Chronology and Periodization

8/19/2019 Chronology and Periodization

1/8

CHRONOLOGY AND PERIODIZATION.

The structure of Egyptian history remains, as always, itschronology. Unlike the other cultures which surrounded theNile Valley and remained, for all practical purposes, in apreliterate stage, pharaonic civilization developed writing inEarly Dynastic times and so was ale to systematize itscomple! society around key historical and chronologicalevents. During the "rst dynasty and the second, for e!ample,a rudimentary system of calendrics was developed with theinterconnected system of regnal#year dating $counting theyears of a king%s reign&. 'lthough little is known from sourcesof that period, the Egyptians worked with a relativelye(cient method of time demarcation that included separate

names or designations for the pharaoh%s years in o(ce)however, it does not seem that any overt reckoning ased ondynasties or ruling houses $families& was then in operation.

*ur present historical schema of dividing the history of Egyptinto periods called +ingdoms+ $*ld, -iddle, and New& is amodem one) it is ased on the Egyptian eras of political unityand eective internal paci"cation. Developed yEgyptologists in the nineteenth century, this division

depended on a wealth of te!tual and pictorial data thatemanated from economically and politically viale epochs,not all of which "t neatly into separate dynasties. -oreover,since the earliest dynasties/in particular the "rst two/werearely known at that time, the collective unity of the +*ldingdom+ was set from the third to the si!th dynasty.0imilarly, as the second phase of pharaonic unity occurredwithin the eleventh

Dynasty $under Nehepetre -ontuhotep 1&, rather than at the

end of one, the term +-iddle ingdom+ came to encompass aperiod that did not properly coincide with a reak etweenruling houses. The same may e said for the end of that eraof staility) in the eighteenth century 23E, the ruling houseof the thirteenth dynasty was pushed out of the north, wherea rival kingdom was ased. 1n that case, the designation+-iddle ingdom+ ends at a time in which the legitimaterulers were faced with an eective new dynasty, not with thetotal demise of their own.

4


2/8

The Egyptians, although witnessing and understanding theirperiods of social harmony and strength as well as those ofcivil war, disunity, and relative weakness, nonetheless didnot arrange their own schema of history to re5ect that

inherent dichotomy. 1n fact, the present#day detailed listingof various dynasties/from the presumed foundation of theuni"ed state in the "rst dynasty $the 6oining of the Two7ands& to the very end/was developed over a long timeperiod. 1t egan with -anetho, an Egyptian priest from theNile Delta, who wrote in 8reek for the 9tolemies, his foreignoverlords $c.:;< 23E&) his king lists formed the asis of the3lassical era%s understanding of Nile Valley history andremains the asis for ours. 'lthough the records concerning

the various ruling houses with which -anetho workedre5ected, to no small degree, the inherent politicalsegmentation of ancient Egypt, it can e shown that many of his divisions were not ased on sources contemporary withthose dynasties. =or Egyptologists, the ma6or outline of EarlyDynastic history remains the "fth dynasty 9alermo 0tone, aswell as additional fragments that may elong to anotherstela.

The 9alermo 0tone covers, in a very schematic fashion, the

regnal years of the pharaohs, which were set within their civilcalendar $of >?@ daysAannum&. 'lthough 9redynastic rulerswere included, they are mere names. *nly for the pharaohsof the "rst two dynasties $the so#called 'rchaic 'ge or EarlyDynastic period& is there evidence that connects a king%syear with a speci"c event. Usually religious in import, theseearly regnal years appear to e rief designations of themost important event that occurred within the given year)full reigns with integers from one onward were not the rule.

7ater, however, there was a growing attempt to simplifymatters, and it is not surprising that the e!pandingureaucratic state of ancient Egypt egan to develop a moreconsistent means of counting regnal years. 3ertainly y thethird dynasty the state had rought into its apparatus theconcept of a census of cattle, one that took place on aregular iennial asis. The cattle +counts+ appear on thelower portions of the entries on the 9alermo 0tone, and theycoincide with the estalishment of the e!pansive economic

unity of the third dynasty and onward. 'lthough di(cult todetermine with total accuracy, this system ecame annual in

:


3/8

the si!th dynasty, therey forming the asis of theregularized and simple system of o(cial state ookkeepingand records. Unfortunately, the 9alermo 0tone reaks o inthe mid#"fth dynasty, so other sources were used to

document this change.

The 9alermo 0tone, as well as various fragments that mayelong to it, have een augmented y the pulication of asecond, rather detailed list of such +annals.+ Dated to thelate "fth dynasty and the si!th, this list follows the samecounting style as the earlier record. 0igni"cantly, all of theseearly lists do not provide demarcations that coincide with-anetho%s account. E!cept for the ovious reak etweenthe 9redynastic monarchs and the dynastic, the compilers of

such lists felt their kingdom to e a unity, one which eganwith the uni"cation of Egypt and the "rst dynasty and thenproceeded onward) the only sharp division is that etweenthese rulers of the Doule 3rown/the pharaohs over allEgypt/and their predecessors, who may have worn eitherthe Bed 3rown of 7ower Egypt or the Chite 3rown of UpperEgypt.

The division into dynasties with which -anetho worked holds

well if such ruling houses as the twelfth or the eighteenthdynasties are considered. 's many scholars have seen,prolems arise when there are attempts to analyze in detailthe reasons for those divisions. -anetho%s dynasties re5ect alengthy historiographic tradition, in which the geographicallocation of a ruling lineage mattered, with respect to itsorigins. -anetho%s Dynasty 4;, for e!ample, was said to e

Thean $Diospolite&, which corresponded perfectly with theirorigins although the pharaohs of the age had their capital in

the North, at -emphis. is Dynasty 4@ is said to e that ofthe yksos, foreign overlords from the 7evant who eventuallyruled the Nile Delta and a sizale portion of -iddle Egypt.*ne ma6or prolem with -anetho as a late source/and it isan intractale one/is that the te!t is mainly preserved ine!cerpts drawn up y later chronographers) what ispreserved is a mere summation of a relatively detailed workin which a few speci"c events associated with the pharaohsare recorded. 2y and large, what matters are the dynasties,

the names of the kings, and their lengths of reign. Even withthe additional prolems of te!tual corruption over the

>


4/8

centuries, -anetho presents a very confused arrangement of dynasties when he covers Egypt%s periods of disunity.Egyptologists call those 1ntermediate 9eriods, and they arelaeled =irst, 0econd, and Third. The =irst 1ntermediate 9eriod

followed the *ld ingdom. 1t corresponds to the time whenthe old -emphite line had ended ut efore a new lineage orruling house had taken over the whole Nile Valley) the e!acteginning and end of that period of social upheaval did notcoincide either with the commencement or the end of adynasty. The 0econd 1ntermediate 9eriod was placed afterthe -iddle ingdom ut efore the New ingdom. 1ts preciseeginning is unclear, ut modern scholars consider thecollapse of the unity under a feele thirteenth dynasty to

provide the demarcation etween the -iddle ingdom andthe ensuing era of disunity. The Third 1ntermediate 9eriodrefers to the time after the New ingdom ut efore thereuni"cation of Egypt under the 0aite monarchs of thetwenty#si!th dynasty.

These convenient designations of Egypt%s national successand failure are purely modern schematic terms and must note considered to re5ect ancient usage. To take a goode!ample in the =irst 1ntermediate 9eriod, two rival houses of

Thees and erakleopolis wa!ed and waned in theirattempts to consolidate their own power over all of the NileValley. 1n the North, the erakleopolitans are considered y-anetho to have ruled in Dynasties F and 4


5/8

ruled y the various yksos pharaohs of the "fteenthdynasty, while at the same time a new Thean dynastyemerged $the seventeenth&, one that eventually egan asuccessful counterattack upon the North. This rief account

of 0econd 1ntermediate 9eriod history is arely re5ected inthe standard native Egyptian accounts of their past that areking lists or annals. -anetho was confused over hisDynasties 4: and 4G. The valuale Turin 3anon was preparedin the nineteenth dynasty as a detailed papyrus of thepharaohs and their reigns and appears to 1n many ways, the

Turin 3anon provides a more e!act asis for historicalperiodization than any other native source, -anethoincluded. The twelfth dynasty is e!plicitly indicated, although

its location is given $the Northern capital of 1t6tawy& ratherthan a dynasty numer. The kings who followed after thatdynasty were noted, as well as the earlier Thean state ofthe eleventh dynasty. ' useful totaling up of reigns is given,such as from the "rst dynasty to the "fth or from the "rst tothe eighth, the latter clearly indicating a time in which unityprevailed. ence, the Turin 3anon can e conceived as aprecursor to -anetho, as well as to the modem scholarlydivisions called +ingdoms.+ Het the chronological divisions

called +1ntermediate 9eriods+ remain outside that ancientdetailed list of pharaohs and regnal years. 0ince the divisionsof ruling houses were mainly ased on geographicallocations, any disunity or con5icting states within Egypt wasavoided. =or that reason, the Turin 3anon reads as if none ofthe dynasties overlapped ut instead occurred in a purelyseIuential fashion. The document assumes as well thee!istence of a -emphite monarchy from the "rst dynastyonward $until the eighth dynasty&, and thus it provides afalse impression of the earliest phase of pharaonic unity.Nevertheless, the Turin 3anon records, in the nativelanguage, a useful parallel to -anetho) for e!ample, thevarious gods and demigods of 9redynastic Egypt wereincluded, therey paralleling -anetho%s records of earlydivine rulers and later +heroes+ connect all of the nativerulers of Dynasty 4: with those of Dynasty 4J. 'lthough theyksos kings were treated separately from the Egyptiankings, prolems still occur among the other numerouspharaohs on this list. 7ong series of royal names, often calledking lists, also help in the reconstruction of the historical

@


6/8

aspect of this foreign domination) however, they ignore theforeign rulers of the North, preferring to include some $ut yno means all& pharaohs of the 0econd 1ntermediate 9eriod.

The king lists have also een useful in reconstructing thevarious royal lines, ut these documents do nothing morethan place the names one after another. =ound mainly intemples, these royal lists were drawn up for reasons otherthan presenting all the known pharaohs $or at least thepresumed legitimate ones&) in addition, no regnal years weregiven. The est#known king lists are located at the arnaktemple in Thees, in the holy cult area of 'ydos, and at theroyal cemetery of 0aIIara. The arnak list indicates thoserulers who had a statue of themselves set up within the

precinct walls of the 8reat Temple of 'mun at amak. Thepharaoh who oversaw the work, Thutmose 111, laid greatstress on the cult of those royal ancestors, so such king listsshould e considered in a very dierent light than thosesolely connected to royal lineages or to the chronologicalarrangement of the pharaohs. That is to say, the religious orcultic interests of the commissioner of the list/in this case

Thutmose 111/lay at the asis of the rows of cartouchescarved into the temple walls. Not surprisingly, those rulers

who were not associated with the 8reat Temple of 'mun arenot represented in the arnak list $e.g., the erakleopolitansof the ninth and tenth dynasties or the yksos&.

1f such epoch#names as the *ld, -iddle, and New ingdomsare useful today, it is ecause they re5ect an e!pansive andeconomically stale Egyptian state. 't the same time, wecan develop an e!act chronology for these three main eras of pharaonic success, since many inscriptions deal with

chronological matters. Through astronomical correlations,the -iddle and New ingdoms can e placed on a relativelysecure chronological ase, and independent of each other.

The New ingdom has een dated y two ma6or occurrencesof lunar and civil calendar eIuivalences $dated to the reignsof Thutmose 111 and Bamesses 11&, wherein a speci"c day inthe civil calendar was eIuated with a day from the lunarcalendar. 1n addition, there is a useful record of the heliacalrising of the star 0othis $0inus& set within the reign of

Thutmose 111, and from that a possile e!act date for theevent can e determined. *ther similar astronomical

?


7/8

occurrences, aleit of a more contentious nature, have alsoaided in reconstructing a tight chronological outline for theNew ingdom. Nevertheless, it was mainly the Turin 3anon,-anetho%s works, the king lists, and an important series of

dated monuments and te!ts that helped estalish arelatively accurate arrangement of the pharaohs and theirregnal years. The main points of contention remainconcentrated on the interpretation of the astronomical data.=or e!ample, within the New ingdom, the eginnings of thereigns of Thutmose 111 and Bamesses 11 are disputed, withvarious modern chronologies set into a schema of threechoices. $The consensus places the commencement of thereigns of Thutmose 111 at 4GJF 23E and that of Bamesses 11 at

4:JF 23E, although some prefer 4@< 23E.

=or the *ld ingdom, no "rm ases e!ist for a "!ed point intime) the same may e said for the 1ntermediate 9eriods.E!cept for the 9alermo 0tone, which ends in the mid#"fthdynasty, and the list that goes into the si!th dynasty, noevidence yet provides a relatively tight or e!act chronologyfrom the "rst dynasty to the eighth. Therefore, the count has

een ack from the twelfth dynasty, using the evidence fromthe Turin 3anon) the procedure ultimately contends with the=irst 1ntermediate 9eriod%s two rival houses/erakleopolis$ninth and tenth dynasties& and Thees $eleventh dynasty&/and their rivalry for control. Then, too, the eective end ofthe old -emphite monarchy $the eighth dynasty& is alsoimpossile to determine, owing to the scarcity ofcontemporary dateale sources. Therefore, the chronologyearlier than the eleventh dynasty is appro!imate at est, and

the presumed uni"cation of Egypt y -enes at the eginningof the "rst dynasty is still disputed $within a range of aout

J


8/8

one hundred years/c.>

Documents

Chronology and Periodization