to Ra, his reign upon earth, his love\\nfor Isis (Venus), his being stung and poisoned by the\\nserpent {Set or Typhon, Mercury), and his old age,\\ndecrepitude, and death, refer to these stages in the\\nformation of the solar system.\\nWhen the Egyptians were no longer able to con-\\nceive of the earth as a planet revolving around the\\nsun betv^een Mars and Venus, they substituted Chons,\\nthe moon, for Seb, and thus involved themselves in\\ncountless inconsistencies and contradictions.\\nThe sun, both as Ra and Horus, is always without\\na feminine consort, or counterpart. This is logical,\\nfor the sun, as the father and generator of the plane-\\ntary system, and as the center and ruler of the solar\\nsystem, is active and masculine, never passive, recep-\\ntive, or feminine.\\nThe planets, on the contrary, are alike active and\\npassive, masculine and feminine. We accordingly\\nfind couples, such as Shu and Tefmit, Seb and Nvttf\\nOsiris and Isis, and Seth and Nephthis. In the\\nSothiac system the sun is supposed to ascend and\\ndescend through the six planetary stages or zones.\\nThe lowest zone is that between the sun and Mercury.\\nDescending, it is governed by Har-pa-chraf (Mesori)\\nascending, by Thoth; hence Mercury or Hermes.\\nThe next zone lies between Mercury and Venus. De-\\nscending, it is ruled by Seth, or Typhon, sometimes\\nin his form of Ap-ap, or the Giant Snake; ascend-\\ning, by A pi, the Nile; hence Ap-ap-i and Ta-opi.\\nThe third zone, which lies between Venus and the\\nEarth, is presided over, descending, by Osiris, The", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0065.jp2"}, "66": {"fulltext": "6o A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nOne, The Perfect One, The Ancient One, and,\\nascending, by Hathor, the alter ego, or counter-\\npart, of Isis. The corresponding months are Pa-uon-i\\nand Athyr, or Hathor.\\nThe fourth zone, which Hes between the earth, or\\nmoon, and Mars, is presided over, descending, by\\nChonSy the moon, and, ascending, by Seh, in his char-\\nacter of nourisher of planet-Hfe, a position afterwards\\nusurped by Bastet.\\nThe fifth zone, or that between Mars and Jupiter,\\nwas sacred, descending, to Shu, the Agathodsemon\\nof the Greeks, and, ascending, to Tef-nut, sometimes\\ncalled Tef-teb and Tef-necht.\\nThe sixth, or highest zone, lying between Jupiter\\nand Saturn, was ruled over by Ra, the sun at the\\nzenith. In the year, when the ascending, or growing,\\nsun reached this zone, he was em-hir, that is, in his\\nhighest sign; and when he reached his crown (cha-f),\\nor culminating point, or, as it was often expressed,\\nhis ian, or turning point, he was said to be em-hat,\\nthat is, at the heart, or middle, of his annual course.\\nThese terms gave rise to the names Emhir, or Mechir,\\nand Pa-ra-m-hat, or Phamenoth. The formation and\\ngovernment of the solar system; the birth, growth,\\nand death of man; the birth, growth, and death of the\\nday and year; and the government of the world by\\nPharaoh, the son and successor of Ra, are all ex-\\nplained in one way. The standard is God s govern-\\nment of the material universe, as illustrated by the\\nformation and government of the solar system, and\\nby the birth, life, and death of man.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0066.jp2"}, "67": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 6i\\nThe Sothiac year was modeled after the scientific,\\nor vagiie, year. Originally it commenced when\\nSothis rose heliacally on the first day of Pharmuthi;\\nthe last occurrence of which, before the accession of\\nMena, was in the year 4864 B. C.\\nThe Egyptians, according to Manetho, assigned\\n1,255 years to the government of the Ach-i-u, or\\nSaints, the last of whom was called Bytis, or Butiy\\nthe name afterwards used to designate the King of\\nLower Egypt. These 1,255 years before Mena did\\nnot reach back to the beginning of a Sothiac cycle.\\nThe chronology, however, was carried back 11,895\\nyears further, or to the year 17394 B. C, so as to in-\\nclude certain astronomical periods allotted to the\\ngovernment of Shu, Seh, Osiris, Seth, and Horus.\\nIt should be borne in mind that the sun did not\\nbecome Ra, that is, a ruler in the Egyptian sense,\\nuntil he had at least one planet revolving around and\\nsubject to him. This first planet was supposed to be\\nSaturn, the father of Time. The original Ra, to whom\\nSaturn was subject, was called the son of Ptah in\\nLower Egypt. At Thebes, the architect, or mod-\\neler, of this Ra was called Amen; at Elephantine,\\nNum, or Chnum.\\nThus, Ra, the son of Ptah, sometimes called\\nSa-neity Son of Neith, and Ptah, Amen, and Chnum,\\ntogether with their consorts, were all associated with\\nthe highest zone.\\nBut Jupiter, the most magnificent of the planets,\\nthe central sun and ruler of a grand system of moons,\\nor satellites, was also called Ra, and followed immedi-", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0067.jp2"}, "68": {"fulltext": "62 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nately after Ra, the son of Ptah. The appearance\\nof two Ras in immediate succession confused the\\ncopyists of the list, who dropped the last, supposing\\nit to be a repetition of the first; but Helios, [son of]\\nHephaistos, in the present copy of Manetho s list,\\ncorrupt though it be, points to a planet Ra as well as\\nthe primeval sun Ra. The Pyramid Texts abound in\\nallusions to the Great Nine, generally called the\\nGreat Ennead. When the inscriptions known as\\nthe Pyramid Texts were engraved in the chambers\\nand passages of the pyramids of Unas, Teta, Meri-ra,\\nPepa, Mer-en-ra Menthu-em-sa-uf, and Nofer-ka-ra\\nPepa, the sun of the Sothiac year was below the\\nhorizon, hence Ra had become Turn. Now the Great\\nNine are enumerated as follows:\\n1. Ra, in his character of 5. Nuty his consort.\\nTurn. 6. Osiris.\\n2. Shu. 7. Isis, his consort.\\n3. Tef-nut, his consort. 8. Seth.\\n4. Seb. 9. Nephthis, his consort.\\nThese, of course, were followed by Horus, the present\\nsun. It is not without a good and sufficient reason\\nthat Ra is here fixed at the summer solstice, or the\\nbeginning of Phamenoth. The Turin papyrus fur-\\nnishes the evidence that as far back as the beginning\\nof the Eighteenth Dynasty the number of years each\\nof these were supposed to have ruled was carefully set\\ndown, and it is a most significant fact that the reigns\\nof all the kings prior to the Eighteenth Dynasty, be-\\nginning with Mena, the head, were accurately given\\nin years, months, and days.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0068.jp2"}, "69": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 63\\nIt is amusing and instructive to see what shapes\\nthese primitive notions regarding the formation of\\nthe solar system assumed after they reached the\\nGreeks and Romans. For example, Ovid, in the\\nfirst book of his work, called the Metamorphoses,\\nsays\\nAt first the sea, the earth, and the heaven, which\\ncovers all things, were the only face of nature\\nthroughout the whole universe, which men have\\nnamed Chaos; a rude and undigested mass, and noth-\\ning more than an inert weight and the discordant\\natoms of things not harmonizing, heaped together in\\nthe same spot. No sun as yet gave light to the world,\\nnor did the moon, by increasing, recover her horns\\nanew. The earth did not as yet hang in the surround-\\ning air balanced by its own weight, nor had Amphi-\\ntrite stretched out her arms along the lengthened\\nmargin of the coasts. Wherever, too, was the land,\\nthere also was the sea and the air; and thus was the\\nearth without firmness, the sea unnavigable, the air\\nvoid of light; in no one of them did its form exist.\\nAnd one was obstructing the other, because in the\\nsame body the cold was striving with the hot, the\\nmoist with the dry, the soft with the hard, things hav-\\ning weight with those devoid of weight.\\nTo this discord God and bounteous nature put\\nan end; for he separated the earth from the heavens,\\nand the waters from the earth, and distinguished the\\nclear heavens from the gross atmosphere. And after\\nhe unraveled these, and released them from the con-\\nfused heap, he combined them, thus disjoined, in\\nharmonious unison in place. The element of the\\nvaulted heaven, fiery and without weight, shone forth,\\nand selected a place for itself in the highest region:", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0069.jp2"}, "70": {"fulltext": "64 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nnext after it, in lightness and in place, was the air;\\nthe earth was more weighty than these, and drew\\nwith it the more ponderous atoms, and was pressed\\ntogether by its own gravity.\\nThe encircling waters sank to the lowermost\\nplace and surrounded the solid globe. When thus\\nhe, whoever of the gods he was, had divided the mass\\nso separated, and reduced it, so divided, into mem-\\nbers, in the first place, that it might not be unequal\\non any side, he gathered it up into the form of a vast\\nglobe; then he commanded the sea to be poured\\naround it.\\nHe commanded the plains, too, to be extended,\\nthe valleys to sink down, the craggy mountains to\\narise.\\nScarcely had he separated all these by fixed limits,\\nwhen the stars, which had long lain hid, concealed\\nbetween that mass, began to glow through the range\\nof the heavens.\\nBut an animated being, more holy than these,\\nmore fitted to receive higher faculties, and which\\ncould rule over the rest, was still wanting. Then man\\nwas formed. Whether it was that the Artificer of all\\nthings, the original of the world in its improved state,\\nframed him from divine elements, or whether the\\nearth, being newly made, and but lately divided from\\nthe lofty aether, still retained some atoms of its kin-\\ndred heaven, which, tempered with the waters of the\\nstream, the son of lapetus {la-pet) fashioned after the\\nimage of the gods. Thus, that which had\\nbeen lately rude earth, and without any regular shape,\\nbeing changed, assumed the form of Man.\\nNow, picture to yourself the nebular, chaotic mass,\\nextending to the limits of the solar system, out of", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0070.jp2"}, "71": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 65\\nwhich the primeval sun, the planets, and the present\\nsun were evolved, or formed, and every word of the\\nabove quotation will immediately become intelligible.\\nSea, earth, and air were heaped together in the same\\nplace, an inert, chaotic mass. As yet there was no sun,\\nno moon, no earth. Land, sea, and air were mixed\\nand combined in one confused mass. The earth was\\nwithout firmness, that is, the entire mass was still\\nin a nebular state. The stars were obscured by this\\ncloudy envelope, and it was not until the air, sea, and\\nearth had been separated, etc., that they first shone\\nforth.\\nThe earth was gathered up in the form of a vast\\nglobe, and was suspended in space, balanced by its\\nown weight. The lifting up of the equatorial mass,\\nin the form of a ring, is omitted, but the process by\\nwhich the collapsed ring gathered together in the form\\nof a globe is described as the result of the attraction\\nof gravitation. The earth was more weighty than the\\nair and water, attracted the more ponderous atoms to\\nit, and was pressed together by its own gravity. The\\nlaw by which the heat atoms, here called the ele-\\nment of the vaulted heaven, fiery and without\\nweight, were gradually pressed out of the more\\nweighty mass, and forced to the highest regions, is\\nobscurely hinted at. The Artificer, who divided the\\nmass, and formed it into sun and planets, is not named,\\nbecause he was Ptdh; and Hephaistos, or Vulcan,\\nwould not answer the purpose, according to Roman\\nnotions. But when we come to the creation of Man,\\n5", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0071.jp2"}, "72": {"fulltext": "66 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nthe allusion to the waters of the stream (Nile) and\\nthe son of lapetus {la-pet^ foreign la stamp the\\nentire account as distinctly Egyptian.\\nMoses and Ovid both followed the ancient Egyp-\\ntian account of the formation of the solar system and\\nthe creation of man, which has led many to suppose\\nthat Ovid copied from Moses. The Golden Age, in\\nwhich man practiced faith and rectitude {anch and\\nmaat) of his own accord, without any avenger and\\nwithout laws, and in which punishment, and the fear\\nof it, did not exist, etc., is exclusively Egyptian the\\nglorious age of the Achiu, Manes, or Saints, the\\nAncient of Days, when there were no human rulers,\\nwhen the people of the saints recognized no ruler\\nbut God alone.\\nPRESENT STATE OF EGYPTIAN\\nCHRONOLOGY\\nThe present state of Egyptian chronology, the di-\\nvergent and conflicting views upon the subject which\\nhave been published to the world by eminent Egyp-\\ntologists, and the hopeless confusion and obscurity\\nin which it seems to be still enveloped, are well ex-\\npressed in the following extract from the excellent\\nHistory of Rawlinson:\\nIt is a patent fact, and one that is beginning to ob-\\ntain general recognition, that the chronological ele-\\nment in the early Egyptian history is in a state of\\nalmost hopeless obscurity. Modern critics of the best\\njudgment and the widest knowledge, basing their con-", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0072.jp2"}, "73": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 67\\nelusions on identically the same data, have j)ublished\\nto the world views upon the subject which are not\\nonly divergent and conflicting, but which differ in the\\nestimates that are the most extreme, to the extent\\nof above three thousand years. The Egyp-\\ntians had no era. They drew out no chronological\\nschemes. They cared for nothing but to know how\\nlong each incarnate god, human or bovine, had con-\\ndescended to tarry upon the earth. They recorded\\ncarefully the length of the life of each Apis-bull, and\\nthe length of the reign of each king; but they neg-\\nlected to take note of the intervals between one Apis-\\nbull and another, and omitted to distinguish the sole\\nreign of a monarch from his joint-reign with others.\\nA monarch might occupy the throne ten years in con-\\njunction with his father, thirty-two years alone, and\\nthree years in conjunction with his son in an Egyp-\\ntian royal hst, he will be credited with forty-five years,\\nalthough his first ten years will be assigned also to\\nhis father, and his last three to his son. Contemporary\\ndynasties, if accepted as legitimate, will appear in an\\nEgyptian list as consecutive, while dynasties not so\\naccepted, however long they may have reigned, will\\ndisappear altogether.\\nGenerally speaking, the Egyptian monumental\\nlists are not chronological at all the only one which\\nis so, the Turin papyrus, exists in tattered fragments,\\nthe original order of which is uncertain, while the no-\\ntices of time, which it once contained, are, in many\\ncases, lost or obliterated. It may be added\\nthat the chronological element is altogether wanting\\nin the earlier part of the papyrus, while, as the papyrus\\nitself belongs to the time of the Eighteenth Dynasty,\\nit furnishes no materials at all, either for the chro-\\nnology or the history of the later kingdom. These\\nmany and great defects of the Turin papyrus 1 is", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0073.jp2"}, "74": {"fulltext": "68 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nquite impossible to supply from any other monu-\\nmental source. Occasional correction of the numbers\\ngiven in the papyrus may be made from the annals\\nof the kings; but there is no possibility of filling up\\nits gaps from the monuments, nor of constructing\\nfrom them alone anything like a consecutive chrono-\\nlogical scheme, either for the Early, the Middle, or\\neven the Later Empire. The Middle Empire that\\nof the Hyksos left no monuments at all; and from\\nthe monuments alone no estimate of its duration can\\nbe formed. The Early and the Later Empires left\\nimportant monuments but not a continuous series of\\nthem and the result is that, even for the last, a monu-\\nmental chronology is absolutely unattainable.\\nThe foregoing extract is a fair sample of the man-\\nner in which the subject of Egyptian chronology\\nhas been viewed, studied, and treated.\\nIn speaking of Manetho, Rawlinson says he wrote\\nfor the information of the Greeks, then recently settled\\nin Egypt as the dominant race, a history of his coun-\\ntry, which was confessedly complete, and, in a certain\\nsense, continuous, and which contained a vast num-\\nber of chronological statements, though nothing like\\na definite chronology, adding:\\nManetho s work was not so much a history\\nof Egypt as a history of the Egyptian kings,\\nwhom he divided into thirty dynasties, which he\\ntreated of separately, apparently without distinctly\\nmarking whether they were contemporaneous or\\nconsecutive. Against each king s name was set\\nthe number of years that he reigned and at the\\nclose of each account of a dynasty these years were", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0074.jp2"}, "75": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 69\\nadded together and the total sum given. The im-\\nperfection of the method was twofold. Joint-reigns\\nwere counted as if they had been successive in the\\nsummation of the years of a dynasty; and contem-\\nporary dynasties not being in many cases distinctly\\nmarked, the sum total of all the years of the dynasties\\nwas greatly in excess of the real period during which\\nthe monarchy had lasted.\\nFinally, it has to be borne in mind that Man-\\netho s chronological statements, even when fully as-\\ncertained by the agreement of all the epitomes, are\\nnot unfrequently contradicted by the monuments,\\nand, consequently, rejected by all modern critics.\\nThis occurs even in the later part of the history, where\\nthe dates are, as nearly as possible, certain. If\\nManetho could make mistakes with respect to the\\nreigns of kings who were removed from his time by\\nno more than three centuries, how can he be im-\\nplicitly trusted with respect to reigns at least twenty\\ncenturies earlier?\\nSuch opinions as these are based upon careless,\\nsuperficial, and unscientific examinations of the badly\\ncorrupted lists, which were originally extracted from\\nManetho s History by some unknown Jewish, or\\nChristian, author, and afterwards copied and trans-\\nmitted by Josephus, Africanus, Eusebius, and others.\\nManetho is not responsible for the errors to be found\\nin the present lists, for, as we shall see, many of them\\nantedate Josephus, whose partial list is the earliest we\\npossess.\\nBrugsch, one of the most distinguished Egyp-\\ntologists, after calling attention to the difference of", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0075.jp2"}, "76": {"fulltext": "70 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\n2,079 years between the highest and lowest estimate\\nof the date of the accession of Mena, the first king of\\nEgypt, adds Instead of growing less, the difEculties\\nin determining the chronological relations of Egyp-\\ntian history are on the contrary multiplied from day\\nto day; for new problems, the solution of which has\\nstill to be waited for, are continually presenting them-\\nselves in the province of investigations about chro-\\nnology.\\nAfter trying to show that in the Turin papyrus the\\njoint-reigns of the kings of the Twelfth Dynasty were\\ncounted twice, which I shall show is an error, he ex-\\npresses himsel as follows: From this particular case\\nthe reader will be able to form some idea of the kind\\nof difficulties with which science has to contend at\\nevery step in order to compose a perfect picture of the\\nsuccession and dates of the old Egyptian reigns.\\nThis old usage places such difficulties and doubts in the\\nway of researches thousands of years after the events\\nas to drive one to downright despair of putting to-\\ngether a consistent historical chronology of the Egyp-\\ntian Kingdom. I may add that Brugsch, discarding\\nall known chronological systems, bases his own chro-\\nnology entirely on the supposed sequence of gener-\\nations, estimating three generations to a century. I\\nam far from wishing to criticise the men of science\\nwho have unlocked the sealed book of ancient Egypt,\\nand founded the science of modern Egyptology. Be-\\nginning with Champollion and Lepsius, and coming\\non down to Brugsch and Maspero, I regard them all\\nwith feelings of profound admiration and gratitude,", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0076.jp2"}, "77": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 71\\nand know that their work will endure as one of the\\nmost brilliant achievements of the human intellect;\\nbut the science is necessarily progressive, for the his-\\ntory and chronology of a period covering nearly four\\nthousand years, is so complicated and involved, that it\\nis a physical impossibility to master all the manifold\\ndetails within the brief span of a few years. That\\nwhich has been accomplished in this field during the\\nlatter half of this century is all-sufHcient to fill us with\\nwonder and amazement.\\n\u00e2\u0080\u00a2\u00e2\u0080\u00a2THE SOTHIAC YEAR\\nWe are told that the ancient Egyptians were al-\\ntogether ignorant of the science of chronology, had\\nno era, and, in fact, cared nothing for the chronolog-\\nical element in history.\\nThe fragments of the Turin papyrus, however, a\\ndocument which was drawn up about the beginning\\nof the Eighteenth Dynasty, although the present\\ncopy dates, most probably, from the reign of Seti I,\\nshow conclusively that the reigns of the kings of\\nEgypt, from Mena, the first king, to Apophis II,\\nthe last king of the Seventeenth, or Hyksos, Dynasty,\\nwere carefully registered in years, months, and days,\\nso that one very essential element of chronology, at\\nleast, was certainly at hand from the beginning of the\\nkingdom.\\nBut we expect to show that the basis of the chro-\\nnological system of the ancient Egyptians was purely\\nand strictly astronomical, and that the separate reigns,\\nalthough accurate enough in themselves when placed", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0077.jp2"}, "78": {"fulltext": "72 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\ntogether successively, were adjusted to the absolute\\nastronomical eras and epochs.\\nIt is true that the regnal years of the Pharaohs\\nwere used in dating writings and inscriptions but this,\\nof itself, was not inconsistent with an accurate chro-\\nnological system.\\nThe same style prevails with regard to Acts of\\nParliament, etc., in England, where the Christian Era\\nis in general use.\\nThe risings of the stars were carefully observed\\nand registered in Egypt from the earliest times,\\nnotably the Heliacal Rising of Sothis, or Sirius,\\nwhich was celebrated as the Festival of the New Year.\\nIt was well known to the classical writers that the\\nEgyptians were the first to cultivate the science of as-\\ntronomy, to observe the risings of the stars and the\\neclipses of the sun and moon, and to register and pre-\\nserve those observations in their temples. Aristotle\\ntells us that the Egyptians preceded the Babylonians\\nin the cultivation of this science.\\nIt is a most significant fact that the astronomical\\nobservations of the Babylonians, sent to Aristotle by\\nCallisthenes, extended back 1,903 years only from the\\ndate of the conquest of Babylonia by Alexander, or,\\nin other words, from 331 B. C. to 2234 B. C. We shall\\nsee that the foundation of the Kingdom of Babylon\\nby Nimrod, the son of Cush, took place after the\\nHamite Conquest of Egypt, or 2348 B. C. A local\\nAamu, or Hamite, Government, was established in\\nEgypt about one hundred years before this date, and\\nit was by these, and not by the invaders, that the", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0078.jp2"}, "79": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 73\\nBabylonian Kingdom was founded. I am convinced\\nthat the date 2234 B. C, when the astronomical ob-\\nservations in Babylonia began, marks the beginning\\nof the Babylonian Kingdom. Before this date there\\nwas no kingdom on the Egyptian model in Babylonia\\nand Mesopotamia. Now, as the astronomical ob-\\nservations in Babylonia do not extend back farther\\nthan 2234 B. C, it will be seen that astronomy was\\ncultivated in Egypt at least two thousand years be-\\nfore it was carried to Babylonia by the Cushite Nim-\\nrod.\\nLong before the ancient Empire of Egypt was\\nfounded by Mena, the Egyptians, as we have seen,\\nhad determined the length of the year, and had di-\\nvided it into twelve months of thirty days each, to the\\nlast of which five extra, or intercalary, days were\\nadded. This year of three hundred and sixty-five days\\nwas the ordinary, or vague, year, and was used in the\\nordinary transactions of life, in the dating of inscrip-\\ntions, and, perhaps, in fixing some of the monthly\\nfestivals. The months were divided into three weeks\\nof ten days each. Besides the vague year, the Egyp-\\ntians had a sacred year of three hundred and sixty-\\nfive and one-fourth days, the beginning of which was\\ndetermined by the risings of the fixed stars, the\\nsun s position in the heavens, etc. Diodorus mentions\\nthis sacred year of three hundred and sixty-five and\\none-fourth days in the following passage:\\nThe Thebans boast that they were the most an-\\ncient philosophers and astronomers of any people in\\nthe world the situation of their country being such", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0079.jp2"}, "80": {"fulltext": "74 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nas gave them an advantage over others in clearly dis-\\ncernmg the rising and setting of the stars; that the\\nmonths and years are most properly ordered and dis-\\nposed by them, for they measure their days accord-\\ning to the motion of the sun, and not of the moon,\\nand account thirty days to every month, and add five\\nand one-fourth days to every twelve months, and by\\nthis means they complete the whole year.\\nBut these of Thebes seem most accurately to have ob-\\nserved the eclipses of the sun and moon.\\nThe ordinary, or vague, year of three hundred and\\nsixty-five days, in common use among the Egyptians\\nfrom the earliest times, was nearly a quarter of a day\\nshort, so that the Rising of Sothis, and the fixed\\nyear also, advanced one day every four years. In\\nother words, the years, seasons, and months of the\\nordinary, or vague, year receded one day in four years.\\nWe remedy this discrepancy by intercalating one day\\neach fourth, or leap, year. If we should cease to do\\nthis, our years and months would likewise recede one\\nday in each four years, one month in each one hun-\\ndred and twenty years, and one complete year in each\\nfourteen hundred and sixty years. This can be veri-\\nfied by a simple calculation, for, if the year would re-\\ncede one day in four years, it would necessarily recede\\nthree hundred and sixty-five days in (365X4) four-\\nteen hundred and sixty years.\\nThe failure of the ancient Egyptians to intercalate\\nthis additional day at tlie end of each four years,\\ncaused the Rising of Sothis to advance one full\\nmonth of thirty days in one hundred and twenty years,\\none full season of four months in four hundred and", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0080.jp2"}, "81": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 75\\neighty years, and one full year, including the five\\nintercalatory days, in fourteen hundred and sixty\\nyears, or fourteen hundred and sixty-one vague years.\\nThis year of fourteen hundred and sixty-one vague\\nyears was called the Great Year, or Sothiac Year,\\nand these months of one hundred and twenty years\\nwere called Hantis, or Sothiac months. The Sothiac\\nmonths bore the same names as the ordinary months,\\nand were sacred to the same so-called deities. The\\nreigning Pharaoh, the successor of Horus on the\\nthrone of Upper and Lower Egypt, was identified\\nwith Ra, or the sun, and supposed to occiipy the same\\nposition in the Sothiac year.\\nWhen the Heliacal Rising of Sothis took place\\non the first day of the first month of the year, called\\nThoth, a new Sothiac year commenced. The Pharaoh\\nwho happened to sit on the throne at the beginning\\nof a new Sothiac year, was considered to be excep-\\ntionally fortunate. He was termed nem-mestu^ re-\\nborn, or ^^nem-chau,^ re-crowned. It seems that\\nthese Sothiac eras were named in honor of the Pha-\\nraoh who happened to reign at the time. The class-\\nical writers mention the Era of Menophres, which\\nwas the Horus-title of a King Ramesses, who reigned\\nat the beginning of the era 1324 B. C. Menophres\\nis the Greek form of Mer-nu-pKra, meaning Beloved\\nby the Sun. The Sothiac era 4244 B. C, as we shall\\nsee, marks the reign of Mena, the first king of Egypt,\\nand the Sothiac era 2784 B. C. fell in the reign of\\nAmenemes I.\\nThe coincidence of the era was carefully noted.", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0081.jp2"}, "82": {"fulltext": "76 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nThus Mena reigned sixty-two years after the era 4244\\nB. C, Amen-em-het I reigned sixteen years before and\\nthirteen years after, the era 2784 B. C, and Ramesses\\nMer-nu-pKra reigned seven years before, and twenty-\\nnine years after, the era 1324 B. C. In fact, the\\nofificial registers showed how many years, months,\\nand days each of these kings reigned before, and after,\\nthese eras, but, unfortunately, the years only have\\ncome down to us.\\nIn the same way, the king who happened to reign\\nat the beginning of a new Sothiac month, or hanti, of\\none hundred and twenty years, was distinguished as\\nan epoch-king, and received an epoch-title, to mark\\nhim as such.\\nBefore we go into particulars, however, it will be\\nnecessary to say a few words about Manetho, the\\nnative Egyptian priest who published a History of\\nEgypt, in three books, at the beginning of the reign\\nof Ptolemy Philadelphus, or about 287 B. C.\\nMANETHO THE HISTORIAN\\nManetho was a native Egyptian priest, and, as\\nsuch, learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians. He\\nis called a Triest of Sebennytus, a city located near\\nthe center of the Delta. It seems that he lived at the\\ncourt of Ptolemy Soter. It will be seen from my\\nrestoration of his chronological scheme, that he car-\\nried his chronology down to the year 287 B. C, which\\nwas the beginning of the reign of Ptolemy Phila-\\ndelphus. It is evident, from this fact, that he pub-\\nlished his History of Egypt under the last-named Pha-", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0082.jp2"}, "83": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 77\\nraoh, and, as I assume, at the direction of his royal\\npatron. He divided his history into three books, as-\\nsigning the first eleven dynasties to his first book,\\nthe Twelfth to the Nineteenth Dynasties, both in-\\nclusive, to his second book, and the Twentieth to the\\nThirtieth Dynasties, both inclusive, to his third book.\\nWe shall see that he had good chronological reasons for\\nthis division of his dynasties, that the beginning of\\nthe Twelfth and Twentieth Dynasties coincides with\\nthe beginning of Sothiac eras, and that the throne\\ndid not pass to a new family at either of these\\ntimes.\\nJosephus says Manetho was a man who was by\\nbirth an Egyptian, yet he had made himself master of\\nthe Greek learning, as is very evident; for he wrote\\nthe history of his own country in the Greek tongue,\\nby translating it, as he saith himself, out of their\\nsacred records.\\nIn another place, Josephus says Manetho prom-\\nised to interpret the Egyptian history out of their\\nsacred writings.\\nThese allusions to Manetho and his work are as\\nimportant as they are meager, because they demon-\\nstrate that the history which he translated into Greek,\\nexisted as part of the sacred records, or sacred writ-\\nings, of the Egyptians, and that he merely translated,\\nor interpreted, it into Greek.\\nEusebius testifies that Manetho, the Egyptian, not\\nonly reduced the entire history of Egypt into a Greek\\nform, but also their whole system of theology.\\nPlutarch, in his treatise on Isis and Osiris, had oc-", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0083.jp2"}, "84": {"fulltext": "78 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\ncasion to mention Manetho several times, and, in one\\nplace, as living under Ptolemy Soter.\\nBunsen considers him the most distinguished\\nhistorian, sage, and scholar of Egypt the man whom\\nall our ancient authorities mention with respect.\\nIn his treatise against Apion, Josephus professes\\nto quote several entire passages from Manetho s\\nEgyptian History although we shall see that what\\nJosephus calls a verbatim quotation is nothing more\\nthan an extract or running commentary.\\nyElian styles Manetho The Historian endowed\\nwith consummate wisdom.\\nThe discoveries now published in this work, how-\\never, will serve to restore Manetho to his proper rank\\nas an historian, and to demonstrate how accurate,\\ntruthful, and scientific his work must have been.\\nWhen we contrast him with the Greek historians of\\nhis time, and consider that his chronological system,\\nbefore it was corrupted by those who attempted to\\ncopy from it, was as accurate as the Canon of\\nPtolemy, our admiration for him will be proportion-\\nately increased.\\nIt has been assumed that the early records, monu-\\nments, inscriptions, annals, and literature generally,\\nof the Egyptians, were entirely destroyed by the Hyk-\\nsos during their invasion and occupation of Egypt;\\nbut this assumption is not supported by the facts. Al-\\nthough the Hyksos may have destroyed much in the\\nDelta, the destruction was not of that general and\\ncomplete nature imagined. When Herodotus visited\\nEgypt about 450 B. C, and when Manetho published", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0084.jp2"}, "85": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 79\\nhis History of Egypt, about 287 B. C, monuments,\\nmonumental inscriptions, temple registers, annals,\\nand historical records, reaching back to the earliest\\nkings, and papyri containing literary, scientific, and\\nsacred literature of all kinds, were plentiful through-\\nout Egypt. Regarding this literature, we shall have\\nmany occasions to comment upon the simple, direct,\\nand truthful way in which the Egyptians observed and\\ndescribed everything which came within their notice.\\nThis way of seeing, speaking, and writing qualified\\nthem admirably for the sober and important work\\nof recording and transmitting truthful accounts of\\nhistorical events. In this respect they were the exact\\nopposite of the Greeks, whose enthusiasm, wild im-\\nagination, and love of the marvelous, almost unfitted\\nthem for this task. It is for this reason that the works\\nof the Greeks have proved to be of so little assistance\\nin the field of ancient Egyptian history. Even Herod-\\notus himself, the so-called Eather of History, again\\nand again leaves the path of historical facts to regale\\nus with fables and marvelous stories. Manetho not\\nonly professed to write his history from the monu-\\nments and sacred records, but he actually did so.\\nWherever the fragments of his work can be compared\\nwith existing monuments and inscriptions, we find\\nthat they agree with, and were originally taken from,\\nsuch monuments and inscriptions. The lists and num-\\nbers extracted from his work have suffered much at\\nthe hands of the early chronographers (who attempted\\nto adjust them to certain artificial chronological\\nschemes derived from Josephus) and careless copyists.", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0085.jp2"}, "86": {"fulltext": "8o A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nCertain dynastic lists extracted from Manetho s\\nwork have come down to us in the Chronocon of\\nEusebius and the Chronographia of Georgius\\nSyncellus.\\nIn addition to these lists, we possess lists of the\\nHyksos Dynasty, the Eighteenth Dynasty, and the\\nfirst two kings of the Nineteenth Dynasty, extracted\\nby Josephus from Manetho s History; a partial and\\nsomewhat corrupt list of the Eighteenth Dynasty,\\ncopied by Theophilus, presumbly from Africanus and\\nan artificial and fraudulent list of separate reigns and\\nepoch-reigns known as the Tseudo-Sothis List of\\nSyncellus, many of which may have been taken from\\nManetho s Book of Sothis/\\nI think there can be no doubt that Manetho pub-\\nlished a work on the Chronology of Ancient Egypt,\\nbased on the Sothiac eras and epochs, called the\\nBook of Sothis. This work, covering nearly four\\nthousand years of history, could not, by any possible\\nmeans, be compressed within the limits of the post-\\ndiluvian chronological schemes of the early Christian\\nchronographers, and was, therefore, soon lost or de-\\nstroyed, and a false work, bearing the same title and\\nalso ascribed to Manetho, was fraudulently substi-\\ntuted for it. The fragments of the Turin papyrus, the\\nManethonian Lists themselves, and the List of Era-\\ntosthenes, all show that the reigns of the Pharaohs\\nwere adapted to the Sothiac epochs, which served as\\nabsolute chronological points.\\nWherever we can clear up the errors and detect\\nthe changes in the lists, Manetho is sustained and", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0086.jp2"}, "87": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 8i\\nborne out by the monuments which have survived to\\nour times. Much has been written about joint-\\nreigns and about Manetho s failure to properly ap-\\nportion them, but this rests wholly upon erroneous\\nassumptions. It will be demonstrated that Manetho\\ninvariably extracted the true chronology from the\\njoint-reigns, and no instance can be found in the lists\\nwhere he has given a joint-reign to both father and\\nson. To single out a few prominent examples:\\nAmenemes I reigned sixteen years before the era 2784\\nB. C, and thirteen years after it, that is, twenty-nine\\nyears altogether. These thirteen years include his\\njoint-reign of about nine years with his son Usertasen\\nI, who reigned altogether (that is, jointly with his\\nfather, alone, and jointly with his son) forty-five years.\\nIn other words, Usertasen I reigned jointly with his\\nfather about nine years, alone about thirty-three\\nyears, and jointly with his son, Amenemes II, about\\nthree years. Manetho gave Usertasen I the entire thir-\\nteen years of his father s reign after the cycle 2784\\nB. C, and the thirty-three years of his sole reign, to\\nwit, forty-six years. Amenemes II has thirty-eight\\nyears, to wit, the three years of his joint-reign with\\nUsertasen I and the thirty-five years of his sole reign.\\nIn the Pseudo-Sothis List, Usertasen I, there called\\nSesonchosis, has forty-nine years, and Amenemes II\\nthirty-five years. Ramesses I, after reigning one year\\nand four months alone, associated his son, Seti I, on\\nthe throne with him. After the death of Ramesses I,\\nSeti I reigned many years alone, and then jointly with\\nhis son Ramesses II. Manetho apportioned these\\n6", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0087.jp2"}, "88": {"fulltext": "82 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\njoint-reigns as follows Ramesses I, one year and four\\nmonths, his sole reign; Seti I, fifty-nine years, his\\njoint-reign with Ramesses I, his sole reign and his\\njoint-reign with Ramesses II, and Ramesses II sixty-\\nsix years and two months, his sole reign, after the\\ndeath of Seti I, and his joint-reign with Menophthah.\\nIt is manifest, from these examples, that Manetho\\nunderstood how to apportion the joint-reigns so as\\nto make his lists strictly chronological.\\nThe Sothiac eras and epochs, upon which the an-\\ncient Egyptians based their chronology, registered\\nthemselves with unerring precision. We have just\\nseen that the vague year of three hundred and sixty-\\nfive days, lacking, as it did, about six hours of being\\ncomplete, dropped back, or receded, one day at the\\nclose of each four years, one month in one hundred\\nand twenty years, one season of four months in four\\nhundred and eighty years, and one entire year in one\\nthousand four hundred and sixty-one years. The\\nvague year, therefore, could be compared to a great\\nastronomical clock, the hour-hand of which performed\\none complete revolution in fourteen hundred and\\nsixty-one vague years. The Sothiac year was neces-\\nsarily a great automatic, self-registering, chronolog-\\nical timepiece. Additional certainty, if required,\\ncould be obtained by observing the risings of the\\nfixed stars, notably that of Sirius, the brightest and\\nmost familiar of them all. When Sirius rose just be-\\nfore the sun on the first day of a month, at the ancient\\ncapital, Heliopolis, which was selected as the mean\\npoint of observation, every Egyptian knew that a new", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0088.jp2"}, "89": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 83\\nSothiac month had commenced, and that one hundred\\nand twenty years had rolled by since Sirius had risen\\n**heliacally on the first day of the preceding month.\\nThe system was both simple and accurate, and, as the\\nentire nation helped to keep count of the days,\\nmonths, and years, no mistake could possibly be made.\\nA calculation based upon the number of years which\\nwere known to have elapsed since a given event, com-\\npared with the number of years during which suc-\\ncessive Pharaohs were known to have reigned, could\\nbe tested at any time by observing the sun s position\\nwith respect to Sothis and other fixed stars. Under\\nsuch a system mistakes were impossible. We find\\njust the reverse of what modern Egyptologists have\\nassumed. It is not true that the ancient Egyptians\\nwere ignorant of the science of chronology. On the\\ncontrary, by converting their year into a great, self-\\nregistering, astronomical clock, they provided for\\nthemselves a most accurate chronological system, al-\\nthough they were put to the inconvenience of seeing\\ntheir year slowly revolve through all the seasons\\nwithin the period of fourteen hundred and sixty-one\\nyears.\\nAccording to the Christian era, as now estab-\\nlished, the first day of Mesori of the third historical\\ncycle coincided with the year 4 B. C, and the first\\nday of Thoth, or the beginning of the fourth histor-\\nical cycle, with the year 136 A. D. but there can be\\nno doubt that the birth of Christ coincided with the\\nbeginning of the month of Mesori, and that an error\\nof four years was made in fixing our era. This ex-", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0089.jp2"}, "90": {"fulltext": "84 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nplains why we have used the years 4244 B. C, 2784\\nB. C, and 1324 B. C, for the Sothiac eras, instead\\nof 4240 B. C, 2780 B. C, and 1320 B. C.\\nThe rising of Sothis takes place in the latitude of\\nHeliopolis about July 19-20. Now, as Sothis rose\\non the first day of Mesori at the beginning of our era,\\nand on the first day of Thoth about 136 A. D., he\\nagain rose on the first day of Thoth in the year 1596\\n(1600) A. D., on the first day of Paophi in the year\\n1716 (1720) A. D., and on the first day of Athyr in the\\nyear 1836 (1840) A. D. The rising of Sothis on July\\n19-20, 1896 (1900), therefore, coincided with the six-\\nteenth day of Athyr, which is equivalent to 140+\\n1460-f 1 20-f 120+60=1900. We have, therefore,\\nreached the year 1900 A. D., according to the correct\\nastronomical reckoning, although we write it 1896.\\nTHE CHRONOLOGICAL NUMBERS OF\\nJOSEPHUS\\nThe chronological scheme incidentally laid down\\nby Josephus in his great work entitled The Antiq-\\nuities of the Jews, was received with such unbounded\\nfaith by the early Christian chronographers, and for\\nthis reason had such an injurious effect upon the\\nManethonian I^ists, that it will be necessary to ex-\\namine it briefly.\\nThe passages containing the most important\\nchronological statements are the following:\\nSolomon began to build his temple in the fourth\\nyear of his reign, in the second month, which the\\nMacedonians call Artemisius and the Hebrews Jur;", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0090.jp2"}, "91": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 85\\nfive hundred and ninety-two years after the Exodus\\nout of Egypt, but one thousand and twenty years\\nfrom Abraham s coming out of Mesopotamia into\\nCanaan; and after the Deluge one thousand four hun-\\ndred and forty years; and from Adam, the first man\\nwho was created, until Solomon built the temple,\\nthere had passed in all three thousand one hundred\\nand two years. Now, that year upon which the temple\\nbegan to be built was already the eleventh year of\\nthe reign of Hiram; but from the building of Tyre\\nto the building of the temple, there had passed two\\nhundred and forty years. (Book 8, Ch. 3, Par. i.)\\nSo the ten tribes of the Israelites were removed\\nout of Judea nine hundred and forty-seven years after\\ntheir forefathers were come out of the land of Egypt,\\nand possessed themselves of this country, but eight\\nhundred years after Joshua had been their leader, and,\\nas I have already observed, two hundred and forty\\nyears, seven months, and seven days after they had\\nrevolted from Rehoboam, the grandson of David, and\\nhad given the kingdom to Jeroboam. (Book 9,\\nCh. 14, Par. I.)\\nAnd after this manner have the kings of David s\\nrace ended their lives, being in number twenty-one,\\nuntil the last king, who altogether reigned five hun-\\ndred and fourteen years, and six months, and ten\\ndays: of whom Saul, who was their first king, re-\\ntained the government twenty years, though he was\\nnot of the same tribe as the rest. (Book 10, Ch. 8,\\nPar. 4.)\\nNow the temple w^as burnt four hundred and\\nseventy years, six months, and ten days after it was\\nbuilt. It was then one thousand and sixty-two years,\\nsix months, and ten days from the departure out of\\nEgypt; and from the Deluge to the destruction of\\nthe temple the whole interval was one thousand nine\\nC1?", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0091.jp2"}, "92": {"fulltext": "86 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nhundred and fifty-seven years, six months, and ten\\ndays; but from the generation of Adam until this\\nbefell the temple there were three thousand five hun-\\ndred and thirteen years, six months, and ten days:\\nso great was the number of years hereto belonging;\\nand what actions were done during these years we\\nhave particularly related. (Book lo, Ch. 8, Par. 5.)\\nBut the entire interval of time which passed from\\nthe captivity of the Israelites to the carrying away\\nof the two tribes proved to be one hundred and thirty\\nyears, six months, and ten days. (Book 10, Ch. 9,\\nPar. 7.)\\nIn Chapter 10, Book 20, speaking of the high\\npriests, of whom there were thirteen before the build-\\ning of the temple, Josephus says\\nNow the number of years during the rule of these\\nthirteen, from the day when our fathers departed out\\nof Egypt, under Moses their leader, until the building\\nof that temple which King Solomon erected at Jeru-\\nsalem, were six hundred and twelve. After those thir-\\nteen high priests, eighteen took the high priesthood\\nat Jerusalem, one in succession to another, from the\\ndays of King Solomon until Nebuchadnezzar, King\\nof Babylon, made an expedition against that city, and\\nburnt the temple, and removed our nation into Baby-\\nlon, and then took Josadek, the high priest, captive;\\nthe times of these high priests were four hundred and\\nsixty-six years, six months, and ten days, while the\\nJews were still under the regal government.\\nIn his treatise against Apion, after vainly attempt-\\ning to show that the Expulsion of the Hyksos, de-\\nscribed by Manetho, was the Exodus of the Hebrews,\\ndescribed by Moses, Josephus again says that Solo-", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0092.jp2"}, "93": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 87\\nmon built that temple six hundred and twelve years\\nafter the Jews came out of Egypt.\\nThe destruction of Jerusalem in the eighteenth\\nyear of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar and the eleventh\\nyear of the reign of Zedekiah afifords us an astronom-\\nically-fixed point from which the above-mentioned\\nnumbers can be applied and tested. We know from\\nthe Canon of Ptolemy and other sources, that the\\nreign of Nebuchadnezzar commenced in the year 604\\nB. C. The date, 586 B. C, now generally adopted\\nfor the Destruction of Jerusalem, is approximately\\ncorrect. As the temple was burnt four hundred and\\nseventy years after it was built, according to Josephus,\\nwe have 1056 B. C. as his date for the building of the\\ntemple, about the same date required by the four\\nhundred and sixty-six years, six months, and ten days\\nof the high priests. Taking his one thousand and\\nsixty-two years from the Exodus to the destruction\\nof Jerusalem, we find that his date for the Exodus\\nwas 1648 B. C. Of course, the six hundred and twelve\\nyears between the Exodus and the building of the\\ntemple would carry us back to 1668 B. C.\\nThe interval of 1,957 years between the Deluge\\nand the destruction of the temple gives us 2543 B. C.\\nas the date of the Deluge. In like manner, 3,513\\nyears from the generation of Adam fixed his begin-\\nning point at 4099 B. C.\\nWe have demonstrated in this work that the cap-\\nture of Samaria by Shalmanesar could not have oc-\\ncurred later than the year 721 B. C. The sum of\\none hundred and thirty years, six months, and ten", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0093.jp2"}, "94": {"fulltext": "88 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\ndays, therefore, for the entire interval between this\\nevent and the carrying away of the two tribes should\\nbe one hundred and thirty-six years, six months, and\\nten days. It is evident that the six of the months\\nfollowing immediately after the six of the years has\\nled to the omission of the first six. There were about\\none hundred and thirty-six years, six months, and\\nten days between 721 B. C. and 586 B. C. Now be-\\nginning at the fixed date, 721 B. C, nine hundred and\\nforty-seven years take us back to 1668 B. C. as the\\ndate of the Exodus, which is equivalent to six hun-\\ndred and twelve years, instead of five hundred and\\nninety-two years, between the Exodus and the build-\\ning of the temple; two hundred and forty-seven years,\\nhowever, to the capture of Jerusalem by Shishak\\nwould place this event at 968 B. C, which is about\\nnineteen years short of the actual date. I think this\\nis also owing to an error of some copyist. The fact\\nthat 247 follows immediately after 947 in Josephus\\nindicates that the latter 47 is merely a repetition of\\nthe preceding 47, and that Josephus originally had\\ntwo hundred and sixty-seven years, six months, etc.,\\nwhich would place the capture of Jerusalem by Shis-\\nhak at 988 B. C. This is rendered probable by a mis-\\ntake made by Josephus himself. He says So Solo-\\nmon died when he was already an old man, having\\nreigned eighty years, and lived ninety-four. As the\\nBible fixes Solomon s reign at forty years, there is an\\nerror of at least forty years here. Having placed the\\nbeginning of Solomon s reign at (1056-I-3) 1059 B. C,\\nJosephus must have fixed his death at about (1059", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0094.jp2"}, "95": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 89\\n80) 979 B. C, which makes the interval between the\\ncapture of Jerusalem and the carrying away of the\\nten tribes two hundred and fifty-eight, instead of two\\nhundred and forty-seven years.\\nThe numbers from the building of the temple vary\\nsomewhat from those already given. The five hun-\\ndred and ninety-two years to the Exodus agree with\\nthe date 1648 B. C, but the 1,440 years to the Deluge\\ngive us 2496 B. C, instead of 2543 B. C, while 3,102\\nyears to the generation of Adam give us 4158 B. C,\\ninstead of 4099 B. C. These small discrepancies are\\nprobably owing to errors in the present text. The\\nerrors committed by Josephus himself are apparent,\\nand can be easily explained; but it would lead us be-\\nyond the scope of this work to attempt it here. We\\nsimply wish to restore the chronology of Josephus as\\nhe had it, so as to show how it subsequently affected\\nthe Manethonian Lists.\\nThe duration of the Jewish Kingdom is placed at\\nfive hundred and fourteen years, which reaches back\\nfrom 586 B. C. to iioo B. C, and would place the\\nbuilding of the temple forty-four years only after the\\naccession of Saul. As Saul, according to Josephus,\\nreigned twenty years and David forty years, there\\nwould be a slight discrepancy here.\\nThe principal dates of Josephus seem to be the\\nfollowing\\nBirth of Adam, 4158 B. C.\\nBxodus, 1648 B. C.\\nBuilding of the Temple, 1056 B. C.\\nCapture of Jerusalem by Shishak, 988 B. C.\\nCapture of Samaria by Shalmanesar, 721 B. C.\\nDestruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, 586 B. C.", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0095.jp2"}, "96": {"fulltext": "go A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nClemens of Alexandria, who could, with proper\\ninvestigation, have easily ascertained the true astro-\\nnomical dates from Manetho s History and other\\nequally reliable sources, chose to blindly follow Jose-\\nphus, and to adopt his highest date, 1668 B. C, for\\nthe Exodus. By a simple computation he ascertained\\nthis to be three hundred and forty-five years before\\nthe beginning of the Sothiac Era, 1324 B. C. When\\nhe says that the Exodus occurred three hundred and\\nforty-five years before the Sothiac Era, he, therefore,\\nsimply means that the highest date fixed by Josephus\\nfor this event was three hundred and forty-five years\\nbefore this era.\\nAfricanus himself seems to have placed the Ex-\\npulsion of the Hyksos and the beginning of the Eigh-\\nteenth Dynasty at the correct dates, uninfluenced by\\nthe false theory of Josephus but subsequent redactors\\nof his lists have evidently attempted to change them\\nso as to place the beginning of the Eighteenth Dy-\\nnasty at 1648 B. C, and Thuoris, or King Nile, at\\n1 181 B. C, as we have shown in another chapter of\\nthis work.\\nAlthough Eusebius fell into the error of placing\\nThuoris at 1181 B. C, he nevertheless placed the be-\\nginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty at 1723 B. C,\\nand the Exodus under Achenaten.\\nThe strangest fact, however, connected with this\\nchronology and the attempt of Josephus to convert\\nthe Expulsion of the Hyksos into the Exodus, is that\\nmodern Egyptologists still cling to the date 1648\\nB. C. for the beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty,", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0096.jp2"}, "97": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 91\\nalthough they are well aware that the expulsion of\\nthe Hyksos had no connection with the Exodus.\\nMANETHO S GENERAL CHRONOLOGICAL\\nSCHEME\\nAccording to Eusebius, Manetho assigned 13,900\\nyears to the gods and heroes. He tells us that\\nprimus ^gyptiorum deus Vulcanus fuit, qui etiam\\nignis repertor apud eos celebratur. Ex eo Sol postea\\nAgathodsemon deinde Saturnus: turn Osiris: exin\\nOsiridis frater Typhon ad extremum Orus, Osiridis\\net Isidis filius. Hi primi inter ^gyptios rerum potiti\\nsunt. Deinceps continuata successione delapsa est\\nregia auctoritas usque ad Bytin per annos tredecim\\nmille ac nongentos.\\nThis total of 13,900 years is the sum, in round\\nnumbers, of 11,985 years assigned to the gods, and\\n1,855 years assigned to the heroes, which items,\\nhowever, were originally 11,895 and 1,255. Eusebius,\\nafter expressing the opinion that these so-called years\\nwere in reality months, adds\\nPost deos regnavere heroes annis, 1255\\nRursusque alii reges dominati sunt annis, 1817\\nTurn alii triginta reges Memphitse annis, 1790\\nDeinde alii Tliinitse decern reges annis, 350\\nSecuta est manium heroumque dominatio annis, 5813\\nSumna temporum in iiooo consurgit annorum.\\nIt is evident, at first view, that these items no\\nlonger appear in their original order; Other Kings\\nnow precede the Memphite Kings and Thinite\\nKings, while Manes and Heroes follow after the\\nhuman kings.", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0097.jp2"}, "98": {"fulltext": "92 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nThe correct succession was as follows\\nDominion of the gods, Ptah, etc., 11,895 years\\nHeroes, or manes {a saints 1,255\\nTotal (9 Sothiac cycles), 13,149\\nTen Thinite kings, 350\\nMemphite kings, 1,797\\nOther kings, 1,810\\nThe first historical cycle commenced 4244 B. C,\\nand the 1,255 years of the manes, or heroes, end at\\nthis date. The last item, manes and heroes, is an\\nabsurdity upon its face. The sum, 5,813 years, is\\nmade up of the following items\\nHeroes, 1,855 years\\nThinite kings, 350\\nMemphite kings, 1,797\\nOther kings, 1,810\\nTotal of heroes and men^ 5,813\\nHere, as in other parts of his extracts from\\nManetho, Eusebius mixes separate items, sub-totals\\nand grand totals together in hopeless confusion. It\\nis almost as if the items had been written on separate\\nslips of paper, placed in an urn and thoroughly mixed,\\nand then drawn out blindfolded.\\nIn transcribing the transposed items, 1,797 and\\n1,810, they were changed to 1,817 1.790-\\nThe actual sub-totals, therefore, were:\\nGods and manes, 13,^49 years\\nHuman kings, 3,957\\nGrand total, 17,106\\nEusebius obtained his round number 13,900 by\\nadding 11,985 and 1,855, ^is round number", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0098.jp2"}, "99": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 93\\n11,000 by adding 1,255, 350^ 1.790^ i.8i7\u00c2\u00bb \u00c2\u00ab^c? 5.^^5-\\nHis grand total of 24,900 years, therefore, is the sum\\nof 13,900 and 11,000.\\nSed revera dominatio, quam narrant ^gyptii,\\ndeorum, heroum et manium tenuisse putatur lunares\\nannos omnino viginti quatuor mille et nongentos, ex\\nquibus fiunt solares anni 2206.\\nAs Eusebius had effectually disposed of Manetho s\\ntroublesome chronology by reducing his Egyptian\\nyears to lunar months, he was not very particular\\nabout copying the items.\\nThe Egyptian priests informed Herodotus, about\\n450 B. C, that it was 17,000 years before the reign\\nof Amasis, when the number of their gods was in-\\ncreased from eight to twelve. (Hist. H, 43.) Now,\\nas 17,000 is a round number, and the 17,106 years\\nextend down to 287 B. C, the beginning of the reign\\nof Ptolemy Philadelphus, the two estimates seem\\nto be one and the same. The Sothiac cycles of the\\ngods and heroes (11,895+1,255=13,149) came to a\\nclose at the Sothiac Era, 4244 B. C, the adopted date\\nof the beginning of the kingdom in Egypt. This date\\nis verified and sustained by all the following dates,\\nchecked by the totals, epochs, and separate reigns:\\nBra of Mena, beginning of first historical cycle, 4244 B. C.\\nTen Thinite kings, 35\u00c2\u00b0\\nBeginning of first Mempliite Dynasty, 3894 B. C.\\nMemphite kings, i797\\nBeginning of Hyksos Dynasty, 2097 B. C.\\nOther kings, 1810\\nPtolemy Philadelphus, 287 B. C.", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0099.jp2"}, "100": {"fulltext": "94 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nEach of the above dates marks a turning point in\\nEgyptian history: 4244 B. C, the estabhshment of\\nthe Kingdom by Mena; 3894 B. C, the beginning of\\nthe first Memphite Dynasty; 2097 B. C, the begin-\\nning of the great Aamu or Hyksos Dynasty; and 287\\nB. C, the accession of Ptolemy Philadelphus, under\\nwhom Manetho published his history.\\nThe date 3894 B. C. is verified by the much dis-\\ncussed but little understood total of 3,555 years to\\nthe end of the second Nectanebos reign, that is, to\\n339 B. C.\\nThe 1,255 years of the manes (Achiu or saints\\nextend back from 4244 B. C. to 5500 B. C, the date\\nfixed on by Africanus and other early Christian chro-\\nnographers for the Birth of Adam. In the course of\\ntime some one changed 1,255 to 1,855, 115895\\nto 11,985. In addition to this, the separate items\\nwere transposed and confused, so that they became\\nalmost unintelligible upon their face. Although Eu-\\nsebius has 1,255 instead of 1,855 years for the manes\\nor heroes, the total, 5,813, which is the sum of 1,855,\\n350, 1,797, 1,810, shows that it also appeared as\\n1,855. I^he language itself, Secuta est manlum\\nheroumque dominatio annis 5813, indicates that it\\nwas the total of manes, or heroes, and human kings,\\nfor manes and heroes are synonymous terms. It is\\nmanifest that Manetho could not have been guilty of\\nsuch a stupid combination as manium heroumque.\\nWe are not interested in the first period of 11,895\\nyears, during which the sun and planets were sup-\\nposed to have ruled over Egypt. Our remarks on", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0100.jp2"}, "101": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 95\\nthe ancient Egyptian theory of the formation of the\\nsolar system will sufifice on this subject. We have\\nno reason to suppose, however, that the 1,255 years\\nassigned to the dominion of the manes, achiu, or\\nsaints are not historical. These saints, called\\nmanes, heroes, nekyes, etc., are referred to in\\nBible prophecy. The downfall of monarchical gov-\\nernment and the restoration of the government of the\\npeople this Golden Age of tradition is foretold by\\nDaniel (ch. vii, 26, 2 in the following words\\nAnd judgment shall sit, that his power may be\\ntaken away, and be broken in pieces, and perish even\\nto the end. And that the kingdom, and power, and\\nthe greatness of the kingdom, under the whole heaven,\\nmay be given to the people of the saints of the Most\\nHigh, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and\\nall kings shall serve him, and shall obey him.\\nAccording to another translation, it is\\nBut the judgment shall sit, and they shall take\\naway his dominion, to consume and destroy it unto\\nthe end. And the kingdom and dominion, and the\\ngreatness of the kingdom tmder the whole heaven,\\nshall be given to the people of the saints of the Most\\nHigh, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and\\nall dominions shall serve and obey him.\\nThis must be interpreted in connection with what\\nwas foretold concerning the fourth great beast, or\\nkingdom, which made war against the saints, and pre-\\nvailed over them, until the Ancient of Days came,\\nand judgment was given to the saints of the Most\\nHigh, and the saints obtained the kingdom.", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0101.jp2"}, "102": {"fulltext": "96 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nOsiris was styled the Ancient One (Uon-as), the\\nAncient of Days; but as the prophecy can not refer\\nto Osiris, this title was used to describe the first, or\\nmost ancient, period of civilized man s existence upon\\nthe globe, when the government was vested in the\\nsaints or the people of the saints, and all dominions\\nserved and obeyed God instead of human kings.\\nThe Pyramid Texts abound in references to these\\nsaints, called achiu/ which signifies luminous\\nones or glorified ones. This fundamental con-\\nception of luminous has always attached to saints,\\nas demonstrated by the symboHcal halo encircling\\ntheir heads, which is never wanting in ancient ortho-\\ndox pictures of the saints.\\nThe inscriptions in the pyramid of Unas, dating\\nfrom ca. 3146 B. C, show that at this early date the\\nsaints were already regarded as extremely ancient,\\nand were venerated next after the gods. The Egyp-\\ntians always admitted that their language and com-\\nplicated system of writing, and their arts, sciences,\\nand religious notions had come down from the saints,\\nin all their primitive perfection; and a careful study\\nof the ancient monuments verifies this in every par-\\nticular. The Shemsu-Har, or Shesu-Har, Followers\\nof Horus, also mentioned on the monuments, may\\nbe the saints but I still have some doubt as to their\\nidentity. The First and Second Dynasties of The-\\nonites reigned at An-mi, or Heliopolis, the most an-\\ncient capital of Egypt, and this city was sacred to\\nHorus in all his forms. The damming of the western\\narm of the Nile, the foundation of Memphis, and the", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0102.jp2"}, "103": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 97\\nconstruction of such monuments as the Sphinx, the\\nPyramids of Kochome, and the Temple of the Sphinx,\\nfollowed by the works of the Third and Fourth Dy-\\nnasties, show that the arts and sciences had reached\\ntheir perfection before the kingdom was established.\\nThe first king of the Memphite line erected the\\nstep-pyramid of Sakkara, which is, next to the Sphinx,\\none of the most ancient works to be found in the\\nworld. His name, Niiter-achi, or Netherochis, still\\nappears above the door of the sepulchral chamber.\\nMANETHO S GRAND TOTAL OF 3,555 YEARS\\nSyncellus has the following passage: The period\\nof II J generations y described by Manetho iji his three\\nvolumes^ comprises a sum total ofj^^^\u00c2\u00a7 years^ This\\nsum has been correctly transmitted, for Syncellus\\nreckons the 3,555 years from A. M. 1586 to A. M.\\n5147; the discrepancy of six years, between these\\ndates, being easily explained. Placing the birth of\\nAdam at 5500 B. C, Syncellus reckoned the 3,555\\nyears from A. M. 1606 to A. M. 5161 (A. M. 1586 to\\nA. M. 5 141?) The sum total of 3, 555 years, there-\\nfore, extended from 3894 B, C. to 339 B. C, or from\\nthe beginning of the Memphite Kingdom to the end\\nof the last Nectanebos reign. There can be no doubt,\\neither, that the one hundred and thirteen generations\\n^^d 3^555 years were derived from Manetho; for we\\nknow, from other sources, that his history was written\\nin three books. The three hundred and fifty years\\nof the Ten Thinite Kings, extending from 4244\\nB. C. to 3894 B. C. (A. M. 1256 to A. M. 1606), eluci-\\n7", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0103.jp2"}, "104": {"fulltext": "98 History of Ancient Egypt\\ndate and sustain the succeeding total of 3,555 years.\\nOne set of totals has been recovered from Eusebius;\\nthe other total, fitting it like a piece of mosaic, comes\\nfrom Syncellus, who, no doubt, copied it from Afri-\\ncanus.\\nWhen we come to the epoch-reign of the first\\nNectanebes {Necht-har-heb Nectarebes which dates\\nfrom the epoch 364 B. C, we shall see that the\\nabove date, 339 B. C, is absolute.\\nEpoch of Pachons, 364 B. C.\\nNectarebes, as Amyrtaios, 6\\n358 B. C.\\nTecs, 2\\n356 B. C.\\nNectanebos {Necht-neb-ef), 18\\n338 B. C.\\nIn adapting the separate reigns to the Sothiac\\nepochs, an apparent error of one year is often unavoid-\\nable, for the reason that the reigns, as transmitted to\\nus in the lists, are reduced to years, although Manetho\\noriginally gave them accurately in years, months, and\\ndays.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0104.jp2"}, "105": {"fulltext": "PART II\\nA Self-Verifying Chronological History of\\nAncient Egypt, from the Foundation of\\nthe Kingdom to the Beginning of\\nthe Persian Dynasty\\nA BOOK OF STARTLING DISCOVERIES\\nGRAND TOTALS OF MANETHO S FIRST\\nBOOK\\nAccording to the present lists, including the Ar-\\nmenian Version of Eusebius, the total number of\\nkings in Manetho s first book was one hundred and\\nninety-two, and the total number of years 2,300. In\\nthe main, or chronological, line there were, including\\nAmenemes (sixteen years of whose reign belong in\\nthe first cycle and first book), fifty-three kings and\\n1,460 years, as follows:\\nDynasties.\\nKings\\nSub-totals.\\nYears.\\nTotal.\\nFirst Thinite,\\nSecond Thinite,\\nFourth Memphite,\\nFifth Memphite,\\nSixth Blephantinean,\\nSeventh Memphite,\\nEighth Memphite,\\nAmenemes I,\\n8\\nI\\n8\\n6\\n6\\n9\\nI\\n12\\n21\\n22\\n17\\n23\\n31\\n37\\n43\\n52\\n53\\n263\\n302\\n284\\n248\\n.,8\\n142\\n16\\n565\\n849\\n1097\\n1295\\n1301\\n1443\\n1459\\n99", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0105.jp2"}, "106": {"fulltext": "Years.\\n(9)\\n214\\n(5)\\n409\\n(19)\\n185\\n(6)\\n43\\n100 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nAdding one additional year, which was omitted\\nby Africanus in reducing the extra months and\\ndays of Manetho to years, we have fifty-three kings\\nand 1,460 years. But, as Africanus, by mistake,\\nmade the total of the First Dynasty two hundred and\\nfifty-three instead of two hundred and sixty-three\\nyears, the total number of years appears to be 1,449.\\nNow the side-lines foot up eight hundred and fifty-\\none years, making the grand total 2,300 years, as fol-\\nlows\\nDynasties. Kings.\\nThird Memphite, 9\\nNinth Heracleopolite, 19\\nTenth Heracleopolite, 19\\nEleventh Theban, 16\\n63 (39) 851\\nEusebius mistook several of these sub-totals for\\nthe totals of separate dynasties. Thus he gave the\\nFourth Dynasty seventeen kings, and the Sixth Dy-\\nnasty (now Fifth), thirty-one kings, and confused the\\nlists in many other ways. These mistakes reacted on\\nthe lists of Africanus through Syncellus, who placed\\nthem in juxtaposition. Manetho summed up, at the\\nend of the Sixth Dynasty, just as the Turin papyrus\\ndoes, and, as we shall see, there were good and suf^-\\ncient historical reasons for doing this. Repeated sum-\\nmation, between the Sixth and Twelfth Dynasties,\\nhas had the effect of throwing the present lists into\\na state of almost inextricable confusion but I did not\\nrest until I had succeeded in restoring Manetho s\\nchronological line, for it afforded me the means of", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0106.jp2"}, "107": {"fulltext": "Hist OR v of Ancient Eg ypt i o i\\nclearing up the equally perplexing errors which have\\ncrept into the lists extracted from Manetho s second\\nbook, and still serve as a support to some of the most\\npreposterous hypotheses to be found in the annals of\\nancient history.\\nIt is a most significant fact that, during periods\\nof a divided kingdom, when there were no Pharaohs\\nclaiming to exercise universal dominion, the Man-\\nethonian lists fail to give the names or separate reigns\\nof the kings. It seems that Manetho, in such cases,\\nreferred to the dynasties in a general way, merely\\ngiving the total number of kings and the duration\\nof each dynasty.\\nAs we shall see, it is certain that he gave the exact\\nduration in years of the most important historical\\nperiods, such as the four hundred and fifty-three years\\nof Theban rule before the Hyksos Flood, and the\\nfive hundred and eleven years of Hyksos domination\\nimmediately after it. The fifty-three kings who\\nreigned 1,460 years to the beginning of the Sothiac\\nera, 2784 B. C, are the same mentioned by Diodorus,\\nto wit Menes (not Tepnachtis) and his fifty-two suc-\\ncessors, who reigned 1,400 plus sixty-two years.\\nThese fifty-three kings and the remaining seven kings\\nof the Twelfth Dynasty, making a total of sixty kings,\\nnow appear at the head of the Thirteenth Dynasty,\\nwhere we shall have occasion to refer to them more\\nparticularly.\\nWithout going into details, I will state generally,\\nthat, as the five hundred and ninety-four years of the\\nNinth and Tenth Dynasties of Heracleopolis exactly", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0107.jp2"}, "108": {"fulltext": "I02 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nfill out the interval between the end of the Seventh\\nDynasty and the Hyksos invasion, I believe Manetho\\nhad them as follows\\nDynasties. Kings, Years.\\nNinth, 5 109\\nTenth, 19 485\\nEleventh, 6 43\\nThird, 9 214\\n39 851\\nThis gives us ninety-two instead of one hundred\\nand ninety-two kings. The change from one hundred\\nand nine to four hundred and nine, and from four\\nhundred and eighty-five to one hundred and eighty-\\nfive, in my opinion, was made in copying the list, by\\ncarelessly transposing the characters: P (100) and\\nY (400), whereby P\u00c2\u00ae (109) and YIIE (485) became\\nY\u00c2\u00a9 (409) and PHE (185).\\nThis mistake appears in Barbarus, who copied\\nfrom Africanus; but as he has twenty (twenty-four?)\\nkings for the two Heracleopolite Dynasties, he may\\nhave obtained the four hundred and nine from four\\nhundred and eighty-five.\\nAfter the number of kings in the Seventh Dynasty\\nhad been increased to seventy, the total, ninety-two,\\nwas raised to one hundred and ninety-two, the Eighth\\nDynasty was raised to twenty-one, a sub-total (now\\ntwenty-seven), the Ninth Dynasty to nineteen, and the\\nEleventh Dynasty to sixteen, the increase in the num-\\nber of kings being respectively (70 6) sixt3^-four,\\n(21 9) twelve, (19 5) fourteen, and (16 6) ten,\\nwhich gave them the required extra one hundred\\nkings.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0108.jp2"}, "109": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 103\\nEusebius, in both versions, has four instead of\\nfive kings for the Ninth Dynasty. The solution of this\\napparent paradox can be found in Barbarus Scali-\\ngeri s extracts from Africanus, where such groupings\\nas Necherocheus, and eight others, Othoes, and\\nseven others, etc., justify us in assuming Ochthoes\\nand four others. In a case of this kind Eusebius\\nwould have been almost certain to get four instead\\nof five kings;\\nTEN THINITE KINGS WHO REIGNED 350 YEARS\\nThere were seventeen kings in Manetho s Eirst\\nand Second Thinite Dynasties. The eight kings of\\nthe First Dynasty reigned two hundred and sixty-\\nthree years, beginning 4244 B. C, and ending 3981\\nB. C. The nine kings of the Second Dynasty reigned\\nthree hundred and two years, beginning 3981 B. C,\\nand ending 3679 B. C. The Third Dynasty, which\\nwas composed of Memphite kings, commenced to\\nreign 3894 B. C, or eighty-seven years after the be-\\nginning of the Second Dynasty. The ten Thinite\\nkings who reigned three hundred and fifty years,\\ntherefore, were made up of the eight kings of the\\nFirst Dynasty and first two kings of the Second Dy-\\nnasty. The division of the kingdom and the estab-\\nhshment of the Memphite line took place in the\\neleventh year of Binothris. The Second Dynasty at\\nHeliopolis and the Third Dynasty at Memphis\\nreigned contemporaneously, or side by side, two hun-\\ndred and fourteen years; and both came to a close\\nsimultaneously 3679 B. C, when Senoferu, the first", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0109.jp2"}, "110": {"fulltext": "I04 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nking of the Fourth Dynasty, whose wife, Mertitefs,\\nunited the claims of both Hues, began to reign.\\nEusebius tells us expressly that the Thinite and\\nMemphite kings reigned contemporaneously, as did\\nthe Ethiopian and Saite kings, and others also. This\\nremark was not the supposition of Eusebius, but was\\nderived from Manetho s work, for Eusebius intro-\\nduces it by, We are told, etc.\\nAlthough the Second Dynasty continued to reign\\ntwo hundred and fourteen years after the Third Dy-\\nnasty was estabHshed, Manetho naturally and logic-\\nally completed the former in his dynastic lists before\\nhe entered the latter. In the same manner he after-\\nwards carried the Memphite line down to the close\\nof the first cycle, 2784 B. C, before he took up the\\nHeracleopolite and Theban side-lines, which date\\nfrom about 2948 B. C.\\nThere were three Sothiac epochs in this period\\nof three hundred and fifty years. The epoch-kings,\\nMena, Atoth, and Kebahu, bore the epoch-titles Atho-\\nthis, Kenkenes, and Uennephis, and, strange to\\nsay, these epoch-titles have been substituted by mis-\\ntake for the real names of the kings. Thanks to the\\nNew Table of Abydus, we are now prepared to clear\\nup the many ridiculous mistakes to which this substi-\\ntution has given rise.\\nMANETHO S FIRST DYNASTY OF BIGHT THINITE KINGS\\nThe New Table of Abydus, engraved by order\\nof Seti I about 1584 B. C, contains in perfect preser-\\nvation the names of the first eight kings of Egypt,", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0110.jp2"}, "111": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 105\\nthe same assigned by Manetho to his First Dynasty.\\nWe are thus in possession of an ancient document,\\nnearly 3,500 years old, by means of which we can\\ndetect the arbitrary changes made in Manetho s list\\nby the early chronographers, through whose works\\nthe same has reached us. The second, third, and\\nfourth names, or titles, in the Manethonian list differ\\nso radically from the corresponding names in the\\ntable, that eminent Egyptologists, among them Mas-\\npero, have come to the conclusion that the Egyptians\\nof Seti s times had no reliable accounts of these early\\nkings, but depended on conjecture and vague tra-\\nditions. Before we go farther, however, we will place\\nthe table and list in parallel columns\\nTable of Abydus. Manetho s Ust.\\nMena, Menes, 62 years\\nTela, Athothis, 57\\nAtoth, Kenkenes, 31\\nAta, Uen-nephis, 23\\nUsapti, Usaphaidos, 20\\nMerbapen, Meibaes, 26\\nSemsu, Semempses, 18\\nQuebahu, Quebeches, 26\\nIt will be seen at once that all of these names cor-\\nrespond perfectly except the second, third, and\\nfourth. Athothis, Kenkenes, and Uennephis are\\nepoch-titles belonging to the three epoch-kings of this\\ndynasty, Mena, Atoth, and Quebahu, and have been in-\\nserted by some one in Manetho s list, where they\\nnow stand, in the place of Teta, Atoth, and Ata, prob-\\nably rendered Tithoes, Athothis, and Athoes by Man-\\netho. If the changes were made by the forger of the", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0111.jp2"}, "112": {"fulltext": "io6 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\npseudo-Sothis List, his purpose was, iirst, to cover up\\nthe fraud; and, second, to discredit Manetho s work.\\nThe effect, however, has been the reverse, for the\\nepoch-reigns, inserted by him, furnish astronomically\\nfixed points, from which the chronology of this period\\ncan be restored. The three epoch-reigns which have\\ncaused all this confusion will be treated of separately.\\nIt seems that the epoch-kings were mentioned in\\nManetho s history as well as in his book of Sothis,\\nfor Josephus, in his list of the Hyksos kings, has\\nAsses instead of Sethos (Set-Nubti), the actual\\nname of the king, and he copied the reigns, as he him-\\nself tells us, from the second book of Manetho s his-\\ntory, and not from the book of Sothis. Josephus also\\ncopied Armais, the epoch-title of Thothmes III,\\nfrom the same book, mistaking it for the name of a\\nseparate king.\\nMenes himself was the epoch-king Athothis; but\\nthe fifty-seven years assigned to Athothis belonged\\nto Tithoes. The presence of Athothis in Manetho s\\nlist led to his insertion in the list of Eratosthenes, im-\\nmediately after Menes. The third king, Athothis,\\nfrom Atoth, was then called Athothis II. He still has\\nhis original reign of thirty-two years, thirty-one of\\nwhich were as epoch-king Kenkenes. The first\\nAthothis, translated Hermogenes, was Aa-tahu-ti,\\nOffspring of Thoth, although the Greek form of\\nAtoth must have been Athothis also. As Mena\\nreigned sixty-two years and Teta fifty-seven years, it\\nrequired just one year of Atoth s reign to fill out the\\nSothiac month of one hundred and twenty years,", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0112.jp2"}, "113": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 107\\nwhich leaves exactly thirty-one years for Kenkenes.\\nAdding the reigns of the succeeding kings to the\\nthirty-one years of Kenkenes, we have one hundred\\nand seventeen years to Quebahu, and need the first\\nthree years of his reign to complete the second one\\nhundred and twenty years. This leaves twenty-three\\nyears for the epoch-reign of Quebahu. The total of\\nthe entire dynasty is two hundred and sixty-three\\nyears, or twice 120^1-23.\\nAta s reign must have been twenty-two years,\\nwhich coincided very closely with the epoch-reign of\\ntwenty-three years substituted for it.\\nThe list can be restored as follows:\\nMena, 62 years Athothis, 62 years\\nTela, 57\\nAtoth, 32 Kenkenes, 31\\nAta, 22\\nUsapti, 20\\nMerbapen, 26\\nSemsu, 18\\nQuebahu, 26 Uennepliis, 23\\nTotal, 263\\nThe last king of this dynasty built the pyramids\\nof Kochome (Ka-kem, Black Bull mentioned by\\nManetho as still standing in his time. If there were\\nany reason to doubt that these kings, from Mena on\\ndown, were actual historical kings, the pyramids\\nerected by Uonnofer to mark the epoch of Athyr,\\n4004 B. C, must be regarded as the very best evi-\\ndence that Quebahu, at least, actually lived and reigned\\nin the vicinity of Memphis or On. But the moment", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0113.jp2"}, "114": {"fulltext": "io8 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nwe acknowledge the last king of the dynasty as his-\\ntorical, we are forced to admit the claims of all the\\nrest. The reigns of these kings were carefully regis-\\ntered. These registers showed how long each of them\\nreigned in years, months, and days. The reigns them-\\nselves were adapted to, and checked by, the Sothiac\\nepochs, so that mistakes were almost impossible.\\nThese kings are now called Thinite; but the\\nword itself came down in a somewhat different form.\\nIt was written Theeinites and Theynites, show-\\ning that it was originally Theanites. The name was\\nderived from Ta-dniity the land of Anu/ which was\\npronounced Thednut in L^ower Egypt. The First\\nDynasty, therefore, was of Ta-dnu, and the city of\\nAnu was the most ancient capital of Egypt.\\nIt has been contended that any chronological sys-\\ntem which places Mena at the head of a Sothiac cycle\\nis necessarily artificial, and must, therefore, be false.\\nThe date, 4244 B. C, was not the beginning of a\\nSothiac year, as originally arranged. In the fixed\\nyear Sirius rose heliacally on the first day of Phar-\\nmuthi, which corresponds to July 19th. When Mena\\nbecame king the year had shifted around so that the\\nrising of Sirius occurred on the first day of Thoth,\\nwhich was six himdred and twenty years after the\\nSothiac year commenced. In other words, the year\\nwas normal about 4864 B. C, while the era dating\\nfrom the accession of Mejia commenced about 4244\\nB. C. The historical cycle, therefore, commenced\\nsix hundred and twenty years after the astronomical\\ncycle. I believe this fact was expressly mentioned by", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0114.jp2"}, "115": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 109\\nManetho, because there is evidence that the 1,255\\nyears of the heroes had been changed, at some time\\nprior to Eusebius, to 1,855 years. Always bear in\\nmind that the Egyptian year was normal when the\\nfixed year, the vague year, and the Sothiac year coin-\\ncided, which occurred about 4864 B. C, when the\\nwinter solstice coincided with the first day of Thoth,\\nand Sothis rose heliacally on the first day of Phar-\\nmuthi; and that at the beginning of Mena s reign, or\\n4244 B. C, Sothis rose heliacally on the first day of\\nThoth, and the winter solstice fell on the fifth day of\\nEm-hir. It is evident that Mena would stand at 4864\\nB. C. if he had been arbitrarily placed at the head of\\na Sothiac year. When Moses constituted the montH\\nin which the Hebrews departed from Egypt the be-\\nginning of the Hebrew year, he simply imitated thes\\nexample of the Egyptians.\\nThe Ten Thinite Kings of Manetho s general\\nscheme, who reigned three hundred and fifty years\\nfrom 4244 B. C. to 3894 B. C, were made up of these\\neight kings and the first two kings of the Second Dy-\\nnasty. They were preceded by the Achiu or Saints,\\nwhose seat of government was also at On. As this\\nperiod was afterwards referred to as the Ancient of\\nDays, the government of the Saints must have\\nbeen a democracy. The buildings and monuments\\nof Heliopolis, like those of Memphis, have disap-\\npeared from the face of the earth, and were It not for\\nthe pyramids, mastabas, and tombs on the opposite\\nedge of the Libyan hills, the existence of both during\\nthe Old Empire might have been doubted by over-", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0115.jp2"}, "116": {"fulltext": "no A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nskeptical critics. Fortunately, we learn from the\\nStele of Cheop s Daughter that the reclining sphinx\\nwas the emblem, in Chufu s time, of the youthful\\nHorus in the second month of Paophi, just as Ken-\\nken/ very brave, was one of his distinctive titles.\\nThe Great Sphinx, which was one of the wonders\\nof the ancient world and a riddle to all the uniniti-\\nated, still stands in matchless grandeur to mark the\\nepoch of Paophi, 4124 B. C, and to bear witness to\\nthe power, civilization, and titanic art of the immedi-\\nate descendants of the Saints. King Atoth con-\\nstructed the Great Sphinx as the symbol of Horus,\\nunder his title of Ken-ken. Ata, the name of the fourth\\nking, in the course of time became synonymous with\\nGreat King. The kings of the New Empire\\nchose the title AH, or Atai, in order to awaken in the\\nhearts of their subjects increased feelings of awe and\\nrespect. The solution of the riddle of the sphinx\\nwas reserved for the close of the nineteenth century,\\nso that it might follow immediately after the opening\\nof the sealed book of ancient Egypt and the advent\\nof the Ancient of Days in the New World.\\nAccording to the ancient records as interpreted\\nto Diodorus by the Egyptian priests, the magnificent\\ntemples and palaces of the Memphite Kings did\\nnot equal those of the former kings in state or\\ngrandeur. Let the reader endeavor to form a mental\\nimage of the Great Sphinx as it must have ap-\\npeared in its original perfection, and then compare\\nit with the grandest statues erected by Amenophis\\nIII, Seti I, and Ramesses II, and he will feel inclined", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0116.jp2"}, "117": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt hi\\nto believe that the temples and palaces erected at\\nHeliopolls and Memphis by Mena, Tela, Atoth, and\\nother kings of this dynasty were upon the same scale\\nof grandeur.\\nThe solitary obelisk now standing on the site of\\nancient Ann was erected by Usertasen I of the\\nTwelfth Dynasty, in front of the temple. The last\\nvestiges of this temple have disappeared; but no one\\ncompetent to judge would dare to deny that it stood\\nthere at the beginning of the second historical cycle,\\n2784 B. C.\\nWe know that the people of ancient. Greece and\\nRome preserved and transmitted their history without\\nengraving it in imperishable granite. Our own price-\\nless literature is preserved in books of perishable\\npaper. Now every candid person will admit that the\\nancient Egyptians, with their superior climate and\\nfavorable surroundings, might have preserved their\\nhistory, etc., in writing on wooden tablets, or leather,\\nand in books made of papyrus. Why, then, do schol-\\nars and critics persist in saying that the Egyptians\\nhad no authentic history, chronology, or literature of\\nthis period, when Herodotus, Plato, Eratosthenes,\\nDiodorus, and other classic writers assure us that the\\nrecords, annals, and papyri containing this literature\\nwere carefully preserved in the temples of Egypt, hun-\\ndreds of which were to be found between Migdol and\\nSyene? It is significant that the meager notices at-\\ntached to the reigns of the Thinite kings, in the Man-\\nethonian lists, without exception, refer to Lower\\nEgypt, and never mention This or Upper Egypt.", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0117.jp2"}, "118": {"fulltext": "112 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nIt is true that the South is mentioned in the in-\\nscriptions of the early kings of the succeeding Mem-\\nphite Dynasty, but equally true that the South of\\nthis period was just above Heliopolis. At the end of\\nthe Fifth Dynasty, more than one thousand years after\\nthe accession of Menes, Osiris is called Lord of\\nAbydus; but this Abydus may have been named after\\na more ancient Abydus of Lower Egypt. Many of\\nthe cities of Upper Egypt, like Ann of the South,\\nwere named after older cities of the Delta. Our own\\ncountry abounds in examples of the same kind cities\\nnamed after cities of the Old World. As to Mena, all\\nthe authorities agree in calling him the first king\\nof Egypt. A fragment of the Turin papyrus styles\\nhim the first (lit. head The foundation of\\nMemphis was ascribed to him, and the name Men-\\nnofer/ Pefect Station, seems to be derived from his\\nname. The form Men-a is equivalent to the later\\nMen-i. The root is men, firm, established. Thus\\nmen also meant station in the sense of landing\\nor harbor; transportation in ancient Egypt being\\nprincipally by water, in boats instead of wagons.\\nEratosthenes translates Menes Aionios, showing\\nthe close relationship of the forms M en-no fer and\\nMen-i. The contrast between the liquid ways and\\nfirm landings of ancient Egypt, the instability of the\\nroads and the stability of the stations, emphasizes the\\ndeep meaning and significance of such names as\\nMen-a and Men-no fer.\\nAccording to a notice copied by Eusebius from\\nManetho s work, Mcna invaded a foreign country.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0118.jp2"}, "119": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 113\\nNo doubt this campaign was owing to incursions\\nof neighboring nations. It required a united ef-\\nfort on the part of the Egyptians to repel these\\nattacks, and the invasion of the foreign country\\nby Mena, Hke that of Meri-ra, was retahatory. The\\ncommon danger, the success of the united effort, the\\nsubordination of the people generally to the will of\\nthe commander, led to the estabHshment of the king-\\ndom. The extraordinary talents and abilities of the\\nleader chosen by the people in the dark hours of com-\\nmon danger, brought out into bold relief by the suc-\\ncessful issue of the struggle, reconciled the people to\\nthe loss of their ancient liberty. When Herodotus\\nvisited Egypt about 450 B. C, there were sacred\\nregisters preserved in the temples, showing that Mena^\\nthe first king of Egypt, in the first place protected\\nMemphis by a mound, and then, beginning about one\\nhundred stades above Memphis, dammed up the\\nwestern arm of the Nile which then ran close to the\\nLibyan hills, and, after the river had been confined\\nto the main stream running through the middle of the\\nvalley, he built his new capital, Memphis, upon the\\nsite thus obtained. The notice in the Manethonian\\nlists that Athothis constructed a palace in Mem-\\nphis, agrees with the account read to Herodotus.\\nAccording to Diodorus, Mena, the first king of\\nEgypt, taught the people the adoration of the gods,\\nand the manner of divine worship; he also taught\\nthem how to adorn their beds and tables with rich\\ncloths and coverings, and was the first to introduce a\\nluxurious mode of living. Speaking of Mneuis (an-\\n8", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0119.jp2"}, "120": {"fulltext": "114 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nother form of Menes), Diodorus says he was a man of\\nheroic spirit, and famous in his generation; that he\\nwas the first who instituted laws, pretending that he\\nhad received them from Mercury (Hermes-Thoth)\\nand that great benefits and advantages would accrue\\nto the people from their observance.\\nThis author s account of the building of Memphis\\ndiffers but slightly from that of Herodotus, if we only\\nsubstitute Menes for Uchoreus, who is as much out\\nof place here as Tephnachtes. He tells us that\\nUchoreus (Menes) built Memphis, the most famous\\ncity of Egypt. He chose the most convenient place\\nfor it in all the country, selecting the point where the\\nNile divided itself into several branches, and formed\\nthat part of Egypt called the Delta. The city, being\\nthus conveniently situated at the head of the river,\\ncommanded all the shipping that sailed up it. The\\ncity was built one hundred and fifty furlongs in cir-\\ncuit, and was made exceedingly strong and com-\\nmodious. As the Nile flowed around the city, and at\\nthe time of the inundation covered all the land to the\\nsouth of it, Uchoreus cast up a mighty rampart of\\nearth, both as a defense to the city against the raging\\nwaters, and as a bulwark against an enemy on land;\\nand on the other sides he dug broad and deep\\ntrenches to receive the surges of the river, and filled\\nevery place around the rampart with water, which\\nfortified the city to admiration. He also built palaces\\nnot inferior to others built elsewhere, but much below\\nthe state and grandeur of the former kings. The\\nmemoranda jotted down by Diodorus concerning", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0120.jp2"}, "121": {"fulltext": "HiSTOR Y OF Ancient Eg ypt i i 5\\nEgypt were correct enough in themselves but he evi-\\ndently lost the connection before he incorporated\\nthem in his history, where they are jumbled together\\nin almost hopeless and inextricable confusion. For\\nexample, the following: They say the posterity of\\nTephnachthus, to the number of fifty-two, reigned\\nfor the space of 1,400 years, in which time there is\\nnothing worthy of remark, relates to the fifty- two\\nsuccessors, in the direct line, of Menes, and was the\\ntotal of Manetho s first historical cycle of 1,460 years.\\nOf course, the concluding remark that nothing had\\nbeen found relating to this long and eventful period\\nwhich was worthy of remark, was a convenient way\\nof disposing of matters and things too voluminous\\nand troublesome to relate. We single out this ex-\\nample here to show that the sources from which Dio-\\ndorus obtained the scraps to be found in his history\\nwere reliable, because there actually were fifty-three\\nkings in the direct line, and 1,460 years from the\\naccession of Mena, 4244 B. C, to the seventeenth year\\nof Amenemes I, 2784 B. C, as shown by Manetho s\\nHsts and the native tables.\\nAfter this digression, which is due to the example\\nof Diodorus, the reader will understand how the scrap\\nabout the palaces built by some other king, which\\nwere much below the state and grandeur of the\\nformer kings, came to be added on to the account\\nof the building of Memphis by Mena, and how\\nUchoreus came to be substituted for Mena.\\nBrugsch-Bey, following Linant-Bey, was satisfied\\nthat the great dike of Cocheiche is the same con-", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0121.jp2"}, "122": {"fulltext": "ii6 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nstructed by Mena. This dike still renders valuable\\nservice to the inhabitants of Lower Egypt by restrain-\\ning the rush of the inundating waters. Large sluices\\nin the dike are the only outlets for the water into the\\nmarshland around the site of ancient Memphis. By\\nmeans of the dike and its sluices the water can be in-\\ncreased in the deeper basins, and the level of the river\\ncan be raised to the extent of three feet in the neigh-\\nborhood of Cairo.\\nAccording to Brugsch, this dike is two miles\\nsouth of the site of ancient Memphis. As the fiU\\nmade by Mena to dam the western arm of the Nile,\\nwas one hundred stades, or eleven miles, above Mem-\\nphis, those authors who have confounded it with the\\ndike of Chocheiche have made a grievous mistake.\\nThe dike is the mighty rampart of Diodorus, the\\nmound of Herodotus, the celebrated Anbu-het,\\nWhite wall, of the ancient inscriptions.\\nAccording to the ancient native account, trans-\\nlated for the benefit of Herodotus, Mena, in the first\\nplace, dammed up the western arm of the Nile which\\nflowed along the Libyan Hills, just as the Bahr-Yusuf\\nstill does south of the Fayum. In this way, he re-\\nclaimed a marsh, and converted it into a well-pro-\\ntected site for the future capital of the new kingdom.\\nThus we see that, besides being a great commander,\\nstatesman, and lawgiver, he was a genius in the arts\\nessential to the welfare of the human race, and, al-\\nthough the poet has not yet been born who could\\nadequately sing the praises of Mena, we are convinced\\nthat his dike and rampart and glorious capital sur-", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0122.jp2"}, "123": {"fulltext": "History OF Ancient Egypt 117\\npassed the Great Sphinx and Great Pyramid as much\\nas these do the statues and tombs of the Eighteenth\\nand Nineteenth Dynasties. How do the agnostics\\nand orthodox theologians explain these colossal\\nworks of practical utility, these astounding master-\\npieces of engineering science, under the first king of\\nancient Egypt, more than six thousand years ago? In\\nthe language of L. A. Wood, Kentucky s greatest\\nphilosopher, Egypt burst upon the world in history,\\na full-grown nation, with a full-blown civilization, in\\nthe flower of its matchless perfection.\\nIs it a wonder, then, that the name of Mena, in\\nthe Minos of the Greek, Adam of the Hebrew, Menu\\nof the Sanskrit, Mannus of the German, and Man of\\nthe Saxon, became as familiar as a household word?\\nThe Table of Sakkara contains but two of these\\nkings, Mer-bapen and Quebahu. We do not know why\\nthe others were omitted, but it is possible that the\\nkings of the Memphite Dynasty traced their descent\\nthrough the two named. The fact that Manetho in-\\ntroduces a new dynasty after Quebahu goes to show\\nthat one line died out and another Hne took its place.\\nWe shall see that, during the two hundred and four-\\nteen years of the parallel Thinite and Memphite Dy-\\nnasties, kings selected from both dynasties afterwards\\nserved as ancestors to subsequent kings. In the\\nBerlin Museum there is a medical papyrus containing\\nthe following passage:\\nThis is the beginning of the sum of all methods\\nfor the cure of bad leprosy. It was discovered in a\\nwriting of very ancient origin, in a writing case, un-", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0123.jp2"}, "124": {"fulltext": "ii8 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nderneath the feet of the divine Anubis in the town of\\nSochem, at the time when the deceased Usapti was\\nking. After his death, the writing was brought to\\nthe sanctuary of the deceased King Senda, on account\\nof its miraculous power of healing.\\nThe town of Sochem was situated on the west\\nbank of the Nile, nearly opposite Heliopolis. It was\\nafterwards called I^etopolis. It thus appears that\\nthere was a shrine to Anubis, and, consequently, a\\ntemple, in the town of Sochem, as far back as the time\\nof King Usapti. It is interesting to note that bad\\nleprosy already prevailed at the very dawn of history,\\nand that the sum of all the methods for its cure, which\\nwas considered as very ancient in Usapti s reign, was\\nso far in advance of the methods in use when the\\npapyrus was written that it was looked upon as mirac-\\nulous. We are not told where the sanctuary of King\\nSenda was located, but the transfer of the writing\\nfrom the place where it was found, in the reign of\\nUsapti, agrees with the change of dynasty which had\\ntaken place, and with the presence of another line of\\nrulers at Memphis.\\nTHE EPOCH-REIGNS OF THE FIRST\\nDYNASTY\\nWe have just seen that Menes, the first king of\\nEgypt, headed the Sothiac year which commenced\\nin 4244 B. C, when Sothis rose heliacally on the first\\nday of Thoth of the vague year. This great era, there-\\nfore, marks the establishment of the kingdom in\\nEgypt, after the close of the dominion of the Ach-i-u,", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0124.jp2"}, "125": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 119\\nor Saints, called Manes, Heroes/ etc., by the\\nGreeks. As Thoth presided over the first quarter of\\nthe year, and over the first month also, Menes assumed\\nthe appropriate epoch-title Athothis, which is, in\\nold Egyptian, Aa-tahu-ti^ that is, Hermogenes or\\nOffspring of Thoth/\\nMenes reign, according to Manetho and Eratos-\\nthenes, was sixty-two years, and, since we know, from\\nthe Table of Abydus, that he was not succeeded by a\\nson called Athothis, but by Teta, it follows that he\\nhimself was the epoch-king Athothis. In fact, Aa-\\ntahu-ti is not the proper name of a king, but a Sothiac\\ntitle only.\\nThe two hundred and sixty-three years of the\\nFirst Dynasty, extending, as they did, from 4244\\nB. C. to 3981 B. C, covered three Sothiac epochs,\\nto wit, Thoth, 4244 B. C, Paopi, 4124 B. C, and\\nAthyr, 4004 B. C. In this state of case, we can as-\\nsume that Manetho originally had three epoch-titles\\nin this dynasty, in addition to the proper names of\\nthe eight kings. Some one, evidently Ignorant of the\\nimportance of these epoch-titles and epoch-reigns\\nfrom the astronomical and chronological points of\\nview, inserted them, by mistake, in Manetho s Eirst\\nDynasty in place of Teta, Atoth, and Ata.\\nNow, going to the list of Eratosthenes, which\\nwas originally adjusted to the Sothiac epochs, but is\\nnow a mere wreck composed of fragments, some of\\nwhich are out of place, we find, after Menes, with\\nsixty- two years, and Athothis with fifty-nine\\ninstead of fifty-seven years, a second Athothis with", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0125.jp2"}, "126": {"fulltext": "120 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nthirty-two years. This second Athothis, now wanting\\nin the Manethonian Lists, is certainly Atoth, the third\\nking of this dynasty, and his reign of thirty-two years,\\nthus fortuitously preserved, turns out to be a most\\nvaluable Hnk in the chain of evidence sustaining and\\ncorroborating Manetho s chronology of the Old Em-\\npire.\\nA simple computation will demonstrate that the\\nepoch-reign of King Atoth was thirty-one years.\\nEra of Menes, 4244 B. C.\\nMenes, as epoch-king Athothis, 62\\n4182 B. C.\\nTeta (Tithoes), 57\\n4125 B. C.\\nAtoth, or Athothis II, before epoch, i\\n4124 B. C.\\nAtoth, as epoch-king Kenkenes, 31\\n4093 B. C.\\nAthothis I has the original fifty-seven years of\\nTeta s reign in Manetho s list, but Kenkenes has the\\nepoch-reign of thirty-one years, instead of the full\\nthirty-two years of Atoth.\\nIn order to understand the title Kenkenes, we\\nmust bear in mind that Horus, according to the an-\\ncient symbolism, was born at the winter solstice, and\\nwent through the successive stages of growth and de-\\nvelopment, such as youth, manhood, old age, etc.\\nIn the month of Paophi the youthful Horus was fig-\\nured as a reclining sphinx gazing towards the east-\\nern horizon, and bore the title Ken-ken, Very Brave,\\n9", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0126.jp2"}, "127": {"fulltext": "HisTOR Y OF Ancient Eg ypt 121\\na duplication of ken, brave, kuehn. The reclining\\nsphinx, Apis-bull, Nile, etc., were symbols of his dor-\\nmant strength. In the representation on the so-called\\nStela of Cheops Daughter Horus is pictured as a\\nbabe in Mesori, a boy wearing the sidelock in Thoth,\\nand a reclining sphinx in Paophi.\\nIt will be seen at a glance that Kenkenes is Kenken\\nwith the Greek termination es, and that it is an\\nepoch-title assumed by Atoth to mark the epoch 4124\\nB.C.\\nWe have already expressed the conviction that the\\nGreat Sphinx, opposite the ancient capital Heliopolis,\\nwas hewn out of the living rock by King Atoth-Ken-\\nkenes to mark this epoch, and, that his tomb was\\nprobably in or near it.\\nUennephis, with twenty-three years, who now\\noccupies the place of King Ata, is the epoch-title of\\nKebahu, the last king of this dynasty. Before explain-\\ning his title, we will now give the dynasty complete\\nEra of Menes, 4244 B. C.\\nMena, as epoch-king Athothis, 62\\n4182 B. C.\\nTeta, 57\\n4125 B. C.\\nAtoth, before epoch of Paopi 4124 B. C, i\\n4124 B. C.\\nAtoth, as epoch king Kenkenes, 31\\n4093 B. C.\\nAta, o o 22\\n4071 B. C.", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0127.jp2"}, "128": {"fulltext": "122 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nBrought forward, 4071 B. C.\\nUsaphaidos, 20\\n4051 B. C.\\nMeibaes, 26\\n4025 B. C.\\nSemenpses, 18\\n4007 B. C.\\nKebahUy before epoch of Athyr, 4004 B. C, 3\\n4004 B. C.\\nKebahUy as epoch-king Uennephis, 23\\nEnd of Dynasty, 3981 B. C.\\nAthyr Is a form of Hathor, or Haet-har, House\\nof Horus. Hathor and Isis are but different names\\nfor the cosmic house out of which Horus emerges\\nat sunrise and into which he retires at sunset. Hus-et,\\nHouse, and Hus-ir, House of the Eye, are in-\\ntimately related, the one (Isis) being feminine, the\\nother (Osiris) masculine. The epoch-king Kebahu,\\ninstead of assuming a title of Isis, adopted the title\\nUon-nofer, Perfect Being, or Perfect One, which\\nwas one of the distinctive titles of Osiris, the consort\\nof Isis. The present form Uen-nephis is an evident\\ncorruption of Manetho s Uen-nepher.\\nAccording to the Manethonlan Ivists, Uon-nofer,\\nthat is, Kebahu, as epoch-king, built the pyramids\\nof Kochome. The nome of Ka-kem, the Black\\nBull, was situated in the southernmost point of the\\nDelta, opposite the ruined pyramid of Abu-roesh, and,\\nas the chief capital was then at Heliopolis in the same\\nvicinity, I am convinced that Perring was right in", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0128.jp2"}, "129": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 123\\nregarding this ruin as the pyramid built by Uennephis\\nto mark the epoch of Athyr 4004 B. C.\\nThe large pyramid of Abu-roash was built of hewn\\nstones, some of which were of granite. This fact has\\nbeen advanced as conclusive evidence that it could\\nnot have been built until after the reign of Toserthos,\\nthe second king of the Third Dynasty. The learned\\ncritics who have raised this objection, however, as-\\nsume that the entire three hundred and two years\\nof the Second Dynasty intervened between the F irst\\nand Third Dynasties, when, in fact, as we shall dem-\\nonstrate, there were only eighty-seven or eighty-\\neight years between the two. The Step-pyramid,\\nwhich was built by Necherochis, the first king of the\\nThird Dynasty, is in horizontal stages, or steps, and\\nwas originally encased with hewn stones. This fact\\nof itself negatives the idea that Toserthos was the\\nfirst to build with hewn stones. As we shall see in\\nthe next chapter, Necherochis was an epoch-king,\\nand his reign, divided by the epoch 3884 B. C, ap-\\npeared in Manetho s work in some such manner as\\nthis\\nNecherochis, before the epoch, lo years\\nNecherochis, after the epoch, 28\\nEntire reign, 38\\nIn the Lists of Africanus, this king has his epoch-\\nreign only, to-wit, twenty-eight years, and, just as\\nthe remark appended to the epoch-reign of Menes\\nnow appears in the line originally given to Teta, the\\nremark attached to the epoch-reign of Nuter-achi now", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0129.jp2"}, "130": {"fulltext": "124 Self-Verifying Chronological\\nappears opposite to Toserthos. We can safely assume\\nthat Manetho mentioned the celebrated Step-pyra-\\nmid/ which is by far the largest of all the pyramids\\nof Sakkara, and the further fact that Nuterachi was\\nthe first king to build a pyramid in horizontal stages,\\nor steps. The remark now attached to the reign of\\nToserthos was certainly derived from this. I venture\\nthe prediction that, when Mena-Athothis established\\nthe kingdom over the united countries, about 4244\\nB. C, the civilization of ancient Egypt had already\\nattained its full perfection, and further, that this era\\nmarks the noonday, and not the dawn, of civilization.\\nSuch works as the damming of the western arm of\\nthe Nile, the foundation of Memphis, the hewing out\\nand sculpturing of the Great Sphinx, the building of\\nthe pyramids of Ka-kem, near Heliopolis, in connec-\\ntion with such buildings as the temple of Ptah at\\nMemphis, and the palaces of Menes, or Mneuis, at\\nMemphis and Heliopolis, are well authenticated his-\\ntorical facts, the evident meaning of which no fair-\\nminded critic can possibly misunderstand.\\nThe Pyramid Texts show that Isis, Hathor and\\nOsiris, Thoth, Ptah, Neith, Ra, Horus, Tum, Bast,\\nNut, Tef-nut, Min, and, in fact, the entire pantheon\\nof so-called deities, were prehistoric in other words,\\nthe Ach-i-u, or Manes, who preceded Mena, had per-\\nsonated and symbolized the various attributes of the\\nHidden God, whose name, if known, was never writ-\\nten or spoken, to whom no temples were built, and\\nof whom no image was ever made, but who was wor-\\nshiped in spirit and in silence alone.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0130.jp2"}, "131": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 125\\nMANETHO S SECOND AND THIRD\\nDYNASTIES\\nThese dynasties will be treated together, because,\\nafter the end of the three hundred and fifty years\\nof the first ten Thinite kings, they ruled contempo-\\nraneously, side by side, for two hundred and fourteen\\nor two hundred and fifteen years.\\nAs the First and Second Thinite Dynasties reigned\\nfive hundred and sixty-five years, that is, from 4244\\nB. C. to 3679 B. C, and as the 1,797 years of the\\nMemphite kings follow immediately after the three\\nhundred and fifty years of the ten Thinite kings\\nin Manetho s General Scheme, it follows, of course,\\nthat the last two hundred and fifteen years of the\\nSecond Dynasty were contemporary with the first two\\nhundred and fifteen years of the Memphite kings.\\nBearing this in mind, the reader will be better\\nable to appreciate a statement of Eusebius which has\\nlong puzzled Egyptologists. At the opening of his\\naccount of the Manethonian Dynasties this author\\nsays, We must remember that there were, perhaps\\nat one and the same time, several kings in Egypt,\\nadding, for we are told that the Thinites and Mem-\\nphites reigned simultaneously, and likewise the Ethi-\\nopians and the Saites, and others also. Moreover,\\nsome seemed to have reigned in one place, some in\\nanother, each dynasty being confined to its own prov-\\nince, so that several kings did not rule successively,\\nbut dififerent kings reigned at the same time in dif-\\nferent places. (Chronicon, Can. I, 20 3.)", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0131.jp2"}, "132": {"fulltext": "126 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nIt is easy to distinguish between the facts taken\\nfrom Manetho s work, either directly, or, what seems\\nmore probable, through Africanus, and the deduc-\\ntions drawn therefrom by Eusebius himself. We ex-\\npect to show the following contemporary dynasties:\\n1. Second Thinite and Third Memphite, .215 years\\n2. Seventh and Eighth Memphite, Ninth Herac-\\nleopolite, and Eleventh Theban, 148\\n3. Thirteenth Theban and Fourteenth Xoite, 242\\n4. Sixteenth Theban and Seventeenth Hyksos, 260\\n5. Twenty-fourth Saite and Twenty-fifth Etho-\\npian, 65\\nIt will be seen that Eusebius named the first\\nand last of these contemporaneous periods, to wit\\nThe Thinites and Memphites and the Ethiopians\\nand Saites, and merely referred to the others as\\nothers also. When he says: Some seem to have\\nreigned in one place, some in another, each dynasty\\nbeing confined to its own province, he referred to\\nthe period of one hundred and forty-eight years be-\\ntween the Sixth and Twelfth Dynasties, and the first\\ntwo hundred and fifty-one years of the Hyksos domi-\\nnation over Egypt. The celebrated inscription of the\\nEthiopian king, Pa-anchi, describes just such a con-\\ndition of affairs in Egypt, each nome, or province,\\nhaving its own local ruler, some of whom assumed\\nthe title of king. The division of the kingdom oc-\\ncurred in the eleventh year of the reign of King\\nBinothris, under whom, according to Manetho, the\\nlaw was established that females might obtain the\\nregal dignity. We must infer that his predecessor on\\nthe throne had no male issue, and that a disputed sue-", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0132.jp2"}, "133": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 127\\ncession was settled by allowing the crown to pass to\\nthe daughters of the deceased king. There are many\\ninstances, notably in the Eighteenth Dynasty, of the\\ncrown passing in the female line, in which cases the\\nhusband of the queen ruled in her right, and was,\\ntherefore, regarded as king.\\nThe fragments of the Turin papyrus contain-\\ning the names of the kings of this period, show that\\nthere were not only two, but even three, separate lines\\nof kings at this time, all of whom have the customary\\ntitle, King of the South and King of the North.\\nBefore comparing the various lists and tables of\\nthese contemporary lines, we will say a few words\\nabout the first kings of Manetho s Third Dynasty, in-\\nasmuch as all attempts to identify them with the actual\\nnames on the monuments must be pronounced dis-\\nmal failures.\\nI. NUTBR-ACHI, OR NKCHER-OCHIS\\nFragment forty-two of the Turin papyrus con-\\ntains a name which reads Nttter-achi, divine body.\\nIt was usual to abbreviate the names placed in the royal\\novals, and this name is not only abbreviated, but the\\nhieratic signs are placed in the most convenient po-\\nsitions, so that the horizontal sign for r appears under\\nthe horizontal sign for achi, and the two vertical blades\\nrepresenting the i of achi are behind the vertical\\nhatchet which here stands for the nu of nuter. When\\nwe once know that the name is Nttter-achi, there can\\nbe no further difficulty or doubt as to the correct\\nreading.\\nWe now request the reader to turn to the unar-", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0133.jp2"}, "134": {"fulltext": "128 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nranged names in Lepsius Book of Kings. No. 765\\nis our King Nuter-achi. The name here is so simple\\nthat it admits of no possible doubt. The i of achi is\\nwanting; but, as was the case with all the most ancient\\nkings, his Horus-title, his title as King of Upper and\\nLower Egypt, and his title as Lord of Diadems,\\nis simply Nuter-achi, In addition to this, we find\\nGolden Ra, which seems to be the Golden Horus\\nof later times.\\nThe first king of the Memphlte Dynasty, who be-\\ngan to reign 3894 B. C, judging from the form Bi-\\nnothris (which is a corrupted Binuthris), was Nuther-\\nochis. This name now appears as Necherophis\\nand Necherochis, forms which have been derived\\nfrom Nutherochis, unless Manetho really rendered it\\nNecherochis. The epoch of Choiak, 3884 B. C,\\nfell in the eleventh year of this king s reign, and, as\\nhis predecessor, Quehahu, built the Pyramids of Ko-\\nchome to mark the epoch of Athyr, 4004 B. C, we\\nare justified in assuming that Nuter-achi followed his\\nexample, and also constructed a pyramid to mark the\\nepoch of Choiak, 3884 B. C. Who has not read about\\nthe most venerable of all the extant pyramids, the\\nStep-Pyramid of Sakkara? Who is not aware that\\nmany eminent scholars, upon beholding the timeworn\\npile, were tempted to confound it with the Tower of\\nBabel? All know that it is, unlike the Pyramids of\\nGhizeh, immediately opposite the site of ancient\\nMemphis.\\nBut what will the reader say when he learns that\\naround the door which leads into the sepulchral cham-", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0134.jp2"}, "135": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 129\\nber of this pyramid, the name Nuter-achi appears re-\\npeated over and over again. There can be no doubt\\nthat this pyramid, rising in successive stages to the\\napex, is the tomb of the first king of the Memphite\\nDynasties, and that it was erected, as a witness to\\nfuture ages, to mark the great astronomical epoch\\n3884 B. C. Is it a wonder that this spot was con-\\nsidered to be peculiarly sacred by after-generations,\\nand became a favorite place of sepulture? The sub-\\nterranean galleries under this pyramid are so exten-\\nsive, and constitute such a maze, that it would be\\ndangerous for any tourist to venture into, them with-\\nout a thoroughly competent and experienced guide.\\nUnder Nuter-achi the Libyans revolted from\\nEgypt, but made their submission on account of a\\nsudden increase in the moon s size, which terrified\\nthem. No doubt this sudden change in the moon s ap-\\npearance was owing to an eclipse, and I hope some\\nastronomer will take the trouble to ascertain, and in-\\nform us, just when this eclipse took place between\\nthe years 3894 B. C. and 3856 B. C. Nuter-achi\\nworked the mines in the Sinaitic peninsula, as shown\\nby his inscription in that region. Thus the first king\\nof the Third Memphite Dynasty was powerful enough\\nto hold the Libyans and the peninsula of Sinai in sub-\\njection.\\n2. SA-ZOSERT, SESORTHOS, TOSORTHROS\\nThe successor of Nuter-achi, on fragment forty-\\ntwo of the Turin papyrus, was Sa-zosert. Of course,\\nthe *V* of this name represents Hs and was long\\nafterwards rendered sometimes H sometimes", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0135.jp2"}, "136": {"fulltext": "I30 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nAfricanus has Toserthros, while Eusebius has Sesor-\\nthos. Manetho probably had Setoserthos, for he\\nrendered Zoser-teta Tosertasis. I know of no in-\\nstance in the Turin papyrus in which the sign for\\nZoser* is written phonetically, as in the Pyramid\\nTexts, but the latter show unmistakably that the sign\\nwas pronounced Zoser. Hence the a of Sa-zoserty\\nin the papyrus, is an integral part of the name, as still\\nshown by Sesorthos. The extra r of Soserthros in-\\ndicates that there was an r near the end of the name.\\nAll these indications point to Setoserthos. It may\\nbe that Tosertasis, following so close after this name,\\nhad something to do with the loss of the initial Se,\\nSo much for the name itself.\\nThe reigns of Binothris and Necherochis closed\\nabout the same time, which goes to show that they\\nwere intimately connected. Ufnas, of the Thinite line,\\nand Sazosert, of the Memphite line, ascended the\\nthrone about the same time, and reigned side by side\\nfor seventeen years. This fact sheds some light on\\nthe name of the eighth king in the list of Eratosthenes.\\nIt now reads Ogdoos Gosormies, a strange cor-\\nruption of the original Otnos Tosorthos. This\\nreign, in Eratosthenes, is thirty years. Manetho gives\\nSoserthos twenty-nine years. Both may be equally\\ncorrect. Necherochis reigned twenty-eight years after\\nthe epoch 3884 B. C. As this is a round number, we\\ncan not tell how the extra months and days were ap-\\nportioned. Binothris reigned, in years, twenty be-\\nfore, and twenty-seven after, the epoch 3884 B. C.\\nNow 28+29\u00e2\u0080\u009427+30.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0136.jp2"}, "137": {"fulltext": "Hi ST OR Y OF Ancient Eg ypt i 3 1\\nWhat we wish to demonstrate is that the first four\\nkings of Manetho s Third Dynasty belong to the line\\nset forth on fragment forty-two of the papyrus, and\\nthat the fifth and sixth kings, Soyphis and Tosertasis,\\nwere taken from a different line, named on fragment\\neighteen of the papyrus, where they are preceded by\\nNofer-ka-sokariy Huzefa, Zaza-iy and Neh-ka. The\\nTable of Abydus, after the eight kings of the First\\nDynasty, honors Buzau^ Ka-kau, Ba-n-nuter, Utnas,\\nand Senda, who are the first five kings of Manetho s\\nSecond Dynasty. After Senda, however, it leaves the\\nThinite line, and takes up Zaza-i, Nebka, Zoser-sa-uf\\n(Soyphis), and Zoser-teta (Tosertasis). There is noth-\\ning extraordinary about this after we know that these\\nthree separate lines, each of which was regarded as\\nequally legitimate, reigned contemporaneously. As\\nthey were all related, and no doubt intermarried, sub-\\nsequent kings of Egypt could, with equal propriety,\\nselect their ancestors out of either line. It seems that\\nSenoferu, the first king of the Fourth Dynasty, united\\nin his person the claims of all three lines. Thus the\\nthree lines which proceeded from Kaiechos, the last\\nof Manetho s ten Thinite kings, were again united\\nafter two hundred and fifteen years, in the person of\\nSenoferu, who became a Memphite king. In the tomb\\nof Sheri we find the names of Senda and Person, either\\nas joint-rulers or successive kings. As Person was\\nnot a Thinite or Memphite king, he must have be-\\nlonged to the third line.\\nTosertasis was a celebrated epoch-king, Vi/ hose\\nreign commenced 3764 B. C. His predecessor, Soy-", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0137.jp2"}, "138": {"fulltext": "132 History of Ancient Egypt\\nphis, was distinguished in the papyrus by having his\\nname displayed in red ink, and placed at the head of\\na new section. This was because his reign extended\\ndown to the beginning of the epoch of Tybi, which\\nwas also the beginning of a new season and Phoenix\\nperiod.\\nThe sixth king in the list of Eratosthenes, Mom-\\ncheiri Memphites, with a reign of seventy-nine years,\\nis one of the best examples of how careless copyists\\nhave mutilated the original names. Menes is termed\\nThinites; hence Memphites indicates that a part\\nof this long reign, at least, belongs to a Memphite\\nking. Eratosthenes joined Utnas and Toserthos;\\nhence he must have had Necherochis also, because\\nMemphites could have applied to no other Mem-\\nphite king. It follows that Eratosthenes amalgamated\\nthe reigns of Kaiechos, of the Thinite line, and Ne-\\ncherochis, of the Memphite Hne, estimating the two\\nat seventy-nine years. This procedure on the part of\\nEratosthenes adds great weight to the theory that\\nKaiechos died without male issue, and that, after ten\\nyears, the disputed succession was settled by allowing\\nthe crown to descend to his three daughters, each of\\nwhom received a certain part of the kingdom. Bino-\\nthris and Necherochis each reigned in the right of\\none of these daughters. It is to be hoped that some\\nfortunate discovery may yet shed additional light on\\nthis interesting period of Egyptian history. In the\\nfollowing table the kings of these lines are placed in\\nparallel columns", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0138.jp2"}, "139": {"fulltext": "vO\\nCOM OnC/1\\n00\\nM ChCn\\n-f^w\\n(0 w\\n(T)\\nSoyphis\\nTosertas\\nAches\\nSethosis\\nS2.\\nSethenes\\nChaires\\nNepherc\\nCjW\\n03\\nft\\n03\\nw\\n!x\\n03*\\n03\\nH\\n01\\nm\\nr^\\n03\\nr^\\nZoser-sa-(\\n(Zoser)tet\\nSezos\\nr+ P\\nH\\nWW\\np c\\nsi\\n03 O\\n3\\nP3 J3\\n\u00e2\u0080\u00a2-i\\nIl\\ns?w\\nN\\nw^\\nZ\\nfT o o\\ni.\\n1?\\n7\\nr* P\\n03 pj\\np 2\\nPI Cd\\nS Si\\np\\nK\\nC\\na*\\nW t^\\ne\\np\\n03\\nA\\ns\\nO\\np\\nP\\nU-\\nNeb-k\\nZoser-\\nZoser-\\nHuni\\nSenof\\n1?\\nBa-n-ii\\nUtnas\\nSenda\\nNuter-\\nF\\n^1^\\nC 7 5^\\nH\\ngo. i\\n-1\\n\u00e2\u0080\u00a2=1.\\n(3\\nF\\nKi\\nH\\nt\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\n^g\\n^n\\nr?\\n1\\n2.\\n03 7\\n(D p\\n7 o t^\\n*5t\\nvO\\nOOM ONCn\\n-ii.(jj\\nto M\\nW\\nOTJ^Kjm\\ng^\\nM\\nn)\\nrt o o o\\nfD^\\nP n)\\n\u00e2\u0096\u00ba3\\nft\\n?-2^\\ncii\\n03 VI\\n4.\\na\\nH\\nrt\\n03\\n03\\nG\\ng\\nog\\np^\\nP\\nG o\\nC3 O\\nn\\n\u00c2\u00a7g\\nr 1\\n03\\n03\\no o\\n03 CT*\\n5\\no 2.\\nW\\nS\\ngj\\ns\\nSU\\nrt\\n03\\n133", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0139.jp2"}, "140": {"fulltext": "134 Self- Verifying Chronological\\nThe Table of Abydus, which has come down to\\nus in almost perfect preservation, and certainly re-\\nceived the sanction and approval of Seti I, one of the\\ngreatest kings that ever ruled over Egypt, must be\\naccepted as the best evidence attainable at that time,\\nabout 1584 B. C. The inscription over the seventy-\\nsix names, coupled with the representation of Seti and\\nhis infant son, Ramesses, at the left side of the table,\\nshows that the king and his son were doing homage\\nto their distinguished ancestors (uahu-chet), who\\nhad been Suten Buti, that is, King of the South and\\nKing of the North. When we consider that no king\\nof the Eleventh, Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Sixteenth,\\nor Seventeenth Dynasties was admitted to this list,\\nw^e are driven to the conclusion that it contains such\\n/I\\nonly as ruled over the original Land of Anu, or\\nTa-dn-nut, and no others. The fact that nine kings\\nappear in the table between Kaiechos and Senoferu\\n(the exact number of Manetho s Third Dynasty)\\nshows that this period differed radically from the\\nothers just referred to. The conditions were such\\nthat Binothris could be enrolled as king of Upper\\nand Lower Egypt, notwithstanding the more power-\\nful reign of Necherochis at Memphis. Are we not\\ncompelled to assume that these kings ruled jointly,\\nand were of equal dignity? The successor of Sa-\\nzosert, or Sesorthos, in Manetho s Third Dynasty,\\nis Tyres. The corresponding name on fragment\\nforty-seven of the papyrus is destroyed. Eratosthenes\\ncalls this king Mares, translated Heliodorus, and\\ngives him a reign of twenty-six years. The Egyptian", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0140.jp2"}, "141": {"fulltext": "Hi ST OR V OF Ancient Eg ypt 135\\nfor Heliodorus is Mer-ra, pronounced in Manetho s\\ntime Mei-re. Tyres, therefore, should be Myres, and\\nthe seven years assigned to him should be twenty-\\nseven. The fragments of the papyrus belonging to\\nthis period show many names beginning with mer;\\nfor example, Mer-hapen, Mer-sokari, etc., so that no\\nobjection can be urged to the form Mer-ra. Manetho\\nrenders Mersokari Mesochris, which makes the\\nform Meires, or Myres, very probable.\\nThe following changes have been made in the\\nAfricanian list of the Third Dynasty\\n1. Necherochis, whose reign was, thirty-eight\\nyears, now has the twenty-eight years of his epoch-\\nreign, which are equivalent to the twenty-seven years\\nof the epoch-reign of Binothris.\\n2. Tyres, Myres, or Mares, now has seven years\\nonly, although his reign was twenty-seven years.\\nEratosthenes gave Sesorthos thirty and Mares\\ntwenty-six years. Manetho gave them respectively\\ntwenty-nine and twenty-seven years.\\n3. Soyphis now has the six years of Tosertasis,\\nsince increased to sixteen, to balance the ten years\\ntaken from Necherochis.\\n4. Tosertasis has the nineteen years of Soyphis.\\n5. Aches, who reigned twenty-two years, now has\\nforty-two years, to balance the twenty years deducted\\nfrom the reign of Mares.\\nThe epitomists knew that the total of this dynasty\\nwas two hundred and fourteen years, and, after the\\nreigns of Necherochis and Tyres had been reduced\\nto twenty-eight and seven years respectively, under-", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0141.jp2"}, "142": {"fulltext": "136 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\ntook to correct the errors and make the reigns foot\\nup two hundred and fourteen years, by adding ten\\nyears to the reign of Soyphis and twenty years to the\\nreign of Aches.\\nSoyphis (Sa-uf-u) appears in the list of Eratos-\\nthenes as Anoyphis, with a reign of twenty years.\\nAnoyphis comes from a careless copyist, who mis-\\ntook the final syllable of ebasilevtsen for the first\\nsyllable of Soyphis, which followed immediately\\nafter it. In the list of Eratosthenes all the kings are\\nexpressly termed Theban, that is to say, kings who\\nruled over the Thebais. Now, since we have shown\\nthat the kings of the Third Dynasty ruled contempo-\\nraneously with the Thinite kings, it is signiicant that\\nthe Memphite and not the Thinite kings were regarded\\nas Thehan kings, because it shows that the Thinite\\nkings reigned in the Delta, and not between Memphis\\nand Thebes.\\nThe lists of Manetho and Eratosthenes compare\\nas follows:\\nManetho. Eratosthenes.\\nKaiechos, 39^\\nBinothris, 10 r Momcheiri Memphites, 79\\nNecherochis, 38 J Stoichos, 6\\nToserthos, 29 Otnoos Tosermies, 30\\nTyres, 27 Mares, 26\\nSoyphis, 19 Soyphis, 20\\nAches, 22 Chnubos Gneuros, 22\\nAs nothing but fragments of the list of Eratos-\\nthenes have come down to us, the perfect agreement\\nof the foregoing series is certainly remarkable.\\nThe Table of Abydus has Sezos and Nofer-kara", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0142.jp2"}, "143": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 137\\nbetween Zoserteta and Senoferu, and Neh-ka-f before\\nSoyphis, while the Table of Sakkara has Neb-ka-ra\\nafter Tosertasis.\\nThe form Neh-ka-f, literally the Lord, his Ka,\\nlike User-ka-f, which Manetho converted into User-\\nka-ra and rendered Usercheres, is equivalent to\\nNeb-ka-ra, ra being understood. It Is even possible\\nthat ra was inserted in all these names at a later period.\\nI believe that Neb-ka, Neb-ka-f, and Neb-ka-ra of the\\npapyrus and tables stand for one and the same king.\\nIf this be true, it is possible that an error was made\\nas far back as Seti s time in the transition from the\\nThinite to the Memphite line, immediately after King\\nSenda, for, as we have already shown, Senda belonged\\nto one line, and Zazai, Nebka, Zoser-sauf, and Zoser-\\nteta to another. What is most essential, the chronol-\\nogy of the period has not been afifected, but is as cer-\\ntain as could be wished. The Second and Third Dy-\\nnasties both end, in the Sothiac series, at 3679 B. C,\\nas the following table will show\\nThinites. Memphites.\\nBpocli of Athyr, 4004 B. C.\\nUen-nepliis, 23\\n3981 B. C.\\nBoetlaos, 38\\n3943 B. C.\\nKaiechos, 39 Third Dynasty, 3894 B. C.\\n3904 B. C.\\nBinothris, before Necherochis, be-\\nepoch, 20 fore epocb, 10\\nB. C. 3884 B. C.", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0143.jp2"}, "144": {"fulltext": "138\\nA Self- Verifying Chronological\\nBrought forward, 3884 B. C.\\nBinothris, after\\nepoch, 27\\n3857 B. C.\\nUtnas, 17\\nNecherochis, after\\nepoch,\\nSesorthos,\\nSethenes,\\n3840 B. C.\\n41\\nMyres,\\n3799 B. C.\\nChaires, 17\\nNephercheres, be-\\nfore epoch,\\nNephercheres, af-\\nter epoch,\\nSesochris,\\nCheneres,\\n3782\\n19\\n3763 B. C.\\n3757 B. C.\\n48\\n3709 B. C.\\n30\\n3679 B. C.\\nMesochris,\\nSoyphis,\\nepoch,\\nTosertasis,\\nepoch.\\nAches,\\nbefore\\n3884 B. C.\\n28\\n3856 B. C.\\n29\\n3827 B. C.\\n27\\n3800 B. C.\\n17\\n3783 B. C.\\n19\\n3764 B. C.\\nafter\\nSethosis,\\nKerpheres,\\n3758 B. C.\\n22\\n3736 B. C.\\n30\\n3706 B. C.\\n26\\n3680 B. C.\\nWe now see what an irreparable loss science has\\nsustained by reason of the accident to the Turin\\npapyrus, which was a complete list of the kings of\\nEgypt from the first king, Menes, down to the Eigh-\\nteenth Dynasty, giving their reigns in years, months,\\nand days. It was in perfect preservation when dis-\\ncovered, but the unfortunate owner seems to have\\nhad no appreciation of its value or importance. The\\nfragments which have been recovered are often ag-\\ngravatingly small, and the names are sometimes de-", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0144.jp2"}, "145": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 139\\nstroyed and lost where they are most needed. How\\nwe should like to know who preceded Huni, and who\\nfollowed Nuter-kay in the papyrus to which line Sezos\\nbelonged, etc. The papyrus no doubt explained all\\nthis satisfactorily. We are, therefore, yet in the dark\\nas to how the first four kings of the Third Dynasty,\\nchosen from one line, and the remaining kings, taken\\nfrom another and separate line, could all have ranked\\nas Memphite kings.\\nBefore leaving these dynasties, we can not refrain\\nfrom noticing certain opinions expressed by Maspero\\nin his latest work, The Dawn of Civilization, which\\nare necessarily entitled to much weight on account\\nof his eminence as an Egyptologist. He says, on page\\n236, in effect, that the immediate successors of Mena\\nhave but a semblance of reality such as he had\\nThe lists give the order of succession, it is true,\\nwith the years of their reigns almost to a day, some-\\ntimes the length of their lives, but we may well ask\\nwhence the chroniclers procured so much precise in-\\nformation. They w^ere in the same position as our-\\nselves with regard to these ancient kings; they knew\\nthem by a tradition of a later age, by a fragment of\\npapyrus fortuitously preserved in a temple, by acci-\\ndentally coming across some monument bearing their\\nnames, and were reduced, as we are, to put together-\\nthe few facts which they possessed, or to supply such as\\nwere wanting, by conjectures, often in a very improb-\\nable manner. It is quite possible that they were able to\\ngather from the memory of the past the names of those\\nindividuals of which they made up the first two Thinite\\nDynasties. The forms of these names are curt and\\nrugged, and indicative of a rude and savage state.", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0145.jp2"}, "146": {"fulltext": "I40 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nharmonizing with the semi-barbaric period to which\\nthey are relegated Ati, the Wrestler Teti, the Run-\\nner; Quenqoni, the Crusher, are suitable rulers for\\na people, the first duty of whose chief was to lead his\\nfollowers into battle, and to strike harder than any\\nother man in the thickest of the fight.\\nWhere Manetho inscribes Kenkenes and Uen-\\nnephis, the tables of the time of Seti I give us Ati and\\nAta Manetho reckons nine kings to the Second Dy-\\nnasty, while they register only five. We must,\\ntherefore, take the record of all this opening period\\nof history for what it is, namely, a system invented\\nat a much later date, by means of various artifices and\\ncombinations, to be partially accepted in default of a\\nbetter, but without according to it that excessive con-\\nfidence which it has hitherto received. The two Thin-\\nite Dynasties, in direct descent from the fabulous\\nMenes, furnish, like this hero himself, only a tissue of\\nromantic tales and miraculous legends in the place of\\nhistory.\\nWe might quote pages, and even chapters, in the\\nsame strain, but the above will serve as an example.\\nWe read and wonder how one of the most distin-\\nguished interpreters of the hieroglyphic inscriptions\\nof the ancient Egyptians could have developed into\\nsuch an agnostic as to the history, literature, and civil-\\nization of the people to whom he has devoted the best\\nenergies of his life. It is true that the Turin papyrus\\nis now reduced to a number of mutilated and uncon-\\nnected fragments, but it does not follow therefrom\\nthat the ancient Egyptians of the times of Aahmes and\\nSeti I were in the same position as ourselves with\\nregard to these ancient kings, or that they knew", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0146.jp2"}, "147": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 141\\nthem by a fragment of papyrus fortuitously preserved\\nin a temple. The fact that the Turin papyrus,\\nwhich dates, according to Maspero, from the reign of\\nSeti I, or, as I am convinced, from the beginning of\\nthe Eighteenth Dynasty, where it closes, survived the\\ncountless vicissitudes of time and the destructive\\nhand of man, and reached us in a perfect state of\\npreservation, alone negatives the idea that the ancient\\nEgyptians themselves depended on fragments of papy-\\nrus, or accidental monuments bearing the names of\\nkings. In Egypt, where the rocks to-day con-\\ntain inscriptions which can be estimated by the square\\nmile, there was never a time when the temples, tombs,\\nand even private houses, were not full of writings of\\nall kinds bearing on the early history of Egypt. We\\nare told that the forms of these names are curt and\\nrugged, and indicative of a rude and savage state, and\\nin order to prove the assertion, the author invents\\nthe name Quenqoni, the Crusher. Unfortunately\\nfor himself, he gives us, on the opposite page, a pic-\\nture of the stela in the form of a door from the tomb\\nof Sheri. In the first place, there never was such a\\nname as Quenqoni, the Crusher. In the second\\nplace, no king of these dynasties bore the name\\nQuenqoni. In the third place, King Atoth, not\\nAti, the Wrestler, assumed the epoch-title Ken-ken,\\nVery Brave, which was not at all rude or savage,\\nbut so refined and emblematic that I fear this enlight-\\nened generation itself will have much difficulty in\\ngrasping and fully understanding it.\\nThese names, including Uennephis, are said to har-", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0147.jp2"}, "148": {"fulltext": "142 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nmonize with the semi-barbaric period. When we real-\\nize that Uon-nofeTy the Perfect Being, the Perfect\\nOne, was one of the titles of Osiris, and that Osiris\\nwas the symbol and personation of everything that\\nwas good and perfect, and that no other nation ever\\nhad such a symbol, we are compelled to admit that,\\ninstead of being rude and barbaric, the civilization\\nof this period has never seen its equal, except in true\\nideal Christianity. Why does the learned author omit\\nthe ndiXnt Mena from those characterized as curt and\\nrugged? This name, which has become a household\\nword in every civilized nation on earth, contains, in\\nitself y a refutation of the charge, which is crushing\\nand decisive. If the defamers of Egyptian civilization\\nwould take the time to translate and analyze Mena s\\nepoch-title, Athothis-Hermogenes, Offspring of\\nThoth/ that is, offspring of the symbol of learning and\\nwisdom, and bear in mind that this same Thoth is\\nrepresented in the mines of Sinai as conferring upon\\nChufu II the power to overcome the barbarous\\nMentiu, they would hide their heads in shame. What\\nis there rude or savage, or even semi-barbaric, on the\\nstele from Sheri s tomb of King Senda s time? Sheri\\nhimself is represented with the head, features, and\\nequally-developed brain of a civilized man. It is true\\nhis costume is like that worn by Adam in the Garden\\nof Eden, but this is simply one of many facts going\\nto prove that Egypt was the Garden of Eden for such\\na costume, worn alike by king, noble, and priest in\\nEgypt, was, from the beginning of history, a physical\\nimpossibility in Babylonia or Assyria. Sheri has not", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0148.jp2"}, "149": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 143\\nfastened to his waist the sword or dagger of semi-\\ncivilized man, but he holds in his hand the peaceful\\nstaff of office, which Maspero himself tells us was\\na symbol of command which only the nobles and the\\nofHcials associated with the nobility could carry with-\\nout transgressing custom.\\nThe inscriptions on this stela, which include the\\novals of Senda and Person, show that the language,\\narts, and sciences of the Egyptians were already fully\\ndeveloped at this early date. The king himself bears\\nthe title Hon-nuter, Servant of God, a title more\\neloquent and convincing than volumes of so-called\\nscientific and priestly lore, grander and more sublime\\nthan any ever since borne by king or potentate, and\\nyet so refined and highly civilized that it must have\\nbeen an heirloom from primitive perfect man, handed\\ndown from the Golden Age. This same agnosticism,\\nfalsely called science, assumed that Osiris was un-\\nknown in the Old Empire, and, basing itself upon this\\nassumption, claimed that the cofifin of Menkaura was\\nthe work of a later age, because the inscription on its\\nlid contained the name of Osiris. As Thoth is pic-\\ntured on an early monument of the Eourth Dynasty,\\ntrue science would have assumed that the people who\\nhad symbolized Wisdom, and (as shown by other mon-\\numents) the Truth, the Way, and the Life, had also\\nsymbolized, or personated, Good and Evil. In fact,\\nthe supposed gods, triads, great enneads, and\\nlittle enneads, of Maspero, were not gods at all,\\nbut simply symboHzations and allegorical persona-\\ntions of divine attributes. Since the inscriptions in", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0149.jp2"}, "150": {"fulltext": "144 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nthe pyramids of Unas, Tela, Meri-ra, etc., have been\\ndiscovered and published, we know that Osiris and\\nIsis, Hathor, Seth, and Nephthis, Neith, Anubis, Seb\\nand Nut, Num, Horus, Ra, Turn, Thoth, Amen, Muth,\\nand all the other so-called gods or deities, were as\\nwell known in the Old Empire as they were at any\\nlater period.\\nIn the same way, it is claimed, with as little reason,\\nthat the Stela of Cheops Daughter was the work\\nof a later age.\\nZOSER-SA-UF AND ZOSKR-TETA\\nMaspero translates, and discusses in the same vein,\\nan inscription on a rock in the Island of Sehel, dis-\\ncovered by Wilbour in 1890. This inscription is at-\\ntributed to Zoser-sa-uf, called Zosiri by Maspero, and\\nTosertasis by Pleyte, and sets forth that, in the eigh-\\nteenth year of his reign, he sent to the governor of\\nElephantine a message couched in these terms: I\\nam overcome with sorrow for the throne, and for\\nthose who reside in the palace, and my heart is afflicted\\nand suffers greatly because the Nile has not risen in\\nmy time for the space of eight years. Corn is scarce,\\nthere is a lack of herbage, and nothing is left to eat\\nwhen one calls on his neighbors for help, they take\\npains not to go. The child weeps, the young man is\\nuneasy, the hearts of the old men are in despair, their\\nlimbs are bent, they crouch on the earth, they fold\\ntheir hands the courtiers have no further resources\\nthe shops formerly furnished with rich wares are now\\nempty, all that was in them has disappeared. My", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0150.jp2"}, "151": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 145\\nspirit also, mindful of the beginning of things, seeks to\\ncall upon the Saviour who was here where I am, during\\nthe centuries of the gods, upon Thoth, the great wise\\none upon Imhotep, son of Ptah, of Memphis. Where\\nis the place in which the Nile was born? Who is the\\ngod or goddess concealed there? What is his Hke-\\nness? (Dawn of Civilization, pages 240 and 241.) The\\ngovernor of Elephantine repaired to King Soyphis,\\ndescribed the situation of the island, the rocks of the\\ncataract, the phenomena of the inundation, and the\\ngods who presided over it, and alone could relieve\\nEgypt from her disastrous plight. After this Soyphis,\\nor Tosertasis, went to Elephantine and offered the\\nprescribed sacrifices in the temple of Num.\\nMaspero says this inscription shows us with what\\nease the scribes could forge official documents. It\\nteaches us at the same time how that fabulous chron-\\nicle was elaborated, whose remains have been pre-\\nserved for us by classical writers. Every prodigy,\\nevery fact related by Manetho, was taken from some\\ndocument analagous to the supposed inscription of\\nZosiri.\\nAgain we pause in blank amazement. No matter\\nwhen the inscription itself was engraved in the rock,\\nthe subject matter, name of the king, and style of the\\ntext mark it as genuine.\\nAfter Zoser-sa-uf had reigned nineteen years (the\\npapyrus seemingly gives him nineteen years, two\\nmonths, and four days) as Soyphis, the Saviour,\\nthe Sothiac month of Choiak came to an end and the\\nepoch of Tybi, 3764 B. C, commenced. Unless he\\n10", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0151.jp2"}, "152": {"fulltext": "146 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\ndied about this exact time, Zoser-teta, Tosertasis, is\\nbut another title for this king, re-born and re-\\ncrowned on the first day of the new month and new\\nseason, 3764 B. C. For this reason, his name was\\ndisplayed in the papyrus, and for this reason, perhaps,\\nhe is termed Teta only in the Table of Abydus.\\nThe inscription, as translated by Maspero himself,\\nrelates that in the eighteenth year of Zoser-sauf the\\nNile had not risen for eight years, and that the mes-\\nsage to the governor of Elephantine was sent in this\\nyear. It is evident that the text is allegorical, and re-\\nfers to the coming epoch, which was determined by\\nthe heliacal rising of Sothis on the first day of Tybi.\\nThe allusions to the beginning of things, and the\\nSaviour (Sa-uf-u), who was there where he was,\\nduring the centuries of the gods, is a play upon\\nhis own name, Soyphis. There may be a deep signifi-\\ncance in this Saviour, who was there at the begin-\\nning of things. Joseph s title, Saph-nath-pa-aneah,\\ncontains the same element, Sa-uf, or Saviour, and\\nis, in pure Egyptian, Sauf-na-ta-pa-anchu, Saviour of\\nthe world, (lit. Saviour of the Eand of the Living\\nThe preposition n or en, of, Is the only element of\\nthe title that requires any explanation. In the New\\nEmpire this n, in certain positions, became na, as in\\nMenophthah, which is Mer-na-ptah, Beloved by\\nPtah. In the pyramid of Pepa I (Pyramid Texts,\\nPepa I, line 90), e. g., we find Seper na Pepa er pet,\\ninstead of Se-per en Pepa er pet In Lower Egypt\\nt was often pronounced like th, which, with na, would\\ngive us ^Saf-na-tha-pa-anchu In the spoken dialect,", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0152.jp2"}, "153": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 147\\ntha degenerated into the (comp. Ta-anu and The-dnu)\\nso that Saf-na-the-pa-anech gave birth to Saf-nath-\\npa-aneah. The development of nath from nathe, and\\nnathe from natha, is demonstrated by such analagous\\nforms as Phathmetic, Phathmeht, etc. We read of\\nthe Phathmetic arm of the Nile. Now Phathmeht\\ncomes naturally enough from Pa-ta-meht, or Pa-ta-\\nan-het, The Land of the North (Ht. The Land at\\nthe Head and the nath of Safnath dififers in no re-\\nspect from the Phath of Phathmeht. In both in-\\nstances, ta or tha has been reduced to th. But we are\\nnow concerned with Sa-uf, which afterwards became\\nSaf. I see in the name Joseph, the ancient Egyp-\\ntian prototype lo-sa-uf. The lo-nim-u, or lonians, are\\nmentioned in the pyramid of Teta as dwelling beyond\\nthe second great turn {shin-Mr) of the Mediterranean\\nSea Uas-ur in the great circuit of the Sea, that\\nis, in the same locality where we find them at the\\nopening of Grecian history. Maspero renders the\\nname Hau-nibu/ which means all the lonians, or\\nthe lonians collectively. The name lo-petu, or la-petu,\\nthat is, the foreign /a, who were settled in the north-\\nwestern angle of the Delta around Rakotis (Per-\\nkodesu), is the original of the well-known name,\\nJapheth. It is interesting to note that the eight years\\nof a deficient Nile under Soyphis correspond very\\nclosely to the seven years of a low Nile under the\\nPharaoh who conferred on lo-sa-uf the title of Sa-\\nuf-na-ta-pa-anch. The contemporary epoch-king of\\nSoyphis was Nephercheres of the Second Dynasty.\\nThe two reigns began at the same time, and the epoch,", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0153.jp2"}, "154": {"fulltext": "148 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\n2,7^4- B. C, fell in the twentieth year of Nephercheres.\\nThe remark (ascribed to Manetho) attached to the\\nreign of this king, in the lists, that under Nephercheres\\nthe Nile flowed with honey for eleven days, is alle-\\ngorical, or symbolical, and must not be taken liter-\\nally. When Maspero says: Every prodigy, every\\nfact related by Manetho, was taken from some docu-\\nment analogous to the suposed inscription of Zosiri,\\nhe, no doubt, refers to the above and to such prodigies\\nas Menes being devoured by a hippopotamus, Ach-\\nthoes being devoured by a crocodile, Osorthon being\\ncalled the Egyptian Hercules, Rocchoris being burnt\\nalive by Sabakon, etc., all of which are undoubtedly\\nsymbolical. These supposed prodigies have become\\nsuch by being misunderstood and perverted. The\\nhippopotamus of Menes, and the crocodile of Ach-\\nthoes, were not at all dangerous or destructive in\\nthe literal sense, for the one merely devoured a Sothiac\\nyear, the other a Sothiac month; neither was the\\nrohk-ur, or great heat, of Em-Mr, 724 B. C, at all\\ninjurious to Sethon, the supposed Bocchoris; for he\\nreigned, as subject-king under the Ethiopians, for\\nthirty-eight years after this epoch. On the contrar}^\\nsuch point-blank assertions are very unjust to Man-\\netho and the native monuments translated by him. It\\nshould always be borne in mind that the lists which\\nhave come down to us, and the isolated and fragment-\\nary notes to be found in them, were not his zvork;\\nfor we know, from the statement of Josephus, that it\\nwas a history in three books, and, as the first book\\nended in the seventeenth year of Amenemes I, it cer-", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0154.jp2"}, "155": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 149\\ntainly contained a great mass of valuable information\\nabout the kings of the Old Empire, other than the\\nmeager notes preserved in the lists. The men who\\nextracted the Hsts (to judge from these notes) were\\nlooking for prodigies, and, thanks to this weak-\\nness on their part, handed down and preserved some\\nscientific facts of great value. The most impartial\\nwitness in a case of this kind is one who is utterly\\noblivious to the meaning of the notices copied. If\\nthe meaning of such titles as Athothis, Kenkenes,\\nUennepher, Psamuthis, Amyrtaios, Rokchoris, etc.,\\nand such symbols as the crocodile, hippopotamus,\\nlamb, etc., had been understood by the early epito-\\nmists, they would never have reached us.\\nEPOCH-KINGS OF THE THIRD DYNASTY\\nThere were but two Sothiac epochs during the\\nthree hundred and two years of the Second Dynasty,\\nthe last two hundred and fourteen of which were con-\\ntemporary with the Third Dynasty, to wit the epoch\\nof Choiahk, 3884 B. C, and the epoch of Tybi, 3764\\nB. C. The first of Choiahk marked the first appear-\\nance {pir-top) of Horus above the equator, or In the\\nnorthern hemisphere. At this time, according to the\\nold notion, his body, achet, had attained its full growth\\nand vigor, although his intellect was not supposed to\\nattain its full development and perfection until the\\nfirst of Phamenoth. Nether-ochis, or Nuter-achi, seems\\nto be the epoch-title of the first Memphite King, for\\nit certainly relates to this body of Horus.\\nAs we have seen, the lists now give Netherochis", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0155.jp2"}, "156": {"fulltext": "I50 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nthe twenty-eight years of his epoch-reign only, al-\\nthough he reigned from 3894 to 3856 B. C, or thirty-\\neight years altogether. His contemporary of the\\nThe-anute line, at Heliopolis, was Ba-n-nuter, that is,\\nSoul of God, or Divine Soul, and it is startling\\nto find in ancient Egypt at this time a recognition\\nof one of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity\\nas taught and explained by Paul; that is, the doctrine\\nthat each human being, while living on this globe,\\nhas, in addition to his material body, a spiritual body\\nand a soul, corresponding to the achet, ka, and ba of\\nthe ancient Egyptians. But I must reserve this im-\\nportant subject for some future work. Coming back\\nto the great Step-pyramid of Sakkara, which was\\nerected by this king to mark the epoch, 3884 B. C.\\nas yet it had not become the fashion for every king\\nto build a pyramid for his last resting-place the titles\\nof Nuter-achi appear above and on either side of the\\ndoorway of the sepulchral chamber. In the center of\\nthe facing of the doorway is the symbol 2ed, some-\\ntimes written ded, tat, etc., and on either side of it\\nthe titles, King of the South and King of the North,\\nEord of Diadems, Nuter-achi.^\\nOn the facing on each side of the doorway, re-\\npeated eight times, is the Horus-title, ^^Har-Nnter-\\nachi. It is significant that all the titles alike are\\nsimply Nuter-achi, for this in itself is a positive proof\\nthat Nuter-achi was far more ancient than Senoferii,\\nwhose Horus-title was Neh-maat. This king held and\\nworked the mines in the peninsula of Sinai. The\\nLibyans, who had been reduced to submission by", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0156.jp2"}, "157": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 151\\nMenes, took advantage of the division of the king-\\ndom to raise the standard of revolt, but v^ere fright-\\nened into submission by an eclipse of the sun or moon.\\nAs this remark is attached to the reign of Necherochis,\\nit might be inferred that he also held the district lying\\non the v^est bank of the Canopic arm of the Nile; if\\nso, Binothris v^as restricted to the Delta proper.\\nAs we have seen, the division of the kingdom took\\nplace in the year 3894 B. C, after Binothris had\\nreigned ten years, and I am now convinced (1898)\\nthat it was an amicable division made to settle a dis-\\nputed succession, owing to the fact that Kaiechos\\ndied without leaving male issue. As the rights of\\neach line derived from the daughters of Kaiechos\\nwere equal, it was, in fact, a dual kingdom, both kings\\nassuming the throne-title, King of the South and\\nKing of the North. Thus the reigns of Binothris\\nand Netherochis ran parallel for thirty-eight years,\\nand seem to end at the same time. It follows that\\nBinothris was also an epoch-king for twenty-seven or\\ntwenty-eight years (as we have already explained,\\nAfricanus apportioned the extra months and days,\\nwhich often gives rise to an apparent discrepancy of\\none year). Does the fact that the Apis-bull (symbol\\nof the body) was venerated in Memphis, while the\\nMendesian-ram {Ba-neh-ded, identified with ha,\\nsoul was venerated in the Delta, account for the\\nvariation between Achi-n-nuter and Ba-n-nuferf\\nWe have shown that Eratosthenes recognized the\\ndual nature of the kingdom at this time by joining\\nthe reigns of Utnas and Toserthos, both of which", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0157.jp2"}, "158": {"fulltext": "152 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nappear in the hyphenated form, Otnoos-Toserthos,\\nnow Ogdoos-Gosormies.\\nIn like manner the fragment Momcheiri Mem-\\nphites is all that now remains of Binothris-Nether-\\nochis.\\nThe epoch of Tybi, 3764 B. C, was a most im-\\nportant one, for it ushered in a new season, the\\nPWu-et Season. Nephercheres of the Second Dynasty,\\nand Zoser-sauf and Zoser-teta of the Third Dynasty,\\nwere the epoch-kings. Dividing the reign of Nepher-\\ncheres at 3764 B. C, we find that nineteen years of it\\nwere before and six of it after that epoch. It is re-\\nmarkable that the nineteen years of Soyphis and six\\nyears of Tosertasis exactly correspond to these. We\\nare almost tempted to believe that Zoser-sauf and\\nZoser-teta of the Turin papyrus and Table of Abydus\\nare two titles for one and the same king, whose reign\\nof twenty-five years paralleled that of Nephercheres.\\nIn the tomb of Sheri the names of Senda and Per-\\nsonu appear. Per-somi, as shown by the names of the\\nthirty days of the lunar month, means second ap-\\npearance, and if the appearance of Horus on the\\nfirst of Tybi was called his second appearance, Per-\\nsonu might be an epoch-title of Nephercheres.\\nThe unfortunate breaks in the Turin papyrus make\\nit impossible for me to determine whether the epoch-\\nreigns were there entered as separate reigns. The\\nname after Mena, the head, seems to be Aa-faJiu-ti;\\nbut there is a break right after his name, and the\\nnext fragment begins with Ata. The name just be-\\nfore Niifer-achi seems to be Ka-ni-ra (for Ka-cn-ra),", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0158.jp2"}, "159": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 153\\nand resembles Manetho s Che-ne-res. Was the first\\nking of the Third Dynasty named Cheneres before\\nhe assumed the epoch-title Nuter-achif If so, how\\ncomes Cheneres to be at the end of the Second Dy-\\nnasty? Did the insertion of the epoch-title force him\\nback, and does he occupy the place of Huni, who\\npreceded Senoferuf These are questions which still\\nawait their solution. As Eratosthenes confined him-\\nself to Theban kings, and in opposition to Man-\\netho adopted the part of the reign before the epoch\\nas his epoch-reign, we must expect to find Soyphis\\nwith nineteen years in his list.\\nIn fact, No. 10 in the list bearing his name reads\\nAnoyphis, translated Epikomos, with twenty\\nyears. Knowing that the name of this king, omitting\\nthe initial Zoser, was Sa-uf-u, which agrees literally\\nwith Manetho s So-yph-is, it is plain that Eratos-\\nthenes originally had Soyphis instead of (An)-oyphis.\\nThus the epoch-reigns of these two great masters,\\nthe twenty=nineteen years of Eratosthenes before\\nthe epoch and the six years of Manetho after the\\nepoch, when brought together after an interval of\\nmore than 2,100 years, prove to a mathematical cer-\\ntainty that the reign of the one closed and the reign\\nof the other commenced in the year 3764 B. C.\\nA strange feature about the name is, that Epi-\\nkomos is not the translation of Soyphis, but seems\\nto apply to Hu-zefa of the papyrus and Table of\\nSakkara, who is preceded by Nofer-ka-Sokari and fol-\\nlowed by Zazai, Nebka, and Soyphis. We must not\\nforget, however, that the present list of Eratosthenes", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0159.jp2"}, "160": {"fulltext": "154\\nA Self- Verifying Chronological\\ncomes to us through the hands of an unscrupulous\\nmanipulator, who did not hesitate to place Menes at\\n1 Senoferu\\n2 Chufu\\n3 Ratatuf\\n4 Chafra\\n5 Menkaura\\n6 Shepseskaf\\ncn\\nSenoferu\\nChufu\\nRatatuf\\nChafra\\nSoris, 29\\nSuphis I, 63\\nSuphis II, 66\\nMencheres, 63\\nRatoises, 25\\nBicheris, 22\\nSebercheres, 7\\nThampthis, 9\\nTotal, 284\\nIN\\nSaophis I, 29\\nSaophis II, 27\\nMoscheres, 31\\nMosthes, 33\\nRayosis, 13\\nBiyres, 10\\nPammes, 35\\nw\\nW\\nR\\ntn\\n10\\n1?\\nC^ cn -F^CM to M\\na w\\noj o\\\\ on 0\\\\ 10 to\\nCn OJ OnOj vo O\\nII II II\\nW\\nn\\n2600 B. C. and would not have hesitated (for\\nHke reasons) to suppress the true translation of\\nSa-uf-u,", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0160.jp2"}, "161": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 155\\nMANETHO S FOURTH DYNASTY\\nThere were only six kings in the Fourth Dynasty\\nof Manetho; but their reigns covered a period of two\\nhundred and eighty-five years, a remarkable average\\nof forty-seven and one-half years. As Senoferu, the\\nfirst king of this dynasty, commenced to reign about\\n3680 B. C, or thirty-six years only before the epoch\\nof Em-Mr, 3644 B. C, there were three epoch-reigns\\nin this dynasty. These extra reigns, in connection\\nwith the notices attached to the reigns of the Pyra-\\nmid Builders, in order to identify them with the\\nCheops, Chephres, and Mencheres of Herodotus, con-\\nfused the compilers and subsequent revisers of the\\nlists, and thus led to the additions and omissions now\\napparent in the same. The restoration of the list\\nhitherto a hopeless task has been effected by means\\nof the assistance afforded by the Sothiac epochs and\\nepoch-reigns.\\nThe foregoing table, in which the lists are placed\\nin parallel columns, will enable the reader to con-\\nveniently see where names have been omitted or in-\\nserted in Manetho s list, and why it now apparently\\ncontains eight kings, instead of six.\\nSenoferu and Chufu I each reigned twenty-nine\\nyears, so that the number twenty-nine appeared twice\\nin succession in Manetho s original list. The epoch,\\n3644 B. C, divided the reign of Chufu I into two un-\\nequal parts, to wit: one of seven years before the\\nepoch, the other of twenty-two years after it; in con-\\nsequence of which the twenty-nine years of Suphis I", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0161.jp2"}, "162": {"fulltext": "156 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nwere dropped from the lists, and the sixty-three years\\nof Suphis II placed opposite his name. In this way\\nSuphis II was forced down opposite the sixty-six\\nyears of Cha-f-ra (Chephres), and the name of Che-\\nphres was crowded out and disappeared from the\\nlists, so that the very existence of this distinguished\\nepoch-king and pyramid-builder was in imminent\\ndanger of being questioned and ignored by the ag-\\nnostic scientists. Mencheres was not disturbed, but\\nhis successor, Shepseskaf, who reigned thirty-five\\nyears altogether, twenty-five before and ten after\\nthe epoch, 3404 B. C. received the twenty-five years\\nbefore the epoch, while the remaining nine were given\\nto Psamuthis (Phthampthis), the epoch-title of Shep-\\nseskaf, which was mistaken for the name of a separate\\nking. After this had been done, the separate reigns\\nno longer footed up two hundred and eighty-four\\nyears, the required total of the dynasty. To correct\\nthis discrepancy some one added the fragments of\\nChufu s reign, that is, the seven years and twenty-two\\nyears, and the names of Ratoises and Bicheres, to the\\nlist, between Mencheres and Sebescheres, thereby\\nforcing Sebescheres down to the line upon which the\\nseven years stood. Thus Ratoises received the first\\ntwenty-five years of Shepseskaf, Bicheres the last\\ntwenty-two years of Chufu I, Shepseskaf the first\\nseven years of Chufu I, and Psamuthis the last nine\\nyears of Shepseskaf.\\nEgyptologists dififer as to the correct reading of\\nthe first hieroglyph in the name of the last king of this\\ndynasty; some render it Aseskaf, others Shepseskaf.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0162.jp2"}, "163": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 157\\nThe Pyramid Texts/ however, in which this sign is\\nwritten phonetically Sheps, settle the question, and\\nshow that Manetho s Sebescheres is no other than\\nShepseskaf. We need not again remind the reader\\nthat in such forms as Neb-ka-f, User-ka-f, and Shep-\\nes-ka-f, ra is understood, and that Manetho rendered\\nthem Neb-ka-ra, User-ka-ra, and Shepses-ka-ra, as\\nshown by Kerpheres, Usercheres, and Sebescheres.\\nOur list shows how the reigns of Suphis I, Che-\\nphres, and Sebescheres were divided by the epochs,\\n3644 B. C, 3524 B. C, and 3404 B. C; but the reader\\nmust bear in mind that these reigns and epoch-reigns\\nwere originally made up of years, months, and days,\\nand that they were reduced to years long after Man-\\netho s death. In the Eighteenth Dynasty, for ex-\\nample, Africanus gives Amesses, the queen, twenty-\\none years, although her reign was actually but twenty\\nyears, seven months, and x days, and it so happened\\nthat he gave Armais five years, notwithstanding his\\nreign did not exceed four years, one month, and x\\ndays. Thus it is possible that Cha-f-ra reigned but a\\nfew months over sixty-five years, and that Africanus,\\nnevertheless, gave him sixty-six years. It is also\\npossible that Shepseskaf was entitled to thirty-five\\nyears (twenty-six before and nine after the epoch,\\n3404 B. C), although, according to the apportion-\\nment of Africanus, he seems to have but thirty-four\\nyears (twenty-five before and nine after said epoch).\\nThis view is rendered probable by the fact that Era-\\ntosthenes actually gave him thirty-five years.\\nThe first king of this dynasty was Senoferu. It is", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0163.jp2"}, "164": {"fulltext": "158 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\ncertain that he reigned over a united kingdom. We\\nread in an old papyrus that when King Huni ascended\\nto heaven, Senoferu arose as the beneficent ruler over\\nthe whole land, A part, if not all, of Senoferu s claim\\nto the throne was derived through his wife, Mertitefs.\\nIt seems that at this particular period of Egyptian\\nhistory the crown passed in the female line. This may\\nhave been the result of the new law of succession\\nestablished by King Ba-n-nuter. The inscriptions in\\nthe tomb of Am-then, who flourished just before the\\naccession of Senoferu, show that a queen, Api-en-\\nmaafy ruled over Lower Egypt at that time; but no\\nsuch name appears in the lists of the Thinite or Mem-\\nphite kings. It seems as if the Memphite kings, at\\nthis time, were restricted to Upper Egypt and the\\nstrip between it and Memphis, and that the Delta was\\nruled by two other separate and distinct lines.\\nThe average length of the six reigns of the Eourth\\nDynasty, which was about forty-seven and one-half\\nyears, and the absence of any monuments or inscrip-\\ntions indicating that the relationship of father and\\nson existed between any of them, except Chiifu I and\\nChufu II, compel us to assume that they reigned in\\nthe right of their wives. Eor instance, it appears that\\nChufu I married Senoferu s widow, Mertitefs, which\\nmakes it probable that she was queen in her ozvn right.\\nThe monuments render it certain that Chufu was not\\nSenoferu s son, and equally certain that Senoferu s\\nson did not succeed his father as king. The fact that\\nthese six kings actually reigned two hundred and\\neighty-four or two hundred and eighty-five years pre-", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0164.jp2"}, "165": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 159\\neludes a regular succession from father to son. Some\\nhave assumed that the crown passed to the grandsons.\\nThe reign of Senoferii inaugurated a new and ex-\\nceptionally brilliant chapter of Egyptian history. The\\ncountry seems to have been more powerful than it was\\nat any subsequent period. The monuments con-\\nstructed under the first five kings of this dynasty are\\nso stupendous, and at the same time so perfect in\\nworkmanship and design, that the world to-day, as\\n5,500 years ago, regards them with wonder and\\namazement. The portrait-statue of Chufu first\\nidentified by Maspero, conjures up before our aston-\\nished gaze the form and features of a monarch as\\ngrand and commanding as any that ever sat on a\\nthrone. The bright intellect and remarkable pene-\\ntration of Maspero enabled him to immediately recog-\\nnize the unique features of Chufu in this excellent\\nstatue; but this genial scholar and scientist has failed\\nto explain to us how the rude and savage and\\nsemi-barbaric people of the preceding Thinite Dy-\\nnasties were able, in an instant, to transform them-\\nselves into a highly-civilized nation capable of de-\\nsigning and executing such masterpieces of art.\\nSenoferu, although a Memphite king, erected his\\npyramid at Meydum, not far from the entrance to\\nthe Fayum. It seems that the line to which Huni\\nbelonged had its seat in this vicinity. If, as Maspero\\nsupposes, Senoferu was the son of Queen Api-en-maat,\\nhe must have belonged to the line which ruled over\\nthe Delta, for Am-then certainly filled many ofBcial\\npositions in the Delta, e. g., Xois, Rakotis (Per-kodesu)", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0165.jp2"}, "166": {"fulltext": "i6o A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nButo, the Saite nome, etc. Mertitefs may have been\\nthe queen of the southern, or Memphite, Hne. The\\nPyramid of Meydum shows that Senoferu established\\nhis residence in the Land of the South, or South,\\nas it was then called, which may have been done to\\nemphasize his authority over the whole land.\\nThe inscription of Soyphis, in the Island of Sehel,\\nindicates that he ruled over Upper Egypt to Ele-\\nphantine, which accounts for Eratosthenes calling\\nhim a Theban king. Manetho calls Soyphis a\\nMemphite king; hence the line to which Sethusis\\n(Sesos) and Kerpheres (Nofer-ka-ra) belonged must\\nalso have ruled at Memphis. This makes it probable\\nthat the dividing line between the Memphite and\\nThinite Dynasties was between Memphis and Heliop-\\nolis and very near to Memphis. It was formerly sup-\\nposed that the Pyramid of Meydum dated back to a\\nperiod when these monuments were built in stages.\\nVilliers Stuart was the first to discover that this was\\nan error. Referring to his examination of this pyra-\\nmid, he says:\\nIt stands on what appears to be a vast cone of\\nquarry rubbish that rises from a plateau similar to that\\non which the Pyramids of Ghizeh are built. On clear-\\ning away the rubbish, we found this cone to be con-\\nstructed of cut stone, and to be, in fact, the lower\\nportion of the pyramid, which seems to have been\\nfinished only half way up, leaving the core naked.\\nThis core arises in three gigantic steps, and presents\\nmuch the appearance of the fancy portraits of the\\nTower of Babel. The base has been used for a quarr}^", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0166.jp2"}, "167": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt i6i\\nfor ages, and is now a wreck, and buried beneath its\\nown debris. I measured the base, and found it to be\\nfour hundred and eighty feet square, while the base\\nof the unfinished part measured two hundred and\\nforty feet, exactly half.\\nRawlinson says\\nIt was no great advance on these truncated\\npyramids to conceive the idea of adding to their\\nheight and solidity by the superimposition of some\\nfurther stories, constructed on a similar principle,\\nbut without internal chambers. An example of\\nthis stage of construction seems to remain in the\\ncurious monument at Meidum, called by some a *pyra-\\nmid, by others a tower, of which Kig. 38 is a repre-\\nsentation. This monument, which is emplaced upon\\na rocky knoll, has a square base of about two hundred\\nfeet each way, and rises out of an angle of 74\u00c2\u00b0 10\\nin three distinct stages, to an elevation of nearly one\\nhundred and twenty-five feet.\\nThe opinion voiced by Rawlinson was founded on\\nthe appearance of the upper half of the pyramid. It\\nturns out, upon investigation, however, that the outer\\ncasing, which was built last, and generally of better\\nstone than the core, was since quarried out and carried\\n-away. The walls of the core are perfectly smooth,\\nand the stones are closely fitted. Hence it was a\\ntrue pyramid, and its workmanship of a high order;\\nin fact, the worthy model of the Great Pyramid.\\nSince the above was written, Petrie has advanced\\nthe theory that the primitive form of the sepulcher of\\nSenoferu was a square mastaba, with the entrance in\\nthe lower part of the north face, and that it was after-", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0167.jp2"}, "168": {"fulltext": "1 62 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nward enlarged by successive coatings of masonry;\\nthat this process was repeated seven times, resulting\\nin a compound pile, of which the top surface of each\\ncoat formed a great step on the outside; and that\\nthe last process was to add one smooth casing in one\\nslope from base to top, and so carry it up to a point\\nat the pyramid-angle of fourteen on eleven. He says\\nthat two of the casings have been partly removed for\\nstones, leaving the inside mass standing in a tower-\\ning form, and that it is the earliest pyramid known,\\nas the Step-pyramid of Sakkara is not a true pyra-\\nmid, but a mastaha which was repeatedly enlarged,\\nbut never coated over in one slope or finished into a\\npyramid like that of Medum.\\nAs the Step-pyramid was built by Nuterachi,\\nnearly two hundred and forty years before the Pyra-\\nmid of Meydum, it is just as probable that it once\\nhad an outer casing of fine and valuable stone, which\\nwas also quarried out and removed. It is possible,\\nthough, that Senoferu, before he became king of\\nall Egypt, had constructed a mastaha, which was after-\\nwards enlarged into a pyramid; but this is pure con-\\njecture, and the entrance-passage leading to the se-\\npulchral chamber under the center of the pyramid\\ndoes not agree with such a theory.\\nAn astronomer who was not influenced by\\nthe various chronological schemes published by\\nformer Egyptologists, and who was ignorant of\\nthe Sothiac epochs treated of in this work, ob-\\ntained approximately correct dates for the Pyra-\\nmid of Meydum and the Great Pyramid by", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0168.jp2"}, "169": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 163\\ncalculations based on the angles of their entrance-\\npassages. G. F. Hardy, astronomer royal, in an ar-\\nticle entitled The Date of the Fourth Egyptian Dy-\\nnasty, published in the London Academy of October\\n29, 1892, says:\\nMr. Petrie s statement in Medum as to the pas-\\nsage-angle of Senoferu s pyramid completes a chain\\nof astronomical evidence proving the commencement\\nof the Fourth Dynasty to have been very approx-\\nimately 3700 B. C.\\nAs the exact date was 3680 B. C, the coincidence\\nis certainly remarkable. Taking a broad sweep, suffi-\\ncient to cover the maximum and minimum dates of\\nEgyptologists for the beginning of the Fourth Dy-\\nnasty, he says that between 4900 and 2900 B. C. no\\nstar visible to the naked eye was within the distance\\nfrom the pole indicated by the angle of the entrance-\\npassage of the Medum Pyramid, which is 45\u00c2\u00b0, except\\nthe sixth magnitude star one hundred and twenty-six\\nPiazzi, which was so situate between 3820 and 3620\\nB, C, its minimum distance being about thirty-six\\nminutes.\\nHe finds the passage-angle of the Great Pyramid\\nto be 3\u00c2\u00b0 30 below the pole, and that of the Second\\nPyramid, 3\u00c2\u00b0 31 the northern trial passage east of\\nthe Great Pyramid having the polar distance 3\u00c2\u00b0 22\\nor \u00e2\u0080\u00948\\nNow, at the date 3650 B. C. the star 217 Piazzi\\nwas at a distance of 3\u00c2\u00b0 29 from the pole, increasing\\nto 3\u00c2\u00b0 34 by 3630 B. C. The angles of the trenches", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0169.jp2"}, "170": {"fulltext": "1 64 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\neast of the Great Pyramid give the date 3645 B. C.\\nThe dates 3645 B. C. for the trenches and exter-\\nnal works, and 3630 B. C. for the completion of the\\nentrance-passage, with an interval of fifteen years, ac-\\ncord with the probabilities of the case. (These two\\ndates, it will be seen, were deduced independently\\nfrom different stars.)\\nIn view of the complete failures of the French\\nand German mathematicians to derive correct dates\\nfrom calculations based on the supposed risings of\\nstars, the success of G. F. Hardy must be pronounced\\nphenomenal. My discovery of the key to Manetho s\\nchronology, according to which his first book closed\\nat the end of the first historical cycle, 2784 B. C, fol-\\nlowed by the discovery of his general chronological\\nscheme, had enabled me to accurately fix the begin-\\nning of the Fourth Dynasty at 3680 B. C, before I\\nhappened to see Mr. Hardy s article, so that I was in\\na position to appreciate the importance of the results\\nworked out by him from data which were undoubt-\\nedly contemporaneous with the reigns of Senoferu and\\nChiifu I. It will be seen that Senoferu reigned from\\n3680 to 3651 B. C, and Chufu I from 3651 B. C. to\\n3622 B. C. The epoch 3644 B. C, which divided\\nChuhCs reign, fell in his eighth year, and Hardy s\\ndate, 3645 B. C, for the trenches and external\\nworks, is so near the astronomical epoch, that we are\\nnaturally amazed. It certainly required great scien-\\ntific proficiency to incline the entrance-passage to the\\nrequired angle. Although Mr. Hardy finds 3630\\nB. C. (when the star 217 Piazzi was at the distance of", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0170.jp2"}, "171": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 165\\n3** 34 from the pole) to be the date indicated by the\\nangle of the entrance-passage, it is possible that there\\nmay be a slight error in the calculation.\\nIt is said that the entrance-passage of the Great\\nPyramid was so constructed that an observer sta-\\ntioned at the bottom of it could see the star nearest\\nthe pole. The correct angle, therefore, did not de-\\npend altogether on the calculations of the astron-\\nomers, but was checked and verified by a simple and\\nunerring practical test. I can not believe that the\\nentrance-passage was completed as early as 3630 B. C.\\nfor the reason that Chufu II, sometimes, called Num-\\nchufu and Ra-tat-ef, who became joint-king in 3622\\nB. C, certainly completed the pyramid and probably\\nthe entrance-passage also.\\nWhen Maspero says that all we know of Senoferu\\nis contained in one sentence: he fought against the\\nnomads of Sinai, constructed fortresses to protect the\\neastern frontier of the Delta, and made for himself a\\ntomb In the form of a pyramid, he indulges in one of\\nthose unfortunate rhetorical flourishes which have\\ndone so much to check natural and legitimate ad-\\nvance in the field of ancient Egyptian history and\\nchronology. A volume could be written on what we\\nknow of Senoferu, without exhausting the subject.\\nOn the rocks of Sinai there is a representation of\\nSenoferu Made Perfect, Perfected smiting the\\nhostile Mentiu. His title as King of Upper and\\nLower Egypt, as Lord of Diadems, and as\\nHorus, was simply Neb-maat Lord of Justice\\nAs Golden Horus (Har-nub) his title was Senoferu.", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0171.jp2"}, "172": {"fulltext": "1 66 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nAbove the picture of Senoferu overthrowing the\\nBeduin is the following: Senoferu, servant of God,\\nwho gives strength, stability, life, health, happiness,\\nand power, forever; subduing the foreign countries.\\nThese titles are emblematic of a high state of civili-\\nzation, the reverse of what might be expected of a\\nrude and semi-barbaric king. The crown worn by\\nSenoferu is neither the white crown of Upper Egypt,\\nthe red crown of Lower Egypt, nor the double crown\\nof both countries, but Hke the double plumes and\\nhorns worn by Amen. His costume consists of an\\napron, ornamented by a cordal appendage, and a col-\\nlar. In his uplifted right hand is the customary stone\\nmace usually carried by kings. Here are themes\\nenough for the careful and patient investigator, but he\\nmust not apply to primitive man the standard of 1898\\nA. D. But as this work is simply a chronological his-\\ntory of ancient Egypt, further elaboration would be\\nout of place here. I must warn the reader, however,\\nthat the Mentiu mentioned in these old inscriptions\\nwere not, as Brugsch and Maspero suppose, Aamii,\\nor Hamites, but Shemites of the purest type. The\\nAamu, as shown by colored representations in tombs\\nof the Nineteenth Dynasty, were yellow Asiatics, the\\nHamites of Genesis. The so-called Hyksos were\\nAamvL The Mentiu included the Beduin, Syrians,\\nAssyrians, etc., and were more closely related to the\\nEgyptians, who were originally Japhetic. We expect\\nto show that the Japhetic race was the author of civil-\\nization, but that the Asiatic Hamites have always", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0172.jp2"}, "173": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 167\\nbeen, as they are to-day, borrowers, corrupters, or\\ndestroyers of this primitive Japhetic civilization.\\nTHE CHUFUS\\nThe traditional Cheops and the Great Pyramid\\nhave been so exhaustively described by other writers,\\nclassical and modern, that I shall limit myself to the\\nmost necessary observations only.\\nThe latest authority, Petrie, commenting on the\\ntwo tablets engraved on the rocks of Sinai, one with\\nthe name and titles of Chufu, the other with the name\\nof Chnum-Chufu, says this raises a difficult question,\\nto which no historian has yet given a satisfactory an-\\nswer. He adds that the name of Chnum-Chufu has\\nbeen found in five places, to wit, the pyramid quarry-\\nworks, the above mentioned tablet of Sinai, the quarry\\nof Ha-et-nub, the tomb of Khemten, at Ghizeh, and\\ntwo farm names of Shepses-ka-f-anch in the Fifth Dy-\\nnasty.\\nWe have already seen that there were two separate\\nChufus, one of whom succeeded the other, and that\\nManetho and Eratosthenes, both eminent, careful\\nand reliable authorities, distinguished them as Chufu I\\nand Chufu II.\\nThe first Chufu, the one who became the husband\\nof Senoferu s widow, Mertitefs, reigned twenty-nine\\nyears, according to Manetho and Eratosthenes. The\\nepoch 3644 B. C. divided his reign into two parts of\\nseven and twenty-two years each, so that they ex-\\ntended from 3651 B. C. to 3644 B. C, and from 3644", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0173.jp2"}, "174": {"fulltext": "1 68 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nB. C. to 3622 B, C. The last date coincides almost ex-\\nactly with the date calculated by Hardy from the angle\\nof the entrance-passage of the Great Pyramid. If, as\\nI am inclined to believe, Chnum-Chufu was the son and\\nheir of Chufu I and Mertitefs, he reigned jointly with\\nhis father for many years after 3623 B. C. In appor-\\ntioning joint-reigns, Manetho usually gave to the\\nfather his sole reign only, and to the son, not only\\nhis entire reign after the death of the father, but the\\njoint-reign also. Thus the fifty-nine years of Seti I\\ninclude his long joint-reign with Ramesses I, who,\\ntherefore, has but one year and four months. The\\nsixty-three years assigned by Manetho to Chufu II,\\nin his chronological list, probably include the joint-\\nreign of Chufu I and Chufu II. According to the\\nrecords interpreted to Herodotus, more than one hun-\\ndred and fifty years before Manetho wrote his history,\\nCheops reigned fifty years. If these fifty years date\\nfrom the great epoch 3644 B. C, the joint-reign would\\ncover about twenty-eight years. In the List of Era-\\ntosthenes Chufu I has twenty-nine years, and Chufu II\\ntwenty-seven. Now, as the two Chufus reigned\\nninety-two years, the lists may have contained some\\nsuch division as the following:\\nChufu I, sole reign, before epoch, 7 years\\nChufu I, sole reign, after epoch, 22\\nChufu I, joint-reign with Chufu II, 27\\nChufu I, sole reign, 29\\nChufu I, entire reign, 56\\nChufu I, entire reign, after epoch, 50\\nChufu II, joint-reign with Chufu I, 27\\nChufu II, sole reign, 36\\nChufu II, entire reign, 63", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0174.jp2"}, "175": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 169\\nThe Great Pyramid, which was commenced about\\n3644 B. C, to mark the beginning of the Sothiac\\nmonth of Em-hir, became the joint work and joint\\nsepulcher of the two Chufus, whose reigns were so\\nintimately blended that in the course of time they\\nwere regarded as one king, just as Seti I and Ramesses\\nII were under the name of Sesostris. This accounts\\nfor the double tablet of Chufu and Num-Chufu in the\\npeninsula of Sinai, and the appearance of both names\\nin the Great Pyramid.\\nWe have seen that the birth of Ra, as primeval\\nsun, was placed at the beginning of Phamenoth. Ptah\\nin Lower Egypt and Num in Upper Egypt, as archi-\\ntect of the solar system, presided over the month of\\nEm-hir. As Chufu I was crowned in the Sothiac\\nmonth of Tybi, Num-Chufu, whose name identifies\\nhim with the month of Em-hir, came after Chufu.\\nThe Horus-title of the first Chufu, Hir/ indicating\\nthat Ra was em Mr, that is, in his highest sign, was\\nassumed in anticipation of the coming epoch, because\\nHorus was not Ra, but sa Ra, *son of Ra.\\nSenoferu, as we have seen, planned his pyramid\\non a grand scale, the base being four hundred and\\neighty feet square, instead of two hundred and fifty, as\\nformerly supposed. The site chosen for it, on the rocky\\nknoll of Medum, was calculated to set off its propor-\\ntions to the best advantage. The Great Pyramid, how-\\never, as conceived and executed by Chufu I, is of such\\ncolossal dimensions, that no structure, since erected\\nby man, in any way approaches, much less equals, it.\\nAt Sinai we see Num-Chufu wearing the double crown", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0175.jp2"}, "176": {"fulltext": "170 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nof Upper and I^ower Egypt, instead of the plumes\\nworn by his predecessor, Senoferu. Chufu I, as king\\nof the united countries, abandoned the seat chosen\\nby Senoferu, and the old site near Memphis, now\\nknown as Sakkara, where the pyramid of Nuter-achi\\nstood towering over the Libyan Hills, for the old site\\nopposite Anu, where Atoth, or Kenkenes, had hewn\\nthe Great Sphinx out of the living rock, and erected,\\nwithin a short distance of it, a monument in keeping\\nwith the genius and skill of those early Thinite kings,\\nof whom it was truthfully said, thousands of years\\nthereafter, in those days there were giants in the\\nearth.\\nThe reader will pardon me for quoting the follow-\\ning from Petrie\\nThe essential feeling of all the earliest works\\nis a rivalry with nature. In other times build-\\nings have been placed either before a background of\\nhills, so as to provide a natural setting for them, or\\ncrowning some natural height. But the Egyptian\\nconsented to no such tame co-operation with natural\\nfeatures. He selected a range of desert hills over\\none hundred feet high, and then subdued it entirely,\\nmaking of it a mere pedestal for pyramids, which were\\nmore than thrice as high as the native hill on which\\nthey stood. There was no shrinking from a com-\\nparison with the work of nature on the contrary,\\nan artificial hill was formed which shrunk its natural\\nbasis by comparison, until it seemed a mere platform\\nfor the work of man.\\nThis same grandeur of idea is seen in the vast\\nmasses used in construction. Man did not then regard\\nhis work as a piling together of stones, but as the erec-", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0176.jp2"}, "177": {"fulltext": "Hi ST OR Y OF Ancient Eg ypt i 7 1\\ntion of masses that rival those of nature. If a cell or\\nchamber were required, each side was formed of one\\nsingle stone, as at Medum. If a building were set up,\\nit was an artificial hill, in which chambers were carved\\nout after it was piled together; thus a mere hollov/\\nwas left where the chamber should be, and then it\\nwas dressed down and sculptured as if it were in the\\nheart of the living rock.\\nThe sculptor s work and the painter s show the\\nsame sentiment. They did not make a work of art\\nto please the taste as such; but they rivaled nature as\\nclosely as possible. The form, the expression, the\\ncoloring, the glittering, transparent eye, the grave\\nsmile, are all copied as if to make an artificial man.\\nArt, as the gratification of an artificial taste\\nand standard, was scarcely in existence; but the sim-\\nplicity, the vastness, the perfection, and the beauty\\nof the earliest works place them on a dififerent level\\nfrom all works of art and man s device in later ages.\\nThey are unique in their splendid power, which\\nno self-conscious civilization has ever rivaled or\\ncan hope to rival; and in their enduring greatness\\nthey may last until all the feebler works of man\\nhave perished.\\nThe same author, speaking of the workmanship\\nof the pyramid, says\\nThe entrance-passage and the casing are perhaps\\nthe finest; the flatness and squareness of the joints\\nbeing extraordinary, equal to optician s work of the\\npresent day, but on a scale of acres instead of feet or\\nyards of material. The squareness and level of the\\nbase is brilliantly true, the average error being less\\nthan a ten-thousandth of the side in equality, in\\nsquareness, and in level.", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0177.jp2"}, "178": {"fulltext": "172 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nThe theory often advanced in these days, that the\\npeople were oppressed and ground down by these\\ngreat national works, has no foundation in fact.\\nEverything that has come down to us from this early\\nage points to a high civilization, in which deep re-\\nligious sentiment, humanity, morality, and an innate\\nsense of equity were national characteristics. In such\\ncommunities large numbers of people can always be\\nfound who are willing to work for good wages. Stu-\\npendous works of national utility, covering a territory\\nas large as all Europe, have been executed, in the\\nshort space of one century, by voluntary and cheerful\\nlabor in our own Republic, the freest Government\\nunder the face of the sun since the days of the Achiu\\nin ancient Egypt.\\nCHAFRA-CHEPHRES\\nThis Pharaoh is now chiefly noted as the builder\\nof the Second Pyramid. We have singled him out\\nfor the additional reason that he is a very important\\nepoch-king. His name, Cha-f-ra, The Crown of\\nRa, who was nearing the highest point of his course\\nwhen this king ascended the throne, is quite sug-\\ngestive. When Chafra had reigned thirty-five years,\\nSethis rose on the first day of Phamenoth, and Ra\\nof the Sothiac year reached the summer solstice,\\ncalled hat, heart, by the Egyptians. Chafra, there-\\nfore, assumed the Horus-title, User-hat, wielding the\\nheart, or, as we should say, the middle of the sun s\\nannual course. It is hard to discover what Chafra^s\\nepoch-title among the people was. He reigned after\\nthe epoch thirty-one years. As we have seen, Man-", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0178.jp2"}, "179": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 173\\netho dated his epoch-reigns from the epoch. Eratos-\\nthenes, however, took the part of the reign before the\\nepoch as the epoch-reign. It is possible that the List\\nof Eratosthenes originally contained nothing but\\nepoch-kings, with the epoch-reigns, the reigns after\\nthe epochs, and the entire reigns, for example Che-\\nphres, as Ratoises-Heliodotus, thirty-five years;\\nChephres, after epoch, thirty-one years; Chephres, en-\\ntire reign, sixty-six years. In the present list the\\nnumbers are confused, and the names often corrupted\\nbeyond recognition. The seventeenth Theban king\\nis Moscheres, Heliodotus, with a reign of thirty-one\\nyears, showing that Manetho s Mencheres influenced\\nthe original name, which resembled Ra-ta-ta-f (Ra-\\ntoises) Gift of Ra. The eighteenth Theban king\\nis Mosthes, without the customary translation into\\nGreek, and, therefore, the repetition of a former name,\\nwith a reign of thirty-three years. This, however, is\\nnot so important as the epoch-title itself, and the frag-\\nments of the reign, thirty-five and thirty-one, all of\\nwhich are fortunately preserved. There can be no\\ndoubt that Ra stood at the head of this month in the\\nyear 3524 B. C, and that such epoch-titles as Off-\\nspring of Thoth, Perfect One, Gift of Ra, Gift\\nof Hathor, Gift of Amen, Gift of Bastet, etc.,\\nwere in common use at this time to designate and dis-\\ntinguish the epoch-kings. Now, according to Man-\\netho s chronology, Chafra reigned thirty-five years\\nbefore, and thirty-one years after, the epoch 3524\\nB. C., and the List of Erastosthenes, supplying, as it\\ndoes, the missing epoch-title Heliodotus, verifies\\nhim to the year.", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0179.jp2"}, "180": {"fulltext": "174 Self-Verifying Chronological\\nChafra named his pyramid Ur, meaning great\\nin the sense of old, as in ur-wald/ primeval forest,\\nand ur-gross-vater, great-grandfather, because it\\nmarked the epoch of the most ancient ruler, Ra. In\\nlater times it became more and more the fashion to\\nwithdraw the knowledge of these things from the\\ncommon people, and thus create an impassable intel-\\nlectual gulf between them and the privileged class of\\nthe priests. Plain designations of this character were\\nabandoned, and titles several degrees farther removed\\nfrom the symbol itself were substituted; and these\\ngreat pyramid-builders, who were certainly as relig-\\nious as any of their successors, were brazenly charac-\\nterized by the priests as despisers of the gods and\\ndesecrators of the temples, charges as false as they\\nwere preposterous, but, for this reason, all the more\\nefidcacious with the ignorant populace, which is ever\\nready to believe the most monstrous, unnatural, and\\nimprobable stories their crafty and selfish spiritual\\nguides choose to invent.\\nSHEPSESKA.F- SAS YCHIS-ASYCHIS\\nThe last king of this dynasty reigned thirty-five\\nyears. We have just seen that Chafra reigned thirty-\\none years after the epoch 3524 B. C. Add these\\nthirty-one years to the sixty-three years of Mencheres,\\nand we require the first twenty-six years of Sasychis\\nto complete the one hundred and twenty years of the\\nmonth of Phamenoth, leaving nine years of his reign\\nfor the month of Pharmuthi. This epoch-reign now\\nappears at the end of the dynasty in the list of Afri-\\ncanus in the unintelligible form Thamphthis, with", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0180.jp2"}, "181": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 175\\nthe epoch-reign of nine years. A comparison of\\nPsamuthis and Thamphthis, as written in Greek let-\\nters, will show how easily a careless copyist could\\nhave mistaken the initial P^ for Thr The second\\nph^ now substituted for w, is very common before\\nth, as in Phthah, a familiar form of Ttah/ This\\nepoch-reign, which was copied by Africanus from\\nManetho s work, dates from the epoch 3404 B. C,\\nand reaches down to the close of the Fourth Dynasty,\\nor 3395 B. C. How fortunate it is that Africanus\\nmistook Psamuthis for an actual king who reigned\\nnine years We have already explained how Ra, the\\nson of Neith, the Mother, the Great Mother, was\\ncalled Sa-neith or Sa-muth, or, with the later definite\\narticle, P sa-muth, in contradistinction to Har-sa-\\nhus-et^ Horus, the Son of Isis. Psamuthi is derived\\nfrom Psamuth. Herodotus tells us that this king\\nbuilt the eastern portico to the temple of Ptah (Vul-\\ncan), which is by far the most beautiful and the largest;\\nfor all the porticoes have sculptured figures and an\\ninfinite variety of architecture, but this most of all.\\nHe also tells us that this king, being desirous of sur-\\npassing his predecessors who were kings of Egypt,\\nleft a pyramid as a memorial, made of bricks. Ag-\\nnosticism, falsely called science, disposes of such his-\\ntorical facts as these with a wave of the hand, although\\nit vainly beats its head against the ponderous masses\\nof the pyramids of Necherochis, Senoferu, the Chu-\\nfus, Chephres, and Mencheres. The temples and pal-\\naces of Memphis have been swept away from the face\\nof the earth, and the brick pyramid of Sasychis has", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0181.jp2"}, "182": {"fulltext": "176 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nnot yet been certainly identified; but can this alone\\njustify us in wantonly closing our eyes to historical\\nfacts as well vouched for as the pyramids of Cheops,\\nChephres, and Mykerinus themselves? It is evident\\nthat the eastern portico of the Temple of Ptah in\\nMemphis was pointed out to Herodotus about 450\\nB. C. He saw it, describes it, and compares it with\\nothers. It was by far the largest and most beautiful in\\nEgypt. This must have been literally true. We now\\ngaze in wonder at the ruins of Karnak, and uncon-\\nsciously make the Temple of Amen our standard of\\nsize and beauty for the monuments and art of ancient\\nEgypt; but we entirely overlook the fact that writers\\nlike Herodotus, who saw the Temple of Amen, after\\nseeing the Great Sphinx, the Great Pyramid, the\\nTemple of Ptah, and other monuments of Lower\\nEgypt, either fail to mention it altogether, or do so\\nin such general terms as leads us to believe that they\\nwere not particularly impressed by it. The Laby-\\nrinth, a work of the Twelfth Dynasty, then intact, but\\nnow destroyed, Impressed them more than the great\\ntemples of Thebes. It stands to reason that the por-\\ntico built by Shepseskaf exceeded those of Thebes in\\nsize, beauty, and workmanship, as much as the pyra-\\nmids of GIzeh exceed the rock-cut tombs of Setl and\\nRamesses. There could have been no doubt as to the\\nbuilder of this portico, for the sculptures with which\\nit was covered when seen and described by Herod-\\notus certainly proclaimed the name and titles of\\nShepseskaf to all who could read the hieroglyphs. As\\nto the hieroglyphic writing of this period, the earlier", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0182.jp2"}, "183": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 177\\ntombs of Am-then and Mer-hat prove that it was never\\nagain equaled in after ages.\\nHerodotus speaks of the brick pyramid of Sasy-\\nchis as existent, and he seems to have no doubt that it\\nactually rivaled the stone pyramids of Ghizeh in ex-\\ncellence of workmanship and design. Now, although\\nShepseskaf was the immediate successor of Men-\\nkau-ra, he did not build a stone pyramid at Ghizeh,\\nwhere he could not expect to surpass the pyramids\\nof Chufu and Chafra; but selected another and differ-\\nent site, where he erected his celebrated brick pyra-\\nmid. Happily for science, the tomb of Shepses-ptah\\nat Sakkara furnishes us with contemporary evidence\\nof this epoch-king s reign. The inscriptions testify\\nthat Shepses-ptah was reared among the king s chil-\\ndren in the palace of Mencheres. After this king s\\ndeath, Shepseskaf took the young page into his house,\\nwhere he rapidly rose in the royal favor, until the\\nmonarch gave him the eldest of his own daughters,\\nthe princess Maat-cha, to be his wife. And His Maj-\\nesty preferred that she should dwell with him rather\\nthan with any other man. Pharaoh esteemed him\\nabove all his servants. He became secretary for\\nevery work that the king was pleased to execute. He\\ncharmed the heart of his lord. His Majesty allowed\\nhim to embrace his knees, and exempted him from\\nthe salutation of the ground. Shepses-ptah also\\nheld the office of chief steward of the storehouses,\\nwas director of the mines, prophet of Ptah-sokari and\\nchief guardian of his sanctuary and chief of the priest-\\nhood of Ptah in Memphis.\\n12", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0183.jp2"}, "184": {"fulltext": "178 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nThus we see that Shepseskaf succeeded Men-\\ncheres, and that there were no kings between Men-\\ncheres and Userkaf, the first king of the Fifth Dy-\\nnasty, bearing the names of Ratoises, Bicheres, or\\nPsamuthis. Of course, after we have restored the\\ntrue framework, the isolated facts can be arranged\\nand fitted together Hke the separate pieces of a beau-\\ntiful mosaic pavement.\\nFOURTH DYNASTY OF SIX KINGS\\n1. Senoferu, 29 years, 3680-3651 B. C.\\n2. Chufu I, before epoch, 7 3651-3644 B- C.\\nChufu I, after epoch, as Me-\\nchiris, 22 3644-3622 B. C.\\n3. Chufu II, Chnum Chufu, 63 3622-3559 B. C.\\n4. Chafra, before epoch, 35 3559-3524 B. C.\\nChafra, after epoch, as Ra-\\ntoises, 31 3524-3493 B. C.\\n5. Men-kau-ra, 63 3493*3430 B. C.\\n6. Shepseskaf, before epoch, 26 3430-3404 B. C.\\nShepseskaf, after epoch as\\nPsamuthis/ 9 3404-3395 B. C.\\nTotal, 285\\nEPOCH-KINGS OF THE FOURTH DYNASTY.\\n(ADDENDUM, 1898)\\nAs there were only five reigns in this dynasty,\\nomitting Chufu I, it is evident that the three extra\\nreigns of Bicheris, Ratoises, and Thamphthis must\\nbe epoch-reigns.\\nThese titles, however, have been corrupted, and\\nwe must first endeavor to restore them. Beginning\\nwith the epoch of Em-hir or Am-hir, we shall see,\\nwhen we come to the epoch 724 B. C, that Manetho\\nintroduced two equally appropriate epoch-titles for\\nthis month, to wit: Rokchoris, from Rohk-rir,", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0184.jp2"}, "185": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 179\\nGreat Heat; and Amiris or Am-hir-iy from the\\nname of the month itself. Now we find that this\\nmonth was popularly known as Mechir, which would\\ngive us Mechir-i, or Mechiris, instead of Amhiris; and\\nwhat is Bicheris but a slightly modified form of\\nMechiris? It is well known that the Greeks often\\nconverted the Egyptian b into m, and vice versa\\n(comp. Be-n-ded and Mendes, Nub and Numbos, or\\nOmbos). As Manetho s History was written in\\nGreek, and as the lists of Africanus were extracted\\ntherefrom, and transmitted to us by Greeks, or at\\nleast by authors using the Greek language, the two\\nforms, Mechiris and Bechiris, may be regarded as\\ninterchangeable. The transition from BEXIPI2 to\\nBIXEPI2 was easy and simple.\\nThe title itself, in its simplicity and transparency,\\nis characteristic of the genius of Chufu, who, disdain-\\ning to conceal scientific facts and great truths behind\\na veil of symbolical titles, preferred to let his gigantic\\nintellect shine forth upon his people, the then civil-\\nized world, like the noonday sun, whose vicegerent\\non earth he was supposed to be. For this reason he\\nwas afterwards vilified by the Egyptian priests. They\\ntold Herodotus that he plunged into every kind of\\nwickedness, shut up all the temples, and, first of all,\\nforbade the Egyptians to offer sacrifice, and after-\\nwards, ordered them to work for himself, etc. A re-\\nmark attached to his reign in Africanus informs us\\nthat he built the Great Pyramid, and that he became\\na despiser of the gods and wrote the holy book,\\nwhich Africanus (speaking in the first person) tells", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0185.jp2"}, "186": {"fulltext": "i8o A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nus he procured as a precious relic while he was in\\nEgypt.\\nEusebius, after the fashion of the theologians, at-\\ntempts to improve upon the remark of Africanus, as\\nfollows: He became a despiser of the gods, and\\nafter he had been converted he wrote a holy book;\\nadding that the Egyptians held this writing in high\\nhonor, regarding it as a precious work.\\nChufu may have been a despiser of the so-called\\ngods, that is, the images which were worshiped by\\nthe unenlightened masses as incarnations of certain\\ndivine attributes, but he was not a despiser of God.\\nHe was, in certain respects, a reformer, and it was\\nbecause he refused to play into the hands of the\\npriests, who had already begun to hoodwink the\\npeople for their own individual gain and aggrandize-\\nment, that he brought down upon himself their im-\\nplacable enmity and ill-will. In the primitive doctrine\\nof Life, that is, Xife with God for time and eternity,\\nthe Two Truths were Science and Life, or, as we\\nnow express it. Wisdom and Religion. Science with-\\nout Life leads to agnostic atheism; Life without\\nScience, to superstition, physical and moral degrada-\\ntion, and, ultimately, intellectual death. Foreseeing\\nthe inevitable catastrophe to which the policy of the\\npriests, in withdrawing from the common people the\\none truth (Science), and in giving them in the place\\nof the other (Life) the worship of lifeless images and\\ndumb animals, would lead, Chufu, according to L. A.\\nWood, caused the history of coming ages to be carved\\nout of imperishable stone in the interior of the Great", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0186.jp2"}, "187": {"fulltext": "History OF Ancient Egypt i8i\\nPyramid. The entrance-passage, beginning above the\\nbase line, which represents the dividing Hne between\\nthe upper and lower worlds, and descending to a\\npoint below the base line, leads to a horizontal passage\\nhewn out of the living rock. This last mentioned\\npassage leads to a chamber under the center of the\\npyramid, the floor of which resembles rocks heaped\\ntogether in hopeless confusion, representing chaos,\\nwhere there is no light, no rest, and further progress\\nappears to be impossible. Beyond this chamber is\\nanother horizontal passage which leads to Nothing.\\nNow follow Science and Life that is, agnostic re-\\nligion, or superstition, and agnostic science, or ma-\\nterialism thus separated, down the stream of uni-\\nversal history, until you reach the dead level which\\nleads into the impenetrable night and chaos of the\\nDark Ages, and you will understand the prophetic\\nmeaning of the Chamber of the Fiery Ordeal. But\\nlet us retrace our steps. Long before reaching the\\nfatal base-line upon his downward course, man passed\\nan ascending passage, securely sealed with immense\\nblocks of impenetrable granite, which originally led,\\nwith ever-increasing splendor, up to the mysterious\\nHall of the Two Truths, where Science and Life\\nsat enthroned, side by side and hand in hand. Where\\nnow, we ask, is the irrepressible conflict between true\\nscience and true religion? Modern scientists, with\\nall their boasted skill, were not able to discover the\\nlong-lost secret of squaring the circle. Is it a won-\\nder, then, that a noted scientist, when he chanced to\\ndiscover that the square formed by the base of the", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0187.jp2"}, "188": {"fulltext": "1 82 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\npyramid was equal to the circle which had for its\\nradius the perpendicular height of the pyramid, ex-\\nclaimed, in blank amazement: The Great Pyramid\\nhas triumphed! Are we not tempted to exclaim,\\nThe Great Chufu has triumphed But another and\\ngreater surprise awaits us. Just before reaching the\\nbase-line, another passage, circumventing the impas-\\nsable obstructions just mentioned, leads upward into\\nthe ascending passage, and thence into the Great\\nHall of the Two Truths.\\nThe lists, beginning at the preceding epoch of\\nTybi, 3764 B. C, coincide with the epoch-reign of\\nChufu I, as recovered from Manetho, as follows\\nSecond Dynasty, 3764 B. C. Third Dynasty, 3764 B. C.\\nNephercheres, 6 Tosertasis, 6\\n3758 B. C. 3758 B. C.\\nSesochris, 48 Aclies, 22\\n3710 B. C. 3736 B. C.\\nCheneres 30 Sethosis, 30\\n3706 B. C.\\nKerpheres, 26\\nEnd of Second and\\nThird Dynasties, 3680 B. C. 3680 B. C.\\nSenoferu, 29\\n3651 B.C.\\nChufu I, before epoch of Mechir, 7\\n3644 B. C.\\nChufu I, as epoch-king Mechiris, 22\\n3622 B. C.\\nThe epoch of Phamenoth, 3524 B. C., as we have\\nseen, divided the reign of Cha-f-ra so that thirty-five\\nyears came before, and thirty-one years after, it.\\nNeither of these fragments has survived in the list", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0188.jp2"}, "189": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 183\\nof Africanus, but the epoch-title itself, to wit, Rato-\\nises, has. On the contrary, both fragments, slightly\\nchanged, still appear in the list of Eratosthenes. We\\nrefer to\\n17. Moscheres Heliodotus, AA for AE 35 years\\n18. Mosthes, Ar for AA 31\\nWe can see how the list of Africanus, where\\nChephres has been crowded out by Suphis II, has\\naffected these names.\\nMoscheres is plainly an imitation of Mencheres,\\nwhile Heliodotus is a translation of Ra-ta-ta-ef.\\nWhen we bear in mind that Phamenoth heads the\\nthird quarter of the year (scientific division), which\\nis presided over by Ra, we can not fail to recognize\\nthe importance of the epoch-title Ra-taios or Ra-\\ntois-es, translated Heliodotus, which is unmistakably\\nRa-ta-ta-ef, Ra, his Gift, or Gift of Ra (comp.\\nPeteathyris, Petubastis, Petechons, Petiphres, etc.)\\nThe Table of Abydus, where Ra-ded-ef takes the\\nplace of Chufu II, suggests a difilicult question.\\nWas Ra-ded-ef, meaning Ra, his stability, one\\nof the distinctive titles of Chufu II? It seems to me\\nthat the artist who engraved the table for Seti I had\\nbefore him an ancient list, resembling the Turin papy-\\nrus, in which the epoch-reigns before, or after, the\\nepoch were noted, and that he mistook the epoch-\\ntitle of Cha-f-ra, which, as we have seen, must have\\nbeen Ra-tata-ef, for Ra-tat-ef. In the list of Eratos-\\nthenes, PATOISU or PATAIOS, now appears as No. 13.\\nPAIQ2IS, Archikrator, with thirteen years==AE, Ar, ir.\\nHere, again, Archikrator can apply only to the", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0189.jp2"}, "190": {"fulltext": "1 84 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nprimeval Ra at the summer solstice, 3 ^^4 B. C. Now\\nnote the perfect agreement of the separate reigns and\\nepoch-reigns\\nEnd of Chufu s reign (see above), 3622 B. C.\\nChufu II, 63\\n3559 B. C.\\nChafra, before epoch, Ratoisis of Eratosthenes, 35\\n3524 B.C.\\nChafra, after epoch, Ratoisis of Manetho, 31\\n3493 B. C.\\nWe have said almost everything that is necessary\\nto explain the epoch-reign of Shepseskaf. The tv^o\\nfragments of this reign, originally twenty-six, and\\nnine, years, appear in Africanus, the entire reign,\\nthirty-five years, in Eratosthenes. Reduced to years,\\nadapted to the Sothiac epochs, the list stands thus\\nEnd of Chafra s reign, 3493 B. C.\\nMencheres, 63\\n3430 B.C.\\nSebescheres, before epoch, 26\\n34^ B.C.\\nSebescheres, after epoch, as Psamuthis, 9\\nEnd of Fourth Dynasty, 3395 B. C.\\nThe metamorphosis of Psamuthis into Thampli-\\nthis and Pammes may be understood by comparing\\nthem in the Greek\\nA M O Y\u00c2\u00a9 I :S\\nA M I 2\\nn A M M H :s\\nAlthough the epoch-title, P*sa-muth-i, in the mu-\\ntilated form *Tammes, appears in Eratosthenes,\\nthe translation Archondes applies to the name", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0190.jp2"}, "191": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 185\\nShepseskaf for the Shepsu, in my opinion, were the\\nelders, chosen by the people, who ruled during the\\nGolden Age of the AchiuJ\\nHow fortunate it is that in the complete wreck of\\nthis portion of the list of Eratosthenes, those items\\nwhich are now wanting in the Manethonian Lists\\nhave been preserved.\\nFIFTH DYNASTY OF EIGHT MEMPHITE KINGS\\nThe present heading of this dynasty in the Lists\\nof Africanus, Fifth Dynasty of Eight Elephantinean\\nKings, is a palpable error as to Elephantine.\\nAfter Eusebius had copied the First Dynasty, in\\na manner^ he merely enumerated the remaining dy-\\nnasties of Manetho s first book in the most general\\nway, making mistakes wherever it was possible to do\\nso. In the Second Dynasty of Nine Kings, he\\nnames Bochos, Kechoos, Biophis, refers to\\nthree others, relates an incident under the sev-\\nenth, introduces Sesochris by name, and closes with\\nthe ninth. In the Third Dynasty of Eight Mem-\\nphite Kings, two only are named, while the others\\nare referred to as the remaining six. The Fourth\\nDynasty is treated even more negligently. It is\\nheaded Seventeen Memphite Kings of another regal\\nfamily, of whom the third, Suphis, constructed the\\nGreat Pyramid, etc. Suphis II is the only king\\nnamed. The seventeen kings did not belong to this\\ndynasty at all, but he simply transcribed the total of\\nthe eight kings of the First Dynasty and the nine\\nkings of the Second Dynasty. When he reached the", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0191.jp2"}, "192": {"fulltext": "i86\\nA Self- Verifying Chronological\\nr User-ka-f\\n2 Sahu-ra\\n3 Kaka\\n4 Ra-nofer-f\\n5 Ra-n-user\\n6 Men-kau-har\\n7 Tat-ka-ra\\n8 Uon-as\\nUser-ka-f\\nSahu-ra\\nNofer-ir-ka-ra\\nShepses-ka-ra\\nCha-nofer-ra\\nMen-kau-har\\nTat-ka-ra\\nUon-as\\nl\\nUsercheres, 28\\nSephres, 13\\nNephercheres, 20\\nSisires, 7\\nCheres, 20\\nRa-ouseres, 44\\nMencheres, 9\\nTatcheres, 44\\nOunas, 33\\nTotal, 248 (218)\\n\u00e2\u0080\u00a23i\\nS3\\nMyrtaios-\\nAmmonodotus, 22\\nPeteathyres, 16\\nFifth Dynasty his patience was well-nigh exhausted,\\nas shown by the heading, Fifth Dynasty of thirty-one\\nElephantinean Kings, of whom the first, Othoes,\\nwas murdered by his guards, and the fourth, Phiops,\\nheld the regal dignity from the sixth to the one hun-\\ndredth year of his age. The two kings who are\\nnamed belong to the Sixth Dynasty. The thirty-", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0192.jp2"}, "193": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 187\\none kings are the total of the seventeen kings just\\nmentioned, the six kings of the Fourth Dynasty and\\nthe eight kings of the Fifth Dynasty, which he mis-\\ntook for the number of kings belonging to the Sixth\\nDynasty.\\nThus it is easy to see how the error of Eusebius,\\nas to Elephantine, was carried over to the Fifth Dy-\\nnasty of Africanus. The kings of the Fifth Dynasty,\\nalthough of the original Thinite line of Anu, were\\nMemphite, but those of the Sixth Dynasty were from\\nElephantine.\\nThere were but eight kings in Manetho s Fifth\\nDynasty, as still shown by the heading of Africanus,\\nby the total of thirty-one kings copied by Eusebius,\\nand by the Tables of Abydus and Sakkara, although\\nthe names of nine kings now appear in the List of\\nAfricanus. Again the notation of the epoch-reigns,\\nof which there were two in this dynasty, is at the bot-\\ntom of the seeming discrepancy.\\nThe total of this dynasty, according to Manetho,\\nwas two hundred and forty-eight years; but as the sep-\\narate reigns, including the extra ninth, now foot up\\ntwo hundred and eighteen only, it is obvious that a\\nreign of twenty-nine or thirty years has dropped out of\\nthe list. The reign which has thus disappeared, like\\nthat of Chufu I, is the epoch-reign of the king who\\nreigned twenty-two years before, and seven years\\nafter, the epoch of Pachons, 3284 B. C, which was also\\nthe beginning of a Phoenix period. According to the\\nTheban doctrine, Chons, was the son of Amen and\\nMuth, notwithstanding, in the primitive cosmical", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0193.jp2"}, "194": {"fulltext": "1 88 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nteachings, he was the son of Seh and Nut. The epoch-\\nking of the month of Chons, therefore, could well as-\\nsume the title Amen-ir-ta-f, literally, Amen makes\\nthe Gift, which is the same as Pa-ta-amen/ The Gift\\nof Amen. In this title, as in many others, the final n\\nof Amen was completely worn off and lost in the\\nspoken language, so that, in Manetho s time, it had\\nsoftened into Amyrtaios. Of course, Myrtaios is\\na corruption of Amyrtaios. Referring to the twenty-\\nthird Theban king in the List of Eratosthenes, we\\nfind Myrtaios Ammonodotos, with a reign of\\ntwenty-two years. The translation into Greek, Am-\\nmonodotus, makes it certain that the original was\\nAmen-ir-taios in the modified form Amyrtaios.\\nBearing in mind that the epoch-reigns of Eratos-\\nthenes precede the epoch, we have, following the pres-\\nent List of Africanus\\nBeginning of Fifth Dynasty (3404-10), 3394 B. C.\\nUsercheres, 28 years\\nSephres, 13\\nNephercheres, 20\\nSisires, 7\\nCheres, 20\\nas Amyrtaios, 22 no\\nEpoch of Pachons, 3284 B. C.\\nThus the missing reign in Manetho s List can be\\nsupplied from the independent List of Eratosthenes,\\nand it fills out the Sothiac month as perfectly as the\\ncorresponding part of the reign from Manetho could\\nhave done. I say ^^corresponding part, because, as\\nwe have already seen, Manetho s epoch-reigns follow\\nthe epochs.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0194.jp2"}, "195": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt\\nIn comparing the lists and tables, it is interesting\\nto note that, as far back as the time of Seti and Ra-\\nmesses, the epoch-reigns appear to have misled copy-\\nists who were not initiated and did not understand\\ntheir meaning. The Table of Sakkara, for instance,\\nplaces Shepses-ka-ra, which is identical with Shepses-\\nka-fy the epoch-king of 3404 B. C, between Nofer-ir-\\nka-ra and Cha-nofer-ra, the latter of whom has usurped\\nthe place of Ra-n-user, a very noted king.\\nThe fact that the present list of the Fifth Dynasty\\ncontains nine reigns, where there were but eight orig-\\ninally, is conclusive proof that at least one epoch-title\\nhas crept in somewhere. Taking the Table of Abydus\\nas our standard, it is not hard to discover the in-\\ntruder.\\nThe succession in the Table of Abydus is as fol-\\nlows:\\n1. User-ka-f, Usercheres= User-ka-ra, 28 years\\n2. Sahu-ra, Sephres, 13\\n3. Kaka, Cheres =Ka-ra, 47\\n4. Ra-nofer-f, ^Qph^rch.QVQS^No/er-ka-ra, 22\\nRa-nofer-f, Sisires, after epoch, 7\\nIt is apparent, at the first glance, that Manetho\\nhas systematically changed the antique form ka-f^ his\\nka, or spiritual image, into ka-ra, the ka of Ra.\\nWe may, therefore, assume that he likewise changed\\nRa-nofer-f, which signifies the perfection of Ra,\\ninto Nofer-ka-ra, Perfect is the ka of Ra. Chons,\\nthe moon, was symbolically termed the left eye\\nof God. The name in the Table of Sakkara is writ-\\nten with the eye, which I have rendered ir, but, to", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0195.jp2"}, "196": {"fulltext": "I90 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\njudge from Nephercheres of Manetho, was not pro-\\nnounced. Sisires, then, seems to resolve itself into\\nSa-iri, Son of the Eye, originally Seires, the epoch-\\ntitle of Ra-nofer-fy after 3284 B. C.\\nContemporary monuments, as arranged by Petrie,\\nafford little additional assistance as to the succes-\\nsor of Sakura; the stone of Palermo has it Userkaf,\\nSahura, and Noferirkara; the Westcar papyrus, User-\\nkaf, Sahura, and Kakau and the List of Ptah-cha-hau,\\nSahura, Nofer-ir-kara, Ra-nofer-f, and Ra-n-user, Of\\nthese, Userkaf, Sahura, Noferirkara, Ra-no-fer-f, and\\nRa-n-user left pyramids, named respectively Ueb-\\nhusut, Purest of Places, Clia-ha, Rising of the\\nSoul, Ba, The Soul, and Men-husut, Most Endur-\\ning of Places.\\nThe second half of this dynasty presents much less\\ndifBculty. Manetho s separate numbers lead us\\nstraight to the next epoch-king, who was no other\\nthan Uon-as, the last king of this dynasty, now so cele-\\nbrated and well-known through the inscriptions in\\nhis pyramid, recently discovered, and lately published\\nin beautiful style under the supervision of Maspero.\\nBeginning at the epoch 3284 B. C, we have the\\nfollowing reigns:\\nEpoch of Pachons 3284 B. C.\\n4. Ra-nofer-f, aiter epoch, 7 years\\n5. Ra-n-user, 44\\n6. Men-kau-har, 9\\n7. Tat-ka-ra 44\\n8. Uon-as, before epoch. Peteathyris, 16 120\\nEpoch of Pa-\u00c2\u00abo\u00c2\u00abz, 3164 B. C.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0196.jp2"}, "197": {"fulltext": "Hist OR y of Ancient Eg ypt 191\\nThe name Uon-as, Ancient One, in connection\\nwith Pa-uoni, is so plainly derived from the descent\\nof the sun into the lower hemisphere, after crossing\\nthe equator on the first day of Pa-uoni, that it seems\\nto be self-evident, for Ra became Osiris at the autum-\\nnal equinox. The reign of Uon-as before the epoch\\nappears in the List of Eratosthenes as number thirty-\\none, Peteathyres, with sixteen years. The sign next\\nbelow the equator, we repeat, was called Hus-et, or\\nIsis, at sunset, or the autumnal equinox, and Ha-et-\\nhar, or Hathor, at sunrise, or the vernal equinox,\\nwhence the two fishes. Isis and Atyr are two forms\\nof the same sign, and, therefore, interchangeable.\\nThe title Pa-ta-hat-har, The Gift of Hathor, was\\nchosen to mark this epoch more accurately than\\nthe name Uon-as, borne by the king during his en-\\ntire reign, did. Neither the monuments nor the\\nvoluminous texts in his pyramid reveal any other\\nname or title than Uon-as, which seems to be be-\\ncause Ancient One includes and merges all other\\ntitles.\\nAs Osiris was also Uon-nofer^ The Perfect\\nOne,* Uon-as called his pyramid Nofer-hus-ut^ The\\nMost Perfect of Places. Petrie thinks he built a\\ntemple to Hathor at Memphis; if so, it was for\\nthe same reason that he assumed the title Pe-\\nteathyres.\\nIt appears that King Tat-ka-ra also bore the name\\nAs-as, sometimes written Assa, which is a duplication\\nof As, Ancient, giving it augmentative force, and", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0197.jp2"}, "198": {"fulltext": "192 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nmeaning Very Ancient. In the reign of this king,\\nRa had almost reached the end of his Hfe in the upper\\nhemisphere, for he was supposed to die at the au-\\ntumnal equinox and enter the lower hemisphere as\\nTum or Osiris. This occurred but once in 1,460\\n3^ears, hence As-as was peculiarly appropriate and\\ndescriptive.\\nIn round numbers, Uonas reigned eighteen years\\nafter the epoch, and we can place the end of the\\nFifth Dynasty at 3146 B. C.\\nFIFTH DYNASTY OF EIGHT MKMPHITE KINGS\\n1. Usercheres, 28 years 3394-3366 B. C.\\n2. Sephres, 13 3366-3353 B. C.\\n3. Cheres, 47 3353-33o6 B. C.\\n4. Nephercheres, before epoch, 22 3306-3284 B. C.\\nNephercheres, after epocti, 7 3284-3277 B. C.\\n5. Raouseres, 44 3277-3233 B. C.\\n6. Mencheres, 9 3233-3224 B. C.\\n7. Tatcheres, 44 3224-3180 B. C.\\n8. Ounas, before epoch, 16 3180-3164 B. C.\\nOunas, after epoch, 18 3 164-3 146 B- C.\\nTotal, 248\\nEPOCH-REIGNS OF THE FIFTH DYNASTY\\nThe great epoch of Pa-chons, 3284 B. C, is an\\nexceptionally gratifying one, for I have discovered the\\nepoch-titles and epoch-reigns of Eratosthenes and\\nManetho, which give us the reigns before, as well as\\nafter, the epoch. This month, as the name indicates,\\nwas sacred to Chons, who was sometimes called the", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0198.jp2"}, "199": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 193\\nson of Amen and Muth, sometimes termed the left\\nEye of God. Eratosthenes, who pubhshed a\\nSothiac list of Theban kings, gives us the reign of\\nNofer-ka-ra before the epoch, as Amyrtaios-Ammon-\\nodotus, with twenty-two years. Manetho, the priest\\nof Sebennytus, gives us the reign after the epoch, as\\nSe-iris, now Sisires, Son of the Eye, with seven\\nyears.\\nOwing to the providential insertion of the\\nepoch-reign of Se-iris in the Hst of Africanus, the\\noriginal numbers were deranged and corrupted in\\nsuch a manner that the task of restoring them seemed\\nto be hopeless. The original total of the dynasty was\\ntwo hundred and forty-eight years; but the separate\\nnumbers footed up only two hundred and eighteen.\\nWhere and how were the missing thirty years to be\\nsupplied? A comparison of the foregoing lists will\\nshow how the confusion originated. The undeniable\\nfact that the Sothiac epochs have left their effects\\nupon the most ancient tables and lists which have\\ncome down to us demonstrates that the Sothiac sys-\\ntem was as old as the kingdom itself.\\nThe epoch of Pa-uon-i, 3164 B. C, fell in the\\nseventeenth year of Uon-as, whose name is an epoch-\\ntitle in itself. Eratosthenes, substituting Hathor for\\nIsis, uses the title, The Gift of Hathor, or Petea-\\nthyris, which is plainly Pa-ta-hat-har. The sixteen\\nyears of Peteathyris, when fitted into the independent\\nlist of Manetho, verify and sustain it to a mathemat-\\nical certainty.\\n13", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0199.jp2"}, "200": {"fulltext": "194 Self-Verifying Chronological\\nNow, in conclusion, note how these independent\\nnumbers combine and coalesce as a harmonious\\nwhole\\nEnd of Fourth Dynasty, 3394 B. C.\\nI Usercheres, 28\\n3366 B. C.\\n2. Sephres, 13\\n3353 B. C.\\n3. Cheres, 47\\n3306 B.C.\\n4. Nephercheres, as Amyrtaios, 22\\n3284 B.C.\\nNephercheres, as Se-iris, 7\\n3277 B. C.\\n5. Ra-useris, 44\\n3233 B.C.\\n6. Mencheres, 9\\n3224 B. C.\\n7. Tancheres, 44\\n3180 B. C.\\n8. Uonas, as Peteathyris, 16\\n3164 B. C.\\nUonas, after epoch, 18\\nEnd of Fifth Dynasty, 3146 B. C.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0200.jp2"}, "201": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt\\n195\\nSIXTH DYNASTY OF SIX MEMPHITE KINGS\\na\\\\tn 4^ OJ to\\nhH\\nUser-ka-ra\\nMeri-ra\\nMer-en-ra\\nNofer-ka-r\\nMer-en-ra\\nMenthu-\\nNuter-ka-r\\np\\nfo rp P\\nB\\nd\\nh\\nOS rjxJf^^ w\\nM\\ncn\\nPhios (Phio\\nMethusuph\\nPhiops\\nMenthesup\\nNitocris,\\n3\\nH\\nd\\nF n\\ns*\\nX!\\ns\\n13\\nto\\nM\\n5\\nW M 5\\n53\\nVJ\\nH\\n5\\ns J: j;\\ns\\n33\\np\\n\u00e2\u0096\u00bai\\nC/3\\ntrl 0\\n0^ t3*\\nS iJ\\npB\\n2. ^ci CO\\nW\\nnephth\\nosokara\\ns,\\n5cl\\na\\nw P\\nM\\n)_i\\nM\\nON M l-l\\nen\\nVi\\nfS\\nta\\n\u00c2\u00bb-t\\n0)\\nSIXTH DYNASTY OF SIX ElvEPHANTINEAN KINGS\\nWe have seen that the Fifth Dynasty was Mem-\\nphite, and that the kings of the Sixth Dynasty were\\nderived from a Hne located at Elephantine; and we", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0201.jp2"}, "202": {"fulltext": "196 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nhave further seen how the confusion in the headings\\nof these two dynasties in the Usts of Africanus was\\nbrought about.\\nThere was but one epoch in the Sixth Dynasty, to\\nwit the epoch of Epiphi, 3044 B. C, and, as the long\\nreign of the epoch-king marked him so prominently\\nthat he could not be overlooked by the epitomists,\\nthe list of this dynasty has come down to us almost\\nintact. The only material changes to be found in it\\naffect the reign of Phiops II, and the total of the\\ndynasty. We have shown that Phiops II, according\\nto the remark copied by Eusebius, reigned from his\\nsixth to his one hundredth year, that is, ninety-five\\nyears; but he now has the entire one hundred years\\nof his life. The error was natural. The one hundred\\nyears of his life were substituted for the ninety-five\\nyears of his reign. The true total of this dynasty was\\none hundred and ninety-eight years; but, after the\\nreign of Phiops II had been increased to one hundred\\nyears, the separate reigns footed up two hundred and\\nthree years, and the total was increased to two hun-\\ndred and three years. Another circumstance favored\\nthis change from one hundred and ninety-eight to\\ntwo hundred and three years. Manetho summed up\\nfrequently, and it seems had a sub-total of two hun-\\ndred and three years at the close of the Seventh Dy-\\nnasty, which reigned six years and seventy days.\\nThe total of the Sixth Dynasty was, therefore,\\nchanged to two hundred and three years, and that of\\nthe Seventh Dynasty to seventy days. In this way\\nthe erand total of Manetho s First Book, which was", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0202.jp2"}, "203": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 197\\n2,300 years, was not disturbed. This dynasty was\\none of the first singled out for hostile attack by Man-\\netho s modern opponents; but recent discoveries have\\ndemonstrated that Manetho s Hst was reliable and\\ntrustworthy, and that the same is supported and veri-\\nfied by contemporary monuments. The Pyramid\\nTexts prove, beyond a doubt, that Manetho s work\\nwas founded on accurate historical monuments. The\\nwonderful inscriptions discovered in the pyramids of\\nSakkara, which have recently been published by Mas-\\npero, have made the names of Uon-as, Tela, Meri-ra\\nPepa, Mer-en-ra Menthu-em-sauf, and Nofer-ka-ra\\nPepa, more familiar to the Egyptologist than the\\nnames of Seti and Ramesses. Each of these five kings\\nhas left us a pyramid and a volume of inscriptions as\\na lasting memorial of his life and reign\\nThe Fifth Dynasty came to an end about 3146\\nB. C, or eighteen years after the epoch 3164 B. C,\\naccording to Manetho s separate reigns and dynastic\\ntotals, and the epoch-reign Peteathyris of Eratos-\\nthenes. A simple addition will show that the epoch\\nof Epiphi fell in the twelfth year of Nofer-ka-ra Pepa,\\nthe long-lived Phiops of Manetho.\\nBeginning of Sixth Dynasty, 3146 B. C.\\nOthoes (Tithoes), 30 years\\nPhios {Phiops), 53\\nMenthusuphis, 7\\nPhiops II, before epoch, 12 102\\n^B. C.\\nPhiops II, after epoch, 83\\nMenthusuphis II, i\\nNitokris, 12 96\\nEnd of Old Empire, 2948 B. C.", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0203.jp2"}, "204": {"fulltext": "198 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nBefore we seek the epoch-reign of Epiphi, 304^\\nB. C, in the list of Eratosthenes, we must again re-\\nmind the reader that the above numbers are taken\\nfrom the List of Africanus, in which the extra months\\nand days are always apportioned, and that eleven\\nyears for the reign of Pepa II before the epoch may be\\nas correct as twelve.\\nWe have already seen that Epiphi is the Greek\\nform of Apapi, which was rendered Apophis by\\nManetho. Pepa and Apapi, therefore, are not the\\nsame name. The Apappus of Eratosthenes is the\\nGreek form of Apapi, the epoch-title of this Phiops\\nafter 3044 B. C. The Stela of Cheops Daughter\\nshows that Ptah presided over the month of Epiphi\\nin the time of the pyramid-builders; consequently, in\\nthe succeeding epoch of Epiphi, 1584 B. C., we find\\nSeti Mer-na-ptah, or Seti, Beloved by Ptah, instead\\nof Apophis, Typhonic Set being substituted for A pap.\\nThe twenty-ninth Theban king of Eratosthenes is\\ncalled Chomaephtha, translated Kosmos Phile-\\nphaistos. He has a reign of eleven years. The\\ntranslation of Chomaephtha renders the Egyptian\\nepoch-title certain. Pharaoh claimed to rule the earth\\nas Ra rules the planetary system, and the word CJw,\\nor Chu, expresses this universal rule. Maephtha, orig-\\ninally Manephtha, is plainly Mer-na-ptah, Beloved\\nby Ptah, who was called Hephaistos and Vulcan.\\nThe titles Apappus and Chomanephtha, the eleven\\nyears of the epoch-reign transmitted by Eratosthenes\\nand the separate numbers of Manetho, furnish evi-\\ndence so clear and conclusive as to the exact date of", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0204.jp2"}, "205": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 199\\nthe accession of Pepa II, that no reasonable critic will\\nquestion it.\\nNo sooner do we arrive at absolute dates, show-\\ning that the Old Empire, symbolized as Adam in\\nGenesis, came to an end, or died, 2948 B. C, than\\nother events of equally far-reaching importance rise\\nup and take their place in history. It was at this\\nexact date, thus mathematically and astronomically\\nfixed, that Thebes, as a separate and independent\\ngovernment, was born, and it seems to be providen-\\ntial that the name Noah, by which it was symbolized\\nin the Mosaic account, is phonetically and literally\\nidentical with No-da, Great City, the distinctive\\nname of Thebes in the days of Moses.\\nWe know that the kings of this dynasty reigned\\nat the imperial capital Memphis, as their predecessors\\nof the Fifth Dynasty had done; but we do not know,\\nowing to the loss of Manetho s work, how a branch\\nof the royal family, located and established in the\\nfrontier city of Elephantine, came to obtain the\\ncrown. A happy accident has preserved and placed\\nin our hands the head of the mummy of Menthusu-\\nphis I, the eldest son of Meri-ra Pepa in his old age,\\nby his wife characterized as a daughter of men,\\nthat is, not of the royal line. A life-like picture of it\\ncan be seen on page 435 of The Dawn of Civiliza-\\ntion. Maspero described the mummy as follows:\\nThe body is thin and slender; the head refined,\\nand ornamented with a thick side-lock of boyhood;\\nthe features can be easily distinguished, although the\\nlower jaw has disappeared and the pressure of the\\nbandages has flattened the nose.", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0205.jp2"}, "206": {"fulltext": "200 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nThe learned author might have added that the\\nsize and harmonious proportions of the brain, the\\nlarge eye, the high and broad forehead, the fine angle\\nand delicate curve of the brow, the height from the\\nlobe of the ear to the crown {cha) of the skull, and\\nthe full and esthetic curves in the regions of benevo-\\nlence, veneration, and ideality stamp him unmistak-\\nably as the peer of the best examples of the modern\\nJaphetic race. O, what a commentary on Maspero s\\nrude, savage, and semi-barbaric Pharaohs of the\\nOld Empire is this mummy and skull of Menthusu-\\nphis I! At this time, as all the authorities concede,\\nEgyptian art and civilization was in its decadence.\\nWe shall have occasion to again refer to this king,\\nwho was but a youth wearing the side-lock when he\\ndied, when we come to examine the inscriptions of\\nUna.\\nAlthough the published inscriptions found in the\\ntomb of Teta fill a small-sized volume, and offer ma-\\nterial which the archaeologist will not exhaust in\\nyears, we know little of his life and reign, except that\\nhe was the first king of this dynasty, and was mur-\\ndered by his bodyguard after he had reigned thirty\\nyears. His Horus-title was Se-hotep-taui, which\\nmeans giving peace to the two lands, an allusion\\nto Ra crossing the equator, at which time he illu-\\nmines the two hemispheres equally. An alabaster\\nvase found at Abydos has the name Teta, Beloved of\\nDed, with a figure of Osiris, Ba-neh-ded (Mendes),\\nwith a ram s head, which indicates that he ruled in the\\nSothiac month of Pa-uoni.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0206.jp2"}, "207": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 201\\nMerira Pepa was one of the most powerful kings\\nthat ever reigned over Egypt. He named his pyramid\\nMen-nofer, in imitation of Menes, and during his long\\nreign of fifty-three years built temples and monu-\\nments in all parts of Egypt. The celebrated inscrip-\\ntion of Una casts a welcome ray of light upon his\\nreign. This inscription adorned one of the walls of\\nthe tomb of Una in the central part of the Necropolis\\nof Abydos. In this inscription he says he was still a\\nyouth, wearing the fillet, and employed as superin-\\ntendent of the treasury under Teta. Meri-ra Pepa\\nconferred on him the dignity of friend and prophet\\nof his pyramid. After this he made him a judge, and\\nhe heard all that happened in every secret affair, exe-\\ncuted all writings in the name of the king, and served\\nHis Majesty in most confidential relations. Pharaoh\\nordered him to bring a sarcophagus of white stone,\\nwith its lid and tablet in the form of a gate, from the\\nquarries of Troia. His wisdom and zeal pleased His\\nMajesty, who afterwards made him sole friend and\\nsuperintendent of the irrigated lands belonging to\\nthe crown; besides this he had to keep guard behind\\nPharaoh, settle the royal itinerary, and arrange the\\norder of the nobles; all of which he did to Pharaoh s\\nsatisfaction. He was intrusted with other delicate\\nduties relating to the imperial household. When His\\nMajesty carried war into the districts of the Hini-shay\\nwith an army of several myriads levied in the Land of\\nthe South and the Land of the North, including\\nNegroes from the districts south of Elephantine, His\\nMajesty sent Una at the head of this army; he led", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0207.jp2"}, "208": {"fulltext": "202 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nthem to the frontier of the Delta, between the gate\\nof Imhotep and the fortress of Har-neh-maat (the forti-\\nfied hne corresponding approximately to the present\\nSuez Canal), where they formed, and marched into\\nthe country of the Hiru-sha. There they were com-\\npletely successful, destroyed the country of this hostile\\nnation, cut down their fig-trees and vines, burnt their\\nhouses, slaughtered their troops to the number of\\nmany myriads, and returned bringing back great\\nnumbers of living captives, for which Pharaoh praised\\nhim more than anything else. His Majesty sent Una\\nfive times to lead this army into the country of the\\nHiru-sha, on each occasion of their revolt, and he\\nbore himself so well that the king praised him beyond\\neverything.\\nIt appears that there were rebels among these\\nbarbarians as far as the land of Tiba, which bordered\\non the sea. Una sailed in ships with his army, and\\nattacked the coasts of this country to the north of the\\ncountry of the Hiru-sha, upon which occasion he over-\\nthrew them and slew all the rebels among them.\\nThese were the acts and deeds of Una under King\\nMeri-ra Pepa. The danger must have been great and\\nimminent, which required a levy of myriads of sol-\\ndiers, not only in Upper and Lower Egypt, but also\\nin the adjoining districts of the dusky Negroes and\\nthe blue-eyed Tamahu. As Meri-ra intrusted this dan-\\ngerous duty to Una, I infer that these campaigns\\ntook place near the end of his long reign of fifty-three\\nyears, when he had become too old to lead the army\\nin person. The frontier gate of Imhotep was built by,", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0208.jp2"}, "209": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 203\\nor named after, the second king of the Third Dynasty,\\nand the fortress Har-neh-maat, as the name shows,\\ndates from the reign of Senoferu. The land of the\\nHiru-sha, with its vines and fig-trees, was none other\\nthan Canaan, and it is hard to see how any Egyptol-\\nogist could place it within the fortified frontier of the\\nDelta (now absolutely fixed by the Pyramid Texts\\nor in the desert south of Canaan. The people tempo-\\nrarily subdued in these campaigns were the Canaan-\\nites, who inhabited this country before Abraham came\\nfrom Ur of the Chaldees,\\nAfter the death of Pepa Mer-en-ra Menthu-em-\\nsauf I, who was quite young when he ascended the\\nthrone, advanced Una to yet higher and more re-\\nsponsible ofificial positions. Una tells us that Pharaoh\\nappointed him governor of Upper Egypt, from Ele-\\nphantine on the southern frontier to Letopolis below\\nMemphis, because his wisdom and zeal were pleas-\\ning to His Majesty, because the heart of His Maj-\\nesty was satisfied wdth him. In this ofifice Una was\\nabove all the officers, vassals, and servants of the king\\nin Upper Egypt, a dignity which had never been\\npreviously conferred upon a mere subject. He ful-\\nfilled the arduous duties of the new office so satisfac-\\ntorily, that Mer-en-ra made him second in rank to the\\nking, in which capacity he transacted all the business\\nin Upper Egypt, performed the duties of superin-\\ntendent of public works, and rendered judgment in\\nall cases determined by the highest courts in Upper\\nEgypt as second judge. We thus see that Una was\\na man of extraordinary abilities, equally efficient as", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0209.jp2"}, "210": {"fulltext": "204 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nadviser in private affairs of the most delicate nature,\\nas superintendent of irrigated lands, as commander\\nof large armies in the field and on the sea, as gov-\\nernor of one-half of the empire, as supreme judge in\\nhearing and determining legal controversies, and as\\ndirector of those stupendous public works, the ruins\\nof which still excite our wonder and admiration.\\nBut all this is merely introductory to what we wish\\nto notice particularly. After Mer-en-ra had dis-\\npatched Una to the quarries of Ahhaet, opposite Sehel,\\nto bring to the pyramid Cha-nofer at Memphis a royal\\nsarcophagus and the lid therefor, and to Elephantine\\nto get a door with its frame, etc., of syenite, he tells\\nus: His Majesty sent me to Haet-nub (the alabaster\\nquarries back of Tel-el-Amarna) to get a great table\\nof offerings of alabaster from Haet-nub. I sent him\\nthis table in seventeen days. This period\\n(sapet) of seventeen days was in the third month of\\nthe She-mot^ Season (Epiphi); but as there was not\\nsufficient water in the sluices of the canal to land\\nsafely at Mer-en-ra s pyramid, Cha-nofer, I caused it\\nto be transported there by hand, in order to carry out\\nthe command of His Majesty, my lord. The mean-\\ning of the words, Seth en uon-et mou Mr thes-u [mer]\\nmen-a er Mer-en-ra Cha-nofer em hotep, is clear to me,\\nto wit: seth, inasmuch, since; ne uon-et, there\\nwas not; mou, water; hir-thesu, over the sluices;\\n(iner, of the canal men-a, to land; er, at;\\nCha-nofer (the pyramid); cheper-en-a, I caused it to\\nbe done; em, by; a, hand, etc. Of course,", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0210.jp2"}, "211": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 205\\ncheper-en-a must be read in connection with the pre-\\nceding paragraph, describing how he transported the\\ngreat table of offerings down the river in a wide\\nboat, built of locust wood, sixty ells long and thirty\\nells wide.\\nMenthusuphis I, who was still under age, seems\\nto have had a premonition of impending death, and\\nissued strict orders to have the great altar procured\\nwithin a certain short period. Ordinarily the quarry-\\ning, cutting, sculpturing, and transporting of this\\nponderous altar would have taken so long, that when\\nit finally arrived at the appointed spot above Sakkara\\nthere would have been sufficient water in the canals,\\nowing to the inundation, to float it to the landing at\\nthe foot of the Libyan hills, just below the pyramid,\\nCha-nofer. Una, however, used such expedition in\\nexecuting the command, that he procured the table in\\nseventeen days, as he himself tells us, which period\\nwas in the month of Epiphi. The waters of the Nile\\nhad not yet risen sufficiently over the sluices of the\\ncanal to float the large transport, or, as Una expresses\\nit, to land at the pyramid in peace.\\nNow how does this stage of the Nile on the i8th\\nday of Epiphi, in the reign of Mer-en-ra tally with\\nthe chronology transmitted by Manetho, and verified\\nby the astronomical epochs?\\nThe end of this king s reign was one hundred and\\neight years after the epoch of Pa-iioni, 3164 B. C;\\nhence we can assume that Sothis rose heliacally on\\nthe 27th day of Paoni. In other words, according to", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0211.jp2"}, "212": {"fulltext": "2o6 A Self- Verifying Chronologica\\nour way of reckoning, the 27th of Payni coincided\\nwith the 19th of July, consequently the i8th of Epiphi\\ncorresponded to the 9th of August.\\nWe have seen that the annual rise of the Nile be-\\ngins at Elephantine about June 21st, and continues\\nwith fluctuating ebbs for about one hundred days,\\nwhen it reaches high-water mark. After remaining\\nstationary for some time, the river then commences\\nto slowly fall. It results from this, that the inundation\\nreaches its highest stage about September 19th. As\\nUna s transport reached the landing above Memphis\\nabout August 9th, or fully one month and ten days\\nbefore the highest stage of the Nile, it is clear that\\nthere was not yet a sufficient depth of water over the\\nlocks of the canals to enable the large transport to\\npass, although there was sufficient water in the Nile\\nitself to float it down from Haet-nuh to Memphis. The\\nexigency which made it necessary for Una to have\\nthe ponderous stone dragged across the intervening\\nland by hand must have been great and pressing\\nindeed, and yet Una did not outlive Menthusuphis,\\nfor Pepa II is not mentioned in his inscription.\\nWe now see how the immense stones used in the\\nconstruction of the pyramids were transported to\\ntheir present sites; they were conveyed to the foot of\\nthe Libyan hills in large, wide boats during the in-\\nundation, after which they were pulled up to the top\\nof the hill over inclined roadways, as occasion re-\\nquired.\\nPepa I and Una were of about the same age, and\\ntheir mutual attachment continued until they were", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0212.jp2"}, "213": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 207\\nseparated by death. The reign of Pepa I is described\\nas one of the most vigorous of the Old Empire.\\nPetrie says his monuments are more numerous, and\\nare spread over a wider area of territory, than those\\nof any other king prior to the Twelfth Dynasty. Can\\nit be doubted that this was owing, in a great measure,\\nto the talents, foresight, and indefatigable energy of\\nUna, who was over sixty years of age when he exe-\\ncuted the royal commands with such remarkable ex-\\npedition under King Mer-en-raf\\nMeri-ra Pepa had attained a ripe old age without\\nbeing blessed with male issue to succeed him on the\\nthrone, when, relying on his well-established renown,\\nhe ventured to marry outside the old legitimate solar\\nline, thereby violating a sacred, time-honored custom\\nof the ancient Egyptians, whose devotion to their\\ninstitutions Pharaoh himself could not shake. By\\nchoosing a wife from the daughters of men, this\\nson of Ra succeeded in obtaining two promising\\nheirs, Mer-en-ra and Nofer-ka-ra, the latter of whom,\\nit seems, was posthumous. Manetho gives Menthu-\\nsuphis I a reign of seven years, according to the list\\nof Africanus, which may have been six years and sev-\\neral months. As Nofer-ka-ra reigned from his sixth\\nto his one hundredth year, his birth coincided very\\nclosely with his father s death. With such a powerful\\nand adroit friend as Una, now well advanced in years,\\nMer-en-ra had no difficulty in asserting his doubtful\\nclaim to the throne; and, after he had held the crown\\nfor over six years, the rights of his younger brother\\nwere admitted, as a matter of course, But there were,", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0213.jp2"}, "214": {"fulltext": "2o8 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nin many districts of Egypt, powerful lords, related to\\nthe old royal line, who considered their rights to the\\ncrown superior to those of these two boys. A letter\\nfrom Nofer-ka-ra Pepa to Hir-chuf, recently discov-\\nered at Elephantine, in which the young king in-\\ndulges in the most extravagant expressions of joy\\nover the expected arrival of a ding or dwarf, shows\\non its face that he was still a mere child in the third\\nyear of his reign. This king s reign of ninety-five\\nyears, spanning, as it did, almost three generations,\\nwas the most phenomenal in the 4,000 years of Egyp-\\ntian history; but the ultimate effect of it was equally\\ndisastrous. As the king grew old his grip on the\\nreins of government grew weaker, and the hereditary\\nnobles, who governed the more important provinces,\\ngrew more and more powerful and independent, until\\nat last the authority of the crown in many districts,\\nespecially those most distant from Memphis, became\\nmerely nominal. Need we be surprised to find that\\nPepa s successor, Mer-en-ra II, probably his grandson,\\nwas forcibly dethroned and put to death by these\\narrogant barons after a short reign of one year and\\none month, and Neit-aker-ti, his rosy-cheeked sister,\\nput on the throne in his place? They no doubt sup-\\nposed that a mild and gentle queen would not inter-\\nfere with their usurped rights, and that they would be\\npermitted to rule their respective nomes unmolested\\nby the sovereign; but they reckoned without their\\nhostess.\\nHerodotus tells us that the priests enumerated\\nfrom a book the names of three hundred and thirty", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0214.jp2"}, "215": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 209\\nkings, besides Menes, of whom one was a native\\nqueen named Nitocris.\\nThey said that she avenged her brother, whom\\nthe Egyptians had slain while reigning over them;\\nand after they had slain him they then delivered the\\nkingdom to her, and she, to avengfe him, destroyed\\nmany of the Egyptians by strategy for, having caused\\nan extensive apartment to be made under ground, she\\npretended that she was going to consecrate it; but\\nin reality had another design in view; and having\\ninvited those of the Egyptians whom she knew to\\nhave been principally concerned in the murder, she\\ngave a great banquet, and when they were feasting\\nshe let in the river upon them through a large con-\\ncealed channel. This is all they related of her, except\\nthat when she had done this she threw herself into a\\nroom full of ashes, in order that she might escape\\npunishment.\\nThis story has been doubted by a class of writers\\nwho imagine there is real scientific merit in denying\\nhistorical facts (otherwise well vouched for), even\\nwhere they are unable to present any reasons what-\\never for doubting them. To disprove false relations\\nand idle fables by actual facts is scientific; but an un-\\nsupported denial is not. The world has long since\\ndiscovered that the so-called Father of History was\\neminently truthful, even though he may have been\\nover-credulous. In this instance it appears that an\\naccount of this tragic event, which brought on the\\nend of the Old Empire, was contained in the book,\\npreserved among the sacred archives of a temple, in\\nwhich the names, lives, and history of three hundred\\n14", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0215.jp2"}, "216": {"fulltext": "2IO A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nand thirty-one kings of Egypt, beginning with\\nMenes, were enumerated and set forth. The authen-\\nticity of the book shown to Herodotus by the priests\\nis established by a fragment of the Turin papyrus, on\\nwhich the name Neit~aker-ti, that is, The Victorious\\nNeith, still appears.\\nIn conclusion, I will say that the name of the two\\nMer-en-ra s should be read Menthu-em-sauf, meaning\\nMenthu is his saviour, and not Meht-em-sauf, as now\\ngenerally contended upon the authority of Lauth.\\nThe sparrow-hawk above the sickle of the moon reads\\nMenthu. Har means above, and we therefore find\\nthe term Har applied to the planets which are above\\nthe earth; but never to Venus and Mercury, which are\\nbelow the earth. The moon partakes of a double\\ncharacter, because Chons is sometimes above and\\nsometimes below the earth. Menthu, or Mars, there-\\nfore, is represented as above Chons; and Har, above the\\nmoon, represents Menthu. Although the names in the\\nlist of Africanus have been slightly corrupted (the\\nfirst reading Methusuphis, the second Menthesuphis),\\nthey point unmistakably to an original Menthusuphis;\\nfor we now know from the inscriptions that the two\\nnames were identical the u in Methu and the n\\nin Menthe preserve the only missing letters.\\nSEVENTH AND EIGHTH MEMPHITE DYNASTIES\\nAlthough Manetho had but ten Thinite kings with\\nthree hundred and fifty years, followed by the Mem-\\nphite kings with 1,797 years, in his general scheme,\\nhe nevertheless completed the two Thinite Dynasties", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0216.jp2"}, "217": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 2 1 1\\nwith their seventeen kings and five kundred and sixty-\\nfive years, before he took up the Memphite Dynasties\\nin his lists. In his first book he carried the Memphite\\nDynasties dov^n to the beginning of the Twelfth Dy-\\nnasty, 2800 B. C, cutting off the first sixteen years\\nof Amenemes I to complete the cycle to 2784 B. C,\\nand then introduced the Ninth and Tenth Dynasties\\nof Heracleopolis, the five hundred and ninety-four\\nyears of which extend from 2942 B. C, the end of\\nthe Seventh Dynasty, to 2348 B. C, the date of the\\nHyksos invasion, or flood, when this line was ex-\\ntinguished. The claims of the Heracleopolite line\\nwere derived from one of the three lines which reigned\\ncontemporaneously between 3894 B. C. and 3680\\nB. C. After disposing of this line, Manetho takes up\\nthe new Theban line, which became the imperial, or\\nMemphite, line after 2800 B. C. This is the key to\\nthe two periods of Egyptian history which Egyptol-\\nogists have rashly pronounced hopeless. I shall here\\nfollow Manetho s arrangement, as I have found him\\nto be a trustworthy guide.\\nBut little can be said about the Seventh Dynasty,\\nas it continued for the short space of but six years\\nand seventy days. Why seventy days were used in\\nthis instance, instead of the customary two months\\nand ten days, may have been, as proposed by Lauth,\\non account of the seventy days prescribed for the rites\\nof embalming; but as all the kings were embalmed\\nafter death, and the seventy days are nowhere else\\nmentioned, there must have been an exceptional and\\nnationally significant reason in this case, which we", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0217.jp2"}, "218": {"fulltext": "212 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\ndo not need to go far to find. The wholesale de-\\nstruction of the nobles who had taken part in the\\ndeposition and murder of the second Menthusuphis,\\ncoupled with the death of the queen herself, was the\\noccasion of such a mourning in Egypt that these\\nseventy days were specially singled out and commem-\\norated. All that remains of this dynasty in Africanus\\nis Seventh Dynasty of seventy Memphite kings, who\\nreigned seventy days. In Eusebius it is Seventh\\nDynasty of five Memphite kings, who reigned sev-\\nenty-five days. As we have already shown, the six\\nyears have been lost from all the lists, but the num-\\nber of kings in Eusebius, namely, five, was probably\\nderived from a heading naming the first king, to wit,\\nX and five others.\\nThe author of the Turin papyrus seems to have\\nfooted up at the end of the Seventh Dynasty. There\\nis no break between Nitocris and the following five\\nkings. Manetho also seems to have had a total of\\ntwo hundred and three years, made up of the one hun-\\ndred and ninety-eight years of the Sixth Dynasty and\\nthe six years and seventy days of the Seventh Dy-\\nnasty. The rulers of the Thebais became independent\\nat the end of the Sixth Dynasty.\\nThe Eighth Dynasty, as I shall show, contrary to\\nwhat we might suppose, had considerable stability,\\nand at least one comparatively long reign. This dy-\\nnasty commenced to rule at Memphis, over a territory\\nextending but little south of the capital, in 2942 B. C,\\nat the same time that Achthoes, the unbearable ty-\\nrant, began to reign at Heracleopolis, near the en-", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0218.jp2"}, "219": {"fulltext": "HisTOR Y OF Ancient Eg ypt 213\\ntrance to the Fayum. It turns out that the first king\\nof the Eighth Dynasty, otherwise unknown (unless\\nhis throne-title appears in the Table of Abydos), was an\\nepoch-king, and, therefore, one of the most important\\nepoch-kings in the annals of Egyptian history. If\\nthe reader will refer to the twenty-sixth Theban king\\nin the Eist of Eratosthenes, he will find the epoch-\\ntitle, Semphrukrates, translated Herakles Harpo-\\nkrates, with a reign of eighteen years. This reign\\ncarries us accurately from 2942 B. C. to 2924 B. C,\\nthe epoch of Mes-hari, or Birth of Horus. We\\nhave already seen that the Horus who was born in\\nthis month was called Har-pa-krat, Horus, the\\nChild, and Sem-su, which the Greeks rendered Her-\\nakles. Now it is perfectly evident that Eratosthenes\\nwrote the name Sempsu-harpokrates, another instance\\nof how his names have been disfigured. As there were\\nbut eighteen years between the beginning of the dy-\\nnasty and the epoch 2924 B. C, there can be no\\ndoubt that the first king reigned at least eighteen\\nyears.\\nThis dynasty continued one hundred and forty-\\ntwo years, and seems to have had at least nine kings,\\nshowing that its end was more checkered than its be-\\nginning. These one hundred and forty-two years end\\nat 2800 B. C, when Amenemes I, of the Theban line,\\nobtained possession of the ancient capital, Memphis,\\nand became the ruler over the whole land. It should\\nbe remembered that between 2948 B. C. and 2800\\nB. C. there was no Pharaoh in the true and strict\\nsense of the word.", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0219.jp2"}, "220": {"fulltext": "214 Self-Verifying Chronological\\nNINTH AND TENTH DYNASTIES OF HBRAKIvEOPOLIS\\nThere is every reason to believe that the six years\\nand seventy days of the Seventh Dynasty cover a\\nperiod of anarchy and bloodshed. A fragment of the\\nTurin papyrus, providentially preserved, still shows\\nthat the immediate successors of Nitocris, to the num-\\nber of five or six, merely appeared upon the throne\\nto be shortly afterwards hurled down again. The\\nkings who did manage to get possession of the crown\\nwere not recognized as legitimate in other parts of\\nEgypt. The local rulers of the Thebais, including\\na portion of Upper Egypt adjoining it on the north,\\nasserted their independence in the year 2948 B. C,\\nat the downfall of the Old Empire, and succeeded in\\nmaintaining it.\\nAt the end of the Seventh Dynasty, or 2942\\nB. C, Achthois, who was characterized as an un-\\nbearable tyrant, established the Ninth Dynasty at\\nHeracleopolis, an ancient city on the west side of the\\nNile, a short distance above the celebrated entrance\\nto the fertile Fayum. Thus there was a divided king-\\ndom, the Eighth Dynasty ruling over Lower Egypt\\nfrom the ancient capital, Memphis, the Ninth Dy-\\nnasty, at Heracleopolis, ruling over the Heptanomis\\nand adjoining southern districts up to Abydus, and\\nthe Eleventh Dynasty (which should have one hun-\\ndred and forty-two instead of forty-three years) ruling\\nover the rest, including the Thebais and the Jhereto-\\nfore insignificant city of Thebes.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0220.jp2"}, "221": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 215\\nAchthois, the only king of the Ninth and Tenth\\nDynasties mentioned by name in the lists, seems to\\nbe the monumental Mer-ab-ra Ach-ta-L Egyptol-\\nogists persist in writing this name Che-ti/* claiming\\nthat none of the hieroplyphic signs begins with a\\nvowel. Manetho, however, knew nothing of such a\\nrule, for he invariably represents the initial sounds in\\nsuch names as Athothis, Aches, Achthois, Amenemes,\\nAmosis, Amenophis, etc., as pure vowels.\\nA remark attached to the name of Ach-ta-i, in the\\nlists, informs us that Egypt suffered all manner of\\ndire calamities during his reign, which must have been\\na comparatively long one. We now read that he was\\ndevoured by a crocodile but this was a palpable error\\non the part of the epitomist who first extracted the\\nitem from Manetho s work. The crocodile, as we\\nhave already shown, was the emblem of a Sothiac\\nm.onth, and was supposed to devour the month just as\\nthe hippopotamus was supposed to devour the year. It\\nwas the hanti of Epiphi, ending 2924 B. C, which was\\ndevoured by the crocodile, and not the tyrant Ach-\\nthois. This dynasty reigned contemporaneously with\\nthe Eleventh Dynasty of Thebes, and as the future of\\nEgypt depended upon the final issue of the wars\\nwaged by these two powerful rival lines, we shall\\nhave occasion to refer to this dynasty under the fol-\\nlowing head, where the consideration of the life-strug-\\ngle between the principles symbolized by Amen and\\nthose symbolized by the crocodile of the Fayum prop-\\nerly belongs.", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0221.jp2"}, "222": {"fulltext": "2i6 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nKLBVENTH DYNASTY OF THEBBS\\nWe now come to the genesis of a new govern-\\nment in Egypt, which is exceptionally distinguished\\nin the Mosaic account. We are told that Noah, who\\nwas born 2948 B. C, was a just man, perfect in his\\ngenerations, and that he walked with God. The\\nmonuments which have survived to our times and\\nthey are by no means so rare and insignificant as many\\nsuppose corroborate this to its fullest extent, for\\nthey show, on their face, that the Antefs and Menthii-\\nhoteps were not only followers of the primitive teach-\\nings of Life (religion is a modern term), and raised\\ntheir souls in silent worship to the Infinite One, but\\nthat, as prominently proclaimed in one of the royal\\nshields, they were Preachers of Righteousness.\\nWe can not emphasize too strongly that the en-\\ntire interval between the Downfall of the Old Em-\\npire and Birth of the Theban Government, on the\\none hand, and the beginning of the Twelfth Dynasty,\\non the other, ivas only one hundred and forty-eight\\nyears, because modern Egyptologists, by adding to-\\ngether, as consecutive, the totals of the dynasties,\\nMemphite, Theban, and Heracleopolite, have swelled\\nit to over seven hundred and fifty years, whereby\\nthey have involved themselves in hopeless darkness,\\nuncertainty, and confusion.\\nThe Table of Abydus contains the throne-titles\\nnot the names of twenty kings between Menthu-\\nsuphis II and Amenemes I, but none of the throne-\\ntitles of the kings of the Eleventh Dynasty appears", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0222.jp2"}, "223": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 2 1 7\\namong them, unless it be Neb-cheru-ra and S anch-\\nka-ra, who seem to belong to the Sixteenth Dynasty.\\nBut here, where we would otherwise be without\\na reliable guide, a kind providence has preserved for\\nour instruction the celebrated Table of Karnak, in\\nwhich Thothmes III is represented as doing homage\\nto his ancestors of the Theban line. Unfortunately,\\nthis venerable table has never been patiently studied.\\nIt was engraved and set up by order of Thothmes III,\\nwho was distinguished alike as a conqueror of foreign\\nnations, a builder of temples and public monuments,\\nand a patron of the arts and sciences.\\nThe Table of Karnak is a genealogical list of the\\nrulers and kings of the Theban line, introduced by a\\nfew of the leading kings of the Old Empire. It was\\ncustomary in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynas-\\nties to lead down to special lists in this way the kings\\nselected for this purpose being generally Mena, Sena-\\nferUy Neb-cheru-ra, etc. Although some of the ovals\\nare now destroyed, it is pretty certain that the in-\\ntroductory kings in the Table of Karnak were:\\nI. (Mena); 2. Senoferu; 3. Sahu-ra; 4. An; 5. Asas;\\n6. (Teta); 7. (Meri-ra); 8. Mer-en-ra I; 9. Nofer-ka-ra;\\n10. (Mer-en-ra II). The purpose of this selection\\nseems plain enough Menes represents the First and\\nSecond Thinite Dynasties, which ruled five hundred\\nand sixty-five years; Senoferu represents the Fourth\\nDynasty, which ruled two hundred and eighty-four\\nyears; Sahu-ra, An, and Asas represent the Fifth Dy-\\nnasty, which ruled two hundred and forty-eight years;\\nand the Sixth Dynasty, to which the Theban line was", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0223.jp2"}, "224": {"fulltext": "2i8 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nclosely related (Noah was the son of Ivamech), was\\ngiven in extenso down to Nitocris.\\nThe hereditary prince (not king) Antef follows\\nMenthusuphis II in the genealogical line, which ac-\\ncounts for I^amech having one hundred and eighty-\\nseven years before the birth of Noah the one hun-\\ndred and eighty-two years of Methusala and one hun-\\ndred and eighty-seven years of Lamech seem to be\\ntransposed. This recognition in the Table of Karnak\\nof the kings of the Sixth Dynasty, who were certainly\\nof Upper Egyptian extraction, would indicate that\\nthe downfall of this dynasty was, in part, owing to the\\nre-establishment, at Memphis, of the original L/Ower\\nEgyptian line, and explain why the Seventh and\\nEighth Dynasties are again termed Memphite.\\nThe first Antef in the Table of Karnak is not\\ntermed king, but simply erpa (erbe), which is an\\nabbreviation of erpa-he-t, literally head-heir, erb-\\nfuerst, or hereditary prince. The meaning of this\\ntitle is so clear that I can not see how there ever\\ncould have been any doubt about it. This head of\\nthe Theban line, although locally independent, was\\nmerely a provincial ruler, who still acknowledged the\\nnominal supremacy of Queen Nitocris. Maspero\\ngives a good representation, on page 115 of his\\nDawn of Civilization, of the stela of Antef a which\\nconfirms the title of the first Antef in the Table of\\nKarnak in every particular. We see the prince seated\\non the throne with his favorite dog by his side. The\\ninscription, which runs from right to left, gives his\\ntitle, Erpe he-t Mr top ta en Uas/ Hereditary prince", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0224.jp2"}, "225": {"fulltext": "HisTOR Y OF Ancient Eg ypt 2 1 9\\nand ruler of the land of IJas (Thebes); after which\\nwe read Gratifying the king, keeper of the gates of\\nthe South, giving life to the two lands\\nwhich he loves, chief of the priests, and devoted to\\nthe great God, lord of heaven, Ante fa. The title\\nerpe-he-ty coupled with the expression, pleasing to\\nthe king, shows that the ancestor of the Theban line\\ndid not claim to be a king, but merely claimed to be\\nthe chief ruler in the Thebaid. His piety is estab-\\nlished by the words, so rare in like inscriptions, de-\\nvoted to the great God.\\nThe successor of this prince, in the Table of Kar-\\nnak, was Menthu-hotep who is not called king, but\\nsimply Horus. The title Horus was used to de-\\nscribe an independent ruler of the southern third of\\nEgypt, a scion of a young line which had not yet\\nreached its maturity. In the same section two Antefs\\nfollow, each bearing the title of Horus. The last\\noval in this section, however; that is, the one immedi-\\nately in front of the figure of Thothmes III, is de-\\nstroyed; but no doubt contained another Horus\\nnamed Menthu-hotep, Thus we have a genealogical\\nsuccession of five local princes, who were contempo-\\nraneous with the kings of the Heracleopolite Dynasty.\\nThe last king in the third section of the table is an\\nAntef, carried over from the second section; but as he\\nbears the proper name Antef, and not the throne-\\ntitle of a full-fledged Pharaoh, the designation king\\nmay be an error, owing to all the rest of the ovals in\\nthat section, and the following section also, being\\nheaded king. As the names in the fourth, or lower.", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0225.jp2"}, "226": {"fulltext": "220 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nsection run from right to left, and as User-en-ra, Necht-\\nen-ra, and Se-ken-en-ra, the last of whom engaged in\\nwar with the Hyksos, belong to the close of the Six-\\nteenth Dynasty, it is very probable that Nub-cheper-ra\\nand Neh-cheru-ra, whose proper names were Antef\\nand Menfhuhotepy belong to the same dynasty, as they\\nprecede the three kings just named in the Table of\\nKarnak. It seems that the last Antef, King Antef,\\nwas placed immediately behind the last king of the\\nTwelfth Dynasty, to show the descent of the Twelfth\\nDynasty from the Eleventh Dynasty. Neh-cheru-ra\\nMenthu-hotep appears in the Table of Abydos before\\nthe kings of the Twelfth Dynasty; but we are still in\\nthe dark as to the series of twenty kings, in that\\ntable, to which he belongs. It is possible, yea prob-\\nable, that native kings of the Hyksos period were\\nplaced before the Twelfth Dynasty, so that the Eigh-\\nteenth might appear to immediately succeed the\\nTwelfth Dynasty. The vacant spaces in the lower\\nsection of the Table of Karnak were given to the\\nlast kings of the Hyksos period, whereby Se-ken-en-ra\\nwas brought next to User-tasen I of the Twelfth Dy-\\nnasty, as the following sketch will show", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0226.jp2"}, "227": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt\\n221\\nTABLE OF KARNAK\u00e2\u0080\u0094 LEFT HALF\\n\u00e2\u0096\u00ba1\\nI\\no\\nk\\nP\\nP\\nt\\nX\\n13*\\n2\\n1\\nfD\\ncl\\ns\\n9\\np\\n1\u00e2\u0080\u0094 1\\n8\\nw\\nw\\n2 o\\n.11\\nM\\nM\\nL\\n1\\nd\\no\\n3\\np\\n9\\nB\\n(-1\\nt\\ne\\nB\\nen\\nZ\\nB\\nni\\nB\\nh\\nI\\ng\\nI\\n1\\no\\n9\\n8\\n2 w\\n4\\nB\\nn\\nL\\n9\\n03\\nB\\nO\\n2\\nz\\nc\\n03\\nI\\nNote.\u00e2\u0080\u0094 In the Twelfth Dynasty we have substituted the well-known\\nnames for the throne-names, except in the case of Sebek-noferu-ra.\\nThere are some ancient tombs of this period at\\nAsyut, in which the wars for supremacy between the\\nTheban princes and the Heracleopolite kings are inci-\\ndentally mentioned.", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0227.jp2"}, "228": {"fulltext": "222 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nThe governors of the principality of Asyut, it\\nseems, became very powerful and semi-independent\\nduring the latter half of the Sixth Dynasty. After\\nthe division of the empire, they espoused the cause\\nof the kings of Heracleopolis, rendered valuable serv-\\nices to the new line, and in return received the title\\nof which afterwards became so celebrated in\\nthe combination hyk-sat-u, ruler of foreign coun-\\ntries. As a mark of friendship and allegiance, the\\nfirst hyk of Asyut assumed the name of the tyrant\\nAch-ta-i, now erroneously called Cheti I. The\\nname itself, I think, shows conclusively that these\\nnobles belonged to this period of one hundred and\\nforty-eight years, and not to the Thirteenth Dynasty\\nperiod, when different names were fashionable. The\\ninscriptions in these tombs, according to Maspero s\\nlatest interpretation, inform us that the governor\\nAchtai I was brought up in the palace at Heracle-\\nopolis, and learned to swim with the royal children.\\nOn his return home he remained the personal friend\\nof the king, and governed his domains wisely, clear-\\ning the canals, fostering agriculture, and lightening\\nthe taxes, without neglecting the army. His heavy\\ninfantry, drawn from the pick of the people of the\\nsouth, were counted by thousands. He resisted the\\nTheban claims with all his might, and his son, Tefaba,\\nfollowed in his footsteps. The first time, said he,\\nmy foot-soldiers fought against the nomes of the\\nsouth, which were gathered together from Elephan-\\ntine in the south to Gau on the north. I conquered\\nthose nomes, and drove them to the southern frontier.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0228.jp2"}, "229": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 223\\nI overran the left bank of the Nile in all directions.\\nWhen I came to a town I threw down its walls, seized\\nits chief, and imprisoned him at the port until he paid\\nme ransom. As soon as I had finished with the left\\nbank, and there were no longer found any who dare\\nresist, I passed over to the right bank; like a swift\\nhare I set sail for another chief. I sailed by\\nthe north wind as by the east, by the south wind as by\\nthe west, and him whose ship I boarded I vanquished\\nutterly; he was cast into the river, his boats fled to\\nshore, his soldiers were as bulls upon whom the lion\\nfalleth; I compassed his city from end to end, I seized\\nhis goods and cast them into the fire. He further\\ninforms us that he extinguished the rebellion by the\\ncounsel, and according to the tactics, of Up-uay-t,\\nlord of Asyut. From this time no district of the\\ndesert was safe from his terrors; he carried flame at\\nhis pleasure among the nomes of the south. He\\nadministered such strict justice that evil-doers dis-\\nappeared as if by magic. When night came, he who\\nslept on the roads blessed me, because he was as safe\\nas in his own house; for the fear which was shed\\nabroad by my soldiers protected him; and the cattle\\nof the fields were as safe there as in the stable; the\\nthief had become an abomination to the god, and he\\nno longer oppressed the serf, so that the latter ceased\\nto complain, and paid the exact dues of his land for\\nlove of me.\\nIn the time of the second hyk, bearing the name\\nof Achtai, the son of Tefaha, and grandson of the first\\nAchtai, the authority of the kings of Heracleopolis", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0229.jp2"}, "230": {"fulltext": "224 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nhad become very weak; for the people of this city\\ndrove out the king Meri-kara, who was obliged to\\ntake refuge in Asyut with his friend, the powerful\\nhyk AchtaL This noble gathered together an exten-\\nsive fleet, which encumbered the Nile from one end\\nof the Terebinth nome to the other. If we may be-\\nlieve Achtai, the rebels united with the Thebans in\\nvain; he sowed terror over the world, and himself\\nalone chastised the nomes of the south. As he de-\\nscended the Nile to restore Meri-ka-ra to his capital,\\nthe sky grew serene, and the whole country rallied\\naround him; the commanders of the south and the\\narchons of Heracleopolis trembled when the royal\\nurseus, ruler of the world, came to suppress crime;\\nthe earth trembled, the south took ship and fled, all\\nmen fled in dismay, the towns surrendered, and fear\\ntook hold on their members.\\nWhen Meri-ka-ra came to Heracleopolis the peo-\\nple ran forth to meet him, rejoicing in their lord;\\nwomen and men together, old men as well as chil-\\ndren. But the temporary success thus chronicled\\nwas more apparent than real. The Thebans returned\\nin greater force, and the kings of HeracleopoHs suc-\\ncumbed before the superior virtue of the southern\\nline. The line of Heracleopolis was not extinguished,\\nbut continued on as a local, subordinate line under\\nthe Twelfth Dynasty, and during the period of the\\ndivided kingdom which followed it, until it disap-\\npeared in the general wreck of the Hyksos Flood.\\nI think the overthrow of Heracleopolis by Thebes\\noccurred about one hundred and nine vears after", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0230.jp2"}, "231": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 225\\n2942 B. C, which accounts for Eusebius giving the\\nNinth Dynasty one hundred (one hundred and nine)\\nyears, and the Eleventh Dynasty forty-three (thirty-\\nthree) years, for both these numbers appear to be de-\\nrived from Manetho s work.\\nThe four hundred and eighty-five years of the\\nTenth Dynasty represent a period such as the three\\nhundred and fifty years of the Thinite kings, the four\\nhundred and fifty-three years of the Theban kings,\\nand the five hundred and eleven years of the Hyksos\\ndenomination all derived from Manetho s work.\\nWe have seen that the total number of kings in the\\nmain line to the beginning of the Seventh Dynasty\\nwas thirty-seven. The six kings of the Seventh Dy-\\nnasty increase this total to forty-three kings. Now it\\nis significant that the nine kings of the Eighth Dy-\\nnasty and the six rulers of the Eleventh Dynasty, who\\nwere contemporary for one hundred and forty-two\\nyears, give us the required total of ninety-two kings.\\nWhile on this subject, an opinion advanced by\\nPetrie claims our attention. This learned writer seeks\\nto identify User-en-ra, who follows Nub-cheper-ra\\n(Antef) in the lower section of the left half of the\\nTable of Karnak, with the Hyksos king, Chi-an.\\nNaville discovered the lower portion of a sitting statue\\nof Cha-i-an at Bubastis. The name was first read\\nRa-ian; but turns out to be Se-user-en-ra Cha-i-an/\\nas plainly shown by scarabs and cylinders bearing his\\nname. This king styled himself hyk-sat-it, as well\\nas King of Upper and Lower Egypt, which stamps\\nhim unmistakably as a hyksos-king; and Petrie s\\n15", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0231.jp2"}, "232": {"fulltext": "226 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\ntheory that he belonged to the period between the\\nSixth and Twelfth Dynasties falls to the ground.\\nManetho evidently found no documents or monu-\\nments placing hyksos-kings in this period, for all will\\nadmit that the dynasties of Memphis, Heracleopolis,\\nand Thebes, assigned by him to this period, were\\nnative Egyptians, and not Hamites. The style and\\nworkmanship of the statue itself resembles that of the\\nmonuments dating from the end of the Thirteenth\\nDynasty. In the Table of Karnak, User-en-ra, which\\nmay be the same as Se-user-en-ra, appears immediately\\nbefore Necht-en-ra, who precedes Se-ken-en-ra, both\\nof whom belong to the close of the Sixteenth Dynasty\\nand Hyksos period. It is probable that intermar-\\nriages took place between the families of the Six-\\nteenth Theban and Seventeenth Hyksos Dynasties,\\nfor Manetho described the two lines as Hyksos and\\nTheban kings/ and, therefore, as ruling jointly.\\nCha-i-an may have been a common ancestor to both\\nlines, which would explain his appearance in the table,\\nor User-en-ra may have been the contemporary\\nTheban king to Se-user-en-ra Cha-i-an.\\nNecht-en-ra appears on a libation-table, now at\\nMarseilles, in company with Se-ken-en-ra Ta-oa-ken,\\nunder whom the ship-captain Aahmes was born. The\\nright half of the Table of Karnak contains the throne-\\ntitles of thirty Theban kings belonging to the Thir-\\nteenth, Fifteenth, and Sixteenth Dynasties of Man-\\netho; but as there was no room for the last seven\\nkings of the Sixteenth Dynasty in this half of the\\ntable, they were disposed of in the lower section of", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0232.jp2"}, "233": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 227\\nthe left half. Thus there were thirty-eight kings, in\\na genealogical succession, between the Twelfth and\\nEighteenth Dynasties, a period of over seven hundred\\nand fifty years, making the average reign about\\ntwenty years. Manetho had fifty-nine kings during\\nthe same period. This is the key to the long list of\\nTheban ancestors, to wit, fifty-one, specially hon-\\nored by Thothmes III in the Table of Karnak.\\nWe have already called attention to the fact that\\none of the kings of this dynasty. Ante f -da, bore the\\ntitle preacher of righteousness, and we might add\\nthat this was his Horus-title, and also an integral part\\nof his titles as king inclosed in the royal shield. The\\nmonuments show that the rulers of this dynasty were\\njust and perfect in their generations, devoted to God,\\nand proclaimers of righteousness; but it would\\ncarry me beyond the scope of this work to attempt to\\ngive the evidence in detail.\\nIn conclusion, we wish to call attention to the fol-\\nlowing from Josephus Now Lamech, when he had\\ngoverned seven hundred and seventy-seven (one hun-\\ndred and eighty-seven) years, appointed Noah, his\\nson, to be ruler of the people, who was born to\\nLamech when he was one hundred and eighty-two\\n(one hundred and eighty-seven) years old, and re-\\ntained the government nine hundred and fifty years.\\nThe evolution of these governments into indi-\\nviduals was a slow and gradual process, which had\\nnot been fully completed when Josephus wrote his\\nAntiquities of the Jews. It seems that the text con-\\nsulted by Josephus then showed that Noah was not", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0233.jp2"}, "234": {"fulltext": "228 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nderived regularly from the preceding government;\\nbut was appointed to be ruler of the people. Now\\nthere is every reason to befieve that the first Antef\\nderived his title in this way, that Pharaoh appointed\\nhim ruler over the Thebaid towards the close of the\\nSixth Dynasty. The nine hundred and fifty years\\nduring which Noah retained the government, date\\nfrom his birth (2948 B. C). According to Manetho,\\nthere were only eight hundred and fifty years between\\nthe birth of the Theban Government and the begin-\\nning of the Hyksos Dynasty (Mizraim), hence these\\nnine hundred and fifty years necessarily include the\\nfirst one hundred years of the contemporary Sixteenth\\nTheban Dynasty. Was it for this reason that the two\\nhundred and fifty-one years of the bogus Seventeenth\\nDynasty were changed to one hundred and fifty-one?\\nSpeaking of the Flood, Josephus says: This ca-\\nlamity happened in the six hundredth year of Noah s\\ngovernment, in the second month, called by the Mace-\\ndonians Dius, but by the Hebrews Marchesuan; for\\nso did they order their year in Egypt\\nHere again we see that Noah was originally the\\nname of a government, which had existed six hun-\\ndred years when the Flood swept over the land, and\\nwe need but attach the Egyptian dates to those of\\nGenesis, or vice versa, to arrive at the exact date of\\nthe Hyksos Invasion, as verified by the astronomical\\nepochs. The phrase, for so did they order their year\\nin Egypt, shows that the text used by Josephus orig-\\ninally recognized Egypt as the land governed by\\nNoah and overwhelmed by the Flood.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0234.jp2"}, "235": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 229\\nELEVENTH DYNASTY, FROM TABLE OF KARNAK\\n1. Erpe het Ante/a, ruler of the land of Thebes.\\n2. Har Menthu-hotep I {Neb-ho-tep, Sa-ra-Menthu-\\nhotep in shields below title of king).\\n3. Har Aiitef I {Har, Uah-anch, King and Sa-ra,\\nAnte/, not inclosed).\\n4. Har Antef II 6a (Horus, Up-ut-maat, King Ra-\\nseshes Upet-maat, Sa-ra, Antef-6a, all in\\nseparate shields).\\n5. Har Menthu-hotep II (Horus Neb-taui, Lord of\\nDiadems Neb-taui, Nub-nuteru, King Ra-\\nneb-taui, Sa-ra Menthuhotep).\\n6. King Antef III {King Ra-seshes Hir-maat, Suten-\\nAnief).\\nThe key to the correct succession of the six\\nAntef s and Menthuhoteps, shown on the Table of Kar-\\nnak, is to be found in the titles assumed by them to\\nmark their rank and official dignity. There is a rapid\\nprogression from the Erpe hef of the first, to the\\nKing of the last, for King Antef was not only King\\nRa-seshes Hir-maat, but was Suten (King) Antef, in-\\nstead of Sa-ra Antef, which may account for his title\\nas king being Antef instead of Ra-seshes Hir-maat in\\nthe table.\\nWe have already had occasion to notice the first\\nAntefa, who was appointed ruler (hir-top) of the peo-\\nple of the land of Uas. All the rest, except the last,\\nare termed Horus, not King, which was intended to\\ndescribe independent rulers of the Thebaid. Their\\ntitles on their monuments, however, show a rapid\\nadvance in power and dignity, culminating in Antef\\nIII, who styles himself King Antef instead of\\nSa-ra Antef.", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0235.jp2"}, "236": {"fulltext": "230 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nThe last one called Horus, presumably Menthu-\\nhotep II, is specially honored in the Table, like Mena,\\nAmenemes I, and Usertasen I, by being placed im-\\nmediately in front of the figure of Thothmes III, in-\\ndicating that he enjoyed the reputation of being the\\ngreatest ruler of the dynasty. It will be seen that he\\nassumed the titles of royalty; but the honor itself was\\nreserved for his successor (King Antef).\\nOn the monuments, Antef -da has the Horus-title\\nUpet-maat, Treacher of Righteousness, and the\\nthrone-title, Ra-seshes upet-maat. King Antef pat-\\nterned his throne-title after this, for it reads, Ra-\\nseshes hir-maat, showing that Antef the Great had\\nearned his distinctive title in the opinion of his suc-\\ncessor. King Antef. It was logical to let a new\\ndynasty follow the reign of the Theban ruler, who had\\nextended his authority over the whole land, and could\\nbe crowned as Pharaoh in the ancient capital of\\nMemphis.\\nWe feel confident that we have placed Menthu-\\nhotep II, who bore the title Neb-tau-i, %ord of the\\ntwo Lands, in his correct position, for the additional\\nreason that a Hib-sed or Sed-festival was celebrated\\nin the second year of his reign, which, therefore, cor-\\nresponded to the year 2864 B. C, giving us eighty-\\nthree years for the reigns of his three predecessors,\\nand sixty-five years for the reigns of himself and King\\nAntef a natural and probable division of the period\\nof one hundred and forty-eight years between the five\\nrulers who succeeded the local prince Antef.\\nWe have identified the first Horus, Menthii-hotep", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0236.jp2"}, "237": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 231\\nwith the ruler of the same name bearing the addi-\\ntional title, Neh-hotep, Lord of Peace, because this\\ntitle, together with Sa-ra itself, is inclosed in the shield\\ncontaining his name, showing the first step towards\\nthe regal dignity. The title, Lord of Peace, was\\nsuggested by the Sothiac month of Mesori, Birth\\nof Horus. The child of Isis and Osiris (like Chons,\\nthe child of Amen and Muth) was regarded as the\\nbringer of peace, and styled the Peace-loving.\\nAntef I, whose Horus-title was Uah-anch, Man-\\nsion of Life, also inclosed Sa-ra in the shield con-\\ntaining his name, Antef, placing the bee and plant,\\nsymbolizing King of Upper and Lower Egypt, di-\\nrectly above the shield. The funerary stela found in\\nhis tomb, which was a small brick pyramid, built on\\nthe west side of the Nile opposite Thebes, contains a\\nrepresentation of this king and his four pet dogs,\\nshowing that he inherited his grandfather s hobby,\\nand, in this respect at least, was a worthy scion of the\\nancestor of the line. The inscription on this tablet\\nstill remaining for the upper portion of it is de-\\nstroyed informs us that Horus Uah-anch, Antef cap-\\ntured Abydos, and opened its prisons, built temples,\\ndug canals, benefited his city, and (what was equally\\nimportant in a new line) left the succession to his son.\\nThe inscription further informs us that the tablet was\\nset up in the fiftieth year of his reign.\\nThe tomb of this king is the Urst mentioned in the\\nreport of the commission appointed by Ramesses X\\nto examine the royal tombs at Thebes, which has\\ncome down to us in the papyrus known as the Ab-", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0237.jp2"}, "238": {"fulltext": "232 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nbott papyrus. It was situated north of the later\\ntemple of Amen-hotep of the Terrace, and had been\\ninjured by thieves at a point opposite the spot where\\nthe tablet stood; but the thieves had not been success-\\nful in penetrating to the sepulchral chamber. The\\nmummy was found to be untouched. I contend that\\nthe Table of Karnak contains a genealogical list of\\nthe Theban rulers, from the beginning of the Sixth\\nDynasty down to the beginning of the Eighteenth\\nDynasty, and necessarily excludes all rulers not in the\\ndirect line of descent. Now, as Erpe-het Antefa suc-\\nceeds Mer-en-ra II, we can assume that the downfall\\nof the Old Empire occurred near the beginning of\\nthe reign of Menthu-hotep I. The beginning of the\\nreign of Antef Uah-anch, therefore, can be placed at\\ncirca 2910 B. C. The conquest of Abydos proves\\nthat he was a brave and warlike prince. As he\\nreigned fifty years, we can place his death at circa\\n2860 B. C. A funerary stela, now in the museum of\\nEeyden, is dated in the thirty-third year of User-ta-\\nsen or about 2750 B. C, and informs us that the\\ngreat-grandfather of the deceased was appointed to\\nthe office of scribe in the nome of Abydos in the reign\\nof Horus Uah-anch, King of Upper and Lower Egypt,\\nson of Ra, Antef Sa-ra being inclosed in the same\\nshield with the name Antef. This shows that this\\nAntef exercised sovereignty over the nome of Aby-\\ndos, and corroborates the prince s statement, that he\\nhad captured Abydos and opened its prisons.\\nWe must interpret such phrases as th rit rik en\\nBar Uah-anch with the aid of the German and Saxon", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0238.jp2"}, "239": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 233\\nlanguages, for the Egyptian language was Japhetic,\\nnot Semitic; compare Saxon, through; German, durch;\\nand lyower German, rikj Danish, rig; German, reich.\\nNow, as to the chronology deducible from the\\nfour generations represented by the ate/en atef en\\natei-a, the father of the father of my father, of the\\ninscription, who flourished as scribe in the nome of\\nAbydos during the reign of Antef I. The four gener-\\nations in the peaceful ofhce of scribe average one hun-\\ndred and thirty-three years, which reach back from\\n2750 B. C. to 2883 B. C, or about the middle of his\\nreign, showing that facts, however derived, always\\nagree with the true chronology.\\nIn conclusion, it may not be out of place to say\\na word or two about Nuh-cheper-ra Antef and Neb-\\ncheru-ra Menthuhotep, who have been, heretofore,\\nassigned to the Eleventh Dynasty. In the Table of\\nKarnak these kings immediately precede three kings\\nwho undoubtedly belong to the close of the Sixteenth\\nDynasty of Thebes, which was contemporaneous with\\nthe Seventeenth Dynasty of Hyksos kings. Stein-\\ndorfif calls attention to a fact which indicates that\\nthese two kings did not precede but followed the\\nTwelfth Dynasty. We have just seen that none of\\nthe kings of the Eleventh Dynasty had different titles\\nas Horus and as Lord of Diadems; in fact, Usertasen\\nII seems to have been the first to adopt different titles\\nfor each of these. Now the Horus-title of Nub-\\ncheper-ra was Nofer-cheperu, while his title as Lord\\nof Diadems was Hir-nest-f, Upon his throne, which\\nwould seem to relegate him to the Sixteenth Dynasty,", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0239.jp2"}, "240": {"fulltext": "234 Self-Verifying Chronological\\nnotwithstanding his name Antef. But it so happens\\nthat Neb-cheni-ra had the same title for both, to wit,\\nSam-taui, Uniter of the two Lands, which would\\nseem to place him before the Twelfth Dynasty, and\\ndiscredit the arrangement in the Table of Karnak.\\nFortunately, a small fragment of the Turin papyrus.\\nNo. 62,, which contains two names in succession,\\ncomes to our assistance in this perplexity. As repro-\\nduced by Lepsius in his Book of Kings, it contains\\nthe names Neb-chervi-ra and Se-user-en-ra, the last of\\nwhich was the throne-title of the Theban and Hyksos\\nking, Chi-an. But even here there is a discrepancy\\nbetween the papyrus and the Table of Karnak, which\\nis hard to explain, as Nub-cheper-ra follows Neb-\\ncheru-ra in the latter.\\nThe Theban kings of the Sixteenth Dynasty were\\ntributary to the Hyksos kings of the Seventeenth Dy-\\nnasty. Manetho grouped them together as joint\\nlines, making the total (259+259) five hundred and\\neighteen years. The division of the kingdom seems\\nto have been complete at the beginning of these\\ndynasties, 2097 B. C. but rivalries, complications,\\nand conflicts arose in the course of time. A spirit of\\nfreedom grew up in the south, coupled with the de-\\nsire to drive the hated Hamites out of the Delta.\\nThis spirit induced the kings to assume the names\\nof the illustrious princes of the Eleventh Dynasty,\\nwho had re-established the empire after its downfall,\\nand given to Egypt the glorious dynasty of the\\nAmenemhets and Usertasens. The names of Antef\\nand Menthuhotep were calculated to arouse the slum-", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0240.jp2"}, "241": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 235\\nbering patriotism of the people, and prepare them for\\nthe impending conflict. We need not, therefore, be\\nsurprised to find the predecessors of Sekenenra bear-\\ning the names of Antef and Menthuhotep. The\\ntombs of the Sixteenth Dynasty succeeded those of\\nthe Eleventh Dynasty at Thebes, and the architecture\\nof the two was so much alike that Champollion and\\nother early Egyptologists were led to believe that the\\none followed immediately after the other. It was\\nsimply a renaissance of national feeling, which was\\nvisible in architecture as well as science and literature.\\nThe Turin papyrus seems to have had but six\\nkings in the Eleventh Dynasty. The sixteen kings\\nin the Manethonian Lists may be taken from the six-\\nteen years of Amenemes I, immediately following it.\\nCHU-MER-NA-PTAH AND SEM-SU\\nHAR-PA-CHRAT\\nThe reader has seen how the two above-named\\nepoch-reigns, which are taken from the List of Era-\\ntosthenes, elucidate, confirm, and verify the lists de-\\nrived from the great work of Manetho. Strange as it\\nmay appear, we have recovered the entire twelve\\nepoch-reigns of Manetho s first Sothiac cycle, and\\nevery one of these reigns sustains, and is sustained by,\\nManetho s chronological scheme, as unfolded in his\\ngeneral scheme, his dynastic totals, and his separate\\nreigns. The fact that quite a number of these are\\nderived from Eratosthenes, who pursued a different\\nmethod from Manetho, demonstrates to a certainty\\nthat Manetho did not invent the system or divide the", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0241.jp2"}, "242": {"fulltext": "236 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nreigns to agree with it. Such a complete agreement\\nof two rival systems all along the line, for a period\\nof 1,460 years, is unparalleled in ancient history, and\\nthere is nothing to compare to it except the cele-\\nbrated Canon of Ptolemy, which was the work of one\\nchronologist, and stands alone.\\nResuming the Sothiac list at the end of the Fifth\\nDynasty, or 3146 B. C, where we left ofif, we have,\\nto the beginning of the Second Cycle, 2784 B. C, the\\nfollowing items\\nEnd of Fifth Dynasty, 3146 B. C.\\nTithoes, 30\\n3116 B. C.\\nPhiops I (Meri-ra), 53\\n3063 B. C.\\nMenthusuphis I, 7\\n3056 B. C.\\nPhiops II, as epoch-king Chomanephthah, 12\\n3044 B. C.\\nPhiops II, after epoch of Epiphi, 3044 B. C, 83\\n2961 B. C.\\nMenthusuphis II (i yr. i m.), i\\n2960 B. C.\\nNitokris, 12\\nEnd of Old Empire, and Birth of No-ah, 2948 B. C.\\nSeventh Dynasty, Memphite, 6\\n2942 B. C.\\nEighth Dynasty, epoch-king Sempsu Harpo-\\nkrates, 18\\nEpoch of Mesore, 2924 B. C.\\nEighth Dynasty, after epoch (142-18), 124\\n28^ B. C.\\nAmenemes I, before Second Cycle, 16\\nEnd of First Cycle, 2784 B. C.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0242.jp2"}, "243": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 237\\nManetho separated the first sixteen years of the\\nreign of Amenemes I, and placed them in his first\\nbook and first cycle. The List of Eratosthenes shows\\nupon its face that this great scientist originally en-\\ntered these identical sixteen years as an epoch-reign\\nunder the title Petethothis; that is, Pa-ta-tahu-ti,\\nThe Gift of Thoth, to distinguish it from the pre-\\nceding title Athothis. It was natural and convenient\\nfor the unknown arranger of the present list to con-\\nfound Pete-athyris and Petethothis, both of whom\\nhad sixteen years; and he accordingly substituted\\nPete-athyris for Petethothis at the head of the\\nTwelfth Dynasty.\\nI think I have sufificiently explained the epoch-\\ntitles Kosmos Philephaistos and Herakles Harpo-\\nkrates, and their applicability to the months of\\nEpiphi and Mesore, and I can merely add that a\\ncloser study of the inscriptions in the pyramids of\\nUnas and others has satisfied me that all these terms,\\nwithout exception, were not only in common use,\\nbut were very ancient at that time.\\nTHE GRAND TOTALS OF NINETY-SIX KINGS\\nAND 2,121 YEARS OF MANETHO S\\nSECOND BOOK\\nThere were fifty-two kings belonging to the main\\nline in Manetho s First Book, exclusive of Amen-\\nemes I. The total of ninety-two kings for the First\\nBook included the nineteen kings of the Tenth Dy-\\nnasty of Heracleopolites, who reigned four hundred", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0243.jp2"}, "244": {"fulltext": "238 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nand eighty-five years from 2833 B. C. to 2348 B. C.\\nThe five kings of the Ninth Dynasty of Heracleopolis\\nreigned one hundred and nine years from 2942 B. C.\\nto 2833 B. C, when the dynasty was overthrown by\\nthe Thebans. A branch of this line estabhshed itself\\nat Xois, or Sebennytus, in the heart of the Delta, and\\nmaintained itself there for four hundred and eighty-\\nfive years, and until it was overwhelmed and de-\\nstroyed by the Hyksos Flood. Manetho allowed the\\nSothiac Era 2784 B. C. to divide his main line; but,\\nhaving introduced the Tenth Dynasty of Heracle-\\nopolites in his First Book, he carried the side line\\ndown to its close. It seems that he mentioned the\\nHeracleopolite kings in his Second Book, where they\\nappeared as the Fourteenth Dynasty of Xois and\\nSebennytus, reigning side by side with the Thirteenth\\nDynasty of Thebans for two hundred and forty-two\\nyears.\\nThe two hundred and forty-two years of the\\nThirteenth Dynasty and the two hundred and forty-\\ntwo years of the Fourteenth Dynasty gave rise to a\\nsub-total of four hundred and eighty-four years, which\\nwas almost equivalent to the four hundred and eighty-\\nfive years of the Tenth Dynasty. Now as the two\\nhundred and forty-two years of the Fourteenth Dy-\\nnasty, and its kings also, were already included in the\\ntotals of Manetho s First Book; that is, the ninety-\\ntwo kings and 2,300 years; they were not again com-\\nputed in the totals of his Second Book. Bearing this\\nin mind, we find that Manetho had ninety-six kings\\nin his Second Book, as follows", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0244.jp2"}, "245": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt\\n239\\nFrom First Book, main line,\\nTwelfth Dynasty, Diospolitan,\\nThirteenth Dynasty, Diospolitan,\\nFifteenth Dynasty, Diospolitan,\\nSixteenth Dynasty, Theban,\\nSeventeenth Dynasty, Hyksos,\\nEighteenth Dynasty, Diospolitan,\\nNineteenth Dynasty, Diospolitan,\\nTotal,\\nNo. of Kings.\\n16\\nII\\n32\\n6\\n16\\n_7\\n96\\nTotal.\\n52\\n60\\n76\\n43\\nAccording to the list of Africanus, which is the\\nmost reliable (barring subsequent changes), there\\nwere ninety-six kings in Manetho s Second Book, in\\naddition to the ninety- two kings of his First Book.\\nEusebius has only ninety-two kings, owing to the\\nfact that he reduced the Eighteenth Dynasty to four-\\nteen kings, and the Nineteenth Dynasty to five kings.\\nBy a strange freak of chance, the Thirteenth Dynasty\\nnow has sixty kings, the total including the eight\\nkings of the Twelfth Dynasty; and the Fourteenth\\nDynasty now has seventy-six kings, the total includ-\\ning the sixteen kings of the Thirteenth Dynasty.\\nManetho, following the ancient registers, summed up\\nat the end of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Dynas-\\nties; that is, at 2348 B. C, the date of the great\\n^Aamu Flood. Down to this date there were seventy-\\nsix kings in the main line and thirty-nine kings in\\nthe side lines, or altogether one hundred and fifteen\\nkings. After the Hyksos invasion he began a new\\ncomputation of the kings, beginning with the Fif-\\nteenth Dynasty of Thebans. Thus there was no total\\nat the end of this dynasty which the redactors of the\\nlists could mistake for the actual number belonging", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0245.jp2"}, "246": {"fulltext": "240 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nto the same. Originally, the P^ifteenth Dynasty had\\neleven kings, the Sixteenth Dynasty thirty-two kings;\\nbut the Seventeenth Dynasty, instead of the six kings\\nactually assigned to it, received the total of forty-\\nthree kings, which appeared at the end of the Six-\\nteenth Dynasty. It would be interesting to know\\nwhether this systematic substitution of running totals\\nfor the acutal numbers was the result of carelessness,\\nor whether it was intentionally done to confuse, mys-\\ntify, and discredit the lists.\\nIt is certain that the otherwise truthful list of\\nAfricanus has been changed in several respects, in\\norder to make it agree with certain false notions pub-\\nlished by Josephus. For example, the Hyksos Dy-\\nnasty, originally the Seventeenth, has been substi-\\ntuted for the Fifteenth, which was originally Dios-\\npolitan. The unavoidable effect of this arbitrary\\nsubstitution was to completely disarrange and confuse\\nthe Fifteenth, Sixteenth, and Seventeenth Dynasties.\\nBut as these changes affected the number of years\\nas well as the number of kings, we will take up the\\ntotal of 2,121 years before examining them in detail.\\nI contend that Manetho s original total for his Sec-\\nond Book was only 1,721 years, made up as follows:\\nTwelfth Dynasty, Diospolitan, after 2784 B. C, 194 years\\nThirteenth Dynasty, Diospolitan, 242\\nFifteenth Dynasty, Diospolitan, 251\\nSixteenth Dynasty, Theban, 260\\nSeventeenth Dynasty, Hyksos, 260\\nEighteenth Dynasty, Diospolitan, including\\nthirteen years of Chebros, 276\\nNineteenth Dynasty, Diospolitan, 23S\\nTotal, 1,721", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0246.jp2"}, "247": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 241\\nThe Fourteenth Dynasty of Xois is omitted in the\\nabove computation for the reason just given, to v^it:\\nthat its tv^o hundred and forty-tv^o years are included\\nin the 2,300 years of the First Book. According to\\nAfricanus and both versions of Eusebius, hov^ever,\\nthere were 2,121 years in Manetho s Second Book.\\nHow can this apparent discrepancy be explained?\\nManetho computed the entire period of Theban\\nsupremacy, from the accession of Amenemes I, 2800\\nB. C, to the Hyksos Invasion, 2348 B. C, at four\\nhundred and fifty-three years, as follows:\\nTwelfth Dynasty 1 64- 194=), 210 years\\nThirteenth Dynasty, 242\\nTotal 453\\nThis total now appears as the total of the Thir-\\nteenth Dynasty.\\nAgain, Manetho had an Egyptian total of four\\nhundred and eighty-four years for the combined Thir-\\nteenth and Fourteenth Dynasties. It seems strange\\nto us that two dynasties, reigning side by side for two\\nhundred and forty-two years, should be summed up\\nas (242+242) four hundred and eighty-four years;\\nbut this was done for mathematical purposes only;\\nthat is, to serve as a check upon the separate numbers,\\netc. This total now appears as the total of the Four-\\nteenth Dynasty. Manetho also had an Egyptian\\ntotal of five hundred and eighteen or five hundred\\nand twenty years for the combined Sixteenth and\\nSeventeenth Dynasties, which were contemporary.\\nAfter the Hyksos had been placed in the Fifteenth\\n16", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0247.jp2"}, "248": {"fulltext": "242 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nDynasty this total was given to the Sixteenth Dy-\\nnasty, and the two hundred and fifty-one years of the\\nFifteenth Dynasty were reduced to one hundred and\\nfifty-one, and given to the Seventeenth Dynasty. The\\nfollowing numbers foot up 2,121\\nTwelfth Dynasty, original number, 194 years\\nThirteenth and Fourteenth Dynasties, total, 484\\nFifteenth Dynasty, as changed, 260\\nSixteenth Dynasty, as changed, 518\\nSeventeenth Dynasty, as changed, 151\\nEighteenth Dynasty, including thirteen years\\nof Chebros, 276\\nNineteenth Dynasty, 238\\nTotal, 2,121\\nManetho s main line, Diospolitan and Theban, was\\nmade up as follows\\nTwelfth Dynasty, Diospolitan, 194 years\\nThirteenth Dynasty, Diospolitan, 242\\nFifteenth Dynasty, Diospolitan, 251\\nSixteenth Dynasty, Thebaid, 260\\nKpoch-reign of Chebros, 13\\nEighteenth Dynasty, Diospolitan, 263\\nNineteenth Dynasty, Diospolitan, 238\\nTotal, 1,461\\nThese numbers can be accepted as accurate; they\\nfill out the cycle of 1,460 fixed years between the eras\\n2784 B. C. and 1324 B. C, and are supported by the\\nepochs and epoch-reigns.\\nThe early Christian chronographers were simple\\nenough to believe that the serpent-worshiping Hyk-\\nsos were the Hebrews, and that their forcible expul-", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0248.jp2"}, "249": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 243\\nsion from Egypt by Chebros, or Amosis, in the year\\n1837 B. C, was, in fact, the peaceable exodus of the\\nHebrews, which took place in the year 1491 B. C.\\nBut as their great authority (Josephus) had fixed the\\nExodus at 1648 B. C, they attempted to change the\\nManethonian Lists so as to bring the expulsion of\\nthe Hyksos down from 1837 B. C. to 1648 B. C, and\\nthereby blotted out one hundred and eighty-nine\\nyears of history. Now let us see how this change was\\neffected. In the Twentieth Dynasty there was a king\\ncalled Phuoro or Nile. This king was reigning in\\nEgypt when Troy was captured. Eratosthenes fixed\\nthe Fall of Troy at 1181 B. C, and King Nile, accord-\\ning to Manetho, reigned from 1207 B. C. to 11 68\\nB. C. The last reign of the Nineteenth Dynasty was\\nTho-uris; that is, Ta-ur-et, with seven years. These\\nseven years extended from 1331 B. C. to 1324 B. C,\\nthe celebrated era of Menophres. It so happened\\nthat Tho-uris and Phuoro looked very much alike\\nin Greek, and one of these early chronographers con-\\nceived the design of confounding the two. Phuoro\\nwas disposed of by removing the seven kings of the\\nTwentieth Dynasty to the pseudo-Sothis List; where\\nthey were placed immediately before the Hyksos\\nkings, and by transferring the remark attached to the\\nreign of Phuoro to Tho-uris, which title was changed\\nto Thuoris, making it appear that Thuoris was called\\nPolybus by Homer, and that Troy was captured dur-\\ning his short reign of seven years. This necessarily\\nbrought Thuoris down from 1331 B. C. to 1181 B. C,\\nand gave the forger one hundred and fifty of the re-", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0249.jp2"}, "250": {"fulltext": "244 Self-Verifying Chronological\\nquired one hundred and eighty-nine years. In con-\\nsequence of this unprecedented rape, the Twentieth\\nDynasty is now a perfect blank in all the Hsts. Al-\\nthough the list of Africanus has been changed to con-\\nform to these false dates, there is abundant evidence\\nthat the changes were not made by him. Observe\\nhow the numbers were made to fit into the scheme:\\nAssumed date of Expulsion, 1648 B. C.\\nBighteenth Dynasty, true number, 263\\n1385 B. C.\\nNineteenth Dynasty, as changed from 238, 204\\nFall of Troy, 1181 B. C.\\nIt is significant that the twenty-five years of\\nAmosis after the epoch 1824 B. C, and the false one\\nhundred and fifty-one years of the Seventeenth Dy-\\nnasty, carry us back to that epoch.\\nThe pseudo-Sothis List places Menes, or Mes-\\ntraim the first king, at 2724 B. C, which was\\nthe assumed date of the Dispersion, five hundred\\nand thirty-four years after the Flood. Thuoris, the\\nfifty-ninth king in the false list, is placed at 1181\\nB. C, and I infer from this that the above changes\\nin the list of Africanus were made by the author of the\\nso-called pseudo-Sothis List.\\nEusebius noticed that something was wrong, and\\nmade an attempt to correct the errors; but did not\\nsucceed. We know from his great Chronicon that\\nhe placed the beginning of his Eighteenth Dynasty\\nat 1723 B. C, which was one hundred and one years\\nafter the actual date; but he was completely deceived", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0250.jp2"}, "251": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 245\\nby the remark attached to the reign of Thuoris, and,\\ntherefore, left him at 1181 B. C.\\nBeginning of Eighteenth Dynasty, 1723 B. C.\\nEighteenth Dynasty, 348\\n1375 B.C.\\nNineteenth Dynasty, 194\\nFall of Troy, 1181 B. C.\\nWhen we come to Manetho s Third Book we shall\\nsee how the numbers of the Twentieth, Twenty-first,\\nTwenty-second, Twenty-third, Twenty-fourth, and\\nTwenty-fifth Dynasties were reduced so as to make\\nthem foot up six hundred and fifty-six years, the\\nexact number required to fill out the interval between\\n1 181 B. C. and 525 B. C, the well-known beginning\\npoint of the Persian Dynasty the true number being\\nseven hundred and ninety-nine years. In the scheme\\nof Eusebius, it is also significant that the one hundred\\nand three years of his false Seventeenth Dynasty ap-\\nproximately fill out the interval between the epoch\\n1824 B. C. and 1723 B. C. In order to understand\\nthe numbers of Eusebius, we must go back to the\\nartificial list called the Old Chronicle, from which\\nhe seems to have derived them. The Second Cycle\\nwas filled out in the Old Chronicle, as follows:\\nTwelfth Dynasty, from Eusebius, 182 years\\nFifteenth Dynasty, 443\\nSixteenth Dynasty, 190\\nSeventeenth Dynasty, 103\\nEighteenth Dynasty, 348\\nNineteenth Dynasty, 194\\nTotal, 1,460", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0251.jp2"}, "252": {"fulltext": "246 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nIt is remarkable how long the learned world has\\nbeen deceived by these numbers, each of which is\\nevidently false and artificial. The men who were un-\\nscrupulous enough to devise and successfully carry\\nout such a scheme, did not hesitate to lay their hands\\nupon other equally venerable documents.\\nThe List of Africanus still contains upon its face\\nevidences of the violent changes referred to. The\\nSixteenth D3masty (originally Theban) is now headed\\nThirty-two Other Shepherd-kings; but the number\\nof kings (thirty-two) and the final total (five hundred\\nand eighteen) do not belong to the Hyksos. The\\nSeventeenth Dynasty is now headed Forty-three\\nOther Shepherd-kings and Forty-three Thebaid,\\nDiospolitan Kings. These forty-three kings are the\\neleven Diospolitan kings of the Fifteenth Dynasty,\\nand the thirty-two local kings of the Thebais of the\\nSixteenth Dynasty, who ruled contemporaneously\\nwith the six Hyksos kings of the Seventeenth Dy-\\nnasty. The thirteen years of Amosis between 1837\\nB. C, or the Expulsion of the Hyksos, and the great\\nepoch of Pachons, 1824 B. C, were given to Chebros,\\na title which will be explained in its proper place but\\nas far back as Josephus we find this reign inserted\\nafter the twenty-five years and four months of Amosis,\\nand Africanus seems to have placed the beginning of\\nthe Eighteenth Dynasty at the end of his reign, or\\nabout 1798 B. C, which accounts for his 1,020 years\\nto the first Olympiad (776 B. C).\\nAfter the end of Manetho s Second Book had been", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0252.jp2"}, "253": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 247\\nfixed at 1 181 B. C. there were just 1,603 years in a\\ndirect line from the era 2784 B. C. to this date, and\\nthe extra five hundred and eighteen years supposed\\nto be due to the forty-three Shepherd-kings made\\nthe grand total 2,121 years. Could this be owing to\\nchance alone?\\nTABLE OF TWELFTH DYNASTY\\nACCORDING TO BRUGSCH\\n1. Amenemes I, alone, 20 years\\nAmenemes I, with Usertasen I, lo\\n2. Usertasen I, alone, 32\\nUsertasen I, with Amenemes II, 3\\n3. Amenemes II, alone, 29\\nAmenemes II, with Usertasen II, 6\\n4. Usertasen II, alone, 13\\n5. Usertasen III, 26\\n6. Amenemes III, 42\\n7. Amenemes IV, 9\\n8. Skemiophris, 4\\nTotal, 194\\nCORRECT TABI,E\\nI. Amenemes I, before cycle, 2784 B. C, 16 years\\nAmenemes I, after cycle, 2784 B. C, 13 years I\\n2. Usertasen I, alone, 33\\nUsertasen I, with Amenemes II, 3\\n3. Amenemes II, alone, 29\\nAmenemes II, with Usertasen II, 6\\n4. Usertasen II, alone, 17\\n5. Usertasen III, 38\\n6. Amenemes III, 42\\n7. Amenemes IV, 9\\n8. Sebku-no/eru, 4\\nTotal, 194", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0253.jp2"}, "254": {"fulltext": "248 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nTWELFTH DYNASTY OF EIGHT THEBAN KINGS\\nThe accession of the Twelfth Dynasty, after the\\nlast king of the Eleventh Dynasty had extended his\\nauthority over I^ower Egypt, inaugurated one of the\\nmost brilliant periods of Egyptian history, commonly\\nknown as the Middle Empire. Monuments, which\\nare rare under the Eleventh Dynasty, except in Upper\\nEgypt, become plentiful in all parts of the land, from\\nElephantine in the south to the marshes of the north.\\nThe lists again give the names of the kings and their\\nreigns, although the present lists are badly corrupted.\\nThe first sixteen years of the first king, Amen-\\nemes I, belong to Manetho s first Sothiac Cycle; and\\nthe Twelfth Dynasty, as now constituted, begins at\\nthe era 2784 B. C; consequently the last thirteen\\nyears only of the reign of Amenemes I belong here.\\nAs this king reigned jointly with his son, Usertasen I,\\nduring the last ten years of his reign, Manetho, in his\\nchronological list, assigned the entire thirteen years\\nto Usertasen I, giving him forty-six years altogether.\\nThese forty-six years, however, do not include the\\njoint-reign of Usertasen I and his son, Amenemes II,\\nwhich Manetho gave to the latter.\\nThe list ascribed to Eratosthenes closes with the\\nTwelfth Dynasty, at the head of which we now find\\nPeteathyres with an epoch-reign of sixteen years.\\nHere Peteathyres was substituted for *Tetethothis\\n(Pa-ta-thoth), The Gift of Thoth, because each had\\nan epoch-reign of sixteen years, and the author of the\\npresent artificial list, in which Menes, **the first king,", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0254.jp2"}, "255": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 249\\nwas placed at 2724 B. C, wanted to get rid of the\\ntroublesome period of 1,520 years between 4244 B. C.\\nand 2724 B. C.\\nThe reigns of Usertasen II and Usertasen III have\\nbeen changed in Manetho s lists, owing, perhaps, to\\na late attempt to identify them with Sesostris; but we\\nare able to now restore them with the greatest accu-\\nracy from the list of Eratosthenes. These kings\\nreigned jointly, like their predecessors, for many\\nyears, for which reason Eratosthenes added the two\\nreigns together. No. 34 of his list now reads, Ses-\\ntosichermes Erakles Krataios, fifty-five years. It\\nseems almost incredible that a name could have been\\nmangled to this extent by intelligent writers. In the\\nfirst place, the name was Usertosis (comp. Toser-\\ntosis and t/^^rcheres). In the second place, there was\\nno translation of the name, for it had just appeared in\\nthe list. In the third place, the explanatory remark\\nwas Ermes e Erackles Krataios, which constitutes\\none of the most gratifying proofs of the Sothiac sys-\\ntem to be found in the lists. As we shall see, this\\nreign of fifty-five years, beginning in the Sothiac\\nmonth of Thoth, extended over into the succeeding\\nmonth of Paophi. Bearing in mind that Pharaoh\\nclaimed to rule over the world like Ra, and that Ra\\npassed through all the stages of life, from birth and\\ninfancy to old age and death, it will be easy to under-\\nstand how Usertosis reigned first as Hermes, or\\nThoth, and afterwards as Herakles, or Pa-api, whose\\nsymbol was the reclining sphinx. But a greater sur-\\nprise still awaits us. When Eratosthenes described", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0255.jp2"}, "256": {"fulltext": "250 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nthe first nineteen years of the reign of Usertasen III\\nas Herakles Krataios, he followed the symbols used\\nin the Old Empire; but when he came to the epoch-\\nreign itself, he substituted the symbol used in the\\nNew Empire. No. 2)7 of his list is Phuoro, trans-\\nlated Nile, with a reign of nineteen years. Paophi\\nand Pa-iar (Phuoro) are both names of the Nile, and\\nin this instance the meaning is beyond dispute. Of\\ncourse, the epoch-reign of Usertasen III extends from\\nthe beginning of his reign to the epoch of Paophi,\\n2664 B. C, so that we are enabled to fix the dates\\naccurately, and also restore the separate reigns, which\\nare lost. The following table will show how it can\\nbe done\\nBeginning of era, 2784 B. C.\\nUsertosis I, including thirteen years of Amen-\\nemes I, 46\\n2738 B. C.\\nAmenemes II, 38\\n2700 B. C.\\nUsertosis II, 17\\n3683 B. C.\\nUsertosis III, as epoch king Phuoro, 19\\nEpoch of Paophi 3664 B. C.\\nUsertosis III, after epoch, 19\\n3645 B. C.\\nAmenemes III, 42\\n3603 B. C.\\nAmenemes IV, 9\\n3594 B. C.\\nSebek-no/eru, 4\\n3590 B. C.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0256.jp2"}, "257": {"fulltext": "Hi ST OR Y OF Ancient Eg ypt 251\\nWe have used Manetho s numbers, fitted to the\\nera, for the reigns of Usertasen I and Amenemes II,\\nto wit, forty-six and thirty-eight, and yet the agree-\\nment with the numbers derived from Eratosthenes is\\nperfect. We have seen that he estimated the com-\\nbined reigns of Usertasen II and Usertasen III at\\nfifty-five years, and the seventeen years of the former\\nand thirty-eight years of the latter give us this exact\\nsum.\\nThe forty-eight years of the supposed Sesostris,\\nin Manetho s lists, were the thirty-eight years of User-\\ntasen III, afterwards increased to forty-eight years,\\nwhen Usertasen II disappeared from the lists.\\nThe duration of the dynasty, regardless of its divis-\\nion by the era 2784 B. C, was two hundred and ten\\nyears. A fragment of the Turin papyrus, supposed\\nto belong to this dynasty, shows a total of two hun-\\ndred and thirteen years, one month, and seventeen\\ndays, which is slightly in excess of the above total;\\nbut it may include a joint-reign, excluded by Man-\\netho, or three years of Amenemes I, before he became\\nthe recognized Pharaoh of the whole land, Manetho\\nhaving given one hundred and forty-two years to the\\nEighth Dynasty of Memphis, which brought his\\nchronology down to 2800 B. C.\\nThe history of this dynasty is so well known, and\\nhas been so fully described from the monuments by\\nBrugsch, Maspero, and Petrie, that it would be out-\\nside the scope of this work to repeat it here, our\\nobject being to shed light upon the dark passages of\\nancient Egyptian history and chronology.", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0257.jp2"}, "258": {"fulltext": "252 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nDuring the last fifty or sixty years of the Sixth\\nDynasty, the power of the feudal lords was greatly\\nincreased, and during the period of wars and anarchy\\nbetween 2948 B. C. and 2801 B. C. it reached its\\nfullest development. The valley of the Nile fairly\\nbristled with the castles of these powerful barons.\\nWe have just seen how one of the kings of the Ninth\\nDynasty of Heracleopolis was compelled to seek pro-\\ntection at the hands of one of these feudal lords, who\\nhad become so powerful that he was able to raise\\nand equip an army and fleet of sufficient strength to\\nquell the rebellion against the king, and replace him\\non his throne at Heracleopolis. One of the chief\\ndifficulties the princes of the Eleventh Dynasty\u00e2\u0080\u0094 the\\njust and righteous Antefs and Menthuhoteps had\\nto encounter in their efforts to re-establish the em-\\npire, was the opposition and hereditary rights and\\nprivileges of these feudal lords. Writing of the ac-\\ncession of Amen-m-het Maspero says, Such a state\\nof affairs could only be reformed by revolution, and\\nseems to think it doubtful whether this king usurped\\nthe crown or inherited it legitimately. There is no\\nreason to doubt that the Twelfth Dynasty was simply\\na continuation of the Eleventh Dynasty. One of my\\ninitial discoveries, which was of great service to me\\nin ferreting out the contemporary dynasties, was that\\nManetho, with one exception, gave the names and\\nreigns of the kings of the dynasties which ruled over\\nthe entire land; but gave the general heading and\\ntotal duration only of the dynasties which ruled over\\nparts of Egypt only. When the Eighth Dynasty of", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0258.jp2"}, "259": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 253\\nMemphis came to an end, and Amenemes I became a\\ntrue Pharaoh, ruHng over the entire land, a new\\ndynasty began according to Egyptian notions, and\\nthis is what is meant by Manetho s Twelfth Dynasty.\\nOf course, Amenemes I arose like Turn himself, re-\\nstoring what he found in ruins, re-establishing the\\nboundaries of the nomes, expelling or removing\\ntroublesome, obstreperous, or rebellious lords, and\\nappointing loyal subjects in their places, and generally\\nreorganizing the empire on a firm and stable basis.\\nIn his instructions to his son, Usertasen, he admon-\\nishes him to live in harmony with his subjects, and\\nnot to rely solely on the rich and noble good counsel\\nculled from the sad experience of former kings.\\nBesides the throne-title, Se-hotep-ah-ra, already\\nmentioned, this king assumed the remarkable title,\\nNem-mestii, Re-born.\\nfetrie, who renders this title renewing births,\\nsupposes that it was a motto symbolizing the re-\\ninstitution of the living organization of everything in\\nthe country; but it has a deeper and more significant\\nmeaning. As the living Horus, the vicegerent of\\nRa on earth, this king was re-born at the winter\\nsolstice of the Sothiac year 2784 B. C, and the title\\nexpresses this new birth as Har-pa-krat as plainly as\\nwords can express anything. As the centuries rolled\\nby, Seti I, the great epoch-king Osiropis of Epiphi,\\n1584 B. C, assumed this title Nem-mestu to mark his\\nsecond birth into the new Sothiac month, thereby\\nattaching to this subordinate event the same impor-\\ntance that Amenemes I did to the great era itself.", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0259.jp2"}, "260": {"fulltext": "254 Self- Verifying Chronological\\nIt has been the fashion to accuse Manetho of\\nstupidly computing the joint-reigns to both kings,\\nand thereby swelling his chronological numbers, so\\nthat no reliance could be placed in them. This dy-\\nnasty, which abounded in joint-reigns, was supposed\\nto furnish indisputable evidence to sustain this charge;\\nbut it proves the exact reverse of what it was expected\\nto prove; and I trust that this little work will forever\\nsilence the false clamor.\\nThis dynasty, although Theban, was imperial, and\\nhad its chief residence at the old capital, Memphis,\\nand built its tombs and pyramids in that vicinity; but\\nThebes seems to have been a second capital of the\\nempire, as it certainly was the capital of the South.\\nWe shall see that the succeeding Thirteenth Dynasty,\\nwhich is also termed Theban in the Manethonian list,\\nhad its chief capital at Memphis, as shown by the\\n1,797 years of the Memphite kings, which continue\\non down to the end of the Fifteenth Dynasty, the\\nFourteenth Dynasty of Xois being contemporary with\\nthe Thirteenth. In proof of the assertion that the\\nTable of Karnak was a genealogical list of the Theban\\nkings down to the Eighteenth Dynasty, I refer to this\\ndynasty, where one of the kings was omitted. We\\nfind: i. Amenemes I; 2. Usertosis I; 3. Amenemes\\nII; 4. Destroyed; 5. Destroyed; 6. Amenemes IV;\\n7. Seb-ku-noferu-ra. We know that Usertosis II,\\nUsertosis III, and Amenemes III, all three distin-\\nguished kings with long reigns, came between Amen-\\nemes II and Amenemes TV; hence it is evident that\\none of these has been omitted in the Table of Karnak.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0260.jp2"}, "261": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 255\\nAs Amenemes III reigned forty-two years after the\\nlong reign of Usertosis III, we are forced to assume\\nthat the two successive Usertasens were brothers,\\nand that one of them was not in the direct Hne of\\ndescent. In the Thirteenth Dynasty, where the\\nreigns were comparatively short, we find as many as\\nthree or four omitted at a time.\\nThe last name, Seh-ku-nofer-u-ra, suggests a diffi-\\nculty which is hard to explain, for the reason that the\\nlast ruler in Manetho s hst, Skemiophris, is termed\\nthe sister of Amenemes IV. But we must not for-\\nget that Manetho always gives the proper name, while\\nthe Table of Karnak, after the Eleventh Dynasty, in-\\nvariably gives the throne-title. Amenemes IV and\\nhis sister devoted themselves, with great energy, to\\nthe completion of the Lyabyrinth in the Fayum, the\\nmost colossal building ever erected in Egypt. Its\\nruins show that it was one thousand feet long by eight\\nhundred feet wide; and it is probable that Sebek-\\nnoferu-ra, a younger son of Mares, was appointed\\nruler of Thebes, and that when the kingdom was\\ndivided, twelve years after Mares death, he dated his\\nregnal years, as Thehan king, from that time.\\nINTKRVAIy BETWEEN THE TWELFTH AND\\nEIGHTEENTH DYNASTIES\\nThe Twelfth Dynasty came to a close, as we have\\njust seen, about 2590 B. C. The Thirteenth and\\nFourteenth Dynasties begin at this date, and run side\\nby side, for two hundred and forty-two years, to the\\nHyksos Invasion, 2348 B. C. The Hyksos were ex-\\npelled from Egypt five hundred and eleven years after", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0261.jp2"}, "262": {"fulltext": "256 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nthe invasion; that is, 1837 B- ^^he entire period,\\ntherefore, from the Twelfth Dynasty to the Hyksos\\nExpulsion, covers exactly seven hundred and fifty-\\nthree years. This period was filled out as follows:\\nClose of the Twelfth Dynasty, 2590 B. C.\\nThirteenth Dynasty, Diospolitan, and Four-\\nteenth Dynasty, Xoite, 242\\nHamite Flood, 2348 B. C.\\nFifteenth Dynasty, Diospolitan, 251\\n2097 B. C.\\nSixteenth Dynasty, Thebaid, and Seventeenth\\nDynasty, Hyksos, 260\\nHyksos Expulsion, 1837 B. C.\\nAahmes, as Chebros, 13\\nEpoch of Pachons, 1824 B. C.\\nThus it will be seen that the Hyksos Invasion took\\nplace two hundred and forty-two years after the end\\nof the Twelfth Dynasty; not eighty-seven years, as\\nsupposed by Bunsen, or nine hundred and thirty-\\nseven years, as supposed by Petrie.\\nManetho s summation at the end of the Thir-\\nteenth and Fourteenth Dynasties gave him\\n1. A total of seventy-six kings, excluding the\\nFourteenth Dynasty (which did not belong to the\\nmain Hne), to wit, 52+8-^16=76.\\n2. A total of four hundred and fifty-three years for\\nthe Diospolitan line, made up as follows\\nAmenemes I, before 2784 B. C, 16 years\\nTwelfth Dynasty, after 2784 B. C, 194\\nThirteenth Dynasty, to Hyksos Invasion, 242\\nTotal 453", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0262.jp2"}, "263": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 257\\nThe one hundred and forty-eight years of the\\nEleventh Dynasty could not be included in this total,\\nbecause the one hundred and forty-eight years of the\\nSeventh and Eighth Dynasties, covering the same\\nperiod, had been computed in the main line.\\n3. An Egyptian total of four hundred and\\neighty-four years, being the sum of the two hundred\\nand forty-two years of the Thirteenth Dynasty and\\nthe two hundred and forty-two years of the Four-\\nteenth Dynasty.\\nIn the present lists these grand-totals, by mistake,\\nappear as the totals of separate dynasties. We now\\nfind:\\nThirteenth Dynasty of sixty Diospolitan Icings, who\\nreigned 453 years.\\nFourteenth Dynasty of seventy-six Xoite kings, who\\nreigned 484 years.\\nThese errors have been the innocent cause\\nof much confusion; for instance, Petrie, the latest\\nwriter on the subject, makes an earnest effort to find\\none hundred and thirty-six kings, where there were\\nactually but sixteen, and account for nine hundred\\nand thirty-seven years, where there were actually but\\ntwo hundred and forty-two; but, as they have pre-\\nserved intact to this day these invaluable grand-totals,\\nscience is indebted to them for evidence of the best\\npossible character in a period where it was badly\\nneeded.\\nAfter the Hyksos Invasion, a native dynasty of\\neleven kings, called Diospolitan, reigned two hun-\\ndred and fifty-one years. It will be remembered that,\\n17", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0263.jp2"}, "264": {"fulltext": "258 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nafter his ten Thinite kings, who reigned from 4244\\nB. C. to 3894 B. C, Manetho had (seventy-seven)\\nMemphite kings, v^ho reigned 1,797 years; that is,\\nfrom 3894 B. C. to 2097 B. C. The sum given to the\\nMemphite kings includes the two hundred and\\nforty-two years of the Thirteenth Dynasty and the\\ntwo hundred and fifty-one years of the Fifteenth Dy-\\nnasty; hence I confidently assume that both of these\\ndynasties held Memphis, the ancient capital. It is\\ntrue that this fact can not be harmonized with certain\\npopular theories regarding the condition of Egypt\\nduring the first two hundred and fifty-one years of\\nHyksos suzerainty; but theories must always yield to\\nfacts.\\nAfter the Fifteenth Dynasty had governed Egypt\\ntwo hundred and fifty-one years in the name of the\\n^Aamu kings, the great kings of kings in distant\\nElam, an Aamu dynasty was established in Egypt,\\nthe kings of which reigned over Egypt as Pharaohs,\\nwith their capital at Memphis. The Sixteenth Dy-\\nnasty of native kings, or hyks, was restricted to the\\nThebaid, and was tributary to the Hyksos Pharaohs.\\nThus the Hyksos-kings of the Seventeenth Dynasty\\nand the Theban kings of the Sixteenth Dynasty\\nreigned contemporaneously for two hundred and fifty-\\nnine years and ten months, from 2097 B. C. to 1837\\nB. C, when the foreign intruders were driven out of\\nEgypt.\\nManetho called the Sixteenth Dynasty Thebaid,\\nto distinguish it from the Thirteenth and Fifteenth\\nDynasties, which he called Diospolitan/ The head-", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0264.jp2"}, "265": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 259\\ning of the Seventeenth Dynasty, in the Hst of Afri-\\ncanus, which now reads, Forty-three other Shep-\\nherd-kings and Forty-three Theban DiospoHtan-\\nkings (followed by together the Shepherds and the\\nThebans reigned one hundred and fifty-one [five hun-\\ndred and eighteen] years, is a blending of former\\ntotals, influenced by the fact that the dynasty was\\noriginally Hyksos.\\nIt is now clear that Manetho had:\\n1. Sixteenth Dynasty of thirty-two Thebaid kings,\\nreigned two hundred and fifty-nine years and ten\\nmonths.\\n2. Total of Theban and Diospolitan kings, forty-\\nthree.\\n3. Seventeenth Dynasty of six Hyksos kings,\\nreigned two hundred and fifty-nine years and ten\\nmonths.\\n4. Together the Shepherds (Hyksos) and Thebans\\nreigned five hundred and eighteen years.\\nNow, bearing in mind that the Hyksos Dynasty\\nwas substituted for the Fifteenth Dynasty, which was\\nDiospoHtan, in order to conform to the supposed ar-\\nrangement of Josephus, we need not be surprised to\\nfind some trace of it in the next following dynasty.\\nThe Sixteenth Dynasty, which was originally thirty-\\ntwo Thebaid kings, was changed so as to read:\\nThirty-two other Shepherd-kings, reigned five hun-\\ndred and eighteen years. There was no founda-\\ntion whatever, in my opinion, for other Shepherd-\\nkings, because we know positively that the great\\nHyksos Dynasty, composed of Saites, Paian, Apophis,", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0265.jp2"}, "266": {"fulltext": "26o A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nSethos, lannus, etc., immediately preceded the Eigh-\\nteenth Dynasty, and that these were the Urst kings\\namong them. In other words, as the six kings of\\nthe Seventeenth Dynasty were the first Hyksos kings,\\nthere could have been none before them, and, as the\\nthirty-six years and seven months of Apophis II, the\\nlast king of this dynasty, extend down to 1837\\nthe date of the Hyksos Expulsion, there were none\\nafter them.\\nThe only occasion for other Shepherd-kings ap-\\npears in Manetho s general chronological scheme,\\nwhere the 1,797 years of the Memphite kings are\\nfollowed by the 1,810 years of his other kings.\\nThe joint dynasties. Sixteenth Theban and Seven-\\nteenth Hyksos, headed the column of these other\\nkings, and, as the forger of the Africanian I^ists\\nneeded other Hyksos kings to fill out the blank of\\ntwo hundred and fifty-one years left by transferring\\nthe Hyksos kings to the Fifteenth Dynasty, he simply\\nchanged other kings to other Shepherd-kings.\\nIn conclusion, we can not refrain from adding that\\nmodern Egyptologists, since Bunsen and Eepsius, fail\\nto appreciate the importance of the Manethonian\\nLists, and even endeavor, by insinuation or misrepre-\\nsentation, to discredit and belittle them. They have\\nbeen, and always will be (unless some equally reliable\\nhistory may yet come to light), the chief corner-stone\\nof modern Egyptology.\\nThe perplexities by which modern Egyptologists\\nfound themselves surrounded when they ventured", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0266.jp2"}, "267": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 261\\nupon this period of Egyptian history and chronology,\\nwithout the guiding hand of Manetho, are summed up\\nby Brugsch, in these hues\\nFragments and patchwork wherever we look.\\nThe Table of Kings of Abydos passes with a sudden\\nleap over this wide chasm. The traditions of the an-\\ncients, derived from the historical data in the work\\nof Manetho, serve up to us error and confusion, in-\\nstead of truth and clearness. Fate has thus done its\\nworst to place the greatest difficulties in the w^ay of\\nthe solution of this question, and the hard task is laid\\non human sagacity of collecting the slight sparks, in\\norder to kindle a light which may illumine the dark-\\nness of five hundred years. With what active zeal has\\nscience endeavored to fill up the huge gaps! How\\nhas she sought for a firm point which might serve her\\nas a fulcrum! All, however, has been in vain, and\\nonly the hope remains that we may at length some\\nday gain the solution of the riddle from hidden, and\\nas yet undiscovered, memorials.\\nThe solution of the riddle, however, did not de-\\npend on hidden and undiscovered memorials; but\\nwas contained in the historical data truly scanty\\nenough derived from the work of Manetho.\\nThe wide chasm supposed to exist between the\\nSixth and Twelfth Dynasties shrank upon examina-\\ntion from seven hundred and fifty to one hundred and\\nforty-eight years. But the gap between the Twelfth\\nand Eighteenth Dynasties, on the contrary, widens\\nfrom hundred to seven hundred and fifty-three\\nyears. Firm points, astronomically fixed, to serve", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0267.jp2"}, "268": {"fulltext": "262 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nas fulcrums, are by no means wanting. Among the\\nmost important, we may mention the following\\n1. The great Sothiac Era 2784 B. C, in conjunc-\\ntion with the epoch-reigns of Amenemes I and User-\\ntasen III.\\n2. The six hundred years from the birth of Noah,\\n2948 B. C, to the Aamu Flood, 2348 B. C.\\n3. The four hundred and fifty-three years from the\\nbeginning of the Twelfth Dynasty, 2801 B. C, to the\\nHyksos Invasion, 2348 B. C.\\n4. The four hundred and eighty-four years of the\\ncombined Thirteenth and Fourteenth Dynasties\\n(242+242=484).\\n5. The 1,797 years of the Memphite kings, be-\\nginning 3894 B. C. and ending 2097 B. C, at the\\nclose of the Fifteenth, and beginning of the Sixteenth\\nand Hyksos Dynasties.\\n6. The two hundred and fifty-one years of the\\nFifteenth Dynasty (Diospolitan), reaching from 2348\\nB. C. to 2097 B. C.\\n7. The exact coincidence of the epoch-reigns of\\nPa-ian and Set-nubti (Sethos) of the Hyksos Dynasty,\\nwhen we place the beginning of this dynasty at 2097\\nB. C.\\n8. The exact agreement of the epoch-reign of\\nAahmes, before the epoch 1824 B. C, with the date of\\nthe Hyksos Expulsion, 1837 B. C, to wit, the thirteen\\nyears of Chebros.\\n9. The five hundred and eleven years of the Hyk-\\nsos domination in Egvpt, from 2348 B. C. to 1837\\nB. C.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0268.jp2"}, "269": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 263\\n10. The four hundred years from the Era of Set-\\nnubti (Sethos), the fourth Hyksos king, 1944 B. C,\\nto the eighteenth year of Ramesses II Miamun, 1544\\nB. C.\\nTHE EXTRACTS OF BARBARUS SCAIylGERI FROM\\nAFRICANUS. (Thesaur. TKMpp. T. II, p. 74.)\\nI. Mineus et pronepotes ipsius septem regnav-\\nerunt annos, 253\\nII. Regnaverunt et aliorum octo annos, 302\\nIII. Necherocheus et aliorum octo annos, 214\\nIV. Similiter aliorum septemdecim annos, 214\\nV. Similiter aliorum viginti unus annos, 258\\nVI. Othoi et aliorum septem annos, 203\\nVII. (Wanting),\\nVIII. Similiter et aliorum quatuordecim annos, 142\\nIX. Similiter et aliorum viginti annos, 409\\nXII. Similiter et aliorum septem annos, 204\\nPotestas Diospolitanorum annos, 9\\nPotestas Bubastinorum annos, 153 (453)\\nPotestas Tanitorum annos, 184 (484)\\nPotestas Sebennitarum annos, 224 (242)\\nPotestas Memphitarum annos, 318 (518)\\nPotestas Iliopolitarum annos, 221 (251)\\nPotestas Ermupolitorum annos, 260 (260)\\nWe have inserted the above extracts from Afri-\\ncanus after the Twelfth Dynasty, instead of at the\\nhead of Manetho s First Book, because they throw a\\nwelcome ray of light upon the period intervening\\nbetween the Twelfth Dynasty and the Hyksos In-\\nvasion. It seems that Manetho, following the ancient\\nregisters, summed up at the end of the Old Empire\\nand again at the end of the Middle Empire.\\nThus we have seen that the sum 453, now out of\\nplace, belongs to the Potestas Diospolitanorum,\\nand the sum 484, now also out of place, to the con-", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0269.jp2"}, "270": {"fulltext": "264 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\ntemporary Thirteenth and Fourteenth Dynasties,\\neach of which reigned side by side, one at Memphis,\\nthe other at Xois, or Sebennytus, for two hundred\\nand forty-two years.\\nWe are chiefly concerned about the Potestas\\nSebennitarum; that is, the dynasty of Heracleopo-\\nHtes, who reigned contemporaneously with the The-\\nbans of the Thirteenth Dynasty from 2590 B. C. to\\n2348 B. C. I think it will eventually turn out that\\nXois and Sebennytus are but two names for one and\\nthe same city. Many cities of ancient Egypt bore two\\nor more names. Thus Tanis and Per-Ramessu, Suc-\\ncoth and Per-tum, are the popular and sacred names\\nof two well known cities. In the same way the popu-\\nlar name Xois, in the course of time, may have given\\nway to the sacred, or temple, name Sebennytus, now\\nSemennud.\\nThe Heracleopolites, who had established them-\\nselves at Xois in the Delta after their overthrow by\\nthe Thebans, about 2833 B. C, considered their right\\nto the double crown of the two lands superior to that\\nof the Diospolitans. In fact, it is probable that Seti I,\\nin the Table of Abydus, recognized the kings of the\\nFourteenth Dynasty as his ancestors. Between\\nMenthusuphis II and Neb-cher-ra Menthu-hotep, this\\ntable contains the throne-titles of eighteen kings,\\nnone of which can be identified with any of the rulers\\nof the Eleventh, Thirteenth, or Fifteenth Dynasties.\\nAre we not forced to assume that Seti I recognized,\\nafter the Sixth Dynasty, the kings of the Eighth,\\nTwelfth, and Fourteenth Dynasties?", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0270.jp2"}, "271": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 265\\nWe have seen that Manetho, after completing his\\nThinite Dynasties, went back two hundred and four-\\nteen years to take up the Memphite Dynasties, and\\nthat after completing these he again went back one\\nhundred and forty-two years to take up the Heracle-\\nopolite Dynasties. This was the ancient Egyptian\\nmethod, and it was but natural that Manetho should\\ncomplete the Heracleopolite line before taking up the\\nTheban line. By following this ancient method, Sell\\nwas enabled to place the kings of the Twelfth Dynasty\\nimmediately in front of the Eighteenth Dynasty in\\nthe Table of Abydos.\\nThe divided kingdom under the Thirteenth and\\nFourteenth Dynasties seems to have culminated in\\ndisorder and great national weakness. Shem, Ham,\\nand Japheth, who were born one hundred years be-\\nfore the Flood; that is, 2448 B. C, were sons of\\nNo-6a which means local governments set up in\\nEgypt by these three foreign races. It appears from\\nthe extracts of Barbarus, that Manetho mentioned\\nthese foreign governments in his great historical\\nwork, and we can safely assume that the Shemite Gov-\\nernment had its capital at Bubastis, the Hamite Gov-\\nernment at Tanis, and the la-pet-u at some convenient\\npoint in the northwestern angle of the Delta.\\nIt is hard to determine what is meant by Iliopoli-\\ntarum and Ermapohtorum, for the corruption of\\nthese names may equal that of the numbers. The lists\\nof Africanus had been changed before they reached\\nBarbarus, as is evident from the seventeen kings of\\nthe Fourth Dynasty and thirty-one kings of the Sixth", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0271.jp2"}, "272": {"fulltext": "266 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nDynasty (viginti unus by mistake for triginti unus).\\nWe can assume, therefore, that the Hyksos kings had\\nalready been substituted for the Diospolitan kings of\\nthe Fifteenth Dynasty. Now, as the Hyksos kings,\\naccording to Manetho, held Memphis, the Fifteenth\\nand Seventeenth Dynasties would be represented by\\nTotestas Memphitarum, the total of which was\\noriginally five hundred and eleven years. These dy-\\nnasties would cover the numbers 251, 260, and 511.\\nWe should not forget that, in his chronological\\nscheme, Manetho had, iirst, Thinite kings for three\\nhundred and fifty years; then Memphite kings for\\n1,797 years; and, lastly, Other Kings for 1,810\\nyears. The Memphite kings include the Fifteenth\\nDynasty, which was Diospolitan, and the Other\\nKings begin with the Hyksos Dynasty, 2097 B. C.\\nThese Hamite- kings were the actual Pharaohs, hold-\\ning the ancient capital Memphis for two hundred and\\nsixty years. During this period Manetho had two\\ndynasties, the Sixteenth, Theban, and the Seven-\\nteenth, Hyksos. Although the foreigners, being the\\nactual Pharaohs, naturally came first, Manetho, true\\nto the Egyptian custom, completed the Theban line\\nbefore he took up the Hyksos Dynasty.\\nNow, as Manetho had but three dynasties between\\nthe Hyksos Invasion and the Eighteenth Dynasty, all\\nof which are satisfactorily accounted for, it follows\\nthat the Tanites, Bubastites, etc., found by Barbarus\\nin the chronological work of Africanus, must be\\nplaced in the period of two hundred and forty-two\\nyears between the Twelfth Dynasty and Hyksos In-", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0272.jp2"}, "273": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 267\\nvasion, which is a most remarkable confirmation of\\nthe Mosaic accomit of affairs during the period of one\\nhundred years immediately preceding the Noachian\\nFlood.\\nLOCATION OF THE PYRAMIDS\\nIf the first dynasty of Thinites reigned at Heli-\\nopolis, as we contend, the pyramids of Abu-roash\\nwould correspond to the pyramids of Kochome,\\nbuilt by KebahUy as epoch king Uen-nepher. These\\npyramids are near the old nome of Ka-kem and oppo-\\nsite Heliopolis, just where we might expect to find\\nthem.\\nThe celebrated Step-pyramid of Sakkara, which\\nwas built by Necherochis (Nuter-achi), the first king\\nof the Third Dynasty, is opposite Memphis. When\\nwe consider that Necherochis, the first Memphite\\nking, reigned contemporaneously with Binothris,\\nthe third king of the Second Thinite Dynasty, the one\\nat Memphis, the other at HeliopoHs, the position of\\nthis venerable pyramid agrees perfectly with the his-\\ntorical facts. The dividing line between the two king-\\ndoms at that time was a short distance only below\\nMemphis. Thus Eratosthenes recognizes the Mem-\\nphite kings of the Third Dynasty as Theban kings,\\nwhich could not have been the case if the Second\\nDynasty had been located south of Memphis or at\\nAbydus.\\nThe Fourth Dynasty ruled over both countries,\\nhence we find the Pyramids of Chufu, Chafra, and\\nMenkaura at Ghizeh near the old capital, Heliopolis.", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0273.jp2"}, "274": {"fulltext": "268 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nIt is true that Senoferu erected his pyramid at\\nMeydum; but this may have been commenced before\\nhe succeeded in uniting the two kingdoms.\\nAs the Pyramids of Ghizeh follow each other from\\nnorth to south, I suspect that the small Pyramids of\\nZawyet-el-Arrian belong to Shepseskaf, the last king\\nof the Fourth Dynasty, and Userkaf, the first king of\\nthe Fifth Dynasty.\\nThe northernmost of the three large Pyramids of\\nAbusir belongs to Sahura, the next to Ranuser, and\\nthe third, as I believe, to Tatkara Assa, all of the\\nFifth Dynasty. The Pyramid of Unas, the last king\\nof the Fifth Dynasty, as we might have assumed before\\nit was opened in 1881, is south of these.\\nThe Sixth Dynasty was Elephantingen that is, of\\na different line; and Teta, accordingly, sought a new\\nfield, and built his pyramid near that of Necherochis,\\nat Sakkara. The Pyramids of Pepa I, Menthusu-\\nphis I, and Pepa II follow successively as we proceed\\nsouthwardly from the Pyramid of Unas.\\nNo great pyramids were erected during the period\\nof one hundred and forty-eight years following the\\ndownfall of the Old Empire; but the kings of the\\nTwelfth Dynasty, after the kingdom had been re-\\nestablished, again erected their pyramids near the old\\ncapital between Dahshur (Tash-iir) and the Fayum.\\nThe Pyramid of Amenemes III was w^ithin the Fayum,\\nand adjoined the celebrated Labyrinth, which was\\naccounted one of the Wonders of the World.\\nThe Thirteenth Dynasty, owing to the rival dy-\\nnasty of Heraclepolites at Xois, or Sebennytus, was", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0274.jp2"}, "275": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 269\\ntoo weak to erect large and enduring pyramids, al-\\nthough its kings held Memphis. One of the last kings\\nof this dynasty was buried near the pyramid of a king\\nof the Twelfth Dynasty. The Hyksos Invasion put\\nan end to pyramid building. Thus the location of the\\npyramids agrees with the assumed development of\\nEgypt from the north to the south, and not vice versa.\\nTHIRTEENTH DYNASTY OF SIXTEEN DIOSPOLITAN\\nKINGS\\nIn the Table of Karnak, and on the fragment of\\nThe Turin papyrus given in facsimile on Plate XIII\\nof Lepsius s Book of Kings, Sehku-noferu-ra follows\\nimmediately after Maat-cheni-ra (Amenemes IV).\\nManetho closes his Twelfth Dynasty with Skemi-\\nofris (Sebkunofris), who reigned four years, or, ac-\\ncording to the papyrus, three years, ten months, and\\ntwenty-four days. In the List of Africanus Skemi-\\nofris is termed sister; but there is nothing but the\\nthrone-title, Sehku-noferu-ra, to correspond to the\\nsa-ra, or proper name of Manetho. The sister of\\nAmenemes IV may have reigned as regent during\\nthe minority of the king. Be this as it may, the short\\nreign of Sehku-noferu-ra was followed by a division\\nof the kingdom.\\nFrom the earliest times Egypt was divided into\\nthe Upper Country and Lower Country, and the di-\\nvision was so strongly marked that it was never lost\\nsight of. The most powerful Pharaohs ruled in a\\ndual capacity as Suten, King of Upper Egypt, and\\nButi, King of Lower Egypt. I believe that the", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0275.jp2"}, "276": {"fulltext": "270 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nVulture-Ur^us title, called Lord of Diadems, points\\nto a still more ancient division of the government.\\nThere was always a tendency to separation, which\\nbecame more marked in times of oppression or ad-\\nversity. The reign of the Elephantinean kings of the\\nSixth Dynasty culminated in a division of the king-\\ndom; and the burdens imposed on the people of\\nLower Egypt and the vicinity of the Fayum by Amen-\\nemes III and his children, during a period of fully\\nfifty years, likewise led to the defection of the greater\\nportion of Lower Egypt. A rival dynasty, called the\\nFourteenth, established at Xois, in the heart of the\\nDelta, became independent about 2590 B. C; but the\\nancient capital, Memphis, remained in the possession\\nof the Theban line. As we have just seen, Manetho\\nclassed the Thirteenth and Fifteenth Dynasties of\\nDiospolitan kings with the Memphite kings; be-\\nsides we are forced to assume that the kings of the\\nFourteenth Dynasty fixed their capital at Xois.\\nThe last king in the List of Eratosthenes, called\\nAmuthartaios, has a reign of sixty-three years, and\\nit seems that Eusebius obtained his total of two hun-\\ndred and forty-five years for the Twelfth Dynasty by\\nadding these sixty-three years to the one hundred and\\neighty-two years of the separate reigns. The last\\nthree reigns in his list now appear as follows\\nSesostris, 48 years\\nIvamaris, who built the Ars incite Labyrinth as\\nhis tomb, etc., 8\\nHis successors reigned, 42\\nTotal, 245", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0276.jp2"}, "277": {"fulltext": "History OF Ancient Egypt 271\\nThe separate numbers foot up one hundred and\\neighty-two years only; hence it is evident that the Hst\\noriginally stood as follows:\\nSesostris (Usertasen III), 38 years\\nRamais (Amen -em-het III), 42\\nHis successors, 63\\nTotal, 245\\nBut this was not Manetho s arrangement, for the\\nThirteenth and Fourteenth Dynasties commence si-\\nmultaneously at 2590 B. C, the date of the division\\nof the kingdom. The names and reigns of the kings\\nof this dynasty, and in fact all the following dynasties\\ndown to the Seventeenth, or Hyksos, Dynasty, are\\nnow wanting in the lists, and we are compelled to\\ngrope our way without the assistance of Manetho or\\nEratosthenes.\\nIn the Table of Karnak the kings are grouped so\\nas to bring certain favored ones immediately in front\\nof the standing figure of Thothmes III, and, to add\\nto the difficulties, the names of these favored kings\\nfour in number are destroyed, with the exception of\\none in the third section, (Sochem)-uah-chau-ra.\\nThe portion of the Turin papyrus containing the\\nnames and reigns of the kings of this entire period\\nexists in fragments of different shapes and sizes, be-\\ntween which there are often gaps of unknown extent.\\nFragment 72 contains the names of nine kings be-\\nlonging to the Thirteenth Dynasty. It is probable\\nthat two names are lost by the break between this\\nfragment and the following piece, composed of frag-", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0277.jp2"}, "278": {"fulltext": "272\\nA Self-Verifying Chronological\\nments yG, yy, and 78. The following are the frag-\\nments relating to this period\\nTURIN\\nFRAGMENT 72.\\n1. Chu-taui-ra.\\n2. Sochem-ka-ra,fl;r/-(?\u00c2\u00ab-(?/^?\u00c2\u00ab\\nsuteniu, 2544 B. C.\\nRa(Amen em-het.\\nSe-hotep-ab-ra.\\nAuf-ni.\\nS anch-ab-ra.\\nSe-hotep-ab-ra.\\nka-ra.\\n3-\\n4.\\n5-\\n6.\\n8.\\n9-\\nFRAGMENTS 76, 77, AND 78.\\n1. Notem-ab-ra.\\n2. Sebku-hotep-ra.\\n3. Ran kau [ari-en-ef em\\nsuteniu), 2424 B. C.\\n4. Autu-(fu ab-ra Har\\n5. Sezef ra.\\n6. Sochem- chu-taui-ra Seb-\\nku-hotep.\\n7. User ra.\\nFRAGMENTS 78 AND 79.\\nI. [S mench-ka]-ra Emir Me-\\nshau.\\nka\\nuser-ka\\nSochem-s uot-taui-ra Seb-\\nku-hotep.\\nCha-seshes-ra Nofer-hotep.\\nSa-ha-et-har (Hathor).\\nCha-nofer-ra Sebku-hotep.\\nPAPYRUS\\nFRAGMENT 81.\\n1. Cha-hotep-ra.\\n2. Uah-ab-ra lanu ab.\\n3. Mer-nofer-ra (ari-en-ef em\\nsuteniu), 2064 B. C.\\n4. Mer-hotep-ra.\\n5. S anch-s uat-(?) ra.\\n6. Mer-sochem-ra An-ran.\\n7. S uot-ka-ra Har.\\n8. em ra.\\nFRAGMENT 97.\\n1. Nahu-si.\\n2. Cha-cheru-ra.\\nNeb-ef-autu-ra.\\nSe-heb.\\nMer-zefa-ra.\\nS uot-ka-ra.\\nNeb-zefa-ra.\\nUben ra.\\nFRAGMENTS 98 AND 99.\\nzefa-ra.\\nuben-ra.\\nAutu-ab-ra.\\nHar-ab-ra,\\nNeb-sen-ra.\\nIt will be seen that the second king, Sochem-ka-ra,\\nis distinguished as an epoch-king by ari-cn-cf em\\nsuteniu and it is stated that the epoch fell in the", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0278.jp2"}, "279": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 273\\nsixth year of his reign. The papyrus gives Chu-taui-ra\\nsixty years, while Eratosthenes gives Amuthartaios\\nsixty-three years. It seems, therefore, that the first\\ntv/o kings of this dynasty reigned jointly for many\\nyears. Although Amuthartaios appears last in the\\nList of Eratosthenes, I believe that Siphthas (Sa-Ptah,\\nSon of Vulcan with a reign of five years, repre-\\nsents the epoch-reign of Sochem-ka-ra before the epoch\\n2544 B. C, for the reason that it agrees accurately\\nwith the papyrus, and Siphthas is undoubtedly an\\nepoch-title.\\nAllowing two names for the gap between frag-\\nment y2 on the one hand, and fragments 76, yy^ and\\n78 on the other, there were eleven kings between\\nSochem-ka-ra Siphthas and the next epoch-king\\nRan kau, who marks the epoch of Tybi, 2424\\nB. C. The first element Ran has a determinative\\nshowing that it means name, and it is possible that\\nthe destroyed portion contained an epoch-title. As\\nthis dynasty came to a close 2348 B. C, it reigned\\nseventy-six years after this epoch. Assuming that\\nRan kau was the fourteenth king, Fu-ab-ra Har\\nand Se^ef ra were the last kings of this dy-\\nnasty. The sixteen kings of this dynasty built their\\ntombs between Memphis and the Fayum. They seem\\nto have been weak and insignificant, and very few\\nmonuments dating from their reigns have reached us.\\nIf their tombs had been in the vicinity of Thebes, they\\nwould have been mentioned in the Abbott papyrus,\\nor some remains of them would have survived. That\\nthey were of the Diospolitan line we know from the\\n18", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0279.jp2"}, "280": {"fulltext": "274 Self- Verifying Chronological\\nTable of Karnak, where S anch-ab-ra appears as No.\\n3, and Chu-taui-ra as No. 20. No doubt others ap-\\npeared among the destroyed and mutilated ovals; but\\nas they were not particularly distinguished, they were\\ndistributed around, regardless of order, in the places\\nleft vacant after certain groups had been provided for.\\nIt so happens that these have suffered most.\\nThere is no authority for calling Chu-taui-ra Seb-\\nku-hotep One of the kings of this dynasty bore\\nthe throne-title Sebku-hotep; but we have no evidence\\nthat any of them bore this name.\\nThe tomb of the next to the last king of this\\ndynasty, Fu-ab-ra Har, was found in a pit near the\\nbrick pyramid of Dahshur. It had been rifled in\\nancient times; but a wooden statue, parts of the cofHn,\\nand other objects remained. A coffer was sealed up,\\nand bore an impression reading Ra-en-maat. I see\\nin the name Dahshur a survival of Tash-ur; that is,\\nancient boundary, or dividing line, between Upper\\nand Lower Egypt, a vicinity which would naturally\\nhave a special attraction for kings of the Theban line,\\nclaiming, but unable to assert, sovereignty over\\nLower Egypt. This tomb of one of the last kings\\nof this dynasty proves that Manetho was right in call-\\ning it Diospolitan and classing it with Memphite\\nkings. Har added to the throne-title indicates that\\nthis king s name was compounded with Har. Rely-\\ning on Manetho and this king s position at the end of\\nthe dynasty, I venture the prediction that his Sa-ra\\nname was Har-ti-ma, Horus, the Lancer, rendered\\nTiniaios by Manetho, the unfortunate king who hap-", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0280.jp2"}, "281": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 275\\npened to be on the throne when the Aamu invasion\\noccurred.\\nIn conclusion, we should bear in mind that the\\nepoch 2544 B. C. fell in the sixth year of Socheni-ka-ra,\\nthe second king of this dynasty, and that we have\\nfourteen reigns, exclusive of this king, in the remain-\\ning period of one hundred and ninety-six years, mak-\\ning the average so short that we are bound to assume\\nthat other than normal conditions prevailed; that is,\\neither wars or internal dissensions.\\nThe Fourteenth Dynasty ruled side by side with\\nthis dynasty at Xois, in the heart of the Delta. Ac-\\ncording to the Mosaic account, three sons were born\\nto Noah one hundred years before the Flood, or\\n2448 B. C. Of course, these were governments\\nfounded by Shem, Ham, and Japheth, in Egypt. Bar-\\nbarus, who drew from Africanus, found immediately\\nafter the Twelfth Dynasty such items as Potestas\\nTanitorum, etc., showing that Manetho mentioned\\nthe local governments at Tanis, Bubastis, Sebenny-\\ntus, etc., which agrees with the conditions implied.\\nIn the first place, the native kingdom at Xois was\\ntoo weak to prevent the inroads of Hamites and\\nShemites on the eastern frontier of the Delta, and\\nTamahu, or Libyans, of Japhetic race, on the western\\nfrontier. These races effected permanent settlements\\nin the Delta, and established racial governments,\\nthe Aamu at Tanis, Shemites at Bubastis and in the\\nland of Goshen, and Libyans in the northwestern\\nangle of the Delta, presumably at Rakotis, the later\\nAlexandria, although it is possible that they also held", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0281.jp2"}, "282": {"fulltext": "276 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nthe city of Sais. In the second place, it is evident\\nthat the Thirteenth Dynasty was also too weak to\\nprevent the dismemberment of Lower Egypt, or to\\ntake advantage of it. Such a miserable state of afifairs\\nweakened and paralyzed the country, and brought\\ndown upon Egypt one of those remarkable floods\\nof half-civilized yellow Asiatics, or Aamu, by which\\nthe civilized world has been periodically scourged and\\ndeluged.\\nTHE HYKSOS INVASION\\nWe now come to the greatest calamity that ever\\nbefell the Egyptian State prior to the Persian In-\\nvasion.\\nIn the year 2348 B. C, after the Thirteenth and\\nFourteenth Dynasties had reigned side by side for\\ntwo hundred and forty-two years, a flood of yellow\\nAsiatics, Aamu, or Hamites, swept down from the\\neastern parts; that is, the portion of Asia lying east\\nof Babylonia, and inundated Western Asia and the\\nDelta. These people were known to the Egyptians\\nby the race-name Aamu, Ham, and this name ap-\\npears on the monuments as far back as the beginning\\nof the Sixth Dynasty. The Shemites, in contradis-\\ntinction to the Aamu, were called Mentiu, Syrians,\\nHintsha, and Satiu, Beduin, etc.\\nIn the pictorial representations of the four races\\nin the tombs of the Nineteenth and Twentieth Dy-\\nnasties, the Asiatic, or yellozv, race is called Aamu,\\nHam; the Japhetic, or white, race Temahu; the\\nAfrican, or black, race Nahsu; and the native Egyp-\\ntians, or rosy, race Lutu, Leute.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0282.jp2"}, "283": {"fulltext": "HiSTOR Y OF Ancient Eg ypt 277\\nThe derivation and meaning of Ham is so clear\\nthat it is hard to understand how scientists derived it\\nfrom liem, black, or Kemiy Black Lyand, a name\\napplied to the Delta. They started out with the false\\nand groundless assumption that the race-name\\nHam designated the black race, and then willfully\\nclosed their eyes to all that the monuments disclosed\\nand taught on the subject. Prior to the Exodus the\\nNegroes were seated in Africa, south of Egypt; their\\nrace-name on the monuments is invariably Nahsu.\\nWe must be careful not to confound the Cushites,\\nKashi, or Ethiopians, with the Negroes; for Cush\\nwas a son of Ham, and, therefore, derived from the\\nAsiatic Aamvi.\\nThe inhabitants of the Sinaitic peninsula, and of\\nCanaan, Assyria, and Babylonia, were at no time Ne-\\ngroes, or Nahsu; but, on the contrary, ruddy and\\nyellow Shemites and Hamites. The native Egyptians\\nwere as far removed from the Aamu as they were\\nfrom the Nahsu. Originally of a light rosy hue, their\\nbodies, by long exposure to the direct rays of a semi-\\ntropical sun, acquired a dark ruddy color similar to\\nthat of our own Indians; but this efifect was not so\\npronounced in the women and children. They were\\nclosely allied, by race, language, and mental charac-\\nteristics, to the great European, or Japhetic, race;\\nand their nearest living representatives are the Sax-\\nons, Danes, and Scandinavians. The Aamu Flood\\nof 2348 B. C. was not the only devastating flood of\\nHamites recorded in history. The invasion of Europe\\nby the Huns, about 450 A. D., and the still more re-", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0283.jp2"}, "284": {"fulltext": "2jS A Self-Verifying Chronological\\ncent irruption of the Turks into Asia Minor and\\nSoutheastern Europe, are well known and well au-\\nthenticated historical events, or, I might say, calam-\\nities. What I wish particularly to call attention to,\\nis the unmistakable talent for government developed\\nby these people on all of these occasions, although\\nthey appear to have been barbarians in other respects.\\nOf course, the word government, in this connec-\\ntion, applies to despotic and tyrannical govern-\\nments onl^/, such as Asia has always been cursed\\nwith.\\nMy discoveries, viewed in the light of the monu-\\nments and the Bible narrative, show that the Aamu\\nInvasion of Egypt, and the nature of their govern-\\nment over Egypt during the first two hundred and\\nfifty-one years of Aamii domination, differed radically\\nfrom the descriptions thereof to be found in the mod-\\nern works on the subject. In the first place, the sov-\\nereign, or great king of nations, was not in Egypt\\nat all, but in far-off Elam!\\nJosephus has transmitted an account of the Hyk-\\nsos Invasion of Egypt, taken from the Second Book\\nof Manetho s Egyptian History, and purporting to\\nbe in the very words of Manetho. As it is the only\\naccount we have of this catastrophe, we insert it\\nliterally\\nThere was a king of ours, whose name was\\nTimaios. Under him it came to pass, I know not\\nhow, that God was averse to us, and there came, after\\na surprising manner, men of ignoble birth out of the", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0284.jp2"}, "285": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 279\\neastern parts, and had boldness enough to make an\\nexpedition into our country, and with ease subdued\\nit by force, yet without our hazarding a battle with\\nthem. So when they had gotten those that governed\\nus under their power, they afterwards burned down\\nour cities, and demolished the temples of the gods,\\nand used all the inhabitants after a most barbarous\\nmanner. Nay, some they slew, and led their wives\\nand children into slavery.\\nWe break the connection here to suggest that, at\\nthis point, the epitomist from whom Josephus copied\\nmade a leap of two hundred and fifty-one years, omit-\\nting an essential part of Manetho s narrative, as we\\nshall see hereinafter:\\nAt length they made one of themselves king,\\nwhose name was Salatis (Saites-wS ^Z/j). He also lived\\nat Memphis, and made both the upper and lower\\nregions pay tribute, and left garrisons in places that\\nwere the most proper for them. He chiefly aimed to\\nsecure the eastern parts, as foreseeing that the As-\\nsyrians, who had then the greatest power, would be\\ndesirous of that kingdom and invade them; and as he\\nfound in the Saite Nomos, a city very proper for this\\npurpose, and which lay upon the Bubastic channel,\\nbut with regard to certain theological notions was\\ncalled Avaris; this he rebuilt, and made very strong\\nby the walls he built about it, and by a most numerous\\ngarrison of 240,000 armed men, whom he put into it\\nto keep it. Thither Salatis (Saites) came in summer-\\ntime, partly to gather his corn and pay his soldiers\\ntheir wages, and partly to exercise his armed men,\\nand thereby to terrify foreigners.", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0285.jp2"}, "286": {"fulltext": "28o A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nAfter giving the names and reigns of the six kings\\nof Manetho s Hyksos Dynasty, Josephus continues as\\nfollows\\nAnd these six were the first rulers among them,\\nwho were all along making war with the Egyptians,\\nand were very desirous gradually to destroy them to\\nthe very roots. This whole nation was styled Hyk-\\nsos; that is, Shepherd-kings; for the first syllable,\\nHyk, according to the sacred dialect, denotes a king,\\nas is Sos, a shepherd but this according to the ordi-\\nnary dialect; and of these is compounded Hyksos:\\nbut some say that these were Arabians.\\nWhile on the subject of the meaning of the word\\nHyksos, which we have shown to be Hyk-satu,\\nKing of foreign countries, it will be noticed that\\nManetho, after saying that Hyk means King in the\\nsacred dialect that is, the ancient hieroglyphic lan-\\nguage is careful to explain that Sos means shep-\\nherd in the ordinary dialect, showing that he knew it\\nmeant foreign countries as written hieroglyphically\\nin Hyk-satu, a title borne, as the monuments show,\\nby the Hyksos-king Chian, or Ach-ian.\\nIt seems that Josephus had before him two ex-\\ncerpts of Manetho s account, for he adds\\nNow, in another copy it is said that this word\\ndoes not denote kings; but, on the contrary, denotes\\ncaptive shepherds, and this on account of the particle\\nHyk, for that Hyk, with the aspiration, in the Egyp-\\ntian tongue, again denotes shepherds, and that ex-\\npressly also; and this to me seems a more probable\\nopinion, and more agreeable to ancient history.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0286.jp2"}, "287": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 281\\nThe meaning of this is very transparent. Man-\\netho, in his history, said that Hyksos, in the sacred\\ndialect, meant Ruler of foreign countries; but that\\nin the later demotic, or ordinary, dialect hyk aspirated\\nalso meant captive, and sos (shas) also meant shep-\\nherd; that is, shasii, or Beduin. If Manetho s history\\ncontained the first derivation given by Josephus, it\\ncould not have contained the second quoted from\\nanother copy. The fact that they are so incon-\\nsistent shows that both were extracts colored to suit\\neach writer s peculiar notions.\\nThese people, whom we have before named\\nkings, and called shepherds, as he says, kept pos-\\nsession of Egypt five hundred and eleven years.\\nWe are told that the men of ignoble birth out of\\nthe eastern parts (Elam) took Egypt by surprise.\\nIn his account of the campaign of Sethos (Seti I),\\nManetho uses this expression eastern parts in\\nconnection with the intervening countries, so that\\nthere can be no doubt as to the locality meant thereby.\\nSethos made an expedition against the Assyrians\\nand the Medes. After he had subdued these, he\\nwent on still more boldly, and overthrew the cities\\nand countries that lay in the eastern parts Thus it\\nis plain that the eastern parts of Manetho were the\\ncountries beyond Assyria and Medea. If the invaders\\nhad been Mentiu, Satiu, or Hirusha, Manetho would\\nhave designated them as Syrians, Phoenicians, or\\nArabians, just as we sometimes speak of English and\\nErench when we really mean British and Gauls.\\nThe monuments support Manetho as to the burn-", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0287.jp2"}, "288": {"fulltext": "282 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\ning of cities, demolishing of temples, and barbarous\\ntreatment of the inhabitants in Lower Egypt, for\\nThebes was not taken.\\nJosephus did not copy what Manetho said about\\nthe first two hundred and fifty-one years of Aamu\\ndomination. He was trying to prove that these yel-\\nlow, serpent-worshiping Aamu were the Hebrews,\\nwho, after entering Egypt at the invitation of Pha-\\nraoh, and sojourning there for two hundred and fifteen\\nyears as an oppressed people, were led out by Moses\\nagainst the wish of the Egyptians. For this reason\\nJosephus arranged his extracts in such a way as to\\ncreate the impression that the Hyksos Dynasty of\\nEgyptian Pharaohs followed right after the Invasion,\\nand a vague period of two hundred and fifty-one years\\nintervened between the Plyksos Dynasty and the Ex-\\npulsion. Of course, he was careful not to assert this\\nin so many words; but, as the separate reigns of the\\nHyksos kings footed up two hundred and fifty-nine\\nyears and ten months, and the entire period of Aamu\\ndomination was five hundred and eleven years, he led\\nthe reader to infer it; and it was so understood by the\\nearly chronologists who changed the Africanian Lists.\\nThe attempt to identify these barbarians, and their\\nforcible conquest and occupation of the Delta, with\\nthe Hebrews and their peaceable settlement and so-\\njourn in the land of Goshen, is so ridiculous and pre-\\nposterous on its face that it is not entitled to serious\\nconsideration.\\nWhen Manetho, speaking of the invaders, adds,\\n*Some say that they were Arabians, he means Hiru-", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0288.jp2"}, "289": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 283\\nsha or Satin; but he wrote for the Greeks and in the\\nGreek language, about the beginning of the reign\\nof Ptolemy Philadelphus, or 287 B. C, and naturally\\nused the names by which these people were known to\\nthem. Manetho himself does not say they were\\nArabians; neither does he call them Phoenicians, As-\\nsyrians (including Babylonians), or Medes. In the\\nEgyptian annals and registers translated by Manetho\\nthey were called Aamit, or Hamites; but he could find\\nno equivalent Greek term for Aamii; therefore he\\ndescribed them simply as men of ignoble birth from\\nthe eastern parts. As far back as 2448 B. C, one\\nhundred years before the Flood, there were Hamites\\nin Egypt, who had established a local government at\\nTanis (Zoan). Shemites and Japhites likewise had\\nestablished local governments in the Delta at the\\nsame time. All these governments retreated up the\\nNile, and took refuge in Thebes, where they remained\\nuntil the Flood had subsided.\\nThe pseudoSothis list of Syncellus mentions\\nTanite kings in connection with the Manethonian\\nDynasties; and Josephus quotes Manetho as saying\\nthat the kings of the Thebais and the other parts of\\nEgypt raised the standard of revolt against the Hyk-\\nsos. But, in addition to this, the inscription of Queen\\nHet-shepsut, published by GolenischefT, states that the\\nresident Aamu (in and around Tanis) assisted the\\nforeign Aamii invaders in destroyng the temples and\\nburning the cities, which removes every remaining\\ndoubt on the subject.\\nNow, what does this prove as to King Timaios", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0289.jp2"}, "290": {"fulltext": "284 Self-Verifying Chronological\\n{Har-ti-maf), named by Manetho as ruling at the time\\nof the Hyksos Invasion? The Thirteenth Dynasty,\\nas we have seen, was Diospolitan, held Memphis\\nand built their tombs between that city and the\\nFayum. Timaios was the next to the last king of this\\ndynasty, which came to an end at the time of the\\nHyksos Invasion. We have seen that M. de Morgan,\\nin April, 1894, discovered the tomb of Fu-ab-ra (also\\nwritten Autii-ah-ra) Har, at Dahshur (Tash-ur) near\\nMemphis. As Fu-ab-ra Har appears on fragments\\n/G, 77, and 78 of the papyrus, immediately after an\\nepoch-king, as one of the Diospolitan kings of the\\nThirteenth Dynasty, Egyptologists were naturally\\nsurprised and puzzled to find his tomb so far from the\\nsupposed capital, Thebes; but the find agrees per-\\nfectly with Manetho s arrangement and classification\\nof these dynasties. Not until we reach the Sixteenth\\nDynasty of the Thebaid can we expect to find the\\nroyal tombs at Thebes. When the local kings of the\\nSixteenth Dynasty began to build their last resting-\\nplaces near Thebes, they followed the rulers of the\\nEleventh Dynasty, and imitated their peculiar style\\nof architecture and art. They also revived the old\\nnames Antef and Menthuhotep. This circumstance\\nmakes it appear as if the Sixteenth Dynasty had im-\\nmediately succeeded the Eleventh; for the Twelfth\\nDynasty, as we have seen, was imperial, resided at\\nMemphis, and built its pyramids in that vicinity.\\nThe local governments of Shem, Ham, and\\nJapheth in the Delta, although formed out of territory\\nsubject to the Theban kings of the Twelfth Dy-", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0290.jp2"}, "291": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 285\\nnasty hence sons of Noah did not interfere with\\nthe possession of Memphis. As Ham ruled at Tanis,\\nwe can safely locate Shem at Bubastis. According\\nto this, the Xand of Goshen was Semitized long\\nbefore the Israelites of Canaan settled there.\\nThe main body of the Aamu swarm settled down\\nin Elam and Babylonia, forcing the Shemites north-\\nwardly into the mountains of Assyria, and south-\\nwardly into the deserts of Arabia. After the invaders\\nhad conquered Canaan, their army fell upon Egypt;\\nbut as the Egyptians submitted without resistance,\\nthe killing, plundering, and pillaging was sporadic,\\nrather than systematic. The Aamii government at\\nTanis, to judge from the inscription of Queen Het-\\nshepsut, joined and assisted them. In the course of\\ntime the Hamites naturalized in Egypt, owing to\\ntheir superior civilization, gained the complete as-\\ncendency over the foreign Aamii, and founded gov-\\nernments among them patterned upon the Egyptian\\nmodel. Thus Cush was a son of Ham; that is, the\\noriginal Aamu government established at Tanis\\nabout one hundred years before the Hyksos Invasion;\\njust as Mizraim, or the Hyksos Dynasty, was a son\\nof this same Hamite government. We are likewise\\nassured that Canaan was a son of Ham. The direct\\nand proximate effect of the Hyksos Invasion, there-\\nfore, was the dispersion of many of the inhabitants\\nof the Delta Shemites, Japhites, and Hamites into\\nthe neighboring countries, carrying with them and\\ndisseminating among other nations more or less con-\\nfused and distorted notions of the arts, learning, and", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0291.jp2"}, "292": {"fulltext": "286 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\ncivilization of the Egyptians. The statues of Naram-\\nsin, Gudea, and other most ancient kings of Baby-\\nlonia resemble in style the Egyptian models of the\\nThirteenth and Fifteenth Dynasties, from which\\nthey were copied. This is what we are bound to\\ninfer from the Mosaic account, according to which\\nNimrod, by whom the first kingdom in Babylonia\\nwas founded, was a son of Cush, and, therefore, sub-\\nsequent to Ham.\\nTHE ALIyEGORY OF THE FLOOD\\nJosephus tells us that Moses speaks some things\\nwisely, but enigmatically, and others under a decent\\nallegory; but still explained such things as required\\na direct explication plainly and expressly. The\\nmodern world, however, disregarding this evident\\nfact, insists upon a literal interpretation of the sym-\\nbols, enigmatical expressions, and allegories with\\nwhich the opening chapters of Genesis abound, and\\nthereby involves itself in all kinds of inconsistencies\\nand contradictions. The story of the Flood is an\\nallegory, under which the Hyksos Invasion of Egypt\\nis veiled and hidden. The flood and invasion both\\noccurred at the same time, and affected the same\\ngovernments, to wit: Noah, Shem, Ham, and\\nJapheth. A literal interpretation of the allegory, its\\nbeasts of the field and fowls of the air, its waters and\\nits ark, has had the effect of almost blotting out nearly\\ntwo thousand years of glorious and eventful history\\nin ancient Egypt, and of plunging mankind into cen-\\nturies of error and darkness.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0292.jp2"}, "293": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 287\\nThe scope of this work prevents me from going\\ninto a critical examination of the meaning of the\\nsymbols used in this allegory; but any one desirous of\\ndoing so, can find the key in Ezekiel, chapter 31.\\nIn fact, chapter 47 of Jeremiah symbolizes the As-\\nsyrian conquest of Palestine, Tyre, and Sidon, as an\\noverwhelming flood of waters out of the north, cov-\\nering the land and all that was therein, the cities and\\nthe inhabitants thereof. Here, where the correspond-\\ning historical fact was near at hand, no one ever\\ndreamed of literal waters covering the land, or literal\\nfloods and torrents; but after the great drop-curtain\\nhad been lowered at 2348 B. C, the historical fact\\nback of the allegory of the universal flood (Egypt\\nwas the world) was hidden from view, and forgotten.\\nThe allegory itself originated during the Hyksos\\ndomination over Egypt, for it was carried into Baby-\\nlonia by the Hamites and survived in the celebrated\\nFlood Legends discovered and translated by\\nGeorge Smith.\\nWe have seen that, according to Bible chronol-\\nogy, the birth of Noah occurred in the year 2948\\nB. C, and Noah was six hundred years old when the\\nFlood broke loose over the land. We have demon-\\nstrated that Thebes became independent at the\\ndownfall of the Old Empire in the year 2948 B. C,\\nand that the Theban Government continued through\\nthe Eleventh, Twelfth, and Thirteenth Dynasties, ex-\\nactly six hundred years to the Hyksos Invasion. We\\nhave also seen that the dynasties of Heracleopolis\\nendured five hundred and ninety-four years from the", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0293.jp2"}, "294": {"fulltext": "288 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nbeginning of the Eighth Dynasty, 2942 B. C, to the\\nHyksos Invasion. It can not be chance that these\\ndates agree and harmonize so perfectly, and that\\nNoah bears the distinctive name of Thebes, bestowed\\nupon this city during the brilliant epoch of the Eigh-\\nteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties, when it enjoyed the\\nfame of being the greatest city on the face of the\\nearth a fame echoed in the immortal epics of\\nHomer.\\nMuch has been written about the meaning and\\nderivation of the name Thebes. In the allegory,\\nNoah and his three sons escaped the Flood by retiring\\ninto the ark. Now, it can be seen in one of the earliest\\nworks on Egypt, to wit, Egypt s Place in Universal\\nHistory, Volume I, page 589, that Thebi, Thebe,\\nor Taibe, means ark, and that the Septuagint ren-\\nders ark Thibe and Thebe. Thus Genesis throws\\na welcome ray of light over a dark period of Egyptian\\nhistory, just as the events narrated in the opening\\nchapters of Genesis are supported by a background\\nof historical facts recorded in the stone book of an-\\ncient Egypt, and freed from countless errors, woven\\naround them by ignorance and superstition during\\nthe thirty-three centuries which have elapsed since\\nthe days of Moses.\\nWhen the storm had spent its force, and the\\nwaters (multitudes of people) coming and going had\\nreturned from off the earth, Noah and his sons came\\nout of the ark, and resumed their former avocations.\\nBefore they did this, however, they sent forth the\\ndove, which returned with the olive-branch. These", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0294.jp2"}, "295": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 285\\nstatements agree with what we actually find in Egypt\\nimmediately after the Hyksos conquest. Manetho\\ntells us, unequivocally, that the Egyptians did not\\nhazard a battle with the invaders. They retired up\\nthe Nile, took refuge in Thebes, sent out messengers\\noffering their submission, which was accepted upon\\ncondition that they were to be subject and pay tribute\\nto the great king of these people, in far-off Elam.\\nWe accordingly find (what we could not have fore-\\nseen) the Fifteenth Dynasty of Diospolis ruling over\\nthe same territory that had been subject to its prede-\\ncessor, the Thirteenth Dynasty. To judge from Man-\\netho s Hst, the Xoite Dynasty was destroyed, and did\\nnot rise again; neither do we hear anything more of\\nthe Heracleopolites. Thus the conditions were some-\\nwhat favorable for the Fifteenth Dynasty, which\\nseems to have been more powerful than the Thir-\\nteenth Dynasty. We shall see that the Seb-ku-hoteps,\\nwith the exception of Cha-hotep-ra, formerly assigned\\nto the Thirteenth Dynasty, probably belong here.\\nThis presents a state of affairs, so different from that\\ncommonly assumed, that it will certainly meet with\\nopposition from those who are loath to abandon an\\nold opinion, however erroneous it may prove to be;\\nbut it is always better to gracefully accept the truth in\\nwhatever form it is made to appear.\\nIt has taxed credulity to the utmost, especially\\nduring the last half of the nineteenth century, to be-\\nlieve that the iirst man, or Adam, was created as\\nrecently as 4004 B. C; that individuals, as late as\\n2000 B. C, attained the impossible ages of nine hun-\\n19", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0295.jp2"}, "296": {"fulltext": "290 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\ndred and fifty years; that in the year 2348 B. C. a\\nliteral flood of waters covered the whole earth to a\\ndepth of five or six miles, and destroyed every living\\ncreature, with the exception of such as escaped in a\\nliteral ark; and that an individual, after he had at-\\ntained five hundred years of age, begat three sons,\\neach of whom belonged to a different race.\\nThe allusion to Noah s over-indulgence in wine\\nand consequent nakedness after the Flood seems to\\nindicate that Thebes was over-confident, and failed\\nto protect herself sufficiently against attack after the\\ninvading hordes had retired, and that the Aamu gov-\\nernment at Tanis, or Ham, took occasion to betray\\nthis weakness (or nakedness, as it was then called) to\\nthe enemy; but that Shem and Japheth, retiring back-\\nwards that is, up the Nile protected Thebes. This\\nlanguage applies to Egypt; for the Egyptians, con-\\ntrary to the custom of other nations, regarded the\\nnorth as up and the south as down; hence, they went\\nbackwards, or down, when they ascended the Nile.\\nThe history and chronology of Egypt, supported\\nby contemporary monuments and inscriptions, render\\nit absolutely certain that there was no literal deluge\\nsuch as that described in the allegory, in Egypt about\\n2348 B. C. In fact, tombs which are between five\\nthousand and six thousand years old, and which have\\nnever been disturbed since the mummies were de-\\nposited in them, show no indications of a flood of lit-\\neral waters. In some of them the footprints of the\\nmen who laid the mummies to rest were as plainly\\nvisible in the dust when the tombs were opened as", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0296.jp2"}, "297": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 291\\nthey were five thousand years ago, when first made.\\nFrom a scientific point of view, a flood covering the\\nentire earth to the tops of the highest mountains is\\na physical impossibility.\\nIn his story of the destruction of Atlantis, Plato\\ntells us what Solon learned from an aged Egyptian\\npriest at Sais. Solon drew the priests on to speak of\\nantiquity, by telling them about the most ancient\\nthings in his part of the world; about Phoroneus, who\\nwas called the first, and about Niobe; and by telling\\nthem about the flood of Deucalion. He traced the\\ngenealogy of the descendants of Deucalion and\\nPyrrha, and attempted to reckon how old these events\\nwere, and to give the dates. Thereupon the priest\\nsaid that in mind the Greeks were all young:\\nThere is no old opinion handed down among\\nyou by ancient tradition, nor any science which is\\nhoary with age. And I will tell you the reason of\\nthis: there have been, and there will be again, many\\ndestructions of mankind arising out of many causes.\\nThere is a story which even you have preserved, that\\nonce upon a time Phaethon, the son of Helios, hav-\\ning yoked the steeds in his father s chariot, because\\nhe was not able to drive them in the path of his father,\\nburnt all that was upon the earth, and was himself\\ndestroyed by a thunderbolt. Now, this has the form\\nof a myth, but really signifies a declination of the\\nbodies moving around the earth and in the heavens,\\nand a great conflagration of things upon the earth\\nrecurring at long intervals of time: when this hap-\\npens, those who live upon the mountains and in dry\\nand lofty places are more liable to destruction than\\nthose who dwell by rivers or on the seashore; and", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0297.jp2"}, "298": {"fulltext": "292 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nfrom this calamity the Nile, who is our never-failing\\nsaviour/ saves and delivers us. When, on the other\\nhand, the gods purge the earth with a deluge of\\nwaters, among you herdsmen and shepherds on the\\nmountains are the survivors, whereas those of you\\nwho live in cities are carried by the rivers into the\\nsea; but in this country, neither at that time nor at\\nany other, does the water come from above on the\\nfields, having always a tendency to come up from\\nbelow, for which reason the things preserved here\\nare said to be the oldest. The fact is that wherever\\nthe extremity of winter frost or of summer sun does\\nnot prevent, the human race is always increasing at\\ntimes, and at other times diminishing in numbers.\\nAnd whatever happened, either in your country or\\nin ours, or in any other region of which we are in-\\nformed, if any action which is noble or great, or in\\nany other way remarkable, has taken place, all that\\nhas been written down of old, and is preserved in our\\ntemples; whereas you and other nations are just being\\nprovided with letters and the other things which\\nStates require; and then, at the usual period, the\\nstream from heaven descends like a pestilence, and\\nleaves only those of you who are destitute of letters\\nand education; and thus you have to begin all over\\nagain as children, and know nothing of what hap-\\npened in ancient times, either among us or among\\nyourselves.\\nAs for those genealogies of yours which you\\nhave recounted to us, Solon, they are no better than\\nthe tales of children; for, in the first place, you re-\\nmember one deluge only, whereas there were many\\nof them; and, in the next place, you do not know that\\nthere dwelt in your land the fairest and noblest race\\nof men which ever lived, of whom you and your\\nwhole city are but a seed or remnant. And this was", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0298.jp2"}, "299": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 293\\nunknown to you, because for many generations the\\nsurvivors of that destruction died and made no sign.\\nFor there was a time, Solon, before that great deluge\\nof all, when the city, which now is Athens, was first\\nin war, and was pre-eminent for the excellence of her\\nlaws, and is said to have performed the noblest deeds,\\nand to have had the fairest constitution of any of\\nwhich tradition tells, under the face of heaven.\\nThe priest then proceeded to tell Solon what their\\nhistories related of a mighty power which came forth\\nout of the Atlantic Ocean, from an island situated in\\nfront of the Columns of Heracles, and subjected\\nLibya as far as Egypt, and Europe as far as Tyrrhenia.\\nThis vast power was defeated by the Athenians. But\\nafterward there occurred violent earthquakes and\\nfloods, and in a single day and night of rain the island\\nof Atlantis disappeared, and sank beneath the sea.\\nThe island, which was larger than Asia and Libya put\\ntogether, was the way to other islands, from which\\nyou might pass through the whole of the opposite\\ncontinent, which surrounded the true ocean. The\\npriest further informed Solon that the Mediterranean\\nwas only a harbor, having a narrow entrance but that\\nthe other was a real sea, and the surrounding land\\nmight be most truly called a continent.\\nWe have cited the above from Solon, through\\nPlato, for the purpose of showing that no literal flood\\nof waters, excepting the annual inundation, deluged\\nEgypt during the six thousand years covered by her\\nhistories. If a universal deluge had actually occurred\\nafter the accession of Mena, Egypt would have been", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0299.jp2"}, "300": {"fulltext": "294 Self- Verifying Chronological\\nthe first country to suffer, because it is only a few feet\\nabove the level of the ocean, and there would cer-\\ntainly have been some evidences of it on the monu-\\nments strewn over the country from Nubia to Tanis,\\nand some mention of it in their sacred registers.\\nThe priest of Sais, about 600 B. C, said to Solon,\\nYou remember one deluge only, whereas there were\\nmany of them; and assured him that the Egyptians\\nhad written down and preserved in their temples ac-\\ncounts of everything noble or great, or otherwise\\nremarkable, which had occurred in Egypt or Greece,\\nor any other region with which they were acquainted.\\nBoth Solon and Plato studied in Egypt. The above\\naccount bears evidence on its face that it was taken\\nfrom the sacred registers preserved in the temples\\nof Egypt, and not invented by Solon or Plato. It is\\ntrue that the foundation of Sais, as fixed by the priest,\\nto wit, about 8600 B. C, appears to be extravagant\\nin view of Manetho s chronology, which does not\\ncarry the Achiu, or saints, farther back than 5500\\nB. C. but it must be remembered that he was giving\\na mythological date; for he was speaking of Neith or\\nAthene, the goddess who loved war as well as wis-\\ndom. The point of interest here is that the Egyptians\\nhad accounts of the Deluge of Deucalion, and of many\\nother floods, all of which were local and not universal,\\nalthough the people concerned imagined they affected\\nthe whole earth. The discovery of the Pyramid Texts\\nhas furnished evidence, as astonishing as it was unex-\\npected, of the truth of the statements of the Egyptian\\npriest concerning the antiquity of the Athenians, or", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0300.jp2"}, "301": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 295\\nlonians, namely, You do not know that there dwelt\\nin your land the fairest and noblest race of men which\\never lived, and For there was a time, Solon, before\\nthat great deluge of all, when the city which is now\\nAthens was first in war, and was pre-eminent for the\\nexcellency of her laws.\\nThe inscriptions in the Pyramid of Teta, who\\nmounted the throne 3146 B. C, speak of the two\\nsisters of the deceased king, Isis and Nephthys, caus-\\ning his soul to pass, in succession, Kem-et ur-et (near\\nthe present Lake of Crocodiles on the Suez Canal)\\nin his name of Kem-ur (the Great Black) and Aneh\\nUaz-et ur-et; that is, the fortress of Uaz-et ur-et, in\\nhis name of Uaz-ur, Great Green, or Mediterranean\\nSea; and the Great Turn, or Shen-et ur-et, at the\\nsoutheast bend of the Mediterranean, called the lake\\nof Shen-ur, to finally circle around the great circle,\\nat the northeast bend of the Mediterranean, which\\nencircles (packer) the la-nim-u, or lonians. The name\\nla-nim-u is written exactly as it was nearly three thou-\\nsand years later in the Ptolemaic period, so that there\\ncan be no question whatever as to its meaning, for it\\nwas then translated lonians, or Greeks. But even\\nif we did not know this from the inscriptions of the\\nlater period, the locality is so accurately pointed out\\nthat no mistake could be made in rendering the name\\nla-nim-u. Isis and Nephthys conveyed the deceased\\nalong the great highway leading to Asia Minor. This\\ngreat road at that time passed through the fortified\\ntown on Lake Timsah, which was then known as the\\nGreat Black, in contradistinction to the Great", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0301.jp2"}, "302": {"fulltext": "296 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nGreen, or Mediterranean. It will be remembered\\nthat Sa-nuh-et passed the fortified wall at this same\\nplace the cherubim and flaming sword pointing\\nevery way, which was placed before the Garden of\\nEden, to keep the way of the tree of life. After\\npassing Kem-iir, the highway took a northerly direc-\\ntion along the east bank of the Bubastic arm of the\\nNile, until it reached the Mediterranean at the fort-\\nress bearing the same name; that is, the fortress of\\nUaz-ur. From this point the highway followed the\\nMediterranean in an easterly course until it reached\\nthe great bend at the lake of Shen-ur, Great Bend,\\nwhere the shore takes a direction almost due north.\\nTo this day the highway follows the shore of the sea\\nnorthwardly, until it reaches the other great bend,\\nwhere it is happily described as turning around, de-\\nhenta shenet, the circle which encompasses the lonians.\\n(Pyramid Texts, Teta, 274 and 275; Pepa I, 122;\\nMer-en-ra I, 91; Pepa II, 98, etc.) Of all the revela-\\ntions contained in the sealed book of ancient Egypt,\\nthis is one of the most startling. Modern historians,\\nwho have invented a primeval seat for the Japhetic\\nrace in the highlands of Central Asia, from which\\nthey proceed to trace successive migrations to Europe\\nin comparatively late times, will have to revise their\\nworks fundamentally; for the lonlans are shown by\\ncontemporary Inscriptions to have been In Greece\\nbefore the date of King Teta, or more than three\\nthousand years before the Christian Era. Before I\\nhad seen the Pyramid Texts, I had noticed that\\nJapheth was the Lower Egyptian form of Ja-pet-u,", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0302.jp2"}, "303": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 297\\nthe foreign /a. The hieroglyphic rendering of la-\\nnim-u shows that the plural mm, all, refers to a\\ngreat nation, because it means, literally, the la col-\\nlectively, which can only apply to a people compris-\\ning many different nations. Consequently, when this\\nterm was first applied to the lonians by the Egyp-\\ntians, which was certainly before the reign of King\\nTeta, they were the leading power in Europe.\\nMoses, who drew from Egyptian sources, speak-\\ning of the sons of lavan, says By these were divided\\nthe islands of the Gentiles in their lands, every one\\naccording to his tongue, and their families in their\\nnations, all of which is expressed by la-nim-u. To\\nthose Egyptologists who still insist that the literature\\nof the Old and Middle Empire was destroyed and\\nswept away by the Hyksos flood, I would say, that\\nthe above-mentioned fact alone demonstrates the\\ntruth of the statement made by the priest of Sais to\\nSolon, that the remarkable events in Egypt, Greece,\\nand other countries were written down of old and\\npreserved in the temples. If it had not been so, he\\ncould not have known this about the primitive lo-\\nnians, for it is evident that Solon knew nothing about\\nit, and that the Greeks generally had preserved no\\nrecollection of it.\\nThere is no reason why a description of an actual\\nlocal flood, supposed to have been universal, should\\nnot have served as the figure of an allegory, where\\nthe thing said is not the thing meant; but there are\\nsome features about the flood-story in Genesis which\\nlead me to believe that it was originally taken from", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0303.jp2"}, "304": {"fulltext": "298 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nan account of the inundation in Egypt, carried back\\nto Asia by the Aamu invaders, to whom it must have\\nappeared as a miracle. Note the language of the\\npriest to Solon, that in Egypt, neither at the time of\\nthe floods mentioned nor at any other, did the water\\ncome from above on the fields; but that it always had\\na tendency to come up from below. This was the\\nmysterious periodical rising of the river without rains\\nor any other visible cause. The water seemed to\\ncome up from the fountains of the deep. In Genesis\\nwe read, first, that all the fountains of the great deep\\nwere broken up, and afterwards that the fountains of\\nthe deep were closed. These expressions pertain to\\nEgypt and the Nile alone. The rain and the opening\\nof the floodgates of heaven pertained to Babylonia.\\nBut the presence of the fountains of the deep, which\\nrelated to the rising of the waters from below, show\\nthat Egypt was the land to which the story applied,\\nfor the expression is not applicable to Babylonia.\\nWe are told that the water was fifteen cubits\\nhigher than the mountains w^hich it covered. Why\\nwas the height above the mountains stated to be\\nfifteen cubits? This number was certainly used for\\nsome purpose. If the flood had been universal, it\\nwould have been sufUcient if all the mountains were\\ncovered, without regard to the exact depth. It will\\nbe seen at once that fifteen cubits can not apply to\\nmountains in general, because they vary greatly in\\nheight. The water of the inundation, however, does\\ncover the level, alluvial plains of Egypt to the depth\\nof fifteen cubits, or twenty-two or twenty-three feet.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0304.jp2"}, "305": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 299\\nI\\nThe annual rise of the Nile at Cairo is about twenty-\\nthree or twenty- four feet; but at Heliopolis, the rec-\\nognized center of observation, it is about fifteen\\ncubits. During the inundation the Egyptians retired\\nwithin their cities, or arks, taking their beasts of the\\nfield, fowls of the air, crops, and provisions of all\\nkinds with them, and they remained in these arks,\\nresting safely above the waters, until the inundation\\nsubsided and the dry land appeared; when they natu-\\nrally again went forth from their cities. If the reader\\nshould desire to investigate this subject more fully,\\nand study the meaning of the symbols and figures\\nused in Scriptures, the great work of L. A. Wood,\\nnow ready for publication, entitled, Ancient Egypt,\\nthe Tree of Life, will afford the wished-for oppor-\\ntunity. This work presents the subject in a new light,\\nand supplies a background of historical facts hitherto\\noverlooked or forgotten, and will be found to be able,\\nlogical, and exhaustive, as well as original and inter-\\nesting.\\nFIFTEENTH DYNASTY OF BI.BVBN DIOSPOLITAN KINGS\\nWe have already seen that the Thirteenth and\\nFourteenth Dynasties came to a close at the Hyksos\\nInvasion; and that Manetho extended the Memphite\\nkings two hundred and fifty-one years beyond that\\ndate, or down to 2097 B. C, the date of the begin-\\nning of the great Hyksos Dynasty.\\nThe kings of the Thirteenth Dynasty have left\\nfew monuments which have survived to our times.\\nI am not aware that any evidences of their rule have", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0305.jp2"}, "306": {"fulltext": "300 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nbeen found at Bubastis, or Tanis, or, in fact, any-\\nwhere else in the Delta. The kings of the Fifteenth\\nDynasty, on the contrary, appear to have ruled over\\nEgypt from Nubia to Tanis; and we are confronted\\nwith a state of things, during the first two hundred\\nand fifty-one years of Hamite domination, diametric-\\nally opposed to that laid down in the modern text-\\nbooks on ancient Egypt. Here, as elsewhere, I pro-\\npose to follow Manetho and the monuments as the\\nmost trustworthy guides, even though by so doing\\nsome old familiar theories may have to be abandoned.\\nWe have been accustomed to look upon the Hyk-\\nsos Invasion as a calamity, which almost destroyed\\nthe Egyptian nation, and completely blotted out\\nEgyptian civilization. A closer inspection of Man-\\netho s account will show that this opinion is wholly\\nunfounded. He merely says that men of ignoble birth\\nfrom the eastern parts had boldness enough to make\\nan expedition into Egypt, and easily subdued it by\\nforce, for the Egyptians did not even hazard a battle\\nwith them; and that when they had gotten those who\\ngoverned the Egyptians under their power, they\\nburned the cities, demoHshed the temples, etc. Thus\\nit was simply an expedition into Egypt by the army\\nof the Hamite Government established in Elam. We\\nhave already called attention to the fact that the\\nquotation of Josephus is but a fragment, and does\\nnot touch the first two hundred and fifty-one years of\\nAamu domination at all. We all know how Asiatic\\nconquerors usually governed conquered countries.\\nThey invariably set up native kings of the royal line.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0306.jp2"}, "307": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 301\\nwho exercised all the authority of kings, but were\\nsubject to the payment of an annual tribute. Fortu-\\nnately, we know how this same Klamite Empire was\\ngoverned and administered several centuries after the\\nHyksos conquest.\\nChapter 14 of Genesis contains an account of a\\nwar made by Kudur-lagomar, king of the Elamites,\\nand his associate kings, against the kings of Canaan.\\nWe are told that these kings had served Kudur-\\nlagomar twelve years, and in the thirteenth year they\\nrevolted from him. In the fourteenth year Kudur-\\nlagomar and the kings that were with him invaded\\nCanaan, and ravaged the land to the confines of\\nEgypt. Now, it is plain that the kings who accom-\\npanied Kudur-lagomar on this expedition, including\\nAmraphel, King of Shinar (afterwards Babylonia),\\nwere subject kings, bearing the titles and exercising\\nthe local authority of kings. We are bound to infer\\nthat the entire territory between Elam and the Medi-\\nterranean Sea was governed by the King of Elam\\nin this way, and that as long as the subject-kings paid\\nthe required tribute, they were not molested. Unless\\nwe indulge in speculation and conjecture, we can not\\nescape the conclusion that when the king of the\\nElamites added Egypt to his empire, he administered\\nit in the same way. It is difficult to accustom our-\\nselves to the novel idea that, at the date of the sup-\\nposed flood, 2348 B. C, there was an Elamite Em-\\npire in Western Asia, covering a greater extent of\\ncountry than that governed by Cyrus 1,800 years\\nlater.", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0307.jp2"}, "308": {"fulltext": "302 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nStrange as it may seem, the Hyksos conquest\\nturned out to be, in some respects, an actual advan-\\ntage to the Diospolitan kings. At the close of the\\nThirteenth Dynasty the Delta was divided up into a\\nnumber of petty kingdoms, three of v^hich were com-\\nposed of foreigners settled and naturalized in Egypt.\\nThe brunt of the invasion struck the Delta, and the\\ninvaders easily accomplished (what the Theban\\nkings could not accomplish) the destruction of the\\nnumerous petty governments in the Delta. The\\nTheban kings of the Fifteenth Dynasty acknowl-\\nedged themselves subject to the great ruler of the\\nHamites, and, backed up by his power, were able to\\nexercise sovereignty over the Delta itself, as well as\\nthe territory governed by the Thirteenth Dynasty.\\nThus, the kings of the Fifteenth Dynasty were far\\nmore powerful than their predecessors of the Thir-\\nteenth Dynasty. Under Hamite protection, Tanis,\\nnear the northeastern angle of the Delta, became a\\nfavorite residence of the kings, and we shall see that\\nsome of their principal monuments were found at\\nTanis. It almost seems that the name Sebku-hotep\\nwas assumed by these kings in deference to Sutech,\\nor Typhonic Set, the chief deity of the Hamites.\\nThe throne-title of the second king on fragment\\n8 1 of the papyrus, Uah-ab-ra-Ian-ab, fixes him un-\\nmistakably at the summer solstice of the Sothiac\\nyear 2064 B. C, and makes him the contemporary\\nof the Hyksos king, Pa-ian. This important epoch-\\nking was preceded on the same fragment by Cha-\\nhotep-ra, who was one of the Sebku-hoteps specially", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0308.jp2"}, "309": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 303\\nhonored in the Table of Karnak. Cha-hotep-ra\\nreigned but four years, eight months, and twenty-\\nnine days, and, therefore, belongs to the Sixteenth\\nDynasty. We do not know how great the gap be-\\ntween fragment 81 and fragments 78 and 79 is, but\\nthe last king on these fragments is the Sebku-hotep\\nwho bore the throne-title Cha-nofer-ra. In the Table\\nof Karnak, which omits all kings who are not in\\nthe direct genealogical line, there are two kings\\n(Cha-ka-ra) and Cha-anch-ra, between Cha-nofer-ra\\nand Cha-hotep-ra. The gap, therefore, may have con-\\ntained five or six names. The two hundred and fifty-\\none years of this dynasty cover the Sothiac month\\nof Tybi and the greater part of Em-hir, during which\\nHorus is daily rising nearer and nearer to the high-\\nest point, the ab or ian, of his course in the upper\\nhemisphere. For this reason we find titles com-\\npounded with cha, rising, and ab, heart or\\nmiddle. I have already given my reasons for think-\\ning that Sochem-chu-taui-ra Sebku-hotep I was the first\\nking of the Fifteenth Dynasty. If this view be cor-\\nrect, we ought to find monuments of his reign in\\nthe Delta. Now remember that the preceding six-\\nteen kings of the Thirteenth Dynasty, nine of whom\\nappear on fragment 72 of the papyrus, have left no\\nevidences of their reigns in the Delta, which cor-\\nroborates and sustains Manetho throughout. Sebku-\\nhotep I appears as a builder at Bubastis, where two\\nlintel blocks bear his name. Is not this most re-\\nmarkable? A Theban king, holding Memphis, and\\nbuilding temples at Btibastis, and, I might certainly", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0309.jp2"}, "310": {"fulltext": "304 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nadd, Tanis, shortly after the Hyksos conquest, proves\\nbeyond a doubt that Manetho followed the contempo-\\nrary monuments and the ancient histories preserved\\nin the temples when he included these kings among\\nthe Memphite kings who reigned from 3894 B. C.\\nto 2097 B. C. The first king on fragments 78 and\\n79, Se-mench-ka-ra Emir-meshau, seems to have been\\na special favorite of the great Elamite king of kings.\\nHis name denotes that he was the general in com-\\nmand of the army; for Emir, erroneously rendered\\nmur and mer, is the identical word Emir (ameer),\\nused by the Turks to-day, just as SubUme Porte is\\na literal translation of Per-oa, or Pharaoh. As this\\narmy was composed, in part at least, of Hamites,\\nEmir-meshau must have enjoyed the special con-\\nfidence of the great king in Elam. As we have just\\nsaid, the Theban kings profited greatly by becoming\\nthe representatives of this overwhelming power in\\nthe East. Now for the evidence: Two large statues\\nof this king were found at Tanis, and, what is equally\\nsignificant, the great Hyksos king, Apophis, caused\\nhis name to be engraved on them. This king, no\\ndoubt, enjoyed a long and prosperous reign, and his\\ntwo successors in the papyrus, whose names are al-\\nmost entirely destroyed, do not seem to have be-\\nlonged to the genealogical line.\\nSebku-hotep II, known as Sochem-s^uot-tavii-ra, has\\nleft a number of monuments, and, from all appear-\\nances, was as powerful as Emir-meshau.\\nHis immediate successor, Cha-seshat-ra (Chasis-\\natraf) Nofer-hotep has also left beautiful statues and", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0310.jp2"}, "311": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 305\\nother monuments, and, no doubt, ruled Egypt from\\nNubia to Tanis. His son, Sa-hathor, seems to have\\nhad but a short reign. His successor, Sebku-hotep III\\nCha-nofer-ra, whose place is fixed by the papyrus\\nand the Table of Karnak also, certainly held Tanis,\\nas his granite statue, which still lies there, testifies.\\nHe seems to have been the most powerful king of\\nthis dynasty, as colossal statues of him have been\\nfound in Nubia, above the third cataract. These\\nkings knew how to adapt themselves to the whims\\nand fancies of the Hamite monarchs, who were, in-\\ntellectually, much their inferiors, and the statue of\\nNaram-sin proves that the art of this dynasty was\\ncopied in Babylonia.\\nCha-ka-ra, Sebku-hotep IV, and Cha-anch-ra Sebku-\\nhotep Vy of the Table of Karnak the corresponding\\npart of the papyrus is lost belong to the decline of\\nthis dynasty. I know of no monuments of either of\\nthese kings found in the Delta. We are unable to\\nsay how many names are lost at the end of the\\nfragment 79, following Cha-nofer-ra. Manetho had\\neleven kings in this dynasty, which gives us an aver-\\nage of about twenty-three years for each reign. The\\npapyrus once contained the exact reign of each of\\nthese kings in years, months, and days, and likewise\\nmarked the epoch-kings of Tybi, 2304 B. C, and\\nEmhir, 2184 B. C; but this portion was torn off,\\nand is lost. As there were but forty-four years be-\\ntween the beginning of this dynasty and the first\\nepoch above named, it is possible that this epoch\\nmay have fallen near the end of fragment 76.\\n20", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0311.jp2"}, "312": {"fulltext": "3o6 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nManetho entered but one dynasty in his lists dur-\\ning this period. The pseudo-Sothis List has a Tanite\\nDynasty immediately before the Hyksos kings, which\\nindicates that the Fifteenth Dynasty resided at Tanis,\\nwhere they could be more effectually controlled by\\nthe Hamites. A systematic exploration of the ruins\\nof Tanis may yet reveal many important facts con-\\ncerning these kings and their immediate successors,\\nthe Hyksos kings.\\nSIXTEENTH DYNASTY OE THIRTY-TWO THEBAID KINGS\\nFollowing Manetho s order, we take up this dy-\\nnasty before the Seventeenth, or Hyksos, Dynasty,\\nboth of which reigned contemporaneously for two\\nhundred and sixty years, from 2097 B. C. to 1837\\nB.C.\\nThe Sixteenth Dynasty was confined, like the\\nearly Eleventh Dynasty, to the Thebais. The tombs\\nof its kings at Thebes succeed those of the Eleventh\\nDynasty, which makes it appear as if the Sixteenth\\nDynasty had immediately succeeded the Eleventh\\nDynasty.\\nThebes seems to have had no school of artists\\nprior to this time, and the monuments of this dynasty\\nare, therefore, imitations of the rude works of the\\nEleventh Dynasty.\\nThe great epoch of Phamenoth, 2064 B. C, when\\nthe sun of the Sothiac year, having reached the high-\\nest point, sometimes called the ah, or middle, of his\\ncourse in the upper hemisphere, turns, and begins to\\ndescend, fell in the thirty-fourth year of this dynasty.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0312.jp2"}, "313": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 307\\nFortunately, this portion of the papyrus, headed by\\nCha-hotep-ra, has survived, and we have the throne-\\ntitles of eight kings of this dynasty. The second\\nking Uah-ab-ra lan-u-ab, The Mansion of the Heart\\nof Ra and Turning the Heart, bears Sothiac titles\\nmarking him unmistakably as epoch-king of Pham-\\nenoth, 2064 B. C. His successor, whose reign fol-\\nlows the epoch, is designated as such by the words\\n^ari-en-ef em suteniu/ already explained, so that the\\nchain of evidence is complete.\\nIt seems that the first kings of this dynasty were\\nthe successors of the kings of the Fifteenth Dynasty,\\nand that they were not immediately molested by the\\nHyksos kings. Saites lived at Memphis, and made\\nboth the upper and lower regions pay tribute. He\\nalso placed garrisons in the most proper positions.\\nOne of these garrisons, in my opinion, was placed\\nat Koptos, near Thebes, thus confining the Sixteenth\\nDynasty strictly to the Thebais, as indicated by Man-\\netho.\\nThe last Sebku-hotep, Cha-hotep-ra, reigned four\\nyears, eight months, and twenty-nine days. His title\\nindicates that the Rising of Ra w^as accomplished,\\nthat is, at peace. Uah-ab-ra, or, as I read it, Sochem-\\nuah-ab-ra, reigned ten years, eight months, and\\ntwenty-eight days, which, I contend, extends to 2064\\nB. C.\\nMer-nofer-ra, meaning Loving the Perfection of\\nRa, reigned thirteen years, eight months, and eigh-\\nteen days. As we have demonstrated, Horus attained\\nhis perfection at the summer solstice, when he be-", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0313.jp2"}, "314": {"fulltext": "3o8 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\ncame Ra, and this title is equally as significant as the\\nothers.\\nThese kings do not seem to have incurred the ill-\\nwill of the Hyksos monarchs; but the short reigns\\nof their immediate successors point to war and dis-\\norder. Mer-hotep-ra reigned two years, two months,\\nand nine days; S anch-en-ra, three years, two months,\\nand ten days; Mer-sochem-ra, three years, one month,\\nand ten days, etc. These reigns, compared to the\\nforty-four years of Pa-ian and the sixty-one years\\nof Apophis I, demonstrate, more plainly than words\\npossibly could, the absolute truth of Manetho s state-\\nment: And these six were the first rulers among\\nthem, who were all along making war with the\\nEgyptians, and were very desirous gradually to\\ndestroy tkem to the very roots.\\nThe kings of the Fifteenth Dynasty enjoyed the\\nsemblance of royalty, and, at home, were more power-\\nful than their predecessors of the Thirteenth Dynasty\\nhad been. Neither the people nor the Pharaohs had\\nany cause to complain of the sovereign in far-ofif\\nElam; but the condition of the unfortunate Theban\\nhyks of the Sixteenth Dynasty was humiliating and\\nmiserable indeed, and led to constant friction and\\ndisturbance.\\nAfter Mer-nofer-ra, the papyrus shows us a series\\nof kings who merely appear upon the throne to be\\nhurled down again by the Hamite tyrants. Among\\nthese are two, Mer-hotep-ra and Mer-sochem-ra, who\\nappear in the Table of Karnak. We need not wonder,", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0314.jp2"}, "315": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 309\\ntherefore, that Manetho assigned thirty-two kings to\\nthis dynasty.\\nNotwithstanding these unfavorable conditions, we\\nfind that all these reigns were carefully registered,\\neven when they did not exceed a few months and\\ndays. The period of greatest depression must have\\nbeen under Apophis I, for later on we find some\\nreigns of normal length. Manetho opens his account\\nof the Hyksos Dynasty by telling us that the first\\nking, Saites, fortified the eastern frontier, foreseeing\\nthat the Babylonians would be desirous of that king-\\ndom, and invade them. This language, coming from\\nsuch a careful, truthful, and conservative authority,\\nwas certainly, by way of introduction to an account,\\nfarther on in his history, of an invasion of the Hyksos\\nkingdom by the king of the Elamites and his subject-\\nkings, such as the king of Shinar (afterwards Baby-\\nlonia), etc. If such an invasion had not taken place,\\nManetho would not have used the word foreseeing^\\nWhile the Hyksos forces were employed and weak-\\nened in defending the Delta from foreign attack, the\\nkings of Thebes enjoyed a period of comparative\\npeace, during which they were able to recruit their\\nstrength, and prepare for the coming struggle. To\\nthe beginning of this dynasty we may assign the fol-\\nlowing monumental kings\\nI. Sochem-uat-chau-ra Sehku-em-sa-uf.\\nThis king heads the third section of the right\\nhalf of the Table of Karnak, and follows immediately\\nafter the Sehkvi-hotops of the Fifteenth Dynasty. Cha,", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0315.jp2"}, "316": {"fulltext": "3IO A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nrising, is still an element in his throne-title, but\\nwe must not forget that there were thirty-three years\\nof the month of Emhir (2097 to 2064 B. C.) in this\\ndynasty, and that the fourteen years of Cha-hotep-ra\\nand Sochem-uah-ab-ra, the latter of whom turned\\nthe heart of Ra, leave the first nineteen years, cor-\\nresponding to the nineteen years of Saites, unpro-\\nvided for. I follow the Table of Karnak in giving\\nthis king the first place, although we know that the\\nmost distinguished series are grouped around the\\nstanding figures of Thothmes ITT, and the less noted\\nkings arranged around them at random. The tomb\\nof this king was at Thebes, and, although its location\\nis not known, Arabs must have found it, for objects\\nusually buried with the mummy have been sold, and\\nremain to attest the fact. The throne-title of this\\nking, its form and arrangement, and the element\\nSehku in his name, all show that he immediately suc-\\nceeded the last king of the F ifteenth Dynasty.\\n2. Sochem-nah-chau-ra Ra-hotep.\\nA broken tablet, set up by this king, was found\\nat Koptos. But as this dynasty was set up by the\\nHyksos kings, to govern the Land of the South and\\ncollect and pay over the revenues, there would be\\nno inconsistency in the king restoring the temple o\u00c2\u00a3\\nMen at Koptos, and setting up a memorial of the fact.\\n3. Sochem-shedi-taui-ra S ehku-em-sa-uf\\nThe royal commission appointed by Ramesses X\\nreported that it had examined the tomb of this\\nking at Thebes, and that it had been broken into,\\nand the mummy destroyed. It is probable that this", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0316.jp2"}, "317": {"fulltext": "HisTOR V OF Ancient Eg ypt 3 1 1\\nking ought to be placed after the kings named on\\nfragment 81 of the papyrus, beginning with Cha-\\nhotep-ra^ whose position, chronologically, admits of\\nno doubt, because inscriptions of a much later date\\nmention the fourteenth year of King Ra-hotep.\\nThe thieves who had rifled the tomb of Sebku-em-\\nsauf confessed that, when they had effected an en-\\ntrance, they found the sepulchral chamber protected\\nby masonry and covered with roofing. After these\\nhad been destroyed, they opened the sarcophagi and\\ncoffins in which the mummies of the king and queen\\nhad reposed for nearly nine centuries. Beside the\\nmummy of the king they found his divine ax. The\\nhead was overlaid with gold, and the body, also, was\\ncovered with gold. Around the neck were many\\namulets and ornaments of gold. The coffins were\\nburnished with gold and inlaid with precious stones.\\nThe thieves stole everything that was valuable, in-\\ncluding the vases of gold, silver, and bronze, and\\nother tomb furniture, and then set fire to the coffins.\\nIs it a wonder that, in all after ages, the royal tombs\\ncontinually excited the cupidity of such sacrilegious\\nwretches as these?\\n4. Sochem-nofer-chau-ra Up-uat-em-saiif.\\nIt is probable that the throne-title of this king\\nwas among the destroyed ovals of the Table of Kar-\\nnak. In type it is closely related to the foregoing.\\nIn form it seems to precede Cha-hotep-ra, for Nofer-\\nchau, which indicates that the Rising of Ra was\\nperfected when this king was crowned, is but an-\\nother form of Cha-hotep-ra.", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0317.jp2"}, "318": {"fulltext": "312 A ^elf-Verifying Chronological\\nThe name itself, Upon the way as Saviour, re-\\nminds us of the Eleventh Dynasty. It was natural\\nfor these kings, who were brought into direct con-\\ntact with the memorials of the Theban rulers of the\\nEleventh Dynasty, to pattern their names and titles\\nafter those of the first Theban rulers.\\nAccording to the author of Genesis, Noah, or\\nThebes, survived three hundred and fifty years after\\nthe Flood. We might be tempted to assume that\\nthis number was two hundred and fifty years orig-\\ninally, although the total of nine hundred and fifty\\nyears for the entire duration of the first Theban\\nGovernment requires three hundred and fifty years.\\nThe fragments of the papyrus show no break be-\\ntween the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Dynasties. When\\nSaites was made king of Egypt, with Memphis as\\nhis capital, the old line was simply forced back into\\nthe Thebaid. But it is probable that, one hundred\\nyears later, or about 1997 B. C, a collateral line from\\nEl-kab, or vicinity, supplanted the original Theban\\nHne. It would almost appear as if Apophis I, about\\nthis time, had taken possession of Thebes and sup-\\npressed the old line. It is certain that the later\\nkings of this dynasty had some connection with the\\ngreat fortress of el-Kab, the walls of which, more\\nthan twelve yards thick, inclosed a square, each side\\nof which was more than six hundred and fifty yards\\nin length. There were wars between the Hyksos\\nkings and Theban rulers before the great insurrec-\\ntion mentioned by Manetho. Theban successes led\\nto the insurrection, which occurred under Apophis II,", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0318.jp2"}, "319": {"fulltext": "HiSTOR Y OF Ancient Eg ypt 3 1 3\\nthe last Hyksos king. Se-kennen-ra and Apophis II\\nboth bore the title Oa-ken-en, which is a strong indi-\\ncation of contemporaneity.\\nTowards the close of this dynasty I am inclined\\nto place the following monumental kings, under\\nwhom the rule of Thebes was extended northwardly\\nbeyond Abydus\\n1. Neb-cher-ra Menthuhotep.\\nIt was formerly supposed that this king belonged\\nto the Eleventh Dynasty, but the formation of his\\ntitles does not agree with this hypothesis. He was\\na powerful and aggressive ruler. During his long\\nand vigorous reign of forty-one years, Upper Egypt\\nwas restored to power and confidence, and the foun-\\ndations of the War of Liberation were laid and\\ncemented. After-ages singled him out as the great\\nhero of the period, and his name was placed along-\\nside those of Mena, Senoferu, and Aahmes. The\\nroyal commission above mentioned examined his\\nbrick pyramid, at Thebes, and found it to be intact.\\nThe reign of this king apparently coincides with the\\nfirst forty years of the reign of the Hyksos king,\\nCha-ian, Manetho s lannos.\\n2. Nuh-cheper-ra Antef.\\nThe last five kings in the Table of Karnak are:\\nNeb-cher-ra\\nNub-cheper-ra\\nUser-en-ra (comp. Se-user-en-ra)\\nSe-necht-en-ra and\\nSe-ken-en-ra\\nThese five, I am convinced, represent a genealog-", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0319.jp2"}, "320": {"fulltext": "314 Self- Verifying Chronological\\nical series. Thus fragment 63 of the papyrus contains,\\nin immediate succession, Neb-cher-ra and Se-user-\\nen-ra.\\nAs might have been foreseen, we find Nub-\\ncheper-ra Antef active at Koptos, where he deposed\\na high official for harboring enemies in the tem-\\nple. Is it not probable that these enemies were\\nHyksos?\\nThe tomb of this king was among those visited\\nand inspected by the commission of Ramesses X.\\nIt was found to be uninjured. The names Menthu-\\nhotep and Antef need not astonish us here; they ap-\\npear again and again during the Hyksos period, and\\nwere assumed by these kings to inspire awe and re-\\nspect.\\n3. Se-user-en~ra,\\nThis title is written User-en-ra in the Table, but\\nthis may be a mistake, owing to the following name\\nhaving the initial ^S*^. The Hyksos king, Cha-ian,\\nbore the same throne-title, to wit, Se-user-en-ra, which,\\nof itself, marks them as contemporaries. I place this\\nshort reign towards the close of Cha-ian s reign.\\n4. Se-neckt-en-ra.\\nNo monuments of this king have yet been found.\\n5. Se-ken-en-ra,\\nThere were several kings who bore this title. A\\nseparate tomb of Se-ken-en-ra Ta-oa, that is, Ta,\\nthe Great, is mentioned in the Abbott papyrus. The\\ntomb of Se-ken-en-ra Ta-oa-oa, that is, Ta, the Very\\nGreat, also mentioned in this papyrus, and separately\\nexamined by the commission, belongs, in my opinion.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0320.jp2"}, "321": {"fulltext": "HiSTOR Y OF Ancient Eg ypt 315\\nto Ta-oa-ken, ^Ta, the Great and Brave, for da-da\\nis augmentative only, and equivalent to da-ken.\\nThe mummy of Ta-oa-ken, showing the marks of\\ndeadly wounds received on the field of battle, was\\nfound at Deir-el-bahri, and can now be seen in the\\nCairo Museum. His antagonist, Apophis II, bore the\\nsame title, Oa-ken.\\nTHE HYKSOS DYNASTY OF SIX KINGS\\nWe have just followed the Sixteenth Dynasty of\\nTheban kings from 2097 B. C. to 1837 B. C. Let\\nus now retrace our steps, go back to 2097 B. C,\\nand take up the great Hyksos Dynasty of six kings,\\nwhich reigned contemporaneously with the Sixteenth\\nDynasty. After describing the Hamite invasion,\\nManetho says:\\nAt length they made one of themselves king,\\nwhose name was Saites; he also lived at Memphis,\\nand made both the upper and lower regions pay\\ntribute, and left garrisons in places that were the\\nmost proper for them. He chiefly aimed to secure\\nthe eastern parts, foreseeing that the Assyrians, who\\nthen had the greatest power, would be desirous of\\nthat kingdom, and invade them; and, as he found in\\nthe Saite nome a city very proper for his purpose,\\nand which lay upon the Bubastic channel, but, with\\nregard to a certain theologic notion, was called Avaris,\\nthis he rebuilt, and made very strong by the walls\\nhe built about it, and by a most numerous garrison\\nof 240,000 armed men, whom he put into it to keep\\nit. Thither Saites came in the summer time, partly\\nto gather his corn and pay his soldiers their wages,\\nand partly to exercise his armed men and thereby\\nto terrify foreigners.", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0321.jp2"}, "322": {"fulltext": "3i6 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nWe have already seen how loyal the Fifteenth\\nDynasty was to the king of the Elamites, and that\\nthe establishment of a dynasty in Egypt by the Hyk-\\nsos was equivalent to a declaration of independence\\nupon their part. It was for this reason that Saites,\\nor Seth, found it necessary to rebuild and fortify\\nAvaris, and to put into it a garrison of 240,000 men.\\nManetho leaves us in no doubt as to the purpose of\\nthis; for he tells us that Saites aimed to secure the\\neastern frontier, foreseeing that the Elamites and\\ntheir Babylonian subjects, here called Assyrians,\\nwould be desirous of his kingdom, and invade it, and\\nfurther, that Saites publicly exercised his great force\\nof 240,000 armed men to terrify foreigners. I re-\\npeat this because it is generally assumed, I can not\\nsee why, that this immense army was maintained in\\norder to terrify and hold in subjection the native\\nEgyptians. It is true that he left garrisons in the\\nmost proper places for them in Egypt, but it is equally\\ntrue that he did not apprehend much danger from\\nthat side. Although two hundred and fifty-one years\\nhad elapsed since the original Hamite Invasion of\\n2348 B. C, the foreigners settled in the Delta were\\nstill the dominating element in Egypt, and we are\\nsurprised to find them numerous enough to furnish\\nsuch armies.\\nThis dynasty is the Biblical Mizraim. It is re-\\nmarkable that Moses calls Mizraim a son of Ham,\\nand not a son of No-da, or Thebes. This is because\\nthe Hyksos Government was not derived from the\\nTheban Government, but from the Hamite, which", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0322.jp2"}, "323": {"fulltext": "History OF Ancient Egypt 317\\nwas established at Tanis, on the Egyptian model,\\none hundred years before the Flood. Saites, there-\\nfore, although Hamite by race, was a genuine Egyp-\\ntian Pharaoh, holding his court at the old capital,\\nMemphis, and in opposition to the Suzerain in dis-\\ntant Elam. Assyriologists have discovered inscrip-\\ntions which place the date of Kudur-nanchimdi, an\\nElamite conqueror, at about 2286 B. C. When Assur-\\nbani-pal took Susiana, the capital of Elam, about 651\\nB. C, he brought back from that city an image of\\nIshtar, which had been carried off from the city of\\nErech by Kudur-nanchundi. He tells us that the god-\\ndess Ishtar had been desecrated, and dwelt in a place\\nunsuitable for her, for 1,635 years. This number,\\nwhich carries us back to about 2286 B. C, shows\\nthat the Babylonians, in the time of Assurbanipal\\nhad records which were considered to be accurate\\nenough to fix, within a year, the date of this ancient\\nevent. In fact, although 2286 B. C. appears very\\nancient to us, 1,635 years may not have been so re-\\ngarded by the scribes and learned men of Babylonia.\\nThus we find that, about sixty-two years after the\\nAamu conquest of Egypt, an Elamite king, bearing\\na name very similar to that of Kudur-lagomar, was in\\npossession of Erech, in Babylonia, a city mentioned\\nas one of the capitals of Nimrod, the grandson of\\nHam. We are accustomed to identify Elam with\\nPersia, but the name Elamu turns out to be a literal\\ntranslation of Akkadians, or Highlanders. The\\nAamu came from the highlands, east of Babylonia,\\nand took possession of the plains of Babylonia. They", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0323.jp2"}, "324": {"fulltext": "3i8 A Self- Verifying Chronologicai\\nfixed their capital at Shushan, or Susiana. The prin-\\ncipal nation among them was called Kashi, Kushi,\\nKossi, Kissi, etc. When we read of the Akkadians,\\nAkkadian language, and Akkadian literature, there-\\nfore, we must bear in mind that Elam and Akkad are\\nsynonymous, and that Kush is a son of Ham.\\nAt the time of the Hamite invasion of Egypt\\nthere was, in Western Asia, an empire with its capital\\nin Elam, dominating an expanse of territory larger\\nthan that subjected by Cyrus. It is hard for any one,\\nwho has been trained from early infancy to believe\\nin the destruction of mankind by a Hteral flood of\\nwaters, to accept, and accustom himself to, this fact.\\nThe Elamites, or AamUy ruled this entire region\\nabout 1 92 1 B. C, when Abraham migrated, un-\\nmolested, from Ur of the Chaldees to Canaan. The\\nrecent dicovery of the Tel-el-Amarna clay-tablets\\nproves that as late as 1650 B. C. the language and\\nwriting of Babylonia were in general use in Canaan.\\nAccording to Eusebius, Berossos called the invaders\\nMedes, and assigned to them two dynasties, the\\nfirst of which had eight kings, who reigned two hun-\\ndred and twenty-four years, and the second of which\\nhad eleven kings, who reigned forty-eight years. I\\nventure to predict that the last number was originally\\none hundred and forty-eight years, which would place\\nthe beginning of Median, or Elamite, domination over\\nBabylonia at 2348 B. C, the same year in which the\\nElamite conquest of Egypt took place.\\nThe reader will pardon this digression, which was\\nnecessary to establish the literal truth of Manetho s", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0324.jp2"}, "325": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 319\\nstatement that the Assyrians, meaning the Elamites\\nand their allies, then had the greatest power in Asia,\\nthat is, about 2097 B. C. The capture of Erech by\\nKudur-nanchundi, about 2286 B. C, will also throw\\na welcome ray of light upon the expedition into\\nEgypt, made by these same people sixty-two years\\nbefore that date, and assist us in freeing our minds\\nof many erroneous impressions in regard to the so-\\ncalled Hyksos conquest of Egypt, which differed but\\nlittle from the so-called Median conquest of Baby-\\nlonia.\\nBefore pursuing this subject further, we will now\\naddress ourselves to the exact chronology of this\\ndynasty, which (thanks to the excellent list trans-\\nmitted by Josephus, although with some errors as\\nto the names and the order of the kings), is as ac-\\ncurate as that of the Twenty-sixth Dynasty. We\\nnow give the Lists of Africanus, Josephus, and Euse-\\nbius, and the pseudo-Sothis List\\nI,IST OlC AIfRlCANUS\\nYears. Months.\\n1. Saites, 19\\n2. Beon, 44\\n3. Pachnan, 61\\n4. Staan, 50\\n5. Archies, 49\\n6. Aphobis, (36) 61\\nI^IST OF JOSEPHUS\\n1. Salatis (Saites), 19\\n2. Beon (Baian), 44\\n3. Apachnas, 36 7\\n4. Apophis, 61\\n5. lanias, 50 i\\n6. Assis, 49 2", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0325.jp2"}, "326": {"fulltext": "320 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nYears. Months.\\nI.IST OF EUSEBIUS\\n1. Saites, 19\\n2. Beon (Bnon), 40\\n3. Aphophis, 14\\n4. Archies, 30\\nPSKUDO-SOTHIS WST\\n1. Silites, the first of the six kings of the Sev-\\nenteenth Dynasty, according to Manetho, 19\\n2. Baion, 44\\n3. Apachnas, 36\\n4. Aphophis, 61\\n5. Sethos, 50\\n6. Kertos, 29\\n7. Aseth, 20\\nAlthough all of these lists have been changed,\\nmore or less, each of them has preserved at least one\\nimportant item not to be found in the others. Not-\\nwithstanding these changes, Saites and Ba-ion are the\\nfirst two kings in all the lists. We have already shown\\nthat this dynasty commenced to reign about 2097\\nB. C. The great epoch of Phamenoth, when the\\nsun reversed his course, fell in the year 2064 B. C,\\nor thirty-three years later. Now, as Saites reigned\\nnineteen years, a simple calculation will show that\\nthe first fourteen years of Ba-ion s reign belong to\\nthe month of Emhir the month of rohk-ur, great\\nheat; and the remaining thirty years of his reign\\nto Phamenoth the month of rohk-nes, or rohk-ks,\\nlittle heat. Thus this great epoch-king was en-\\ntitled to such epoch-titles as Pa-ian (Die Wende)\\nand Rochles, Little Heat. F ortunately, the forger\\nof the pseudo-Sothis List, and Eusebius also, often\\nused epoch-reigns in preference to real reigns, when", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0326.jp2"}, "327": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 321\\nthey happened to suit their chronological schemes.\\nEusebius followed the so-called Old Chronicle,\\nwhich gave the Hyksos Dynasty only one hundred\\nand three years. After entering Saites with nineteen\\nyears and Beon with forty years, he gives Apophis,\\nwho reigned sixty-one years, the fourteen years of\\nPaian before the epoch, followed by Rochles, Little\\nHeat, with the thirty years of Pa-ian after the epoch.\\nThis accurate Sothiac division of Pa-ians reign did\\nnot originate with Eusebius, but was copied, by some\\none, from Manetho. We have just seen that the reign\\nof Uah-ab-ra lan-ah was divided in the same way by\\nthe author of the Turin papyrus prior to 1584 B. C.\\nI imagine that Manetho s chronological list presented\\nsome such form as this\\nSaites, 19 years\\nPa-ian, before epoch, 14 years\\nPa-ian, as Rochles, 30\\nAt first view, Archies and Rohk-nes seem to have\\nlittle in common, but it is very easy to follow the\\nsuccessive steps of the transformation. Rohk-ur was\\ntransformed into Rokchoris, preserving both the k\\nand ch sounds. In certain combinations n became\\nin certain Egyptian words: for instance, Manetho\\ntranscribes Utnas, Utlas. We can assume that he,\\nin the same manner, converted Rochnes into\\nRochles. The transcribers and copyists did the\\nrest. Did not Josephus, innocently enough, convert\\nRamesses into Armesses? Applying the same\\nevolutionary process to Rochles, we have, ftrst,\\nArochles, and, finally (dropping the 0), Archies.\\n21", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0327.jp2"}, "328": {"fulltext": "322 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nIn this particular instance the transformation admits\\nof no doubt, otherwise there are many who might\\nfeel inclined, for special reasons, to question it. There\\nwere two epochs in this dynasty, and the epoch-reigns\\nhave been the principal cause of most of the confusion\\nnow apparent in the lists, for, as there were but six\\nkings in the dynasty, each epoch-title inserted in the\\nlists necessarily crowded out the name of one of the\\nkings.\\nThe ancient division of the reign of Ba-ion by\\nthe epoch 2064 B. C, proves that the date 2097 B. C.\\nfor the beginning of the dynasty is astronomically\\ncorrect.\\nThe fact that Eusebius, after entering Baion\\nseparately, gave the first fourteen years of his reign\\nto Apophis, shows that Apophis was the third king,\\nwho reigned sixty-one years. When we analyze the\\nstrange conglomerate Apachnas, it resolves itself\\ninto the initial Ap, of Apophis, and Archnas, after-\\nwards further corrupted into Achnas. Apachnas,\\ntherefore, is simply a blending of Apophis and Rach-\\nnas, which Manetho may have given in the two forms,\\nRochnas and Rochles. We find that Africanus (al-\\nthough some one has changed his list by substituting\\nTachnan for Apophis) gives the third king, Apo-\\nphis I, whose throne-title was Oa-user-ra, a reign of\\nsixty-one years. The epoch-reigns demonstrate that\\nthis was his correct reign, and that the thirty-six\\nyears and seven months given to the third king,\\nApachnes, in the List of Josephus and in the pseudo-\\nSothis List, belong to Apophis II, the last king of", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0328.jp2"}, "329": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 323\\nthis dynasty. The question arises How could Jose-\\nphus make this mistake if he actually copied the list\\nfrom the second book of Manetho s history? It will\\nbe seen that Josephus gives Apophis sixty-one years,\\nalthough he places him fourth instead of third. It\\nwill also be seen that two epoch-titles, Rochles, now\\nApachnas, and Asas, now Assis, have found their\\nway into the List of Josephus, necessarily crowding\\nout the names of two of the kings, to wit, Sethos and\\nApophis 11. Now^, it is evident that the original six\\nreigns had to be preserved intact in order to foot up\\nthe required total of two hundred and fifty-nine years\\nand ten months. As these mistakes could not have\\nexisted in Manetho s work, it follows that Josephus\\nused an extract from Manetho s work made by some\\none else. Before we take up the last three reigns,\\nthe reader will notice that the pseudo-Sothis List\\ndivides the reign of forty-nine years and two months,\\ngiven by Africanus to Archies, and by Josephus to\\nAssis, into two parts, to wit, Kertos, twenty-nine\\nyears, and Aseth, twenty years. In this list, and the\\nlist of Josephus also, Apachnas has displaced Apo-\\nphis; consequently Sethos, who follows Apophis,\\nmust likewise be out of place. The name Sethos,\\nKertos, Assis, and Aseth represent but two names\\noriginally, namely. Set and As-as.\\nIn the list of Africanus, Staan, who follows Apo-\\nphis, was originally Set-aan, the Sethos of the pseudo-\\nSothis List, and the an-nub of fragment 112\\nof the Turin papyrus. Thus Sethos, the Set-an (Satan)\\nof Africanus, was the fourth king of this dynasty, and", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0329.jp2"}, "330": {"fulltext": "324 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nfollows Apophis I. This is verified to a certainty by\\nthe division of his reign into twenty-nine years be-\\nfore, and twenty years after, the epoch of Pharmuthi,\\n1944 B. C.\\nEpoch of Phamenoth, 2064 B. C.\\nArchies, .30 years\\nApophis I Oa-useVy 61\\nSethos, before epoch, 29 120\\nEpoch of Pharmuthi, 1944 B. C.\\nSethos, after epoch, as\\nAsaSy 20 2 months\\nlanias, 50 i\\nApophis II Oa-ken-en, 36 7\\nAahmes, as Chebros, 13 2 120\\nEpoch of Pachons, 1824 B. C.\\nWe have already seen that As, ancient, and\\nAs-as (Assis), very ancient, are titles applied to\\nRa, after he has passed the zenith, and begins to\\napproach the western horizon. The epoch-king of\\n3404 B. C. bore the title Psamuthis, and we have\\nalready explained how it was derived and what it\\nmeans. It is evident that Assis and Aseth are simply\\nforms of the epoch-title of Sethos, who was the cele-\\nbrated Set-nub-ti of the Tablet of Four Hundred\\nYears.\\nThe last king in the list of Africanus is Apophis,\\nbut, by mistake or subsequent change, he has the sixty-\\none years of Apophis I instead of his own reign of\\nthirty-six years. We now know from the Sallier\\npapyrus that the name of the last Hamite king, who\\nreigned contemporaneously with Taa-oa-ken, was\\nApophis.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0330.jp2"}, "331": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 325\\nThe fifth king, lanias, the immediate predecessor\\nof Apophis II, has materialized in a most unexpected\\nmanner. A seated statue of an Egyptian Pharaoh\\nwas recently discovered at Bubastis by Naville. It\\nbears the name of CUan, or Cha-ian, which was first\\nread Ra-ian, by mistaking the sign of the sieve for\\nthe sign of the sun, both of which are circles very\\nmuch alike. His throne-title, as king of Upper and\\nLower Egypt, was Se-user-en-ra, which we have al-\\nready alluded to in the Sixteenth Dynasty. The\\nname of this king has also come down to us on two\\ncylinders and a number of scarabs, where it some-\\ntimes appears as Sa-ra Cha-ian and Hyk-satu Cha-ian.\\n1 have already explained that Hyk-satu means King\\nof foreign countries, and is the title rendered Hyk-\\nsos by Manetho. Petrie, therefore, is in error when\\nhe seeks to place this king between the Sixth and\\nTwelfth Dynasties. The style of the statue stamps it\\nas a work of the Hyksos period, for it differs but\\nlittle in style and design from the well-known statues\\nof the kings of the Fifteenth Dynasty.\\nWe have seen that in the Table of Karnak the last\\nthree kings in the genealogical line are Se-user-en-ra^\\nSe-necht-en-ra, and Se-ken-en-ra, and that the two\\nkings bearing the title Se-user-en-ra must have been\\ncontemporaries.\\nNow, let us see how the above chronological ar-\\nrangement agrees with the monuments. We have an\\nexcellent description of Saites from Manetho, and he\\nappears simply as Set on fragment 150 of the Turin\\npapyrus. It is probable that, like Unas and Teta, he", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0331.jp2"}, "332": {"fulltext": "326 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nbore no other title. The name Set was assumed in\\nhonor of the Hamite and Cushite deity, Sutech, who\\nthus usurped the place of Ra. Baion, Beon, etc.,\\nstand for Pa-ian, the epoch- title of the second king;\\nbut it is not certain that this was his name; his throne-\\ntitle on fragment 150 of the papyrus is Annu,\\nApophis I is dintinguished by the throne-title Oa-user.\\nSethos is mentioned in the Tablet of Four Hun-\\ndred Years, where his name is written Set-nubti, and\\nhis throne-title Oa-pahu-ti. I am convinced that Set-\\nmibti, the Nubian Set, or golden Set, is synonymous\\nwith Set-an, for. the reason that the inhabitants of\\nNubia were called the An. It seems that the Egyp-\\ntian Set and the Hamite Sutech, when blended, be-\\ncame Sef-nubti or Set-an\u00e2\u0080\u0094 that is, Typhonic Set the\\nadversary of Osiris, who was, therefore, identified\\nwith Apap, or Apophis, the giant snake, the Egyptian\\nsymbol of wickedness. All this agrees perfectly with\\nthe fact that the Hamite invaders of Egypt were ser-\\npent-worshipers.\\nAccording to the pseudo-Sothls List, Aseth\u00e2\u0080\u0094 that\\nis, Sethos the epoch-king, added five intercalary\\ndays to the year. If so, the invaders must have used\\na year of three hundred and sixty days prior to that\\ntime. Be this as it may, he is now known to have\\ndone more than this, for he established an era, known\\nas the era of King Set-niihti, which dated from the\\nepoch 1944 B. C. In the beginning of the reign of\\nRamesses II, shortly after the death of Seti I, ten\\nSothiac weeks, or four hundred years, had elapsed\\nsince this era was established, and the Tablet of Four", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0332.jp2"}, "333": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 327\\nHundred Years was set up in the year 1544 B. C,\\nto commemorate this important event. History re-\\npeats itself, as we shall see, for Solomon s temple was\\nerected twelve Sothiac weeks, or four hundred and\\neighty years, after the Exodus, so that there were\\nnine hundred and thirty-three years from the era of\\nSet-nubti to the building of the temple.\\nI attach a great deal of importance to the fact that\\nthe reformation of the year is ascribed to Ases, and\\nnot to Sethos, because this shows that it dates from\\nthe epoch, and not from the beginning of the reign\\nof Sethos. The four hundred years of the tablet also\\nprove that the era was connected with a Sothiac\\nepoch, for the Sothiac year, or cycle, was divided into\\nSothiac months of one hundred and twenty years,\\nand these months were again divided into Sothiac\\nweeks of forty years.\\nWe need not repeat that this tablet with ten\\nSothiac weeks conclusively demonstrates that the\\nHyksos Dynasty of six kings, which reigned two hun-\\ndred and fifty-nine years and ten months, was not\\nsucceeded by another Hyksos period of two hundred\\nand fifty-one years, as Josephus, or the epitomists\\nfrom whom he copied, would lead us to believe. Is\\nthis the reason that the tablet, like other monuments\\nof the same import, disappeared so soon after its dis-\\ncovery? There are necessarily one hundred and\\ntwenty years between this era and the epoch of Pa-\\nchons, 1824 B. C. Manetho gave the Eighteenth\\nDynasty, to the death of Seti I, two hundred and\\nsixty-three years after this epoch. Thus there were", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0333.jp2"}, "334": {"fulltext": "328 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nexactly three hundred and eighty-three years from\\nthe era of Set-nubti to the death of Seti I, and the\\ntablet was erected in the eighteenth year of the reign\\nof Ramesses II. Could anything be plainer? Are\\nwe not face to face with a mathematical demonstra-\\ntion? And yet there were many who doubted the\\ndiscoveries of Copernicus and Newton.\\nSuppose, for example, you were to place a period\\nof two hundred and fifty-one years between the Hyk-\\nsos Dynasty and the Eighteenth Dynasty, you would\\nhave:\\nFrom era to end of Hyksos Dynasty, 107 years\\nAssumed period, 251\\nChebros, 13\\nEighteenth Dynasty, 263\\nTotal. 634\\nThese figures require no commentary. By plac-\\ning the period of two hundred and fifty-one years\\nbefore the two hundred and sixty years of the Hyksos\\nDynasty, we have five hundred and eleven years for\\nthe Hamite domination, and four hundred years from\\nthe era of Set-nubti to the eighteenth year of Ramesses\\nII, by whose order the tablet was erected.\\nThese four hundred years are significant in an-\\nother respect they correspond approximately to the\\nfour hundred and thirty years between the arrival\\nof Abram in Canaan, which event is correctly fixed\\nby the Bible chronographers at 1921 B. C, and the\\nExodus, which, I am prepared to say, occurred about\\n1491 B. C.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0334.jp2"}, "335": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 329\\nAbram visited Egypt in the beginning of the reign\\nof the Hyksos King Cha-ian that is, about twenty-\\nthree years after the epoch which served as the begin-\\nning point of the era of Set-nubti, and the period of\\nfour hundred and thirty years extends fifty-three years\\nbeyond the period of four hundred years. The be-\\nhavior of Pharaoh toward his guest was contrary to\\nEgyptian manners, but perfectly in accord with Ham-\\nite customs. George Smith Assyrian Discoveries,\\npage 421) describes a stone lion found in an excava-\\ntion at Bagdad. The name and titles of Set-nubti are\\ncarved on the breast of this sphinx. Smith supposed\\nthat Set-nubti was the monarch called Saites by Man-\\netho; but this is an evident mistake. The lion cor-\\nroborates Manetho and the Tablet of Four Hundred\\nYears as to the reign of the Hyksos King Sethos.\\nlonias, or lannas, is no longer a mere name, since\\nthe seated statue of Bubastis has come to light.\\nWhen Abram and his picturesque company from dis-\\ntant Chaldea appeared before Chaian, the latter had\\njust commenced his long reign of fifty years and one\\nmonth, and shone forth in all the splendor and mag-\\nnificence of youthful strength and vigor. It is not\\nprobable that Asia at this time heard much of the\\ntributary Hyks at Thebes, and yet I am satisfied that\\nthe Hyksos Government suffered a severe reverse\\nnear the close of the reign of Apophis I, and that the\\nsubjection of Canaan by Kudur-lagomar and the mi-\\ngration of Abram s family were closely connected\\nwith it. According to the numbers of Berossos, the\\nsecond Median Dynasty was succeeded by Babylonian", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0335.jp2"}, "336": {"fulltext": "330 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nkings about 1976 B. C, or three years before the ac-\\ncession of Set-nubti.\\nA\\nApophis II, Oa-ken-en, was the sixth and last king\\nof this dynasty. He caused his name and titles to be\\ncarved on the right shoulder of the statues of Emir-\\nmeshau, lying among the ruins of Tanis. As we have\\nremarked hereinabove, this fact indicates that the\\nHyksos kings regarded their predecessors of the Fif-\\nteenth Dynasty with no special ill-will; otherwise they\\nwould not have tolerated their statues in the temples\\nat Tanis. A granite altar of this king, now in the\\nCairo Museum, contains his Horus and throne titles,\\nto wit Har Se-hotep tavd, King, etc., Oa-ken-en-ra. In\\nthe inscription upon it, he claims to have erected\\nmonuments to his father, Set, Lord of Avaris {Set,\\nneb Haet-uar-et), which is important in connection\\nwith the statements of the Sallier papyrus in the Brit-\\nish Museum:\\nIt came to pass that the land of Kemi was a prey\\nto the enemies. And no one was lord or king at that\\ntime. There was, indeed, a king, Sekenen-ra, at that\\ntime; but he was only a hyk of the city of the south.\\nAnd the enemies in the cities were the Aamu, and\\nApophis was king in the city of Avaris. And the\\nwhole land brought him its productions, and the\\nnorth country likewise with the good things of Ta-\\nmera. And the king, Apophis, chose Set as his divine\\nlord, and he did not serve any other god of the whole\\nland except Set. He built for him a temple of glori-\\nous work to last for ages. And King Apophis ap-\\npointed feasts and days upon which to offer sacrifice\\nto Set, and the chiefs of the king wore garlands, as is\\ndone in the temples of Ra Harmachis.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0336.jp2"}, "337": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 331\\nIt may be that the granite altar above-mentioned\\nwas dedicated to Set, and placed in this identical tem-\\nple. Apophis II seems to have gone farther than any\\nof his predecessors in his devotion to the Hamite\\ndeity, Sutech, or Set. He not only chose Sutech as\\nhis lord god (a purely Hamite notion), but refused\\nto worship any other god.\\nThe enemies who had established themselves in\\nthe Delta are expressly called Aamu. Apophis, their\\nking, seems to have abandoned Memphis, and to have\\nmade Avaris his capital.\\nBrugsch understood the papyrus to state that the\\ntyrant Apophis had sent messages to Sekenen-ra, re-\\nquiring the latter to worship Sutech alone, and give\\nup the worship of the Egyptian gods. No doubt this\\nwas the straw that broke the camel s back. Of course,\\nSekenen-ra could not, dare not, obey this order. To\\nworship Sutech, or Set-an, instead of Amen, would be\\nequivalent at Thebes to worshiping Satan. Sekenen-\\nra s refusal to give up the worship of Amen excited\\nthe animosity of the tyrant of Avaris, and he sought\\na pretext for war. The papyrus further relates that\\nmany days after these events King Apophis sent to\\nthe Hyk of the city of the South a certain message,\\nwhich his scribes had drawn up for him. When the\\nmessenger had delivered the message, Sekenen-ra\\nasked him: Who hath sent thee hither to this city\\nof the South? Art thou come in order to spy out?\\nFor a long time the unfortunate Hyk was troubled\\nso that he could not answer the messenger of King\\nApophis. After he had replied and the messenger", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0337.jp2"}, "338": {"fulltext": "332 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nhad departed, he called his great men and his cap-\\ntains and generals under him, and communicated to\\nthem all the messages which the tyrant Apophis had\\nsent him. But they were all silent through great\\ngrief, and did not know what to answer.\\nIt is plain that they all understood that war, with\\nall its horrors, was at the door. Although the papy-\\nrus breaks off at this point, there can be no doubt that\\nthe subject of the composition was the great war of\\nliberation, and that what we have was merely intro-\\nductory to this war. We now supply an outline of\\nthe remainder from Manetho as transmitted by Jo-\\nsephus\\nAfter these, he says that the kings of the Thebais\\nand of the other parts of Egypt made an insurrection\\nagainst the Hyksos, and that a terrible and long war\\nwas made between them. He says further that, under\\na king whose name was Alisphragmuthosis, the Hyk-\\nsos were subdued by him, and were, indeed, driven\\nout of other parts of Egypt, but were shut up in a\\nplace that contained ten thousand acres; this place\\nwas named Avaris. Manetho says that the shepherds\\nbuilt a wall round all this place, which was a large\\nand strong wall, and this in order to keep all their\\npossessions and their prey within a place of strength;\\nbut that Thummosis, the son of Alisphragmuthosis,\\nmade an attempt to take them by force and by siege,\\nwith 480,000 men to lie round about them; but that,\\nupon his despair of taking the place by that siege,\\nthey came to a composition with them, that they\\nshould leave Egypt, and go without any harm to be\\ndone them, whithersoever they would and that, after\\nthis composition was made, they went away with their\\nwhole families and effects not fewer in number than", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0338.jp2"}, "339": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 333\\n240,000, and took their journey from Egypt, through\\nthe wilderness for Syria; but that, as they were in fear\\nof the Assyrians, who then had the dominion over\\nAsia, they built a city in that country which is now\\ncalled Judea, and that large enough to contain this\\ngreat number of men, and called it Jerusalem.\\nAfter a digression, Josephus says that when this\\npeople, or shepherds, were gone out of Egypt to\\nJerusalem, Tethmoses, the king of Egypt, who drove\\nthem out, reigned afterward twenty-five years and\\nfour months, and then died, etc.\\nKnowing, as we do now, that it was Aahmes who\\ndrove them out and took the city of Avaris, we are\\nin a condition to say that the supposed quotation from\\nManetho s history is, in fact, nothing but a confused\\nsummary of Manetho s account of the expulsion of\\nthe Hyksos, interspersed with passages taken from\\na later portion of his work referring, most probably,\\nto the Exodus. The joint reign of Mephra and Tuth-\\nmosis has been changed to Mephragmuthosis, which\\nhas a close resemblance to Alisphragmuthosis yet we\\nare told that Thummosis, afterwards called Teth-\\nmosis, who drove them out, was the son of Alisphrag-\\nmuthosis. It will not escape notice that the compo-\\nsition between Thummosis and the Hyksos, by which\\nthey left Egypt voluntarily with their families and\\ntheir effects, does not apply to the Hyksos, but to the\\nExodus, the description of which was in this manner\\nexpunged from Manetho s work. Manetho had just\\ndescribed where the city of Avaris was situated, and\\nhow it was fortified by Saites, and we have just seen", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0339.jp2"}, "340": {"fulltext": "334 Self- Verifying Chronological\\nthat Apophis II, against whom this war was waged,\\nresided in Avaris. Why, then, should Manetho, at\\nthis time, repeat that the shepherds were shut up in\\na place containing ten thousand acres which was\\nnamed Avaris, and that they built a large and strong\\nwall around it. The expression, Tethmosis, the king\\nof Egypt, who drove them out, shows that Manetho\\nhad just described how they had been driven out by\\nAahmes, who may have also been called Thothmes,\\nwhich is another form of Aahmes. This forcible ex-\\npulsion agrees with the actual facts, and demonstrates\\nthat the story of the peaceable withdrawal under a\\ncomposition was taken from another part of the work,\\nand interpellated here. If Josephus ever saw Man-\\netho s work, and did not use an extract made by some\\none else, he must have written this portion from\\nmemory. The monuments inform us that the insur-\\nrection did not break out until the reign of Seken-\\nen-ra, and that the Hyksos were expelled by Aahmes,\\nwho seems to have been his lineal descendant, al-\\nthough not his immediate successor. Now, substi-\\ntuting these names for those now in Manetho s\\naccount, we find that the kings of Thebes and other\\nparts of Egypt make an insurrection against the\\nHyksos. We do not know who these other kings\\nwere. A long and terrible war results. Under a\\nking, we will say the second Sekenen-ra, the Hyksos\\nwere subdued and driven out of the other parts of\\nEgypt, and forced to seek refuge in the city of Avaris.\\nSekenen-ra falls upon the field of battle. He is suc-\\nceeded by his son, Aahmes, who besieges and takes", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0340.jp2"}, "341": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 335\\nAvaris. It is possible that the Hyksos evacuated this\\ncity and withdrew to Canaan, and that the taking\\nmentioned on the monuments occurred after every-\\nbody who could leave was gone. The pursuit to\\nCanaan, and the taking of Sheruhen in the sixth year\\nof Aahmes, indicates as much.\\nRESTORED LIST OF HYKSOS DYNASTY\\nEnd of Memphite kings, 2097 B, C.\\n1. Saites (Seth), 19\\n2078 B. C.\\n2. Paian, before epoch, 14\\n2064 B. C.\\nPaian, after epoch, as Roch-leSy 30\\n2034 B. C.\\n3. Apophis I, 61\\n1973 B. C.\\n4. Set-aan (Sethos), before epoch, 29\\n1944 B. C.\\nSet-aan, after epoch, as Asas, 20\\n1924 B. C.\\n5. lannas, Cha-ian, or Chian, 50\\n1874 B. C.\\n6. Apophis II (36 years, 7 months, and 2 months), 37\\nHyksos Expulsion, 1837 B. C.\\nNEW EMPIRE\\nThe expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt, which,\\nas we have already demonstrated, occurred about\\n1837 B. C, paved the way for the New Empire. The\\nHyksos conquest, Hke the Norman conquest of Eng-\\nland, consolidated the kingdom, by destroying the\\nnumerous local governments of Lower Egypt. The\\nMiddle Empire, which followed a period of division", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0341.jp2"}, "342": {"fulltext": "336 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nand confusion lasting one hundred and forty-eight\\nyears, governed all Egypt with great splendor for\\ntwo hundred and ten years. The Twelfth Dynasty,\\nalthough of Theban extraction, ruled at Memphis,\\nand was included among the Memphite kings. In\\nfact, there is no change in this respect until we reach\\nthe Hyksos Dynasty, and the contemporary local\\ndynasty of Thebaid kings, at 2097 B. C, when Man-\\netho s other kings began.\\nWe have seen that the Thirteenth Dynasty held\\nMemphis, although it no longer exercised sovereignty\\nover the Delta, and that the Fifteenth Dynasty did\\nnot reside or make its capital at Thebes. But after\\nThebes had been the capital of the Sixteenth Dy-\\nnasty for two hundred and sixty years, and had be-\\ncome celebrated and endeared to the native Egyp-\\ntians as the great center of the War of Liberation,\\nthe kings of the Eighteenth Dynasty, for this and\\nother equally good reasons, decided to leave the capi-\\ntal where it then was, and thus Thebes, The City\\n(No), The Great City {No-da) became the glorious\\ncapital of the New Empire.\\nIt is true, as we have just seen, that the Hyksos\\nwere subdued, and driven out of other parts of Egypt,\\nby a native king erroneously called Alisphragmutho-\\nsis, or Mephragmuthosis, by Josephus, and penned\\nup in the fortress-city of Avaris, and further that they\\nwere besieged and driven out of this city by Aahmes,\\nthe son of the former king, called Thummosis and\\nTuthmosis by Josephus; but we are not informed as\\nto how many years intervened between the expulsion", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0342.jp2"}, "343": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 337\\nand the final establishment of the Eighteenth Dy-\\nnasty and New Empire. We are told that when\\nthese people (Hyksos) were gone out of Egypt to\\nJerusalem, Tethmosis (Amosis), the king of Egypt,\\nwho drove them out, reigned afterward twenty-five\\nyears and four months, and then died.\\nManetho filled out the interval between the Ex-\\npulsion, 1837 B. C, and the epoch of Pachons, 1824\\nB. C, with the reign of Chebros, thirteen years.\\nIt follows, therefore, as all the numbers demonstrate,\\nthat Manetho s Eighteenth Dynasty, the only one\\nwe possess, dates from the epoch of Pachons, 1824 B, C,\\nThis important fact had been overlooked by the epit-\\nomist from whom Josephus copied, as we can now\\neasily demonstrate. After the reign of Amosis, with\\ntwenty-five years and four months, Josephus con-\\ntinues his list as follows After him his son Chebros\\ntook the kingdom for thirteen years; after whom came\\nAmenophthis for twenty years and seven months,\\netc. We know from contemporary monuments that\\nAmosis was actually succeeded by his son; but this\\nson s name was Amen-hotep, and not Neb-roth. Hence\\nthe name Chebros, which was placed before Amosis\\nby Manetho, had been inserted immediately after\\nAmosis by some epitomist before Josephus wrote his\\ntreatise against Apion. It is not difficult to discover\\nhow the mistake came to be made. Manetho, in his\\nList of the Eighteenth Dynasty, expressly called\\nAmosis the first. An unknown epitomist found\\nChebros, with a reign of thirteen years, between\\nthe Hyksos Dynasty and the Eighteenth Dynasty.\\n22", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0343.jp2"}, "344": {"fulltext": "338 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nWhat disposition should he make of this extra reign?\\nHe could not add Chebros to the six kings of the\\nHyksos Dynasty, neither could he place him at the\\nhead of the Eighteenth Dynasty. In this dilemma\\nhe noticed that Amenophthis, the son of Amosis, had\\na reign of thirteen years and nine months, and, re-\\ngarding this as an error, he substituted Chebros, with\\nthirteen years, for Amenophthis with thirteen years\\nand nine months. Before taking up the -Eighteenth\\nDynasty, we will briefly recapitulate the main events\\nleading down to the expulsion of the Hyksos and\\nestablishment of the New Empire:\\n1. The Sixteenth Dynasty developed its strength\\nunder the long and powerful reign of Neb-cher-ra\\nMenthu-hotep, who was afterwards honored with 5^-\\nken-en-ra and Aahmes.\\n2. Se-ken-en-ra, goaded by the tyranny of Apophis\\nII, raised the standard of insurrection. A long and\\nterrible war followed. The Hyksos were finally sub-\\ndued and driven out of Egypt, but made a last stand\\nbehind the walls of Avaris.\\n3. Aahmes, the son of the conqueror, invested\\nAvaris, and after a long and ineffectual siege the\\nHyksos evacuated the city and retired to Canaan,\\nwhere they founded Jerusalem.\\n4. The taking of Avaris, recorded in the tomb\\nof the ship-captain Aahmes, son of Abana, at El-Kab,\\noccurred after this evacuation.\\n5. If the remnant of the Hyksos invaders, num-\\nbering 240,000 fighting men, besides old men, wo-\\nmen, and children, had been captured, this fact would", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0344.jp2"}, "345": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 339\\ncertainly have been mentioned in the ship-captain s\\naccount at El-Kab.\\n6. The ship-captain verifies the above in every\\nparticular, for he tells us that he was born in El-Kab,\\nthat his father was an officer under King Se-ken-en-ra,\\nand that he performed the duties of an officer, in his\\nfather s place, on board the ship in the days of King\\nNeh-pehti-ra.\\n7. Neb-pehti-ra pursued the Hyksos to Canaan,\\nand besieged the town of Sharuhen in the sixth year\\nof his reign, and finally took it (1832 B. C.)\\n8. The kings at this time were known by their\\nthrone-titles. In the inscription just referred to,\\nTaa-oa-ken and Aahmes are called Se-ken-en-ra and\\nNeb-pehti-ra. Now, when we consider that Aahmes,\\nChild of the Moon, was the epoch-king of the\\nSothiac month of Pa-chons, The Moon; and, fur^\\nther, that Chons and the Hamite (Hyksos) Nebroth,\\nor Niprut, both contain roots meaning to hasten,\\nchase, pursue, it is easy to undertsand how Neb-\\npehra, in the vernacular of the Delta, became Nebroth,\\nNebros, Chnebros, and Chebros, the Pursuer of\\nthe hostile Hyksos.\\nSOTHIAC LIST OF EIGHTEENTH DYNASTY\\nEpoch of Pachons, i8?4 B. C.\\nAmosis, 25. 4\\n1799 B.C.\\nAmenophthis, his son, 13-9\\n1785 B.C.\\nAmessis, his sister, 20. 7\\n1765 B. C.", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0345.jp2"}, "346": {"fulltext": "340 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nBrought forward, 1765 B. C.\\nMephres, 21. 9\\n1743 B.C.\\nMephra and Tuthmosis, 12. 9\\n1730 B. C.\\nTuthmosis III, 25.10\\nBpocli of Payni, 1704 B. C.\\nAmenophthis II, as Armaios, 4. i\\n1700 B. C.\\nTuthmosis IV, 9- 8\\n1691 B. C.\\nAmenophthis III, 3i-io\\n1659 B.C.\\nAtenachenres, brother 12. i\\n1647 B. C.\\nHorus ^6 Q Atenanches, daughter, 12. 5\\n1634 B. C.\\nAcherres, another, 12. 3\\n1622 B. C.\\nRamesses, i. 4\\n1621 B. C.\\nSethos Menophthah, as Sa-payni,^^ 36. 4\\nEpoch of Epiphi, 1584 B.C.\\nSethos Menophthah, as Osiropis, 22.10\\nEnd of Dynasty, 1561 B. C.\\nTotal duration of dynasty, according to Africanus,\\ntwo hundred and sixty-three years, which fills out the\\ninterval between the epoch 1824 B. C. and 1561 B. C.\\nTHE EIGHTEENTH DYNASTY OF SIXTEEN DIOS-\\nPOLITAN KINGS\\nThe Eighteenth Dynasty of Manetho, as we have\\njust seen, began at the epoch of Pachons, 1824 B. C,\\nreigned two hundred and sixty-three years in round", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0346.jp2"}, "347": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 341\\nnumbers, and closed at the death of Sethos Menoph-\\nthah, 1 561 B. C. The present Hsts of this dynasty,\\nand the Nineteenth Dynasty also, have been badly\\ncorrupted, in order to make them conform to cer-\\ntain erroneous dates for the Sojourn of the Children\\nof Israel in Egypt. The oldest list we possess to wit\\nthat transmitted by Josephus in his celebrated treatise\\nagainst Apion contains several errors, which have\\nfound their way into all the other lists. It would take\\nup too much space in this work to follow the suc-\\ncessive discoveries, culminating finally in the resto-\\nration of Manetho s original list. We, therefore, re-\\nverse the natural and logical order, and start out with\\nthe restored list, so that the reader may have no diffi-\\nculty in understanding the nature of the alterations\\nintentionally, or unintentionally, introduced into the\\nlists.\\nThe list of Josephus is not dynastic. He merely\\nenumerated the reigns between the Hyksos Expul-\\nsion and the supposed brothers, Egyptus and Danaus\\n(Sethos or Sethosis, and Armais or Hermeus), in\\norder to show that three hundred and ninety-three\\nyears intervened between the Exodus and the flight of\\nDanaus to Argos. There were, in fact, but two hun-\\ndred and sixteen years between the Hyksos Expul-\\nsion and the beginning of Seti s reign.\\nThe sixteen kings of Africanus include Ach-en-\\naten and his two daughters, Rathotis and the\\nepoch-title Armais.\\nWe will now notice the reigns seriatim:\\nI. We have already shown that the twenty-five", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0347.jp2"}, "348": {"fulltext": "342 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nyears and four months of Amosis begin at the\\nepoch 1824 B. C, and that he is the King Teth-\\nmosis, who drove out the Hyksos. His wife also\\nbore the name Aahmes, Child of the Moon, coupled\\nwith Nofert-ariy usually rendered Beautiful Consort\\nof Aahmes. In the inscriptions this queen is styled,\\ndivine wife of Amen, great mistress of the two\\nlands, royal daughter, royal sister, royal wife,\\nroyal mother, showing that she was entitled to the\\nthrone in her own right.\\nAahmes, after taking Sharuhen in the southern\\npart of Canaan, devoted the rest of his reign to sup-\\npressing insurrections and consolidating the king-\\ndom.\\n2. The immediate successor of Aahmes, in Man-\\netho s list, was his son. The monuments show con-\\nclusively that this son and successor was Amenophthis\\nI. The name Chebros, therefore, had been sub-\\nstituted for Amenophthis before Josephus copied the\\nlist. Aahmes reigned altogether, from his accession,\\nthirty-nine years and one month, and it is probable\\nthat Amenophthis was well advanced in age when he\\nascended the throne. His reign of thirteen years and\\nnine months (now thirteen years) agrees with this\\nassumption. The campaigns of Thothmes I render\\nit highly probable that Amenophthis I completed the\\nconquest of Canaan, which his father had initiated by\\nthe taking of Sharuhen.\\n3. Manetho calls Amessis the sister of Amenoph-\\nthis I. The monuments show that this king had a\\nsister named Aahmes, to wit: the royal sister Aahmes", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0348.jp2"}, "349": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 343\\nNebt-ta Mistress of the Land born of the great\\nroyal wife and royal mother Aah-hotep.\\nWe know from the official list of Seti I (Table\\nof Abydus), and other monuments also, that Amen-\\nhotep I was succeeded by Tahu-ti-mes I (Thothmes,\\nTuthmosis). Now, do the monuments sustain Man-\\netho, and show that this royal sister, Amessis, who\\nwas styled mistress of the land during her brother s\\nreign, became the wife of Thothmes I? We answer,\\nunhesitatingly, They do in the most conclusive man-\\nner. On the monuments of Thothmes I she is\\nstyled, Divine wife, great mistress of the two coun-\\ntries, royal sister and royal wife, AahmesT These\\ntitles show that she was the Queen of Egypt in her\\nown right, and that Thothmes reigned, partly at least,\\nby virtue of being her husband. I say, partly at\\nleast, because there is reason to believe that there\\nwere two separate lines claiming hereditary rights to\\nthe throne, which were thus united.\\nAmessis reigned twenty years and seven months;\\nbut the insertion of Chebros in the place of Amenoph-\\nthis necessarily forced all the succeeding names\\nfurther down, so that Amenophthis now stands before\\nthe twenty years and seven months of Amessis,\\nAmessis before the twenty-one years and nine months\\nof Mephres, and so on, until we come to Tuthmosis\\nIII, who takes the place of Thothmes IV.\\nThe reign of Thothmes I was one of the most\\nbrilliant in the annals of Egyptian history. De-\\nscended from the vigorous line represented by Neh-\\ncher-ra, Se-ken-en-ra, and Aahmes, and allied by mar-", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0349.jp2"}, "350": {"fulltext": "344 Self-Verifying Chronological\\nriage to the venerated heiress of the ancient\\nDiospolitan Hne, he had the courage and audacity to\\ncarry the war into Asia, for the purpose of slaking\\nhis anger upon the hated Aamu, and in the course\\nof his long reign reduced and completely subdued\\nCanaan and Syria to the banks of the Euphrates.\\nTowards the close of his reign, Thothmes I associated\\nhis daughter Het-shepsut with him on the throne; but\\nwe have no means of knowing to which of the two,\\nAmessis or Mephres, Manetho gave the joint-reign.\\nIn my opinion, however, the twenty years and seven\\nmonths of Amessis extend down to the death of\\nThothmes I.\\n4. During the first ten years of her reign Mephres\\nreigned jointly with her brother, Thothmes II. After\\nhis death, she assumed the throne-title Ma-ka-ra,\\nwhich in that age became Ma-ka-ph ra. Manetho,\\nfollowing the Lower Egyptian pronunciation, ren-\\ndered it Mechephres, which was changed to Misa-\\nphris, Mephres, Miphres, Memphres, and Misphres,\\nall forms derived from the original Mechephres.\\nPliny, in his account of the obelisks, writes it Mes-\\nphres. But the reader may ask Why did Manetho\\nuse the throne-title of this queen, when he invariably\\nuses the sa-ra names of the kings? Although this\\nexception to the rule may appear to be contradictory,\\nit applies to queens only.\\nNitocris and Sebkunophris are both throne-titles\\nused by Manetho to designate queens in the Sixth\\nand Twelfth Dynasties, where the sa-ra names of the\\nkings are used. Upon reflection, it will be found that", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0350.jp2"}, "351": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 345\\nthere was a good reason for this. It is hard to see\\nhow a queen could be termed a son of Ra, although,\\nby the law of King Binothris, she was allowed to in-\\nherit the crown. Thus we find that Manetho was\\nperfectly consistent in calling this queen Me-che-\\nphres, instead of Het-shepsut.\\nThe twenty-one years and nine months of Me-\\nphres extend down to the joint-reign of herself and\\nson, Thothmes III. Much confusion has been caused\\nby the fact that Thothmes III, after the death of his\\nmother, dated his inscriptions from the death of\\nThothmes II, so that he appears to have reigned\\nfifty-three years, eleven months, and one day, when,\\nin fact, he only reigned, including his joint-reign with\\nhis mother, forty-two years and eight months. The\\nTable of Abydos, omitting the queens, traces the suc-\\ncession through Thothmes I, Thothmes II, and\\nThothmes III. In such a list the reign of Thothmes\\nIII would date from his birth, and Thothmes II would\\nhave ten years and six months.\\n5. Mephramuthosis and Misphragmuthosis are\\ncorrupted forms of Mephra and Tuthmosis, the com-\\npound name by which Manetho designated the joint-\\nreign of Queen Ma-ka-pJira and her infant son,\\nThothmes III. It is not probable that this imperious\\nand ambitious queen resigned the reins of govern-\\nment before her death, when she must have been at\\nleast fifty-four years of age. Another view is sug-\\ngested by the pseudo-Sothis List, where the joint-\\nreign was fixed at sixteen years, and the sole-reign\\nof Thothmes III apparently at twenty-three years,", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0351.jp2"}, "352": {"fulltext": "346 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nand the total of both of these reigns at thirty-nine\\nyears; according to which it would seem that Me-\\nphres had survived about three years longer. It\\nseems that the pseudo-Sothis List gave her alone\\neleven years, instead of twenty-one years and nine\\nmonths.\\n6. The twenty-five years and ten months of the\\nsole-reign of Thothmes III end at the epoch of Payni,\\n1704 B. C. This fact, hitherto unnoticed, shows that\\nspecial attention was paid to the observation of the\\nSothiac epochs during this dynasty. A new epoch-\\ntitle, Cha-em-uas (Chamois) was introduced by Thoth-\\nmes III. Crowned in Thebes was equivalent to\\nthe ancient re-crowned and re-born, and was used\\nby four successive epoch-kings after Thothmes III.\\nThis new epoch-title is of great importance in solv-\\ning one of the most difficult questions recently raised\\nin this dynasty. It seems that Amenophthis II was\\nassociated with Thothmes III on the throne before\\nthis epoch, for he also assumed the title Cha-em-uas\\nin the slightly modified form, Se-cha-em-uas, and also\\nnamed one of his sons, born at this time, Cha-em-uas.\\n7. This reign dates from the epoch 1704 B. C,\\nabout two years after the Israelites settled in the land\\nof Goshen, near Bubastis. All that has remained of\\nit Armais with four years and one month, was\\ntransferred to the end of the dynasty to serve for\\nArmais, the brother of Sethos, who was identified\\nwith Danaus. A moment s reflection will convince\\nany one that Armais, who was never king but simply\\na deputy, could not have appeared in a dynastic list.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0352.jp2"}, "353": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 347\\nThe epoch-title which was transferred was Har-\\nmachis, or Horus on the horizon, the position of\\nthe sun in the Sothiac year at the beginning of Payni.\\nThe strangest thing in connection with this epoch-\\nreign is, that it reaches exactly to the death of Thoth-\\nmes III, who thus appears to have retired from active\\nlife about 1704 B. C. The following will illustrate\\nthis more plainly:\\nThothmes III, to joint-reign, ii years 3 months\\nThothmes III, joint-reign, 12 9\\nThothmes III, sole reign, 25 10\\nThothmes III, epoch-reign, 4 i\\nTotal, 53 II\\nOne of the most recent errors made by modern\\nEgyptologists is the error of assigning the twenty-\\nfive years and ten months of the sole-reign of Thoth-\\nmes III, before the epoch 1704 B. C, to Amenoph-\\nthis II. Petrie, after conceding that no monuments\\nof Amenophthis II bear a higher date than the fifth\\nyear of his reign, and admitting that the monuments\\nof his reign are comparatively numerous, contends\\nthat lately the absolute proof of the length of this\\nreign has been found on a wine-jar dated in the\\ntwenty-sixth year of Amenhotep II, thus agreeing with\\nManethoT This supposed date on the wine-jar is a\\npalpable mistake, brought about by the desire to find\\nsomething to support a self-evident misconstruction\\nof Manetho s List; for it is plain that if Amenhotep II\\nhad reigned during these additional twenty-one years\\nsome proof of it would have survived in a period", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0353.jp2"}, "354": {"fulltext": "348 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nwhere monuments were so numerous. For fear the\\nreader might consider this assertion more positive\\nthan the facts warrant, I will say that the Sothiac di-\\nvision of the reign of Seti I, which is astronomically\\nabsolute, demonstrates that a reign of twenty-five or\\ntwenty-six years for Amenhotep II is a mathematical\\nimpossibility. I plant myself upon the conceded fact\\nthat no monument of Amenhotep II has ever been\\nfound, the date of which is beyond his fifth year, the\\nsupposed date on the alleged wine-jar to the con-\\ntrary notwithstanding.\\n8. The reign of Thothmes IV, who was the son\\nof Amenhotep II, is fixed at nine years and eight\\nmonths. After Armais had been substituted for\\nAmenhotep II, and then transferred to the end of\\nthe dynasty to serve as the fictitious king Danaus,\\nTuthmosis stood alike for Thothmes III and Thoth-\\nmes IV.\\nDuring his long and eventful reign Thothmes III\\nsystematically subjugated Canaan and Syria, making\\nyearly expeditions into those countries from the\\ntwenty-second to the forty-second years of his reign.\\nThey were thoroughly subjected, and organized into\\nEgyptian provinces. A custom sprang up about this\\ntime which was destined to have an injurious effect\\nupon the Egyptian Government and State. The\\nkings of Egypt gave their daughters in marriage to\\nthe kings of Mesopotamia, and in return took wives\\nfrom among the daughters of these foreign kings. As\\na natural result of this, the Egyptian court gradually\\nadopted Asiatic customs and ceremonials. The wife", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0354.jp2"}, "355": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 349\\nof Thothmes IV was of foreign birth, and, although\\nher mother may have been an Egyptian princess mar-\\nried to one of these Asiatic kings, foreign blood found\\nits way through her into the ancient solar line of\\nnative rulers.\\n9. Amenophthis III was of mixed race, as his\\nphysiognomy clearly discloses. He was young when\\nhe mounted the throne, which accounts for his long\\nreign of thirty-five or thirty-six years. Manetho,\\nhowever, gave him only thirty-one years and ten\\nmonths (now, by mistake, thirty years and ten\\nmonths), owing to his joint-reign with Amenhotep\\nIV, or Aten-ack-en-ra, his eldest son by Taia, the\\nMitannian princess.\\nAmenophthis III married Taia in his tenth year,\\nconsequently Amenophthis IV must have been about\\ntwenty-one years old when he was associated with\\nhis father on the throne. Taia was the sister of Dush-\\nratta, King of Mitanni, or Naharina, the country in\\nwhich Haran, of Mesopotamia, was situated. This\\nqueen, owing to her beauty, intellect, and strong\\npersonality, coupled with the mixed blood of Amen-\\nophthis III, succeeded in acquiring a pow^erful In-\\nfluence over her husband and the court generally an\\ninfluence which dominated all Egypt under the reign\\nof her son, Amenhotep IV. Under the time-honored\\nrules of descent, the son of a foreign princess was\\nnot eligible to the throne. Although the powerful\\nkings of this dynasty, backed up by victorious\\narmies, were able to pass the crown to the princes\\nborn of foreign mothers, the unlawful practice ul-", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0355.jp2"}, "356": {"fulltext": "350 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\ntimately led to revolution and the reinstatement of\\nthe lawful line.\\n10. Horus, or Har-em-heb, is the immediate suc-\\ncessor of Amenophthis III in the Official I^ist of\\nSeti I at Abydus. In, such a chronological list he\\nnecessarily received thirty-six years and nine months\\n(now thirty-six years and five months), although he\\ndid not begin to reign until twenty-four years and\\nsix months after the death of his father, Amenophthis\\nIII. The actual succession upon the throne was as\\nfollows: Amenophthis IV and Aten-anch-es, the\\ndaughter of Amenophthis IV, reigned successively\\nfor twenty-four years and six months before Har-em-\\nheb mounted the throne. Manetho mentioned the\\nlegitimate, or official, line and the actual line, and\\nthe trouble and confusion since experienced arose\\nfrom the error of copying both into the lists as con-\\nsecutive.\\nAs we have seen, Amenophthis IV reigned jointly\\nwith his father for four or five years. Add this to\\nthe reign of twelve years and one month assigned\\nto him by Manetho, and we have a total reign of\\nabout sixteen years. Now, wine-jars found at Tel-el\\nAmarna, the site of his capital, are dated up to his\\nseventeenth year. But Amenophthis IV associated\\nhis daughter Aten-anch-es upon the throne during the\\nlast four or five years of his reign, and the twelve\\nyears and one month of Manetho extend from Aten-\\nacherres accession as joint-king to the accession of\\nhis daughter Atenanches as joint-queen. Eusebius,\\ntherefore, gives this king sixteen years, and his", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0356.jp2"}, "357": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 351\\ndaughter eight years; together, twenty-four years.\\nAmenophthis IV, at the time of his accession as\\njoint-king, was united in marriage to Tadii-chepa, the\\ndaughter of Dushratta, and niece of his mother, Taia.\\nHer name was changed to Nofer-taiti. Manetho men-\\ntioned her reign, calling her Rathotis, which thus\\nfound its way into two of the lists. In Josephus it\\nappears as Rathotis with nine years; in Africanus,\\nas Rathos with six years. It is entirely wanting in\\nthe other lists. It seems that Manetho also gave the\\nlength of the reigns of Taiti and Atenanches.\\nWhen Har-em-heh, in his old age, was crowned\\nin the temple of Amen at Thebes, he was solemnly\\nunited in marriage to an unnamed princess who was\\nthe heiress to the crown. The last of the three col-\\nlateral reigns, Atencheres, another^ with twelve\\nyears and three months, represents the true reign\\nof Horus, or, more properly, his wife. The vener-\\nation of Aten, or the sun s disk, as it is called by\\nEgyptologists, the splendor of Ra (ach-en-ra), was\\nconnected with Pharaoh s position in the Sothiac year\\njust below the western horizon. The monuments do\\nnot leave us in doubt on this point, for they tell us\\nexpressly that Har-em-achu (Harmachis), Horus on\\nthe Horizon,* is equivalent to Aten ach-en-ra, Aten,\\nthe Splendor of Ra. The opposition to this king\\nand his daughters was chiefly owing to his foreign\\nmother, foreign blood, foreign wife, and foreign court.\\nUnder Amenophthis III we find, as governors\\nof Nubia, two officials named Hui and Amenhotep,\\nbearing the titles, Suten-sa en Rush and Emir satu", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0357.jp2"}, "358": {"fulltext": "352 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nres-iu, that is, King s son of Kush and Governor\\nof the foreign lands of the South. We find these\\nsame officials under Tut-anch-amen, the husband of\\nAnch-es-en-aten, whose name was changed to Anches-\\nen-amen, Hui bearing the additional title of fan-\\nbearer at the right of the king, showing that no\\ngreat period of time had elapsed between the death\\nof Amenophthis III and the accession of Anches-en-\\namen.\\n11. Ramesses I is not, as many have supposed,\\nthe head of a new dynasty. Manetho, who had better\\nsources of information than we now have, entered him\\nin this dynasty, and we may safely assume that he be-\\nlonged to the same family. The monuments show\\nthat Ramesses I, in the second year of his reign, as-\\nsociated his son, Seti I, with himself upon the throne.\\nSeti was not over ten or twelve years of age at the\\ntime, and the joint-reign of father and son continued\\nfor many years. Manetho gave Ramesses I the one\\nyear and four months of his sole-reign, and Sethos\\n(Seti I) the entire fifty-nine years and two months\\nfrom his accession as joint-king to his death. This\\nfact has led Egyptologists into the error of assuming\\nthat Ramesses I reigned but one year and four\\nmonths, when, in fact, he seems to have reigned until\\nSeti was well advanced in years.\\n12. The reign of Sethos, by some unaccountable\\nmishap, disappeared from the lists. The hiatus also\\nappears in the List of Josephus. Was the omission\\ndue to him, or to others before him? In the work", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0358.jp2"}, "359": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 353\\nof Manetho there was the following chronological\\nsuccession in the of^cial line.\\nRamesses I, 1.4\\nSethos Menophthah, 59-2\\nRamesses Miamun, 66.2\\nMenophthah, 19.6\\nSethos (Necht-sethos), 51\\nRampses-hakes (Ramesses III), 61\\nJosephus overlooked Seti I when he copied the\\nreigns down to Menophthah. These reigns actually\\ncover a period of three hundred and forty-eight years,\\nbut he made the total three hundred and thirty-three\\nyears, by omitting Seti s reign of fifty-nine years and\\nincluding the extra thirty-six years and five months\\nof Horus, as well as the thirty-six years and nine\\nmonths of Amenophthis IV and his daughters, and\\nthe nine years of Rathotis.\\nThe reference to the naval force and naval battle\\nof Ramesses III shows plainly how he confused and\\nblended Seti I and Ramesses II, on the one hand,\\nand Set-necht and Ramesses III on the other. By\\nplacing Sethos and Ramesses after Menophthah, in-\\nstead of before him, he gained one hundred and\\neighty-nine years for the length of the period be-\\ntween the Hyksos Expulsion and the Flight of Dan-\\naus. There can be no possible doubt that the Sethos\\nwho was called Egyptus, and made the celebrated\\nexpedition into Canaan, Mesopotamia, and the east-\\nern parts beyond Assyria, was Seti I. Hence, it\\nis high time to give up all theories founded on such\\npalpable mistakes. Thus Amenophis (that is, Men-\\n23", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0359.jp2"}, "360": {"fulltext": "354 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nophthah), Manetho s Pharaoh of the Exodus, did not\\nfollow after Ramesses III, or five hundred and eigh-\\nteen years after the beginning of the Eighteenth Dy-\\nnasty, as Josephus computes it, but he followed im-\\nmediately after Ramesses II, three hundred and\\ntwenty-nine years after the epoch 1824 B. C. In\\nthe same way, Sethos, or Egyptus, commenced to\\nreign, as a boy, two hundred and sixteen years only\\nafter the expulsion of the Hyksos. We are deeply\\nindebted to Josephus, however, for the positive as-\\nsurance that, according to Manetho s express state-\\nment, Sethos Egyptus reigned fifty-nine years, as did\\nhis eldest son Ramesses after him sixty-six years,\\nwhich is true and authentic.\\nThe great epoch of Epiphi 1584 B. C, as we\\nhave demonstrated in another chapter, divided Seti s\\nreign into unequal parts of thirty-six and twenty-three\\nyears respectively. As the first part of his reign was\\nin the month of Payni, he was Sa-payni, now Span-\\nios, for thirty-six years, and, as the second part\\nthereof was in the month of Epiphi, he was Osiropis,\\nor Hiisiri-api (whence Egyptus), for twenty-three\\nyears. But as this long and brilliant reign can now be\\nrestored to the lists, it will be reserved for a separate\\nchapter, devoted to the great Sesostris of Greek\\nlegend.\\nSETI, SETHOS, SETHOSIS, OR SESOSTRIS\\nThe discovery that Seti I, who was called Sethos\\nby Manetho, reigned fifty-nine years, instead of nine\\nor nineteen years, as hei*etofore assumed, and that", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0360.jp2"}, "361": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 355\\nhe was the celebrated epoch-king of Epiphi, 1584\\nB. C, familiarly known as Osiropis, places him and\\nhis reign in a new and unexpected Hght. Although\\nthese fifty-nine years undoubtedly include his long co-\\nregency with his father, Ramesses I, his sole reign\\nalone must have covered an average generation; for,\\nas we have just seen, his epoch-reign as Osiropis\\namounted to twenty-three years. As a genial and\\nfearless leader of men upon the field of battle, as a\\nconqueror who overthrew^ the armies of the most\\npowerful nations of his time, and carried the Egyp-\\ntian standards into regions where they had never\\nbeen seen before, and as a builder of grand and singu-\\nlarly beautiful monuments, he was unrivaled in Egyp-\\ntian history, and his renown was so great and en-\\nduring that, in the popular mind of after ages, he\\nbecame a legendary hero, like Nimrod, the great\\nSesotris of the Greek classics. It is true that\\npopular fancy ascribed to this legendary Sesostris\\nvarious noted actions performed by Usertasen III,\\nThothmes I, Ramesses II, and others, and it was,\\nno doubt, on this account, as well as others, that\\nManetho found fault with Herodotus for his igno-\\nrance and false relations of Egyptian afTairs. For-\\ntunately, a brief summary of Manetho s account of\\nthis king s reign has come down to us. After set-\\nting down the names and reigns of the kings of the\\nEighteenth Dynasty, ending with Menophthah, but\\naltogether omitting Seti, Josephus says: After him\\ncame Sethosis, and Ramesses, who had an army of\\nhorse and a naval force. This king appointed his", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0361.jp2"}, "362": {"fulltext": "356 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nbrother Armais to be his deputy over Egypt. Ac-\\ncording to this extract, it was Ramesses, and not\\nSethosis, who had the army of horse and the naval\\nforce, and appointed his brother to be his deputy\\nover Egypt.\\nIt did not escape the notice of Josephus that this\\ndid not harmonize with the extract concerning\\nSethosis which he was about to incorporate in his\\ntreatise, and he, therefore, offered the following ex-\\nplanation: In another copy it stood thus: After\\nhim came Sethosis and Ramesses, two brethren, the\\nformer of whom had a naval force, and in a hostile\\nmanner destroyed those who met him on the sea;\\nbut as he slew Ramesses in no long time afterward,\\nso he appointed another of his brethren to be his\\ndeputy over Egypt. We now know that it was\\nRamesses III, the son of the second Sethos of Man-\\netho s Lists, who had a naval force and destroyed\\nthose who met him upon the sea, and it is perfectly\\nevident that the copies consulted by Josephus were\\nmerely variant excerpts from Manetho s history, in\\nwhich Sethos I and Ramesses II were already con-\\nfounded and blended with Sethos II and Ram-\\nesses III.\\nWe have already seen how Sethos I was crowded\\noutof the lists in consequence of the insertion in\\nthe official chronological list of the Eighteenth Dy-\\nnasty of the epoch-reigns of Chebros and Armais and\\nthe collateral reigns of Ach-en-aten and his two daugh-\\nters.\\nThe defeat of the Mediterranean nations by", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0362.jp2"}, "363": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 357\\nRamesses III was certainly mentioned in Manetho s\\nwork, for this king had caused beautiful representa-\\ntions of his great naval victory to be sculptured on\\nthe walls of the temple erected by him at Medinet\\nHabu, and it is also mentioned in the Harris papy-\\nrus. After Sethos I had disappeared from the lists,\\nit was natural to suppose that all these accounts be-\\nlonged to one and the same king. But we are now\\nin a position to distinguish the acts and deeds of\\nSethos from those of Ramesses III. It was Sethos\\nwho appointed his brother Harmais deputy over\\nEgypt during his absence in foreign countries, be-\\ncause he alone was called Egyptus, that is, Hus-ar\\nApiJ Josephus tells us that Sethosis gave his brother\\nall the other authority of a king, with these exceptions\\nonly, that he should not wear the diadem, nor be in-\\njurious to the queen, etc., adding, verbatim:\\nWhile he (Sethosis) made an expedition against\\nCyprus and Phoenicia, and besides, against the\\nAssyrians and the Medes, he then sub-\\ndued them all, some by his arms, some with-\\nout fighting, and some by the terror of his great\\narmy; and, being puffed up by the great suc-\\ncesses he had had, he went on still more boldly, and\\noverthrew the cities and countries that lay in the\\neastern parts; but after considerable time, Armais,\\nwho was left in Egypt, did all those very things, by\\nway of opposition, which his brother had forbidden\\nhim to do, without fear, for at the per-\\nsuasion of his friends he put on the diadem, and set\\nup to oppose his brother; but then, he who was set\\nover the priests of Egypt, wrote letters to Sethosis,\\nand informed him of all that had happened, and how", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0363.jp2"}, "364": {"fulltext": "358 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nhis brother had set up to oppose him; he therefore\\nreturned back to Pelusium immediately, and recov-\\nered his kingdom again. The country also was called,\\nfrom his name, Egypt; for Manetho says that Sethosis\\nhimself was called Egyptus, as was his brother Armais\\ncalled Danaus.\\nThis much undoubtedly related to Seti I, for in-\\ncidents taken from this campaign were, by order of\\nthis king, engraved on the outer wall of the Great\\nHall at Karnak, where they can still be seen. There\\ncan be no doubt that this account was originally\\ncopied from Manetho s work, and that he here de-\\nscribes the expedition which gave rise to the legends\\nof Sethosis.\\nWhen Josephus hurriedly made these extracts, he\\nwas trying to prove the antiquity of the Jews, and\\nSethos II and Ramesses III naturally suited his pur-\\npose better than Seti I, for he continues as follows:\\nThis is Manetho s account, and evident it is,\\nfrom the number of years by him set down belonging\\nto this interval, if they be summed up together, that\\nthese shepherds, as they are here called, who were\\nno other than our forefathers, were delivered out of\\nEgypt, and came thence, and inhabited this country\\nthree hundred and ninety-three years before Danaus\\ncame to Argos, although the Argives look upon him\\nas their most ancient king.\\nn another place, speaking of the Exodus, which\\nhe confounds with the expulsion of the Hyksos, Jose-\\nphus says\\nNow from his days (meaning Amosis) the reigns\\nof the intermediate kings, according to Manetho,", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0364.jp2"}, "365": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 359\\namounted to three hundred and ninety-three years,\\nas he says himself, till the two brothers, Sethos and\\nHermeus; the one of whom, Sethos, was called by\\nthat other name of Egyptus, and the other, Hermeus,\\nby that of Danaus. He also says that Sethos cast\\nthe other out of Egypt, and reigned fifty-nine years,\\nas did his eldest son Rhampses reign after him sixty-\\nsix years.\\nIt is hardly necessary to repeat that this number\\nof three hundred and ninety-three years was not de-\\nrived from Manetho, because he placed Seti I two\\nhundred and seventeen years only after the expulsion\\nof the Hyksos. It is the sum as computed by Jose-\\nphus himself, and is made up of the three hundred\\nand thirty-three years of his list (including the reigns\\nof Ramesses II and Menophthah) and the fifty-nine\\nyears of Sethos.\\nThe true interval from the expulsion of the Hyk-\\nsos to the end of Menophthath s reign is three hun-\\ndred and sixty-one years; but, to the beginning of\\nSethos reign, only two hundred and seventeen years.\\nThe same error enters into the total of five hundred\\nand eighteen years from the expulsion of the Hyksos\\nto Manetho s Pharaoh of the Exodus, which Josephus\\nobtained by adding the fifty-nine years of Sethos and\\nthe sixty-six years of Ramesses to his false total of\\nthree hundred and ninety-three years. The true sum\\nwas three hundred and forty-two years. It is sig-\\nnificant that in the first copy Josephus found these\\nnames written Sethosis and Armais, while in the\\nother they were written Sethos and Hermeus. This\\nindicates that he used different extracts, made by", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0365.jp2"}, "366": {"fulltext": "360 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\ndifferent authors, and that much of the confusion ap-\\nparent in his alleged extracts was owing to this fact.\\nAs epoch-king of Epiphi, 1584 B. C, Sethos assumed\\nseveral epoch-titles, such as Osiropis, Chamois, Nem-\\nmestUy and Nem-chau. Osiropis is the Greek form of\\nHus-ir-api, that is, Osiris in his character of Apis-\\nbull, or Nile. The statement, therefore, that the\\ncountry also was called, from his name, Egypt, is\\nthe conclusion of Josephus or the author from whom\\nhe copied, for he adds: For Manetho says that\\nSethosis himself was called Egyptus. This was true,\\nin one sense, for Seti was also called Hus-ir-Api, the\\nsecond element of which {Hapi or Api) was some-\\ntimes used to designate the Nile; and in early times\\nthe Nile was called Egyptus by the Greeks. We\\nshall see that ^Eschylos, fully two hundred years be-\\nfore Manetho, knew Seti I by the name of Egyptus,\\nand his perfidious brother by the name of Danaus,\\nwhich proves, to a certainty, that Manetho did not\\nrender Osiropis Egyptus, but that he merely adop-\\nted the rendition in use among the Greeks in his time.\\nCha-em-uas, Crowned in Thebes, is an epoch-\\ntitle introduced by Thothmes III, and borne by five\\nsuccessive epoch-kings.\\nNem-mesfu, Re-born, and Nem-chau, Re-\\ncrowned, are epoch-titles assumed by Amenemes I\\nto mark the beginning of a new Sothiac cycle, be-\\ncause Ra was then re-born and re-crowned as\\nHorus, the babe (Har-pa-chrat), where fore their use\\nby Seti, who merely ushered in a new Sothiac month,\\nappears to be an unwarranted innovation upon the an-", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0366.jp2"}, "367": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 361\\ncient custom. In the same way, ^^(i-festivals, which\\nwere originally celebrated at the middle or begin-\\nning of the last quarter of a Sothiac month, s6em to\\nhave been celebrated by Ramesses II regardless of\\nthese important astronomical periods. We have just\\nseen that, according to Manetho, supported by the\\ncontemporary monuments at Thebes, Sethos invaded,\\nfirst, Phoenicia and Cyprus, then the Assyrians and\\nMedes, and, lastly, being puffed up by his successes,\\nthe eastern parts.\\nThis, I have no doubt, is strictly historical, and\\nconstitutes the grain of fact out of which the\\nlegends associated with the name of Sesostris\\nsprouted and grew. Diodorus relates, on the author-\\nity of the Egyptian priests, that Sesostris excelled all\\nhis ancestors in great and famous actions; that, after\\nhis birth, his father, having performed a noble act,\\nbecame king, and caused all the boys of Egypt, who\\nwere born on the same day with Sesostris, to be\\nbrought up and educated with him, all of them being\\nrequired to go through the same exercises and to\\nsubmit to the same discipline, in which way they\\nwere fitted, by bodily vigor and intellectual attain-\\nments, to undertake great actions, and, if necessary,\\nbecome commanders.\\nSesostris and his companions were first sent with\\nan army to Arabia, which country they subdued, but\\nnot until they had accustomed themselves, by hunt-\\ning wild beasts, to endure the fatigues and the want\\nof water and provisions incident to desert life.\\nAfterwards he was sent to the western parts, and", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0367.jp2"}, "368": {"fulltext": "362 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nconquered the greater part of Libya, being as yet\\nbut a youth. Coming to the crown, after his father s\\ndeath, Sesostris, emboldened by his successes, con-\\nceived the design of conquering the whole world.\\nWith this view, he proceeded to gain the good will\\nof all the Egyptians, influencing many by his affable\\nand courteous demeanor, others by money, and\\nothers still by gifts of land. He also pardoned those\\nwho were condemned for high treason, and liberated\\na vast number who, strange to say, were imprisoned\\nfor debt. He divided Egypt into thirty-six nomes\\nover every one of which he appointed a governor.\\nOut of these nomes he chose the strongest and ablest\\nmen, and thus raised an army of six hundred thousand\\nfoot, twenty-four thousand horse, and twenty-seven\\nhundred chariots, which were officered by the young\\nmen who had been brought up with him and were used\\nto martial exercises from their childhood. The number\\nof these is said to have been seventeen hundred. Thus\\nthey were attached to their king, and to one another,\\nby bonds of brotherly affection.\\nUpon these companions Sesostris bestowed large\\nestates and lands in the richest parts of Egypt, re-\\nserving only their attendance upon his person in times\\nof war (Feudal tenures, which were so common\\namong the Franks, Saxons, Normans, and other Ger-\\nman nations). Having organized the army, he first\\nsubdued the Ethiopians, and forced them to pay him\\na tribute of ebony, gold, and elephants tusks. He\\nthen sailed into the Red Sea with a fleet of four hun-\\ndred vessels, being the first Egyptian to build long", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0368.jp2"}, "369": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 363\\nships, and gained the islands of this sea, and subdued\\nthe bordering nations as far as India. He likewise\\nmarched his army through Asia, subdued the Skyth-\\nians to the river Tanais, where, it was said, he left some\\nof the Egyptians who were afterwards known as the\\nColchians, and penetrated into Thrace, where he\\ncame near losing his army, owing to the difficulty\\nof the passages and want of provisions.\\nHaving spent nine years in this expedition, he\\nreturned to Egypt loaded with spoils, and bringing\\nlarge numbers of captives with him.\\nAfter his return, he devoted himself to the arts.\\nof peace, adorned the temples with rich presents and\\nthe spoils of his enemies, erected many fair and stately\\nworks, built temples in the principal cities, intersected\\nEgypt with a network of canals, and defended the\\neastern frontier by a wall drawn from Pelusium,\\nthrough the deserts, to Heliopolis, employing his cap-\\ntives in these gigantic works.\\nHe also caused a ship, or ark, to be made of cedar,\\ntwo hundred and eighty cubits in length, gilded over\\non the outside and lined witb silver within, which he\\ndedicated to Amen, the god most adored by the Thebans.\\nHe erected two obelisks of polished marble, one\\nhundred and twenty cubits high, on which were in-\\nscribed a description of the large extent of his em-\\npire, the value of his revenues, and the number of\\nthe nations conquered by him; and he placed in the\\ntemple of Phthah, at Memphis, statues of himself\\nand wife, each of one entire stone, thirty cubits in\\nheight, and of his sons, twenty cubits in height.", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0369.jp2"}, "370": {"fulltext": "364 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nDiodorus concludes his account of Sesostris by add-\\ning that he seems to have excelled all other kings\\nof Egypt that were eminent for power and greatness,\\nin warlike achievements, the number of his gifts and\\noblations, and his wonderful works in Egypt. His\\nfame and renown continued down to the time of\\nDarius, and he was venerated by the people next to\\nOsiris. After he had reigned thirty-three (23?)\\nyears, he became blind, and put an end to his own\\nlife. He was admired for this, not only by the priests,\\nbut by all the rest of the Egyptians; for his voluntary\\ndeath, after his sphere of usefulness had been abruptly\\ncut off, was in keeping with his glorious life.\\nWe have given this summary of the account of\\nDiodorus in order to contrast it with the account of\\nManetho and the facts revealed by the monuments.\\nGoing back to the truthful and sober account of\\nManetho, we find that Seti, before the expulsion of\\nhis brother Armais, made an expedition against\\nCyprus and Phoenicia, and also against the Assyrians\\nand the Medes, and that, after he had subdued these,\\nhe went on still more boldly, and overthrew the cities\\nand countries that lay in the eastern parts.\\nThis account is verified by the representations\\nand explanatory inscriptions of the campaigns of Seti\\nI engraved on the north wall of the Great Hall at\\nKarnak. Here, according to Ebers, in Baedeker,\\nwe can see Seti storming the fortress of Kanana in\\nthe land of Edom, in South Palestine. Here are\\npictured representations of his battles with the\\nFenechu (Phoenicians), the Chant (Canaanites), the", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0370.jp2"}, "371": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 365\\nErmennu and Eltennii, or Iltannu/ (Mesopota-\\nmians, Syrians, or Assyrians), and the storming of\\nKadesh, the stronghold of the Hittites, and Ninua, a\\ncity of the Assyrians situated on a river.\\nWe have seen that Manetho used the expression,\\ncities and countries that lay in the eastern parts,\\nwith reference to countries lying east of the As-\\nsyrians and Medes; and we must bear in mind that he\\nwrote about 287 B. C, and used the geographical\\nnames in vogue at that time. The Asiatic campaigns\\nof the Egyptian kings were necessarily alike in many\\nparticulars. The starting point was invariably Pelu-\\nsium, or the Pelusian Daphne, and the line of\\nmarch the great military and commercial highway\\nalong the shores of the Mediterranean already de-\\nscribed in our comments on the Pyramid Texts.\\nUnder such circumstances, it is not at all strange\\nthat, in the course of centuries, various details of\\nsuccessive campaigns were confounded and credited\\nto one and the same popular hero. Thus Sethos and\\nhis son Ramesses, who was called Se-sethos (Son\\nof Sethos), owing to their joint-reign, joint enter-\\nprises, and joint works, were afterwards regarded as\\none. Again, Manetho certainly mentioned Sesostris\\nin connection with Usertasen II or III of the Twelfth\\nDynasty, and this fact, no doubt, induced the manip-\\nulators of Manetho s Lists, who were engaged in\\nthe hopeless task of fixing Menes, the first king,\\ntheir Mestraim, or Mizraim, at 2726 B. C, to iden-\\ntify Seti with Usertasen, and drop him from the List\\nof the Eighteenth Dynasty, where he stood last.", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0371.jp2"}, "372": {"fulltext": "366 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nIn the Ivist of Africanus we find the remark that\\nSesostris (who occupies the place of Usertasen II,\\nwho reigned seventeen years, and Usertasen III, who\\nreigned thirty-eight years) subjected Ethiopia and all\\nAsia to Thrace, and was venerated by the Egyptians\\nnext to Osiris. In the later List of Eusebius, how-\\never, there is prefixed to this remark the additional\\nremark, taken from Sesochris of the Second Dynasty,\\nthat he was four cubits, three palms, and two fingers\\nin height. This shows how the manipulators of the\\nlist tried to blend, and reduce to one, Sesochris, User-\\ntosis, Sethosis, Sesethosis, and Sesonchis. We will\\nnow briefly examine the chief incidents of the ac-\\ncount transmitted by Diodorus:\\n1. Sesostris excelled all his ancestors in great and\\nfamous actions.\\nThis needs no comment, as it is merely a matter of\\nopinion.\\n2. His father, having performed a noble action,\\nbecame king, after the birth of Sesostris.\\nRamesses I was the successor of Horus {Har-em-\\nheb), who reigned in the right of his wife, and may\\nhave become king in the manner stated. It was cer-\\ntainly after Seti s birth, for he was made co-regent\\nafter his father had reigned but one year and four\\nmonths, when he must have been, according to cus-\\ntom, twelve years old. This indicates that Ramesses I\\nalso obtained the throne through the hereditary right\\nof his wife, the mother of Seti.\\n3. Sesostris was brought up and educated with\\nthe boys of Egypt v/ho were born on the same day\\nwith him.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0372.jp2"}, "373": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 367\\nThere is nothing improbable in this, ahhough it\\nmight, with equal probability, apply to Usertasen.\\n4. Sesostris and his companion were sent to\\nArabia, and subdued that country. Afterwards he\\nwas sent to Libya, and conquered the greater part of\\nthat country, being still a youth, that is, I suppose,\\nwearing the sidelock of minority. As this was be-\\nfore his father s death, Seti may not have been per-\\nmitted to record these juvenile exploits upon the\\nwalls of the Temple of Amen at Thebes.\\n4. After his father s death, Sesostris conceived the\\nplan of conquering the whole world, proceeded to\\nwin the good will of the Egyptians, pardoned those\\nwho were condemned for high treason, and liberated\\na vast number who were imprisoned for debt.\\nAll this may have applied to Usertasen I or\\nSethos, for many cases of high treason occurred under\\nAmenemes I and Ramesses I, both of whom re-estab-\\nlished the old order of things after periods of anarchy.\\n5. He first subdued the Ethiopians, and forced\\nthem to pay tribute.\\nThis seems to apply to Usertasen, for Seti s cam-\\npaign against the Edomites of Canaan took place in\\nthe first year of his sole-reign.\\n6. We have already commented on the expedi-\\ntion through Asia.\\nA monument preserved in the Louvre (C. I.)\\nshows that Usertasen I overthrew the Hir-ti-sha, the\\nMentiu, and the Hittites. I refer to the monument of\\nMenthu-nesu, translated by Brugsch. Eratosthenes,\\naccording to Strabo, wrote of a memorial tablet set", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0373.jp2"}, "374": {"fulltext": "368 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nup by Sesostris at the Straits of Bab-el-Mandeb, com-\\nmemorating in hieroglyphs his passage of the Red\\nSea, after he had, in the beginning of his reign, first\\nsubjected the Ethiopians and Troglodytes. He\\npassed over to Arabia, and thence through Asia.\\nNow, this does not agree with the account of the\\nAsiatic campaign of Sethos, as described by himself\\non the walls of the Temple of Karnak, and by Man-\\netho. It must be said, however, that there is a repre-\\nsentation of a campaign against the Libyans.\\n7. After his return, Sesostris adorned the temples\\nwith rich presents, erected many fair and stately works,\\nbuilt temples in the principal cities, intersected Egypt\\nwith a network of canals, defended the eastern fron-\\ntier by a wall drawn from Pelusium to Heliopolis,\\ncaused an ark to be made, and erected two obe-\\nlisks, etc.\\nAll this seems to apply to Sethos and Sesethos.\\nThe monuments, temples, etc., even in their present\\nruined condition, speak for themselves. The repre-\\nsentations just referred to show the long-bearded\\ninhabitants of the Libanus felling the tall and slender\\ncedars for the ark, which he dedicated to Amen.\\n8. He placed in the Temple of Ptah, at Memphis,\\ncolossal statues of himself and wife, each of one stone,\\nthirty cubits in height, etc.\\nThese statues survive, although the magnificent\\nTemple of Ptah, which rivaled that of Amen at\\nThebes, has entirely disappeared. They were placed\\nthere by Sesothis or Ramesses II, and are, in fact,\\ncolossal.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0374.jp2"}, "375": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 369\\n9. After he had reigned thirty-three years, he be-\\ncame blind, and committed suicide.\\nIf Sethos actually reigned thirty-three years as\\nsole king, his joint-reign must have covered twenty-\\nsix years. A reign of twenty-seven years and four\\nmonths for Ramesses I accords well with all the his-\\ntorical probabilities. This would make Sethos thirty-\\neight years old at his father s death, and seventy-\\none years old at his own death, and account for his\\nearly campaigns in Arabia and Libya.\\n10. The reference to Osiris points unmistakably\\nto Seti, who was known and venerated as Osiropis,\\nor Serapis.\\nThe fable of the six sons, two of whom were used\\nas a bridge, and four of whom were saved, related\\nby the Father of History, probably grew out of an\\nallegory. It was the fashion, at that time, to veil\\nscientific facts under allegories. The reign of Seti\\nbridged two of the Sothiac months of the second\\nhalf of the cycle which commenced in the year 2784\\nB. C. (compare han-ti).\\nAfter he had reigned twenty-six years as co-\\nregent, and nine or ten years as sole king, to wit,\\nin the year 1584 B. C, the Sothiac month of Pa-oni\\ncame to an end, that is, died, and the Sothiac month\\nof Epiphi commenced, that is, was born. Seti, as Sa-\\npayni, or Spanios Son of Payni died, and was\\nre-born and re-crowned (nem-mestu and nem-\\nchau) as Hus-ar-Api, or Osiropis. The ceiling of\\nthe long and narrow chamber of the beautiful Temple\\nof Abydus, which contains the world-renowned\\n24", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0375.jp2"}, "376": {"fulltext": "370 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nTable of Abydus, is ornamented with the car-\\ntouches of Seti, bearing the legends nem-mestu and\\nnem-chauf in fact, this temple was erected to com-\\nmemorate this important chronological event. Seti\\nand his infant son, Ramesses, are represented as\\nstanding before and doing homage to the long,\\ndouble line of seventy-six ancestors, who wore the\\ndouble crown of the South and North, that is, claimed\\nto exercise universal dominion. Ramesses is pic-\\nturned as a boy wearing the sidelock; consequently he\\nwas born before this date (1584 B. C), and, as he is\\npictured as a boy at his father s side in the representa-\\ntion of the Libyan campaign, which we can fix some-\\nwhere near the ninth year of vSeti s sole-reign, he must\\nhave been fully ninety years old at the time of his\\ndeath, possibly one hundred. The regnal years of\\nSeti date from his accession as sole king, and the end\\nof his ninth year carries us down, approximately,\\nto the epoch of Epiphi, 1584 B. C, when a new\\ncount was commenced.\\nNINETEENTH DYNASTY OF SEVEN DIOSPOLITAN KINGS\\nThe List of Africanus, originally the most reliable,\\nalthough now badly corrupted, is as follows\\nNINETEENTH DYNASTY OF SEVEN DIOSPOWTAN KINGS\\nT. Sethos, 51 years\\n2. Rapsakes, 61\\n3. Amenoplithis, 20\\n4. Ramesses, 60\\n5. Ammenemnes, 5\\n6. Thuoris, 7\\nTotal, 209", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0376.jp2"}, "377": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 371\\nThe List of Eusebius, which reduces the number\\nof kings to five, including Thuoris, is as follows\\nNINBTKKNTH DYNASTY OF FIVE) DIOSPOLITAN KINGS\\n1. Sethos, 55 3 ears 55 years\\n2. Rampses, 66 66\\n3. Amenephthis, 40 8\\n4. Ammenemes, 26 26\\n5. Thuoris, 7 7\\nTotal, 194 194\\nNow we have seen that the Eighteenth Dynasty\\ncame to a close at the death of Sethos I, 1561 B. C,\\na date established by the total of two hundred and\\nsixty-three years from the epoch 1824 B. C, checked\\nby the epoch-reign of Harmais, 1704 B. C, and\\nastronomically fixed by the epoch-reign of Osiropis.\\nAs Sethos reigned twenty-three years after 1584\\nB. C, or to 1 561 B. C, the end of the Eighteenth\\nDynasty, it follows, axiomatically, that Ramesses II\\nMiamun, and not Sethos, headed Manetho s Nine-\\nteenth Dynasty. But how can we account for Sethos\\nappearing as the first king of the dynasty in the pres-\\nent lists?\\nNow, bear in mind that Josephus confounded the\\nExpulsion of the Hyksos with the Exodus of the\\nIsraelites, and that he placed this event at about 1648\\nB. C. In copying the Manethonian Lists, his avowed\\nobject was to show how many years intervened be-\\ntween the Exodus and the Flight of Danaus, the\\nmost ancient king of the Argives; he was not copy-\\ning Manetho s dynasties, but simply extracting a con-\\nsecutive list of the reigns between these two events.", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0377.jp2"}, "378": {"fulltext": "372 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nNow, it so happened that he made several stu-\\npendous mistakes in the Ust thus extracted. In the\\nfirst place, Egyptus, the brother of Danaus, was cer-\\ntainly Sethos I, who commenced to reign about two\\nhundred and seventeen years after the Hyksos Ex-\\npulsion, but Josephus omitted his reign of fifty-nine\\nyears between Ramesses I and Ramesses II, which en-\\nabled him to bring in the eighty-five years and eight\\nmonths of Ramesses II and Menophthah before\\nSethosis, who was also Ramesses. He also added\\nfour side-reigns with forty-five years and nine months\\nto his list (which contained the thirty-six years and\\nnine months of Horus), whereby he obtained three\\nhundred and thirty-three instead of two hundred and\\nsixteen years, down to Sethosis. Not satisfied with\\nthis result, he went further, and added sixty additional\\nyears for the fifty-nine years and two months of\\nSethos, which gave him three hundred and ninety-\\nthree years from the Exodus to the Flight of\\nDanaus. It is clear that Sethosis, who was also\\nRamesses, introduced by Josephus at the end of his\\nlist, was Set-necht, who reigned jointly with his son\\nRamesses III; for we know, from the monuments,\\nthat the naval force mentioned by Josephus be-\\nlonged to him, and that he won a great naval vic-\\ntory over the foreign nations that invaded Egypt\\nduring his reign. Notwithstanding this, when Jose-\\nphus came to fix the date of Menophthah, Manetho s\\nPharaoh of the Exodus, he went back to Sethos I,\\nstating that, according to Manetho, he reigned fifty-\\nnine years, and that his eldest son Ramesses reigned", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0378.jp2"}, "379": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 373\\nafter him sixty-six years, and, by adding these ad-\\nditional one hundred and twenty-five years to his for-\\nmer total of three hundred and ninety-three years, ob-\\ntained a total of five hundred and eighteen years from\\nthe Hyksos Expulsion to the reign of Menophthah,\\nwhen, in fact, it was only about three hundred and\\nforty-two years.\\nIt is remarkable that so many errors could have\\nfound their way into such a small list, and that the\\nearly Christian chronographers should have regarded\\nit as more reliable than the work of Manetho itself.\\nfrom which it purports to have been extracted.\\nThe Lists of Eusebius show that by his time\\nRamesses II and Menophthah had been added to the\\nEighteenth Dynasty, upon the supposed authority of\\nJosephus, and the Nineteenth Dynasty correspond-\\ningly reduced to five kings, with Sethos II, or Set-\\nnecht, at its head.\\nThe first and second kings in the List of Afri-\\ncanus are undoubtedly Seti 11^ or Set-necht^ and Ra-\\nmesses III, but some one, in order to keep up the\\ntotal, inserted Ramesses with sixty instead of sixty-\\none, years, a second time, as number four, where\\nRampsakes, or Ramesses III, originally stood.\\nAs Eusebius had given the Eighteenth Dynasty\\nthree hundred and forty-eight years by adding the\\neighty-five years of Ramesses and Menophthah to the\\noriginal total of two hundred and sixty-three years,\\nhis Nineteenth Dynasty, minus these eighty-five\\nyears, was reduced to one hundred and fifty-two\\nyears. The Armenian Version still shows that this", "height": "3654", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0379.jp2"}, "380": {"fulltext": "374 Self- Verifying Chronological\\nwas the case. By restoring the first two numbers\\nfrom Africanus, we obtain this result\\n1. Sethos (Set-necht), 51 years\\n2. Rampses (Ramesses III), 61\\n3. Amenephthis, 8\\n4. Ammenemes, 26\\n5. Thuoris, 7\\nTotal, 153\\nIn the List of Eusebius, transmitted by Syncellus,\\nthe forty years of Amenephthis are taken from the\\nforty years of Menophthah in the Eighteenth Dy-\\nnasty.\\nBearing in mind that one reign at least has been\\ncrowded out of the List of Africanus, and that Thu-\\noris ought not to be counted as one of the kings of\\nthe Nineteenth Dynasty, we may assume that there\\nwere three reigns of eight, twenty, and five years re-\\nspectively in this dynasty, especially as the reign of\\ntwenty-six years in the List of Eusebius evidently\\nrepresents the two reigns of twenty and five years,\\nthe extra year being due to the extra months. The\\nfollowing list will illustrate this more plainly\\n1. Ramesses II Miamen, 66.2 years\\n2. Menophthah, 19.6\\n3. Sethos II {Set-necht), 51\\n4. Rampsakes (Ramesses III), 61\\n5. Ramesses IV Miamen, 8\\n6. Amenephthis I, 20\\n7. Amenemes (Ramesses Amen-at?), 5\\nThuoris, before era, 7\\nTotal, 237\\nWe have already seen how Manetho s lists were\\nsystematically changed, in order to bring the begin-", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0380.jp2"}, "381": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 375\\nning of the Eighteenth Dynasty down to 1648 B. C,\\nthe date of the Exodus as fixed by Josephus, and how\\nThuoris was substituted for Phuoro, or King Nile.\\nWhen we consider that these dates have nothing but\\nthe erroneous computation of Josephus to support\\nthem, and are dependent upon the ridiculous and un-\\ntenable contention that the Hamite invaders of Egypt\\nwere the Children of Israel, it seems incredible that\\nmen of science should consider them worthy of seri-\\nous consideration. The error has also made itself felt\\nin Babylonian and Assyrian chronology.\\nPetrie, for example, places the beginning of the\\nEighteenth Dynasty at 1587 B. C, basing himself\\nupon what he supposes to be absolute dates calcu-\\nlated by the Viennese astronomer, Dr. Mahler, from\\nthe risings of Sirius and the new moons. Dr. Mahler,\\nfor instance, fixes the fifty-three years and eleven\\nmonths of Thothmes III between March 20th, 1503\\nB. C, and February 14th, 1449 B. C. Rev. A. H.\\nSayce tells us that this Viennese astronomer, with\\nthe help of certain astronomical data furnished by\\nthe monuments, determined the exact date of the\\nreign of Ramesses II as extending from 1348 B. C.\\nto 1281 B. C. Now, these dates are false and contra-\\ndictory upon their face. In the first place, they allow\\nbut one hundred and one years between the death of\\nThothmes III and the accession, as sole-king, of\\nRamesses II, when the actual interval was one hun-\\ndred and thirty-nine years. Such inaccuracies are\\nirreconcilable with absolute astronomical dates. In\\nthe second place, the date 1281 B. C. for the end of", "height": "3659", "width": "2287", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0381.jp2"}, "382": {"fulltext": "376 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nthe reign of Ramesses II would bring the Exodus\\n(which took place in the fifth year of the reign of\\nMenophthah) within two hundred and sixty-six years\\nof the Building of Solomon s Temple. There were\\nfour hundred and eighty years between the Exodus\\nand the Building of the Temple, and the history and\\ngenealogies of this period can not be compressed\\nwithin the narrow compass of two hundred and sixty-\\nsix years. Solomon commenced to build the Temple\\nabout two years before the accession of Shishak, the\\nfirst king of the Twenty-second Dynasty, for this dy-\\nnasty ruled from 1009 B. C. to 789 B. C. The last\\nking of the Twenty-first Dynasty (Psusannos, or\\nP su-cha-nut II) reigned thirty-five years. Solomon\\nmade affinity with this king, and took his daughter in\\nmarriage. And it came to pass in the four hundred\\nand eightieth year after the children of Israel were\\ncome out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of\\nSolomon s reign over Israel, in the month of Zif,\\nwhich is the second month, that he began to build\\nthe house of the Eord. Is it not evident that Solo-\\nmon selected this Sothiac period of one season of four\\nmonths, or four hundred and eighty years, as a fixed\\ndate for his great work? We are expressly told that\\nhis wisdom excelled that of all the children of the\\neast country, and all the wisdom of Egypt. Ac-\\ncording to these dates, Solomon mounted the throne\\nabout 1014 B. C, or five years before the accession\\nof Shishak. The Scriptures manifest the agreement\\nof this chronology and that of ancient Egypt; for we\\nare told, first, that Pharaoh, king of Egypt (Psusan-", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0382.jp2"}, "383": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 377\\nnos II), had gone up and taken Gezer, and burnt it\\nwith fire, and slain the Canaanites that dwelt in the\\ncity, and given it as a present unto his daughter, Solo-\\nmon s wife; second, that Hadad fled to Pharaoh, king\\nof Egypt (Shishak), who received him with favor, and\\ngave him to wife the sister of his own wife, Tahpenes,\\nthe queen; and, third, that Jeroboam, when Solomon\\nsought to kill him, fled to Egypt, unto Shishak, king\\nof Egypt, and was in Egypt until the death of Solo-\\nmon. Now, as Shishak took Jerusalem in the fifth\\nyear of Rehoboam, it follows that Solomon s reign\\ncould not have exceeded twenty-one or twenty-two\\nyears, although he is given forty years. I admit that\\nthe numbers 40, 80, 120, etc., as used in the Scrip-\\ntures, are indefinite and approximate only; but, aside\\nfrom this, it is inconceivable how scientists, or as-\\ntronomers either, can slash away at chronology with-\\nout paying the least attention to contemporaneous\\nhistory and well-established synchronisms. A mo-\\nment s reflection will convince any impartial student\\nof the fallacy of attempting to place Ramesses I at\\nthe beginning of the era 1324 B. C, as Petrie does.\\nLet us see where this would land us\\nEra of Menophres, 1324 B. C.\\nRamesses I, i\\n1323 B. C.\\nSethos I, 59\\n1264 B. C.\\nRamesses II (66 years -|-4-|-2+2 months), 67\\n1 197 B. C.\\nMenophthah, to Exodus, 4\\nExodus, 1193 B. C.", "height": "3659", "width": "2287", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0383.jp2"}, "384": {"fulltext": "378 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nThis sort of chronology would leave exactly\\none hundred and eighty-two years between the Ex-\\nodus and the Building of the Temple, which is pre-\\nposterous on its face.\\nDr. Mahler s dates are not much better than these.\\nIvCpsius, years ago, demonstrated that the so-called\\ndata derived from the monuments were either mis-\\nunderstood or altogether unreliable. Astronomical\\nobservations were not recorded on public monu-\\nments; but were registered on papyri, and preserved\\nin the libraries of the temples. The inscriptions in\\nthe tombs, etc., were made by men who understood\\nbut little about astronomy; whereas the observations\\nof the risings of the stars, etc., preserved in the\\ntemples, were made by professional astronomers. As\\nto the new moons (monumental mention of which\\nis exceedingly rare), every one knows that they recur\\nin the same order at stated intervals, and can not be\\nrelied on except as checks. Again, we must know\\nhow the regnal years appearing on chance monu-\\nments agree with the reigns to be found in the lists.\\nThus Amenophthis IV dated from his accession as\\njoint-king with his father, Amenophthis III. Man-\\netho gave Amenophthis III the thirty-one years and\\nten months of his sole-reign, and Amenophthis IV\\nthe four or five years of their joint-reign; but, on\\nthe other hand, he assigned the four or five years of\\nthe joint-reign of Amenophthis IV and his daughter\\nto the latter. In like manner, the fifty-nine years and\\ntwo months of Sethos I include his long joint-reign\\nwith his father, Ramesses I, for the one year and four", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0384.jp2"}, "385": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 379\\nmonths given to the latter in the lists end at the ac-\\ncession of Sethos as joint-king. On the contrary,\\nthe fifty-nine years and two months of Sethos I ex-\\ntend from his accession as joint-king to his death.\\nAttempts have been made to use the monumental\\nmention of ^if-festivals (heb-sed) for chronological\\npurposes, but without sufficient examination and\\nstudy of the subject. A thirty years festival does not,\\nas some suppose, correspond to a Sothiac week.\\nBrugsch in his latest work (^Egyptologie) called at-\\ntention to the fact that the Egyptians called a Sothiac\\nmonth han-ti, a dual form equivalent to two hans. A\\nhan, therefore, equals sixty years. Just as the earth\\nwas divided into an upper and lower hemisphere, so\\nwas the Sothiac month; the upper han being known\\nas har, the lower as sed. Now, it is apparent that the\\nfestival of the beginning of the first han of sixty years\\nwould be merged in the more important festival of\\nthe beginning of a new Sothiac month; but the cele-\\nbration of the first vS ^^-festival, which occurred at the\\nmiddle of each han-ti, would be an important chrono-\\nlogical event. The monuments mention the first\\nhib-sed (lit. sop top, first time in contradistinction\\nto the second S^c^-festival, which was celebrated at\\nthe middle of the second han.\\nFor example, it will be seen that the first Sed-\\nfestival, at the middle of the han-ti of Pa-chons, 3224\\nB. C, fell in the first year of the reign of Tat-ka-ra\\nAs-as; and the celebration of this first .S eJ-festival\\nby King Tat-ka-ra, beloved by the spirits of An-nut\\netc., is mentioned on an alabaster vase. The second", "height": "3659", "width": "2287", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0385.jp2"}, "386": {"fulltext": "380 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\n5^f^-festival of this Sothiac month, 3194 B. C, was\\ncertainly celebrated in the thirty-first year of this\\nking s reign.\\nComing down to the han-ti of Pa-uoni, the first\\nhib-sed, 3104 B. C, fell in the thirteenth year of the\\nreign of Phiops I. A large inscription at Hammamat,\\ndated in the eighteenth year {ren-pa-et em ach-et) of\\nthis king s reign, mentions the first ^^^f-festival.\\nThis date shows that Meri-ra reigned jointly with\\nTeta or some other ruler for five years, probably dur-\\ning his minority. Manetho gave these five years to\\nTeta (Othoes for Tithoes). Ren-pa-et em ach-et,\\ntherefore, refers to the year after his accession as\\njoint-king. The second hib-sed of this han-ti, 3074\\nB. C, fell in the forty-third year of Meri-ra s reign;\\nbut on the monuments it would be recorded in his\\nforty-eighth year.\\nThe first hib-sed of the han-ti of Epiphi, 2984 B. C,\\ncoincided with the seventy-third year of Phiops II,\\nand an inscription of his (adjoining that of Unas) at\\nElephantine mentions a vSecZ-festlval. The second\\nhib-sed of this month, 2954 B. C, divided the twelve\\nyears assigned to Nitokris into equal halves. In the\\nlist bearing the name of Eratosthenes this queen has\\nonly six, instead of twelve, years. The first hib-sed\\nof Mes-har-i, 2864 B. C, as we have seen in the\\nEleventh Dynasty, was duly celebrated in the second\\nyear of Neb-taui-ra Menthu-hotep.\\nThus four successive vS^c?-festivals are mentioned\\nb)^ the kings in whose reigns they occurred according", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0386.jp2"}, "387": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 381\\nto our astronomical dates. The ^^(i-festivals men-\\ntioned in the inscriptions of the Eighteenth and Nine-\\nteenth Dynasties, when correctly appHed, are bound\\nto agree with the astronomical dates given; but we\\nmust always bear in mind that the regnal years which\\nappear on the monuments do not, and can not in\\nmany instances, agree with the chronological num-\\nbers employed by Manetho. Thus the first Sed-\\nfestival of Pachons, 1764 B. C, coincides with the\\nsecond year of the reign assigned to Mephres; but\\nhow do we know that this queen actually dated her\\nmonuments from the year 1765? Manetho traces his\\nchronology through Amessis, the sister of Amenoph-\\nthis I and wife of Thothmes I, and Mephres, the\\ndaughter of Amessis and Thothmes I, ignoring\\nThothmes I and Thothmes 11. It is significant, how-\\never, that Mephres claimed this festival.\\nThe first Uh-sed of Payni, 1644 B. C, fell\\nin the fourth year of Anchesenaten s reign that\\nis, about the end of the joint-reign of Achenaten and\\nhis daughter; but no mention of it has yet been found.\\nThe first kib-sed of Epiphi, 1524 B. C, occurred in\\nthe thirty-eighth year of the reign of Ramesses II,\\nand this king seems to have celebrated it with great\\npomp in different parts of Egypt; but when we come\\nto the second eJ-festival of this month, 1494 B. C,\\nthe coincidence is remarkable, for Menophthah\\nmounted the throne as sole monarch in the year 1495\\nB. C, and celebrated this festival in the second year\\nof his reign. This agrees exactly with Seti s epoch-", "height": "3659", "width": "2287", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0387.jp2"}, "388": {"fulltext": "382 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nreign of twenty-three years after the epoch 1584\\nB. C, which can not possibly be ascribed to chance.\\nEpoch of Epiphi, 1584 B. C.\\nSethos I, as epoch-king Osiropis, 23\\n1561 B. C.\\nRamesses II Miamen, 66\\nBeginning of Menophthah s reign, 1495 B. C.\\nThe Exodus, which took place in the fifth year\\nof this king s reign, 1491 B. C, will be treated of in\\nanother chapter. The genealogical succession upon\\nthe throne, as officially recognized by Ramesses III\\nat Medinet Habu, was: i. Menophthah; 2. Sethos\\nII; 3. Set-necht; and 4. Ramesses III. We know\\nfrom the monuments that Sethos II reigned jointly\\nwith Menophthah for several years. If the death of\\nthe first-born is to be taken literally, and not sym-\\nbolically, Menophthah s eldest son, who sat on the\\nthrone with his father, perished before the Exodus.\\nThere are facts going to show that Sethos II was\\nborn after his father began to reign. Thus the in-\\nvasion of the Libyan and Mediterranean nations\\noccurred in his fifth year, the year of the Exodus;\\nthe settlement of certain Shasu, or Beduin, tribes in\\nthe deserted district of Goshen, by royal permission,\\ntook place, according to the official report, in the\\neighth year; and Manetho tells us that Sethos II was\\nbut five years old when Menophthah and his army\\nvoluntarily retired to Ethiopia, where they remained\\nthirteen years. At the end of this period Menophthah\\nand Sethos returned to Egypt, each at the head of a\\nseparate army. Although Sethos was only eighteen", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0388.jp2"}, "389": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 383\\nyears of age at the time, it is certain that his father\\nhad raised him up as joint-king. Now, as Manetho\\ngave Menophthah nineteen years and six months, he\\nmust have given the joint-reign to Sethos II; for the\\nseven years previous to the settlement of the Shasu\\ntribes in Goshen and the thirteen years of the exile\\nin Ethiopia give us a reign of at least nineteen years\\nand six months. After the Canaanites had been ex-\\npelled from Egypt and pursued to the bounds of\\nSyria, Menophthah found time to construct a funerary\\ntemiple out of material taken from a building erected\\nby Amenhotep III, and to set up a granite tablet\\nrecording his great victory, or, we should say, his\\nson s victory; and Sethos II had time to erect monu-\\nments, carve statues of himself, and prepare a rock-\\ncut tomb in the Biban-el-moluk. But, unless the\\nHarris papyrus refers to these ill-fated thirteen years,\\nthe short period of peace and prosperity which fol-\\nlowed this victory was succeeded by another period\\nof anarchy and confusion lasting many years, dur-\\ning which a Syrian that is, Chal named Ar-sii\\nusurped the government, and tyrannized over the\\npeople. It can not be denied that there is a striking\\nresemblance between the names of Manetho s Osar-\\nsiph and this Arsu, for the ar of Arsii, like the ar of\\nOsar, is written with the sign of the eye.\\nIn his chronological list of legitimate kings, Man-\\netho gave Sethos II the entire fifty-one years from\\nthe end of Menophthah s reign, 1476 B. C, to the\\nbeginning of Set-nechfs reign, 1425 B. C. But it is\\ncertain that he also mentioned the achtal rulers dur-", "height": "3659", "width": "2287", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0389.jp2"}, "390": {"fulltext": "384 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\ning this period, as he had done with respect to Achen-\\naten and his successors. The author of the pseudo-\\nSothis list made use of a number of these reigns to\\nfill out the first portion of his bogus Hst, where they\\nnow appear immediately before the seven kings of the\\nTwentieth Dynasty. We copy the following:\\nDate of Bxodus, 1491 B. C.\\n11. Akesephthres, 13\\n1478 B. C.\\n12. Agchoreus, 9\\n1469 B. C.\\n13. Armiyses, 4\\n1465 B. C.\\n14. Chamois, 12\\n1453 B. C.\\n15. Miamus, 14\\n1439 B. C.\\n16. Amesesis, 65\\n1374 B. C.\\n17. Oyses, 50\\n1324 B. C.\\nThese names are so corrupt that it is difficult to\\nidentify them, and they no longer succeed one an-\\nother in their original order.\\nAmong these, Chamois is the epoch-title of the\\nking who ruled at Thebes from 1464 B. C. to 1452\\nB. C, for Chamois is a very accurate transcription\\nof Cha-m-uas, Crowned in Thebes. Oyses was\\noriginally Sethosis, whose fifty-one years have been\\nchanged to fifty. This reign appears a second time\\nas No. 58, Thuoris, fifty years.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0390.jp2"}, "391": {"fulltext": "A Self- Verifying Chronological 385\\nAmesesis was originally Ramesses, the Rampses\\nof Eusebius, with sixty-five years, and, strange to say,\\nNos. 53 and 54 of this bogus list, before the first was\\nchanged by Goar, stood thus:\\n53. Kertos (Sethos), i6 years\\n54. Rampsis (Ramesses III), 45\\nTotal, 61\\nThese are the identical sixty-one years assigned\\nby Manetho to Rampsakes in his chronological list,\\nshowing that Sethos II has the fifty-one years be-\\ntween the reign of Menophthah and the accession\\nof Set-necht, and that Rampsakes has the sixteen years\\nof Set-necht, in addition to his own forty-five. The\\nemendation of Goar, whereby Kertos received twenty\\nyears to fill out the interval between A. M. 4187 and\\nA. M. 4207, agrees with the sixty-six years assigned\\nto Rampsis by Eusebius.\\nThe thirteen years of Akesephthres naturally sug-\\ngest the thirteen years of Menophtah s voluntary exile\\nin Ethiopia. It can not be a freak of chance that\\nwhen they are placed immediately after the true date\\nof the Exodus, the epoch-reign Chamois coincides\\nwith the epoch of Mesori, 1464 B. C. for the ap-\\nparent difference of one year is due to the odd months\\nand days and the reign of Ramesses, the first king\\nof the Twentieth Dynasty, coincides exactly with the\\ngreat Sothiac Era, 1324 B. C. It is evident that these\\nnames were arranged according to the epochs before\\nthey were transferred, and that the forger of the\\npseudo-Sothis List knew that Manetho s Lists were so\\n25", "height": "3659", "width": "2287", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0391.jp2"}, "392": {"fulltext": "386 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\narranged. The fifty-fifth king of the pseudo-Sothis\\nList is Amenses, who is also Ammenemes, twenty-six\\nyears, which shows that the reigns of Amenophthes\\nand Amenemes had been amalgamated, after Amen-\\nephthes was put in the place of Ramesses IV; for\\nAmenses is Smendes, the first king of the Twenty-\\nfirst Dynasty. The insertion of Thuoris as the last\\nking of this dynasty crowded out Ramesses IV. The\\nLists of Africanus and Eusebius can be harmonized\\nas follows\\n3. Sethos,\\n4. Ramps-hakes,\\n5. Ramesses IV,\\n6. Ameueptithis,\\n7. Amenemes,\\nAdd Thuoris,\\n51 years 3. Sethos, .51 years\\n61 4. Rampses, 61\\n8 5. (Ramesses), 8\\n20 6. Amenepthes,\\n5 7. Amenemes,\\n7 Add Thuoris, 7\\nTotal, 152 152\\nThus Ramesses III reigned forty-five years, and\\nhis three sons thirty-three years, together seventy-\\neight years.\\nJust as Manetho, in the Eighteenth Dynasty,\\ntraced the chronology through Achenaten and his two\\ndaughters, giving them thirty-six years and nine\\nmonths, but in the official list gave Horus these\\nthirty-six years and nine months, so did he, in the\\nNineteenth Dynasty, enumerate the actual rulers from\\nthe date of the Flight of Menophthah to the accession\\nof Sethosis and Ramesses, also showing how the\\nnumbers had been apportioned among the kings of\\nthe recognized official line.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0392.jp2"}, "393": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 387\\nEPOCH -REIGNS OF MANETHO S SECOND\\nSOTHIAC CYCLE\\nBut little remains to be said about the epoch-\\nreigns of Manetho s Second Sothiac Cycle. At the\\nclose of the Twelfth Dynasty we were forced to bid\\nfarewell to Eratosthenes, whose epoch-reigns afforded\\nus so much valuable assistance in the First Cycle.\\nFor the entire period of four hundred and ninety-\\nthree years between the Twelfth and Hyksos Dy-\\nnasties the separate reigns are altogether wanting in\\nthe Manethonian Lists. It is true that the throne-\\ntitles of nearly all the kings of the Thirteenth and\\nFifteenth Dynasties appear in whole or in part upon\\nfragments of the Turin papyrus, and that in several\\ninstances where the corresponding portions of the\\npapyrus are not lost, the phrase ari-en-ef em su-\\nteniu serves to mark the epoch-reigns; but these\\nthrone-titles seldom afford any clue to the proper, or\\nsa-7 a, names of the kings, except where they are re-\\nvealed by independent monuments bearing both the\\nthrone and sa-ra titles.\\nAlthough we have to grope our way without the\\nassistance of the epoch-reigns of Eratosthenes, and\\nwithout the proper names and separate reigns of the\\nkings, it is in this period that the papyrus shows most\\nsatisfactorily that the Sothiac epochs were carefully\\nmarked, and the reigns accurately registered in years,\\nmonths, and days. We have shown that the title,\\nlan-u Ah, assumed by the Theban King Uah-ah-ra,\\nmarks him, beyond a doubt, as a contemporary of the", "height": "3659", "width": "2287", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0393.jp2"}, "394": {"fulltext": "388 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nHyksos King Pa-ian, who reigned thirty years after\\nthe great epoch of Phamenoth, 2064 B. C, under the\\nepoch-title Rohk-les, or Archies. Is it not significant\\nthat up to this point (this ian or ab) we find titles\\ncompounded with cha, rising, such as Cha-anch-ra,\\nCha-nofer-ra, and Cha-hotep-ra; but that the very mo-\\nment the sun turns this point {iamt ah) and begins to\\ndescend, the element cha disappears? To contend\\nthat this was an accident or chance is to beg the ques-\\ntion. We might as well contend that Psammetichos\\nI, whose reign reached to within six years of the\\nepoch 604 B. C, one cycle later, accidentally or by\\nmere chance chose the identical title, Uah-ab-ra, borne\\nby his predecessor of the Sixteenth Dynasty. An\\nepoch-reign, such as that of Archies, thirty years,\\nis a wonderful thing, for it bears upon its face an\\nabsolute date, astronomically ascertained and fixed,\\nand all we need to do to obtain the most accurate\\nchronology is simply to place it where it belongs.\\nThe following Sothiac list of the Second Cycle, there-\\nfore, may be accepted as accurate. The epoch-reign\\nof Amenemes I, before the Era 2784 B. C, has been\\ngiven and fully explained in the First Cycle. Begin-\\nning at this era, the main or chronological Hne is as\\nfollows\\nBra of Amenemes, 2784 B. C.\\nUsertosis, including last 13 years of Amenemes, 46\\n2738 B. C.\\nAmenemes II, 38\\n2700 B. C.\\nUsertosis II, 17\\n2683 B. C.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0394.jp2"}, "395": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 3S9\\nBrought forward, 2683 B. C.\\nUsertosis III, before epoch, as Phuoro, 19\\nEpoch of Paopi, 2664 B. C.\\nUtersosis III, after epoch, 19\\n2645 B. C.\\nAmenemes III, or Mares, 42\\n2603 B. C.\\nAmenemes IV, 9\\n2594 B. C.\\nSkeminofris, 4\\n2590 B. C.\\nThirteenth Dynasty, Chu-taui-ra, 41\\n2549 B. C.\\nThirteenth Dynasty, Sochevi-ka-ra, as Siphthah, 5\\nEpoch of Athyr, 2544 B. C.\\nThirteenth Dynasty, after epoch, 196\\nB. C.\\nFifteenth Dynasty, 251\\n2097 B. C.\\nSethos, or Saites, 19\\n2078 B.C.\\nPa-ian, before epoch, 14\\n2064 B. C.\\nPa-ian, after epoch, as Archies, 30\\n2034 B. C.\\nApophis I, 61\\n5^ B.C.\\nSethos, before epoch, 29\\n1944 B. C.\\nSethos, after epoch, as Asas, 20\\n1924 B. C.\\nlannas 50\\n1874 B. C.\\nApophis II, 37\\nl8^ B. C.", "height": "3659", "width": "2287", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0395.jp2"}, "396": {"fulltext": "390 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nBrought forward, 1837 B. C.\\nChebros, before epoch, 13\\n1824 B. C.\\nAahmes, after epoch of Pachons, 25\\n1799 B. C.\\nAmenophis I, 14\\nTts^b.c\\nAmesses, sister, 20\\nTtS^B.C.\\nMephres, daughter, 22\\n1743 B. C.\\nMephra-Tuthmosis, 13\\n1730 B. C.\\nTuthmosis, before epoch of Payni, 26\\n1704 B. C.\\nAmenophis II, after epoch, as Harmais, 4\\n1700 B. C.\\nTuthmosis IV, 10\\n1690 B, C.\\nAmenophis III, 32\\nl6^ B. C.\\nAchenaten, or Acherres, 12\\nr646B.C.\\nAnchenaten, his daughter, 12\\n1634 B. C.\\nAnchesaten, another daughter, 13\\n162 1 B. C.\\nRamesses I, i\\n1620 B. C.\\nSethos, before epoch of Bpiphi, 36\\nTsS^B.C.\\nSethos, after epoch, as Osiropis, 23\\nT^B.C.\\nRamesses Miamen, 66\\n1495 B. C.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0396.jp2"}, "397": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 391\\nBrought forward, 1495 B. C.\\nMenophthah, 19\\n1476 B. C.\\nSethos II, etc., before epoch, 12\\n1464 B. C.\\nChamois, 12\\n1452 B. C.\\nSethos, after Chamois (51-24), 27\\n1425 B. C.\\nRampsakes, 61\\n1364 B. C.\\nRamesses IV (sole reign), 8\\nT^B.C.\\nAmenephthes, 20\\n^B.C.\\nAmenemes, 5\\n1331 B. C.\\nRamesses, as epoch-king Thuoris, 7\\nEra of Menophres, 1324 B, C.\\nTHE PERIOD OF JOSEPH S ADMINISTRA-\\nTION IN EGYPT, IN THE LIGHT OF THE\\nTEL-EL-AMARNA CLAY-TABLETS\\nWe have seen that Ham and Japheth were racial\\ngovernments, established in the Delta about 2448\\nB. C, and that the names Aamu and Ja-petit are un-\\nmistakably and distinctively Egyptian. The remain-\\ning son of Noah, Shem, was likewise a government\\nestablished by Shemites in the Delta about the same\\ntime. The name Shem is also unmistakably Egyp-\\ntian. It is simply shem-u, aliens, foreigners, which\\nhas come down to us unchanged in the Coptic\\nshemmo, which has the same meaning. It follows", "height": "3659", "width": "2287", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0397.jp2"}, "398": {"fulltext": "39^ A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nthat the sons of this Shem, such as Elam, or Persia,\\nAssur, or Assyria, Aram, or Syria, etc., could not have\\nbeen individuals, but were likewise nations or govern-\\nments.\\nThe conquest of Lower Egypt by the Aamu fell\\nwith the greatest force upon the Shem-u, who were\\nestablished in Goshen and vicinity, and we accord-\\ningly find that Shem and Japheth retired backwards\\nthat is, up the Nile to cover the nakedness or weak-\\nness of Noah. We are told that Shem was a hundred\\nyears old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the\\nflood. Arphaxad begat Salah, and Salah begat\\nEber.\\nNow, before we analyze and explain this name\\nEber, we will, for illustration, examine the immediate\\nposterity of Ham. We are told that the sons of\\nHam were Cush, Mizraim, Phut, and Canaan.\\nThese are so plainly the names of national govern-\\nments, that no scholar would even dream of calling\\nthem individuals. In Cush we see the Kashi estab-\\nlished in Elam and Babylonia, Aamu pure and simple;\\nin Mizraim, or the two Mizors, the Hyksos govern-\\nment over Upper and Lower Egypt, under the Seven-\\nteenth Dynasty; and in Canaan, the people of\\nKananna or Kinachi, the land of Canaan. The Hit-\\ntites (Heth, Cheta), who afterwards became so power-\\nful and celebrated, were derived from the Aamu\\nthrough the Canaanites, for Moses tells us explicitly\\nthat Canaan begat Sidon, his first-born, and Heth,\\nand the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgasite,\\nand the Hivite, and the Arkite, etc. and afterward", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0398.jp2"}, "399": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 393\\nwere the families of the Canaanites spread abroad.\\nHere Sidon, the famous city, and Heth, the Hittites,\\nare plainly not individuals, and the writer, recogniz-\\ning the fact, goes over to the Jebusites, Amorites,\\nGirgasites, etc. The border of these nations orig-\\ninally was from Sidon to Gaza; but during the period\\nnow under consideration the Hittites were north of\\nthe Amorites in the region of the Cappadocian Moun-\\ntains. If we look upon Ham and Canaan as indi-\\nviduals, it seems strange that the son was cursed for\\nthe sin of the father; but when we consider that Ham\\nfraternized with the Aamu invaders of Egypt, and\\neventually founded a dynasty which governed Egypt\\ntwo hundred and sixty years, it is natural that the\\nEgyptians afterwards slaked their anger upon these\\npeople in Canaan and Syria. The kings of the Eigh-\\nteenth Dynasty avenged themselves upon the unfor-\\ntunate Canaanites, and the children of Eber com-\\npleted the work by almost exterminating them to the\\nvery roots.\\nIt is not necessary to decide where actual individ-\\nuals first succeed governments in the long list of the\\ngenerations of Adam contained in Genesis; but it\\ncan not escape the attention of the most casual reader\\nof the Bible that even after the Exodus the tribes of\\nIsrael are sometimes introduced as individuals; for\\nexample, after the death of Joshua we read in the\\nfirst chapter of the Book of Judges\\nAnd Judah said unto Simeon, his brother. Come\\nup to me into my lot, that we may fight against the\\nCanaanites; and I likewise will go with thee into thy", "height": "3659", "width": "2287", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0399.jp2"}, "400": {"fulltext": "394 Self-Verifying Chronological\\nlot. So Simeon went with him. And Judah went up\\nand the Lord deUvered the Canaanites and Perizzites\\ninto their hands and they slew of them in Bezek ten\\nthouand men.\\nHere, where Palestine itself was the scene of\\naction, and the events described comparatively near\\nin time, even those who insist upon a literal construc-\\ntion of the text do not pretend that Judah and Simeon\\nwere individuals, merely because they appear as\\nbrothers speaking to one another, and using personal\\npronouns, etc.; but they bend the plain meaning of\\nthe words in order to make them conform to the\\nactual facts. It is different, however, where the his-\\ntorical events, with which the narrative must agree\\nin order to be true, took place, at much earlier dates,\\nin distant countries like Egypt, for instance; for the\\nrevisers, interpreters, and embellishers of the ancient\\ntext have in almost every instance mistaken the\\nnames of governments, nations, tribes, etc., for indi-\\nviduals. Bearing in mind that Bible chronology prior\\nto the Exodus is Egyptian chronology, we find that\\nArphaxad was born two years after the Hyksos In-\\nvasion, and Jacob about one year after the Expulsion\\nof the Hyksos. The birth of each follows immediately\\nafter the destruction of a pre-existing government.\\nWhat does this indicate?\\nAmong the nations and tribes arrayed against\\nThothmes III at Megiddo, in the twenty-third year\\nof his reign (1732 B. C), were the people of Jacob-el.\\nA catalogue of the various people captured by this\\nking after the surrender of the city, engraved upon", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0400.jp2"}, "401": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 395\\none of the propyla of the Temple of Karnak, has for-\\ntunately come down to us. The superscription, ac-\\ncording to Brugsch, reads as follows:\\nThis is the catalogue of the inhabitants of Upper\\nRuthen (Canaan), whom His Holiness (Thothmes\\nHI) captured in the hostile town of Megiddo. His\\nHoliness carried away their children as living pris-\\noners to the city of Thebes, to fill the house of his\\nfather. Amen, on the first victorious cam-\\npaign, etc.\\nNow, the one hundred and second name in this\\ncatalogue is lacoh-eV {lakop-el, not lakop-ar), and,\\nstrange to say, the same name appears on scarabs of\\nthe Hyksos type found in Egypt, written as follows:\\nSa ra lakop-el ta anch, Son of Ra, Jacob-el, giving\\nlife, etc.\\nThese scarabs are like those of the Hyk-satvt Ach-\\nian, or lannos, and unquestionably belong to the\\nsame period. The title, Son of Ra, giving life, in-\\ndicates that Jacob-el claimed to be a Pharaoh, perhaps\\na successor in Canaan of the unfortunate Hyksos\\nKing, Apophis 11.\\nThe government of the Israelites, like that of the\\nEgyptians, was modeled after the solar system, with\\nIsrael as Ra, or central sun, and the twelve tribes as\\nthe signs of the Zodiac, or months.\\nThis appears incidentally from Joseph s second\\ndream, where Jacob and his wife and sons are sym-\\nbolized as the sun, moon, and stars. In the dream\\nthe sun, moon, and eleven stars made obeisance to\\nJoseph, the twelfth star. Joseph told this dream to", "height": "3659", "width": "2287", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0401.jp2"}, "402": {"fulltext": "S96 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nhis father. Jacob rebuked him, saying What is this\\ndream that thou hast dreamed? Shall I and thy\\nmother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down\\nourselves to thee to the earth?\\nWe have seen that the Hyksos kings in Egypt\\nassumed the name of their lord god Sutech, to wit,\\nSet, Set-nubti, Set-an, etc. Can we not safely assume\\nthat they continued this custom in Canaan, immedi-\\nately after their expulsion from Egypt? Petrie sees\\nsome connection between the name Jacob-el and the\\nSyrian god Jacob, who, he says, is otherwise known\\nas Yacoh-el in the list of Thothmes III, and Baal\\nAkabos on an altar of the second century A. D.\\nThis is an error as to the catalogue of Thothmes\\nIII, which is a list of the inhabitants of various places;\\nbut Baal Akabos identifies Jacob with Sutech through\\nBel, or lord.\\nAll the posterity of Shem, prior to Jacob or Israel,\\nwere born during the five hundred and eleven years\\nof Aamu domination over Egypt. The death of\\nShem occurred about the time of the Hyksos Expul-\\nsion. The name of Eber, who is called the father\\nof the Hebrews, appears on monuments of the Six-\\nteenth, Eighteenth, Nineteenth, and Twentieth Dy-\\nnasties, as Aper-n, or Eper-ii. These Hebrews dwelt\\nin the land of Goshen and in the district now known\\nas the Wady Tumilat, where they pastured their\\nflocks and attended to Pharaoh s horses. They were\\nthe descendants of the original Shemu, and many of\\nthem remained in their old seats after the Exodus.\\nIn the thirty-second year of Ramesses III, or about", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0402.jp2"}, "403": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 397\\n1394 B. C, they are mentioned in the great Harris\\npapyrus as settled people, dwelling in Heliopolis\\nor vicinity, and they are again mentioned under\\nRamesses IV.\\nAccording to the Bible account, the Dispersion\\ntook place in the days of Peleg, the son of Eber. We\\nmust, therefore, seek the Biblical Eber in Egypt, and\\nnot in Babylonia. The Shemites who remained in\\nEgypt after the Dispersion continued to bear the old\\nname of Aper-u/ but those that emigrated to other\\ncountries naturally assumed different names. From\\nthe Egyptian point of view the chief division of the\\nShemii was into Aperu, or settled people, and\\nAhramu, or nomads.\\nAper, or Eper, the root from which Aper-u, or\\nAper-i-u, is derived, has the fundamental meaning of\\nsettled, provided for, etc. Abram, on the contrary,\\nhas the meaning of migrating, roaming, wan-\\ndering, etc., and is derived from the name of a cer-\\ntain species of migratory fish found in the Nile. The\\nname of this fish has come down to us in the Greek\\nform, Abramis. One of the offices held by Amten,\\nwho lived at the close of the Third Dynasty, was that\\nof abram, so called because an abram, in the dis-\\ncharge of his official duties, moved from place to\\nplace like our circuit judges in former times. In\\nAmten s tomb abram is written with a hieroglyph rep-\\nresenting this migratory fish. Thus Eber and Abram,\\nbefore they were mistaken for persons, represented\\nthe two divisions of the Egyptian Shemii, to wit, the\\nseated people and the nomads. The ancient Ger-", "height": "3659", "width": "2287", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0403.jp2"}, "404": {"fulltext": "398 4 Self-- Verifying Chronological\\nmans likewise made a distinction between Saxons\\n(Sassen)or seated people, and Snabians (Suevi from\\nschweben) or wandering people. The migratory\\nShemites, after leaving Egypt, roamed over the pas-\\ntures of Canaan and Syria, and, arriving at the banks\\nof the Euphrates, continued on down that stream\\nuntil they came to Lower Babylonia. We are told\\nthat Haran died before his father, Terah, in the land\\nof his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees, and that Terah\\ntook Abram and Lot and went forth from Ur of the\\nChaldees, to go into the land of Canaan, and came to\\nHaran of Mesopotamia and dwelt there.\\nThus Bible history proper begins about 1971\\nB. C, when Abram and Lot removed from Meso-\\npotamia to take up their abode in Canaan. Premis-\\ning that the date of the Exodus was four hundred and\\neighty years, or four Sothiac months, before the\\nbuilding of the Temple, we will first endeavor to\\naccurately fix the length of the Sojourn in Egypt;\\nfor many, shutting their eyes to the express state-\\nments of the Bible, still persist in fixing it at four\\nhundred or four hundred and thirty years.\\nThe Septuagint, which dates from circa 250 B. C,\\nreads thus: Now the sojourning of the children of\\nIsrael, who dwelt in Egypt and in the land of Canaan,\\nwas four hundred and thirty years. (Exodus xii, 40.)\\nThe Samaritan Pentateuch agrees with this, ex-\\ncept that the order of the countries is reversed, to wit,\\n*^who dwelt in the land of Canaan and in the land of\\nMizraim.\\nThe text of Exodus used by Paul read the same", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0404.jp2"}, "405": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 399\\nway, because he found the interval between the Cove-\\nnant with Abram and the Law at Sinai to be four hun-\\ndred and thirty years. (Galatians iii, 17.)\\nJosephus says the Hebrews left Egypt in the\\nmonth of Xanthicus, on the fifteenth day of the lunar\\nmonth, four hundred and thirty years after our fore-\\nfather Abraham came into Canaan, but two hundred\\nand fifteen years after Jacob removed into Egypt.\\n(Antiquities, Book II, Chapter xv, Section 2.)\\nEusebius, in his Chronicon, also assigns two hun-\\ndred and fifteen years only to the whole time of the\\nSojourn in Egypt. He makes the period from the\\nfirst year of Abram to the Exodus five hundred and\\nfive years, and the period from the Covenant to the\\nExodus four hundred and thirty years. It is per-\\nfectly evident that in the so-called Authorized\\nText, where verse 40 now reads, Now the sojourn-\\ning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was\\nfour hundred and thirty years, the words, in the\\nland of Canaan, have been negligently or intention-\\nally omitted. Genesis xv, 13, which reads, Know\\nthou beforehand that thy seed shall be a stranger in a\\nland not their own, and that they shall bring them\\nunder bondage and afflict them four hundred years,\\nshould be read in connection with Genesis xv, 16,\\nwhere it is foretold that the seed of Abraham would\\nreturn in the fourth generation, which statement\\nagrees with the genealogies in Genesis and Exodus.\\nWe have in a direct line Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Levi,\\nKohath, Amram, and Moses, seven in all, but four\\nonly in Egypt, Abraham was seventy-five years old", "height": "3659", "width": "2287", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0405.jp2"}, "406": {"fulltext": "400 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nwhen he left Haran. From this date to the birth of\\nIsaac we have twenty-five years; from the birth of\\nIsaac to the birth of Jacob, sixty years; and from the\\nbirth of Jacob to the settlement in Goshen, one hun-\\ndred and thirty years; in all two hundred and fifteen\\nyears! This would give us two hundred and fifteen\\nyears from the Covenant to the Settlement in Egypt,\\nand two hundred and fifteen years for the Sojourn in\\nEgypt; in all four hundred and thirty years. Thus\\nthe correct date for the Settlement in Egypt, accord-\\ning to Bible numbers, is 1706 B. C, or six years\\nbefore the death of Thothmes III.\\nWe have seen that Thothmes III and Amenhotep\\nII ruled jointly for more than four years, for both\\nwere epoch-kings in 1704 B. C. The joint-reign may\\nhave extended back to 171 5 B. C, when the seven\\nyears of plenty began; and it is probable that Amen-\\nhotep II was the virtual ruler at that time. The last\\neighty years of Joseph s life begin at this date, and\\nend about 1635 B. C. In other words, the period of\\nJoseph closes at the accession of Har-em-heb as king\\nof Egypt. This period coincides exactly with the\\nperiod of Asiatic ascendency at the Egyptian court.\\nThis being true, what do the monuments reveal con-\\ncerning the administration of an a-don bearing the\\nname of Joseph? While we must admit that no\\nmonument referring to an a-don, or like officer, bear-\\ning this name, has yet been discovered, the Tel-el-\\nAmarna clay-tablets show that under King Amen-\\nhotep IV, or Ach-en-res, a Mesopotamian named\\nDudu, or Tutu, did fill the office of Adon, and govern", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0406.jp2"}, "407": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 401\\nthe land in the name of Pharaoh. In this connection\\nwe can not refrain from calHng attention to a remark\\ninserted immediately after the reign of Amenophis\\nIII, or Memnon, in the pseudo-Sothis hst, according\\nto which certain Ethiopians (Kashi, or Cushites!)\\nfrom the River Indus were settled in Egypt during\\nhis reign. The remark, in its present form, is inten-\\ntionally corrupt and misleading; but it was undoubt-\\nedly taken from a remark found in Manetho s Book\\nof Sothis. In my opinion, it originally read, in\\neffect, that under Amenophis II, the ludah (Yaudah),\\na tribe of Cushites, from Mesopotamia (not ^thi-\\nopes apo Indu Potamu were settled in Egypt. As\\nthe name Amenophthis II has been crowded out of\\nthe lists, it is probable that this remark was at first\\nattached to his reign; but it is significant that the\\nofficial correspondence of Tel-el Amarna, which dates\\nfrom the reign of Amenophthis IV and the last years\\nof the reign of Amenophthis III, refers to the Yau-\\ndah (ludah), who were then near Mesopotamia, and\\npreparations incident to their projected removal. It\\nappears from this correspondence that at this time\\nthe Hittites (Chetd) were seated north of Aleppo and\\nTunip (Tennib), and the Amorites (Amurri) immedi-\\nately south of them, so that the land of Amurri could\\nnot have been far from Padan-aram, where Jacob\\nreared his family, and the Yaudah, who were about\\nto be removed, were in or near the land of Amurri;\\nin fact, according to Rev. A. H. Sayce, the type of the\\nIsraelites, as shown by the monumental representa-\\ntions, is distinctively Amorite. The use of the term\\n26", "height": "3659", "width": "2287", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0407.jp2"}, "408": {"fulltext": "402 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nEthiopians that is, Kashi, or Cushites is ex-\\nplained by the monuments, which again and again\\nmention the Aamu of this region; for Cush was a\\nson of Ham, and Manetho, who wrote in Greek, nec-\\nessarily used the Greek word for Kashi. The all-\\nimportant point is, that Manetho, in his list of the\\nEighteenth Dynasty, and in connection with a king\\nnamed Amenhotep, mentioned the settlement of cer-\\ntain Mesopotamians in Egypt; for Ethiopians, or\\nKashi, from the river Indus is an absurdity upon its\\nface. Of course, the Israelites, as we know them,\\nwere not Kashi, or Ethiopians but as they came from\\nLower Babylonia, the home, par excellence, of these\\npeople, they were naturally classed with them, and\\ndescribed as Cushites by the Egyptians.\\nThe names compounded with yah {iah, aah, io),\\nsuch as Yahii-dah, Yah-kop, Yah-saph, Yah-petu, etc.,\\noffer a promising field for the scientist; but we can\\nnot stop to explore it here.\\nIf the settlement of Israel in Goshen actually took\\nplace about the beginning of the joint-reign of Amen-\\nhotep III and Amenhotep IV. (ca. 1658 B. C.), we\\nwould have to shorten the period of the Sojourn in\\nEgypt about forty-eight years, or place the Exodus\\ntowards the close of the interregnum between Me-\\nnophthah s death and the accession of Sef-necht, which\\ncould not be harmonized with the conditions and\\nsurroundings of the Bible narrative. It is safer, there-\\nfore, to provisionally follow the chronological dates,\\naccording to which the settlement in Egypt took\\nplace in the joint-reign of Amenophthis II and Thoth-", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0408.jp2"}, "409": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 403\\nmes III, and the Exodus in the fifth year of the reign\\nof Menophthah. The Tel-el Amarna correspondence\\nshows conclusively that Canaan had been reduced to\\nthe condition of an Egyptian province, governed by\\nEgyptian officials, and held in subjection by garrisons\\nof Egyptian troops. This condition continued unim-\\npaired from the twenty-third year of Thothmes III\\nto the sole reign of Achenaten, a period of over sev-\\nenty years. In fact, we can safely place the conquest\\nof Canaan and Syria by Thothmes I at about 1785\\nB. C, so that, notwithstanding Canaan was subject\\nto the Hyksos when Jacob was born, it was a part of\\nEgypt when Jacob and his sons that is, the Israel-\\nites removed from Mesopotamia and settled there.\\nThe Bible narrative agrees with this state of things in\\nevery particular. Putiphar, to whom Joseph was\\nsold, bears a pure Egyptian name, and is called an\\nofficer of Pharaoh, captain of the guard, an Egyptian.\\nThe name is Pa-tu-ph ra, The Gift of the Sun, for\\nthe definite article before Ra excludes Pa-fii-har, The\\nGift of Horus. The same name, rendered Puti-\\npherah that is, Pa-tii-pa-ra or Pa-tu-pha-ra was\\nborne by the priest of On (Heliopolis), the father of\\nAsenath, Joseph s wife. The name Asenath is also\\nEgyptian. None of these names are Hyksos, or\\nHamite. Joseph s title, Saf-na-ta-pa-anchu, Savior\\nof the Land of the Living, as we have already\\npointed out, is likewise Egyptian. Pharaoh had taken\\nup his residence in Memphis, which accounts for his\\nmarrying Joseph to Asenath, daughter of the priest\\nof Heliopolis. Scarabs of Amenhotep II inform us", "height": "3659", "width": "2287", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0409.jp2"}, "410": {"fulltext": "404 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nthat he was born at Memphis, showing that, al-\\nthough the Eighteenth Dynasty was Theban, Thoth-\\nmes III resided at Memphis when his son and suc-\\ncessor was born. If the Pharaoh of Joseph had been\\nthe Hyksos Apophis II, who held his court at Avaris,\\nhe would have married Joseph to a daughter of the\\npriest of Sutech, his so-called lord god.\\nAt the feast given by Joseph to his brethren, tables\\nwere set apart for Joseph by himself, for his brethren\\nby themselves, and for the Egyptians, which did eat\\nwith him, by themselves; because the Egyptians\\nmight not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an\\nabomination unto the Egyptians. The text de-\\nscribes those that ate with Joseph and his brethren as\\nEgyptians, and shows that a well-known custom\\nof the Egyptians made it imperative for the He-\\nbrews, including Joseph, to eat at separate tables. It\\nis a mystery to me how any one, especially orthodox\\ntheologians, could so far mistake the plain meaning\\nof the text as to place this occurrence under the\\nHyksos.\\nThere can be no doubt as to where the children\\nof Israel dwelt while in Egypt. Joseph says to his\\nbrethren So now it was not you that sent me hither,\\nbut God and he hath made me a councillor {ah) unto\\nPharaoh, and lord of all his house, and a ruler\\nthroughout all the land of Egypt. Haste ye, and\\ngo up to my father, and say unto him, Thus saith thy\\nson Joseph. And thou shalt dwell in the\\nland of Goshen, and thou shalt be near unto me.\\nAfter this we read: And they [Jacob and his sons]", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0410.jp2"}, "411": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 405\\ncame into the land of Goshen. And Joseph made\\nready his chariot, and went up to meet Israel, his\\nfather, to Goshen.\\nJoseph tells Pharaoh that his father and brethren,\\nand their flocks and herds, are in the land of Goshen.\\nPharaoh directed Joseph to make them dwell in the\\nbest of the land; in the land of Goshen let them\\ndwell, adding, and if thou knowest any men of\\nactivity among them, then make them rulers over my\\ncattle. And Joseph placed his father and his breth-\\nren, and gave them a possession in the land of Egypt,\\nin the best of the land, in the land of Ramesses, as\\nPharaoh had commanded.\\nThe land of Goshen was the district along the\\nPelusiac branch of the Nile, between Heliopolis and\\nTanis. It is here called the land of Ramesses,\\nwhich is anachronistic by nearly two hundred years;\\nfor Seti I and Ramesses II added a new quarter, or\\ntemple-city, to Tanis, which was called the City of\\nRamesses, in honor of Ramesses I, who began to\\nreign about 1622 B. C, and was the new king who\\nknew not Joseph. The new city, upon which the\\nIsraelites were forced to do so much unwilling labor,\\nbecame the royal residence, and was so celebrated in\\nthe times of Moses, that the land of Goshen was\\nnamed after it, the land of Ramesses. The expres-\\nsion, For every shepherd is an abomination unto the\\nEgyptians, points unmistakably to a native Egyp-\\ntian dynasty, and can not be made to fit into the\\nperiod of Hyksos rule.\\nWhen Joseph went up to bury his father, he was", "height": "3659", "width": "2287", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0411.jp2"}, "412": {"fulltext": "4o6 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\naccompanied by a very great company, to wit: the\\nservants of Pharaoh, the elders of his house, the elders\\nof the land of Egypt, the house of Joseph, and his\\nbrethren, and moreover chariots and horsemen;\\nwhich shows that Canaan was an Egyptian province\\nat the time, for such a procession through a hostile\\ncountry is inconceivable.\\nThe inhabitants of Canaan regarded the Israelites\\nas Canaanites; but they were naturally astonished to\\nsee the joint mourning of Egyptians and Canaan-\\nites at the threshing-floor of Atad beyond Jordan, and\\nthey called the name of the place Abel-mizraim, in\\ncommemoration of this extraordinary event. In this\\ncompound name, Abel symbolizes the Egyptians,\\nand Mizraim the Canaanites, or Hyksos in Canaan.\\nAbel and Mizraim, as here used, is equivalent to\\nAbel and Cain. The Aamii, while they governed\\nEgypt, were called Mizraim; but afterwards, while\\nin Canaan, they were called Cain, or Canaan. Now,\\nstrange as it may appear, a fortuitous discovery re-\\ncently made in Egypt discloses exactly such a state\\nof affairs in Egypt and Canaan as this event presup-\\nposes.\\nAmong the inscribed clay-tablets found beneath\\nthe ruins of Ach-en-res palace at Tel-el-Amarna are\\nmany letters or reports from the officials stationed in\\nCanaan and Syria. These reports show that these\\ncountries to the southern boundary of the land of\\nCheta, which was north of Aleppo Alebu) and Ten-\\nneb (Tenep), were Egyptian provinces, garrisoned by\\nEgyptian troops and governed by Egyptian officials.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0412.jp2"}, "413": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient- Egypt 40^\\nOwing to centuries of Hamite, or Cushite, domina-\\ntion, the Babylonian language and cuneiform system\\nof writing were in common use.\\nAccording to the Babylonian chronology of\\nBerossos (see my restoration thereof in another chap-\\nter), the Median Aamii) conquest of that region\\ntook place in the year 2348 B. C. First of all, eight\\nMedian, or Elamite, tyrants dominated Western Asia,\\nincluding Canaan, two hundred and twenty-four\\nyears that is, from 2348 B. C. to 2124 B. C. Then\\neleven Elamite kings, of another dynasty, ruled over\\nBabylonia for one hundred and forty-eight years, or\\nfrom 2124 B. C. to 1976 B. C. The year 1976 B. C.\\nmarks a great revolution or change of dynasty in\\nBabylonia, for a native dynasty then succeeded the\\nElamite kings, and reigned (possibly in several dy-\\nnasties) four hundred and fifty-eight years; that is,\\nfrom 1976 B. C. to 1518 B. C. As late as 1921 B. C,\\nhowever, a king of this dynasty, to wit, Amraphel,\\nking of Shinar (Sumir), appears to have been tribu-\\ntary to Kudur-lagomer, king of Elam; for he as\\nwell as Tidal, king of Akkad (Hyk-sat-u) accom-\\npanied Kudur-lagomer, the great king of kings,\\nupon his memorable expedition to Canaan. This was\\nin the beginning of the reign of the Hyksos King\\nChi-an, or Tannos. Afterwards, when Amoses ex-\\npelled the Hyksos from Egypt (1837 B. C), and\\nTuthmoses I carried his victorious arms into Meso-\\npotamia {Nahanind), which was about 1785 B. C,\\nthe kings of Elam and Babylonia were no longer will-\\ning or able to offer any resistance; on the contrary,", "height": "3659", "width": "2287", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0413.jp2"}, "414": {"fulltext": "4o8 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nthe kings of Babylonia sought to win the good will of\\nThothmes I and Thothmes III by costly presents and\\ntribute. By the time of Achenaten, Assyria had grown\\nto be as powerful as Babylonia. Assur-uballid, king\\nof Assyria (whose alliance extended afar off like a\\nmountain carried on a friendly correspondence with\\nAchenaten, as he had previously done with Amenoph-\\nthis III. He writes to Achenaten that his father,\\nAssur-nadin-achi, sent an embassy to Egypt with\\ntwenty talents of gold, and that the ambassadors of\\nAchenaten had visited distant lands and journeyed\\nto many cities.\\nBurna-buryas, king of Babylonia (Kar-dunyas),\\nwrites as follows: Ever since my father and thy\\nfather conferred with one another in amity, they sent\\nbeautiful presents to one another, but did not ad-\\ndress one another in fair and beautiful letters. He\\nreminds the king of Egypt that, in the time of Kuri-\\ngalza, his father, the Kunachians sent word to him\\nthat they wished to rebel against the government of\\nEgypt, and asked for his support, but he refused,\\nsaying: If thou art estranged from the king of\\nEgypt, my brother, and alliest thyself with another,\\nI will not assist you. Burna-buryas adds Thus my\\nfather was of the same mind as myself, and would\\nnot listen to them, because of thy father.\\nIn another letter, written by Burna-buryas to\\nAmenhotep IV, it appears that they had agreed to\\nhave amicable dealings with one another, as their\\nfathers had done; but Burna-buryas complains that\\nhis ministers, who had been sent to Egypt with costly", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0414.jp2"}, "415": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 409\\npresents, had been slain and robbed in the country\\nof Kinachi (Canaan), which was subject to Egypt,\\nand demands that the murderers, whom he names,\\nbe summarily punished. Slay them, and requite the\\nblood of my messengers. If thou dost not put these\\nmen to death, the people of my country will slay thy\\nambassadors, and the league between us will be\\nbroken, and I will be estranged from thee.\\nA custom sprang up during the reign of Thothmes\\nIII which had an injurious effect upon the govern-\\nment and religion of Egypt.\\nThe kings of Egypt gave their daughters in mar-\\nriage to the kings of Babylonia, Assyria, and Mitanni,\\nand, in turn, married daughters of these foreign\\nkings. The kingdom of Mitanni, the Maten of the\\nmonuments, was situated on the east bank of the\\nEuphrates in Naharuna, or Mesopotamia, and seems\\nto have been separated from the country of the Amor-\\nites by the kingdom of Nuchasse, which was subject\\nto Egypt. The letters from Dushratta, king of Mit-\\nanni, to Amenhotep III, Teie (Ta-i), his wife, and\\nAmenhotep IV, their eldest son, throw a flood of\\nlight upon the history of this period. A letter to\\nAmenhotep IV Napchururiya equals Nofer-\\ncheperu-ra), informs us that Thothmes IV, the father\\nof Amenhotep III, sent to Artatama, the grandfather\\nof Dushratta, asking the hand of his daughter in\\nmarriage. Dushratta claims that Thothmes IV sent\\nfive times, yea, six times, before Artatama would con-\\nsent to give her up. At last, however, Artatama\\nyielded, and sent his daughter to Egypt, to become", "height": "3659", "width": "2287", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0415.jp2"}, "416": {"fulltext": "41 o A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nthe wife of the Egyptian king, accompanied by a\\ntrain of handmaidens.\\nSome time after this, Amenhotep III (Nipmuaria,\\nNimutriya, Nimmuria, and Nimmuaria=A/ -Ma-ra)\\nsent an embassy to Satarna to ask for his daughter,\\nDushratta s darHng sister/\\nAt last, five times and six times he sends, and\\nmy father gave her with a train of handmaidens.\\nWhen Nimmuria, thy father, sent to me, and\\nasked for my daughter, I did not refuse, but answered\\nfavorably. I spoke to his messenger as follows: I\\nam ready to give her; thy messenger has come among\\nmy children, and I have seen the present which thou\\nhast sent and I will bestow upon her the\\ndowry due to thee and because I am hon-\\nored, I do not refuse to give her.\\nA scarab of the time of Amenhotep III contains\\nan inscription showing that, in the tenth year of this\\nPharaoh, Satarna, king of Naharuna, sent his daughter\\nKirugipa (Giluchipa) to Egypt with a train of three\\nhundred and seventeen handmaidens.\\nThe daughter of Dushratta mentioned in the\\nabove letter, although sent for by Amenhotep III,\\nwas bestowed upon Amenhotep IV, who then be-\\ncame joint-regent. This was, according to Manetho,\\nabout four years before the death of Amenhotep III,\\nor after he had reigned thirty-one years and ten\\nmonths.\\nThe young queen bore the name of Taduchipa,\\nwhich is equivalent to the Egyptian Tai-ti, for chipa\\ndoes not seem to be an essential part of the name.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0416.jp2"}, "417": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 41 1\\nThe chief wife of Amenhotep III, however, was\\nTai, the daughter of Juia and Tula, king and queen of\\nNaharima.\\nDushratta, king of Mitanni, addresses Amenho-\\ntep IV as his son-in-law, and sends greetings to\\nTeie, my sister and thy mother, and to Taduchipa,\\nmy daughter and thy wife, so that the relationship\\nexisting between the four can no longer admit of a\\ndoubt, unless Dushratta addressed the widowed queen\\nTai as sister in the same way that he addressed\\nAmenhotep III and Amenhotep IV as brother,\\nwhich is not at all likely. But it seems certain that\\nMitanni and Naharuna were convertable names, for\\nthe scarab mentioned shows that Sutarna, king of\\nNaharuna, sent his daughter Kiluchipa to Egypt,\\nwhile Dushratta, king of Mitanni, recognized\\nKiluchipa as his sister and Satarna as his father. The\\nuse of both names can be easily explained. Naharuna\\n(Na-aru-na, Na-iaru-na) was the Egyptian name for\\nthe region inclosed by the rivers, and has come down\\nto us, through the classics, in the Greek form Meso-\\npotamia. Mitanni, or Maten, however, was the name\\nof the country itself. Dushratta addresses Amen-\\nhotep IV as his son-in-law, stating that their fathers\\nhad been in the closest aUiance, that Amenhotep III\\nhad perfected the alliance, and had been in exceed-\\ning close alliance with Dushratta s father. Now thou\\nhast established it ten times more than in my father s\\ntime.\\nThe meaning of this can not be mistaken. The\\nfathers of both kings, referred to generally, were", "height": "3659", "width": "2287", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0417.jp2"}, "418": {"fulltext": "412 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nAmenhotep II and Thothmes IV on the one hand,\\nand Artatama and Sutarna on the other hand. We\\nmust not forget that Thothmes I, in the beginning\\nof his reign, or about 1785 B. C, conquered Syria,\\ninvaded Naharuna, and commemorated his victories\\nby a tablet set up on the eastern bank of the Eu-\\nphrates; and that Thothmes III, in the thirty-third\\nyear of his reign, or about 1721 B. C, again pene-\\ntrated to the same region, and set up a second tablet\\nby the side of that set up by his grandfather. In\\nhis annals, Thothmes III informs us that, after the\\ncapture of Megiddo, in his twenty-third year, he ap-\\npointed chiefs anew to rule over the land. In fact,\\nthe correspondence discovered at Tel-el-Amarna\\nshows that he did this, as a rule, throughout Canaan\\nand Syria. Thus, in his thirtieth year, Thothmes III\\ntells us that he was in the land of the Rutennu, and\\nspoiled Kadesh, and further, that the sons of the\\nprinces and their brothers were taken to Egypt as\\nhostages, and that, if any of the chiefs died, his\\nmajesty would appoint his son in his place. The\\nnumerous petty chiefs, throughout the conquered\\nregion, were appointed by the king of Egypt from\\namong these hostages, after they had been trained\\nand educated in Egypt. We can now understand\\nhow the alliance between Egypt and Mitanni, which\\nhad been firmly cemented by the marriage of Arta-\\ntama s daughter to Thothmes IV, was perfected\\nby Amenhotep III. We know that Kiluchipa, the\\nwife of Amenhotep III, was Dushratta s sister; but\\nthe relationship of Tai, or Teie, to the king of Mi-", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0418.jp2"}, "419": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 413\\ntanni is not so easily explained, because she is called,\\nupon an Egyptian inscription, the daughter of Juia,\\nking of Naharuna^ and Tvda, his wife. Dushratta ob-\\ntained the crown after a struggle with Artash-\\nshumara, his brother.\\nIt seems that the latter induced the Hittites to\\nespouse his cause, and brought them into the land\\nof Mitanni; but they were defeated by Dushratta, who\\ntells us that he slew Artash-shumara. Was Tuia the\\nwife of Sutarna after the death of Juiaf\\nWhen we consider that the royal houses of Egypt\\nand Mitanni were united by marriage for nearly fifty\\nyears before the accession of Amenhotep IV, and that\\nprior to and during this period, a large number of\\nAsiatics were brought to Egypt and permanently\\ndomiciled there, we need not be surprised to find\\nAsiatic ideas taking root at the court of Pharaoh, and\\nthe Government intrusted to Mesopotamians from the\\nland of Mitanni.\\nAn Egyptian vizier informs us that, under Amen-\\nhotep III, he filled the gaps in the ranks of the native\\ncitizens from among the best of the prisoners brought\\nto Egypt from these regions.\\nThe reign of Ach-en-aten marks the culmination\\nof Mesopotamian influence in Egypt. The rightful\\nname of this king was Amenhotep, but as his mother\\nTai, or Teie, was a foreigner, he was not eligible to\\nthe throne under the ancient laws of succession in\\nEgypt. His father, however, who was the celebrated\\nMemnon of the Greeks, openly defied the law by\\nplacing him on the throne, as co-regent, after he had", "height": "3659", "width": "2287", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0419.jp2"}, "420": {"fulltext": "414 Self-Verifying Chronological\\nreigned thirty-one years and ten months. No one,\\nit seems, dared to raise his voice against this inno-\\nvation during the Hfetime of the aged monarch, but,\\nafter his death, which occurred about four years later,\\nloud and determined opposition grew up in Thebes,\\nthe beautiful capital of the South. The new king,\\nwith the impetuosity characteristic of youth and in-\\nexperience, endeavored to beat down all opposition\\nby publically humiliating the proud and powerful\\npriesthood of Thebes. He had retained the time-\\nhonored name of Amenhotep, and outwardly ob-\\nserved the worship of Amen (the tutelar deity of\\nThebes) during the lifetime of his father, but now,\\nswayed by feelings of resentment and giving way to\\nthe influence of his Mesopotamian mother and wife, he\\nboldly renounced the worship of Amen, and removed\\nthe capital to Tel-el-Amarna, which is about midway\\nbetween Thebes and Memphis. He also changed his\\nname to Aten-ach-en-ra, that is, Aten, the splendor\\nof Ra, and adopted the strange worship of Aten,\\nor the sun s disk, as Egyptologists have rendered\\nit. We can not stop to inquire into the exact mean-\\ning of Aten, which has been compared to the Syrian\\nAdon, or Lord, but will merely suggest to the\\nreader that the sun of the Sothiac year, whose vice-\\ngerent Pharaoh claimed to be, had set beneath the\\nwestern horizon, and was so situated that the splen-\\ndor of his disk could be seen with the naked eye.\\nThere are representations of this king holding aloft\\nthe three cartouches of Horus on the horizon, to\\nwit, Har-em-achu-ti, hai-em-ach-et, em ran-ef em Shu,", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0420.jp2"}, "421": {"fulltext": "Hi ST OR Y OF Ancient Eg ypt 4 1 5\\nenti em Aten, showing that he venerated Harmachis,\\nor Horus on the horizon, in his name of SJm,\\nwhich is the same as AtenJ Thus Aten seems to\\nrepresent the sun s force, as manifested in the effects\\nof Hght, heat, etc. What the monuments have to say\\nabout Aten can be harmonized with Shii. We quote\\nthe following from Brugsch and Petrie\\nA royal offering to the living Aten, who enlightens the\\nworld by his benefactions, etc.\\nHarmachu, by his name of Shu, who is Aten in Thebes, etc.\\nThy appearing in the horizon of heaven is beautiful,\\nThe living Aten, the beginning of life\\nThou risest in the horizon of the east,\\nThou fillest every land with thy beauty,\\nHow many are the things which thou hast made\\nThou Greatest the land by thy will thou alone,\\nWith peoples, herds, and flocks,\\nEverything on the face of the earth that walketh on its feet.\\nEverything in the air that flieth with its wings, etc.\\nAs beautiful and plausible as the above may seem\\nat first blush, it ascribes to Shu, or Aten, what prop-\\nerly belongs to God, and, for this reason, the new\\ndoctrine was regarded by the learned priesthood of\\nThebes, and the initiated generally, as rank heresy,\\nand was promptly repudiated as such.\\nIt is at this time, and under these peculiar and\\nabnormal circumstances, that the Tel-el-Armana clay-\\ntablets reveal to us the presence at the Egyptian court\\nof a Mesopotamian Adon, bearing the name of\\nDudu or Tutu. The authority of this official, in the\\nsight of men, was equal to that of Pharaoh himself,\\nand we find that he is addressed by the same titles", "height": "3659", "width": "2287", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0421.jp2"}, "422": {"fulltext": "41 6 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nof honor, except those which apply to the person of\\nthe king exclusively.\\nThus Aziru, then governor of the land of Amurri\\n(Amorrites), writing from Syria, addresses him thus\\nTo Dudu, my lord, my father; at the feet of my\\nlord I prostrate myself. Dissensions at home had\\nweakened the authority of the Egyptian Government\\nin the provinces. The Hittites, who had been sub-\\nmissive under Thothmes III, had advanced from their\\nCappadocian fastnesses, and appeared before the city\\nof Tunep (Tennib), northwest of Aleppo. Aziru\\nwrites The king of the land of the Hittites, O my\\nlord, has marched into the country of Nuchassi, but\\nhas not prevailed over the cities. Now Chatib and I\\nhave marched in order to force him to withdraw.\\nMay the king, my lord, listen to my words. I am\\nloyal, O my lord, to the king, my lord, and to Dudu^\\nHe also writes: From the commands of my lord,\\netc., and from the commands of Dudu, my lord, I\\nGO not free myself.\\nAziru recognizes the authority of Dudu as equal\\nto that of the king, and, in this respect, the adon\\nDudu resembles the adon Joseph. Pharaoh says to\\nJoseph: On the throne only will I be above thee.\\nThe sculptures and representations in the tombs of\\nTel-el-Amarna show the king attended by a grand\\nvizier and escort, all of a foreign race. We now find\\nthat this high official bore the name of Dudu. The\\ngrand tomb of Tutu, at Tel-el-Amarna, with hall of\\ntwelve columns, scenes of King Achenaten, his queen,\\nand three daughters, and long texts, had been visited", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0422.jp2"}, "423": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 417\\nby Lepsius and described in the Denkmaler, yet\\nno one supposed that he had filled the important\\noffice of adon over the whole land.\\nIn Turin there is a group of sitting statues, in\\nblack granite, representing Har-em-heh and his queen.\\nOn the back of these is an inscription describing his\\ncareer as an adon^ which has been accurately trans-\\nlated by Brugsch. While yet a youth, he was pre-\\nsented to Pharaoh, and enraptured the heart of the\\nking, who made him a Ro-hir, or Guardian, of the\\ncountry. His administered this office to the entire\\nsatisfaction of the king and people of Egypt. He\\nwas next called to the court, where he advised the\\nking with such wisdom and justice, that he was com-\\npared with Thoth and Ptah. In all his deeds and\\nways he followed in their path, and they were his\\nshield and protection on earth to all eternity.\\nIn the course of tim.e he was again promoted and\\nraised to the office of adon, which position he held\\nduring a period of many years. The distinguished\\nmen at the court bowed themselves before him out-\\nside the door of the palace. And when the kings\\nof the nine foreign nations of the South and of the\\nNorth appeared before him, they stretched out their\\nhands at his approach, and praised his soul as if he\\nhad been God. Nothing was done except by his or-\\nder. Thus his authority was greater than that of\\nthe king in the sight of mortals, and all wished him\\nprosperity and health. He punished the guilty and\\nrewarded the deserving.\\nAfter this he was raised to the dignity of crown\\n27", "height": "3659", "width": "2287", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0423.jp2"}, "424": {"fulltext": "41 8 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nprince, and finally became king. One might be\\ntempted to believe that the writer of the beautiful\\nstory of Joseph had copied from the above inscrip-\\ntion; but history repeated itself with remarkable reg-\\nularity in ancient Egypt, and we can safely assume\\nthat the authority of Dudu as Adon was similar, in\\nall respects, to that of Har-em-hib, for both were con-\\ntemporaries.\\nIt is probable that Har-em-heb was a son of Amen-\\nhotep III, succeeded Dudu, and was raised to the\\ndignity of crown prince shortly before he became\\nking.\\nThere are many points of resemblance between\\nDudu and Joseph. Dudu was known as an adept\\nin the science of divining. In Volume II, Records\\nof the Past, page 67, there is a report addressed to\\nthe king of Egypt, in which Dudu s elevation to\\npower is sarcastically ascribed to his skill in divining.\\nThe translation reads: O father, thy father is not\\nAziru; he has not girdled the world with his gov-\\nernors and his prophesying.\\nAziru was the governor of the land of Amurri,\\nbut it was Dudu who had appointed him, and who\\nhad girdled the world with his governors and proph-\\nesying. Now Joseph says to his brethren: Know\\nye not that there is no one like me in the science of\\ndivining? It appears from Genesis, chapter 41, verses\\n41 to 43, that Pharaoh made Joseph ruler over all\\nthe land of Egypt; took ofT his ring from his own\\nhand, and put it upon Joseph s hand; arrayed him in", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0424.jp2"}, "425": {"fulltext": "Hi ST OR Y OF Ancient Eg ypt 419\\nthe vestures of fine linen, and put a gold chain about\\nhis neck, and made him ride in his second chariot;\\nand that they cried before him, Bow the knee.\\nIn his latest work, entitled The Egypt of the\\nHebrews and Herodotus, the eminent Assyriologist,\\nRev. A. H. Sayce, says:\\nIt is now more easy to explain the cry which was\\nraised before Joseph when he went forth from the\\npresence of Pharaoh with the golden chain around his\\nneck and the royal signet upon his finger. Abrek!\\nthey shouted before him, and an explanation of the\\nword has been vainly sought in the Egyptian lan-\\nguage. It really is of Babylonian origin. In the\\nprimitive non-Semitic language of Chaldea abrik sig-\\nnified a seer or soothsayer, and the term was\\nborrowed by the Semitic Babylonians under the two\\nforms of abrikku and abarakkii. Joseph was thus pro-\\nclaimed a seer, and his exaltation was due to his\\npower of foreseeing the future. It was as a divinely-\\ninspired seer that the subjects of the Pharaoh were\\nto reverence him. How a Babylonian word like\\nahrek came to be used in Egypt it is idle for us to in-\\nquire, etc.\\nThus bow the knee is not the correct trans-\\nlation of the Cushite word abrek, and is no better than\\nthe translation of the Egyptian word ab, councillor,\\nwhich now appears as father.\\nWe have just seen that Dudu s accession to power\\nwas attributed to his mastery of the science of di-\\nvining, and this was the reason the crier, who went\\nin front of his chariot, shouted abrek, that is (as\\nwe should say), make way for the seer!", "height": "3659", "width": "2287", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0425.jp2"}, "426": {"fulltext": "420 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nThe use of the Cushite word ahrek is just what\\nwe might expect under the circumstances. During\\nthe five hundred and eleven years of Hamite dom-\\nination over Egypt, the Egyptians had abundant op-\\nportunity to become acquainted with the language\\nand peculiar system of writing of the invaders. This\\nso-called primitive non-Semitic language became\\nthe literary language of Western Asia, and bore about\\nthe same relation to later Semitic languages that\\nLatin does to modern English.\\nWe have seen how the purely Hamitic title Neb-\\nroth, Pursuer, came to be applied to Aahmes^ under\\nthe form of Chnebros.\\nSuch variations as Niprut, Nebroth, and Nimrod\\nare analogous to Neb-muat-ra Nim-mut-ria, and\\nNim-mu-ria.\\nSpeaking from the contemporary monuments, the\\nlast eighty years of Joseph s life coincide with the\\nperiod of Asiatic predominance at the Egyptian court,\\nwhich came to an end at the accession of Horus, or\\nHar-em-heb therefore, the adon Har-em-heb could not\\nhave been the adon Joseph. The only adon who an-\\nswers to the Biblical Joseph is Dudu, or Tutu. If\\nthe story of Joseph is to be taken literally, we must\\nplace his accession about fifteen years before the death\\nof Thothmes III; and the seven years of scarcity, or\\ndeficient overflow of the Nile, would end about the\\nsame time, to wit, 1700 B. C; but if, like the story of\\nthe Flood, it is allegorical, the career of the Meso-\\npotamian Dudu would answer every purpose. I re-\\ngard the story as an allegory, because the name", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0426.jp2"}, "427": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 421\\nJoseph is a tribe-name, and the monuments of the\\ntime of Thothmes III and Amenhotep II bear no\\nevidence of an adon corresponding to Joseph, or bear-\\ning any name or title resembHng his. I do not mean\\nto assert that such evidence may not be discovered\\nat some future time, but merely that it has not been\\nup to this date.\\nWe have seen from the inscription of the ship-\\ncaptain Aahmes, son of Baba, that AahmeSy the king,\\nin the sixth year of his reign, besieged the fortress\\nof Sheruhen, in southern Palestine, near Gaza, and\\ntook it. This placed in the hands of the Egyptian\\narmy the key to the great military and commercial\\nroad leading northwardly along the seacoast to Syria.\\nThe same warrior tells us that after Thothmes I had\\nquelled the rebellion in Nubia, he betook himself to\\nthe land of the Rutennu (Syria) to slake his anger\\namong the inhabitants of the land; that His Majesty\\nreached the land of Nahanma, and found the enemies\\nwho had plotted conspiracy; that His Majesty en-\\ngaged them in battle, made a great slaughter of them,\\nand carried away an immense number of living cap-\\ntives after his victory. Aahmes tells us that he was\\nat the head of the warriors, and that Thothmes I ad-\\nmired his valor, etc.\\nAahmes, surnamed Pen-nucheh, a contemporary of\\nthe ship-captain Aahmes, tells us that he served the\\nking Thothmes I, accompanied him on the campaign\\nto Nubia, and took for him, in the land of Naharuna,\\ntwenty-one hands, a horse, and a war-chariot.\\nNeither one of these warriors mentions any battles.", "height": "3659", "width": "2287", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0427.jp2"}, "428": {"fulltext": "422 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nor siege, along the entire route, many hundreds of\\nmiles in length, from Egypt to Aram-Naharain, which\\nindicates that Canaan and Syria, along the great high-\\nway mentioned, were already in the possession of the\\nEgyptians. We learn from an impartial and unbiased\\nsource that, as early as the beginning of the reign of\\nThothmes I, or about 1784 B. C, immense numbers\\nof Mesopotamians, from the region then inhabited\\nby Israel and his sons, were carried away to Egypt\\nas living captives. Many inhabitants of this region\\nwere carried away to Egypt during the long reign\\nof Thothmes III, and were forced to labor upon pub-\\nlic works. Thus there was abundant material in\\nEgypt from which the coming nation of Israel could\\nrecruit its numbers, and we need not wonder that it\\nmultiplied so rapidly. Het-shepsut, or Mephres, the\\nmother of Thothmes III, regarded the foreigners\\nfavorably, as she herself assures us, and by the end\\nof the reign of Amenhotep III they were freely ad-\\nmitted into Egypt, and even naturalized as citizens.\\nThe Mitannian escort, which entered Egypt with\\nTaduchipa, was placed among the houses which\\nAmenhotep III gave to her. The Mitannian am-\\nbassador Gillya, who accompanied her, was honored\\nby the Egyptian king, and placed in the front rank.\\nGold by the thousand-weight was showered on Tadu-\\nchipa, and she gave Gillya whatever he desired. Amen-\\nhotep did this on account of his friendship for Dush-\\nratta and love for Teie. After the death of the Egyp-\\ntian king, Teie, on behalf of her son Amenhotep IV,", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0428.jp2"}, "429": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 423\\noffered Dushratta an alliance and brotherhood. The\\nlatter writes\\nNow they say that Nimmuriya (Amenhotep III)\\nhas died, and what they have said has distracted my\\nheart. I wept on that day, and on my throne I did\\nnot sit. Bread and water on that day I did not take,\\nand I was sad.\\nNow the eldest son of Nimmuriya by Teie, his\\nwife, has offered me alliance and brotherhood, speak-\\ning thus: Nimmuriya is not dead, since Amenophis\\nIV, his eldest son by Teie, his chief wife, sits in his\\nplace, for he will never alter his words, but they shall\\nremain as before.\\nIn another letter to Amenophis IV, after greeting\\nTeie, his mother, and Taduchipa, his wife, Dushratta\\nwrites\\nAnd as regards the frequent intercourse which I\\nhad with thy father, Teie, thy mother, knows the\\nfacts; but after Teie, thy mother, thou knowest them,\\nand what he said to thee. As thy father was friendly\\nwith me, so art thou, O my brother, again friendly\\nwith me, and what is contrary thereto no one\\nlistens to.\\nIt is evident that a perfect understanding existed\\nbetween Amenhotep III and the Mitannian king, and\\nthat Teie alone was taken into their confidence.\\nAmenhotep IV was also initiated into the strange\\nleague, and Teie had formed such a correct estimate\\nof his character, disposition, and aims, that she did\\nnot hesitate to give Dushratta the most positive as-\\nsurances as to his future conduct as king. The ex-", "height": "3659", "width": "2287", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0429.jp2"}, "430": {"fulltext": "424 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\ncellent portraits of Teie which have come down to\\nus show that she was a woman of rare intellectuality\\nand beauty; her complexion, unlike that of the native\\nEgyptian women, was light and somewhat rosy, her\\nforehead high, and full in the regions of individuality,\\ncausality, and comparison, and her features delicate,\\nrefined, and remarkably attractive. For over forty\\nyears, during the reigns of Amenhotep III and Amen-\\nhotep IV, her influence was potent in molding the\\nEgyptian Government according to her own pecu-\\nliar political and religious notions. Is it a wonder\\nthen that, under the sole reign of Amenhotep IV,\\nor Achenres, we find, besides Tata and Tatti^ a\\nMesopotamian adon, court, and body-guard, and the\\nMesopotamian worship of Atenf In many respects\\nTeie reminds us of the Mesopotamian Rachel, who\\nstole her father s idols, and carried them off to Ca-\\nnaan.\\nAchenres constructed a remarkable temple, of\\nbeautiful and unique workmanship, at Tel-el-Amarna,\\nwhich he dedicated to Aten; and in his sixth year\\nthat is, second year of his sole reign, his mother,\\nQueen Teie, appeared as the central figure in the\\nceremonies and festivities of the occasion.\\nThe children of Israel had been dwelling in Egypt\\nabout fifty-three years at this time, and, although\\nthe Mesopotamian adon Dudu is not specially men-\\ntioned in the representations of this important event,\\nit is almost certain that this high official, who was\\nmore powerful in the sight of mortals than Pharaoh\\nhimself, was present. The fact that Joseph s death", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0430.jp2"}, "431": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 425\\nis fixed at about 1634 B. C, does not conflict with the\\nfact that Dudu s tomb is just back of Tel-el-Amarna,\\nfor it was constructed in the hfetime of the adon, and\\nduring the reign of Ach-en-aten.\\nTHE PHARAOH OF THE OPPRESSION\\nWe have just seen that the one hundred and ten\\nyears assigned to Joseph in Bible chronology, and\\nthe eighty years of Mesopotamian influence at the\\nEgyptian court, came to an end at the accession of\\nHar-em-hebf or Horus, as king, to wit, about\\n1634 B. C.\\nThe book of Exodus introduces us to a new\\nperiod. And Joseph died, and all his brethren, and\\nair that generation. The original Mesopotamian\\nsettlers had passed away, and their descendants, born\\nand reared in Egypt, began to fill the land of Goshen.\\nAnd the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased\\nabundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding\\nmighty; and the land [Goshen] was filled with them.\\nNow there arose up a new king over Egypt, which\\nknew not Joseph. This new king was apprehensive\\nthat, in case war should break out, the Israelites\\nmight join his enemies, and fight against the Egyp-\\ntians, and so get them up out of the land; and\\ntherefore set over them taskmasters to afflict them\\nwith their burdens; and they built for Pharaoh temple-\\ncities, Pithom and Raamses. This name Ramesses\\nwhich certainly could not have been given before\\nthe accession of Ramesses I, is of controlling impor-\\ntance in determining the name and date of the", "height": "3659", "width": "2287", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0431.jp2"}, "432": {"fulltext": "426 A Seli^- Verifying Chronological\\nnew king referred to. We have already seen that,\\nowing to the long joint-reign of father and son,\\nit is, and always was, very difficult to separate the\\nreigns of Ramesses I, Seti I, and Ramesses II, which,\\ntogether, cover the phenomenal period of one hun-\\ndred and twenty-seven years.\\nAlthough Ramesses I was, strictly speaking, the\\nnew king, who knew not Joseph, that is, the Meso-\\npotamian influence at the Egyptian court (for Horus\\nhad abolished it), he reigned but one year and four\\nmonths before his infant son, Seti I, was crowned as\\njoint-king. There are many facts going to show\\nthat Ramesses I, contrary to the general opinion,\\nenjoyed a comparatively long reign, but it was com-\\npletely eclipsed and obscured by the remarkable gen-\\nius and glorious achievements of his son, co-regent\\nand successor, the legendary Sesostris. Again, the\\nlong reign of Ramesses II was preceded by his joint-\\nreign with his father, Seti L Thus it is evident that\\nthe three reigns overlapped in a confusing and per-\\nplexing manner, and we must not forget that the\\nOppression, which commenced under the joint-\\nreign of Ramesses I and Seti I, continued many,\\nmany years. According to the Bible narrative, which\\nis brief and fragmentary, the more they afflicted\\nthem, the more they multiplied and grew. It neces-\\nsarily required years of affliction to make this expe-\\nrience, and it was not until after this that Pharaoh\\ncharged the people to cast every male child that was\\nborn into the river.\\nHappily we are in a position to fix the Bible date", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0432.jp2"}, "433": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 427\\nof this inhuman edict. It was in force when Moses\\nwas born, eighty years before the Exodus, that is,\\nabout 1 571 B. C, but did not affect Aaron, who was\\nborn three years before that date. Thus Seti I was the\\nPharaoh who devised this cruel means of preventing\\nthe Hebrews from multiplying, after they had been\\nsystematically afflicted for nearly fifty years. About\\nthis time Seti caused his son Ramesses II, then a child\\nabout twelve years old, to be publicly crowned as\\njoint-regent. Ramesses, therefore, was about twelve\\nyears older than Moses, and the daughter of Pha-\\nraoh who adopted the Hebrew waif as her son was\\na sister to Ramesses. The king who first commanded\\nthe Hebrew midwives to kill all the male children,\\nand afterwards charged the people to drown every\\nmale child born to the Hebrew women, must have\\nbeen possessed of a cruel and arbitrary disposition.\\nNow, what do the monuments teach us as to the char-\\nacter of Seti?\\nThe inscriptions at Karnak tell us, concerning this,\\nthat his joy is to undertake the battle, and his de-\\nlight is to dash into it. His heart is only satisfied\\nat the sight of the streams of blood when he strikes\\noff the heads of his enemies. A moment of the strug-\\ngle of men is dearer to him than a day of pleasure.\\nHe slays them with one stroke, and spares none\\namong them. And whoever of them is left remain-\\ning finds himself in his grasp, and is carried off to\\nEgypt alive as a prisoner. This contemporary pen-\\npicture of the great Sesostris, in the first year of his\\nsole-reign, accords well with the character of the", "height": "3659", "width": "2287", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0433.jp2"}, "434": {"fulltext": "42S A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nking who attempted to check the rapid increase of\\nthe Israelites in Goshen by killing off the male chil-\\ndren at birth. Such cruelty is unusual in an Egyp-\\ntian Pharaoh; but Ramesses I seems to have been\\ndevoted to Set^ or Sutech, the divinity of the serpent-\\nworshiping Hyksos, and his son Seti, who was named\\nin honor of Set, openly emulated the fierce and cruel\\nvirtues of the foreign deity, the Apap or Set-an of the\\nEgyptians. The first campaign undertaken by Seti,\\nin the first year of his sole reign, happened to be\\nagainst the hostile Shasu, or Beduin, of southern\\nCanaan. The Hebrews claimed to be related to these\\nShasii through their forefather Abram, and the\\ncruelty and severity of Seti s measures may have been\\nowing to this fact. It seems that Syria and a part\\nof Canaan were lost to Egypt during the weak reign\\nof Achenaten s daughter, for the Cheta, or Hittites,\\nwho were seated north of Aleppo, in the Cappado-\\ncian fastnesses, at the beginning of Achenaten s reign\\nwere firmly established in the city of Kadesh on the\\nOrontes when Seti began to reign. A formidable\\nenemy to the Egyptian Government had suddenly\\narisen in the great people of Cheta. This critical state\\nof affairs in the provinces induced the king of Egypt\\nto make the city of Tanis (Zoan) his principal place\\nof residence. This city commanded the approach to\\nthe great military road leading along the coast of the\\nMediterranean Sea to Canaan and Syria, and was the\\nnatural base of operations for campaigns against these\\ncountries.\\nBrugsch-Bey, the best authority on all matters", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0434.jp2"}, "435": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 429\\nrelating to the geography of ancient Egypt, iden-\\ntifies the temple-city of Ramesses with Tanis; that is,\\nhe identifies the new and beautiful city of Ramesses,\\nwhere Ramesses II delighted to hold his court, with\\nthe sacred quarter of Tanis.\\nNow the temple-cities of Pithom (Patumos, Per-\\nturn) and Raamses (Ramesses), which the unfor-\\ntunate Hebrews were forced to build for Pharaoh,\\nwere certainly in, or near, the land of Goshen.\\nWe have no right to assume that there were two\\nimportant cities named Ramesses in the same dis-\\ntrict at this time, unless we are forced to do so by\\ndirect and incontrovertible evidence. A critical ex-\\namination of the Bible narrative with reference to\\nthe location of Ramesses, will render it reasonably\\ncertain that it was the celebrated temple-city, or\\nsacred quarter, of Tanis, in the plain of Zoan, which\\nwas named after Ramesses I. At the time of the\\nExodus, Menophthah, the Pharaoh of the Exodus,\\nwas in this city of Ramesses, and the Hebrews, who\\nhad been gathered together by their elders, under\\nthe direction of Aaron and Moses, were encamped\\nunder its walls. The Bible narrative admits of no\\nother construction. We are told that only in the\\nland of Goshen where the children of Israel were, there\\nwas no hail. (Exodus ix, 26.)\\nMoses would leave his people, go into the city\\nwhere Pharaoh was, stand before him, and demand\\ntheir release, and then come out of the city from\\nPharaoh. And Moses said unto him [Pharaoh]\\nAs soon as I am gone out of the city, I will spread", "height": "3659", "width": "2287", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0435.jp2"}, "436": {"fulltext": "430 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nabroad my hands unto the Lord, etc. And Moses\\nwent out of the city from Pharaoh, and spread abroad\\nhis hands, etc. (Exodus ix, 29, 2iZ^\\nWhen the first-born were smitten at midnight,\\nwe are told that Pharaoh rose up in the night, and\\nhe called for Moses and Aaron by night, showing that\\nthey were near at hand, and that the scene of the ter-\\nrible tragedy was in and before the city of Ramesses,\\nwhere Menophthah then held his court.\\nThe journey of the Israelites began at this city.\\nAnd the children of Israel journeyed from Ramesses\\nto Succoth. (Exodus xii, 2i7^\\nThe first day s journey, therefore, was from Ra-\\nmesses, that is, the sacred, or temple, quarter of Tanis,\\nto Succoth, which was but another name for Pithom.\\nRamesses and Pithom were the sacred, or temple,\\nnames of Zoan and Succoth.\\nNow turn to Brugsch s translation of the inscrip-\\ntion relating to the treaty between Ramesses II and\\nCheta-sar, dated in the year 21, on the 21st day of\\nTybi. We read On that day the king was in the\\ncity of Ramesses, presenting his peace-ofiferings to\\nhis father Amen-ra/ etc. Among the so-called gods\\nmentioned who had temples, or tabernacles, in this\\ncity, were Har-em-achii Turn, lord of Heliopolis, Amen,\\nPtah, and Sutech, or Set.\\nThe river mentioned in Exodus i, 22, was the\\nPelusiac arm of the Nile, which then flowed through\\nand watered the land of Goshen. The city of\\nRamesses, named after Ramesses I, who, no doubt,", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0436.jp2"}, "437": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 43 1\\nmade it his residence, was situated on this so-called\\nriver.\\nThe child Moses was placed in the flags, or bul-\\nrushes, by this river s brink. The daughter of\\nPharaoh came down to wash herself at this river,\\nand, walking along the river s side with her maidens,\\nsaw the ark among the flags.\\nAs Moses was grown when he slew the Egyptian\\n(Exodus ii, 11), we must place this event in the sole\\nreign of Ramesses II. Now Moses fled from the\\nface of Pharaoh, and dwelt in the land of Midian, un-\\ntil, iin the process of time, it came to pass that the\\nking of Egypt died. Thus Moses was absent from\\nEgypt for at least fifty years, which accounts for the\\nfact that all the men were dead which sought his life.\\n(Exodus iv, 19.)\\nRamesses II, as joint-king with Seti, and after-\\nwards during the sixty-six years of his sole reign,\\ncontinued to afliict the Israelites with heavy burdens,\\nfor all their service, wherein they made them serve,\\nwas with rigor. We are told that they sighed by\\nreason of their bondage. Taskmasters and officers\\nwere placed over them, who hastened them, saying,\\nFulfill your works, your daily tasks. Thus it ap-\\npears that the Israelites who were invited to settle\\nin Egypt were,, in the course of time, treated like\\nprisoners of war. There is a pictorial representation\\non the walls of a tomb at Abd-el-Qurnah, of the time\\nof Thothmes III, showing the severe labor to which\\nthe captive countrymen of Israel and his sons werq\\ny", "height": "3659", "width": "2287", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0437.jp2"}, "438": {"fulltext": "432 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nsubjected. Some of them fetch water from the pond\\nhard by; others knead the earth; others mold the\\nbricks, and place them in rows to dry; and others\\nagain are employed upon the building. The inscrip-\\ntion tells us they are captives carried away by Thoth-\\nmes III they work at the building with dexterous\\nfingers; their overseers show themselves in sight;\\nthese attend in strictness, obeying the words of the\\ngreat, skillful lord, who gives directions to the mas-\\nters. They are rewarded with wine and all kinds of\\ngood dishes; they perform their service with a mind\\nfull of love for the king. The overseer speaks ihus\\nto the laborers at the building: The stick is in my\\nhand, be not idle.\\nOf course, these were not the same Hebrews men-\\ntioned in Holy Scriptures, but the representation and\\ninscription relating to similar work at Thebes may\\nserve to illustrate the hard fate of the Israelites, who\\nwere forced to work on the storehouses and temples\\nerected by Ramesses I, Seti I, and Ramesses II in the\\nnew and beautiful capital of the Delta, the famous city\\nof Ramesses. The parallel is perfect even down to the\\npalatable and nourishing food furnished to the work-\\nmen. No doubt the Hebrews were likewise rewarded\\nfor their excellent service with wine and all kinds of\\ngood dishes; for when they were restricted to the\\nmeager diet of the desert they often wished them-\\nselves back to the tempting flesh-pots of Egypt.\\nIn the so-called Letter of Panbesa we have an\\nexcellent description of the city of Ramesses, written\\nby an eye-witness. He tells us that nothing on", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0438.jp2"}, "439": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 433\\nTheban soil could compare with it. Its canals were\\nrich in fish, its lakes swarmed with birds, its meadows\\nwere green with vegetables; there was no end of len-\\ntils, and melons with a taste like honey grew in the irri-\\ngated fields. Its barns were full of wheat and durra,\\nand reached as high as heaven.\\nThe apple-tree, almond-tree, fig-tree, and vine\\ngrew in the gardens. All kinds of fish abounded.\\nShips sailed up from the sea and entered the harbor,\\nbringing all kinds of foreign delicacies and luxuries.\\nPlenty and abundance prevailed in the city. It was\\npleasant to live in. He who settled there rejoiced.\\nThe youths were perpetually clad in festive attire.\\nThe hero who was then celebrated in this wonderful\\ncity was Ramesses II, the son of Seti. It was the\\nroyal residence (chinmi). We accordingly find\\nRamesses in his first year that is, shortly after the\\ndeath of Seti on his first journey to Thebes.\\nWhen he returned from the capital of the land of\\nthe south, the order was given for the journey down\\nthe stream to the city of Ramesses.\\nThus the oppression continued with ever-in-\\ncreasing vigor for nearly one hundred and thirty\\nyears, and affected four successive generations of the\\nHebrews. In some respects it proved beneficial to\\nthem, for it transformed tribes of migratory Shasu,\\ndepending altogether upon their herds and flocks for\\nsubsistence, into a nation of settled people, accus-\\ntomed to manual work and prepared to till the\\nsoil and earn a living in their prospective home\\nin Canaan.\\n28", "height": "3659", "width": "2287", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0439.jp2"}, "440": {"fulltext": "434 Self- Verifying Chronological\\nTHE PHARAOH OF THE EXODUS\\nThe epoch-reign of Seti I, to wit, Osiropis, or\\nHus-ir-api, with twenty-three years, which has been\\nfully examined in other chapters of this work, fixes\\nthe death of Sesostris (Sethos, Sethosis) at 1621\\nB. C. This date, therefore, can be accepted as abso-\\nlute. Although Seti I caused his son Ramesses to\\nbe exhibited to the people as crown prince and joint-\\nregent when he was but a youth, he did not permit\\nhim to exercise the authority of Pharaoh, or to date\\nmonuments in his own name during his lifetime.\\nRamesses tells us in one place that he was raised to\\nbe a Ro-hir of the land when he counted ten full years,\\nand in another place that he was a little boy before\\nhe attained to the government, and that his father\\nshowed him publicly to the people when he was a\\nboy and caused him to be crowned as king, so that he\\nmight behold his excellence while he was yet alive.\\nWhile this may be true, it is certain, from the inscrip-\\ntions themselves, that the first year of the reign of\\nRamesses II dates from the death of his father, and\\nnot from the beginning of the joint-reign.\\nIt has become the fashion to regard Ramesses 11\\nas the Pharaoh of the Oppression that is, as the\\nking who issued the edict to drown the Hebrew chil-\\ndren in the river and, gauging his character accord-\\ning to such deeds, to portray him as a cruel and in-\\nhuman monster. But the contemporary monuments,\\nwhich are plentiful, show conclusively that this a\\npriori assumption is false and unfounded. At the", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0440.jp2"}, "441": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 435\\nbeginning of his reign he was actuated by feelings of\\nintense filial piety. He next appears as a brave and\\nchivalrous leader upon the field of battle. As a builder\\nin completing the marvelously beautiful monuments\\ndesigned and begun by his father, and in erecting\\nothers equally grand and unique all over Egypt, from\\nTanis to the southern boundary of Nubia, his activity\\nstands unrivaled. It is true the monuments and in-\\nscriptions bear witness to his overweening pride and\\nvanity, but they nowhere reveal any trait of cruelty or\\ninhumanity such as that just described in Seti s char-\\nacter. In fact, the Bible narrative fails to mention\\nany special act of cruelty during the long reign of\\nRamesses XL When he became king, the policy of\\nSeti I, respecting the treatment and management of\\nthe Hebrews, had ripened into a settled custom.\\nRamesses simply continued this settled poHcy, and\\ncompelled the Hebrews to work upon the temples and\\nbuildings erected by him in the district of Goshen,\\nand particularly in the temple quarter of Tanis,\\nknown as the city of Ramesses, his new and splendid\\ncapital.\\nShortly after Ramesses became celebrated and re-\\nnowned as the Hero of Kadesh, Moses had the mis-\\nfortune to slay an Egyptian, and fled to the land of\\nMidian to escape punishment. We are told that it\\ncame to pass in those days when Moses was grown,\\nthat he went unto his brethren and looked on their\\nburdens, and he spied an Egyptian smiting a He-\\nbrew, etc. This was certainly eleven, and probably\\nnot more than twenty, years after Ramesses began to", "height": "3659", "width": "2287", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0441.jp2"}, "442": {"fulltext": "436 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nreign as sole king, and agrees with the presence of\\nthe court and Pharaoh s Daughter at the city of\\nRamesses.\\nNow, imagine the children of Israel in bondage,\\ndriven on and afflicted by taskmasters, and sighing\\nand crying by reason thereof for sixty-six years\\nand two months from the accession as sole-king\\nto the death of Ramesses II, and you will be better\\nable to appreciate the weight and importance of the\\nwords, And it came to pass after a long time [or, as\\nsome have rendered it, in the process of time that\\nthe king of Egypt died. When this happened the\\ntwelve eldest sons of the king, including Cha-em-uaSj\\nwho had been on the throne as joint-king, had passed\\nto their eternal rest, and Fate decreed that Mer-nu-\\nptah, or Menophthah, should become the successor of\\nthe celebrated Son of Sethos, and pose before the\\nworld as the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Menophthah\\nwas well advanced in years when the high office was\\nunexpectedly thrust upon him, and he was but poorly\\nprepared to assume the grave responsibilities attached\\nto it. He did not inherit the towering form, majestic\\nfeatures, and commanding presence of his father;\\nneither did nature endow him with the bright intellect,\\nquick perception, and ready determination of Ram-\\nesses. Instead of the broad and liberal religious views\\nof his father, he seems to have been bigoted, narrow-\\nminded, and superstitious. His character was of an\\nanomalous kind, weak and vacillating at one time,\\nstubborn and unrelenting at another.\\nIn the fifth year of this king s reign that is, in", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0442.jp2"}, "443": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 437\\n1491 B. C, the year of the Exodus Egypt was con-\\nfronted by a sudden and unexpected danger, as we\\nlearn from an important inscription which he caused\\nto be chiseled on the inner side-wall of one of the\\nsouthern fore-courts of the great temple of Amen at\\nThebes.\\nThe Libyans and their mercenaries, the Mediter-\\nranean Shardena (Sardinians), Shekel-sha (Sicilian\\nrovers), A-ka-ua-sha (Achaian rovers), Liku (Lycians),\\nTur-sha, etc., peoples of the north, invaded Egypt,\\nand plundered the land. Menophthah equipped the\\nchoicest of his mercenaries, and assembled his chariots\\nfrom all directions. His life-guards marched for-\\nward, the most powerful of his warriors came on,\\nand the entrance of his mercenaries is said to have\\nbeen a beautiful sight for the inhabitants of Egypt.\\nWe are informed that the king spoke to the leaders of\\nthe host, who stood before him, that they should de-\\nstroy the people of the Libu (Libyans). They went\\nforth, and the hand of God was with them. Amen\\nwas at their side as a shield. The news was spread\\nabroad that the king in person would take part in the\\ncampaign on the 14th day of Payni. But, if we under-\\nstand the text, which is injured and mutilated in\\npart often in the most important places as inter-\\npreted by Brugsch, whom I have followed above, a\\ntimely vision served as a convenient pretext for re-\\nmaining behind within the walls of Memphis. Then\\nhis majesty beheld in a dream as if the image of Ptah,\\nwhich is placed at the (gate of the temple), stepped\\ndown to Pharaoh. It was like a giant. (And it was)", "height": "3659", "width": "2287", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0443.jp2"}, "444": {"fulltext": "438 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nas if it spoke to him, ^Remain altogether behind; and,\\nhanding to him the battle-sword, Mayest thou cast\\noff the lazy disposition that is in thee\\nAlthough the vision ironically echoed Menoph-\\nthah s fervent wish to remain behind, it really ad-\\nmonished him to lay aside the cowardly disposition\\nthat was in him, and to use the battle-sword that was\\nhanded to him in defense of his country; but he con-\\nstrued it as a Divine admonition to remain in Mem-\\nphis, and accordingly sent forth the army under the\\nleaders of the mercenaries. Fortunately, victory\\ncrowned the banners of the Egyptians, and we read of\\nthe triumphal return of the leaders of the foreign\\nmercenaries, the life-guards, the chariots of war, and\\nall the warriors of the army, whose service was ended.\\nThese were, no doubt, the same chariots of war\\nwhich pursued the fleeing Israelites to Pi-hahiroth,\\nbetween Migdol and the sea, before Baal-Zephon.\\nPharaoh made ready his chariot, and he took six\\nhundred chosen chariots and all the chariots of Egypt,\\nand captains over every one of them.\\nBut we merely wanted to illustrate Menophthah s\\nweak and vacillating character and his superstitious\\nturn of mind, from the contemporary inscription chis-\\neled on the walls of the great Temple of Karnak by\\nhis own order.\\nManetho s description of this Pharaoh, judging\\nfrom the confused and jumbled extracts from his his-\\ntory quoted at random by Josephus, agrees with the\\nabove in every particular. He tells us that Menoph-\\nthah (rendered Amenophath, Amenophthis, Ameno-", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0444.jp2"}, "445": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 439\\nphis, etc., by mistake) Svas desirous to become a spec-\\ntator of the gods, as had Horus, one of his prede-\\ncessors in the kingdom, desired the same before him;\\nthat he communicated this desire to his namesake,\\nMenophthah, the son of Papis, who seemed to par-\\ntake of a divine nature, both as to wisdom and the\\nknowledge of futurities; that this namesake of his\\ntold him that he might see the gods if he would clear\\nthe whole country of the lepers and of the other im-\\npure people; and that the king was pleased with the\\ninjunction, and got together all that had any defect\\nin their bodies out of Egypt, eighty thousand in\\nnumber, whom he sent to those quarries which are\\non the east side of the Nile, that they might work in\\nthem, and be separated from the rest of the Egyp-\\ntians.\\nSo much for Menophthah s superstitious turn of\\nmind. Now, as to the weak and vacillating traits of\\nhis character. After those that were sent to the\\nquarries had continued in that miserable state for a\\nlong while, the king was desired that he would set\\napart the city of Avaris, which was then left desolate\\nof the shepherds, for their habitation and protection,\\nwhich desire he granted them. This proves that he\\ncompletely reversed his original policy within less than\\nseven years, for the ignominious flight to Ethiopia\\ntook place in the eighth year of his reign.\\nWhen the lepers and impure people, who had in\\nthe meantime fortified Avaris by building new walls\\naround it, had risen in open revolt, and had been\\njoined by the shepherds from Jerusalem that is, the", "height": "3659", "width": "2287", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0445.jp2"}, "446": {"fulltext": "440 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nCanaanite descendants of the Aamu driven out of\\nEgypt by Amosis Menophthah, the king of Egypt,\\nwas in great confusion; and in the first place assem-\\nbled the multitude of the Egyptians, and took counsel\\nwith their leaders, and sent for their sacred animals to\\nhi^; especially for those that were principally wor-\\nshiped in the temples, and gave a particular charge to\\nthe priests distinctly, that they should hide the images\\nof their gods with the utmost care. He also sent his\\nson, Sethos (\u00e2\u0096\u00baS Mer-nu-ptah), who was also\\nnamed Ramesses from his father, Rhampses, being\\nbut five years old, to a friend of his. He then passed\\non with the rest of the Egyptians, being three hundred\\nthousand of the most warlike of them, against the\\nenemy, who met them. Yet he did not join battle\\nwith them; but thinking that would be to fight against\\nthe gods, he returned back and came to Memphis,\\nwhere he took Apis and the other sacred animals\\nwhich he had sent for to him, and presently marched\\ninto Ethiopia, together with his whole army and mul-\\ntitude of Egyptians; for the King of Ethiopia was\\nunder an obligation to him, on which account he re-\\nceived him and took care of all the multitude that was\\nwith him, while the country supplied all that was nec-\\nessary for the food of the men. He also allotted cities\\nand villages for this exile, that was to be from its be-\\nginning during those fatally determined thirteen\\nyears. Moreover, he pitched a camp for his Ethi-\\nopian army, as a guard to King Menophthah, upon\\nthe borders of Egypt. And this was the state of things\\nin Ethiopia.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0446.jp2"}, "447": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 441\\nNow, when we bear in mind that the lepers and\\nimpure people numbered but eighty thousand and\\nthe shepherds two hundred thousand all told, and\\nMenophthah s army consisted of three hundred thou-\\nsand men of the most warhke of them, we must\\nconfess that his conduct on this occasion was the most\\nshameful and pusillanimous to be found in the annals\\nof Egyptian history. The king, who publicly boasted\\nthat he was crowned to preserve life to mortals;\\nthat he was brought in as king to protect men;\\nthat there was strength in him to do this, because he\\nwas the Hkeness of the beautiful faced Ptah; and that\\nhe was a hero, who took no count of hundreds of\\nthousands on the day of the turmoil of battle,\\nmarches forth with three hundred thousand of the\\nmost warlike of the Egyptians, including the veterans\\nwho had overthrown the Libyans and their European\\nallies, arrives in sight of the enemy, his inferior in\\nnumbers, organization, and discipline, and then turns\\nhis back and leaves his country to its fate its cities,\\ntowns, and inhabitants a helpless prey in the clutches\\nof a cruel and barbarous foe. Manetho assures us\\nthat the Canaanites, when they came down together\\nwith the polluted Egyptians, treated the Egyptians\\nin the most barbarous manner, and were guilty of\\nhorrid wickedness for they set the cities and villages\\non fire, destroyed the images of the gods, forced the\\npriests and prophets to be the executioners of the\\nsacred animals, and then ejected them naked out of\\nthe country.\\nThis much, however, must be said in extenuation", "height": "3659", "width": "2287", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0447.jp2"}, "448": {"fulltext": "442 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nof Menophthah s extraordinary conduct. Following\\nthe sure guidance of the astronomical numbers,\\nchecked by the four Sothiac months (four hundred\\nand eighty years) between the Exodus and the Build-\\ning of the Temple, the Invasion of the Canaanites and\\nthe FHght to Ethiopia took place about three years\\nafter the Exodus, and Menophthah may have been\\nlaboring under the effects of the terrifying events\\nwhich preceded and accompanied the departure of the\\nIsraelites from Egypt.\\nWe have already seen that a Sothiac festival,\\nknown as a hib-sed, was celebrated in the second\\nyear of this Pharaoh s reign that is, in the year 1494\\nB. C, or ninety years (30X3) after the Sothiac epoch\\nof Epiphi, 1584 B. C. As Menophthah mounted the\\nthrone in 1495 B. C. (add epoch-reign of Seti I, to\\nwit, twenty-three years, to the sixty-six years and two\\nmonths of Ramesses II), the celebration of this festi-\\nval on time, in the second year of his reign, is a most\\nremarkable and fortuitous coincidence. The Exodus\\noccurred on the 15th day of Epiphi (Apapi) in the\\nfifth year of Menophthah s reign, 1491 B. C. This\\nday came ye out in the month of Abib. (Exodus\\nxiii, 4.) Now, as the defeat of the Libyans and their\\nEuropean allies took place on the 3d of Epiphi, in the\\nsame year, the Exodus may have been closely con-\\nnected with the invasion of these foreigners.\\nAlthough there are several suspicious-looking\\nblanks in the great inscription of Menophthah, where,\\nfrom the context, we might expect to find the name of", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0448.jp2"}, "449": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 443\\nthe Hebrews, or Israelites, several portions of it, in\\nmy opinion, referred to their revolt and preparations\\nto leave the land. Lines 7, 8, and 9 read as follows,\\nwith hypothetical restorations of Brugsch:\\n(For the foreign peoples had long since made\\ninroads from the east, and had pitched) their tents\\nbefore the town of Pi-bailos (Byblus, Bilbeis); they\\nfound themsejves on the canal Sha-ka-na, to the north\\nof the canal Oa (of Heliopolis), (so that the adjoining\\nland) was not cultivated, but was left as pasture for\\ncattle on account of the foreigners. It lay waste\\nthere from the times of our forefathers. All the rulers\\n(ur-u) of Upper Egypt sat in their intrenchments,\\nand the rulers {ur-u) of Lower Egypt found\\nthemselves in the midst of their cities, surrounded\\nwith earthworks, cut o^ from everything by warriors,\\nfor they had no mercenaries to oppose to them. Thus\\nhad it been (until the day when King Menophthah)\\nascended the throne of Horus.\\nThe above can not refer to the invasion of the Lib-\\nyans under their king, Marjui, because it took place\\nin the fifth year of Menophthah s reign. The foreign\\npeople (Peti-shuf) here alluded to were the He-\\nbrews, who had been taken from their work and gath-\\nered together by their elders, under the direction\\nof Aaron and Moses, and it seems that they had\\npitched their tents before the town of Bilbeis, which\\nwas not far from Bubastis. This position commanded\\nthe approach to the Wady Tumilat and the important\\ncanal by which it was watered, and constituted an ex-\\ncellent base from which the Hebrews might co-oper-", "height": "3659", "width": "2287", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0449.jp2"}, "450": {"fulltext": "444 Self- Verifying Chronological\\nate with the army of the Libyans, which was ap-\\nproaching from the west. The statement that the\\ndistrict was not cultivated, but was left as pasture for\\ncattle on account of the foreigners, could not apply\\nto the Libyans, because it had lain thus from the times\\nof his forefathers. The land of Goshen, however,\\nhad been used by the Hebrews as pasture for two\\nhundred and fifteen years. The concluding sentence,\\ntherefore, should be restored, as follows, Thus had it\\nbeen since the day when King Menophthah ascended\\nthe throne of Horus.\\nDe Rouge, I believe, was the first to show that the\\nExodus occurred shortly after the death of Ramesses\\nII, and not at the end of Menophthah s reign; and, fur-\\nthermore, that as Moses was eighty years old when\\nhe and Aaron stood before Pharaoh, and one hundred\\nand twenty years old when he died, the forty years\\nin the wilderness leave but one year for the successive\\nplagues.\\nWe must bear in mind that Aaron, not Moses, ap-\\npeared as the head and front of the movement in\\nEgypt. We are told And the Lord said to Aaron,\\nGo into the wilderness to meet Moses. And he went,\\nand met him in the mount of God, and kissed him.\\nAnd Moses and Aaron went and gathered together\\nall the elders of the children of Israel: and Aaron\\nspake all the words which the Lord had spoken to\\nMoses.\\nSeveral separate and distinct accounts of the Ex-\\nodus have been patched together in the present book\\nof Exodus, so that this fact is stated several times.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0450.jp2"}, "451": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 445\\nAaron is the spokesman of Moses unto the people.\\nMoses says: Behold, the children of Israel have not\\nhearkened unto me; how then shall Pharaoh hear\\nme, who am of uncircumcised lips? Again we read:\\nAnd Moses said before the Lord, Behold, I am of\\nuncircumcised lips, and how shall Pharaoh hearken\\n,unto me? And the I^ord said unto Moses, See, I\\nhave made thee a god to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy\\nbrother shall be thy prophet. Thou shalt speak all\\nthat I command thee; and Aaron thy brother shall\\nspeak unto Pharaoh, etc.\\nMoses had been absent from Egypt for more than\\nfifty years; but Aaron the Levite had lived there for\\neighty-three years; and, although we are ignorant of\\nthe history of his long and eventful life prior to the\\nyear 1491 B. C, we can safely assume that he held\\na high and influential position among his country-\\nmen.\\nAccording to the extract of Josephus, Manetho\\nreferred to him as follows It was also reported that\\nthe priest who ordained their poHty and their laws\\nwas by birth of Heliopolis; and his name Osarsiph,\\nfrom Osiris, who was the god of Heliopolis but that\\nwhen he was gone over to these people his name was\\nchanged, and he was called Moses.\\nJosephus adds to this and foregoing extracts:\\nThis is what the Egyptians relate about the Jews,\\nwith much more, which I omit for the sake of brevity.\\nBy Jews he means the Israelites, of course, and not\\nthe one tribe only.\\nAfter explaining that Avaris, which had been al-", "height": "3659", "width": "2287", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0451.jp2"}, "452": {"fulltext": "446 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nlotted to the lepers and impure people, was, accord-\\ning to the ancient theology, Typhon s city, Manetho\\ncontinues, as follows\\nBut when these men were gotten into it, and\\nfound the place fit for a revolt, they appointed them-\\nselves a ruler out of the priests of Heliopolis, whose\\nname was Osarsiph, and they took their oath that\\nthey would be obedient to him in all things. He then,\\nin the first place, made this law for them, that they\\nshould neither worship the Egyptian gods nor should\\nabstain from any of those sacred animals which they\\nhave in the highest esteem, but kill and destroy them\\nall; that they should join themselves to nobody but\\nthat were of this confederacy. When he had made\\nsuch laws as these, and many more such as were\\nmainly opposite to the customs of the Egyptians, he\\ngave order that they should employ the multitude of\\nthe hands they had in building walls about their city,\\nand make themselves ready for a war with King\\nMenophthah, while he did himself take into his friend-\\nship the other priests and those that were polluted\\nwith them, and sent ambassadors to those shepherds\\nwho had been driven out of the land by Tethmosis to\\nthe city called Jerusalem; whereby he informed them\\nof his own affairs, and of the state of those others who\\nhad been treated after such an ignominious manner,\\nand desired that they should come with one consent\\nto his assistance in this war against Egypt. He also\\npromised that he would, in the first place, bring them\\nback to their ancient city and country Avaris, and\\nprovide a plentiful maintenance for their multitude;\\nthat he would protect them and fight for them as oc-\\ncasion should require, and would easily reduce the\\ncountry under their dominion.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0452.jp2"}, "453": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 447\\nWe here break off the quotation, to remind the\\nreader that the term impure people was often used\\nto designate foreigners who did not observe the re-\\nligion or customs of the Egyptians. The Hebrews,\\ntherefore, may have been referred to in this account\\nas impure people. But how can we possibly identify\\nOsarsiph, or Arsiph, a priest of HeliopoHs, with\\nAaron the I^evite? In the first place, it is evident\\nthat Aaron and Moses were confounded and regarded\\nas one person. We are dealing with the Egyptian\\naccount, in which the name Aaron certainly appeared\\nin somewhat different form. In the Harris papyrus\\nwe find that a Canaanite, named Ar-su (Ar-suff),\\nraised himself up to be a prince, and compelled all\\nthe people to pay him tribute.\\nNow, we must not forget that Joseph was married\\nto Aseneth, the daughter of Putiphero, priest of Heli-\\nopolis, showing the connection of the Israelites with\\nthis city from the earliest times. Even after the\\nExodus, in the times of Ramesses III and Ramesses\\nIV, we still find Eber-i-u dwelling as settled people\\nin Heliopolis. But is it at all strange that Arsiph,\\nOs-ar-siph, or Aaron should appear as a priest of\\nHeliopolis? Several stelae at West Silsilis, dating\\nfrom the beginning of Menophthah s reign, show this\\nking followed by the high priest of Amen, named\\nRui, or Lui. Now, what is Ltd but Louis, Levi, etc.\\nThis name Lui, or Levi, is directly connected with the\\npriestly function, so that Aaron the Levite is equiva-\\nlent to Aaron the priest. We must remember that", "height": "3659", "width": "2287", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0453.jp2"}, "454": {"fulltext": "44S A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nthe Bible tells us absolutely nothing about the history\\nof Aaron previous to his connection with the Exodus;\\nbut we are bound to assume that he was a priest, thor-\\noughly educated in the various branches of theology\\nand trained in the complicated ritual and ceremonial\\nof the office.\\nA few months after the Exodus, Aaron and his\\nsons, Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar, were set\\napart for the priest s office. (Exodus xxviii, i.) The\\ndaughter of Seti, who adopted Moses and had him\\nbrought up with so much care, no doubt arranged to\\nhave his brother Aaron provided with the next best\\noffice to prince, namely, high priest. Thus Moses,\\nthe son of Pharaoh s daughter, naturally takes the\\nplace of Pharaoh, while Aaron takes that of high\\npriest. We have seen how the name of Joseph {la-saf)\\nwas turned to Safnath-pa-an-eah (Saf-na-ta-pa-\\nanech), in which the element sa-f, or saviour, was\\nretained. In the case of Aaron, the element ar\\nseems to have been retained. The name Osiris re-\\nsolves itself into Hvts-ar, or Hus-ir, meaning the\\nhouse or abode of the eye. In this name, Hus-ar,\\nar, or eye that is, Ra in his capacity of right\\neye is undoubtedly the main element, and the only\\none that could be used in turning the name of\\nAaron. When Manetho, the learned priest, says that\\nthe priest of Heliopolis, who ordained the polity and\\nlaws of the Israelites, was named Osarsiph, from\\nOsiris, he goes down to the root ar, eye, and the\\nform Osar^ used by him may be equivalent to Ar.\\nCheremon, according to the extract of Josephus,", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0454.jp2"}, "455": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 449\\ndistinguished between Moses and Aaron, whom he\\ncalls Moses and Joseph Here some copyist mis-\\ntook ^rsiph for /(?seph. He calls them scribes\\nthat is, educated men adding that /oseph that is,\\n^rsiph was a sacred scribe. It is remarkable that\\nCheremon and I^ysimachus, in their confused and\\ngarbled accounts of the Exodus, substitute Pelusium\\nfor Avaris, indicating that the site of Avaris was in\\nthe vicinity of the later Pelusium. Now, is it not plain\\nthat the simple-minded Cheremon called Arsiph a\\nsacred scribe because he was, in fact, a priest f\\nWe will now retrace our steps, and briefly reca-\\npitulate some of the main points of the Bible account.\\nAfter a long time (sixty-six years) Ramesses II\\ndies. Moses, who had lived as an exile in Midian for\\nfully fifty years, hears the news, and prepares himself\\nto lead his countrymen out of Egypt. Aaron, or\\nArsiph, visits his brother Moses at Mount Sinai, and\\narranges the details.\\nThey go to Egypt, assemble the elders, and make\\nknown their plans. The people are taken from the\\nworks. Moses and Aaron stand before Pharaoh, and\\ndemand the release of the Israelites. Pharaoh com-\\nplains that they have made the people rest from their\\nburdens, and commands the taskmasters and officers\\nof the people to increase their burdens. The people\\nare put to work again, their burdens are increased,\\nand when they fail to fulfill their task in making\\nbrick, their officers, whom Pharaoh s taskmasters had\\nset over them, are beaten.\\nThese events, we may say, culminate in the fifth\\n29", "height": "3659", "width": "2287", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0455.jp2"}, "456": {"fulltext": "450 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nyear of Menophthah s reign. Then come a series of\\nplagues, the meaning of which I will not here inquire\\ninto. But it was at this time that the Libyans and\\ntheir Mediterranean allies, the Sardinians, Sicilians,\\nLycians, Achaians, etc., invaded the Northwestern\\nDelta, and turned things upside down in Egypt.\\nWhile all of the energies of the Egyptians were bent\\nupon expelling the dangerous foreign foes, the Israel-\\nites were again withdrawn from their works and as-\\nsembled in one place. The Exodus proper took place\\ntwelve days after the great defeat of the Libyans but\\nthere were many other foreigners, or so-called im-\\npure people, in Egypt, besides the Israelites led out\\nby Moses and Aaron. Josephus, it seems, found some\\nmention of the Israelites in Manetho s work, for he\\ntells us, This is what the Egyptians relate about the\\nJews, with much more, which I omit for the sake of\\nbrevity; but he applies to the Israelites in particular\\nmuch that related to the foreigners in general. The\\nmonuments show that Menophthah remained in\\nEgypt for about three years after the Exodus. Papyri\\nof his third year show that he held control of the por-\\ntion of Canaan bordering on the sea. In his eighth\\nyear there was carried into eflfect, according to Pha-\\nraoh s command, the passage of certain tribes of\\nShasu from the land of Edom through the fortress\\nMenophthah, which is situated in Succoth (Thukii),\\nto the lakes of the city of Pithom (Per-tum, Patumos),\\nof Mer-nu-ptah Hofep-hir-ma, which are in the land\\nof Thuku, in order to feed themselves and to feed their\\nherds on the possessions of Pharaoh,", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0456.jp2"}, "457": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 451\\nThe explanation of this is found in the Exodus\\nof the IsraeHtes, for their departure had left these\\nlands unoccupied. There are no dated inscriptions,\\nor papyri, after the eighth year of Menophthah s\\nreign. The Flight to Ethiopia, therefore, took place\\nafter he had reigned seven years and x months. In\\nsome of the lists Menophthah (written Amenophis by\\nmistake) has eight years, showing that Manetho men-\\ntioned this portion of his reign and the thirteen years\\nof the exile separately. In the pseudo-Sothis List,\\nwe find, transferred from this portion of Manetho s\\nLists, No. II Akesephthres, with a reign of thir-\\nteen years. I am inclined to see in this Hak Siphthas\\nthat is, the hyk Sa-ptah and his queen, Ta-user-et,\\nwho reigned in Thebes during the absence of the real\\nPharaoh in Ethiopia. It seems that Sa-ptah, or Siph-\\nthah, remained in undisputed possession of Thebes\\nand the South generally, for he had time to construct,\\nand partially decorate, a large tomb in the necrop-\\nolis of Thebes. It is tomb No. 14 of Baedeker, and\\nlies between tomb No. 13, which bears the names of\\nSeti II, and seems to have been abandoned, and tomb\\nNo. 15, belonging to Seti II. Tomb No. 14 was ap-\\npropriated by Set-nechf, a fact indicating that he was\\nrelated to Queen Ta-user-et, whose sarcophagus was\\ndeposited in the great sarcophagus-chamber. An in-\\nscription at Syene proclaims that a high ofificlal named\\nBai put an end to some great evil by placing Sa-\\nptah on the throne of his father. This evil, no\\ndoubt, was the state of anarchy caused by the flight\\nof Menophthah,", "height": "3659", "width": "2287", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0457.jp2"}, "458": {"fulltext": "452 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nJosephus tells us, upon the authority of Manetho,\\nthat after the expiration of the ill-fated period of thir-\\nteen years Menophthah returned from Ethiopia with\\na great army, as did his son Ramesses with another\\narmy also; and both of them joined battle with the\\nCanaanites and the polluted people, and beat them\\nand slew a great many of them, and pursued them to\\nthe bounds of Syria.\\nThese polluted people could not have been the\\nIsraelites who were led out into the Wilderness by\\nMoses and Aaron, because, according to the Scrip-\\nture account, they were no longer in Egypt. Man-\\netho is fully borne out as to this great victory and the\\npursuit to the borders of Syria by existing monu-\\nments. Seti II, for instance, erected buildings in\\nThebes, HeliopoHs, and other parts of Egypt, fortified\\nthe frontiers of Palestine, guarded the wells in that\\nvicinity, and re-established the authority of Pharaoh\\nover Egypt from Pelusium to Nubia. But his glori-\\nous and eventful reign seems to have been cut short,\\nand it is possible that Menophthah outlived him.\\nThe tomb of Amen-mes (No. lo in Baedeker) was\\nconstructed before that of Ramesses III, and, as I\\njudge from its position, after those of Siphthah and\\nSeti II. It is probable, therefore, that Amenmeses\\n(Amenemes) succeeded Seti II as actual ruler at\\nThebes for twenty-six years. Although, in the au-\\nthorized list, Menophthah had nineteen years and six\\nmonths and Sethos fifty-one years, Manetho in the\\nbody of his work explained that Menophthah actually\\nreigned eight years (seven years+x months) and Hyk", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0458.jp2"}, "459": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 453\\nSiphthah thirteen years (twelve years and x months),\\nafter which Amenmes reigned twenty-six years. We\\nhave seen that Eusebius followed the unknown author\\nof the bogus Sothis List wherever he could. Thus we\\nfind in one of his lists of the Nineteenth Dynasty\\nAmenephthis, 8 years\\nAmenemes 26\\nThe reign of Amen-mes may have been divided by\\nthe epoch 1464 B. C, as follows:\\nAmen-mes, before epoch, Miamous, 12 years\\nAmen-mes, after epoch, Chamois, 14\\nIt is certain, therefore, that there were troublous\\ntimes in Egypt, particularly in Eower Egypt, between\\nthe death of Sell 11 and the accession of Set-necht; and\\nit was during this period of Egyptian imbecility that\\nthe Israelites conquered Canaan.\\nPetrie, following the corrupt form of the name,\\nidentifies Amenophis, Manetho s Pharaoh of the\\nExodus, with Amenophthis III. But this identifica-\\ntion is wholly untenable. When Josephus produced\\nManetho as a witness to the antiquity of the Jewish\\nnation, he set down the reigns of seventeen kings,\\nbeginning with Tethmosis and ending with Menoph-\\nthah, here expressly called Amenophis. In this Hst,\\nas we have demonstrated, the reign of Sethos was\\nentirely omitted, and the side-reigns of Acherres,\\netc., erroneously inserted. This gave Josephus an\\nopportunity to introduce Sethos and Ramesses a\\nsecond time, and thus swell his total to five hundred\\nand eighteen years; but he assures us that Manetho", "height": "3659", "width": "2287", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0459.jp2"}, "460": {"fulltext": "454 Self- Verifying Chronological\\nintroduced this Amenophis after Ramesses, the son\\nof Sethos, who reigned sixty-six years. By this,\\nAmenophis III is necessarily excluded. Again, the\\nson of this supposed Amenophis was named Sethos\\n{Seti II), but was familiarly called Ramesses after his\\ngrandfather Ramesses 11. By this also Amenophis\\nIII is necessarily excluded.\\nTHE lA-NIM, OR lONIANS\\nOne of the most remarkable surprises to be found\\nin the Pyramid Texts is the frequent mention of the\\nla-nim, or lonians. The name la-nim, meaning the\\nla, or lo, collectively (all), as it is written in the\\nPyramids of the Sixth Dynasty, beginning with that\\nof Teta (Tithoes), appears unchanged, and written\\nwith the same identical hieroglyphs, on the Rosetta\\nStone, where it is rendered lonians. In the Lists\\nof the Nine Foreign Nations (Nine Bows), dating\\nfrom the earliest times, the la-nim are described as\\ninhabiting the islands of the sea, that is, Mediter-\\nranean Sea, and numerous foreign lands.\\nThere can be no doubt, therefore, that the la-nim\\nof the Pyramid inscriptions and Egyptian monuments\\ngenerally, were the lonians, or Greeks, as they were\\nafterwards called.\\nThe route to the lands of the lonians is accurately\\ndescribed in the Pyramid of Teta, more than 3,100\\nyears before the Christian era. We there read Thy\\ntwo sisters, Isis and Nephthis, come to thee (the\\ndeceased Teta), and they convey thee past the town\\nof Kem-et-itr-et, in thine name of Kem-nr,^ and past", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0460.jp2"}, "461": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 455\\nthe fortress {anehu, Vails of U az-et-ur-et Great\\nGreen in thine name of the sea of Uaz-iir, and thou\\npasseth the great bend {ur-et shen-et) at the lake\\n(bay) of Shen-et ur-et, and thou circlest around the\\ncircle which encircles the lonians (em-ku deben-te\\nshen-et em dehen pacher la-nim), etc. (Pyramid Texts,\\npages 122-123, Teta, lines 274 and 275.)\\nHowever we may choose to render the archaic\\nlanguage of the inscription, its general meaning\\n(owing to the free use of determinatives) is clear and\\nunmistakable. The journey thus briefly sketched,\\nwas from Egypt, by way of the town of Kem-et Ur-et,\\non the lake of Kem-ur, and the fortress of Uaz-et\\nUr-et, on the sea of Uaz-ur, and around the great\\nbend, at the southeast corner of the Mediterranean\\nSea, and the corresponding curve formed by the Gulf\\nof Iskenderun, at the northeastern corner of this sea,\\nto Ionia and the countless islands of the Grecian\\nArchipelago, including, of course, Greece itself, which\\nwas also regarded as an island. At the beginning of\\nthe Sixth Dynasty it is almost certain that the Red\\nSea extended farther north than it does now, and\\nincluded Lake Timsah, then called she, or sea, of\\nKem-ur, Great Black, in contradistinction to Uaz-ur\\n(Sax. water, Ger. wasser), Great Green. The town\\nof Kem-ur was situated on the gulf (now lake) at the\\neastern end of the Wady Tumilat, probably in the\\nvicinity of the later Pithom (Patumos, Per-tum), and\\nnear the present line of the Suez Canal, where it\\nserved to guard one of the main approaches to the\\nupper Delta.", "height": "3659", "width": "2287", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0461.jp2"}, "462": {"fulltext": "456 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nThe fortress (anebu^ walls of Uaz-ur was sit-\\nuated near the Mediterranean, in the vicinity of the\\nlater Pelusium, east of the mouth of the Pelusiac arm\\nof the Nile. The great commercial highway leading\\nfrom Egypt to Canaan, and thence to Asia Minor,\\npassed through, and was controlled by, this impor-\\ntant fortress. In the time of the Nineteenth Dynasty,\\nthe main road seems to have been by way of Tanis,\\ncrossing the Pelusiac arm of the Nile north of Kem-ur,\\nat the point still called El-kantarah, the Bridge.\\nAs late as the beginning of the Twelfth Dynasty, how-\\never, to judge from the route taken by Sa-nuh-et, in\\nhis celebrated flight from Egypt to the land of Canaan,\\nthe main road to Asia followed the Wady Tumilat\\nto the sea of Kem-ur.\\nIt will be in the nature of a surprise to modern\\nhistorians to learn that, 2,000 years before the Siege\\nof Troy, Greece, Ionia, and the neighboring islands\\nwere inhabited by the great nation of the lonians,\\n(for la-nim, the lo collectively, points to a people\\ndivided into many nations and spread over a wide\\nextent of territory), Moses, who drew from ancient\\nEgyptian sources, derives lavan (lanim) from la-\\npheth (la-pet), and tells us that by these (lavan and\\nhis so-called sons) were the islands of the Gentiles\\nsettled. The monuments also abound in allusions to\\nthese islands of the sea.\\nAs Japheth was born one hundred years before\\nthe Elood, to wit, about 2448 B. C, and his son lavan\\nafter the Flood, the statement of Moses as to the\\nbirth of Japheth, etc., would seem to be anachron-", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0462.jp2"}, "463": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 457\\nistic by at least seven hundred years, in view of the\\nfacts now revealed by contemporary monuments;\\nbut we must bear in mind that, in the ancient list\\ncopied by Moses, Noah, Japheth, and lavan, repre-\\nsent nations organized into governments modeled\\nafter the Egyptian pattern; hence they are repre-\\nsented as born at certain dates. For example,\\nJapheth was born when the la-pet, or the foreign\\nlo, settled in the northwestern angle of the Delta,\\nwere organized into a separate, independent govern-\\nment. Although the lo collectively inhabited the\\nislands of the sea, Ionia and Greece, for centuries\\nprior to the Flood, they were organized into the\\ngovernments named by lonians who had emigrated\\nfrom Egypt after the Hyksos Flood. The Dis-\\npersion was from Egypt, and not from the alluvial\\nplains of Babylonia.\\nThe Greeks preserved a recollection of their early\\nconnection with Egypt, and of the fact that their\\ncivilization and religion were derived, in part at least,\\nfrom the Egyptians. A number of legends embody-\\ning this recollection has come down to us through\\nthe classical writers. The wanderings of lo, the\\ndaughter of Inachus, king of Argos, represent the\\nmigrations of a portion of the ancient la from Greece\\nto Egypt. Crossing the Hellespont, and following\\nthe coast, they wandered through Asia Minor, around\\nthe Gulf of Iskenderun, through Canaan and the\\ndesert separating that country from Egypt, to finally\\nsettle down on the banks of the Nile. The Sup-\\npliants of ^schylus is founded on these legends,", "height": "3659", "width": "2287", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0463.jp2"}, "464": {"fulltext": "458 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\naccording to which lo, driven to Egypt, gave birth\\nto a son called Epaphos, who founded a settlement\\nof lonians in the Delta.\\nThe suppliant daughters of Danaus claim to\\nbe descended from these Ionian settlers in Egypt.\\nThe city of Argos, the capital of Inachus, was sit-\\nuated in the Apian plain, so named after Apis {Api,\\nNile), who cleared it of wild beasts, and introduced\\nthe arts of civilization. We have seen that the Apis-\\nbull, the symbol of the Nile, or Egyptus, was ven-\\nerated in Memphis from the time of King Binothris\\nof the Second Dynasty, or as far back as 3894\\nB. C. It is clear, therefore, that civilization was\\ncarried from Egypt to Argos, and not from Argos\\nto Egypt.\\nInachus, it seems, was contemporary with Aah-\\nmes, and, as the foreign lo, according to Moses,\\nestablished a government in Egypt one hundred\\nyears before the Hyksos Invasion (for that is what\\nis meant by Japheth, son of Noah), it is plain that\\nlo could not have been the daughter of Inachus.\\nEpaphus, at first sight, seems to be Apapi, which\\nhas come down to us in the Greek forms Apophis\\nand Epiphi, but I am satisfied that it is a corrupt\\nform of Apis. We have seen that Sethos, or Seti I,\\nassumed the epoch-title Osiropis, that is, Hus-ir-\\napi, at the beginning of the Sothiac month of Epiphi,\\n1584 B. C. This king, as his name indicates, was\\ndevoted to Set, or Typhon, who was identified with\\nApap. The subtle blending of Osiris and Api in the\\ntitle Osiropis was the cause of the remarkable con-", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0464.jp2"}, "465": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 459\\nfusion between the ancient symbols of good and evil,\\nto wit, Osiris and Typhon. There seems to be some\\ndistant connection between Api and Apap, for the\\nlatter is simply a duplication of Ap. Now Manetho\\ntells us that Sethos was called by the other name\\nEgyptus, which is plainly Api, or Osiropis. In\\nHomer s time the Nile was invariably called Egyptus,\\nfrom Apis, the symbol of the Nile. It was thus that\\nSutech, or Set, the serpent more subtle than any\\nbeast of the field, seduced Ivife, the ancient rehgion\\nof Egypt.\\nThe hopeless confusion in which the subject be-\\ncame involved is reflected in the Greek legends, where\\nthe brothers Danaus and Egyptus appear as sons of\\nBel, or Belus, who was descended from Epaphus,\\nthe son of lo. Now Bel, or Baal, is but another\\nname for Sutech, the so-called lord god of the\\nserpent-worshiping Hyksos, who was identified with\\nSet and Apap. The old serpent was the symbol\\nof all these Typhonic personations. Thus Danaus\\nand Egyptus (Harmais and Sethos) appear as sons\\nof Set, who is represented as the ofifspring of lo,\\nthrough Epaphus. The goddess lo was often pic-\\ntured with the horns of a cow, showing that she was\\noriginally the same as Hathor, or Isis, the consort of\\nOsiris; but the blending of Osiris and Api, the sym-\\nbols of good and evil, led to the mistake of identify-\\ning Osiris, as well as Api, with Egyptus, or the Nile.\\nApi and Apap may have been derived from vS*^^, or\\nBel, but Osiris was certainly not. On the other\\nhand, Osiris was connected with Isis, or lo, but Bel", "height": "3659", "width": "2287", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0465.jp2"}, "466": {"fulltext": "460 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nwas not. The confusion following the amalgama-\\ntion of the symbols of good and evil seems to have\\naffected all alike, except Moses. Josephus regarded\\nSet and his posterity as eminently good and virtu-\\nous, that is, as Osirian, and attempted to derive the\\nJews from this symbol of evil and darkness. Sev-\\neral modern Egyptologists mistake Isis for the al-\\nluvial plain of Egypt, and Osiris for the Nile.\\nIn the Supphants, the daughters of Danaus,\\nthe offspring of lo, Isis, or Life, are represented as\\nfleeing from the unlawful embraces of the sons of\\nEgyptus, that is, Api, Set, or Bel.\\nThe separation of the lonians from the common\\nstock must have occurred at a very ancient date, for\\nthey were already in their well-known seats at the\\nbeginning of the Sixth Dynasty.\\nThe affinity between the ancient Egyptian and\\nancient Greek languages, however, is not so strongly\\nmarked as it is between the former and the ancient\\nSaxon and Scandinavian languages. The reasons for\\nthis appear incidentally throughout this work.\\nSuffice it to say that the mummies and portrait-\\nstatues of Seti, or Egyptus, and his son Ramesses,\\nthe portrait-statues of Chiifu, Chafra, Usertasen I,\\netc., and the mummy of Menthusuphis I, all reveal\\nthe pure European type as exemplified by the Greek\\nand Germanic nations.\\nIn the Pyramid Texts, page 167, we find: \\\\Hns-\\niri Pepa) ur-te deben-te em deben-nu la-nim which\\nMaspero interprets thus: And here thou art grand,\\nand thou circleth around the circle of the Hati-nibu.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0466.jp2"}, "467": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 461\\nThis is repeated (Pyramid Texts, pages 265 and 342)\\nMenthusuphis I, line 91, and Pepi II, line 98, etc.\\nThe journey of the ka of the deceased Pharaoh to\\nthe distant lands of the lonians demonstrated that the\\nancient Egyptians recognized the close relationship\\nexisting between the two great nations.\\nTHE 1,050 YEARS OF MANETHO S THIRD\\nBOOK\\nManetho s Third Book opened at the Sothiac era\\n1324 B. C, which was known to the Greeks as the\\nEra of Menophres, and closed at the end of Nek-\\ntanebos {Necht-neh-ef) reign, or 339 B. C. Thus\\nthere were in the direct, or chronological line, ex-\\nactly nine hundred and eighty-five years. Now add\\nto this sum the sixty-five years of the Twenty-fifth Dy-\\nnasty of Ethiopians who ruled contemporaneously\\nwith the four native kings of the Twenty-fourth Dy-\\nnasty, and we have the 1,050 years of Manetho s\\nThird Book. The separate dynasties stood thus\\nEra of Menoplires, 1324 B. C.\\nTwentieth Dynasty of seven Theban kings, 185\\n1739B.C.\\nTwenty-first Dynasty of seven Tanite kings, 130\\n1009 B. C.\\nTwenty-second Dynasty of nine Bubastite kings, 220\\n789 B.C.\\nTwenty-third Dynasty of three Tanite kings {58), 59\\n730 B. C.\\nTwenty-fourth Dynasty of four Saite kings, 65\\n~665B. C.\\nTwenty-sixth Dynasty of six Saite kings, 140\\nBeginning of Persian Dynasty, 525 B. C.", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0467.jp2"}, "468": {"fulltext": "462 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nThe Twenty-fifth Dynasty of three Ethiopian kings\\nreigned sixty-five years contemporaneously with the\\nTwenty-fourth Dynasty, and is, therefore, omitted in\\nthe direct or chronological line.\\nWhen the lists were falsified in order to make\\nit appear that the Eighteenth Dynasty commenced at\\n1648 B. C, and that the Nineteenth Dynasty, and\\nManetho s Second Book also, ended at 1181 B. C,\\nthe accepted date of the Kail of Troy, the totals of\\nthe Twentieth and succeeding Dynasties of the Sec-\\nond Book, down to the Persian Dynasty, were sys-\\ntematically reduced, as follows:\\nAfricanus. Kusebius.\\nI^allofTroy, 1181 B. C. 1181 B. C.\\nTwentieth Dynasty 135 178\\n1046 B. C. 1003 B. C.\\nTwenty-first Dynasty, 114 130\\n~^2 B. C. 873 B. C.\\nTwenty-second Dynasty, 120 49\\n812 B. C. 824 B. C.\\nTwenty-third Dynasty, incl. Zet, 89 44\\n723 B. C. 780 B. C.\\nTwenty-fourth Dynasty, 6 44\\n717 B. C. 736 B. C.\\nTwenty-fifth Dynasty, 40 44\\n677 B. C. 692 B. C.\\nTwenty-sixth Dyn., originally, 151 167\\nBeginning of Persian Dynasty, 525 B. C. 525 B. C.\\nAgain we notice an elTort on the part of Eusebius\\nto correct the errors in the I^ists of Africanus, but,", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0468.jp2"}, "469": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 463\\nas he left the beginning of the Twentieth Dynasty\\nat 1 181 B. C, the result attained was the reverse\\nof that intended.\\nWe shall notice the changes more particularly\\nunder the respective heads.\\nTWENTIETH DYNASTY OF SEVEN DIOS-\\nPOLITAN KINGS\\nIn the Lists of Africanus and Eusebius, the Twen-\\ntieth Dynasty, with the exception of the heading,\\nTwentieth Dynasty of twelve Diospolitan Kings,\\nand the totals one hundred and eighty-five and one\\nhundred and seventy-eight years, is a perfect blank\\nthe names of the kings, and their separate reigns\\nalso, have entirely disappeared! It is evident that\\nthe pious forger of the pseudo-Sothis List, who used\\nthese names and the last five names of the Nineteenth\\nDynasty to fill out an actual blank between the\\nTwelfth and Seventeenth Dynasties in his fraudu-\\nlent list, also tampered with the Manethonian Lists\\nof the Twentieth Dynasty, for the twelve kings of\\nthe present heading represent the seven kings of this\\ndynasty and the five kings of the Nineteenth Dy-\\nnasty which were surreptitiously removed.\\nManetho s Twentieth Dynasty begins at the\\nSothiac era 1324 B. C. As we have just seen, the first\\nseven years of the reign of Ramesses Chamois Meno-\\nphres were before this era, and were assigned to the\\nsecond cycle, and accounted for in Manetho s second", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0469.jp2"}, "470": {"fulltext": "464 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nBook. The Twentieth Dynasty and Manetho s Third\\nBook, therefore, begin with the epoch-reign of Meno-\\nphres, that is, in the eighth year of the reign of the\\nking Harnesses, who stands at the head of this Dy-\\nnasty.\\nThe seven kings of this dynasty, who reigned\\none hundred and eighty-five years after the era 1324\\nB. C, that is, from 1324 B. C. to 1139 B. C, appear\\nin the pseudo-Sothis I^ist immediately before the\\nHyksos kings. After they were removed from the\\nTwentieth Dynasty they were no longer in the way\\nof the early Bible chronographers, and, for this\\nreason, have come down to us undisturbed. As we\\nhave already explained, these kings presented an in-\\nsurmountable obstacle to the artificial chronological\\nschemes of the Bible chronographers, owing to the\\nfact that the sixth king of this dynasty, Ramesses\\nlor-basse, was the well-known epoch-king of Paophi,\\n1204 B. C, called Phuoro (not Thuoris), or King\\nNile, during whose reign the Fall of Troy oc-\\ncurred.\\nWe know from the monuments that all the kings\\nof this dynasty, as well as the kings of the Nineteenth\\nDynasty who followed Ramesses III, were named\\nRamesses; but each of them also bore an additional\\nname. Thus Ramesses III was known as Ramesses\\nHyk-on-nut, from which the abbreviated compound\\nname Rhampsakes was derived. In fact, it was\\nas necessary then as it has been ever since, to dis-\\ntinguish a succession of kings bearing the same name\\nby distinctive titles. We need not be surprised, there-", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0470.jp2"}, "471": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 465\\nfore, to find the seven kings of this dynasty distin-\\nguished by separate additional titles.\\nI do not think that the order of succession of these\\nseven kings has been changed; for the epoch-reign\\nof Ramesses Menophres, which was {^Z^-J^ twenty-\\nnine years, still heads the list, and the reign of Ram-\\nesses lar-bash (Gushing River), Phuoro (Pa-iar, The\\nRiver, i. e., Nile) or King Nile, still covers the\\nepoch of Paophi {Pa-api, The Nile) 1204 B. C. But\\nwe must call attention to a significant, tell-tale fact re-\\ngarding the distinctive titles of the first king of this\\ndynasty. His reign commenced about 1331 B. C,\\nand the first seven years of the same were cut off and\\ndevoured by the standing female hippopotamus\\nTa-ur-et (Thaouris), the symbol of the Sothiac year,\\nwho is depicted with the crocodile, the symbol of a\\nSothiac month, upon her back. At the beginning\\nof the new Sothiac year (1324 B. C.) the re-born\\nking was re-crowned, and started in, as it were,\\nupon a new reign. He received such epoch-titles\\nas C/^a-^m-wa^, Crowned in Thebes, A a-tahii-ti, Off-\\nspring of Thoth, and Mer-nu-ph ra, Beloved by the\\nSun. The forger of the pseudo-Sothis List was too\\nshrewd to transfer any of these titles. He, therefore,\\nentered the first king under the name of Ramesses\\nonly, but gave him the epoch-reign of twenty-nine\\nyears, instead of the entire reign, which was thirty-\\nsix years.\\nWe will now bring these kings forth from their\\nhiding-place, and restore them to the Twentieth Dy-\\nnasty, where they belong.\\n30", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0471.jp2"}, "472": {"fulltext": "466\\nA Self- Verifying Chronological\\nTWENTIETH DYNASTY OF SEVEN DIOSPOIylTAN KINGS\\nI. Ramesses (Athothis), 29 years,\\n2. Ramessomenes, 15\\n3. (Ramesse Usimares, 31\\n4. Ramesse-seos, 23\\n5. Ramessameno, 19\\n6. Ramesse-Iorbasse (King Nile), 39\\n7. Ramesse-Uaphru, 29\\nTotal, 185\\n1324 B. C.\\n29\\n1295 B. C.\\n15\\n1280 B. C.\\n1249 B. C\\n23\\n1226 B. C.\\n19\\n1207 B. C.\\n39\\n1 168 B. C.\\n29\\n1 139 B.C.\\nPliny the younger refers to King Nile as Rham-\\nessis who reigned when Ilium was captured, that is,\\ncirca 1181 B. C.\\nDikaearchos placed the reign of King Nile at\\nfour hundred and thirty-six years before the first\\nOlympiad, that is, circa 1212 B. C, which date is\\nonly five years before his accession. The king who\\nbecame so celebrated as King Nile was the next to\\nthe last king who bore the name of Ramesses. Pa-iar,\\nor Phuoro, and lar-bash, or lorbasse, are titles de-\\nscriptive of the Nile, that is, The River. Nile it-\\nself, as we have demonstrated, is the plural form of\\nPa-iar, to wit, Na-iar-u, Nahal-u, Neil-u, The\\nRivers, which was applied to the arms, or heads,\\nof the river in the Delta. The Greeks, who came to", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0472.jp2"}, "473": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 467\\nEgypt by sea, and sailed up these arms, became\\nacquainted with the plural form Na-iar-u. Homer\\ncalls the river Egyptos.\\nCertain scientists have lately contended that the\\nSothiac system was invented about 136 A. D., when\\nSirius rose heliacally on the first day of Thoth; but\\nthe use of such epoch-titles as lorbasse, Phuoro,\\nAthothis, King Nile, etc., by Manetho, Eratosthenes,\\nand Dikaearchos, not to speak of the Turin payrus,\\nwhere a king of the Sixteenth Dynasty is termed\\nlan-ab, shows that it is frivolous and groundless.\\nIn his Book of Kings, Lepsius has published the\\nnames and titles of the ten kings who succeeded\\nRamesses III, and bore the name of Ramesses. He\\nhas numbered them according to certain indications\\nfound on the monuments, from IV to XIII inclusive;\\nbut this enumeration was tentative only, and never\\nintended to be final. Maspero s arrangement of these\\nkings differs somewhat from that of Lepsius. Num-\\nbers IX and XIII of Eepsius are marked as epoch-\\nkings by the title Cha-em-uas, and, if Ramesses IX\\nis King Nile, Ramesses XIII must be King Meno-\\nphres. Now it happens that Ramesses XIII Cham-\\nois was called Hyk-6n-nut, and bore the Horus-title\\nMer-nu-pKra. As Anu ruled the last quarter of the\\nyear, the title Hyk-Anu points to the seven years be-\\nfore the era, 1324 B. C. None of the other kings has\\na title corresponding to Menophres, and it is sig-\\nnificant that Mernuphra is this king s Horus-title;\\nthat is, title in spe.\\nRamesses IX Chamois bears the additional title", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0473.jp2"}, "474": {"fulltext": "468 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nNofer-ka-ra, or Nephercheres, which, in my opinion,\\nsymbolizes the completion of a Sothiac month Per-\\nfect is the Ka of Ra.\\nUntil I have had an opportunity to examine the\\nworks and monuments of these kings on the spot,\\nI must content myself with the following provisional\\narrangement, which is, to some extent, conjectural only:\\nNo. i8. Ramesses, Ramesses XIII, 29 years\\n19. Ramessomenes, Ramesses VII, 15\\n20. Ramesse Usermares, Ramesses XII, 31\\n21. Ramesse Sethos, Ramesses VIII, 23\\n22. Ramessameno, Ramesses X, 19\\n23. Ramesse-Iorbasse, Ramesses IX, 39\\n24. Ramesse-Uaphru, Ramesses XI, 29\\nThe priests informed Diodorus that all these\\nkings, except King Nile, abandoned themselves to\\nlives of ease and luxury. The monuments confirm\\nthis in a general way. Menophres, the first of these\\nkings, was active as a builder at Thebes, notably in\\nthe Temple of Chons, who there took the place\\nHar-pa-krat, Horus the Babe. A list of revenues\\ncollected by Pinehas, King s son of Cush, is dated\\nin his twelfth year. A papyrus now in Turin is dated\\nin his seventeenth year. Lastly, a stela of the scribe\\nHora of Abydus, now in the Cairo Museum, was set\\nup on the eighth day of Mesori in his twenty-seventh\\nyear. These dates agree with his epoch-reign of\\ntwenty-nine years. We have mentioned his tomb in\\nanother chapter. The second king, Ramesses VII,\\nhas left a tomb in the Biban-el-Moluk at Thebes, and\\nis highly praised in a papyrus now in the Turin\\nMuseum.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0474.jp2"}, "475": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 469\\nThe third king, Ramesses XII, is mentioned in\\na long inscription formerly set up in the Temple of\\nChons. We read that he was in Naharain, as was\\nhis custom every year, and the kings of all the nations\\ncame with humility and friendship to the person of\\nPharaoh, bringing gifts of gold, silver, etc. The king\\nof Bachtana brought his tribute, and at the head of\\nit his eldest daughter, whose beauty pleased Pharaoh\\nso much that he made her his wife, bestowing upon\\nher the name Nofeni-ra. This inscription bears the\\ndates, year 15, Payni 2 2d, year 26, month of Pachons,\\nand year 33, Mechir 13th. Although Manetho gives\\nthis king thirty-one years only, the slight discrep-\\nancy of one year may be owing to a joint-reign.\\nThe fourth king, Ramesses VIII, who is credited\\nwith twenty-three years, has left but few monuments,\\nand we consequently know little about him. Under\\nhis predecessor, Egypt seems to have held Canaan\\nand Syria, as she probably did in the reign of Ram-\\nesses III, but this possession of Canaan may have\\nbeen limited to a comparatively narrow strip along\\nthe seacoast; for the Israelites were certainly in pos-\\nsession of the eastern and central portions of Canaan\\nat this time, and we find no mention in the Scriptures\\nof the presence of Egyptian garrisons or officials.\\nThe fifth king, Ramesses X, like his predecessor,\\nseems to have been one of the kings mentioned by\\nDiodorus, who spent their lives in idleness, pleasures,\\nand luxurious Hving. The monuments, therefore,\\nhave little to report about him, but they mention the\\nfirst, sixth, and eighth years of his reign. He con-", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0475.jp2"}, "476": {"fulltext": "470 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nstructed a tomb in the Biban-el-moluk, which is now\\nbadly ruined, an obelisk in Bologna bears his name,\\nand an ostracon in the British Museum shows his\\ncartouche repeated three times.\\nThe sixth king, Ramesses IX, has been suffi-\\nciently mentioned as King Nile. His tomb ac-\\ncords well with his long reign of thirty-nine years;\\nfor it is large and of fine workmanship, and deco-\\nrated with important astronomical representations.\\nWere it not for two vases, bearing the name of Ram-\\nesses XI, in connection with an Apis-bull, which\\nwere found in the Serapeum by Mariette, we would\\nknow absolutely nothing about the last king of this\\ndynasty, so far as the monuments are concerned.\\nMuch has been written about the supposed\\nusurpation of the crown by the kings of the Twenty-\\nfirst Dynasty, but no evidence of such usurpation has\\never been found. The reigns of these kings average\\nabout twenty-eight years, but they no longer display\\nthe energy and ability which made the names of Ram-\\nesses II and Ramesses III so celebrated.\\nIt is possible that the Ramessides went down be-\\nfore the growing power of the Ethiopian kingdom.\\nWe shall have more to say about this in the following\\nchapters.\\nTWENTY-FIRST DYNASTY OF SEVEN TAN-\\nITE KINGS\\nThe Lists of the Twenty-first Dynasty have come\\ndown to us almost unchanged. The List of Euse-\\nbius has reached us intact, the Armenian Version and", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0476.jp2"}, "477": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt\\n471\\nSyncellus agreeing throughout. The Hsts are as fol-\\nlows\\nAfricanus.\\nEusebius.\\nI. Smendis 26 years\\nI. Smendis, .26 years\\n2. Psusennes, 46\\n2. Psusennes,\\n41\\n3. Nephercheres, 4\\nNephercheres,\\n4\\n4. Amenophthis, 9\\n4. Amenophthis,\\n9\\n5. Osochor, 6\\n5. Osochor,\\n6\\n6. Psinaches, 9\\n6. Psinaches,\\n9\\n7. Psusennes, I4(?)\\n7. Psusennes,\\n35\\nTotal,\\n130\\nTotal.\\n130\\nThe separate numbers of Eusebius still foot up\\nthe required total of one hundred and thirty years.\\nThe last reign of Africanus is an evident mistake,\\nowing to the epoch-reign of the first Psusennes.\\nBefore we take up the separate reigns, we wish\\nto call attention to the pseudo-Sothis List. The blank\\nleft by the Twentieth Dynasty was filled out as fol-\\nlows\\n59. Athothis, who is also Psusanos, 28 years\\n60. Kenkenes, 39\\n61. Uennephis, 42\\n62. Susakeim, 34\\nThese are the names of four successive epoch-kings.\\nAthothis, who is also Psusanus, with a reign\\nof twenty-eight years, is one of the shrewdest com-\\nbinations of the forger of this list. The real Atho-\\nthis, that is, the first king of the Twentieth Dynasty,\\nwho reigned twenty-nine years after the era 1324\\nB. C, had been removed to a safe place, and the list\\nhad been so manipulated that the false Athothis stood\\nat A. M. 4369, or 1 131 B. C.\\nThe forger was well aware that this date was", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0477.jp2"}, "478": {"fulltext": "472 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\neight years after the beginning of the Twenty-first\\nDynasty. Now it happened that Psusanos I was the\\nepoch-king of Athyr, 1084 B. C, twenty-eight years\\nand X months of his reign lying before, and thirteen\\nyears and x months after this epoch. Athoris\\n{Hait-har-i), therefore, might have forty-two, twenty-\\neight, or fourteen years. The proof of this can be\\nfound in number 43 of the pseudo-Sothis List, where\\nAthoris appears with twenty-nine years (28 years +x\\nmonths). A very slight twist of the pen converted\\nAthoris into Athothis, who received twenty-eight in-\\nstead of twenty-nine years, and was identified with\\nPsusanos I instead of Ramesses.\\nKenkenes is one of the epoch-titles of King Nile,\\nbut he has the full thirty-nine years of Ramesse-Ior-\\nbasse.\\nUennephis has forty-two years, the full reign of\\nPsusanos I. We have already explained how Uon-\\nnofer, or Uen-nephis, came to serve as an epoch-title\\nfor the month of Hathor. We shall have occasion\\nto comment on Susakeim, that is, Usarkon, in the\\nnext dynasty.\\nThe Twentieth Dynasty came to a close in the\\nyear 1139 B. C. Beginning at this date, which is\\nabsolute, we have the following result\\nBeginning of Dynasty, 1139B. C.\\nSmendis 26\\n1113 B. C.\\nPsusanos T, before epoch (28), 29\\nEpoch of Athyr, 1084 B. C.\\nPsusanos I, after epoch {14), 13\\n1071 B. C.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0478.jp2"}, "479": {"fulltext": "HiSTOR Y OF Ancient Eg ypt 473\\nIf the reigns, as given by Africanus and Eusebius,\\nhad not been reduced to years, the Sothiac division\\nof the reign of Psusanos I would exactly coincide\\nwith the epoch. In this case, twenty-eight years be-\\nfore, and fourteen years after, the epoch, might be\\nas correct as twenty-nine and thirteen. Some one,\\nby mistake, has inserted these fourteen years of\\nPsusanos I in the place of the thirty-five years of\\nPsusanos II, in the List of Africanus, thus affording\\nus an additional proof of the absolute correctness of\\nManetho s List. The reader will now understand why\\nAthothis, that is, Athoris, with twenty-eight or\\ntwenty-nine years before the epoch 1084 B. C, was\\nalso called Psusanos.\\nThe great city, Thebes, after being the imperial\\ncapital for nearly seven hundred years, was suddenly\\nand unaccountably eclipsed at the end of the Twen-\\ntieth Dynasty. How and why this occurred, we have\\nnot yet discovered. The kings of the Twenty-first\\nDynasty were of Tanis, the Zoan of the Bible, and the\\nmonuments show that this city, once a favorite re-\\nsort of the Hyksos, was, in fact, the capital during the\\none hundred and thirty years of this dynasty.\\nThe first king of this dynasty is generally called\\nHir-har and Sa-amen. I have shown that the sparrow-\\nhawk above the sickle of the moon is not Mehf, but\\nMenthu, for the first planet above the moon is Mars, or\\nMenthu. I do not believe that the sparrow-hawk below\\nthe sign for heaven can be read Pe-har or Hir-har,\\nbut that it is a compound sign like the one for\\nMenthu just mentioned. When Smendes mounted the", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0479.jp2"}, "480": {"fulltext": "474 Self- Verifying Chronological\\nthrone, 1139 B. C, Horus was below the horizon in\\nthe Sothiac year; for Sothis rose on the first day of\\nAthyr about 1084 B. C, or fifty-five years thereafter.\\nAll attempts to derive Smendes from Sa-amen have\\nproved failures, and these failures have led the latest\\nhistorian of ancient Egypt into the error of supposing\\nthat there were two dynasties ruling at this time, one\\nat Tanis; the other, the so-called priest-kings, at\\nThebes. There is no doubt, however, that the\\nTwenty-first Dynasty of Tanis ruled over all Egypt.\\nRecent excavations at Tanis have shown that\\nSmendes, who called himself Mer-amen at Thebes,\\nwas sometimes called Mer-menthu at Tanis. This dis-\\ncovery, it seems to me, explains the origin of the\\nname Smendes, which has vexed scholars for so many\\nyears, for Smendes is the correct Greek form of Sa-\\nmenthu.\\nPliny ascribes an obelisk to Zmante, which ap-\\npears to be another form of Smendes. This view\\nis fortified by the fact that this king caused his names\\nto be engraved on the two obelisks of Heliopolis\\nwhich were taken to Alexandria, and thence to Lon-\\ndon and New York. When the obelisk was pointed\\nout to Pliny, the name and titles of Sa-amen led the\\nguide to ascribe its erection to this king, who was\\ncalled S menthe or S^monthe. Ismande is a modifica-\\ntion of Zmante, analagous to Isment, Esneh, etc.\\nDid not Har-menthu become Hermonthis? On the\\nother hand, it is barely possible that the present form\\nof the name in the lists is due to the forger of the\\npseudo-Sothis List. After the four epoch-kings just", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0480.jp2"}, "481": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 475\\nmentioned we find, instead of Smendes, the following\\nseries\\n63. Psuenos, 25 years\\n64. Ammenophis, 9\\n65. Nepbercheres, 6\\n66. Saites 15\\n67. Psinaches, 9\\nWhen we compare this list with Africanus and\\nEusebius, the reign of Psuenos seems to correspond\\nto that of Smendes, who may have reigned between\\ntwenty-five and twenty-six years. The name Pa-\\nnotem or Pa-nozem, The Gentle One, is derived\\nfrom a title of Hathor, who became the tutelar deity\\nin 1084 B. C. Pa-anchi, The Living One, a title\\nof Isis, is now Psinaches, from Phianches {Ps for Ph),\\nand it is probable that Psuenos and Psusennes are de-\\nrived from Phunesemes (again Ps for Ph) influenced\\nby Psusannos (P sn-cha-nu-t). We are accustomed to\\nthe form Sa-amen, but it may have been Amen-sa, or\\nAmenses. We have already noticed the adroit com-\\nbination No. 55 Amenses, who is also Ammenemes,\\ntwenty-six years, of the pseudo-Sothis List. Un-\\ndoubtedly this was the first reign of the Twenty-first\\nDynasty transferred to the Nineteenth Dynasty, and\\nidentified with the reigns of Amenephthis and Amen-\\nemes. Now what is No. 57 Amendes, with twenty-\\nseven years, but a slightly changed Amenses? It\\nis but one step from Amendes to Smendes. The reign\\nof Psusanos, Manetho s Psusennes, had been used,\\nas Athoris, Athothis, and Uennephis, to pad other\\nportions of the false list, and we need not be surprised\\nto find it entirely wanting in the above list of the kings", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0481.jp2"}, "482": {"fulltext": "476 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nof the Twenty-first Dynasty. We shall see, in the\\nnext chapter, how Usarkon II, who was the epoch-^\\nking of Choiahk 946 B. C, and who was similarly\\nused under the name of Susakeim, was eliminated\\nfrom the Lists of Africanus and Eusebius, and finally\\ndisposed of.\\nBrugsch gives an excellent translation of an in-\\nscription, dated in the twenty-fifth year of this king,\\nwhich contains an important double date, to wit,\\nOn the fourth intercalary day, the day of the birth-\\nday feast of Isis, at the same time as the feast of Amen\\non the new year.\\nAssuming that the twenty-fifth year applies to\\nPsusennes I, and that this king had reigned twenty-\\nfive years at the time mentioned, Sirius rose heliacally\\non the 30th day of Paophi, and new year of the vague\\nyear coincided with the fifth intercalary day of the\\nfixed year; hence the birthday feast of Isis and\\nthe feast of Amen on the new year were celebrated\\nat the same time, proving that both years were used\\nin fixing the feasts. In order to make the coincidence\\nmathematically perfect, the feast of the new year, or\\nthe heliacal rising of Sothis, should have coincided\\nwith the first day of Thoth of the fixed year; but we\\nare merely dealing with the celebration of festivals\\nwhich lasted several days, and, therefore, overlapped.\\nFirst, there was the birthday feast of Isis on the fourth\\nintercalary day; then, the new year; and, lastly, the\\nfeast of Hathor.\\nSmendes claims that he maintained the boundaries\\nof the empire, punished its enemies, and received", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0482.jp2"}, "483": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 477\\ntribute from the princes of Rittennu (Iltaiiu) or Syria.\\nThe kings of the Twentieth Dynasty, as we have seen,\\nheld the seacoast, or western portion of Canaan, and\\nexacted tribute from the kings of Naharuna (Na-iar-\\nu-na, Nile-land and adjoining countries. Was this\\nthe reason the Israelites were not able to take the\\nwestern portion of Canaan?\\nBut during the reign of Amenses or Smendes,\\nTiglath Pileser (Takeloth Pal-assur) conquered Naha-\\nruna and the adjoining countries to the Gulf of Isken-\\nderun on the Mediterranean that is, territory which\\nhad been tributary to the kings of Egypt but we\\nfind no mention of Egyptian interference in the annals\\nof the Assyrian monarch. The question of Ethiopian\\nsupremacy over Egypt will be considered in the next\\nchapter. The kings of the Twenty-second Dynasty\\nno longer bear Egyptian names, but purely Cushite\\nor Ethiopian names, such as Nimroth, Takeloth,\\nO-sarkon, and Sheshonk, alternate from the begin-\\nning to the end of the dynasty. After one hundred\\nand thirty years of Cushite supremacy under native\\nEgyptian kings, who were purposely placed near the\\neastern border of the Delta, a line of Cushite rulers\\nmount the throne as Egyptian Pharaohs, and govern\\nthe country, subject to the great Ethiopian kingdom,\\nfor two hundred and twenty years.\\nTW^ENTY-SECOND DYNASTY OF NINE BU-\\nBASTITE KINGS\\nThe lists of the Twenty-second Dynasty, in their\\npresent form, contain but a fragment of Manetho s\\noriginal list. There were nine kings in this dynasty,", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0483.jp2"}, "484": {"fulltext": "478 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nand they reigned altogether two hundred and twenty\\nyears that is, from 1009 B. C. to 789 B. C. We will\\nnow give the present lists\\nAfricanus.\\nSesogchis, 21 years\\nOsorthon, 15\\nEusebius.\\nI. Sesonchosis,\\n21 years\\n2. Osorthon,\\n15\\n3. Takelothis,\\n13\\nThree others, 25\\nTakelothis. 13\\nThree others, 42\\nTotal, 120 Total, 49\\nA more instructive example of the way in which\\nthe Manethonian Lists have been corrupted and falsi-\\nfied can not be found. The present List of Africanus\\nfoots up one hundred and sixteen years; but the total\\nis still one hundred and twenty. After my initial dis-\\ncovery that Manetho s three books were arranged\\naccording to Sothiac Eras, I soon noticed that the\\noriginal total of this dynasty had been two hundred\\nand twenty years, but had been changed to one hun-\\ndred and twenty years, because the list, as altered,\\nfooted up one hundred and sixteen only, and two\\nhundred and twenty, therefore, appeared to be a pal-\\npable error. It then became evident that the third and\\nfifth numbers assigned to the two groups of three\\nunnamed kings, in each instance, represent the reign\\nof one king only; and it did not take me long (guided\\nby the monuments) to discover that the reign of\\ntwenty-five years belonged to the fifth king, and that\\nof forty-two years to the last king of the dynasty; in", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0484.jp2"}, "485": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 479\\nother words, that each of these numbers belonged to\\nthe last king of each group of three. It was known\\nfrom the Apis-memorials that Sheshonk III, the sev-\\nenth king of this dynasty, reigned fifty-three years;\\nand the twenty-third year of Osarkon II, the fourth\\nking of the dynasty, had been found on an Apis-tablet,\\nand his twenty-first year in the Festival Hall erected\\nby him at Bubastis. Aided by these dates, I next dis-\\ncovered that Susakeim, with thirty-four years, of the\\nfalse Sothis List, was Osarkon II, slightly misspelt.\\nLastly, I found that Pa-mvd, the eighth king, was en-\\ntitled to seventeen years, and with these data suc-\\nceeded in correctly restoring the list.\\nThere were two Sothiac epochs, to wit Choiahk,\\n964 B. C, and Tybi, 844 B. C, in the period of two\\nhundred and twenty years covered by this dynasty,\\nand the division of the epoch-reigns by these epochs\\nproves that the restoration is astronomically correct.\\nManetho s totals of the Twentieth and Twenty-\\nfirst Dynasties, one hundred and eighty-five and one\\nhundred and thirty years respectively, lead us un-\\nerringly from the era 1324 B. C. to the year 1009\\nB. C. Proceeding from this date, we have\\nBeginning of Twenty-second Djmasty, 1009 B. C.\\n1. Sesonchis (Sheshonk I), 21\\n988 B. C.\\n2. Osorthon (Usarkon I), 15\\n973 B. C.\\n3. Takelothis (Takeloth I, less than one year), o\\n973 B. C.\\n4. Osorkon II, before epoch, 9\\nKpoch of Choiahk, 964 B. C.", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0485.jp2"}, "486": {"fulltext": "480 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nBrought forward^ 964 B. C.\\nOsorkon II, after epoch, 25\\n939 B. C.\\n5. Sesonchis II, 25\\n914 B. C.\\n6. Takelotliis II, 13\\n901 B. C.\\n7. Sheshonk III, 53\\n848 B.C.\\n8. Pa-mui, before epoch, 4\\nEpoch of Tybi 844 B. C.\\nFa-mui, after epoch, 13\\nS^i B. C.\\n9. Sheshonk IV, 42\\nEnd of Dynasty, 789 B. C.\\nIt can do no harm to repeat that Manetho entered\\nthe epoch-reign of Osarkon II in some such fashion\\nas this:\\nOsarkon (Susakeim), entire reign, 34 years\\nOsarkon, before epoch, as Herakles 9\\nOsarkon, after epoch, as Petubastes, 25\\nEusebius entered both of these fragments in his\\nTwenty-third Dynasty, where they appear, as follows\\nPetubastes, 25 years\\nOsorthon, the Egyptian Herakles, 9\\nThe name of the next epoch-king, Pa-mui (The\\nMale Cat) is in itself an epoch-title of the month of\\nTybi. The author of the false Sothis List used the\\nfragments of this reign to partly fill out the interval\\nof fifty-one years between the reigns of Menophthah\\nand Set-necht (Kertos), where they appear as No. 51", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0486.jp2"}, "487": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 48 i\\nPsammuthis, thirteen years, and No. 52 four\\nyears. It seems that this king had no additional\\nepoch-title to insert, so that the name belonging to\\nthe four years had to be left blank. Manetho s Pa-\\nmiiis^ or P sa-muis/ was mistaken for Tsamuthis,\\nan epoch-title closely resembling it. We have already\\nmentioned a most important and interesting synchro-\\nnism between the reigns of Solomon and Shishak,\\nthe first king of this dynasty. This is also the first\\ninstance in which an Egyptian king is referred to by\\nname in the Scriptures. As Solomon began to build\\nthe Temple in his fourth year, we have placed his\\naccession at 1014 B. C, just five years before the\\nbeginning of this dynasty. We are told that Jero-\\nboam remained in Egypt until the death of Solomon,\\nwhich occurred about 992 B. C.\\nIn the fifth year of the reign of Rehoboam, the son\\nand successor of Solomon, Shishak, king of Egypt,\\ncame up against Jerusalem; and he took away the\\ntreasures of the house of the Lord and the king s\\ntreasures, and carried them oflf; as also the shields of\\ngold which Solomon had made. We are also told that\\nShishak had 1,200 chariots, 60,000 horsemen, besides\\nsoldiers without number, and that the people that\\ncame with him out of Egypt were Libyans, Ethi-\\nopians, etc. Josephus says he had 1,200 chariots,\\n60,000 horsemen, and 400,000 footmen, the greater\\npart of them Libyans and Ethiopians. He also says\\nthat Shishak took the strongest cities of Rehoboam s\\nkingdom, and finally Jerusalem also, without fighting.\\nAs the reign of Sheshonk continued twenty-one years,\\n31", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0487.jp2"}, "488": {"fulltext": "482 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nthis conquest of Judah must be placed near the end\\nof his reign, or about 988 B. C. An account of this\\nexpedition was engraved on the south wall of the\\nTemple of Amen at Thebes, to the east of the room\\ncalled the Hall of the Bubastids. The spectator be-\\nholds the Egyptian king smiting the Jews. In the\\nlong rows of names, each of which is inclosed in a\\nshield, we find that of Judah-melek The Egyptian\\nscribe did not attempt to translate King of Judah\\ninto his own language, or to change the title to\\nMelek-Judah, in order to make it conform to the rules\\nof Egyptian grammar; but he faithfully transcribed\\nit as he found it, Judah-meleky It is by no means\\nthe name of a town. The determinative for a foreign\\nland (sat) applies to Judah, and not to melek (king).\\nThe features of Judah-melek are typically Jewish\\nso perfectly so, in fact, that no one could possibly\\nmistake his nationality. The conquered people are\\ncalled Aamu and Fenechu that is, Canaanites and\\nJews showing that the descendants of the Aamu and\\nthe Jews (who are here confounded with the Phoe-\\nnicians) were still dwelling side by side.\\nSheshonk I built the hall at Karnak now known\\nas the Hall of the Bubastids, and the kings of this\\ndynasty have perpetuated their names in it. The\\narchitect of this work has left an inscription in the\\nquarries of Silsilis, which is dated in the twenty-first\\nyear of this king, informing us that his majesty had\\nissued an order to hew the best stone of Silsilis, in\\norder to make many and great monuments for the\\ntemple of his glorious father, Amen-ra, the lord of", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0488.jp2"}, "489": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 4b 3\\nThebes, and to build a great temple-gate and a fes-\\ntival-hall for his father, Amen-ra, the king of the gods,\\nand to inclose the house of the god with a thick wall.\\nThe architect assures his lord that he will not sleep\\nby night nor slumber by day, but that the building\\nshall go on uninterruptedly without rest or pause.\\nThe rich booty carried away from Jerusalem, and the\\ndesire to commemorate his victories, no doubt stimu-\\nlated Sheshonk to undertake these works in the last\\nyear of his reign; for it is evident that the architect\\nhad been enjoined to use all possible expedition in\\ncompleting the monuments.\\nSheshonk no doubt regarded the powerful king-\\ndom organized by Solomon with distrust and appre-\\nhension, and for this reason encouraged the preten-\\nsions of Jeroboam. A divided kingdom, while it still\\nserved as a bulwark against the rising power of the\\nAssyrians, could not be dangerous to Egypt.\\nWe will now examine another synchronism. Jo-\\nsephus tells us that Rehoboam reigned thirteen years\\nafter the capture of Jerusalem. His son, Abijah, who\\nobtained the great victory over the Israelites, reigned\\nafter him about three years. Asa, the Good King,\\nunder whom the country of the Israelites enjoyed\\npeace for ten years, met and defeated Zarah, King of\\nEthiopia. When he had already reigned ten years,\\nZarah, King of Ethiopia, made an expedition with a\\ngreat army of 900,000 footmen, 100,000 horsemen,\\nand 300 chariots, and came as far as Mareshah, a city\\nthat belonged to the tribe of Judah. (Antiq. VIII,\\n12, I.) The Scriptures, in their present form, call", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0489.jp2"}, "490": {"fulltext": "484 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nhim Zarah, the Ethiopian, and estimate his army at\\n1,000,000 men and 300 chariots. We are told that\\nthe Lord terrified the Ethiopians, and they fled;\\nbut in another chapter they are called Ethiopians\\nand Libyans. As this invasion occurred twenty-six\\nyears after the capture of Jerusalem by Sheshonk, or\\n962 B. C, the question arises. Was Zarah, the Ethi-\\nopian, Osarkon II, King of Egypt, who continued\\nto reign eight years after the defeat of the Ethiopian\\nand Libyan army?\\nAll will admit that some great change, or revolu-\\ntion, took place in Egypt when, at the beginning of\\nthe Twenty-first Dynasty, the capital and center of\\npower were transferred from Thebes to Tanis. Why\\nshould the kings of the Twenty-first Dynasty have left\\nthe glorious capital, the hundred-gated Thebes, in\\nthe Land of the South, to take up their residence\\nin the northeast angle of the Delta? Is it not remark-\\nable that they seldom ventured to inclose their names\\nand titles in the royal ovals? We are face to face with\\nan effect which is exceptional in the annals of Egyp-\\ntian history. Where and what was the disturbing\\ncause?\\nThe names of the royal family of the Twenty-\\nsecond Dynasty are not Egyptian. Every Egyptol-\\nogist will admit this. We find Egyptologists divided\\ninto two camps; one contending that the names are\\nAssyrian, the other that they are Libyan. We are\\nconstrained to ask. What do these learned gentlemen\\nmean by the terms Assyrian and Libyan? Nim-\\nrod, or Nimroth, Sargon, Sarkon, Sarkon-a, or", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0490.jp2"}, "491": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 485\\nO-sarkon, Tiglath, or Takeloth, and I might add\\nSheshonk also, are neither Assyrian nor Libyan\\nnames, but Cushite, or Ethiopian. The Asiatic, or\\ngreat Tartar-MongoHan race was known to the Egyp-\\ntians as Aam or Ham. Now, Moses, who uses the\\nEgyptian race names, tells us expressly that Cush\\n(the Babylonians and Ethiopians), and Canaan (the\\ndescendants of the Hyksos invaders), were sons of\\nthis Ham. Wherever the Greeks use the term\\nEthiopian, the native monuments have the corre-\\nsponding Cush, Kash, Kashi, Kosse, Kossaeans, etc.\\nThe Babylonian kingdom was founded by Nimrod,\\nor Nimroth, who was a son of Cush, and therefore\\nan Ethiopian. Assur, on the contrary, who went\\nforth from Babylonia and founded the Assyrian king-\\ndom, was a son of Shem. I can not sufficiently\\nemphasize the important fact that the native Egyp-\\ntians, the authors of the matchless civilization of an-\\ncient Egypt, were not Hamites, but belonged to what\\nwe now call the Japhetic race. Why, I ask, have\\nmodern Egyptologists disregarded the clear and defi-\\nnite statements of the Bible respecting the race of\\nSheshonk I and Osarkon H? The army of the first\\nwas composed mostly of Ethiopians and Libyans,\\nwhile the second is expressly called the Ethiopian,\\nand his army Ethiopians. We are told that the\\nQueen of Sheba (called Queen of Egypt and Ethi-\\nopia by Josephus), having heard of the fame of\\nSolomon, came to Jerusalem with a great train and\\ncamels that carried spices, and an immense quantity\\nof gold and precious stones. The camels and spices", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0491.jp2"}, "492": {"fulltext": "486 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nbrought by the queen point to Arabia and the land\\nof Puon-et as her home, and yet Josephus must have\\nfound some authority for describing her as Queen of\\nEgypt and Ethiopia.\\nA long inscription, dated in the twenty-first year\\nof Pi-anchi, king of Ethiopia, shows that during the\\nreign of Osorkon, the second king of the Twenty-\\nthird Dynasty, that is, about 749 B. C, Lower Egypt\\nhad long been a dependency of Ethiopia. The\\ngreater part of Upper Egypt had been incorporated\\nin the Ethiopian kingdom. Lower Egypt was gov-\\nerned by numerous petty kings and rulers, all of\\nwhom were subject to Pi-anchi. Now there is nothing\\nin the lists to indicate that Egypt was subject to\\nEthiopia at this time, and the fact was unknown un-\\ntil the inscription of Pianchi, recently discovered,\\nrevealed it. Notwithstanding the length and explicit-\\nness of the inscription, it contains no allusion to an\\nEthiopian conquest of Egypt, showing that it oc-\\ncurred long before the beginning of Pi-anchi s reign.\\nIt must have occurred at the end of the Twentieth\\nDynasty. The banishment of thousands of Thebans\\nto the Great Oasis was the result of the fall of the\\ngreat line of the Ramessids.\\nWe have seen that Menophthah retired to\\nEthiopia, and that the king of Ethiopia placed a great\\narmy at the border of Egypt to protect the voluntary\\nexiles. It thus appears that as early as 1488 B. C.\\nEthiopia had grown to be more powerful than Egypt.\\nThe government was patterned after that of Egypt,\\nand Pianchi manifested himself as a devout worshiper", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0492.jp2"}, "493": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 487\\nof the Egyptian divinities, notably of Amen. The\\nfact that the kings of the Twenty-first Dynasty erected\\nmonuments and inscribed their names and titles in\\nThebes and other cities in Egypt is not inconsistent\\nwith Ethiopian domination. On the contray, the ex-\\nceptional fact that they generally entitled themselves\\nFirst Priest of Amen, instead of King of Egypt,\\ndemonstrates that they were tributary to some higher\\npower. The civilization of Ethiopia was altogether\\nEgyptian. The names and titles of Pi-anchi, the\\nEthiopian, differ in no respect from those of a full-\\nfledged Pharaoh; his name Pi-anchi, Living One,\\nis pure Egyptian, and he honors in the most im-\\npressive manner the so-called gods of Egypt, but\\nparticularly Amen of Thebes. It Is undeniable that the\\nThebaid had become an integral part of his kingdom.\\nLower Egypt and the Heptanomis were parceled out\\namong numerous petty rulers, who, although locally\\nindependent, were tributary to the great king of\\nEthiopia. Thus there could not have been any rad-\\nical cause for enmity, or antagonism, between the\\nEthiopians and Egyptians such as that which existed\\nbetween the latter and the Assyrians.\\nFrom the earliest times the Egyptians recruited\\ntheir fighting men from among the Masai, who an-\\nciently inhabited the region afterwards known as\\nNubia. The name for soldier, down to the Coptic,\\nwas Matoi or Masai. After the Masai had been\\nsupplanted by the Cushites, who seem to have crossed\\nover from the shores of the Red Sea to the upper Nile\\nvalley, the army was made up of Ethiopians and", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0493.jp2"}, "494": {"fulltext": "48B A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nLibyans. At first these troops were drilled and offi-\\ncered by native Egyptians, but, under the weak and\\neffeminate kings of the Twenty-first Dynasty, Ethi-\\nopians were intrusted with these positions. Thus\\nthe grandfather of Sheshonk I bore the title of Ur-\\nod en maty Great Prince of the Matoi, maty in my\\nopinion, being an abbreviation of matoi, mazai,\\nas long ago demonstrated by E. de Ronge. In the\\nTwenty-first Dynasty the office of Ur-od seems to\\nhave been more important than that of nominal king\\nat Tanis or high-priest of Amen. It was the uni-\\nversal custom at this time to govern conquered coun-\\ntries through native kings. Under Pianchi we find\\nTef-nechty king of Memphis and Sais, Osarkon, king\\nof Tanis, etc. Under Shabakon we find Zet, the\\npriest of Ptah, as local king, etc. Under the As-\\nsyrians Nechao and others appear as kings. Why\\nshould not the kings of the Twenty-first Dynasty\\nhave been subject to the great ruler of the Cushites?\\nThe Cushite kings of the Twenty-second Dynasty,\\nby reason of their nationality, enjoyed greater inde-\\npendence, and were allowed to exercise the author-\\nity of kings in Egypt, for we can hardly assume that\\nthey themselves were the Ethiopian sovereigns. The\\nIsraelites of the days of King Asa knew the differ-\\nence between Egyptians and Cushites. The de-\\nscription of Zarach, or Osarkon II, as King of\\nEthiopia and the Ethiopian must be regarded as\\ndecisive until positive negative proof is produced.\\nThe army of Zarah, like that of Shishak, was com-\\nposed of Ethiopians and Libyians; but if he was the", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0494.jp2"}, "495": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 489\\nking of an imaginary kingdom of Ethiopia situated\\nsomewhere in the desert wastes of Arabia, how could\\nwe account for the Libyan contingent of his army?\\nEgypt separated Libya from Arabia, and a power-\\nful kingdom in Egypt, under Osarkon II, who\\nreigned at Bubastis, made it impossible for an\\nArabian king to have an army of Libyans. We know\\nfrom the inscriptions and representations placed on\\nthe walls of the Temple of Karnak by Sheshonk I,\\nthat he was the Shishak of the Bible. Now, as the\\narmies of Shishak and Zarah were each composed of\\nLibyans and Ethiopians, we are forced to the con-\\nclusion that Zarah was Osarkon II.\\nBefore he became king, Sheshonk I was the Ur-oa\\nof this army of Libyan and Ethiopian mercenaries.\\nThere seems to be a consensus of opinion among\\nEgyptologists that the title Pharaoh is derived from\\nPer-od, Great House. In fact, in the celebrated\\ntreaty between Ramesses II, king of Egypt, and\\nCheta-sar, king of the Hittites (Land of Cheta), we\\nfind the following use of the title\\nMutet en pa a-nu en het er-da-en Ur-od en Cheta,\\nCheta-sar, an-et-u er Per-od, anch, uza, seneb, etc.,\\nthat is, Copy of the tablet of silver which the Great\\nPrince of Cheta, Chetasar, caused to be brought to\\nPharoah life, prosperity, and health to him, etc.\\nHere Per-od (I have written it in the singular, al-\\nthough in the original it is dual) is applied to the\\nking personally, as evidenced by the formula wish-\\ning him life, health, and prosperity. Now Pharaoh\\nseems to be a fair transcription of Perao, as pro-", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0495.jp2"}, "496": {"fulltext": "490 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nnounced in Lower Egypt, where P, almost invariably,\\nbecame Ph. But in this same treaty the king of the\\nHittites is called pa Ur-od, the Great Prince. Ur\\nis great in the sense of primitive compare ur-wald\\nprimeval forest od, in this combination, is an ad-\\njective meaning great; hence Brugsch s translation,\\nGreat Prince, is correct.\\nIt is significant that, prior to the Twenty-second\\nDynasty, foreign kings only were called ur-od, or, with\\nthe definite article, pa ur-od. The Coptic for king is\\nEro, Uro (ur-od), and in the Lower Egyptian\\ndialect, Pa-ero, Pa-uro, would become Pha-uro.\\nDuring the Twenty-first Dynasty the commander,\\nor general, of the army, which was composed prin-\\ncipally of Libyan and Ethiopian mercenaries, bore\\nthe distinguished title Ur-od, Ur-od en Mashuasha, or\\nUr-od en mat, that is, Great Prince of the Maxyes,\\netc. Thus Sheshonk, the grandfather of Sheshonk I,\\nheld the office of Ur-od, or Commander of the army.\\nIt might be said that he was the Ur-oa, or Pharaoh,\\nand, in fact, he was so powerful and influential that\\nMeht-en-usech, the daughter of the king of Egypt, was\\nbestowed upon him in marriage. Nimroth (Nimrod),\\nthe son of this union, was buried with regal honors\\nat Abydus.\\nThe office of Ur-od was hereditary, for the ances-\\ntors of Sheshonk I, who founded the Twenty-second\\nDynasty, held it for five or six generations. Now, if\\nPharaoh is derived from Pha-ur-oa, then Sheshonk I\\nwas the first king of Egypt who ever bore this title.\\nJosephus (Antiq. VIII, 6, 2) tells us that Pharaoh", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0496.jp2"}, "497": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 491\\nin the Egyptian tongue, signifies a king, and under-\\ntakes, in a mystical and incomprehensive manner, to\\nexplain why all the kings of Egypt, from Menes, who\\nbuilt Memphis, until Solomon, were called Pharaohs,\\nand yet took the name from one Pharaoh that lived\\nafter the kings of that interval. He closes the pre-\\ntended explanation with these words: As for my-\\nself, I have discovered from our own books that after\\nPharaoh, the father-in-law of Solomon, no other king\\nof Egypt did any longer use that name; but\\nI have now made mention of these things that I may\\nprove that our books and those of the Egyptians\\nagree together in many things.\\nJosephus confessed in another place that he could\\nnot understand the Egyptian language; hence the\\nbooks of the Egyptians referred to were Manetho s\\nHistory, which was published in Greek. Is it not\\nevident that Josephus found some mention of the\\ntitle Pa-ur-od in his copy of, or extract from, Man-\\netho, and of the fact that Sheshonk I, the successor\\nof Psusanos H, who was Solomon s father-in law,\\nwas the first king of Egypt who bore the title? Why\\nthen does he endeavor to mystify the facts? In\\nwhich of the sacred books of the Israelites did he dis-\\ncover that, after Pharaoh, the father-in-law of Solo-\\nmon, no other king of Egypt used that name? Why\\ndid he consider it necessary to explain how all the\\nkings prior to Solomon came to bear a title which\\nwas first borne by Sheshonk I, if he had not dis-\\ncovered the statement of the fact in the books of the\\nEgyptians? Must we not infer that Manetho derived", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0497.jp2"}, "498": {"fulltext": "492 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nPharaoh from Pha-ur-o, and explained that it meant\\nThe King? But it would carry me beyond the\\nlimits of this work to pursue the interesting subject\\nfarther.\\nTW^ENTY-THIRD DYNASTY OF THREE\\nTANITE KINGS\\nThe Twenty-third Dynasty of three Tanite kings,\\naccording to the List of Africanus, omitting the reign\\nof Zet, or Saites, which belongs to the Twenty-fourth\\nDynasty, was as follows\\nAfricanus.\\nEusebius.\\nI.\\nPetubastis,\\n40 years\\nI. Petubastis, 25 years\\n2.\\nOsorchon,\\n8\\n2. Osorthon, 9\\n3.\\nPsammus,\\n10\\n3. Psammus, 10\\nTotal, 59 Total, 44\\nA fourth king, Zet, with thirty-four or thirty-one\\nyears, has been added to the List of Africanus, and\\nthe total increased from fifty-nine to eighty-nine\\nyears. We have already called attention to the fact\\nthat the list used by Eusebius had been changed by\\nthe early Christian chronographers, who saw fit to in-\\nsert epoch-reigns in the place of actual reigns. Thus\\nPetsibastis, the first king of this dynasty, in whose\\nreign (789 to 749 B. C.) the first Olympiad was\\ncelebrated {yy6 B. C), reigned forty years. Euse-\\nbius has Petubastis with twenty-five years, which is\\nthe epoch-reign of Osorkon II, in the place of Petsi-\\nbastis (Pa-tu-sa-bastif, *^The Gift of the Son of Bast\\nand omits the synchronism between his reign and the\\nfirst Olympiad. Again Osorthon, whom the Egyp-\\ntians call Herakles, with nine years, is plainly and", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0498.jp2"}, "499": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 493\\nunmistakably the first part of the reign of Osorkon II\\nSa-hus-it, the nine years in the month of Athyr. Of\\ncourse, the petty king Osorkon, of the Twenty-third\\nDynasty, who governed a district or two in the Delta\\nat the pleasure of Pi-anchi, the Ethiopian king, was\\nnot called Herakles by the Egyptians nor Manetho\\neither. When, on the first day of Choiahk, 964 B. C,\\nof the Sothiac year, Horus crossed the equator to\\nbecome the Powerful Bull (ka-necht), Manetho com-\\npared him, not Osorkon II, to the Grecian Herakles.\\nHere again we see that Egyptian science was cosmic,\\nand that the Sothiac symbols and terminology were\\nbased upon natural phenomena affecting our globe as\\nan entirety, and not Egypt alone.\\nThus, when Horus crossed the equator at the ver-\\nnal equinox, he was regarded as the generator of\\nvegetable Hfe in the upper hemisphere. Hence we find\\nsuch symbols as Bastit, originally a vegetable offer-\\ning, and Min, or Pan, the symbols or symbolical per-\\nsonations of the generative principle in nature, pre-\\nsiding over the month of Choiahk. The remark iden-\\ntifying Osorchon HI with the Egyptian Hercules,\\nthat is, the Powerful Bull, was not originally In\\nthe List of Africanus, but was afterwards inserted\\nthere from the List of Eusebius, most probably by\\nSyncellus himself. Manetho s numbers place the be-\\nginning of this dynasty at 789 B. C; consequently\\nPetsibastis became petty king at Tanis thirteen years\\nbefore the first Olympiad. Manetho s synchronism,\\ntherefore, is sustained by the well-known date of the\\nfirst Olympiad.", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0499.jp2"}, "500": {"fulltext": "494 Self-Verifying Chronological\\nWe have seen that there is nothing in the great\\ninscription of Pianchi to even indicate that the numer-\\nous petty kings and rulers named therein had been ap-\\npointed or set up by him. The long reign of Petsi-\\nbastis excludes the supposition that he was appointed\\npetty king by Pianchi. The expedition commemo-\\nrated in the inscription took place in the twenty-first\\nyear of Pianchi; and placing it as far back in the\\nreign of Osorchon III as we possibly can, to wit, in\\nhis first year, Petsibastis had been on the throne at\\nleast twenty years when Pianchi became king. Now,\\nif Pianchi had conquered Egypt, he would not have\\npermitted his opponent, Petsibastis, previous king of\\nEgypt, to retain the kingdom. On the contrary, the\\nEthiopian kings gradually, but surely, circumscribed\\nand cut down the powers of the Egyptian kings. In\\nthe Twenty-first Dynasty we find native Egyptian\\nkings officiating as high-priests {top-hon-nuter) of\\nAmen in Thebes, the army, however, being under the\\ncontrol of Cushite officers, Hke Sheshonk and Nim-\\nroth, bearing the semi-royal title Ur-oa. In the\\nTwenty-second Dynasty we find Egypt governed by\\nCushite kings, whose only title to the throne was de-\\nrived from the Egyptian princess Meht-en-usech.\\nWe do not know how many native princes were al-\\nlowed to rule under these, but the Apis-memorials\\nshow that even as far north as Memphis itself Cush-\\nites exercised the highest priestly functions. In the\\nreign of Pianchi, Upper Egypt, from the land of\\nCush to the Heptanomis, had become a part of the\\nEthiopian kingdom, and was governed by the two", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0500.jp2"}, "501": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 495\\ncommanders of the Ethiopian troops, Paurma and\\nLamiskeni.\\nAlthough Manetho recognized Petsibastis as the\\nlegitimate king of Egypt, there can be no doubt that\\nthe district actually governed by him was as limited\\nas that ruled over by his successor, Osorchon III.\\nThe inscription of Pianchi is too lengthy to insert\\nin this work, and we will content ourselves with brief\\nextracts from it. The reader will find an excellent\\ntranslation of the entire document in the last edition\\nof Brugsch s History of Egypt.\\nMessengers came to inform the king that the\\nlord of the west country, the great prince of the\\nholy city Sais, Tefnecht, had established himself in the\\nnome of in the city of Xois, in the city\\nof Nilopolis, in the city of in the city of\\nAin, in the city of Panub (Canopus), and in the city\\nof Memphis. He has taken possession of the whole\\nwest country, from the Mediterranean coast up to the\\nboundary city. He is advancing up the river with\\nmany warriors. The inhabitants of both parts of\\nEgypt have joined themselves to him. The princes\\nand lords of the city are like dogs at his feet.\\nThis Tefneckf, who is also called king of Sais and\\nMemphis, is certainly the Tephnachthis of Diodorus,\\nwho was the father of Bokchoris. The real name\\nof the latter was Zet, the Sethon of Herodotus. The\\nlast king of the Twenty-third Dynasty was Psammus,\\nwhose reign of ten years came to an end 730 B. C.\\nThis year marks the accession of Shabakon, the\\nEthiopian, as lord of Egypt, and we can now explain", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0501.jp2"}, "502": {"fulltext": "496 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nwhy Manetho introduced a new dynasty at this point.\\nAs Tefnecht was king of Sais and Memphis, lord\\nof the west country, prophet of Neith, and the high-\\npriest of Ptah, his son Zet, Sethon or Bokchoris, cer-\\ntainly inherited the same ofhces. As there was no\\nconnection between Osorchon III of Tanis and Tef-\\nnecht of Sais and Memphis, the accession of Zet, un-\\nder Shabakon, introduced a new dynasty.\\nTefnecht invested the city of Heracleopolis Magna.\\nHe let all the princes who acknowledged his power\\nabide every one in his own district, as princes and\\nkings of the cities. Nimrod, the king of Hermopolis,\\nafter first demolishing his fortress, to prevent it from\\nfalling into the hands of Tefnecht, changed his mind,\\nthrew himself at the feet of Tefnecht, and renounced\\nhis allegiance to Pianchi.\\nWhen Pianchi received this message, he sent or-\\nders to the princes and the two generals of the army\\nabove named, who were set over the land of Egypt,\\nto hasten to prevent the rebels from arming, and to\\ninvest and blockade the city of Hermopolis, and to\\nfight against it without ceasing. Pianchi then sent\\nhis warriors to Egypt, enjoining upon them to be\\ncareful, to avoid the enjoyment of play, and to con-\\nfess that Amen sent them. The man who despises\\nhim shall have no strength he makes the weak strong,\\nand however many there may be of the strong, they\\nmust fly before the weak.\\nThe troops, however, prostrated themselves be-\\nfore Pianchi, claiming that it was his name that made\\nthem strong, his wisdom that gave them firmness.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0502.jp2"}, "503": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 497\\nDoes not thy power give us strength and courage?\\nWho is Hke unto thee? Thou art the king whose\\nhands create victory, a master in the work of war.\\nThus we see that Pianchi, notwithstanding his piety,\\nenjoyed the reputation of being a great leader upon\\nthe field of battle. A great monarch, in the twenty-\\nfirst year of his reign, might ordinarily expect to\\nend his days in peace, far from the horrors and alarms\\nof the battle-field, but it is evident that the veterans\\nwho had been led to victory by the aged king in his\\nyounger days, placed more reliance upon his tried\\ngeneralship than upon the religious ceremonies they\\nwere to go through at Thebes. With all deference to\\nthe fealty of the soldiers, we can not help admiring\\nthe faith of the aged monarch who bore the name of\\nThe Living One,\\nTWENTY-FOURTH DYNASTY OF FOUR\\nSAITE KINGS\\nAs we know from Eusebius, Manetho placed the\\nSaite and Ethiopian kings in parallel dynasties. Orig-\\ninally they stood thus\\nTwenty-fourth Dynasty of Twenty-fifth Dynasty of\\nSaite Kings. Ethiopian Kings.\\n1. Zet, or Bocchoris, 44 years i. Sabakon, 8 years\\n2. Tephnachtes, 7 2. Sebichos, 14\\n3. Necbepsos, 6 3. Tarakos, 18\\n4. Necbau I, 8 4. Tarakos, King of\\nUpper Egypt, 25\\nTotal, 65 Total, 65\\nIn the present lists these dynasties were first en-\\ntered as consecutive, instead of parallel, and then cut\\ndown, until now they are hardly recognizable.\\n32", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0503.jp2"}, "504": {"fulltext": "498 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nWe have already seen that in the Lists of Afri-\\ncanus Zet was added to the Twenty-third Dynasty,\\nand his forty-four years cut down to thirty-four and\\nthirty-one. The Twenty-fourth Dynasty was reduced\\nto one king and six years. To understand how this\\nwas done we must observe the division of Zet s reign\\nby the epoch of Am-hir (Mechir) 724 B. C.\\nEnd of Twenty-second Dynasty 730 B. C.\\nZet, or Sethon, before epocli, 6\\nEpoch of Amhir, 724 B. C.\\nZet, or Sethon, after epoch, as Rokchoris, 38\\nEnd of Zet s reign, 686 B. C.\\nWe now find: Twenty-fourth Dynasty (number\\nof kings omitted.) Bokchoris Saites (Set?), six\\nyears.\\nOne king alone can not constitute a dynasty. Be-\\nsides, the customary total is also wanting. The List\\nof Eusebius is like the above, except that Bokchoris\\nSaites has forty-four years, followed by total forty-\\nfour years.\\nNo. 74 of the pseudo-Sothis List is Bokchoris,\\nwith forty-four years; No. 78, Amaes, with thirty-\\neight years. At the head of his dynasty Eusebius has\\nAmmeris {A.mms -Am-hir-i), with eighteen years.\\nBokchoris, therefore, represents Rohk-ur-i, or Rok-\\nchoris, with the six years of Zet s reign before the\\nepoch, while Amaes, or Ammeris, represents Amiris,\\nwith the thirty-eight years of Zet s reign after the\\nepoch. It has been supposed that Zet s name was\\ninserted in the List of Africanus from Herodotus;", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0504.jp2"}, "505": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 499\\nbut this is an error, for Manetho certainly had him at\\nthe head of this dynasty of four Saite kings.\\nHerodotus introduces this petty king, whom he\\ncalls Sethon, as the priest of Vulcan. We learn\\nfrom Diodorus that this king, by him called Bok-\\nchoris, was the son of Tef-necht, who was also the\\npriest of Ptah. In the list of titles given to him in\\nPianchi s inscription, the first is King of Sais, which\\ncity was his residence. We have just seen that the\\ninsurrection led by Tef-necht was unsuccesful, but it\\nis evident that he was more powerful and influential\\nthan his contemporary, Osorkon III, whom Manetho\\nrecognized as the legitimate king. Bokchoris en-\\njoyed a vague reputation for wisdom, although it\\nwas impossible to tell upon what it was founded, while\\nhis true personality was hidden under the epoch-title\\nRokchoris. Now, since we know who this king really\\nwas, it is evident that the providential destruction\\nof the army of Sennacherib before Pelusium, com-\\nmemorated by the celebrated statue of Zet in the\\ntemple of Ptah, lay at the bottom of it. The suc-\\ncessor to this king was also named Tef-necht, which\\nconfirms the statement of Diodorus, for the kings\\noften named their sons after their grandfathers.\\nA remark attached to the reign of Sabakon in-\\nforms us that he took Bokchoris captive and burned\\nhim alive. This is the most instructive and amusing\\nof the many errors which were made by the redactors\\nof Manetho^s Lists. The accession of Sabakon as\\nking of Egypt took place in 730 B. C, and as Zet s\\nreign begins at the same time, it follows that he was", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0505.jp2"}, "506": {"fulltext": "500 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nappointed as under-king by Sabakon himself. After\\nhe had reigned six years, the epoch of Emhir came\\nin. This month was one of the Twins, and was\\ncalled Rohk-ur, or great heat.\\nManetho certainly mentioned the epoch (724\\nB. C.) which fell in the seventh year of Zet s reign,\\nand explained the meaning and derivation of the\\nepoch-titles Rohk-ur-i and Am-hir-i.\\nRohk-ur-i led to the fable of Rokchoris (not Zet)\\nbeing burnt (combussit) alive. Certain it is that Rok-\\nchoris reigned thirty-eight years after this great\\nburning, and that the priests of Sais consulted by\\nHerodotus knew nothing about it. The mention of\\nSennacherib, king of Assyria, affords us a very im-\\nportant synchronism. We know from the Canon of\\nPtolemy, which is astronomically absolute, that this\\nking mounted the throne 704 B. C. Josephus, in\\ntreating of the destruction of Sennacherib s army,\\nbefore Pelusium, tells us that Sennacherib heard that\\nTaraka, king of Ethiopia, was approaching across the\\ndesert with a large army. Now Sabakon s reign as\\nking of Egypt closed ^22 B. C, about the time\\nSamaria was captured by Shalmaneser, while the reign\\nof Sebichos as king of Egypt closed 708 B. C. Taraka\\nwas king of all Egypt from 708 B. C. to 690 B. C,\\nwhen he was defeated and driven out of Lower Egypt\\nby the Assyrians, although he was recognized as king\\nof Upper Egypt for twenty-five years longer, that is,\\nfrom 690 B. C. to 665 B. C. Sennacherib reigned\\nfrom 704 B. C. to 680 B. C, so that his reign and the\\nreign of Zet were contemporary for eighteen years.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0506.jp2"}, "507": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 501\\nThe confusion in which modern Egyptologists find\\nthemselves involved as to these Ethiopian kings is\\nowing, in part, to the present condition of the lists,\\nwhich place these kings between Bokchoris and Teph-\\nnachtis, and in part to their failure to take into con-\\nsideration the well-known fact that Manetho s Lists\\ncontain kings of Egypt, not of Ethiopia.\\nPsammetichos I, ignoring the Assyrians and the\\npetty kings established by them, claimed to be the\\nsuccessor of Taraka, king of Upper Egypt. An Apis-\\ntablet, heretofore misunderstood, dated in the twen-\\ntieth year of Psammetichos I, commemorates the\\ndeath and burial of an Apis-bull born in the twenty-\\nsixth year of the king of Upper Egypt, Taraka, and\\nproves that the latter continued to reign as king of\\nUpper Egypt twenty-five years after he had been ex-\\npelled from Lower Egypt by the Assyrians.\\nThe distinction is a fine one, but Manetho did\\nnot recognize any one as king of Egypt unless he\\nheld, or asserted a potential right to, Memphis, the\\nancient capital. Now as Tephnachtis, Nechepsos,\\nand Nechao I were princes of Sais and Memphis, just\\nas Zet had been, Manetho recognized them as the\\nlegitimate kings, and he was warranted in doing this;\\nfor, as we have just seen, Psammetichos I was care-\\nful to mention Taraka as king of Upper Egypt only.\\nAn exceptionally favorable correlation of dates and\\nevents enables me to fix the date of the accession of\\nHosea, king of Israel, at 730 B. C, or the beginning\\nof Manetho s Twenty-fourth and Twenty-fifth Dy-\\nnasties. By the aid of the Canon of Ptolemy we", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0507.jp2"}, "508": {"fulltext": "502 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nfind that Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, reigned from\\n726 to 721 B. C. It will be seen that Shalmaneser\\nbegan to reign in the fifth year of Hosea. We will\\nassume that it was in this year that Shalmaneser came\\nup, and Hosea became his servant, and paid him\\ntribute. After this, Hosea sent messengers to Saba-\\nkon, the king of Egypt, that he might not pay tribute\\nto the king of the Assyrians. When Shalmaneser\\nlearned that Hosea was endeavoring to rebel, he be-\\nsieged him, bound him, and cast him into prison;\\nand going up to Samaria, he besieged it three years.\\nAnd in the ninth year of Hosea he took Samaria,\\nand carried the Israelites away to Assyria, and placed\\nthem in Medea. This catastrophe took place about\\ny22 B. C, or one year before the accession of Sarkon.\\nThis may be in the nature of an agreeable surprise\\nto those Assyriologists who have concluded that it\\nwas not Shalmaneser, but Sarkon, who captured\\nSamaria. These synchronisms, when supported by\\nabsolute dates like those found in the Canon of\\nPtolemy, are crucial tests when applied to the sys-\\ntem of chronology transmitted to us by Manetho.\\nIn this instance the conditions are critical; for Saba-\\nkon s reign extended from 730 B. C. to ^22 B. C,\\nleaving a very small margin indeed. Shalmaneser\\nmounted the throne 726 B. C, or four years only\\nbefore the end of Sabakon s reign; and when we take\\ninto consideration that the siege of Samaria lasted\\ntwo or three years, we find that Hosea sent his mes-\\nsengers to Sabakon about 724 B. C. According to\\nManetho, Sabakon was king of Egypt in this year,", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0508.jp2"}, "509": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 503\\nand his system bears this test, just as it does every\\nother. Although Shabaka, the king of Egypt, did\\nnot come to the assistance of Hosea when Samaria\\nwas taken by Shalmaneser, his son Shabataka formed\\na league with the Philistines, and measured arms with\\nSarkona, the successor of Shalmaneser on the throne\\nof Assyria, a few years afterwards. Manetho calls\\nShabataka Sebichos, dropping the ta, which is\\nthe Cushite word for son. The Hebrews and As-\\nsyrians also dropped the definite article ^a, reduc-\\ning the name to Shaba, or Sheba, Male Cat.\\nRawlinson, in his excellent History of Assyria,\\ntells us that Sarkon, having crushed the rebellion in\\nSyria, turned his arms to the extreme south, and\\nattacked Gaza, which had been a dependency of\\nEgypt. In consequence of this provocation, Sebichos,\\ncalled Sibahe or Sebake in the annals of Sarkon, ad-\\nvanced towards Gaza, and joined forces with the Phil-\\nistines. The warlike Assyrian monarch did not await\\nthe attack of the Tartan, or Sultan, of Egypt, as he\\nis called in the annals, but advanced and met him\\nat Raphia, the modern Rafah, about midway between\\nGaza and the Wady-el-Arish, or River of Egypt.\\nHere, on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, the\\ncontending forces of the two greatest nations of the\\nworld met on the field of battle to decide the future\\ndestiny of Egypt. This was in the year of 719 B. C,\\nthree years after the accession of Sebichos, but more\\nthan 3,500 years after Menes, the first king, had\\nfounded the glorious kingdom of Upper and Lower\\nEgypt, and built the great Temple of Ptah at Mem-", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0509.jp2"}, "510": {"fulltext": "5o4 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nphis. Alas! Egypt was but a semblance of her for-\\nmer self; the population, once Japhetic, had become\\nlargely Cushite, with an additional mixture of Libyan\\nblood, and the native kings and princes were no\\nlonger Pharaohs in the true sense of the word, but\\nmerely tributary rulers of nomes and districts under\\nthe Cushite sovereign, the Sultan of Ethiopia.\\nThe reader can easily anticipate what the result\\nof this battle with the fiercest and most aggressive\\nnation of Asia must have been. Rawlinson expresses\\nit in one sentence:\\nSargon having arrived, immediately engaged the\\nallied army, and succeeded in defeating it completely,\\ncapturing Khanun, king of Gaza, and forcing Shebek\\nto seek safety in flight.\\nWe are told that Samaria was taken in the sixth\\nyear of Hezekiah, and that in the fourteenth year\\nof Hezekiah, or only eight years thereafter, Sen-\\nnacherib, king of the Assyrians, came up against the\\nfenced cities of Judah, and took them, whereupon\\nHezekiah sent messengers to the king of the As-\\nsyrians, to Eachis, offering submission, and Sen-\\nnacherib put a tax upon him of thirty talents of gold\\nand three hundred talents of silver. Instead of the\\nfourteenth, we must read the twenty-seventh year.\\nThe long reign of Sarkon comes between Shalman-\\neser and Sennacherib, so that the latter did not mount\\nthe throne as king of the Assyrians until 704 B. C.\\nGeorge Smith, in his Assyrian Discoveries, pages\\n296-308, gives an excellent translation of an inscrip-", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0510.jp2"}, "511": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 505\\ntion of this monarch engraved on a cylinder dis-\\ncovered by him. The portion referring to this ex-\\npedition reads\\nIn my third expedition I went to the land of the\\nHittites. The priests, princes, and people of\\nEkron placed Padi their king, who was faithful and\\nsteadfast to Assyria, in bonds of iron, and gave him\\nto Hezekiah, king of Judah, as an enemy; their hearts\\nfeared for the evil they had done. The kings of Egypt,\\nand the archers, chariots, and horses of the king of\\nEthiopia, gathered a force without number, and came\\nto their help.\\nIn the vicinity of Eltekeh, their lines were placed\\nbefore me, and they urged on their soldiers. In the\\nservice of Assur, my Lord, I fought with them, and\\ntheir overthrow I accomplished. Alive in the midst of\\nbattle, my hand captured the charioteers and sons\\nof the kings of Egypt, and the charioteers of the king\\nof Ethiopia. I besieged and captured Eltekeh and\\nTimnah, and carried off their spoil.\\nAnd Hezekiah, of Judah, who did not submit to\\nmy yoke, forty-six of his strong cities and fortresses,\\nand small cities which were around them, which were\\nwithout number, with the marching of a host and\\nsurrounding of a multitude, with attack of ranks,\\nforce of battering-rams, mining, and missiles, I be-\\nsieged and captured 200,150 people, small and great,\\nmale and female, and horses, mules, asses, camels,\\noxen, and sheep, which were without number, I\\nbrought out from the midst of them, and counted as\\nspoil. I had made him like a caged bird within Jeru-\\nsalem, his royal city; I raised towers around him, and\\nshut the exit of the great gate of his city, and he\\nwas conquered.\\nThe fear of the might of my dominion over-", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0511.jp2"}, "512": {"fulltext": "5o6 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nwhelmed Hezekiah and the Urbi and his good sol-\\ndiers, whom he had caused to enter into Jerusalem\\nto be preserved, and they inclined to submission, with\\nthirty talents of gold, eight hundred talents of silver,\\nprecious carbuncles, etc.\\nAnd he sent his daughters, the eunuchs of his\\npalace, male musicians and female musicians, to the\\nmidst of Nineveh, the city of my dominion, after me,\\nand he sent his messenger to give tribute and make\\nsubmission.\\nNow, as Sennacherib ascended the throne 704\\nB. C, and this was his third expedition, the events\\nhere recorded could not have taken place earlier than\\n702 B. C, or the twenty-sixth year of Hezekiah. In\\nthese accounts, each nation endeavors to present the\\noccurrences in the most favorable light.\\nThus the annals of Sennacherib omit any men-\\ntion of the expedition against Egypt and the terrible\\ndisaster before the walls of Pelusium. The Bible ac-\\ncount makes the same omission, and leaves us to\\ninfer that Sennacherib returned to Nineveh, where he\\nwas soon after murdered by his sons, when, in fact,\\nhe immediately gathered a powerful army, and\\nmarched to the land of Bit-yakin, and continued to\\nreign fully twenty years thereafter. The priests of\\nEgypt made no mention to Herodotus of the great\\nbattle of Eltekeh in which the Egyptian and Ethi-\\nopian armies were overthrown.\\nAnd Josephus, although he professes to quote all\\nthe authorities, garbles and confuses the facts more\\neffectually than any of the others. According to 2\\nKings xix, 7, 8, 9, 35, ^6, ^y, the prophecy against", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0512.jp2"}, "513": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 507\\nSennacherib was as follows: Behold, I will send a\\nspirit upon him, and he shall hear a message, and\\nshall return into his own country. When Rab-\\nshakeh returned from Jerusalem he found Sennach-\\nerib besieging Libnah. And when the king heard\\nthat Taraka, king of the Ethiopians, was coming out\\nto fight with him, and was going against him, he\\nsent messengers to Hezekiah, etc. And it came to\\npass that night that an angel of the Lord came, and\\nslew, in the camp of the Assyrians, 185,000. And\\nwhen he arose early in the morning, he saw all the\\nbodies of the dead. And Sennacherib, king of the\\nAssyrians, departing, went away, and he returned and\\nabode in Nineveh.\\nWe learn from the above that when Sennacherib\\nheard that Taraka was coming out to fight with him,\\nhe went against him; but this is omitted in Isaiah\\nxxxvii, 9.\\nIn Chronicles we read: And the Lord sent\\nan angel, who cut off all the stout men and war-\\nriors, and the captains of the army of the king\\nof the Assyrians, and he returned with disgrace\\ninto his own country. And when he was come\\ninto the house of his god, his sons that came\\nout of his bowels, slew him with the sword. Now\\nwould any one suppose, from this condensed account,\\nthat Sennacherib had made an expedition to Egypt\\nto intercept Taraka, and was engaged in besieging\\nPelusium when his army was cut off, or that, after\\nhe departed and returned to Nineveh, he continued\\nto reign nearly twenty years longer?", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0513.jp2"}, "514": {"fulltext": "5o8 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nAfter Anyses, Herodotus tells us, the priest of\\nVulcan, whose name was Sethon, reigned in Egypt.\\nHe held in no account and despised the mihtary\\ncaste of the Egyptians, as not having need of their\\nservices; and accordingly, among other indignities,\\nhe took away their lands, etc.\\nAfter this, Sennacherib, king of the Arabians and\\nAssyrians, marched a large army against Egypt,\\nwhereupon the Egyptian warriors refused to assist\\nhim; and the priest, being reduced to a strait, en-\\ntered the temple, and bewailed before the image the\\ncalamities he was in danger of suffering. While he\\nwas lamenting sleep fell upon him, and it appeared\\nto him in a vision that the god stood by and encour-\\naged him, assuring him that he would suffer nothing\\ndisagreeable in meeting the Arabian army, for he\\nwould himself send assistants to him. Confiding in\\nthe vision, he took with him such of the Egyptians\\nas were willing to follow him, and encamped in\\nPelusium, for here is the entrance (into Egypt); but\\nnone of the military caste followed him, but trades-\\nmen, mechanics, and sutlers. When they arrived\\nthere, a number of field-mice, pouring in upon their\\nenemies, devoured their quivers and their bows, and,\\nmoreover, the handles of their shields; so that, on\\nthe next day, when they fled bereft of their arms,\\nmany of them fell; and to this day a stone statue\\nof this king stands in the temple of Vulcan with a\\nmouse in his hand, and an inscription to the follow-\\ning effect Whoever looks on me, let him revere the\\ngods. (Herod, ii, 141.)\\nJosephus, who knew the historical facts which had\\nserved as a basis for the priestly legends, after follow-\\ning the Bible account of Sennacherib s invasion of", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0514.jp2"}, "515": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 509\\nJudah down to the payment of the thirty talents of\\ngold and three hundred talents of silver, says: Ac-\\ncordingly the Assyrian king took it, and yet had no\\nregard to what he promised; but while he himself\\nwent to the war against the Egyptians, he left his\\ngeneral, Rabshakeh, and two other of his principal\\ncommanders, with great forces, to destroy Jerusa-\\nlem.\\nOmitting what follows about the notice to surren-\\nder, etc. Josephus, leaving the reader to infer that\\nSennacherib marched to the border of Egypt, and in-\\nvested Pelusium, continues\\nThe king of Assyria, when he had failed of his\\ntreacherous designs against the Egyptians, returned\\nhome without success on the following occasion.\\nHe spent a long time in the siege of Pelusium,\\nand when the banks that he had raised over against\\nthe walls were of a great height, and when he was\\nready to make an immediate assault upon them, but\\nheard that Tirhaka, king of the Ethiopians, was com-\\ning and bringing great forces to aid the Egyptians,\\nand was resolved to march through the desert, and\\nso to fall directly upon the Assyrians, this king Sen-\\nnacherib was disturbed at the news; and, as I said\\nbefore left Pelusium, and returned back with-\\nout success. Now, concerning this Sennacherib,\\nHerodotus also says, in the second book of his his-\\ntories, how this king came against the Egyptian\\nking, who was the priest of Vulcan, and that, as he\\nw^as besieging Pelusium, he broke up the siege on\\nthe following occasion: This Egyptian priest prayed\\nto God, and God heard his prayer, and sent judgment\\non the Arabian king. But in this Herodotus was\\nmistaken when he called this king not king of the", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0515.jp2"}, "516": {"fulltext": "5IO A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nAssyrians, but of the Arabians; for he sayeth that\\na multitude of mice gnawed to pieces, in one night,\\nboth the bows and the rest of the armor of the As-\\nsyrians, and that it was on that account that the king,\\nwhen he had no bows left, drew off his army from\\nPelusium.\\nAnd Herodotus does indeed give us this history;\\nnay, and Berosus, who wrote of the afifairs of Chaldea,\\nmakes mention of this King Sennacherib, and that he\\nruled over the Assyrians, and that he made an expe-\\ndition against all Asia and Egypt, and says thus\\nNow when Sennacherib was returning from his\\nEgyptian war to Jerusalem, he found his army under\\nRabshakah, his general, in danger (by a plague), for\\nGod had sent a pestilential distemper upon his army;\\nand, on the very first night of the siege, a hundred\\nfourscore and five thousand, with their captains and\\ngenerals, were destroyed. So the king was in great\\ndread and in a terrible agony at this calamity, and,\\nbeing in great fear for his whole army, he fled with\\nthe rest of his forces to his own kingdom, and to his\\ncity Nineveh; and when he had abode there a little\\nwhile, he was treacherously assaulted, and died by the\\nhands of his elder sons, Addremmelech and Seraser,\\nand was slain in his own temple, which was called\\nAraske. Now these sons of his were driven away\\non account of the murder of their father by the citi-\\nzens, and went into Armenia, while Assarachoddas\\ntook the kingdom of Sennacherib. And this proved\\nto be the conclusion of this Assyrian expedition\\nagainst the people of Jerusalem.\\nThe battles of Raphia and Eltekah are mentioned\\nin none of these accounts except the Assyrian. The\\nEgyptian priests added the defection of the military\\ncaste, and represented Sethon s army as composed ex-", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0516.jp2"}, "517": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 511\\nclusively of tradesmen, mechanics, and sutlers, in or-\\nder to heighten the effect of their story. The priestly\\nredactors of the Jewish annals have entirely omitted\\nall mention of Sennacherib s expedition to Egypt, in\\norder to create the impression that the destruction\\nof his army occurred in Judea. Josephus, however,\\nflatly contradicts 2 Kings xix, 8 and 9, where it\\nis clearly stated that Sennacherib was besieging Lib-\\nnah when he received the message of the advance of\\nTaraka, king of Ethiopia, and thence went out against\\nhim, when he asserts that the king of Assyria was be-\\nsieging Pelusium at the time, and, being disturbed at\\nthe news, left Pelusium, and returned back without\\nsuccess. Note how he quotes Herodotus:\\nThis Egyptian priest prayed to God, and God\\nheard his prayer, and sent judgment on the Arabian\\nking.\\nA multitude of mice gnawed to pieces in one\\nnight both the bows and the rest of the armor of\\nthe Assyrians, and it was on this account that\\nthe king, w^hen he had no bows left, drew oif his\\narmy from Pelusium\\nWe see how inaccurate the alleged quotations\\nof Josephus are, and what care and caution must\\nbe observed when we come to analyze the al-\\nleged quotations from Manetho and Berosus. I\\nregard the occurrence before the ^alls of Pelu-\\nsium as the historical fact and the natural and\\ndirect cause of the tragedy. Migrations of countless\\nnumbers of locusts, quails, and field-mice in these\\ndesert countries are well-attested natural phenomena.", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0517.jp2"}, "518": {"fulltext": "512 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nIf a migrating army of field-mice had succeeded in\\ncrossing the desert, they must have been almost\\nstarved and famished v^hen they providentially\\nreached the camp of the Assyrian army, and it was\\nbut natural for them to gnaw and devour all the\\nleather within reach. When the Assyrians discov-\\nered the damage that had been wrought in one night,\\nthey fled, and, between the pursuing Egyptians and\\nthe horrors of the desert they were compelled to re-\\ntreat through, large numbers of them perished. The\\nreport was current that Taraka and the Ethiopian\\narmy were coming across the desert, so as to inter-\\ncept their retreat, and this naturally added to the\\npanic caused by the work of the field-mice.\\nRawlinson supposes a second invasion about 699\\nB. C, during which Sennacherib s army was de-\\nstroyed; but this supposition is not supported by any\\nevidence, and is contradicted by the Bible account.\\nTWENTY-FIFTH DYNASTY OF ETHIOPIAN\\nKINGS\\nWe have just seen that the Twenty-fourth Dy-\\nnasty of Saite kings and Twenty-fifth Dynasty of\\nEthiopian kings were contemporary. Both dynas-\\nties began 730 B. C. and ended 665 B. C, but during\\nthe last twenty-five years of this period, to wit, from\\n690 B. C. to 665 B. C, Taraka was king of Upper\\nEgypt only, for Lower Egypt was subject to the\\nAssyrians. The last four years of the reign of Zet,\\ntherefore, were during the Assyrian domination.\\nThe disaster to Sennacherib s army before the", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0518.jp2"}, "519": {"fulltext": "HiSTOR Y OF Ancient Eg j pt 5 1 3\\nwalls of Pelusium served to delay, but could not avert,\\nthe complete overthrow of Ethiopian supremacy in\\nLower Egypt. Sennacherib was the first Assyrian\\nking to cross the desert which separates Egypt from\\nPalestine. As this was near the beginning of his\\nreign, we can assume that, after he had sufficiently\\nrecovered from the shock, he returned with another\\narmy to wipe out the disgrace which rested upon his\\nstandards. The second invasion of Egypt and the\\ndefeat of Taraka must have occurred about 690 B. C,\\nbecause the eighteen years of his reign as king of\\nEgypt came to an end in this year. The spade may\\nyet turn up some long hidden memorial of the first\\nconquest of Egypt by the Assyrians. Who could\\nhave guessed that Esarhaddon, the successor of\\nSennacherib, had made two separate expeditions to\\nEgypt if the fact had not been revealed by cuneiform\\ninscriptions discovered in Assyria?\\nThe first text, translated by George Smith, gives\\nan account of the expedition of Esarhaddon against\\nTaraka about 671 B. C. In his tenth expedition,\\nEsarhaddon set his face toward the country of Makan\\nand Meluha, by which names the Assyrians desig-\\nnated Lower Egypt. (Right here I may remark that\\nthe Hamites,who had been domiciled in the Delta be-\\nfore the Flood, carried these names to Babylonia\\nwhen they founded that kingdom under Nimrod, and\\nbestowed them on the Delta of the Euphrates and\\nTigris Rivers at the head of the Persian Gulf, and\\nthat the Assyrians, who originally migrated from that\\ncountry, ostentatiously displayed their knowledge of\\n33", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0519.jp2"}, "520": {"fulltext": "514 Self- Verifying Chronological\\nthis fact by adhering to the ancient names.) He col-\\nlected his powerful army, and went forth from his\\ncapital city, Assur, in the first month of Nisan, crossed\\nover the rivers Tigris and Euphrates, and passed\\nthrough difHcult countries like a bull, (Ka-nechtf) In\\nthe course of his expedition, he besieged Baal, king\\nof Tyre, who had intrusted his country to Taraka,\\nking of Cush (Ethiopia), had thrown off the yoke\\nof Assur, and had made defiance. Leaving this city\\ninvested, he marched to Raphia, where Sarkon had\\ngained his great victory, crossed the desert, where\\nthere was no water, and where his army suffered the\\ngreatest hardships, and eventually reached the Delta.\\nThe Assyrian authority was re-estabUshed over\\nLower Egypt, and the numerous petty kings, with\\nwhom we have become familiar through the cele-\\nbrated inscription of Pianchi, were accepted as As-\\nsyrian feudatories. Unfortunately, the text is frag-\\nmentary, and breaks ofif in the most important parts.\\nOwing to this, we do not know whether Esarhaddon\\nsucceeded in his campaign against Thebes and Nubia,\\nwhere he expected, once for all, to suppress the\\nEthiopian king. The Assyrian army suffered severely\\nfrom the nature of the country, and, as far as Taraka\\nwas concerned, the expedition was without perma-\\nnent results. Taraka seems to have remained quies-\\ncent during the reign of Esarhaddon, whom he had\\nlearned to fear, that is, from 690 B. C. to 667 B. C.\\nbut upon his death, as we learn from the annals of\\nAssurbanipal, he invaded Lower Egypt, overcame the\\nkings and governors whom Esarhaddon had ap-", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0520.jp2"}, "521": {"fulltext": "HiSTOR Y OF Ancient Eg ypt 5 1 5\\npointed, despised the power of Assur, Ishtar, and the\\nother great gods of the Assyrians, and trusted to his\\nown might. When Assurbanipal received this news,\\nhe was going in state in the midst of Nineveh, and\\nhis heart was bitter and much afflicted over these\\nthings.\\nHe gathered his powerful forces, which Assur and\\nIshtar had placed in his hands, and directed his march\\nto Egypt and Ethiopia. Taraka, who was in Mem-\\nphis, heard of the progress of his expedition, and\\nsent out his army to meet him; but the terror of\\nAssur and Ishtar overcame him, his army was de-\\nfeated and overthrown; overwhelmed, he abandoned\\nMemphis, and, to save his hfe, fled to Thebes. Assur-\\nbanipal pursued him, and took that city also. He\\ntells us that he restored the kings, prefects, and gov-\\nernors whom his father, Esarhaddon, had appointed,\\nnaming twenty of them, among whom we will only\\nmention Necho, king of Memphis, and Sais, who,\\naccording to Manetho, reigned from (yy^ B. C. to\\n665 B. C. After doing all this, the Assyrian king\\nreturned to Nineveh with abundant plunder and much\\nspoil. But these kings, seeking to rebel, conspired\\nwith Taraka, and were about to throw off the As-\\nsyrian yoke, when they were arrested and bound\\nhands and feet by the Assyrian generals who had\\nbeen left in Egypt by Assurbanipal.\\nNecho, however, found favor in the sight of the\\nking, and was restored to his kingdom; costly gar-\\nments were placed upon him, ornaments of gold and\\nhis royal image made for him, bracelets of gold fast-", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0521.jp2"}, "522": {"fulltext": "5i6 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nened upon his limbs, and a sword of steel, with a\\nsheath of gold, given him. Assurbanipal sent his\\ngenerals as governors to assist him, and appointed,\\nfor his royal riding, chariots, horses, and mules. The\\nson of Necho was appointed as local governor in\\nAthribis. The Assyrian monarch tells us that he be-\\nstowed on Necho benefits and favors far beyond\\nthose which his father Bsarhaddon had bestowed on\\nhim.\\nTaraka fled from the place, the might of the\\nsoldiers of Assur, my lord, overwhelmed him, and he\\nwent to his place of night, that is, he died.\\nThe great Ethiopian king who had reigned as\\nking of Egypt from 708 B. C. to 690 B. C, and as\\nking of Upper Egypt and Ethiopia from 690 B. C.\\nto 665 B. C, a period of forty-three years, and who\\nhad made one of the most heroic defenses of his\\nnative land, against overwhelming odds, to be found\\nin the annals of history, a long and determined strug-\\ngle against fate, seems to have died of a broken heart\\nin extreme old age. Is it a wonder that the name\\nof Taraka has come down to us enveloped in a halo\\nof legend and myth as one of the greatest warriors\\nof antiquity?\\nAfter Taraka s death, Undamane (Rud-amen), son\\nof Shabaka, ascended the throne. He made the cities\\nof Thebes and Hermopolis his fortresses, gathered his\\nforces, besieged the Assyrians and their tributary\\nkings in Memphis, and took them. A swift messen-\\nger conveyed the news to Nineveh.\\nAssurbanipal tells us that he directed his second", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0522.jp2"}, "523": {"fulltext": "HiSTOR Y OF Ancient Eg ypt 517\\nexpedition to Egypt and Ethiopia. Undamane heard\\nof the progress of the expedition, and that he had\\ncrossed the border of Egypt, and thereupon aban-\\ndoned Memphis, and fled to Thebes to save his Hfe.\\nThe kings, prefects, and governors, whom Assur-\\nbanipal had set up in Egypt, came to his presence,\\nand offered their submission.\\nThe Assyrian king pursued Undamane to Thebes,\\nbut the Ethiopian, when he saw^ the powerful army\\nof his enemy, abandoned Thebes, and fled to Kip-\\nkip in Ethiopia. The Great City was now thor-\\noughly sacked and plundered, and the spoil great\\nand unnumbered, including two lofty obelisks, cov-\\nered with beautiful carving, that stood before the gate\\nof a temple, carried off in triumph to Assyria. This\\ncatastrophe happened about 665 B. C. At least,\\nPsammetichos, the first king of the Twenty-sixth\\nDynasty, dated his inscriptions from the death of\\nTaraka, king of Upper Egypt, or 665 B. C. In the\\nannals of his third campaign, 664 B. C, Assurbanipal\\ntells us that he went against Baal, king of Tyre, and\\nreduced him to submission. Gyges, king of Lydia,\\na district across the sea, a remote place, sent mes-\\nsengers to pray for friendship; but after he had pre-\\nvailed over the Kimmerians, he hardened his heart,\\ndiscontinued the messengers, and sent his forces to\\nthe aid of Psammetichos, king of Egypt, who had\\nthrown off the Assyrian yoke. As a punishment for\\nthis bad faith, the Kimmerians came and swept the\\nwhole of his country. Thus Manetho is sustained to\\nthe very year by the annals of Assurbanipal, for this", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0523.jp2"}, "524": {"fulltext": "5i8 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nmonarch does not appear to have again set foot on\\nthe soil of Egypt, but informs us expressly that, at\\nthe time of his third expedition, or 664 B. C, Psam-\\nmetichos had thrown off the yoke, and had become\\nking of Egypt. The dates of the separate reigns can\\nbe fixed as follows\\nNative kings, 730 B. C. Ethiopians, 730 B. C.\\nZet, or Rokchoris, 44 Shabaka, 8\\n686 B. C. 722 B. C.\\nTephnachtis, 7 Shabataka, 14\\n679 B. C. 708 B. C.\\nNephepsos, 6 Taraka, 18\\n673 B. C. 690 B. C.\\nNechao I, 8 Taraka, King of\\nUpper Egypt, 25\\n665 B. C. 665 B. C.\\nThus Hosea was contemporary with Shabaka and\\nZet. When Sarkon gained his great victory at\\nRaphia, Shabataka, or Sebichos, and Zet were rul-\\ning. The defeat of Sennacherib before Pelusium took\\nplace while Taraka was king of Egypt, and Zet, petty\\nking of Memphis and Sais. If Egypt was conquered\\nby Sennacherib about 690 B. C, Zet, who was then\\nking of Memphis and Sais, probably transferred his\\nallegiance from Taraka to Sennacherib. Tephnachtis,\\nit seems, was deposed about 679 B. C, and Nechep-\\nsos, in his turn, about 6y2, B. C. Nechao I was\\nput in his place. We accordingly find the latter\\nmentioned by Assurbanipal about 66y B. C.\\nThe date 665 B. C. for the beginning of the reign", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0524.jp2"}, "525": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 519\\nof Psammetichos, thus worked out from the separate\\nreigns and synchronisms, is supported by the astro-\\nnomical dates of the Egyptians.\\nEpoch of Amliir, 724 B. C.\\nZet, after epoch, as Amiris, 38\\n~686B.C.\\nTephnachtis, 7\\n679 B. C.\\nNechepsos, 6\\n~6^B.C.\\nNechao I, 8\\nAccession of Psammetichos I, 665 B. C.\\nPsammetiches I, 54\\neTi B. C.\\nNechao I, before epoch, 7\\nEpoch of Phamenoth, 604 B. C.\\nTWENTY- SIXTH DYNASTY OF SIX SAITE\\nKINGS\\nGuided by the star that led the three wise men\\nto Bethlehem, we have safely traversed the unknown\\nsea of ancient chronology, and now we find ourselves\\nupon firm historical ground.\\nThus much of the account the Egyptians and\\nthe priests related, says Herodotus at this point,\\nadding What things both other men and the Egyp-\\ntians agree in saying occurred in this country, I shall\\nnow proceed to relate, and shall add to them some\\nthings of my own observation.\\nNotwithstanding this promising introduction, the\\nFather of History inaugurates his description of\\nthis dynasty with an account of the building of the", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0525.jp2"}, "526": {"fulltext": "520 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nLabyrinth, which is out of place and anachronistic by\\nnearly 2,000 years.\\nBeginning of Twenty-sixtli Dynasty, 665 B. C.\\n1. Psammetichos I, 54\\n~6iiB.C.\\n2. Nechao II, before epoch of Phamenoth, 7\\nEpoch, 604 B. C.\\nNechao II, after epoch, 9\\n~595 B. C.\\n3. Psammetichos II, another 6\\n~^B.C.\\n4. IJaphris, 19\\n~^B.C.\\n5. Amosis, 44\\n526 B.C.\\n6. Psammecherites (six months), i\\nEnd of Dynasty, 525 B. C.\\nWe have purposely given Manetho s List first, so\\nthat the reader might more readily see how the\\ndivision of Necho s reign by the epoch of Pham-\\nenoth, 604 B. C, has affected the present Hsts.\\nAfricanus. Eusebius.\\n1. Psammetichos, 54 years i. Psammetichos, 44 years\\n2. Nechao II, 6 2. Nechao II, 6\\n3. Psammuthis, an- 3. Psammuthis, an-\\nother, 6 other, 17\\n4. Uaphris, 19 4. Uaphris, 25\\n5. Amosis, 44 5. Amosis, 42\\n6. Psammecherites, Yz 6. Psammecherites, Yz\\nNechao II, as we also know from Herodotus,\\nreigned sixteen years; but neither this number nor\\nthe seventeen years before the epoch, nor the nine\\nyears after it, appear in the above lists. Eusebius", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0526.jp2"}, "527": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 521\\nattempted to correct the error, and restore the Hst,\\nby giving Psammuthis seventeen years, and Uaphris\\n(6+19) twenty-five years. The epoch-title, Tsam-\\nmuthis, has usurped the place of Psammetichos II,\\nalthough the word another, which was used in-\\nstead of II, remains to identify him. The eighty-\\nthird king of the pseudo-Sothis List is Nechao II\\nPharaoh, with a reign of nine years, that is, his reign\\nafter the epoch. I contend that his entire reign was\\nsixteen years and, at least, six months, whence the\\nseventeen years of Eusebius. This view is sustained\\nby the date of the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses,\\n525 B. C. for we need these six months to complete\\nthe seventy-nine years between the epoch 604 B. C.\\nand the date of the conquest.\\nHerodotus gives Psammis (Psamuis?), the suc-\\ncessor of Neko, six years; but it seems strange that,\\nas far back as 450 B. C, he should give Uaphris\\ntwenty-five instead of nineteen years, an error re-\\nsulting from this same Sothiac division of Neko s\\nreign.\\nThe history of this dynasty is so well known that\\nI shall merely take up a few points which are closely\\nconnected with the chronology of the period, and\\nafford synchronisms by which it can be tested and\\ncorroborated. We have seen that the fifty-four years\\nof Psammetichos I began in the third year of Assur-\\nbanipal, 665 B. C.\\nWe learn from the annals of Assurbanipal that,\\nwhen he mounted the throne of Assyria, Gyges was\\nking of Lydia, a distant and remote country; and", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0527.jp2"}, "528": {"fulltext": "522 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nHerodotus tells us that, during the reign of Ardys,\\nthe son and successor of Gyges, the Kimmerians,\\nbeing driven from their seats by the Skythian nomads,\\npassed into Asia, and possessed themselves of all Sar-\\ndis except the citadel.\\nThis occupation of Lydia by the Kimmerians is\\nalluded to by Assurbanipal in the account of his\\nthird expedition.\\nHe tells us that Gyges, king of Lydia, had re-\\nceived intelligence of his grand kingdom through a\\ndream, and had sent his messenger to pray for Assur-\\nbanipaFs friendship. From the midst of the day\\nwhen he took the yoke of my kingdom, he captured\\nthe Kimmerians, wasters of the people of his coun-\\ntry, who did not fear my fathers and me, and did not\\ntake the yoke of my kingdom.\\nHis messengers, whom, to pray for my friend-\\nship, he was constantly sending, he willfully discon-\\ntinued, as the will of Assur, my creator, he had dis-\\nregarded; and he trusted to his own power, and hard-\\nened his heart.\\nHe sent his forces to the aid of Psammetichos,\\nking of Egypt, who had thrown off the yoke of my\\ndominion, and I heard of it, and prayed to Assur and\\nIshtar thus May they cast his corpse before his\\nenemies, and may they carry his servants captive!\\nWhen thus to Assur I had prayed, he requited me,\\nfor his corpse was thrown down before his enemies,\\nand they carried his servants captive. The Kimme-\\nrians, whom by the glory of my name he had trodden\\nunder him, came and swept the whole of his country.\\nAfter him his son sat on the throne. By the hand\\nof his envoy he sent and took the yoke of my king-", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0528.jp2"}, "529": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 523\\ndom, thus: The king whom God has blessed, art\\nthou; my father departed from thee, and evil was\\ndone in his time; I am thy devoted servant, and my\\npeople all perform thy pleasure.\\nThis is a remarkable confirmation, in part, of\\nwhat Herodotus relates, and it is important in fixing\\nthe date of these events between 667 and 664 B. C.\\nWhile a new and unexpected enemy had thus arisen\\non the western border of Assyria, another, even more\\nformidable, had imperceptibly grown up on the east;\\nand, as if it wxre providential, all this occurred when\\nAssyria stood at the very pinnacle of her greatness,\\nand no doubt considered herself invincible. Herodo-\\ntus informs us that Deioces collected the Medes into\\none nation, and when he died, after reigning fifty-\\nthree years, his son Phraortes succeeded him in the\\nkingdom. He first of all attacked the Persians, and\\nreduced them under the dominion of the Medes.\\nAfterward, being master of these two nations, both\\nof them powerful, he subdued Asia, attacking one\\nnation after the other, till, at last, he invaded the\\nAssyrians, who had before been supreme, though at\\nthat time they were abandoned by their confederates\\nwho had revolted, but who were otherwise in good\\ncondition. The first encounter between the Medes and\\nthe victorious armies of the Assyrians proved very\\ndisastrous to the invaders; for Phraortes, with the\\ngreater part of his army, perished miserably after he\\nhad reigned twenty-two years. Cyaxares, his son,\\nwho is said to have been more warlike than his an-\\ncestors, succeeded him. After he had subjected the", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0529.jp2"}, "530": {"fulltext": "524 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nwhole of Asia above the river Halys, he assembled\\nhis forces and marched against Nineveh to avenge his\\nfather and destroy that city. He obtained a victory\\nover the Assyrians, and was besieging Nineveh when\\na great army of Skythians came upon him. This sav-\\nage horde had driven the Kimmerians out of Europe,\\nand, pursuing them into Asia, entered the territory\\nof the Medes. They passed along the north flank of\\nthe Caucasus, and entered Media near the western\\nshore of the Caspian Sea. There the Medes came into\\nan engagement with them; but, being worsted in the\\nbattle, the Skythians became masters of all Asia.\\nFrom thence they proceeded toward Egypt; but when\\nthey had reached Palestine in Syria, Psammetichos,\\nking of Egypt, wisely met them with presents and\\nprayers, and diverted them from advancing farther.\\nReturning, they governed Asia for twenty-eight years,\\nand everything was overthrown by their licentious-\\nness; for besides the usual tribute, they exacted from\\neach whatever they chose to impose, and rode around\\nthe country plundering the people of all their posses-\\nsions. After these fateful twenty-eight years, Cyax-\\nares defeated them and recovered his former power,\\nand finally took Nineveh and reduced the Assyrians\\ninto subjection, having reigned altogether forty years.\\n(Herod. I, loo to io6.) I regard the account of\\nHerodotus as strictly historical, and see no reason to\\ndoubt that Deioces collected the Medes into one\\nnation.\\nHis son, Phraortes, succeeded to a powerful and\\nwell-organized kingdom, and to assert, as some do,", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0530.jp2"}, "531": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 525\\nthat the separate tribes of the Medes were not organ-\\nized into a nation by Deioces is simply to beg the\\nquestion, for it impUes that some one before Deioces\\ndid it, a bare assertion without any evidence, proba-\\nbiUty, or authority to support it.\\nThe defeat and death of Phraortes gives us a fixed\\npoint from which we can proceed to determine the\\nrelative dates of these events:\\nAssyrian.\\nMedian.\\nSennacherib, 704-680 B. C.\\nDeioces,\\n708-655 B. C.\\nEsarhaddon, 680-667 B. C.\\nPhraortes,\\n655-633 B. C.\\nAssurbanipal, 667-626 B. C.\\nCyaxares,\\n633-593 B. C\\nAstyages,\\n593-558 B. C\\nCyrus,\\n558-529 B. C\\nThe defeat of Phraortes, therefore, occurred in the\\nyear d^^Z B. C, and his opponent was Assurbanipal,\\none of the greatest warriors that ever ruled over As-\\nsyria. We can now see that the repeated raids of the\\nAssyrians into Media, under Sennacherib and Esar-\\nhaddon, compelled the Medes to unite for self-preser-\\nvation, and enabled Deioces to consoHdate them into\\na compact nation. Although the Medes sustained a\\nsevere repulse under Phraortes, their recuperative\\npowers were unimpaired, and, to the surprise of the\\nAssyrians, they returned in a few years after 633\\nB. C. under a more warlike king, and this time the\\ninvincible host of the Assyrians, and their proud mon-\\narch himself, turned their backs and sought refuge\\nbehind the impregnable walls of Nineveh.\\nWhile Cyaxares and his Medes were besieging the\\ncapital of Assyria (the wicked city which had re-\\nsounded with the prophetic warnings of Jonah), a", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0531.jp2"}, "532": {"fulltext": "526 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nblack and destructive storm-cloud suddenly and un-\\nexpectedly burst upon the neighboring districts of\\nMedia a savage horde of wild and uncouth barba-\\nrians, whose ferocity knew no bounds. Cyaxares im-\\nmediately raised the siege and hurried back to Media,\\nwhen his army was defeated and driven back by the\\ninvaders. These Skythians were akin to the Huns,\\nCossacks, and Calmucks of later ages, and belonged\\nto that great destructive, serpent-worshiping race of\\nHam, which flooded and almost destroyed the civil-\\nized world in the year 2348 B. C. These animal-like\\nbarbarians, after roaming over the boundless steppes\\nof Eastern Russia for many centuries, were suddenly\\nseized by an irresistible impulse, which impelled them\\nonward like a swarm of locusts, so that, after driving\\nthe Kimmerians out of their primeval seats in Europe,\\nthey suddenly burst forth from behind the lofty ranges\\nof the Caucasus, and spread over Mesopotamia like\\na deluge. The Assyrians, who had just escaped from\\nthe Medes, were in no condition to meet them or\\ndrive them back, and we are bound to assume that the\\nmost cruel and bloodthirsty nation of Asia fell an easy\\nvictim to a still more cruel and bloodthirsty foe. No\\naccount of the devastation of Assyria by this horde\\nhas come down to us; but, as their course was west-\\nward from Media, they necessarily passed through the\\nrich and luxurious districts of the Assyrians, leaving\\nruin and desolation in their wake, and we can account\\nfor the sudden, utter, and complete collapse of the\\nAssyrian kingdom in no other way.\\nThe Skythians were led by a king called Madyes,", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0532.jp2"}, "533": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 527\\nand after they had repulsed the Medes fell upon the\\nopulent cities of Assyria, instead of pursuing the\\nMedes into their mountain fastnesses, where there\\nwas little to tempt the cupidity of the barbarians.\\nPlacing this invasion at approximately 630 B. C,\\nPsammetichos had been reigning over thirty-five\\nyears when he averted the impending danger by meet-\\ning the invaders in Palestine, and prevailing upon\\nthem with rich presents to advance no farther. In\\nfact, the barbarians do not seem to have been without\\nmilitary tact and discretion, for they were careful to\\nkeep their line of communication with Skythia open,\\nand not to advance too far southward, which would\\nhave endangered it, and laid them liable to being cut\\noff, hemmed in, and caught in a trap.\\nIt was for this reason also that they did not ven-\\nture into Babylonia. Madyes was too careful a leader\\nto permit the Lydians, Assyrians, and Medes to unite\\nand take up a commanding position between him and\\nhis home in Russia, and therefore maintained the\\nmain body of the Skythians in Assyria proper, which\\nwas the key to the situation. Herodotus tells us ex-\\npressly that they governed Asia for twenty-eight\\nyears, at the end of which time Cyaxares and the\\nMedes invited the greatest part of them to a feast,\\nand, having made them drunk, put them to death,\\nshowing that the greater part of them were stationed\\nnear Media, or, as we have just said, in Assyria.\\nAccepting the numbers of Herodotus in preference to\\nimaginary and speculative numbers, we can fix the\\nexpulsion of the Skythians at about 602 B. C.", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0533.jp2"}, "534": {"fulltext": "528 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nAssyria, which had been crippled and paralyzed\\nin this extraordinary manner, was completely wiped\\nout, and Egypt enjoyed an Indian summer, which was\\nas brilliant and gorgeous as it was brief and delusive.\\nNechao mounted the throne in the year 6ii B. C,\\nunder apparently very auspicious conditions, and\\nbeing vigorous and warlike, he immediately organized\\na large army, invaded Asia, and took possession of\\nPalestine and Syria to the banks of the Euphrates.\\nIt was in the year 609 B. C. that Josiah, the king of\\nJudah, drew up his army at Megiddo, the scene of\\nso many celebrated battles, to oppose the progress of\\nNechao s army. In vain did Phataoh assure the Jew-\\nish king that he had no hostile intentions against the\\nJews, but was marching against the Babylonians in\\nobedience to the command of his god. Josiah re-\\nmained obdurate, was defeated, and lost his life. The\\nexact and complete agreement of all the dates in-\\nvolved at this point are of the deepest significance,\\nbecause they prove the absolute character of the so-\\ncalled epoch-reigns, which, being fixed by astronom-\\nical observations, must necessarily bear the test. It\\nwill be seen that Nechao enlisted and organized this\\narmy in the short space of two years. The Manetho-\\nnian Lists, brief as they are, inform us that he captured\\nJerusalem and carried away King Jehoahaz. Jo-\\nsephus tells us that Neco, king of Egypt, raised an\\narmy and marched to the river Euphrates, in order to\\nfight with the Medes and Babylonians, who had over-\\nthrown the dominion of the Assyrians, for he had a\\ndesire to rule over Asia. This reference to the Medes", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0534.jp2"}, "535": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 529\\nand Babylonians shows that in this instance Josephus\\nfollowed reliable authorities, for Cyaxares was still\\nreigning over the Medes, although it would be neces-\\nsary to shorten the dominion of the Skythians over\\nAsia from twenty-eight to about twenty-one years, if\\nthe final capture of Nineveh is placed back as far as\\n609 B. C. As Jehoahaz reigned but three months\\nand ten days, it results that Neco overran and took\\npossession of all the country to the river Euphrates\\nwithin about three months from the battle of Me-\\ngiddo. According to the Canon of Ptolemy, Neb-\\nuchadnezzar became king of Babylonia 604 B. C.\\nA great battle was fought between the Babylon-\\nians and the Egyptians at the city of Carchemish on\\nthe Euphrates, which resulted in the signal overthrow\\nof the latter, so that Nebuchadnezzar passed over the\\nEuphrates, and took Syria as far as Pelusium. In the\\ndefeat of the Egyptian monarch the Jews lost their\\nbest friend, for nothing is more evident to the careful\\nstudent of Egyptian history than the fact that the\\nEgyptians were at all times friendly and well disposed\\nto the Jews, who seem to have been regarded by them\\nas Egyptian colonists. The capture of Jerusalem by\\nShishak can not be regarded as an exception to this\\nrule, because this king, as we have already shown,\\nwas Cushite, and not Japhite. Thus it happened that\\nthe king of Babylon first forced the Jews to become\\ntributary, then took their city and carried many of\\nthem away as captives to Babylonia, and finally in his\\nnineteenth year that is, 586 B. C. burned and de-\\nstroyed Jerusalem, and carried the rest of the Jews\\n34", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0535.jp2"}, "536": {"fulltext": "530 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\naway into captivity, leaving only a small remnant of\\nthe meaner sort to till the land.\\nNow Uaphris mounted the throne 589 B. C, or\\nthree years before the burning of the Temple, and we\\naccordingly find in the Manethonian l^ists that this\\nmiserable and heartbroken remnant fled to this king\\nto escape from the power of the Babylonians here as\\nelsewhere called Assyrians by Manetho.\\nThe end of this dynasty is properly the end of this\\nlittle work, because it brings us down to the year\\n525 B. C, when Cambyses, the king of Persia, con-\\nquered Egypt, and placed upon his head the double\\ncrown of Upper and I^ower Egypt, which had been\\nworn with so much true dignity by such celebrated\\nmen and rulers as Menes, Chufu, Amenemes, Thoth-\\nmes, and Ramesses. O, what a fall was there The\\nManethonian Lists show upon their face that Camby-\\nses commenced to reign over Egypt in the fifth year\\nof his reign as king of Persia. AccorcHng to the\\nCanon of Ptolemy he reigned from 529 to 521 B. C,\\nconsequently his fifth year was 525 B. C, and as his\\nreign ended 521 B. C, he heads the Twenty-seventh\\nDynasty of eight Persian kings with four years. By\\nmistake Cambyses is now credited with six instead of\\nfour years in the list of Africanus. Eusebius has a\\ndifferent arrangement. He at first enters Cambyses\\nwith three years, dating from his fifth year as king of\\nPersia, and then enters the Magi with seven\\nmonths, the two, in round numbers, filling out the\\ninterval of four years between 525 and 521 B. C.", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0536.jp2"}, "537": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt\\n53^\\nNeither Africanus nor Ptolemy enter these seven\\nmonths of the Magi as a separate reign. With\\nthis rectification, Manetho and Ptolemy compare as\\nfollows\\nManetho\\nPtolemy.\\nI. Cambyses,\\n4\\nyears\\nCambyses, from\\nfifth year,\\n4 years\\n2. Darius,\\n36\\nDarius I,\\n36\\n3. Xerxes,\\n21\\ni(\\n3-\\nXerxes,\\n21\\n4. Artabanos,\\n7\\nmonths\\n5. Artaxerxes,\\n41\\nyears\\n5.\\nAxtaxerxes I,\\n41\\n6. Xerxes,\\n2\\nmonths\\n6.\\n7. Sogdianos,\\n7\\n7-\\n8. Darius,\\n19\\nyears\\n8.\\nDarius II,\\n19\\nTotal.\\nAs Ptolemy omits all reigns below one year, it is\\nevident that the eight years of Cambyses included the\\nseven months of Magi, and was, therefore, slightly\\nin excess of his actual reign, and the extra months\\nwere estimated as an additional year in the forty-six\\nyears given by Ptolemy to Artaxerxes II. This shows\\nwhat an important item the extra months and extra\\ndays may become, and one should always bear in mind\\nthat Manetho himself recorded the separate reigns\\naccurately in years, months, and days, and that the\\nchanges to years were made by Africanus and Eu-\\nsebius. We should also bear in mind that Manetho\\nantedates Ptolemy by several centuries, and that the\\nlatter, in preparing his celebrated Canon, used Man-\\netho and Berosus.\\nXerxes I commenced to reign 485 B. C, or just", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0537.jp2"}, "538": {"fulltext": "532 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\none year before the epoch of Pharmuthi, 484 B. C.\\nManetho mentioned this fact, showing that after\\nXerxes had reigned one year he becarrie the epoch-\\nking Psamuthis that is, P sa-muth-i, the son of\\nMuth. Afterwards Psamuthis was mistaken for a\\nseparate king, and as there was plainly no place for\\nhim in a Persian Dynasty, he was by one set of epit-\\nomists transferred to the Twenty-sixth Dynasty, and\\nby another to the Twenty-ninth Dynasty, where he\\nappears as Tsammuthis and Muthis, with the\\ndistinctive one year.\\nA similar mistake occurred in the Thirtieth Dy-\\nnasty, where the epoch-title of Necht-har-heb (Nekt-\\narebes), Amyrtaios, was supposed to stand for a\\nseparate king, and was substituted for the name of\\nthe last king of the Twenty-eighth Dynasty, which\\nnow appears as follows in the Hsts: Twenty-eighth\\nDynasty, Amyrtaios Saites, six years.\\nOf course, Manetho s Twenty-eighth Dynasty was\\ncomposed of the native claimants to the throne during\\nthe one hundred and twenty-two years of Persian\\ndomination, the last of whom actually reigned six\\nyears after the period, or from 403 to 397 B. C. In\\nthis way these six years ultimately became separated\\nfrom the last king of the dynasty, whose entire reign\\nhad been first given. Then, as the six years only\\nbelonged in the chronological list, the dynasty itself\\nwas omitted and lost, and Saites, with six years, and\\nAmyrtaios, with the like number, substituted for it.\\nWe have already seen that Zet, or Saites, reigned\\nsix years before the epoch 724 B. C. It remains to", "height": "3629", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0538.jp2"}, "539": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 533\\nbe seen that Nechtarebes reigned six years after the\\nepoch 364 B. C.\\nEnd of Persian Dynasty, according to Manetho, 403 B. C.\\nAmyrtaios and Saites, 6\\n397 B. C.\\nNepherites, 6\\n391 B. C.\\nAchoris, 13\\nB-. C.\\nPsammuthis, or Muthis, i\\n~377B.C.\\nNepherites (four months) i\\n376 B.C.\\nNektarebes, before epoch of Pachons, 12\\n^B.C.\\nNektarebes, after epoch, as Amyrtaios, 6\\n358 B.C.\\nTeos, 2\\n^B.C.\\nNektanebos (Necht-neb-ef)^ 18\\nEnd of Thirtieth Dynasty, 339 B. C.\\nWe need not repeat here why Amen-ir-tais, or\\nAmmonodotus, was selected as a most appropriate\\nepoch-title for the month of Chons, the son of Amen\\nand Muth, having explained it fully in connection with\\nthe epoch 3284 B. C. The discrepancy of one year\\nbetween 338 and 339 B. C, at the end, is apparent\\nonly. Ptolemy places Artaxerxes II at 404 B. C, but\\ngives him an extra year made up of the odd months\\nof his predecessors. We have given this extra year to\\nthe Persian Dynasty, which ends with Darius II; but\\nits true duration was one hundred and twenty-two\\nyears and four months. Now, here are four extra", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0539.jp2"}, "540": {"fulltext": "534 Self-Verifying Chronological\\nmonths to be taken into consideration; but they are\\nmore than overcome by the extra one year of Psam-\\nmuthis, or Muthis, already included in the twenty-one\\nyears of Xerxes I. Thus it is extremely gratifying to\\nfind that the separate eras and epochs bring us down\\nto 339 B. C, the exact date required by the grand\\ntotals 350 and 3555, beginning respectively at the\\ncelebrated era, 4244 B. C, and the equally celebrated\\ndate, 3894 B. C.\\nBABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN CHRO-\\nNOLOGY\\nSince the Tel-el- Amarna clay-tablets have revealed\\nthe fact that Burna-buryas, king of Babylon; Assur-\\nuballid, king of Assyria; and Ach-en-aten, king of\\nEgypt, were contemporaries, we have a fixed point\\nfrom which we can proceed to build up and restore\\nthe chronology of Babylonia and Assyria.\\nAccording to the Mosaic account, Nimrod organ-\\nized the first great kingdom in the alluvial plains of\\nBabylonia. We are told that he began to be mighty\\nupon the earth. And the beginning of his kingdom\\nwas Babylon, and Erech (Arach), and Accad, and\\nCalneh (Chalanne), in the land of Shinar. Out of\\nthat land came forth Assur and builded Nineveh and\\nthe streets of the city, and Calah, and Resen between\\nNineveh and Calah: this is the great city. Now\\nthe above, coming from such an authority, carries\\nwith it great weight, and deserves much consider-\\nation. It shows, beyond question, that Babylonian", "height": "3619", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0540.jp2"}, "541": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 535\\nand Assyrian chronology can not be carried back be-\\nyond the date of the Flood, or 2348 B. C.\\nWe have already demonstrated that Ham, the son\\nof Noah, represents the government established by\\nresident Hamites in the Delta, about 2448 B. C.\\nAfter the great Aamu invasion of Western Asia and\\nEgypt, in the year 2348 B. C, these Egyptian Ham-\\nites, v^ho had learned the art of government in Egypt,\\norganized kingdoms in Babylonia, which v^ere mod-\\neled after the kingdom of Upper and Lower Egypt\\nas it existed under the kings of the Sixteenth Dy-\\nnasty. The sons of this Ham were Cush, or the Kashi\\nof Elam and Babylonia; Mizraim, or the Hyksos;\\nPhut, or the Libyans; and Canaan. Here Cush, the\\nfirst named, represents the first government estab-\\nlished in Babylonia, which, however, must have been\\ntributary to the Elamite tyrants mentioned by Ber-\\nosos. The birth of Cush can be fixed provisionally at\\n2348 B. C, and would correspond with the eight\\nMedian tyrants mentioned by Berosus.\\nNimrod, the son of Cush, marks a government\\nderived from this Cushite government, limited to\\nBabylonia, and distinct from Elam, the beginning\\nof which may be placed provisionally at 2124 B. C.\\nThe all-important fact, however, is that Moses placed\\nall of these sons of Ham, without exception, after the\\nFlood.\\nThe Babylonians themselves did not pretend to\\nhave any authentic history beyond the Elamite con-\\nquest. The eighty-six kings who now appear before", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0541.jp2"}, "542": {"fulltext": "536 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nthe Median Aamu, Elamite) invasion of 2348 B. C.\\nare plainly mythological (unless they are the seventy-\\nsix kings of Manetho s main line before this date),\\njust as the total of 24,080 years, allotted to them by\\nEusebius, is certainly a slightly changed Sothiac num-\\nber. This total was made up as follows\\nTwenty- two Sothiac cycles before the era\\n2784 B. C, 32,142 years\\nInterval between 2784 B. C. and 2348 B. C, 436\\nFirst Dynasty, eight Median kings, 224\\nSecond Dynasty, eleven Median kings, 48{?)\\nThird Dynasty, forty -nine Babylonian\\nkings, 458\\nFourth Dynasty, nine Arabian kings, 245\\nFifth Dynasty, forty Babylonian kings, 526\\nOne extra Sothiac year, i 1,938\\nTotal, 34,080\\nNow, as we shall see, this total, as set down by\\nBerosus, was 34,180, and reached down to the era of\\nNabonassar, 747 B. C, the deficiency of one hundred\\nyears being due to an error in the total of the Second\\nDynasty, which was one hundred and forty-eight, in-\\nstead of forty-eight, years. After this mistake was\\nmade the separate sums footed up 34,080 only, in-\\nstead of the required 34,180. Berosus evidently\\ntreated the ten dynasties before the Flood, including\\nXisuthrus, or Noah, as mythological, for he assigned\\nto them astronomical periods, instead of historical\\nnumbers. By going back sufficiently far in the Great\\nYear of twenty-five Sothiac cycles, or 36,525 Sothiac\\nyears, for his mythological beginning point, he was\\nable to fix the beginning of his first historical dynasty\\nof eight Median tyrants that is, Elamite kings at", "height": "3619", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0542.jp2"}, "543": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 537\\n2348 B. C, and to connect accurately with the estab-\\nlished era in Babylonia, to wit, the era of Nabonassar,\\n747 B. C. In this way the system became self-\\nverifying.\\nFor illustration, take twenty-three Sothiac cycles\\nprior to the Sothiac era 1324 B. C, which give us\\n(1461X23) ZZ^^^Z years, and add to this sum the 577\\nyears between the era 1324 B. C. and the era 747\\nB. C, and we obtain the 34,180 years of Berosus.\\nIn his celebrated treatise against Apion, Josephus\\nsays concerning Berosus (Book I, ch. 19)\\nI will now relate what has been written concern-\\ning us in the Chaldean histories which records have\\na great agreement with our books in other things\\nalso. Berosus shall be witness to what I say he was\\nby birth a Chaldean, well known by the learned on\\naccount of his publication of the Chaldean books of\\nastronomy and philosophy among the Greeks. This\\nBerosus, therefore, following the most ancient records\\nof that nation, gives us a history of the deluge of\\nwaters that then happened, and of the destruction of\\nmankind thereby, and agrees with Moses narration\\nthereof. He also gives us an account of that ark\\nwherein Noah, the origin of our race, was preserved\\nwhen it was brought to the highest part of the Ar-\\nmenian Mountains: after which he gives us a cata-\\nlogue of the posterity of Noah, and adds the years of\\ntheir chronology, and at length comes down to Nabo-\\nlassar, who was king of Babylon and of the Chal-\\ndeans.\\nThus it is certain that Berosus traced his history\\nand chronology through Egyptian sources prior to\\nthe Hamite invasion of Western Asia and Egypt,", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0543.jp2"}, "544": {"fulltext": "538 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nwhich is veiled under the Allegory of the Flood. The\\nchronological scheme of Berosus has come down to\\nus through Eusebius and Syncellus. Without going\\ninto particulars, it was my good fortune to discover\\nthat the Second Median (Elamite) Dynasty reigned\\none hundred and forty-eight years instead of forty-\\neight, and that the five hundred and twenty-six years\\nof the last forty kings extend down to the era of\\nNabonassar, 747 B. C. We accordingly have (omit-\\nting the mythological dynasties before the flood) the\\nfollowing result\\nDate of Blamite Invasion, 2348 B. C.\\nFirst Dynasty of eight Median (Elamite) kings, 224\\n2124 B. C.\\nSecond Dynasty of eleven Median (Elamite)\\nkings (48), 148\\n1976 B. C.\\nThird Dynasty of forty-nine Chaldean kings, 458\\n^518 B.C.\\nFourth Dynasty of nine Arabian kings, 245\\n1273 B. C.\\nFifth Dynasty of forty Babylonian kings, 526\\nBeginning of reign of Nabonassar, 747 B. C.\\nAfter mentioning the nine Arabian kings, whose\\ndynasty came to a close in the year 1273 B. C, Eu-\\nsebius also mentioned Semiramis, who reigned over\\nthe Assyrians; and some Assyriologists have, there-\\nfore, placed her at the head of the succeeding dynasty,\\nand termed its forty kings Assyrians. This assump-\\ntion is not borne out by the monuments, but is flatly\\ncontradicted by the known facts of Babylonian and\\nAssyrian history. The first eight Elamite kings,", "height": "3619", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0544.jp2"}, "545": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 539\\ncalled tyrants, held their court at Shushan (Susi-\\nanna) in Elam, and dominated Babylonia, Western\\nAsia, and Egypt. One of their number, Kudur Nan-\\nchundi, about 2280 B. C, carried off the image of\\nNana, or Ishtar, from Erech to Shushan, where it\\nremained 1,635 years, until that city was captured by\\nAssurbanipal in his eighth expedition, which could\\nnot have been earlier than 645 B. C, for Saulmugina\\n(Samuges, Saosduchinu), his brother, who reigned\\nover Babylon from 667 B. C. to 647 B. C, was over-\\nthrown and killed in his sixth expedition.\\nThe eleven Elamite kings, who reigned one hun-\\ndred and forty-eight years, probably resided in Baby-\\nlonia, but were tributary to the king in Elam. A\\nsuccession of eleven kings in one hundred and forty-\\neight years indicates an uncertain tenure of office, de-\\npendent on some paramount power.\\nA change of dynasty took place 1976 B. C, when\\nthe Elamite kings were succeeded by native Chal-\\ndeans, and it was shortly after this revolution that\\nAbraham left Ur, and removed to Haran of Mesopo-\\ntamia.\\nAbout 192 1 B. C. the expedition of Kudur-lagomer\\nand his associate kings took place. At this time the\\nChaldean kings were still subject to the Hamite rulers\\nin Elam. The Canaanites had served Kudur-lagomer,\\nking of the Elamites, twelve years; but in the thir-\\nteenth year they revolted from him, and in the four-\\nteenth year the Elamite monarch, with his tributary\\nkings, among whom was Amraphel, king of Baby-\\nlonia, invaded Canaan, reduced the rebellious kings", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0545.jp2"}, "546": {"fulltext": "540\\nA Self-Verifying Chronological\\nto submission, ravaged the country to the plain of\\nPharan in the wilderness, and carried off all the sub-\\nstance of the smitten people.\\nIn the time of Amenophis IV these Chaldean\\nkings were still ruling in Babylonia, and they con-\\ntinued to rule until within twenty-seven years of the\\nExodus, when they were succeeded by an Arabian\\ndynasty.\\nFrom the accession of Sennacherib, 704 B. C, the\\nCanon of Ptolemy and the extracts from Berosus\\ncompare as follows\\nPtolemy,\\nist Interregnum,\\nBelibu,\\nAparanadiu,\\nRegebelu,\\nMesesemordaku,\\n2d Interregnum,\\nAsaradinu,\\nSaosduchinu,\\nKinneladanu,\\nNabopolasaru,\\nNabokolasaru,\\nIlloarudamu,\\nNerigassolassaru,\\nNabonadiu,\\nKyru,\\nKambysu,\\nDareiu,\\nBerosus.\\n2-704 B. C.\\n3-702 B. C.\\n6-699 B. C.\\n1-693 B. C.\\n4-692 B. C.\\n8-688 B. C.\\n13-680 B. C.\\n20-667 B. C.\\n22-647 B. C.\\n21-625 B. C.\\n43-604 B. C.\\n2-561 B. C.\\n4-559 B. C.\\n17-555 B. C.\\n9-538 B. C.\\n8-529 B. C.\\n36-521 B. C.\\nSennacherib, 24-704 B. C.\\nAsaradan (5+8),\\nSamuges,\\nSardanapalus,\\nNabopalassoru,\\nNabocodrossoru,\\nAmilmar oduch i\\nNeglisarus,\\nNabonedus,\\nCyrus,\\nCambyses,\\nDarius,\\n13-680 B. C.\\n21-667 B. C.\\n21-646 B. C.\\n21-625 B. C.\\n43-604 B.C.\\n2) 2-561 B. C.\\n4-559 B.C.\\n17-555 B. C.\\n9-538 B.C.\\n8-529 B.C.\\n36-521 B. C.\\nSaosduchinu is a corruption of Saulmugina, the\\nbrother of Assurbanipal, who was appointed king of\\nBabylon, and reigned from 667 B. C. to his death,\\nwhich occurred 647 B. C.\\nKinneladanu is Sardanapalus; that is, Assurbani-\\npal, the brother of Saulmugina.", "height": "3619", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0546.jp2"}, "547": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 541\\nDuring the twenty-four years of Sennacherib\\nthat is, from 704 to 680 B. C. Babylon was governed\\nby rulers set up and deposed by the Assyrian monarch,\\namong them his son Assardan, or Aparadinu (a\\ncorruption of Assaradinu). Mardok-empalu that is,\\nMarduk-Baladan began to reign 721 B. C, and was\\nsucceeded by Sarkona, 709 B. C, showing that he was\\nappointed by Sarkon, when the latter became king of\\nAssyria, and governed Babylonia in his name.\\nComparing the reigns of the Babylonian and As-\\nsyrian kings, we find the following points of agree-\\nment:\\n-747-733)\\n733-731\\n\u00c2\u00bbrti, 731-726 J\\nNabonassaru,\\nNadiu, 733-731 1^ Tiglath Pileser,\\nXinzirukai Poru,\\nIlulaiu, 726-721 Shalmaneser,\\nMardukempalu, 721-7091 Sar-kon-a,\\nSarkeanu, 709-704 J\\n(Sennacherib) Sennacherib,\\nAssaradinu, 680-667 Assar-adin,\\nSaosduchinu, 667-647 ^gsar-banipal\\nKinneladinu, 647-625 j\\n744-726\\n726-721\\n721-704\\n704-680\\n680-667\\n667-625\\nWe have seen that the Canon of Ptolemy coin-\\ncides throughout with the absolute astronomical dates\\nof the Egyptians, and we now see that the numbers\\nof Berosus subsequent to the Era of Nabonidus, 747\\nB. C, agree with the Canon of Ptolemy and the\\nchronological lists of the Assyrians, which are sup-\\nported by several eclipses of the sun. It results that\\nthe numbers of Berosus are also derived from astro-\\nnomical observations. Now, as Berosus, who had\\naccess to the monuments, annals, histories, chrono-\\nlogical lists, and astronomical observations of the", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0547.jp2"}, "548": {"fulltext": "542 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nBabylonians, did not place any of the historical kings\\nfurther back than 2348 B. C, his date for the Median\\ninvasion, it seems strange that modern Assyriologists,\\nwith the meager and fragmentary materials at their\\ndisposal, should presume to fix the reign of Naram-\\nsin, for instance, at 3750 B. C. I am convinced that\\nthis king, who belongs to the Sin or Chons series,\\nreigned at, or shortly after, 1824 B. C. As the Baby-\\nlonians and Assyrians derived their notions of astron-\\nomy and the sciences generally from the Egyptians,\\nit is probable that the titles of their kings were influ-\\nenced, to a greater or less extent, by the Sothiac\\nmonths in which their respective reigns happened\\nto fall.\\nThus, according to Rawlinson, Bel-sumili-kapu,\\nwho was called the founder of the Assyrian king-\\ndom on a genealogical tablet, means Bel, the left-\\nhanded, from sumili, left, and kapu, hand. This is\\nequivalent to Ra reversing his course at the summer\\nsolstice (ian ah), and points to the epoch of Phar-em-\\nhat, 2064 B. C. According to Berosus, this date is\\nsixty years after the beginning of the Second Dynasty,\\nand agrees with the Mosaic account, which places the\\nbuilding of Nineveh after the foundation of the Baby-\\nlonian kingdom by NImrod.\\nNin, or NInip, the Assyrian Hercules, corresponds\\nto Horus, the Powerful Bull (Ka-necht), and is often\\ncalled pal-Assur, son of Assur, just as Horus is\\ncalled sa Hits-ir, son of Osiris. In the form Pal-\\nuziri, the Egyptian name appears unchanged. The\\nmonth of Thoth was sacred to the youthful Horus.", "height": "3619", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0548.jp2"}, "549": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 543\\nIs it owing to chance that between 1324 B. C. and\\n1204 B. C. we find such titles as Tiglath-nin, Nin-pal-\\nuziri, etc.?\\nIn Nineveh there was, beside the temple of Nin, an\\nancient temple of Ishtar, the great mother, the\\nAssyrian counterpart of Isis, the mother of Har-\\npocrates (Har-pa-chrat). George Smith discovered\\namong the ruins of the palace of Shalmaneser I, at\\nNineveh, a votive dish belonging to this temple, on\\nwhich is the following inscription\\nShalmaneser, the powerful king, king of nations,\\nking of Assyria son of Vul-nirari, the powerful king,\\nking of nations, king of Assyria; son of Pudiel, the\\npowerful king, king of nations, king of Assyria also.\\nConqueror of Niri, Lulumi and Muzri, who\\nin the service of Ishtar (Isis), his lady, has marched\\nand has no rival, who in the midst of battle has fought\\nand has conquered their lands. When the temple of\\nIshtar, the lady of Nineveh, my lady, which Shamsi-\\nVul (follower of Vul), the prince who went before me,\\nhad built, and which had decayed, and which Assur-\\nubalid, my father, had restored; that temple in the\\ncourse of my time had decayed, and I rebuilt it from\\nits foundation to its roof.\\nA brick discovered on the same spot by Smith\\nhas this inscription\\nTiglathi-Nin, king of nations, son of Shalma-\\nneser, king of nations also, who completed the temple\\nof Ishtar, the powerful lady.\\nAssur-uballid was a contemporary of Amenophis\\nIV, whose reign extended from 1658 to 1646 B. C,\\nconsequently his reign fell in the Sothiac month of", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0549.jp2"}, "550": {"fulltext": "544 Self- Verifying Chronological\\nPa-uoni, 1704 to 1584 B. C, which was sacred to Isis\\nand Osiris. This king, therefore, felt called upon to\\nrestore the temple of Ishtar, because she was pre-\\neminently his lady. Shamsi-Vul, the son of the\\nBabylonian King Ismi-dagon, built this temple.\\nAfter it had stood six hundred and forty-one years, it\\nwas torn down on account of its ruined condition, and\\nsixty years after this it was rebuilt by Shalmaneser I,\\nV\\\\^ho reigned in the Sothiac month of Mesori, 1464\\nB. C. to 1324 B. C. Shalmaneser found the temple\\nof Ishtar again decayed since the time of his father,\\nAssur-uballid, and rebuilt it from its foundation to\\nits roof. Could a better or more convincing proof\\nof his epoch be furnished than this? He died before\\nhe had entirely completed the temple, and his son,\\nTiglathi-Nin, who headed the new cycle, completed it.\\nShalmaneser, in the above inscription, calls him-\\nself son of Vulnirari, son of Pudil; and Vulnirari\\ncalls himself son of Pudiel, grandson of Vulnirari,\\nand great-grandson of Assur-uballid. Assyriologists\\nhave inferred from this that these kings represent a\\ngenealogical succession from father to son, and have\\nplaced Assur-uballid at circa 1400 B. C. We have just\\nseen that Shalmaneser calls Assur-uballid his father,\\nalthough he preceded him by several centuries. In\\nthese inscriptions the word father is often used in\\nthe sense of ancestor the most distinguished ances-\\ntors being selected as fathers, while the insignificant\\nones were passed over in silence, and even omitted\\nfrom the genealogical tables. We have seen that\\nAssur-uballid, of whom Vulnirari says, The protec-", "height": "3619", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0550.jp2"}, "551": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 545\\ntion and alliance of his kingdom extended afar off like\\na mountain, and who was described as one of the\\nmost powerful of the Assyrian kings, restored the\\ntemple of Ishtar, and that it had again decayed by the\\ntime of Shalmaneser I. This would hardly have been\\nthe case if only sixty or seventy years had intervened\\nbetween these two kings, but harmonizes perfectly\\nwith a period of two centuries or more. George\\nSmith, as late as 1875, placed Buzur-Assur immedi-\\nately before Assur-uballid, and fixed his date at 1420-\\n1400 B. C, while he placed Assur-nadin-achi about\\n1550 B. C. We now know that Assur-nadin-achi was\\nthe father and immediate predecessor of Assur-\\nuballid. The latter expressly mentions his father,\\nAssur-nadin-achi, in a letter to Amenophis IV.\\nA. H. Sayce, referring to Professor Hommel s\\nrecent work, Aus der Babylonischen Alterthums-\\nkunde (Academy of September 7, 1895, P- ^^9) says:\\nPerhaps one of the most interesting facts brought\\nto light by the Professor is, that Ine-Sin, who was\\nking of Ur about 2500 B. C. or earlier, and in\\nwhose reign portions of the great Babylonian work\\non astronomy were compiled, subdued both Kimas,\\nor Central Arabia, and Zemar in Phoenicia (see Gen.\\nX, 18), while his daughter was patesi, or high priestess,\\nof Anzan in Elam and Mark-haskhi in Northern Syria,\\nwhere the Hittites were already astir. Still more in-\\nteresting is the discovery made by Mr. Pinches of a\\ntablet recording the war waged by Khammurabi of\\nBabylon (B. C. 2250) against Eri-aku, or Arioch, of\\nLarsa, and his Elamite allies, which ended in the rise\\nof a united monarchy in Babylon. Among the op-\\n35", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0551.jp2"}, "552": {"fulltext": "546 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nponents of Khammurabi mention is made of Kudur-\\nlagomer, the Elamite, Eri-aku (Arioch), and Tud-\\nkhal, the Tidal of the Book of Genesis.\\nThe same author (Academy of November ^^^y\\n1895) says further:\\nMr. Pinches latest discovery is a highly inter-\\nesting one, and throws fresh light on the intimate\\nrelations that existed between Babylonia and Syria\\nin the age of Abraham. Professor Hommel may yet\\nprove right in his suggestion that the defeat of\\nChedor-laomer and his alUes by the Hebrew patriarch\\nwas the ultimate cause of Khammurabi s success in\\noverthrowing Arioch and the Elamite supremacy over\\nBabylonia, and in establishing a united and independ-\\nent Babylonian kingdom.\\nIn the same article of September 7, 1895, Sayce\\nasserts that the name of the Hyksos Aam-u) god\\nSutech is Kassite, and that the suggestion of Brugsch\\nthat the Hyksos came from the mountains of Elam is\\nconfirmed. A Babylonian seal cylinder (No. 391) in\\nthe Metropolitan Museum of New York bears an in-\\nscription which shows that it belonged to Uzi-Sutach,\\nson of the Kassite (Kassu), the servant of Burna-\\nburyas, a king of the Kassite Dynasty, who ruled\\nover Babylonia B. C. 1400 The name Sutach is\\npreceded by the determinative of divinity. We can\\ninfer that the Hyksos leaders were of Kassite\\norigin. The Hyksos invasion of Egypt formed part\\nof the general movement which led to the rise of the\\nKassite Dynasty in Babylonia.\\nThus Professor Sayce places Ine-Sin at 2500 B. C,", "height": "3619", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0552.jp2"}, "553": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 547\\nHammurabi at 2250 B. C, and Burna-buryas at 1400\\nB. C. All of these dates are notoriously incorrect,\\nand show that modern Babylonian chronology prior\\nto about 930 B. C. can hardly be termed a science, but\\nis principally conjecture and guess-work.\\nWe have seen that Burna-buryas was reigning\\nabout 1658 B. C. The connection of Hammurabi,\\nking of Babylon, with Kudur-laomer, king of Elam,\\nArioch, king of Larsa, and Tidal, king of foreign\\ntribes (sat-ii), shows that he was Amraphel, king of\\nShinar, a contemporary of Abraham, and, therefore,\\nreigned about 1921 B. C. Ine-Sin, as his name indi-\\ncates, must be placed after 1824 B. C. We should\\nbear in mind that Ham is the Egyptian name for the\\nyellow Asiatic, or Mongolian, race; but that these\\npeople, when they emerged from behind the moun-\\ntains of Elam, were known in Asia as KashI, Hittites,\\nCanaanites, etc. They were called Akkadians, or\\nElamites, not because they were Medes, but because,\\nafter having roamed over the boundless plains of Asia\\nfor untold centuries, they crossed Persia and appeared\\nto come from that country. Manetho was well aware\\nthat they were a people of ignoble birth, who came\\nfrom the eastern parts.\\nBerosus gives his First and Second Dynasties\\nthree hundred and seventy-two years. Manetho fixes\\nthe Aamu domination over Egypt at five hundred and\\neleven years. Thus we need not wonder to find West-\\nern Asia, including Canaan, completely Hamitized by\\n1837 B. C.\\nThe Assyrians, in my opinion, originally came", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0553.jp2"}, "554": {"fulltext": "548 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nfrom Europe, and settled in the alluvial plains of\\nBabylonia by the side of yellow Asiatics. They were\\nall overwhelmed by the great Hamite flood. Under\\nthe native Chaldean Dynasty, which was founded\\nabout 1976 B. C, large numbers of these so-called\\nShemites emigrated to Assyria and Mesopotamia.\\nAn examination of the ancient table adopted by\\nMoses will show that the Shemites and Japhites of\\nWestern Asia were successive overflows of Eu-\\nropeans; for the sons of Japheth, from the nation\\nof the Medes and Persians in the East to the lonians\\nin the west, were seated immediately north of that\\nis, behind the Shemites.\\nThe most ancient inscriptions of Babylonia men-\\ntion four races (lit. four tongues which seem to\\nhave been: (i) the aborigines, or Chaldeans; (2) the\\nShemites; (3) the Japhites; and (4) the Elamites.\\nBefore the Flood the country was divided into\\nnumerous petty principalities, each considerable city\\nbeing independent. There was no kingdom to chron-\\nicle, no government claiming universal dominion like\\nthat in Egypt, no civilization worthy of the name.\\nIn the time of Kudur-laomer, king of Elam, Baby-\\nlonia was still divided up into several distinct king-\\ndoms, and It would be a great mistake to compute\\nthese contemporary local dynasties as consecutive.\\nWe might as well swell the period between the\\nTwelfth and Eighteenth Dynasties of Egypt from 753\\nto 1,255 years, by including in the chronological series\\nthe contemporary Fourteenth and Seventeenth Dy-\\nnasties. It will prove to be just as fatal to run amuck", "height": "3619", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0554.jp2"}, "555": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 549\\nof Berosus, as it has been to disregard the numbers\\nof Manetho. As in Egypt, the sun had numerous dis-\\ntinctive titles to mark his position in the Sothiac year.\\nWe have seen that Bel, Anu, Hea, and Ishtar pre-\\nsided over separate quarters of the year, and that\\nthese titles are equivalent to Ra, Turn, Thoth, and\\nHathor. In addition to these, we find Ninip, Mero-\\ndach, Nergal, etc., and it would repay the trouble to\\nascertain in what relation these stood to Horus, the\\nPowerful Bull, Shu^ Menthu, Harmachis, etc.\\nBel seems to be the chief title of the Kassite divin-\\nity Sutech, whose emblem was the serpent, and it is\\nsignificant that he was the principal deity of the Baby-\\nlonian Cushites. The Assyrians, on the contrary, re-\\nfused to accept Sutech as their lord god; but wor-\\nshiped Assur, or Osiris, as their chief god, and the\\neffect of this was that, in the course of time, many of\\nthe distinctive attributes of Horus, Menthu, and Ra\\nwere transferred to Assur. In some respects, Assur\\nseems to have been recognized as the divinity itself,\\nfor he is represented by the winged globe inclosing\\nthe head of man. It is to the lasting credit of the\\nAssyrians that they discarded the serpent, and\\nadopted the primitive Egyptian emblem of the Word.\\nEPOCH-REIGNS OF MANETHO S THIRD\\nCYCLE\\nThe Manethonian Lists which have reached us\\nthrough Africanus, Eusebius, and Syncellus, were\\noriginally dynastic that is, gave the entire reigns\\nwithout regard to Sothiac divisions; but, notwith-", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0555.jp2"}, "556": {"fulltext": "550 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nstanding this fact, a combination of favorable acci-\\ndents has, nevertheless, revealed all the epoch-reigns\\nof Manetho s Third Sothiac Cycle, beginning 1324\\nB. C, and ending 339 B. C.\\nAs the epoch-reigns, supported by the distinctive\\nepoch-titles, extend in an almost unbroken line from\\n4244 B. C. to 1324 B. C, it is evident that the Sothiac\\nsystem, as a zvhole, was subjected to a crucial test\\nthe very moment it came in contact with well-known\\ndates fixed or established in other and independent\\nways. This crucial test, which can now be applied\\nby means of the absolute dates afforded by the\\nepoch-reigns, it has borne, and ever w ll bear, tri-\\numphantly.\\nEPOCH OF THOTH, 1324 B. C.\\nBeginning at the Era of Menophres, 1324 B. C,\\nwhich is also the beginning of the first Sothiac month\\ncalled Thoth, we find the epoch-reign of Athothis,\\nwho reigned twenty-nine years after the epoch. This\\nimportant era was indelibly fixed in several ways.\\nThe short reign of Ta-iir-et, Thouris (the standing\\nfemale hippopotamus carrying the crocodile on her\\nback), was emblematic of the close of the cycle and\\nlast month of the year. We need not repeat that the\\nstanding female hippopotamus was the symbol of\\na completed Sothiac year, the crocodile, the symbol of\\na Sothiac month, and that the two could be thus\\njoined only at the end of a Sothiac year. This is the\\nsame identical old hippopotamus that devoured\\nMenes, the first king of Egypt, about 4244 B. C,", "height": "3619", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0556.jp2"}, "557": {"fulltext": "Hi ST OR Y OF Ancient Eg ypt 551\\nand we need not be surprised to find that she de-\\nvoured King Ramesses, who mounted the double\\nthrone of Egypt about 1331 B. C, in the same vora-\\ncious manner. Fortunately, both of these kings were\\nre-born like Jonas and re-crowned {nem-chau)\\nunder the significant and appropriate epoch-title\\nAthothis, Offspring of Thoth. Ramesses com-\\nmemorated the event by inserting in his official car-\\ntouch Cha-em-uas, Crowned in Thebes.\\nThe forger of the pseudo-Sothis List placed Atho-\\nthis at the head of the space left blank by the re-\\nmoval of the seven kings of the Twentieth Dynasty,\\nwhere he now appears as No. 59 Athothis, who is\\nalso Psusanos, with twenty-eight years. We have\\nalready seen how and why Athothis was confounded\\nwith Athoris, one of the epoch-titles of Psusannos I,\\n1084 B. C. The sa ra title of this king, inclosed in\\nthe shield, is very elaborate; it reads: Ramesses,\\nChamois, Miamen, Hyk-on-nufer. It may be that\\nhe, instead of Ramesses III, was the Rhampsinitus\\nof Herodotus; for, just as Ramesses Hyk-on became\\nRhampsakes, Ramesses Hyk-on-miter, by omitting\\nhyk or haky would naturally resolve itself into Rhamp-\\nsinuti.\\nThe two epoch-kings of the Twentieth Dynasty\\nare now known as Ramesses XIII and Ramesses IX.\\nI have selected the former as the epoch-king Atho-\\nthis because he is the only king of this dynasty who\\nis known to have borne the title Menophres (Mer-\\nna-pKrd), and because the location of his tomb, the\\nlength of his reign, the position of his inscriptions.", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0557.jp2"}, "558": {"fulltext": "552 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nand the portions of the Temple of Chonsu completed\\nor erected by him, all mark him as the immediate\\nsuccessor of the sons of Ramesses III. In the rooms\\nof the sanctuary of the Temple of Chonsu^ the portion\\nfirst built, we find the names of Ramesses III, Ram-\\nesses IV, and Ramesses Menophres. We select the\\nfollowing inscription from Baedeker\\nRamesses etc. (Menophres) erected this building\\nin the house of his father Chonsu, the lord of Thebes,\\nand built this temple in everlasting workmanship of\\ngood limestone and sandstone.\\nThe hall supported by eight columns, in front of\\nthe sanctuary and immediately behind the peristyle\\ncourt, was erected and decorated by this king, show-\\ning that he was the first, and not the last, king of\\nthis dynasty.\\nWe have seen that the Babylonians placed Anu\\nover the last quarter of the year, who, as I contend,\\nwas derived from the Egyptian Anu or On. In\\nIvCpsius Book of Kings, No. 506, giving the titles\\nof Ramesses VI, there is a procession of so-called\\ngods and goddesses representing the Sothiac year, at\\nthe beginning of which stands the hieroglyphic sym-\\nbol Anu or On, followed by Set, Harpokrates, and\\nAmen-hi-chopesh-ef. Amen, with the Chopesh in his\\nhand, stands bridging the chasm between the last\\nquarter of the closing year and the first quarter of\\nthe coming year, a Theban notion, pure and simple.\\nThus the titles Hyk-on and Hyk-on-iiuter belong to the\\nlast quarter of the Second Cycle. The fact that Meno-", "height": "3619", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0558.jp2"}, "559": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 553\\nphres assumed this title as king indicates that he\\nmounted the throne before the era 1324 B. C. The\\ntitle Amen-hi-cJiopesh-ef y borne by several of these\\nkings, also fixes them either just before or after this\\nera. In the temple above mentioned Chonsu is repre-\\nsented as a moon-god, so-called, with the crescent on\\nhis head, and the sidelock of youth, that is, as the\\nTheban counterpart of Thoth-Hermes. This temple\\nwas founded by Ramesses III during the co-regency\\nof his son Ramesses IV, in anticipation of the coming\\nepoch of Thoth, and the latter, no doubt, expected\\nto head the new era, which he might have done if\\nhe had lived to reign as long as his father.\\nRhampsakes can not be the rich and miserly\\nRhampsinitus described by Herodotus, for the former\\nwas one of the most generous and liberal-minded\\nkings to be found in Egyptian history. Rhampsin-\\nitus descended alive into the place called Hades\\n(Amenti), and there played at dice with Ceres, some-\\ntimes winning, at other times losings after which he\\ncame back again, bringing as a present from her a\\nnapkin of gold. This is the story as related by\\nHerodotus; but Plutarch, in his Isis and Osiris,\\ntells us that it was Thoth who played with Selene.\\nIt was because Rhampsinitus was re-born and re-\\ncrowned as Athothis that the Egyptian priests com-\\nmunicated to Herodotus this highly symbolized story.\\nIt was on account of the new Sothiac year that\\nthe Egyptians celebrated the festival. The two\\nwolves by whom the blindfolded priest was led to\\nthe temple of Ceres were the twin-wolves of the", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0559.jp2"}, "560": {"fulltext": "554 Self-Verifying Chronological\\nwinter solstice the double-faced Janus before the\\ntemple of the peace-loving Chonsu.\\nEPOCH OF^ PAOPHI, 1204 B. C.\\nThe epoch-king of Paophi 1204 B. C. was dis-\\ntinguished by several epoch-titles, all of which were\\ndescriptive of the Nile. Pa-iar, The River, or\\nPhuoro, and lar-bashi, Gushing River, or lorbasse,\\ngave rise to the familiar title King Nile.\\nWe will now go back to the era, place the epoch-\\nreign of Athothis where it certainly belongs, allow\\none hundred and twenty years for the month of\\nThoth, and demonstrate, by simple addition, that the\\nepoch of Paophi fell in the fourth year of Ramesses\\nlorbasse.\\nBra of Menophres, 1324 B. C.\\nAthothis, 29\\n1295 B. C.\\nRamessomenes, 15\\n^280 B. C.\\nRamesse Usimares, 31\\n1249 B. C.\\nRamesesseos, 23\\n1226 B. C.\\nRamessameno, 19\\n1207 B. C.\\nRamesse lubasse, before epoch, 3\\nEpoch of Paophi, 1204 B. C.\\nRamesse lubasse, as King Nile, 36\\nThese reigns are taken as they now stand in the\\npseudo-Sothis List, where they are numbered from\\n18 to 24 inclusive.", "height": "3619", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0560.jp2"}, "561": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 555\\nManetho, it seems, had compared the first four\\nepoch-kings of this cycle with those of the first cycle,\\nowing to which fact we find this reign entered a\\nsecond time as No. 60 Kenkenes, with thirty-nine\\nyears, in the false Sothis List.\\nThe title Cha-em-itas marks Ramesses IX Nofer-\\nka-ra as the epoch-king Nile. Dikaearchos, as we\\nhave seen, placed him four hundred and thirty-six\\nyears before the first Olympiad. Pliny refers to him\\nas Rhamesis who reigned when Troy was taken.\\nAt this time Thebes was in all her glory, and was, in\\nfact, the great capital of Egypt.\\nNow Thebes seems to have been the capital when\\nHomer wrote the IHad, for we can safely assume that,\\nif the capital had been removed to Tanis at that time,\\nthe poet would have mentioned the fact.\\nThe name Memnon mentioned by Homer is Mer-\\nanien, Me-amen, slightly modified. This name was\\nborne by King Nile, and was in common use among\\nthe kings of the Twentieth Dynasty.\\nComing back to the epoch-title Nile, we have\\nseen that it was used by Eratosthenes to mark the\\nepoch of Paophi 2664 B. C. The form Pa-iar, liter-\\nally the River, is one peculiarly adapted to Egypt,\\nwhere there is but one river. Moses, in speaking of\\nEden, which was certainly Egypt, describes it as\\nwatered by a river. The four outlets of this river\\nwere called heads, because they emptied into the\\nMediterranean at the extreme northern boundary of\\nthe land, called Em-het, meaning literally at the\\nhead.", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0561.jp2"}, "562": {"fulltext": "556 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nThus the epoch-title Phuoro is so well authen-\\nticated, in every imaginable way, that it may be pro-\\nnounced notorious.\\n:ePOCH OF ATHYR, 1084 B. C.\\nNo. 60 of the pseudo-Sothis List, corresponding\\nto the Twentieth Dynasty, is Uen-nephis with a\\nreign of forty-two years. We have already explained\\nthat Uon-nofer, Perfect Being, was an epoch-title\\nused to designate the month of Athyr, or Haet-har.\\nBeginning at the epoch of Paophi 1204 B. C, and\\ncoming down to the next epoch, we find that Psu-\\nsannos I, the second king of Manetho s Twenty-first\\nDynasty, who reigned forty-two years, was, in fact,\\nthis epoch-king.\\nBra of Paophi, 1204 B. C.\\nRamesse lorbasse, as epocti-king, 36\\nT168B.C.\\nRamesse Uaphru 29\\n1 139 B.C.\\nSmendes (Sa-nienthu)^ 26\\n1113B. C.\\nPsusannos, before epoch, 29\\nEpoch of Athyr, 1084 B. C.\\nPsusannos, after epoch, as Athoris, 14\\n1070 B. C.\\nWe have seen how the twenty-eight years, x\\nmonths, and x days of Psusannos, before the epoch,\\nwere converted into Athothis; No. 43 of the pseudo-\\nSothis List, corresponding to the latter part of the\\nEighteenth Dynasty, to wit Athoris, with twenty-\\nnine years, is this portion of the reign. In the List", "height": "3619", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0562.jp2"}, "563": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 557\\nof Africanus the last fourteen years of this reign\\nhave been substituted for the thirty-five years of\\nPsusannos II. Thus we have the entire reign, and\\nboth fragments of the reign, and two unmistakable\\nepoch-titles.\\nVenus, the star of Isis and Osiris, was known as\\nHathor on the eastern horizon. One of the distinctive\\ntitles of Hathor was Pa-nozem, or, as it was after-\\nwards pronounced, Pi-notem, meaning The Gentle\\nOne. It will be seen, therefore, that Pi-notem is an\\nepoch-title itself.\\nThe kings of the Twenty-first Dynasty rarely in-\\nclosed their titles in the customary royal cartouches.\\nIt seems that they held their court at Tanis, and\\nranked as high-priests of Amen at Thebes. I have\\nalready given my reasons for believing that they were\\nsubject to the Ethiopian kings. They were not\\nusurpers, but merely reigned in the place of the un-\\nfortunate Ramessids, who had been deposed by the\\nEthiopians. A criminally licentious and voluptuous\\nmode of living brought down upon the last kings of\\nthe Twentieth Dynasty its own self-inflicted punish-\\nment.\\nEPOCH OF CHOIAHK, 946 B. C.\\nThe reign of Osarkon II Sa-bastet, who was the\\nepoch-king of Choiahk 946 B. C, was transferred to\\nthe pseudo-Sothis List, where it now appears as No.\\n45-Susakeim with thirty-four years. This name is\\na curious blending of Sesak (Sheshank) and Osarkon.\\nIn tracing the chronology down from the last epoch,\\nwe must not forget that the Twenty-first Dynasty", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0563.jp2"}, "564": {"fulltext": "558 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nreigned, altogether, one hundred and thirty years,\\nfrom 1 139 B. C. to 1009 B. C. The epoch-king\\nPsusannos has forty-one or forty-two years that is,\\nforty-one years, x months, etc. so that the present\\napportionment of the parts as twenty-nine and four-\\nteen years, respectively, is nearly two years in excess\\nof the true number.\\nWe do not know how the extra months and days\\nof the succeeding reigns have been apportioned;\\ntherefore, it is better to reduce the reign of Psusannos\\nto the required forty-one years by making his epoch-\\nreign twelve instead of fourteen years.\\nBeginning at the last epoch, the month of Athyr\\ncan be filled out from the lists, as follows\\nBpoch of Athyr, 1084 B. C.\\nPsusannos, as Athoris, 12\\n1072 B. C.\\nNephercheres, 4\\n1068 B.C.\\nAmenophthis, 9\\n1059 B. C.\\nOsorchor, 6\\n1053 B. C.\\nPsinaches, 9\\n1044 B. C.\\nPsusannos II, 35\\n1009 B. C.\\nSesonchis (Shishak), 21\\n988 B.C.\\nOsarkon (15-1, for 14 years, x months, etc.), 14\\n~974B.C.\\nTakelothis (x months and x days), i\\n973 1. C.", "height": "3619", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0564.jp2"}, "565": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 559\\nBrought forward, 973 B. C.\\nOsarkon II, before epoch, 9\\nEpoch of Choiahk, 964 B. C.\\nOsarkon II, after epoch, as Petubastis, 25\\n~939B.C.\\nHere again, I am happy to say, the entire reign\\nof thirty-four years, the two fragments of nine and\\ntwenty-five years each, and the ancient epoch-titles,\\nhave all been preserved and transmitted to us through\\nignorance alone. We have seen how the author of\\nthe false Sothis List made use of the entire reign to\\npartially fill the blank left in the Twentieth Dynasty.\\nEusebius, in his endeavor to reduce the totals of\\nthese dynasties, substituted Tetubastis with twenty-\\nfive years for Petsibastis with forty years, at the head\\nof the Twenty-third Dynasty, and Osorthon, the\\nEgyptian Hercules with nine years for the second\\nreign of that dynasty.\\nWhen Horus crossed the equator on the first day\\nof Choiahk, he entered the northern hemisphere as\\nthe powerful bull (ka-iiecJit) awakening the vege-\\ntable world to life; hence he was compared to Her-\\ncules and to Min, Pan, and Bastet. It was in com-\\nmemoration of this great epoch that Osarkon H\\nerected the beautiful festival hall in the temple of\\nBastet, in her city of Bubastis, the ruins of which were\\nrecently discovered by Naville. One of the sa ra\\ntitles assumed by this king, to wit, Sa-hastet, Son\\nof Bast, points to the same epoch. Among the\\npeople his epoch-title was Pa-ta-bastet, or Petubas-\\ntis, The Gift of Bast.", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0565.jp2"}, "566": {"fulltext": "56o A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nManetho gives Shishak, the king who plundered\\nJerusalem in the fifth year of Rehoboam, twenty-one\\nyears; but it is possible that he reigned jointly with\\nhis son Osarkon I after 988 B. C, and that Manetho\\nassigned the joint-reign to the latter. Be this as\\nit may, 988 B. C. is the most probable date for this\\ncelebrated Biblical event.\\nEPOCH OF TYBI, 844 B. C.\\nWe wish to remind the reader of the lion-headed\\nTef-nuf, sometimes called Tef-teh. One of her dis-\\ntinctive titles was Ta-mui-t, The Lioness. Applied\\nto a king, in the masculine gender, it would be\\nPa-mui.\\nNow let us see if the king called Pa-mui is the\\nepoch-king known as Psamuis, that is, Pa-sa-mui?\\nEpoch of Choiahk 964 B. C.\\nOsarkon II, as Petubastis, 25\\n~939B.C.\\nSlieshonk II, 25\\n914 B. C.\\nTakelothis II, 13\\n901 B. C.\\nSheshonk III, 53\\n948 B. C.\\nPa-mui, before epocb, 4\\nEpoch of Tybi, 844 B. C.\\nPa-mui, after epoch, as Psamuis, 13\\n831 B. C.\\nNo. 51 Psamuthis, with thirteen years, and No.\\n52 blank with four years, of the false Sothis List,\\nrepresent the above fragments of this reign as split", "height": "3619", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0566.jp2"}, "567": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 561\\nby the epoch. The forger, naturally enough, mistook\\nTsamuis for Tsamuthis. Thus the entire reign\\nof Pa-miii, called Pi-mai by Brugsch, was seventeen\\nyears. The titles themselves are so transparent that\\nthey require no additional elucidation.\\nEPOCH OF AMHIR, 724 B. C.\\nSaites, Zet, or Sethon has received our special\\nattention in the chapter devoted to the Twenty-fourth\\nDynasty. He mounted the throne as subject-king\\nunder Sabakon, 730 B. C, reigned six years before,\\nand thirty-eight years after, this epoch, or, altogether,\\nforty-four years. Beginning at the last epoch, we can\\nverify these dates as follows\\nEpoch of Tybi, 844 B. C.\\nPsamuis, 13\\n831 B. C.\\nSheshonk IV, 42\\n789 B.C.\\nPetsabastis, 40\\n749 B. C.\\nOsorthon (8), 9\\n740 B. C.\\nPsammus [P sa-fnuth), lo\\n~^B.C.\\nZet, before epoch, 6\\nEpoch of Am-hir, 724 B. C.\\nZet, after epoch, as Amiris, 38\\n~686B. C.\\nThe epoch-title Rokchoris, from Rohk-ur,\\nGreat Heat, like that of Rochles, from Rohk-nez,\\nLittle Heat, in the Hyksos Dynasty, has become\\nnotorious. In Africanus we have Bokchoris, Saites,\\n36", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0567.jp2"}, "568": {"fulltext": "562 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\n(Set) with the first six years. In the false Sothis List,\\nthe entire reign and the last thirty-eight years still\\nappear, as follows\\nNo. 74. Bokchoris, 44 years\\nNo. 78. Amaes (Amiris), 38 years\\nEusebius has Ameris at the head of his Twenty-\\nsixth Dynasty, but his thirty-eight years have been\\nreduced to eighteen. Thus the evidence of the di-\\nvision of the reign at the epoch 724 B. C. is complete,\\nand the dates thereby established can be accepted as\\nabsolute.\\nEPOCH OF PHAMBNOTH, 604 B. C.\\nIs it not remarkable that we require the long-lost\\nepoch-reign of Zet to lead us down to the epoch of\\nPhamenoth 604 B. C. in the eighth year of Nechao s\\nreign? Notice how this reign supports and verifies\\nthe chronology of this important and interesting\\nperiod\\nEpoch of Mechir, 724 B. C.\\nZet, as epoch-king Amiris, 38\\n~686 B. C.\\nTephnachtis, 7\\n670, B. C.\\nNechepsos, 6\\n6^ B.C.\\nNechao I, 8\\n665 B.C.\\nPsammetichos I, 54\\n~6iiB.C.\\nNechao II, before epoch, 7\\nEpoch of Phamenoth, 604 B. C.\\nNechao II, after epoch, 9\\nI95B.C.", "height": "3619", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0568.jp2"}, "569": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 563\\nRemember that 604 B. C. was the summer sol-\\nstice of the Sothiac year. The sun was am-hat, at\\nthe heart, or middle, of his annual course. We have\\nalready explained the titles Uah-ab-ra and Nem-ah-ra.\\nThe division of Nechao s reign by the epoch of 604\\nB. C. is still shown by the lists. No. 83, Nechao Pha-\\nraoh,* with nine years, of the pseudo-Sothis List, is\\nthe original epoch-reign. The six or seven years before\\nthe epoch appear in the Lists of Africanus and Euse-\\nbius. Thus the date 611 B. C. for the accession of\\nNeko, the Pharaoh mentioned in the Bible in con-\\nnection with the Jewish king Josiah, is absolute, be-\\ncause astronomically fixed.\\nEPOCH OF PHARMUTHI, 484 B. C.\\nWe are now upon firm historical ground, and can\\nuse the astronomical Canon of Ptolemy as a check.\\nBeginning at the epoch 604 B. C, a simple compu-\\ntation will show that Xerxes commenced to reign 485\\nB. C, or just one year before the epoch of Pharmuthi\\n484 B. C.\\nEpoch of Phamenoth, 604 B. C.\\nNechao, epoch-reign, 9\\n595 B. C.\\nPsammetichos, another^ 6\\n589 B. C.\\nUaphris, 19\\n570 B. C.\\nAmasis, 44\\n526 B. C.", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0569.jp2"}, "570": {"fulltext": "564 A Self- Verifying Chronological\\nBrought forward, 526 B. C,\\nPsammecherites, i\\nBeginning of Persian Dynasty 525 B. C.\\nCambyses, from his fifth year, 4\\n521 B. C.\\nDaraios, 36\\n485 B. C.\\nXerxes, before epoch of Pharmuthi, i\\nEpoch of Pharmuthi, 484 B. C.\\nXerxes, after epoch, 20\\n464 B. C.\\nThere was no room for the epoch-title Psamu-\\nthis among the well-known kings of the Persian\\nDynasty, and, for this reason, Psamuthis was substi-\\ntuted for Psammetichos II. But we also find Psam-\\nuthis with one year in the Twenty-ninth Dynasty of\\nAfricanus. Eusebius enters the reign before the\\nepoch in the same dynasty, first, as Psammuthis\\nwith one year, and second, as Muthis with one year.\\nThus it is evident from the two forms, Psammuthis\\nand Muthis, that Manetho not only gave the epoch-\\ntitle itself, but explained that it meant the son of\\nMuth.\\nNow the Canon of Ptolemy, which is astronom-\\nical, that is, adapted to the Sothiac epochs, likewise\\nplaces the accession of Xerxes at 485 B. C.\\nEPOCH OF PACHONS, 364 B. C.\\nThis is the last epoch mentioned by our trust-\\nworthy guide Manetho, for his work dates from the", "height": "3619", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0570.jp2"}, "571": {"fulltext": "History of Ancient Egypt 565\\naccession of Ptolemy Philadelphus, 287 B. C. We\\nwill now begin where we left off\\nEpoch of Pharmuthi, 484 B. C.\\nXerxes, after epoch 20\\n464 B. C.\\nArtabanos (7 months x months of Magoi i\\n463 B. C.\\nArtaxerxes, 41\\n422 B. C.\\nXerxes (2 months) Sogdianos (7 months), i\\n421 B. C.\\nDarius, 19\\n402 B. C.\\nTwenty-eighth Dynasty (Amy rtaios?), 6\\n396 B. C.\\nNepherites, 6\\n390 B. C.\\nAchoris, 13\\n377 B. C.\\nNepherites, i\\n376 B.C.\\nNektarebes, before epoch, 12\\nEpoch of Pachons, 364 B. C.\\nNektarebes, after epoch, as Amyrtaios, 6\\n358 B. C.\\nTecs, 2\\n356 B.C.\\nNektanebos {Necht-neb-eJ)y 18\\nEnd of Thirtieth Dynasty, 339 B. C.", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0571.jp2"}, "572": {"fulltext": "566 A Self-Verifying Chronological\\nThe epoch-title Amyrtaios, which is the same\\ncommented on in the Fifth Dynasty, was, by mistake,\\ntransferred to the Twenty-eighth Dynasty It is a\\ntitle applicable to Chonsu, the peace-loving son of\\nAmen and Muth. Wherever the reigns were divided\\nby Sothiac epochs some traces of the fact remain in\\nthe lists. In many instances these epochs have been\\nthe direct cause of the confusion and disturbance ap-\\nparent in the lists. The later dynasties, showing\\nreigns in months, such as those of Artabanos, Sog-\\ndianos, Nepherites, etc., will serve to illustrate how\\nthe extra months, now wanting in the earlier\\nlists, necessarily afifect a computation according to\\nSothiac epochs of one hundred and twenty years.\\nOur work ends here, but the presence of such\\ntitles as Ptolemy Philadelphus, in the month\\nof Pachons, and Ptolemy Euergetes, in\\nthe month of Payni, demonstrates\\nthat the Ptolemies themselves\\ncontinued to rule accord-\\ning to the time-hon-\\nored Sothiac\\nsystem.", "height": "3619", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0572.jp2"}, "573": {"fulltext": "INDEX\\nPage\\nPreface, 3\\nIntroduction, ii\\nPART I\\nThe Sothiac System of Chronoi^ogy and the Chrono-\\nI.OGICAI, Lists of Manetho, 23\\nThe TWEI.VE Months, 31\\nThe Signs of the Zodiac Derived from the Symboi^s\\nOF THE Egyptian Months, 48\\nFormation of the Solar System, 56\\nPresent State of Egyptian Chronoi,ogy, 66\\nThe Sothiac Year, 71\\nManetho the Historian, 76\\nThe Chronoi,ogicai, Numbers of Josephus, 84\\nManetho s Generai, Chronologicai, Scheme, 91\\nManetho s Grand Totai, of 3,555 Years, 97\\nPART II\\nA SEI.F- Verifying Chronoi^ogicai, History of Ancient\\nEgypt, from the Foundation of the Kingdom to\\nTHE BEGINNING OF THE PERSIAN DYNASTY\u00e2\u0080\u0094 A BoOK\\nOF Startling Discoveries\u00e2\u0080\u0094 Grand Totals of Man-\\netho s First Book, 99\\nTen Thinite Kings Who Reigned (350) Years, 103\\nManetho s First Dynasty of Eight Thinite Kings, 104\\nThe Epoch-Reigns of the First Dynasty, 118\\nManetho s Second and Third Dynasties, 125\\nEpoch-Kings of the Third Dynasty, 149\\nManetho s Fourth Dynasty, 155\\nThe Chufus, 167\\n567", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0573.jp2"}, "574": {"fulltext": "568 Index\\nPage\\nEpoch-Kings of ^he Fourth Dynasty. (Addendum, 1898), 178\\nFifth Dynasty of Eight Memphitf Kings, 186\\nEpoch-Reigns of the Fifth Dynasty, 192\\nSixth Dynasty of Six Mfmphite Kings, 195\\nSixth Dynasty of Six Ei^Kphantinkan Kings, .195\\nSeventh and Eighth Memphite Dynasties, 210\\nNinth and Tenth Dynasties of Heraki,eopoi,is, .214\\nEi Eventh Dynasty of Thebes, 216\\nTabi,e of Karnak\u00e2\u0080\u0094 IvEft Hai,f, 221\\nE1.EVENTH Dynasty, from Tabi,e of Karnak, 229\\nChu-mer-na-ptah and Sem-su Har-pa-chrat, 235\\nThe Grand Totai^s of Ninety-six Kings and 2,121 Years\\nOF Manetho s Second Book, 237\\nTABI.E of Twei/FTh Dynasty, 247\\nTWEI.FTH Dynasty of Eight Theban Kings, 248\\nIntervai, Between the Twei^fth and Eighteenth Dy-\\nnasties, 255\\nThe Extracts of Barbarus Scai^igeri from Africanus, 263\\nLocation of the Pyramids, 267\\nThirteenth Dynasty of Sixteen Diospoi^itan Kings, 269\\nTurin Papyrus, 272\\nThe Hyksos Invasion, 276\\nThe Ai,i,egory of the Fi ood, 286\\nFifteenth Dynasty of Ei^even Diospoi^itan Kings, 298\\nSixteenth Dynasty of Thirty-two Thebaid Kings, 306\\nThe Hyksos Dynasty of Six Kings, 315\\nRestored List of Hyksos Dynasty\u00e2\u0080\u0094 New Empire, .335\\nSoTHiAC List of Eighteenth Dynasty, 339\\nThe Eighteenth Dynasty of Sixteen Diospowtan Kings, 340\\nSeti, Sethos, Sethosis, or Sesostris, 354\\nNineteenth Dynasty of Seven Diospoi^itan Kings, 370\\nNineteenth Dynasty of Five Diospoi^itan Kings, -371\\nEpoch-Reigns of Manetho s Second Sothiac Cyci,e, 387", "height": "3619", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0574.jp2"}, "575": {"fulltext": "Index 569\\nPage\\nThe Period of Joseph s Administration in Egypt, in\\nThe Light of the Tei.-Ei.-Amarna Ci.ay Tabi^ets, 391\\nThe Pharaoh of the Oppression, 425\\nThe Pharaoh of the Exodus, 434\\nThe Ia-nim, or Ionians, 454\\nThe 1,050 Years of Manetho s Third Book, 461\\nTwentieth Dynasty of Seven Diospoi^itan Kings, 463\\nTwenty-first Dynasty of Seven Tanite Kings 470\\nTwenty-second Dynasty of Nine Bubastite Kings, 477\\nTwenty-third Dynasty of Three Tanite Kings, .492\\nTwenty-fourth Dynasty of Four Saite Kings, 497\\nTwenty-fifth Dynasty of Ethiopian Kings, 512\\nTwenty-sixth Dynasty of Six Saite Kings, -519\\nBABY1.0NIAN and Assyrian Chronoi^ogy, 534\\nEpoch-Reigns of Manetho s Third Cyci.e, 549\\nEpoch of Thoth, 1324 B. C, 55o\\nEpoch of Paophi, 1204 B. C, 554\\nEpoch op Athyr, 1084 B. C, 55^\\nEpoch of Choiahk, 946 B. C, 557\\nEpoch of Tybi, 844 B. C, 560\\nEpoch of Amhir, 724 B. C, 561\\nEpoch of Phamenoth, 604 B. C, 562\\nEpoch of Pharmuthi, 484 B. C, 563\\nEpoch of Pachons, 364 B. C, 564\\nIndex, 5^7", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0575.jp2"}, "576": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3619", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0576.jp2"}, "577": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3659", "width": "2266", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0577.jp2"}, "578": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3619", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0578.jp2"}, "579": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3637", "width": "2190", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0579.jp2"}, "580": {"fulltext": "s\\nA p o t//7 v^ c,^ -^1 1 1 Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide\\nJ .\\\\v v^ \u00e2\u0096\u00a0^X lt^^ Treatment Date: May 2003\\na\\\\\\nX o\\\\,;;^;^Jft| V\\nDeacidified using the Bookkeeper process.\\nNeutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide\\nTreatment Date: May 2003\\nPreservationTechnologies\\nA WORLD LEADER |N PAPER PRESERVATION\\n1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive\\nrranhprru Tnwrishin PA 16066", "height": "3619", "width": "2226", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0580.jp2"}, "581": {"fulltext": "V^^\\nX 0^\\n-x-^\\nv\\n1\\n^.J^P^-,", "height": "3637", "width": "2190", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0581.jp2"}, "582": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3760", "width": "2329", "jp2-path": "selfverifyingchr00schm_0582.jp2"}}