Historical studies

In the xiiith dynasty alone we can prove the
presence of eleven successive kings in Upper Egypt,
at Thebes or close by at Abydos ; and on the average
reign of S'l years they vouch for 56 years, which
cannot be reduced by any supposition of contemporary
rule. Even on the extreme view that there were no
other Theban kings, this fact alone leaves only 150
years for the xiv-xvii dynasties. The greater part
of this would be taken up by two long reigns of
Khyan and Apepa I, who cannot have been contem-
porary as they held the same regions, and they are
credited with over a century between them. Thus it
seems entirely impossible to frame any view of the
known names, or known remains, or recorded history,
which could agree to so short a period. Even if the
Mesore year be applied to the xiith dynasty the
difficulties would scarcely be decreased.
What then are the reasons which have been alleged
against the longer period, and against the recorded
history ? They have seldom been stated. Mahler in
his chronological discussion never even mentions a
longer period. The only reasons ever given seem
to be those in Meyer's Aegyptisclie Chronologie, 1904,
p. 61. In that we start with the statement that " the
setting back of the Sothis period is an absurdity that
does not enter into consideration for scientific discus-
sion." Such is the spirit in which the actually
recorded history is handled, when the alternative of
supposing eight, or even sixteen, contemporary kings
is preferred. The reasons assigned for this decision,
that the historical statements are too absurd to
discuss, are
(i) That the culture is so little changed from the
xiith to the xviiith dynasty. We have just reviewed
the differences between these periods, and seen that
in almost every respect an entire change took place
between those ages.
(2) That the language is so little altered. But the
change from the xiith to the xviiith dynasty is at
least equal to that from the vith to the xiith dynasty
and that period is already fixed as being some six
centuries in length.
(3) That there are so few monuments, "only a few
{lit. pair) of monuments of Sebekhotep and Nefer-
hotep and their consorts, and a few traces of poor
graves and scarabs." In the section on the remains of
the xiiith-.xviith dynasties we have seen how large an
amount there is of this period, which seems to have
escaped Dr. Meyer's knowledge. And in the section
on the frequency of monuments, we have seen that
the decline during the period of decay and invasion is
;
THE ATTEMPT TO SHORTEN THE HISTORY 21
just what accords with the same conditions later on.
Monumental frequency varies as 50 to i in different
conditions of a country.
And what else is there alleged against the history,
and in favour of a unique record of eight or more
contemporary kings ? Nothing whatever.
We have also shewn in the previous sections that
the question of style, which has been vaguely talked
about, is entirely useless for proving the shortness of a
period. The rate of change of style varies immensely,
and fifty years at one time may make more difference
than a thousand years at another.
Let us then take a single view of the reasons
which are alleged for the shorter and longer reading
of the history.
Tlii Shorter History.
(i) Little changed,
xii-xviii.
(2) Little change of
language.
(3) Few monuments.
(4)
(5)0
(6)0
Style of art simi-
lar.
(7) 8 (or 16) contemporary
kings
during the
whole period.
The Longer History.
(i) Every product and custom
altered.
(2) Similar to the change
from the vith to the
xiith dynasty.
(3) More than in the paral-
(4)
(5)
lel period later.
Style different ; and
continuity like that
over other long
periods.
Strict parallel of the
Hyksos and Arab in-
vasions.
(6) General correctness of
all of Manetho's
periods when com-
pared with external
data.
(7) The consistent usage
of the consecutive
historical record of
the Turin papyrus,
which has the sum-
mations of a contin-
uous chronology at
intervals.
The general beliefs of
the Egyptians in the
vth century B.C.
It seems impossible to accept the arbitrarily re-
duced history as satisfactory, and to reject the history
given by the Egyptians as " an absurdity that does