Atlantis Online
May 22, 2019, 08:37:48 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Underwater caves off Yucatan yield three old skeletons—remains date to 11,000 B.C.
http://www.edgarcayce.org/am/11,000b.c.yucata.html
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

Manetho's Aegyptiaca (History of Egypt).

Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Manetho's Aegyptiaca (History of Egypt).  (Read 3044 times)
Ian Nottingham
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3441



« on: February 13, 2007, 01:17:22 pm »

- Manetho -

Despite Manetho's importance for the study of the history of Ancient Egypt, nothing much is really known about the man himself. Even the exact meaning of his name has been a point of discussion among Egyptologists and although it is now generally agreed upon that the name "Manetho" comes from the Ancient Egyptian mniw-htr, which means "keeper of the horses", the existence of such a name is not attested by Ancient Egyptian sources.

Manetho lived in Sebennytos, the capital of Egypt during the 30th Dynasty, and was a priest during the reigns of Ptolemy I and Ptolemy II. He is said to have been involved in the creation of the cult of Serapis - a god added to the Egyptian pantheon with both Hellenistic and Egyptian traits during the reign of Ptolemy I -, but this can not be confirmed.

Manetho owes his importance to the fact that he wrote the Aegyptiaca, a collection of three books about the history of Ancient Egypt, commissioned by Ptolemy II in his effort to bring together the Egyptian and Hellenistic cultures.

In order to do so, Manetho had access to the archives of the temple where he served as a priest. Such archives contained a vast number of different kinds of writings, ranging in contents from mythological texts to official records, from magical formulas to scientific treaties. He thus had all the sources he needed to write down the history of his country. With such sources, however, we may not be surprised to find myths and folk-tale mixed with the facts of the Egyptian history.

It is to Manetho's Aegyptiaca that we owe the division of Ancient Egyptian history in 30 dynasties. This division is not always based on historical facts: it was in parts based on mythology and in parts on divisions of ruling families already established in the past.

For instance, the 18th Dynasty starts with the rule of Ahmose, who was a brother of the last king of the 17th Dynasty. The third king of the 18th Dynasty was (probably) not related to his predecessors, but yet he is still placed in the same dynasty. This seemingly bizarre composition of the 18th Dynasty can be explained by the fact that with the rule of Ahmose started a new era of prosperity for Ancient Egypt, and thus the ancient record keepers on whom Manetho based his study of the 17th and 18th Dynasties must have considered him the founder of a new house.

The same is true for the first king of the 1st Dynasty, Menes, who probably has to be identified as Narmer: Menes' role in the unification of Egypt was so important, that he too was considered the founder of a new House.

On the other hand, Mentuhotep II reunited the country after the 1st Intermediate Period, but yet he is still counted as a member of the 11th Dynasty.

On other occasions, mythological elements were taken into consideration when dividing the history of Ancient Egypt into dynasties. The separation of the 1st and 2nd Dynasties seems purely artificial, so why did Manetho list 9 kings in the 1st Dynasty and 9 in the 2nd? Because 9 was a holy number: there were 9 gods in the Ennead, all of which once had ruled over Egypt.

Unfortunately, this valuable work has not (yet) been found or identified as such. It is only known through references, occasional excerpt and comments by later authors, the most important of which are Josephus, Africanus, Syncellus and Eusebius. To make matters even worse, the sources through which the Aegyptiaca is known, sometimes represent conflicting information.
Eusebius, for instance, counted only 3 kings in the 22nd Dynasty, whereas Africanus lists 9. The 23rd Dynasty is treated differently by the two classical authors as well: Eusebius listed 3 kings and gave the Dynasty a total length of 44 years, whereas Africanus counted 4 kings and assigned it only 31 years.The 26th Dynasty counted 9 kings with both Eusebius and Africanus, but with Eusebius it starts with a king named Ammeris and ended with Amosis, whereas Africanus names a Stephinates as the first and a Psammetikherites as the last king of that same Dynasty. Psamtek I of the 26th Dynasty is assigned a rule of 54 years by Africanus and 45 by Eusebius...

Soon after the original composition, the Aegyptiaca was epitomised, probably by extracting a framework of kings to which clung the occasional historical statement. At the same time, however, the original work was being abused, commented and falsified for political and religious motives. It is not unlikely that at this time, new works about the history of Egypt were being written under Manetho's name. Such works were often full of tendentious commentaries and anachronisms.

The classical authors who copied, commented or made references to the Aegyptiaca were thus confronted with different sources, all claiming to have been based on the original work. Josephus knew both the original Aegyptiaca or its epitome, and the fake Manethoan literature, but he was often unable to distinguish between them. Africanus knew and used the epitomised Aegyptiaca, while Eusebius quoted from Africanus and from a version of the Epitome altered by the Hellenistic Jews for religious purposes.

This makes the accessibility of Manetho's work very hard, but yet, when one knows how to separate the original work from its fakes, and when one knows to distinguish between fact and myth in the original work, Manetho's Aegyptiaca becomes a valuable source for the study of Ancient Egyptian history.

http://www.ancient-egypt.org/index.html
Report Spam   Logged

Ian Nottingham
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3441



« Reply #1 on: February 13, 2007, 01:19:06 pm »

Manetho, also known as Manethon of Sebennytos, was an Egyptian historian and priest from Sebennytos (ancient Egyptian: Tjebnutjer) who lived during the Ptolemaic era, circa 3rd century BC. Manetho recorded Aegyptiaca (History of Egypt). His work is of great interest to Egyptologists, and is often used as evidence for the chronology of the reigns of pharaohs.

The original Egyptian version of Manetho's name is now lost to us, but it is speculated to have meant "Gift of Thoth", "Beloved of Thoth", "Truth of Thoth", "Beloved of Neith", or "Lover of Neith". Less accepted proposals are Myinyu-heter ("Horseherd" or "Groom") and Ma'ani-Djehuti ("I have seen Thoth"). In Greek, the earliest fragments (the Carthage inscription and Flavius Josephus) write his name as Μανεθων Manethōn, so the rendering of his name here is given as Manetho (the same way that Platōn is rendered "Plato"). Other renderings in Greek include Manethōs, Manethō, Manethos, Manēthōs, Manēthōn, and even Manethōth. In Latin we find Manethon, Manethos, Manethonus, and Maneto
Report Spam   Logged
Ian Nottingham
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3441



« Reply #2 on: February 13, 2007, 01:20:35 pm »

Life and work

Although no sources for the dates of his life and death remain, his work is usually associated with the reigns of Ptolemy I Soter (323-283 BCE) and Ptolemy II Philadelphos (285-246 BCE). If the mention of Manetho in the Hibeh Papyri, dated to 240/1 BCE, is in fact Manetho the author of Aegyptiaca, then he may well have been working during the reign of Ptolemy III Euergetes (246-222 BCE) as well. Although he was Egyptian and his topics dealt with Egyptian matters, he wrote solely in Greek. Other works he wrote include Against Herodotus, The Sacred Book, On Antiquity and Religion, On Festivals, On the Preparation of Kyphi, the Digest of Physics. The astrological treatise Book of Sothis has also been attributed to Manetho. In Aegyptiaca, he coined the term "dynasty" (Greek: dynasteia, abstractly meaning "governmental power") to represent groups of rulers with a common origin.

He was probably a priest of the sun god Ra at Heliopolis (according to Syncellus, he was the chief priest), and was also considered an authority on the cult of Sarapis (a derivation of Osiris-Apis). Sarapis itself was a Greco-Macedonian annexation of the Egyptian cult, probably started after Alexander the Great's establishment of Alexandria in Egypt. A statue of the god was imported between 286-278 BCE by Ptolemy (either Soter or Philadelphos), where Timotheus of Athens (an authority on Demeter at Eleusis) and Manetho oversaw the project.

Report Spam   Logged
Ian Nottingham
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3441



« Reply #3 on: February 13, 2007, 01:22:23 pm »

Aegyptiaca

Aegyptiaca (also called Aigyptiaka), the "History of Egypt", was Manetho's largest work, and certainly the most important. It was organised chronologically and divided into three volumes, and his division of rulers into dynasties was a new innovation. However, he did not use the term the way we do, by bloodlines, but rather, introduced new dynasties whenever he detected some sort of discontinuity whether geographical (Dynasty IV from Memphis, V from Elephantine), or genealogical (especially in Dynasty I, he refers to each successive Pharaoh as the "son" of the previous to define what he means by "continuity"). Within the superstructure of a genealogical table of rulers, he fills in the gaps with substantial narratives of the Pharaonic rulers.

Some have suggested that Aegyptiaca was written as a competing account to Herodotus' Histories of Herodotus, to provide a national history for Egypt that did not exist before. From this perspective, Against Herodotus may have been an abridged version or just a part of Aegyptiaca that circulated independently. Unfortunately, neither survive in their original form today.


[edit] Transmission and reception
The problems with a close study of Manetho, despite the reliance of Egyptologists on him for their reconstructions of the Egyptian dynasties, is that not only was Aegyptiaca not preserved as a whole, but that it became involved in a bitter battle between advocates of Egyptian, Jewish, and Greek histories in the form of supporting polemics. During this period, disputes raged over the "oldest" civilizations, and so Manetho's account was probably excerpted during this time for use in this argument with significant alterations. Material similar to Manetho's has been found in Lysimakhos of Alexandria, and it has been suggested that this was inserted into Manetho. We do not know when this occurred, but scholars place a terminus ante quem at the first century CE, when Josephus began writing.

The earliest surviving attestation to Manetho is that of Josephus' Contra Apionem, "Against Apion". Even here, it is clear that Josephus did not have the originals, and constructing a polemics Manetho without them. Avaris and Osarsephos are both mentioned twice (1.78, 86-87; 238, 250). Apion 1.95-97 is merely a list of kings with no narratives until 1.98, while running across two of Manetho's dynasties without mention (Dynasties XVIII and XIX). Many scholars have attempted to recreate which portions were written by the anti-Jewish, pro-Jewish, anti-Egyptian, pro-Egyptian, anti-Greek and pro-Greek writers, but the conclusions have been disputed.

Contemporaneously or perhaps after Josephus wrote, an Epitome, or summary, of Manetho's work. This would have involved preserving the outlines of his dynasties and a few details deemed significant. For the first ruler of the first Dynasty, Menes, we learn that "He was snatched and killed by a hippopotamus". The extent to which the epitome preserved Manetho's original writing is unclear, so caution must be exercised. Nevertheless, the epitome was preserved by Sextus Julius Africanus and Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea (Chronicon). Because Africanus predates Eusebius, his version is usually considered more reliable, but there is no assurance that this is the case. Eusebius in turn was preserved by Jerome in his Latin translation, an Armenian translation, and by Syncellus. Syncellus recognised the similarities between Eusebius and Africanus, so he placed them side by side in his work, Ecloga Chronographica.

These last four copies are what remains of the epitome of Manetho. Other significant fragments include Malalas' Chronographia and Excerpta Latina Barbari, "Excerpts in Bad Latin". The route of transmission for the bulk of Manetho's work is given in the table below (adapted from Verbrugghe and Wickersham 2000:118).

Report Spam   Logged
Ian Nottingham
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3441



« Reply #4 on: February 13, 2007, 01:23:59 pm »

Transmission of Manetho

Report Spam   Logged
Ian Nottingham
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3441



« Reply #5 on: February 13, 2007, 01:25:59 pm »

Sources and methods

Manetho's methods involved the use of king-lists to provide a structure for his history. There were probably precedents to his writing available in Egypt (plenty of which has survived to this day), and his Hellenistic and Egyptian background would have been influential in his writing. Josephus records him admitting to using "nameless oral tradition" (1.105) and "myths and legends" (1.229) into his account, and there is no reason to doubt this, as admissions of this type were common among historians (including Josephus). His familiarity with Egyptian legends is undisputable, but how he came to know Greek is more open to debate. He must have been familiar with Herodotus, and in some cases, he even attempted to synchronise Egyptian history with Greek (for example, equating Memnon with Amenophis, and Armesis with Danaos). This suggests he was also familiar with the Greek Epic Cycle (where the Ethiopian Memnon is slain by Achilles during the Trojan War) and the history of Argos (in Aeschylus' Suppliants). However, it has also been suggested that these were later interpolations particularly when the epitome was being written, so these guesses are at best tentative. At the very least, he wrote in fluent Koinê.

Report Spam   Logged
Ian Nottingham
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3441



« Reply #6 on: February 13, 2007, 01:27:15 pm »

King lists

The king-list that Manetho had access to is unknown to us, but of the surviving king-lists, the one most similar to his is the Turin Royal Canon (or Turin Papyrus). The oldest source with which we can compare to Manetho are the Old Kingdom Annals (ca. 2500-2200 BCE). From the New Kingdom are the list at Karnak (erected by Thutmose), two at Abydos (by Seti I and Ramesses—the latter a duplicate but updated version of the former), and the Saqqara list by the priest Tenry.

The provenance of the Old Kingdom Annals is unknown, surviving as the Palermo Stone. The differences between the Annals and Manetho are vast. The Annals only reach to the fifth dynasty, but its pre-dynastic rulers are listed as the kings of Lower Egypt and kings of Upper Egypt. By contrast, Manetho lists several Greek and Egyptian gods beginning with Hephaistos and Helios. Secondly, the Annals give annual reports of the activities of the kings, while there is little probability that Manetho would have been able to go into such detail.

The New Kingdom lists are each selective in their listings: that of Seti I, for instance, lists 76 kings from Dynasties I to XIX omitting the Hyksos rulers and those associated with the heretic Akhenaten. The Saqqara list, contemporaneous with Ramesses II, has 58 names, with similar omissions. If Manetho used these lists at all, he would have been unable to get all of his information from them alone, due to the selective nature of their records. Verbrugghe and Wickersham argue:

Furthermore, the purpose of these lists was to cover the walls of a sacred room in which the reigning Pharaoh (or other worshiper, as in the case of Tenry and his Saqqara list) made offerings or prayers to his or her predecessors, imagined as ancestors. Each royal house had a particular traditional list of these "ancestors," different from that of the other houses. The purpose of these lists is not historical but religious. It is not that they are trying and failing to give a complete list. They are not trying at all. Seti and Ramesses did not wish to make offerings to Akhenaten, Tutankhamen, or Hatshepsut, and that is why they are omitted, not because their existence was unknown or deliberately ignored in a broader historical sense. For this reason, the Pharaonic king-lists were generally wrong for Manetho's purposes, and we should commend Manetho for not basing his account on them (2000:105).
These large stelae stand in contrast to the Turin Royal Canon (like Saqqara, contemporaneous with Ramesses II), written in hieratic script. Like Manetho, it begins with the gods, and like Manetho, appears to be an epitome very similar in spirit and style to Manetho. Interestingly, the opposite side of the papyrus includes government records. Verbrugghe and Wickersham suggest that a comprehensive list like this would be necessary for a government office "to date contracts, leases, debts, titles, and other instruments (2000:106)" and so could not have been selective the way the king-lists in temples were. Despite numerous differences between the Turin Canon and Manetho, the format must have been available to him. As a priest (or chief priest), he would have had access to practically all written materials in the temple.

While the precise origins for Manetho's Kinglist are unknown, it was certainly a Northern Lower Egyptian one. This can be deduced most noticeably from his selection of the kings for the Third Intermediate Period. Manetho consistently includes the Tanite Dynasty 21 and Dynasty 22 line in his Epitome such as Psusennes I, Amenemope and even such short-lived rulers here like Amenemnisu(5 years) and Osochor(6 years). In contrast, he ignores the existence of Theban kings such as Osorkon III, Takelot III, Harsiese A and Pinedjem I and rulers from Middle Egypt like Peftjaubast of Herakleopolis. This implies that Manetho derived the primary sources for his Epitome from a local city's temple library in the Delta Region which was under the control of the Tanite based Dynasty 21 and Dynasty 22 kings. The Middle and Upper Egyptian Pharaohs had no impact upon this specific region of the Delta; hence their exclusion from Manetho's kinglist.

Report Spam   Logged
Ian Nottingham
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3441



« Reply #7 on: February 13, 2007, 01:28:23 pm »

Transcriptions of Pharaonic names

By the Middle Kingdom, Egyptian kings bore five different names, the "Horus" name; the "Two Ladies" name; the "Gold Horus" name; the praenomen or "throne name"; and a nomen, the personal name given at birth (also called a "Son of Ra" name as it was preceded by Sa Re'). Some Pharaohs also had multiple examples within these names, such as Ramesses II who used six Horus names at various times. Because Manetho's transcriptions agree with many king-lists, it is generally accepted that he was reliant on one or more such lists, and it is not clear to what extent he was aware of the different pharaonic names of rulers long past (and he had alternate names for some). Not all the different names for each ruler have been uncovered.

As such, Manetho did not pick consistently from the five different types of names, but in some cases, a straightforward transcription is possible. Egyptian Men or Meni (Son of Ra and king-list names) becomes Menes (officially, this is Pharaoh I.1 Aha—"I" represents Dynasty I, and "1" means the first king of that dynasty), while Menkauhor/Menkahor (Throne and king-list names, the Horus names is Menkhau and the Son of Ra name is "Kaiu Horkaiu[...]") is transcribed as Menkheres (V.7 Menkauhor). Others involve a slight shortening, such as A'akheperen-Re' (Throne and king-list names) becoming Khebron (XVIII.4 Thutmose II). A few more have consonants switched for unknown reasons, as in Tausret becoming Thouoris (XIX.6 Twosre/Tausret). One puzzle is in the conflicting names of some early dynastic rulers—though they did not have all five titles, they still had multiple names. I.3/4 Djer, whose Son of Ra name is Itti is seen as the basis for Manetho's I.2 Athothis. I.4 Oenephes then is a puzzle unless it is compared with Djer's Gold Horus name, Ennebu. It may be that Manetho duplicated the name or he had a source for a name unknown to us. Finally, there are some names where the connection is a complete mystery to us. V.6 Rhathoures/Niuserre's full name was Set-ib-tawi Set-ib-Nebty Netjeri-bik-nebu Ni-user-Re' Ini Ni-user-Re', but Manetho writes it as Rhathoures. It may be that some pharaohs were known by names other than even just the five official ones.

Thus, how Manetho transcribed these names varies, and as such we cannot reconstruct the original Egyptian forms of the names. However, because of the simplicity with which Manetho transcribed long names (see above), they were preferred until original king-lists began to be uncovered, translated, and corroborated in ancient Egyptian sites. Manetho's division of dynasties, however, is still used as a basis for all Egyptian discussions.

Report Spam   Logged
Ian Nottingham
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3441



« Reply #8 on: February 13, 2007, 01:30:44 pm »

Content

Volume 1 begins from the earliest times, listing gods and demigods as rulers of Egypt. We do not know what the stories inside contained, but some of the associated legends of Isis, Osiris, Seth, or Horus might have been found in here. Manetho does not transliterate either, but gives the Greek equivalents in a convention that predates him: Ptah = Hephaistos; Isis = Demeter; Thoth = Hermes; Horus = Apollo; Seth = Typhon; etc. This is one of the clues as to how syncretism developed between seemingly disparate religions. He then proceeds to Dynastic Egypt, from Dynasty I to XI. This would have included the Old Kingdom (pyramid-builders), the First Intermediate Period, and the early Middle Kingdom.

Volume 2 covers Dynasties XII - XIX, which includes the end of the Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period (XV-XVII—the Hyksos invasion), and then their expulsion and the establishment of the New Kingdom (XVIII onward). The Second Intermediate Period was of particular interest to Josephus, where he equated the Hyksos or "shepherd-kings" as the ancient Israelites who eventually made their way out of Egypt (Apion 1.82-92). He even includes a brief etymological discussion of the term "Hyksos".

Volume 3 continues with Dynasty XX and brings it to a conclusion in Dynasty XXX (or XXXI, see below). The Saite Renaissance comes in Dynasty XXVI, while XXVII involves the Achaemenid interruption to Egyptian rule. Three more local dynasties are mentioned, though they must have overlapped with Persian rule. XXXI consisted of three Persian rulers, and some have suggested that this was added by a continuator. Both Moses of Chorene and Jerome end at Nectanebo ("last king of the Egyptians" and "destruction of the Egyptian monarchy" respectively), but XXXI fits within Manetho's schemata of demonstrating power through the dynasteia well. The Thirty-second dynasty would have been the Ptolemies.


Similarities with Berossos

Most of the ancient witnesses group him together with Berossos, and treat the pair as similar in spirit, and it is no coincidence that those who preserved the bulk of their writing are largely the same (Josephus, Africanus, Eusebius, and Syncellus). Certainly, both wrote about the same time, and both adopted the historiographical approach of the Greek historians, Herodotus and Hesiod, who preceded them. While the subjects of their history are different, the form is similar, using chronological royal genealogies as the structure from which the narratives came. Both extend their histories far into the mythic past, to give the gods rule over the earliest ancestral histories.

Syncellus goes so far as to insinuate that the two copied each other:

If one carefully examines the underlying chronological lists of events, one will have full confidence that the design of both is false, as both Berossos and Manetho, as I have said before, want to glorify each his own nation, Berossos the Chaldean, Manetho the Egyptian. One can only stand in amazement that they were not ashamed to place the beginning of their incredible story in each in one and the same year.
Ecloga Chronographica, 30
While this does seem an incredible coincidence, the reliability of the report is unclear. The reasoning for assuming they started their histories in the same year involved some considerable contortions. Berossos dated the period before the Flood to 120 saroi (3,600 year periods), giving an estimate of 432,000 years before the flood. This was unacceptable to later Christian commentators, so it was assumed he meant solar days. 432,000 divided by 365 days gives a rough figure of 1,183½ years before the flood. For Manetho, even more numeric contortions ensued. With no flood mentioned, they assumed that Manetho's first era describing the gods represented the ante-diluvian age. Secondly, they took the spurious Book of Sothis for a chronological count. Six dynasties of gods totalled 11,985 years, while the nine dynasties with demigods came to 858 years. Again, this was too long for the Biblical account, so two different units of conversion were used. The 11,985 years were considered to be months of 29½ days each (a conversion used in antiquity, for example Diodorus Siculus), which comes out to 969 years. The latter period, however, was divided into "seasons", or quarters of a year, and reduces to 214½ years (another conversion attested to by Diodorus). The sum of these comes out to 1,183½ years, equal to that of Berossos. Syncellus rejected both Manetho's and Berossos' incredible time-spans, as well as the efforts of other commentators to harmonise their numbers with scripture. Ironically as we see, he also blamed them for the synchronicity concocted by later writers.


Impact of Aegyptiaca

It is speculated that Manetho wrote at the request of Ptolemy I or II to give an account of the history of Egypt to the Greeks from a native's perspective. However, there is no evidence to support this hypothesis. If such were the case, Aegyptiaca was a failure, since Herodotus' Histories continued to provide the standard account in the Hellenistic world. It may also have been that some nationalistic sentiments in Manetho provided the impetus for his writing, but that again is conjecture. It is clear, however, that when it was written, it would have proven to be the authoritative account of the history of Egypt, superior to Herodotus in every way. The completeness and systematic nature in which he marshalled his sources was unprecedented. Furthermore, its influence could be seen in the way the Hellenistic Jews and their opponents considered it of prime importance in the struggle over their histories.

Syncellus similarly recognised its importance when recording Eusebius and Africanus, and even provided a separate witness from the Book of Sothis. Unfortunately, this material is likely to have been a forgery or hoax of unknown date. Every king in Sothis after Menes is irreconcilable with the versions of Africanus and Eusebius. Manetho should not be judged on the factuality of his account, but on the approach he took to recording history, and in this, he was as successful as Herodotus and Hesiod.

Finally, in modern times, the impact is still visible in the way Egyptologists divide the dynasties of the pharaohs. The French explorer and Egyptologist, Jean-François Champollion reportedly carried a copy of Manetho's lists in one hand as he attempted to decipher the hieroglyphics he encountered (though it probably gave him more frustration than joy, considering the way Manetho transcribed the names). Most modern scholarship that mentions the names of the pharaohs will render both the modern transcription and Manetho's version, and Manetho's names are even preferred to more authentic ones in some cases. Today, his division of dynasties is universally used, and this has permeated into the study of nearly all royal genealogies through the understanding of succession in terms of dynasties or houses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manetho
Report Spam   Logged
Ian Nottingham
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3441



« Reply #9 on: February 13, 2007, 01:33:37 pm »

MANETHO'S OLD CHRONICLE
The Reign of the Gods

(Problems with extant fragments)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


EXTANT LISTS OF THE GOD-KINGS

TURIN PAPYRUS G. SMITH'S VERSION 1 PALERMO STONE MANETHO'S LIST OF GOD-KINGS
Ptah Ptah - - - Hephaestus
Ra Ra - - - Helius
Su Su Shu Agathodaemon
Seb Seb Keb Cronus
Osiris Hosiri Ausar Osiris
Set Set Sht - - -
Horus Hor Hwr Typhon
Thoth Tut Djehuti Horus
Ma Ma Mch 
Horus Hor Hwr 


Comparing the above king-lists with one another leads me to believe, since we have only fragmented and corrupted copies of Manetho's original Aegyptiaca, that at several points his redactors have introduced telling inaccuracies. If we accept the oldest fragments that we have of Manetho--that of Josephus--it appears that Manetho's original work was composed in narrative style. One of the early redactors apparently took it upon himself to alter the format into the above tabular form (which became known among scholars as the "Manetho Model"). It was this basic change that most likely led to the errors described below.


In addition to this, it seems that certain redactors seemed to be hung up on "sacred numbers": some redactors tended to group names into Enneads (groups of nine); others in groups of eight (8 god-kings, 8 demi-gods, 8 first dynasty kings, etc.), neither of which accurately represented reality. Be that as it may, by the time copies got down to us, there were only seven names in the list of god-kings.2


The first thing we notice is the gap between Osiris and Typhon. What was the purpose of this gap? It appears that the "Manetho Model" available to Eusebius and Africanus called for eight kings in each dynasty; but having only seven names of god-kings available to them, they created a gap. And since the tradition was strong that Horus was the last of the god-kings, they arranged it as you see above. So, what is the problem with the above arrangement?


To begin with, using only eight kings (as is specified in our "fragments") we can see that in reality it is the eighth king that is missing. For instance, we know that "Typhon" is the Greek equivalent for King Set (see below). So if we move the last two names up one notch (shifting the gap down to slot Cool, then Typhon equates correctly with Set, Horus moves up to his proper place, and all the names match. But this creates another problem. What about the tradition that Horus is the last and final god-king?

Ptah     Hephaestus
Ra     Helius
Su     Agathodaemon
Seb [or Keb]     Cronus
Osiris     Osiris
Set     Typhon
Horus     Horus
Thoth     - - -



This was most likely the reason the redactor created the gap in the first place: so Horus would be the eighth god-king--but the process put both Horus and Typhon totally out of sync with other, more complete Egyptian king-lists. So how can both problems be solved? Fortunately, now that we have discovered older and more complete king-lists, we can be confident of the correct order, and we can be certain as to how many god-kings there really were!


It is from these older king-lists that we learn that there were in reality ten god-kings, not eight. We learn also that the rulers "Thoth" and "Ma" followed this first king "Horus"; and finally of a second "Horus" (the tenth king) who closed out the "Reign of the Gods" in agreement with ancient Egyptian tradition.


So the tradition carried down that Horus was the last of the god-kings remains intact; but the appearance of two separate kings in the list, both named "Horus," evidently triggered a simple scribal error (known as haplographic error), which lead in turn to subsequent errors in copying Manetho's original king-list. Here is what happened.


At some point early on, an ancient Greek copyist, using an originally complete, but tabular form (i.e., the "Manetho Model"), inadvertently skipped from the first "Horus" following Set (i.e., the seventh king) to the last "Horus" (i.e., the tenth king), thereby leaving out three kings! Once this mistake was made, the above described corruptions were then passed on to posterity.


In view of the foregoing, I'm suggesting the following correlation to be the correct one, and therefore use it throughout this web site.

TURIN MS.     MANETHO
Ptah     Hephaestus
Ra     Helius
Su     Agathodaemon
Seb [or Keb]     Cronus
Osiris     Osiris
Set     Typhon
Horus     - - -
Thoth     - - -
Ma     - - -
Horus     Horus


I am sure many modern scholars would love to know what, in Manetho's mind, dictated the equating of Agathodaemon (simply a Greek word meaning "good" or "benevolent" deity) with the "Su" in the Egyptian list. We also wonder what Greek name Manetho had originally chosen to represent the "Ma" of the Egyptian list. We do know that the Greeks generally equated the Egyptian god "Thoth" with Hermes Trismegistos, although we can't be sure what Greek name Manetho actually used in his original Aegyptiaca for King Thoth. With the information we presently possess, we are forced to be satisfied with the above reconstruction.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Notes


1 This translation of the Turin Papyrus can be found on p. 290 of the famed Assyriologist George Smith's "Chaldean Account of Genesis" (Whittingham & Wilkins, London, 1872). It appears in a chart comparing the "dynasty of gods" with a Chaldean king-list and the ten antediluvian patriarchs of Genesis. [Back]


2 It also might be pointed out that when comparing all available "fragments" of Manetho's Aegyptiaca (i.e., Josephus, Eusebius, Africanus, Syncellus, and Castor) other minor differences are also noticed. Judging from these it appears that certain ancient authors were less than careful with their sources. [Back]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

URL: http://www.atlantisquest.com
Issued by Atlantek Software Inc.
25 July 2003: Version 1.3
http://www.atlantisquest.com/Manetho.html

Report Spam   Logged
Isis
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4138



« Reply #10 on: February 18, 2007, 04:13:05 am »

List of Ancient Egyptian Gods
 
Neferiti

Amaunet - A female counterpart to Amon and one of the primordial gods of the Hermopolitian Ogdoad (group of eight gods). She was also worshipped at Thebes along with Amon and Mut.

Amon - Usually associated with the wind, or things hidden, and was also of the Hermopolitian Ogdoad. At Thebes he became Amon-Re, king of the gods. He was part of the Theban Triad, along with Mut and Khonsu.

Antaios - He was originally a double god, "the two falcons", that was later joined to create one, probably that of Horus.

Anuket - Worshipped at Elephantine, she was associated with the gazelle.

Apis - Seen as the bull with a solar disk between its horns, Apis was associated with Osiris and Ptah.

Aton - Also known as Aten, he was worshipped at Tell 'Amarna.

Atum - A primordial god that was represented in the form of a human and a serpent. He was the supreme god in the Heliopolitan Ennead (group of nine gods) and formed with Re to create Re-Atum.

Hathor - The goddess of love, dance and alcohol was depicted as a cow. At Thebes she was also the goddess of the dead. She was worshipped at Dendera as the consort of Horus and Edfu, and was associated with Isis at Byblos.

Horus - The earliest royal god was the shape of a falcon, with the sun and moon as his eyes. The sky-god was the ruler of the day. According to one myth, Horus had sovereignty over the whole of Egypt. His rival and brother, Seth, had dominion over Upper Egypt. In their struggle for control over land, the two brothers dismembered each other. The many forms of Horus are; Re-Harakhti, Harsiesis, Haroeris, Harendotes, Khenti-irti, Khentekhtay (the crocodile-god), and Harmakhis, which is Horus on the horizons, in which the Sphinx of Giza is considered to be his aspect.

Isis - The mother of Horus and sister and consort of Osiris was worshipped at Philae. Associated with Astarte, Hathor, Nut and Sothis, she was later worshipped over the entire Roman Empire.

Khnum - Resembling a human with a rams head, he was worshipped in Hypselis, Esna, Antinoe and Elephantine.

Khonsu - the moon god was the son of Amon and Mut. The main temple at Karnak is dedicated to him.

Min - God of fertility coalesced with Amon and Horus. Min was mainly worshipped at Coptos and Akhmim.

Mut - Worshipped at Thebes, she was a consort of Amon and part of the Theban Triad (group of three gods).

Nut - Mother of the sun, moon and heavenly bodies.

Osiris - He is regarded as the dead king that watches over the nether world and is rejuvenated in his son Horus. As the symbol of eternal life he was worshipped at Abydos and Philae.

Ptah - Worshipped in Memphis, he coalesced with Sokaris and Osiris.

Re - He was the sun god of Heliopolis. From the fifth Dynasty onwards he becomes a national god and is combined with the supreme deity Amon.

Serapis - He was mainly worshipped in Alexandria and was later worshipped by the Greeks as Zeus. He was never fully accepted by the Egyptians in the Ptolemaic period.

Sekhmet - She was part of the Memphite Triad with Ptah and Nefertem. She was the mistress of war and sickness.

Seth - The son of Geb and Nut in the Heliopolitan Ennead was in the form of an animal that has no zoological equivalent. This powerful god was regarded as god of the desert, making him a god of foreign lands.

Shu - He was an ancient cosmic power and was regarded as the god of the air and the bearer of heaven.

Sobek - He was a crocodile god and was worshipped at the Faiyum and Ombos. During the middle Kingdom he coalesced with Re, Sobek-Re, and was worshipped as primordial deity and creator-god.

Thoth - He was worshipped as a baboon in Hermopolis. He was the god of sacred writings and wisdom.


http://saxakali.com/COLOR_ASP/listof.htm
Report Spam   Logged
Danaus
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 188



« Reply #11 on: February 20, 2007, 09:03:01 am »

Corey's Ancient Fragments (Manetho and Berossus)
http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC01389063&id=IwsDAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=corys+ancient+fragments#PPP18,M1
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum | Buy traffic for your forum/website
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy