ABSTRACT
Concerning the causes which brought the XIIth Dynasty of the kings of Egypt to an end we have no information whatsoever, and although Manetho makes it to end with Skemiophris, whom we have seen to be the Sebek-neferu, or Sebek-neferu-Rā, of the hieroglyphic inscriptions, it is not absolutely certain that the dynasty ended with this queen. Manetho had, no doubt, good reasons for making the XIIth Dynasty to end with her, and it is pretty certain that his list represents in this respect the opinion which was current in the XVIIIth Dynasty among the authorities who wrote the works on which he based his King List; but it must not be forgotten that in the Tablet of Abydos the XIIth Dynasty ends with Ȧmenemḥāt IV. It is not likely that the sovereignty of this king's house was wrested from it by force, for there is no evidence forthcoming to indicate that the first king of the XIIIth Dynasty only ascended the throne after tumult and civil war and bloodshed. It may be that Sebek-neferu herself married a member of a noble family, who thereupon arrogated to himself royal rank and position, or she may have died whilst she was the absolute ruler of the country, leaving no issue, whereupon the sceptre of Egypt passed from her to some one near of kin. It is generally admitted that the kings of the XIIIth Dynasty were of Theban origin, and the monuments which they have left behind them differ very little in style and character from those of the kings of the XIIth Dynasty, who were certainly Theban; still, the objects which can be shown with a tolerable degree of certainty to belong to the period of the successors of the kings of the XIIth Dynasty have characteristics, which once recognized, cannot be mistaken. The period of Egyptian history which begins with the XIIIth Dynasty and ends with the end of the XVIIth Dynasty is full of difficulty, and it is impossible in the present state of Egyptological knowledge to give a truly satisfactory account of it. The monuments supply the names of a considerable number of kings who ruled between the XIIth and XVIIth Dynasties, but they cannot be arranged in proper chronological order, and it is very probable that several other kings reigned whose names are unrecorded. We obtain no assistance from the Tablet of Abydos, for the prenomen of Ȧmenemḥāt IV., the last king of the XIIth Dynasty, is followed by that of Amāsis I., the first king of the XVIIIth Dynasty; the Tablet of Karnak is useless for purposes of chronological arrangement of royal names, and the Tablet of Ṣaḳḳâra does not help us very much. And it is, unfortunately., the fact that the one document in the world, i.e. the King List in the Museum of Turin, which would have rendered possible a chronological arrangement and grouping of the royal names now supplied by the monuments, is practically worthless for the history of the period. It has already been shown 1 how useless it is for critical purposes, first, because of the lacunae in it, and, secondly, because the fragments of it which remain to us were joined together by Seyffarth, whose knowledge of hieratic was of the most meagre character, and whose system of decipherment of the Egyptian hieroglyphics has been shown to be hopelessly wrong; the remarks on the Turin Papyrus made by Rosellini, de Rougé, Birch, and Wiedemann, quoted above, 2 should not be forgotten in connexion with any assertion made about the chronology of the XIIIth Dynasty. The late Dr. Brugsch thought that a glance at the mutilated fragments of the Turin Papyrus would “convince the “reader that the five last columns of the once complete “work were consecrated to the memory of kings who “undoubtedly belonged to the preceding dynasties. “One may reckon their total number in this MS. at “5 × 30, i.e. 150, but it is evident that the genealogical “calculation could not be applied to fix approximately “the duration of their reign according to human calculations. The figures which have been preserved in “the canon [i.e., Papyrus], and which served to indicate “the years of the reign of each of the kings of whom “we have spoken, rarely surpass the number of three “or four. It is almost certain, therefore, that the “history of Egypt at this epoch must have been made “up of times of revolt and interior troubles, and “murders and assassinations, by which the life and “length of reign of the prince was not subjected to “the ordinary conditions of human existence.” 1 Dr. Brugsch, however, also held the view that “many “kings of the XIIIth Dynasty, and not only those “who were first in order of time, enjoyed perfect quiet “on the east side, and were occupied in erecting “monuments, the remains of which have been preserved “to our day, and whose size and kind do not point “to their having been hastily constructed. In the “days of their authors and their origin peaceful times “must have prevailed, and nothing looks like a foreign “occupation by the side of native kings.” 2
