LIBRARY OF THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY PRINCETON, N. J. Stuart Fund Division Section Digitized by tine Internet Arcliive in 2015 Iittps://arcliive.org/details/egyptsplaceinuni03buns EGYPT^S PLACE IN UNIVERSAL HISTORY. VOL. III. CONTAINING THE FOURTH BOOK, OR, THE SYNCHRONISMS. tOKDOK PBINTED BY SFOXTISWOOBE Alfl) CO. NEW-STREET SQUAUE. EGYPT'S PLACE IN UNIVERSAL HISTORY: AN HISTORICAL INVESTIGATION IN FIVE BOOKS. BY / C. C. J. BARON BUNSEN, D.Ph. D.C.L. & D.D. TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN, BY CHARLES H. COTTRELL, ESQ., M.A. VOL. IIL LONDON: LONGMAN, BROAVN, GEEEN, LONGMANS, & EGBERTS. 1859. CHAMPOLLION. Age after age the twin bright spheres, whom the sons of Nile revere, Hud in harmonious orbits ruled the various-circling year. 'Twas night : the dawn of day was near, that holy festal day "When the fierce power of Helios fell with perpendicular ray. Thoughtful the Priest of Hermes then in nightly silence sate, Watching the ordered signs of Heaven, at Egypt's southern gate, AVhere ^Ethiopia s sacred stream with wild tumultuous flow Breaks through the barrier rock, and foams into the vale below. A hollow-murmuring roar far-heard proclaims the swelling flood, That yearly draws the fruitful growth from Egypt's pregnant mud. Then eastward his pure hands the Priest uplifts with faith sincere, The faith which fills the soul with light, and makes the future clear ; And to the God he prayed who oft had taught him lore divine, Plainly, or through the mystic mask of the quaintly picturing sign : " O Thoth, if e'er on festal day thou heardst my prayer in heaven, " If honestly I used the light that by thy grace was given, " Now let me reap the fruits of years of thoughtful meditation, " Heading the march of deathless Gods in the mounting constellation ! " If Sothis shines before the Sun, a heavenly herald clear, " Even on that day when thou shalt ope the gates o' the sacred year, " Then may I surely know that all the Gods who reign sublime " With newborn force commence to-day the march of ordered time. " Four times ten years I've watched the sky for Sirius' heavenly birth, " Then wlien the first of Thoth returned to the warm fruit-bearing earth, A 4 vi DEDICATION. " And now what lacked hath been fulfilled of the mystic year complete, " "When Sothis with his morning strength the rising Sun shall greet. " Now doth the great world-year begin, new centuries are told ; " What long ray heart believed make now my fleshly eye behold ! " He said ; and in the east he saw the morning's long grey lines, Day's harbinger ; and in the sky the mounting Sirius shines : " Now," he exclaimed, "may I proclaim wbat in thy rays I read, " Thousands of years of prosperous fates are to this land decreed. " The Gods are true ; by cosmic laws they guide the wheeling stars, " And through long centuries no break the heavenly concert mars : " Hundreds and thousands of long years thy prosperous course shall see, " Land of the swelling flood, this fate the stars revealed to me ! " When thrice and once the circling year hath rolled its course sublime, " The ruling Star remains one day behind its counted time. " Thus, when four times the annual tale of days is told in years, " A year is gained, which to the Gods belongs who rule the spheres, " By us not counted ; for by earthly laws our seasons roll : " We rob them of the parts of time, they give us back the whole. " The time we from their grace receive, a boon from burden free, " We to their glory here may spend in sacred jubilee ! " And so it was ; and feasts and years and fates, a sacred chain, Followed the Star — to whoso knows the stars a mystery plain. A thousand and four hundred years and sixty make complete The sacred cycle, when in earth and heaven the seasons meet. Twice since that time the holy Priest the complete cycle told Before o'er Egypt's land the dark of long oblivion rolled ; Night too obscured the signs that taught the seasons' mystic lore, " For water four, and four for growth, and four for garnered store." Then to thy thought, immortal Thinker, genius made clear, From types that marked the changing month, the laws that bound the year. Thy glance perceived when first commenced the calculated round Of years that to the starry march the fate of Egypt bound. DEDICATION. Vll Till with the rising Sirius' ray the swelling year began, And in significant type the Priest beheld the numbered plan. Thy science proved the truth of honest Manetho : thy ken Gave back their old far-dated birth to the race of mortal men, Who from the hoariest centuries learned with speculative awe To read the heavens, and in the whole to read one mystic law, Image of right and social form, which with abiding power The knowing soul of man impresses on the fleeting hour. Our thanks be to the Prophet paid who saw with vision clear, In the quaint types that marked the month, the law that ruled the year ; Then gave his thought to the learned friend that knew the starry ways, Who from such germ brought flower and fruit, to both a deathless praise. Have thou my thanks, my gift receive, thou Spirit keen and fine ; I give but what I got — the gold that takes my stamp was thine ! PREFACE TO THE THIRD VOLUME OF THE ENGLISH EDITION. The alteration which the author has made in the arrangement of the contents of the Fourth and Fifth Books, in the present English edition, will, he thinks, be found a decided improvement upon the original German text. By incorporating into the Book of Synchronisms everything which belongs either exclusively or princi- pally to chronological histoiy, he hopes to have made j the parts of each volume more homogeneous, and the whole more clear and intelligible to his readers. He cannot doubt, also, that the new matter which will be published for the first time in the Fifth Volume will add considerably to the value, as well as interest, of the whole work. Thanks to Mr. Birch's kindness and his zeal for the advancement of Egyptian science, the author is enabled to offer to the public a glossary of all the roots and words in that language at present known to us, being an addition of nearly 2000 to the glossary in the First Volume. Yet even that glossary is acknow- ledged to be the most complete hitherto existing, and it is not too much to say that there is little probability of any considerable further addition being ever made to the one in preparation. It may safely be asserted that we are now acquainted, at all events, with by very far the largest portion of the Hieratic and Hicroglyphical vocabulary, although some additional knowledge may be X rREFACE. acquired by the help of the Demotic. Mr. Birch's in- valuable labours will likewise enable the author to im- prove his comparative etymological glossary, Chamitic, Semitic, and Arian, which will now form a part of the Fifth Volume. jSTeither is the debt of gratitude which the author, and, as he confidently believes, the public also, owe to Mr. Birch, limited to this contribution. He has trans- lated for publication in the same volume the whole of the " Book of the Dead," or Egyptian Ritual relating to their doctrine of the metempsychosis, or migration of the Souls of the Departed, and their final union with the Deity. This task has never been accomplished be- fore, and the present achievement has surpassed the ex- pectation of the author, as expressed at the time of the publication of the First Volume of this work, in 1844. Besides this, the author is enabled, by the assistance of his learned friend, to ofi*er an Historical Chrestomathy, or collection of important Egyptian texts referring to thfi researches of this work, and alluded to in the course of it. This Chrestomathy, with analytical trans- lation, will add the weight of documentary evidence to the historical assertions and conclusions. But the author has long been convinced that without such a Chresto- mathy, accompanied by a Grammar and Dictionary, it will never be possible to form a philological school of Egyptology, and place the science of hieroglyphical read- ing beyond the dreams of dilettantism and the impos- tures of unscrupulous charlatans. The Appendix of Authorities in the First Volume wiU also receive in the Fifth an important supplement, con- sisting, among other classical texts, of a new critical edition of the extracts from the Sankhoniathonic accounts of Philo of Byblus. The author believes that, with the aid of Dr. Jacob Bernays of the University of Breslau, PREFACE. xi he has been enabled to give the first critical text of these very remarkable extracts, the contents of which are there philologically examined and philosophically analysed. Two most valuable publications have appeared within the last few months, which the author congratulates himself on having this opportunity of mentioning to his readers, inasmuch as they contain two discoveries which have not only a very important bearing upon the chro- nology and antiquity of Egypt, but are points of the highest interest in themselves. The long prepared and anxiously expected work, the " Book of the Kings," has at last appeared, and will for ever form the Thesaurus Regius of Egyptology, and be a monument of imperish- able merit and glory. In this splendid volume Lepsius has established the true import of an absolute date of the reign of Tuthmosis III., probably even the first year of it. He has, moreover, shown that it harmonizes with the chronological system pursued in this work and by himself, as to the beginning of the New Empire — a system which differs by about 200 years from that generally adopted in 1834 upon the authority of Cham- pollion, followed by Rosellini (Yol. 11. 499—589.). The second discovery alluded to is contained in a still more recent publication — the Second Part of Mr. Leo- nard Horner's account (in the " Transactions of the Royal Society ") of researches made near Cairo, at his suggestion, with a view to throw light upon the geo- logical history of the alluvial land of Egypt. This very interesting paper appears to establish the fact ; That Egypt was inhabited by men who made use of pottery about 11,000 years before the Christian era. Both these points are of the greatest interest to per- sons conversant with Egyptian history. As the latter may appear startling to the general reader, who has Xll PREFACE. taken for granted that the existence of man does not date beyond six or seven thousand years, the author feels it his duty to state, as clearly and succinctly as possible, the particular grounds on which the above conclusions are based, and to show that it is not a spe- culative geological, but a positive historical, research with which we have to deal. For the details he refers his readers to the above- cited publications, and especially to the great work of Lepsius, that glorious result of twenty years' unremitted investigation and systematic criticism. I. THE ABSOLUTE DATE OP THE REIGN OF TUTHMOSIS HI. AND ITS BEARING UPON THE EPOCH OF THE EXODUS AND THE LENGTH OF THE BONDAGE IN EGYPT. Lepsius, in his "Book of the Kings" (pp. 151 — 169.), has thoroughly discussed the general question of the ab- solute dates on Egyptian monuments, with especial refe- rence to the combined Memoirs of Biot and De Rouge of 1853. (Mem. de I'Acad. t. xxiv.) His arguments, his facts, and his critical remarks upon the ingenious and learned suggestions and explanations of these illus- trious scholars, to whom Egyptian science owes so much, are, upon the whole, conclusive. The result at which he arrives fully confirms the view entertained by the author from the first, that such notations of absolute dates, re- ferring to the heliacal rising of Sirius and to the Sothiac cycle of 1460 years, would one day be discovered and explained, and that they would substantiate the truth of the system pursued by Lepsius, and in this work. But it also justifies the author's doubts respecting the as- sumptions, and particularly the historical assumptions, connected with the method of Biot's latest researches on this subject. In order to enable the reader to form PREFACE. xiii a correct estimate of the value of this astronomical and philological analysis and its really philosophical results, it will be necessary to make some preliminary remarks upon the theory of the equational year referred to at pp. 67 — 78. of this volume. In the first place : The commencement of the last So- thiac cycle in 1322 B.C., Avhich epoch is mentioned by the ancient astronomers and their epitomists, and con- firmed by the calculations of modern science, coincides with the reign of Menephthah, or Menophthah, son of Ramses II., the Pharaoh of the Exodus. This was called by Greek astronomers the era of Menophthes, for the reading of the manuscript of Theon's work, Me- nophres, can only signify a king, and must be altered into Menophthes, as the author proposed in 1834. Lepsius has a special chapter on this subject in refuta- tion of Biot (pp. 117—130.). In the second place : The date thus fixed is necessarily an average one, a middle term, calculated for astrono- mical purposes. It is found to correspond exactly with the horizon of Central Egypt, immediately at the line of junction of the Upper and Lower Egypt of the ancients. In that quarter (latitude 28° II') the heliacal rising of Sirius took place on the 18th of July of the Julian year (p. 161.). The whole length of Egypt, from Syene to Heliopolis, being about six degrees, this difi'erence be- tween the extreme points makes a difference in the Sothiac cycle of twenty-four years. ^ In the third place : There must have existed, in ad- 1 As in the movable year there is always the loss of a quarter of a clay, by neglecting the fraction beyond 365, the difference between the Sothiac and the true Solar year will amount in four years to a whole day. Hence it follows that in 365x4 (1460) years, the neglect of intercalations occasions a loss of a whole year. Now the difference of one degree more to the south is almost equal to the difference of a day. or four year.< in the cycle. xiv PREFACE. dition to their astronomical determination, calculations for the rising of Sirius based upon various local obser- vations, for the practical use of the celebration of the festivals in a given place. Indeed, as Lepsius remarks, the existence of an average or middle epoch implies the existence of different local observations from Syene to Heliopolis, which would afford a basis for that calcu- lation, and serve as a confirmation and check upon each other. There is, in fact, positive proof that such was the case. Ptolemy, in his astronomical work, gives the rising of Sirius on different days of the calendar. When, therefore, we meet with constellations and risings of stars marked on a local monument, and particularly in a calendar, the natural course would be to interpret it in a local sense. On this point Lepsius now concurs entirely with Biot and De Rouge, as to the explanation of the Theban tables of star-risings (p. 155.). In the fourth place: The only monuments on which we can safely rely for finding absolute dates are the local calendars which mark the rising of Sirius, and are con- nected with the name of the reigning Pharaoh. The representations of star-risings on the ceilings were evi- dently of a decorative character, and they frequently contain the grossest blunders, whole months being left out for want of space, even in the very centre of them. Some, indeed, of these representations of constellations bear the names of different kings, though the rising of Sirius is perfectly identical.^ This proves at least that they were not always very accurate. 2 This applies to the star-tables on the tombs of Ramses VL and Ramses IX. It is true that Ramses VI., VII., VIII., as well- as Ramses IV. and V., were sons of Ramses III., and that Ramses IX. was son of Ramses VII. We know nothing of the duration of their individual reigns, but the interval between that of the uncle and PREFACE. XV Fifthly : There are even official documents containing notations of months or days, which cannot be cor- rect ; and such blunders must be attributed to the workmen or painters employed (p. 159.). For in- stance, it is notorious that the Rosetta stone, though containing an official text engraved on granite, has a wrong date, owing to one sign being used instead of another. There are, indeed, official monuments of the best Pharaonic times on which these blunders occur (p. 165.), the same month or day being written dif- ferently in different passages of one and the same ca- lendar. Sixthly : A blunder in the notation of the month in monuments of the Xew Empire is easily detected, and as easily corrected. It would make a difference of 120 years ^ in the cycle ; and hence the correction can be made with certainty, supposing the name of the king in question to be known, and the notation of the heliacal rising df the sun to be certain. There is no date of a Pharaoh's reign in the New Empire so ques- tionable as to allow a candid inquirer a latitude of 120 years. A blunder of this kind would be caused by the simple difference of a stroke more or a stroke less. If, therefore, by assuming it to be a blunder we are re- lieved from an impossibility, and brought within the period previously known, we may confidently adopt it. Seventhly : The date in a calendar connected with nephew may possibly not have been very considerable. Of Ramses VIII. (Eamses IX. in Rosellini) Birch has just found in a papyrus the seventeenth year mentioned. The translation of the whole pa- pyrus containing this date will be given in the Fifth Volume. 3 One day in a month reckons for four years in the cycle, and a single stroke more or less is decisive whether the month be the first, second, third, or fourth of the tetrameny, and thus constitutes a difference of 120 years. VOL. III. a xvi PREFACE. the name of a king indicates his first year, so that such a notation must mean either that it records the year of the reign of that Pharaoh in which the building was erected, or else that it refers to his inauguration, his royal horoscope as it were, and consequently to his first year. If the former of these hypotheses were the true one, we should find such notations on a great number of royal monuments, if not on all, whereas they are of very rare occurrence, except in tombs and calen- dars. As to the calendars, they appear not to have been renewed every year, for they are by no means common. They would seem, therefore, to be charac- teristic of some fixed period, which can only be the first year of the reigning monarch. These preliminary remarks turn out to have imme- diate reference to the only one of the five monuments examined by Biot and De Kouge which combines all the requisites, and may therefore give a positive date. It is the fragment of a calendar which contains a clear notation of the rising of Sirius on a given day, and belongs to the celebrated Pharaoh Tuthmosis III. Lepsius had formerly his doubts upon this head ; but a further examination of the different fragments of that calendar, and of blocks worked into the walls of the pre- sent quay of Elephantina, has convinced him that the fragment formed part of an inscription belonging to that monarch. This fragment, then, contains the fol- lowing unmistakable inscription (Leps. p. 164.) : Inundation : third month (Epiphi) : ^ Third day, rising of S otitis : Festival, &c. Nothing can be clearer than that this inscription in- ^ The hieroglyphical signs for each month are given in the fron- tispiece of this volume, and the whole theory is explained in the text. PREFACE. xvii dicates the 28th day of the 11th month of the Egyptian year. There are 37 more days between this and the 1st of Thoth, viz> : 2 days of Epiphi. 30 „ Mesori (the 12th month). 5 intercalary days. These 37 daj's represent in the Sothiac year 37 x 4 = 148 years, which must elapse before Sirius rises on the 1st of Thoth. To get at the date of the monument we must consequently add 148 to the year of the astro- nomical epoch : The cycle commences : in Central Egypt, 1322 b. c; which gives 1470 b. c. at Elephantina (4° to the south), 1306 b. c. ; which gives 1454 b. c, or 16 years later. But the one date is as impossible as the other. Ac- cording not only to JManetho but the contemporary monuments also, the interval between the reigns of Menephthah (1322) and Tuthmosis III. is so much greater, that there must be a mistake in the notation of the month. Now, supposing the workmen to have cut three of those little strokes instead of two, the inscrip- tion would run thus : Inundation, second month (Payni) 28th day ; and we should have to add to the respective dates of the beginning of the new Sothiac cycle 30 days, equi- valent to 120 years, or together 268 years. The nota- tion would then stand thus: Date, referred to average astrono- mical epoch - - - - (1322 = ) 1592 B. c. Date, referred to rising of Sirius at Elephantina - - - (1306 = ) 1574 b. c. a 2 XVIU PREFACE. As regards the beginning of the reign of Tuthmosis III., he has himself recorded it on one of his monu- ments, dating it from the year immediately after the death of his father Tuthmosis I., and therefore com- puting to himself the whole reign of his brother Tuthm5sis II. The most natural supposition would seem to be, that in the monument in question the king's own system is to be looked for, and not that of Manetho the monumental historian, who divided the period of forty-eight years between the kings de facto, assigning twenty-two to the brother Tuthmosis II., and twenty- six to Tuthmosis III. Again, it seems more ixatural to interpret the date on this local monument according to the local period, the rising of Sirius at Elepliantina in 1306. This would make the first year of Tuthmosis III. 1574, whereas Lepsius, adopting in both cases the other alternative, makes it 1591, which is, according to his s^'stem, really the second year of the de facto reign of that Pharaoh.'^ ^ According to the calculation of Tutlimosis III. (from the death of his father), the first year would be : B. C. By the system of Lepsius - - 1613 „ author's tables - - 1566 According to Manetho (from the death of his brother) : By the system of Lepsius - - 1591 author's tables - - - 1544 As to the question of local or average date, the reasons adduced by Lepsius, as above, seem decisive in favour of the supposition that for this Elephantina calendar the Elephantina period (1306) would be used, for what is granted for the Theban tables must also be pre- ferred in this local monument. There is no difficulty in supposing that the festival was held on different days in different towns, in commemoration of an event which necessarily happened at different periods in each. In order to justify liis own tables, Lepsius prefers the average year for the cycle (1322) to the local one, and the system of Manetho's Lists (dividing the two consecutive reigns) to that of the Pharaoh PREFACK. xix The author differs, therefore, from his method in both respects. He must observe, besides, that the way in which Lepsius arrives at 1591, or according to the other starting-point 1613, as the first year of Tuthm5sis III., is mainly by making Sethos, the father of Ramesses and grandfather of Menephthah, reign fifty-one years. We should thus have a father and son reigning con- secutively fifty-one and sixty-six years = 117, both of them having been warriors, and the reigns of both having commenced with a campaign, which is without a parallel in history. Besides which, contemporary monuments record al- most all of the regnal years of Ramses II. down to the very last, but of Sethos only the first. This cir- cumstance would be capable of explanation at a period so abounding in monuments as that was, if his reign were a short one (the ancient List of Manetho seems to assign to him twelve years), but it is hardly explicable if that great and glorious monarch reigned fifty-one years. As regards his own chronology, the author admits that the absolute date in question proves it to be a few years too low. He may fairly claim the latitude of four years, which every such calculation according to the heliacal rising of Sirius will allow ; inasmuch as this rising (at the eleventh hour, an hour before sunrise, which is exactly four o'clock on the 20th of July at Thebes) represents a period of four years in the Sothiac cycle. But he has reason to think that his chronology is wrong by exactly eight years. Between the reigns himself. He thus makes 1591 the first year of the sole and undis- puted reign of Tuthmosis III. This year is : According to the normal year (1322), the 2nd year of Tuthmosis III. 5, horizon of Elephantina (1306), the 18th year. a 3 XX PllEFACE. of Tuthm5sis and Menephthah there are two very doubtful points, marked as such in the text of this work. It was not without good grounds that thirty- two regnal years were given to Horus, the last king of the 18th Dynasty, instead of thirty-seven marked in the Lists. ^ But still it was a mistake, and the solution is more simple. In regard to his successor, liames- ses I., the preference had been given in the tables to the six years of Africanus over the nine of Josephus and Eusebius. But Lepsius has produced an authority which seems to prove that the original number in Afri- can us was also nine. Thus eight years must be added and this gives us, to a year, the very date required by the monument. For by thus simply restoring the two dates of Ma- netho the conclusion is legitimately arrived at, that the astronomical date of 1574 was the first year of Tuthmosis III., it being the year immediately succeeding the last of his father's reign. There is perhaps a further reason for supposing this astronomical date to be the first year of Tuthm5sis. It offers direct explanation of the 215 years of bondage, 6 The years (32) set against Acherres, the next royal name in Africanus, were given to him (Vol. II. p. 552.) upon the supposi- tion that the date (37) now attached to Horus in the Lists had been absorbed by his predecessor (p. 535.), whose thirty-sixth year is recorded on the monuments ; whereas, the number now placed against his name is only 31, and therefore evidently needs correction. The difficulty of fixing accurately the length of Horus' reign, of which no higher year than the seventh is found on the monuments, was not disguised. A mark of interrogation was expressly placed against his name (p. 530.). The author has now no hesitation in adopting the date of the Lists, which happens to be just five years more than the one assigned to him upon the supposition that 37 was a repetition of the preceding reign, that of Amenophis III. PREFACE. xxi which, in the former vohimes, was only arrived at ap- proximately. This will be seen most clearly by means of the following specific list of the 18th and 19th Dynas- ties, calculated upon the basis of 1574 being the acces- sion of Tuthuiosis. The author will only premise that, in spite of the very learned and ingenious vindication of the opposite theory in the " Book of the Kings," he sees no reason to change his division of the two dynasties. He must still maintain the principle that Manetho always understands by the word dynasty a reigning family : that an Egyptian dynasty, like all others, always begins with a new stock, the first sovereign of which was never the son or the son's son of his predecessor, indeed not even any descendant of the previous royal family in the male line. The doctrine of Manetho may therefore be stated thus : that a dynasty terminated when the issue of its chief became extinct in the male line. Let us look to the facts in question. Amosis was indeed the chief of the 18th Dynasty because he was not the descendant of his predecessor although probably connected with him through his queen, who was " a royal daughter." His successors were all sons of their predecessors, but Horus left no male issue. Eamesses I., the chief of the next dynasty, was certainly connected by the female line with the Tuthmosis Dy- nasty, for he was the son of a daughter of Amenophis III. All this is in accordance with the general ac- ceptation of a dynasty ; can it be accidental ? Eighteenth Dynasty (220 Years, 9 Generations). 1. Amosis - - reigned 25 years 1633tol609 2. Amenophis, son - „ 13 „ 1608 1596 3. Tuthmosis I., son - ,, 21 ,, 1595 1575 a 4 xxii PREFACE. 4. Tuthmosis II. (with III.) rg 5. Tuthmosis III., brother „ 6. Amenophis II., son „ 7. Tuthmosis IV., son 8. Amen5phis III., son „ 9. Horus, dies without 1 male issue J " . 22 years 1574tol553 26 1552 1527 9 J? 1526 1518 31 5J 1517 1487 37 77 1486 1450 37 1449 1413 Nineteenth Dynasty (121 Years, 6 Generations). 1. Ramesses 1. (descended from Amos III. by a daughter) - reigned 9 years 1412 to 1404 2. Sethos I., son - „ 12 „ 1403 1392 3. Eamesses IL, son - „ 66 1391 1325 4. Menephthah, son - „ 20 „ 1324 1305 5. Sethos IL, son - „ 5 „ 1304 1300 6. Sethos IIL, son - „ 7 „ 1299 1293 The annals of Tuthmosis IIL, the great conqueror of the dynasty, will consequently stand thus : Year after Year after his father's his brother's death. death. The Shepherds evacuate Egypt - 27 5 1548 The great campaign in Asia - 29 7 1546 Last campaign in Asia - - 41 19 1534 The great buildings at Karnak, Medinet Habu, and other places, were commenced at this period ----- 1534 If the Exodus took place under Menephthah (fifth year, 1320), the Jews had then really entered the 215th year of their bondage ; since the great buildings were begun by the conqueror of Mesopotamia, to whom Nineveh and Babylon paid tribute, according to the statistical tablet of Tuthmosis IIL, published by Birch. PREFACE. XXIU II. THE EXISTENCE OF POTTERY IN THE DEPOSIT OF THE NILE ABOUT ELEVEN THOUSAND YEARS BEFORE OUR ERA. Historical Egyptologists have hitherto been unable to avail themselves oJf one of the most brilliant appercep- tions and observations connected with the great French work on Egypt, and especially of the ingenious calcula- tions of Girard (Mem. de T Academic jDOur I'annee 1817), which appeared to him to promise an infallible key to the history, not only of the soil, but also of the in- habitants, of Egypt. For, waiving some objections to the method pursued in ascertaining the depth and pro- gressive accumulation of the deposit of mud on the banks of the Nile and over the land subject to inunda- tion, there was no chronological basis whatever for ascertaining the secular increase^ that is to say, the number of inches by which the soil is raised in a cen- tury. Such a basis can only be obtained by measuring the accumulation from the platform of a monument of certain date up to the surface, and calculating from it the average rate of increase in a century. The same causes acting, constantly in the same manner, at the same spot, furnish an ample guarantee of the correct- ness of the calculation of such an accumulation. At the same spot is said advisedly : for it is obvious that the ratio of accumulation must be different in Upper Egypt and at Cairo, the heavier particles subsiding first ; and the difference between Cairo and the end of the Delta must be no less considerable, if we take into account the numerous impediments there to the natural current. The secular increase of 5 English inches for a century, according to the French calculation, has not only no historical basis, but is obtained, moreover, from various observations made at distant parts of Egypt. xxiv PREFACE. Mr. Horner has endeavoured to secure the requisite twofold basis. As his fixed historical point, he selected the colossal statue of Ramesses 11. in the area of Mem- phis (Mem. p. 74.). He found the depth of the sedi- ment at that spot, from the present surface to the basis of the statue, to be 9 feet 4 inches. Now, computing the middle of his reign (1391 — 1225, according to the preceding table, and, with the difference of one year, ex- hibited in the introduction to the "Bible- work" : or 1394 — 1228, according to Lepsius) to be about 1360 B.C., and adding to this 1854, the date of Mr. Horner's exca- vation, we have 3214 or 3215 years for the accumulation of 9 feet 4 inches of sediment ; and the mean rate of increase will be, within a small fraction, 3^ inches per century. The result of Mr. Horner's excavations, conducted in the most careful and methodical manner, is, that the deposit of mud under the statue of Ramesses is 30 feet of the total depth penetrated. Upon this head he says : " The two lowest feet (of 32) consisted of sand, below which it is possible there may be no true Kile sediment in this locality ; and we have thus 30 feet of the latter. If that amount has been deposited at the mean rate of 3| inches in a century, it gives for the lowest part deposited an age of 10,285 years before the middle of the reign of Ramesses II., 11,646 B.C., and 13,500 years before 1854." Mr. Horner proceeds to say : " The deeper parts of this accumulation of 30 feet of sediment are probably more compact in structure, from the long-applied superincumbent pressure, and therefore their age is probably greater, on that account, than that arrived at by the application of the chronometric scale of 3^ inches in a century, obtained by measuring the PREFACE. XXV superior and specifically lighter part of the accumulated mass Remote as is the date of 13,500 years from the present time which these probings of the soil appear to have disclosed, they have not enabled us to attain the hoped-for object of discovering an approximate link be- between historical and geological time. No trace of an extinct organism has been turned up to take the forma- tion of the alluvial land of Egypt beyond that modern epoch from which, in our artificial systems, we are used to carry back our geological reckonings." " In the lowest part," he continues, " of the boring of the sediment at the colossal statue in the year 1854, at a depth of 39 feet from the surface of the ground, con- sisting throughout of true Nile sediment, the instrument brought up a fragment of pottery now in my possession. . . . This fragment having been found at a depth of 39 feet, if there be no fallacy in my reckoning, must be held to be a record of the existence of man 13,371 years before A.D. 1854, reckoning by the before-mentioned rate of increase in that locality of 3| inches in a century. . . . In another pit 354 yards north of the colossal statue, at a distance of 330 yards from the river, fragments of pottery were found at a depth of 38 feet from the surface of the ground. . . . Fragments of burnt brick and of pottery have been found at even greater depths, in localities near the banks of the river, ten and sixteen miles below Cairo. At Sigiul fragments of burnt brick and pottery were found in the sediment brought up from between the 45th and 50th feet from the surface, and in the boring at Bessousse they were brought up from the lowest part, viz. 59 feet from the surface." To these remarks the author would add the follow- ing considerations. The operation performed, and the result obtained, are historical, not geological. The soil which has been penetrated is exclusiv^ely historical xxvi PREFACE. soil, coeval with mankind, and underlies a monument the date of which can be fixed with all desirable cer- tainty. It is a soil accumulated at the same spot, by the same uninterrupted, regular, infallible agency of that river, which, like the whole country through which it flows, is a perfect chronometer. It is an agency evidently undisturbed by any other agency, during these more than a hundred centuries, by flood or by deluge, by elevation or by depression. The fertilising sediment is found in its place throughout. Under these circumstances it would seem reasonable to suppose that there is no material difference in the rate of secular increase, but that, if there be any, the lower strata would require an inch or half an inch less to represent the growth of a century. But it may also be added, that historical facts lead to the same conclusion, if the space of time during which man has existed on the face of our mother earth be measured, not by conven- tional notions arisino: out of iixnorance and sanctioned by prejudice, but by facts which any one is capable of investigating, who does not shrink from researches de- terminable with logical demonstration and mathematical cogency. The indisputable facts of the development of language sufl&ce to prove the two points at issue : that the period commonly assigned to the existence of mankind is much too brief, and that the real dura- tion is not immeasurably or indefinitely long. The author would speak freely on this subject, because he feels strongly that in the times in which we live it is as absurd and as irreverent to ignore the linguistic strata, as it would be to take no notice of the strata of the earth, or for a man to set up a system of astro- nomy of his own, without reference to the Keplerian laws or Newton's immortal discoveries. Much certainly remains to be done before the two PREFACE. xxvii kinds of researcli bearing upon this point of chronology are completed and consolidated. The importance of the results obtained, and of the consequences which seem to flow from the researches of Mr. Horner, will, it is to be hoped, induce governments and individuals to institute similar excavations upon the two prin- ciples alluded to above. As regards the historical inquiry, the author will not conceal his feeling of a certain scientific satisfaction, in finding that the re- searches of this work have led to identical results. They are based principally on the history of the lan- guages of Asia, and their connexion with that of Egypt and they do not, in his opinion, contravene in the slightest degree the statements of Scripture, though they demolish ancient and modern rabbinical assump- tions ; while, on the contrary, they extend the antiquity of the biblical accounts, and explain for the first time their historical truth. The languages of mankind, when once the principle of their original development and the time necessarily required for the formation of a new language put of the perishing remains of an old one are understood, form the strata of the soil of civi- lisation, as the layers of Nile-deposit warrant the ex- istence of ages necessary for the successive formations of the humus. It is upon this basis, supported by col- lateral facts and by records peculiar to the history of Egypt, that the four following theses will be established in the Fourth Volume of this work : First : That the immigration of the Asiatic stock from Western Asia (Chaldasa) is antediluvian. Secondly : That the historical deluge, which took place in a considerable part of Central Asia, cannot have occurred at a more recent period than the Tenth Millennium b. c. XXVlll PREFACE. Thirdly : That there are strong grounds for supposing that that catastrophe did not take place at a much earlier period. Fourthly : That man existed on this earth about 20,000 years b. c, and that there is no valid reason for assumin^: a more remote beo^innino^ of our race. AYith these observations the author would commend Mr, Cottrell's translation to the English public, and otFer at the same time his thanks to Professor Blackie for his version of the dedications to Champollion and Schelling. BUNSEN. Charlottenberg, near Heidelberg, Nov. 1858. TABLE OF CONTENTS OF THE THIED VOLUME. Page Preface - - - - - - -ix BOOK IV. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. I. The great Monumental Work of the Prussian Expedition to Egypt and Ethiopia, published by Lepsius - - 3 II. Relation between the System pursued in this Work, in Keference to the Chronology, and the Dynasties of Manetho ------ 8 III. Point of View and Method of the Fourth Book - - 19 PART I. THE SYN'CHRONISMS OF ASTRONOMICAL AND HISTORICAL EVENTS IN EGYPTIAN HISTORY. SECTION 1. THE EGYPTIAN CALENDAR, AND THE DATE OF ITS INSTITUTION. A. TJie Movable Year and the Signs of the Months must have been arranged about the Year 3285 b. c. - - - 37 XXX CONTENTS. B. Page The Canicular Cycle of 1400 Years iniist have been instituted in Egypt not later than about 2800, and not earlier than 3300 B.C. ------- 43 C. Sy7iopsis of the Epochs of 1505 and 1460 Years - - 45 D. Traces of the Distinction between a Civil and Religious Year, and of the Notation of the Precession of the Movable Year in the Canicular Cycle, I. The Want of, and the Possibility of making, such a Nota- tion -without Intercalary Days - - - - 50 II. Proof from the Accounts of the Movable Festivals - 51 III. Express Testimony : 1. The Testimony of Yettius Valens as to the Double Year - - - - - - 53 2. The Testimony of Porphyry and a Scholiast - ib. 3. The Testimony of Horapollo - - - 54 4. The Passage in Strabo about the Iritercalary Year - 55 5. Explanation of the Passage in Herodotus about the Sun rising tivice in the West - - - 58 E. The Apis Cycle of 25 Years, and its Connexion with the Sothiac Cycle - - - - - - 61 F. The Phoenix Period - - - - - 63 Gr. The TriakontaeteridcB - - - - - 64 Supplement. Lepsius Discovery of the Signification of the Phcenix Period, that it is ayi Accommodation of the Period of 1505 Years to the Period of 1460 Years or Sothiac Cycle, or a Rectification of the Julian Period - - - - - 66 CONTENTS. xxxi SECTION 11. APPLICATION OF THE ASTRONOMICAL SYNCHRONISMS TO EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY AND HISTORY. A. Page The Renewal of the Sothiac Cycle under Alenephthah, the Son of the Great Ramesses, in the Year 1322- - - 73 B. The Appearances of the Phoenix from the Reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus up to Rhampsinitus - - - - 76 C. Traces of the Chronological Use of the Canicular Cycle in the Greek Traditions about the History of the Egyptians. I. The Date of the Exodus as laid down by Clemens of Alexandria according to the Sothiac Cycle of 1322 - 81 II. Traces of the Use of the Two Sothiac Cycles for fixing chronologically the Length of the Empire of Menes in Herodotus - - - - - - 82 D. The Testimony of Manetho^s Historical Work in favour of the Applicatio7i of the Sothiac Cycle to History, and of the Correctness of our Chronology. I. Manetho divided his Historical Work according to the Two Sothiac Cycles, not mythically, however, but strictly chronologically - - - - 84 II. Manetho placed the Eleventh Dynasty in the Epochal Year 2782 b. c. - - - - - 87 PART II. THE HISTORICAL SYNCHRONISMS, EGYPTIAN BASIS : OR HISTORICAL SURVEY OF THE NEAV EMPIRE FROM AMOS TO SHESHONK (XVIII. — XXII. DYN.). Introduction. 1. The Historical Monuments and the Historical Sectiotis - 97 II. Survey of the Reigns of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties - 105 III. Survey of the Historical Sections during the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties - - - - ]07 VOL. nr. b xxxii CONTENTS. SECTION I. THE CLOSE OF THE WAR OF LIBERATION ; OR, FROM THE FIRST YEAR OF AilOSIS TO THE FIFTH OF TUTHMoSIS III. 86 TEARS, A. Page The First Reign : Amosis {Aahmes Ba-neb-peh). — 25 Years 111 B. The Second Reign : Amenbphis L (Ame7ihept Raserka), the Son of Aahmes and Nefru-ari. — 13 Years - - 114 C. The Third Reign : Tuthmosis I. ( Tetmes Ra-aa-kheper\ Brother-in-law of Amenbphis I. — 21 Years - - 115 D. The Fourth Reign : Tuthmosis 11, ( Tetmes Ra-aa-en-hheper), elder Son of Tuthmosis L — 21 Years - - - 116 SECTION ir. THE STATE OF PROSPERITY AFTER THE STRUGGLE FOR INDEPENDENCE, FROM THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE SHEPHERDS OUT OF AVARIS, IN THE FIFTH YEAR OF THE REIGN OF TUTHMOSIS III., DOWN TO THE DEATH OF AMEn5pHIS IH. — 114 YEARS, A. The Fifth Reign : Tuthmosis III. ( Tatmes Ra-men-kheper), younger Son of Tuthmosis L, Brother of Tuthmosis IL, and Brother and Brother-in-law of Ha.t-as.u (^Ma-ka-ra). — 26 48) Years. I. Misphra-Tuthmosis is a Designation in the Lists signify- ing that Misphra, the eldest of the Children of Tuthmo- sis I., reigned a considerable Time conjointly with Tuthmosis III., her younger Brother - - - 1 23 IJ. The Reigns of the Two Sons of Tuthmosis I. (Tuthmosis II. and III.) lasted Forty-eight Years. Tuthmosis III, CONTENTS. xxxiii Page counted his own Regnal Years from the Death of his Father, as he was entitled to do from the Beginning - 125 III. The History of the Campaigns of Tuthmosis III., from his own account of them - - - - 1 30 IV. Works erected by Tuthmosis III. - - - 134 B. The Sixth Reign : Amendphis II. (Amenhept Ra-neteru), Son of Tuthmosis III. — 9 Years. {Third Eegnal Year.) - 135 C. The Seventh Reign: Tuthmosis IV. {T^tmes Ra-m^n-kh^- p^ru), Son of Amenophis II. — 13 Years. {Seventh Monu- mental Year.) - - ^ - - -136 D. The Eighth Reign: Amenophis III. {Amenhept Ra-7ie.b-ma), Son of Tuthmosis IV. {Thirty -sixth Monumental Year.) I. Amenophis HI. and his relation to the Memnon of the Greeks and to the Exodus _ . _ - 137 II. The Edifices erected by Amenophis III. in Nubia and Silsilis : the Amenopheum on the Western Side of Thebes, and the Palace of Luxor on the Eastern Side - 141 Conclusion. Could the Exodus possibly have taken place during this Period 144 SECTION III. THE DOWFALL OF THE HOUSE OF THE TUTHMOSES IN THE POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS SCHISMS AND CONFUSION. The Ninth {last) Reign of the Eighteenth, and the First of the Nineteenth Dynasty. — 44 Years. Introduction: Survey of the Dynastic Complications - - 147 Ninth Reign: The End of the Eighteenth Dynasty: Horus (Herem Hebi Meri-amen Ra-ser-kheperu Setep en Ra), Son of Amenophis III., and his Works - - - - 148 b 2 xxxiv CONTENTS. Page Ilorus and the Collateral and Rival Sovereigns with him : I. Horns and his Works - - - - - 148 II. No great Religious Movement took place in the Reign of Horus 149 III. The Tombs of the Kings of the Eighteenth Dynasty - 151 IV. Conjectures as to the Internal History of this Period - 152 SECTION IV, THE RISE AND MERIDIAN OF THE HOUSE OF RAMESSES : RA- MESSES I. AND THE TWO GREAT CONQUERORS, SETHOS AND RAMESSES H. 85 YEARS. A. The First Reign of the Nineteenth Dynasty: Bamesses I. {Ram^ssu Ra-m^yi Piih\ Son of Athotis and Grandson of Amendphis III. - - - - - -154 B. The Second Reign of the Nineteenth Dynasty : Sethos I. {Sethosis, Seti xWeri-en-pteh Ra-men-ma)y Son of Rames- ses I. — 9 Years. I. Seti on the Monuments - - - - - 155 I. Representation of Seti's Exploits in the great Hypo- style at Karnak - - - - 156 1. The Triumph ov^er the Lwtennu (or Retennu) - 157 2. The Triumph over the Shasu, i. e. Shepherds - ib. 3. The Triumph over the Atsh in the Land of Amar 160 4. The Triumph over the Tahu, in the Land of the Retennu - - - - - ib. 5. The Triumph over the Khet, Kheta - - ib. II. The Tomb of Seti. — The Representation of the Four Races of Men - . - - - - 163 II> Sethos, the Father of Ramesses, in the Historical Tradi- tion as restored - - - - - 166 C. The Third Reign : Ramesses II. (Ramessu : with the addition Meri-amn {Miamu), Ra-SQsar-ma : frequently with the addi- tion Setep-en-ra), Son of Sethos I. I. Sethos, Ramses, Menephtliah : or the Elevation, Culmina- tion, and Fall of the House of Ramesses - - - 170 CONTENTS. XXXV Page II. Ramses IL, Son of the Great Sethosis, and his Exploits, ac- cording to the Monuments - - - 172 I. Rock-Temple at Beit-Ualli in Nubia - - 173 II. The Great and Little Rock-Temples at Ipsamboul - 174 III. Buildings at Thebes and Luxor. — The so-called Memnonium (Ramesseum). — Karnak - - 177 IV. The Tomb of Ramesses, the Son of Sethos - - 180 V. The Northern Wall of Defence, and the Canal of the Red Sea - - - - - - ib. TIL Historical Results of the Criticism of the Monuments - 181 SECTION V. THE DECLINE OF THE HOUSE OF RAJSIESSES. — 25 YEARS: THREE REIGNS. A. Adjustment of the Monuments with Manethd's Statement about the Confusion of Thirteen Years' Duration. — Flight and Return of Menophthes, and of his Son, afterwards Sethos IL 188 Second Reign : Sethos IL, the Son of Menophthes : 5 Years - 191 Third Reign: Phuoris (Nilus) (Set-nckt) Merer-ra Ra-seser- shau : 7 Years - - - - - - 192 B. Historical Criticism of Manetho's Account of the Exodus of the Israelites in the time of Menephthah - - - 194 C. The Connexion between the Biblical and Egyptian Accounts of the Exodus : the 213 Years of the Bondage and the Era of Menophthah - - - - - - 197 XXXV I CONTENTS. SECTION VL TUE LOSS OF INDEPENDENCE UNDER THE SECOND AND LAST HOUSE OF THE KAMESSIDES AND DURING THE REIGN OF THE TANITE FAMILY OF THE PISHAM (XX. AND XXL DYNASTIES), AND THE RESTORATION BY SHESHONK, THE FOUNDER OF THE TWENTY- SECOND DYNASTY : OR, THE SYNCHRONISM OF THE ASSYRIAN SUPRE.^IACY. Page Introduction : Mode of treating this Period - - - 206 A. The Tiventieth and Twenty-first Dynasties according to the Monuments. I. The Twentieth Dynasty according to the Monuments. — The Twelve Ramessides _ _ _ - 207 I. Ramses III - . . _ . 208 11. Ramses IV.— XIV. - - - - 218 11. The Twenty-first Dynasty according to the Monuments. — The First Tanite Dynasty - - - - 220 B. The End of the Nineteenth^ arid the Twentieth Dynasty^ in Greek Tradition. I. Homer, Herodotus, Diodorus, Diciearchus, and Manetho upon the Kings of Egypt during the Period of the Trojan War. — King Nilus, Pheron, and Phuoris. — King Proteus. — Rhampsinitus the Miser, and the indolent Kings his Successors - - - - 222 11. Historical Remains of the Traditions about the Eigh- teenth to the Twentieth Dynasties in Pliny's List of the Obelisks - - - - - - 236 § I. Obelisks in Egypt : I. In Heliopolis - - - 237 II. At Memphis - - - ib. III. In Alexandria - - - ib. § II. Obelisks at Rome - - - - 238 III. Synopsis of the Result ----- 240 C. Sheshonk, the Founder of the Twenty-second or First Bubastite Dynasty 240 CONTENTS. xxxvii PART III. THE HISTORICAL CHRONOLOGY OF THE HEBREWS, FROM THE IMMIGRATION OF ABRAHAM INTO CANAAN, UNTIL THE FALL OF THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH, COMPARED WITH THE EGYPTIAN SYNCHRONISMS. Introduction. rage 1. Survey of the Hebrew Synchronisms generally - - 245 II. Retrospect of the Notices as to the Length of the Period from the Exodus to the Building of the Temple - 247 SECTION I. THE DETERMINATION OF THE PERIOD FROM THE EXODUS TO THE BUILDING OF THE TEMPLE. A. The Times of Moses and Joshua, and the Time when there were no Judges. I. The Exodus, and the Chronology from the Departure out of the Land of Gosen down to Eighteen Years after the Death of Joshua - II. General Historical Elucidation of the Period of the Exodus, and Entrance into Canaan, from the Egyptian Point of View - _ _ _ _ III. Further Historical Elucidation. Explanation of Two Circumstances which have hitherto been unintelligible in the History of the Journeying through the Peninsula IV. The Proof that Joshua's Conquest of Canaan could not have taken place before 1280, or after 1260 V. The only satislactory Explanation that can be given of the sudden Reverse of the Position of the Israelites in Ca- naan is the contemporaneous Rise of the Assyrian Empire B. The Period of the Judges, and those of Saul and David. I. Principle and Method ----- 276 IL Preliminary Distribution of the 122 disposable Years in the Time of the Judges proper - - - 281 b 4 2o2 260 263 269 271 xxxviii CONTENTS. Page III. Historical Elucidation of the Time of tlie Judges accord- ing to our arrangement. _ - - - 289 IV. The Years of Saul and David - - - - 294 V. Explanation of the Origin of Unchronological Statements 297 C. The Computation of the Period from the Building of Solo- mon's Temple to its Destr^uction by Nebuchadnezzar, or the Chronology of the Kings of the divided Kingdom, Introduction : The Chronological Difficulties, and the Attempts at solving them - 303 I. Comparative Lists of Kings from Rehoboam to the Death of Ahaziah, and from Jeroboam to the Death of Jehoram 307 11. Succession of Kings from the Accession of Jehu to the Fall of the Kingdom of Israel - - - - 312 III. Chronology of the Kings of Judah from the Year after the Destruction of Samaria to the Year of the Destruc- tion of Jerusalem - - - - -318 IV. Chronological and Historical Retrospect of the Two Series of Kings - - - - - 321 D. Computation of the Period from the Immigration of Jacob into Egypt to the Exodus. I. The Sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt must have been of very considerable Duration - - - - 324 TI. The Number 215 is the Measure of the Period of Bond- age, or of the last Section of the Sojourn in Egypt - 329 III. The Immigration of the Israelites into Egypt did not take place under the Hyksos, but under the Pharaohs, namely, under the Sesortosidae, and indeed under Sesor- tosis 1. 331 E. The Computation of the Period from the Immigration of Abraham into Canaan to the Entraiice of Jacob into Egypt. 1. The Historical and the Unhistorical Dates. — The Method of solving the Chronology - 338 II. The Number 147 is the Traditional Historical Entry of the Length of the Period - - - - 343 CONTENTS. xxxix F. The Asiatic and Egyptian Synchronisms of Abraham and those of his Race in Egypt. Page I. The fair Claims on Egyptian and Biblical Chronology - 348 II. The Horizon of Abraham : the War of the Babylonians in Canaan, and the Natural Phenomenon at the Dead Sea ------- 350 III. The Hyksos and the Israelites in Egypt - - 355 The Connexion between Abraham and the Reminiscences of his Race, and the Historical Character of those Reminis- cences 360 I. The Tripartite Division of the Series from Arphaxad to Terah - - - - - - - 361 II. The Historico- Chronological Meaning of the Dates in this Series - - - - - - - 367 III. The Starting-Points of the Chronological Reminiscences of Abraham compared with the Commencements of the Babylonian and Egyptian Chronology. — Conclusion - 373 PART ly. THE HISTORICAL CHRONOLOGY OF THE CHINESE. A. Introduction. — Point of Vieic and Method of Treatment - 379 B. The Origines and Primitive History down to the beginning of the First Imperial Dynasty - . - - 382 C. The Date and Reality of the Cycle of Sixty Years - - 384 D. The Principal Points respecting the Earliest Divisions of the Year among the Chinese _ . . _ - 390 xl CONTENTS. Page Results towards an Approximate Restoration of the Chronology prior to Yii - - - - - - 394 F. The Chronological Result, 1. Historical Result in respect to the Dates of the Chinese - 405 II. General Chronological Result - - - - 406 PART V. THE PHOENICIAN, ASSYRIAN, AND BABYLONIAN ERAS AND HISTORICAL EPOCHS CONFRONTED WITH THE EGYPTIAN DATES. SECTION I. THE PHCENICIAN, ASSYRIAN, AND BABYLONIAN SYNCHRONISMS WITH THE HISTORY OF EGYPT. A. The Phcenician Synchronisms. 1. The Points of Contact and the Points of Controversy - 411 II. The Date of the Foundation of Carthage - - 413 HI. The Eleventh Year of Hirom and his Synchronisms with Solomon - - - - - - 415 IV. The Era of the Sidonian (Modern) Tyre, and its Points of Contact with Jewish and Egyptian Dates - - 421 V. The Date of the Building of the Temple of Melkarth on the Isle of Tyre, or the Era of the Elder Tyre - 428 B. The Historical and Asfrotiomical Synchronisms of the Assyrians and Babylonians. I. The Synchronism of Ninus and Semiramis with the Twentieth Dynasty - , - . - 432 II. The Possibility of €xing the Date of the Second Baby- lonian Dynasty, or the Age of Zoroaster, and the Dates of the succeeding Dynasties down to Alexander - 438 III. The First Babylonian Dynasty and its Commencement in the Year 3784 b. c. - - - - - 446 CONTENTS. xli PART VL THE AGE OF ZOROASTER, THE BACTRIAN, AND THE HIS- TORICAL NOTICES IN THE FIRST CHAPTER OF THE VENDIDAD. A. Page Bactrian Tradition and the Books of the Zend - - 455 B. The Zoroastrian Tradition about the Primeval Land and the Emigration of the Arians i7i consequence of a Convulsion of Nature ------- 457 The Journeys of the Iranians from the North-Eastern Parts of Asia to India : Part I. — The Primeval Land (Iran Proper, Airyana Va- e^o), and the Expulsion from it of the Arians - 459 Part II. — The Course of the Arians after their Expul- sion from the Primeval Country, or the Fourteen Localities selected by theni for Habitations from Sog- diana to India - - - - - 461 C. The Age of Zoroaster viewed in the Light of the Zendish and Greek Accounts - 470 Appendix. The First Chapter of the Vendidad, translated and explained by Dr, Ilaug, Private Teacher in the University of jBonii. Introduction : 1. The Age and Character of the Record - - - 473 11. Geographical Explanation of the Countries enumerated 479 Translation of the Record - > - - _ 488 xlii CONTENTS. PAET yii. THE HISTOKICAL EPOCHS AND DATES OF THE ARIANS IN INDIA. SECTION L THE HISTORICAL ELEMENT IN THE VEDAS AND LISTS OF KINGS, AND THE LOCALITIES, COMPARED WITH THE ACCOUNTS IN MEGA- STHENES. A. Page The Historical Element in the Vedas, Lists of Kings, and Localities ------- 509 B. The Four so-called Cosmic Ages, and the Three Eras of Megasthenes, whe7i there were no Kings - - - 518 C. The Lists of the Age of Buddha down to that immediately preceding Sandrokottus - - - - - 532 SECTION II. THE HISTORICAL DATA IN THE LATER TIMES OF INDIAN HISTORY, AND THE PRELIMINARY RESTORATION OF THE OLDER PERIODS. A. The Year of Buddha's Death, 543 b. c, a7id the Buddhistic Notices of the Magadha Kings down to A&oka - - 538 B. Approximate Determination of the real Commencement of the Kaliyuga, and the Preliminary Limitation of the preceding Period ------- 545 C. Slaurohales and Semiramis, or the Indian Synchronism for 1230 B.C. - - - - - - - 548 CONTENTS. xliii D. Page The Historical Character of the Names in the Second Era - 556 E. The Close of the First Tivo Periods in the oldest Indian Tra- dition, and a Preliminary Glance at the Chronological Result - - - - - - - 560 SECTION III. THE EPOCHS OF INDIAN LITERATURE, AND THEIR APPLICATION TO THE MORE ACCURATE DEFINITION OF THE AGE OF ZOROASTER. A. The Epochs of Indian Literature. I. The Grammatical Age of Sanskrit, and the Formation of Prose 565 II. The most ancient Epic Period, and the Date of the Collection of the Vedas . . _ . 567 B. The Relation between the Vedic Times and that of Zoroaster, and the Star ting -Point of his Doctrine - . . 574 SECTION IV. HISTORICAL SURVEY OF THE EPOCHS OF ARIAN DEVELOPMENT, AND OF THE RESULTS OF THIS INQUIRY. A. Epochs of Arian Development, I. The Development in Iran ----- 586 II. The Development in India : I. The Date of the Oldest Vedic Hymns - - - ib. 1. A^ni- and Varuna- Worship - - 587 2. The Adoration of Ether as Indra (Zeus) - ib. II. The Later Hymns of the First Nine Books - - 088 III. The most Modern Hymns of the First Nine Books of the Rigveda. Most of the Hymns of the Tenth Book - - - - - - ib. xliv CONTENTS. B. Page Explanation of the List of Megasthenes ofl5S Kings in 6402 Years - - - - - - - 593 C. Historical Result of the Researches into the Arian Beginnings 596 PAKT YIII. THE BEGINNINGS OF THE HISTORY OF THE lONIANS IN ASIA MINOR, AND THE ANTIQUITY OF THEIR NAME. THE AGE OF THE IONIAN HISTORIES AND REMINISCENCES PRIOR TO THE OLYMPIADS. A. Is the Name of the lonians found on the Pharaonic Monuments of Egypt - 603 B. Date of the Ionian Settlement in Asia Minor. I. The Antiquity of the Name of the lonians in the Bible and Central Asia - 607 II. The Primeval Times of Ionia in Asia Minor - - ib. C. The Pelasgians in Castor's Series of Maritime Poivers in the Mediterranean, and the Restoration of that Document. Restoration of the Historical Epochs of the Thalassocra- cies, from the Period after the Fall of Troy down to Olymp. 74, 4. - - - - - - 612 D. Tabular View of the Restored List of Castor, and Result of the Present Critical Research into Egyptian History and Ancient Chronology . - . . > 633 LIST OF PLATES. xlv LIST OF PLATES. Bust of Chaiipollion - . - - facing Title. Amenoph in. - - - - „ p. 97 JUDAH BEFORE SeSEK '--'■>, 242 PI. I. Track of the Arians from the Primeval Country to India - facing p. 456 The following Plates are placed at the end of the Volume, PL II. Phin of Thebes. III. Plan of the Palace at Karnak (after Lepsius). IV. Plan and Longitudinal Section of the Palace at Karnak. CORRIGENDUM. Page 380. line 6. from bottom, et passim, for " Bambus Book " read " Bamboo Book." BOOK IV. THE SYNCHRONISMS. VOL III. B EGYPT'S PLACE IN UNIVERSAL HISTORY. INTRODUCTOKY EEMARKS. I. THE GREAT MONUMENTAL WORK OF THE PRUSSIAN EXPEDITION TO EGYPT AND ETHIOPIA, PUBLISHED BY LEPSIUS. There is, probably, no other instance of a single indivi- dual undertaking the arrangement, conduct, and control of the preparation and completion, as well as the last re- vision and publication, of so vast a work as that of Lepsius, entirely without assistance, and of his having done so much of it in a few years. Within twelve years after his return from Egypt, the first eight of twelve large folio volumes, containing nearly 650 lithographed plates, some of them coloured, have been published. The remainder, nearly 150 (Monumental Plates of the Pto- lemies and Roman Emperors, as well as of the Llthio- pian Kings, vols. ix. x.), are all ready — a consider- able portion, indeed, struck off. The last two volumes (xi. xii.) contain inscriptions which do not exist on the monuments : the former of these is already out. The execution, to say the least of it, is not inferior to that of any published work, especially any work upon Egypt, in completeness and beauty of the draw- B 2 4 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. [Book IV. iiig and type. As regards the faithfulness and accu- racy with which the monuments are copied, and — what is of special importance, and a thing beset with peculiar difficulties — the inscriptions on them, as well as the separate inscriptions, it is without a parallel. The attention which has been paid throughout to his- tory, both in selection and arrangement, imparts to it an especial and enduring value. It is the only work of a like description in which this object has always been kept steadily in view ; and it is the first which oiFers a satisfactory idea of the grandeur of the Old Empire and the rare excellence of its art, especially of its architecture. It is the only one giving an ac- count of the discovery and identification of the Laby- rinth ; the pyramid of which Lepsius opened, partially at least, and made a thorough investigation of all the other tombs of the Kings of the Old Empire. Other monuments, hitherto only known in an unsatisfac- tory manner, are here represented for the first time in a complete and accurate form. It redounds to the honour of the Prussian name that the Chamber of Re- presentatives promptly, and in an enlightened spirit, seconded the proposition which emanated from the King, to whom we are exclusively indebted for the journey being undertaken, and the successful execution of this work, which, by their cooperation, was not only com- pleted, but was ofiered to the public at a lower price than any similar work. The following is a synopsis of it, with an accurate account of that portion which has appeared. Its title is The Monuments from Egypt and Ethiopia." The Monuments comprise six parts in twelve volumes of the largest folio. Part I. is Geographical, Topographical, and Archi- tectonic, and occupies two volumes (vols. i. and ii.). I.] GREAT MONUMENTAL WORK OF LEPSIUS. 5 Parts II. III. IV. contain the Historical Monuments of Egypt in chronological order, in seven volumes (vols, iii. — ix.). Part Y. contains the Ethiopian Monuments (vol. x.). Part YL the Inscriptions which do not belong to the Monuments which are represented, that is, first of all, the Hieratic and Demotic ; then the Ethiopian, Phoeni- cian, Sinaic, Greek, and Roman (vols. xi. and xii.). The following Table of Contents shows the sub- division of the purely Egyptian Monuments. Part I. — Topography. (Vols. 1. and II.) Representation of the country in the topographical succession of its Monuments from North to South. The first six consist of maps of Egypt, Ethiopia, and the Peninsula of Sinai ; with special refer- ence, throughout, to the hieroglyphical names and designations. These two volumes are now complete, and contain more than 140 leaves. The greater part was published in 1852 ; a thing never before attempted, still less ac- complished. Some of them, especially the maps, required long and laborious preparation, — indeed, astronomical observations and assumptions, — in order to reconcile the contradictions which presented themselves, or to fill up gaps which were discovered when the sheets were put together. This is the reason why some of them have been so long in arrear. Part II. — The Historical Monuments of the Old Em- pire, including the Hyksos Period. (Vols. III. and IV. ) Yol. III. PI. 1. to 81. with PI. 64. his. Yol. lY. PI. 82. to 153. This Part, of which almost all the contents are new, is B 3 6 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. [Book IV. coinplete. It contains all the pyramids ; the fields of tombs around them — most of them new discoveries — tliat is, the sepulchral monuments of the Kings of the Old Empire, from the 4th to the 12th Dynasty; lastly, the giant work of the 12th Dynasty — the Labyrinth; concluding with the remains and fragments of the tri- butary Theban sovereignties while the Shepherd Kings possessed Lower Egypt. Part III. — The Historical Monuments of the New Empire down to Alexander, quite complete. (Vols. V. VI. VII. VIII.) Vol. V. From Amos to Amendphis III., inclusive. PL 1 — 90., with 25. his, and 70. his. Vol. VI. Down to Ramesses II. inclusive, 71 — 172. Vol. VII. Down to the end of the 20th Dynasty, 173—242. Vol. VIIT. Down to Alexander of Macedon, 243 to the end ; with Portraits of the Pharaohs. Part IV. — The Historical Monuments of the Ptole- mies and Roman Emperors. (Vol. IX.) Part V. — The Ethiopian Monuments, from Sabaco onwards. (Vol. X.) Part VI. — The Inscriptions of Egypt (Hieratic and Demotic) ; those of Ethiopia and the Peninsula of Sinai (Sinaic) ; the Phoenician, Greek, and Roman Inscriptions in these countries. (Vols. XL and XII.) Vol. xi. is already out, and contains Hieratic and Demotic Inscriptions, as well as Ethiopian. The whole makes, therefore, nearly 900 plates ; and I.] GKEAT MONUMENTAL WORK OF LEPSIUS. 7 the selling price of the few copies on sale is something less than a hundred pounds. It is accompanied by a text in large quarto, which is included in the price of the work. The form and type will be the same as those of the " Preliminary Notice'' (published in 1850) and "Introduction." The length will not be more than twenty printed sheets to each part. The volume which comprises the first part will ap- pear at the same time that the plates are completed, or very soon after ; and the materials for the whole work are already prepared. P.S. — July, 1858. The Plates are now all complete, with the exception of those which are to contain the Inscriptions. The ''Book of the Kings," which exhibits for the first time an entire list of all the Pharaonic scutcheons, with a critical account of the dynasties and chrono- logy adopted by Lepsius, has also now appeared. 8 INTKODUCTOKY BEMAEKS. [Book IV. 11. RELATION BETWEEN THE SYSTEM PURSUED IN THIS WORK, IN REFER- ENCE TO THE CHRONOLOGY, AND THE DYNASTIES OF MANETHO. I NATURALLY could not Wait for the illustrations or text of Lepsius' work before proceeding with my own, since even with the greatest labour it cannot be com- pleted for several years. He can hardly be expected to interrupt the publication of the " Monuments " by a work of a very different kind. This, almost a superhuman task for any one man, is entirely on his shoulders, and requires the whole of his time and at- tention. The explanation of the texts again forms a coherent series, and can only be taken up with perfect confidence when the whole of the monumental materials have been worked out and examined. This is now nearly accomplished. The treasures of science which will thus be thrown open to the learned world cannot be estimated too highly. The historical results of our inquiry, espe- cially those of the last two Books, and the chronolo- gical tables, will in many points be confirmed by his work, and in none essentially altered. But the " Book of the Kings " of my learned friend, which has been commenced since 1835, and announced since 1841, is more immediately connected with this work — the entire collection of all the scutcheons of the Egyptian kings and their families. I have announced in the preface to the German edition its approaching publication. The plates are only just completed, and will appear without delay. When Lepsius went into IL] GERxMAN AND ENGLISH EDITIONS. 9 Egypt in 1841, the whole of the royal scutcheons then collected were placed at my disposal, and I had then been engaged upon them ever since 1836. Expecting that they would soon be published, I appealed and referred to them in my researches in the first three Books of this work, and those who have inconsiderately attacked or thrown doubt upon some of the facts derived from that source upon my own judgment, will, when it appears, be convinced that I had good grounds for my state- ments, while they had no right to doubt them, and at all events have made a mistake. I have invariably, as I was bound to do, mentioned the facts and data which I borrowed from his MS. notes, as well as those which I received from him by letter from Egypt. I have been amply rewarded for my patience by the collation of this invaluable collection, more than the half of which is already completed, and which will be published at the same time as this volume. My readers will be able to satisfy themselves when the supplementary volume appears, by the Introduction to the Tables of Synchronisms, that the researches in the fourth and fifth books are essentially independent of the new matter, such vast quantities of which are found in that precious " Book of the Kings," bearing upon the main points of historical research which it is now our business to establish. For instance, there will hardly be any weighty differences, as to the chronology, be- tween my learned friend and myself, arising out of any royal scutcheon with which we are acquainted. The difference between us arises from a different application of the critical basis common to us both, and from a discrepancy in our historical views of facts and records which do not depend upon the many new discoveries as to the names of these kings. These differences, it is true, are not unimportant, and it is my duty to give a short account of them to my readers. 10 INTRODUCTOllY REMAKES. [Book IV- With regard to two points we are entirely at one as to the views he has enunciated in his "Introduction" of 1847, and I have re- written the sections in the English edition of the Second and Third Books which refer to them, so as to make them harmonise. The first has reference to the Lake of Moeris, and the age of the Pharoah who constructed it. 1 formerly supposed the 1st King of the 6th Dynasty, Apappus- Phiops, to be the Mceris of the classics, and I stated the reasons which induced me to adhere to my previous views, according to which the Lake of Moeris was the present Birket El Kharoon. The facts, however, which Lepsius has adduced leave no doubt on my mind that the builder of the Labyrinth, Ammenemes-Mares, the 4th King of the 12th Dynasty, was the real Moeris, and the lake itself a vast reservoir of Nile water, in the upper part of the Fayoom, which has now disappeared. But my views on this point, as expounded in the English version, differ from those of Linant, which Lepsius endorses, in this respect, that I do not consider it as exclusively an artificial lake, but partly a natural basin. I believe that the king in question found there remains of old morasses, traces of whose pre-historical and earliest historical existence were discovered by Riippel. What he did was this : he conveyed this stagnant water, by means of the Joseph's canal, through a dike cut in the rock, into the above-mentioned Nome, and secured it by dams, and then regulated the irri- gation of the country about it, at a lower level, by means of sluices. In this way he converted the whole of that large Nome into the paradise of Egypt, and was enabled at the same time to convey the water to a por- tion of the adjoining valley of the Nile. The second point refers to the date of the Exodus of the Children of Israel under Moses. I stated in the German edition the grounds on which I thought the ordinary view the more probable of the two possible as- II.] GERMAN AND ENGLISH EDITIONS. 11 sumptions. I placed them, however, in juxtaposition, and left the decision open until the Fourth Book. But I have given it as my unqualified opinion in the English edition, that the Exodus did not take place under the Tuth- m5ses (from Tuthmosis III. to Horus), but in the 19th Dynasty, under Menephthah, the son of the second Ram- ses. In the Fourth Book, however, this question is fully gone into, both from an Egyptian and a Biblical point of view. It did not take place in the 16th (or even the 18th century B.C.) but towards the end of the 14th, and I think it tolerably certain, indeed, about the year 1320, a few years sooner or later. As regards the immigration into Egypt, my original conviction that it occurred in the 12th Dynasty has been since then still more confirmed. Lepsius declares him- self at one with me, that the Israelites did not go there in the reign of a Shepherd King, but in that of a Pha- raoh ; and also that the reigning Pharaoh must be the same to wdiom Herodotus attributes the great political financial scheme of Joseph — that of converting all the freeholds in the country, except the temple estates, into crown property. This king is called Sesostris ; and I consider him, consequently, to be one of the Sesortoses — a name which Manetho also supposes to be the origin of the Sesostrises of the Greeks. Lepsius, on the con- trary, thinks this Sesostris to be Sethos or Sethosis, the grandfather of the Pharaoh in whose reign the Exodus took place. Such an assumption seems to me to be as irreconcilable with the historical character of Scripture as it is with the whole views of Biblical history and the early times from which I start. I may add, too, that it is at variance with all the synchronisms of the Old World with which we are acquainted. This diiFerence in the chronological system is in- dependent of the question which has a bearing upon the third point on which we are at issue : I mean the question whether the Hyksos period (as I assume, with 12 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. [Book IV. Manetho, as represented in Africanus) lasted 922 or 929 years, or, as Lepsius supposes, only five or six cen- turies. In this Fourth Book I have gone through, in detail, all the reasons, which were alluded to in the English edition of the Third, why I consider that entry in Manetho's Lists just as correct as his measure of the date of the New Empire from Amos to Alexander, which results from them. Again : I am equally unable to jus- tify the conclusion that the 18th Dynasty, instead of be- ginning with Amos, as Africanus and Eusebius make it, began, as Lepsius thinks according to his great Monu- mental work, witli Tuthmosis III. Amos was not the son of a king; it is his wife who seems to have been a king's daughter. Tuthmosis III., on the other hand, is the son of a king (Tuthmosis L), and brother of Tuthmosis II. Now, a dynasty must necessarily always be a royal race, starting with a new family, which may, perhaps, be allied in blood to the old one, and comes to an end so soon as there is no prince remaining who is descended, in a hereditary line at least, from the founder of the dynasty. In Egypt, no question could be raised on this head, except in the case of heiresses as against distant relatives. If a sovereign left no issue male, and his daughter married, a new dynasty might be formed, or the son-in-law might reign in right of his wife, and con- tinue on the old dynasty. There are instances of both in Egyptian history ; but there is no instance of a new dynasty commencing with the son of a king. In the 12th this only seems to be so from the negligence of the epitomists ; for Ammenemes I. is mentioned at the close of the 11th. This is the doctrine I have laid down in this work from the commencement, and have constantly carried out, and I am compelled to persist in it. As far as the chronology is concerned, however, this difference is of no importance. The only point now remaining for discussion, on which it is necessary to make a few remarks, is the length of IL] GERMAN AND ENGLISH EDITIONS. 13 the Old Empire. I believe that at the close of the first part of the Fourth Book I have for the first time given the key to the arrangement of Manetho's three books of his history, and have proved also that he computed the Old Empire at about thirteen centuries, instead of 1076 years, which is the date of Eratosthenes. Lepsius considers Manetho's date the more correct. I hold that that of Eratosthenes is the only chronological one. Lepsius has hitherto considered the 5th (Elephan- tinaean) Dynasty as not contemporary with the 6th (Memphite), but with the preceding one. In the Eng- lish edition, I have given the reasons at length, why the arguments adduced against my arrangement appear to me inconclusive ; and have shown that there are, on the contrary, many indications that Unus-Onnus, the last king of the 5th Dynasty, was an elder contemporary of Phiops-Apappus, the chief of the 6th. I hope that Lepsius will come over to my opinion as to the con- temporaneity of the 5th and 6th, in consequence of the schism which took place in the empire at the end of the 4th ; for it seems to me that there are many points which baffle explanation upon any other assumption. The case is the same with the contemporaneity of the 2nd and 3rd, instead of that of the 2nd and 1st. Now, it can hardly be mere accident that, down to the end of the 6th Dynasty, the series of Eratosthenes is proved to be strictly chronological. It is probable, in- deed, that this is true also, as regards the latter half of the Old Empire, from the 7th Dynasty to the 11th. For these reasons, and the others already adduced, I adhere to my belief that Eratosthenes corrected, throughout, all the deficiencies and blunders which Manetho did not perceive to exist in the Egyptian method, in respect to the continuous chronology. The records of the Old Empire were in confusion ; restora- tions had been made which contradicted each other. Eratosthenes discovered the only certain clue in the 14 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. [Book IV. archives of Thebes, where a register was kept of every king there recognised as such, and how long he reigned. By this means a coherent chronology could be framed (which is exactly what we require), and it would ap- pear whether the sovereigns recognised at Thebes were always the legal sovereigns or not. In the English edition I have carried out this ar- gument more strictly and consecutively, by showing that the kings who, in Eratosthenes, come immediately before the 12th Dynasty, are not those of the 8th and 11th, but of the 11th only. Apollodorus tells us that Eratosthenes only entered Theban Kings, i.e. such as were recognised at Thebes. The Nantef family seems, from a variety of authentic evidence, to have been a long time dominant at Thebes before it was generally re- cognised throughout the whole empire as the 11th Dynasty. I have thus recapitulated the main points of chrono- logy on which Lepsius and myself are at issue. Though I do not deny their importance, still they may be called unimportant as compared with the complete agreement in all our fundamental views of history and chronologi- cal assumptions, as contrasted with all other writers on the subject. I think I have shown more strongly than ever, in the Fourth Book, how untenable and un- founded every other system is. This is true, indeed, not only as regards those which rest upon rabbinical prejudices, but such also as arise out of ignorance of the Egyptian monuments and records. Manetho's work is compiled from records, some of which are still extant. Bockh, the Nestor and master of philo- logical criticism, would never have hit upon the unfortu- nate idea of representing the genuine historical work of an able investigator in the time of Philadelphus, whose age, position, and character as an author we can define with precision, as one of systematic compromise, and therefore in reality fabulous, if he had had access to the GERMAN AND ENGLISH EDITIONS. 15 above monuments and records when he was composing his ingenious work upon Manetho. That some of his successors should have taken advantage of his great name (and not always honestly) in order to depreciate Manetho and Egyptian research, is matter of regret, but not therefore excusable ; for facts and records are stronger than all theories. I have the greater satisfac- tion, therefore, in finding that further research has furnished a brilliant confirmation of the fundamental view adopted by my revered friend, as it was to some extent by Scaliger before him — namely, that Manetho's history bears a certain relation to the Canicular cycle of 1460 years. I think I have also proved, in the fourth book, that his singular division of the thirty dynasties into three books can only have arisen from his having had in view (and upon historical grounds indeed) the expi- ration of one of the two Canicular cycles which occur in the course of Egyptian history. The 11th and 19th Dynasties, with which, according to my chronology, his second and third books commence, have this in common, that in the Theban dynasties which precede them both (the 7th and 19th) a Sirius cycle was concluded. The 11th is the first new dynasty in the second historical cycle ; the 20th, the first in the third and last. The historical character, therefore, of his work is not only unimpeached, when we find such a striking expla- nation, but it stands out in direct' contrast to the mythi- cal or cyclical method. For, according to it, the former cycle would have coincided exactly with the close of the 17th ; the latter, with the close of the 19th. But this is notoriously not the case. All the monuments and facts which have come to light in the last twenty or thirty years confirm its historical character, as well as that of his authorities. The Lists, therefore, which have been compiled from it are thoroughly historical, even in the Old Empire. In it, nevertheless, the chronological succession or cal- 16 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS, [Book IV. culation of the length of it, is not accurate. The Canon of Eratosthenes first gave it correctly, and Apollodorus followed the same method by restoring the chronology of the Hyksos period entirely from the Theban Lists of Pharaohs who reigned there, Avhile the Shepherd Kings at Memphis ruled over Lower Egypt. The notation, succession, and enumeration of the dy- nasties themselves in Manetho deserve, therefore, the highest respect, even with regard to the Old Empire : how absurd then is the notion that by a dynasty he means, in the New Empire, an epoch, and not a family having his- torical cohesion in itself! The confusion in the 18th and 19th Dynasties is easily accounted for by the numerous epitomes that were made by Jewish and Christian writers. Amasis, before his elevation, may have been a poor broken-down descendant of the eldest Necho or Psam- metichus, and have passed for being one of the people. This is no reason for doubting the tradition of Hero- dotus ; still less should we, on that account, be puzzled by Manetho, who pushed his dynastic principle so far as to make a whole dynasty out of the unfortunate Boc- choris. He was the first and last king of his race. The dynastic method is, in fact, the genuine Egyptian basis of all historical writing, and not the invention of Manetho. We find it adopted already in the Turin pa- pyrus, which dates from the commencement of the New Empire. On the contrary, the weak point in Egyptian tradition is this, that the dynastic arrangement pre- dominates so much as to throw historical chronology into the background. It is in Eratosthenes that we first find a chronological series, without the dynastic division. This purely chronological method is also foreign to the Egyptian mind, because they arranged everything by dynasties. The methodical Hellene found that in the archives of Thebes those who had reio:ned there were recorded chronologically, that is, those who were there recognised as kings. It was the very thing which IL] GERMAN AND ENGLISH EDITIONS. 17 was wanting, and of which historical research stood in need. Hence arose not the dynastic, but annalistic, notation, which has come down to us in a very sad state, but still is carried on continuously as an unin- terrupted series during the 1076 years of the Old Empire. The List of Apollodorus did the same for the New Empire. Unfortunately the statement of the length of the period, which accompanied this List of Theban Kings, has been lost. Syncellus, indeed, did not think it Avorth his while to copy the names of its 53 kings. But it is clear that the Theban annals had not then so much historical importance as they possessed in the Old Empire. The Theban Kings were then tributaries : the supreme power resided in the Hyksos at Mem- phis. Manetho consequently computed this period by Memphite sovereigns, and only introduced the Theban Kings for the chronology during the struggle which lasted 150 years for Memphis and Central Egypt. Amos was the first lord of Memphis, for which reason the Hyksos dynasties disappear from the scene, although it was not till the reio-n of Tuthmosis III., the 5th Kino; of the 18th Dynasty or of the house of Amos, that they were obliged to evacuate the frontier fortress of Avaris (Pelusium). We shall see that the restoration of the history of that period from the monuments con- firms this. Amos, the chief of the dynasty, must have possessed Memphis and the flat country below it ; for his immediate successors, if not he himself, waged war in Asia. In all this, therefore, there is neither contradiction nor confusion. In Manetho, accordingly, as well as with regard to all the other portions of Egyptian history, a dynasty must have meant, what the word implies, a single reigning family, and one carried on in the male line. The husband of an heiress might, according to the letter of the Egyp- VOL. III. c 18 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. [Book IV. tian constitution, equally well form a new family, as one who had no relationship in blood, or a foreign prince. It is true that internal dissensions and disputes, as to the preference of the claims of heiresses or their sons, may have caused differences of opinion in cases which appear to be identical. What took place in any par- ticular instance must be learned from Manetho and his authorities. But the principle is undoubted, that a new male line began a new dynasty, and still more, therefore, did an entirely new princely family. A king standing alone formed a new dynasty for himself. Foreign rulers carried on the succession of the Pharaohs as long as they possessed Memphis (or Memphis and Thebes). We cannot, therefore, see how we can be justified in making the 18th Dynasty commence with the son, brother, grandson, and great-grandson of kings ; but, in conformity with the lists published by Africanus and Eusebius, we recognise Amos as its chief, and Ram- ses I., the son of the daughter and heiress of Horus, as the chief of the 19th Dynasty. This is the only break in the male descent. III.] VIEW AND METHOD OF THE FOURTH BOOK. 19 III. POINT OP YIEW AND METHOD OF THE FOURTH BOOK. We have before us, in our two preceding Books, the Egyptian chronology from Menes to the end of the reign of Nectanebo II., nine years before Alexander the Great : a period which, according to Manetho's computation, embraced 3555 years. This chronology divides itself historically into three great masses. First : The Old Empire, from Menes to Amyntimaeus, including the first 12 Dynasties of Manetho and part of the 13th: according to Eratosthenes 1076 years ; according to Manetho, full two centuries more, or 1286 years. Secondly: The Middle Period, or the period when Upper Egypt was tributary to the Shepherd Kings, from the time when they took Memphis till their ex- pulsion from it : according to Manetho, 922 or 929 years. Thirdly: The New Empire, from the 18th to the 30th Dynasty: about 1300 years. This succession of time, the vastest hitherto established anywhere in the Old World, is now also the best authen- ticated. It is based upon Lists of Kings, and their regnal years ; and these Lists are corroborated and elucidated by contemporary monuments up to the 4th Dynasty, with slight breaks ; an authentication which is as unexampled as its extent. Hence, the critical reader has certainly no right to deny its historical character. But he may very fairly dispute its title to great importance in the general history of nations, as long as it has not been submitted 20 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. [Book IV. to a further test, by being confronted with the history of other countries. It is not from the time of Moses and the Exodus that Egypt was first brought into con- nexion with Asia ; but the Exodus itself, with the ac- companying incidents, was almost as great an event for Egypt as it was for the Jews. The connexion with Asia was broken off after that event. They were soon after indeed at war with the Assyrians, and, according to Greek and Assyrian accounts, Egypt was then conquered, or made tributary. Again : three centuries later, the 1st King of the 22nd Dynasty captured Jerusalem, ac- cording to Scripture, in the fifth year of Eehoboam, the son of Solomon. From that time down to Hophra-Apries, the two histories frequently come into connexion and collision. So likewise did Egypt and the kingdoms of the Euphrates. The two great rulers of the New Assyrian Empire (Sargon and Sennacherib), and those of the New Babylonian Empire (Nabopolassar and Nebuchad- nezzar), were mixed up with the history of Egypt. But, long before this, Egyptian monuments of the 16th century b.c, mentioned Babira and Ninia (Babylon and, Nineveh). The result of this contact between Egypt and Asia must either be to produce harmony or contra- dictions. What is the case before us ? Are the Egyp- tian monuments corroborated ? We think we may ven- ture to say, that the chronology of Egypt which we have set up is verified when confronted with the Bible and with the Greek accounts of Egypt and Babylon, and we may also now add the cuneiform inscriptions of Nineveh. Since the era of Nabonassar, the year 726 B.C., we have to deal, generally at least, with a chronology which is verified by astronomy. The 8th century B.C. appears to have been the age when a general tendency displayed itself throughout Western Asia and Europe for chrono- logical pursuits. In addition to the era above mentioned we have the commencement of the Olympiads in 776, and the building of Rome in 754. 111.] VIEW AND METHOD OF THE FOURTH BOOK. 21 Beyond that date there was nothing certain in Europe, and very little in Asia beyond the Bible ; and, even there, there is no connected chronology at farthest beyond the time of Saul. But there was a far earlier chronology in Babylon, and one verified by astronomy. It went back to the 23rd century B.C., the beginning of the 2nd Dynasty. In Assyria, it is only since the publication of the Ar- menian version of Eusebius, and, indeed, by the enume- ration of the dynasties which reigned in Babylon, that we get to the 13th century, the starting-point of the House of the Ninyads. Most of these points, however, I have found very in- definitely laid down. The question arises, then — Where, in the records of Asia are synchronisms to be found for the historical points of contact between Egypt and Assyria and Baby- lon ; beyond the era of Nabonassar, or the middle of the 8tli century B.C. ? Ninus or Semiramis undoubtedly conquered Egypt : where are the Assyrian annals which tell us when they lived ? Sesak or Sheshonk undoubt- edly plundered Jerusalem in the fifth year of the son of Solomon ; and for this chronological datum we have to thank the Jewish records : but there is a diversity of opinion, to the extent of 40 years, regarding the year B. c. to which that corresponds. Lastly : When did the Exodus of the Israelites take place ? When did Joseph live ? Either the historical monuments and traditions of Egypt will tell us this, or it must remain a secret for ever. The age of Ninus may one day, perhaps, be established by the Assyrian Lists ; but as to the date of the Exodus, Egyptian history only can decide, for the Bible neither gives the name of the Pharaoh of the Exodus, nor that of his cruel predecessor. This is true still more as regards Joseph, the imperial minister of Egypt. It is clear, therefore, that prior to the age of Solomon c 3 22 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. [Book IV, no scientific chronology can be established, except through Egypt, instead of that of Egypt being definable by means of Asia. The days are long gone by when anything was to be hoped for from Chinese chronology in behalf of the history of Asia. Still I am convinced that this is well authenticated as far back as the 27th century B.C.; and, from the vast antiquity of the people, it might well be carried much further back without seeming to the critic to be improbable. But where are the points of contact with the history of the nations who have formed the history of mankind and altered the face of this earth ? And where can we discover, for thousands of years, among the Chinese, in the petrified recesses of their his- torical development, more than a slight advance or retro- gression within immutable limits ? No sound Egyptologer, therefore, can do otherwise than assent to that reserve as well as the requirement on the part of the investigator of general history al- luded to above. But he will also be justified in expecting that, if under such circumstances Egyptian chronology does stand the test of general history, her due claims will not be refused, nor those of the science by which it has been discovered, though these are still so shamefully underrated by German scholars. Of course such claims can only be maintained within the limits of the synchronisms above mentioned, not for points which lie beyond them. It will, moreover, be the most advisable course to establish these syn- chronisms by beginning from the lowest point and going gradually up to the earlier periods. Starting from the year of Alexander's conquest, we shall, there- fore, have to examine how far the computation of the Egyptian periods coincides with the points in the reigns of the Persian kings which can be defined astronomi- cally, and those of the era of Nabonassar. We shall find in this way, as already intimated, that the highest III.] VIEW AND METHOD OF THE FOURTH BOOK. 23 certain synchronism is the fifth year of Kehoboam, the son of Solomon. This must coincide with one of the years of the reign of 21 years of the 1st King of the 22nd Dynasty. But with which of them? And with which Egyptian reign does the Exodus synchronize ? With what dynasty and what king the administration of Joseph ? Lastly, as regards the Assy ro-Baby Ionian discoveries of Rawlinson, we are fully convinced of their reality. Hitherto, however, no proper chronology has been discovered beyond the very modern king of Babylon Nebuchadnezzar, and Sennacherib and his father Sargon who are but little older. There are no series of two, three, or several kings ; and, if such lists should not be discovered, we never shall have a real chronology of the Euphrates kingdoms, unless where some solitary date of a king noted in the cuneiform inscriptions fits on to a Jewish or Egyptian reign or date. Here- tofore we have neither found Lists of Kings nor a calcu- lation according to a progressive era. Ninus, even, and Semiramis are, as compared with Egypt, very modern. According to a view which we hope to establish in this Book, the Exodus (although it only took place in the 19th Dynasty) was some forty and odd years earlier than the beginning of the Dynasty of the Ninyads. But, with all these synchronisms, we obtain no co- herent chronology for the Bible ; for, as already re- marked, it contains none before the time of the Kings. The figure of Joseph stands there, isolated and alone, as the last glimpse at the Patriarchal age. It is succeeded by that obscure period when the Israelites were pre- paring for the greatness and importance of becoming a nation — a period of which their long bondage only forms the last section. But the chronology of the Exodus itself can only be ascertained from the Egyptian monuments ; and there is still a question as to six c 4 24 INTllODUCTORY REMARKS. [Book IV. years, even if our adjustment of Egyptian chronology during that period be adopted. Lastly : we are cer- tain to find in this quarter systematic contradiction to everything historical. For the date as here fixed is at issue with the Jewish-Christian calculation, and at the same time attacks long-established prejudices and hierarchical pretensions. We may, therefore, take for granted, that any synchronism which can be proved historically will be disputed or mistrusted a few years longer ^' for the glory of God." Any one who knows nothing about, and does not wish to know anything about, philological research, may, Avithout any dif- ficulty, believe everything which he will, or is told to believe. Any one who has no rational grounds for his belief can never be at a loss for a doubt about any- thing historical. Doubt becomes his nature, because he lives in the Unhistorical and in Untruth. We have, therefore, the more reason to be thankful that Providence has given us the means of pointing out an infallible astronomical point of synchronism in that same epoch. As far as we are able to ascertain, the Egyptians did not make use of a continuous civil aera. But the priests computed by periods of 1460 and 1500 years ; and there is authentic proof that the last Sirius cycle ended in the year 138 of our era. It must, con- sequently, have commenced in the year 1322 B.C. Now this date has been transmitted to us, by tlie Greek astronomers, in connexion with the name of a king ; consequently, in all probability, the name of the very king in whose reign that cycle commenced. The MSS. spell it Menophres, which certainly is not, and cannot be, an authentic name. It is probably Menophthah or Menephthah, which differ from it but little. Now Lepsius has proved that there never was but one Menephthah, and that he was the 4th King of the 19th Dynasty, the son of the Great Ramesses, the same III.] VIEW AND METHOD OF THE FOURTH BOOK. 25 in whose reign alone, according to Egyptian records, the Exodus can have taken place. From these considerations, the mere outline of which is here given, it is obvious, that in the Fourth Book, the Book of Synchronisms, it will be necessary to make a threefold division. Those which affect a given historical personage, or fact, or epoch, are either astronomical or historical. They are either based upon the connexion of some point in Egyptian history with phenomena in the heavens, which can be fixed astronomically, or upon its coinci- dence with events or epochs in Western Asia. The history of Egypt cannot be brought into any de- monstrable contact with Eastern Asia, either in the beginning, or in its constitutional development. Of these we give the preference to the astronomical over the historical. But between the two we must examine the monu- ments of the New Empire, from Amos to Sheshonk, which have hitherto only been touched upon astronomi- cally, that is, those extending from the time of the chief of the 18th Dynasty, down to that of the reign and campaigns of the founder of the 22nd, in order to ascertain what historical matter they may furnish. We have reserved to the Book of Synchronisms this examination, which was originally intended to have formed the second part of the Third Book, because, in consequence of the peculiar nature of the monuments, the history reflected in them must remain thoroughly mute and unintelligible to us so long as we cannot compare it, step by step, with the history of Western Asia. This is true also of the remains of Old Egyptian traditions among the Greeks, especially in Herodotus, which have reference to the New Empire. The period from 1625 to 959, six centuries and a half, is the one in which the monuments of Egypt are 26 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. [Book IV. on one side the most important, on the other the most numerous. The absence of public monuments between 1270 and 980 (the latter years of Ramses III., in the 20th, and the last year of the 2 1st Dynasty) is as signifi- cant as was the number of them before and afterwards. It is a proof that the Assyrian supremacy was domi- nant, and that Egypt was in a state of tribute. Subsequently, after Sheshonk, we have only isolated historical monuments, which require no further ex- amination and criticism, as they have already found their place in the chronological treatment of the Third Book. The three divisions of the present Book are therefore as follows : Part I. — The Astronomical Synchronisms of the his- tory of Egypt. Part II. — The History of the New Empire from Amos to Sheshonk, according to the monuments. Part III. — The West-Asiatic Synchronisms with the history of Egypt. Prefixed to the Third Part is the figure of Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, the conquered king of Judah, in the court of Karnak, among the monuments of She- shonk, the Sesak of Scripture. The Index of the Second Part is the ground-plan of the royal palace at Thebes, commonly called Karnak, it being the shrine to which the rulers of the New Empire made successive additions, and where they left memo- rials of their names. As frontispiece of the First Part stands the hero of this Book. Great as was the renown of Champollion, and great as is the obligation which Egyptian history is under to him, as being the first who restored the language of its monuments, still the important consequences resulting from his discoveries of astronomical synchronisms, and III.] VIEW AND METHOD OF THE FOURTH BOOK. 27 his happy observation of a simple circumstance, obvious to every one, upon which that discovery was based, must in the eyes of the historian be his most valuable and glorious achievement. An attempt is made in the distichs to convey some idea of the effect of that discovery. Allusion has been already made to it in the Introduction to this work. The following brief remarks will explain what was there said, as well as the signs of the months, which are placed as a frame around the picture. The choice of the scutcheons above it will elucidate the history of Champollion's discoveries in this department, which was given in the First Book, as being the authority for his alphabet and adjustment of history. On the left are the figures of Ptolemy and Cleopatra, the names first deciphered ; on the right, Sheshonkand Alexander, as the guarantees of his system in the most modern period : last of all the scutcheon of Ramses II., the great conqueror, and author of the most important monuments of the first period of the New Empire, then the " Ultima Thule " of Egyptian chronology. The essence of his discovery was this. The Egyp- tians divided their year into three seasons, one of which, the commencement of the Inundation, regularly and without any exception always coincided at Syene with the solstice. But as they had neither intercalary days nor months, but the vague year of 12 months of 30 days, with 5 days added on as supplementary, the notation of the first month of the Inundation every four years neces- sarily took place one day before the right time. There would, consequently, be a whole year in advance at the end of 4 times 365, or 1460 years, which required to be added, in order to bring the chronology into equilibrium. The Egyptian calendar, therefore, must have originated at a time when the first month of the Inundation co- incided with the solstice. Without entering into the 28 INTRODUCTOKY REMARKS. [Book IV. details of this calculation, wliicli will be discussed here- after, the following question occurs to us : What is the earliest date at which we find this nota- tion of the seasons and months ? The answer to it was given several years after the great discoverer's death by some notations of months found in the Pyramids. The Egyptian calendar is older, therefore than the Pyramids ; so that the Canicular cycle which commenced in 1322 must be the third, at least, in Egyptian history ; for the beginning of the second, in 2782, is subsequent to the 4th Dynasty, according to every system of chronology based upon the monuments. But there is evidence tliat the beginning of the one in which the Pyramids were built is really the first, and that it commenced before Menes. It is, therefore, no idle question in what part of the Old Empire the second Canicular cycle commenced. At all events, we shall be able to show in which of Manetho's dynasties he placed it. It will also be seen that the most ancient adjustment of the Egyp- tian year, according to our chronology, took place at that very period of the Old Empire whicli is historically and monumentally the most suitable. It will follow, moreover, that the date of Menes can- not be materially earlier or later, upon either astro- nomical or historical grounds, than our calculation makes it. The Second Part of the Book is, as well as the First, essentially the same as it was when it was written be- tween 1838 and 1842. It has, however, been repeatedly gone over since that time, and all the new matter which has been obtained by my own researches, or through those of other people, has been introduced into it, especially those of Lepsius and the monuments of the great Prussian work. Its main feature is the most ancient and, historically, most important synchronism of the New Empire, the III.] VIEW AND METHOD OF THE FOURTH BOOK. 29 Exodus. It is necessary to investigate that events purely from an Egyptian point of view. In the Third Part, the chapter on the Jewish syn- chronisms is by far the most detailed. There is not a single point in Jewish history, from Zedekiah back to Abraham, which is not tested chronologically, and, as far as requisite, historically. But those of Phoenicia, of Assyria, and of Babylon, which are treated of in the first section of this Part, are also intended to test, thoroughly and independently, all the main chronological points in Asiatic history before the Persian dominion. Yaluable as is the information derived from the labours of other students in all these chronological researches, I find that Niebuhr is the only one since Scaliger whose views are really historical, independent, and to the purpose. But the investigator who rests upon them must not forget that in the last twenty or thirty years a number of most valuable sources of information have been discovered, wholly unknown or inaccessible to them. It is the more indispensable not to conclude without mentioning the main points, which may give real assistance and encouragement to future generations in making farther researches. For myself, I am conscious of having made an honest use of the sources of information at my disposal, and of being thankful to my predecessors for what they have done. Nor have I advanced anything which I have not considered and tested, according to the rule of Horace, " for nine years." I have only mentioned such of my fellow-labourers with whose method of research I can say that I agree ; but I have read everything that has come out since that time. I do not feel called upon here to enter the lists with the others. Yet it is my duty to enter my solemn protest, not 30 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. [Book IV. only against so unscientific a metliod of treating such a subject, but against the immoral system of throwing out imputations, which certain organs of public opinion in England, and even writers of note too, have not been ashamed to adopt. They believe they are right — indeed, that they are acting for the glory of God — in representing a work to be irreligious which impinges upon Jewish or ecclesias- tical prejudices. The answer to this is very short : that it is an immoral practice, and unworthy of a man of honour. In dealing with history, and historical research which is worthy of such a name, it is no question of favouring or not favouring any particular system, but of discovering the sacred -truth as it presents itself to a conscientious inquirer. One might have supposed that in the nineteenth century chronological and purely phi- lological research would be very safe against these hate- ful charges of being dangerous and pernicious. But as this is not the case, and as there is no disguising the fact that, throughout Europe, there is on the part of the hierarchy and the priesthood, as well as of reactionary governments who are either in league with or working for them, a growing systematic opposition to all free and independent research, it is necessary to tear off the mask from the blind zealots w^ho indulge in these calumnies, and to tell them to their faces that, if they attack a scientific point in an unscientific way, they publicly brand themselves either as hypocrites or igno- ramuses ; and that, in a scientific point of view, they hardly deserve any notice to be taken of them. I should be truly grieved to be obliged to reckon Mr. Richard Poole among this number, who, in his work on the chronology of Egypt (1850 J showed a sound knowledge of hieroglyphics, and qualifications for be- coming a sound critic. His historical research is, how- ever, a failure from beginning to end. He has allowed III.] VIEW AND METHOD OF THE FOURTH BOOK. 31 himself the most incredible latitude of arbitrary assump- tion, in order not to disturb the rabbinical system of ecclesiastical chronology in respect to the age of man upon the earth, which he has taken under his protection. Of course, the Hyksos Kings, and the Theban Kings their contemporaries, with whose monuments he is acquainted, stand very much in the way of this assumption ; although it cannot be called anything but dishonest or childish to overlook the innumerable other arguments which render it impossible from first to last. Here, consequently, the most wonderful assumptions are brought into play by Mr. Poole. In spite of certain symptoms which are real matters of regret, it is to be hoped that this young scholar may throw off these shackles; but I cannot do otherwise than subscribe to what M. De Rouge has said of him, in serious language and with the most friendly intent.^ A most pernicious spirit of ecclesiastical mistrust prevails on this subject in an article in the "Journal of Sacred Literature," July, 1854, only remarkable as being very pretentious and superficial, upon Lepsius' "Letters from Egypt," which are as modest as tliey are instructive. It is generally attributed to Mr. Poole. Unfortunately, too, we are obliged to say of Mr. Wil- liam Osborne's work on Egypt, which appeared two or three years ago, that, from a critical point of view, it has no value whatever. 1 Meraoire sur quelques Phenomenes Celestes, lu a rAcademie des Inscriptions, le 24 Decembre, 1852, p. 13. note : "M. Poole est du nombre des jeunes travailleurs qui meritent qu'on leur dise la verite toute entiere. Ou il n'a pas lu ce qu'ont ecrit sur ce sujet les arclieo- logues recents, ce qui serait inexcusable, ou il les a lu, et ne les cite pas, ce qui serait plus grave encore. Je n'ai pas lu le nom de Lepsius une seule fois dans ce livre, a propos de toutes les questions traitees si longuement dans ' I'lntroduction a la Chronologic.' " 32 INTRODUCTOEY IlEMARKS. [Book IV. 1 have accordingly the greater pleasure in being able to mention the continuation of Mr. Birch's untiring labours and instructive contributions to this depart- ment of science. This zealous superintendent of the Egyptian Department in the British Museum is going on with his careful edition of the historical papyri in that Institution. Sir Gardner Wilkinson's publication of the Turin Papyrus is likewise a real addition to Egyptology. The brightest star, however, that has appeared in the Egyptian heavens since the publication of the earlier volumes of this work is without doubt the Viscount de Rouge, superintendent of the Egyptian Museum in the Louvre. I am indebted to his thoroughly sound criti- cism of my work in the " Annales de Philosophic Chre- tienne " for many suggestions and much instruction, as is shown in many passages of my corrected English edi- tion of the Second Volume. This was followed by a beautiful explanation of the historical inscription of the time of Aahmes, which gives authentic proof of the chronological connexion between the 17th (Theban) Dynasty and the chiefs of the 18th. Having already, in 1852, solved the great problem of translating a coherent narrative — the remarkable historical romance of the primeval times of Egypt, written in the age of Mene- phthah, only a few years before the Exodus^ — he is now preparing a translation and explanation of the most important of the Sallier Papyri. This, as I learn from himself, contains a description of the negotia- tions between the Theban "prince," a king of the 17th Dynasty^, and his contemporary and foe, a King Apophis, at Abara (Uara, Avaris) ; and of the religious 2 Revue Archeologique, 1852. 3 See the synopsis of the 12th Dynasty in the Table of Synchronisms to this Book. III.J VIEW AND METHOD OF THE FOURTH BOOK. 33 motives which led to the war with the Set-worshippers, who despised the other deities of the country. The translation and explanation both of this record (which, however, seems to have been composed only in the 19th Dynasty, and to which we cannot positively assign an historical character), and of the fragment containing the campaigns of the second Ramses, which forms the complement to an inscription still existing at Karnak, may be shortly expected. Thus has Egyptology far outstripped any rational expectations which philologers and students might fairly have entertained ; and in the first thirty years after its institution by Champollion its success has been trium- phant beyond example. Of course we speak of the Egyptology of which Champollion was the founder, and Avhich will be for ever established upon the basis of his immortal Grammar. To mention any other is unneces- sary, at all events out of Germany. Every man who has laboured in this department, and whose naine deserves to be noticed, has pursued this system, and this alone : for instance, Brugsch, in his " Travels in Egypt," 1855. As long as Uhlemann, the present representative of Egyptian science in Gottingen, places the dreams and conceits of SeyfFarth in the same category with the scientific la- bours of a Champollion, Lepsius, and De Ivouge, he forfeits any title to knowledge of the foundation of Egyptology and all claim to pronounce a critical judgment upon it. Lepsius has already shown the insignificance of Gumpach's attacks upon Egyptian chronology. But when SeyfFarth, in his late work on Egyptian grammar, has had the boldness to assert that Lepsius and myself admit Champollion's system to be fallacious and un- satisfactory, it is about as gross and notorious a per- version of historical truth as it would be to say that we are guilty. of considering his own figments and inven- tions as , anything but pitiable nonsense which is a scandal to Germany. VOL. III. D 34 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. [Book IV. P.S. — July, 1858. The folio wing publications, which deserve particular notice, have appeared since tliis was written : Chabas, F. Le plus ancien Livre du Monde, in the "Revue Archeologique," 1858, p. 1—26. Heath, D. I., Rev, The Exodus Papyri : 8vo., London, 1855. A Record of the Patriarchal Age: 12mo., London, 1858. De Rouge. Le Poeme de Pen-ta-our, in the Revue Contempo- raine," 1856, p. 389. Notice sur un Manuscrit Egyptien, in the "Revue Archeologique," 1853, vol. ix, p. 385. PART I. THE SYNCHRONISMS OF ASTRONOMICAL AND HISTORICAL EVENTS IN EGYPTIAN HISTORY. D 2 37 SECTION 1. THE EGYPTIAN CALENDAR, AND THE DATE OF ITS INSTITUTION.^ A. THE MOVABLE YEAR AND THE SIGNS OF THE MONTHS MUST HAVE BEEN ARRANGED ABOUT THE YEAR 3285 B. C. It is almost universally admitted, after the various learned investigations Avhich have been instituted upon the subject in our days, that there were neither inter- calary days nor intercalary months in the civil calendar of the Egyptians before the time of Augustus ; but that the civil year of 365 days gradually ran farther and farther into the true solar year. A more recent attempt to sustain the opposite view^, in which some passages in the classics have been misunderstood and others over- looked, must be considered entirely abortive. The fol- lowing will suffice to show that such a notion is wholly untenable. It is stated by Eratosthenes, nearly two centuries before the reign of Augustus, that the festival of Isis, which in earlier times coincided with the vernal equinox, coincided in his time with the autumnal. The only explanation of this is, that the civil year, in the absence of intercalary days or months, passed through * In reference to this subject generally, we refer our readers to the lucid and conclusive exposition in Ideler's Handbook of Chronology, vol. i. ^ Upon the Names given to the Months by several ancient Peo- ples. By Drs. Benfey and Stern. Berlin, 1837-8. D 3 38 ASTRONOMICAL SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part I. all the seasons, inasmuch as it anticipated the solar year by nearly one day in every four years. The consequence of this would be, that a festival which originally fell on the 1st of Thoth would gradually advance two, three, four, and, at the end of 120 years, thirty days, or a month, into the true year. Geminus, who lived 70 B.C., in quoting the above remark of Eratosthenes, states so expressly in reference to his own times. How could Ptolemy, in the age of the Antonines, have made the astronomical calculations which he records, according to the movable year, as Hipparchus also did, if it had not been the Old-Egyptian year ? But he expressly designates these computations, which extended back far beyond the Ptolemaic times, as " those according to the Egyptians," in contrast with the Alexandrian method, in which it is admitted that calculations were made by fixed years from the time of the capture of Alexandria by Augustus. In a movable year of this sort the months, then, must necessarily have advanced gradually through all the seasons. But in Egypt all the twelve months were connected with signs of settled seasons, and, indeed, in such a manner that, from the peculiarity of that remarkable country, we can accurately assign the particular period of the solar year which each of these signs was meant to indicate, and, of course, did really indicate when the calendar was arranged. The Egyptians we know had three seasons, consisting of four equal months of thirty days (a tetrameny). The five supplemental days (epagomenae) were added on to the end of the twelfth. In the invariable order of these months, Thoth being always the first, these, as the hiero- glyphics by which the bust of Champollion is surrounded on our frontispiece are intended to demonstrate, were called, the Green Season, the Harvest Season, and the Water Season. Sect. I. A.] SIGNS OF THE SEASONS. 39 M. Brugsch has since endeavoured to identify this division of the year into three seasons with the hierogly- phical division into sha^ summer (autumn ?), 5 pro^ winter, and /SJ^ shum^ summer. The commencement of one of these, the Water Season, or Inundation, we can accurately define, not merely his- torically, but also astronomically.^ For thousands of years past, the rising of the Nile be- low the second cataract (Syene) always commences at the solstice. From that time it continues to rise, until at length it overflows. According to Herodotus, as well as the observations of the French scholars and all travel- lers, the inundation comes to its height after the lapse of 100 days. Assuming, then, the solstice to be on June 21-22., the inundation would be at its height a little before the 1st of October. It remains at that height for a few days, and then gradually subsides. As the water retires, in Upper Egypt at the beginning, in the Delta in the middle, of October, the Egyptian puts his seed into the moist productive ground. From 120 to 125 days after the beginning of the inundation, that is, about the end of October, it begins to sprout. The Water Season therefore corresponds w^ith the four months after the solstice, or pretty nearly with July, August, September, and October. The Green Season accordingly comprised November, December, January, and February ; and there remains for tlie Harvest Season, March, April, May, and June. The signs of the months, on the contrary, are as follows : ^ 6 This subject is ably treated by Lepsius, Einleitung, p. 147. et seq. ^ The names of the months (which, though new to us and only known from the Coptic and Arabic transcripts of them, were Old- 40 ASTRONOMICAL SYNCHRONISMS. [Book. IV. Part I. First Tetrameny. — The Green Season. I. Thoth 1st of Green Season = November. J I. Phaophi 2nd „ = December. III. Hathor 3rd „ = January. lY. Choiak 4th „ = February. Second Tetrameny — The Harvest Season, y. Toby 1st of Harvest Season = March. YI. Mechir 2nd „ = April. Yll. Phamenoth 3rd „ May. YIII. Pharmuthi 4th „ =. June. Third Tetrameny. — The Water Season. IX. Pachon 1st of AYater Season = July. X. Paoni 2nd = August. XI. Epiphi 3rd „ = September. XII. Mesori 4th „ = October. Egyptian), and perhaps even the original way of pronouncing the above hieroglyphical signs, have been satisfactorily explained for the first time by Lepsius, who has drawn from them some very important conclusions for the whole history of the Egyptian calendar. (Einl. p. 133-145. ; comp. p. 154. and other passages.) In referring my readers to the text of my friend's learned and generally conclusive researches, the following brief summary of the astonishing results of them are here submitted. The names of the gods of the months are recorded in the Ramesseum and at Edfoo. First Tetrameny. — The Green Season. I. Thoth, Thotth, from Tet, the Hermes of the Egyptians, probably as the opener of the year and of each month, like Janus. Techi, however, is the goddess of the months, probably merely an epithet of Isis. II. Paope, Phaophis, i. e. the (month) of the ... . perhaps a name of Ptah: such is the name of the month-god, de- signated also by the epithet Menkh, Evepyirrjg. [Perhaps the root is hotep, offered, offerer (Gr. o^ic, in the royal names) as an epithet of Ptah, like Ptah-Sokari (?).] III. Athor, Athtr, Athyri, a name of Venus, the goddess of the months. IV. Choiak, in its complete form Ciioiahk, Arab. Kihak : the Sect. L A.] SIGNS OF THE SEASONS. 41 It is clear that the months must have been thus de- signated at a period when the 1st of Thoth fell about the 25th of October. It is easy for astronomers to calculate when and how month-goddess Kahika; in Thebes, Pacht : the former probably an epithet of the same goddess. Second TETi?AMENY The Harvest Season. V. ToBE, ToBr, Tybi : tutelary god, Khem, Tehef-teb at Edfoo. The second part of the word explains the name. VI. Mechir, Emchir : the jackal-idol (the Nile-horse at Edfoo), with the addition rekh-iir, " great fire." VII. Phamenoth, in Theb. Paremhot : explanation doubtful": the idol also a jackal (Nile-horse at Edfoo), with the addition rekh-si, " small fire." This general designation of the 6th and 7th months is very ancient. It was found by Lepsius on a monu- ment of the 12th Dynasty (p. 154.). It alludes to a division into the two halves of the year. According to Plut. de Is. c. 44. the jackal was the symbol of the horizon, as being the line of demarcation between the upper and lower hemispheres. VIII. Pharmuthi refers to Termuthi, the Great Mother (t.ur mut): the sign is a goddess with the snake. The name she is known by is Ken n en, the Snake Goddess j but Ter- muthi s occurs with this symboL Third Tetrameny. — The Water Season. IX. Pachon, Pachons, Pashons, from the god Chensu, Chun- su, Gr. Chons (Herakles), son of Ammon and Muth. X. Paon, Payni : the sign Horus with the name Fenti [possi- bly the original signification was Typlionian (Set), uon, un, the Opener, as Osiris is afterwards styled]. XL Epep, Epip, Epiphi: symbol, the frog-headed goddess Ap, Ep. The Arabic form, Abib, is evidently the Hebrew name of the gleaning month, Abib (the gleaning). At the time of the Exodus the movable Epep would have coin- cided with the vernal equinox. XII. Mesore, Mesort, Mesori: sign, "Her-Ra (Horus, Sun) of the two hemispheres : " the explanation, therefore, certainly must be Mes-her-ra, the birth of the Sun-Horus, in refe- rence to the winter solstice, the birth of the sun of the new year. This is another proof that the ordinary year com- menced on the first of Thoth. 42 ASTRONOMICAL SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part 1. often in the course of the ancient history of the world this took place. Biot, on the basis of accurate com- putations made in conjunction with Champollion, has given a very lucid exposition of the result. Although their task was not finished when Champollion died, the papers which he left enabled the great astronomer to complete it, and the results w^ere published by him in 1831.^ The principal conclusions were as follows. In the olden time 1505 solar years were almost exactly equal to 1506 years of 365 days. Consequently every 1505 years the 1st of Thoth would fall on the 25th of October, and coincide with the beginning of the Green Season. This was the case in the following years b. c. : 275—1780—3285. The evidence of the monuments renders it unnecessary to prove that the Egyptians did not so designate their months for the first time in the age of the Ptolemies. They are, on the contrary, thus designated throughout all the Pharaonic monuments ; so that this notation can be shown on contemporary monuments much earlier than the second period, 1780 B.c.^ In so far, therefore, as the establishment of this de- signation depends upon the above coincidence, it is mathematically certain that it must have occurred in or about the year 3285 b.c. According to our criticism of the Lists and Monuments, this is the date of the 3rd Dynasty, which w^as contemporaneous with the 2nd, ® Recherches sur TAnnee vague des Egyptiens. Par M. Biot. Lues a rAcademie des Inscriptions le 30 mars, et a I'Academie des Sciences le 4 avril 1831. 4. 9 Lepsius has shown that the signs of the months are found on the very oldest monuments, the end of the 3rd and 4th Dynasties (Einl. p. 220.). He found the 5 Epagomenee, with their well-known signs, on the monuments of the 12th (p. 146.); at all events, therefore, long before 1780. Sect. I. B.] THE CANICULAE CYCLE. 43 and the traditional epocli from which the great organic institutions of the Old-Egyptian empire dated.^^ B. THE CANICULAR CYCLE OF 1400 YEARS MUST HAVE BEEN INSTITUTED IN EGYPT NOT LATER THAN ABOUT 2800, AND NOT EARLIER THAN 3300 B.C.^* In order to extend our inquiry into the commence- ment of the notation of the months by means of astro- nomy, we must introduce into it another element — the Caniculaii Period, the Cycle of Sothis, or Sirius. We learn from the trustworthy testimony of Censo- rinus that the Egyptians possessed a Great Year, which they styled the Sothiac Year, because on the first day of it the sun rose at the same moment as Sirius-Sothis. He states that one of these great years commenced 100 years before his time. The date at which he wrote is the year 238, in the consulship of Antoninus Pius 11. and Bruttius Prassens. In that year, a.d. 139, the Egyptian year really commenced with the 20th of July of the Julian year, and in that year also Sirius rose in Central Egypt about seven o'clock, consequently only some few hours later than is assumed. Four years afterwards, therefore, this heliacal rising took place about a day after the beginning of the new year, and so, after four times 365 years, about a whole civil year later. Hence the Sothiac cycle appears to be a period of 1460 years; in the 1461st Egyptian year the first of Thoth again coincided with the same day of the Julian year. Consequently the year 1322 b. c. is the beginning of that cycle which ended a.d. 139. The first of Thoth According to Lepsius' chronology, in the 4th Dynasty. Upon this point we refer our readers to Lepsius, p. 157. et seq. 44 ASTRONOMICAL SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Paet I. really fell in that 3'ear on the 19-2 0th of July. This will appear by reckoning back from the 29th of August, 30 B.C. (the introduction of the fixed year), in which the first of Thoth was then settled in order to introduce the fixed year. As the solstice, being the commencement of the inun- dation, and consequently of the Water Season, was the great turning point of Egyptian life, and Sirius the brightest of all the fixed stars, it seems very natural that the coincidence of the heliacal rising of that star with the solstice and the inundation should be marked and regarded by the Egyptians with especial attention and favour. The observation of a single life was suffi- cient to show that this coincidence fell off at the rate of one day in every four years. The recurrence of the coincidence at the end of 1460 years was, therefore, to an Egyptian the most natural cycle. Astronomers were early struck by the fact that this star, owing to its position in relation to the latitude and longitude, must, from the precession of the equinoxes, have risen nearly in the same proportion later, as the Julian year, which was about 11' 12'' too long, ran more and more into the solar year. This was the only reason why the heliacal rising of Sirius, from 3300 B.C. down to a few centuries after Christ, could always coincide in Egypt with the beginning of the same day (the 20th of July). It was the guiding star of their history. Sect. I. C] EPOCHS OF 1505 AND 1460 YEAES. 45 C. SYNOPSIS OF THE EPOCHS OF 1505 AND 1460 YEAFvS. In summing up these two inquiries, the first observa- tion to be made is that the commencement of the nota- tion of months in Egypt must have occurred at a period when the first of Thoth fell on the 25th of October (ac- cording to the present reckoning of the solstice at the 22nd of June), and, consequently, within the period of the national development of Egypt in the years 1780 and 3285. On the other hand, the coincidence of the heliacal rising of Sirius on the first of Thoth, about the time of the solstice (beginning of the Water Season), took place in the following years B.C. : 1322 — 2782 — 4242. Of these five epochs, the year 3285 alone possesses the astronomical peculiarity that in it, not merely the first of Thoth falls at the very time its sign requires (the beginning of the Green Season), but that the heliacal rising of Sirius also coincides exactly with the solstice and the beginning of the inundation, and that this coin- cidence was maintained for several centuries. This will be seen clearly by the following table (Biot, p. 57.):^^ 12 From the importance of this proof we append Biot's own re- marks upon this table, and his exposition of the singular peculiarity of the year 3285 (Annee vague, p. o7.) : — " II est possible que ce tableau depasse I'etendue des temps oii I'annee vague de 365 jours a ete reellement en usage. Le calcul qui nous I'a donne indique seulement des concordances numeriques. C'est a Tarcheologie qu'il appartient de fixer, parmi ses epoques, les liraitps auxquelles on peut remonter avec certitude, d'apres les monuraens jusqu'ici connus. Toutefois la retrogradation purement numerique de la notation egyp- tienne amene ici une singuliere rencontre. C'est la coincidence, jour pour jour, du solstice d'cte de Tan — 3285 avec le 20 juillet julien, 46 ASTRONOMICAL SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part I. Year of the Julian Period (Scaliger). Date B. C. Date of the movable first of Thoth. Date of the Summer Solstice. -76 +1429 +2934 + 4439 -4790 -3285 -1780 -275 4. December 22. November 11. November 31. October 1. August. 20. July. 9. July. 27. June.i3 ^3 The connexion between the rising of Sirius on the first of Thoth and the above dates is as follows : 1322. Sirius rises 14 — 15 days after the solstice, i. e. after the in- undation. Consequently it could not mark the beginning of the year. 2782. Sirius rises 3 — 4 days after the inundation, and the distance constantly increases. Consequently it also could not mark the beginning of the year. 4242. Sirius rises 12 days before the inundation, and consequently cannot serve that purpose. consequemment avec le lever heliaque de Sirius en Egypte. Pour savoir a quel point cette rencontre etait exacte,j'ai calcule la position de Sirius pour cette annee-la, au moyen des methodes les plus pre- cises que I'astronomie puisse fournir. J'ai cherche alors quelle longitude cette position assignait au soleil au moment du lever heliaque sous la latitude de 30°, qui etait celle de Memphis et d'He- liopolis ; car, pour de si anciennes epoques, on ne pent pas placer le centre de la religion dans les parties les plus basses de I'Egypte. En- fin, dans ce calcul j'ai employe Tare de 11° pour I'abaissement du soleil sous I'horizon au moment oii I'etoile devient visible, ce qui est pre- cisement la valeur adoptee par Ptolemee pour I'Egypte, comme I'a deraontre M. Ideler. Avec tons ces soins j'ai trouve le soleil ex- actement solsticial en — 3285, le jour du lever heliaque de Sirius a Memphis. Or, que le solstice arrivat aussi cette annee-la le 20 juillet julien, c'est ce qui ne fait pas non plus de doute; car M. Bouvard a calcule de nouveau ce phenomene, en introduisant dans les formules les valeurs les mieux rectifiees des masses des pla- netes, ainsi que le nombre recemment adopte par M. Bessel, pour la constante de la precession ; il n'en est resulte qu'une difference de quelques minutes sur le lieu du soleil au meme instant. Enfin, la co- incidence de ce 20 juillet julien avec le premier jour de Pachon vague ne souffre pas davantage d'incertitude, etant une simple concordance numerique de calendrier. On doit done regarder comme indubitable qu'en Fan — 3285 Sirius se leva heliaquement sous le parallele de Memphis le 20 juillet, le jour meme du solstice d'ete, et qu'en meme Sect. I. C] EPOCHS OF 1505 AND 1460 YEARS. 47 Hence the year 3285 is the central point of the period at which Sirius, rising with the solstice and inundation, might serve to mark the beginning of the year. From it we may go down to the year 2800, and up to the year 3800, without any considerable change. This allows a margin of 1000 years for observations. The early rising of the brightest of the fixed stars, however, with the solstice, which then fell between the 10th and 20th of July, being of constant recurrence, it required at most 100 or 120 years' observations to come to the conclusion that the year of 365 days commenced every four years one day too soon, and consequently was a whole month in advance in 120 years; so that, only at the end of 1460 years, the beginning of the 1461st year again coincided with the heliacal rising of the star. Biot remarks that a similar cycle might have been made temps la notation egyptienne des mois, d'accord avec les phenomenes solaires, marquait a ce meme jour, au meme 20 juillet, le commence- ment solsticial de la crue du Nil. " Pour bien sentir ce que la rencontre de ces trois faits a de re- marquable, il faut considerer que le concours du lever lieliaque de Sirius avec le solstice d'ete a subsiste, non pas exacteraent^, mais approximativement durant plusieurs siecles, avant et apres I'epoque de — 3285. Car en 500 ans, par exemple, ces levers n'ont du s'ecarter du solstice que de trois ou quatre jours ; et, comme leur observation comporte au moins cette limite d'incertitude, il s'ensuit que, pendant cinq ou six siecles avant et apres I'epoque precise de — 3285, Sirius pouvait, sans erreur sensible, etre considere comme se levant heliaquement au solstice d'ete. Or, que dans tout ce long intervalle le point precis matliematique du lever lieliaque solsticial soit aussi celui oii la notation egyptienne des mois est en concordance rigoureuse avec le soleil, de sorte que le commencement de la crue du Nil s'y trouve exactement ecrit pour ce meme solstice, sans erreur au simple hasard des nombres, et qui ofFre bien plutot I'apparence d'un arrangement volontairement etabli. Mais alors, pour faire cet arrangement si juste, il devient necessaire de supposer des observa- tions de levers heliaques et de solstices suivies long-temps avant I'epoque oii on le trouve realise, c'est a~dire avant — 3285. Car il n'a pu I'etre si exactement que par des moyennes prises entre de nom- breux resultats. L'imagination hesite a remonter vers une antiquite de tant de siecles, et cependant raccord de lever lieliaque de — 3285 48 ASTRONOMICAL SYNCHEONISMS. [Book IV. Part I. with the year of 360 days; the only difference being that, in that case, the period which elapsed would have been much shorter, as there would have been an advance of 5^ days every year, and the coincidence with Sirius would have occurred between the 69th and 70th years. At present, however, there is no trace of such a system. This learned astronomer, therefore, considers the pe- riod from 2800 to 3800 as the probable epoch in which the monthly notation was instituted, as well as the Sothiac cycle, providing there was then a year of 365 days.^^ avec rindication de solstice dans la notation pour cette meme annee n'a pu etre etabli apres coup, puisqu'il faudrait alors qu'en creant la notation de I'annee vague on I'eut expres disposee de telle sorte, qu'en retournant en arriere elle remontat juste au lever lieliaque de — 3285, ce qui eut ete bien plus difficile encore que de I'y adapter au moment meme. Quoiqu'il en puisse etre, les cinq ou six siecles qui precederent et qui suivirent cette epoque memorable, comprennent I'intervalle de temps pendant lequel durent naitre en Egypte les tra- ditions qui, associant le lever heliaque de Sirius avec le commence- ment de la crue du Nil, firent considerer cet astre comme le principe escitateur des eaux du fleuve et comme portant avec lui la fecondite. Ce fut alors seulement qu'il put interesser assez pour devenir I'objet d'un culte qui I'associait a tous les mysteres, et le retrayait dans tous les monuments. Ces idees n'avaient pas pu naitre a des epoques fort anterieures ; car alors le lever heliaque de Sirius precedait de plus en plus le commencement meme le plus faiblement perceptible de la crue du Nil ; et elles ne peuvent pas davantage etre nees a des epoques fort posterieures, car des lors le lever heliaque, s'eloignant du solstice en sens contraire, retarda graduellement sur ce phenomene, au lieu de le preceder, de maniere qu'en — 1780 il lui etait deja pos- terieur de 11 jours,et de 23 jours en — 275 sous les Ptolemees. II n'y a done reellement que I'epoque de — 3285 qui ait pu, selon la vieille tradition rapportee par Porphyre, faire considerer par les Egyptiens Sirius comme ayant preside a la naissance du monde. Ainsi I'an- tiquite de la tradition qui nous les a transmises se trouve bornee par la date rigoureuse du phenomene physique quileur a donne naissance. N'est-il pas frappant de voir la notation si simple, je dirais presque si naive, de I'annee egyptienne, remonter, pj# ses periodes revolutives, precisement a I'epoque exacte de ce phenomene traditionnel ? " ^'^ All doubt is removed by Lepsius' discovery of the Epagomenae in the 12th Dynasty (Einl. p. 146.), as remarked above. Sect. I. C] EPOCHS OF 1505 AND 1460 YEARS. 49 In examining more closely this ingenious calculation, it appears to be fully established that the coincidence of the heliacal rising of Sirius with the summer solstice, and the correspondence of the months with their signs, took place in the year 3285, i. e. nearly thirty-three centuries before our era. Towards the end of that pe- riod (2800), it is true that the former of these coinci- dences still subsisted, but not so the latter. Assuming that there was then as afterwards a year of 365 days, the first of Thoth had advanced 120 days, and coincided with the solstice and Sirius, but the notation of the months had become three signs in advance. We may, therefore, suppose several cases. We may first assume that, about the year 3200 or 3300, the no- tation of months was instituted, and that the commence- ment of the Sothiac cycle was remarked at the same time. If so, however, it is singular, and not easy to explain, why they did not make the most certain and most sacred point the beginning of the year, and the first Water month (Pachon) the first month. This brings us to a second assumption. The signs of the months were settled without taking into considera- tion that there would be a time when the fourth month after the solstice would coincide with the heliacal risins: of Sirius. It was only when this starting point of the civil year advanced nearer and nearer, that is, at latest when the coincidence actually occurred, or about 500 years after the former period, that the idea crossed them of the passage of the civil year of 365 days through the solar year of 365^. Sirius and Thoth were the in- separable characters and signs of the commencement of a great cycle, and so they remained to the latest times. It can hardly be, therefore, that the determination of this cycle, an event so intimately connected with the See Lepsius' explanation of this point in the Supplement at the end of this Section. VOL. III. E 50 ASTRONOMICAL SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Pakt 1. whole of their rehgious institutions, was effected so late as 2782, because at that time Sirius rose three days after the solstice and inundation. It may, however, easily have been made at an earlier period. D. TRACES OF THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN A CIVIL AND RE- LIGIOUS YEAR, AND OF THE NOTATION OF THE PRECES- SION OF THE MOVABLE YEAR IN THE CANICULAR CYCLE. I. The Want of, and the Possibility of making, such a Nota- tion WITHOUT Intercalary Days. This fact almost necessarily compels us to assume the existence of a double year: a civil year, inseparably connected with the land and its cultivation, which co- incided with the 1st of Thoth, and originally com- menced on the 20th of October ; and a sacred or sacer- dotal year, which commenced with the solstice, and which implied indeed that in the primeval model year the heliacal rising of Sirius was coincident with the solstice and inundation. The question is, then, whether the Egyptians observed a four-yearly intercalary year to- gether with the cyclical year of 1460 years, which started from the coincidence of the solstice and the heliacal rising of Sirius and the swelling of the Nile at the first hour of the first day of Thoth. To which we reply, that the four-yearly intercalary year was assuredly not in use, though it was noted by the priests and formed the Unit for the great year. When we consider the observation of the connexion between Sirius and the year of 365 days, and between it and the solstice and inundation, as the central point of the astronomical, constitutional, and religious divisions of the year among the Egyptians, there can really be Sect. I. D. ILJ MOVABLE FESTIVALS. 51 very little reason to doubt that they had a means of marMng the progress of the cyclical year. This, how- ever, simply means that they must have possessed a method of counting the years of the cycle. It is true that no trace has yet been discovered on the monuments of the use of such a mode of calculating dates in civil life. All that we find is chronological data according to the regnal years of their kings. This is no argument, however, against so natural an assumption. The monu- ments furnish no sure evidence about the Apis period of 25 years, and yet there can be no doubt that the ancient Egyptians did make use of it. There could be no diffi- culty in making such a computation. As long as the heliacal rising of Sirius coincided with the solstice, it was only necessary to multiply the number of days between it and the 1st of Pachon by 4, in order to get the year of the cycle. In later times, again, religious ceremonies furnished the readiest means of making the same calculations. The year of 365 days was the civil year, and most of the sacred ceremonies took place on fixed days of the months of that year, and consequently occurred upon them throughout all the seasons. It is probable, however, though there is no proof of it as yet, that the details of these were reckoned by the primeval year, in which the 1st of Thoth commenced with the heliacal rising of Sirius. Biot even fancies he has dis- covered two proofs of it^^; but they will not satisfy anybody. II. Pkoof from the Accounts of the Movable Festivals. The best evidence on this head would be obtained, if we could get some more accurate knowledge of the details of the great festival of Isis. It has been already remarked that in the year 70 B.C. it took place a month after the autumnal equinox ; that in the time of Erato- i« P. 146. seq. E 2 52 ASTRONOMICAL SYNCHRONISMS. [BookIY. Part I. sthenes (about 200 B.C.) it coincided with that equinox, and, consequently, 720 years previously (900 B.C.), with the vernal equinox. It is clear, then, that in 1322 B.C. it must have occurred from 3 to 3J months earlier, that is, about the time of the winter solstice.^'' These movable festivals rendered it almost necessary that a computation of the years from the beginning of the cycle, that is, from 1 to 1460, should be made : while, on the other hand, by comparing their original place with the actual one in the current year, they had the means of making such a calculation. When any festival which originally occurred on the 1st of Thoth took place on the 1st of the following month, 120 years of the cycle must have elapsed. It was still easier to mark the cyclical year, when, together with these movable festivals, there were others connected with the immovable points in the year, such as the solstices and the equinoxes. We must neces- sarily assume that this was the case, indeed it is proved by the festival of the Nile. The day of the civil year in which such a festival took place, multiplied by 4, gives the date of the year and the real beginning of the cycle. It was easy to calculate these fixed points after nature had ceased to indicate the beginning of the year. A careful examination of the monuments as well as the hieroglyphical notices of the year will, no doubt, furnish traces of such notations.^^ It is fortunate, on 17 Lepsius (Einl. p. 62.) states that there is a complete calendar of the festivals of the time of Ramses III., the beginning of the 20th Dynasty, on the outside of his temple at Medinet-Aboo. There are fragments of one of the 20th Dynasty, and some of later date, in other places. These have been published by the late Mr. J. B. Greene, an American, under the title of " Fouilles executees a Thebes dans I'annee 1855:" fob, Paris, 1855. 1^ These expectations have since been fulfilled by Lepsius' disco- veries. In the first place he has found the key to the astronomical re- presentations of the Pharaonic as well as Greco-Roman times, which were previously sealed books. There will doubtless be a good deal of obscurity on some points till we find astronomical papyri. But the Sect. I. D. III.] VETTIUS VALENS. PORPHYRY. 53 the other hand, that records of the actual use of this period have come down to us in the classics. III. Express Testimony. 1, The Testimony of Vettiiis Valens as to the Double Year. According to Bainbridge's quotation (comp. Ideler, i. pp. 126. 171.), Yettius Valens (of the age of the Anto- nines, unfortunately not yet published) expressly states that the Egyptians made a distinction between a natural and a civil year: "The Egyptians commenced their {civil) year on the 1st of Thoth ; their 7iatural year at the heliacal rising (sTriroXT]') of the Dog-star." This cannot mean the then fixed year, in which the 1st of Thoth fell on the 29tli of August, but must be intended as expressing the distinction between the civil movable, and a fixed astronomical year. 2. The Testimony of Porphyry and a Scholiast. Porphyry (De An tro Nymph, p. 246. ed. Cantab.) says : " The Egyptians do not begin their year with the Water- man, but with the Crab ; for with the Crab comes the star Sothis, which the Greeks call the Dog-star. The rising of Sothis, however, is their new year.^'^^ Absurd as that definition was as regards later times, it was correct in respect to the primeval times. The Scholiast on Aratus (1. 152.) says: "The whole constellation (of the Lion) is dedicated to the Sun, for then the Nile rises, and the Dog-star rises at the discovery of the year 1202 as the date of Ramses VI., in the repre- sentation on his tomb, is most satisfactory. (Einl. p. 115.) That on the tomb of Ramses IV. is still illegible. He having been the eldest of four brothers must have reigned but a short time. About 1275 is the last known year of his predecessor ; so that he cannot have reigned later than about 1220. See Supplemental Volume. ^ovfxrjvla in Ptolemy, the first of the Epagomenae, consequently the beginning of a period generally. Ideler, loc. cit. Comp. Lepsius, notes, p. 150. £ 3 54 ASTRONOMICAL SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Tart I. eleventh hour (dawn). At this period the year com- mences ; and the Dog-star and its rising are considered as sacred to Isis." 3. The Testimony of Horapollo. The testimony of Horapollo is the most remarkable, although no notice has hitherto been taken of it in re- ference to this point (Hieroph, i. 8.): "In order to represent the current year, the Hierophants drew a re- presentation of a quarter of an acre (a land measure of 150 feet). To express it in words, they make use of the word quarter (rsVaprov); for they say, that between one rising of the star Sothis and another there is a quarter of a day to be added ; so that the year of God consists of 365 days. For this reason also the Egyptians add every four years a supplemental day ; for four quarters make a whole day." This is the reading of all the MSS. Salmasius, however, thought the expression, the year of God consists of 365 days," meant the ordinary solar year, and so concluded that the words " and a quarter " had been lost at the end. But the year of God (the Sun-God, consequently the solar year) is the very year of 365 days which was in use at that epoch. Four years, as Horapollo says, make a day, consequently it takes 14G0 years to make up 365 days. Here we have, moreover, the express statement that the priests noted the current year in reference to the cycle. Thus every four years they obtained a □ of 100 ells, or 150 feet. This notation was so important to them that they called the year a quarter, because it added a quarter of a day to the year of God, on which the earth, stars, seasons, and zodiacal signs were again in harmony.^^ 20 Lepsius (Einl. p. 53.) also quotes the passage ii. 89., which expressly states the very thing we are looking for, namely that the Itoq (year-unit, quadrennial cycle) consisted of four kviavroL (single years of 365 days) : to erog kut AiyvirTiovQ reTrapivv iviavTuji'. I Sect. I. D. III.] INTERCALARY YEAR. 55 4. The Passage hi Strabo about the Intercalary Year, There is a passage in Strabo which certainly has been quoted to prove that the ancient Egyptians had an in- tercalary cycle of four years. Benfey and Stern, indeed, have made use of it in proof of the existence of an inter- calary cycle of 120 years with an intercalary month, as amongst the Persians. As the words now stand, Strabo says, in the seventeenth book (p. 816. Cas.)^^ : "In order to complete the year, a certain portion of a year being required, the Egyptians make up a certain period out of whole days and as many whole years as is requisite of those fractions (of a day) to make a complete day." These latter words cer- tainly may mean an intercalary cycle of four years, but cannot mean one of 120 years. If such were the case, Strabo must have taken the Julian year, which was already introduced into Egypt, for the Old-Egyptian year. This would be in itself improbable, as he (p. 806. Cas.) had said just before: ''Plato and Eudoxus, after thirteen years' study of Egyptian history, have found out the secret of the length of their year. They (the Egyptians) added on to the 365 days the super- numerary portions of the day and night." We should have thought that Plato and Eudoxus would hardly have required so much research to discover an inter- calary cycle of four years. Strabo, indeed, as appears from other passages, was am indebted to him for a remark to me in 1850, that my view of this passage in Horapollo explains why the palm branch, the sign of the year, is sometimes found planted on a square. -^^ XiyovTUL Ie /cat aarpovoiioi Ka\ (piXofTocpoi ^aXiora oi erdavra lepe^c' TovTOJV 3' icrrl teal to rag rffxipag firi Kara aeKiivqv ciyetv, aXXct Kara i^Xioy^ ToiQ TpiaKOvQr}}xipoiQ ^w^e/vCt fxrjaiv eTrayovrojv irivre ijfxipag kcit iviavrov etcaarov' eig Be ti)v etCTrXijpujaiy tov 6\ov h'lnvrov, tKLrpi^ovruQ fjiop'iov TivoQ T)]Q iipepUQ, irtpiocov TLva avvTidiaaiv i'i oKojv iinepuiv /cat u\u)v kvLavru>v to(tovt(dv (Casaub. proposes roaavrrjy), oaa fxopia to. enLTpt- ^oira avi'eXdoyra ttouI, iifxipay. E 4 56 ASTRONOMICAL SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part I. aware of the excess of the quarter of a day. But, under the former supposition, what was the meaning of the words : " they made up a certain period out of whole days and as many whole years" ? By a certain period he may either have meant the section of time after which the intercalation took place, or that which served as intercalation. If (under the supposition of a cycle of four years) he meant to indicate the first sec- tion, what was the use of mentioning days^ instead of saying "after every four years they intercalated a whole day " ? But if he meant to give the length of the inter- calary period, it is sheer nonsense. The notion of a day being really intercalated every four years, is contrary to all the statements of the clas- sics. Herodotus notoriously makes no mention of any intercalary period, and only speaks of a year of 365 days with months of equal length. His considering such a system perfectly well adapted for establishing a fixed year (i. 4.), does not alter the fact of the year running on from 365 to 365 days. Diodorus goes more into detail, and shows more acquaintance with the sub- ject. He says (i. 50.): " They do not regulate their months by the moon, but by the sun, inasmuch as they have months of thirty days, at the end of every twelve of which they add on jive days and a quarter^ and so fill up the cycle of the year. They have no intercalary months^ nor do they subtract days, as most of the Greeks do." This clearly excludes intercalary days, as well as months. For even if this latter phrase do not absolutely prove it, yet the number of 5 epagomense is incon- testable ; and assuming an intercalary cycle of four years, there would have been every fifth year 6 instead of 5 epagomense. In this calculation, however, the odd quarter is to be added. The noteworthy scholiast on the Aratea of Cassar Ger- manicus (quoting evidently from the Hermetic books) says that the notion of an intercalary day or month was Sect. I. D. III.] INTERCALARY YEAR. 57 an abomination to the Egyptians (ii. p. 71. ed. Lips.): " The king was conducted by the priest of Isis to the place which is called the most holy (Adytos), and was compelled to swear tliat he would neither add a month or day which they might be obliged to use as a fes- tivals^, but that they should adhere to the 365 days, as was the practice of their fathers." Biot thinks that Strabo meant to imply that the Egyptians were aware that there was a difference of seven days and six hours every thirty years between the civil and solar years, consequently twenty-nine days every 120 years, and that this was the astronomical origin of the great festivals (Panegyrics) of thirty years. Accord- ing to this, then, they must have calculated the progress of the cycle. But, as already remarked, Strabo's words will not admit of such an interpretation. As they stand, they must refer to the intercalary period of four years, which is excluded by all the other authorities, and, in- deed, by Strabo himself in the other passage. Hippar- chus, it is true, had a clearer idea of the real length of the year than as expressed by a quarter of a day ; but still, Strabo, as well as Diodorus, might consider the system of the Greek calendar as more imperfect than that of the Egyptians, without supposing the know- ledge of the latter to extend beyond the quarter of a day. We have referred repeatedly to the passage in Horapollo which proves that they did not intercalate a day every four years, but that they took it into account, and marked it. Julius Ca3sar may, indeed, have learned from them the correct method of the quadrennial inter- calation. It was the sensible and practical application of a right observation of the length of the year, but never acted upon in Egypt for sacerdotal reasons, for the purpose of establishing a fixed solar year. We have only further to remark, therefore, that Strabo Quern in diem festum immutarent. 58 ASTRONOMICAL SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Paet I. did not express himself very happily in describing the well-known period of four years, which the Egyptians did not use as an intercalation, though they noted it, in order to leave a whole year unreckoned at the end of 365 of these four years (i.e. every 1460 years). If this be not admitted, we must assume that there is a mistake in the text. The reading must be: " so many of these parts (quarter days) are required to make up a year " (sv/aurov instead of r'/xepav). His meaning in that case would be, the Egyptians fix a certain period consisting of whole parts (in reference to the quarter days which were to be intercalated, so that there might be no odd quarter over), and (in reference to the intercalary period) of whole years, that is, so many as there were quarter days required to make a whole year, i. e. four times 365 = 1460. Some hyper-ingenious emendator, who knew of no other than the Julian intercalary period, must then have altered the passage for the worse into the present version of the MSS. It, however, is capable of explana- tion, we think, upon the hypothesis above enunciated as the text now stands. 5. Explanation of the Passage in Herodotus about the Sun rising twice in the West. Two points, at all events, are established : that the Egyptians did not intercalate a day, but did take account of it ; and that from the sum total of entire days they formed their divine or solar year, that is, the cycle of 1460 years. There is no question but that Herodotus himself obtained information about the divine or solar year, which he did not understand, but which he never- theless recorded in his usual honest way. The priests told him (ii. 142.^^), that, during the 23 'Ev Toivvv TOVT(f rw ')(p6uo) TETpaKLQ tXeyov It, ydiijjv top i]\iov avu' TEikaiy tt'da TE vvv KciTudverai, ei'devrey dig ETraiaTsiXai, kcu evOei^ vvv civaTeKXeif EyOavra llg uaradvvcti. Sect. I. D. III.] SUN RISING IN THE WEST. 59 period from Menes to Sethos (about 773 B.C.) the sun rose (avoLTs7X(xi) four times in an extraordinary manner; that where it then set, it had twice risen (sVavarsTAa/), and where it then rose (avarsAX?/) it had twice set, without occasioning any alteration in Egypt, either as regarded the products of the earth or river, or in refer- ence to disease or mortality. Various attempts were made to deduce some chronological data from this remark, which Letronne tried to dispose of by refuting the unphilological assumptions advanced in support of them. He saw in it only one more, in addition to the many notices in the classics, respecting extraordinary natural phenomena and changes in the courses of the stars. There can however be no doubt, upon an unprejudiced view of the passage, that the priests did mean to give Herodotus a chronological statement connected with these phenomena. His words certainly are enigmatical. There is a mistake either in the former or latter part of the sentence. For if the sun twice set in the east, it must naturally have also risen at the same time twice in the west ; which makes, not four periods, but two. We must suppose that the special facts were what he was really told, and, as usual, reported faithfully, and the erroneous deduction from them his own. This furnishes us with a very striking solution. During the course of the Sothiac cycle, the beginning of the year gradually passed through all parts of the heavens; and at the middle of it was at the exactly opposite point to that of the normal solar year. When, therefore, the priests spoke of this passage of the movable solar year through the opposite points in the heavens, they may have said, or Herodotus may have understood them to mean, that the sun rose at the opposite side of the heavens, that is, in the west, and set at the other side. If they wished to describe the duration of two such periods, expressing it in this way, they would have 60 ASTRONOMICAL SYNCHRONISMS. [Bock IV. Part I. said that it occurred twice. We shall shortly find that this was perfectly correct."^ Tacitus likewise mentions the number 1460 as that of the Phoenix period, which, according to Herodotus and others, consisted of 500 years. Ptolemy, lastly, has clearly adopted the computation for the epoch of 25 years, for the length of a cycle of 1460 years. If, then, all the notices regarding the Sothiac year tend to the conclusion that the sacred ordinances were based upon it, by the commencement of which, as being the representation of the primeval and model year, 24 This view has latterly been corroborated by Bockh's emendation of the passage, and Lepsius' learned explanation of it. Bockh (Ma- netho, 36. seq.) argues that, according to Herodotus' own mode of expressing himself, the words i)diu)v must be interpreted like i. 15.; in short that i]Qr] simply means " habitations." This would re- quire araarijicu instead of araretXat, which makes it perfectly intel- ligible. It seems to me that Pomponius Mela also understood it in this sense, for he says (i. 9.) : " Mandatum Uteris servant, dum ^gyptii sunt, quater cursus suos vertisse sidera . . ." Lepsius explains it thus (Einl, 193.): *' In the civil calendar also there was a day of the summer and of the winter solstice, of the vernal and of the au- tumnal equinox ; they had a northern and a southern hemisphere, just as in the natural year. Now as these two circles gradually change their relative positions, it will happen that the true sun, at a fixed point in the ecliptic, the summer solstice for instance, will, at each of these periods, rise once on the day of the summer solstice of the civil year, at the top {y-ln^fxa) of the northern hemisphere ; then go down southwards, Kara^airtL rov loror, as the astrologers said, and will again go southwards for precisely the same period to the opposite point of the winter solstice. After this it again takes up- wards a northerly course, avat>ai%'Ei rov jSop^dv, and lastly goes down again to the north, when it returns to the point from which it started; for the solstices were always considered as in the horizon, and the vernal equinox as up in the sky {lueaovpare'i). Now in those years in which the sun set solstitially on the day of the civil summer solstice (Kare^r]\ it rose solstitially on the day of the winter sol- stice (ai'tSr?), and vice versa. This astrologico-symbolical mode of expression was doubtless of very ancient date, and naturally was only understood by the priests, and took the exoteric shape of legends, such as those in Herodotus called Egyptian, and as we find them ia a still more individualised shape also in Greek mythology." Sect. I. E.] THE APIS CYCLE. 61 all computations were made, the simple conclusion will follow, that we require no other assumption, and are not justified in making any. The coincidence of the heliacal risino^ of Sir i us with the summer solstice is the grand fixed point of Egyptian observation. To this point all their observations of the heavens and earth were directed during a period of nearly a thousand years ending 2800 B.C., the signs of which never did and never could recur. This, then, must have been the commence- ment of the Sothiac cycle, which, again, implies an earlier or contemporary assumption of the EpagomenaB. Now the year 2782 happens to be precisely the commencement of the divine Sothiac year preceding 1322. The nota- tion of the months, according to which Thoth (the be- ginning of the civil year) was placed unchangeably 120 days after the solstice, may then have long been in use. The excess of the quarter of a day, owing to the con- nexion between its heliacal rising on the day of the solstice and the year of 365 days, may have been long known. The notion might therefore naturally arise of making the coincidence of the civil year, commencing with Sirius, the beginning of the great cycle which the year must pass through before it could again be in har- mony with the stars and with nature. Xo change was allowed to be made : the arrangement of the festivals remained bound up with the model year, and the secret of the true year was as completely kept as the key to it was carefully preserved. E. THE APIS CYCLE OF 25 YEARS, AND ITS CONNEXION WITH THE SOTHIAC CYCLE. The Apis Cycle was notoriously a period of 25 years. It appears to me capable of proof that it necessarily had 62 ASTRONOMICAL SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part I. relation both to the lunar and solar years. As Ideler has shown there is not only a computation of the mean anomaly of the sun from 25 to 25 years of the Philippine era in the tables of Ptolemy, but that there are, in the sixth book of the Almagest, tables for calcu- lating the mean new and full moons, in which there are progressive periods of that number of years (slxoa-iTrsvTa- errjfii^sg), 309 mean months are only 1^ 8' 33'' less than 25 Egyptian years. To this we may add, that the Apis cycle of 25 years thus produced the same re- sult, in regard to the coincidence of the lunar phases with the same days of the Egyptian year, as the Sothiac cycle did for the recurrence of the heliacal rising of Sirius with the beginning of the civil year. There is a remarkable circumstance, though, as far as I am aware, it has not been hitherto noticed, that these tables of Ptolemy go on from 1, 26, 51, exactly up to the 1476th year. This appears to me to depend upon the following fact : 59 Apis cycles make up the Sothiac year of 1460 years, with 15 years over. If they had left off at the 58th Apis cycle, there would have been 10 years of the Sothiac cycle remaining. But this carries us further. Originally, at least, the two cycles must have begun together. In the 1450th year, there- fore, of the Sothiac year the phases of the moon would have been nearly 3 days (2f ) behind the day at which it commenced ; and the renewal of the cycle oflfered the simplest means of making the Apis cycle recommence in such a way, that people should be fully aware of the beginning of the ne.w course.^*" By this arrangement of the two systems, those of the lunar and solar years, it might be supposed that the in- tention was, by means of these cycles, to combine the two ; and that previously the civil year had been a 25 P. 182. 26 The discovery of the Apis tombs has led to still further expla- nations. 1855. Sect. I. F.] THE PHCENIX PERIOD. 63 lunar year of 354 days. The notation of the 12 moons might exist just as well with it as with the year of 360 days.^'' F. THE PHCENIX PERIOD. The Phoenix Period, as noticed by Ideler and others, must be connected with the Sothiac cycle. Herodotus was told in Egypt distinctly that it was a cycle of 500 years, while Tacitus also obtained certain data which made it range uniformly with that cycle. 500 years are so nearly a third of the Sothiac cycle (instead of 487), that we must suppose it to be the third of the solar year. At the end of 500 (487 years) the signs of the months had got exactly four places wrong. But we think this may be carried out further than has yet been done. The commencement of the Canicular cycle implies that the rising of Sirius corresponded with the 1st of Thoth. But this is a displacement of four months ; for Thoth, according to his sign, begins 120 days after the ancient heliacal rising of Sirius. Hence, it w^as only at the end of 487 civil years, com- puted from the point of the proper notation of the months, that the 1st of Thoth corresponded with the 2^ Lepsius' investigations on this point will be mentioned in the supplement. We will only notice here two very important facts. He has proved, in the first place, that the festival of Apis coincided with that of the Nile (Hapi is written just as well with the Apis ox as with the Nile), and that the lunar cycle carried out by it begins with the new moon nearest to the solstice, and consequently to the inundation (pp. 157 — 160.). In the second place (p. 161.) he has called attention to the circumstance of the Egyptian number of the great cosmic year of 36,525 years clearly depending upon the Apis period, and its connexion with the Canicular cycle, for it is merely the multiple of the two (1461 +25.). 64 ASTRONOMICAL SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part I. rising of Sirius. This can be explained historically and astronomically. It is an astronomical fact that the notation of months is more ancient than the establish- ment of the Sothiac cycle, and in fact by just about 500 years. In the restored Egyptian chronology we have plenty of room for this period of time. Concurrent with it was the lunar cycle by Apis periods, perhaps originally with the view of correcting the year of 354 and 360 days ; twenty of these make 500 years or one Apis cycle. We must, therefore, conclude that the vague lunar year was the original year. The Apis cycle was intended to keep the solar and lunar years, perhaps even the year of 354 and 360 days, in as regular order as possible. G. THE TRIAKONTAETERID^. It is possible that the period which occurs so often on the monuments, the festivals of the Triakontaeterida?, may belong to the same category of which we have spoken above. All we at present know of it, however, is from the Greek translation of the inscription of Ro- setta, that it was one of thirty years. These festivals are mentioned in the best Pharaonic times. The great 28 Lepsius, who has given the first complete explanation of the hieroglyphic group, Heb-Set, the festival of Set (where, however, neither the god Set nor Sothis can be signified, owing to its having a different determinative), has demonstrated the use of it, and conse- quently that of the cycle of 30 years, as far back as the 6th Dynasty (Einl. p. 162.). The circumstance of the king being usually styled " Lord of the festival of Set, like Ptah," led him to conclude that the Triakontaeteridoe were especially dedicated to that divinity, and were of Memphite origin. |^Mr. Birch reads Set heb, celebration of the festival." 1858.] Sect. I. G.] THE PANEGYRIES. 65 sacred popular festivals, the Panegyries, which are men- tioned on the Kosetta stone, and exhibited in several hieroglyphical representations, were holden in them. Biot has remarked that the object may have been to compute the cyclical years, inasmuch as after four Pane- gyries (120 years) the difference between the solar and civil year was just twenty-nine days. This is very pos- sible.^^ All these facts lead to the conclusion, therefore, that the lunar year was the basis of Egyptian astronomy.^^ Lepsius is equally unable with Ideler to give any further ac- count of its origin. He remarks (p. 163. seq.) that the equational period of 120 years might just as well have been expressed by divisions of 60 years or even less. Thirty may perhaps have been preferred in order that every king might have a fair probability of being styled " Lord of the Panegyries." Besides, it is worthy of remark, that the festival of 30 years was celebrated at Patavium, as being of Trojan origin and introduced by Antenor, whom the legends connected with Egypt (p. 165.). 3° Lepsius gives the most striking proof of this in Egyptian mytho- logy, in his'brilliant development of the old astronomico-astrological year of the Egyptians. We thus obtain an explanation of the singu- lar myth in Plutarch (De Is. et Os. c. 12.), who mentions that Hermes played at dice with Selene, and won from her five days. " Chronos, i. e. Seb, the starry time, and Rhea, i. e. Netpe (Net-hur), the starry space, were privately married and begat five children, the Planets. The Sun discovered it, and was enraged because there was no more room for new stars either in the heavens or in the year. She uttered, therefore, the curse against Netpe, that her children sliould neither be born in a month nor in the year. Netpe in her dilemma applied to the crafty Hermes, to Thoth, the god of wisdom and pri- meval master of the astrologers. He devised the following stra- tagem, after having himself embraced her. Pie, the INIoon-God, and choragus of the months and days, played in his turn with Selene, and won back from her the 72nd part of each day of the year of 360 days — as the right reading is, instead of the 70th. Out of these parts he formed five whole days, which were added on after the 12 months, and at the end of the old year, as supernumeraries. Why did he win them back from the moon ? The sun and moon must originally have been in harmony. Now, however, not only has the solar year five more days than the old normal year, but the lunar year has also five days less, 355 instead of 360. What the one gained, VOL. nr. F 66 ASTRONOMICAL SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part I. SUPPLEMENT. LEPSIUS' DISCOVERY OF THE SIGNIFICATION OF THE PHCENIX PERIOD, THAT IT IS AN ACCOMMODATION OF THE PERIOD OF 1505 YEARS TO THE PERIOD OF 1460 YEARS OR SOTHIAC CYCLE, OR A RECTI- FICATION OF THE JULIAN PERIOD. In the notes to the treatise of 1838, which forms the first section then completed of this Part, I have pointed out the vast gain which had accrued to this portion of Egyptian research from the work of Lepsius. But I have reserved for a special supplement what I consider the most important of his discoveries connected with this branch of the subject, inasmuch as it is the key- stone to the restoration of the fabric of Egyptian as- tronomy of whicli we are at present treating. I allude to his demonstration (p. 196. seq.) that the ancient Egyptians were acquainted with the precession of the equinoxes, and calculated it in a period of 1500 years. The first thing to which he calls attention (p. 166.) is the fact of Petavius having already pointed out that during the time of the Egyptian empire the heliacal rising of Sirius in Egypt advanced in exact uniformity with the Julian year. In about 1500 years, conse- quently, it deviated as much from the true solstitial point as the J ulian year did from the true year, namely, about eleven days.^^ Ideler had already remarked that then, the other must have lost. In this manner, therefore, the five homeless planets, which were born afterwards, and the gods who resided in them, were enabled to come into the world ; on the first of the Epagomence Osiris, on the 2nd Arueris, on the 3rd Typhon, on the 4tli Isis, on the 5th Nephthys. This seems to me to be the whole purport of this allegorical myth, which is perhaps more appo- site and clear tlian any other, while at the same time it throws great light on Egyptian mythology generally." — Lepsius, Einl. 91, 92. 31 Einh p. 165. seq. Sect. I. Supp.] PHCENIX PERIOD EXPLAINED. 67 the Egyptians would not fail to notice this difference so soon as they had observed the heliacal rising of Sirius and the solstice, during even 120 years. There appeared, however, to be no proof that they made any use of this knowledge. The reader must consult his work (pp. 197 ■ — 200.) in order to see with what sagacity he proves that the peculiarity in the Egyptian observations of the precession of the solstices consisted in their not placing it in the ecliptic but in the line of the equator, which was also the doctrine of Eudoxus, whose connexion with Egypt is universally admitted. It appears that about 400 B. c. he obtained from Egypt, together with two other spheres, a third which had reference to that precession, the only doubtful point being whether he understood it in the same sense as the Egyptians. Cer- tain it is, that about 160 B. c. Hipparchus improved upon the Egyptian idea by placing the precession in the equator instead of the ecliptic. His assumption, however, that this precession extended over a degree in a hundred years, must have come from them, for it cor- responds exactly with their calculation of the length of the Cosmic year, Avhich they set at about 36,000 years instead of the correct one of about 26,000. The Egyp- tian Cosmic year, as stated in the First Book, consisted of 36,525 years. This is explainable by the connexion between the above calculation of the precession and the Sirius cycle; for, as already remarked, 36,525 is merely 1,461 multiplied by 25. It may have arisen, however, as Lepsius thinks (p. 210.), from their making the pre- cession a trifle less than the 360th part of the sphere. The mythico-practical exhibition of this idea was the combination of the Sothiac cycle of 1461 years with one of 1500, or three Phoenix periods of 500 years. After Lepsius has demonstrated (p. 187.) the connexion as well as difference between the Sothiac and Phcenix cycles, which were connected with the 1st of Thoth, F 2 68 ASTRONOMICAL SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part I. both of them having commenced with the solstice, and therefore with the inundation, while the Phoenix had nothing to do with the rising of Sirius, merely connect- ing the inundation with the sun, he shows that the 500 years form an exact solar Tetrameny, or third part of the real period within which the year of 365 days coin- cides with the true solar year (1506 of the latter years). A period of 1500 years therefore appears to be a com- plete Apis cycle. If we assume that the Egyptians were aware that the true solar year was not a quarter of a day longer than 365 days, but about eleven minutes less, the Phoenix period would give them a means of rectification similar to that which the Gregorian calendar gives for the Julian year, only a more complete one. This latter, we know, omits at the end of each century one intercalary day, that is, four days too many in fif- teen centuries, whereas the Egyptians come much nearer to the truth with their cycle of 1500 years.^'^ It is true that the existence of the Phoenix cvcle and its connexion with the Sothiac furnish no proof that they accurately understood the error in the Julian year. But Lepsius has shown that they possessed all the elements necessary for ascertaining it, and that, too, from the earliest times. They divided the day (of 24 hours) into 60 parts, each of which again was subdivided into 60 parts ; that is, hours of 24 minutes, and minutes of 24 seconds. They took, moreover, from the earliest times, observations of the stars, sun, and moon. A simple combination of these with each other and with the wonderfully regular rising of the Kile, would suffice to show the inadequacy of the Julian year, and at the same time supply a continual rectification of it. Any one desirous of forming an independent judgment on this matter for himself must consult the fuller account in Lepsius. The principal points only will be here brought forward, which belong directly to our historical 32 p. 187. seq^ conf. p. 213. seq. Sect. I. Surp.] PHCENIX PERIOD EXPLAINED. 69 researches, and the explanation of which does not re- quire any further philological details. Sothis is recorded in the 19th Dynasty as being the beginning of the year. In the Ramesseum it is called "the star of the beginning of the year." (Einl. p. 176.) But the rising of Sirius is marked in the calendar as early as the 18th century. (Tuthm5sis III., Calendar of festivals.) The Epagomenee are found on an extant monument of the 12th Dynasty, which will shortly ]iave to be examined, with its well-known hierogiyphical notations. This is conclusive against Biot's idea that they were first introduced in 1780, which was a very forced one on other grounds. (Einl. p. 176.) It also refutes another notion of his, based upon a scholion on the Timseus of a doubtful character, that they Avere in- troduced by Aseth, one of the Shepherd Kings. The scholiast says he added 12 hours to the months, in order to make them up to 30 days ; and 6 days to the year, so as to make it up to 365 days. Lepsius properly remarks (p. 179. notes), that if the schohon states any fact at all, it can only be this, that the king in question converted the lunar year of 354 days, which was in use among his Semitic tribes, into one of 360, by means of months of 30 days, and then added the 5 epagomenas. This mixture of the Semitic and Egyptian element seems to me, however, in the highest degree improbable. Lepsius has collected from the monuments about forty Lists on which the prescribed times for the Sacrifices of the Dead are recorded. They all belong to the Pha- raonic ages, and have clearly no reference to the civil or movable year, but to the fixed year, which was kept in harmony with the course of the sun by the epoch of 4 years and other checks. As early as the 4th Dynasty there are records of two different beginnings of the year having been universally celebrated, but ^■^ P. 213. r n 70 ASTRONOMICAL SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part I. they must refer to the vague and fixed year (p. 180.). The only one of these inseriptions we shall notice here is a very remarkable List of Sacrifices to the Dead, the text and translation of which are given by Lepsius, belonging to the 12th Dynasty and Old Empire^*, and one of the most complete. It is as follows : Sacrifices to the Dead at all the Festivals of the Lower World : At the Festival of the New Year (1st of Thoth) ; At the Beginning of the Solar Year (20th of July, rising of Sirius) ; At the Festival of the Great Year (close of the epoch of 4 years, consequently on the intercalary day ?, at all events every four years, according to the statement in Horapollo explained above) ; At the Festival of the Little Year (1st of Thoth every new year ? first new moon after the solstice) ; At the Festival of the Close of the Year (last day of of the year of 365 days) ; At the Festival of the Great Panegyry (the 30-year festival) ; At the Festival of the Great Heat (the month Mechir, see above among the names of the months) ; At the Festival of the Lesser Heat (the month Pha- menoth, see above) ; At the Festival of the 5 Epagomenae of the year ; At the Sheteta Festival. [Mr. Birch reads shat . . sha, and explains it as ' festival of cutting food or harvest.'] At the twelve Monthly and twelve Bi-monthly Festivals ; At all the Commencement Festivals of the Plain and Mountain (?). [Mr. Birch reads, ' On all the fes- 3^ Pp. 154. to 160. Sect. I. Surp.] PHCENIX PERIOD EXPLAINED. 71 tivals from the beofinnino^ on Earth till the endino; in Hades :' i. e. ' from when the deceased lived on Earth, till when he was put into the Hill or Tomb.']" Though there may be some obscure points in this very remarkable inscription, which is at all events 4000 years old, science is indebted to the researches of Lepsius for an interpretation of the most important, about which there can be no doubt. We have not only the epagomenae, but, together with the vague year, the fixed year, and the notation of the year every four years. We have also the coincidence of the first new moon at the solstice, as being the commencement of the lunar year, with the commencement of the fixed solar year and the rising^ of the Nile. It is clear, therefore, that they possessed all the re- quirements for making observations of the precession of the equinoxes. But Lepsius deals with the contradiction which Biot himself had not explained, namely, that (as above observ^ed) the epochs of the Sothiac cycle do not agree with the equation of nearly 500 years : for the former epochs occur in 1322, 2782, 4242 ; the latter in 1780, 3285.^^ We must, therefore, assume that, at some time or other, there was an alteration made as to the beginning of the year. The epagomenas must have been added on to the last month. If, then, the 1st of Pachon was once the beginning of the year, they must have been added on to the month Pharmuthi, the last of the Harvest Season ; and on some suitable occasion, but in the primitive times, have come after the end of Mesori, or the Water Season. Now the civil and natural calen- ^'^ Biot, whom I have followed above, assumes the dates 1780 — 3285. Lepsius (p. 212.) rem irks that this causes an uncertainty of 4 years, as the solstice always fell 4 years in succession on the same civil day. He prefers the dates of 1777 — 3282, because the year 3282 is also a Sothiac epoch for the 1st of Pachon. In the tables I adopt the latter assumption. F 4 72 ASTRONOMICAL SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part I. dars coincided but once^ namely, at the former epoch (from 3285 to 3282), when Sirius rose heliacally on the day of the solstice, and^ indeed^ on the \st of Pachon, But after the lapse of 480 years, consequently in the year 2802, it was discovered that the solstice was already 4 days in advance of the rising of Sirius on the 1st of Thoth. It was not till the year 2787, ^vhen Sirius rose on the 5th of Thoth, that the solstice fell on the 1st. We can easily conceive, therefore, that an alteration would then be made. They displaced the epagomenae, and celebrated the rising of Sirius 4 or 5 days earlier than usual, so that it fell exactly on the day of the solstice. By this means the Canicular period was al- tered 500 ^rears, and the new epoch commenced in 1322 instead of 1822. On this occasion, the Phcenix period of 1500 years was also divided into three cycles of 500 years, corresponding to the division of the year into three Tetramenies. Lepsius assumes (p. 215. seq.) that this change in the calendar coincides ^vlth the beginning of the 6th Dynasty of Manetho (Phiops-Apappus), and with the change of the seat of government, which w^as connected with it, to Thebes ; whereas, according to him, the other first starting-point, the year 3782, fell in the 4th Dynasty. Here we differ from him ; but we shall reserve the discussion of these historical synchronisms for its proper place in the Second Section of this Part, to which we now proceed. Sect. II. A.J 73 SECTION 11. APPLICATION OF THE ASTRONOMICAL SYNCHRONISMS TO EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY AND HISTORY. A. THE RENEWAL OF THE SOTHIAC CYCLE UNDER MENEPHTHAH, THE SON OF THE GREAT RAMESSES, IN THE YEAR 1322. We have already ascertained, from the unquestionable statement of Censorinus, that the Sothiac year of 1460 years was the 1461st, the great divine intercalary year, the sum total of the 1460 lost quarter days, the com- putation of which began in the year 1322. Ideler and Biot have shown that this starting-point may also be computed by knowing the day on which the 1st of Thoth fell in the year of the conquest of Alexandria by Au- gustus. The point, therefore, is as completely proved astrono- mically as it is by the testimony of history. We will here cite another very trustworthy authority, because his testimony carries us a step further, Theon, the Alexandrian mathematician and interpreter of the Almagest of Ptolemy, at the close of the 4th century. Larcher has the great merit of having brought to light, in his treatise on Herodotus (ii. 553. 2nd ed.), from a MS. at Paris (Cod. Reg. 2390. fol. 154.333.),the very remark- able passage in Theon's unpublished commentary on the Almagest.^*^ 2^ It runs thus : " If we compute the years from Menophres to the end of the Augustan era, we get a sura total of 1605 years. If we add to these the 100 years which had elapsed since the beginning of the Diocletian era, we get 1 705 years." 74 HISTORICAL SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part I. In order to understand it, we must first be aware that the era of Augustus in Egypt ended a.d. 283 ; and the Diocletian era begun on the 29th of August, 284. Hence it is easy to determine the date before our era of the commencement of the period which was named after Menophres. This period comprised, down to the close of the Augustan era - - 1605 3^ears. Of which there elapsed after the Chris- tian era - 283 Leaving B.C. - 1322 The year 1322 B.C., consequently, was the date of the origin of that computation of time. It is easy to see that this is an era ; but where is the King Menophres to be found ? Nowhere. The time is gone by when it was admissible to get out of the difficulty by saying that Egyptian kings had several names. There never was, moreover, at any time, a king named Menophres. But I have already, in the Third Book, claimed a dis- covery, which I made in 1833, that this so-called Meno- phres (MENOPHC) is only a slight misspelling of Menophthah (MENO4>0Ei2S). There was, consequently, a new Sothiac cycle in the time of Menophthah L, the son of the renowned Eamesses. As far as the notation of months was concerned, the epagomense might certainly very well have then been introduced, the existence of which is implied in the Sothiac cycle. Their introduction into Egypt must al- most necessarily coincide with the discovery of the cycle of 1460 years, or must have taken place immediately after. For as a new course of celestial and terrestrial phenomena began with the year 1322, nothing could be easier than to add on the five days to the 12th month of the year 1323 (Mesore), or to make this addition in the new year. But, according to the astronomical facts Sect. 11. A.] RENEWAL OF SOTHIAC CYCLE. 75 established in the First Section, the Sothiac year could not have been discovered and adopted in 1322. This could only have been done in early times, the astrono- mical limits of which have been assigned above. Sirius then no longer rose at the time of the solstice, and so the natural starting-point of Egyptian observations and notations of years was lost. The beginning of the previous Sothiac cycle would fall in the year 2782 B.C. This date is most remarkable. About the year 2800, Sirius still rose so nearly contem- poraneously with the solstice and inundation (within two or three days), that in the observation of the helia- cal rising of the star in Egypt, about which there was an uncertainty of from four to five days, as Ptolemy ex- pressly states, these phenomena might be considered just as coincident as they were 500 years earlier. If this be true, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Egyptians must have noted this starting-point. Having once done this, a knowledge of it could not well be lost. Thus, in the time of Diocletian the era was well known by the name of Menophthes, though few people then could have know^n anything about the king. Manetho, accordingly, must have found in the Chronicles the dynasty and king under whom the first Sirius cycle commenced. Even the priests whom Herodotus consulted were acquainted with the two cycles. The question, however, is, whether we have evidence and indications of its being actually used, the Canicular cycle, at least, which commenced 1322 B.C., for fixing the dates of historical events. We will endeavour to find an answer to it, first in the Greek writers, and then in Manetho himself. 76 HISTORICAL SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part I. B. THE APPEARANCES OF THE PHCENIX FROM THE REIGN OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS UP TO RHAMPSINITUS. Since the researches of Biot, Lepsius has examined more closely what information is to be obtained from the clas- sics, and especially from a passage in Tacitus (Ann. vi. 28.), about the appearances of the Phoenix.^'' As the appearance of the bird Phoenix was a mere fable — in fact a symbol of the astronomical epoch of 500 years which was misunderstood, we can well conceive that announcements of the Phoenix in Egypt would be treated like those about the Unicorn in Chinese history. It would, indeed, have been strange, had not so mani- fest an indication of the continual protecting care of the Gods been intended to mark a great and happy epoch. It would have been incredible that periods of misery, injustice, and wickedness should have been hal- lowed by the miraculous phenomena of the seasons. This explains the reason of the Phoenix being frequently announced before its time, in order to stamp and im- mortalise some great historical phenomenon. Equally intelligible is it that the period should be passed over in silence, when the circumstances of the time were not very brilliant. In the reign of Sesostris it must natu- rally have appeared, although it was not the right time for its appearance. We may either suppose this Sesostris to mean Sethos (whom Tacitus knew by the name of Ha- rnesses, or confounded with him), or the Sesortosis of the 12th Dynasty. When we consider that the Great Ramesses came so close to the beginning of the Sothiac cycle, that, in his time, they were certain to do every- ^7 Einl p. 188. seq. Sect. IL B.] APPEARANCES OF THE PHCENIX. 77 thing to connect him with that great leading epoch, we shall .be obliged to decide in his favour. It was, how- ever, unavoidable that the two epochs of 1461 and 1500 years should frequently be confounded in popular nar- ratives. The next appearance is said to have taken place in the reign of Amasis. This seems to be the most natural way of explaining it. As a half Phoenix period fell in the third year of the detested Cambyses (o25), by throwing it back a very little, they made it come at the end of the reign of Amasis, and thus worked upon the national feeling of the Egyptians. For, as Hero- dotus remarks, in the reign of Amasis they were most prosperous ; and hence also everything connected with him was of a joyous and agreeable character. The third appearance mentioned is under Ptolemy, " the third of the Macedonians." If, as we may fairly conclude, this is a traditional Alexandrian account, it must mean Ptolemy Philadelphus, which is also the opinion of Lepsius. Tacitus himself, as we shall see, could not have so understood it, unless he made a blun- der in the date in copying the passage. Not only does a Phoenix epoch fall in the reign of this king, but the great solstitial year 275 B.C. also, in which the 1st of Pachon coincided with the solstice. Were it the object to make the next half Phoenix period memorable (a forced attempt, however), they clearly might have made a Phoenix appear in the year 25 B.C. But if the priests on the Nile sent a statement to Rome in the reisrn of Tiberius that the Phoenix had appeared in Egypt in the consulship of Paulus Fabius and Lucius Yitellius, they must have calculated that the gentlemen on the Tiber, who were never very deeply skilled in the unprofitable science of astronomy, would not test it by computation. Tacitus (who, however, never questioned in the slightest degree the fact of the appearance of the bird, but simply remarked: " Some 78 HISTORICAL SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part I. say it was not the right one") seems really to have been the first Roman who ever made such a calculation, and consequently a wrong one. He says: There were not so many as 250 years between the reigns of that Ptolemy and Tiberius," instead of saying, there were 59 too many. It must not be supposed that the introduction of the fixed year by Augustus caused any confusion in the calcula- tions of the priests. But in that restless state of excite- ment in which they were, before all hope of their liberty being restored had been abandoned, men speculated upon the death of his misanthropic stepson, and the Phoenix was either intended to signify that hope, or it might, on the other hand, furnish matter of flattery for the camarilla of the Tiber. The narrative of the elder Pliny (N. H. x. 2.) proves how much reliance might be placed on the superstition of the Romans after the death of Cicero and Cassar. He records, upon the authority of a contemporary of the event w^hom he mentions by name, that the bird appeared in the consulship of Quin- tus Plautius and Sextus Papirius (a.d. 36), a year be- fore the death of the suspicious tyrant, which at last took place. But the sequel is most entertaining. The Phoenix, in a bodily shape, was set up in the Comitium in the year of the city 800, and a public record made of it, though it was well known not to have been a real Phoenix. There was, however, a real one ; to doubt it would have been an act of impiety on the part of any distinguished Roman under an emperor who had become devout : all that the sceptics asserted was that it was not the right Phoenix. It is clear that it had appeared a little before its time, in order that its stuffed carcass, which is mentioned in spite of the burning of Rome, might give eclat to the celebration of the 800th year of the city ; and what could be more natural ! The poet- laureate of the old Tiberius, who died, nevertheless, soon after, doubtless connected its appearance with the hap- piness of the world under that emperor; and a courtier or Sect. II. B.] APPEAHANCES OF THE PHCENIX. 79 right-minded Quirite, in the reign of Claudius, could not fail to introduce it into the Carmen Seculare. The Egyptian priests, who were doubtless handsomely paid, said to themselves : " Mundus vult decipi, decipiatur ! " — an axiom, the corresponding text for which is picto- rially as unmistakable in the satirical Procession in Lepsius' work, as it is in the pulpits of the fourteenth century, and the popular epos of Reineke Fuchs. The next epoch before Amasis, 775 B.C., occurred in the disastrous period of the 23rd Dynasty, and we can well understand that nothing was said about it to Hero- dotus. The distress which prevailed at the beginning of the next half-period, the year 1025, when they were suffering from the Assyrian invasion, or the conse- quences of it, precluded them from giving it any promi- nent notice. But I think there can be no doubt that Herodotus speaks of the year 1275, the then next preceding com- plete period, in which the solstice coincided with the beginning of the second Tetrameny (the 1st of Tobi.) Rhampsinitus, the Miser, as the priests told him, went into the lower world and there played at dice with De- meter. He won something from the goddess, but also lost something to her. In token of her favour she pre- sented him with a scarf worked in gold. Ever after his visit to and return from Hades, the Egyptians kept a festival in which a priest clad in a mantle embroidered on the same day, had his eyes bound, and being left alone in a field, two wolves came to fetch him and convey him two miles and a half to the temple of Demeter, and then back again to the place where they found him. The explanation of this festival we leave to the learned mythologists, who (as we learn from Bahrin treating of that passage, and from Schwenck) can tell us a great deal about the emblems of life and death, and about every kind of symbolical combination which it is possible to work up from mantles and scarfs, web and woof. 80 HISTOKICAL SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part I. light and darkness. Unfortunately, they could see every thmg except the important point, namely, what the Egyptians really understood by it. By the two wolves they could understand nothing but jackals, forms of Anubis, and as such they signified the divi- sions of the upper and lower hemispheres. This, clearly enough, had reference to the connexion between the civil and natural years. Its mythical signification we leave to those who can read and interpret the Book of the Dead (for ourselves we are not sufficiently acquainted even with the connected grammatical sense), or to those who have the courage, without a knowledge of the state of facts, to penetrate and speculate upon the hidden mys- teries of the world of thought and the history of long past ages. The journey of Ehampsinitus into Hades clearly alludes to the myth of Hermes-Thoth, so beauti- fully explained by Lepsius, who also played at dice with Demeter-Isis as Selene, and w^on from her the five davs. The game of Rhampsinitus does not seem to have been quite so brilliant ; neither could it be expected, when we consider the time in which he lived. The highest known regnal year of Raraesses III. is the sixteenth, according to our calculation, the year 1275. He was succeeded by his brother as Ramses IV., and perhaps in that very year. We do not know how long he reigned. We do know, however, that his younger brother and suc- cessor had all his scutcheons erased. We may, there- fore, consider Ramses Y. in the Pharaonic history, as the immediate successor of Ramesses III., who conse- quently reckoned his regnal years from the year 1275 or 1274. This Ramses V. we have shown in the proper place to be the Rhampsinitus of Herodotus.^^ 38 Lepsius (Einl. p. 190.) considers him Ramses III. Sect. II. C. I.] CLEMENS OF ALEXANDRIA. 81 c. TRACES OF THE CHRONOLOGICAL USE OF THE CANICULAR CYCLE IN THE GREEK TRADITIONS ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THE EGYPTIANS. I. The Date of the Exodus as laid down by Clemens of Alexandria according to the Sothlac Cycle of 1322. Clemens of Alexandria, as remarked in the First Book^^, fixes the date of the Exodus, among other circum- stances, by this statement, that it occurred 345 years before the Sothiac cycle. Now, as this commenced in the year 1322 B.C., this means that some commen- tators made the date of the Exodus 1667 B.C. But, upon closer examination, this does not turn out to be a notice of its real date. Like all similar notices, it is tantamount to the one which states that the above year was the first regnal year of Amos, or the beginning of the 18th Dynasty. This, according to our tables, is forty-two years too high ; for we make this dynasty and the reign of Amos to begin in the year 1625 — a much more suitable date than that of Champollion and his school, who consider the collec- tive numbers of the Lists of the 18th and 19th Dynas- ties to be consecutive — which would bring us to the year 1822 B.C., and still not make Menephthah coincide with the epoch of 1322.^*^ But such a mode of computation proves that, even in the Alexandrian school, the beginning of the Sothiac period of 1322, i.e. the era of Menophthes, was known and used as a fixed point for establishing chronological dates. S9 Section III. p. 242. Conf. Lepsius, who makes 1667 the 4th year of Amos. Einl, pp. 168—171. VOL. III. G 82 HISTORICAL SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV, Part I. It may, however, be asked whether this system of calculating backwards does not also prove that the Egyptians were not acquainted with any earlier cycle, or at least did not reckon by any other. Clearly not so. It was more convenient to fix the interval from the proximate starting-point of the new cycle, and it placed a learned and conscientious father of the church, like Clemens of Alexandria, in less danger of being charged with heresy, if he did not calculate Egyptian chronology farther back than was absolutely necessary. We are, moreover, now in a position to state upon astronomical grounds, the certainty of which is unim- peachable, that it is utterly impossible that the Sothiac period should have been first instituted in the year 1322. The indispensable requirements date back beyond the beginning of the next cycle of 2782. On the other hand, the mere existence of an earlier cycle by no means implies that it was necessarily used for chronological purposes. But are there no traces in existence of such a use being made of it ? II. Traces of the Use of the Two Sothiac Cycles for fixing CHRONOLOGICALLY THE LENGTH OF THE EmPIRE OF MeNES IN Herodotus. The transmission, by Herodotus, of the singular tradition which has been so much canvassed, and which was communicated to him by the priests, in reference to the length of the period from Menes to Sethos, has been most satisfactorily explained as a perfectly intelli- gible, but figurative, astronomical date. From our present point of view, however, there will be no difiiculty in proving that this date is approxima- tively a very correct one in an historical sense. The preliminary question is this — Did the priests make the beginning of the empire of Menes correspond with the beginning of the first Sothiac cycle, or did they not intend to define the duration of the empire at all ? Sect. II. C. II.] HERODOTUS. 83 In the former case, the calculation would stand thus: Two Sothiac cycles make 2922 civil years (2 x 1461), equivalent nearly to - - 2920 tropical years, According to our tables, the 31- years' reign of Sethos occurred between 773 and 744. The beginning of it, of course, is meant, and therefore - - 773 years. Consequently, the commencement of the Sothiac cycle took place B.C. » - - - 3693 From the beginning of Sethos' reign to the fall of the empire, 01. 110, 1 B.C. - - - 340 Which gives as the duration of the empire of Menes - - 4033 years. We consider this number as a few centuries too high. But what is that compared with the vast discrepancies hitherto existing, owing to the perversions and blunders of Jews and Christians ? If the priests simply meant to say that two complete Sothiac cycles had run out between Menes and Sethos, exclusive of the odd years before and after, the only con- clusion is that, at all events, neither of these periods made a complete Sothiac cycle. The duration of the empire from Menes to Sethos did not comprise 4 x 1461 = 5844 years. Upon either assumption, however, the inquiry is forced upon us, why did the priests mention Zet instead of Amasis as the last king before the Persian invasion ? Any one who has followed our inquiry will at once have a ready answer to such a question. 775 was one of the great solstitial years ; not indeed in the Sothiac cycle, but in the Phoenix period. The last tetrameny G 2 84 HISTORICAL SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part I. of the cycle of 1500 years, Avhich ended in the year 276, commenced with it. The beginning of the reign of Zet was the last fixed point, therefore, which the priests could notify to the inquiring Ionian. The Phoenix cycle which began in his reign was still running on when Herodotus was in Egypt, about 460 B.C. Could this be accidental ? Certainly not. It does not however follow that we must therefore push up our chronological tables two years or even more. But if there be an error in this period, it cannot be an error of more than a few years. Manetho, however, may perhaps furnish us with an authority hitherto unnoticed in support of the higher term, the beginning of the pre- vious Sothiac cycle. D. THE TESTIMONY OF MANETHO'S HISTORICAL WORK IN FAVOUR OF THE APPLICATION OF THE SOTHIAC CYCLE TO HISTORY, AND OF THE CORRECTNESS OF OUR CHRONOLOGY. I. Manetho divided his Historical Work according to the Two Sothiac Cycles, not mythically, however, but strictly chronologically. It hardly requires to be specially mentioned, that a lo- gical comparative criticism of the Monuments, Lists, and Historians has furnished us with evidence in favour of Manetho which has set at rest for ever all doubts as to the historical nature of the traditions which he has trans- mitted. Though not satisfied with his mode of pro- cedure in the Old Empire, we at the same time came to two conclusions : first, that the original tradition from Menes downwards is not overlaid with cyclical, that is, fictitious, dates ; and, secondly, that Manetho did not tamper with the original historical dates of reigns, to Sect. 11. D. I.J MANETHO. 85 favour some cyclical purpose or other. So far, indeed, we must maintain that Bockh^\ the venerated master of philological research, has altogether failed in proving that Manetho's Lists from Menes to Nectanebo bear the impress of cyclical numbers. Yet we think we are not wrong in supposing that had this sagacious critic, when prosecuting his inquiry, been aware of the real facts contained in the monuments, he would have abandoned such an idea. But he has, on the other hand, the merit of having supplied us, not only with a great number of lucid remarks and useful investigations, but of having also caused more attention to be paid to the fact of the unquestionable connexion between Manetho's work and the Sothiac cycle than had hitherto been given to it. Lepsius has still further corroborated this fact by his own thorough criticism of the dynasties of the Gods. He, as well as myself, had pursued the same method of critical research as Bockh ; but we had the advantage of possessing a knowledge of facts in Egyptian monumental archaeology with which he was unacquainted. We are now arrived at that stage of our inquiry whence we can survey the last results of our criticism, which has been carried out through all the three epochs of the Egyptian empire by the aid of the monuments, and are thus enabled to offer our readers a final judg- ment upon them. We will start at once with a question which, oddly enough, none of our predecessors seems to have raised : What was the principle upon which Manetho divided his work into three books ? Assuredly not for the sake of external symmetry : in that case it would have been divided into three decades. Neither can it have been Manetho and the Dog-Star Period. Berlin, 1845. Comp. also the laborious and sagacious researches of Plath : Quaestionum ^gypt. Specimen. Gottingen, 1829. a 3 86 HISTORICAL SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part I. upon historical or patriotic grounds. The first book contains the first eleven dynasties. It might seem as though the object here was to give at least a brilliant opening to the second book, which embraces the dis- astrous Hyksos period. This was for a long time my own impression. But then how are we to explain the third book opening with the 20th Dynasty, which, with the exception of the earlier years, was iDglorious throughout, and some time even tributary to the As- syrians ? Looking at the question from the present point of view of Egyptian research, the answer is not doubtful. We now know that the first Sothiac cycle ended in the middle of the 19th Dynasty, which was the close of his second volume. Can this be accidental ? The opening of the history of the House of Ramesses was brilliant ; the latter reigns clouded over, and some of them dis- graceful. They would have been very far from forming a splendid conclusion. Looking at his earlier dates, the idea will cross us, whether Manetho had not the same reason for making his first volume close with the 11th Dynasty. In other words, whether the end of the period preceding the first historical Sothiac cycle did not fall in the 11th Dynasty, and whether he did not break off there for the same reasons as induced him to conclude the second with the 19th. A complete critical examination of his dates has now been made ; and, if the suggestion be correct, the proof can hardly be wanting, for his 11th Dynasty only lasted forty-three years. Should the calculation, therefore, tally, there would be a fair probability that the answer to the question is found. Manetho, who computes the ante-historic period by Sothiac cycles, would then, on the one hand, have arranged the historical period dynastically, and in strict accordance with the facts and dates before him ; while, on the other, he would have divided it in such a manner Sect. IL D. II.] MANETHO. 87 as to make each of the first two volumes to close with that dynasty in which a Sothiac cycle ended. In other words, he took, as the basis of his arrangement, the synchronism of certain reigns with the starting-points of the two periods of 1460 years, which fell within the chronological period. II. Manetho placed the Eleventh Dynasty in the Epochal Year 2782 b.c. It seems then that Manetho's reason for concluding his first volume with the 11th Dynasty was the same as for concluding the second with the 19th, namely, because a Sothiac period terminated during those two dynasties. We have only now to show that this really was his calculation. In the course of our criticism of his dates, after eli- minating the blunders and palpable errors of copyists, we have carefully noted the real remaining discrepan- cies, as being, all of them, at least worthy, if not equally worthy, of notice. It was only after the chronological inquiry was con- cluded that we reached the point where the true date (if such exists beneath these data) must so far at least be capable of verification as to exhibit Manetho's genuine computation beyond all doubt. The calculation at pre- sent stands thus : A. The Beginning of the New Empire, or the first year of Amos, according to the only dates which we can hold to be admissible, and as to which, down to 1322, the utmost error that can exist is only six years, coincides with . . . 1625 b.c. B. For the Length of the Hyksos Period, i.e. the 15th and 16th Shepherd Dynasties, and the 17th Theban, as the only certain measure of time, we G 4 88 HISTORICAL SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part I. come to the conclusion that there are only two possible dates; one, that of Africanus, 518; the other, that of Josephus, 511 years ; which they adopted as Manetho's chronology of the 16th Dynasty. The numbers then stand thus : XY. Dyn. acc. Jos. 260 ; acc. Afric. 284 ; corr. 260—260 XYI. „ 511; „ 518, „ 511—518 XYIL 151—151 Sum total, possible numbers 922 — 929 We remarked, in the course of the inquiry, that the notion of Josephus about the 511 years representing the whole period of the Hyksos race (Dyn. XY. and XYI.) is altogether unwarranted. Manetho's date, on which he relies, can only represent the length of the 16th Dynasty, to which Africanus assigns 518 years. But, as the sum total of thirty-two reigns of that dy- nasty, 511 turned out, from the evidences of a larger number of manuscripts, to be better authenticated than the 518 of Africanus. Our calculation, therefore, stands, in the first place, thus : 1625 — 1625 929 — 922 2554 — 2547 According to Manetho, therefore, the first year of the Hyksos period may be either the 2554th, or the 2547th year B.C. C. The Duration of the Thirteenth (Theban) Dy- nasty, in the Old Empire, down to its fall. All we know from Manetho is that the sixty kings of this family (whose names are not given) reigned 453 years — a number, which we naturally could not Sect. II. D. IL] MANETHO. 89 consider as anything but the sum total of all the reigns in it. From the chronological list of Era- tosthenes, however, we learn that his last three kings (xxxvi — xxxviii.) belong to this dynasty, and that they reigned 87 years. Now as we came to the conclusion that the only tenable assumption is, that the Hyksos Kings in Memphis did not begin to be enumerated in the Lists till after the 63rd and last year of the 38th King of Eratosthenes, we have no hesitation in accepting this number as being the actual, or very nearly the actual, number which Manetho adopted in his lost Canon as the length of the 13th Dynasty in the Old Empire. This gives us for the beginning of it, either 2547 + 87 = 2634 B.C. or, 2554 + 87 = 2641 D. The conclusion we came to in regard to the Twelfth Dynasty was, that ]\Ianetho's sum total, 245 years, as it stands, agrees neither with the Papyrus nor with the Monuments ; but that, like the other en- tries, it can be reduced to the chronological period of 147 years transmitted by Eratosthenes. We adopt the latter view most unqualifiedly ; but must here carry on the two dates. This gives us for the first year of the 12 th Dynasty a series of four dates, according to the ascending line : 2634 2641 2634 2641 147 147 245 245 2781 2788 2879 2886 Consequently, for the last year of the Eleventh Dynasty, 2782—2789—2880—2887 : and as the two accounts agree about the length 90 HISTORICAL SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part I. of this dynasty (43 years), the first year^ if we add 42, would be. 2824—2831—2922—2929. It appeared to us, at the same time, that, on internal grounds, the more probable of the two assumptions, in respect to the length of the 11th Dynasty, is the one which leads to the result previously anticipated : and again, of two possibilities, that one which should turn out to be preferable upon critical grounds. This coincidence can hardly be accidental. If it be not so, however, the following results cannot be con- travened : First : That we have recovered Manetho's own calcula- tion of the whole chronology of Egypt up to the year 2782; and, in fact, taking into account how well the other intervening points tally, that the utmost range of possible deviation is a very narrow one. Secondly : That this computation supplies a very satis- factory explanation of the reasons for believing that there was a certain connexion between the plan of his work and the Sothiac cycle, and the nature of that connexion. Thirdly : That this connexion is no proof of the mythi- cal character of Egyptian traditions since the time of Menes, or of Manetho's mythical conception and treatment of it ; but, on the contrary, a direct proof of the historical character of both. Fourthly : That in recovering Manetho's own calcula- tion we have undoubtedly recovered the true chronology of Egypt, and, in fact, beyond the point where the Canon of Eratosthenes commenced. Fifthly : That the Annals most probably contained, side by side with the computation according to the era of Menophthes, another computation, by means of the last kings of the 11th Dynasty, whose names are not given by the epitomists of Manetho. Sect. II. D. III.] MANETHO. 91 III. The Statement that Manetho assigned 3555 Yeaks as the Length of the Emphie from Menes to Nectanebo is perfectly suitable. We shall naturally be called upon in this place to offer some proof that we are justified in considering the tra- dition, that the chronology of the history of Egypt from Menes to Nectanebo was 3555 years, came from Ma- netho. On this point, also, we are in a situation to offer very satisfactory evidence. If, as we have assumed, Manetho really set the duration of this period at 3555 years — and if, as we think we have shown, he computed for the New Empire, Dynasties XYIIL — XXX. 1286 for the Hyksos Period, Dynasties XV. XVL XYII. 922 in aU 2208 years, his chronology of the Old Empire must have been 1347 years ; the consequent discrepancy with the Canon of Eratosthenes, of - - - 1076 is 271 years. In the Introduction to the Third Book we arrived at the conclusion that the following dates come out as the result of the different views from which it is possible to start : I. By adding up all the Dynasties from I. to XII. and adding to them the 87 years of the 13th Dynasty in the Canon of Eratosthenes, we obtain, under the two different views. Years. Days. Imperial Dynasties, higher scale 1481+70 Collateral „ (II. Y. IX. X.) 1114 Sum total, 2595 + 70 92 HISTORICAL SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Pabt I. Or, Imperial Dynasties, higher scale, 1481 Collateral „ lower „ 1036 Sum total, 2517 years. Or, Imperial Dynasties, lower scale, 1412 Collateral „ „ 1036 Sum total, 2448 years. Neither of these assumptions, therefore, tallies ; which merely confirms the view maintained through- out— that to add them all together would, in the present state of the inquiry and in the teeth of the monuments, be utterly preposterous. II. Assuming the 10th (the second Herakleopolitan) not to be contemporary, but the three others (II. Y. IX.) to be so, we get the same numbers 185 years; consequently, 2410—2332—2263. III. Or, if we omit both the Herakleopolitan Dynasties, a difference of 594 ; consequently, 2001—1923—1854. IV. Or, if we simply add the 2nd, as being contempo- raneous, to the sum total of the Imperial Dynasties, i.e. either 302 or 224 years, we obtain, 1783—1714—1705—1636 years. y. Lastly, supposing the 5th only to be contempora- neous (218 years), the result is, 1699—1630. According to our views, each of these assump- tions is as inadmissible and uncritical as the other. The fact of the result not coinciding with the Sect. II. D. III.] MANETHO. 98 former number, 1347, which is indispensable for our system, is merely, therefore, another confirma- tion of the correctness of our criticism. VI. Counting only the Imperial Dynasties, i. e. only the Memphite and Theban after the first Thinite which reigned in Memphis (and Thebes), the choice will lie, as already stated, between 1481^1412. We have shown, however, that, even supposing Ma- netho, in the 1st and 3rd Dynasties, to have counted the sum total of the years of reign, it was impossible in the 4th, in the teeth of other authorities and of the monuments : that in the 6th, on the contrary, it is more probable that he did adopt the sum total as his chrono- logy : that in the 8th a different assumption is justified by the text : and that in the rest, the 11th, 12th, and 13th, there is no difiiculty in adopting the sum total as the true chronology. The choice, then, lies simply between the two following series : — Dynasty. Lower Number. Higher Number. I. - 188 253 III. - 214 214 IV. - 154 154 VI. - 113 203 VII. - conjecture 20 text 75 VIII. - 142 146 XL 43 43 XII. - 176 176 XIII. (in the Old Empire) 87 87 Sum total 1137 1351 The higher number, therefore, is perfectly suitable, if in the 8 th Dynasty we give the preference to the far better authenticated number 142 over 146. It seems impossible that this coincidence should be accidental. 94 HISTORICAL SYNCimONISMS. [Book IV. Part I. Manetho's computation, therefore, was as follows : Old Empire, length 1347 years, Hyksos Period, „ 922 New Empire, „ 1286 Whole Period 3555 Of these three dates, those of the Hyksos Period and New Empire I believe to be perfectly historical. In regard to the historical chronology of the Old Empire, on the other hand, I must decide against Manetho, and in favour of the 1076 years of Eratosthenes, upon the general and special grounds which have been developed in the first two Books. PAUT IT. THE HISTORICAL SYNCHRONISMS, EGYPTIAN BASIS: OB HISTORICAL SURVEY OF THE NEW EMPIRE FROM AMOS TO SHESHONK (XXVIII. XXIL DYN.). AMENOPH Hi 1-1HMN0N 97 INTRODUCTION. I. THE HISTORICAL MONUMENTS AND THE HISTORICAL SECTIONS. " Strana veramente e singolare vicenda di queste cose terrene, che dopo tanti secoli di silenzio, viva ritorni nei fasti del mondo unastoria di fatti, rappresentati e scritti per quelli stessi che li operarono! Ed e lode tutta pro- pria degli uomini famosi dell' Egitto, che, quantimque vissuti in eta si remote, ci abbiano lasciato ed ancor sus- sistano tanti monumenti parlanti delle lor giorie ; nientre in confronto si pochi, si rari ed incorapleti se ne hanno di molti e molti altri assai meno antichi e pur famosis- simi regnanti d' oriente e d' occidente, dei quali cono- sciamo le storie pel solo mezzo degli scrittori." — Rosellini^ Mon, Stor. iii. p. 64. " II testo tanto soprabbonda dei soliti titoli pomposi ed enfatiche locuzioni di generale significamento, quanto poco c' istraisce di quelle particolarita che piu si de- siderano nei monumenti storici. E questo e sfortuna- tamente il carattere della maggior parte delle iscrizioni storiche egiziane, le quali se molto c' insegnano rispetto al poco che sapevasi delle antichissime storie d'Egitto, non c' istruiscono per altro in proporzione del loro nu- mero e della loro estensione, per difetto appunto di par- ticolarita e d'indicazioni positive confacenti al soggetto." -^Ibid. iv. 83. In the Old Empire, we have treated the historical monuments of each king in the same sections in which the restoration of the chronology is dealt with. Those monuments supplied the evidence of the historical cha- VOL. III. H 98 ASTATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Pakt II. racter of Egyptian tradition, which we undertook to adduce. The case is the same with the scanty con- temporaneous remains which establish the existence of Theban Kings in the long and gloomy Hyksos period. It is far otherwise with the kings of the New Empire. No one can any longer doubt, without being chargeable with wilful and disgraceful ignorance, the historical character of the Pharaohs of the 18th and 19th Dynas- ties, of the Tuthmoses and Eamessides. Here, however, there were great difficulties in restoring the chronology, and a thorough investigation of this point, from the earli- est to the latest dynasty, demanded the undivided atten- tion of the investigator, as well as the reader. It seemed, therefore, the most suitable course, not to interrupt the unity of the chronological inquiry by an historical dis- quisition. For, however dry to the generality of readers an exclusively chronological inquiry may be, it becomes simply confusing when mixed up with historical discus- sions. On the other hand, it becomes peculiarly attrac- tive to reflecting readers, as an exercise of the reasoning faculties, when the fundamental method of restoring the chronology is thoroughly carried out and submitted to a connected test. Any one who shrinks from this may pass over entirely the chronological portion, and admit that the Pharaohs who are here mentioned really suc- ceeded each other, and reigned as long as, upon the strength of that investigation, we assume they did. We trust that, before the close of the next ten years, re- search, upon the basis of our restoration, will be con- cluded. In this manner, accordingly, the historical exposition of Egyptian development in the New Empire will re- quire to be provided with a considerable stock of mate- rials, in order to be able to claim the recognition of the strictly historical gain which Egyptological research supplies for the six centuries and a half from the resto- ration down to Sheshonk. We must, however, at the Introd. I.] HISTORICAL MONUMENTS AND SECTIONS. 99 outset, warn our readers against exaggerated expecta- tions and false views in regard to this restoration. In the first place, it must not be expected that we in- tend to attempt a restoration of the Egyptian history of those centuries of the New Empire. That history, in- deed, is by no means lost, as has hitherto been supposed in respect to the period prior to the Psammetici. It speaks to us through imperishable monuments, which record not merely the acts and works of the kings, but furnish also honourable testimony to the remarkable progress made in the fine arts by the nation itself. These monuments are certainly not unfrequently wit- nesses to the triumphs, the conquests, and other exploits of the rulers. Contemporaneous Egyptian records of these even are not wanting, from which we can discover at least the names of the nations which, either as foes or allies, took part in the expeditions of these mighty conquerors. There must, however, be no misunder- standing as to the peculiar historical value of these re- cords. They are mere fragments of a tradition, which, even if complete, would in itself ofi'er nothing more attractive than the sickening reflection of the same in- ternal divisions, wars, and engagements in Chinese his- tory. The attractiveness and vitality of all national history depend upon the free scope given to individuals in the development of national life. The only indepen- dent individuality that could exist in Egypt was the king, and, now and then, some liberal-minded priest. In the time of the Tuthmoses, perhaps even in that of the Sesortoses, there was no longer a nation, nothing but torpid castes. Great occurrences in the country, and great events in the history of the Egyptians, as a portion of mankind, can only interest us, after the vast disturbance of history generally, upon two grounds ; either from their intrinsic value as regards mankind, or from their contact with the Semitic races which affected the world at large. The Mosaic Exodus is one such H 2 100 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IY. Part II. instance in this epoch ; and the Assyrian conquest or supremacy in the succeeding one. We shall, therefore, incorporate into our inquiry such synchronisms as have an important bearing on general history. We are neither able nor desirous of stating everything which might be said, on the ground of Egyptian re- search, about the history of the New Empire. We shall bring forward such important historical matter as the monuments of Egypt, conjointly with the biblical nar- ratives, those of the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Greeks, furnish us in respect of the great events of the empire. The most important facts which these monuments con- tain regarding the history of the kings of the New Empire, in so far as they can now be made the subject of historical research, must therefore be specially noticed. The history of art and of industry, or conjectures about unknown and unidentifiable names of conquered races, are foreign to the object of this work, still more so of this particular Book. Now, as regards the strictly historical character of these records, subject to this limitation, they possess a value at once so great and so slight as none others pos- sess. AVhere else are to be found authentic contempo- rary monuments of considerable antiquity, erected by sovereigns of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries e.g., the history of which it is our business to restore ? Again, where is there an instance of so many and such magni- ficent monuments, which sometimes tell us little, fre- quently nothing at all ? This is the reason why we have commenced this section with two passages from the writings of a noble Italian investigator, our never to be forgotten friend, Ippolito Rosellini, because they give so correct a description of the twofold character of Egyptian monuments. The former of the two sen- tences was dictated by the enthusiasm which inspires every man not altogether deadened or absorbed in the pitiful literature of the day, when pictorial repre- Introd. I.] HISTORICAL MONUMENTS AND SECTIONS. 101 sentations on monuments more than 3000 years old speak to him of great exploits and works, in a character which has ceased to be current for 2000 years. The latter was elicited by his feeling of truth, when he became convinced that the greatest historical inscrip- tion teaches us but little, and will, even when our philological knowledge is more advanced, teach us but little more. Both of them are true and apposite. Both of them even possess an importance to history generally. The Egyptians, as repeatedly remarked, are the monu- mental people of the earth, as it were, the accountants of mankind in time. They do nothing, they learn nothing, they neither come into the world, nor go out of it, with- out a notation of the year of the king's reign, and these private records, in spite of the effects of destruction by weather, by the hand of man, and natural decay, are more imperishable, and, from the number of them, more indelible, than the most important public monuments in other countries. The same holds true of their writing. Most things are repeated twice, both pictorially and by means of phonetic signs ; many of the latter again are pictures, by the side of which Determinatives are placed to convey the meaning of the word beyond mistake. This in itself makes the written character prolix ; the repetition of fixed phrases renders it still more so. Little is lost by occasional lacunar. But comparatively little advance also is made by what is preserved. There are but few words in a line, and, what is still worse, little is said in a great many lines. Inscriptions on public buildings were not intended to convey any historical information. They consist of panegyrics on the king, and praises of the Gods, to each of whom all imaginable titles are given. Historical facts are thrown into the shade as something paltry, casual, and incidental, by the side of such general pompous phraseology as — Lords of the World, Conquerors of the North, Tamers of the South, Destroyers of all the Unclean and their Enemies. H 3 102 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part II. The case of the Papyri is certainly different. Written history, such as the historical books of the Old Testa- ment, was, as far as our knowledge of their writings goes, as certainly unknown to the Old Egyptians, as it is certain that the world-renowned muse of Herodotus never inspired them. We have stated this clearly and deliberately at the very outset of the inquiry into the sources of Egyptian history. We have certainly still much to learn before we can interpret to our satisfac- tion the Papyri, indeed before we are in a position thoroughly to explain the monumental inscriptions, which are much easier to decipher on account of the recurrence of the same phrases. Lastly, there may be discovered in the tombs materials of which we have at present no idea, and of a still more valuable character. But we know already too much of those which are preserved, to venture to hope that we shall ever find anything different in kind ; we should then recover Manetho^s work which was so early mutilated and adul- terated. For the more we examine, and the greater numbers of monuments we have access to, the more we learn to know and to venerate his greatness and worth. Concurrent with these stately monuments of the earliest times, there must have been chronicles of the priests, from which Manetho avowedly and ostensibly derived his information. It seems, however, equally certain that no one before him collected, sifted, and arranged the scattered materials, by collating monumental lore, the contents of chronicles, popular songs, and living legends. Had Josephus and the Christian Fathers pos- sessed half as much affection for historical truth as they had zeal for defending their own traditions and doctrine, they would not have allowed Manetho to perish. Afri- canus probably, and Eusebius certainly, never saw the entire historical work; Josephus saw merely extracts, and those already tampered with and mutilated. The Eoman writers, however, in Christian times, had still Introd.L] HISTOEICAL MONUMENTS AND SECTIONS. 103 less feeling for history generally, less sympathy for the antiquities of the barbarians ; Yarro even, the most learned among them, and Tacitus, the greatest genius, being no exceptions, any more than Pliny. In an Egyptological treatise on the historical records of the New Empire, all monuments which give any sort of historical information must be quoted, and, as far as that is concerned, explained. "Wilkinson originated this mode of dealing with them ; Rosellini continued it more systematically and thoroughly. Lepsius' great work, however, is the first which gives the authorities, and is executed with thorough criticism and precision. His text (which is so anxiously expected) will fill up many lacunaa in the historical exposition the bases of which are here laid down, will correct many errors, and clear up many difficulties. It seems the more imperative upon us only to offer in this place sketches and fragments of the various features in Egyptian history, and to hint at the principal points for future research, in so far as we have gained an insight into them. We always refer, therefore, to the monuments themselves, according to Lepsius' plates ; and on other points to Rosellini, whose labours have been our guide in this exposition (Monumenti Storici), no other work being accompanied by a classical text. Such of our readers as have access to it will not, proba- bly, be less thankful to us for omitting everything that is uncertain, or which does not contribute any historical result, than they will be for what we have communi- cated, with additions by Birch, De Rouge, and others. The Egyptians possessed, therefore, a history ; but it was not in their monuments. The historical matter we glean from them is not of more value than the meagre remains of historical tradition which the epi- tomists have rescued from Manetho. It corroborates them, however, and proves the traditions to be really his- torical. This is the main point for the student of history. It must, therefore, be our first object, in this cursory H 4 104 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part II. historical treatise, to introduce light and shade into the seemingly uniform and lifeless mass of events. Our primary aim will be, to obtain genuine historical sections, independent of changes of dynasty. The ca- pability of distinguishing the flourishing periods of their histor}^, the seasons of stagnation, and the decline of a dynasty and of the empire, and then of art, which is evinced by its monuments, supplies, to a certain extent, the lamentable want of individualities which we cannot conceal, and the meagreness and imperfection of the internal history of the people and state. Such sections and epochs are sometimes larger, comprising several dynasties ; sometimes smaller subdivisions, which are easily surveyed. By this means, at all events, I think I shall have the effect of forcing my readers to the con- clusion that the centuries prior to Psammetichus are not lost to history, even irrespective of the history of art. We must not, at the same time, be blind to the fact that the element of progress was very scanty in Egypt, and that the nation had outlived itself ; so that the New Empire was an abortive attempt at a real restoration of national life. Even an important power in the then circumstances of the world appears only by fits and starts, and the most brilliant conquests are frequently immedi- ately succeeded by the lowest state of debasement. We feel that everything depends on the reigning individual : popular life is only exhibited in a state of suffering or in mockery, and simply as a negation. In order fully to appreciate the higher import of the history of Egypt, we must first rise to the point of view of universal history. Here Egypt appears as the con- necting link between Asia and Africa, and as the instru- ment of Providence for furthering its eternal purpose, as forming the background and contrast to that free spiritual and moral element which was to arise out of Israel and of Hellas and spread over the whole world. Introd. II.] REIGNS OF DYN. XVIII. XIX. 105 IL SURVEY OF THE REIGNS OF THE EIGHTEENTH AND NINETEENTH DYNASTIES.'*^ According to the monuments, Amosis (Aahmes), chief of the 18th Dynasty, left behind him one son and two daughters. The son succeeded as Amenophis (Amen- hept) I. He had no children. After him, as third and fourth reigns, we find In the Lists : (3.) Amessis (Aahmes), a daughter of Amosis, and (4.) Mesphres orlMsPHRES (Ma-ke-phra, or Mes.t.phra, daughter of Pharaoh ?), her daughter. On the Monuments: (3.) Tuthmosis L, cousin and husband of the heiress Aahmes, and (4.) Tuth- mosis II. , the son of him and Amessis. According to the tables and monuments, however, these two series of reigns did not proceed harmoniously together ; for the Lists of Kings of this time mention only the two male reigns, and the scutcheons of Amessis are found but seldom on the public monuments. The fifth reign is called In the Lists : Mesphratuthmosis ; On the Monuments: Tuthmosis III. (Ra-men-khe- per), younger son of Tuthmosis L, consequently, the brother of his predecessor, Tuthmosis II. The sixth reign (which is omitted in the Lists, owing to some confusion which has crept in) is that of Amenophis IL, son of Tuthmosis III. He was succeeded by his son Tuthmosis IV., and he again by his son Amenophis HI., eighth king of the race. After his death, however, a schism took place; the 4^ Comp. Genealogy of the 18th Dynasty, Book III. p. 510. The restoration of it, pp. 526 — 536. 106 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part XL consequence of which is, that the reigns of his son Ame- nophis IV. (Akhenaten), and of two successors, Ai and Amenankhut, are not recorded in the dynastic series. Amenophis lY. took the name of Akhenaten after he became a heretic disk-worshipper. He had no male issue. This schism would seem to have ended with the latter reign, as this king's name contains that of the God Ammon.^^ He was succeeded by Horus, after whose death we find a queen (probably a sister) with her husband holding the reins of government, but we must suppose only in the name of her son. This son, probably the grandson of Horus through his mother, was the founder of the 19th Dynasty, as the first Ramesses. Lepsius' Book of Kings, now pub- lished, shows how far the relationship between the house of the Ramessides and the Tuthm5ses can be re- stored from the extant monuments, with reference to the Lists, which, though corrupted by the introduction and repetition of historical names which were misunder- stood, are not falsified. In the mean time, the restora- tion of the two dynasties, proposed by us in 1834 and carried out in detail in 1845, as well as that of the 20th and 21st, is unimpeached. So, likewise, is the separation between the 18th and 19th. Down to Horus, it can be shown that there is no break in the male line : with him it clearly became extinct, he having no son. Here, therefore, and here only, can the 19th Dynasty com- mence. From the first Ramesses downwards we have again an unbroken succession in the male line as far as Sethos II. From the first Ramesses the sovereignty passed to his son, the Great Sethos (Seti) I., who, with his son and successor, the renowned Ramesses Miamun, 43 This is the result of the researches of Lepsius, contained in his " Gods of the First Order," to the detailed account of which the reader is referred. The result, the first idea of which was sug- gested by Dr. Hincks, is generally admitted. Introd.III.] hist. sect. DURING DYN. XVIII. XIX. 107 forms the bright point in this epoch. Under Mene- PHTHAH, son of Ramesses the Great, the fourth king of the house, we find the power of Egypt suddenly broken ; and with his son, Sethos (Seti) II., the male line and dynasty became extinct, after Amenmesses had started up as rival sovereign. III. SURVEY OF THE HISTORICAL SECTIONS DURING THE EIGHTEENTH AND NINETEENTH DYNASTIES. This period of nearly three centuries and a half, which represents the first historical section of the New Em- pire, is again split up into five historical subdivisions or sections. The first Section comprises in 86 years the first four reigns of the 18th, and the first five years of the following dynasty. It commences (or coincides in our view) with the reestablishment of the Pharaonic throne in Memphis by Amosis, and goes on to the with- drawal of the Shepherds in the fifth or sixth year of the reign of Tuthmosis III. It is the period during which the Theban rulers carried on the struggle for freedom, successfully indeed, but yet slowly, eventuating in the recovery of Lower Egypt. The second Section comprises the zenith of the glory of the empire which had again become independent, — the period of conquests, and the recovery of the Pen- insula of Sinai. The kings of this period are again four: Tuthmosis III., Amenophis II., Tuthmosis lY., and lastly, Amen5phis III. — in all 114 years. The third Section treats of the decline of the Tuth- moses, or the reign of Horus, who died without issue male. The fourth Section contains the rise and culmina- 108 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part II. tion of the house of Eamesses, or the reign of the first king of tliat name, and the two conquerors and heroes of the family : Sethos I. and Ramesses II. — altogether 85 years. Menephthah and his son Sethos 11. form the fifth and last period. In their reigns, the dissolution of the em- pire was at hand, and the house of the Great Eamesses became extinct, at least in the male line. But these twenty-five years are of great importance to general history. In the first reign of twenty years the renewal of the Canicular cycle of 1460 years took place, and the Exodus of the Children of Israel under Moses. Introd.] EEIGNS OF DYN. XVIII. XIX. 109 o £ . to <<.S So :£ III 3 - . S = U o o o 3 "5 -a J= S 3 ' a* in ■? o rtJ= O . ^ jS CM "go a o o ID IS H o CO 5^: 1^ X. X CO CO 9) I 03 -Q CI w c3 03 TO ^ B § O OP -a CO s a u a; c3 $-1 o I s a CO -C ^ ^ a i .2 lO a lO a a CO c lO i .2 .^H CO CD 3 S £3 111 I .2 u OJ -- lO is to *'» lO M = CO la lO a ^ O «5 110 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IY. Part II. S 2 a> So h2 T5 . pJS 8 S o o H be o o C3 d O CO CD to 02 c .2 '■+2 o CO i-H I— ( C3 o CX) CO 03 1° c5 03 0) G3 Sect. LA.] Ill SECTION 1. THE CLOSE OF THE WAR OF LIBERATION; OR, FROM THE FIRST YEAR OF AMOSIS TO THE FIFTH OF TUTHMOSIS III. — 86 YEARS. A. THE FIRST REIGN : AMOSIS (AAHMCS RA-NeB-PeH). — 25 YEARS. (PI. VIL li. ) (^LepsiuSj Historical Monuments of the New Empire, vol. v. PI. 1, 2, 3.) The most important point in the history of the first king of the New Empire is the authentic proof of his having occupied Memphis. We have assumed this as being a necessary con- sequence from the fact of his appearing in the Lists as the first Imperial Sovereign, which, according to our fundamental assumption, implies the reconquest of Mem- phis. But we are in a position to prove it, in two ways, by contemporary records. The remarkable inscription published by the elder Champollion from the posthumous papers of his great brother, and since commented upon by De Rouge and by Birch in his Imperial Records of Tuth- mosis III.^, proves that his reign commenced simulta- neously with the recapture of Memphis. In a sepulchral inscription of the time, a captain of the Egyptian navy relates how he had served at Tanis (the Zoan of Scrip- ture), under Amosis. The struggle lasted till the fifth year of his reign. Then war broke out in the south, and 4^ Champollion Figeac, I'Egypte Ancienne, p. 300. Birch in Trans. R. Soc. of Lit. 1847, p. 323. 112 ASIATIC SYNCHEONISMS. [Book IV. Part II. he was ordered to Kesli (Ethiopia), whither also the king afterwards repaired in order to collect the tribute. In the first years of his reign, then, the struggle was going on about the Delta, with Memphis as a base. Amosis, in his fifth year, was not master of the whole country, but was able to fall back upon Ethiopia. A public inscription^^, communicated and explained by Rosellini, supplies the second proof that Am5sis was victorious, for he restored the shrines in the imperial city which had been captured. A stele, hewn out in the rock at the quarries of Mokattam, near Cairo, the lower part of which is unfortunately injured, states, as though expressly intended to prove the case for us — that in the twenty- second year of the reign of this king these quarries were opened, for the restoration " of the temples at Memphis and the temple of Ammon at Thebes." Over this inscription is the royal scutcheon of the king, and on each side of it that of his wife. She is the illustrious heiress with whom we became ac- quainted when making our researches about the 17th Dynasty — the Princess Aahmes Nefru-ari (the good, glorious woman). Her titles are: "Royal Wife, Mo- ther, Daughter, Sister." She was, consequently, the daughter of a Theban king, and, in fact, the daughter of an Ethiopian house, or one allied with Ethiopian blood. The historical representations describe her as black, unlike all the other Egyptian races. It is easy to under- stand that in those days Theban families intermarried with Ethiopian princes ; for it was from the South only that they received any support and reserves during the struggle with the Shepherd Kings. It is probable that the Ethiopian ancestress, on the mother's side, received some provinces as her dowry : at all events, a Monumenti Storici, i. 195. c. and PI. xv. We shall in future distinguish this portion of Rosellini's work simply by the letters M. St. ECT. I. A.] AMOSIS. 113 portion of the country paid tribute to Amosis. Ne- fru-ari, then, was an heiress : her husband reigned in her right, and took the name of ^' Young Moon," per- haps, in consequence of this inheritance ; at any rate, it had reference to her, and was afterwards dropped. The monuments prove that no queen was ever held in such honour as this Aahmes. She is styled " Divine Spouse of Ammon she enjoys the distinction of the barque of the Gods ; and sits beside her son, Ameno- phis I., as if sharing equal rank with him, the reigning sovereign. In conclusion I will remark, that a passage which Lepsius has quoted from the Alexandrian Chronicle (Einl. p. 359. notes) would seem to furnish a remarka- ble confirmation of ray explanation of the name Che- BRON in the Lists, as identical with Am5sis. In that chronicle, the sovereign under whom Moses was brought up is called Khenebron, the same name obviously as the Khenephres of Artapanus. The name now stands thus: RA-NEB'PEH. The ra was often pronounced at the end of the name, and in a popular abridgment the following hieroglyphics might be dropped. Now the Egyptian n at the beginning of a word sounded often to the Greeks (as already observed in the First Book) like gn ; thus Nub (name of a god, and signifying gold) led to Gnub, Chnub ; and thus the hieroglyphical name might easily be altered into Chnebros, or Khene- bron, or Khenephres. The historical import therefore is, that the youth of Moses (if not the Exodus) was by some writers connected with Amosis. Rosellini confounds a wife of Amenophis w ith this Aalimes. VOL. III. I 114 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part II. B. THE SECOND REIGN: AMEN5pHIS I. (AMENHePT RASGRKA) THE SON OF AAHMES AND NEFRU-ARI. 13 YEARS. (PI. VII. I2.) (^LepsiuSf Historical Monuments^ vol. v. PI. 4.) This second king is likewise exhibited on the monu- ments of his posterity as enjoying especial honour ; in a Theban tomb at Gurnah, for instance. The left of the two Colossi in front of the third Pylon of Karnak has his name inscribed on it.^^ His wife, Aah-Hept, is called " Royal daughter, wife, mother." As regards her chil- dren's honours, all we learn is that no descendant of hers came to the throne ; for the succession passed to the younger son of Aahmes. Amenophis I. must have been successful in the strug- gle against the Shepherds. Unfortunately, the only representations alluding to these wars are on a few very small tablets in the Louvre, which Rosellini published and illustrated (iii. 10. seq.). One of the enemy here represented is bearded, and at all events is a northern Asiatic or African. The king is styled in one of them " the subduer of all hostile countries a general phrase which tells us absolutely nothing, and inspires no great confidence in the reality of his conquests. 47 It is marked with (2) on the larger Plan of the Palace, although the figure is certainly not the work of Amenophis, but either of Sethos I. who built this part of it, or of Tuthmosis III. who dedicated the one on the right. Sect. I. B. C] AMENOPHIS TUTHMOSIS I. 115 THE THIRD REIGN : TUTHMOSIS I. (TeTMeS RA-AA-KHEPER), BROTHER-IN-LAW OF AMENOPHIS I. — 21 YEARS. (PL VIL 22.) {Lepsius, Historical Monuments, vol. v. PL 12.) In this reign we have the germ of the art and splen- dour of the New Empire, the bloom of which only com- menced in the succeeding one. We find in the first place, as regent, Aahmes, " the royal wife, divine spouse, lady of both countries, the great royal sister." (Plate YII. 2^.) She is the Ames- ses (Amensis) of the Lists, who was entirely ignored till the work of Lepsius appeared, as we have seen in the preceding part. It is uncertain in whose right she reigned — probably, however, as the daughter and heiress after her brother's death ; for Tuthmosis himself never appears as the son of Amosis. He was, however, a younger brother, or the nearest kinsman. We have consequently, with the tablet of Abydos, enumerated him as the third ruler. He is represented as having erected splendid and artistic edifices. He it was who first commenced the restoration and embellishment of the primeval temple- palace of the Sesortosidae at Karnak, on the eastern side of Thebes. This building was the shrine of the 18th and 19th Dynasties, and remained to the latest period of the Pharaonic power the object of royal care, as now its very ruins have a world-wide reputation, and are unique of their kind. We have, therefore, appended not only a general plan of the Monuments of Thebes, and a special one of the Palace of Karnak ; but also a ground plan, on a larger scale, of this historically most important monument of the New Empire, together 116 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part II. with the names of the most eminent royal founders in chronological order. The details of the plan, never- theless, are not so correct as the woodcut copied from Lepsius' great work. Tuthmosis I. built a court of columns adorned with caryatides, immediately facing the shrine of Sesos- tris, which now forms the centre of the building (marked 3). He erected in front of it two obelisks of red granite, one of which is still standing ; the inscrip- tion (in the middle row), according to which the shrine was dedicated to Father Ammon, makes especial mention of the two obelisks. On these the king is styled Con- queror of the nine bows" (pet), according to the ordinary interpretation, Libya, the Coptic name of which is Ni- PHAYAT, or Na-pa-ut, "the Nine Bows." Rosellini re- marks that, as a work of art, the obelisk is very inferior to that of the succeeding (fourth) reign. A building in the valley of Assassif, behind the palace of Gurnah, partly built, partly hewn out of the rock, was commenced by him, and completed by his younger son in honour of his father, as the inscription states. For this reason Kosellini proposed to call it the Tuthmoseum. D. THE FOURTH REIGN : TUTHMOSIS II. (TeTMeS RA-AA-eN-KHE- PER), elder son of TUTHMOSIS I. — 21 YEARS. (PI. VII. 3i.) (^Lepsius, Historical Monuments, vol. v. PL 14 — 28.) With this king, the grandson of the founder of the i family, the reign of the third race of this royal house ' commenced. Preceding him we find a female regent, during his minority probably, of the name of Ma-ke-iu, Sect. L D.] TUTHMOSIS II. 117 but which is spelled improperly in a variety of ways. Her family name, however, was pronounced Nem.t- Amen or Chnum.t-Amen (like Chnuphis- Ammonia) ; before she became regent she was called Ha.t-as.u (PL yil. 23.). Her name as well as her brother's is on the obelisks of Karnak. As we shall presently see, a colossus in front of the third Pylon there was dedicated to Tuthm5sis II. by his younger brother and successor.^^ His wife's name was Amun-mai.t, " the beloved of Ammon." Hosellini corrected the mistake of Champoliion, who took her scutcheon for that of a king. The former, indeed, sometimes has the title of Amun-mai, out of which Rosellini made a separate king, Tuthmosis III., the father of the so-called Moeris.^^ Between his reign and that of his younger brother the regency of the sister again intervened, the so-called Mesphra- Tuthmosis, whose scutcheon, however, he carefully erased, and substituted his own name. She it was who commenced the erection of the two largest and most artistically finished obelisks in the court of her father, one of wdiich is still standing (3), and the fragments of the other are scattered around it. There is on each side of them a sino^le column of hiero- glyphics, reaching all across the centre.^^ On the second side it is expressly stated that Nem.t-Amen reigned in the name of her father (?), which we understand as meaning, not Ammon, but Tuthmosis I. This may perhaps throw some light on the name Mesphra-Tuth- mosis. There is certainly no great difiiculty about its derivation from Ma-ka-ra, which we have adopted in the previous section at the suggestion of Lepsius, if we suppose PH to be the article, prefixed to ra in pro- 48 On the Plan of the Palace marked (4). Representation and description by Rosellini, M. St. xxxi. — xxxiv. Comp. Text, iii. a., 132. seq. ^0 i. 226. seq. ; iii. 16. seq. Wilkinson took the right view of it. I 3 118 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part II. nunciation (phra instead of ra), as was clearly the case in the name of King Uaphres-Apries-Chophra. But Mesphres, the form in which it is found in the best MS. of Pliny, cannot be thus explained. It may possibly be a popular distinctive name : Mes . (t) ph . ara (Tetmes), i.e. the daughter of the king (Tuthmosis)? We were obliged to content ourselves in the Third Book with proving that Mesphra or Mephra was only the name of a queen, the grand-daughter of Am5sis, whose reign corresponded with that of her brothers Tuth- m5sis II. and III. Consequently Mesphra-Tuthm5sis, as the name of a single person, would be nonsense. It can only mean Tuthmdsis II. or III., as a con- traction of two joint or corresponding reigns. We must decide, however, in favour of Tuthm5sis III., as it is preceded by the reign of Mesphres, who conse- quently stands in the place of the elder brother. In the Lists, Tuthmdsis IV. follows immediately after Mesphra-Tuthm5sis (the name and regnal years of the second Amenophis being displaced). There is, however, authentic proof that the Alexandrians confounded Mesphres and Mesphra-Tuthmosis, i. e. supposed the simple name of Mesphres to be the designation of the third Tuthmosis himself, as sole ruler. Pliny mentions two obelisks of Mespheres (Mesphres) at Alexandria. These we can have no hesitation in iden- tifying as the two lying in the port of that city at this moment, and universally known by the ridiculous name of Cleopatra's Needles. In the centre of each are the name and title of Tuthmosis III., on the sides those of the Great Ramesses. The scutcheon of Seti 11. was also introduced subsequently. The person from whom Pliny derived his information evidently belonged to that section of the Alexandrian school which studied Egyp- tology— another proof that they then distinguished the third from the other Tuthmoses by that name, which was doubtless a popular designation, and originally not an Sect. I. D.] TUTHMOSIS II. 119 anmeaning one. We must not on this account be led astray as to what the monuments authentically teach us. But it is explained why this name stands in our Lists opposite to the regnal date of Tuthmosis III. We assume this at once as a settled point, and the fact of our being justified in so doing is one of vast importance for the restoration of the history of the period, to which we now proceed. The passage in Josephus containing Manetho's tradi- tion runs thus : " Mesphra-Tuthmosis drove the Hyksos as far as Avaris, and shut them up in it. His son, Tuth- mosis, obliged them to evacuate it." We shall see that Tuthmosis TIL, the successor (although not the son, but brother) of Tuthm5sis II., made conquests in Mesopo- tamia. The fact of his undertaking such an expedition naturally implies that he did not leave a hostile fortified camp in his rear. Indeed the power and glory of Egypt in the time of the third Tuthm5sis prove that the Shepherds had been completely driven out ; by which success the national spirit was raised to the highest pitch. Here, then, Mesphra-Tuthm5sis is used instead of the simple name of . Mesphres ; and we must explain the above quotation in Josephus (which is evidently strung together out of epitomes, and not taken direct from the original text of the historical work) in this manner. Tuthm5sis IL (the brother and husband of Ma-ka-ra) drove the Shepherds into Avaris, from which, being fortified, they were only expelled by his great brother and successor. His name really was Tuthmosis, whereas, as we shall see, the successor of Tuthmdsis III. was called Amen5phis. The important question, therefore, has to be answered here : What is Avaris ? We must not expect to explain the name of this city from the Egyptian, for Manetho says it was from the beginning Typhonian, i.e. Semitic — politically and re- I 4 120 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part II. ligiously hostile. We shall show, in a subsequent portion of the inquiry, that Typhon was the primeval Semitic God, Seth, the creator of the human race. The sup- position, therefore, that Avaris, or Abaris, signifies " City of the Hebrews," harmonizes the better with our researches. Indeed, in reading Josephus, the idea struck me before I saw it so explained, philologically and his- torically, in Ewald's excellent History of the Jewish People.^^ We must not, however, omit to mention that the a-sound in Abara (Avara) is fully established; and that it would seem to be of South-Semitic origin, and either derived from Arabia or the peninsula of Sinai.^^ It has since been read by De Rouge in the Sallier Pa- pyrus, in the account of the declaration of war by Saken- nen-Ra, the predecessor of Amosis. He is there writing to Apepi, the Shepherd King, who lived at Avara, whom he summons to evacuate the country. I will take this opportunity of observing that, in the oldest and most trustworthy Arabian traditions, where mention is made of the rule of the Amalika (the Amalekites), Abara is especially said to be their stronghold. It is important to fix its geographical position accu- rately. We have, in the first place, to bear in mind i\Ianetho's statement that it was in the Sethroite nome. Sethroe (as Salmasius emended the received name Sethron), or Herakleopolis Parva, is unquestionably on the right bank of the Pelusiac or Bubastite arm of the Mle, and, consequently, outside of the Delta proper. This statement of Ptolemy is decisive as to the position of the nome. D'Anville erroneously placed the city, as well as nome, within the Delta, as Strabo did, con- sequently, on the left or western bank ; owing to the 5^ Geschichte des Yolks Israel, i. p. 450. seq. Steph. Byz. (from Uranios, Arab.): Avada Kal Avapa, City of Petrsea. The name signifies " the white." [Mr. Birch explains it as an Egyptian word denoting the " area " or " floor," for it occurs in passages where it is not the name of a city. 1858.] ^2 Caussin de Parceval^ Hist, of Arabians, Part I. Sect. L D.J TUTHMOSIS II. 121 course of that arm being wrongly marked on the map. The French editors of the great work on Egypt, as well as Champollion^^, saw the mistake, and corrected it. Now as the Arabian nome is to the east of the Delta in- land, and further southward (to the east of Bubastis) the nome of Phagroriopolis (Goshen), the Sethroite nome can only be the Eastern nome on the sea. Pelu- sium belongs to it. The nome extends as far as the River of Egypt, where Mount Casius and the Serbonitic Lake form the natural frontier of the country, as both the Bible and Herodotus mention. Either, therefore, old Avaris and Pelusium were one, or the Hyksos city must have stood on the site of Rhinokolura. But the two names are probably only different modes of expressing its Palestinian oritjin. Thou2:h Pelusium is afterwards understood as a Greek word (City of Mud), it may be the same name as that of the Palestinians, Peleshites, and Philistines ; for which reason we prefer to con- sider it and Avaris, in point of position, as one and the same. But Manetho did not so understand it. He considered Avaris as a strong frontier city against the Syrians, a Typhonic city. Had he taken our view of it, he would naturally have mentioned Pelusium by way of explanation ; but he considered it a city which fell after the evacuation of the Hyksos. At all events, it must have contained within the circuit of its walls ample means for feeding a large body of men, and, above all, a supply of drinking water. There is but one other place which could have fulfilled these conditions, namely, Rhinokolura, on the " river of Egypt," which flowed from the Idum^an mountains, and probably ran through Avaris, if this were the site of it. Other wise, it would have been very easy for Mesphra-Tuth- mosis to force the 480;000 men to capitulate after he had once shut them up there ; whereas, even his son was obliged to content himself with allowing the garrison Egypte sous les Pharaons, ii. p. 80. seq. 122 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part II. to retire unmolested with tlieir goods and chattels, as we shall shortly see. Their retreat again could have been most easily effected if Avaris stood somewhere upon the site of El Arish, like the old Rhinokolura, for we have no hesitation in placing this city on the Eiver of Egypt. Towards the close of the Old Empire it was, according to an ancient legend, the place of banishment for criminals whose sentence of death was commuted. This offers, therefore, an explanation of Manetho's statement that the Shepherds " met with " that city in the Sethroite norae. Under these circumstances we shall leave the question open till we have made further researches. We will, however, remind our readers of what we said in 1845, that Sethros seems to be " the Seth of the outlet " (SeT-KU), an explanation concurred in by Lepsius in his " Einleitung." The point is an important one his- torically. [Mr. Birch thinks that the name means Nome of Set-Ra. As he has shown in the Museum of Classical Antiquities," vol. ii. p. 237., it is stated on the Bar- berini obelisk that Antinoopolis is placed in the nome of Set and Ra, which, at all events, means the Sethroites nomos. The critical question therefore is now, what authority can be attributed to so recent a monument ? The decisive proof can only be found in the ancient hieroglyphical mode of writing the name of the nome. Set-Ra would, in itself, be easily explained, for Set may as well be coupled with Ra as Osiris is. It seems also right to add that Avaris may have been near the old Tanis, the Zoan of the prophets, a very ancient Pharao- nic establishment. There must have existed, however, a Zoan of Semitic origin, the date of the building of which is incidentally mentioned in Num. xiii. 23. as being seven years after that of Hebron, a very ancient town, already flourishing in the time of Abraham. 1858.] Sect. II. A I.] 123 SECTION 11. THE STATE OF PROSPEKITY AFTER THE STRUGGLE FOR INDEPENDENCE, FROM THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE SHEP- HERDS OUT OF AVARIS, IN THE FIFTH YEAR OF THE REIGN OF TUTHMOSIS III., DOWN TO THE DEATH OF AMENOPHIS III. 114 YEARS. A. THE FIFTH REIGN : TUTHMOSIS III. (TeTMGS RA-MeN- KHEPER), YOUNGER SOX OF TUTHMOSIS I., BROTHER OF TUTHMOSIS II., AND BROTHER AND BROTHER-IN-LAW OF HA.T-AS.U (MA-KA-RA). 26 (48) YEARS. (Monument XLII.) {Lepsius, Historical Monuments, voL v. PI. 29 — 60.) I. Misphra-Tuthm5sis is a Designation in the Lists signifying THAT MiSPHRA, THE ELDEST OF THE CHILDREN OF TUTHMOSIS I., REIGNED A CONSIDERABLE TiME CONJOINTLY WITH TuTHMOSIS IIL, HER YOUNGER BROTHER. MiSPHRA, i.e. the eldest daughter of the first Tuthmosis and the royal heiress Aahrnes (Amessis), was, as we have seen, regent in the fourth reign, which is recorded in the Royal Lists of the time as that of her brother and husband Tuthmosis II. But we find in the inscrip- tion at Wadi Magara (in the Peninsula of Sinai ^^), down to the 16th year of the following fifth reign (marked in the Lists of Kings as that of the third Tuthmosis), her royal escutcheon united with that of the latter king, the younger of the two brothers, and in fact taking precedence of him. Birch has very shrewdly remarked that this guardianship, or rather forcible co-regency, of Laborde, pL viii. Birch, p. 320. 124 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part II. tlie elder sister and sister-in-law, must have ceased be- tween the 17th and 26th years, inasmuch as Tuthm5sis is represented on a monument of this 26th year as the sole sovereign. The fact of his afterwards causing all her scutcheons to be erased and his own name to be substituted, as far as he could, proves this connexion to have been anything but a friendly one. The name on the Lists, Misphra-Tuthm5sis, is thus satisfactorily explained. It was doubtless used originally to indicate that it was a joint reign of Misphra and Tuthmosis II., the brother and sister, husband and- wife. We have already seen how the date and name became displaced in the Lists. It is also generally admitted that the reign of Misphra, as concurrent with those of her brothers, ought not to be counted separately. But we ask further, if the elder brother and sister reigned co- ordinately, with what justice could the younger brother, -who survived them both, be prevented from counting his regnal years from the death of his father ? How indeed could it have been otherwise, if he caused his own scutcheons to be engraved on the monuments erected by her, and containing a statement of her own regnal year, without making any change in the dates ? This point requires closer investigation. For it is equally true, on the other hand, that Tuthmosis 11. must have his own regnal years, even according to the suc- cession of kings on the monuments, and that his brother, who dedicated a sitting statue to him, could have had no intention of setting him aside as a sove- reign. In order to get over these difficulties we must see first of all how long, according to the monuments, the reign of Tuthmosis III. lasted. Sect. II. A. II.] TUTHMOSIS III, 125 II. The Reigns of the Two Sons of Tuthm5sis I. (Tuthmosis II. AND III.) LASTED FORTY-EIGHT YeARS. TuTHMOSIS III. COUNTED HIS OWN ReGNAL YeARS FROM THE DeATH OF HIS Father, as he was entitled to do from the Beginning. In the present Lists 26 years are placed against the reign of 'Misphra-Tuthmosis. The first proof that this is inaccurate, as applied to Tuthmosis III., con- sists in the fact of our possessing monuments of his 35th year. But there are two monuments, notice of which we have reserved for this discussion, that record in a way not to be misunderstood a length of reign in excess of this. The one is the inscription on the back of the colossal sitting statue of Tuthmosis II. ; for so the king to whom his younger brother dedicated a statue, on the third propylon of the southern portion of the royal palace of Karnak, is called in the inscription on the belt beyond all doubt. It is unfortunately mutilated, and therefore obscure. It consists of three horizontal columns. The first begins with the scutcheon and title of Thothmes III., and the part that is missing can only have contained some cursory remark (such as the notice of the Pane- gyrics) running on into the second column, which begins with a mention of the southern district of Thebes, in which he erected the statue " in the 4:2nd year, on the 22nd day of the month Thoth." The lower part of this column, however, is not quite legible, and still less intelligible. After some unde- cipherable characters, it says : in the name " (or " to the name") " of the Father." The third and last column begins with the scutcheon, not of Thothmes I.^^, but of Thothmes II., the brother of the king who dedicated it. If we have no right, therefore, to connect the last ^ M. St. iii. A, 125. seq, Comp. Bircli, who by mistake explains the scutcheon as that of Thothmes I. 126 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part II. words of the second column directly with the preceding, still less are we authorised to connect the name of the hrotlier with the apparent mention of the father, in the sense as though Tliothmes II. were father of Thothmes III., and not Thothmes I., who was the father of the two brothers. Fortunately the difficulties are not so insuperable in the most important point of the inscription, the date. It is clear that there could not be any chronological statement intended here, or it would have been 42 years so many months and so many days after the father's death. We can only, therefore, view it in the same light as all similar dates, as the date of the regnal years of Tuthmosis III., with a statement of the month and day on which he completed the dedication. If, as Birch and Rosellini are of opinion, the 42 years are to be reckoned from the death of the first Tuthmosis, this simply implies what we from the outset con- sidered as the most natural solution : That Tuthmosis III. reckoned his regnal years from the death of his father, although he was then a minor, no mention being made of him on the early monuments of Tuthmosis 11. and Misphra. This however, again, must be tantamount to saying : That here is an instance of two brothers having an . equal right to the crown, (doubtless by the will of their father,) and at the same time of a here- ditary right on the part of a daughter, (though it , may be a contested one,) as the eldest child, both of which circumstances were sources of dreadful confusion, even in the Old Empire. Fortunately, however, this can be proved by showing that if our explanation be rejected an absurdity follows. We will first of all, therefore, complete the proof that Tuthm5sis III. claimed, at the very least, 42 regnal years. Sect. II. A. II.] TUTHMOSIS III. 127 IThe above interpretation of the inscription is corro- borated by the imperial record of Tuthrnosis III. which Birch has explained. It places the fifth campaign of this warlike monarch, v/ith which it commences, in the 29th year of his reign, the sixth in the 30th, the tenth in the 35th. The year of the last campaign here men- tioned, the 16th, is wanting in the mutilated monument. But it is clear from the above, that it could not be earlier than the 40th. Whether the 42nd above-men- tioned was the last we do not know. As the number 26 stands on the Lists opposite to the reign of Misphra- Tuthmosis (i.e. originally Misphra and Tuthmosis III.), and is corroborated by the more accurate extract of "25 years and 10 months" in Josephus, it might seem more probable that this is merely a clerical error for 46 instead of xg)^ though it must be recollected that all the epitomists give the same date, and so reckon it in their sum total. But it may also be, that 22, 13, 26, for all these three dates are mentioned as belonging to this period, represent three different epochs, while the monuments give the sum total. The elder brother obviously must have had his own term, and Manetho might deduct this from the whole sum total of the reign of the brother, which must have been at least 42 years, but in all probability 48, the sum of 22 and 26. The middle number (13) represents consequently the length of the second epoch, that is, the joint reign of Misphra with the elder or younger brother. How long she reigned with the elder we cer- tainly do not know, but in the "16th year" the scut- i cheon of the younger brother is placed by the side of i hers. This implies that the elder died at latest in the 15th year of this period (calculated after the death of I Tuthmosis), consequently 17 is a very probable number i for the real length of the first joint reign. It is easy to prove that our second assumption, which is at once the easiest and most natural, is also the cor- 128 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part II. rect one. AVe will in the first instance pass in review the series of reigns of the 18th Dynasty, according to the order of the generations. If we assume 42 or 48 years to be the chronological years of Tuthmosis' reign, the following will be the series of his and his brother's reigns (the third genera- tion after Amos) : Thothmes 11. (Ra-aa-en-kheper) - 22 years. „ III. (Ra-men-kheper) - 46 (at least 42) 68 (at least 64). There were, again, in the preceding second generation, two reigns : Amenophis I. - - - 13 years, Tuthmosis I. and Amessis - 21 (Ra-aa-kheper-ka and Ma-ka-ra.) 34 years, consequently, two generations and 102 regnal years ; and that after Am5sis, to whom 25 years are assigned in the Lists, whose 22nd regnal year is authentically known, who appears as a warrior on his accession, and who therefore cannot have been a child. Is this probable, or even possible ? The answer to it is furnished by a monument which Birch has already cited with a doubt as to the chronology of the Lists (according to their ordinary interpretation).^'^ The hero of the sepulchral inscription relates that he served as a captain under Aahmes, consequently at least one year. It is probable, however, that the latter years of this monarch were peaceable, as he commenced in his 22nd year the magnificent edifices of the Restoration at Memphis and Thebes. Assuming, therefore, his 57 The Statistical Tablet of Karnak. Sect. U. A. IL] TUTHMOSIS III. 129 twenty-first year to be the last year of war, we must assign to our hero, Amos, of war at least - 5 years. But he goes on to state that he served under Amenophis against the Ethiopians in the south, and against the Amukehak, or Kehak, in the north. The reign of Amen5phis - - - 13 He accompanied Thothmes I. in his cam- paigns to Ethiopia and Mesopotamia (Naha- raina) - - - - - 21 Under Tuthm5sis II. he fought against the Shasu, i.e. the Shepherds - - - 22 AYhether he still served in a military capa- city under Thothmes III. is not stated indeed, but that he enjoyed the favour of the sove- reign as a public servant is especially men- tioned. AVe must assign to this war therefore at the very least - - - - 1 Whole period of service, at least - 62 years. This in itself not only exceeds the bounds of historical probability, but even of possibility, because it implies that this functionary was capable of active service till his eighty-sixth year at least; so much so indeed that (with the exception of his sixty-second year of service) he took part in the campaigns to the very end. We at once, therefore, come to the conclusion, either that the 22 years of the second Tuthmosis must be excluded from the computation altogether, or that these, as well as the 26 years which are assigned to the younger brother, must be the sum total of the reigns of the brothers, consequently 48 years. This number is an extremely probable one, inasmuch as we find the 42nd regnal year of Tuthmosis mentioned on the monuments. The history of the campaigns of Tuthmosis III., how- VOL. m. K 130 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part II. ever, offers direct proof that tliis assumption is the only possible one. III. The History of the Campaigns of Tuthmosis IIL, from HIS OWN ACCOUNT OF THEM. In that magnificent edifice, the Royal Palace of Kar- nak, at Thebes, Tuthmosis IIL has recorded the history of his campaigns, probably on two difi'erent fields. The one commencing with his fifth campaign was sent by Champollion to Paris, but left unnoticed, like many of the most remarkable Egyptian monuments, in the vaults of the Louvre, where it was carefully copied by Lepsius, and published in his Auswahl." An earlier copy made by Wilkinson, before its removal from Egypt, shows that this is another instance of the damage caused by the removal of the monuments. Thanks to Birch's cri- tical translation and explanation of the inscriptions, we can now understand what is historically the most remark- able record of the New Empire.^^ He has the merit of having brought it under our notice, and of having laid the foundation of a perfect explanation of it. We will first consider it as to its bearing upon the chronological question under discussion. We have seen that the fifth campaign of this king took place in the 29th year of his reign. From thence- forth there was a fresh campaign every year, twelve in twelve years. According to this, and indeed from the nature of the case, the first cannot have taken place later than his 24th year, nor more than about one year earlier. There remain therefore 22 or 23 years of apparently total inactivity. Now, as this is in itself highly improbable in the case of so energetic a sovereign, and impossible on account of the exploits See Birch, Observations on the Statistical Tablet of Karnak, in the Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature; 2nd series, vol. ii. p. 317. seq. Sect. II. A. lU.] CAIMPAIGNS OF TUTHMOSIS III. 131 already spoken of, it can scarcely be accidental that this computation, which is taken exclusively from the monu- ments, brings us to the same conclusion as the Lists, namely, that the 22 years are merely the date of the reign of Mesphra and Tuthm5sis 11.^^ 59 The chronology of the Tuthmoses, after the death of the second king of that name, is as follows : Chronology. 15 1 — 15 (at latest), joint reign : Hat-asu, as eldest child, reigns under the name of RA-MA-KA, with Tetmes RA-A A-eN-KHEPER, the elder of her two brothers (Tathmosis II.). 7 16 (or earlier)— 22 : Ra-ma-ka and Tetmes RA-MeN-KHEPER (Tuthmosis III.). 26 23 — 48 (mentioned on the monuments down to the 42nd) : "48 TETMES RA-MEN-KHEPER alone. Dynastic Computation. Mesphra (and) Tuthmosis [II.] - - - 22 years. Tuthmosis [III.] alone 26 48 years. In assuming this point as established, I see in it authentic proof of the correctness of the method I have hitherto pursued, and especially in the 12th Dynasty. All the Lists, from the Turin Papyrus down to Manetho, and the monuments themselves have followed the system not unaptly termed by us the Egyptian, in computing the length of reigns. The Lists originally gave all the reigns in a dynasty, as well as their dates, and perhaps even, by way of preserving the de- tails, their sums total. The monuments contain the regnal year of a king, on buildings of his own construction, sometimes of a higher number than the Lists, and which cannot be admitted into a chronological table coordinately with the dates of the Lists. Now the question to be solved was this : Whether Manetho himself made the deductions which were required by this state of things? No one can entertain less doubt than I do upon this point. But it does not necessarily follow that our present Lists contain these corrections of the historian ; neither docs it follow that his method of analyzing the Lists of the Old Empire was sufficiently critical. The confused K 2 132 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IY. Part II. We now proceed to analyze the historical value of these remarkable documents. The fifth campaign commences with conquests in the North of Egypt. It is clear, therefore, not only that the Shepherds had then evacuated the country, but that they were broken up as a nation, or at all events had abandoned Palestine. This exodus accordingly must have taken place at the beginning of his reign. Most of the twelve successive campaigns here enu- merated, with the lists of the treasure, cattle, and other booty captured, took place in the north. Birch and others before him have offered conjectures about particular details, into which I do not feel myself called upon to enter. Thus much is clear, that the northern campaigns and conquests extended as far as Mesopotamia, which is unquestionably designated by its Semitic name, Naharaina, " the land of the two rivers." Of the other names there is no diffi- culty in identifying, as Hincks has done, Karkhemish (Circesium) as Karakamash. Sinkara is clearly SiN- GARA, on the Upper Tigris ; and Ninia, therefore, the ancient metropolis of the Assyrian empire, must be NiNYA, Nineveh ; and so likewise Beber (Bebel) is the Babel of Scripture, or Babiru of the cuneiform characters. It is hardly possible to conceive that such extensive campaigns were made, even if they were merely tempo- rary invasions, without a considerable number of vessels of war, and the possession of harbours in the Mediterra- nean. AVe find, however, no notice of Phoenicia, nor is there any certain trace of Tyre and Sidon. The priii- state of the older annals, such of them at least as existed during the New Empire, shows that no better plan could be pursued than the one first adopted by Eratosthenes. It was simply this — that of using the continuous series of reigns which were in the archives of Thebes, as guides fur computing the length of the Old Empire and the Middle Period. Sect. II. A. III.] CAMPAIGNS OF TUTHMOSIS III. 133 cipal struggles seem to have been with the Retennu and Khita and their allies. Champollion and Kosellini sup- posed the RuTEN to be Lydians ; but it is clear that they are to be looked for either in Palestine or Syria, or on the northern coast of Africa. In a sepulchral inscrip- tion at Thebes (Birch, p. 332.) belonging to this period, they are called " northern lands behind the great sea." They must, I think, therefore, be the Ludim, or sons of Mizraim, of Scripture, who appear in the genealogical table, and are mentioned by the Prophets in connexion with Phut and Rush (Libya and Ethiopia). In all probabiUty the Ludim belong to the tribes of Mesopo- tamia.^^ The Khita I have always considered to be the abori- gines of Canaan, the Chethites or Hittites of Scripture. The Shasu, or Shepherds, are mentioned among their allies, and the chief of Karukamasha, i.e. Karkhemish, Circesium on the Chaboras. Greek writers cite the stelae erected by Sesostris in proof of his occupation of the conquered country, and the monument at Beyroot is evidence that by these are intended bassi rilievi deeply graven in the rock. Such tablets were erected by Tuthmosis in Mesopotamia, as he himself records.^^ There is an inscription (illus- trated by Birch, p. 346.) in the quarries at Turah, in which a person in the service of the son of Tuthmo- sis III. mentions that he erected tablets for the king at Naharaina and to the southward in Karu. The latter is not mentioned in the list of the Ethiopian tribes, but it could hardly be to the south of Adulis or Axum. 60 Mr. Osburn proposes to identify the Rutenu, a tribe so fre- quently mentioned (the Ludim of Mauritania), with the Arvadim of Scripture, and their chief city Arad with Aradus. His supposition that the Shairetana are the Sidonians is still more improbable. See W. Osburn, Ancient Egypt, her Testimony to the Truth of Scrip- ture, (London, 1846) p. 52. seq. 61 Birch, p. 345. 134 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part II. This soutliern boundary, therefore, was doubtless con- quered by Tuthmosis III. IV. Works erected by Tuthmosis III. This king, the Mceris of Champollion and his school, is one of the most glorious of the dynasty, even as regards the works of art which bear his name. The figure No. 5. on our plate indicates the portion of the temple-palace erected by him ; besides which he erected a palace at Medinet-Aboo, a portion of the edifice at Assassif, and a temple in Amada (Nubia). There is a beautiful statue representing him at Turin. Kosellini remarks that there is hardly an ancient city in Egypt and Nubia, as far as the Second Cataract beyond Semneh, where remains of his edifices are not found. He completed his father's and elder brother's works at Assassif, and his brother's at Karnak. He dedicated to the latter the third propylon on the southern flank of the palace, the colossal sitting statue, the important and obscure inscription on which we have attempted to decipher above. The principal portion, however, of that giant work erected by Tuthmosis III, was round the shrine of his great ancestor Sesortosis. The granite naos re- stored by Philip Aridseus, probably after its destruc- tion by the Persians, and the whole portion behind it, bear his name ; so that, upon the whole, about a third of the palace owes its origin to him. There is a long inscription from the left wall of the enclosure of this granite shrine (the so-called great statistical inscription explained above^^), containing a list of the costly objects dedicated by this king to Amun-Ra. Among these, two obelisks and the purport of the inscriptions upon them are mentioned; from which it appears that the one now in front of the Lateran was ®^ See Lepsius. Comp. Birch, loc. cit. Sect. IL B.] AMEI^OPHIS II. 135 the largest of all the obelisks, and that it stood there. They were both erected in front of the propylaea of the naos, between the court of Thothmes I. (3) and the granite shrine. The centre row of hieroglyphics on the former only has reference to this king. The latter has disappeared totally ; the inscription, a learned explana- tion of which was published by Father Ungarelli, unfortunately hardly contains any historical matter. B. THE SIXTH REIGN : AMENOPHIS II. (AMCNHePT RA-NeTERU), SON OF TUTHMOSIS III. — 9 YEARS. (THIRD REGNAL YEAR.) {Lepsius, Hist Mon. vol. v. PI. 61 — 67.) It appears from the testimony of the monuments that Amen5phis IL continued the buildings in Amada (Nubia) commenced by his father. The walls of this gorgeous edifice, which are still standing, are covered with his sculptures. Here is recorded the third year of his reign. The inscription mentions the subjection of the country and of the princes of the Retennu or Lutennu, identified by us among the conquests of Tuthmosis III. as the Ludim or Mauritanians. We have also notified above, that Mesopotamia was, in the reign of this son of Tuthmosis III., the northern frontier of the empire, Karu the southern. The greater part of the representations are simply of a religious character, and have reference to sacrifices, dedications, and other offerings. The dilapidated remains of the edifice erected by him at Karnak are in the main of the same character. But in one of these representa- tions, where Amun-Ra is addressing the king, mention is made of a Shepherd Eace, probably referring to the K 4 136 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IY. Part II. Bedouins of Libya. The God is promising the king that he shall restrain them within their own territo- ries." Eosellini read the name Mennahom.^^ Cham- pollion, however, was unquestionably right in thinking that the first two signs contain the root mena^ to pas- ture, shepherds. He read it, Kah n nemone, " land of the shepherds," but this is incorrect, both hieroglyphi- cally and grammatically. Birch's reading, on the other hand, " Mena tai Pet," i. e. Shepherds, they of the nine bows," is a happy one in all respects. The last sign of the name occurs as equivalent to Pet, i. e. Phut. C. THE SEVENTH REIGN: TUTHMOSIS IV. (tcTMES RA-MeN- KHePeRU), SON OF AMENOPHIS II. — 13 YEARS. (SEVENTH MONUMENTAL YEAR.) (Plate VII. 4.) {Lepsiusy Hist Mon. vol. v. PI. 68 — 70.) The ruins between the entrance hall and the court of Tuthm5sis I. contain some constructions of this king's. He erected the hall supported by columns in the tem- ple of Amada, which was built by his father and grand- father. An inscription there states that the king completely subjugated the foreign land of Kesh (Kush, Ethiopia) as well as many others. These Kushites were also certainly represented in the drawing on a tomb at Gurnah, where there are nine prisoners in fetters on ' the steps of the throne. The drawing, however, is very much damaged, and Rosellini could only read four names. In the last of 63 M. St. iii. A. 201. Comp. 211. 64 M. St. iii. 205. seq. 65 Book III. p. 283. 66 gt. iii. p. 209. seq. Sect. II. D. I.] AMENOPHIS III. 137 them alone could he recognise a race with which he was acquainted, namely, " the Shepherds of Libya," whom he read MennahOxM. All that can be learned as to the others, on this tomb of Menephthah, is that they, as well as the Shepherds, are not southern but northern races. It was this same king who ordered the inscriptions on the sides of the obelisk at Karnak, now in the Pi- azza Laterana at Rome. Among the historical notices we find it mentioned that he laid waste the enemy's country on the frontiers of Kesh, and subjugated the country of the Libyan Shepherds, the land of the bows (petu)^^ 'j and that he made a barge of the God Amun- Ra, of cedar {ash), cut in the land of the Rutennu. The following chronological fact is also stated, that after the death of Thothmes III, the obelisk was 35 years in the hands of the workmen^ till the reign of Thothmes IV, [Birch. 1858.] THE EIGHTH REIGN : AMENOPHIS III. (AMENHEPT RA-NEB- MA), son of TUTHMOSIS IV. (monumental year XXXVI.) (Plate VII. 42.) (Lepsius, Hist. Mon. vol. v. PI. 70^ — 90. : end of the volume). 1. AmENOPHIS III. AND HIS RELATION TO THE MeMNON OF THE Greeks and to the Exodus. This is the Pharaoh whose magnificent constructions show that the art of sculpture in Egypt had in his time very nearly arrived at its zenith. He is the monarch '■'^ Al. Mar. Ungarelli, Interpretatio obeliscorum urbis RomjB. 1842. Fol. 39—42. Comp. Rosellini, M. St. iii. A. 209. and i. 191. 138 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part II. whom the Greeks and Romans, since the beginning of our era, have called Memnon, as the gigantic statue of him in the Amenopheum (on the west side of Thebes) is styled by them "the sounding stone," which Eos, the mother of the Ethiopian hero, saluted at sunrise with a clear-toned sound. Letronne, whose sagacity and profundity of re- search so eminently distinguish his valuable labours, has proved the following points : that this designa- tion of him, and all the evidence connected with it, are of more modern date than the earthquake which in the year 27 B.C. threw down the upper part of the northern colossus (in consequence of a crack in the stone) ; that these stories were not current after that part of it was restored in brick in the reign of Septimius Severus ; and, lastly, that the Egyptians never regarded it as anything but a colossal statue of their king Amenhept Ra-neb-ma. True it is that Hecata^us of Miletus sought for the Memnon of the Trojan legend in Egypt. He thought, according to Herodotus, that the sculptured figure, the Sesostris of the latter, was a representation of Memnon. We know now, at least, that the statue is not of Egyp- tian workmanship. The historical character of the Egyptian campaigns of the 14th and 15th centuries B. c. certainly is incontestable ; and for that reason we cannot avoid entering into closer examination of the point, after- we have refuted the fabulous conjectures of the Greeks, and the still more fabulous conjectures of the investigators of the last and present centuries. Whence did the Memnon come who is described in the Odyssey as the son of Eos and brother of Priam and the handsomest of the warriors ; he whom Hesiod first called a king of Ethiopia, and the fabulous his- tory of whom was told by the Cyclical Epics just as he was represented on the oldest vases and by the lyric poets ? We now know that the Memnonia of the Greeks, Sect. II. D. I.] AMENOPHIS III. 139 the so-called buildings of Memnon, were simply a mis- understanding of the word mennen which signifies vast monuments, especially sepulchral monuments. This, however, by no means justifies us in concluding that Memnon was merely the name of the builder of these fan- cied Memnonia in the dreams of the Greeks. The mis- understanding of the word mennen explains the fabu- lous use of the expression Memnonia, but not the origin of the name in the Epic age. On the contrary, it is the ancient legend alone about the enigmatical son of Eos in Ethiopia which explains the fact of the Greeks making a search after a king and hero of that name. The Greeks inquired after Memnon as they inquired after the king who was the host of Menelaus. The difference between the two cases is, that in the former they inquired after a prince out of the land of Ethiopia, who undertook an expedition into Asia Minor and there fought against the Greeks before Troy. It can be shown that the connexion between the name and As- syria or Media is of later date. Xow it is true that the Ethiopia of the mythical age extended northwards as far as Phoenicia, and Joppa (Jaffa) was the most ancient locality for the history of Perseus and Andromeda, and the principal city of Kepheus, king of Ethiopia. This, however, does not seem to me to militate against the fact of Southern Egypt, and especially Ethiopia Proper, being the home of the Ethiopians. Any one, therefore, who will not adopt our version of the story about that great tonqueror, as being the well known journey of the Sun-God (probably here therefore Mm, that is to say. Set), may regard him as a conqueror who came from Egypt, and whose warlike expeditions were kept alive among the Achaean races in some obscure legend. But the whole Ethiopian version of Memnon is in truth not Homeric. But were it ever so old, the connexion between an Ethiopian hero and the Trojan war might nevertheless be altogether unhistorical. Attila and 140 ASIATIC SYNCHR0I5ISMS. [Book IV. Part II. Theocloric of Bern are historical names of the fifth and sixth centuries, but the reUition in which they stand to each other as contemporaries in the Germanic Epos, is just as little historical as the connexion between them and Sigfried the hero or god of the primeval times, or Pilgrim the bishop of the 11th century. Such a con- nexion would leave but a few centuries for the decom- position of the historical elements. The previous ques- tion, however, which was raised by Jacobs, is this — Whether Memnon was a historical personage ? It is hardly probable that the Greeks ever thought of Ame- n5phis III. before the invention of the story about the sounding stone being saluted at dawn by his mother — a repetition of the old Hellenic fiction about the son of Eos in the first century of our era. It is consolatory to find that, in that melancholy period, poetry, ever blooming in the Hellenic mind, could create out of a sounding stone the salutation of the mournful son of Eos. We have already discussed the subject of the religious changes which occurred in Central Egypt during the reign of this Amenophis or immediately after his death. We know that political schisms took place directly after that event, and were productive of universal disorder, in which the House of the Tuthm5ses perished. There is, however, not the slightest ground for supposing any general connexion between these events and a change of religion. It is possible, indeed, that according to the ordinary assumption of the length of the period between the Exodus and the building of the Temple (480 years) the Exodus took place at this time, and that this Ame- n5phis was the first king under whom that great event could have taken place ; for it is clear that it could not have occurred in the reign of the third Tuthmosis, or at an earlier period. But all the information we obtain from the monu- Sect. II. D. II.] AMENOPHIS III. 141 ments of this Amenophis (a likeness of whom, copied from the splendid statue of him in the British Museum, is prefixed to this Book), about himself and the events of his reign, is altogether irreconcilable with such a supposition. II. The Edifices erected by Amenophis III. in Nubia and SiLSiLis : THE Amenopheum on the western side of Thebes, and the Palace of Luxor on the eastern side. The temple in Upper Nubia (Dongola), near Soleb^^, belonged to this Pharaoh. Two bearded prisoners, and one without a beard, are the representatives of his con- quests. In the quarries of Silsilis are two rock-temples, each consisting of a single block, and containing inscrip- tions of Amenophis. Unfortunately, his greatest work, the Amenopheum, on the western side of Thebes, is a total ruin. The fragments are scattered around the two colossi of the builder. The one on the right (as you view them) is the Memnon of the Greeks and Komans. The Egyptian name of the building was. The House of Ra-neb-ma. There was a temple attached to it, in which we find, in later times, " priests of Ra-neb-ma " esta- blished.^^ Rosellini quotes two of the titles of the king found among these inscriptions : " Pacificator of Egypt,'' and " Tamer of the Libyan Shepherds," with the remark that they are both repeated at Luxor. They must, con- sequently, as he rightly observed, allude to actual histo- rical events. Two large stela? at the southern end of the ruins re- present Amun-Ra and Osiris- Sokaris as the Temple-Gods. Rosellini considers the former to be the general patron of Thebes ; the latter as the special God of the Temple, consequently, the Osiris of the Lower Regions, the God of the Realms of the Departed. He remarks, also, that Facsimiles in Cailliaud, Voyage a Meroe, ii. PI. xiv. M. St. iii. A. 214. seq. 69 M. St. iii. A. 219. seq. 142 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part II. Pliny (N. H. xxxv. 11.) says the Memnonium was dedi- cated to Serapis ; which is simply the modern form of the Ruler of the Infernal Regions. The great edifice of Amenophis on the east side is better preserved — the so-called Palace of Luxor. The whole of this, including the gigantic entrance-hall, was erected by him, and dedicated to Father Ammon. One of the principal representations of the extant sculptures is the birth and consecration of the king, to whom all the Gods promise gifts and honours. This very remark- able subject has been explained by Rosellini in great detail and very successfully.'^ On one of them are two inscriptions''^, recording the subjugation of the country of the Retennu (the Ludim, in Mauritania), and the whole human race, by this monarch. In another portion of these remains"^, Amun-Ra is giving him the People of the Nine Bows (the North- African bowmen) as his possession. His most important monuments, however, in an histo- rical sense, are four great scaraba3i. Such historical scarabasi Rosellini happily compares to commemorative coins. Those which record the names of kings might perhaps be considered as small Egyptian coins ; like the kowries in Africa at the present day. I remember to have heard Champollion express such an opinion in 1826. These four scaraba^i contain statements as to the frontiers of the Egyptian empire under Amenophis at the time of his marriage with Taj a. Rosellini has given copies and explanations of two of them.''^ The inscription on the one now in the Louvre states that the king. Conqueror of the Libyan Shepherds, Hus- band of Taj a, made the foreign country of the Karai his southern frontier, the foreign land of Nharina (Meso- potamia) his northern. These are the precise limits of 70 Loc. cit. p. 223. seq. M. R. PI. xxxviii.-— xl. 71 Idem, p. 236. seq. 72 i^gm, p. 248. 73 Idem, p. 260. seq. M. R. PI. xliv. Sect. II. D. II.] AMENOrillS III. 143 the empire which Tuthmosis III. established and his son maintained. The inscription on the other scarabseus, now in the Vatican, states that, in the eleventh year and third month of his reign. King Amenhept made a great tank or lake to celebrate the festival of the waters ; on which occasion he entered it in the barge of " the Most Gracious Disk of the Sun." This substi- tution, by the king, of the barge of the Disk of the Sun for the usual barge of Amun-Ra, is the first indication of the heresy. He united, also, his gorgeous edifice of Luxor by a double row of beautifully sculptured colossal Ammon- sphinxes, in sandstone (having the body of a lion and head of a ram), with the temple of Chunsu at Karnak. This avenue of sphinxes was above a mile long. Kosel- lini counted them for 240 paces, and found 60 on each side, that is, one to every four paces : this, in a mile, would make 500 on each side. The ground all about it is now strewed with the fragments, on which his name may be read : some of them bear a human face. There seems to have been a similar avenue at Thebes, also con- structed by Amenophis, lined with colossal sitting statues of the lion- or cat-headed Goddess. It has been already remarked that the southern fron- tier of the empire in the time of this Pharaoh cannot be accurately defined. But Ethiopia, likewise, must have been tributary to him. The tablet of the Duke of Northumberland, mentioned in our Introduction, when speaking of the measures of the Egyptians, represents him as saying, that he made a voyage on the Nile, " commencing from the harbour of Baki, and termi- nating at the harbour of Atali, on the river, fifty-two towings" (saten or skaten), i. e. towing-posts. Birch suggests whether Atali is not Adulis ? As to the iden- tification of Baki, we cannot even ofier a conjecture. U4 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Paet n. CONCLUSION. COULD THE EXODUS POSSIBLY HAVE TAKEN PLACE DURING THIS PERIOD ? We are now arrived at the close of the Second Period of the New Empire ; and the question arises, whether it is possible for the Exodus of the Jews to have taken place in it ? It certainly could not have done so earlier. The oppression which led to the revolt, and ultimately to the Exodus, commenced under a monarch who knew not Joseph." This, in ordinary political language, simply means that the king had ceased to exercise any kindness towards the Israelites. Ever since the days of Joseph they had been quietly settled in the country, and doubtless were scattered all over it ; they had in- creased considerably in numbers, and were a cognate race to the detested enemies of Egypt, and originally shepherds themselves. The Pharaohs might, indeed, naturally apprehend that they would unite with the Hyksos against them. This, again, is equivalent to saying that the oppression of the Israelites commenced after the Shepherds, of whom they had such apprehension, had evacuated their impregnable intrenched camp at Avaris. Even Tuthm5sis III. would have been very careful not to drive to desperation, or even ill-treat, a manly closely united Asiatic race in the rear of the fortresses blockaded by him, and not far from the frontier of Egypt and Palestine. The oppression, therefore, could not have begun in the reign of either Makara or Am5sis, but only during the single reign of Tuthmosis III. We may conclude that there was a period of undisturbed prosperity and successful aggrandisement in Egypt for about 60 years, from Sect. II. Co.xcL.] THE EXODUS OF THE JEWS. 145 his reign down to the death of Amenophis III. It may be that the political and religious confusion in the time of Amenophis was connected with the Exodus of the Jews, although we find no trace of it. This, however, is a mere possibility ; and, in fact, only one as regarded from a purely Egyptian point of view. But, in such a case, what becomes of the long subjection so strongly dwelt upon in the Bible narrative, the last stage of which, in the childhood and youth of Moses, he so forcibly describes, and which, according to the literal interpretation of a passage in Genesis, lasted 215 years? This subjection, however, could not commence before the evacuation of the Shepherds. The above supposi- tion, then, is at once untenable on the grounds of inter- nal impossibility. But there is also no authority for it in the Egyptian annals. AVe know from the controversial writings of Josephusthat the question of the Exodus and the causes of it were discussed in the Alexandrian period, and that Manetho especially mentioned it in another passage. If we examine carefully the notion of the Fathers, that it took place in the 18th Dynasty, we shall find that it was based simply on two wholly unfounded assumptions. One is, that it coincided with the evacuation of Avaris by the Shepherds. It is difificult to say whether this harmonizes less with the Biblical account of the Exodus, or ^\ith the Egyptian account of the evacuation. The other assumption is, that the middle or beginning of the 18th Dynasty really coincided, or, at least, may by some manoeuvring be made to synchronize, with the 480th (or 440th) year before the building of the Temple, at which date the Biblical narrative places the Exodus. The former view, therefore, and everything based upon it, is purely visionary. But the assumption that the Exodus occurred in this period is equally untenable, and, when we examine more closely into the circum- VOL. III. L 146 ASIATIC SYNCimONlSMS. [Book IV. Pabt II. stances, there are considerable internal difficulties which stand in the way of it. Makara (Tuthrnosis 11.) had already established him- self in the centre of the Peninsula of Sinai, and caused the quarries in the Copper-land to be worked. The in- scriptions at Sarbut el Kadein, at Wadi Magara and Nasb, first published by Niebuhr, since described by Laborde, and latterly in greater detail by Lepsius, are proof of this. According to them, Tuthm5sis III. continued the works there, as did his successors down to Harnesses the Great inclusive. The Copper-land extends throughout the breadth of the Peninsula to the northward of Serbal and what is usually known as Sinai, on the road which the Jews fol- lowed about the middle period of their sojourn in it. Under such circumstances, the Egyptians being in ])ossession of the Peninsula, and drawing their supplies I'rom it, and in the very neighbourhood of the principal encampment of the Israelites, can they possibly have re- mained there for years without a contest ? Is it possible that no attempt should have been made from Egypt to attack them? and that the Midianites were at that time so powerful there ? The conclusion we draw from this inquiry, of which we now take leave, will be — that from the Eg}'ptian point of view there is no ground whatever for supposing that the Exodus took place in the period before us ; but that, on the contrary, not only the Biblical tradition, but the Egyptian also, as well as internal probability, are at variance with it. Sect. III. Tntrod.J 147 SECTION III. THE DOWNFALL OF THE HOUSE OF THE TUTHMOSES IN THE POLITICAL AND KELIGIOUS SCHISMS AND CONFUSION. THE NINTH (lASt) REIGN OF THE EIGHTEENTH, AND THE FIEST OF THE NINETEENTH DYNASTY. 44 YEARS. INTRODUCTION. SURVEY OF THE DYNASTIC COMPLICATIONS. We have explained in the preceding Book, according to Lepsius, the dynastic relations which, after the death of Amenophis III., led in the reign of Horus to quarrels and divisions. During the life of the latter, a rival sove- reign first sprung up in the person of an elder brother, Aakhen- (formerly read Bekhen-) Aten-Ra, the Ken- CHERES of the Lists. His original name was Amen-hept Ra-nefru-Kheperu (IV.). He adopted this title after having introduced the worship of the visible disk of the sun into his new capital (El Amarna in Central Egypt). It signifies " a worshipper of the sun's disk." Horus outlived him, as well as a younger brother, who received the royal dignity as Amentuankh Ra-neb-Khe- peru. There is palpable proof of this from Horus hav- ing erected a palace and temple upon the ruins or materials of the edifices of his rivals. The reign of the former of these antagonists, at all events, must have lasted a considerable time, for there are monuments of it men- tioning the sixth year. Tliese are met with only to the southward. Ashmunin, in Central Egypt, is the most northern city where traces are found of the rule of L 2 148 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Fart IF. Amenophis IV. The seat of the seconcl schism was likewise in the south. The monuments of Amentuankh and his son exist only in Ethiopia. This is an outline, but, though merely an outline, a faithful picture of those divisions which the recent labours of Lepsius have extracted from the monuments. As regards details, in the absence of any muse to unfold to us the history of Egypt, we shall do wisely to wait for further researches in those mute but eloquent con- temporary records. NINTH REIGN : THE END OF THE EIGHTEENTH DYNASTY ; HORUS (HeReM iieBi MeRi-AMeN EA-seR-KHePeRU seTeP eN RA^^*, SON OF AMENOPHIS III., AND HIS WORKS. (PI. VIL 43.) HORTJS AND THE COLLATERAL AND RIVAL SOVEREIGNS WITH HIM, {Lepsius, Hist Mon. vol. vi. PI. 91—122.) I. HORUS AND HIS WORKS. In reference to this king, the only one recognised in the contemporary succession of kings as a legitimate Tuthmosis, after the death of Amenophis III., we have, as it seems to me, a very important though only a casual remark by Manetho. When speaking of Menephthah, the son of the Great Ramesses, he observes that " he desired to behold the Gods as one of his predecessors, Horus, did." Such a remark can only refer in the his- torical work to this King Horus, who, consequently, according to the testimony of Manetho, the high That is, " Horus in the Panegyries, the Beloved of Aramon." This is an undoubted instance of the whole family scutcheon not being usually inserted with the name. Of all its hieroglyphics one only is pronounced (the sparrow hawk). Sect. III. Lmrod. II.] HORUS. 149 priest, was a superstitious sovereign, devoted to the priests, and a contemplative enthusiast. From the extant history of his reign, he would seem to have been the victim of his own superstitious folly. The monuments of his reign, which bear nevertheless on the face of them evidence of the high perfection of style which characterizes the dynasty, are principally of a religious and mystic tendency. Rosellini mentions the following edifices as erected by him ; a richly orna- mented temple hcAvn in the rock (speos) in Nubia, not far from the Second Cataract, near Djebel Addeh, on the east bank. Here and at Silsilis he is repre- sented as the young Horus, suckled by his Goddess mother.'^ In the cavern temple of Silsilis, his warlike exploits are also represented, and indeed in Kush (Ethiopia), the seat of the revolt under Amentu- ankh, as we have seen above. His gorgeous works were at Thebes, Luxor, and Karnak. Here he con- structed the splendid avenue of colossal ram-headed sphinxes, raised upon pedestals, of most costly work- manship, of which Rosellini counted fifty on each side in a space of fifty paces. On a fragment of a wall the king is represented with his vanquished enemies, among whom the name Berber is legible, signifying conse- quently people from Nubia. II. No GREAT Religious Movement took place in the Reign OF Horus. In giving an explanation of the mythological details, we have spoken of Wilkinson's remark, that in this king's time the name of the God Amun-Ra is the original one on the monuments, whereas, in that of AmenophisIII. and several of his predecessors in the 18th Dynasty, it is found substituted for that of some other divinity which has obviously been erased. 75 M. R. PI. xliv. 76 Idem ; comp. M. St. iii. pp. 277—287. L 3 150 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Taut II. It appears from the careful researches of Lepsius and Abeken in Nubia, that no trace exists in the scutcheons of Amenophis I. of any such erasure having been made. On them the name Amn was the original one. But under Tuthmosis III., wherever his name and likeness occur, another God had previously been portrayed. For instance, they found on the Nubian monuments, and especially on those at Soleb and Semneh, the Amn (both the name and figure of the God Ammon) on the scutcheons of Amenophis II., as well as those of Ame- nophis III., upon a ground which had been chiseled out. But, as a general rule, the throne-names also of those two kings (Ra-aa-kheperu and Ra-neb-ma) were placed upon a scutcheon from which another name had been erased, in which they thought they could identify an Amenhept. These circumstances induce us to abandon the con- jecture advanced in the first part of this work, that in the scutcheons where the erasures exist the name Khemhept had originally stood. Lepsius has further investigated the state of the case in his instructive Treatise on the first Circle of Gods " (p. 43.). When the fanatical sun-worshipper caused the name and scutcheons of these two kings to be erased, in order to place the throne-name in their stead, it frequently hap- pened that two similar throne-name scutcheons stood side by side. Still it is established that under Tuth- mosis III. the name of Amun was substituted for that of another God. It is likewise established that we find afterwards, as well as before, Amun honoured as God, but Khem, the Phallic God of the Egyptians (their Pan), only in exceptional instances. Amun-Ra is represented by the side of the figure of Khem, and that only from the reign of Horus. The further question arises then, whether the pecu- liar representation of the sun, as the visible ray-emit- ting disk, in the monuments of his rival, Aakhenaten, Sect. III. Introd. III.] TOMBS OF DYXASTY XVIH. 151 has not some connexion witli this singular change or occasional deviation, which ceases again on the monu- ments of Horus ? Such a representation, however, which has nothing of the ordinary type about it, never occurs again. We find no trace of any further religious change connected with it. This circumstance, there- fore, furnishes no ground for believing that any general religious movement occurred in the reigns of Ameno- phis and Horus; and the last shadow of plausibility for the assumption that the Jewish exodus occurred at that time, owing to their taking advantage of a reli- gious crisis in the country to throw off the yoke, neces- sarily vanishes. The Egyptian annals, it is true, stated something about King Bokhoris and the Jews, which we can only refer to this King Horus on account of the name. But the fact connected with the name of Bokhoris is not the exodus, but the oppression, of the Jews. And as regards Scripture, we must not forget, that, of all the dates belonging to this portion of history, none appeared to us better authenticated than the one which defines two hundred and fifteen years as the time of the bondage, III. The Tombs of the Kings of the Eighteenth Dynasty. No tombs of the Tuthmoses or any other legitimate kings of the 18th Dynasty have hitherto been dis- covered. This is the more remarkable, as those of the kings of the 19th and 20th Dynasties have almost all been found in the Valley of the Tombs of the Kings (Biban el Moluk). Researches on the spot have hitherto been fruitless. Were they interred in their own houses," the Tuthm5seum and Amenopheum ? Amenophis III. had priests in his " house " till a late period. The God of the Dead was the chief divinity there. Was it some- 152 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part II. thing of this kind which led Hecataeus at a later date, as mentioned in Diodorus, to tell the story about the tomb of Osymandyas ? There is a remarkable and striking resemblance between that fabulous tomb and the Ramesseum, wdiich is still in existence, and was probably built upon a similar plan to the two above mentioned. IV. Conjectures as to the Internal History of Tms Period. There is, however, a more important question, namely, What was the condition of Egypt and its people in this gloomy conclusion of the great and brilliant period of more than two hundred years ? How rapid a downfall after soaring so high ! It commenced with victorious struggles and a glorious restoration of the power of the Pharaohs in Memphis and the Delta. The fourth king recovered almost the wdiole of the old northern frontier of the empire by pushing the Hyksos into a corner at Avaris. His younger brother, Tuthmosis III., the grandson of Amos, ascended the throne in the 82nd year of the dynasty, and after an unsuccessful siege induced the foreigners to evacuate the country. In the reign of Tuthmosis II., also, the splendour and number of the temples and palaces began to increase considerably, in both which respects Tuthmosis III. surpassed all his predecessors. The empire extended to Ethiopia as far as Meroe, to the Copper-land of Arabia in the Peninsula of Sinai, and northwards as far as Mesopotamia. It is authen- tically recorded that these were its limits under Tuth- m5sis III. and Amenophis III., — a fresh proof of the impossibility of the Jews having at that time any thoughts of returning to Palestine. Shortly after this, however, internal disturbances shook the foundations of the dynasty and the state. Sect. III. Introd. IV.] DYNASTY XVIII. 153 Schisms in the royal family sprung up in the shape of rivalry between Memphis and Ethiopia, the elements of hostility being of a religious character* But, if we inquire into the particular history of the period, we must admit that it is for the most part lost. The only records we possess of the state of popular life are the works of art, and the products of industry in all its branches, which the ruins of that age exhibit. It would seem from these to have been a prosperous period — an Augustan age, the culminating point of high historical art in architecture and sculpture. All tra- vellers are agreed that the style of the 19th Dynasty is not so grand, although more gorgeous. The works of Sethos alone are in pure taste. All that we know at present of the literature is that the writing in the papyri is most beautiful. All traces of the weal and the woes of the people, as well as of the wisdom and cha- racters of their priests, have disappeared. The form of government had already probably become a stereotyped despotism, although under popular masters. 154 [Book IY. Part II. SECTION IV. THE RISE AND MERIDIAN OF THE HOUSE OF RAMESSES : RAMESSES I. AND THE TWO GREAT CONQUERORS, SETHOS AND RAxMESSES II. — 85 YEARS. A. THE FIRST KEIGN OF THE NINETEENTH DYNASTY: RAMES- SES I. (RAMeSSU RAMeN PCH), SON OF ATHOTIS AND GRANDSON OF AMENOPHIS III. (Plate VIII. 3i.) {Lepsius, Hist. Mon. vol. vi. PI. 123, 124.) We possess no monuments of liamesses I., the chief of the 19th Dynasty. There is at Wadi-Halfa (Behni in Egyptian), at the Second Cataract, a stele erected by his son Seti I. commemorative of the presents made by him there to the temple of Hor-Ammon. Similar hono- rary monuments were set up in other places by his son or posterity. Strangely enough his tomb in Biban el Moluk has no ornaments at all, nor has the granite sarcophagus still standing in the rock-chamber. It is only on the walls of the sepulchral chamber that some of the ordi- nary scenes representing the destiny of the soul are painted, clearly in the king's lifetime. It appears that his mother, the youngest daughter of Amenophis III. and wife of the priest Ai (the Skhai of Champollion), was not called Teti, but Tii. We are not in a condition to determine how many years of the 12 or 9, which are ascribed to Athotis, belong to the inde- pendent reign of Ramesses. If, however, we follow the Sect. IV. B. I.] SETIIOS I. AND IlIS EXPLOITS. 155 contemporary royal tablets, and omit Athotis, it is necessary to give the son more than one year, which Lepsius seems to assign to him. B. THE SECOND REIGN OF THE NINETEENTH DYNASTY : SE- THOS I. (SETHOSIS, SeTI MCRI-eN-PTeH RA-MCN-Ma), SON OF RAMESSES I. — 9 YEARS. (Plate YIII. 32.) {Lepsius, Hist 3Ion, vol. vi. PI. 124 — 141.) L SETI ON THE MONUMENTS. (ROS. M.R. XLVI. — LXI.) This great king, still most uncritically styled by some Menephthah, contrary to the correct reading of the hieroglyphics on the royal scutcheons, is one of the most remarkable and most glorious Pharaohs of the empire, both on account of his contests and victories and the magnificence of his palaces at Thebes, as well as the gorgeous and important representations on his tomb. He was, indeed, perhaps the most illustrious and cele- brated hero of the New Empire. This glorious reign cannot have lasted very long, not merely according to the Lists when properly understood, but because his edifices as well as his tomb itself, were completed by his son and successor. The only one of his regnal years recorded on his monuments is the first. It is mentioned on an in- scription of a rock-temple in the Heptanomis, dedicated by Sethos to Pacht, known as the Specs Artemidos. In order to obtain a solid foundation for our histori- cal restoration, let us first examine what the monuments say about him. 156 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Tart II. " The house of Sethos " in Western Thebes, com- monly known as Gurnah, was erected by him in honour of his father. The Great Ramesses adorned it with sculptures. He continued the buildings of Horus in Luxor. In Karnak he erected the vast hall supported by pillars (7), although it was his great son who com- pleted and dedicated it. This gorgeous building and his tomb are the two classic monuments for his history, and the evidence of the high character of art during his reign. I. Representation of Seti's Exploits in the great Hypostyle AT Karnak, {Plan of Karnak, 7.) Here, on the external wall of the enclosure to the north-east, the exploits of Sethos I. are represented, and they are, upon the whole, in good preservation. Rosel- lini describes their surpassing beauty in enthusiastic terms, which we give below in his own harmonious language. '^'^ M. St. iii. A. 320. seq. : " Ne io presume di poter con parole, e ne anco col mezzo dei disegni, comecche fatti con molto sapere e diligenza, far concepire ai miei lettori la stupenda bellezza di quelle sculture. Solo diro che come desse agguagliano in magistero d' arte tutto cio clie di piii perfetto produssero gli egiziani scalpelli, cosi con- siderate il numero, i movimenti, V estensione delle figure e le gigan- tesche forme di quelle che sopra le masse grandeggiano, niuna nazione mai al mondo, antica o moderna, ciascuna secondo 1' indole e il carat- tere dell' arte sua, oso di operare con tanto ardimento, o pervenne a imprimere alle sue opere maggior vita, e diro quasi maggior prestigio, di quello che in queste nostre sculture rifulge, a comprendere di alta maraviglia li occhi e la mente di chi le riguarda. Tutte le durezze di contorno, i difetti di prospettiva, i mancamenti in fine che puo ri- conoscervi 1' arte del disegno nella perfezione che acquisto poscia per r ingegno dei Greci, sono altrettanti caratteri che rendono quelle egiziane opere di una originalita inimitabile ; che costituiscono un' arte singolare, la quale non puo paragonarsi a quella di niun altro popolo ; che ti rapisce infine col magico efFetto delle sue masse e con una certa ingenuita dei particolari, senza lasciarti riflettere a tutto quanto e difetto secondo le regole dell' arte nostra." Sect. IV. B. I.] SETHOS I. AND IIIS EXPLOITS. 157 These painted bassi rilievi represent five triumphs of the monarch, as it would seem, over five different nations. Each of them concludes with thanks to Amun-Ra. 1. The Triumph over the Lutennu (or Betennu). We have already described these people as being identical with the Ludim of Scripture, the nation from the coast of North Africa, skilled in archery, who are mentioned by the Prophets in conjunction with the Libyans. In proof of the fallacy of supposing them to be Lydians is the fact of their being mentioned here again with the people of the " nine bows," a North- African race. Rosellini, in order to conceal the contra- diction, translates them " Barbarians," and thinks that again in this instance there may be a rapid transition from Asia to Africa. '^^ The Remnu are mentioned as a portion of the Re- tennu. The upper part of that country is specifically introduced. A fortress surrounded with water is cap- tured. The chief prisoners, employed in hewing wood, beg for mercy. Lebanon is among the places conjec- tured, and, as the inscription says that the prisoners are cutting down trees for the barge of Amun-Ra on the Nile, the conjecture is highly probable. This name signifies " the white," alluding to its snow-capped summit: but the Egyptians rightly considered it a pro- per name. 2. The Tinumph over the Shasii, i.e. Shepherds. According to the inscription, the struggle took place in the first year of his reign. It states that^^ "the defeated from the land of the Shasu (Shepherds), in the fortress Gaimui, to the hostile land of Kanaana . . . . the King conquered their valley." 78 M. St. iii. A. 335. M. St. iii. 3 10. seq. M. R. PI. xlviii. 2. 158 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part II. Here then we are in Asia, and, in fact, in Palestine. A fortress is seen on a rock with the inscription " For- tress of the Land of KanaanaJ'^ There can be no doubt that the Shepherd races in Canaan are here meant. Kanaana (PI. xlix. 1.), accord- ing to our reading, corresponds exactly with the full Hebrew form. In the following representation Rosel- lini thinks there is a break, because the enemy has the character of the Remnu. It states that the king has "de- feated the Nine bows, the Shepherds, and the great men of Shumdi," (Champollion reads Shari, and takes them for the modern Bishari,) and built a double wall against " the lands of the unclean." But this resem- blance and the mention of the North-Africans need not cause any difficulty. We consider it simply as the notice of the conquests over the Shepherd races gene- rally, on both sides — towards Palestine and Arabia Petrasa on one side, towards Libya on the other. This is our explanation of the double wall (eastern and western), which the king built against the Bedouins of that day. In the next sculpture (Plate xlix. 2.) the Shasu, or Shepherds, are again mentioned in or near Canaan, and at the same time the Shumui, noticed above with the Nine bows, which proves that there is no break.^^ Here there are three fortresses and two lakes, and the last of the fortresses is stated (p. 348.) to have been erected by Sethos, and was probably, therefore, a fron- tier fortress. Rosellini remarks (p. 359.) that the king's title of most frequent occurrence means " Guardian of Egypt," which has perhaps some connexion with the frontier fortresses and double wall. When he returns in triumph, the Nile is represented with a fortress (khetem), Rosellini says the name is 80 M. St. iii. 354. ; comp. 346. I Sect. IV. B. I.] SETHOS I. AND HIS EXPLOITS. 159 destroyed, but Birch reads it Garu. As there are a river and lake in the picture, and as the king must have been received on the frontiers of his new country, this is probably Pelusium or some city near it. There is also, beyond all doubt, a bridge, (p. 362.) The priests and grandees of the country come to meet the victorious monarch with festivities and homage. The inscription, which is well preserved, runs thus : " The most distin- guished priests of the Gods, the presidents of the upper and lower country, come to do homage to the good God on his return from the foreign land of the Retennu, after he has conquered and reduced to slaver}^ many great men. None has been seen like him except Osiris^ When adoring his majesty, and extolling the increase of his power, they say : " Thou hast gone forth to subjugate foreign lands, and hast trodden the world under foot with the voice of thy truth : thine enemies thou hast defeated on the (first) day of thy reign, like Ra in heaven : thou hast purified the hearts of all bar- barians. Ra gave thee their frontiers before thee, thy battle-axe was over the thrones of all foreign lands — their priests were pierced by thy sword.'^ The pri- soners here announced to Ammon are called, in one group, " Princes of the land of the Retennu," and in another, " Prisoners of the Shasu," in the first year of his reign. The passage where the conqueror of the northern people is mentioned as being only second to Osiris, is not simply authentic authority for the high position of Sethos, but it explains also the remark which we found applied to Sesortosis-Sesostris of the 12th Dynasty in Manetho's Lists. After mentioning the great victories of that hero of the Old Empire, it is said that he was celebrated on that account by the Egyptians as the first after Osiris, (See Book 11. p. 293. seq. especially M. St., loo. cit, p. 866. soq. IGO ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part II. p. 302.) This is literally what is here said of Sethos. In other words, he is described as the Sesostris of the New Empire. This is clearly the origin of the confu- sion of the Sesostride and Ramesside legends, though in the person of his great father, not of Ramesses himself. 3. The Triumph over the Atsh in the Land of Amar, (PI. Liii.) This representation commences with the taking of the hostile fortress. The enemy look like the Remnu. Shepherds with cattle flying are seen not far from a fort situated on a rock. All the rest is destroyed. 4. The Triumph over the Tahu, in the Land of the Rtt^nnu. These sculptures are better preserved, but our knowledge of the names of the conquered races is ob- tained from inscriptions of one and the same picture.®^ Their hands are tied together with papyrus leaves, which proves them to have come from the North of Egypt. 5. The Triumph over the Khet, Kheta, This representation is a very remarkable one. Ro- sellini unluckily took it into his head that they were Scythians, and the Scythians the Hyksos. We believe, on the contrary, that philologically, as well as geogra- phically, the choice lies only between the Khitti of the Bible and the Kittim^\ i.e. between the Hethites and the inhabitants of Cyprus. We should without hesitation decide in favour of the Hethites, that ancient and pow- erful people of Canaan, among whom Abraham dwelt in South Palestine at Hebron, did we not find express mention made in Manetho of Cyprus having been con- 82 M. St. PI. Ivi. Conf. M. St. iii. p. 383. 83 ^rin ; D'-ri!), D''?ri3, Khittaei, Citienses. Sect. IV. B. I.] SETHOS I. AND HIS EXPLOITS. 161 quered by Sethos. We therefore leave the point open, as offering a possibility of the name alluding to these islanders. The Kheta are here armed with bows and arrows, and wear long square shields ; they have no beard, a close-fitting cap on their heads, and sometimes a feather. The hair falls in thick clusters from the cap on to their shoulders. (PI. lviii. seq.) Their long coat is fastened with a girdle, and has short sleeves. The king who conquered them is styled also " Tamer of the Libyan Shepherds." (p. 394.) The Retennu do homage to him. (p. 398.) It is said of him, that he has twice devastated the land of the Kheta with fire. (p. 401.) Another inscription (p. 402., comp. PL lvii.) seems to say that the king carries with him the princes of the hostile country of the Retennu after his victories over the Kheta. Each of the two main divisions of all these five repre- sentations finishes with a large figure, which bears the stamp of being the august portrait of the king. (PL LX. LXI.) Sethos is holding nine prisoners of nine different races, four besides the above five, some of them evi- dently negroes. Over some of the groups (p. 409.) he is called the Conqueror of the land of Petu, Pet, and of the Libyan Shepherds; and it seems that Nhra (Naharina, Meso- potamia) is mentioned as the frontier. Retennu and Nubia are also mentioned, (p. 416.) The nations who are grouped in three rows before Ammon are thus arranged : I. Southern nations: "Race of Kesh" (Ethiopia) (p. 420.): 1 . Utra — Urashu — Emrakaraka — Kuka. 2. Srani — Brabra (Berbers) — Takrrr (probably Dakruri in Upper Nubia, as Rosellini thinks) — Irimtata — Kurass — Urak ; 3. Tururak. VOL. III. M 1G2 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISiMS. [Book IV. Part II. 11. Northern nations : The five peoples enumerated above : 1. ''Libyan Shepherds" (the Mennahom of Rosel- lini) : Khet ; Naharina ; Rtn ( Upper and Lower) ; Sinkar (Rosellini happily suggests Singara, near Edessa^^) ; Unut ; Pebash ; (Two illegible ending in iia.) 2. Asi: Mennus ; Bairanut ; Unnu ; Shasu (Shepherds) ; Sritu ; Punt (Pnn, land of the red granite, on the Red Sea ; perhaps Mauritania ; certainly not PcENi, PuNi, Phoenicians) ; Rhsh ; and a few others obliterated. 3. Atmes: Men sail ; Ushah ; Nuahu ; Mehekrau ; Tinhur ; Anakm ; Memtu ; JMatu ; Turt; Sthebu ; Pekatmu. Pliny, N. H. v. 24. Stepli. de Urb. s. v. Sect. IV. B. I.] SETHOS I. AND HIS EXPLOITS. 163 We maintain that, to an Egyptian, the northern na- tions mean in fact races of North Africa, consequently Libyans, and perhaps Mauritanians. This view was first developed with great ingenuity and equal scholarship by our learned friend, Colonel Mure, in a treatise which we shall shortly be called upon to examine more closely. Rosellini's idea, that the Rmmn, Shasu, Amar, Tahn, and Khet in the above inscriptions must be counted among the Rtnn, and that the latter are Lydians, i. e. Asiatics, is untenable. The inscriptions do not say so, and Lud is not Lydia, still less Asia, which is a very modern idea. 11. The Tomb of Seti. — The Representation of the Four Races of Men. The representations on the magnificent tomb of this king in the valley of Biban El Moluk contain no his- torical subjects, except the celebrated group of the four RACES, each represented by four men. They stand in one row (as may be seen in Belzoni's work, who disco- vered it), and form the following groups (Ros. M. R. CLV. CLVI.): First : The Tamahu, fair-complexioned, in long clothing of skins without girdles, with painted (tattooed) skin, little beard, the hair artistically arranged, a long tuft on the cheek and two ostrich feathers on the head. Secondly: The Nehes (Xhsu), Negroes, with their under garments and a shawl thrown over the left shoulder serving as a girdle, and golden bracelets hanging from the wrist. Thirdly : The Hem (Hemu), of a light brown colour, well-formed men, with fine under garments, the hair in a bag hanging down, and blue eyes. The usual reading is Aamu (Great of the Water) : Birch suggests either the Hebrew word 7ia??i, M 2 164 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part II. people, or gojim, nations, as the derivation. The former written with the letter Ain is the more probable, according to the correspondence of the two alphabets. Fourthly : The Ret, i.e. the kind, the race, or especially the men, a representation of four Egyptians fol- lowed by Horus. The simple question naturally is, whom are we to understand by the first and third rows ? We must here give our full acquiescence in the explanation of these representations offered by Mure, as early as 1836, in the annals of the Archaeological Institute at Rome, in opposition to the views of Champollion and Rosellini. He does not consider Africa, Europe, and Asia to be here depicted, but in the first group the inhabitants of Mauritania and N"orth Africa generally, in the third, the inhabitants of Palestine. Everything that has since been advanced by Osburn and others as to it and the names is unwarranted by philology, and at variance with historical probability. All that we can ven- ture to say is, that the group immediately preceding the Egyptians probably represents the Asiatics who were known to them, namely, the Semitic people of Palestine, Syria, and possibly also Arabia. They ex- hibit the high-born impress of the Caucasian race, which we are in the habit of calling Oriental, and hence they bear an unmistakable resemblance to the hand- somely featured Jews, or the Assyrians and Persians on the monuments of Nineveh and Persepolis. Thus also the Tamahu may be considered to represent the Libyans in the widest sense, as precisely similar representations occur with the name of Pet, the people of the nine bows. As Ret is not the proper name of the Egyptians, it need be no matter of surprise that the names Hemu and Tamahu are not met with in the numerous representa- 85 See the Alphabet (Phonetics, M. 8.) in Vol. I. Part I. Sect. IV. B. I.] SETHOS I. AND HIS EXPLOITS. 165 tions of single conquered nations. At present, however, no philological explanation of these names has been dis- covered. The solution offered of the general appella- tion of the Asiatics as ''Great of the Water" is as questionable as Osburn's fanciful notion (who translates it ungrammatically " Great Water") that it means the Euphrates, and contains an allusion to the origin of the human race on the great river. There is one circumstance, independent of such un- certain names, which, as regards the research into the old people-history, seems to me more important than any conjectures as to their meaning. Everything com- bines to render it probable that the extent of the cam- paigns of the Tuthm5ses and Ramessides, as well as of the names of the people, which are in fact frequently repeated, was, as regards general history, a very narrow one. Wherever we discover an undoubted historical Asiatic name, it is in Palestine or Syria. Here we have Canaan and the Hethites, here also Damascus ; and, as a general rule, the extreme northern point seems to be Mesopotamia (Naharina). If, then, we compare with this limited theatre of the campaigns and conquests of the Pharaohs of that age, the vast number of names which are recorded as individual peoples, it is clear, in the first place, that no great empire then existed in Palestine and Syria, not even a single important state. The second result, and one which is a direct consequence of the other, is, that these monuments represent the condition of those countries as precisely identical with what we find in the most ancient accounts in the Bible — single Canaanitish races, principally nomads, with a few towns some of which were fortified. We may also witli probability infer from it that no powerful empire then existed on the Tigris and Euphrates, in Mesopotamia, Nineveh, or Babylon. These two cities are made tributary without any great effort, like the others. Had the kingdom of Babylon been still in exist- M 3 166 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part II. ence, there would have been greater adhesion among these separate races in those productive regions. Our only hope of making any real advance as to a knowledge of the state of these countries lies in a cri- tical comparison of the Egyptian geography of Pa- lestine and Syria with the most ancient Hebrew, and with the Syrian and Canaanitish races and localities on the oldest Assyrian monuments. We are not, however, so far advanced at present as to be able to institute any such comparison with a reasonable expectation of success. II. SETHOS, THE FATHER OF RAMESSES, IX THE HISTORICAL TRADITION AS RESTORED. In the passage transmitted by Josephus out of Ma- netho's historical work, or, at all events, all that is im- portant in it, we learn that Sethosis, i. e. Sethos L, first conquered Cyprus and Phoenicia and then made a suc- cessful expedition against the Assyrians and Medes. After this, on his return from that expedition, while sojourning in Pelusium, he was treacherously threatened by his brother Armais with being burnt to death, from whom, with a few attendants, he escaped as it were by a miracle. This campaign then, as Lepsius has rightly remarked, does not belong to Ramesses, but to his father. This puts an end to the fruitless search after the supposed double of Ramesses, on whom Rosellini especially has expended so much ingenuity, and in whom Kenrick still believes. Ko such double is to be found on the monuments, for it is beyond all question that the cruel brother was a paternal uncle of Ramesses, who received in his father's lifetime the merited reward of his treachery. If we turn back to the monuments, we find that the Sect. IV. B. II.] SETHOS I. RESTORED TRADITION. 167 Punt, who are not Pceni, furnish no evidence as to the conquest of the Phoenicians ; nor do we meet with any trace of Sidon, the ancient Tsidon of Scripture (proba- bly therefore in Egyptian, Titun, Tintun), or of Tyre. But Seti did conquer the land of Kanaana and the Kheta (Hittites); and Phoenicia, according to the most ancient phraseology, belonged to the land of Canaan. With a Phoenician fleet, therefore, he may very well have gone to the island of Cyprus. Hence, it is not in itself impossible that the Kheta and Kittseans, i. e. Cy- prians, the Kittim of Scripture, were the same name. If they are different names, according to all analogy of sound, as far as we know, they must be Hittites. The Egyptians must have written the word Kitta3ans with a K instead of Ch. But Cyprus cannot have been more than temporarily subject to Egypt. The occupation of a remote island in the Mediterranean must necessarily have been pe- rilous to them. How could they retain it for any length of time, not only without being certain of Phoenicia, but of Crete also, which they doubtless knew as Kaphtor, Avhere their arch-enemies the Philistines of Palestine, probably the remains of the northern Hyksos races themselves, were settled ? But there is no trace of any- thing of the kind on the monuments. On the contrary, the struggle with the Kheta lasts throughout the whole period, and it was evidently one of primary importance to the Egyptians. The monuments of Ramesses place this in the clearest light. From all these considerations, we draw the conclusion that the statement in Manetho as to the conquest of Cyprus arises from a misunderstanding of the Kheta on the monuments. This assumption has everything in its favour, and nothing against it. Long before the time of Manetho the Hittites had disappeared entirely from Palestine and from history, the Jewish and Philis- tine conquests having, shortly after the time of Ra- M 4 168 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part 11. messes, destroyed their power for ever. On the other hand, in Manetho's time the name of the Kittaeans, or Kittites, was in every body's mouth in Egypt as well as in Greece. In imputing, however, to Manetho a misunderstand- ing of the meaning of the name of a foreign people who had ceased to exist, we do not derogate from his high value as an annalist, especially as regards his knowledge of the monuments of the kings whose history he wrote. Such a misunderstanding is as compatible with a know- ledge of the monuments, as a correct interpretation of them. There is, on the other hand, nothing to be said against the statement as to the subjugation of the Phoe- nicians. If the account of Ramesses's expedition to Babelmandeb be historical, it may have been performed by Phoenician sailors. But an expedition to Mesopo- tamia, at all events, implies the submission of the Phoe- nician cities. There are to this day, indeed, scutcheons of Ramesses on the coast. Thus much as to the first part of the campaigns and conquests of Seti according to Manetho. We may venture to assert that the monuments ofi'er ample evi- dence of the historical character of these notices. As regards the campaigns " against the Assyrians and Medes," we certainly have no records, except as to the expedition to Mesopotamia (Naharina) and the un- certain mention of Edessa on the Euphrates. But this may suffice to explain Manetho's statement, if we as- I sume that Mesopotamia was the point in dispute be- tween Egypt and an Assyro-Babylonian empire, as it was under Tuthm5sis III. ; add to which, that much that has been transmitted to us is mutilated, much more entirely lost. The flourishing age of Assyria only begins with Ninus, 120 years after Seti. But the empires of the Euphrates are much older, as well as the Bactrian state. It must especially be remembered, however, that successful forays are not lasting con- Sect. IV. B. II.] SETHOS I. RESTORED TRADITION. 169 quests. The son and successor of Sethos had to recon- quer the same countries; Tuthmosis III. received tribute from Nineveh and Babel. The representation of the third historical campaign, the return to Pelusium, is drawn in very marked colours. The prominence given to his triumphant entry into a place that every victorious Pharaoh must have touched at on his return, his brilliant reception there, and apotheosis, as it were, may be most naturally accounted for by a circumstance about which the monu- ments are silent, though it is mentioned in the annals, the miraculous escape of the king from the mur- derous attack of his treacherous brother. In this manner it seems that the reign of Seti I. emerges most satisfactorily from the obscurity of ancient misunderstandings and fables into historical light. We have shown in the First Book that the name of Sesostris given by Herodotus to Ramesses, and his campaigns of nine years' duration ascribed by Diodorus to the same Ramesses, belong to the Great Sesortosis of the 12th Dynasty. The confusion in the names of Sethos and Ramesses, the father and son, in the history of the great conquests of the 19th Dynasty, was, however, the source of still greater blunders. These we may now hope to rectify by combining a study of the monuments with the criticism of Manetho and the Greek writers. The general results of these two reigns of the fourteenth century B.C. can be developed with the same authentic certainty as those of David and Solomon, three cen- turies later. Our knowledge of their personality and of their intellectual development will, it is true, always remain as far inferior as it now is to our knowledge of the two Jewish kings : but it must correspond exactly with their intellectual importance to history generally. 170 ASIATIC SYNCHKONISMS. [Book IV. Part 11. C. THE THIRD REIGN: RAMESSES II. (rAMGSSU : WITH THE ADDITION MeRI-AMN (mIAMu), RA-SeSeR-MA : FREQUENTLY WITH THE ADDITION SeTeP-eN-RA), SON OF SETHOS I. (Plate VII. 4i.) (^LepsiuSy Hist. Mon» vol. vi. PI. 142 — 172. : end of volume.) "Mox visit (Germanicus) veterum Tliebarurn magna vestigia. Et inanebant structis molibus litterse Mgy- ptiae, priorem opulentiam complex^, jussusque e se- nioribus sacerdotum patrium sermonem interpretari referebat habitasse quondam septingenta inillia aetate militari, atque eo cum exercitu regem Ramsen Libya, Ethiopia Medisque et Persis et Bactriano ac -Scytha potitum, quasque terras Syri Armeniique et contigui Cappadoces colunt, inde Bithynum hinc Lycium ad mare imperio tenuisse. Legebantur et indicta gentibus tributa, pondus argenti et auri, numerus armorum equorumque, et dona templis, ebur atque odores, quasque copias frumenti et omnium utensilium quaeque natio penderet, hand minus magnifica, quam nunc vi Parthorum aut potentia Romana jubentur." — Tacit. Amial. ii. 60. I. SETHOS, KAMSES, MENEPHTHAH : OR THE ELEVATION, CULMINATION, AND FALL OF THE HOUSE OF RA3IESSES. Ramesses the Ammondoving, with the throne-name " Helios, strength of truth," and usually with the addition " tried by Helios," is one of those false idols which criticism may be pardoned for having set up. He was certainly a warrior and a conqueror. His Sect. IV. C. I.] RAMSES II. AND HIS EXPLOITS. 171 reign was long, and the beginning of it glorious, exter- nally, at least. The ruins of his buildings still cover the land over which he ruled. But the name so loudly extolled is that of the father, Sethosis. He is the celebrated hero, second only to the divine Osiris. His reign was short, but triumphant to the last. He left his monuments unfinished, but the highest honours were paid to him, not merely by the priests, but also by the people. Kamesses reigned above sixty-six years. He inherited from his father a mighty empire, and an army accustomed to fight and to conquer. With it he sub- dued, or rather marched through, Nubia to the south, Mesopotamia and Palestine to the north ; but he left behind him an exhausted and debilitated kingdom, and a dynasty so shattered, that his son and successor was obliged, in a few years, to flee the country before rebel- lious outcasts and prisoners employed on his buildings, and before the Palestinian hordes who joined them. This is the concise picture which the monuments offer of these three remarkable races, and which we with con- fidence introduce into the history of the old world. But what further detail have we of the brilliant appearance of this Ramesses, who before the discovery of the hiero- glyphics was in the eyes of many scholars the echo of a fable ; and is still perhaps in Germany, to many a specu- lative hunter after myths and dreamy antiquarian, a mythological hero in disguise, if not even a fallen God, or a raindrop that has evaporated ? The critical question at present is simply this : What part of the Sesostris-Sethosis tradition belongs to him, and what to his father ? What part of it, again, is to be abs- tracted from both of them and given to the two great rulers of the 3rd and 12th Dynasties, the two Sesortoses or genuine Sesostrises ? 172 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part II. 11. RAMSES II., SON OF THE GREAT SETHOSIS, AND HIS EXPLOITS, ACCORDING TO THE MONUMENTS. We will first of all, again taking Rosellini as our prin- cipal guide, go through the separate buildings^^, and give an account of the historical facts they contain. The representation of that excellent describer is unfor- tunately sullied by his erroneous idea, that the scutcheon of this king, without the addition in the throne-name, is intended for the younger brother, whom he therefore calls Ramses IL, in order to distinguish him from the Great Ramesses, whom he calls Ramses III. The colossal statue at Memphis alone (34^ feet from head to foot), now lying on the ground at Mit-Rahineh, which once adorned the temple of Ptah, not to mention other reasons, might have prevented this unprejudiced critic from falling into the error of the French school, which to our astonishment has been adopted by Kenrick. For in this unquestion- able portrait of the conqueror, which corresponds in every respect with the representations extant of him in the museums of Turin and London, the clasp of the girdle contains the full title, whereas there are scut- cheons on both sides of it without the addition ''tried by Helios." The portrait of Ramses, which has all the marks of being a likeness, exhibits the highest ideal of the Egyptian countenance. What is supposed to be the portrait of the brother is the well-known beautiful face of Ramesses. It is also an error to suppose that the two brothers, as separate individuals, are standing before their father at Ipsambul. It is the king, once as a mortal, and once as a divinity, giving blessing to the king, that is, to himself. But the whole story of two brothers Ramesses is a pure fable. 86 M. R. PI. Ixiv.— cxiv. M. St. iii. B. 1—296. Sect. IV. C. II. ] RAMSES II. AND HIS EXPLOITS. 173 I. Rock-Temple at Beit-Ualli in Nubia. In the small rock-temple of Beit-Ualli, not far from Talmis (Kalabshe^''), in Nubia, the king is represented as " Conqueror of the Nine Bows" (usually called Li- byans), and "the heretic race of the Kesh" (Kushites). The latter have the complete Asiatic type. In another representation he is said to have tamed the Tehennu. The conquered race is bearded, and of a yellowish red complexion. These then represent his triumphs over the people of Southern and Northern Africa. In another representation we read, " Under the soles of thy feet are the Sharui," a people whom we have found mentioned in the exploits of Sethos, together with the Shasu (Pales- tinian Shepherds) and the Nine Bows. In the repre- sentation on the left side of the entrance of the rock, we read (p. 33.), The King has encompassed with war the land of the Retennu." He is accompanied in this campaign by two of his sons. The elder stands before him as standard-bearer, and presents to him the African booty (p. 34. seq.). Among the prizes is the son of an Ethiopian king, Amenemhept, dressed as an Egyptian. Among the animals we notice the gazelle and giraffe. The children have three single tufts on their head, the rest of which is shaved, as we find them at the present day in Nubia (p. 38.). The conquered Ethiopians are armed with long bows, such as those described by Strabo, six feet long, made of wood, and hardened in the tire. Amongst the objects of value are gold and precious stones, ivory, and ebony. Champollion, therefore, very properly calls attention to the passage in Diodorus, where Sesostris is mentioned as imposing tribute on the Ethiopians of ivory, gold, and ebony — whether by Sesostris be meant Harnesses, or his father, or even the old real Sesostris. «7 M. R. PI. Ixiv.— Ixxv. Diod. Sic. i. 33. Comp. Strabo, xvii. 23. 174 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. P.uit II. On the sculptures of this temple Rosellini invariably found the addition, tried by Ea." On all the other larger monuments he is either represented alone, or oc- casionally with the shorter form. II. The Great and Little Rock-Temples at Ipsamboul. The grandest of all the rock-temples at Ipsambul (in Egyptian, Abshek^^), half a day's journey from Wadi- Halfa, on the left bank, is also the work of the great Ramses. It was dedicated by him to Ka, and a smaller one by his wife, Nefruari, to Hathor.^^ Almost all the walls of the rock in this gloomy cavern are covered with the most splendid bassi rilievi. The principal personages are the size of life. We are indebted to the Italico-French Commission, and especially Rosellini, for Champollion was laid up at the time ^vith fever, for clearing the entrance, which was choked up with sand, and making an accurate copy of all the repre- sentations. The king is accompanied by three of his sons. There is on one picture a list of the conquered nations the following names of whom are still legible : the Libyan Shepherds; the Xhsi (Negroes) ; a portion of the northern country of the Hemu ; a part of Nubia ; Shasu (shep- herds) ; the Retennu, who have been as ill treated by the interpreters as they were by the Egyptians ; and the Tehennu. On the clothes of one of the latter prisoners is the plant of the south, which Rosellini explains as repre- senting the southern portion of a country to the north of Egypt. The complexion and features certainly look Kosellini, p. 668., compares the Aboccis of Pliny, mentioned by liim with Pselcis and Primis (Dekke and Ibrim). Ptolemy has 90 M. n. Ixxix.— ciii. 91 PI. Ixxxiii. Comp. M. St. p. lOo. seq. ' Sect. IV. C. II.] EAMSES II. AND HIS EXPLOITS. 175 like Xorth Africa. In another picture ^"^ is represented his conquest over the Ethiopians and Nubians. Here the king is accompanied by a tiger or panther. This is, perhaps, the origin of the story about the lion, which, according to Diodorus, is represented fighting by the side of Sesostris. It may, however, not be in- tended as actually accompanying him, as in the case of Tippoo Saib, but merely as the emblem of strength. It is here that Ramses himself, as the God Ra, sitting be- tween Ammon and Muth, is giving life and purity to the king, i. e. to himself, a representation which has been explained above. The largest representation is that of the campaign against the Kheta, already identified as the great ab- original inhabitants of Canaan, the Hittites. It contains more than 800 figures, the central point being the king's tent.^^ The first view is an attack on a strong hostile city. Both the armies have war chariots. Some- times the enemy wear a thick moustache ^"^ ; sometimes the heads are shorn, with a long tuft hanging down behind ; sometimes they have a profusion of hair. They wear also a long cloak with short sleeves. There are some cavalry among them. Their arms, armour, har- ness, and chariots are exactly similar to the Egyptian (p. 157.). The name of the city is well known to us from the time of Tuthmosis III., Fortress of Atsh, and seems to be near a river. Rosellini endeavours to prove that it is not the same name as occurs in the conquests of Menephthah — " Atschen in the land of Amar" — though he admits that the diff'erence in the form is unimportant. But he thinks that in one case the enemy are very like the Remnu, while in the other 92 M. R. Ixxxiv. Ixxxv. Comp. M. St. iii. B. 110. seq. 9^ M. R. Ixxxviii. — ciii. '■^^ M. R. Ivii. Iviii. lix. ciii. M. St. iii. p. 1. 389., p. 2. 157. 256. 176 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part II. they are different from them. After the fortress is captured, envoys from the Shasu andKheta (who in the first instance are taken for spies, seized, and tortured) come to sue for peace, which they obtain. There is certainly no positive indication in this long inscription of forty-three lines^^, and on which there is the date of the fifth year^ ninth month, and ninth day, as to the precise relation between the country of the Kheta and Naharina (Mesopotamia^^ ), which is mentioned in it. But it seems clear that they were neighbouring, indeed adjoining countries (line 18. p. 143. seq.), and that Atsh is described as a southern point in the land of the Kheta. This would agree very well with Asdod, Azot, in the land of the Philistines. The resemblance, how- ever, is a distant one. Atshn is in the land of Amar — can it mean the Amorites ? Edessa has been proposed, but there is no point of correspondence with it. The names of the leaders of the Kheta are for the most part uncertain, those which are in good preservation do not sound like anything historical. The campaign, therefore, took place at the com- mencement of his reign, peace was made at the end of the fifth year. The temple seems to have been built much later. On a stele between the last two pilasters on the left, the thirty fifth yo^^iV is mentioned (p. 161.). There is the same date in a rock inscription not far from this shrine'''', where an Ethiopian prince is repre- sented as the king's secretary and counsellor. But the most remarkable notice is the statement it contains (column 13. Rosellini, p. 181. seq.) that " he brought with him out of all countries builders, as slaves of his supremacy over all foreign lands, and erected houses for the Gods with the sons of the land of Retennu." It is 9-5 M. K. PL c. ci. cii. Comp. M. St. iii. B. 137. seq. 96 This country is also mentioned in another picture, p. 129. 97 M. St. iii. B. i. 186. seq. Sect. IV. C. II.] RAMSES II. AND HIS EXPLOITS. 177 Avell known that Diodorus adduces this circumstance as forming the glory of Sesostris, that he had all his buildings erected by prisoners of war.^^ In the smaller temple the king is said (p. 173. PI. cxi.) " to have annihilated Pan .... destroyed the Nehesu (Negroes), smote the South, and overturned the North." III. Buildings at Thebes and Luxor. — The so-called Memno- NiUM (Ramesseum). — Karnak. Ramses adorned every part of Thebes. In the vast edifice of Amenophis (Luxor) he erected the court and pylon, which were already connected by the dromos of columns of King Horus with the main building. He erected also two obelisks, one of which is now in the Place de la Concorde at Paris. It appears from the in- scription, as Rosellini happily remarked that this w^as a restoration of the more ancient and gorgeous buildings in honour of Ammon. It is certain, there- fore, that these must have been built by the Theban Kings of the Old Empire, who were much better able to construct such splendid temple-palaces than the tribu- tary princes in the Middle Empire. This is true also of the adjoining constructions of the 12th Dynasty. We have an instance of it at Karnak, in a shrine which bears the name of Sesortesen. On the wall behind the obelisk the king's tent is again represented, who is at war with the Kheta, and a repetition of the scene with the envoys, who are seized and tortured as spies (PI. cvi. seq.). The date of the day and month in the fifth year is likewise the same. " The great house of Ramses," his principal building, the Ramesseum, is on the western side of Thebes. It is described by the French savans sent by Napoleon, as Diod. Sic. i. c. 55. seq. M. St. p. 202. seq. Comp. p. 198. VOL. III. N 178 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part II. the Memnonium. Here it was that he erected the largest of all the colossi, the sitting figure of himself, about forty feet high from the seat. Here is also a repetition on the walls of the great expedition to Pales- tine and Mesopotamia against the Kheta, but with certain peculiarities. Some well preserved names of leaders of the Kheta are also given — Khirupasaru, Magaruma, Tarakanasi. In all these representations there are various par- ticular traits, such as those described by Diodorus after Hecataeus on the so-called tomb of Osymandyas ; the four sons as leaders of four divisions, an attack upon a fortress near which a river is flowing, and, lastly, the lion by the king's side. This renders it therefore certain that the historian obtained his in- formation from the Ramesseum, the site of which, and even its dimensions, correspond exactly with his ac- count. But if Hecataeus described this war as carried on against the rebellious Bactrians, such a statement would seem, from the above inscriptions, to be as fabu- lous as the name of the king. There is no authority for Champollion's idea that the people here represented are from the north-west of Persia, consequently Bac- trians, or Scythian Bactrians. Rosellini, who in the first instance read the Kheta Skheto, and interpreted them as Scythians, rather inclined in his last work to the notion that they were people of Western Asia.^^^ It seems to us to represent nothing but a glorious campaign against Palestine as far as Lebanon. Kanaana (Canaan) is the only certain identification. Those that are uncertain are, Asht, Ashten, a fortress on the water (Asdod ?). Kemnu cannot be explained as Lebanon. But there are, at all events, still extant, scutcheons of the conqueror at Bey root, at the foot of Lebanon. M. St. p. 231. scq. PL cix. ex. 101 M. St. iii. B. 257, seq. I Sect. IV. C. II.] RAMSES II. AND HIS EXPLOITS. 179 No. 8 on our plan of the Palace of Karnak marks the works of this king. He erected the propylsea in front of tlie hall of columns, with two vast colossi facing each other, twenty-five high, of red granite, like- nesses of himself, and a spacious forecourt. Here are re- presented many conquered nations. Among " those of the south," the names still legible are Kesh, Arashu, Barabara (Barabra, now in Nubia); among "those of the north," the name which Rosellini read Juinin (lonians) when speaking of Sethos I. This, however, is decidedly incorrect. The lonians (Uina) certainly oc- cur in early times, but written as on the Rosetta stone. The people or country is called Arhuna or Ihuna, as our alphabet shows. On the outer wall, on the left wing of the hall of columns of his father, which he sculptured, there are several inscriptions of Ramses, but sadly mutilated. There are also wars and triumphs depicted. The Retennu are mentioned (p. 263.), Kesh and Arashu (p. 264.), as well as the Kheta and " the fortress of the land of Tesh ; " a chief of the land of Arutu ; Iriunna ; Masi. There are, on another wall, more than thirty lines containing the treaty made with the Kheta on the 20th of Tobi (the fifth month) of the 21st year of his reign. Rosellini translated it, but with his usual modesty called it an unsuccessful attempt, (p. 269. seq. PI. cxvi.) From this it appears, that on the day above mentioned, Ramses, after defeating the rebellious Kheta, made a treaty with their chief, Prince Kheta-sira (Kheta- Prince ^^^), who, with other leaders of the nation, came to him, and that mention is made of the Gods of both M. St. iii. B. 260., and corresponding plate. 103 have remarked in our treatise on the Semitic languages that the Babylonian lias a similar construction, at variance with the later Semitism. 180 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part II. nations. Amun-Ra appears as an Egyptian God, Sut and Asterta as Gods of the Kheta, i. e. as stated in the first book, Set and Astarte, consequently a God whose name corresponds with the Egyptian Seth, and a Goddess whom we know as Syrian and Babylonian. In the land of the Kheta, "waters" are also mentioned, (p. 280.) It seems, as Rosellini remarks, as though the likenesses of the Gods were intended to mark the boundaries be- tween the two peoples. For it says at line 27. (p. 280.), the God Sut of the fortress of . . . Sut of the for- tress of the land of Aranita : Sut (Ros. Sutsh) of the fortress of the land of Chisisi;" and the same formula occurs in other mutilated passages. IV. The Tomb of Ramesses, the Son of Sethos. The tomb of this conqueror appears, from a number of his scutcheons which are extant there, to be the third to the right of the entrance into the valley at Biban el Moluk. Rosellini, however, did not succeed in clearing away the vast heap of rubbish, and only got a glimpse at the interior in a very hurried and unsatisfactory manner. Lepsius gives no drawing of it in his Monuments. Ro- sellini found some of the walls wholly without orna- ment, and it was evidently never completed. I cannot believe, in deference to Hecataeus' description of the tomb of Osymandyas, that he was buried in the Ra- messeum. V. The Northern Wall of Defence, and the Canal of the Red Sea. After Lepsius' researches, there can be no doubt that Ramses restored or completed the walls of defence Usually in Rosellini, Sut^, i. e. Sutkh. Perhaps the sieve, or what looks very like it, is only a determinative. The accompanying figure is that of Set. Rosellini twice read it Sut (p. 280. note). Asterta (Astarte) is erroneously read Anterta. Sect. IY. C III.] RAMSES IT. : CltlTICAL RESULTS. 181 ■which his father erected or commenced against the in- roads of the Palestinian and Arabian shepherds. The canal from the Nile to the Red Sea, at the first turn of it to the east as far as Seba Biar, also bears the name of Eamesses. It is well known that Ramses was the name of one of the two depots or storehouses in the land of Goshen, which must have been erected by the Israelites. III. HISTORICAL RESULTS OF THE CRITICISM OF THE MONUMENTS. We have, first of all, not a tittle of authority in the monuments for assuming that Ramesses was called Sesostris, or even had such an appellation as a title of honour. It is on the other hand expressly stated of Sethos, his father, that, after Osiris, he was the greatest benefactor Egypt ever had. Ramses is the son of Sethos, and nothing else. He is the heir of his con- quests and armies. But not only were his expeditions confined exclusively within the same circle as those of Sethos, but his later campaigns were to the northern frontiers of Egypt against the Hittites, who were then powerful in Southern Palestine. Canaan, within its ancient boundaries, Avhich included Phoenicia, is the principal theatre of them. Mesopotamia (Naharina), which would seem to have been the limit of the con- quests of Sethos, or extreme point of his expeditions, does not once occur in the extant monuments of Ramses. The extreme southern point reached was Ethiopia (Kush) ; but even there much fewer names of subjected tribes occur than in the case of Sethos. This can hardly be accidental, inasmuch as we possess more monuments of Ramses than of any other king. How different was the state of things under Tuthm5- N 3 182 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Tart II. sis III. ! Babel and Nineveli were conquered, and Meso- potamia was tributary long after his reign. The first treaty of peace of which we have an account was made in the fifth year of his reign, the last in the twenty-first. Now if we consider that his reign lasted 66 years, we may fairly conclude that the campaign which ended in his fifth year was the first the young king ever made. Again, how could he have undertaken distant expeditions without being sure of his immediate northern frontier ? His conquests must, at all events, have been lost, as he had a powerful enemy to combat not far from Pelusium. The greatness of this Pharaoh then must depend, if at all, upon his edifices. These certainly are marvellous. It cannot be accidental that we possess more monu- ments of his than of any Pharaoh, we might say almost as many as of all the other Pharaohs of the New Empire down to Sheshonk put together. Indeed, the remarkable inscription at Ibsambul alluded to above expressly says, and it is one of the main features in the Sesostris-Seth5sis legend of the Alexandrians, that his edifices were erected by prisoners whom he carried ofi* from the enemies' countries. It is obvious that a reign of 66 years, the last cam- paign of which, as far as is known to us, ended in the twenty-first, supplied the despot of a wealthy land who had a taste for building, the heir of an established power and vast treasures, who could employ at one time thousands of prisoners upon it, with ample means for accomplishing something far beyond the ordinary standard. But these innumerable constructions exhausted the empire to such an extent, that his son and heir was obliged to flee the country^ and from this time forth the strength of the New Empire was essentially broken down, in spite of the temporary success of his Ramesside suc- cessors. Sect. IV. C. III.] RAMSES II. : ClUTICAL RESULTS. 183 The most striking proof, however, of the pitiable con- dition of the close of his reign is his unfinished tomb. His son and subjects cannot have had much respect for his memory, as they did not adorn or complete his se- pulchre, the especial house of an Egyptian, which he had probably himself partially erected. No trace whatever exists of any ceremony having been appointed in his ho- nour ; no trace of his being distinguished by any name to commemorate his exploits ; though he certainly makes his God Sokari, in Ibsambul, promise him " the whole world shall be subject to thee, and I will cause them to love thee."^^^ This, Rosellini, who is a very enthusiastic admirer of him, thinks a proof of his having been a mild ruler.^^^ But it is difficult to conceive that one should have been beloved by his enemies and slaves, to whom his own son and subjects refused even the last honours, or paid them in a singularly niggard manner. It is likewise false sentimentality to give him credit for par- ticular lenity, because he exacted compulsory service from strangers and prisoners in erecting his buildings. This is no proof at all that his own faithful subjects Avere better off under the burthen of such extravagant and costly expenditure during the period of five and forty years. The facts, indeed, are all the other way. If that feature in the Sesostris-Ramesses period which w^as connected with this panegyric belongs to this Pha- raoh, namely, that on such occasions he compelled the princes and chief personages among his captives to drag his chariot, it is, as a personal trait, simply a proof of a low haughty disposition, of a love of display, if not of cruelty. Not the slightest doubt, however, can be entertained as to his harsh and cruel disposition, by any one who feels bound to come to the conclusion that Ramses II., '0'^ See inscriptions in Rosellini, 1. 20. p. 164. Page 270. N 4 , 184 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part II. the son of Scthos, and no other, is the Pharaoh who drove the Israelites to desperation by his inhuman op- pression. We will only so far anticipate here the sequel of proof, by stating a fact first established by Lepsius, that Menephthah, his son, is the Pharaoh in whose reign Moses effected the glorious Exodus. Ramses II., therefore, the hero of Egyptologers, the false Sesostris, the son so celebrated at the expense of the father, is the hard-hearted Pharaoh with whose overthrow the Book of Exodus commences. The oppression of the Israelites doubtless begun under Tuthmosis III., but the open- ing remark (Exod. i. 11.), "they set over them task- masters," &c., clearly referred to Ramses II. The reign of the first Ramses was short. Here again it is ob- vious that the immediate predecessor of the Pharaoh of the Exodus is spoken of (comp. ii. 23.). In all probability, then, we must also place to the account of Ramses the inhuman order to destroy all the Israelitish children (i. 22.), for we can hardly take literally the statement as to the age of Moses at the Exodus (twice over, forty years). Forty years is the mode of ex- pressing a generation, from thirty to thirty-three years. All the facts tend, therefore, to give us the same pic- ture of an unbridled despot, who took advantage of a reign of almost unparalleled length, and of the acquisi- tions of his father and ancestors, in order to torment his own subjects and strangers to the utmost of his power, and to employ them as instruments of his passion for war and building. On the vast amount of tribute levied by him, the monuments shown and ex- plained by the priests to Germanicus might naturally ex- patiate. We possess a precisely similar list of the reign of Tuthmosis III. He may even have overrun Asia Minor and Mesopotamia with fire and sword, if he has not had the credit of the exploits of Seth5sis. Any one v/ho has faith enough in the truthfuhiess of the priests ma}^ also come to the conclusion that in those inscrip- Sect. IV. C. III.] RAMSES II. : CRITICAL RESULTS. 185 tions, and not merely in the poetical accounts (of which there is an instance in the Papyrus Sallier) which doubtless were regarded as an explanation of them, allusion is really made to the Assyro-Babylonian king- dom, which then ruled over Media and Bactria, and was compelled to surrender Mesopotamia to him (or his father). Now this king is called Ramses, and not Sesostris. Manetho himself charged the Greeks, from Herodotus downwards, with having made a great blunder about Sesostris. Eratosthenes, his critic, agrees with him in this respect as completely as do the monuments. We must add a word of correction as to the second confusion of persons and dates, referring our readers generally to the criticism we have offered above in the l!2th Dynasty upon the real Sesostris tradition. If we turn back from what we actually know about Ramses and the Ramessides to the true legend of Sesostris, which refers to two great rulers of the 3rd and 12th Dynasties, the difference between them, and their entire diversity, will at once be apparent. According to the unequivocal testimony of Erato- sthenes preserved by Strabo, Sesostris, the conqueror, was the first who subdued Ethiopia, and advanced along the Red Sea beyond Babelmandeb, leaving behind him columns and stelae known by his name. The mention of Ethiopia is sufficient to show the impossi- bility of Ramses being intended. Tuthm5sis III., as we have seen, was master of the country, not to speak of indications of the Sesortosidae having possessed it. But there is not tlie slightest hint about the expedi- tion to the Indian Ocean, or Babelmandeb at all events, either on the monuments or in the pompous accounts given by the 2:>riests of Thebes to the Roman general. According to the Alexandrian version, which we have from Diodorus, this campaign, moreover, was the first. We have seen also that the chronology of the monuments 186 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part II. allows no time for it. The real Eamses concluded in the fifth year of his reign, when he was in all probability barely twenty years old, a peace with his powerful ene- mies, the Hittites of Southern Palestine. The account of the conquests of Ramses in Tacitus ao^ain is silent about the most strikino; and most cele- brated expedition of Sesostris — the one to Europe. JNTeither Thrace nor any other European country is men- tioned. All the distinguishing characteristics, therefore, of the Sesostris-legend in Manetho and Eratosthenes are here wanting ; for expeditions to the neighbourhood of the Euphrates are nothing extraordinary in the history of Egypt. The whole may therefore be summed up in the fol- lowing sentences : Firstly : There is nothing in common between the Se- sostris and Ramesside histories. Sesostris belongs to the Old Empire, Ramses to the New. Secondly : Sesostris is Sesort5sis ; and Egyptian tradi- tion is acquainted with two glorious rulers of the name, the great lawgiver of the 3rd, and the con- queror and constructor of vast edifices in the 12th Dynasty. Thirdly : The Sesort5sis of the 1 2th enjoyed divine honours in the time of the Tuthmoses, and was at a very early period considered by the people as almost equal to Osiris. Fourthly : The same passage w^as applied by the priests, word for word, to Sethos, "next after Osiris." Manetho says that he conquered Cyprus (Kittim), Palestine, and Syria. Fifthly : Ramesses II., his son, inherited the conquests and riches of his father, and completed his edi- fices. His history w^as confounded with that of his father. Sect. IV. C. III.] RAMSES II. : CRITICAL RESULTS. 187 Sixthly : Herodotus, and even later writers, did not know how to distinguish between the historical and the mythical, the old and the new elements. Sesostris- Sesortosis and Sethosis-Ramesses were jumbled together. Seventhly : The statements in Manetho are authentic and decisive in the Old Empire as well as in the New. What he said about the campaigns and con- quests of Sethos has come down to us ; about Ra- messes, nothing. We have no reason to believe that the independent high priest, who protested against Darius placing his own statue before that of " Se- sostris," ever thought of the Ramessides, although the poetry and popular legends of the New Empire may at an early period have caused a confusion in the history. Eighthly : The stelae of Sesostris in Asia Minor, attri- buted by Hecatseus to Memnon, are probably not even Egyptian. Ninthly : Ramesses was a ruler fond of display, and cruel, who exhausted his kingdom, and left his tomb unfinished. Of the condition in which he left his kingdom, the monuments, traditions, and events of world-historical importance furnish us the picture in all its revolting deformity. 188 [Book IV. Tart II. SECTION V. THE DECLINE OF THE HOUSE OF RAIVIESSES 25 YEARS : THREE REIGNS. (Lepsius, Hist. Mon. vol. vii. PI. 173—206.) First Reign (Fourth of the Dynasty). Henophthes (Amenophat, Men5phthes, Me-eN-PTGH Ba-gn-Ra MeRi-eN-AMN), Son of the Great Ramesses. — 20 Years. (Plate VIII. 42.) Second Reign. Sethos II. (Ra SeseR KnepeR . u MeRi AiieN. SeTi MeRi-eN-PTen), Son of Menophthes. — o Years. (Plate IX. l2.'^^) Third Reign. Phu5ris (Nilus) (Sct-ngkht) MeReR-RA RA-SeseR-SnAU. — 7 Years. A. ADJUSTMENT OF THE MONUMENTS AVITH MANETHO'S STATE- MENT ABOUT THE CONFUSION OF THIRTEEN YEARS' DU- RATION.— FLIGHT AND RETURN OF MENOPHTHES, AND OF HIS SON, AFTERWARDS SETHOS II. We have given in the Third Book a translation of the remarkable passage m Manetho's historical work (or an extract from it) in Josephus, where it is stated that the son of the Great Ramesses, Amenophis (Me- nophtis), succumbed to a revolt of the lepers who were grievously oppressed by him, under Osarsiph (or Osaroph) Moses and their allies who were called in from Palestine, and how he fled to Ethiopia v/ith his son, then five years old, and how the latter recovered his kingdom at the end of thirteen years, by force of arms, and reigned as Sethos 11. The number 5 opposite to Siplitah belongs here (viii. 4.) Sect. V. A.] FLIGHT AND RETURN OF MENOPIITHES. 189 We have, in agreement with Lepsius, pointed out how the Menephthah and Seti II. of the monuments correspond respectively with this Amenophis (Menoph- thes) and this Sethos. We find twenty years assigned to the former in the Lists, or, more properly, nine- teen years and six months, which accords exactly with the account of the thirteen years' flight. For, if even the revolt broke out at an early period, the whole narrative implies that several years of perse- cution, rebellion, and revolt preceded the flight of the king. If we add these years to the thirteen of the flight, we shall approach in the most natural way to the date of nineteen or twenty years. The narrative also about the son and successor tallies well with it. Being five years old at the time of his father's flight, as a prince of eighteen he is in a condition to recon- quer the kingdom for his father and himself. Do the monuments furnish us any further confirma- tion of it ? It is clear that, if the above account be correct, there will be no extant buildings of that reign of twenty years, nor shall we find any records of con- quests and victories in those representations and inscrip- tions. It is true that this is merely a negative proof. It must, however, be admitted that if in the countless mass of buildings, sculptures, and other monuments, which extend down to the sixty-second year of Kam- ses, a sudden gap is found — such silence would be eloquent testimony in behalf of some great calamity. Now such is precisely the case. The only year of Menephthah mentioned on the monuments is the second, and Rosellini himself admits that, strictly speaking, no historical monuments of his exist at all. There is a stele at Silsilis, cut in the rock, which bears his name, but it is one of his sons who dedicates it. The third of the small rock-temples there met with, it is true, was constructed by Menephthah, but in the first year of his reign, (p. 301.) The subjects of the inscriptions are 190 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part II. merely religious. There is no allusion to exploits or victories, no term conveying either the idea of glory or promise. An inscription at Silsilis alludes to a building being commenced, for which a quarry was opened, where his second regnal year is mentioned. In all the rest of Egypt there is no trace of him, except his scutcheons, which he placed on the buildings of his father at Thebes (as the remains which have come to Europe testify), and then his tomb in Biban el Moluk.^^^ But even this was not finished either by him or his son. The introductory scene only is represented, which, according to custom, the king caused to be executed after his accession, in preparation for " the eternal house." This connexion between his monuments and those of his father is unquestionably so striking, that we can scarcely explain it, except by the above historical repre- sentation. But the monuments also give a positive corroboration of the fall of the empire, under the son of the great Eamesses. In the Lists Menephthah^^^ is succeeded by an Ammenemes, whom, in reference to the succes- sion of the kings, it was difficult to identify on the monuments. Lepsius has discovered that in his reign there were two rival sovereigns. One was named Amen-Messu (PI. viii. 1.), who is clearly this king in the Lists; the other, Si-ptah (son of Ptah). The tomb of the second of these, in Biban el Moluk, exhibits him and his wife, Taseser, in possession of royal honours. He is also found in inscriptions at Silsilis. In one of them a prayer is oiFered that their children may inherit the throne — a phraseology, as Eosellini rightly re- marks, which is met with nowhere else in respect to the Pharaohs^ but which can easily be explained here by M. E. cxviii. M. St. 306. seq. See above. Sect. II. p. 108. I'o M. St. 328. seq. Sect. V. A.] SETHOS II. 191 the circumstances. His royal scutcheon is also found on the ruins of the palace at Gurnah. In that tomb Ammon gives him the highest power, in presence of his great ancestress Aahmes-Nefruari, Seti L, and the Great Ramesses. There is no doubt that he or his wife, or both of them, were of royal race, and they endeavoured to hold the sovereignty of the Pharaohs at Thebes as rivals during that season of misfortune. There are no dates of years either of them or the other rival sovereigns. We are enabled then, by the science of hieroglyphics, not only to explain, but also to complete, the historical tradition of Manetho, which Josephus, owing to the bitter controversy between the Alexandrian Hellenists and the execrated Jews, has preserved to us, and with which it has hitherto been difficult to deal. The cow- ardly flight of Menephthah to Ethiopia was an indica- tion of the dissolution of the empire. Egyptian princes, probably ofl'sets of the royal house, endeavoured to retain their power in the Thebaid. SECOND REIGN: SETHOS II., THE SON OF MENOPHTHES : 5 YEARS. (Plate IX. Ig.) We can hardly venture to hope to learn much from the monuments about the short reign of Sethos II. Rosellini found a brief inscription of his with the second year of his reign, on a door-post of the rock-temple at Silsilis. But he erected buildings at Thebes. He it was who adorned the shafts of the columns of the sreat connecting hall of King Plorus, at Luxor, with his scutcheons, by way of architectonic finishing. He erected a small building in the fore court, which can still be traced on the ground-plan (9). One of the inner rooms is unfinished (p. 310.). Eosellini also found his scutcheon on the base of the Ramses colossus at Kar- nak. In the open space, where the obelisks of the 192 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS, [Book IV. Part II. first Tuthmosis and of ]\Iisphra stood, he also found on a door-post, "with a fragment of a wall, an inscription of Sethos II., representing him as its constructoi^^ with the title of the " Tamer of the Nine Bows," consequently the Libyans. He discovered also, farther on to the right of the granite shrine, offerings and invocations of his, as well as buildings erected by him. The bases of several of the colossal sphinxes, in the great dromos of Horus, likewise bear his name. Probably the beautiful colossal statue of him, in the Turin Museum, was found among the ruins. His tomb at Biban el Moluk is adorned in many places with his sculptures and pictures, but they were, evidently, never completed. On the lid of the sarco- phagus of red granite, in the shape of a mummy-case, is his likeness, but it also was only commenced. This circumstance is most naturally explained by the subsequent history of his race and realm. THIRD REIGN: PHUORIS (nILUS) (SGT-NeKT) MGReR-RA RA- seseR-sriAU: 7 years. Wilkinson's hypothesis, that he was the father of Ramesses III. has not been confirmed. There is there- fore no reason for not assigning him a place, as the Lists do, in this dynasty. We know that the prayer of Si-ptah, which contains the dedication, was not heard. His children did not occupy the throne of their ma- ternal grandsire. The male line, too, carried on directly by Menephthah, became extinct with his son. After the death of Seti 11. a new name appears as his suc- cessor. According to the scutcheons, it reads Merr-ra. It is, however, probable that the name, as pronounced, , is contained in Set-nekht (the strong Set). Neither of them accords with the Thuoris of the Lists, whom we call Phuoris = Nile. The reign of this Pharaoh must have been entered in the Egyptian annals as a Sect. Y. A.] PHUORIS. 193 remarkable event. The learned DicaBarclius, as we have seen above^^^, computed 2500 years from the reign of the old Sesostris to that of King Nilus, and from thence 436 years to the first Olympiad. This would bring Nilus to the end of the 19th or beginning of the 20th Dynasty, to 1212 B.C., which is only 80 years too late. This mode of computation shows that his reign was an epoch to the Greeks. According to the Alexandrian calculators of synchronisms, he was contemporary with the Trojan war. Such a synchro- nism as this, Manetho, who was acquainted with and paid attention to Greek traditions, could not pass over in silence. The notice in the Lists that in his time Ilion was taken, is assuredly therefore derived from Ma- netho ; but the assumption itself is based upon the calcu- lation of Dica3archus or some other Greeks, and we must always bear in mind that the Trojan synchronisms sometimes mean the beginning of the war. Certain inscriptions containing his name, at Biban el Moluk, indicate the remains of buildings of this enig- matical king. He appropriated to himself the tomb of Si-ptah and Taseser, so much so indeed, that, with the exception of the scutcheons in the dedicatory represen- tations at the entrance, he caused all the others belonging to that royal couple to be erased and his own name substituted. "I Book I. 111. Comp. Book II. 93. seqq., and the Appendix of Authorities, p. 676. seqq. VOL. III. O 194 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part II. B. HISTORICAL CRITICISM OF MANETHO'S ACCOUNT OF THE EXODUS OF THE ISRAELITES IN THE TIME OF ME- NEPHTHAH. After the death of the Great Eamses, the royal house and kingdom of Egypt fell into decay still more fatally than was the case after the death of Amenophis III. Manetho recounted, as we have seen above, that the reign of the weak, superstitious, and unwarlike son of Eamesses produced a politico-religious outbreak among the people, who were inhumanly oppressed and persecuted, the consequence of which was an over- whelming inroad of the Palestinian hordes. In order to clear the country of the unclean persons, it is stated that he collected together all the lepers and incapable persons (i.e. those who were disabled by the leprosy) in the quarries on the edge of the Arabian desert, in Lower Egypt. There he imposed upon them (doubtless as an act of sacerdotal piety, and well-pleasing to God) severe tasks and privations, and cut them off from all communication with the rest of the nation. Influenced by conscience or some conscientious adviser, he resolved however, after a time, to mitigate in some degree their hard lot. With this view, he assigned them as a resi- dence the city of Avaris, which had been deserted since the evacuation of the Shepherds in the time of Tuthmosis III., the old city of the enemies of God, on the frontiers of Palestine. The outcasts, among whom were some priests (perhaps some of the priestly caste Literally "for quarters and shelter" {KaraXvariv Ka\ (rreyrjp), the former word was rendered in the German edition of the first volume " labour," to which Dr. Fruin has properly taken exception, though he lias unnecessarily attacked it as a mistranslation, it being mani- festly nonsense. Sect. V. B.] TIME OF THE EXODUS. 195 who had gone over to the Israelitish religion, certainly worshippers of Seth), now made preparations for an outbreak. A priest (Osaroph, according to Fruin's probable emendation, "approved by Osiris") of Heliopolis founded a religious brotherhood or hetoBry, based upon the abo- lition of animal worship, and consequently in direct hos- tility to the existing system of the popular and state religion of Egypt. Aware of the persecution which awaited them, they boldly undertook to restore the for- tifications of the vast city. But not feeling sufficiently secure even with that, they called in to their assistance the same Shepherds whom Tuthmosis had expelled, and seized the opportunity of invading the kingdom of Egypt. These Palestinians were a numerous horde, and they overran the land of Egypt from that critical point. Menephthah collected a large army and went out against them. But when the attack was about to take place his courage failed him. He thought, as stated in the Egyptian accounts transmitted by Ma- netho, that he was entering into contest with the Deities, and would have them opposed to him, and so retreated upon Memphis in order to secure the sacred animals and images of his Gods. Having done this, he abandoned the city and the kingdom, and iled with his wife and heir, five years of age (afterwards Sethos II.), the sacred animals, priests, and images of the Gods, to the king of Ethiopia, who was his friend. This son is said to have had also the name of Ramesses, after his grand- father, which is very possible, if that means as heir to the throne ; otherwise it is a confusion with Sethos 1. We are only acquainted with his royal scutcheons. The king of Ethiopia placed his kingdom at the dis- posal of his guest and friend, and stationed an Ethio- pian army on the frontier, which, in conjunction with the Egyptian army, was intended to protect his own country. The Palestinians, however, desolated Egypt, o 2 196 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part II. and exercised every kind of cruelty which religious hatred and love of plunder could suggest. This state of things lasted thirteen years, at the ex- piration of which Menephthah returned, and his son (afterwards Sethos II.) drove the enemy out of the country. Such is the historical tradition of the Egyptians, in which nothing but some minor details are omitted as having nothing to do with the question, or which are obviously misconceptions of foreign history. It is mentioned, for instance, that a certain priest who had a reputation for wisdom and piety gave the king the first unfortunate advice, and then, foreseeing the im- pending catastrophe, destroyed himself, after he had stated in writing with prophetic spirit the duration of the calamity. This may be strictly historical or not. It makes no difference as to the facts of the revolt at Avaris, the inroad of the descendants of the Shep- herds, and the absence of the king for thirteen years. Manetho may have obtained his information about the foresight and prophecy of the priest from the annals, or from songs and popular legends. What Jo- sephus quotes and refutes as being avowedly recorded by Manetho without good authority, is the fact of this Osaroph being Moses, the founder of the Jewish reli- gion. Certainly we can prove that the Palestinians, whom Osaroph called to his assistance, cannot have been Solymites, i. e. people of Jerusalem. We know that Jerusalem was taken by David from the Jebusites, and made a Jewish city. But is that any reason for dis- puting that the Shepherds who were called to their as- sistance came from the neighbouring Palestine ? Or is it any reason for doubting that they belonged to the race of warlike Shepherd tribes who so long ruled over Egypt, the country in which they first became a nation and founded a kingdom ? We think it, at all events, no ground for disputing the historical cha- racter of the facts contained in that statement. This Sect. V. C] BIBLICAL ACCOUNT OF THE EXODUS. 197 would be contrary to the principles of true criticism, which distinguishes between what an Egyptian his- torian reports about his own people, and what he says about foreigners and their history. c. THE CONNEXION BETWEEN THE BIBLICAL AND EGYPTIAN ACCOUNTS OF THE EXODUS : THE 215 YEARS OF THE BONDAGE AND THE ERA OF MENOPHTHAH. Any one who agrees with us in believing the actual truth of the Biblical narrative of the Exodus, the best proof of which is the insignificance of the doubts which are thrown out against it, and every one who is at the same time convinced of the historical nature of the Egyptian traditions in this period, will find the state- ment of Manetho just submitted to critical examination deserving of more serious attention than Josephus has given to it in his controversial writing. It is undeniable, either that it is the Egyptian view of the Exodus, or else that the Egyptian records said nothing at all about it. It requires no further proof that the narrative of the evacuation of the Shepherds has nothing whatever to do with the Exodus of the Israelites. But how can we reconcile, on the one side with the truth of the Bible narrative, on the other with the historical character of the Egyptian records, the fact that so important and notorious an event should be altogether omitted in the Egyptian annals and registers ? The Chinese version of the attack of the English will be very different from the European one : but there is a history of it now, and there will be a further and per- haps a more unfettered one hereafter, should the present imperial family become extinct or be dethroned. We must admit, therefore, that any one who does not refer 198 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part II. tliis statement of Manetlio's to the Exodus is at issue with the criticism both of the Egyptian and Jewish history, and will find himself involved in inextricable difficulties. We must further recollect that we have hitherto met with no epoch at which the Exodus could have taken place consistently with Egyptian chronology. It was only after the evacuation of the Shepherds in the time of Tuthm5sis III., that the Pharaohs could have ven- tured to oppress and ill-use the Jews. The Biblical accounts are so indefinitely worded, indeed, that it is impossible to say positively or to deny that the Jewish tradition gave the length of the real bondage in Egypt. AVe must, however, draw a marked distinction between their sojourn there and the bondage. The latter period cannot have been very short, if, at the birth of Moses (about the beginning of the reign of Ramses), the op- pression had already arrived at such a pitch that he was himself in danger of falling a victim to the systematic extermination of his race. When it is said, '*Now there arose up a new king over Egypt which knew not Jo- seph," it is clear that this may just as well mean the third Tuthmosis as Eamesses 1. Whether the oppres- sion of the Tuthmoses was aggravated by the religious fanaticism of Horus, the prototype of Menephthah, or v/as relaxed when the power of the Pharaohs was on the decline in that period of decay, and afterwards re- vived when the first Ramesses restored order into the state, Sethos I. and his son Ramesses were the real tormentors of the Jews. It required only the religious fanaticism of Menephthah to drive them to desperation. It is, indeed, highly probable that during that long period the Israelites spread throughout the whole country for trading purposes, as they were wont to do. Nor is there any thing at variance with the assumption that the well-known representation at Thebes of the Orientals making and carrying bricks with Egyptian Sect. V. C] BIBLICAL ACCOUNT OF THE EXODUS. 199 task-masters and drivers, in the time of Tuthmosis III., is intended for the Jews. In like manner there may be some historical foundation for the statement of Manetho and several Alexandrian Greeks, that the Egyptians detested them as much on account of the leprosy and itch, as of their contempt for the religion and customs of the country. The account in Exodus lays no claim to historical completeness. Every thing in it has a bearing but on one single point — that of showing how God delivered his chosen people with a mighty hand. There is, however, another question which we must ask. How was it possible that the Exodus and the un- mistakable preparation that was made for it, especially the interview between Moses and Aaron and the Midi- anitish chief, the ftxther-in-law of the former, in the very heart of the Peninsula of Sinai, could have been accomplished while the Pharaohs held possession of it ? We have seen that from the time of Tuthmosis II. down to that of Amenophis III., and even of Ramesses the Great, the mines of the Copper-land were worked by the Pharaohs there, in the immediate vicinity of Sinai. Nothing is said about any affray with the Egyptian garrison, any more than there is of their flight. Instead of this, Moses finds a friend and ally in the chief, the Kenite of Midian, w^ho is mentioned above. Again ; it is now authentically ascertained that the Great Ramesses subjugated and overran the wdiole of Palestine. Extant monuments mention the provinces and the very races and population of Palestine. Not a word is said, however, about the Israelites, only of the Hittites and other ancient tribes whom the Israelites expelled when they entered the country, or conquered and exterminated. No trace, again, of Ramses, or the Egyptians generally, is found in the Book of Judges Had the Exodus of the Israelites, as is usually supposed, taken place 150 years before that conqueror, the silence of those records which enumerate the various tribes o 4 200 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part II. which were reduced to the payment of tribute and to bondage, as well as its duration, would at all events be very remarkable, and hardly capable of explanation. Everything, on the other hand, accords, on the suppo- sition that Ramesses was the actual tormentor of the Israelites, and Menephthah the Pharaoh of the Exodus: the former all-powerful and remorselessly severe ; the latter fanatical and stitFnecked, but weak and powerless. On a closer examination, indeed, of Manetho's account, the difficulty vanishes as regards his silence about their withdrawing to the Peninsula of Sinai. It is very remarkable that the unclean persons, i.e. the Jews and their adherents in the country, are entirely un- noticed in that narrative. What became of them the Egyptian record does not state. The Solymites, it says, returned to their home when they were driven out of Egypt at the end of thirteen years. We will not enter into the question here as to who those Solymites were, as they could not possibly come from Jerusalem. We would only call attention to the fact, that the Exodus of the Jews is not referred to in the retreat of the Soly- mites. Now as they did not stay in Egypt, they must have withdrawn by another route, and consequently the one with which we are so well acquainted. It would really appear, from the sketch of his remarks given by Josephus (c. Ap. 34.), that Lysimachus of Alexandria did know something about the road through the desert and the Peninsula of Sinai from Egyptian sources. There is but one thing about it which makes it look a little suspicious, the mention of King Bokhoris. But Apion himself also mentions him in connexion with the Exodus. What could have induced Lysimachus or his authority to connect the well-known king of that name, who lived about the beginning of the Olympiads, with that event? We must, therefore, look for some other name. Now, what is the name (in the annals or in popular use) by which our Menephthah is desig- Sect. V. C] BIBLICAL ACCOUNT OF THE EXODUS. 201 nated ? His throne- scutcheon reads, Ba-n-ra or Ba- N-HER. It is just as easy to make Bokhoris out of this as Phu-khor out of Peher in the 21st Dynasty. It is now impossible to deny that there were such distinctive names connected with the throne-scutcheons.^^^ The Egyptian annals, then, did record the journey through the desert of Sinai, and Manetho's statement is not at variance with it. But let us first of all proceed to a closer examination of the Biblical narrative itself. Lepsius has very properly called attention to the fact, that one of the store-houses which the Israelites were compelled by Pharaoh to build on the frontier of their country is called Ramesses. It consequently bears a royal name, which appears for the first time in Egyptian history as that of the grandfather of the Great Ramesses. It is certain, however, that this first Ra- messes, in his short and stormy reign, neither could have erected great edifices, nor carried on so ruthless a war of extermination against a powerful race living close upon their borders. Lepsius has made the further re- mark, that the only explanation of the journey of the Israelites is the construction of the canal to the Red Sea. As this journey is described, they went along the eastern bank of it, and thus were provided with water for man and beast. Baal Zephon (i. e. the Bal (Lord) of the north, Typhon) is the Heroonpolis of later times, i.e. the City of Heron as Set (Typhon) is translated in the obelisk of the Serapeum. That city, placed at the ex- tremity of the old canal which fell into the Red Sea, has been well described by Strabo as situated in its inner- most bay. I have the satisfaction of learning at this moment, from Mr. Birch, that IMariettc has found this name as Bek-en-ran-f, which is a direct confirmation of my assertion. (1858.) ^^"^ Heron I consider uer-uon, the Great of the Opening, Reve- lation : a title then of Typhon, as it afterwards was of Osiris. 202 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part II. Hence, according to the Biblical account, the period of Bondage would be as follows : 1. The first period of Bondage, from the reign of Tuthmdsis III. after the withdrawal of the Shep- herds, to that of Ramesses I. and Seti I. If we assume the middle of the single reign of Tuthmo- sis III., which lasted twenty-six years, to be the starting-point, we have a term of 143 years, namely : Tuthm5sis III. (half his reign) 13 years. Amenophis II. - - - 9 Tuthmosis lY. - - - 31 Amenophis III. - . - 37 Horus - - - - 32 Kamesses I. - - - - 12 Seti I. .... 9 Sum total - 143 years. The Israelites are oppressed systematically, and treated as dangerous foreigners. 2. The period when their oppression was aggravated in answer to their entreaty to be relieved from their burdens: the reign of Raraesses II: 66 years. 3. The first five or six years of Menephthah : the period when preparation was being made for the revolt and Exodus, the negotiations, and finally the plagues, the last of which was pestilence, a plague of which the Egyptians also evidently re- tained the recollection. Several of the authorities of Tacitus (Hist. v. 2.) stated that the Exodus took place in consequence of a contagious sickness, by which probably is meant a virulent leprosy, or the plague of boils, which resembled it. As to the state- ment about the destruction of the first-born, I be- lieve that divine judgment was in part executed by the Solymites, who, according to the annals, were Sect. V. C] BIBLICAL ACCOUNT OF THE EXODUS. 203 called in by the Israelites, and committed great cruelties in the land. The name is not strictly historical, as there cannot have been Solymites before Jerusalem took the place of Jebus. But that name was in Manetho's time current as a de- sio:nation of the inhabitants of Judea or Palestine. We are, therefore, entitled to assume that the Egyptian annals spoke of Palestinian tribes as the invaders. It is not impossible that this invasion was preconcerted by Moses, perhaps through the instrumentality of the friendly Midianites in the Peninsula of Sinai, with one of whose leading men and chiefs he was so intimately connected. The whole scheme of deliverance had most probably been discussed with him. They were then masters of one portion of this Peninsula, and we find them in the time of Joshua in Southern Canaan. On the journey thither they joined the Israelites, only a part of them continuing to be dwellers in tents. Any one conversant with the gradual formation and practical aim of the Books of Moses, (of the former fact every critic is aware,) will not be surprised that Scripture makes no mention of that invasion, and he will not on that account throw any doubt upon its historical character. The ob- ject of the Bible narrative is to give prominence to the national deliverance, as it was impressed upon the memory of the people, and kept alive in their religious worship and customs. The Exodus must have taken place in the first five or six years of Menephthah. Eor he was thirteen years out of the country, and a conflict ensued upon his return. All this occurred in a reign of twenty years, at most. Both the Egyptian and Jewish accounts imply that the Exodus was preceded by a period of armed, if only of passive, resistance. 204 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part II. On the other hand, Menephthah, according to the Egyptian explanation, cannot well have fled before the Palestinians to Ethiopia much earlier or later than the seventh year of his reign of nineteen years. For he returned at the end of thirteen years with his son, who had grown up in the meantime. This conse- quently limits the date of the Exodus to the time between the second and sixth years of his reign. Adding, therefore, together the three periods of Bondage, we have For the first - - - 143 years. ,, second - - 66 third - - - 6 Total - 215 years. Thus, by a method of research wholly independent of all Jewish tradition, we arrive at the precise date men- tioned as the period of Bondage, and which, when deal- ing with the question in the First Book, we came to the conclusion was better warranted than any other as the date of the sojourn in Egypt. It is true we cannot point out the ordinance by which Tuthm5sis III. deprived the Israelites of their liberty about the middle of the term of his single sovereignty. But we know that, only a few ^^ears before he assumed the reins of government alone, his sister and sister-in-law, after a fruitless siege, induced the Shepherds to evacuate. Consequently our calculation cannot be wrong above twenty years at most. We adhere, therefore, to that date, and shall show hereafter, in discussing the Jewish synchronisms, that the 215 years' duration of the Bondage forms the nucleus of the other Biblical calcula- tions and data. There also we shall have a satisfactory answer to give to a question which our readers may naturally ask : What becomes of the chronology between Moses and Solomon ? What are we to do with the Sect. V. C] BIBLICAL ACCOUNT OF THE EXODUS. 205 Bible dates of 440, 480, 593 years? The difficulties encountered in the First Book as to each of the three Biblical dates have proved to us that, if the Jewish chronology between Solomon and Moses can be restored at all, it can only be done by confronting it with the Egyptian history. We have already stated in the Third Book, in the preliminary survey of the synchronisms down to the beginning of the 22nd Dynasty and it has been far- ther carried out in the present one, that the beginning of the last Canicular cycle of 1460 years fell within the single reign of Menephthah in this dynasty, and conse- quently that his tw^enty years' reign must include the year 1322 B.C. This assumption is based upon one of the simplest textual emendations, and it is confirmed by all the facts. Hitherto the era of the year 1322 has been called the era of Menophres (MEN04>PH2). Now, there never was such a king ; but there was a King Meno- phthes (MENO0HS), whose reign will be found to coincide exactly with this epoch, if a synchronistic calculation be made, beginning with the lowest point, combined with a critical examination of the Lists. Book III. p. 579. Comp. Appendix of Authorities. 206 [Book lY. Part 11. SECTION VI. THE LOSS OF INDEPENDENCE UNDER THE SECOND AND LAST HOUSE OF THE RAMESSIDES AND DURING THE REIGN OF THE TANITE FAMILY OF THE PISHAM (XX. AND XXI. dynasties), AND THE RESTORATION BY SHESHONK, THE FOUNDER OF THE TWENTY-SECOND DYNASTY : OR, THE SYNCHR0NIS3I OF THE ASSYRIAN SUPREMACY. INTRODUCTION. MODE OF TREATING THIS PERIOD. The whole epoch down to Sheshonk is one of the most obscure both in the Lists and monuments. The twelve reigns of the 20th Dynasty are entered without the names of the kings ; and while that of the second king would appear from the monuments to be one of the most glorious, immediately after it there is complete silence as to further conquests. There is a manifest de- cline in the prosperity of the nation generally, and the erection of public buildings and monuments becomes constantly of rarer occurrence. Under the following dynasty, the 21st, there are, however, evident symp- toms that the decline of the state is progressing. The royal power appears restricted to the privileges of the high priests, or curtailed by sacerdotal pretensions. Historical criticism, however, must not shrink from such difficulties. We have already given a satisfactory explanation of the omission of the names of the kings in extracts from the Lists of the 20th Dynasty, by mak- ing the proper combination of the Lists with the monu- mental names. The obscurity as to the causes of the Sect. VI. A. I.] THE TWELVE RAMESSIDES. 207 sudden and continuous decline of the empire is removed, however, by the light thrown on the history of the thir- teenth century B.C. by the Assyrian synchronisms. The want of monuments, lastly, is supplied by the applica- tion of a considerable portion of Greek tradition, which, after the restoration of an authentic chronology of Egypt, could no longer have a place in the history of that country, and appeared to be totally lost. Our method of treating this period will, therefore, be as follows. We shall first deal with each of the two dynasties according to the monuments. We shall then throw some light on those portions of the narratives of Herodotus and Diodorus, and the Greco-Roman tradi- tion generally, which have reference to this part of the subject. We shall, in the last place, substantiate from an Egyptian point of view the identity of the founder of the 22nd Dynasty with the conqueror who captured and burnt Jerusalem in the fifth year of Rehoboam, the son of Solomon. The references as to the corresponding synchronisms in Assyrian and Jewish history will be given in the Third Part of this Book. A. THE TWENTIETH AND TWENTY-FIRST DYNASTIES AC- CORDING TO THE MONUMENTS. I. THE TWENTIETH DYNASTY ACCORDING TO THE MONUMENTS. THE TWELVE RAMESSIDES. The explanation of the omission in Manetho's Lists of the names of the twelve kings of this dynasty is the more natural, as, after eliminating from it Set-nekt, who belonged to the previous dynasty, we find that they were all called Eamesses. Since the publication of 208 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part 11. Lepsius' Monuments, and Mariette's discoveries of the Apis-tombs, no further doubt can be entertained that we possess the entire number of twelve Ramesside Kings, which I was the first to restore to this dynasty. I. Ramses III. The founder of the Second House of Ramessides was either a distant relative of the old stock or laid claim to the throne in right of his wife. Like almost all founders of Egyptian dynasties he exhibited at the commence- ment great courage and skill. He disappears, however, almost without leaving a trace behind him, after having erected splendid buildings, and with him the glory of the dynasty was extinguished. According to his monuments the wars and con- quests of his earlier period not only are not of inferior importance to those of the second Ramesses, but they represent him as even a greater conqueror. The principal monuments remaining of him are the two edifices on the west side of Thebes, at Medinet-Habu, as shown on our plan. The smaller palace was the royal harem, where the king played at chess with his wives and daughters, obviously as a recreation after his campaigns.^^^ Here the prisoners of the countries of the north and south are introduced as caryatides (PI. cxLii. cxLiii.). The following names are legible : Northern countries : Rabu, bearded (p. 93.); Mashuash (p. 94.); Kheta — Amar ; Gaikkrui — Skhairtana or aSairtana (p. 96.), with the addition "on the sea;'^ Tuir^a (p. 97.) "on the sea." Southern people : Kesh ; Turses ; Tarua. iiG Any one who wishes to see the details of these representations will find them in the French work. Roscllini has omitted some of them, as well as Lepsius, from motives of delicacy. •ect. VI. A. I.] RAMSES III. 209 In the larger palace, under the figures of the prisoners we find the following names (PI. cxxiii.) : Bearded prisoners : Tapitu — Shuri (Khiuri) ; Tirana — Terabu(s)a — Neb(r)aana; Rebanit; Asira (country) — liha, Agaru, Khiburu, Hairenau. Mention of his eleventh and twelfth years is found in fragments of inscriptions. In the large historical representations of the outer wall, Ammon promises him the conquest of the land of Tamh. (p. 16.) The land of Sati is mentioned after- wards. The representations of an action at sea, or at least on the water, are unique. (PL cxxx. cxxxi.) (Mon. Storici, iv. p. 36. seq.) The enemy are inhabitants of the north (1. 1.), Rosellini thinks islanders (1.10.).^^^ But the text speaks of a great body of water (with an expres- sion which is also used for the Nile) ; water in the land, not land in the water. A strong building, probably therefore a captured fortress, is mentioned as his own residence, called Makatira or Maka-Tira. (p. 44.) In the concluding representation " the Shepherds of Pet " (Libyans) are mentioned (p. 52.), who are met with elsewhere (p. 59.) as a general expression for several races^^^ cognate to the Rnmnn. Prisoners are repre- sented from the foreign land of the Gaikkrui (p. 53.), and from the foreign land of Rabu, allies of the former (p. 54.). This latter country, when mentioned among the representations of Ramses II., we thought to be situated not far from the land of the Kheta. " The unclean race of the Tanuna " and " the un- clean race of the Pursata also seem to belong to the Gaikkrui. »i7 Comp. PI. cxxxii. 1. 3. p, 45. Mon. de I'Egypte, iii. PI. ccxxvii. ccxxviii. VOL. III. r 210 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS, [Book IV. Part II. Ill the interior of the second great court the conflict against the Rabu is represented. (PI. cxxxvi. p. 64. seq.) Here the Gaikkrui appear as allies of the Egyp- tians. The land of Tamah is also mentioned as a hostile country (p. 66.), — the land of Tehen^^^, already spoken of in the wars of Ramses 11. (p. 70.). The inscription states that the king passed over a river (1. 23, 24. p. 74.): 1000 prisoners and 3000 or 6000 killed are recorded. At the close of the pictorial representations there follows a long historical inscription, in some places well preserved (PI. cxxxix. cxl.), an epitome of which is given in Rosellini's translation, (p. 85. seq.) Besides "the Shepherds of Pet" and the Tehen, the following are here introduced as conquered tribes : Tmha — Mashausha. (1. 27—29., comp. 42. p. 87. seq.) The great water (the island of Rosellini) is also men- tioned here. (1. 53—58. p. 89.) The tomb of this king at Biban el Moluk was dis- covered by Champollion and Rosellini, and in their opinion it is little inferior in grandeur and beauty of architectonical design to that of Sethos I. The beau- tiful sarcophagus of red granite is at Paris; the lid had been previously sent to Cambridge. At the close of this king's reign it is very obvious that the power and renown of Egypt passed away for centuries. His conquests terminate in buildings, his warlike expeditions in profuse self-indulgence and luxu- rious living. The ornaments of the magnificent tomb which he commenced were never finished. After his time the number of the monuments constantly dimi- nishes, they contain no record of glorious exploits, and exhibit decline and decay. Comp. PI. cxxxvii. 66. p. 77. Comp. 1. 24. p. 87. of the His- torical Inscriptions. Sect. VI. A. I.] RAMSES III. 211 The key to these phenomena is found in the Asiatic synchronisms of that age. As regards the warlike expeditions and conquests, the earlier Egyptologers have obviously been drawn on from unhistorical conclusions and unfounded assump- tions to conjectures about extensive and vast conquests in Asia, which have not been verified. If we condense the principal groups of Asiatic names, the brilliancy of these campaigns dwindles into a very small compass. They did not extend beyond the Eu- phrates. But that very contraction confers upon them a proportionately greater importance as regards history and mankind. The theatre of them was Palestine, from the frontier of Egypt as far as Phoenicia, and that, indeed, imme- diately before the conquest of Joshua. The Israelites, with their 2,000,000 souls and their flocks, and with 600,000 men capable of bearing arms, were already encamped in the country to the east of Jordan, and ex- tended northward from the Arnon, when Ramses III. came to the throne. About the fourteenth year of this Pharaoh's reign, Joshua passed over Jordan. This is the synchronism which we hope to establish at the end of this work. While we must be upon our guard about the ex- planation of isolated hieroglyphical names of cities or races, it would be equally uncritical to shrink from such an inquiry and explanation, in the face of a series of connected and harmonious drawings, in a country well known both geographically and historically. I maintain, therefore, that the extant names among the northern tribes and districts (in the reading of which great strides have been made since the time of Eosellini) all belong to Palestine, from its southern frontier as far as Phoenicia inclusive. The country to the east of Jordan, south of the Jabbok, is not touched p 2 212 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part II. upon. The journeying of the Israelites was clearly to- wards the coast of Phoenicia. We will first identify the Palestinian names : 1. The KnETA are the Hittites, well known to us since the days of Abraham, in Hebrew 'Hittim, and called by the Alexandrians Khett^eans. No one at the present day dreams of calling them Scythians, and on this head we need only to refer to what has been said in the former books. They had spread already, together with this ancient people of Southern Canaan, towards the north. We find them, in Joshua's days, amongst the Amorites. What remained of them became tributary to Solomon. 2. The Amar are unquestionably these Amorites, in Hebrew 'Emori, in the Septuagint Amorrj]:ans. Josephus calls the country Amoritis, or Amorr^ea. Joshua drove them from the southern mountain of Judah, where they dwelt near Hebron. Their kingdom on the other side Jordan, with its prin- cipal city Hesbon, had been previously captured. This district to the south of the Jabbok was, how- ever, a conquest they had made from Moab. Their earlier settlement was to the north of that river, towards Hermon. 3. The Purs ATA were known in early times as de- signating the Philistines, whose country is called in the Old Testament Peleset, and the people Pelistim (Philistaeans), which is equivalent to Palestinians. It is the name mentioned to Hero- dotus by the interpreters at the Pyramids, when speaking of the shepherd people of King Philitis, a contraction corresponding with the Peleti of David, who, together with the Kereti (Cretans), formed a band of foreign mercenaries as body- guards of the sovereign. Interpreters of Jewish history have been much at issue as to the age of Sect. VI. A. I.] RAMSES III. 213 the settlement of this people. The occurrence of their name in the time of Ramses removes all doubt as to their being in the country before the time of Joshua. 4. Connected as they are with these tribes, we can have no hesitation in considering the Rabu as the Egyptian form of the Repha, Reph^ans, Rephaim, or " the sons of Repha," in the Bible ; a giant race, which Joshua found in Central Palestine. In the time of Abraham the Rephaeans were settled in the country east of Jordan, to the northward, where we find subsequently the Ammonites and Moabites. There is equally little question as to the identification of the Phcenician names which occur on this king's monuments. 1. TiRA, Tyre. We have now authentic proof that TiRA means Tyre. In the fragment of an histo- rical representation of the exploits of Ramses III., in one of the Anastasius Papyri, we read: " Tira, the city on the sea, which receives its fish from the sea, its grain from the land." In addition to this, Makatura --^ occurs as the hieroglyphical expression for watch-tower.^^^ Starting from this assumption, the whole representation described above of the siege and capture of the fortified city on the sea is clear and intelligible, as announcing Mak, Maka, comes from the same root as fieya, miekel, maha, great. In like manner the Hebrew word Migdol, tower, comes from gadal, to be great. It is given in the vocabulary, in agreement with Osburn, as the expression for Migdol (tower). Mestol occurs in the Coptic translations of the Bible (Exod. xiv. 2.) instead of Migdol, also as designating Magdolum near Pelusium. It has, how- ever, no root in Egyptian. There are three Egyptian words for fortress : bekhen, tekha, and khetem. Neither can it come from Mak. See Vocabulary, Vol. I. p. 469. j the reference to Rosellini, M. Pv. Ix. p 3 214 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part II. a great fact hitherto unknown in the history of Pha3nicia. 2. TuiKs-A. It cannot mean the Tyrians. First, there is a difficulty in admitting 5a as a for- mative syllable. Yet there is not only a gene- ral analogy in the common original stem, as sa, 5a, in a pronominal sense, but also a closer foundation in the Coptic 5a, which is prefixed to a noun in the sense of person^ maker of something, and may consequently in the old language be af- fixed as a derivative syllable. The second objec- tion which may be raised is that here the Hebrew and Canaanitish ts or z (Zor, the rock, name of Tyre) has passed into t, as in Greek, while we can hardly do otherwise than assume that in the hieroglyphical spelling of Zidon the same letter is represented with an S-sound. This is the case also in Greek where it is written Sidon. But we have likewise positive authority for the Aramaic form Tura for Zor, rock. We might suppose TuiR^A to signify the name of the Tyrians. But Birch's explanation of it as Tarsis, the Tarsus of the Greeks in Cilicia, a most ancient town and harbour, is far more probable. 3. aSairtana, according to the above, Sidon, the Sido- nians, from Zzdc>n, ZiAom, It lies " on the sea," and is named immediately before Tyre. The ai is contained in the root from which Zidon comes, whence zayid^ chase, zayyad^ hunter. The intro- duction of the R before the t, and after a di- phthong, is in agreement with phonetic usage. For that reason Zarepat, Sarepta, is inadmissible. The omission of n is an objection in itself. Before them are mentioned : 4. The Gaikkrui. It is clear that Rosellini's conjec- ture of their being Phoenicians is altogether un- Sect. VI. A. I.] EAMSES III. 215 tenable. On such monuments as these we must not expect to find general names, merely quite local names. Again, the word Phoinike^ to which the old Roman form Poenus also belongs, is not a native word but Greek, whether we derive it from the Palm, which is so called in Greek, or from purple (pimiceus color). There are some argu- ments in favour of the former of these derivations ; the palm is the sign of Tyre on the coins. But Phoinix is assuredly merely the Greek translation of '£DOM. The Phcenicians are the ^' red men." In order to get at the meaning of the name, we must first of all account for the R as an expletive for the double K. F cannot contain p h, for the latter is always rendered in the hieroglyphics by p (PiHppos instead of Philippos), Such a use of it, indeed, would be at variance with the whole nature of the Egyptian f, which always corresponds to V. What comes nearest to this sound is the strong breathing which is peculiar to the Semitic Ain ('h). The Ain in Greek is some- times represented by s, sometimes by h, sometimes by a simple breathing. In Egyptian, especially at the be- ginning, we should rather expect to find a stronger sound. This would give us 'Hakku, i. e. 'Hakko, the Hebrew name of the city to the south of Tyre, after- wards called Ptolemais, and now St. Jean d'Acre. This interpretation also explains the fact of the Gaik- krui appearing at first as enemies and besieged, and then, in the contest with Tyre, as allies. Ramses was obliged to take St. Jean d'Acre before he attacked Tyre. But the representations in the palace of Medinet- Habu contain also the name of the principal city of Western Syria, Damascus. Not however in the name Tamah (Temha), but rather in Masua^ or Ma^au^sa, which is of frequent occurrence, or (according to the p 4 216 ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part IT. older pronunciation, Mashuash (pronounced like the Greek Skhoinos). The ancient name of Damascus must have been Meseq. The ordinary Hebrew expression, Dammeseq, is self- evidently a composite word. The original form is manifestly Darmeseq (in the Chronicle), as the Aramaic form Darmesuq (the Hebrew contraction of which is Dummeseq) clearly proves, for the latter simply means dwelling of Meseq." The hierogly- phical spelling Mashuash, Mashausha, is a strictly analogous strongly marked form of rendering such a word. By this means also a very obscure expression, never hitherto satisfactorily explained (Gen. xv. 2.; comp. 3.), becomes intelligible. It can only mean that Eliezer of Damascus, the steward of his house, will be Abraham's heir, he himself being childless. The present text stands literally thus : Abraham says, upon the assurance of God, which came to him in a vision, " I will be to thee a shield, and thy reward shall be great " (xv. 1 .) : " " Filius Meseq domus meae est Damascus Eli'hezer." As this is not sense, commentators have ventured to take two liber- ties. It is assumed that Meseq stands for Mesekh (pE^p for "?]t^p), in the sense of possession, as the word once occurs in Job (xxviii. 18.); whereas, in Zech. (ii. 9), mimsaq (from msq) bears that meaning. Msq, however, occurs nowhere else. But another positively un- grammatical liberty must also be taken, that of supposing Dammeseq (pb'J^l) to mean Dammasqi (''pi^'731), Damascenes. In this way we obtain the translation : " Filius possessionis domus mea3 est El. Damascenus," which is interpreted : Possessor (heres) domus (rei familiaris) meas est El. D." Tuch has already felt the pangs of philological conscience. Hitzig proposes to consider the words pb'^T X-in as a gloss, which grew out of one misunderstanding, and crept into the text by a second. Ew^ald thinks it a proverb, with a play upon the words pE^DI and pti^^D \ 5, I venture to propose the following solution. Meseq is still the old Arabic name of the city of Damascus, and may originally have just as well been so pronounced by the Hebrews, instead of the later form Meseq, as both sounds are represented by the same letter {p). Sect. VI. A. I.] EAMSES III. 217 The vast excavations made by Mr. Greene in the winter of 1854, with which I became acquainted in January, 1856, from M. de Eouge's able article upon it in the Athenasum Frangais, Nov. 3. 1855, confirm and complete what has been already stated above as to the locality, extent, and results of the campaigns of the last con- quering Pharaoh of the Ramesside race. There is, in a legible inscription on the right side of the second pylon, rescued from the sand for the first time by Mr. Greene, In the Bible our Damask (Damaskus-stuff ) is called Dammesek. We may simply therefore suppose that, before the Masoretic punctua- tion, the sound was undistinguished, or the letter the sign for both sounds, as in so many other instances. Dammesek must be a com- pound word. Or we may choose to consider it as Dar-meseq, the dwelling of Meseq, for the word is so written in a passage in Chro- nicles, and DoR-MESEQ (as well as Dummeseq) is the Syriac form. As Gesenius has justly remarked, the form Dar-meseq is the ordinary later solution of the reduplication. But what is Meseq or Me^eq? It probably will not be taken for the Turanian race of the Me^ekh (MoVxot). In a subsequent page (on the Egyptian word Edom), and again in the Fifth Book, I shall state my reasons for thinking it probable that Dam- (or Dom-) Meseq is merely Edom-Meseq, i. e. Edom of the Settlement, the indigenous agricultural Edom, as con- trasted with Edom-Seir, the marauding shepherd mountain-tribes, or Edom-Kenaan, Edom of the Lowlands, i. e. Pha3nician (the red, puniceus, 0o cdl &• ABDON, 8 years. Altogether . . 25 years 1 SAMSON . . 20 „ J (xv. 20.; xvi. 31.) Close of the Book of Judges. (40) EHUD. N • Defeat of Moab.l I " 80 years." 40 ELI, X. the High-Priest. (1 Sam. iii. 19.) 40 I (iii. 30.) „ EHUD. \ ' !Moab at rest. J The first real hero is Sanigar, then a woman, Deborah, who delivered them from the oppres- sion of the kings of North Ca- naan. 40 SAMUEL, the High-Priest and Seer. (1 Sam. vii. 15.; vi. 1.; vii. 2.; viii. 1.) XL " 20 years " ^ SAUL. I The first king, " 20 years "J (1 Sam. xiii. 1.) 40 DEBORAH , BARAK yj of Ephraim ^"^ of Naphthali. ' Conquest of North Canaan. (V. 31.) 40 DAVID, the King and Psalmist. XII "^^ years, 6 months." (21 ' Sam. V. 4, 5.) . . . .1 "40 years." (1 Kings, ii. ( 11.) J 40 No one can say that our arrangement is an arbitrary one, or that the recurrence of 40 years can be ascribed 302 WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IY. Part III. to accident. In the case of nine generations we have the number 40 in the text of the narrative (although, as we have seen, it is at variance with the historical dates of the records). For the generation of Joshua Scripture tradition gives no date at all. The historical dates transmitted by Josephus state it at 43. Those for the eighth generation make 51, for the following one 25 +20 or 45. According to this, the only great personage to repre- sent two generations was Ehu.d. The Epic compiler evidently meant to include Samgar in the second. He is introduced, without any further notice, after Ehud, who is spoken of in Deborah's song of praise, as the last man of God, and Judge before her ; then comes Deborah herself, their deliverer from the yoke of Xorth Canaan. The writer, hovv^ever, who introduced Ehud only, may have thought it more advisable to make the whole con- sist of 11 generations instead of 12. In that case his number would have been 440 instead of 480 years. But the 480 years, mentioned in the Hebrew text as the date from the Exodus to the Building of the Temple, necessarily grow into 591, if they are to be considered historical, when the sum total of the years of foreign supremacy is added to them. These comprise, as ap- pears by the table in our First Book, 111 years. But where do the 592 come from, which are adopted by most of the old chronologers ? It can hardly be accidental that they are only just one year more than the above sum total ; which one year is easily explained. Samson (Judges iii. 31.) has no date assigned to him : but still he must have had one year, and that one is really credited to him. Proceeding on this principle, Julius Africanus made the numbers up to 722 years. ^Yhat was there, indeed, to prevent him ? Sect. I. B.] DIVIDED KINGDOM. 303 B. the computation of the period from the building of Solomon's temple to its destruction by Nebuchad- nezzar, OR THE chronology OF THE KINGS OF THE DIVIDED KINGDOM. INTRODUCTION. THE CHRONOLOGICAL DIFFICULTIES, AND THE ATTEMPTS AT SOLVING THEM. The task which the old synchronists had here to perform was difficult enough in itself. Theological prejudices and rabbinical dishonesty rendered the difficulty in- superable. But the record itself, which has nothing to do with these impediments, has furnished the means of solving it. In the succession of kinofs of the divided kino^dom there was one great fixed point, the destruction of Sa- maria and the northern kingdom in the ninth year of Hosea, the last king of Israel. This is so specifically and so repeatedly stated as being the sixth year of Hezekiah, king of Judah, that no doubt could be thrown on this synchronism. Equally little doubt was there as to the Starting-point, the year after Solomon's death. For the first year of Jeroboam must also be the first year of Rehoboam, according to the historical narrative. There was rebellion instead of bondage. This is ex- pressly stated in computing the dates of the first kings. What could the interpreters and synchronists do ? The sum total of the regnal years of the kings of Judah is 260, whereas the dates of the kings of Israel as cer- tainly amounted only to 241 years, 7 months, and 7 days. After several abortive attempts, a very ques- tionable plan was at last adopted for getting over the 304 WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part III. difficulty. The existence of a double interregnum in the northern kingdom was assumed as one of 11 years after the death of Jeroboam, and one of 9 years prior to Hosea's reign. Apart from the gratuitous character of this assumption, the history renders such a fabrication of two historical epochs wholly inadmissible. Accord- ing to the clear words of the narrative, Jeroboam II. was succeeded by his own son Zachariah. Shortly after his accession we hear of disturbances, but none at all prior to that event. Had any such taken place, could they fail to be noticed ? Sallum, the murderer of Za- chariah, is mentioned as having reigned one month ; how then could there possibly have been an interregnum of 10 years, before the seven-months' reign of Zachariah, without its being recorded also ? Thus much as to the first supposititious interregnum. How stands the case with the second, after the death of Deborah ? Hosea slew King Pekah, but neither one, nor even several, adventurers, who usurped the throne after his death. A conspirator either seizes the throne imme- diately after he has murdered the king, or not at all. If the above interregnum of 10 years existed, the whole account of this act of Hosea must be rejected as untrue. For, as it was successful, Hosea must have become king directly after the murder, or a struggle must have ensued with some third person. But such a third per- son or persons must first be discovered, their existence being entirely unknown both to history and historical criticism. It can only be attributable to the insinuating language in which De Yignoles has couched his argument, and to his dexterity in glossing over facts, that has induced even De Wette to acquiesce in such a solution. Ewald has the merit of having severely denounced so uncritical a mode of dealing Avith the subject. He argues that Omri, who is said to have reigned twelve years, would Sect. I. B.] DIVIDED KINGDOM. 305 seem to have reigned sixteen ; for it appears from the computations of the narrator that the struggle with the rival king, Tibni, lasted four years, to which the twelve of Omri are to be added (1 Kings xvi. 15. ; comp. 23.). It must be admitted that there is no other way of ex- plaining the parallel years of reign of the kings of Israel and Judah which follow immediately after. But then another question arises, whether this parallelism is cor- rectly made. It does not agree with others which come after. There are so many contradictions, and so much confusion in the MSS. in respect to those parallelisms, the origin of which has been well explained by Ewald as arising from the existence of different comparisons of the regnal years of the kings of Judah and Israel, made at an earlier date, that the above question is not only justifiable, but one which must be entertained. But it turns out that Ewald himself is obliged to propose several considerable alterations, in order to make the computations of the period harmonize — and these of a very serious kind. There can be no doubt that the nar- rator had not the records themselves before him, merely retrospective Jewish and retrospective Israelitish chrono- logical tables and extracts. Several circumstances seem to indicate that the dates in these lists were not written in words, but in letters, according to the numerical value they had in early times. The point for critical consideration therefore is, precisely as in the case of Manetho's chronological tables, whether the alterations proposed are trivial or serious, probable or improbable. A Samekh, for instance (d, 60), may easily have been mistaken for a Mem (o, 40), as they are difficult to distinguish, and easily confounded. But it is not pro- bable that a Mem (40) should have been made into a Lamed and Tet (D^, 39) ; although there is only a dif- ference of one between them. But moreover, if such alterations are necessary, a further strong doubt is raised as to whether the course pursued is the right VOL. III. X 306 WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part III. one. I have therefore endeavoured to find a more simple solution. In order to explain the origin of the confusion which now prevails in the Books of Kings, and which, indeed, has been admitted by most of the Christian rabbis of our days, we must take two circumstances into consideration. In the first place, it is always hazardous to compute the length of a reign by whole years, unless it be accompanied by a notation of the year, month, and day any king came to the throne, and when he ceased to reign, which notation would give the exact length of the reign. Otherwise the notation of a given year by the name of a king is very incomplete, and may easily become the source of error, and espe- cially so if the regnal year of a king of one country be compared with that of another contemporary king. But, in the second place, as we shall shortly see, it turns out that the parallel in the kingdom of Israel was very early one year in advance, which in process of time, OAving to the inaccuracy continuing, grew into two years. Supposing a king of Judah to have come to the throne in the eleventh month of any given year, and his con- temporary of the kingdom of Israel in the first month of the third previous year, in what way is the parallel notation of reigns to be made ? If by the current years, that is one mode of computation ; if by the date of the actual reign, tliat is another mode. They are both comparisons, and both equally warranted ; but, by mixing the two together, terrible confusion arises. The main point, however, to be borne in mind is, that the so-called historical books of Scripture do not profess to give any history whatever in the ordinary sense. They have so little concern with kings as such, that the epic formula is constantly repeated : Now the rest of the acts, &c., and all that he did, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah!" That is to say, Any body who wishes to know these may read the chronicles; but they have very little Sect. I. B. I.] DIVIDED KINGDOM. 307 interest for us ; our duty being briefly to record the words of the men of God and the dealings of God, the true King, with His people." The ordinary view taken of these books is a false one, and so is the title given them, " historical books," by which the narratives from Joshua to Solomon are known. They are called col- lectively " the earlier prophets," in order to distinguish them from the men of God whose writings only date from after the reign of Solomon. We will cite but a single instance of incorrect copy- ing, an ancient one already noticed, that of Mem in- stead of Samekh, 40 instead of 60. Jeroboam did not reign forty-one, but sixty-one years. By this alteration the history of the time, as well as the chronology, is at last put upon a right footing. Generally speaking, however, owing to the manifest contradictions in the comparative computations, we may make what is a very natural assumption, that the Jewish compiler was better acquainted with the history and chronicles of his own kingdom than with those of the northern kingdom. The following tabular view is intended to place the reader in a position to form an independent opinion for himself. I. COiMPARATIVE LiSTS OF KiNGS FROM ReHOBOAM TO THE DeATH OF AhAZIAH, and FROM JeROBOAM TO THE DeATH OF JeHORAM. Jehu, the bold mutineer, slew Jehoram, the son of Ahab, and at the same time Ahaziah, the king of Judah, his relative and ally, who was on a visit to Je- horam. It seems as if the two sovereigns were slain on the same day. At all events, their deaths must have taken place in the same year, the one preceding the reign of Jehu over Israel. Here, then, we have a chronological break, and a resting-place in the adjustment of the chronology as well as the historj'. X 2 308 WEST- ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part lU. Kingdom of Judah. Solomon Chronol. B. C. Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, begins to reign, " 41 vpflr«5 nlfl • TPiPTiPfl 17 vpnr^ " M TCino"*; xiv. 21.) 1st year. Revolt of the ten tribes 5th „ Conquest of Jerusalem by Sheshonk 17th „ t - 1 5 17 978 974 962 Abijam, the son of Rehoboam, begins to reign, "In the 18th year of Jeroboam; reigned 3 years." (xv. 1.) (Here comes the question, whether the 18th year is the year of the new chronology, from the death of Solomon? or from the actual accession of Jeroboam ? whe- ther months are reckoned or only days? (See the 21st year of Jeroboam) 1st year ------- 3rd „ t 18 20 961 959 Asa, the son of Abijam, begins to reign, ''In the 20th year of Jeroboam ; reigned 41 years." (xv. 9.) 1st year - - 2nd „ (comp. Jerob. 21. 22.) - 3rd „ 4th „ - . 5th „ Probably in the 13th year (in which Osor- kon died). War with Serach (see sequel). 15th year. Restoration of the service of the Lord, soon after the war. (2 Chron. xv. 10.) - - 21 22 23 24 25 35 958 957 956 955 954 25th year. End of the peace. (2 Chron. XV. 19., 13 instead of l^?)- 26th year. War with Baasha, ]^ instead of (26 instead of 36). (2 Chron. xvi. 1.) 27th year. (Zimri, king 7 days.) (1 Kings xvi. 15.) 28 th year 45 46 47 48 934 933 932 931 Sect. I. B. I.] DIVIDED KINGDOM. Kingdom op Israel. 309 - t 979. Jeroboam, King of Israel, " Eeigned 22 years." (1 Kings xiv. 20) 1st year. Declaration of Independence 18th year. Abijam begins to reign in Judah (XV. 1.) - - - - - - (Hitherto the two calculations tally : see Abijam.) 20th year (last year of Abijam) - - - 21st „ First year of Asa - - - But according to 1 Kings xv. 9., 958 is the 20th year of Jeroboam (see Abijam) ; the error here is entirely on the part of the Jewish comparison of the years of Israel. 22nd year | ----- - Nadab, his son, "In the 2nd year of Asa, reigned 2 years." (xv. 25.) 956 is Asa's 3rd year : consequently the computation of the kings of Israel is in arrear - - - - 1st year (corresponding with the 3rd of Asa) 2nd „ f. Slain by Baasha, "in the 3rd year of Asa." (xv. 28.) It should be " in the 4th year : " still one year in arrear - - - - The house, of Jeroboam is destroyed by Baasha, the son of Ahijah, of the house of Issachar. (The House of Baasha.) Baasha, son of Ahijah, " in the 3rd year of Asa, 24 years." (xv. 23.) The year after Nadab's death must be 954 = 5th year of Asa, consequently - - From this point down to Omri, inclu- sive, and again, subsequently, a new record is used, which is comprised throughout in the naked form of a chronological table. The word "reigned" is omitted. 24th year, f (According to what precedes and follows, considered as the 25th year of Asa = 934), consequently _ _ - Elah, the son of Baasha, ^' in the 26th year of Asa .... 2 years." (xvi. 8.) This would give 933, but as it must be 931 (28th year) conse- quently : J St year - X 3 Difference from Judah — 1 1—2 ■Real Year. 978 961 959 958 957 956 955 954 —2 —2 932 931 310 WEST- ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part III. Kingdom of Judah. A s a — continued. 29tli ,5 - - 31st 5, - * - * 83id „ 84th year 88tli 40th J, - ^ . * - - - 41st „ f ..... - Jehoshaphat, son of Asa, begins to reign, 3o years old " in the 4th year of Ahab ; reigned 25 years.'^ (xxii. 41.) 1st year (corresponding to the 2nd year of Ahab) 17th year 18th Chronol. 49 51 53 54 58 60 61 B. C. 62 78 79 930 928 926 925 921 919 918 917 901 900 86 893 ) Sect. I. B. I.] DIVIDED KINGDOM. Kingdom of Israel. 311 E 1 a h — continued. 2nd „ j". Slain by Zimri^ who is himself slain 7 days afterwards by Omri (xvi. 15 — 22), who calculates this as his own 1st year. (The house of Omri.) Omri, in the 31st year of Asa .... 12 years, 6 years in Tirzah and 6 in Samaria." (xvi. 23.) According to the above, tliis year must be called tlie 27th, consequently there has been a leap of 4 years, and tlie chronology, instead of being two years in advance, is therefore 2 years in arrear. The chronology here adopted as the basis assumes 4 years for the time of the strufrgle with Tibni, the rival king; (xvi. 21.), as not being included in the above 12 years. But the very specific nature of this date of 12 years, with the additional remark that half of it belongs to Samaria, of itself makes this highly improbable. But what settles the question is the fact that in that case the last year of Jehorara, king of Israel, and of Ahaziah, king of Judah, would have an interval of 4 years between tliem, whereas they must have died in the same year, indeed on the same day. 1st year (instead of 31st year of Asa) (928)=29, or b. c, 930 - 7th year (removal of seat of government to Samaria) ------ 12tli year, f (corresponding to the last but one, or 40th year of Asa) - _ - Ahab, the son of Omri, begins to reign ; 1st year " in the thirty and eighth year of Asa, reigned "twenty and two years." (1 Kings xvi. 29.) It should be "in the 41st year of Asa." The computation is therefore again in arrear, not 2 but 3 years. 1st year ------- 4 th „ 21st „ War with Damascus, in which Je- hoshaphat is his ally - - - - 22nd year, f. Falls in the battle against the king of Syria - - - - - Ahaziah, son of Ahab, begins to reign. 1 st year "in the 17th year of Jehoshaphat, and reigned 2 years." (xxii. 51.) This 17th year corre- sponds with our 901. Consequently 2nd year ------- X 4 Difference from Judah. —3 Real Year. 930 924 919 918 915 898 897 896 895 312 WEST- ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part III. Kingdom of Judah. Jelioram, son of Jehoshapliat, begins to reign "in the 5tli year of Joram, the son of Ahab." (xxii. o.) " 32 years old was he when he began to reign, and he reigned 8 years." (2 Kings viii. 16, 17.) Son-in-law of Ahab (viii. 18.), and consequently brother-in-law of Ahaziah, king of Israel. 5th year of »}oram, king of Israel = 890, con- sequently two years too little. 1st year ------- 2nd „ 8th „ t- - - - - Ahaziah, son of Jehoram, begins to reign "in the 12th year of Joram, king of Israel." (viii. 25.) "Two and twenty years old was he when he began to reign, and he reigned one year." (ver. 26.) 12th year of Joram, king of Israel = 883, again two years too little. 1st year ------- At the beginning of the 2nd year, the 1st of Athaliah, he is slain by Jehu - - - Chronol. B. C. 87 892 88 891 94 885 95 884 96 883 11. Succession of Kings from the Accession of Athaliah, mother of Ahaziah who was slain by Jehu, widow of Jehoram, and daughter of Omri, king of Israel, destroys all the royal seed of the house of Jndah, but Joash, the king's son, is saved by the High Priest, and concealed six years, during which she reigns, (xi. 3.) This, therefore, explains these six years, being reckoned from the day of the death of Ahaziah, M^io only reigned one year, and died at the beginning of the year 883. 1st year ------- 6th „ Joash, son of Ahaziah, is chosen king, "in the 7th year" (xi. 4); consequently "he was 7 years old when he began to reign, in the 7th year of Jehu, and reigned 40 years." (xii. 1.) 1st year ------- 23r(l „ 37th „ 40th „ |. Slain by his own servants (xii. Chronol. B. C. 96 883 101 878 102 877 124 855 138 841 141 838 Sect. L B. II.] DIVIDED KINGDOM. Kingdom of Israel. Joram, the son of Aliab (2 Kings iii. 1. ; comp. viii. 16.), consequently the younger brother of Ahaziah, begins to reign " in the second year of Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat" (2 Kings i. 17.), ''in the 18th year of Jehoshaphat, reigned 12 years." (iii. 1.) Here we have two state- ments positively contradicting each other. One corresponds to the year 891 (consequently +3), the other to 900 (consequently —6). There- fore 1st year | 5th „--.--.- 12th „ f. Wounded at the battle of Ra- moth, against the king of Syria, receives a visit from Ahaziah. king of Judah. Jehu, at the suggestion of Elisha, causes a revolt, slays Joram with his own hand, and causes Ahaziaii, king of Judah, to be put to death. Here, therefore, there is a syn- chronism to a day ----- Difference from Judah. Real Year. + 3 894 —6 890 883 Jehu to the Fall of the Kingdom of Israel. (The Plouse of Jehu.) Jehu begins to reign, reckoning from the year after the murder of Joram (in 883). "Reigned 28 years." (x. 36.) 1st year 28th year f Jehoahaz, son of Jehu, begins to reign, *Mn the 23rd year of Joash, king of Judah " (855), and "reigned 17 years." (xiii. 1.) The comparison is only one year behind, con- sequently ------- 1st year ------- 17th „ t- - Differenc( from Judah. 'Real Year. 882 855 —1 854 838 314 WEST ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part III. Kingdom of Judah. Amaziali, son of Joash, begins to reign "in the second year of Joash, son of Jehoahaz, king of Israel: he was 25 years old when he began to reign, and reigned 29 years." (xiv. 1, 2.) 2nd year of Joash, king of Israel = 836, is not contradictory. 1st year Uncertain when, Amaziah slew the Edomites in the Valley of Salt, and destroyed Salah (Petra), which he called Joqthel (vanquished by God), (xiv. 7.) Elated by this he challenged Joash, king of Israel, to combat: he was defeated and taken prisoner, Jerusalem burnt and razed, (xiv. 11 — 14.) Still he left the kingdom to his son, evidently not in a very bad condition ; hence this misfortune must have happened early, at all events before the death of Joash. 16th year (= to the year that Joash died). "Lived after the death of Jehoash, king of Israel, 15 years." (xiv. 17.) In reality 14 years. As before, there is again a dis- crepancy of only one year. 17th year ------- 29th „ t Uzziah (called also Azariah), the son of Ama- ziah, " in the 27th year of Jeroboam : " (Here 10 lost years are restored from below, as in the succeeding comparison : 27 should be 17.) " was 16 years old, and reigned 52 years." (xv. 1, 2.) 1st year (aged 16) 28th „ (aged 43) - - - - - 38th „ 48th „ (aged 63). The year of Jeroboam's death ------- 49th „ (year of Zachariah's reign) 52nd „ f (aged 67== 3rd year of Menahem) Chronol. B.C. 142 837 157 822 158 170 821 809 171 198 208 808 781 771 218 219 761 760 757 Sect. I. B. U.] DIVIDED KINGDOM. 315 Kingdom of Israel. Difference from Judah. Real Year. Jehoash, son of Jehoaliaz, begins to reign, "in the 37th year of Joash, king of Judah .... 16 years." (xiii. 10.) The above year is 841, consequently the com- parison is 4 years behind - - - _ Ewald reads " in the 39th year," as does the Aldine version of the Septuagint (839), which would, therefore give —2. 1st year ------- —4 837 16th „ t — 822 Jeroboam II., son of Joash, begins to reign "in the 15th year of Amaziah, king of Judah .... 41 years." (xiv. 23.) Instead of 41 (t^ 00 CO D W o ^ CO oa race o O o .2 P ER, c rivei ears. o M /-^ .2 "S CO the PELE( 'ation, pai W S ° « -S § -3 Sect. I. F. I.] SERIES FROM ARPHAXAD TO TERAH. 3 ft? ^ o a OS rr. D 3 406 CHINESE CHRONOLOGY. [Book IV. P^rt IV- may be seen in Ritter's work, refer to this immigration from the West. VI. The inundation, therefore, in the reign of Yao had just as much to do with Noah's Flood, as the dams he erected and the canals he dug had to do with the Ark. The learned Jesuit Fathers were well aware of this, but they were prevented by orders from Rome from pubhshing the truth. The fact of so absurd an idea being accepted by the English and Scotch mis- sionaries, and even by Morrison himself, is a very me- lancholy instance of the way in which the sound judg- ment of learned men may be warped by rabbinical superstition and the intolerant ignorance of their Churches, in the investigation of historical truth. II. General Chronological R insult. We shall content ourselves with expressing the ge- neral result in the following terms ; 1. It w^as assumed, as Freret has shown, so early as in the reign of the Han, that 742 lunations, 22 of which were intercalated, are equivalent to 60 years. They were, therefore, not aware that there was any flaw in that calculation, and consequently could not know how to correct it. 2. In like manner, the only cycle in use among the Turanian races, in Old India and Thibet, was that of 60 years, and in the form 12 x 5. 3. In the Chaldee chronology, on the other hand, a cycle of 60 x 10 years was employed (10 sossi being equivalent to one saros), and Josephus styled the epoch of 600 years which grew out of it the Great Patriarchal year. It was necessary to observe this to understand the order of the constellations. 4. In reality, the intercalation of an extraordinary lunar month of 29 or even 30 days, every 600 years, produces on the whole a closer approximation between F. IL] GENERAL CHRONOLOGICAL RESULT. 407 the current years and the tropical, than the Julian inter- calation. For the latter makes an excess of one day every 128 years, whereas the intercalation of a month of 30 days in 600 years produces a deficit of only 1| day (30 days instead of 28J), in a month of 29 days I = 1 day. 5. If we would explain the neri of 600 x 6 = 3600 years by the same system, we must suppose that the later Chaldees were aware that the equation of this epoch is not perfectly accurate, and that they at the same time computed the duration at 5 days, so that it was only after the occurrence of 6 of those epochs that the year was again brought into complete equilibrium, inasmuch as they were obliged to omit the extraordinary mterca- lation at the end of the 3600 years. 6. As regards the reciprocal relations between the Chaldees and Chinese, the following points may be con- sidered as established : a. The earliest Chinese chronology rests upon a con- ventional basis peculiar to itself, that of limiting the lunar year by a cycle of 600 years, which is' common to the whole of North Asia and the Chaldeans; and probably (as it is also met with in India) to the Bactrians also : this basis is liistoricaL h. The communication took place before the Chaldees invented the cycle of 600 years. c. The Chinese observation is based upon the use of tlie Babylonian gnomon. 1) 1) 4 PART V. THE PHGENICIAN, ASSYRIAN, AND BABYLONIAN ERAS AND HISTORICAL EPOCHS CONFRONTED WITH THE EGYPTIAN DATES. 411 SECTION I. THE PHCENICIAN, ASSYRIAN, AND BABYLONIAN SYNCHRO NISMS WITH THE HISTORY OF EGYTT. A. THE PHCENICIAN SYNCHPvONISMS. I. The Points of Contact and the Points of Controversy. Down to the present time neither the historical monu- ments nor the chronicles of either nation have furnished us with a direct synchronism between any Phoenician and Egyptian events. Ramses III. conquered Tyre ; but nobody has told us in what year of Old Tyre the con- quest was made. We cannot, however, avoid making a few observations upon the Phoenician dates on the present occasion, because they may possibly supply, or at least be supposed to supply, arguments against our view of the very high antiquity of the commence- ment of People dlistor3^ We hope, however, that they will strengthen our assumption, by proving its absolute necessity. There was an era both of ancient and mo- dern Tyre, and there were registers in the temples of that city of the third millennium B.C. Out of these Menander of Ephesus compiled a historical narrative, extracts from which, as given by Josephus, will be found in our " Appendix of Authorities." But there is, besides this, a more special authority as to modern Tyre (the Tyre of the thirteenth century). Our determination of the date of Solomon is an important point for Egyptian history in two particulars, both for tlie computation 412 WEST ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part V. backwards and forwards. We have, in one case, the son of that monarch brought into contact with the Egyptian conqueror ; in the other, the building of the Temple calls upon us to settle the question how long a period has intervened between the Exodus and that event. We assumed the building to have been com- menced some ten years later than the ordinary computa- tion. Since that, Movers, the most recent investigator of Phoenician history, for whose soundness as a critic the highest respect must be entertained, has felt com- pelled to place it 45 years later still than is ordinarily computed, and he accordingly disputes the date I have assigned to Solomon. The only argument advanced against me seems to be the assertion that the determina- tion of the date of Hiram necessitates the adoption of his view, which, as we shall see forthwith, is founded on a mistake. The other charge against me is pretty much of the same character, namely, that I have made ar- bitrary alterations in the " Canon " of Manetho. This is the name which Movers gives even now to the Lists made by Africanus and Eusebius out of Manetho, which rarely agree with each other; and in which, even in the New Empire, there are many gaps, in the 20th Dynasty for instance, where all the names of the Ramessides are omitted. This is a view of the case for which I certainly was not prepared. Any one at all conversant with hieroglyphical research must be aware that, in spite of the devastation of so many centuries, the extant con- temporary monuments furnish us with dates of reigns higher than those transmitted in the Lists. These, he thinks, can be got over by supposing there to have been collateral reigns in these instances, some of which I have myself admitted. But he forgets that I have only done so twice in the 12th Dynasty, and in the computation of the length of the reign of Tuthmdsis IIL But in both of these cases it was the monuments themselves, and the contradictory entries in the records, which justified me,. Sect. I. A. II.] FOUNDATION OF CARTHAGE. 413 and indeed compelled me to do so. Does he seriously mean to aro-ue that we are bound to adhere to the 150 or 153 years assigned by the Epitomists to the dynasty of the Psammetici, when the sepulchral inscrip- tion of a man who lived during it, and who states his age in years, months, and days, as well as the number of years the kings reigned in whose time he was born and died, makes it 159 or 160, instead of the 150 or 153, not of Manetho's " Canon," which is unfortunately lost, but of two Lists which contradict each other, and are evidently full of errors of transcription ? Fortunately we have now a sacred Apis who gives still more decisive evidence against Movers. But his chronology is in a most unfortunate plight, for I find that even my own calculation is too low, as the following researches will show. The year of the building of Solomon's Temple (969 in Movers) I no longer make 1003, but 1014, which very nearly agrees with the chronology generally adopted. This difference of opinion, however, shall not deter me, before I test his system, from expressing the high respect I entertain for his sound Phoenician re- searches, to which I am so much indebted, and for which I have great pleasure in offering my thanks, both as regards the chronology and mythology. II. The Date of the Foundation of Carthage. It might, indeed, seem as though the assumption, about which there is no doubt, that Carthage was founded in the year 813 or 814, was at variance with all our previous Jewish chronology. It is, however, rendered certain, both from concurrent testimony and from concordant calculations. Aristotle says that Utica was built 287 years before Carthage. Pliny states (likewise from native sources of information) that the shrine at Utica was consecrated 414 WEST- ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part V. 1178 years before his time, that is, in the year 1100 B.C., or a year later. Putting the two notices together, we must come to the conclusion that Carthage was built in 813 or 814 B.C. (}Joo_287). The well-known statement in Justin (xviii. 3.) also brings us to one of these two years. When, according to the few extant MSS., he says 72 years before the building of Rome, this computation, which makes it 825 or 826, would only be so far deserving of attention as to induce us to see whether we must decide in favour of 813 or 814. It cannot weaken the authority of the two other writers, or create any doubt in our minds. If the informant of Pompeius Trogus is to be relied upon, and if he did not miscalculate, he certainly could not have written lxxii, but lxii: 753 -[ 62 makes 815, which may very easily have arisen from some other mode of computing the dates which were to be compared. In calculations of this kind, which depend upon a comparison of native and foreign eras, a difference of one year is no difference at all. The entry in Justin, when thus interpreted and corrected, certainly gives the preference to 814 over 813, and we therefore assume that 814 B.C. is the year of the commencement of the Carthaginian era. What makes the whole calculation so imp©rtant for our chronology, however, is this, that Josephus has given extracts from Menander's Phoenician Annals, in which the flight of Elissa from Tyre seems to be placed in the seventh year of the reign of her cruel brother Pygmalion, the king of that country. The whole passage is full of difficulties, but its immense importance to us consists, as will be apparent forthwith, in its giving the following synchronism — the 4th year of Solomon = 11th (or 12th) year of Hirom. In Menander's Annals of Phoenician history, ex- tracted from the primeval registers of Tyre, Solomon and Hirojn are mentioned as contemporaries. Now, Sect. I. A. III.] IIIROM AND SOLOMON. 415 Josephus' main object was to show that the stories he quoted from Jewish history, and the date assigned by him to Solomon, agreed with these Tyrian Annals. This would have compelled the spiteful Alexandrians and incredulous Romans to desist from rejecting the despised traditions of his people as barbarous and incredible fables, and from writing such nonsense as even his con- temporary Tacitus Avas still writing about them. A closer examination of the relation between the dates of Hirom and Solomon, will also assist us in settling the date of Carthage. III. The Eleventh Year of HmOM and his Synchronisms WITH Solomon. Owing to the importance of the points now under discussion, we have inserted in the "Appendix of Authori- ties" the extracts made by Josephus from the historical works of Dius and Menander. Movers has submitted these invaluable fragments to critical examination. In reference to this we subjoin the following synopsis of the w^hole series of Tyrian rulers, from Hirom to the foundation of Carthage. Abibalos (Abi-Bahal, of whom Baal is the father) was succeeded by Hirom (Huram, the Bel- snake ?) - ■ Baleastartos (Bahal- Astaroth), his son - Abdastartos (servant of Astarte), his son Popular rising: headed by the four sons of the royal nurse, the murderers, the eldest of whom became king : Anonymous (government seized by the slaves ?) 12 — in — year Regnal Years, Lived. 34 53 in 20th year. 9 43 29 37th 21st G2 yeaii?. 41G WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part V. Regnal Years. Lived. Accession. Brought forward - - 62 Astartos, son of Baleas- tartos 12 54 42nd year. Astarymos (Astarim, Astartier), his bro- ther, is dethroned and murdered by his bro- ther - - - 9 54 „ 46th Pheles (the beautiful) 0 8 m. 50 „ 50th Dethroned and slain by Eithobalos (proximity of Baal) - - - 32 68 „ 37th Balezaros (Bahal Zor, i.e. Melkart), son - 6 45 „ 40th Myttonos (Mutton, Gift, i. e. of Baal), son - 9 32 „ 24th Phygmalion( Smith of the Most High, Sculptor) 47 56 „ 10th Sum total - 177 years and 8 months. In order to test these dates which have come down to us in the translation of Josephus and Rufinus, we must notice the two following remarks of the former of these writers : First of all upon that of Menander : " In the seventh year of Pygmalion his sister fled, and founded the city of Carthage, in Libya." Then follows his own calculation : " From the reign of Hirom (i. e. from the first year of Hirom) to the building of Carthage - 155 yrs. 8 mths. " From the 12th year of Hirom (the year of the building of the Temple), to the building of Carthage - - ■ - 143 yrs. 8 mths." Sect. I. A. III.] HIROM AND SOLO^ION. 417 AYe see at once that these two latter sums agree per- fectly. They are also corroborated by another state- ment in the same work of Josephus (ii. 2.), wliere he says that the period between the accession of Hirom and the building of Carthage was 150 years. Assuming these dates to be correct, there are 18 regnal years wanting. For, if there was an interval of 155 years and 8 months between the first year of Hirom and the 7th of Pygmalion (or 143 years and 8 months between the 12th of Hirom and the great event in the 7th of Pygma- lion), the sum total, from the beginning of Hirom's reign to the end of Pygmalion's, which lasted 47 years, must be 195 years and 8 months, and not 177 and 8 months. Movers, in order to get over the deficit of the 18 years, adopts the dates of Syncellus, and alters the 6 years of Balezar into 8, and the 9 of his successor, Mytton, into 25.^^^ Eusebius tries to get out of the scrape better, by making the 9 into 29. But his entire omission of the tyrant's reign is quite inadmissible, while at the same time he gives Baleazar 17 years instead of 7. Un- doubtedly there is something suspicious about the 12 years assigned to the tyrant, inasmuch as the same number follows directly after. Instead of 12, therefore, we only give him 10 years, and thus obtain + 20 — 2 = 18 years. It is hardly possible that the copyists should have made such serious blunders in the MSS. of Josephus (which are corroborated by Rufinus), as to alter a 6 into 8, and 9 into 25. There is no instance of such blundering. From the beginning of Hirom's reign, then, to the death of Pygmalion, we have 195 years. The Tyrian chronology adopted in our tables is calcu- lated according to this restoration. It now remains for us to consider the most important of all chronological data — we mean the one about the Movers, Phoenicians, ii. A. 138. Comp. B. 149—158. VOL. III. E E 418 WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part V. era of Tyre, where Josephus mentions the synchronisms of the building of the Temple. He says, without further comment, that the eleventh year of Hirom, which he here makes parallel to the fourth of Solomon, was the two hundred and fortieth from the building of Tyre. This is not a calculation, but a fact. He found it so stated in the Phoenician Annals of Menander, which he had before him, and which must have reckoned by years from the building of Tyre. But it is obviously his own computation that it was this identical eleventh year of Hirom which was then current (as he, Josephus, expresses himself) when the Temple was built, and not an earlier or later one. Not only did the Tyrian Annals not give the synchronistic year, but they never even mentioned the building of the Temple at all. If they had, Josephus assuredly would not have forgotten to tell us of such a treasure. But he says plainly, that the synchronism is his own calcula- tion, for, in his work against Apion, he makes it the twelfth year. And whichever of the two is the correct date — it may be even a third date — the important point to us is this, that The 11th year of Hirom was the 240th after the building of Tyre. This being established, we may perhaps be able to compute the synchronism for ourselves, by the same biblical data from which the Jewish historian must him- self have calculated it. Movers is good-natured enough to suppose that Jose- phus found the twelfth year of Hirom recorded some- where or other, as the Phoenician synchronism corre- sponding to the building of Solomon's Temple ; (in the other passage, therefore, he must have found the eleventh year;) but he cannot help admitting that, in the citation from Menander, nothing whatever is said about the building of the Temple, still less Ant. viii. 3. 1. Comp. Movers, ii. B. p. 138, note. Sect. I. A. IIJ.] HIROM AND SOLOMON. 419 about the year ; that Dius likewise does not mention it ; the former, in fact, simply says that Solomon was a contemporary and friend of Hirom. If Jose- phus found the synchronism in some other author, and repeated it on his authority, it is clear that he gave the names of the authorities who said nothing whatever about the building of the Temple, and yet did not give the names of those who supplied such welcome data and so important for settling the chronology. This would have been an oversight which nobody was less likely to commit than Josephus, especially in a contro- versy with the well-read and spiteful Alexandrian, who cared nothing about Jewish chronology. The assumption may be well founded, or it may not ; at all events, there is no authority for it ; it rests exclusively upon Josephus' chronological assumptions in respect to Jewish history, that is, upon statements in the Bible. Now, what did he find there respecting Hiram, or Hirom ? Four entries, well adapted, we might sup- pose, to give him a clue, and also to make him think. They are as follows : 1. Hiram sent workmen to David, and cedar wood, to build him a palace at Jerusalem. (2 Sam. v. 11. ; 1 Chr. xiv. 1.) 2. He did the same to Solomon for building the Temple, and indeed when making his preparations for hewing the stone (1 Kings v. 12. seq. ; 2 Chron. ii. 3 — 16., comp. ix. 10, 11.) 3. After the works were completed, he received from Solomon twenty villages in Galilee, and this came to pass at the end of twenty years. 4. After that he sent him seamen for his fleet at Ophir. (1 Kings ix. 10—14. 26—28.) Hiram, therefore, must have been living at all events in the 24th year of Solomon's reign. On the other hand, it is impossible to determine the precise date of the building of the cedar house of David. E E 2 420 WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Pakt V. "We are quite ready to agree with Movers that it does not follow from the place where this is noticed in the Book of Kings, that the building commenced immediately after the royal residence was removed from Hebron to Jerusalem, in the eighth year of David's reign, though that fact is mentioned immediately before it. It must, however, be admitted that it is not very probable David should wait till the end of his reign to provide a suitable house for himself and his numerous wives. Whoever insists upon this, would do more wisely to invent, like Tatian, and other ecclesiastical writers, a second Hiram, in spite of its positive impossibility. The historical critic, however, will suppose that Hiram, as the celebrated friend of Solomon, is here mentioned instead of his father Abibalos. At all events, the first year of Hiram cannot be placed later than the 30th of David, even if, out of regard for the Jewish chronologers, rather than from historical probability, we should be prepared to admit that the Indian fleet was fitted out by Solomon in the very year in which he gave to Hiram the twenty villages in Galilee, the price of the labourers and the assistance supplied by him, and that this was also the year of his death. We might indeed assume the very reverse, for it is mentioned that Hiram was very dissatisfied with the bargain when he saw the twenty villages, and called them " dung." Yet it would seem, from the Phoenician accounts, that they contrived to be on friendly terms. The chronicle states that he received besides a considerable sum of money from Solomon. He was probably reimbursed by the partnership with the Jewish king in the Indian trade, of which the latter had the key. Now, looking at the question immediately before us, the date of the foundation of Carthage, we cannot disguise the fact that the flight of Elissa is chro- nologically very loosely connected with the compu- tation of the era of Carthage, which, as we have seen, must, according to the best authorities, date from Sect. I. A. IV.] ERA OF THE SIDONIAN TYRE. 421 814 B. c. It will be necessary, therefore, to make a special calculation of our own, in order to see what number of years elapsed between her flight into Africa and the consecration of the new city which had to be built in the meantime. Now we learn that the colony of patricians which Elissa took with her set- tled first in the old city of Byrsa, (not " Cow-hide," but " Citadel," namely ^' Bozra,") whether they built the city itself, or, as seems certain, found there an ancient Phoenician settlement. Around this citadel they afterwards built, in the circle (Ma'hal, whence Magalia), the new city (Kartharasa, whence the Karkhedon of the Greeks, Carthago of the Romans) ; and it is admitted to be this new city, the dedication of which, after it had been walled in, gave rise to the era of Carthage. This accordingly may just as well have happened 60 years as 20 after the flight of Elissa. By attempting to combine the two events, we lose the true year for both one and the other, and throw everything into confusion. The celebrated passage in Josephus, then, gives us no new information about the era of Carthage, but it is not directly at variance with it ; on the contrary, it confirms it as far as it goes. Neither does it tell us anything more than we know from the Bible about the date of Solomon. But it gives us positive data for the era of the Sidoriian Tyre, which is so important, and which we now proceed to consider. IV. The Era of the Sidonian (Modern) Tyre, and its Points op Contact with Jewish and Egyptian Dates. The eleventh year of King Hirom was the two hun- dred and fortieth after the building of Tyre. This is all the information we derive from Josephus in aid of the Tyrian chronology. But the value of the Tyrian era, as well as of every E E 3 422 WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part V. other era, in reference to general history, consists in its enabling us to incorporate it into the general history of nations. In this point of view, Tyrian and Jewish chronology, to a certain extent, mutually assist each other. But a third point has been hitherto wanting for verifying the system we have pursued with regard to them both. The era of Carthage does not supply this, as has been thought by some, any more than it can itself be determined with anything hke accuracy by the Tyrian series. We will now endeavour to show that the Egyptian chronology does, to a certain extent, supply the means of fixing the limits somewhat more accurately than has been possible heretofore, and that it explains more especially the origin of the Tyrian era. Jewish history possesses two points of synchronism with Tyre — Solomon and Hirom, and Ahaband Ithbaal, or Ithobaal, whose daughter Jezebel Ahab married. We shall point out, upon the basis of the previous research, that there is a perfect concordance between our dates of the two Jewish kings and the Tyrian accounts, whereas Movers' assumptions, which differ so materially from the common Jewish chronology, involve us in inextri- cable difficulties. We think that the year 1014 is proved to be the year of the building of the Temple on coherent critical grounds, and it differs very little from the ordinary computation. But this date is the result of research based upon the Bible, and such it remains. It cannot be said that we have authentic proof that this is the year. The fact of Movers having adopted the year 969, or 45 years later, shows that a little further examination of the point may not be wholly supererogatory. The commencement of the Tyrian era has now been pretty generally fixed at about 1250, and this date has been adopted by Duncker in his ancient history, with a soundness of judgment and historical tact for which he Sect. T. A. IV.] ERA OF THE SIDONIAN TYRE. 423 is so eminently distinguished. We think we can show that the more accurate date is 1254. No one has yet attempted to explain it historically. Justin (xviii. 3.) remarks, and it certainly was not an invention of his own, that Tyre was founded by the Sidonians, who fled thither when the king of Askalon captured their city, and that the date of its foundation was the year before the sack of Troy. Did we but know at how many years before the Olympiads, or the building of Rome, Pompeius Trogus computed that event ; and whether, like Era- tosthenes, he adopted 1183 (1184), 407 before the Olympiads, or 1209 like the Parian register, or like Herodotus, Thucydides, and others, some intervening date between 1250 and 1270 ! The above remark of Justin may probably be very important to us hereafter, but it can never form the starting-point of serious research, because it is alto- gether unsupported. The Assyrian era of Ninus and Semiramis is in the same category. The latter we think may be determined to a year, and that it coincides with the year 1273 b. c, the date which Movers also adopts for it. But he considers the Semiramis of the 13th century as a mere corruption of the myth of the Goddess Derketo, or Semiramis, interspersed with a few historical traits of a later Queen Semiramis- Atossa of the eighth century. This, we think, a pure delusion on the part of the ingenious critic. To history it is wholly indifferent what fables may have been mixed up with the stories of the childhood or youth of the his- torical Semiramis. The fact of the existence of a con- quering queen in the early period of the Assyrian em- pire is just as historical as the foundation of the empire of the Franks by Charlemagne, in spite of all the fables that have been interwoven into the personal history of that great German king. If the name of Semiramis is the stumbling-block, then almost all the Assyrian and Babylonian kings must be set down as mythical, Nebu- E E 4 424 WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part V. chadnezzar and Nabonadius, as well as Sardanapalus, for they are all names and titles of gods, just as much as Semiramis is, which signifies in Assyrian " the fluttering," and may mean the divine dove, and a queen. But as early as the 17th year of Ninus, that is in 1257, the Assyrian empire embraced the same vast extent of territory which we find it occupying at its downfall in the eighth century. After the death of Se- miramis, indeed, many of her conquests were lost, Egypt, for instance, which, together with Syria, Asia Minor, and Palestine, including Phoenicia, was made tributary in those 17 years. Diodorus (ii. 2. on the authority of Ctesias) mentions all these countries, as well as Cilicia, among the conquests of Ninus during that period. This synchronism may appear at first sight not very suitable for the commencement of a new era of Tyre about the middle of the 13th century. A new era im- plies the commencement or restoration of independence, but not conquest. Now the Island of Tyre, on which the Sidonians after their expulsion settled, was indeed all but impregnable, but it acquired its importance from the city on the mainland over against it, as has been very well pointed out by Movers. The Tyre, the era of which commenced in the 13th century, must, in the time of which we are treating, have comprised both the island and the city in one. The island was the im- pregnable marine citadel. It protected the docks and warehouses, and the communication was kept up in every direction by means of a port on the north and south sides. But assuming the Phoenicians and Assyrians to have been on friendly terms, how are we to account for Askalon making conquests in Phoenicia at a time when the vast Assyrian empire had already stretched out its arms over all Western Asia, either as a patron or conqueror ? How do we know that the Sidonians were not driven out at an earlier period ? Sect. I. A. IV.] ERA OF THE SIDONIAN TYRE. 425 There is an extant Egyptian record which may pos- sibly throw some light upon this obscure point, if we make use of it in conjunction with what we have dis- covered from the monuments of Ramses III. In making our survey of those historical monuments of Egypt, a papyrus roll was mentioned, now in the Ana- stasi collection of the British Museum, of the same date as this very king, and therefore coeval with them and just as trustworthy as they are, but containing more valuable and historical matter. The following passage, which is perfectly intelligible, occurs in it ; " Tira, the city on the sea, which receives fishes from the water and grain from the land." These words cannot mean that Tyre obtained its fish from the sea, and its grain from the mainland. This would be a wretched platitude. But they become sig- nificant and important when we know that the Tyre on the mainland, with the rich pastures behind and around it, and the Island-Tyre, the Queen of the Ocean, together formed Tyre. This explains, also, the superscription of the tower, on which the name of Ramses was engraved, and which he had captured. It was the citadel (Maka) of the Tyre of the mainland. Nature has marked its position with indelible characters, by a steep isolated rock, fifty feet high, which rises abruptly out of the plain, a mile to the southward of the present peninsula of Tyre, close to the sea shore. A mile further to the southward, the site of the ruins of the old city, it is a dead flat. This rock, now forms the centre of the Roman aqueduct, which ! conveyed the water to the peninsula, and is consequently the tower captured by Ramses, Maka-Tira. It is true that the Philistaeans (Purusata) took part in this expedition against Tyre, and it is possible therefore that Askalon may have done so, though it is not men- \ tioned. But they were the antagonists and enemies of 426 WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book lY. Part V. the Egyptians, and some of them are represented in fetters amongst their prisoners. The war of Askalon against Sidon must consequently have taken place after Ramses III. conquered a por- tion of Phoenicia, that is, after 1274. But why may not the king of Askalon have been th^ally of Assyria? A close connexion is represented as existing between the city and Queen Semiramis, which connexion may in reality very Avell be historical. The expedition of Askalon against Sidon may also very well have been undertaken somewhat later by an understanding with Assyria. Here then we have not merely an historical Egyptian fact, but an equally historical Assyrian fact. There is an historical connexion between the two. Together they combine to throw light upon the obscure history of the origin of the Island-Tyre, just at the most critical period, and they harmonize with the statement in Justin. According to our tables, Ramses captured the for- tresses of Tyre on the mainland in the year 1287, after a naval action, in which the inhabitants of Akka(St. Jean d'Acre) took part. The people of Askalon therefore might very well make war against Sidon, between 1260 and 1250. And it was either the year in which the Sidonians, after their expulsion, settled on the island, or the subsequent revival of the whole of Tyre, island and mainland, which gave rise to the institution of the Tyrian era. Now the date of the commencement of this era, which we deduce from the statement that the eleventh year of Hirom is the two hundred and fortieth of that epoch, tallies perfectly with such a connexion. It is true that the era might be placed a few years too high, or a few years too low, as the synchronism of the eleventh year of Hirom and the fourth of Solomon rests only on the authority of Josephus. But, to say Sect. I. A. lY.] EKA OF THE SIDONIAN TYRE. 427 the least of it, there is nothing in the assumption to warrant us in deviating from the common chronology by forty and odd years, as Movers has done. We propose, therefore, at once, in spite of the slight discrepancy in the date which cannot be entirely got over, to take a cursory view of the relation between the previous assumptions and the result of our comparative criticism. In the first place, the circumscribed limit of the epoch, as determined historically, puts Movers' chronology entirely out of the question. He makes the eleventh year of Hirom 969 ; consequently the era would com- mence in 1218. The latest date at which we have found it possible to fix its commencement is 1250, and this would therefore still be thirty -two years later. Assuming, then, as shown in our chronological tables, in agreement with the statements and computations of Josephus, that the year 1014, the fourth of Solomon, was the eleventh of Hirom, the Tyrian chronology will stand thus : Year of Tyre. B.C. 1 - Foundation of Xew-Island-Tyre - 1254 230 - 1st year of Hirom - - - 1025 240 - 11th year of Hirom (4th of Solomon) 1015 263 - 34th (last) year of Hirom - - 992 264 - 1st year of Baleazar (7 years) - 991 271 " 1st year of Abdastartos (9 years) 981 280 - 1st year of the Tyrant (11 years instead of 12) 974 292 - 1st year of Astartos (12 years) - 964 304 - 1st year of Astarymos (11 years) - 952 313 - 1 St (and only) year of Phele( 8 months) 943 331 - 1st year of Ithobal (32 years) - 942 363 - 1st year of Balezar (6 years) - - 910 369 - 1st year of Mytton (29 years instead of 9) ...... 904 378 - 1st year of Pygmalion (47 years) - 875 428 WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part V. Year of Tyre. C. 384 - 7th year of Pygmalion - - 869 424 ^ 47th year of Pygmalion - - 829 Now this series of synchronisms harmonizes also perfectly with the contemporaneity of Ahab and his father-in-law Ithobal, the father of Jezebel. V. The Date of the Building of the Temple of Melkarth ox THE Isle of Tyre, or the Era of the Elder Tire. The supreme Patron God of the Tyre so well known to us in history was Melkarth ; as the supreme Goddess of Sidon was Astarte. This, as Movers has rightly re- marked, is direct proof that Tyre was not originally a Sidonian colony.^^^ We admit, indeed, as a historical fact, that the city was rebuilt by the Sidonians about the middle of the 13th century, and doubtless by the Patrician races who had been previously driven out. But the difference in their religious observances can be accounted for by another circumstance, which is equally authentic, and transmitted to us by Hero- dotus, one which harmonizes as well with our general view of ancient people-history, as it is at variance with the ordinary rabbinical assumptions. The account in Herodotus (ii. 43, 44.) is deserving of especial attention, on account of the trouble he took to obtain it. The many thousand years which the Egyptian priests claimed for the history of their country, and the high antiquity they assigned to Hercules, furnished him with matter for serious reflection. For, if this were true, how could he be the son of Alcmena, whose age he thought he knew perfectly well. He resolved, therefore, to probe the matter to the bottom ; and he did so with his usual ingenuity. He tells his story in the following words Movers, Phoenicians, ii. A. p. 167. ii. 43, 44. Sect. I. A. V.] ERA OF THE ELDER TYRE. 429 Xow, being anxious to obtain as clear an insight as possible into these matters, I embarked on board a ship bound for Tyre, in Phoenicia, where I heard there was a temple sacred to Hercules." He then enters into con- versation with the priests of the temple about its date, who told him that " it was as old as the building of Tyre, and that Tyre had been inhabited for two thousand three hundred years,'''' If we adopt the usual date (the year 460) for Herodotus' visit to Egypt, the date of the buildino^ of Tvre would be 2760 b. c. This, according to our Egyptian computations, is the synchronism of the first period of the 12th Dynasty, 13 years before Jacob's journey into Egypt, and 116 years after Abraham's immigration into Canaan. It will also appear in the next Book that even Phoenician mythology supplies some authority for this early date of the shrine at Tyre ; and that astronomical considerations prevent the possibility of fixing it at an earlier epoch. Now, if it should turn out that the immigration of Abraham can be established as an historical fact, as well as the natural phenomenon at the Dead Sea, by which the cities of the plain were destroyed, this would furnish a very satisfactory explanation of the commencement of the era of Old Tyre. The building of that shrine was obviously connected with the original settlement of the Phoenicians. But, according to the official answer given to Alexander by the Tyrians, there was a still older shrine there, a temple of Melkarth on the mainland. AA^hether this was true, or was merely an invention of theirs to get rid of the Macedonian's artful inquiry, who would have gladly given proof of his veneration for Melkarth-Hercules, and whom they accordingly paid in his own coin ; still, from the obvious political unity between the island and city of Tyre, we may safely assume that the foundation of the two shrines took place at the same epoch in the same century. We are now able, for the first time, properly to appro- 430 WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part V. ciate and understand the tradition transmitted by Justin, which, like all the information about the Phoenicians in his 18th book, was doubtless derived from excellent native sources : That the earliest settlers on the Phoeni- cian coast came from the neighbourhood of the Dead Sea, from which they were driven by an earthquake. This we take to be the historical gist of the passage (xviii. 3.):^«^ " The Tyrian people were akin to the Phoenicians, who, being visited by an earthquake, left their homes and settled, first, on the Assyrian Lake, from whence they moved to the sea coast, where they built a city, to which they gave the name of Sidon, owing to the abundance of fish; for Sidon signifies 'fish' in Phoe- nician." Now Sidon does not literally mean " fish," but " the city of fishermen." The Assyrian inland sea (Assyrium Stagnum) is certainly not the Sea of Galilee, but the Dead Sea. The people who bordered upon it were Edom, and Phoinike is a literal translation of Edom, the Reddish, Red — a designation which there are several reasons for supposing to be aboriginal. Adam may per- haps be the same name.^^^ About the time, therefore, of the immigration of Abraham, the children of Edom were driven away by an earthquake from the Syrian inland sea, the original formation of which, by a subsidence of the ground below the level of the ocean, is a fact belonging to the pre- Adamite world. It does not, however, necessarily follow that the authority from which this information was derived made this the original home of the Edomites. If general tradition and the formation of language point This passage will be explained more in detail in the Preface to the Fifth Book. Compare what is said above, under Ramses III., as to the name of Damascus. Sect. I. A. V.] ERA OF THE ELDER TYRE. 431 alike to the mountains of Armenia as the birthplace of the Arab as well as Canaanitish races, we have probably especial evidence, and that native evidence, to the same effect as regards Edom, and consequently the Phoenicians. Alexander Polyhistor^^^, the learned freedman and in- timate friend of Sylla, quotes the following story out of a work of one of his contemporaries, Apollonius Molon, a native of Caria, a man in his time held in high repute both at Rhodes and at Rome, and whom we learn from Josephus to have been a learned writer, hostile to the Jews.^^^ " Man (^anthropos^ i. e. Adam, Edom) was driven with his sons, after the Flood, by the inhabitants of the country, from their home in Armenia, and they gradually moved on through the sandy regions, to the then uninhabited mountainous district of Syria. This took place three generations prior to Abraham the Wise, whose name signifies Father's Friend. He had two sons, one by an Egyptian wife, the patriarch of the twelve Arab princes ; the other, named Laughter (Gelos, consequently the Laugher, i. e. Isaac), by a native woman. Laughter had eleven sons ; and a twelfth, Joseph, from whom the third (of the Patriarchs), Moses, is descended.'' The first explanation of this story is found indeed in the Bible ; but it has obviously another derivation, quite independent of that, direct from Phcenician his- tory. Movers very aptly identifies the mountainous district of Syria here mentioned as Southern Judaea, the region of Hebron, the home of the children of Enak, who built there Kiriath-Arba, afterwards called Hebron. At all events we have a pre-Abrahamitic mi- gration of Edom, that is to say, of the ancestors of the Red Men (Phoenicians), to the coast. They held South In Euseb. Prcep. Evang. ix. 19., where the reading was Melon before Gaisfbrd's correction. Jos. contra Ap. ii. 7. and several following chapters. Corap, Movers, ii. A. p. 50. seqq. 432 WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part V. Juda3a, and all the region about the Dead Sea, part even of Arabia and Lower Egypt, perhaps. In the days of Abraham these children of Edom wandered from the Dead Sea to the coast. A century afterwards we find the old island-shrine of Melkarth in existence, the relation between which and Esau we shall treat of in the Fifth Book. There is evidence throughout of a connexion between oldest people-histories; and the history of Phoenicia proves at all events that Abraham, if he were an histori- cal personage, cannot have lived later than the founda- tion of their oldest temples, but more probably about a century earlier. B. THE HISTORICAL AND ASTRONOMICAL SYNCHRONISMS OF THE ASSYRIANS AND BABYLONIANS. I, The Synchronism of Ninus and Semiramis with the Twentieth Dynasty. NiEBUHR, in his masterly treatise of 1819 on the historical advantages derived from the Armenian trans- lation of the Chronicle of Eusebius, has proved that the Dynasty of the Ninyads in Berosus (Berossos), the great historian of the Babylonians in the third century B.C., in perfect accordance with Herodotus, cannot have been established more than 526 years before the era of Nabonassar. The contrary theory, that the Assyrian empire is of vastly higher antiquity, is based upon the authority of Ctesias, a confused and uncritical writer, whom, moreover, we only know through the version of Diodorus. Unfortunately this view of history has been Sect. I. B. I.] NINUS AND SEMIllAMIS. 433 SO universally adopted in all the school-books, down to the publication of Duncker's work, that historians have not been tempted to denounce it because it has no foun- dation, nor theologians because it is at variance with Scripture. Generally speaking, indeed, the study of the old people-history of Asia has been totally neglected by German philologers and historians, Movers only, and a few younger scholars, having followed in the track of Niebuhr. Here we have simply to deal with it as to its bearings on the synchronisms. The term assigned by Herodotus to the Assyrian dominion in Upper Asia (ii. 145.) is, as we know, 520 years. He does not specify how long the Median anarchy, or their first period of independence, lasted, during which they had no kings. The accession of Deioces is the first definite date we obtain from him. This took place in 709, which throws back the commencement of the Assyrian dominion beyond the year 1229. But his dates of the kings of Lydia show that his calculations must have gone back far beyond that time, and we glean from them what he considered the date of Ninus, and the length of time that the Median independence lasted. Agron, his first king of Lydia, began to reign in 122 1. He was the son of Ninus, to whom the legends of Asia Minor, as we learn from Ctesias, assigned a reign of 52 years. If Herodotus adopted this date, he must have made the accession of Ninus to take place in 1273 (1221-f 52). Calculating downwards, and deducting the 52 years of the Assyrian dominion, this would make the date of the revolt of the Medes 753. They were the first, he says, who threw off the yoke of the Assyrians, and the other people of Upper Asia soon followed their example. We shall see in the sequel that, according to Berosus, the Babylonians did so in the year 747. The language of Herodotus and the computations of Berosus VOL. III. F F 434 WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part V. are therefore in perfect accordance. In this manner also the date of 1273 is established, and we now know that Herodotus made the term of the Median inde- pendence 44 years (753-709).^^^ Eusebius, in citing from Berosus Alexander Poly- histor's list of the dynasties of Babylon, which we shall examine more closely hereafter, gives, after the dynasty of the Arabs (the fifth), one of 45 kings, who reigned 526 years; among these, and to all appearance at the head of them, stands the name of Semiramis. It was, consequently, an Assyrian dynasty. Here, unfortunately, as is generally the case with the careless extracts of Eusebius from Polyhistor, he omits the regular quotation of dynasties and their regnal years. He then proceeds : " After these kings (says Polyhistor) Phul reigned over the Chaldeans ; he is mentioned in Jewish history by the same name, and is said to have gone into Judea. He then mentions that Sennakherimos (Sennacherib) reigned." Here an explanation must be found why Sennacherib, the con- temporary of Nabonassar, happens to be omitted in the list of Babylonian kings in the Canon of Ptolemy, although his son, Assaradinos (Esarhaddon) is included in it. The general idea here to be borne in mind, in respect to the connexion between the Assyrian and Babylonian kings, is this : — The meaning of an Assyrian dynasty being dominant in Babylon for 526 years is simply that Nineveh, as the metropolis of the Assyrian empire, then governed Babylon and Media. But these kings of the race of Ninus, or the Derketadae, naturally did not reside in Babylon, but among their oAvn people at Nineveh, the city of Ninus, on the Tigris, opposite Mosul. Babylon itself, according to the custom of those lyi For further details see researches by Johannes Brandis, ex- ecuted with admirable clearness and care under the title of Assy- riorum Tempora emendata, (1853) p. 3. seqq. Si:CT. I. B. I.] NINUS AND SEMIRAMIS. 435 countries, was governed by a satrap, or viceroy, and one who doubtless exercised very great independent power. Sennacherib, therefore, reigned over the whole empire as supreme lord, and resided at Xineveh, the Assyrian metropolis. After various successful struggles with the Babylonian princes, who had hitherto acted under Nabonassar with the same extensive independent powers, he invested his son Assarhaddon with the sovereignty of Babylon. The struggles, however, with these princes still continued, till at length Nabopolassar, the father of Nebuchadnezzar, who became satrap of Babylon in the hundred and twenty-third year of Xabonassar, not only made liimself independent, but, in alliance with the Medes, checked the career of the almost universal empire of the Assyrians, and raised Babylon into the seat of empire of AVestern Asia. His history, according to Berosus, was as follows : — Sardanapalus, king of Assyria, commanded him to march against the Medes, who had revolted. Instead of this he made an alliance with Cyaxares, and marched with him against Nineveh. Bab}' Ion, therefore, became entirely inde- pendent upon the destruction of that city in 606. Of the reo^nal vears of the kino;s of Assvria, from Phul to Sardanapalus, not one is given in the extracts from Polyhistor, except those of the last three — Assaradin, Samuges, Sardanapalus. Xo reliance can be placed on any of the other data. Even as regards the length of the reign of Sennacherib the data are incomplete. Xor do the extant remains of the Jewish chronicles, unfortu- nately, throw much more light upon his history. It is clear enough that Sennacherib was coeval with the later years of Hezekiah. But no chronology can be framed upon that. In what year of Hezekiah he first encamped before Jerusalem, in what year he set it on fire, and what was the date of his second advance upon it when he was obliged to retreat, cannot be determined at all from the extant Jewish notices. We might be r r 2 43G WEST-ASIATIC SYNCIIKONISiMS. [Book IV. Part V. teiTipted to conclude from the statements in the Book of Kings, that he was murdered immediately after his retreat, and consequently before the embassy of Mero- dach-Baladan, and the death of Hezekiah. But this would be an erroneous conclusion, as appears from the account of Polyhistor. We should thus have been without any guide, had not Rawlin son's and Layard's discoveries at Nineveh come to our assistance. From these we learn that the name of Sennacherib's father Avas Sargina, the Sargon of the Jews, Sarghun of the Arabs, and that he founded a new dynasty. Here again the prophetic views of Nie- buhr have been verified in a wonderful manner. PJe supposed the commencement of the era of Nabonassar to be the commencement of a new dynasty, and, as we shall see, this is the only mode of solving the enigma. It w^ill appear from our tables what a satisfactory shape this knotty point of Jewish, Israelitish, Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian synchronisms assumes, as soon as we discard all unauthenticated assumptions, and follow, for the history of the Babylonian kings, only the Canon ; for tlie reigns of the Pharaohs, the Egyptian lists and monuments ; and lastly, for the kings of Judah and of Israel, more especially, the chronicles of the king- dom of Judah, and the historical accounts in the Prophets. In respect to this latter point, we would refer to our illustration of the dates of the kings in the Divided Kingdom given above, in the Third Part of this Book. As regards the Egyptian dates, we have already shown that, after the year 12 7 6, the public monuments gradually disappeared altogether, and that they ceased to orna- ment even the royal tombs. The succeeding dynasty, the 21st, exhibits similar decline. Sheshonk, at length, the chief of the 22nd, threw off the Assyrian yoke. He figures indeed as a conqueror in Palestine and Syria, which countries, as well as Mesopotamia, he brought Sect. I. 15. L] NINUS AND SEMIRAMIS. 437 within the influence of Egypt. Owing, as it would seem, to mutual feelings of personal obligation, a bond of union, which was cemented by a matrimonial alliance, was formed between the two sovereigns when the royal house of Assyria had sunk into a state of effe- minacy. This explains on tlie one hand the undoubtedly Assyrian names which occur in the genealogy of the house of Sheshonk ; and, on the other, the hieroglj^- phical ornaments in the gorgeous chambers of the ro3^ai palace at Nineveh. The remains of this beautiful ivory- and-enamel work (which was not executed in Egypt) now adorn the British Museum. As regards the Assyrian dates, there is only one trifling inaccuracy which has found its way into Nic- buhr's calculations. The era of Nabonassar down to the accession of Nabopolassar is stated at 103 instead of 122 years, because he followed Syncellus, whose chronological entries will not bear any comparison with those of the Canon of Ptolemy. In consequence of this, Niebuhr placed the fall of Babylon, which according to the Canon occurred in 417, a few years too high. Assuming, therefore, 747 to be the year in which the great Assyrian empire came to an end, every historical fact recorded by the classics respecting the era of the Ninyads is satisfactorily explained. Na- bonassar gave to Babylon a respectable provincial inde- pendence, although it was not the complete independence of Babylon the Great. The history of all the Asiatic monarchies is the same. Formed by great conquerors and supported by powerful armies, after a single reign or a few generations during which the energy of the founder still survives, they sink under the internal weak- ness of all despotisms, and the enervating luxury of harem-life. The heads of the dominant race, the military nobility, become gradually corrupted, and the emj)ire, built up on an artificial basis, only awaits the first shock from without to yield to some new and enter- F F 3 438 WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part V. prising conqueror. Thus Babylon fell ; thus fell Nine- veh before it, thus fell Persia after it, and so even, though in a different manner, fell the enripire of Alexander. But the more this striking coincidence appears to confirm Niebuhr's restoration of Assyrian chronology, the more we feel bound to ascertain whether the calcu- lation of Berosus cannot be brought into more general accordance with the Bible, and be placed generally upon a more satisfactory footing. In order to do this, we must make a thorough resto- ration of his Babylonian dynasties, commencing from their chronological starting-point. Such an investiga- tion will also have an important bearing upon the dates and position of Egypt. IT. The Possibility of fixing the Date of the Second Baby- lonian Dynasty, ok the Age of Zoroaster, and the Dates OF the succeeding Dynasties down to Alexander. Callisthenes, to whom, as the favourite of Alexander, all the treasures of Babylon were thrown open, had op- portunities of consulting their astronomical observations dating back 1903 years before that monarch's time. This date is certain, from its being given in the Latin text of the Commentary of Siraplicius in Aristotle's work upon " Heaven." Neither is its accuracy to be impugned on account of the Greek text of the genuine Simplicius, discovered by Peyron and edited by Brandis, containing a mythical entry of myriads of cyclical years instead * of the year 1903. Bockb, Metrologisclie Untersuclmngen, p. 36. : and his Manetlio, p. 113. Niebiihr, by an oversight, says 1905. The text of Simpli- cius in the Codex Taurinensis (in Brandis' Scholia ad Arist. p. 503 a. : preceded by an account of the astronomical observations transmitted by Callisthenes), runs thus : clg (TraparripiiaELQ) lo-ropeH Ylopcpvpiog ItCjv clrai "^lX'kjjv kcil {.ivpia^oji' rpiibv fwc tojv ^AXtEayCpov rov MaK£^ovoc rrw^o/ie'j'ac y^ponor. The Latin translation, made in the ]3:li century by G. dc Moerbeka, runs thus: "Quales narrat Porpliy- viiis esse annoium miUe et noiu/evtojum trium usque ad tempora Sect. I. B. IL] BABYLONIAN DYNASTIES. 439 The following list of Babylonian dynasties in Poly histor's extracts from Berosus is given in the Armenian version of Eusebius and in Syncelius.^^^ The First Dynasty of 86 Chaldean kings, said to have reigned in cycles of lunar years 34,080 3'ears, we shall at present pass over. After this, says Polyhistor, the calculation by sari, neri, and sossi, and every thing mythical, ceases. In Berosus the computation by solar years commences. This observation would lead us to suppose that, in the second dynasty, an alteration was made in the calendar, marking an astro- nomical epoch. As before, Berosus gave all the kings' names and their regnal years, consequently according to a fixed system of chronology. (Second Dynasty, Median kings tyrants," i. e. foreign rulers]): Zoroaster and his 7 successors) : 8 kings „.-.-- 224 years. [A marginal note in the MS. says 234. Syncellus assigns to the 7 successors of Zoroaster 190 years: 34 therefore be- longed to the founder of the Dynasty, or, if the marginal note is correct, 44. j (Third Dynasty, no names, probably natives, therefore, Chaldeans) : 11 kings (the date in the MS. blank — the marginal note fills it up with 48: read 64 or if the reading of the note be adopted 54). 288 years. Alexandri Macedonis servatns." The Aldine edition gives the same date, which is merely a re-traiish\tion back into Greek, p. 123. There is no authority for 31,000 years in the old accounts. Lepsius (Einl. p. 9. note 1.) has noticed how easy it is to make ^i\/wv Kui fivpiucojy [31) rpiioy, out of )(tX'wv kul ei yeanoatioi' (^) rpiCop. iv. 2. Conf. Sync. p. 78. 92. The corrected text will be Ibund in our " Appendix of Authorities, Vol. I. p. 71o. S'.^q'j. F F 4 440 WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Pakt V. Brought forward - 288 years. (Fourth Dynasty, Chaldean kings) : 49 kinirs 458 (Fifth Dynasty, Arab kings) : 9 kings, 245 years : Syncellus, who gives six'names^^^ has in both MSS. 215 - 215 ( Sixth Dynasty, Assyrian kings) : 45 kings 526 Among these Semiramis is especially mentioned. (Seventh Dynasty, Assyrian kings) : After Nabonassar (b. c. 747), native kings, feudatories of the Assyrians. Supposing the first year of Sargon=the first year of the Canon, we have the fol- lowing series : Sargina (Sargon, Arkean in the Canon : read Sarkean) reigned till the year 44 Sennacherib: reigned 18, read 28 years : First year - - - - 45 slain B.C. 676 : year of the Canoit - - - - - 72 Coeval with the fifth year of Esar- haddon (Assaradin) in Babylon. Assarhaddon (from the year 675 = 73 of the Canon) to - - - 98 Saosdukhin (Samuges ?) 21 years to 99 Sardanapalus, brother of Samuges : 1 year (=Kiniladan 2) - - 102 1487 years. All the six kings mentioned by Syncellus have Chaldee names, and are doubtless therefore as spurious as the following 44 Assyrian kings, from Belus to Konkolerus, "who is also Sarda- napalus," with 1460 years. The whole concoction comes from Cephalion, as appears from the Armenian version of P^usebius cap. 15. Unfortunately Moses of Chorene also, i. 16., docs not go any farther. Sect. I. B. Il.j BABYLONIAN DYNASTIES. 441 Brought forward - 1487 years. Sardanapalus burns hiraself to death in the palace, 626. End of the Assyrian empire - - - 122 Length of the dynasty - - - 122 (Eighth Dynasty, Chaldee kings) : 5 kings. 1. Nabopolassar (Scythian period) 22 years- - - - -123 2. Nabokolassar, son, 43 years (Nabukodrossor, Nebuchadnez- zar) 144 3. Illoarudarn, son, 2 years (Evil- merodach of the Bible) - - 187 4. Nerigassolassar, 4 years (Neri- glossor) - - . - 189 5. Nabonadus, 17 years - - - 193 Last year of Nabonadus, capture of Babylon by Cyrus (01. 60, 1) 209 Length of the dynasty - - 87 (Ninth Dynasty, Persian kings) : 10 kings, from Cyrus to Darius Codomannus. First year of Cyrus, in the Canon 210 Last year of Darius Codomannus 416 Length of the dynasty - - 207 Length of Dynasties II. — IX.^^^ - 1903 years. II. Medes - - - 224 (234) III. Chaldees (48) - - 64 ( 54) . ^ri IV. Chaldees - - - 458 ^ ' ^ V. Arabs - - - 215 VI. Assyrians and Ninyads 526 VII. Assyrians (2nd. Dyn.) 122 VIII. Chaldees - - - 87 IX. Persians - - - 207 19();i 442 WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Vart V. The period, therefore, comprised between Zoroaster, the Median conqueror of Babylon, and the fall of the Babylonian monarchy, or tlie year before Alexander the Great, was 1904 years: i. e. within one year of the exact period from which Callisthenes stated that the Chaldeans possessed observations of the stars, or a regular calendar. It is indeed the very period since which, according to the testimony of Berosus on which we may rel}^, they possessed a solar year, regulated of course by cycles. Reducing this to years B.C., we obtain the following : Zoroaster to Alexander (exclusive) - 1903 years. First year of Alexander (417 of the Canon) Olymp. 112, 2 - b. c. 331 First year of Zoroaster, or beginning of the Median Dynasty in Babylon - 2234, corresponding with the 385th year of the 2nd Shepherd Dynasty, or the 1521st year of Menes. The Egyptian synchronism for Ninus and Semiramis can therefore even now be established on a firm founda- tion. Deducting from the above period of 1903 years, the length of the first five dynasties 961 this makes the first year of Ninus, before Alexander - - - - 942 years: add from Alexander to the Birth of Christ 331 which makes the first year of Ninus b. c. 1273. The Epitomists have not mentioned what was the length assigned to the reigns of Ninus and Semiramis by Berosus, in accordance with his Annals, and by Polyhistor after him. Plerodotus, we know, says but very little Sect. I. B. II.] BABYLONIAN DYNASTIES. 443 in his " Nine Muses about this, the most brilliant and important portion of ancient Assyrian history. This may have arisen either from his having meant by Assyrian histories, to which he refers, a separate work of his own which is lost, or from his having intended to enter in greater detail into the subject in a subsequent Book but never did so. We now proceed to examine more closely the first great epoch of the Assyrian empire, the beginning of which we have just determined. Castor and Cephalion, the authorities made use of b}^ the chronographers, assign to Ninus - - - - - 52 years, to Semiramis (Diodorus according to Ctesias, Castor, and Cephalion) - - - - 42. The only way of making these dates harmonize with anything we know about the history of Semiramis, is by supposing that the 52 years represent the sum total of the first two reigns, Semiramis having reigned jointly with Ninus after his tenth year, and subsequently as sole sovereign. The successor is said to be her son. It was Ninus however, and not Semiramis, who, when sole occupant of the throne, conquered Egypt, he having established the empire in its entire extent in his 17th year. Egypt, as well as Syria and Phoenicia, is espe- cially mentioned among the subjugated or tributary countries, as has been already remarked when treating of the Phoenician synchronisms. The first year of the Assyrian era (1273 B.C.) is between three and six years after the last known success- ful campaign of Ramses HI. The conquest of Egypt may therefore have occurred at a very early date. At all events, the coincidence of the dates is very remark- able. All at once, historical events cease to be recorded. The erection of public monuments is discontinued almost in an instant. We know of no internal reasons for such a change. The same dynasty reigned for a cen- 444 WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part V. tury after. The key to it will be found in the rise of the Assyrian empire. Semiramis overran Egypt, and, as we learn from the Assyrian annals, made a victorious campaign into Ethiopia (Kush). All this harmonizes; but it can only be explained by our chronology, which differs from that of Cham- pollion by about two hundred years. Egypt became tributary to Assyria, which at that precise period was at the zenith of its power. No conquest, no fur- ther campaign, barely even a trace, indeed, of public monuments. The foundation of the tomb of Ramses III. was laid, but the sculptures were never executed. The satisfactory concordance between the chronology of the two states which has hitherto existed is a natural consequence of this system. The fact of Tuthmosis III. making Nineveh as well as Babylon tributary in the 16th century, although his successors were unable to main- tain their supremacy, and the circumstance of Egypt, on the other hand, becoming tributary to the Assyrians, and then being again triumphant two centuries after- wards in Asia, become intelligible. As the expedition of Tuthmosis III. took place when Nineveh was weak (for Babylon was at that time governed by a national dy- nasty, the fourth, and at all events, therefore, was not a province of Assyria) ; so the campaign of Semiramis is explainable by the rapid decline of the Pharaonic dy- nasty, which, debased as it was by sensuality and ava- rice, squandered the resources of the country, and exhausted the energies of the people. At this stage of the inquiry, we cannot refrain from touching upon the remark made by Herodotus (ii. 145.) when stating the duration of the Assyrian supremacy, to the effect that Hercules (the father of Belus, the father of Ninus) lived about 900 years before his time. Sect. I. B. II.] BABYLONIAN DYNASTIES. 445 xSiebuhr's calculation in the spirit of Herodotus is this ; Hercules - » - - 33 years. Belus - - ... 33 Ninus and the Ninyads - - 520 Duration of the independence of the Medes, before they had kings - x Four Median kings (i. 130.) and the Scythian supremacy 128+28 - 156 or according to the regnal years in Plerodotus : Deioces 53 Phraortes 22 Cyaxares 40 A sty a ores 35 - - - loO Cyrus down to the conquest of Babylon (Olyinp. 60, 1.) - - - ' - 20 From Olymp. 60, 1 to 90, 1, which period Niebuhr, in his history, con- siders as the age of Herodotus - 120 (not 84, 1, the date assigned in his first Lecture.) Assuniing, as is done in our tables, for the ante-regal period in Media (see p. 434.) 44 Hercules lived before the time of He- rodotus - 920 years. If, on the contrary, we follow the usual chronology, and consider Olyrap. 84, 1 (444 b. c.) as the age of Herodotus, this gives 24 years less, that is, 852 + 44 = 896, which is even more suitable. At all events this solution appears to me sufficiently satisfactory, for the purpose of corroborating and eluci- dating the Assyrian chronology of Herodotus. 416 WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book lY. Paet V. III. Till-: First Babylonian Dynasty and its Commencement in THE Year 3784 b. c. It will easily be understood that, in treating this sub- ject in a strictly chronological sense, we should leave the first dynasty entirely out of calculation. Yet it is pretty clear, that neither the chronology nor the history of the Chaldees can have originated at the epoch of the Median conquest of Babylon, in 2235 b. c. For astrono- my has always been considered as the special province of the Chaldees, at all events, as compared with the other peoples of Asia, and the history of Babylon must have commenced with a native dynasty. The fall of that dynasty was the end of the first section of its popular and constitutional history, and, what is too important to be passed over unnoticed, they then discontinued the practice of computing by lunar cycles. This first dynasty is said to have had 86 kings. They correspond to 84 kings of Media, who, according to the Bactrian calculations, preceded Zoroaster. But it is said to have reigned for a period of years which is entirely mythical : according to the extracts of Syncellus, 9 Sari, of 3600 years, consequently 32,400 years. 2 Neri, „ 600 „ „ 1,200 8 Sossi, „ 60 „ „ 480 Altogether, 34,080 years, which is the precise number stated by him. But in the extract of Eusebius, this era is, with equal distinctness, fixed at 33,091 years. Xiebuhr suspected that Eusebius, owing to his not understanding the right number which he found recorded, may have deducted from it the first four dynasties. But, in the first place, this will not account for the dis- crepancy. For the date of the third dynasty we have found to be perfectly correct, and we may, therefore, confidently assume that Eusebius' first four dynasties Sect. I. B. III.] FIRST BABYLONIAN DYNASTY. 447 lasted 945 years. But the difference between the num- bers in Eusebius and Syncellus is 989 years; besides which, we can see no reason why Eusebius should have taken the trouble of making that supposed deduction. But may not both the dates be taken from Berosus, and be perfectly correct ? We know very well what Syncellus' sum total signifies. It is nothing more than the result of computations by lunar cycles, and conse- quently it gives the length of the period in lunar years. As Berosus must necessarily have considered the first dynasty to have been wholly, or in part, historical, and clearly did so consider it, and as the length of the solar year must not only have been well known to him, but to the Chaldeans generally for two thousand years before his time, he probably gave the length of the period in solar years. It is easy to calculate that 34,080 lunar years, i. e. 408,960 lunations, make very nearly the number given by Eusebius. But ought we not to be able to compute it with per- fect accuracy, according to the system of the Chaldeans? Without arguing the question here which is fully entered into by Ideler whether the methods adopted by astronomers and chronologers for more than a cen- tury for solving the Chaldean enigma be or be not admissible, we must always bear in mind, looking at it from a philological and critical point of view, the undeni- able fact, that the Babylonians did compute their earliest history by the above-mentioned periods. The middle one of the three, that of 600 years, is especially men- tioned by Josephus as the great year. In the passage which has been so frequently commented on^% he says that the patriarchs must have lived so long to enable them to adjust the year, and establish a sys- tem of astronomy and geometry ; inasmuch as the IOC Handbook, i. 195 — 225. i»7 Antiq. i. 3. 9., comp. 8. 448 WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part V. great year only tGrminates at the end of six hundred years. Every attempt, whether ancient or modern, to explain away the primitive use of these cycles, or even to reduce their years to days, are mere fancies and feints, more worthy of Byzantine monks like Anianus and Panodorus, than men of science in the present day. We may also add, that they are all more or less deficient in sound foundation, both philological and historical. As regards the lower unit of the three periods, that of 60 years, Freret, in his noteworthy critical treatise of 1736 on Chinese chronology, has shown that 60 solar years are only 2 days and 20 hours less than 742 lunar months (namely, 12 X 60 = 720, and 22 intercalary months). Bearing these two facts in mind, therefore, we shall have no difficulty in understanding that, supposing the difference to be three days with a trifling error, nothing could be more natural than for a people who reckoned by fixed lunar years to assume that, by the ordinary intercalation of a month after ten of these periods, the sun and moon would be brought into perfect har- mony. To ascertain what the amount of actual error was, may have been a later step in advance; as was, witliout doubt, the one from a cycle of 60 to a cycle of 600 years. It may here, indeed, be stated by anti- cipation, that the oldest Chinese chronology, which, in spite of the scepticism of Ideler, we agree with Freret in thinking was the key to their earliest system of astronomy (which is again the result of the multiplication of 5 and 12), is nothing more than the oldest deposit of Chaldean wisdom in Upper Asia. It must, however, be obvious to any one but partially acquainted even with the state of Babylonian science, and after what Lepsius has proved in respect to the earliest division of time and observations of the stars in Egypt, that it cannot be matter of surprise if the Chal- dees were not satisfied with the equation of the cycle of 600 years, but wished to render it more complete by the Sect. I. B. HI.] FIRST BABYLONIAN DYNASTY. 449 introduction of one consisting of six such periods. Even the intercalation of a month of 29 days made, according to the former calculation, an excess of 16 hours. For the real difference is only 680 hours in 600 years, which is equal to 28 days 8 hours. After six revolutions of this cycle the difference therefore becomes exactly four days. But if a whole month of 30 days were intercalated every 600 years, thei'e would be, at the end of 3600 years, an excess of 10 days. We do not, however, pretend to know what adjustment they intended to make with a cycle of 3600 years. They could practically easily ascer- tain the relation between true time and their cycle of 60 years every 600 years. The adjustment by cycles of 3600 years must always be a matter of theory, and this was incomplete. The practical system is that of 60 and 600 years ; and the existence of these two, we think, has not only been proved, but satisfactorily explained. Now, if we apply this equation of 742 months and CO solar years to the difference between 34,080 lunar and 33,091 solar years, the number that results is 33,069^. If, therefore, the number in Eusebius is strictly accurate, and if the Babylonians were unac- quainted with any other system of adjustment, our result would only be 21^ years in excess, which, in such high numbers, may almost be considered as equivalent to identity. But if we make the solar year of 365 days the basis of equation, without any intercalation, the 408,960 lunar months are equal to 33,091 years, leaving out the fractions, or absolutely 33,092 years and 2 months. The latter assumption is evidently, therefore, the correct one. Now, what do these 33,091 years comprise ? First of all, the reigns of the first two kings, Euechius and Cho- masbelus. To the former 4 neri are assigned, to the latter 4 neri and 5 sossi. This makes, in lunar years, 5010 years ; and there are consequently 28,980 years over, VOL. III. G G 450 AVEST- ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part V. It is obvious, therefore, that the separation was not made here between the mythical and historical periods of the first dynasty. We should probably have found it in the later series of kings, had their names been transmitted. Polyhistor did enumerate them all, but Christian epitomists had not time ! We might be tempted to suppose that the former of these names was Nimrod (Nebrod, in the Septuagint). But the Christian chronographers, and still less Josephus, would certainly not have failed to mention it; and they were acquainted with the work of Berosus. It would have been the greatest triumph to them, inasmuch as it would have furnished the most ancient confirmation of Scripture, in respect to Asiatic histories, from their own native chronicles. But nobody throws out a hint even to that efi^ect. When we find in Syncellus the words, " Euechius, who was also called Nimrod or in Cedrenus, " Nimrod is also called Euechius this simply means that the later Christian chronographers did not find him among the historical kings. Both, indeed, are said to be the first kings of Babylon, the one in the Bible (which, how- ever, does not say that he was a Babylonian), the other by the Babylonians. They are the same king, but under different names ! Eawlinson's discoveries would seem to have established the fact that Nimri was a Scythian (Turanian) race, which made incursions and conquests in Southern Babylonia. Nimrod, therefore, probably belonged to that race. In the Book of the Origines it will be seen what is the consequence of this, and it will also be noticed in the historical arrangement of the lan- guages. The whole story in the Bible, and the position which has been assigned to it, becomes thus for the first time intelligible. At all events the name of Nimrod was not one of those of the kings of the first Chaldee dynasty. There is, however, another way of explaining the commencement Sect. I. B. III.] FIRST BABYLONIAN DYNASTY. 451 of the historical and chronological date of Babylon, by supposing that the historical period is represented by the excess of the sum total over the number of complete sari. Now, in the first place, 9 complete sari make ... - 32,400 years. Deducting these from the whole number 34,080 the remainder is - 1,680 years. If the whole period were mythical (which, however, after what has been said above, is historically untenable), what was the use of having fractions ? The earlier, purely mythical, calculation about the Origines of mankind, before and after the Flood, consists of 120 complete sari. The 1680 lunar years, however, are very nearly equivalent to 1550 Julian years. The year 1550 before Zoroaster would, therefore, be the date of the commencement of the era ; and as the reign of that Median conqueror began in the year 2234 B. c, the chronological and historical age of Babylon would commence in the year 3784 b. c, that is, exactly 200 years after the creation of Adam, according to the ordinary interpretation of the numbers in the Hebrew text. But, what is a much more important point for the most ancient people-history, the first year of Menes, ac- cording to our tables, is coincident with the hundred and sixty-first year of the Babylonian era. Nimrod's con- quests of Semitic Asia, or at least of Mesopotamia, in the widest sense, were consequently made in the earliest part of the first dynasty, or else in the unchronological, though historical, foretime of Babylon. At all events, the tradition in the Book of Genesis is verified, that Babel is older than Assur and Nineveh. Ninus and the supremacy of the Assyrians date from the year 2511 of the Babylonian era, coeval with the 2350th after 462 WEST-ASIATIC SYNCHRONISMS. [Book IV. Part V. Menes. Assyria doubtless possessed its own archaic annals (in part, also, strictly historical) prior to Ninus ; but, judging by the Greek accounts, which were ostensibly derived from Assyrian sources, it possessed no ancient chronology. Herodotus, who had paid especial attention to Assyrian history, and whose chronological datum for the commencement of the Ninus dynasty is so happily verified, could not ascertain any Assyrian dates prior to Ninus, or any names but that of Belus (Bel), their primeval ancestor, and Hercules, his progenitor. An acute young scholar, Herr von Gutschmid of Dresden, in an article in the Rheinische Museum, viii. p. 252. seq., has at- tempted a new mode of completing the dates of the duration of the third dynasty. Like Niebuhr, he starts from the number 1903 of Callisthenes ; but, instead of making use of it to determine the first year of the second Median dynasty, he applies it to the third, which he supposes to be Chaldean. According to him it commenced 2234 B. c, and its eleven kings reigned 258 years ; for it is necessary to supply that number in order to get to the year 2234. He thinks it an argument in favour of his calculation, that according to it the first Chaldean dynasty of 86 kings began to reign exactly 36,000 years before the capture of Babylon by Cyrus. If this were so, Berosus would have dressed up his whole history in two cyclical numbers — the ante- diluvian portion in one 432,000 years, i. e. 120 sari, the modern portion down to the natural close of the conquest of Babylon, in one of 36,000 years, or 10 sari. From which the following synopsis results : Ten Antediluvian Chaldean kings, 432,000 years. After the Flood : I. Dynasty of 86 Chaldean kings - 34,080 years. II. >» 8 Modes 224 - 2458 B.C. III. 5> 11 [Chaldeans] - [258] - 2234 IV. JJ 49 [Chaldeans] 458 - 1976 V. JJ 9 Arabs 245 >> - 1518 VI. J> 45 [Assyrians] 526 - 1273 VII. J> [ 8 Assyrians ?] 122 - 747 VIII. J> 6 Chaldeans 87 if - 625—538 36,000 I think that our explanation of these computations is more satis- factory. PART VI. THE AGE OF ZOROASTER, THE BACTRIAN, AND THE HISTORICAL NOTICES IN THE FIRST CHAPTER OF THE VENDIDAD. 455 A. BACTRIAN TRADITION AND THE BOOKS OF THE ZEND. Many years elapsed after the talented Anquetil made the discovery of the Zendavesta before the researches on that head were established upon a firm foundation. The labours of Benfey, Spiegel, Westergaard, and Haug have been added to those of Burnouf, and we now possess still more extensive investigations by the last three writers into the records of the Za- rathustrian religion. The unfortunate notion that Zoroaster's King Gustasp was Darius the son of Hys- taspes has been abandoned by men of learning, and it would now be as unscientific to controvert such an idea, as it formerly was to advance it. We have intimated in the First Book that the central point of the old Arian dominion was Bactria. Haug has very recently also maintained that the language of the Zend books is Bactrian. A. W. Schlegel's treatise on the origin of the Hindoos, which appeared first in 1835 in the Trans- actions of the Royal Society of Literature, and then in his own celebrated " Essais," forms the turning-point for the correct view of the relation between the Indians and the northern parts of Eastern Asia. Prior to this (in 1832), Ritter, in the Introduction to his "Asia," had made a beginning towards connecting the predominant Indian legend about the Sacred Mountain of Meru with the geography of the highlands of Eastern North-Asia, with which we are acquainted. We take up the subject with the advantage of having two fresh resting-places. In the first place we have additional proof of the correctness of the fact already assumed by Niebuhr : G G 4 456 THE AGE OF ZOROASTER. [Book IV. Part VI. Tliat in the year 1903 before Alexander, or 2234 B. c, a Zoroastrian king of Media conquered Babylon, and that the dynasty which he founded there reigned more than 200 years. Bactria however, and not Media, was the original seat of Zoroastrian lore. This, in itself, compels us to inquire whether the date of the great founder of that religion must not be placed much earlier ; and, in endea- vouring to fix that date, we have obtained important vantage ground. In the second place, we can now institute our historical inquiry upon a more certain philological basis. Dr. Haug has kindly complied with our suggestion to give us the benefit of his valuable researches, in a new critical translation of the celebrated record which forms the opening to the Yendidad, or Code of the Fire-worship- pers of Iran. The text and explanation are given in an appendix to this Section. His labours have confirmed the conviction which we had long entertained : That the nucleus of this Record dates from the most ancient times, and that its contents are nothing less than the reminiscences of the passage of the old Arians to India — in other words, the succession of the foundation of fourteen kingdoms, the last and most southern of which was the land of the Five Rivers (the Punjab). During this inquiry we shall answer in turn all the questions not yet settled in respect to the epochs of Ario- Iranian, as well as Ario-Indian, civilisation. In order to lay before our readers a synoptical view of the results of our investigation of the above document, and to show its importance as regards general history, we have subjoined a sketch prepared by Dr. Petermann in illustration of Haug's Commentary. B.] TRADITION OF THE PRIMEVAL LAND. 457 B. THE ZOROASTRIAN TRADITION ABOUT THE PRIMEVAL LAND, AND THE EMIGRATION OF THE ARIANS IN CONSEQUENCE OF A CONVULSION OF NATURE. Two successful efforts of the critical school have at last established the value, and facilitated the under- standing, of the celebrated first Fargard or section of the Yendidad. One of these was the study of the Bac- trian language (commonly called Zend) and the Zend books, which was commenced by Burnouf and continued by Benfey, Spiegel, and Haug. The other circumstance which facilitated the explanation of the above record was the eminently successful decipherment of the first or Bactro-Medo-Persian cuneiform writing of the Achae- menidae by Burnouf and Lassen, and latterly by Kawlin- son's publication and elucidation of the inscription of Bisutun. Among these inscriptions the most important in its bearing upon that record is the list of the Iranian nations who were subject to Darius in Nakshi-Rustam. Kitter, in 1838^^^, materially assisted in explaining the geographical portion of it. Here, howevever, insur- mountable difiiculties already presented themselves, as to the explanation of the names of individual countries. According to Burnouf we were completely in the dark as to at least three out of the fourteen provinces men- tioned between Sogdiana and the Punjab. In the only volume of Spiegel's translation of the Avesta hitherto published, which Brockhaus's edition had made so much more generally accessible, we have the Yendidad, which of course begins with the very record in ques- 1'^^ Erdkunde, viii. 29. seq., 84. seq. 458 THE AGE OF ZOROASTER. [Book IV. Part VI. tion. He has been principally guided in the interpreta- tion of it by the Pehlevi version, which, however, is of very little assistance as regards the particular points alluded to above. But it should be generally known that he agrees with Rhode in thinking that it contains the history of the gradual dispersion of the Arians.^^*^ The first argument in favour of it is that Sogdiana is called the Primeval land. The fact of the Punjab being as unquestionably the most southerly, as Sogdiana is the north-easterly, tends to strengthen this opinion. Four things, however, are wanting to constitute posi- tive proof. It ought to be shown, first, that the thirteen intervening countries come in their natural geographical succession ; secondly, that the turn to the north-westward is explainable upon political grounds ; thirdly, that these countries really exhibit marks of Arian conquest and colonisation ; and, fourthly, that the favourable and unfavourable qualities assigned to those localities correspond with their actual position. Dr. Haug's treatise supplies the philological and geo- graphical proofs. In referring our readers to that work, it is incumbent upon us to establish the historical importance of the record in question. I start, there- fore, upon the assumption that the opening of that sacred code contains as certainly an historical tradition of the Arians, about their wanderings, expeditions, and con- quests, as does the 14th chapter of Genesis an historical account of the oldest recorded war between Meso- potamia and Canaan. The historical and geographical tradition therein contained became confused and ob- scured in early times, but we think we can point out which are the additions and which the original text. The Fargard is divided into two great parts, one comprising the im.migration from the eastern and north-eastern primeval country to Bactria, in conse- Spiegel; Avesta, i. p. 59. seq. B. L] JOURNEYS OF THE IRANIANS. 459 quence of a natural catastrophe and climatic changes ; the other, the subsequent extension of the Arian do- minion through Eastern Central Asia, which terminated in the occupation of the Punjab. THE JOURNEYS OF THE IRANIANS FROM THE NORTH- EASTERN PARTS OF ASIA TO INDIA. Part I. THE PRBIEVAL LAND (iRAN PROPER, AIRYANA VAilGO), AND THE EXPULSION FROM IT OF THE ARIANS. The text of the opening of this record, as restored, removes all doubt as to the follo^ving passage containing the genuine description of the climate of the primeval land, Iran Proper : "There Angro mainyus (Ahriman), the deadly, created a mighty serpent, and snow, the work of Deva — ten months of winter are there, two months of summer." The following passage, which is irreconcilable with the above : " the warm weather lasts seven months, and winter five," &c. was added on by a later editor, traces of whose ignorant tampering are discernible throughout. In fact, the passage is omitted in the Huzuresh, or Pehlevi trans- lation— and Lassen, in his Indian Archaeology^^^ has given it as his opinion that it is an interpolation. The Fathers of the Arians (and consequently our own, as we speak the same language) originally, there- fore, inhabited aboriginal Iran Proper, the land of Pleasantness, and they only left it in consequence of a i. 526. note. 460 THE AGE OF ZOROASTER. [Book IV. Part VI. convulsion of nature, by which a great alteration in the climate was effected. The expression " Serpent " is obscure. It may possibly mean volcanic eruptions, which can only have played a subordinate part in the great convulsion, although they made a permanent impression. The country of the sources of the Oxus and Jaxartes, therefore, is the most eastern and most northern point from which we have to start, as the land of the sources of the Euphrates formed the primeval seat of the Semitic races. Wherever the Indians may have fixed the dwelling-places of their northern ancestors, the Ut- TARA-KURU, wc Cannot venture to place the primeval seats of the Arians anywhere but on the slopes of the Belur-Tagh, in the highland of Pamer, between the 40th and 37th degrees of N. latitude, and 86th and 90th de- grees of longitude. On this western slope of the Belur- Tagh and the Mustagh (the Tian-shang^ or Celestial Mountain, of the Chinese) the Hard-herezaiti (Albordsh) is likewise to be looked for, which is invoked in the Zendavesta, as the principal mountain and the primeval source of the waters. Lassen has remarked (loc. cit.) that at the present day the old indigenous in- habitants of that district, and generally those of Khasgar, Yarkand, Khoten, Turfan, and the adjacent highlands, are Tadshiks Avho speak Persian, and who are all agri- culturists. The Turcomans either came after them and settled at a later period, or else they are aborigines whom the Arians found there. When the climate was altered by some vast disturbance of nature, the Arians emigrated ; they did not, however, follow the course of the Oxus, or they would have come in the first instance to Bactria, and not to Sogd. Their course, therefore, was more northerly. As regards its present climate, it is precisely what our record describes it as having been when the change B. II.] SETTLEMENTS OF THE IRANIANS. 461 produced by the above commotion took place : it has only two months of warm weather. Part 11. THE COURSE OP THE ARIANS AFTER THEIR EXPULSION FROM THE PRIMEVAL COUNTRY, OR THE FOURTEEN LOCALITIES SELECTED BY THEM FOR HABITATIONS FROM SOGDIANA TO INDIA. If the halting-places of the Arians between Sogdiana and the Sutledj should actually turn out to be men- tioned in their natural order, this implies, in an historical sense, nothing less than the conquest of fourteen coun- tries, and the foundation, of as many kingdoms, in the whole of the eastern part of Central Asia and India Proper, in the country of the Indus and its confluents. But it implies not only immigration, but the conquest, the expulsion or subjugation, of the old inhabitants, and the formation of a dominant Arian population. We have direct testimony that the Arians found original inhabitants in India, and the study of their language renders it certain that these were Turanians. The same must be assumed with even greater assurance as regards the intervening countries, the principal abodes of the Turanians (Scythians and Turcomans). But the proof of the Iranians having sojourned there a considerable time is established by the fact of our finding, at the pre- sent day, the original stock of the native population to be everywhere Arian. We see, indeed, evidence of the main direction taken by these travellers having been southerly. But on the southern bank of the Caspian is a group, the nucleus of the Arian Media. Of Persia there is as yet no trace, which supplies additional proof of the fallacy of the assumption, tliat the Yendidad, as well as the Zoroastrian doctrines, is of Persian origin. 462 THE AGE OF ZOROASTER. [Book IV. Part VI. 1. The Settlement in Sogdiana (Samarcand). (ii. verse 5.) "As the second best of the regions and countries I created .... Gau, in which Sogdiana is situated Upon this Ahriman, the Deadly, created pestilence, which is fatal to sheep and small cattle." ^ughdha is pre-eminently the country : as being the home of the Fire-worshippers. The name was af- terwards spelt Sugdia, and commonly Sogdiana. It is in the 38th degree of latitude, where Marakanda (Samarcand) is situated, a paradisiacal land, fertilised by the river Sogd : so that Sogd and Paradise are used synonymously by later writers. The course of the Arians was now to the south-west. 2. The Settlement in Mouru (Merv, Margiana). (ill. verse 6.) " The third best land is the mighty and pious Mouru (Maru, Marw) .... Ahriman created there wars and marauding expeditions." This is Margiana (from the river Margus), now Marghab (Margus- water), Margush in the cuneiform in- scriptions: a fruitful province of Khorassan surrounded by deserts. 3. The Settlement in BaJchdi (Bactria). (iv. verse 7.) " The fourth best land was the for- tunate Bakhdi, with the lofty banner : here Ahriman created buzzing insects and poisonous plants." Bakhdi is certainly Bactra (though Burnouf had doubts about it), the land of the Bactrians. The " tall plumes " indicate the Imperial banner (mentioned also by Firdousi), and refer, consequently, to the time when Bactria was the seat of empire. Up to this time nothing is said about Media, though she conquered Babylon in 2234. B. II.] SETTLEMENTS OF THE IRANIANS. 463 4. The Settlement in Nkaya (Northern Parthia). (v. verse 8.) "The fifth best land is Nisaya; there Ahriraan created unbelief." This is the Nisaia of Ptolemy, famous for its breed of horses, commonly called Nisa, the renowned district of Northern Parthia, bordering on Hyrkania and Mar- giana. The city of Nissea is situated on the Upper Oxus. "Unbelief" signifies the apostasy from pure Fire-worship. Here, therefore, the first schism takes place. 5. The Settlement in Haroyu (Aria). ( VI. verse 9.) "The sixth best land was Haroyu, the pourer out of water ; here Ahriman created hail and poverty." Haroyu is Herat, of which frequent mention is made subsequently, Hariva in the cuneiform inscriptions. Its name has no connexion with the Arians, but comes from the river now called " Heri," abounding in water. The Greek district Aria comprises the larger portion of Se^/estan, and forms part of Southern Kho- rassan. 6. The Settlement in Vekereta (Se^estan). (vn. verse 10.) "Vekereta, in which Duzhaka is situate; there Ahriman created the Pairika Khna- thaiti." This country is the home of Rustem. Dushak is the capital of Se^estan. To the south-east of it is the land of the Parikani ^^^^ known to the ancients as a part of the Saken country (Sakastene). The greater part of it is now a desert, but it was once cultivated. Here again Herod, iii. 94. Comp. Ritter, viii. 59. Recent travellers have also found nomadic tribes between Media and Gedrosia, who wor- shipped the Peris (Fairies), but were fire-worshippers also. 4G4 THE AGE OF ZOROASTER. [Book IV. Part VI. there may be allusion to a schism, which, in that case, would be the second historical one, 7. The Settlement in Urvd (Cabul). (vin. verse 11.) Urva is proved by Haug to be Cabul, the identity of which was previously unknown. 8. The Settlement in Khnenta (Candahar). (IX. verse 12.) " Khneota, where Vehrkana is situated." According to Haug, by this country Candahar is to be understood : Vehrkana cannot be Hyrcania, as gene- rally supposed, but is the city now called Urghandab, situated in Candahar. The curse of Ahriman was paederastism, a vice known historically to be un-Arian and Turanian. 9. The Settlement in Haraqaiti (Arachosia). (x. verse 13.) Haraqaiti, denominated the Fortu- nate ; the Harauwatis of the cuneiform inscriptions, the Arachosia of the classics. The work of Ahriman here was the burying of the dead. Another apostasy there- fore from the true faith. 10. The Settlement in Hetumat (district of Hilmend). (xi. verse 14.) " Hetumat, the wealthy, the splendid," is the valley of the present Hilmend, the Etymander of the classics. The mischief inflicted here by Ahriman was the sin of sorcery. 11. The Settlement in Eagha (Northern Media). (xii. verse 16.) " Ragha with the three races" is doubtless the Rhagoe of Strabo and Ptolemy, the greatest city in Media, south of Teheran. This north-eastern 15. II.] SETTLEMENTS OF THE IRANIANS. 465 portion of jMeclia includes the passes of the Caspian. The possession of these passes Avas a protection to the other Arians, and at the same time the key to the whole of Media, and therefore Persia. The district is called also Choana (Qwan). Ahriman established here unbelief in the spiritual supremacy of Zarathustra — another schism. At all events another portion of ancient Arian history. 12. The Settlement in Kakhra (Khorassan). (xiii. verse 17.) Zakhra is held by Spiegel and Lassen to be the district of iTihrem mentioned in Fir- dousi. Haug identifies it with the city of Kavkh in Khorassan. The evil done by Ahriman was the burning of the dead. This was therefore an illegal practice, like the sin of the Arachosians, who were so profane as to bury their dead. All this implies the organization of an hierarchical power in Sogd and Bactria, although not a sacerdotal caste. 13. The Settlement in Varena (Ghilan). (xiv. verse 18.) Yarena with the four corners." Haug has shown it to be Ghilan. The curse of Ahri man was irres^ular menstruation. 14. The Settlement in Haptu-Hmdu (Punjab). (xv. verse 19.) The Land of the Seven Hindus, that is, the country between the Indus and Sutledj. In the Vedas the country of the Five Rivers is also called the Land of the Seven Sindhus, that is, the seven rivers. The traditional Greek names also are seven. The Indus and the Sutledj are each formed '^"^^ by the According to this view, it stands thus : 1. Kophen(Kubha) 1 ^ ^ , 2. Indus, Upper j - - L Indus. 3. Hydaspes (Bidaspes) - - II. Iljdaspes. VOL. III. II II 46G THE AGE OF ZOROASTER. [Book IV. Tart VI. junction of two arms, which, in their earlier course were independent rivers. But it is not only unneces- sary to suppose, as Ritter does, that the country extended as far as the Sarasvati, but such a supposition would be at variance with history. It is now ascer- tained from the Vedas that the Arians passed the Sutledj at a very late period, and settled in what is now India. It was not till their fourteenth settlement, after the emigration from the primitive country in the north, that they passed the Hindu-Kush and the Indus. The previous resting-places form an unbroken chain of the primitive abodes of the Arians (the Free or the Land- owners).^^^ The last link in those earlier settlements is the land of the Afghans, on the western slope of the Hindu-Kush. Lower down to the westward there is but one settlement necessary to secure their previous possessions, namely, the two districts of Ghilan and Masandaran, with the passes of the Caspian. This set- tlement more to the north-west (Ghilan and Masan- daran) forms therefore also a connected group. Putting these two groups together, we shall find that there is no one single fertile district in the whole of Eastern Central Asia of which our Arian ancestors did not possess themselves, except Southern Media and all Farsistan or Persis. Now as history exhibits the Arian race spread throughout the whole of Media, but 4. Akesines (Asikni) - - - - III. Akesines. 5. Hyarotis (Hydraotis, Iravati, Parii^ni) IV. Hydraotes. 6. Hyphasis (Vipasa) " ' " 1 7. Saranges (Upper /Satadru = Sutledj, I V. Hyphasis. Ghara J 204 Arya, in Indian, means Lord. Its original meaning was equi- valent to Upper Noble. The popular name Arja is derived from it, and means, " Descended from a noble." I will only add that Ari in Egyptian means honourable " (in Nefruari). But ar might mean to plough ; for the Arians were originally and essentially an agricul- tural, and therefore a peasant, race. B. IL] SETTLEMENTS OF THE IRANIANS. 467 as dominant only in Persia, it follows that Gbilan and Masandaran formed the nucleus of these ancient posses- sions which afterwards became so important and cele- brated. There cannot therefore be a more unfortunate theory than the one which makes Persia the original seat of Zoroaster and his doctrine. History, as already remarked, as well as personal ob- servations at the present time, supply unequivocal evi- dence of the Iranian having been the popular language in all these districts. The names in the document before us, moreover, when compared with Sanskrit, turn out to be regular ancient formations, although, like the old Bac- trian formations, as preserved in India, they have been gradually weakened down. ^Ve know, lastly, from the inscriptions of the Acha3menida3, several of them which have become historical and geographical designations at a later period. It is impossible, nevertheless, under these circum- stances, to consider the Yendidad as a modern fiction, or as a fragment of some geographical compendium. The fact of their having suddenly retraced their steps from the southward, and formed a connected north-eastern group about the Caspian Sea, would be inexplicable, supposing it to be a fiction. The awkwardness of the concluding verse being tacked on to it is also evidence of the genuine- ness of the one with which it originally concluded. AYe may therefore venture with the greater confidence now to repeat what was stated at the outset, that the document before us is an ancient record of the passage of the Iranians from the primeval land to India. It has, however, suffered by the interpolations of prosaic geo- graphical remarks, some of which even are absurd, and which may without any difficulty be eliminated from the original text. The more closely we examine it, the more unreason- able it seems to doubt its historical signification. AYhat can be the meaning of the phrase, Ormuzd created one II II 2 468 THE AGE OF ZOROASTER. [Book IV. Part IV. district after aiiotlier, and Ahriman corrupted them, but that the God of the Iranians gradually directed them towards these spots, which, as contrasted with the deserts and steppes of Turan, might be termed Blessed; but which, nevertheless, were not without drawbacks and disadvantages, unhke their sacred home, the pure prime- val country ? It is true that the later editor treated it as a compendium of geographical information, and as he found that many places Avere left out, in palpable viola- tion of the strictly geographical mode of treating all the preceding genuine data, he added these vapid words : " I created as the sixteenth best of the districts and lands, I who am Ahura Mazda, the dwellers on the borders of the sea, who have no ramparts. Whereupon Arzgro Mainyus, the Deadly, created snow, the work of Deva, and earthquakes, which make the land to tremble. There are also other countries and lands, which are for- tunate, renowned, loft}^, prosperous, and brilliant." So then this agricultural and intellectual race, who have been uninterruptedly masters of the world since the date of the Persian dominion, and the mightiest engine of civilisation, composed a record of their wan- derings and their dispersion as a reminiscence of the early conquest of Asia as far as the land of the Indus — a record which has been preserved for us by the followers of the founders of the religion of the Arian East, and one worthy of taking its place by the side of the biblical accounts of the journeyings of the Abrahamitic patri- archs, and which stands in the first rank in its bearings on the history of the world. After having thus intimated the grounds of our belief in the genuineness and importance of this tradition, we return once more to the main object of our inquiry — the starting-point, or primeval land, and the vast con- vulsion of nature which occasioned the above migrations. After they arrive at their Second happy abode un- favourable circumstances are mentioned, some of them B. II. J SETTLEMENTS OF THE IRANIANS. of natural origin, which, even if unaccompanied by great climatic changes, might have induced these ener- getic Arian races to emigrate, and some of them seeming to imply their having retreated before the attacks of the Turanian hordes. The description would indicate the high-land of Northern Asia, the land of the Altai and the Chinese Himalaya. There is no question as to the historical character of this tradition. From what other source could it have emanated ? It would simply have been mentioned that their ancestors went in quest of a warmer climate. The country is never described as one of poetical ideal perfection. There is besides, as we shall shortly see, the corroboration which this tradition receives from the most ancient traditions of India. Must not, therefore, the biblical tradition represent the tradition of the Western aborigines (the Hamites and Shemites), the Turanian one that of the Eastern tribes in the primeval land ? One is the complement of the other. The vast climatic change which took place in the northern countries is principally, though not exclusively, attri- buted in the Bible to the action of water. In the other, the sudden freezing up of the rivers is the cause assigned, that is, upheavings and alterations in the lower stratum. Ten months of winter is the climate of Western Thibet, Pamer, and Belur, at the present day, and corresponds with that of the Altai country, and the district east of the Kuenlung, the Paradise of the Chinese. In short, effects are described, not causes — indeed, isolated facts out of a great whole, one only out of a variety of phenomena occasioned by this historical convulsion of the globe. From all that we are able to ascertain about the history of the earth, it is obvious that this would in- clude a vast flood, like that of Noah, the waters rising up from below, accompanied by great depressions in the soil, and the formation of inland seas like the Caspian. H II 3 470 THE AGE OF ZOROASTER. [Book IV. Part VI. But as will appear in the following section, there is evidence in the Yedas, however slight, that the Flood does form a part of the reminiscences of Iran. C. THE AGE OF ZOROASTER VIEWED IN THE LIGHT OF THE ZENDISH AND GREEK ACCOUNTS. Philological and historical criticism has long ago set at rest the unfortunate theory that Vistaspa, who is men- tioned in the books of the Zendavesta as the royal patron of Zarathustra, was the father of King Darius Hys- taspes, and we will not pander to the prevailing supine- ness by giving it a fresh contradiction. The name of Zoroaster is already known to us as a royal name, from the Armenian edition of Eusebius in the Chaldean lists of Berosus. It is the name of the J\ledian conqueror of Babylon, who vanquished the realm and city of the Chaldees, and founded the second Baby- lonian dynasty in the year 2234 B.C. The king can only have received this title from being a follower of Zarathustra, and professing the religion of the Prophet : the title of " greatest minstrel " is in character with that of the founder of a religion, not with that of a conqueror. But he was preceded by a series of 84 Median kings. Media again was not the historical birthplace of the religion and language of the Zend books, but Bactria, the seat of a primeval kingdom. Taking all these circumstances into consideration, the date of Zoroaster, as fixed by Aristotle, cannot be said to be so very irrational. He and Eudoxus, according to Pliny (N. H. xxx. 2.), place him 6000 years before C] ZENDISH AND GREEK ACCOUNTS. 471 the death of Plato ; Hermippus, 5000 before the Trojan war. We may consider the latter date as derived from the same source with that of the above two writers, who were men of the greatest learning, and the keen- est investigators of any age. Hermippus himself had translated the writings of Zoroaster. As Pliny intro- duces his name without anything to identify him, we must suppose him to mean the so-called Peripatetic, the pupil of Callimachus, one of the most learned Alex- andrians, and not, as Preller supposes, Hermippus of Berytus, who seems to have written upon astrological topics. The latter indeed could not well be mentioned by Pliny, as he was a pupil of Philo, the grammarian of Byblus, and lived therefore in the reign of Hadrian, or at the earliest in that of Trajan. Why should a date which has the authority of such men as these be treated with contempt, more especially as the per- sonality of the Prophet is not under consideration, but simply the foundation of the religion connected with him ? The two dates above mentioned essentially agree — for 6000 years before the death of Plato (01. 108, 1; B.C. 348) brings us to about 6350, and the date of Hermippus is 6300, according to the common Alexan- drian chronology of the Trojan war, 407 or 408 before 01. 1 = 1184 B.C. At the present stage of the inquiry the question whether this date is set too high cannot be answered in either the negative or affirmative. All that we know from Berosus is that another dynasty of 84 kings reigned in Media before that of Zoroaster, whose names were given by Polyhistor. In the mean time we do not even know whether he conquered Media (that is, from Bactria), as he afterwards captured Babylon, or whether his family was Median. The determination of the age of the founder of the religion depends upon the answer to the following question. Whether the appearance of Zoroaster in Bactria is to be placed before or after the u II 4 472 THE AGE OF ZOEOASTEU. [Book. IV. Part VI. emigration from Bactria ? In the latter case the only rational explanation would be, that a schism broke out in the country of the Indus, in consequence of which the adherents of the old Fire-worship (the devotees of Agni) retraced their steps. The old songs of the Zendavesta described him as follows : " He it is who offers words in songs, who promotes purity by his praise : he, upon whom Ahura Mazda conferred the good gift of eloquence — he was the first in the world who made the tongue subser- vient to the understanding : he is the only one who understood the doctrines of the supreme God, and was in a condition to transmit them." The king, Kava Yis- taspa, patronised him. He was a priest of the Fire- worshippers, and found the doctrine of a duality of good and evil already in vogue. Xevertheless, the name of Ahriman does not occur as yet in the oldest records. What is understood by evil is evil thought (ako man6), or falsehood, and this is contrasted with good thought, which is identical with the good principle. An absolute personification of the good principle is hardly to be found in the songs of Zarathustra. Zoroaster opposed the faith in the Gods of Nature, as the highest beings. He found in existence the faith in good spirits, Ahuras, the Living, who are also called the " Dispensers of Wis- dom" (Mazdas). At their head he placed the One holy God, " Ahura Mazda," Ormuzd, " the highest Spirit." He is the Lord of all the Powers of Nature, Creator and Sustainer of all Existence. He rules over earthly and spiritual life — by which latter Zoroaster understands a better state on this earth. His great axiom, so full of intelligence, was that — the highest Trinity (drigu) is Thought, Word, Deed." These three he considers to be pure in the pure, evil in the evil : from the thought emanates the word, from the two together the deed. Hang, Deutscli-Morgenland. Zeit. ix. p. 685. Append. Lnteod. I.] CHARACTER OF THE VENDIDAD. 473 APPENDIX. THE FIRST CHAPTER OF THE VENDIDAD, Translated and explained by Dr. Haug, Private Teacher in the University of Bonn. INTRODUCTIOK I. The Age and Character of the Record. The Yendidad;, the code of the present Parsees, commences with a passage, the purport of which is geographical. Its great importance has already led several persons to attempt an ex- planation of it, among whom Burnouf, Lassen, E-itter, and Spiegel are the most conspicuous. A great portion of it, nevertheless, still remains unexplained ; first, because the study of the Zendavesta is still in its infancy, and, secondly, because this particular chapter presents peculiar difficulties. These consist, not merely in identifying the names of countries, but more especially in explaining the words which occur but seldom (some of them but once, and that in the same chapter), and which are used to designate the different creations of Ahriman for the purpose of counteracting the good principle. An attempt will here be made to give a new explanation of the passage, in so far as compatible with my present knowledge of the Zenda- vesta, which is still incomplete. At first sight, this opening Fargard does not seem to have any close connexion with the rest of the Vendidad. But upon a more careful investigation of the purpose for which the last digest of the Zendavesta was made, the introduction will be found to harmonize perfectly with the rest. An enumeration is here made simply of Arian countries, and almost exclusively of those in which the faith of Zarathustra was more or less pre- dominant. The editor meant to indicate the extent of country in which the law of Mazdayasna was in force. But there is an- other question to be considered — whether this passage formed 474 THE AGE OF ZOROASTER. [Rook IV. Part YI. part of the ancient code which the editor of the present Ven- didad found in existence, or whether he composed it himself or inserted it out of some other work. The Vendidad has very clearly undergone various processes of composition, of v;hich three main steps may be distinguished: A vesta, Zend, and Pazend.^^^ The Avesta must be considered as the original groundwork of the code, which, although of very ancient date, is still almost all of it post-Zarathustrian, as will appear here- after. In course of time several explanations and interpreta- tions of the law^s sprang up, which, as they emanated from competent authority, gradually acquired as much weight as the original, the traditional divine revelation, and were incorporated w^ith it. This is the Zend, or the explanation. But in these explanations there were many things unintelligible to after generations, which gave rise to other further explanations known by the name of Pazend. After these brief notices I resume the consideration of the questions immediately before us. The first Fargard was probably incorporated into the general text by the second or third commentator, the author either of the Zend or of the Pazend. For the large works composed on a regular system, such as the groundwork of the Vendidad seems to have been, were apparently products of the second or third period — a phenomenon which may be traced not only in the history of the Zarathustrian literature but of the Yedic also. But this chapter was certainly not composed by a later editor, as is evident from the ancient supplements that were made to it, but it was borrowed from some old work of the Avesta period, perhaps an early Iranian history (as was also the second chapter of the Vendidad). If we examine this chapter purely in reference to its con- tents, we may distinguish an original document and several supplements, added for the purpose of explanation or cor- rection. The original, after a short preliminary remark that 20G Avesta means Direct higher Knowledge, Divine Revelation ; Zend means the explanation of this ; and Pazend the Supplements to the Zend, or further explanation of the Zend doctrine. All the three steps exist in the present Zend-Avesta, or more properly Avesta-Zend. See upon this subject my treatise on these names in the MorgenlLind. Zeitsch. voL ix. p. 694. seq. I postpone to a future occasion the more detailed and complete exposition of these views. AiTEXD. Lntrod. I.] CIIAKACTER OF THE VENDIDAD. 475 Abura Mazda converted the Inliospitable and uninhabitable world, which before was a sort of desert, into a place fit for habitation, briefly enumerates sixteen best countries or Para- dises, created by Ahura Mazda, each of which was specially distinguished by some noteworthy property. Certain counter- creations of Kngvo Mainyus were then recorded in special con- trast to these, but without any further description of any of them. The additions have generally been considered as mere glosses, and the argument used in support of this view is that in the Huzuresh-translation^^^ several of them are omitted. But judging even from the etymological peculiarities, they must be older than the last version of the Vendidad, or at least than the last collection. At the very outset several difficulties present themselves. The expression, " noi^ kuda^ shaitim," required a fuller explanation ; and it seemed remarkable that, while in the introductory sentence the creations of Ahura Mazda are men- tioned, not a word is said of the counter-creations of Awgro Mainyus. An attempt was made to get over these difficulties by means of a supplement (verse 2.), but this, unfortunately, was not more intelligible than the introduction. The words of the original, ver. 4., two months of summer, ten of winter" did not appear to the later interpreter as suitable to the first Land of Blessing, tlie real paradise. They therefore altered them into seven ntonths of summer and Jive of winter, which, however, was in direct contradiction to the words of the ori- ginal, a thing of frequent occurrence in the Vendidad, and a manifest indication of its being a later modification of expres- sions which either appeared out of character or too strong. Compare Vend. 3, 135. and 137 seq. ; 6, 93—100. and 5, 1— 49.; 6, 102—106.; 13, 80—96. and 97—105. of Spiegel. But this change had not yet banished the severe cold from Paradise. Its existence must be admitted, and attempts were made to describe its effects in more detail, for the following words, " cold as to water," to the end of this verse, are ad- ditions of the Zendist. In the first place, these details are out of character altogether with the original ; and secondly, the words ^areta apo do not dovetail into the dva h^mina of This is the name of the translation of the Zend-Avesta into Pehlvi (a mixture of Semitic and Iranian), in the time of the Sassa- nidai. See njy treatise on the Pehlvi language and Bundehesh, Gottingen, 1854, p. 5. 476 THE AGE OF ZOROASTER. [Book IV. Part VI. the original, but into pawca zajana of the supplement. At verse 8., we find after tlie fifth Place of Blessing, Ni^at, the remark, which" (lies) "between Mouru and Bakhdhi." This can hardly belong to the original ; as there was no predicate to Ni^-Ai, it seemed necessary to make one. The reason why the Zendist, quite contrary to the general rule, thought it neces- sary to add a description of the situation of the place may be the frequent recurrence of the name of Ni^-A, so well known to us in the Greek writers. Under no circumstances can any great weight be attached to it. The whole fifteenth verse is a palpable addition of the Zendist. The sins of sorcery, men- tioned in ver. 14. as a creation of Angro Mainyus, required further comment. The concluding verse (21.) is also probably the addition of a later editor, in whose time the Arian territories were perhaps considerably extended. After these remarks it may be assumed as tolerably certain tliat the additions are of much more modern date than the original. They bear evident marks of an age in which the old traditions had already ceased to be quite intelligible, and required various explanations. The mode in which this was done is a clear proof that the expositors themselves had not always very correct notions upon these subjects. As regards the original teity it is unquestionably of great antiquity, and one of the oldest compositions of which the present Vendidad consists. But in its present shape, even after eliminating the later additions, it is decidedly after the time of Zarathustra, and posterior to the so-called Gathas, or songs, in which the greater part of the genuine maxims and doctrines of Zarathustra have been transmitted. The principal ground for this opinion is that Parseeism may be traced in it in a much more developed and systematic shape than in the songs of Zara- thustra. While the latter never employ the name of A?2gr6 Mainyus to represent the evil princlple^^^, in the former the evil genius is always introduced by that name, which has become already his proper name, on every occasion when in opposition to the good spirit, Ahura Mazda, he produces evil to counteract the good creations. In the Gathas there is no such contrast as this, and one too carried out with the utmost minutite, especially in physical matters. They simply exhibit the general antagonism Only in Jus. 45., 2., is an " A??gra" (black) put in opposition to Mainyus /kSpanyao, the whiter or more holy spirit. ArrEXD. Introd. L] CIIArvzYCTER OF THE Vl^NDIDAD. 477 between good and evil thoughts, words and deeds, truth and falsehood, although this is very sharply marked. Indeed the opposition between the two spirits is so far worked out even in the first Fargard, that particular words are used to express the especial creative power of each of them. The creation of the good spirit is called fra-thwercz (properly, to fabricate, the Vedic tvakshi from which comes the name of the artificer of the Gods, TvASHTAR, Greek T£u;^-ft)), that of the evil spirit fra-kerewt (properly, to cut, to carve). This is very strong evi- dence of its post-Zarathustrian origin, as no such distinctions are found in the Gathas ; dd is used for the creation of both spirits, urvdta to express both their doctrines, &c. &c. In the later writings, on the contrary, these distinctions are observed throughout. For instance, mru, to speak, is always used for the good spirit, and in the same signification du only for the bad. The head of the bad spirits is called Kameredha, that of the good, Yaghdhana. Though after this evidence no doubt can be entertained that the chapter belongs to the post-Zarathustrian period, this by no means implies that it is generally of modern origin. The whole tenor of it would lead us, on the contrary, to conclude that it must be very old. A certain historical date, however, can hardly be given to it. From the names of the countries mentioned, it is clear that when it was composed not only geo- graphical information was very restricted, but also that the actual Arian territory was of much more limited extent than we find it afterwards. At all events it is older than the foundation of the Median empire by Deioces (708 b. c), inas- much as several important provinces of Media, such as Atro- patene (Aderbei^an), and several important cities, such as Egbatana (Hagmatana in the first cuneiform writing), are not mentioned. This would not have been the case here, where Arian civilisation and Zarathustric faith were widely spread, had Media then exercised that influence over Iran which she attained under Deioces. At the date of its composition the Arians probably had only just begun to spread through the provinces of Media. Further proof of its high antiquity will be found in the predicate of Bactra, eredhwo-drafsha, with the tall banner. This would seem to refer to a time when Bactra was the centre of an empire, for it can only mean the imperial banner, the Kdvydiii-dircfsh, or banner of the Kaja- 478 THE AGE OF ZOROASTER. [Book IV. Part VI. nians, which is mentioned in the Shahnameh. But the power of Bactria had been broken down by the Assyrians long before Deioces (about 1200 b. c). We may therefore place the date of the original at a period anterior to the Assyrian conquest. If, however, we lookalittle more closely into the scanty notices in this connexion, we shall find that the geography of the Zend- avesta was not limited to the countries mentioned in this chapter. The whole globe used to be divided into seven Karshvares (i. e. cultivable districts), the names of which frequently recur in the Jeshts (It. 10, 15. 67. 133. they are called Areza, -S'ava, Fradadhafshu, Vidadhafshu, Vouru-baresti, Youru-^aresti, and Qaniratha). This account must be very ancient, inasmuch as the seven-surfaced or seven-portioned earth is mentioned already in the Gathas, and in fact in the first (Ja^. 32, 3.). In Ja5. 29, 7. mention is also made of the earth and its six re- gions (gavoi khshvidemea urushaeibjo).^^^ The circumstance of this old mythological division of the earth being omitted in this chapter is an argument in favour of the historical character of the original, and its great value for ancient Arian history. The two passages which contain the best evidence of the geo- graphical knowledge of the compilers of the Zendavesta are in Jeshts 131, 143. 144., where mention is made of the countries of the AiRYA (Iranians), the Tuirya (Turanians), the aS'airima ( Sarmatians), the iSaini (probably the Sanni of the classics, to the west of the Caspian, or perhaps the Sakini ?), and of the Dahi (the Daher or Daer of the classics, in Hyrcania). The first three of these were the best known and the most important. We find in the Legend of Shahnameh (i. p. 58. ed. Macan Turner), the three sons of Feredun, Ire^, Tur, and Selm, men- tioned as their patriarchs, and among them the whole earth w^as divided. The nature of this division, by which Selm received the western countries (the Sarmatian district), Tur, Turkestan and China, and Ire^, Iran, as their respective portions, looks like an ancient geographical arrangement. — If this passage be supposed to contain a list of all the nations known to the Zend- avesta, we find in one place (It. 10, 14.) hardly any which do not belong to Iran. They are Aiskata,Pouruta, Mouru, Haroyu, Gau, .Sughdha, and Qairizem. Of these seven, four are mentioned See my note on these passnges. The Gathas, or Songs of Zarathustra, i. p 85. 162. ArrEND. Introd. II.] GEOGRAPHY OF THE VENDIDAD. 479 in the first Fargard, the other three it is very difficult to iden- tify. Qairizera is doubtless the Uvvarazmiya of the cuneiform inscriptions (Chowaresmia) at the east of the Caspian ; Aiskata is perhaps the district of Astabene, with its capital Asaak (in Hyrcania); Pouruta is probably only another form of Parthuwa in the cuneiform inscriptions (Parthyene), which may be ex- plained by the phonetic laws of the Bactrian language. II. Geographical Explanation of the Countries enumerated. We now proceed to analyse the countries mentioned in this list. The earth is considered as having been at first sterile, with the exception of the original Iranian country, Airyanem Yae^o, that is, Iran pure and simple. It is the first mentioned of the sixteen here enumerated. The only curse upon it seems to have been the ten months of winter, which implies that it was a very northern or very elevated region. It is impossible in the absence of further particulars to identify it more accu- rately. It seems, however, indisputable, that the Iranians came from an extraordinarily cold district. The second Fargard of the Vendidad leads to the same conclusion, where the years of Jima are reckoned by winters, and the curse of winter is por- trayed in the strongest colouring. After the Airyanem Vae^^o come a series of countries which can be ascertained historic cally. In the enumeration of these as far as the eleventh Land of Blessing we observe that the direction is from north- east to south-west, and we are in some degree authorised in considering them to be the districts first peopled by the Iranian races, which is also in exact accordance with the Iranian legend. But at the twelfth Land of Blessing the direction is altered. Some countries in the north-west, and others in the south-west are mentioned, possibly in the order in which Iranian civilisation was introduced. The Second best country is Gau, with the district of AS'ughdha. Gau is not, as Burnouf thought, a nomen appellativum here in the sense of earth. The first objection to this is its fre- quent repetition in another list of the names of countries (It. 10, 14.): and the second, a comparison with verses 10 and 11., where Duzhako-shayanem and Vehrkano-shayanem are respectively preceded by a real proper name. Its literal meaning certainly is earth, or specifically land, like the Ger- 480 THE AGE OF ZOROASTEil. [Book IV. Part VI. man Gau, Armenian Gaw-ar, land, province. This use of a general expression for a particular country reminds us of the use of iirhs for Roma, and shows that the Gau in question must have been a metropolis of Iranian civilisation. The site of it is clear from the word in apposition, /S'ughdo-shayanem. iS'ughdha is evidently Sogd, Sogdiana, the Fire-land, that is, the land where the sacred fires were especially lighted. Its curse, like that of the original country, was of a physical nature, a murrain in the cattle. — The Third Land of Blessing is Mouru, Avith the predicate strong and true, the former of which seems to allude to its physical strength, the latter to its piety and morality. Its curse was war and marauding expeditions, meaning probably the razzias which the warlike inhabitants made against each other and their enemies. The country itself is the present Merv, the Margiana of the classics, Margush of the in- scriptions, to the south-west of Sogdiana, the place of wild ani- mals, especially birds, as its name implies. This appellation will not surprise us when w^e recollect that, according to the Vendi- dad, birds, as well as trees, water, and fire, necessarily formed part of a gocd Ahura-Mazdian country. — The Fourth Land of Blessing after Mouru is Bakhdhi, the fortunate spot, which we must necessarily identify with the modern Balkh, the Bactra of the cuneiform writings and the classics. The difference in the terminations tra and dhi is easily accounted for by supposing Bakhdhi to mean principally the capital of Bactria, Bactra the country itself. It is even possible that the one was in vogue in Eastern Iran, the other in Western Iran or Media. As far as the sense goes it makes but little difference, Bak-tra is the most fortunate, Bakli-dhi, the fortunate spot. The predi- cate srira, that is, fortunate, exactly suits the name ; the other adjective has been already mentioned. The curses inflicted on this fortunate spot by the evil spirit, consisted of swarms of insects and poisonous plants. — The Fifth country is Nisai or Ni.mya according to the cuneiform inscriptions, the Nisaea of the classics. As they mention more than one Nis^ea (I only allude to the Nisaea north-east of Parthyene, and the celebrated Campi Nisaei in Media) it is somewhat difficult to specify very accurately the locality here alluded to. The text itself would appear indeed to help us out of the difficulty by the accompanying words, " which lies between Mouru and Bakhdhi," but in reality they create the difficulty. Classic writers were unacquainted with any Nisaea Append. Introd. n.] GEOGRAPHY OF THE VENDIDAD. 481 situated between tliese two countries ; the Nissea which was so celebrated for its breed of horses, the present Nishapur, the pro- vince of Nisaya in the cuneiform inscriptions, lay to the north- east of Parthyene, to the west of Aria (Herat). It would seem that this is the Land of Blessing here alluded to, from the great reputation for beauty and fertility which it has enjoyed down to the present time. The name properly signifies " settlement," for which reason it is one of so frequent occurrence. The curse of this beautiful region was the unbelief of its inhabitants. — After Nisaya comes Haroyu, the Sixth country, the Stream-Land, with which its predicate. Dispenser of water, accords exactly. It is the Aria of the Greeks, Hariwa of the cuneiform inscrip- tions, the present Herat. Its curse is hail- storms, which produce poverty. The Seventh country is Yaekereta, which signifies the Dis- figured, or waste, with the Duzhaka, or Hell-district. At first sight it seems a singular title for a good land created by Ahura Mazda, but it has a meaning when w^e think of an arid desert country, interspersed here and there with patches of fruitful soil. The Huzuresh translation makes it Cabul ; but the names are unsuited to this beautiful district. The name "Duzhaka" suggested to the modern commentators, Burnouf and Lassen, Se^/estan (the land of the Saki), the capital of which is called Dushak. This is the right interpretation, for the nature of Se^estan (the Drangiana of the classics) is quite in character with this etymology, consisting as it does of parched sandy deserts. A perfectly conclusive argument, and one which has never yet been adduced, is the notice of the Pairika being attached to the hero Keresaspa. This Kercsaspa (the owner of lean horses) is the Gershasp of the Parsees, who according to the Shahnameh lived in the time of Feredun, and passed for being the ancestor of Neriman, /Sam, Zal, and Rustem, who governed Se^estan as vassals of the crown of Iran (see Shah- nameh, ed. Turner, iv. p. 2333.), The name of Keresaspa figures in the Jeshts, not alone however, but in connexion either with Naremanao (Neriman) (It. 5,37. 15, 27. 19,38 — 44.) or with /S'ama (It. 13, 61. 136.); it is only in the brief notice in It. 23,3. that these are omitted. Though it has not the form of a pa- tronymic, yet, from its being applied to two individuals of the same race, it cannot belong to any given person, but must be a family name. As its meaning is " owner of lean horses," it would VOL. III. I I 482 THE AGE OF ZOROASTER. [Book IV. Part VI. apparently refer to some residence of this family, where the pasturage was not very good, which again is iti accordance with the nature of Se^estan. In It. 5, 37. Naremanao Keresa^pa begs of the Ardvi ^ura anahita (the spotless anahita, celestial primitive water, the Anahitof the Persians^^^), at the foot of the valley (vari, a valley with a river) Pi^ano, 100 male horses, 1000 cows, and 10,000 neat cattle. At 15, 27. he offers a prayer to Yaju, to give him strength to slay the Hita.spa (who keeps the horses corrftned). The fullest details about this hero will be found It. 19, 38 — 44. He is the third possessor of the " lustre " (qareno) which King Jima enjoyed so long. He w^as the mightiest among the mighty, until a woman who did not profess the Zarathustrian religion embraced him. This powerful woman followed Keresaspa with extended feet, sleep- less, and continually watching him. He slew the serpent ^ravara, who swallowed up men and horses. He slew Gay2darewa with the golden heel, the Hitaspa, the Arezo- shamana, who was embraced by the woman (verse 42.), the iS'navidhakft, who undertook, as soon as he w^as grown up, to make the earth his wheel and the heaven his chariot, to carry away the white spirit (Ahura Mazda) from heaven, and the black spirit (A/zgro Mainyus) from hell, and yoke them both to his car."^^^ The w^oman who attached herself to the hero Naremanao Kere^aspa can be no other than the Pairika mentioned in this verse. Though in the Vendidad (comp. 19. 5. V^^.) she appears as a creation of Ahriman, it would seem from the passage in the 19th Jesht just cited (comp. also specially ver. 42.) that, subsequently at least, this Pairika no longer passed for a female monster, but was considered the protecting Genius of heroes, who were indebted to her for their supernatural strength. It is remarkable that at the present day in the valley of Pishin (the Pisano of the Keresa^pa legend) the stories about the beautiful Peris, and the belief in them, still exist (see Kitter s Geography of Asia, vol. viii. p. 60.). As this valley lies to the east of the river Hilmend in the vicinity of Se^estan, this is an additional reason for thinking Vaekereta and Se^estan to be identical, which latter must have extended Upon this subject see Windischmann's admirable article on the Persian Anahita or Anaitis, in the Transactions of the Philological (1) Class of the R. Bavarian Academy of Sciences, vol. viii. part i. 212 y^Q have here the portrait of an overbearing giant. Append. Introd. II.] GEOGRAPHY OF THE VENDIDAD. 483 much further to the eastward than it now doeS;, during the ancient rule of the Keresaspa dynasty. The Eighth Land of Blessins; is Urva, the Land of Plains. Up to this time we have been at a loss how to identify it. The Huzuresh translation on this occasion, as is generally the case indeed w^hen there is any great difficulty, leaves us in the larch, for it only transcribes the name. As the districts mentioned immediately before and after are all in the south-eastern part of Iran, we are very naturally led to look for Urva in this locality. The epithet, abounding in rivers or streams, implies a fer- tile district; its very name, "breadth," would signify a wide, open, champaign country. All this is suitable to Cabul, which lies to the north-east of the seventh Place of Blessing. It would be, moreover, a singular circumstance that the Iranian ethnology, in a region so fruitful and so early brought under cultivation, should be unknown, while several adjoining countries are spe- cially mentioned. All this, however, would not be sufficient to establish the identity of Urva and Cabul, were it not that Urva can be worked out from the name of Cabul itself, which is one of very ancient date. The word Cabul consists of ka and hulj just as Zabul consists of za and hul (the ancient name of the whole or part of Se^/estan in the Shahnameh). Bui is a muti- lated form of Mr?;a^^^, which will be more easily understood by considering the form vouru, which corresponds to the Sanskrit uruy wide, and which occurs in Zend with uru and urva, Kdh in Modern Persian signifies grass, hay, so that the entire word means ^*the grassy plain," "champaign, pasture-land"^^'', while Zabul signifies " the plain of men," " the land of men or heroes" {zah in Modern Persian signifying "male oflfset"). The Ninth land is Kne?ita, with the district of Behrkana. Burnouf supposed this to be the nomen appellativum, but ac- cording to the general character of the whole catalogue this idea is incapable of proof. It must be the name of a country situated in the south-east of Iran. But Vehrkano-shayanem The word bul-ghak, loud violent noise, bul-kameh, strong desire, &c., prove that " uru," " vouru, " really become bul in Modern Persian. In the Zendic compounds it is exactly vouru, wide. In the Veda, urvara means fruitful field, in Zend, a tree : it is at all events connected with uru. The meaning in Zend is the derivative one (comp. Mod. Pers. darcht, tree, with the Arm. tarchd, garden). The original meaning of urva probably was plain, field. 1 I 2 484 THE AGE OF ZOROASTER. [Book IV. Part VI. seems to militate against this. Vehrkjiiio is plionetically pre- cisely the same word as Hyrcania, which is to the south-east of the Caspian, so that we are carried all of a sudden to a totally different part of Iran. But we know no other Hyrcania to the south. Many forcible arguments may be advanced, nevertheless, against this now generally received opinion. First, It is in itself a singular thing that the Ninth country should be found in the neighbourhood of the Caspian, while the two immediately succeeding (ten and eleven) are again in the south-eastern part of Iran. Secondly, Yehrkana cannot in this instance signify a country, but must either be a city or a river in Khne/zta. This is perfectly clear when we compare verse 5. Gaum *S'ughd- ho-shayanem, and verse 10. Yaekeretem Duzhako-shayanem, ■with Klmewtem Yehrkano-shayanem, in both which cases Gau and Yaekereta are the countries, -S'ughda and Duzhaka cities within them (see on this subject note to verse 5.). Thirdly, "VVe know of no Khne?zta in Hyrcania. We remain in the south-east in the vicinity of Cabul. To the south-west of the meadows of Cabul, and to the east of the sandy deserts of Se- ^estan, stretch the beautiful plains of Candahar, watered by the river Urghandab. Here we must look for Khne/zta ; indeed it is contained in the name of Candahar itself. The word Kandahar must be in the first place divided into Kanda and har. Kand comes from the Modern Persian, khanden, kbandiden, to laugh, and then is used metaphorically for, to bloom, flourish ; har=/mr, string, string of pearls, pep.rl. The whole word consequently signifies either " chaplet of flowers " or *^ string of pearls," which is a thoroughly Oriental mode of expressing a charming country. In the Darius inscriptions it is spelled Ga?z- dara, a contraction from Gandahara, the kh being softened down to g ; whereas in the present name, Kandahar, the original form, Khne??.to-hara, is still more faithfully retained. There is no diflfi- culty again in identifying Vehrhdna as the name of the river Urghand-ab, as Ritter spells it (Geography of Asia, vol. viii. p. 160.). In Modern Persian it becomes Gurgan. The initial ^-sound seems lost, which is easily accounted for in long words ; the d is inorganic, as frequently occurs with dentals ; and dh means water, so that the word signifies " the river of the wolf- country" or wolf-ravine (the U])per course of which is in the mountains). There is, however, in Kandahar a city called Urghandab. The evil created here by the bad spirit was unnatural passion. Append. Intbod. II ] GEOGRAPHY OF THE VENDIDAD. 4.85 The Tenth land is the Happy Haraqaiti, abounding in water, in wlilch the Arachosia of the classics and the Harauwatish of the cuneiform inscriptions, to the southward of Cabul, may be identified. The curse of Ahriman there was the burial of the dead, which is strictly prohibited in the Zendavesta, as being the greatest desecration of the sacred earth. After Haraqaiti comes the Eleventh land, the luxurious bril- liant Haetumat, by which is to be understood the valley of the present river Hilmend, to the west of Arachosia. It means the " bridged-over," because it had a number of bridges, the building of which is mentioned in the Zendavesta as a most meritorious act. The prevailing evils here were the Jatu sins (see note to verse 15.). A change of direction now ensues. Almost all the countries in the south of Iran are enumerated. The next in succession are the few districts in the north-west, which come within the sphere of the old Arian civilisation. The Twelfth land is called Ragha, with the predicate of thrizazztu, i. e. " hav- ing three races." We find it mentioned again in the Zend- avesta, and indeed in Jas. 19, 18., where there is the following- remarkable passage: — "What sort of lords (ratavo) are these? The lord of a nmana (family, household), the lord of a vi^ (district), the lord of a za?itu (race, tribe), the lord of a country, the fifth (lord) Zarathustra. Among the countries which (profess) religions different from that of Zarathustra, the Zara- thustrian Kagha has four lords. What are tliese lords ? The lord of the family, of the district, of the tribe, and the fourth Zarathustra." It is clear from this, that the inhabitants of Ragha did not recognise Zarathustra as their supreme lord, as was the case with the other Iranians (certainly, the eastern and southern), but that they considered him as a being inferior to the real lord of the soil, though superior to the heads of tribes. This is the reason why they are mentioned as possessing other than the Zarathustrian faith," i. e. the faith mentioned in the present Zendavesta, one specifically represented by the Zend doctrine. They were looked upon therefore as renegades, a sort of Shiites. This is a clue to the meaning of the curse of Ahriman, Ragha's doubt as to the Supreme, or the spiritual supremacy of Zara- thustra. Ragha is undoubtedly the Rhaga3 of the classics in Media, and the Rei of the present day in the vicinity of Tehe- ran, which was so celebrated in ancient times. The Thirteenth land is Kakhra, with the same predicates, I I 3 486 THE AGE OF ZOROASTER. [Book IV. Part VI. strong and pious, winch we find given to Muuru. Spiegel suggests the district of ^ihrem mentioned in Firdousi, but we do not know where this was. Turner's glossary to the Shahnameh (iv. p. 2313.) merely describes " Tshihrem as a place in Iran." Buller's lexicon, voce Aarkh (the circle, from the Zendish Fakhra, the wheel), states that it is also the name of a city in Khorassan. This seems to me more appropriate than an entirely indefinite place like Tshihrem. To judge by the predicate, ashava (true, pious, religious), the inhabitants of Fakhra were faithful and zealous adherents of Zarathustra. It is a striking circumstance, therefore, that the practice of burning the dead, though only partially, should have existed there. The epithets of "pious " and " religious " probably refer to their recognition of the spiritual supremacy of Zarathustra, as contrasted with the inhabitants of Ragha. With respect to the Fourteenth country, Varena, various opinions have been advanced (see Spiegel, translation of the Vendidad, p. 66. note 1.). But inasmuch as the few clues which are to be found in the Zendavesta itself have not been systematically followed up, it was not likely that the right one should have been hit upon. Yarena is the birthplace of the hero Thraetaona, the Feredun of the Iranian legend (see also It. 15, 23. 17, 33.). His act of heroism which has been the most eulogized, the murder of the infamous tyrant Zohak, is invariably supposed in the legend to have taken place on the Albors, or more properly on the mountain of Demavend, to the south of the Caspian ; the recollection of it indeed is kept up to this day, by the annual jubilee for the victory of Feredun. The origin of the legend is seen at once to be mythological, for Thraetaona is the Trita of the Veda, the slayer of the daemon Vritra, who prevents the clouds from pour- ing out water ; but there can be little doubt that some im- portant event in the earliest history of the Iranians was worked up with it, mythology and heroology being very frequently mixed up together in the earliest legendary history. The name Varena is also borrowed from mythology. It is identical with Varuna, and signifies heaven. Allusion is made to it in the predicate Aathru gaosha, " with four corners," which must mean the four corners of heaven. But in the legend the act of heroism above mentioned was connected with a specific place upon the earth, and gave to it the legendary name which we must endeavour to discover. The mention of Mazanian Append. Introd. II.] GEOGRAPHY OF THE VENDIDAD. 487 and Varenian Daevas, in the conflict with whom the heroes ask aid from the Gods, furnishes another clue (It. 10, 69. 97. 134. 5, 22. 13, 71. 137.). There is frequent mention in the Shah- nameh of the Dive of Mazenderan, the expedition against whom of Kai Kawu being the one best known. The Mazanian Daevas of the Zendavesta must be these Dive of Mazenderan, as the latter word evidently grew out of the former (mazaynja) by the addition of the termination " an." But as they and the Yarenians (Varenya) are usually mentioned together, we have a certain right to expect to find Varena in the neighbour- hood of Mazenderan. Ghilan, which is also a mountainous district, joins to the westward the latter mountain country, the inhabitants of which are, to the present day, remarkable fur their lawless habits and daring character. The analogy of sound would also identify it with the Varena of which we are in search, it being a well-known law that the initial v of the Old Iranian usually becomes g in Modern Persian. Here the curses of Ahriman were secret charms, the practice of many of which we know to have been attributed to the Dive of Mazenderan. The plagues by which the country was de- solated — not of an Arian character, that is, such as are not met with in the old Arian countries — were earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, similar to those which took place there. The Fifteenth country is Hapta-Hi?2du, which is divided into eastern and western. By this is meant the Indus country, called in the songs of the Veda, sapta sindhavas, or the seveii rivers. These consist of the Sindhu, with its eastern conflu- ents, Vitasta (Hydaspes), Asikni (Akesines), Parushni (Hydra- ortes), Vipa.s (Ilyphasis), ^atadru (Hesydrus), and the western, Kubha (Kophen), which comes from Cabul. The curses of the country are the sorceries of Ahriman and excessive heat, which accords with the southern part of the Indus district. The Sixteenth country has no specific name. Its inhabitants arc the dwellers near the sea coast, who do not require any ramparts. Their curses are winter and earthquakes. As the Caspian was the sea nearest to the Old Iranians, we must here understand the shores of that sea. The Indian ocean is out of the question, in consequence of the mention of cold. But the most probable supposition is that the author had in view the boundaries of the earth, and that ra?zha means the circum- ambient ocean. I I 4 488 THE AGE OF ZOROASTER. [Book IV. Part VI. Trandation of the Record, THE FIRST FARGARD OF THE VENDIDAD.^l* 1. Ahura Mazda said to the hallowed Zarathustra : " I created, most holy Zarathustra, into a delicious spot what was hitherto wholly uninhabitable. For had not I, most holy Zarathustra, converted into a delicious spot what was hitherto wholly uninhabitable, all earthly life would have been poured forth after Airyana-Yae^o. 2. [" Into a charming region (I converted) one which did not enjoy prosperity, the second (region) into the first ; in op- position to it is great destruction of the existing cultivation.] 3. " As the first best of regions and countries, I, who am Ahura Mazda, created Airyana-Yae^o of good capa- bility ; thereupon, in opposition to him, Angvo Mainyus, the Death-dealing, created a mighty serpent and snow, the work of the Daevas. 4. " Ten months of winter are there — two months of summer. Seven months of summer are there ; five months winter there were ; the latter are cold as to water, cold as to earth, cold as to trees ; there (is) mid-winter, the heart of winter ; there all around falls deep snow ; there is the direst of plagues.] 5. ''As the second best of regions and countries, I, I Ahura Mazda, created Gau, in which iSughdha is situated. Thereupon, in opposition to it, Angro Main- yus, the Death-dealingy created pestilence, which is fatal to cattle, small and great. 6. " As the third best of regions and lands, I, I Ahura Mazda, created the strong, the pious Mouru. In the transcript ae is equivalent to e, and AO to 6. The pas- sages in brackets are the additions of the Zendic editor. Appendix.] FIRST FARGARD OF THE VENDIDAD. 489 Thereupon Angro Mainyus, the Death- dealing, created in opposition to it war and pillage. 7. " As the fourth best of regions and countries, I, I Ahura Mazda, created the happy Bakhdhi with the tall banner. Thereupon Angro Mainyus, the Death-dealing, created in opposition to it buzzing insects and poisonous plants. 8. ''As the fifth best of regions and countries, I, Ahura, I, Mazda, created Ni^ai [between Mouru and Bakhdhi]. Thereupon Angro Mainyus created in opposition to it the curse of unbelief. 9. " As the sixth best of regions and countries, I, Ahura Mazda, I created Haroyu, the dispenser of water. Thereupon Angro Mainyus, the Death-dealing, created in opposition to it hail and poverty. 10. " As the seventh best of regions and countries, I, Ahura Mazda, I created Vaekereta, in which Duzhaka is situated. Thereupon A72gr6 Mainyus, the Death- dealing, created in opposition to it the Pairika Khna- thaiti, who attached herself to Keresa^spa. 11. "As the eighth best of regions and countries, I, Ahura Mazda, created Urva, abounding in rivers. Thereupon Angro Mainyus created, in opposition to it, the curse of devastation. 12. "As the ninth best of regions and countries, I, Ahura Mazda, created Khnenta, in which Yehrkana is situated. Thereupon Angro Mainyus created, in opposi- tion to it, the evil of inexpiable sins, pa^derastism. 13. " As the tenth best of regions and countries, I, Ahura Mazda, created the happy Haraqaiti. Thereupon Angro Mainyus, the Death-dealing, created the evil of inexpiable acts, the burial of the dead. 14. " As the eleventh best of regions and countries, I, Ahura Mazda, created Haetumat, the wealthy and bril- liant. Thereupon A?2gr6 Mainyus, the Death-dealing, created in opposition to it Jatu sins. 490 THE AGE OF ZOROASTER. [Book IV. Part VI. 15. And he (Awgro Mainyus) is endowed with various powers and various forms. Wherever these come, on being invoked by one devoted to Jatu, there the most horrible Jatu sins arise ; then spring up those which tend to murder and the deadening of the heart ; powerful are they by dint of concealing their hideousness and by their enchanted potions.] 16. " As the twelfth best of regions and countries, I, Ahura Mazda, created Kagha witli the three races. Thereupon A?2gr6 Mainyus, the Death-dealing, created in opposition to it the evil of unbelief in the Supreme. 17. "As the thirteenth best of regions and countries, I, Ahura Mazda, created /lakhra the strong, the pious. Thereupon Angrb Mainyus, the Death -dealing, created the curse of inexpiable acts, the burning of the dead. 18. " As the fourteenth best of regions and countries, L Ahura Mazda, created Yarena with the four corners, — to him was born Thraetaona, the slayer of the destruc- tive serpent. Thereupon Angro Mainyus, the Death- dealing, created in opposition to him irregularly recur- ring evils (sicknesses) and un-Arian plagues of the country. 19. " As the fifteenth best of regions and countries, I, Ahura Mazda, created Hapta Hi?2du, from the eastern Hindu to the western. Thereupon A^zgro Mainyus, the Death-dealing, created in opposition to it untimely evils and irregular fevers. (20. As the sixteenth best of regions and countries, I, Ahura Mazda, created those who dwell without ram- parts on the sea-coast. Thereupon Angro Mainyus, the Death-dealing, created in opposition snow, the work of the Daevas, and earthquakes which make the earth to tremble. ) (21. "There are also other regions and countries, happy, renowned, high, prosperous, and brilliant.") Appendix] NOTES TO THE EIRST FARGAKD. 491 KOTES. Verse 1. [2.] 3. 4. Shdittm. — Airyana Vaegd. 1. Shditim. This word has given the commentators a great deal of trouble. Westergaard. writes it joined with Kuda^ ; Spiegel and the MSS. write it separately. I can find no au- thority for uniting them. We have in the Jeshts, some parallel passages. At 17,6., shaiti (vocative) is a predicate of Ashi; at 22, 2., upa aet«m khshapanem avava^ shatois urva ishaiti yatha vi^pem ima^ ya^ ffui/d a?zhus : " in this night comes the soul (of the pious deceased) to the precise degree of happiness which it experienced in life." In It. 22, 20., avava^ ashatois is used in the same connexion as here res-^pecting the impious soul, in the sense of unhappiness. The superlative shaistem, which occurs so often in the third Fargard, has the same derivation as shaiti ; there its meaning is clearly the most agreeably. They are both derived from a root, shi, of frequent occurrence in the Zend- avesta, corresponding exactly to Sanskrit kshi, to inhabit. Hence shaiti is an abstract substantive of the causal form shay. The abstract derivative from the simple stem is pronounced shiti. Hence the strict meaning of shaiti is inhabitancy, housekeeping, or even hospitality. Shai^tem is a superla- tive formed directly from the causative (direct comparative and superlative formations of this kind are found in the Veda), and literally means most habitable, a sense which agrees perfectly with the context of the similar passage in the third Fargard. The Huzuresh translation reads here a^an, easy, comfortable, and in the margin it gives as a synonyme, niyuk, good; in Fargard .3., the superlative asantum, most easily, most comfortably. The general sense is not incor- rect, though somewhat vague, as is not an unusual thing with the Huzuresh translators, and in consequence of which they are very apt to mislead. Shaiti, however, is preserved in the Modern Persian A^kd, joyous. The following is the gloss to the passage in the Huzuresh translation: — "Had this happened (had the people been drawn after Airyana Yaego), the world would have been unable to go on ; for it could not have continued in its pro- per condition from one zone to the other (from kishver to kish- very^ In the sequel this translation offers a short introduction 492 THE AGE OF ZOROASTER. [Book IV. Part VI. to the repertory of the countries which now commences. They are placed in their regular order. The word ginaP^^, by which aso (region) is rendered, signifies a place where men are not stationary ; rustak, by which shoithra (country) is rendered, on the contrary, signifies a place where they are stationary (hence the former implies the open plain in which men roam about, the latter fixed habitations, which when combined form villages and cities) ; it is, in fact, whole regions which are enumerated, and after some of them also the river Hetomend (Haetumat). The meaning of the verse is this : In the earliest time, Airyana Yae^o was the only cultivated country; all the rest was a desert. But as there was a danger of Airyana Yae^o being over- flown by every living thing that existed in this desert, habitable regions were created in other parts of the earth. A56 ramodaitim cannot, as has hitherto been supposed, be airyanem-vae^o, as in that case the hypothetical expression vi^po awhus — frashnva^ would have no meaning, because it would be in direct contradic- tion to its premiss; but we must necessarily understand a country which offers a contrast to the paradise. The expres- sion a^o, from the same root as astvao, existing, earthly, a^tis, being, bodies, derived from as, to be, and therefore having no connexion with the Vedish a.sa, country, clime, with which it has been compared, signifies something existing, in short, a specific part of all earthly existence in which there is life. The sense of " country" is in the first place derivative. An objection mio;ht be raised to this derivation, that the s in the root as gene- rally becomes h in Zend ; but there are instances of s becoming 5, for instance a^ (he was), the imperfect of as, to be. 2. There is no Huzuresh translation at all of this verse. In the glosses which precede the translation of the third, no refer- ence is made to it whatever. Spiegel does not think that they formed part of the original text ; Westergaard, on the other hand, seems to think them genuine ; at all events he does not put them within brackets. They are notices of the Zendic editor himself, as remarked in our Introduction. Instead of mashimarava (Spiegel), or mas ma rava (Westergaard), readings which convey no satisfactory meaning, I propose to read mas marava. Mas is the same as maz (comp. mash, Ja^. 34, 9. 32, 3., and my note upon it). Marava is referrible to a root xhe characters are perhaps more correctly read, gawak. Appendix.] NOTES TO THE FIRST FARGARD. 493 mare, and here, according to the tenor of the whole context, comes from one signifying to die," causative "to kilL" Sha- th«m, which only occurs in this passage, belongs to the root shi, khshi, which, when it passes into the Guna form shai, frequently drops the radical z; for instance, khsha-thra, lordship. The meaning of the passage is this : Ahura Mazda transformed into a delightful region those districts which had previously been deserts, and therefore not an agreeable residence ; but to all these there were evils attached, which were drawbacks to their being inhabited. The expression, " I created into a first the second region," may mean — the desert, the wast£, I raised into a paradise, or at least into a country next to a paradise. Thus the sixteen countries enumerated would be Jirst countries; those less good, secondary, as countries of the second class. The words paoirim bitira may, however, have alluded to the suc- ceeding countries, &o that " et ctetera " required to be supplied (the first, second, et castera). 3. The name of the first country is Airyanem Vae^o. By this is to be understood the original Arian home, the paradise of the Iranians. , The ruler of this happy land was King Jima, the renow^ned Dshemshed of the Iranian legend, who on that account is called ^ruto airyene vae^ahi, "the renowned in Airy- ana Vae^o" (Farg. 2.); a title borne also by Ahura Mazda himself. Ahura Mazda and Zarathustra here adore the celestial source of water, the Ardvi 5ura anahita (It. 5, 17. 104.). Here Zarathustra prays to the Drva^pa (the patroness of horses. It. 9, 25.), and to Ashi (17, 45.). Thus Airyana Vae^o becomes altogether a mythical country, the seat of gods and heroes, where there is neither sickness nor death, frost nor heat, as is the case in the realm of Jima. In the chapter before us, how- ever, we may still discover the historical background. In Airyana Vae^o there are ten months of winter. But winter, as being one of the curses of Ahriman, has no connexion with the paradise in which, according to the legend, only happiness and bliss were found. This notice, however, is exactly suited to regions in the far north, or in a very high situation, and it is a primeval reminiscence of the real cradle of the Iranians. Thus, in the legend of Airyana Vae^/6, the real historical reminiscence of their early home has been merged in the description of a happy paradisiacal original state of mankind, such as is presented to us in various popular tales. As regards the etymology. 494 THE AGE OF ZOROASTER. [Book IV. Part VI. vae^o (thema, vae^aTzli) has nothing to do with the Sanskrit vi^a, seed, origin, as hitherto supposed, first, because such a meaning is unsuitable to the name of a country, and, secondly, because it is not found in this sense in the oldest Sanskrit (biga, Rv. V. 4, 9, 13., with the predicates dhanya and akshita, must have the signification of possession). It is, however, still retained in the Modern Persian words wez and wezheh, according to the Burhan-i-qad, the special, particular, then in the sense of pure, unmixed, and also in the Armenian vi^ak, possession. Indeed, we find it used also in the Modern Persian sense in Bactrian ; for instance, It. 19, 92. : " Ya^ (kavaem qareno) astwat- ereto frakhstaiti ha^a apa^ Kasuyat asto mazdao ahurahe vi^pa- taurvayao puthro vaedhim vae^o yim varethraghnim yim bara^ takhmo Thraetaono ya^ azhis dahako ^aini ; " which (the Kavi- brightness ^^^), the Awakener of the Earthly produced from the water K<25uya, he who was sent forth, the son of the all- conquering Ahura Mazda, the watchful, the pure, which was borne by the brave Thraetaona when he slew the destructive serpent." This passage, as well as the Modern Persian, proves the word vae^o to be properly an adjective, and a closer exami- nation of the name Airyanem Vae^o brings us to the same conclusion. The whole context shows that Airyanem cannot be an adjective, but must be a substantive, and, in fact, an abs- traction of airya, Arians ; hence it signifies Arianship, or the Arian country. Vaeyo (the neuter of an adjective vae^ao) is its adjective, and it designates the original home as being that of all the Daevas and Daeva-worshippers, as well as a country exempt from the curses of the evil spirit, pure Arian. This pu?'e unmixed Arian country forms at the same time a contrast to Iran, which has acquired historical celebrity. The root is probably the Sanskrit viA, to divide, separate. — Azhim raoidhitem, Spiegel translates great serpent. But great is rather too vague a meaning. The Huzuresh translation has The whole tenth Jesht is dedicated to this "Brightness." Jima first bore it, from him it passed to the most distinguished heroes of the Foretime, and through it alone they were enabled to perform such wonderful exploits. It is something like the Tarn-cap in the German myth. 218 xhis is Sao&kjans, Sosiosh, the Persian Messiah, who awakens the dead at the last day. Appendix.] NOTES TO THE FIRST FARGARD. 495 imtik, the same word, but in the Pehlvi dialect. Had the in- tention been to express the sense of "great," mah or hahir would certainly have been selected. Rut^ in Parsee-Pehlvi, means " river," in Modern Persian rud. Kutik is an adjective derived from it (in Pehlvi k is commonly affixed to words end- ing with vowels) and means consequently ''flowing," "running." This translation is quite correct. Raoidhita comes from the root Tudh *' to run, to flow ;" and, though no longer ft)und in the verbal form (perhaps raodha^, It. 19,40., might be connected with it), there is a variety of evidence showing that it must once have co-existed. The Kighaw^avas use rohita, as nadi- nama, to express river, and likewise rodhaAakrah, and again there is the Modern Persian rud, river. The Raoidhita in question occurs as the name of a mountain in It. 19, 2. In It. 10, 126. we have a superlative upa-raodhisto, the predicate of Kashnu razista (the most perfect justice, the judge of the dead, according to the doctrine of the present Parsees). Hence, it here means " flowing, or made to flow." When applied to a serpent this can only refer to its emitting poison. How the idea of a serpent emitting poison was obtained from the words Airy ana \aegd is difficult to say ; from some volcano, possibly, or spring of hot water. It may possibly also mean winter in general. Zy«m, the accusative of zyao, does not mean literally winter, as has been supposed, but snow. The real word for winter is ziraa, from a root zi— Sanskrit hi, to pour, the rainy or snowy season ; zyao, on the contrary, from its formation, means " something pouring out," snow. Compare ^etyLtcoz^, winter, and %tft>v, snow, from the same root. It is quite clear, from the termination of verse 4., that it is distinct from zima. 4. In respect to the supplement, see above. Askare, as Wes- tergaard correctly spells it (Spiegel makes two words of it, as kare), is the third person plural of the imperfect or so-called aorist, from as, to be; the sk is, what so frequently occurs, merely another reading for sh, which is interchangeable with s; strictly, it ought to be a^are. This preterite form is here used instead of the present, which circumstance, added to the peculiarity of the form, is an argument in favour of the supplement being very ancient. Adha must, from the context, mean here, there, and not then, as in the Veda. (Comp. It. 10, 93. 94. 114.) 496 THE AGE OF ZOROASTER. [Book IV. Part VI. Verse 5. Siighd^ Sogd (Sughdhd-shayanem). Although the meaning of the word shayanem is very simple, there have been so many mistakes made about it, that it will be necessary to devote a few words to it here. It is an abstraction from shif *'to dwell/' and signifies ^*the dwelling, dwelling-place," and " country, district." For instance, in It. 10, 13.: adha^ vis- pem adidhaiti airyo-shayanem ^evisto : thereupon the mightiest (Mithra) enlightens the whole Arian country." 10, 15. : Qanira- them bamim gava-shayanem : the shining Qaniratha (name of the seventh keshvar), the land of cattle." 10,4.: rama-shayanem hushayanera airyabyo da7ihuby6(Mithrem yazamaide): " we wor- ship Mithra, who provides a charming habitation, a good habi- tation for the Arian countries." As being the last member of a composite word, the first of which contains a name, it betokens the place where the first is found; airyo-shayanem, for instance. If the composite word be an adjunct to a substantive, it must necessarily be used in the sense of an adjective (it becomes Bahuvrihi). Thus Gaimi ^Sughdho-shayanem properly means Gau, having for its dwelling-place *S'ughdha ; i. e. Gau, whose residence is ^S'ughdha. This residence, /car s^oxvv, must ob- viously mean the capital, and there is every appearance of 6'ughdha having been a metropolis. After this analysis, it will appear that Yehrkana in v. 14. (Kne?ztem Yehrkano-shayanem) cannot possibly be a country, but must be the name of the capital of Khne^zta, or at all events of the main river. — The name ^Sughdha does not come from 5ukta, pure, nor is it the original name of a river, as Burnouf has made it ; no such meaning attaches to it in the Bactrian. The root in the Zendavesta, as well as in the YeJa, signifies to burn," and from it comes sukhra, burning bright, red, as applied to fire, and it is still found in the Modern Persian surkh, red. iSughdha itself, however, can hardly be a mere past participle passive, inasmuch as there was no reason for the softening down of k into gh, and of ta into dha. Such changes occur only when there is a weak sound in the following syllable. Comp. dregvo- debis (instrura. plur. from dregvao, liar, bad), where d takes the place of t on account of the b ; and azdebis (instrum. plur. from SLstl, bodies), where the double consonant 5t, on account of b, is weakened into zd. It should rather be divided into *S'ugh, = Suk, Appendix.] NOTES TO THE FIRST FARGARD. 497 and dha. Dha is identical with dha in idha, here, adha, there, tadha, in that place, and signifies consequently a ivhere, a place in which something is. ^Suk is the Burning, fire ; hence it means a place of fire, or land of fire, which is perfectly intel- ligible, from the great veneration with which fire was regarded by the Iranians, and the great merit which attached to the lighting and watciiing it. /Skaiti is an aira^ slp-qfjbivov. The Huzuresh translation has kurk, beetle (gawartak is after- wards used in the same sense. Modern Persian, gaward), which attacks sheep and cattle. It is clear that it here means a dis- ease of cattle, but what the beetle has to do with this is diffi- cult to say (Spiegel translates it gad-fly). They may possibly have supposed that the disease was occasioned by an insect. Cognate with skaiti is the Modern Persian suk, sick in English, siech in German, and perhaps scabies. — By daya is meant small cattle, or perhaps young calves ; at all events, it is put in opposition to gava. It comes from dhai, " to suck." Comp. dajo, Ja-sna, 29. 2., with my remark. Verse 6. Munru. This word is a corruption of Margush, as we find it spelled more archaically in the first cuneiform character. This is intel- ligible when we recollect that maregha, bird, becomes maru in Parsee (there must have been an original form, mareghu), whereas the Modern Persian has retained murgh^ which is nearer to the original. The change was effected thus : the final u acted upon the a of the first syllable, and made it into 6, as fre- quently happens in Bactrian : comp. paru, much, in the Median cuneiform character, Bactrian pouru. The clear a of the first syllable being thus thickened, the consonant gh was less audible in pronunciation, and gradually was dropped altogether. For the meaning of it, see above. — Maredha comes from mared, to murder, in the Jasna, and means murder, war. — Windischmann derives Vithush«m (Munch. Gelehrte Anzeigen Philos.-philolog. Klass, 1855, i. No. 4. p. 29.) from tush^ to be quieted, so that with the prefix vi it signifies un-rcsU I cannot acquiesce in this, although it is preferable to Spiegel's rendering, " evil re- ports," which arises from his misunderstanding the Huzuresh VOL. III. K K 498 THE AGE OF ZOROASTEE. [Book IV. Part VI. version. There is no connexion between it and vithuslii. It. 16, 15., which is simply the feminine participle present of vidvao, " the knowing." On the other hand, vithisi, It. 10, 80. (ac- cording to all the MSS.), which is like gata, slain, killed, would seem to have an analogy with Yithusham in this text. Its original form is somewhat difficult to discover, because we have observed a change of sound previously unknown, first noticed by myself (see the Zeitschr. der d.-morgenland. Ges. ix. p. 693.). This vithush«m is a feminine formed by means of a from the well-known vitare, by, over (in Modern Persian, gutter), and thus stands for vitare-a. In this form the e, which was pro- nounced short, would disappear ; the r passed into the original s, out of which it always grew in the neuter formations of re, kardshvarer vazdvare, &c. for instance, and by this transition the sound a was also thickened. The explanation is still more simple if we assume sd, slid, to be the ending, in which case it would have come from vitarsha. Ar must then have become ush; as hunusta evidently grew out of hunareta ; ^agerebustro of ^agerebartara ; and Zarathustra of Zarathatara. According to this, vithusha signifies, going through, passage, incursion, and this agrees perfectly with the word maredhd, murder, which un- questionably has that meaning, as mared means murder in Zend. In this way the parallel passages above cited can be satis- factorily explained. Verse 7. Bdhlidt This name is derived from bagha, lot, luck, and signifies pro- perly " fortunate spot," an appellation very suitable to Bactra, to which the epithet ^rira, the lucky, is applied. — Eredhwo- drafsha is applied adjectively to an army (haena) as in It. 1, 11. 4, 4. 13, 136. It signifies "with the tall banner," not " with uplifted banner," which is uzgerepto-drafsha. — Bravarem. The Huzuresli translation has dur-Z:akat, a word the meaning of which I have not yet been able to ascertain for certain. J^akat is the same as the Modern Persian Aakad, " crown of the head," and "peak of a mountain ; " dur means far — but the characters may be also read gor, which would signify desert, tomb, so that the whole would mean " barrow," " cemetery," the most unclean -^^ is not the Hebrew to speak, but stands for labour, trouble. Appendix.] NOTES TO THE FIRST FARGARD. 499 of places in the eyes of the Parsees. Anquetil translates it "ants," which seems to be sheer guesswork; Spiegel, *^ vora- cious animals." He gets this etymology from the Veclic hharv, to consume, to eat, which is applied to the Fire-God Agni, who consumes the wood. (Rv. 1, 143, 5. 6, 6, 2.) But as this root is of very rare occurrence, and may be a provincialism, I think it preferable to derive it from the Sanskrit hhram (Latin fremo), to wander about, originally to hum, to buzz, from which comes bhramara, the bee, as well as the German hremse, gadfly. There is nothing unusual in the transition from m to v. — The explanation of UA\adha5Aa is more difficult. The Huzuresh trans- lation and Spiegel do not notice it. Windischmann (loc. cit. p. 29.) reads u^dhas^a, as does one MS., and he compares it with the Sanskrit uddaTzsa, bug. Plausible as this derivation seems at first sight, there are many objections to it. The pre- position ut must before d have been changed to z (comp. uzdata, uzdaeza), and not one of the MSS. has az; besides which, it is difficult to understand why the n, which is so necessary here, should not be found in a single reading. The word nurtu which follows immediately after may lead to its real meaning, which Spiegel has very properly placed within brackets, as it is clear from the whole context that it is a later addition for the purpose of explanation. It exists in Modern Persian {iiurtu stands for nartu)y and signifies a stump, bough of a tree, and is likewise the name of a tree The Sanskrit n?-tu, worm, is too far- fetched. Hence usadhas^a seems to be the name of some noxious plant. It may be identical with the Vedic oshadhi plant, the pronunciation of which, even, is much more like it than udda;25a. Verse 8. Nhdim. The thema is Nisaya, from ni and ^i, to lie, in the sense of establishment, settlement. Vimanohiiu is an adjective, formed from vimanohya, from vi-mano, doubt, unbelief. Mod. Pers. guman, in the same sense. In proof that unbelief is here spoken of, compare the remarks about Ragha in the Introduction. Verse 9. Hardyii, Spiegel translates vis-harezanem, the predicate of Haroyu, *' which is rich in houses." This, however, is a decided mistake, IC K 2 500 THE AGE OF ZOROASTER. [Book IV. Part YI. as vis here lias not the full sio;nlfication of vi^. dwellino;, vicus. The Huzuresh translation is on the whole right ; it renders it by vis shakun, i. e. soaked with water. Vis in Zend means juice;" for instance, Jus. 10, 1. : \i3 apam, the juice of the waters (from the drops of Homa); Vend. 5, 36. : yatha \SLZghinskit vis-husko taro yare mereto, like a frog which is dead for a whole year, with its juices dried up : Vend. 20, 3., vis-Aithrem signifies a remedy. It was afterwards used in the sense of poison ; comp. It. 19, 40. and Bundeh. p. 9. 1. l.,ed. Westergaard; from which came the Sanskrit, visha, Latin, virus. — Harezanem, from harez, = Sanskrit, sjy, to dismiss ; Mod. Pers. hesh-ten, to leave, means dismissal, discharge. This predicate, discharging juice or water, agrees very well with the name Haroyu, which means stream- ing freely." — /S'araskem is still preserved in Parsee, 5ri.sk, Mod. Pers. sirishk, drop. It. 5, 120. 16, 10., we find a present participle, ssLYnskintae (dat. sing, masc), and ^arasAintyao (gen. sing, fern.), with words signifying to rain (var), and to snow (snaezh). There must be a connexion between it and our saraska and sirishk, and accordingly it properly means "dropping." Rain- drops never do harm except when they fall on the ground in a frozen state in the shape of hail. As in the passage before us 5ara.ska is mentioned as a curse, we cannot after these remarks understand any thing else by it but hail. This is confirmed also by the derivation, wdiich is from the root sar, whence comes ^areta, frozen. Driwika cannot be referred to anything but driwi, poverty (whence Mod. Pers. derwish). Drbhika in Vedic (Rv. ii. 14, 3.), a designation of the da3mons, Vrtra, who keep off the rain, corresponds to it. Verse 10. Vackereta. The Huzuresh translators understand the Pairika Khn«thaiti to signify " idol worship." The origin of this meaning is pro- bably to be sought in some old reminiscence of the worship of a Pairika. In the valley of Pishin, to the east of Se^/estan, fairies, the Paricani of the classics, are to this day worshipped by the natives. The word upazzha^a^ is applied to something which sticks permanently, and attaches itself to a specific person. It is very common, for instance in Jesht 19., in which is eulogized the brightness " which settled upon various heroes of antiquity, and accompanied them all their lives. !Now the Pairika who Appendix] NOTES TO THE FIRST FARGARD. 501 attached herself to Kere^aspa does not seem to have been ori- ginally considered as an evil genius, for to all appearance the wonderful exploits of that hero were performed under her influence. Yerse 11. Urvd {Kabul). Aiwistara is hercAvithout a predicate, though at verse 18. we find anairya dawheus aiwistara, and at verse 20. taozhya daw- heus aiwistara. Judging from these adjectives, it is a word of more general signification, which must imply "misfortune," *'evil." There are two possible derivations for it. It may come from the root stare, to strew, and aiwi, about. It is used principally of strewing about the baresma (It. 13, 27. 94.) and the barezis, which is synonymous = Ved. barhis. (It. 5, 102.). But it also means to upset, to throw down, in which sense we find it applied specially to the discomfiture of evil spirits (Vend. 19, 2., stareto, overthrown). It is still found in the original sense of strewing, in the Mod. Pers. word bister, bed, mattress, which comes from aiwi-5tara. This, however, will not do for our aiwistara, whereas the meaning we adopt would suit it very well. There is, however, another possible derivation. We may divide it into aiwis-tara, from the root tar, to pass through, whence comes taro, dingonally through, perverse, bad ; It. 8, 8. 39., the causative, titarayeiti, is used of driving away the Pairikas. The Mod. Pers. has a word bistar, weak, unsteady, which is certainly a mutilated form of aiwistara. From which of these two roots it is derived, it is difficult with certainty to decide. As regards the sense it is almost the same thing ; in one case we have the idea of upsetting, in the other, that of driving through and expelling, and in them both that of devastation and wasting. This is alluded to in the predicate anairya (verse 18.), which is not applied here in the proposed sense of " bad," as Spiegel supposes, but is to be taken in its original meaning, " not Arian," as contrasted with " Arian." The anairya aiwis- tara are devastations of an Arian country by wild and barbarous tribes. Verse 12. KJmenta (Kandahar). Naro-vaepaya, literally sowing of men," i. c. Paederastism. This is a vice most strictly prohibited, and considered as an in- expiable sin. Vend. 8, 32. The pathicus is termed vipto. K K 3 502 THE AGE OF ZOROASTER. [Book IV. Part VI. Verse 1 3. Haraqaiti {Arachosia). Na^uspaya may be divided into na^u-^paya, removal of the dead, and na^us-paya, preserving the dead. The latter is un- doubtedly the right meaning. We must understand by it the burial of the dead, which notoriously was considered in the Zarathustrian religion as the greatest desecration of holy earth. Verses 14. 15. Ilaetumal {Hilmeiid), Aglia yatava, Jatu sins. The Parsees have lost the real meaning of it ; they understand by it murder. In general in the Zendavestathe Yatavo are classed with the Pairikao (It. 1, 6. 8, 44. 3, 5. 5, 13. 19, 29.) and evil spirits. They are not, how- ever, considered spiritual beings, but men ; for instance, 8, 44.; yatavo mashyan«m, the Jatus among men. The adjective yatuma^ of frequent occurrence is derived from yatu by means of ma^, which we find equivalent to yatu ; for instance, It. 15, 56. : noi^ yatavo, noi^yatumao, "not Jatus, not Jatu-like." Vend. 21, 17. and. It 3, 16., yatumaiti is an epithet of ^ahi, a rival; Ja^. 61, 3., za?id«m (a shameful wretch) and yatumat«m are synonymous. But in Vend. 20, 1. we find it between yaokhstiva^ (provided with means) and raeva^ (rich) as a predicate of physicians. Vend. 3, 41., yatughni, the murder of a Yatu, is mentioned with ashava^hni, the murder of a pure person, and like the latter is regarded as an expiable crime. In Mod. Pers. yatu exists in the form of ^adu, meaning " enchanter " : ^adu- sukhun (one who speaks magical words) means, on the contrary, a poet. It would be difficult from these notices to get a clear idea of the nature of the Jatus, did not the Vedas on this, as well as many other obscure points, supply us with fuller infor- mation. The last song (104.) in the seventh book of the Kigveda furnishes the best clue to it, and the same is repeated in the Atharva-veda with some slight alterations (8, 4.). It is an address to the two Gods Indra and Soma, who are invoked to destroy the evil daemons, RakshasuA and Yatudhana^. I will give the most salient points. They injure the life of man (ver. 15.), they destroy them by charms (maya, 25.), they change themselves into birds, fly by night, polhite sacrifices (18.) and spoil the butter (21.). They are both male and Appendix.] NOTES TO THE FIRST FARGARD. 503 female (24.) ; they take the form of owls, vultures, dogs, and other animals (22.). The author of the song curses any one who calls a person who is not a Jatu, a Jatudhana. Indra will slay such calumniators (16.). Any one conversant with German mythology will see at once that there is a connexion between these J atus and our witches. The name, too, exactly suits such an idea and nature. Yatu means a going or w^andering up and down, in the concrete, one roving backwards and forwards. In the Veda they are usually called Yatu-dhana, i. e. those whose nature it is to move about, to wander up and down at night. Yatuma^has the same meaning, as we find in the Zendavesta. It is one disposed to witchery, as the popular German belief like- wise is that a special tendency to it is requisite. At verse 15. their nature is somewhat more particularly described. They are in league with Awgro Mainyus, as in the German superstition they are with the devil. He practises a number of deceitful tricks, and appears under a great variety of forms. If these arts are communicated by him to those who are disposed to sorcery, (with us also the witches are instructed by the devil,) they then become perfect adepts in witchery, and set out under the most hideous shapes to execute their deeds of murder and destruction. — Aem is connected with Awgro Mainyus. In regard to dakhstem, see my notes on Ja.sna 34, 6. — Paiti-daya is derived from di, to see (common in the Zendavesta), and paiti. It is the thing wdiich offers itself to the sight, the form, and is still retained in Mod. Pers. paida, obvious. — Some MSS. have a better reading for kava/ta, kava/^i^, which is only an inaccurate way of pronouncing kva^i^. The meaning is, *^ wheresoever." — Zaoyehe: It. 13, 23. 148., the plural zaoayo is a predi- cate of the Fravashi. It means literally " worth invoking," "worthy of veneration "= Sanskr. havya, as is clear upon comparing 13, 23. and 24. In the passage before us, zaoyehe is a genitive absolute, used adverbially in the sense of invocation. Comp. zaveng gasatd, Jasn. 28,4., with my note. — Khstamiis the Mod. Pers. shtam, hideous, ugly ; ^at, or ^adha, as some MSS. read it, is identical with the Sanskrit Aad, to conceal, cover, and it occurs also in Zend in derivatives. Madha-kha can come from nothing but madha = madhu, sweet, intoxicating drink. This refers to enchanted potions by which the devotees of Jatu injure man. See the note to Jasna 48, 10., upon Madha as a name of the Soma in a bad sense. K K 4 504 THE AGE OF ZOROASTEB. [Book IV. Part VI. Verse 16. Eagh. (Ehagce^ Rei). AYe have ah^eady offered some remarks upon this verse in the Introduction (p. 485.). Verse 17. {Kakhra (Karkh in Khorassan). Na5US-paAya, more correctly written nasus-paAaya ; pa^, to cook = coquere, here signifies the burning of the dead (see Windischmann, loc. cit. p. 30.). Verse 18. Varena (Ghilan). Arathwya, adjective from ratu. This word, which is iden- tical with the Sanskrit rtu, signifies first a regularly recurring period (literally, a course), a time of the day or year, then a law, ordinance (for the sake of regularity). In the latter sense it was frequently used in the concrete, and signified the law- giver, the leader of the ranks, the leader (for further particulars see the glossary to the songs of Zarathustra). According to this, the adjective rathwya, as well as the negative of it, arathwya, may bear the three following significations : — First, regularly or irregularly recurring, It. 10, 67.: Mithra pro- ceeds rathwya Fakhra ha^imno, " followed by the regularly re- curring wheel," i.e. of the sun. It. 5, 2., the Anahita brings milk to those who are pregnant, rathwim paema, " at the right time, at the regular time " : — Secondly, lawfully or unlawfully. It. 10, 30. 31.: to worship rathwya yasna, "with the prayer prescribed by law : " 24. 47. : arathwya khshathra, unlawful dominion:" — Thirdly, recognising or not recognising Zarathustra as the Supreme Being; i. e. orthodox or heretical, Afrigan 1, 16, 17.; rathwy6-mana?^hem, and arathwyo-mana^^hem, with orthodox or unorthodox views, and in like manner rathwyo- vaAawhem and arathwy6-vaAa?^hem, rathwyo-skyaothnem, and arathwyo-skyaothnem. The arathwya dakhsta in the verse before us is used in the second sense, and signifies the deceit^ ful arts of Ahriman as forbidden and unlawful. Perhaps we may understand by them diseases. Appendix.] NOTES TO THE FIRST FARGARD. 505 Verse 19. Hapta Hindu {Indus country). Garemaum, or, as it is read more correctly in some MSS., garemaom. This accusative implies the existence of a nomina- tive, garemu or garemava, which does not occur again in the Zenda vesta. Whether it has the same meaning as garema, heat, is questionable. What was the object of such a new and very strange-looking formation, if the simple garema would answer the purpose ? It is probably an error of transcription for garenaom, from garenu, fever (It. 13, 131.). The m, instead of n, might easily occur, owing to the accusative ending in m. In connexion with arathwya it signifies fevers which do not come on at definite periods, but are intermittent and irregular, some- times at one time, sometimes at another, and which assume the form of pestilence. Verse 20. World-Oceaii, Upa aodhaeshu rawhayao. Spiegel is wrong in translating it in the East of Ka?2ha." On comparing the parallel passages we see at once that Kaziha here is not the name of a particular place, but means a lake or sea generally. For instance. It. 14, 29. 16, 7. : Karo ma^yo upapo yo rawhayao durae-parayao ^/afrayao, the fish, kar, which is in the water, in the broad sea (properly, with distant shores), the deep ; 15, 27. : upa gudhem rarthayao Mazda-dhatayao, in the deep of the sea created by Mazda; comp. further 5,81. 10, 104. The corresponding word in the Veda, rasa, signifies generally " water, " " moisture," (Kv. 4, 43, 6.) and then it seems to have become the name of a river, of which we know nothing more (Rv. 5, 53, 9.). Every- thing seems to show that in the Zendavesta it does not mean a river — the subsequent remarks in the verse before us would not be suitable — but a lake or sea. Probably it is the Great Ocean. — Aodhaeshu. It. 12, 18. 19., we find a contrast between upa aodhaeshu rawhayao and upa 5anke rawhayao. iS'anka is probably identical with the Sanskr. ^awkha, muscle, and signifies the bottom of the sea : aodhaeshu offers a tempting similarity to udaka, water ; but the dh creates a diflSculty : besides, it would be remarkable if the ordinary word for water, afs, were not used here. It is identical with the Sanskrit avadhi, border, and signifies, in contradistinction to the bottom 506 THE AGE OF ZOROASTER. [Book IV. Part VI. of the sea, the sea sliore. — Asaro, without ramparts; comp. sara, protection. It. 5, 77. 14, 46. 12., with the Sanskrit .sarma, refuge. Taozhya must not be compared with the Sans- krit tushara, cold, but is derived from tug, to shake, to swing, which is retained in the Armenian in the form tuzh-yel, to punish. In the passage before us it is the adjective to aiwis- tara. By these shocks we are probably to understand earth- quakes. Verse 21. Concluding verse. Gufra is derived from gub, to say, to speak, and means cele- brated; comp. Vend. 21, 13. In regard to frasha, see the note to Ja.s. 34, 9., in my work "The Gathas, or Songs of Zara- thustra, published, translated, and explained." PART VII THE HISTOIUCAL EPOCHS AND DATES OF THE ARIANS IN INDIA. 509 SECTION 1. THE HISTOKICAL ELEMENT IN THE VEDAS AND LISTS OF KINGS, AND THE LOCALITIES, COMPARED WITH THE AC- COUNTS IN MEGASTHENES. A. THE HISTORICAL ELEMENT IN THE VEDAS, LISTS OF KINGS, AND LOCALITIES. Historical research upon India has shared pretty nearly the same fate as the geological investigations about the antiquity of the earth, which were set on foot almost at the same time. Sir William Jones was the Buffon of Indian chronology, and he, as well as the un- critical Wilford even, reckoned for a considerable period amoHfr their followers the students of the Romantic and Indo-Germanic school in France, and more especially in Germany. The enthusiasm excited in favour of Sans- krit, owing to its important bearing on philology and the pantheistic, semi-mystical, semi-poetical philosophy, exercised no very favourable influence on the criticism of German investigators. This period was succeeded by one of sober research under Colebrooke and Wilson, and their adherents Burnouf and Lassen. All the members of the more modern German Sanskrit school, as represented by Benfey, Roth, Max Miiller, and AYeber, have maintained the same standard of criticism. In regard to dates, a reaction has evidently taken place, and it is now in full swing. Its prevailing feature is doubt as to whether there is any thing historical in the Indian accounts prior to Alexander the Great, and the 510 ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [Book IV. Part YII. decision indeed is against it. In my opinion the task of the historical critic is far from being concluded, but no remedy is to be looked for so long as Indian chronological research is carried on apart from the history of the Iranian Arians, and the rest of Central Asia. True it is that the Sanskrit Indians have, of all the Arian races, the least turn for historical pursuits. With them everything resolves itself into the ideal and sym- bolical, and then assumes a fantastic shape. But what right have we to extend this to the Vedic Indians, between whose intellectual tendencies and lite- rature and that of the other Indians there is so marked a contrast, that it seems as if a deep chasm divided them ? The former are merely Iranian Arians who crossed the Indus, as regards their language, their cus- toms, and religious observances. The few extant, but therefore more valuable, re- mains of their tradition prove that these Iranian Arians had not forgotten their earliest times. These will be brought into notice in the Fifth Book. How, indeed, could these reminiscences have been entirely lost in India at so early a date as that of the oldest Vedas, which are the monuments of Arian life in the country of the Five Kivers ? For these Iranian Arians had not then adopted strictly Indian habits ; they were not yet wholly immersed in the moral intoxication of Brah- minical life, for whose votaries the realities of the world and the sanctity of history possessed no attractions or value. According to the views of many modern Indian critics, indeed, all inquiry into the earlier times of India is a hopeless task, not only owing to the dreadful con- fusion (which cannot be denied) in the epic traditions with which we are at present acquainted, as well as the subsequent narratives, but because no authentic records have ever existed at all. AYe know enough, it is said, of the history of Indian literature to make us scout such Sect. I. A.] THE VEDAS AND LISTS OF KINGS. 511 an idea as that annals once existed, which now are lost, to which Megasthenes may have had access. Any critic accustomed to biblical and Egyptian researches would see at once the serious flaw in the reasoning by which such a conclusion was arrived at. Weber's learned sy- nopsis of Indian literature may suffice to prove how much of it, even down to the titlepage, has perished. But assuming there never were Indian annals, strictly historical chronicles, there may still have been genea- logical registers containing more or less connected dates, accompanied by historical popular ballads, and tliat indeed in Yedic times, or at least very soon after. Such records, connected with their royal houses, are cited in both the epic histories. This is sufficient proof that several such existed, and, in fact, that though they exhibited considerable discrepancies in details, their common origin and the existence of a sort of settled framework are undeniable. There is no other way of explaining the common element in the long tradition of their primitive ages, which does not possess, and can never have possessed, any mythological meaning what- ever, or any meaning but an historical one. This com- mon historical element is found in the old hymns, as compared with the Puranas and the epic narrators. How else can the occurrence of single isolated dates in our Sanskrit records, in reference to the length of certain periods, be accounted for, to say nothing at present about Megasthenes ? Dates which are entirely inap- propriate to all known traditions, astronomical as w^ell as poetico-historical, recommend themselves, on the con- trary, in preference to all others, in the estimation of the greatest critics. This, in the opinion of two com- mentators of the highest order, Wilson and Lassen, is especially the case as regards the commencement of the Kaliyug, an era said to have been current nearly 5000 years (3102 B.C.). We believe we shall be able to prove that it cannot have commenced till the tenth cen- 512 ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [Buok lY. Part Yll. tury before the Christian era, so that an extant very noteworthy date in the Brahminical books, although unsupported elsewhere, fixing it at about 1400 B.C., comes very close to the historical truth, as contrasted with the assumption of the present system. Anuvansa, i. e. lists of kings, and genealogies, called Gotra-vansa if they contained the succession with a few short detached notices about the heads of tribes, were the groundwork on which the compilers of the earlier portions of these glorious legends based their nar- ratives. There may have been hundreds of these which have long since perished ; we have, indeed, direct evi- dence that such was the case. The Mahabharata con- tains two lists of kings of the race of the Moon which differ from each other. In one of them distichs are quoted from an older record, an Anuvansa in which facts were given as well as names.^^^ I will, however, at once admit that in my opinion none of these Sanskrit sources of information have any historical value, ex- cept in so far as they relate to matters wathin a cer- tain range of sharply distinguished epochs. Personal history can only be introduced as an exceptional case, and even then the details are very doubtful. In the epics, Yi.svamitra is a king ; it is true that his name occurs also in the Yedas, but there he is a minstrel in the service of several kings and tribes in the Indus country. All the ballads in the third book of the Rig- veda are attributed to Yisvamitra, or, rather, the suc- cessors of Yi.svamitra. On other occasions two names occur connected with each other, but the son of a hero in the epos is the father in the Yedas. The Yedic Gods, in the Sanskrit period, are completely thrown into the background by others of whom the Yedas either know nothing at all, 5iva for instance, or else use their names in a totally different sense, as is the case with 2-0 Lassen, i. 494. 221 Id. p. 495. Sect. I. A.] THE VEDAS AND LISTS OF KINGS. • 518 Brahma and Vishnu. For these reasons, therefore, the history of the early times may be regarded as sys- tematically adulterated or adjusted by the Brahmins themselves in those epic poems, and in the notices an- nexed to the ancient hymns. A large portion is bor- rowed from historical sources, and dressed up in an ideal shape. There is a striking instance of it in their fantastic system of the ages of the world and its cata- strophes ; this we find most complete in the Manu, which is probably a patchwork posterior to Buddha. Xot the slightest trace of this nonsense about millions of years is discoverable in the Puranas and the older lists of the two epics. We have four eras, with a num- ber of kings who reigned 1000 years and upwards, to- gether with others who only reigned 30 or 40. But there are no cosmical eras ; the first even does not appear in that shape : and yet it is this compara- tively modern nonsense which has induced almost all recent investigators to regard the original portion of the tradition of the four epochs as a poetical version of the Ages of the World, and to think themselves relieved from the necessity of instituting further researches. The older tradition carries us from the re^rion of dreams into the periods of strict history. The distinction of epochs strengthens the basis of the assumption that we are now, generally speaking, on historical ground, what* ever may be the value of some particular details. For it is very true that its value must first be tested in those details. To expect to find anything better in the chronicles, which have themselves grown out of these epical descriptions, would be hopeless. It would be very like attempting to restore the history of the Franks and of Charlemagne from the romance of the Gesta Fran- corum," instead of from contemporary sources. They all connect the history of their royal race with the mythical generation, just as the " Gesta " connect the Franks with iEneas and Ascanius. VOL. III. L L 514 . ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [Book IV. Part VII. Now, if even in the Sanskrit the older tradition be the sober one, and the pure fiction its later form, so in the oldest hymns of the Yedas we are not only on strictly historical ground, but contemporary subjects are very frequently treated of. It is true that notices of this kind are only casual, yet, even with our present partial knowledge of these primeval lays, they do not contain so little historical matter as is generally sup- posed. It is clear from what has been published by Eoth and Weber, by the one on the historical matter in the Rik, by the other in the corresponding passages in the Jasus, that these historical remarks deserve our most serious consideration. But even here the palpable discrepancies are evident proofs of the systematic and popular recasting of the old tradition. This mutilation of the ancient history commences, it is true, with the original stock of the two epics, the Rama- yana, or narrative of the exploits of Rama, and the Maha- bharata, the groundwork of which seems to be the great war of extermination between the Royal races in Kuruk- 6'etra. Both these epics were for a long time transmitted orally, that is, were sung.^'^'^ Indeed the Mahabharata, in its present shape, bears on the face of it evidence of three fourths being a new composition. It embraces the whole of India, whereas the other ejDos only notices the northern parts as Arian. Every thing to the south of the Vindya mountains is represented as desert. The best chronicle, that of Cashmir, was only com- posed in the year 1125 of our era, and yet it evidently contains a general historical tradition about Cashmir from 1182 b. c, that is from the reign of the so-called third Gonarda. The learned author nevertheless com- plains bitterly that the accounts are very contradictory ; and so late as 600 years before his time the thread of 222 Lassen, i. 482. seq. Sect. I. A.] THE VEDAS AND LISTS OF KINGS. 515 the narrative breaks off, so that he is obliged to make one of his kings reign 300 years. The Buddhistic annals are just as uncritical as the Brahmanic in respect to the period prior to Buddha. As regards the Puranas ("antiquity"), of which we possess eighteen, it appears from an old account of their contents that the ancient form has been totally altered, and the present composition is of very late date.^^^ They are especially connected with the Mahabharata, the epos of the third era, which is itself of a very prosaic character, but represent every thing in the sense of the subsequent religious worship, whether that of Vishnu or of Siva, The sources whence their information as to the later periods was derived were oral traditions and written documents, composed out of those which referred to the current era. The Mahabharata contains allusions to Buddhism, which became dominant in the time of Asoka (about 250) : indeed the mention of the zodiac proves their date to be posterior to the Christian era. Lassen compares the older Puranas with the Logo- graphers. Their authors belonged to the sacerdotal caste, as did the authors of the heroic poems.-^^ We must, indeed, conclude from the above, that, if we cannot estabhsh from extraneous sources the reality of the four great eras of Indian history, it is impossible to restore its framework at all. All we can hope is, that, if by any other means such a framework can be esta- blished, traces of historical matter may be discovered in these confused traditions and poetical narratives. It will never be possible to settle the main question, whether the four eras were historical, and what was the peculiar characteristic of each. There might possibly be a rea- sonable expectation of culling out from the confused Lassen, Masterly Criticism, i. 473 seq. lb. 479. seq. 225 Jb. 481. seq. 516 ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [Book IV. Part YII. mass a few items towards filling up the outline which had been obtained. There is one important circumstance which seems to justify such an expectation. Amidst all this confusion, the nucleus of these descriptions exhibits unmistakable marks of organic progress in the Arian countries which are successively introduced : locally, from the Indus to the Ganges country, and to Bengal (Behar) ; and intel- lectually, ill the progressive establishment and working out of Brahminism. It is clear that the first epoch of the Arian kingdoms in India only comprises the country of the Seven Rivers (the country of the five rivers, or Punjab) ; and to that locality also all the narratives of the first period refer. The horizon of the succeeding narratives is as un- mistakably the country of the Sarasvati, whence we are carried into the northern part of the Doab, or country of the Two Streams, between the Yamuna and the Ganges. It is also beyond a doubt that the passage of the Sutledj forms the commencement of a fresh era in the life of the Arians : here originated the institutions of caste and Brahma-worship. It may indeed at first sight seem questionable from these descriptions, whether not only the foundation and establishment, but also the decline, of the Arian kingdoms which were formed in Hindostan belong to this second era, or whether the decline did not take place in the third. Upon closer examination, however, w^e shall find conclusive reasons in favour of the former being the more correct view. The removal of the royal residence to the confluence of the Sonsi and Ganges, that is, to Pataliputra (Pali- bothra), is the first step towards the extension of the empire to the frontier of Behar on the Ganges, beyond the Yindya mountains. It is at this last stage of Arian progress that we find all the kingdoms and heroes, im- mediately preceding the fourth and last era. There cannot be a sharper line of demarcation drawn than Sect. I. A.] THE VEDAS AND LISTS OF KINGS. 517 between the third and fourth eras. The last three steps afrairi seem in direct contrast to the first. The state of civilisation of India Proper and that of the Indus coun- try are in such direct contrast to each other, that it woukl seem as though the primeval times were becoming con- stantly more and more alien from, and even antagonistic to, its later phases. Now though we may choose in the first instance to leave the question in abeyance at this point, when and why the line was drawn between the third and second eras, still these so-called cosmic eras so obviously coin- cide with the progressive territorial extension, as well as local and historical epochs, that this in itself would induce us to suspect that, upon the whole, this history has not been tampered with to such an extent as modern Indian investigators, in their despair, seem inclined to assume. There is no evidence either that tradition had lost sight of the great epochs, or that they w^ere pure inventions. On the contrary, our preliminary view is quite compatible with the admission or assumption that more recent events have frequently been substituted for those of ancient date, and that many incidents in the epic narratives are mere poetical inventions. Where detached ballads and the pedigrees of princely families are the only sources of information, genealogical forgery and myth will not be wanting ; and where a new priest- hood, founded upon a strict system of caste and a new mythology, holds the literature of a country in its hands, everything of more ancient- date will be systematically falsified. This, however, is not inconsistent with the fundamental view which I feel myself called upon to entertain : that the cosmic eras are merely the most modern phase of this Brahminical adulteration ; namely, a sublimated representation of the four real great epochs of Arian life in India, as it appeared originally to the imagination of the nation at large in the fourth. L L 3 518 ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [Book IV. Part VII'. We come to this same conclusion after examining more closely the story about the destruction of the world which is three times repeated. These mythic ages are notoriously separated by cataclysms of thou- sands of years. Xow, if we regard the form of the cosmic ages in the light of mythical offsets of real eras, we may also assume that these descriptions of the destructions and eclipses of the world have also grown out of the fantastic versions of traditional catastrophes which really occurred in India during the first three epochs. There are two facts which have not been made use of for the purposes of history, which convert this assump- tion into certainty, as well it would seem, as that of the four ages themselves. One is the account of Mega- sthenes as compared with the cosmic ages, which first come under notice in the Code of Manu, and with that portion of the epic narrative which is historical. The second is the history of the language and literature in the existing records. When instituting the former of these inquiries we shall also have an opportunity of saying a word about the synchronisms. THE FOUR SO-CALLED COSMIC AGES, AND THE THREE ERAS OF MEGASTHENE?, WHEN THERE WERE NO KINGS. AccoiiDiNG to Manu, the world had passed through three ages (Yuga) ; for about 5000 years, therefore, we have been living in the fourth. The synopsis is as follows : Satya (Krita), 4800 years of Gods (reckoned each at 360 human years) - - 1,728,000. Sect. I. B.] THE KINGLESS AGES. 519 Treta - 3600 yrs of Gods, each=360 human 1,296,000. Dvapara 2400 „ „ „ 864,000. Kali - 1200 „ „ 432,000. In the first book of Manu (composed but little ante- rior to the Christian era) these names are explained as follows : I. Truth - - prevailing Piety. 11. The three sacrifi- cial flames III. Doubt - - ,, Sacrificial worship, IV. Sins - - „ Liberality. \ ,, Knowledge. Max Mliller thinks, and Lassen agrees with him, that the original meaning of this was connected with the changes of the moon : First quarter — second quarter — third — wane. But the same idea might, nevertheless, be expressed, as is implied by the traditional explanation : That the second period represents the zenith of the power and prosperity of India, which in the third began to decline, and in the fourth was still further obscured, and ultimately became almost evanescent. The three critical questions we have to answer will, consequently, be these ; Whether this originally referred to the epochs of Indian history, of which there are extant accounts ; whether they correspond with the historical turning-points ; and whether these can be pointed out. The absurd Brahminical dates clearly refer to the equally unhistorical number of twelve thousand years, which, according to the modern Parsee Books, is to be the term of the human race ; after the fourth and last L L 4 520 ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [Book lY. Part VII. period of which the redemption from the power of evil is to be effected. The fact of there being an error of fully two thousand years in the calculation of the starting-point of the current era, is sufficient proof how little acquaintance the Brahmins had with the history of their own country. Assuming, as they have done for a tolerably long period, that this era commenced on the 18th of Fe- bruary of the year which corresponds with 3102 b.'c, the reign of Sandrokottus, king of Palibothra, the con- temporary of Alexander and Seleucus, commenced in the year 1503 B.C. The date of Buddha, who is just as historical a personage as either of these two great sovereigns, is in precisely the same category. But, modern and confused as these epic poems may be, we have no right to charge them with anything so absurd as this era. The best proof of the recent date and corruption of these poetical rhapsodies is furnished by the accounts of Megasthenes, the well- informed, and indeed learned, envoy of Seleucus Ni- canor, who, after the short war with Sandrokottus, maintained friendly relations at the court of Pali- bothra between Syria and India, and effected a matri- monial alliance. It is now perfectly clear, thanks to Schwanbeck's excellent arrangement of the fragments of his work, that the nonsensical stories there told about extraordinary animals, and men without noses or mouths, are taken verbatim from the Sanskrit tra- ditions. It is true that we cannot give Megasthenes credit for much criticism ; still we must do justice to the fidelity of his narrative. Arrian, in his Indian history, has, among other extracts, transmitted very valuable frao-ments of the lists of kino-s which Meo:a- sthenes found means of consulting ; his statements, indeed, about the Indians themselves, were the principal source from which both the Greeks and Romans de- rived from that time forth all their information. We Sect. L B.] THE KINGLESS AGES. 521 are especially indebted to Lassen for having established their genuine character and importance. In following out the line of criticism which has been thus marked out, we must begin by restoring the text of the principal passage. We find it there stated, in the first place, that between the reign of Dionysus, who 226 Zeitsch. fiir die Kunde des Morgenl. vol. v. (1844), p. 232—259., remarks upon Benfej's attempt, in the same volume, to restore the list of Megasthenes. Lassen afterwards propounded the same views in his great work (i. 509. seq.), which Duncker has likewise adopted. 227 Arriani Indica, ix. 9. p. 320. Did. : 'Atto fxev di] Aiovvaov /3a- criXiojg rjpidfxeoy 'li'^ot eg ^aycpoKorrop TpeiQ Kai TrsprriKOVTa nai eKarcn^, erea Bvo Kai r e a a a pn ico ff la Ka) e^aKi(r)(^iXia. (The MSS., which are evidently all from one source, as appears from there being the same lacuna in each directly after this, have reaaapaKovTa. In all the MSS. of Pliny (vi. 2.), which are, in other respects, independent, the number of kings is 153 (154), and 6401 (6402) years, the same number as Solinus (Polyh. 53.) also gave.) 'Ej^ tovtoktl rplc to ndv eiQ eXevdepiTju . . . , rriu /cat eg rpirji^ocria, Trji' {'iKoai te krewv tcai EKarov. There can be no doubt as to the meaning of this passage, when we compare it with the parallel passage in Diodorus. He says (ii. 38. end), at last, a long time after Dionysus, tcaraXvdEiarjQ Tfjg jjyEfjopiag drifjLOKparridfjrat Tcig TToXEig : and then a little lower down (c. 39.), after speaking about Hercules, the ruler in the 15th genera- tion : varepov Ze -KoXXolg tTEai rag TrXElarag fXEV rutv ttoAcwv ^rjjdOKpurr]- Oiji^ai, Tivo)v ^E kdvwv Tag l3a(riXEiag ^m^uetvai fJ-^XP'- '^^^ 'AXe^ar^pou dia€a(T£(i)g. Megasthenes, therefore, who was also Diodorus' autho- rity, cannot have repeated Brahminical dreams about former ages and cataclysms, but simply stated that the succession of kings was three times interrupted by the overthrow of the existing dynasties, and the establishment of a republic. The first number, however, which is lost, must have been less than 300, as we read in the second part of the sentence, "even as long as 300 years." Now supposing the lost number to have been dirjKoaia, the omission can be explained, and the sentence may be naturally restored, somewhat in the following manner: 'Ky tovtoktl Tpig I2TANAI eXEvOepirji', tj) y fXEv eg dirj- KoaiUy Trjy ^e kul eg TpirjKoaia, Tip' ^e eIkogl te hiioy kcu EKaToy. The word laTayai is used as it is by Herodotus, instead of the ordinary one, KuQiffTayai ; the first two letters were left out because the copyist thought the repetition of the two preceding letters was a mistake. In this way both the word and whole passage became unintelligible, and an attempt was made to correct it with EX£vd£pir}y by means of a preposition. 522 ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [Book IV. Part VII. was succeeded by Spatembas, and that of Sandrokottus, there were 153 kings. The best MSS. of Pliny give the same number, as borrowed from the same passage. They are said to have reigned 6042 years ; all the MSS. of Pliny have 6451, except one, which has 6452. The latter number therefore is better authenticated than that of Arrian, all the extant MSS. of which are copied from one source, as appears by the lacuna in this passage. There are a few words left out in the sentence quoted ; but, as Duncker remarks, the meaning evi- dently is, that the succession of kings was three times interrupted by the introduction of self-government, which Diodorus, in two parallel passages, calls the estab- lishment of a democracy in the separate cities or states. But, by a slight emendation of tne text, the passage not only states so unequivocally, but subjoins also that the first of these periods lasted 200, the third as much as 300 years, and the last 120. All this reads rational enough. The critical conclusions we draw from it, in the first place, are these : I. That the list of Megasthenes did not, as Lassen supposes, commence with the Treta^^^, or second age, but with the first, just like the Sanskrit ac- counts ; for three breaks in the series of kings imply that there must have been four series. II. That the whole series is considered as a single one, and indeed a purely Indian series, one complete as regards the particular one which went down to the Maghada empires, and in so far historical. The calculation of Megasthenes commences with the beginnings in the Indus country, and goes down to the accession of Sandrokottus. III. That the mode of procedure here adopted is pe- culiar to this list exclusively. No other known Indian tradition contains any succession. What- 228 Zeitsch. V. 254. seq. Sect. I. B.] THE KINGLESS AGES. 523 ever may be the historical value of the number of the reigns and their duration, we know, at all events, what must be the greatest possible number, as we have a given date for the starting-point. IV. That the interruptions in the monarchical series were occasioned by the extinction of some ancient royal houses, and more extensive royal kingdoms, the formation of which was always the aim of the Indian Arians, although they were never able to realise national unity. The consequence was periodical interregna, intervals of revolution and internal conflict, out of which new kingdoms sprang up. Revolutions of this kind must have either arisen from internal circumstances, or from attacks oriorinatino; or directed from without. Y. That in examining the lists of princes which obviously formed the groundwork in Megasthenes' lists of the royal series, we shall have to consider the pos- sibility, the probability indeed, of there having been lists of reigns contemporaneous with each other, which were incorporated into a consecutive series in India, as it is certain there were in Egypt. The mythical names and dates will also have to be eliminated. YI. That we stand upon historical ground, and that we are not dealing, as in the case of the Brahminical computations, with purely fantastical inventions of worlds and world-eras. Yet, at the bottom even of these, there is obviously some matter of fact, and that too in many points which seem to be mere astronomical dreams, or the result of observations inaccurately made, or transmitted without reflec- tion. We will take a single instance, the tradi- tional change in the position of the seven stars in the Great Bear. I candidly confess my difliculty in believing that this is a pure invention. I refer it to an observation of the north pole, and the altera- 524 ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [Book IV. Part VII. tion occasioned by it in the position of that splen- did constellation, which would present as remark- able an appearance to the Indians or their authori- ties, as it did to the Phoenicians. Unhistorical dates are also not unfrequently mere stopgaps, yil. That we must consider the term of a thousand years, adopted by Megasthenes for mythical reigns, or derangements in the royal lists which cannot be chronologically defined, as a mythical number. For it occurs at least three times in the old Indian history, as representing an undefinable lacuna.^^^ VIII. That the three dates of the interregna (200 — 300 — 120) are simply and solely the historical ex- pression for these lacuna?, out of which the Brah- mins have made catastrophes of 400, 300, and 200 years of Gods, according to what is obviously on the face of it a fictitious system. IX. That should the conclusion be forced upon us that the list of Megasthenes also contains a similar my- thical computation at the end of one of the first three periods, we shall be bound to discard them from chronological criticism, inasmuch as the whole term has been computed in the three historical dates. X. That it would be unscientific to expect to find authentic chronology in his list, or any historical connexion in the Brahminical traditions. In the one case, however, we have, after the mythical beginnings, a succession of time progressive and historical ; in the other a reminiscence of the fall of the reigning houses, which occurred three times, and of the great epochs of Indian history which were thereby separated ofi* and defined. Now it is obvious that this list must have included mythical names and dates, although traditional, and of 229 Lassen, i. 709. ; comp. 503. Sect. I. B.j THE KINGLESS AGES. 525 genuine Indian origin, when we consider that we have 153 kings in 6402 years, giving an average of twenty- two years to a reign. The following synopsis will show what is the value of the historical matter in the first period. Meo^asthenes stated that the first kino^ was Diony- sus. He found a rude population in a savage state, clothed in skins, unacquainted with agriculture, and without fixed habitations. The length of his reign is not given. According to Diodorus, he died in India. The introduction of civilisation and agriculture is a natural allusion to the immigration of the Arians into a country inhabited by Turanian races. Dionysus was succeeded by his colleague Spatembas, who reigned fifty-two years, wdiich term was assigned by Diodorus to Dionysus, whom he evidently considered a human king. Spatembas was succeeded by his son Budyas, who reigned twenty-two years ; and he by Kkadeuas. Fifteen generations after Dionysus Hercules reigned. According to the extracts from Diodorus he built several cities, one of which was Palibothra. He had numerous sons, to each of whom he left an Indian kingdom ; and a daughter, Panda3a, to whom he likewise bequeathed a realm. Now all this is obviously pure Indian tradition. Dio- nysus is the elder Manu, the divine Primeval Man, son of the Sun (Vivasvat). He holds the same position in the primeval history of India as does Jima or Gemshid, another name of the primeval man, in the primeval Iranian world. According to Arrian, no human date of reign is assigned to him in the list of Megasthenes, as there is to his successors. Here then we have a reign of Gods, an epochal entry, the Indian term for which was a thousand years, recurring, as already stated, at least three times in these commentaries. Spatembas is the epithet of the younger Manu (Svayambhuva, the self-existent), who is looked upon 526 ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [Book IV. Part VII. by the Indians as the progenitor of all their kings.^^^ The fifty-two years allude to the fifty-two weeks of the solar year. BuDYAS is Buddha (Mercury, son of the Moon), husband of Ila (Earth), who was daughter of Spatembas. It signifies " the awakened." The twenty-two years should be probably twenty-eight, the four weeks of the phases of the moon. The present Sanskrit lists suppose the races of the Moon to be derived from him (/iTandravan.sa), and from it the kings of Magadha (Palibothra, Pataliputra, above Patna on the Ganges) are descended. On the other hand, in the books of Manu, the race of the Sun is descended directly from Manu. In the authorities of Megasthenes the two descents seem to be mixed up together. The race of the Moon would not give prece- dence to the race of the Sun (the kings of Ayodhya, Aud).23i Buddha was succeeded by Pururava, which in Me- gasthenes must have been written Prareuas, instead of the present reading, Kradeuas. Pururava means the glorious." He appears in the Yeda as a mythical personage, the husband of Urva^i, a celestial water- nymph (Apsaras, or Apsara, i. e. Undine). In the epics he is represented as a powerful ruler and great con- queror, who, however, perished in consequence of his own presumption. He was the author of the system of castes (from varna^ colour, already mentioned in the Yeda race^^^, that is, difference of origin). Before his time there was only one undivided Arian people, and only one God was worshipped, Narayana. Plis ro3^al residence was Prati^thana, at the confluence of the Jumna and Ganges (Allahabad). Here, therefore, we 230 Lassen, Zeitsch. v. 254. 231 i^,^ Beilage A. to Alterth. i. 232 According to Haug, Varena means in Zend faith, religion. Morgenl. Zeitsch. viii. 766. n. 1. Sect. I. B.] THE KINGLESS AGES. 527 have got beyond the whole of the earliest period of civi- lisation in the Indus country, with which the Indian reminiscences commence. The date of the settlement in the country of the Five Rivers, the formation of sepa- rate confederations into kingdoms, the advance towards Sarasvati and then into the Indian Mesopotamia (the Doab), on the most southern point of which Prati^thana is situated, are all anterior to Pururava. It is possible that the whole of this may be unhistori- cal : but it is the general tradition, and therefore perhaps the tradition of the learned men at the court of San- drokottus. The first era commences, then, with an historical fact, the immigration of the Arians, with which is connected the ideal expression of the creation of man in various forms of one and the same myth. Now what was the termination of this era ? I think it is marked by the statement that the ruler in the fif- teenth generation was no less a personage than Her- cules, who was especially worshipped in the country of the /Surasens. Lassen has shown that this again is not Greek fiction. The Indian Hercules is Krishna, the king in the land of the Prasians (the Easterns), with the royal residence at Mathura. It is possible that the notion of his posterity being descended from him and his own late-born daughter Pandaea is, as Weber thinks, a misunderstanding of the old myth of the creation of the world in connexion with a female. It appears also in the history of Pra^/apati.^^^ The historical sense is, that the renowned race of Pandava, with whose downfall the third era concluded, or perhaps even the princely house of Pandiva (Pandya), whose residence was Madura (the later Mathura) in the soutliern country of the Ganges, were descended from Krishna's daughter. According to Sir William Jones, in his 233 Weber, Ind. Lit. p. 212. note 2. ; comp. with p. 133, note 2. 528 AKIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [Book IV. Pakt VII. treatise on Indian Chronology (AYorks, iv. p. 209.), the sacred books expressly place an Avatara between tlie first and second eras. This impersonation, however, which does not exist in the Yedas, is Krishna. Possi- bly also the third divine hero, Rama, the extirpator of the royal races, is introduced by way of demarcation between the second and third eras. Lassen points out this position of Rama as being an ancient tradition. It is clear that, according to Megasthenes, Hercules- Krishna did not form a starting-point. The statement that his sons governed various kingdoms, and that the Pandava (elder or younger), the heroes of the third era, were descended from his late-born daughter, would look more like a termination. This is also in accordance with the history of Krishna, as related in the Maha- bharata.^^^ The first era, then, is represented by Megasthenes as having fourteen generations of human kings, with a God as the founder, and a God as the destroyer of the dynasty, in all fifteen or sixteen generations. Now, if we compare with this view of the subject the Arian tradition under discussion, we shall find, instead of Krishna, some of the patriarchs of the human race. In it, after Pururava of the race of the Moon, in a line to which the ancestors of the kings of Magadha (Pa- libothra) are said to belong, follows Ayus, whose son Nahusha (the man, human ?) is represented as being under the ban, on account of his overbearing character. Upon the death of his grandson, the highly honoured Yayati, the partition of the world commences. He left his kingdom to his youngest son, Puru^^^, and to his other four sons the rest of the earth. 234 i. 501. note. "At the end of the Trcta-yuga, in Mahab. i. cap. 2. V. 272., is placed the extermination of the Ksatvij3i by Parana Rama." iii. 275. V. 15. 872. seq. Lassen, Alterth. i. p. x. note. In like manner, in Firdusi, when the earth is partitioned among the three sons of Feredun, the youngest, Iredsh, obtains the Sect. I. B ] THE KINGLESS AGES. 529 Yadu, father of the Yadava, the people of the South : TuRVASU, lawless races who were addicted to un- natural propensities, Mle^^ha (hence the Beloochees) : the Yavana are also said in some of the books to belong to them : Druhyu, the progenitor of the inhabitants of the deserts by the sea, who had no kings : Anu, the patriarch of the Northern people. These four names are primeval ; they occur in the hymns of the Rigveda in the same order. For our purpose the second and fourth are the most important. With respect to Turvasu, Max Miiller has remarked in the " Outlines " that it seems to contain the tribal j name of Turan and Turk. Turvasa, in the celebrated battle song of the Rigveda, the leader of the races who are the enemies of Indra, seems to be connected with 237 Originally, therefore, the Turanians are meant by it ; so that from an Indian point of view the south- east of India might very well be assigned to this race, it being then inhabited, from the Yindya mountains, by Turanian races. But the sovereignty of the North is assigned to Anu. If this means any historical tribes whatever (which is very doubtful), they might be the Bactrians, or people of the North of Mesopotamia, more especially therefore the Assyrians. At all events it is a remarkable coin- cidence that the first God and the divine ancestor of the Assyrian kings is called Anu.'^^^ original home country, i. e. Iran. The two others, Selra and Tur, obtain the western and eastern countries ; Tur, indeed, Turkestan and Tshin (China). 237 Roth, on the Lit. and Hist, of the Veda, p. 94. In the Zend books the Turanians are styled Firdusi's Tuirya, i. e. the foes or antagonists of the Arians. Turvasu means " one who possesses the ' treasures of his enemy," and Turvasa " one who conquers when he pleases." (Haug.) According to Rawlinson, King /Salman's name means "image I of Anu/' and Telani (the Telane of the Greeks), the cradle of the VOL. nr. M M 530 ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES, [Book IV. Part VII. Now, according to the Sanskrit traditions, the pa- triarch Yayati reigned a thousand years.^^^ Here then Ave have the same conclusion, but under different names. The above remarks may suffice to prove the two points under immediate consideration : first, that the tradition of Megasthenes is really an Indian one, even according to the extant Brahmin traditions ; secondly, that there is a break at the fifteenth king, in so far as the tradition of Hercules-Krishna forms the transition to a new race of princes. It is, however, still uncertain whether it is a simple break in the first period or the close of it. The Brahminical tradition would favour the former supposition, inasmuch as it evidently makes but one section in the first period with Yayati. It contains a succession of names after Yayati of Indian races, in the form of the hero of the same name, who is placed at the head. In the first place, for instance, PuRU, in the list of the race of the Moon of Ayodhya (Aud), which has been already noticed. There was evidently a break at Puru. This, therefore, is the oldest genuine Indian name of a king, and from him a totally new world proceeds, acccording to the tables of the Moon-race, given in the Mahabharata. Yayati, there- fore, represents the interval between the era of the primeval world which is altogether unhistorical, and the Indian foretime proper. The name itself signifies " advancement, progress." There can hardly be any history in all this, cer- tainly no Indian history. It must depend upon the character of the sequel of the tradition whether the royal house, "Anu's hillock." The comparison between it and the Merman teacher, Oannes, proposed by Rawlinson, has also struck other commentators. But as there is here no question about simi- larity, but the very name itself, and as the North must mean the Semitic Lords of Northern Asia, we consider it justifiable to notice the coincidence. 239 Lassen, Alterth. i. p. xviii. n. 4. Sect. I. B.] THE KINGLESS AGES. 531 whole period is to be discarded, or be considered as a stopgap to a lacuna in the historical reminiscence of the real beginnings. We have, however, a right to regard it in the light of a clearly distinct First period. The connexion between it and the most ancient Indian kingdoms was expressed by 200 years in the list of Megasthenes. The first era, therefore, concluded with a kingdom in the Punjab, of which only very vague re- miniscences had been preserved. The second era in our Indian traditions evidently commences with the Sarasvati period and its kingdoms. Its great heroes are the Bharata, and the Eamayana is the epic representation of it and its violent end. In the third, the PanA:ala (the five races), the con- querors of the Bharatidse, struggle with the Kuru, and the latter again with the Pandava, after whose war of extermination the last era ensues. In the Yedas Pan^a Krshtayas and Pan^a Kshitayas (the five agricul- tural countries, or the five habitations in the concrete sense) represent the Arian races and then the human race generally. As the first era closes with Krishna-Hercules (ac- cording to Megasthenes), so probably does the second with R^ma. As the Ramayana is the epos of the former epoch, so is the Mahabharata the epos of the third. Here it is the princes themselves who, by their conten- tions, bring about their own downfall. The mythical thousand years here intervene again, as in the former case, between one epoch and the other.^^^ It is needless to enter into any further proof of the From Haug's communication it appears that the period of a thousand years is mentioned in the late Parsee books, and is called Hazareb, i. e. Chilias ; this is the time of the Prophets. Each of the three great prophets has his Hazareb : Osheder-mah (well- governing Moon), Osheder-bami (well-governing Dawn), and lastly Sosiosh (who awakens the dead at the last day). See Haug, Gott. Geh Anz., Dec. 1853. M M 2 532 ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [Book IV. Part YII. correctness of these views, inasmuch as it does not lead to any chronology. We have only to bear in mind that the reminiscences of three long historical periods, full of great events and locally definable, offer a confirma- tion of these accounts. The length of the period we do not know, but the three intervening periods alone comprise together 620 years, according to historical, not epical, data. If the conclusion to be drawn from these observations is that the cosmic eras were mutilated forms of real epochs, and the cataclysms were intervening periods of mis- rule, and that whatever historical matter the epic poems contain, be it more or less, is upon the whole circum- scribed within the first three ages, and progresses organically during these — it will certainly be worth while to see whether it is really so hopeless a task to define the starting-point of the Fourth. The fact of the Brahminical starting-point, 3102 b. c, being in error by more than a thousand years at the time of Alexander and Buddha is sufi&cient to put them al- together out of the question. The only certain point is that /landragupta, the Sandrokottus of Megasthenes, ascended the throne of Palibothra in the kingdom of Magadha beween 320 and 312, and I have no hesita- tion in agreeing with Lassen that this event took place in 315. But how are we to proceed any farther ? Certainly only by commencing from below, and calcula- ting upwards. c. THE LISTS OF THE AGE OF BUDDHA DOWN TO THAT I31ME- DIATELY TRECEDING SANDROKOTTUS. Sandrokottus overthrew the house of the Xanda. The Brahminical traditions respecting this royal house Sect. I. C] LISTS FHOM THE TIME OF BUDDHA. 533 are very confused and contradictory. The notices of the earlier dynasties of the kingdom of Magadha are im- practicable in a chronological point of view, and some- times the dates of reigns are omitted. I. Barhadratha Dynasty. If we discard the first six of the first dynasty^^^, who are evidently ancient chiefs of tribes, and refer with full confidence the real patriarch, Brihadratha, the seventh on the list, with his two successors, the great (?arasandha and his son Sahadiva, to the third age^^^, and supposing there to be a great lacuna here, of which we find obvious traces, if we make our series commence with the so-called tenth king we get the following list. It begins with Somapi and ends with a King Kipun- ^aya. The latter is slain by his first minister, whose son, Pradyota, ascends the throne, and becomes the chief of the dynasty which is named after him. This list, as regards the chronology, is impossible throughout, and as regards history doubtful. Its object, evidently, Avas to make a continuation from the third to the fourth period, and it does not furnish the slightest intimation as to which of the successors of Somapi was the first who possessed a kingdom — for it does not re- cord a single act or distinct event connected with any one sovereign. It is true that some of the registers have dates of reign attached to them, but which ? The more com- plete list of twenty kings gives 924 years, and one of these reigns lasted 100, another 80 years, both being preceded and succeeded by long reigns. The smaller number is 850, making an average of 42^ years to a reign, while the other makes 46i. Lassen, i. p. xxxi. seqq. See Lassen's masterly deductions, as to the historical contents of the stories about Garasandha, i. 607. seqq. >i M 3 534 ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [Book IV. Part VIT. In the list of Matsya an attempt was made to get over these difficulties by reducing the sum total to thirty- two kings. But it is evidently less trustworthy than the list of the royal houses itself, and the discrepancies in the entries of years of individual reigns evince the igno- rance and tampering of the compilers. Now, as all the Puranas make a thousand years to elapse between the great war and the last of the Barhadratha, Wilson pro- poses to adopt this as the authentic date.^^^ Lassen also thinks that there is nothing improbable in the lengths of reigns, with two exceptions. He concludes, there- fore, that the list has come down to us in an incomplete state : yet, forsooth, the thousand years which are men- tioned on two other occasions in the old Indian traditions, and cannot be considered chronological, approximated to the truth in this instance I I must confess that I cannot here ao^ree with these two ino^enious scholars. The thousand years, as we have seen, simply mean that the length of the interregnum is indeterminable. Even did we include the 120 years, the whole length of the inter- regnum, in that thousand, it would not mend the matter. After deducting them, there would still remain nearly 900 years, a term to which we should be compelled to refuse any credibility. The purpose of some of the fabricators of the list, who added these unfortunate dates, was evidently a dis- honest one, that of getting as near as possible to the mythical thousand years of interregnum. Yet none of them has anything to record in all these eight, nine, or ten centuries, not a word to say about twenty or thirty- tvro kings. And how stands the case with the names and succession ? According to the Mahabahrata the predecessor of the last king (Ripun^aya, who was de- throned), who is called in the former lists Visva^t, is 2-^3 i. 700. ; comp. xxxii. Sect. I. C] LISTS FROM THE TIME OF BUDDHA. 535 identical with Ripun^aya. The two predecessors of the supposed Yisva^it, to whom forty and eighty regnal years are assigned, are omitted altogether in one of the lists, while they have totally different names in the others. From this I conclude that the genealogy of the kings of Magadha represented the Barhadratha as their ancestors, in order to patch up some sort of connexion between the reigning house, previously to the interreg- num and the end of the great war, and an ancient royal family. The addition of the regnal years was also a figment of later date. The case of the following dynasties is not much better, although there is less discrepancy in the different lists, and they all give the regnal years. II. Dynasty: Pradyota, 5*kings - - 138 years. Here commence the accounts of Buddha, and the Buddhistic lists have a claim upon our attention. Ac- cording to them a king of this dynasty reigned in the time of Buddha at UggsLjini (Ozene ?) whom he suc- ceeded in converting. The average of 27|- years is obviously too high, according to the standard of the historical times of India, for us to accept it as authentic. III. Dynasty ; /Sai^unaga, 10 kings - - 360 years. The corresponding Buddhistic list of the kings of Magadha must on no account be mixed up with this, there being, as we shall see, external as well as internal reasons why we should place implicit confidence in it. Yet it is externally corrupt. The last two kings, Nan- divardana and Mahanandi, belong to the house of Nanda, indeed Mahanandi is clearly the founder of it, in fact he is the great Nanda himself. No critic need be reminded that reigns averaging 36 years are out of the ques- tion. M M 4 536 ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [Book IV. Part VII. lY. Dynasty : Nanda, the founder, and after him his sons, successively, nine in number. Some of the lists assign to Nanda alone, some to him and his sons together (the only sensible propo- sition) - - - - - 88 years. In the Ceylon lists there is evidently some confusion here. They make Kalasoka, the last king of the pre- ceding dynasty, succeeded by nine brothers who reigned altogether 22 years. According to the commentary attached to this list, these nine brothers are the nine Nandas, which nine brothers, successively reigned, altogether - 22 years. Some of the Brahminical lists assign 88 years to the father, 12 to the sons, in order to make up 100 years, which number is then very quietly placed in the ordi- nary chronological epilogus.^^^ It is hardly necessary seriously to sum up such entries as these. By way of example, however, we give the Purana list (according to Lassen, i. 501.) : I. Barhadratha - 20 (or 21) kings - 1000 years. 11. Prady6ta - 5 „ - 138 III. A^aisunaga - 10 „ - 360 IV. Nanda - - 9 „ - 100 1598 The beginning of the Kali, supposing the accession of /fandragupta to beB. c. - - - - - - 315 1913 B.C. Under these circumstances Wilson and Lassen have given the preference to a Brahminical account which is wholly uncorroborated, and which is as follows : 1015 years elapsed prior to the accession of Nanda. Comp. Lassen, i. p. xxxiii. xxxiv., and ii. 63. seq. Sect. I. C] LISTS FROM THE TIME OF BUDDHA. 537 This would give the following date for the beginning of the Kali : Down to Nanda - - - 1015 years. Nanda^s reign - - - 88 Making therefore to the accession of /landragupta - - - 1103 years. Consequently, b. c. - - - 315 1418 It must be admitted, that an isolated chronological entry, not based upon any dates of reign, however reasonable it may be in itself, is certainly evidence enough of the precarious nature of the lists. But that in itself would be sufficient reason why a critic could not place confidence in it, even were it not at variance with facts supported by other extraneous authority. That it is so is apparent from the chronology of Buddha, the first certain resting-place beyond the time of Alexander, which we now proceed to examine. 538 [Book IV. Part YII. SECTION IL THE HISTORICAL DATA IN THE LATER TIMES OF INDIAN HISTORY, AND THE PRELIMINARY RESTORATION OF THE OLDER PERIODS. A. THE YEAR OF BUDBHA's DEATH, 543 B.C., AND THE BUD- DHISTIC NOTICES OF THE MAGADHA KINGS DOWN TO A^-OKA. Lassen, in his masterly treatise, at once ingenious and learned, has proved that the tradition of the Singalese is the only one worthy of notice. According to it, in the year 543 B.C. Buddha escaped from the curse of earthly existence by death, after having arrived at a full sense of self-annihilation (Nirva?2a.) The task we are about to undertake is to show the possibility of establishing the true chronology from this fixed point down to /iTandragupta, or 315 B.C. The Buddhistic list of kings, with which the most authentic accounts of him personally connect that great founder of a religion, is the list of the kingdom or house of Magadha, which was then seated to the south of Pataliputra, in Ea^agriha, so called after an ancient city to the north of Amritsir in the Upper Punjab. The house of Samudradatta, from Mithila (Yideha), consisting of 25 kings, the last of whom was named Dipankara, reigned there in the first instance. It was succeeded by the house of Bhattiya, called also Lassen, ii. 51 — 61. The objections advanced by Weber are insignificant ; and his own view appears to me v^^holly inadmissible. Sect. II. A.] MAGADHA KINGS DOWN TO ASOKA. 539 Mahapadma, " abounding in stones/' which was the Brahminical epithet of the first of the Nanda kings, the son of Mahanandi and a /Sudra. But, as Bhattiya lost his independence, the dynasty commences with his son Bimbisara, who reigned 52 years, and was succeeded by his son A^ata^atru, who reigned 32 years. The seventh king after Bimbisara was named iSi^unaga, who reigned 18 years, and was succeeded by Kalasoka (with 28 years), whose son Bhadrasena (with 22 years for himself and his nine brothers) was the predecessor of Nanda. The most curious feature in this is, that we have three names in common. The founder of the corre- sponding Brahminical dynasty of Magadha, ASisunaga, is here the last but one, and, indeed, the overthrower of the previous dynasty, at the head of which stand Bimbisara and A^atasatru, there the fourth and fifth successors of /Sisunaga (with 28 and 25 or 27 years of reign). Whatever explanation may be offered of the confusion in the Brahminical lists, the Buddhist tra- dition is proved to be in every respect the historical one. According to it Bhattiya became tributary to the king of Anga, but his enterprising son, afterwards King Bimbisara, expelled the tax-collectors of the king of Anga, by whom the country was oppressed, defeated the king himself, and made Kampa, the capital of Anga, his royal residence until his father's death. The latter had made him king in his fifteenth year, which is a satisfactory explanation of the long reign of 52 years. Now Bimbisara was in childhood the friend of Buddha, and only five years younger. This entry, which is a purely biographical one, seems to me to deserve to be kept steadily in view. It makes the prophet 20 years old when Bimbisara was invested with royal authority. Buddha himself was the son of )iSuddhodana, of the race of the /Sakhja kings of Deva- daha, and styles himself the /Sramana Gautama, the co- 540 ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [Book IV. Part YII. lonist of the race of the holy patriarchs of the kings of the eastern country, Gotama, a name which occurs in the Veda as belonging to a celebrated family of min- strels. Now as Buddha only began to dedicate himself to serious reflection in his 29th year (the lOth of the reign of Bimbisara), but became in his 35th year an awakened (Buddha), and died at 56, the twenty-first of his public teaching, the chronology would stand thus, supposing him to have died in 543, and that he was then 56 : B.C. Buddha, born - 5 years before the birth of Bimbisara - - 598 „ retires (29) - - - Bimbisara 24 - lOth year of reign 569 „ appears as teacher (35) - „ 30 - 16th „ - 563 „ dies aged 56 in the 21st year of his teachership - „ 41 - 27th „ - 543 Now if Buddha died 543 B.C., the first year of Bim- bisara's reign must be 578 B.C. Lassen makes it 603, apparently at variance with his own data, and adopts for the Nandas the 88 years of the Brahmins. But this is obviously nothing more than the number required to make up the 100 years, as we find twelve years assigned to the sons. It is, at all events, an impossibility as re- presenting a single reign, and that too the reign of an elected king. The list is as follows : I. The House of Bhattiya : 1. Bimbisara: reigns 52 years: first year B.C. 578 Murdered by his son and successor - 527 2. A^ata^atru : reigns 32 years: first year - 526 Murdered by his son and successor - 495 3. Udayabhadra (Udaya) : reigns 16 years : first year - - - - - 494 Murdered by his son and successor - 479 4. Anurudhaka (Munda) : reigns 8 years: first year ----- 478 Murdered by his son and successor - 471 Comp. Lassen, ii. 63. Sect. II. A.] MAGADHA KINGS DOWN TO A50KA. 541 5. Nagadasaka: reigns 24 years : first year B.C. 470 Murdered by his successor - - 447 End of the dynasty of the Parricides. II. The House of >Si5unaga : 1. A^isunaga : reigned 18 years: first year - 446 2. Kala5oka : reigned 28 years : first year - 428 3. Bhadrasena and 9 brothers : 22 years - 400 The last of the brothers, Pin^/amakha, was dethroned by Xanda - - - 379 III. Nanda and his sons. Nanda, who was not a person of princely extraction, rebels against Pin^/amakha as leader of a local revolt, cap- tures Pataliputra, and becomes king - 378 Nanda's younger brother is dethroned and murdered by /landragupta. Length of Nanda's reign 66 years. Last year - 313 IV. The House of the Maurya. /{^andragupta's accession - - - - - 312 The following is the historical value of these details. We have, in the first place, down to ^andragupta, two series of rulers of the princely houses of the KsAattriya. Bimbisara and his house (4 successors) reign 132 years, or an average of 26^ years. Of these, Bimbisara reigned 52 ; having, as heir-apparent, been, after the conquest of /v'ampa, invested by his father with royal authority in his 15th year. This is a corroboration of the biographical accounts which we have followed above. It leaves 80 years for the four successors, an average reign of 20 years each. Beginning with the son of Bimbisara they were all parricides. The family was not opposed to Buddhism, but remained Brahmins. A^ata- 5atru built Ra^agriha, the more modern city of that name. I The second K.s/iattriya dynasty ascended the throne, when /Si^unaga, as minister and military chief, in con- I 542 ARIAN ErOCIlS AND DATES. [Book lY. Part VIL sequence of the universal detestation of the parricidal family, slew the last king. The family itself was descended from a mother of inferior rank, who had been super- intendent of the dancers of a king of Likhavi at YaiSudra, in order to keep up the connexion with the old royal family. One argument in favour of this is, that the last two Brah- minical AS'i.sunai2:a kinoes are called Nandivardhana and Mahananda. But the whole list is untrustworthy. The Buddhist account, that Nanda was a man of great courage, who took advantage of a riot in his village to make a general arming of the mob, and then instigated them to take into their own hands the conduct of their affairs, is more credible. The people lent a ready ear ; he declared war against Pin^amakha, took Pataliputra, and became king. After a brief reign he was succeeded by his brothers. The most difficult point in the chronology now re- mains to be considered, the age of Nanda. It formed an epoch, inasmuch as the computation of the 1015 years, from the beginning of the Kaliyuga, goes down to his coronation. He ruled over " the whole earth." \Yc Sect. II. A.] MAGADHA KINGS DOWN TO AS-OKA. 543 have seen above that the Singalese registers of the Bud- dhists assigned to the sons of Kala-soka 22 years, and to the Nanda brothers also 22 years, which is explained by a late commentator as meaning that the Kalasoka brothers were the Nanda. Consequently this made 44 years. The Brahminical lists assign to Mah^nanda (i. e. "the great Nanda") 40 or 43 years; and 12 to Sumalya, the son of the great upstart (Mahapadma). Our calculation makes it 66 years, which agrees as well as could be expected with the history, as far as we know it, and the above numbers. It requires more than some 20 years for an adventurer to form a great empire, and for the dynasty which he founded to be overthrown. Lassen prefers 88 years, a number to which our objec- tions have been already stated, and one which must be rejected on account of the trustworthy statement, that the great Nanda's reign was brief. /iTandragupta dethroned the last Nanda and took Pa- taliputra. After the murder of Porus by Eumenes, the general of Eudemus L, in the year 317, Sandrakottus, who was present, seems to have placed himself at the head of the popular party, to have taken immediate possession of the empire, and then to have directed his forces towards the Ganges. I agree with Benfey, there- fore, in making the last year of the Nanda 313, and consequently the first of ^andragupta 312. This series of kings forms a bright spot in the history, and we are enabled to restore it with tolerable precision. Besides the Indian accounts we have always Greek synchronisms, either through the Seleucidee or from the inscriptions of the Great Asoka. To the kingdom of ^andragupta (the kingdom of the Prasians, that is to say, of the Easterns) also belonged the Peninsula of Guzerat ; it extended on the north as far as the Indus and on the south its sovereignty was ac- Lassen, ii. 211. seq. 544 ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [Book IV. Part VII. knowledged as far as the mouths of the Ganges, and the li- mits of Kalinga. His grandson and second successor was, when prince, viceroy over the JJggayim. He may be said therefore to have conquered the whole of Aryavara. His forces consisted of 600,000 infantry, 30,000 cavalry, and 900 elephants. He died in the 24th year of his reign, consequently B.C. 289. He was succeeded by Yin- dusara, who reigned 28 years, consequently until B.C. 261. His successor, Asoka, is the great Buddhist king. His inscriptions, in which the Buddhist doctrines are earnestly inculated, and the 84,000 Buddhist sanctuaries (Zaitya), that is to say, partly temples and partly tu- muli (Stupa, whence Topes), which he is said to have erected, are in the present day the greatest monuments of Buddhism. He was crowned in Pataliputra in the third year of his reign (b.c. Ijs)? openly seceded from the Brahminical to the Buddhist religion, con- verted, as it seems, by the son of his brother, whom he had murdered. His reign of thirty-seven years was the meridian of the empire of the Maurya. Immediately afterwards (b. c. 225) the partition took place and its downfall ensued. Having arrived at this point, we shall discontinue the adjustment of the chronology from below, and pro- ceed to an approximate definition of the earlier epochs. We have seen that Alexander found in India a great and mighty empire, which, although seated at the con- fluence of the Yamuna and Ganges, nevertheless pro- tected the northern frontier. \Ye have seen that the age of Buddha is established, and with it that of Birnbisara also, the chief of the dy- nasty which overthrew the kings of Pradyota. We can no longer calculate upon accurate chronology, but the question is whether we can determine the cen- tury in which, after bloody and destructive contests and a period of anarchy, the greater princely kingdoms are again found to exist. Sect. II. B.] COMMENCEMENT OF THE KALIYUGA. 545 B. APPROXIMATE DETERMINATION OF THE REAL COMMENCE- MENT OF THE KALIYUGA, AND THE PRELIMINARY LIMI- TATION OF THE PRECEDING PERIOD. After having established, reckoning upwards, a fixed point for the accession of Zandragupta, by the year of Buddha's death, 543 B.C., and, through it, that the first year of Bimbisara was 578, the earlier dates will stand thus. Bhattiya, the father of Bimbisara, cannot be included in our calculation from above, as we find no chronolo- gical notice about him ; indeed, the imperial succession in Magadha clearly only begins with his great son. We must consequently proceed with the Pradyota kings. The 138 regnal years of these five sovereigns we cannot take for granted quite so readily as our prede- cessors have done, since we have found the Buddhist lists in a much better state than the Brahminical, and they only assign 68 years to this dynasty. We have therefore : B.C. First year of Bimbisara - - 578 Last year of the Prady6ta Dynasty (68 years) - - - 579 First - - - - 646 Prior to these is the Barhadratha Dynasty of Somapi, down to Ripun^aya, said to be 20 kings. We have seen above that three kings at all events must be omitted. The harmony of the lists is certainly an argument in favour of the others. We accordingly suppose it to have consisted of 17 kings, who reigned on an average 20 years each, making consequently 340 years. From this we should obtain the following dates : VOL. III. N N 5^6 ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [Book IV. Part Yll. Last year of Barhadratlia (340) - B.C. 647 First „ „ - - 986 But here we meet with another circumstance which requires to be noticed. It is highly probable that during the interregnum the exiled princes of the Barhadratha family continued their lists as though they still possessed the realms of their forefathers and kinsmen. The 120 years of the inter- regnum are consequently probably included in the general sum total of 340 years, which would leave only 220 for our computation. In that case the calculation would stand thus : Last year of Barhadratha (220 years) B.C. 647 First „ „ - - 866 We shall consequently place the two limitations side by side. The next step we are enabled to get over, at all events, by the aid of Megasthenes, in whose list of the time of anarchy (which intervened between the third and fourth periods) we find 120 years. According to the above computation, we obtain the following data : Last year of Anarchy (120 years) B.C. 987 867 First „ „ - - - 1106 986 • This would therefore bring the beginning of the Kaliyuga up to 986 or 866. We can no more doubt the historical character of the close of the third period, and consequently of the kingdoms of the Kaurava and Pandava, than we can believe in any chronology formed from such data. We may possibly be able a few years hence to compute, like Herodotus, by generations or average lengths of reigns ; but we are certainly not in a condition to do so now. This, however, is by no means requisite for our pur- pose ; a reasonable approximation will suffice. Sect. II. B.] COMMENCEMENT OF THE KALIYUGA. 547 JSTow, as we have 120 years of anarchy after the third era, and 300 before it, and as we find at the close of the former a protracted war of extermination of the ruling family, we may safely conclude that we are Avithin the narrowest bounds, if we set this epoch preliminarily at 500 years. Hence, the computation upwards from below would stand thus : The last year of the third period, close of the great war after the battle at Kuruk^etra - B.C. 1107 987 First year of the Kaurava (500 years) - - - 1606 1486 Within this period, which is characterized by great exploits, by rigid Brahminism, and the gradual obduracy of absolute power after the total loss of popular free- dom, we meet with the grand form of G^arasandha. He was the son of the Patriarch of the Barhadratha, the Magadha-ruler Brihadratha, and grandson of Vasu, the proper founder of the family. With his son Sahadiva, the first section of the race concludes. As Lassen has acutely remarked, G^arasandha is the historical person- age among the heroic kings of the Mahabharata.^^^ The Pandava are already on the scene, and it was his wars and conquests which occasioned the great popular movement that took place immediately before the era of the five Pandava kings. He drove the Yadava from their settlements on the Yamuna, and brought 86 kings prisoners to his royal residence. It is a circumstance of twofold importance that this ruler belonged to the family which carries us down to the time of Alexander. He must necessarily have been entered in the list which Meo^asthenes obtained at the court of the sovereigns who were descended from him. His age, and everything connected with it, must ^■'s Lassen, i. 602. seqq. N N 2 548 ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [Book IV. Part VII. have been computed in the supposed 6402 years between the immigration of the Arians and the reign of Sandra- kottus. From our present point of view we can only say with regard to the date of his reign, that he must be placed at all events two centuries prior to the downfall of the Pandava. Between him and that closing event there intervenes the decline of the house of the Kaurava, and then the final struggle. We may possibly succeed in making a closer approxi- mation to the true date by means of an inquiry into the Indian synchronism of Semiramis. C. STAUROBATES AND SEMIRAMIS, OR THE INDIAN SYNCHRO- NISM FOR 1230 B.C. Megasthenes was assured by the men of learning at the court of Palibothra that Dionysus was the only conqueror who had appeared in India anterior to Alexander, neither Cyrus nor Semiramis having crossed the Indus. Although the latter had certainly made pre- parations for an expedition, she had died before they were completed. How much of this historical informa- tion was flattery to Alexander and his great generals, to the envoys of Seleucus, the King and Lord Seleucus, how much was sheer ignorance, is matter of uncertainty. A feeling of shame on account of the event itself it cannot have been, for the inroad of Semiramis wa^ of short duration, and its termination most honourable to the mighty and brave king (Hhavirapati, i.e. resolute prince, or, more properly, Shorapati, " Lord of the Oxen ") who soon drove her back across the Indus, and Sect. II, C] INDIAN SYNCHRONISM WITH SEMIRAMIS. 549 it redounded also to the credit of the Indian people generally. But the shadowy reminiscences of this great event, hitherto entirely overlooked, which our present Sanskrit sources of information would seem to contain, confirm the idea that the memory of it had really passed away. This certainly makes it highly probable that the vast abyss of desolation and confusion which divides it from the Pan- dava age (the third), intervenes between that inroad and the beginning of the present era. The reality of that invasion is now indisputable. We know that Semiramis is no more a mythical queen, than her giant constructions are idle fictions. Duncker has had the tact and courage to follow out the views of Niebuhr on this head, and to make a stand against such contemptible prejudices.^^^ The whole country on the right bank of the Upper Indus, the site of the present Peshawur, opposite Attock (Taxila), and still higher up, was tributary to the Assyrians, as it afterwards was to the Medes and Persians.^^^ Semiramis captured here, on the Kophen (the Cabul River, the Kubha of the Rigveda), the city of the same name, as we are informed by Pliny.^^^ But the celebrated black obelisk from Nineveh in the British Museum, a monument at least of the 9th century b. c, establishes the payment of tribute, the Bactrian camel being found side by side with the Indian rhinoceros and Indian elephant. Without attaching implicit faith to the monstrous num- bers of Ctesias, and to his stories about camels dressed up in the garb of monsters, we cannot fail to recognise the historical truth in the account of Diodorus (ii. 16 — 19.). Semiramis fitted out an armament in Bactria, and crossed the Indus with a vast force. The Mahar%A- 249 Ar. Gesch. i. 282. seq. 250 Arrian, Ind. i. 1. 251 Nat. Hist. vi. 25. N N 3 550 ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [Book IV. Part VII. of that day, the great " Ruler of the Earth/* had taken up a position there also with a vast force, especially formidable from the number of his archers and ele- phants. At first he retreated, but soon drove back the Assyrians in total disorder to the river, which they had great difficulty in crossing after immense loss. Semiramis concluded an armistice, made an exchange of prisoners, and retreated into Bactria with a third of the army she had brought against India. This Indian expedition took place in the latter part of the reign of that remarkable woman, consequently between 1235 and 1225. There must, therefore, have been a Samra^, or supreme king, at that time in India, whose rule extended as far as the Indus. Ilis seat of government must have been in the district to the south of the Sarasvati, in the country of the Two Rivers. This circumstance, therefore, excludes, in the first place, the time of confusion during the interregnum, and consequently, the 120 years of Megasthenes. But, from what we have seen above, it will also exclude the first centuries of the new empire, the period of the younger Bharatidse. In fact these sovereigns neither left behind them any records of glorious exploits, nor were they said ever to have possessed extensive power. No such pretensions, indeed, were made by the princes of any other royal house. In order to prove this, we must enter into a little farther examination, and say a few words upon the race of the Kuru. We can prove that a new epoch commenced in the Ayodhya line of the Moon race with the 17th king. The old race of Bharata died out with Samvarana.^^^ The Kuru family succeeded, by which name some have understood the river Kur, others Koresh (Cyrus). Uttara-Kuru, as appears from the list of the patriarchs Lassen, i. p. xxiii. seq. n. 18. Sect. IT. C] INDIAN SYNCHRONISM WITH SEMIRAMIS. 551 of the family in their primitive home, simply means the most northern Kuru. Two entirely separate series are traced from the supposed King Kuru, of which that of the Puranas appears at the same time as that of the Pau- ravas, which was said to be connected with Kuru.^^^ As regards the lists of the Mahabharata^^^, I disagree with Lassen, who gives the preference to the longer one, the second, because it is composed in prose, records the names of the wives, and refers to the genealogical registers. Neither can I agree with Wilson that credi- bility attaches to it, because the epic narrative mentions an old Indian king, who, after hearing the shorter account of his ancestors, listened with still greater pleasure to the more detailed one, which commences with the founder Manu. I see nothing in this but a wish on his part to hear a great many fables and stories about the Gods ; and it is not improbable that the author himself is the person who puts these words into the king's mouth. The first, shorter account, begins not with Manu, but Puru, and concludes with the last genuine descendants of Kuru. It contains also the names of the younger sons of the kings, and here and there adds a few historical remarks. This is the very reason why I think it must be the more ancient, and that the second, on the contrary, is fiction dressed up in an epic form. The continuation of the royal list, indeed, beyond the genuine Kauravas, is open to grave suspicion, a sus- picion common to this list and the Puranas. Lassen himself admits that the names in the first simple list are repeated here, and the continuation contains some with remarks attached to them, seemingly of a sym- bolical, and consequently of an ideal, character — the great hero Ar^una (the white), for instance, in con- 253 Lassen, p. xxiv. lb. i. p. 594. N N 4 254 lb. i. p. 594. 552 ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [Book IV. Part VII. tradistinction to Krishna, the black. The more simple list certainly does not profess to be a complete gene- alogy, for this remark is attached to the name of the first personal ancestor, Avik^it, the successor of Kuru, who is the representative of the Kuru people : " Of the race of the sons of Aviksit, these were the most remarkable for their virtues." This is an honest announcement, and one which supplies a valuable clue to the criticism of the whole lists. The tradition was not coherent, or had ceased to be so before the date of the authorities to which we have access. We possess only the heroes of the race, not a continuous history. What appears to be so is mere arbitrary falsification of the later genealogy of am- bitious royal houses. Lassen is in error in thinking there is a lacuna in the shorter list. The following names are precisely what they are stated to be in the words quoted above. They come in the following order : I. Aviksit, with his younger brother Ganame^aya, and three others. II. Pariksit, with seven brothers. III. Ganame^aya with Bhimasena, and five other brothers. IV. Dhritarashtra (Stadtholder), with the brothers Pandu and Bahlika (i.e. the Bactrian, from Balkh^ the later form of the name of the city), and five others. y. iTundika, with Hastin, and three other brothers. VI. Pratipa, with two brothers. VII. Devapi, with A^antanu and Bahlika. The eldest of these three brothers retired, either voluntarily, or being compelled to do so by the Brahmins, and /Santanu became king, it is said, after Devapi had suf- fered himself to be led astray by false teachers.^^^ With these brothers the list closes. The sequel in the Lassen, i. p. xxiv. n. 19. ^57 ib. i. p. xxiv. n. 21. Sect. II. C] INDIAN SYNCHRONISM WITH SEMIRAMIS. 553 Other list and in the Puranas is simply an arbitrary addi- tion. The genealogy of the Pandu is appended to that of the Kuruidae. Pandu being son of YUitravirya, the second son of A^antanu. From him descended the hero Ar^'una, as did his brave rival Duryodhana from his elder brother Dhritara67itra, " and 99 others," in order to make up the number of the hundred Paladins. Then comes Parik^it and 29 successors, the last of whom, Ksemaka, dies in the Kali," i. e. the pretenders to the crown of the Pan- dava race in the period of anarchy and afterwards, ad libitum. Nothing is recorded of them, but it is note- worthy that the 24th in the series is called ySatanika, exactly like Parik^it's grandson (the third in the series), and his son Udayana, the name which, according to some authorities, was borne by the son of the elder Parik.sit. The whole race is said to be begotten by Brahmins and warriors. There are many other proofs of the historical cha- racter of the kings of the older list. In the first place, the hymns of the Rigveda (only indeed the later tenth book) mention Devapi and /Santanu as brothers, the elder of whom embraces the sacerdotal profession, and becomes, according to ancient custom, the first Brahman (Purohita, " President " ^^^) of the king his brother. The old Yedic commentator, Yaska, mentions them as being sons of Ri^Atisena. This cannot be said to be in contradiction to our list, which, as we know, only pro- fesses to record the great and celebrated rulers of the race. The third brother is not mentioned in the Rigveda, but the list states that when Devapi retired Bahlika obtained a vast empire. This must mean that he emigrated and became king of Bactria. As he joined Devapi, the elder brother who was perverted by false teachers, Zoroastrianism evidently here comes into play. Lassen, i. p. xxvi. n. 26. lb. i. p. 596. 554: ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [Book IV. Part VII. The two lists agree as to these brothers, and they both mention a third brother, Bahlika, the Bactrian, who in the shorter one appears under the name of the 370unger brother, Dhritarashtra. In both the imme- diate predecessor is King Pratipa. In the former, how- ever, the order of the common names is different : Bhimasena is not the younger brother, but the king ; Dhritarashtra is omitted, and only appears afterwards as elder brother of Pandu, and father of Duryodhana. We possess, therefore, historical fragments of an age which was brought to a close by the war of extermi- nation among the rulers of Kuru and those of the race of Pandu. There is no historical connexion between them, no historical synchronism, but there are indica- tions of a religious schism which exercised an influence over Bactria. It is equally impossible to connect the history of these two races with that of the mightiest people in the latter portion of this age, the PanAala, who, to judge from the situation of their country, probably immigrated before the Kuru.^^^ In the last period the PanMla also appear by the side of the Kuru in the great battle of the princes, the people of the five races, whose city, Hastinapura, in the Upper Doab, is situated on the Ganges, north-east of Delhi (Indraprastha), on the Yamuna. They were the most powerful people of that day, for they extended through the whole Southern Doab beyond Benares, as far as the river Karmanvati, which was for a long time considered the frontier line of the two tribes. To cross over it was an accursed thing ; on the other side were the impure Turanians. We were compelled to make this digression in order to show that the only king we have remaining is the 6'arasandha of Bagadha, the Barhadratide, in whom was 260 Lassen, i. p. 598. Sect. IT. C] INDIAN SYNCHRONISM WITH SEMIRAMIS. 555 centred a vast imperial power at the time of the down- fall of the then kingdom of India. We have only to ascertain whether this imperial power extended in a backward or forward direction. The son of Carasandha was Sahadiva, his predecessor was Brihadratha. The latter founded the empire ; under the former it fell into decay. The father pos- sessed powerful vassals, such as the king of iTedi. He had princes among the impure races who were subject to him, from the eastern part of India, north-east of Palibothra. Their foreign names are given by the side of the Sanskrit. Even Bhagadatta, indeed, the king of the Yavana, the uncontrolled autocrat of the West, is said^^^ to have boAved the knee before G^arasandha. The origin of the name of the Yavana must either be traceable to post- Alexandrian times, or be an ancient inaccurate desig- nation of a people and state who pushed on towards the Mediterranean. To the northward the districts on the Sarayu and the Gomati formed a part of his kingdom. He, therefore, must have been the king who opposed Semiramis on the Indus, or she was not opposed at all. Assuming, therefore, the synchronism : (Jarasandha = the Indian expedition of Semiramis = 1230 B.C., this makes his date precisely that which, from the Indian point of view, would appear the most pro- bable. Of the extent of the period anterior to him we cannot venture to form an estimate. But the power of the empire of the seven kings of the cognate race of the Moon, in Pratisthana, and afterwards in Hastinapura, from the reign of Pariksit to that of ySantanu, must have gone back farther than (Jarasandha. We have during this period a schism connected with the history of Bactria, and the immigration into it. Lassen, i. pp. 551. 609. 556 ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [Book IV. Part VII. Before proceeding to examine farther the connexion between these two events, we are anxious to offer another proof of the historical character of the second era. D. THE HISTORICAL CHARACTER OF THE NAMES IN THE SECOND ERA. If the whole Indian history, as embodied in the re- miniscences of the people, be not a pure fiction, it follows from what we have already seen, that the second age must commence with the oldest accounts of the holy land of the Sarasvati. For here it is clear that the first establishment of the Brahminical system took place, between which and the religion of the oldest Vedic hymns there is a greater difference, in various respects, than there is between the religious systems of the Brahmans and Buddhists. Buddha was much more of a Brahman than the fathers of the Brahminical system were teachers of the old Vedic religion. In fact, we find ourselves in the most ancient India, among the first race which stands before us as purely Indian. It is the race of the Puru or Paurava kings, to which in the time of Alexander two princely races belonged, on which account they were both called by the Greeks Porus. In the Magadha Moon race, as well as in the royal series of Megasthenes, Puru follows immediately after the above-mentioned last patriarch to whom the partition of the world is due. In the first authenti- cated list of kings of the Mahabharata, there are but eisfht names down to Ilina, after whom there is an unmistakable gap, as we shall see forthwith. The Sect. II. D.] HISTORICAL NAMES IN THE SECOND ERA. 557 second list contains 17 kings after Puru, the last two of which are Tansu and Ilina, the predecessors of Dushyanta, with whom the first empire closes. Those names are obviously not to be considered a succession from father to son. For if, as we have seen, the list only contained names of great historical importance in the following period, it would still less represent a gene- alogical succession here. But it is so stated in plain terms, for it seems to refer occasionally to a king who is not mentioned in the list.^^^ The following are the names : I. Pravira 1 third and fourth kings in the second 11. Manasyu J list. It begins with Ganame^aya, who abdicates and becomes a priest. He was succeeded by Pra^invat, whose name implies that he was the conqueror of the East. He could not have been omitted in the first list, had there not been two separate Puru lines. III. A^akta. lY. Raudrasva. Had ten sons, the eld- 1 In the se- est was : ■ cond list Y. Ri^ey u, with the epithet Anadrishti. J 10 and 1 1 . YL Matinara, son. It is recorded of him, as it was of Ganame^aya in the first list, that he ofi^ered up many horses in sacrifice. YII. Tansu, with a brother Druhyu, 1 both great con- YIII. Ilina. J querors. The old Anuvansa, which is cited in our list, has this passage (xxi. N. 13.) : " Sarasvati bore to Matinara a son, Tansu : with the daughter of the king of Kalinga Tansu begat Ilina." In the first part we have a clear intimation that the country about the sacred Sarasvati was the centre of Lassen, i. p. xx. 8. 558 AEIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [Book IV. Part VII. the empire. The story of the connexion with a king- dom of Kalinga (in Bengal) is clearly, however, an after- thought of later times. For many centuries after this there was no kingdom beyond the river Karmanasa, which was much more to the north, and falls into the Ganges a little below Benares. IX. Dushyanta. The old tradition ^""^ very clearly states that, with this king, a race and a kingdom came to an end. His supposititious son Bharata, the father of Bhumanyu, is merely the name of the primitive race, which seems to signify in its first sense the globe. The country here indicated is Central Hindostan, the country of the centre (Madhyadesa or Aryavarta, court of the Arians). Here, then, we come to a second race and kingdom, that of the Bharatidae, obviously only a governing power at a later period. The list is as follows : [Bharata, the first ruler of the globe (/iTakravartin), who on that account is called also Sarvadamana (all- controlling) and Sarvab-hauma (world-governing), had a great many sons, all of whom, however, die ofi", i. e. do not establish kingdoms. Last of all he begets] I. Bhumanyu, who (like Bharata) is also entered in the second list and the Vishnu Purana as well as this one. II. Diviratha. III. Suhotra, conqueror of the whole earth ; Lord of a happy kingdom." He had three sons. lY. A^amidha — Purumidha — Sumidha. Several hymns in the Rigveda are addressed to the two former. Here Lassen admits that the second list is obviously adul- terated, two kings being introduced between Suhotra and A^amidha. The first of them clearly belongs, like the supposed patriarch of the whole list, Ganame^aya, to the next period, the kingdom of the Kuru. Lassen, i. p. xxii. n. 15. Sect. II. D.] HISTORICAL NAMES IN THE SECOND ERA. 559 y. Samvarana, succeeded by Kuru in both lists. Lassen has incontrovertibly shown that the rule of the Bharatida3 ceases with Samvarana. The Bharata are driven from the Indus country westward by the PanMla. Lassen has given the tradition word for word. We pro- pose to examine it in conjunction with one of a similar character, in order to show that the separation of the periods by interregna, in which Divine vengeance exer- cises destructive power, is ancient and original. Before doing this, however, we will examine a little more minutely the list of the Eamayana which concludes with Rama. This list of kings of the Sun-race of Ayodhya con- sists of 35. The first three we discard as mythical. The Vishnu Purana states in regard to Anaranya, the father of Prithu (5), that he lived in Treta, and con- quered the Asura in the east ; between him and Rama, therefore, 31 reigns intervene. Of these we must at once strike out the 29th and 30th, Nahusha and Yayati, the two patriarchs of the Moon-race.. In the Vishnu Purana, Rama, reckoning from Prithu (5), is the 58th. The harmony, however, between the two lists continues only where some coherent legend has preserved the continuity of the succession, which is not the case except in the following groups : A. Sagara - - R. 14 V. P. 38 from Manu. Asamanyas- - 15 39 An^umat - - 16 40 Dilipa - - 17 41 . ' Bhagiratha- - 18 42 B. Aya - - - 32 60 Dasaratha - - 33 61 R^ma - - 34 62 It must here be borne in mind that the Bharata name Lassen, p. 589. seqq. 560 ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [Book IV. Part VII. occurs in the Ramayana only together with that of the successor, Asita (12, 13.), and not at all in the list of Vishnu Parana. E. THE CLOSE OP THE FIRST TWO PERIODS IN THE OLDEST INDIAN TRADITION, AND A PRELIMINARY GLANCE AT THE CHRONOLOGICAL RESULT. In order to prevent any misunderstanding, we repeat that we have not the slightest intention of establishing or corroborating any evidence in favour of the chrono- logy by means of data taken from the epic tradition. The following remarks are only made with a view to di- recting attention to some noteworthy features in that tradition, as being facts the value of which is in the first instance left undecided, but which at all events have nothing to do with the nonsensical dates and theo- ries of Manu. It has been already pointed out that the great histo- rical lacuna3 in the succession of the Indian kingdoms have been indicated mythically by the old tradition. A thousand years are assumed, at the expiration of which a new section commenced. It is at the same time on record in the first two periods, that a God appears, who, during these thousand years punishes the over- bearing and wicked in expiation of their crimes. The God, or hero, who performs these acts of vengeance is Hercules-Yishnu at the end of the first period, Rama, the hero of the Axe, at the end of the second. There were also different versions of this break in the sovereignty of the princes. At the end of the second period mention is made of the break of a thou- sand years in the reign of the Bharata. The length Sect. II. E.] CHRONOLOGICAL RESULT. 561 of the epochs is identical. A long historical order of things comes to an end, and everything is broken up in confusion. The style of the mythical record is different ; but the sense is the same. They both imply that the length of the period of anarchy is undefinable. The tradition about the descent of the Kuru from the Bharata, given word for word by Lassen (i. 590.), is as follows : ^* To Eiksu (the son of A^amidha) -svas born Sam- varana, the patriarch of a royal race. During his reign there was great confusion. There were plagues of famine, of pestilence, and of war. The great con- queror Pan/jalya overcame him. Samvarana fled with his children and friends into the neighbourhood of the great river Indus, and pitched his tents in a wood on the mountain. Here the Bharata lived a thousand years in an inaccessible district. At the expiration of this period a holy man consecrated the Puruide as uni- versal lord over the whole warrior race. The descend- ant of Bharata again took up his royal residence in the glorious city. Samvarana's wife, the daughter of the Sun, bore him Kuru, whom his subjects elected king, from his being well acquainted with the law." We have accordingly a close with the thousand years, and then the election of a king, Kuru, belonging to the old race ; i. e. a democracy during the interregnum. NoW', if w^e examine the other tradition of the close of the second period, we find that the Axe-God Rama, Para^u Rama, appears as the avenger. We read of him in the Mahabharata : " Para^u Rama repeatedly destroys the pride of the warriors and the royal races." Now as regards the Divine Avenger at the end of the first period, the Hercules of Megasthenes, who reigned fifteen generations after Dionysus and Spatembas, he is, as Lassen has shown, in every respect identical with Mahabharata, xii. 4i^. seq. Lassen, Zeitsch. v. 257. VOL. III. O 0 562 ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [Book IV. Part VIT. Yishnu the Club-God. He, however, does not appear in the character of enemy of the royal race ; whereas Eama in the next period overthrows it. He is repre- sented on the contrary as the founder of the Indian kingdoms, as far as Pandsea in the south, the race of which is descended from him and his own daughter. This is evidently the expression of a belief in the moral government of the world. The existence of this faith can be pointed out as early as the old hymns of the Rik, where Vdruna punishes sin by disease and death, but Indra destroys the wicked. We must, therefore, consider as an ancient dogma the declaration made by Vishnu in the Bhagavadgita^^^ (in Christian times perhaps), ^' As often as Right slumbers and Wrong raises up its head, 1 create myself." It is eternal Divine Justice, by whom human affairs are kept in equilibrium, announcing herself. Historical criticism accordingly concludes on various grounds that the four mundane eras of Manu are nothing but the fabulous sacerdotal offset of the eclipse of the traditions about four historical ages, that is to say, four states with successive interregna, which were really passed through. It is true that the first age con- tains only general mythical representations of the divine progenitors, with minute details towards the close. But this in no wise detracts from the reality of the period itself. We know, indeed, that the second period com- mences previously to the old settlement in the country of the Five Rivers, on the Sarasvati, the holy land of the Brahmins. There must consequently have been a long antecedent period commencing with the immigration of the Arians, and which implies that they crossed the Sutledj. We subjoin, therefore, a synopsis of the epochs prior to those already established. Calculating upwards from below we had arrived at the 266 BhagavadgitUj iv. 7. Lassen, i. 488. Sect. II. E.] CHRONOLOGICAL RESULT. 563 year 1606 (1486) B.c.=first year of the Kuru (Kaurava), as the comraencement of the third period, which, sup- posing it only to have lasted 500 years, extended to the year 1107 (987) B.C. In this period we have shown the probabihty of (?arasandha being the contemporary and opponent of Semiraniis ; therefore the age of Gara- sandha=middle of 13th century B.C. Hence, we must place his predecessor, the founder of the line, at about 1280. Immediately anterior to the third period there inter- vened, according to Megasthenes, a break of 300 years ; consequently, the End of the second period was about 1 900 ( 1800) B.C. If again we assume the most moderate term possible for the length of this period, we have in round epochal numbers, Beginning of the second period = 2400 (2300) B.C. That is to say ; the beginning of the settlement in the district of the Sarasvati cannot fall later than about 2600 or 2500 B.C. It is hardly necessary to remark that, to limit the length of the monarchical period to about the double of the intervening times of anarchy is by no means the most probable computation. The epochs in which the historical feeling was in progress must, in fact, be supposed of much longer duration than the interregna which caused the breaks between them. The remarks of Megasthenes upon the length of time that the dissolution of the kingly government lasted, and of the independence of the separate municipalities, give it an air of greater historical probability, from the fact of his stating of the first two that they extended to as much as 200 or 300 years. In speaking of the last republican epoch he uses a different phraseology; it was a period of 120 years. The earlier epochs of this kind lasted in one case longer, in the other a shorter time, and their longest duration was 200 and 300 years- It is, therefore, highly probable that the second period did not commence later than about the beginning of o o 2 564 ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [Book IV. Part VII. the tliird millennium B.C., so that we must assign to each of the two middle periods (the second and third) an average of about 300 years. The approximate determination of the epochs will in that case take somewhat the following shape : End of the third era about - B.C. 1100—1000 Duration of this period 800 years 800 — 800 Commencement of it therefore - B.C. 1900 — 1800 Second interregnum prior to it 300 — 300 Consequently beginning of 2nd inter. B.C. 2200 — 2100 Second period anterior to it, 800 yrs. 800 — 800 Beo:innino: of second era therefore B.C. 3000 — 2900 Prior to it, first interregnum of 120 — 120 Consequently end of 1st period - B.C. 3120 — 3020 Lastly, as regards the length of the first period from the immigration of the Arians into the country of the Indus down to their advance to the land of the Saras- vati, we have no standard whatever from our present point of view by which to estimate it. All we can say is, that peculiar habits of life were contracted in the land of the Five Kivers, and that out of the religion there instituted, allusions to which are found in the oldest Vedic hymns, the Brahminical system, with a new mythology, and the introduction of castes, gradu- ally grew up on the other side of the Sutledj. Hence, if we place the Arian immigration at about 4000 B. c, and add another thousand years for what was Arian rather than historical life, we shall certainly err again on the side of too great limitation, rather than of too great an extension of time. This fact will be more clearlv established if we form a correct idea of the vast difference between the oldest Yedic hymns and all other Indian compositions. For this purpose we will examine first the epochs of the latter. Sect. III. A. I.] 565 SECTION III. THE EPOCHS OF INDIAN LITERATURE, AND THEIR APPLI- CATION TO THE MORE ACCURATE DEFINITION OF THE AGE OF ZOROASTER. A. THE EPOCHS OF INDIAN LITERATURE. At the outset of these inquiries we have termed the history of language and of written composition the second main element of authentic chronology, and, to a certain extent, the touchstone of other computations. We now proceed to apply this element to the solution of our problem, commencing from below, and so pro- ceeding upwards. I. The Grammatical Age of Sanskrit, and tue Formation OF Prose. Starting from below, we have here, in the first place, Panini, the founder of the present system. His age has been fixed at * - - - B.C. 350 Before him stands Yaska, the author of the Nirukta (interpretation) of the Vedic tongue. This work is based upon Nighantavas (the organized), i. e. the col- lection of obsolete Vedic words, arranged according to contents, works which were obviously used in the schools. The first part of the Nirukta contains merely Weber's objections to tlie system adopted by Bothliiig, Roth, and Lassen seem to mc of no weight. The authority is of recent date, but it is not encumbered with internal contradictions and unhis- torical assumptions, like the Buddhist tradition, on which Weber bases his arguments. o o 3 566 ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [Book IV. Part Vn. an explanation of grammatical forms and difficult words ; the second, the names of the Gods. Passages of the Veda are also quoted word for word. The gram- matical expressions are so far perfectly simple ; not a trace is to be found of the later artificial, almost alge- braic, terms for the moods, tenses, cases, &c., which were in common use after the time of Panini. There being this great difference between them, it is impos- sible to agree with Roth, who dates it only fifty years before Panini. It must be at least - - b. c. 450 In his time the use of the Yedic texts in the religious services was already established. But the right under- standing of many Yedic words and ideas was even then totally lost. Before Yaska there were three older schools of gram- marians (Pratisakhya^^^), which, being confined ex- clusively to the teaching of the pronunciation, esta- blished the rules of writing employed in the Yeda. Assuming a century for these together - - 550 These grammarians, however, cite thirty others of earlier date, each according to their different schools, of the more northern or southern, eastern or western races, among which are the Kambo^a, represented in the Hindu-Kush. Allowing only a century for them again, we bring down what is demonstrably the begin- ning of the grammatical age to - - - (i50 By proving in this way the existence of grammar about the end of the second century and a half of the Bharadrata period, which extended, as we have seen, from about 1000 to 650, the date of the formation of prose may certainly be placed in this obviously im- portant epoch. The oldest Sanskrit prose we possess is in the Brahmana, or books of ritual, and in the Upa- nishad, or philosophical treatises, the language of which, The Pratisakhya to the Rik has been in part published by Max Miiller in his manual of the Rigveda. Leipsic, 1857. Sect. III. A. Il.j EPOCHS OF INDIAN LITERATURE. 567 on the whole, differs but little from that of the epics. Of the Brahmanas, the oldest and most important is the Aitareya-Brahmana, which is full of historical information, but unfortunately it is not yet published. II. The most ancient Epic Period, and the Date of the Collection of the Vedas. There are at least two separate epochs, which can be clearly distinguished in the two epic poems. The latest extant version of them I should not be disposed to refer to an earlier date than that of the A^oka ; it contains allusions which imply the existence of Alex- ander and Buddha. Weber, in his instructive lectures on the history of Indian literature, has shown that this is more decidedly the case with Manu's code, owing to the unmistakable allusions to the Buddhist nuns. Here, also, it will be necessary to institute a special inquiry, philological, philosophical, and political, in order to see whether we are justified in considering these marks of later . origin in the two epics as interpolations and adulterations of the original text. My reason for thinking so is the high, and even political, position of the Brahmins in respect to their kings, which pervades the whole book. On the other hand, I should not be disposed to assign any very great antiquity to the nucleus of it, even if it be anterior to Buddha. Now, as the original plan of the two epic poems goes down to the fall of the race of princes after the great battle of Kuruk^hetra, it is obvious that they must also have been composed in the Bharatide epoch. The 120 years of interregnum barely suffice to account for the complete substitution of mythical for historical and the pre- dominance of the mythical. The eighth century, there- fore, must be considered as the highest possible date that can be assigned to it. o o 4 5G8 ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [Book IV. Part VII. The question is, whether the collection of Vedic texts to which the grammarians had access, belongs, even in part, to the earlier Bharatide epoch, that is, the begin- ning of the Kaliyuga ? We must here first of all eliminate the present fourth Yeda — the Atharva. Manu does not mention it among the Vedas; therefore, the collection is of very recent date. As regards the contents however, one third consists of hymns which are common to it and the Rik ; the other two thirds older hymns, side by side with those of more modern date, all in the Yedic language. It is consequently a supplementary collection, as was the tenth book of the Rigveda before the Atharva, and their contents are very similar. Our collections of the three other Vedas certainly belong to the oldest period of the Kaliyuga ; and there evidently existed smaller collections prior to these, espe- cially of the hymns of the Rigveda. The date of the comi)lete collection is generally supposed to be much older : namely, that to which the calendar at the head of the Vedas, from the astronomical references and data it contains, would seem to belong. This we have no hesitation in agreeing with Colebrooke and Lassen to be about 1400 B.C. But there is no proof that the calendar and the collection of Vedas were made at the sam.e time. There are, on the contrary, two points about which there is no dispute. First, that the compilers had com- pletely lost sight of the original meaningof the old hymns, to a greater extent even than the compilers of our Book of Psalms had of the oldest psalms. They treat them as hymns made for the purposes of public worship, whereas it is clear that many of them, and in fact the very ancient, were not liturgical at all, but the outpour- ings of the free natural inspiration flowing out of the whole material life and the great events of the poet's Sect. III. A. IL] EPOCHS OF INDIAN LITERATURE. 569 own time, and the experience of the tribe and of the people. Not only is the scene of these songs, the Indus country, unknown to the compilers, but likewise the religion. Brahma and Brahminism had dispelled the old religious ideas. The highest Yedic Gods, Agni, Yaruna, Indra, had degenerated into Gods of the second order, into mere guardians of the world. The form of the language, lastly, is not only different and far more ancient, but the language of the Yedas is a living language ; that of the compilers is more modern, but one already become petrified and obsolete among the people — a learned language. The cleft between Yedic literature and Sanskrit litera- ture is a vast one. It implies the occurrence of great events, that is to say, nothing less than the conclusion of either the second or third era. It is easy to show that the former of these is the only one possible. Sanskrit was a dead language already in the time of Buddha. He lived in the Sanskrit country ; yet he did not preach in Sanskrit, but in Pali. A language does not die out except in consequence of some great events. Thus, the Hebrew became a thoroughly sacred language only after the Babylonian captivity ; Latin ceased to be spoken by the people after the total dissolution of the Eoman civi- lisation of the Western Empire, between 600 and 900. The word Sanskrit, indeed, signifies the complete, i. e. learned language, in contradistinction to the popular idiom. No such event took place between the time of Buddha, when the written language (the Sanskrit, as the more modern Yedic) was demonstrably no longer spoken by the people, and the beginning of the Kaliyuga. But there is also a vast cleft between this beginning and the down- fall of the earlier kingdoms — a period of 120 years without kings, preceded by protracted and destructive wars. 570 AEIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [Book IV. Part VII. If, accordingly, at the close of the third era, Sanskrit must have ceased to be the popular language ; this very third era must be considered as the period when it reached its zenith. This again implies that the Yedic language was extinct, and the time when it ceased to be the popular language must therefore be the close of the second era. When the Arians crossed the Sutledj, they took with them the language of the country of the Five Eivers. The Brahminical system sprang up. DitFerent kingdoms were formed in the Doab. The old language of the Indus country gradually died away, and the new form, which was less rich, became the fixed popular speech, as contrasted with the Yedic, " the language of the seers." The name Sanskrit, the perfect language," implies indeed the existence of an incomplete, i.e. popu- lar language. Thus we have the following epochs ; Old-Bactrian Indus-language : 1. Popular language : First epoch. II. Learned „ Second „ Ario-Indian Gangetic language : III. Popular language :. Third epoch. lY. Learned ,, Fourth ,, The language of our Zend books is the Old-Bactrian of the home country worn down, that is, East-Iranian. It forms a contrast to the Yedic as well as Sanskrit lan- guages. That of the first cuneiform character on the contrary is Median, or West-Iranian of a later epoch. The organic law by which these changes were go- verned will be intelligible from the subjoined tables of parallelism. (Pp. 572, 573.). The prominent feature here is the existence of a uni- versal organic law — the greater toughness of a language in new settlements, as compared with its uninterrupted flow in the mother country. Sect. III. A. IL] EPOCHS OF INDIAN LITERATURE. 571 The same type is also manifest earlier in Chamism, which became fixed in Egypt, while it expanded into Semitism in the mother country, and at a later period in the Anglo-Saxon of the fourth century a.d., as com- pared with the progress of Saxon in the German mother country. The duration of a stage of language does not depend so much upon length of time, as upon the occurrence of great political and social changes and disturbances. 572 ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [Book IV. Part VII. Immigration of the Norwegians into Iceland^ about 880 a.d. Mother Country. The Scaldic songs in Snorro Sturleson, which refer to Nor- way. Snorro Sturleson's Chronicle (about 1200). The Danish and Swedish heroic songs and ballads. New Scandinavian language. Swedish. Danish. New Country. The oldest Edda songs. The language of the Prose Edda. Modern Icelandic. Sect. III. A. II.] EPOCHS OF INDIAN LITERATUKE. 573 Immigration of the Avians into the Indus country, about 4000 B.C. Mo THE II Country. The language of the old Zend books (Bactrian), first stage. The second stage of language, the Median (inscriptions of the AchjBmenidae). Parsee, as pure Persian : Pehlev: mixed with Semitic. Modern Persian. New Country. First Era. Oldest Yedic songs Bactrian (iTandas). the Old- living language Second Era, Beginning of the formation of the later language. End of the period : language dies out. so-called Sanskrit the Vedic Third Era. The Vedic language no longer the popular idiom. The stage of language afterwards called Sanskrit a living written lan- ^ guage. End of the period : the second stage of language dies out among the people. Beginning of the use of popular tongues (Prakrit, Pali) as written languages. Fourth Era. Sanskrit," the learned or per- fect language, the universal written language ; at the same time the living popular lan- guages. 574 ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [Book IV. Part YIT, B. THE RELATION BETWEEN THE VEDIC TIMES AND THAT OF ZOROASTER, AND THE STARTING-POINT OF HIS DOCTRINE. The Brahminism of the Sanskrit books is the mythico- pantheistic form of Vedic naturalism, whereas theZoroas- trian books place a Supreme God above the powers of nature. Magism is an outbirth of later development common to them both. What the later Zend books are to Zoroastrianism, the Atharva-Yeda is to Brahminism. Prayer has become a charmed formulary ; thanksgiving, execration and curse ; spirit, form ; life, death. But, in searching after the historical connexion, we soon lose our way in what appears impenetrable ob- scurity. Two very different paths present themselves. Proper original Zoroastrianism may be placed after the religious schisms which sprang up in the Indian life of the Arians. In that case the religion which Zo- roaster found in existence is the old form of the oldest Brahminism on the Sarasvati. Or we may assume that the original Zaratliustra founded a new religion before the migration into India, as a mere counterpoise to the earliest Bactrian naturalism, and that the Arians when they migrated carried with them this primitive Zoroas- trian religion on their great conquering expeditions, the last scene of which was the Indus country. The generally received opinion-^^ that the Brahmins who migrated into India left Persia on account of the change introduced by Zoroaster is in this case altogether untenable. Upon such a supposition Persia would be as great an anachronism as is the idea ol the Brahmins See upon this Max Muller's explanation in my "Outlines," iii. p. 112. Sect. III. B.] VEDIC TIMES AND ZOROASTER. 575 miofratinG:. Even BurDouf himself seems to have o^lven this up, by the admission that the Zend in its forms and grammar approached nearer to the language of the Yedas than the Sanskrit does. But the question is, whether this compels us to adopt Max Miiller's view, that the Zoroastrians left India in Yedic times. Apart from the fact that such an assump- tion is wholly at issue with the tradition of the migra- tions of the Arians, inasmuch as, instead of beginning with India, they ended with it ; there is this difficulty which meets us at the outset, that we should be under the necessity of supposing a previous migration of the Arians to the Indus country, so that the one in ques- tion would have been a retrogression. These are the reasons why Miiller's theory has not met with any favour. The fuller explanation of his views has not yet been published. We will endeavour in the meantime to show what are the arguments which, according to our view of the case, may be adduced in support of it. From the information already supplied by Roth out of the Rik, it may be shown that there are allusions in some of the Yedic hymns to an antago- nistic schismatic religion in the country ; to one, indeed, the principle of which was fire-worship, then in force in the Punjab. We find the following in the war song of Yasishtha (v. 16.)^'^^ : " Indra struck down half of the men, the drinkers of sacrificial butter who repudiate Indra, the perverse. Indra re- pelled their fury with double fury : on his way the leader halted (ran straight away from him)." Of the three Gods, Agni, Indra, and Yaruna, it appears from other passages, that they worshipped only Agni, fire. The conflict took place on the Sutledj, and Sudas, king of tlie Tritsu, of the race of the Bharata (iii. 3, 4. V. 11.)) t^^G worshipper of Indra, and sub- Rotli, On the Lit. and Hist, of the Veda, p. 98. 576 ARIAN EPOCHS AND DATES. [Book IV. Part VII. duer of the heretics, was obliged to cross the stream to attack the enemy. The residence, therefore, of the worshippers of Indra was no longer in the Punjab, although they had friends and allies there. " Yamuna " (it is said, v. 19.) ^^and the Tritsu remained faithful to Indra." The battle itself was fought at the con- fluence of the two arms of which the Sutledj is formed. Among the enemy in this battle of the ten princes, as it is styled in another hymn, we find (v. 14.) the Anu or Anaver (the men of Anu), and the Druhju, who, being inhabitants of the north and west, when the earth was partitioned among the sons of Yayati, are mentioned together with the Turvasu (south-east) and Yadu (south). The enemy are the stronger, they are said to be like lions, and the friends of Sudas weak and miserable. Here then we have hymns of the first age immediately after the passage of the Sutledj. The re- ligion of the Arians, who went towards the Sarasvati, is not B rah minicab The sacerdotal minstrels are only inspired men, called Rishi or'Kavi; singers bearing the latter name are subdued by Zarathustra in the Gathas. These hymns, therefore, belong to the later half of the Yedic period, that is to say, the beginning of the second era, an epoch which we think cannot be placed later than between 2500 and 3000 B.C. AYe must accordingly suppose that the minority returned to Iran. They may indeed really have done so subsequently. Mention is made, as we have seen in the last section of the third era, of a connexion between India and Bactria, and one founded upon a religious duality which was con- stantly in antagonism. Of the three brothers : Devapi, A^antanu, and Bahlika, the eldest retired and went back again, the youngest proceeded to Bactria, or at least obtained his name " the Bactrian," from his connexion with the oldest seat of the Zoroastrian religion in the land of the Arians. Such, according to that assumption, would have been Sect. III. B.] VEDIC TIMES AND ZOKOASTER. 577 the state of the case at the beginning of the second era. In fact, it appears, from Hang's researches, that the oldest Zoroastrian writings, the Gathas or songs, were com- posed in the same lyric form as the Yedic hymns. The actual proof of this will be found in Miiller's edition and explanation of the five Gathas of Yasna.^''^ There are other circumstances also which seem to favour this view. First, it is undeniable that the word for Gods in the Veda (Deva) is only used in reference to bad spirits. The great Yedic God, Indra, is in the eyes of Zoroaster an evil spirit, Aindra (Ander in the Bundehesh). In like manner Kavayas (from Kavi) signifies in Zarathustra's songs ^'^^ the life-destroying servants of the Devas, evil spirits, whereas in the Yeda it signifies the same as Ri.d, and is the name of the min- strels in the sacred songs. Hasma, indeed (Soma), mentioned in the later Zendavesta only in a good sense, has a very bad signification in the Gathas, namely, that of a charmed potion, by which the Deva-worshippers acquired strength. This difficult passage is thus ren- dered by Haug (.Ja7? -^iaeujc cu^^j'Otg treaiv ETrXeoy -Koppu) rrjg oltceiag * * * ewi (7(0Tr]pia. tojv aydpojTrojp' s 8 2 628 HISTORY OF THE lONIANS. [Book IV. Part VIII. not merely that they possessed considerable commerce, but a naval force to protect it. In assuming, therefore, that Strabo's expression, " they had ships many years before the establishment of the Olympic games," means a very distant epoch, I must at the same time remark, that by the establishment of the Olympic games I can only understand 776. The imaginary Iphitus, before 880 (who at the same time is made the contemporary and ally of Lycurgus), is entirely out of the ques- tion, and the testimony of Aristotle remains unim- peachable. III. The Thracians. — 79 Years. Last year, B.C. 896 (895) : First year, 974 (973) : before 01. i. 121. before 01. i. 199. The reading to which Scaliger and Casaubon gave the preference (annis xix.), now falls to the ground as a matter of course. The date in the Armenian version (and the Canon also ad a. 1015), as well as in Hie- ronymus and Syncellus, is 79. The dates of 11. and I. are also in favour of this reading. We know of but one epoch in the history of the Thracians in this period : the settlement of those who emigrated from the Strymon to Asia, in Bebrykia (the country of the Phrygians), the present Bithynia (land of the Thynians). This migra- a0' ov Kat fJ-f-Xpi ^I^rjplaQ eirXevaa)', Kciicel fxiv rriv 'Po^ov EKTLtrav, fjv varepov MafraaXtaJroi Karia^oi', kv ^£ to~iq ^0~lko~iq rijy HapdepoTrrjy, 8cc. The asterisks mark where the name of a country or place is wanting, and one too of the masculine or neuter gender, so that it cannot be Sap3w. It is probably livpyoQ : for the Balearics (Gymnetae) are mentioned directly afterwards as Rhodian colonies. To make sense of it, it must be restored somewhat as follows : Kal ovro) ttots. Karicryov e-rrl Kvpyoy, ettI (7u)Tr]pia rwv dvdpMTrijjy, 1:83 Here again Duncker has taken the right view, and briefly and conclusively placed the reader in a position to form an opinion for himself (loc. cit. iii. 352. seq. note; conf. p. 381. seq.). Here again Clinton has come to a weak conclusion. C] THE PELASGIANS IN CASTOR'S SERIES. 629 tion, however, is said by Herodotus to have been caused by the movements of the Teucriansand Mysians, who drove them out of Thracia Proper. This clearly brings us to the time when the non-Hellenic people were still independent in Asia Minor and Pontus as far as the coasts. Now Eusebius, in the Canon, places this event at the year 1036 of Abraham, i.e. B.C. 971 or 970. Syncellus does the same. Eusebius has even fixed the date of the beginning of their maritime supremacy at the year of Abraham 1012, i.e. B.C. 994. Those who have paid attention to these data in his Canon, which was extracted from Castor's list, know that they are full of inaccuracies, arbitrary assumptions and difficul- ties, and consequently that they are of no value in a chronological point of view, apart from the fact that Eusebius does not confirm the chronological interpreta- tion of the above list. But what is the origin of his date of the emigration from the Strymon to Bithynia, which is placed only 25 years later ? Taken literally it is wholly incompatible with a supremacy of 79 years, for it breaks it up in the middle. It was a more plau- sible supposition that the supremacy was the result of the emigration. It is, however, more probable that the maritime supremacy was brought to a close by the advance of the Teucrians and Mysians, which was the cause of the Thracian migration into Asia. 11. The Pelasgi. — 85 Years. Last year, b.c. 975 (974) : First year, 1059 (1058): before 01. i. 200. before 01. i. 284. Menecrates of Elsea, the pupil of Xenocrates, a school- fellow of Hecata3us (about 315), stated, according to 284 Herod, vii. 7o. : Ovtol Cie (Thraces) ^la^ayreg f^iey eg t))v ^Acrlrjr iK\)idr](7av BlOvudi' to de Trporepov iKukiovTO^ u)c avToi XiyovGi, IirpvfJiO' I'loi, oiKEot^Teg ETTL ^rpvfioi'L' ELiavaariiyai (paair ijOeio)' vivo TEVKpwv TE fCat MufTtUJ^. s s 3 630 HISTORY OF THE lONIANS. [Book lY. Part YIII. Strabo (xiii. 21.), in his work upon the foundation of cities, the following fact : That the whole of the coast now called Ionian, from the slope of the mountain of Mycale onwards (opposite to Samos), was, as well as the neigh- bouring islands, originally inhabited by the Pelasgi. Strabo himself says, in the same passage, that when the iEolians, soon after the fall of Troy, expelled the Pelasgi, already enfeebled by that war, from the spot where they afterwards built Kyme, they halted at Larissa, 70 stadia from Kyme, a Pelasgic city still in existence in his time, although in ruins. Here, then, we have an authentic account of a circum- stance to which the connected restoration of the list of Castor leads as a matter of course. The naval supre- macy of the Pelasgians could at that time have existed nowhere but in Ionia. Added to which, the only feasible solution of the enigma of an Ionian seafaring people existing prior to the colonies from Attica in the tenth century is, that the lonians then inhabited Ionia, but subject to the Pelasgi, who were masters of the coun- try in their rear. This was their historical residence, restricted more or less by the Carians and Lelega3, who pushed on from the interior, and subsequently by the Lydians. This was the view taken by Herodotus in the well-known passage (i. 56.) where he said of the lonians, as contrasted with the Hellenic Dorians, that they were of Pelasgic race, and occupied their country. The general context will not allow us to restrict this expression to the lonians from Attica. It must at the same time be admitted that he did not carry out this view any further. He says, indeed, in a subsequent passage (vii. 94.), that the lonians of Achaia were called, prior to the Doric migration, Pelasgian dwellers on the coast." Now no one be- lieves that the lonians were Pelasgians, or that Hero- dotus considered the Ionian and Pelasgian language as identical. Here again, then, the same solution is the most THE PELASGIANS IN CASTOr's SERIES. 631 natural one. The Pelasf^ians were the orif^inal inhabi- tants both of Ionia and the Peloponnese, and of Hellas generally. The lonians settled on the coast with their consent, acknowledging them to be the lords of the soil, and so they passed for being a part of the Pelasgi until they became independent. We may, tlierefore, call this naval power the Old- Ionian. The trading vessels, the foundation of their maritime supremacy, as well as the manning and management of the ships of war^ were in the hands of the lonians. We cannot enter here into any further description of the consequence which this may have upon the history of the lonians and the Hellenes generally. We shall treat hereafter of some particulars which are directly connected with our researches. Unless we have failed altogether in our restoration of Castor's lists, we have not only established the proper date for the Pelasgic lonians before the Doric migration, and the movements to which it gave rise, but also proved where they were settled, a fact hitherto undeter- mined. Doris was the primitive seat of the lonians. They reached it doubtless by the coast road from the Black Sea or the Bosphorus ; a course to which, there- fore, their legends allude. It is hardly necessary to remark that there is no reference to the Tyrrhenians in this epoch. It is true, they were also called Tyrrheno-Pelasgi, and rightly so, as I conclude upon philological grounds. But apart from the fact of the essential word, Tyrrhenians, not being used in our list, the colonisation by the Tyrrhenians from the coast of Lydia is expressly stated by Diodorus (xiv. 113. p. 727.) to have occurred prior to the Trojan Avar. s s 4 632 HISTORY OF THE lONIANS. [Book IV. Part VUI. L The INIiEONiANS. — 92 Years. Last year, B. c. 1060 (1059): Fir^t year, 1 151 (1150) : before 01. i. 285. before 01. i. 376. Castor naturally either simply called the people M^onians, or he added their modern name of Lydians for the benefit of his unlearned readers. The startino^-point of the whole series must be prior to the old ^olic emigration and conquest. This is usually placed in the year 1124, a conclusion arrived at by pushing up the dates about a hundred years. If we fix it between 1000 and 1050, this epoch accords very Avell, not only for its starting-point, but also for its duration down to 106O B.C. at least; for the maritime supremacy of the Maeonians might have continued after the rise of that of the Pelasgi, although it is improbable, owing to their close propinquity. We may rather say, with reasonable certainty, that the rise of the naval power of the Pelasgo-Ionians may have caused the down- fall of that of their Mseonian rivals. As regards Castor's date of the year of the fall of Troy, as well as of that of the return of the He- raclid^e, Muller's assumption that he made the former 1208 (1207), the latter 80 years later, 1128 (1127), seems to me by no means established. There is no proof that he did not follow the then pretty gene- rally adopted date of Eratosthenes. At all events, there is no trace here of systematic or even cyclical calculations. The naval supremacy of the Lydians belongs to the age of the Sandee or Heraclida3 in Lydia, long before the Mermnadae, and has nothing to do with the Dorian expedition of the Heraclida^, or the migra- tions to Asia to which it gave rise. It was earlier than all those movements, and so it must have been if it deserves the name of historical. RESTORED LIST OF CASTOR. G33 Lastly it is clear that the date of the first naval power in Castor has not the slightest connexion with this event either chronologically or historically. D. TABULAR VIEW OF THE RESTORED LIST OF CASTOR, AND RESULT OF THE PRESENT CRITICAL RESEARCH INTO EGYPTIAN HISTORY AND ANCIENT CHRONOLOGY. Now what is the result of our present chronologico- historical criticism ? In carrying out the assumption of a continuous chro- nological series, we have met with no contradictions ; on the contrary, wherever we had any reason to expect it, we find a striking accordance with other traditions about which there is no suspicion. No man of common sense can suppose this to be mere accident. Nor will he deny that the chronology is Castor's, whose two books upon this subject are expressly quoted, and who, being a Rhodian, lived in the centre of the Mgsesm traditions. Besides which, how could they be attributed to Diodorus ? Unfortunately, owing to the loss of books vi. — xi., we have not his account of the very period under discussion, from the fall of Troy to the year of Xerxes' expedition. But supposing even that he entered the thalassocracies se- parately in the place where each came under discussion, all such data put together would never have made such a list as ours. What can have been the meaning of the number 45 annexed to the Punic supremacy, which lasted for centuries with increasing power ? It can only have originated owing to the next epoch in the list (the Egyptians) having commenced exactly in the 634 HISTOEY OF THE lONIANS. [Book IV. Part YIIT. 46tli year after the commencement of the Carthaginian supremacy. Again, at the end of the fifth book (v. 84.), mention is casually made of the maritime power of the Carians having been particularly great in the age after the fall of Troy. Castor, however, as we have seen, evidently placed that supremacy, and with good reason, before the taking of Troy, namely, before Minos, who put an end to it. Diodorus, therefore, must some- where have introduced Castor's list as a synopsis, and have followed in his own special historical narrative the writer whose work he had before him, traces of whom can constantly be pointed out. In his connected enumeration of the generations of old Egyptian kings he never notices the list of five Egyptian legislators given at i. 94. Sasychis, the second on it, is not once named in the narrative. Nor is there any mention of the Egyptian naval power and Zet-Sethos. Eusebius, therefore, composed the 36th chapter of the first book of his Chronicles out of Castor's list, which was epitomized by Diodorus, and actually called by him an abridgement. The series thus acquired he then, in a very careless and arbitrary manner, introduced into his wretched Canon, and frequently forgot to give the dates. Still, as we have seen, he has recorded for us in that chapter a fact in the history of the Milesians not mentioned in the Canon, namely, the building of Naucratis. The only objection which can be raised against our conclusions from Grote's point of view would be this very agreement of the oldest dates which we have obtained, not with those adopted by Castor and the other chronographers for Troy and the Doric migrations, but with the corrected dates of those events which we have elicited by dint of critical research. Looking at it as matter of historical criticism (for I will not waste another word upon the new-fangled cycles), it may be asked how can Castor have been right in his D.l EESTORED LIST OF CASTOR. 635 data about the oldest thalassocracies in the age prior to the Doric emigration, or soon after it, when he has avowedly fixed that cardinal point about a hundred years too early ? My answer is, for this very simple reason : because, fortunately, he does not assign any causal relation between them and the fall of Troy, or the return of the Heraclidie. He, an inhabitant of Rhodes, derived his dates from local written information (com- putations by generations), and judiciously works them up into a series in the sense which we have discussed. The clearest proof that very rational isolated notices and computations about the date of the return of the Heraclidae were in existence is found in Plutarch's account, which is about a hundred years lower than the systematic one, and it agrees perfectly with the cor- rected date for Iphitus and Lycurgus. With all this there must always be uncertainties to the extent of twenty-five or thirty years. But the more settled points we obtain, the greater the probability of our approximating nearer to the truth. A great step, however, is already gained, if we can show that there really are in existence approximative dates of Hellenic history prior to the Olympiads, as can be indeed shown in the case, for instance, of the historical Hesiod. We will, therefore, close this inquiry with a synop- tical restoration of the epochs of Castor. 636 HISTORY OF THE lONIANS. [Book IV. Part VIII. Castor's Epochs of the Naval Powers iii the Mediterranean, in the Age after the Fall of Troy, down to the year vrior to Xerxes* Expedition. a o Name of the Starting-Point. Last Year. Naval Power, .rllSCOriCcll il