Chronology

Chronology

Donovan Courville - Chronology of the Old Kingdom

Definition of the Alternative View Proposed by Courville.

Courville contends that

	Dynasties I - IV did not rule in numerical sequence.
	Dynasties III - V were roughly contemporary with Dynasties I - II.
	Dynasty III was an off-shoot from Dynasty I about a century after the unification of Egypt under Mena.
	Dynasty I represented the major authority in Egypt during the during the period encompassed by the rise and existence of Dynasty III.
	By the end of Dynasty I the major authority had shifted to the north, Dynasty II being subservient to the kings of Dynasties IV and V.
	Dynasty IV overlapped Dynasty V for a period of thirty years.
	The unification under Mena lasted little more than a century, at which time Dynasty III arose.

The Kings of Dynasties I, II and III

Dynasty I

Africanus		Eusebius		Sothis		Monuments

Menes	62	Menes	60	Menes	35	Aha-Men
Athothis	57	Athothis	27	Kourodes	6	Zer-Ta
Kenkenes	31	Kenkenes	39			Zet-Ath
Uenephes	23	Uenephes	42	Aristarchus	34	Uadji
Usaphaidos	20	Usaphais	20	Spanios	36	Udimi
Miebidos	26	Niebais	26	unnamed		Merbapa
Semempses	18	Semempses	18	unnamed	72	Shemsu
Bieneches	26	Ubienthes	26			Qa-Sen

Dynasty II

Africanus		Abydos	Sakhara	Turin	Monuments

Boethos	38	Bezau	Neter-bau		Hotep-ahaui
Kaiechos	39	Ka-Kau	Ka-Kau		Ra-Neb
Binothris	47	Baneteren	Baneteru		Neteren
Tlas	17	Uaznes	Uaznes		Perabsen
Sethenes	41	Senda	Send	Send	Send
Chaires	17			Neterka	Ka-Ra
Nepherchers	25			Neferkasekru	Khasekhem
Sesochris	48			Hezef...	Khasekhemui
Cheneres	30

Dynasty III

Africanus	Abydos/Sakharah		Turin	Monuments

	Zazay	Beby	Zazati
Nekherofes	Nebka			Sa-nekht-Nebka
Tosorthros	Zesersa			Neter-khet Zeser
Turis
Mesokhris
Soufis
Tosertasis	Zeserteta
Akhes	Sezes
Kerferes	Neferkara			Huni
Sephuris	Sneferu			Sneferu

The Presumed Sequence of Dynasties II and III Challenged.

The relative positions assigned to the kings whose names are in blue are critical to the concept of a presumed sequence of Dynasties II and III. Courville challenges the positions assigned to these names. He contends that Zazay, Zazati and Beby are the same person, and that this king belongs to the decadent phase of Dynasty II rather than the early phase of Dynasty III.

As well, Khasekhem, who some believe is the same person as Khasekhemui, cannot be assigned an unequivocal position in late Dynasty II. Budge proposed an identification of Khasekhemui with the first king of Dynasty II, not the last, a position not far removed from the beginnings of Dynasty III by the proposed new chronology.

Petrie also recognised the possible necessity for assigning him a position at the beginning of Dynasty III .

... It is even possible that this king [Khasekhem] and the next [Khasekhemui] really belong to the following dynasty, ...

Courville accepts the evidence that Khasekhemui was the progenitor of Dynasty III, but rejects the conclusion that this provides any basis for assigning the king a place in late Dynasty II. It is this critical point which lacks confirmation and to which a multiplicity of evidences are contradictory and anachronistic. In evaluating the evidence in this conflict of opinion it must be remembered that Manetho is the only source of information we have for placing the individual kings in specific dynasties, yet Manetho does not include this name in any dynasty. If Khasekhemui (or Khasekhem) is to be recognised as an actual king, he must be identified with some king that Manetho gives under a different name.

An initial basis for this altered view is found in the writings of Eusebius. He is no final authority, but if his statements receive significant support from other sources then they should not be swept aside as useless. He wrote

But if the number of years is still in excess, it must be supposed that perhaps several Egyptian kings ruled at one and the same time; for they say that the rulers were kings of This [Thinis], of Memphis, of Sais, of Ethiopia, and other places at the same time.

If nothing more, this statement shows that some of the ancients believed in the contemporaneity of some of the early Egyptian dynasties.

Some lines of evidence pointing to the Contemporaneity of Dynasties I and III.

	The tomb of Khasekhemui is totally different from those of the kings of Dynasty II, a strong suggestion he does not belong in the era of Dynasty II.
	"The southern tomb of Kha-sekhemui at Abydos is a fantastic construction bearing no resemblance to other monuments on that site, or indeed to any other contemporary buildings at Sakkara" W.B.Emery, Archaic Egypt, Harmondsworth,1961. p 101
	There is convincing evidence Khasekhemui was the progenitor of Dynasty III.
	The place of Khasekhemui is suggested by the presence of a seal of Hapenmaat (Nemathap), who seems to have been the queen-mother of the IIIrd Dynasty. F.A.Petrie, A History of Egypt, Vol 1, 1912. p 28
	Like his predecessor of the early First Dynasty, Kha-sekhemui appears to have adopted the political strategy of marriage with a northern princess, and his queen seems to have been Nemathap who, according to a jar sealing from Abydos, bore the title "the king-bearing mother." W.B.Emery, Archaic Egypt, Harmondsworth,1961. p 101
	The monuments of Khasekhem reveal a mastery of workmanship unparalleled in Dynasty II but which compares favourably with the more sophisticated art, at the beginning of the pyramid age, of Dynasties III and IV.
	The placement of Khasekhem at the end of Dynasty II is not defensible and is based on the demands of an assumed sequence of Dynasties II and III, an assumption that has not been established.
	The ceramics of the early IIIrd Dynasty are like those of Dynasty I and reveal characteristics not encountered at any time in Dynasty II. The writing of Dynasty III also reveals characteristics of Dynasty I, hardly to be expected if a period of centuries separated the two dynasties.
	Manetho records that Uenephes (4th king of Dynasty I) built pyramids near Kochome (near Sakkarah). This is an anachronism if Dynasty I is separated from the pyramid age by a matter of centuries, and the statement must be rejected as a mistake by those who wish to retain the sequence arrangement between Dynasties II and III.
	The earliest reference to pyramids otherwise is the step pyramid built by Djoser (Zeser or Zesersa of Table 1), second king of Dynasty III. With the beginning of Dynasty III set as shown in Figure 1 (below), Djoser was a contemporary of Uenephes. The era is that just preceding the pyramid age. The anachronism disappears.
	Confirming the contemporaneity of Djoser with Uenephes are the references to severe famine in the reigns of both kings. By the altered chronology, these are references to the same famine.
	Brief annals on the Palermo Stone refer to events in the reign of a king of Dynasty I, probably Usaphaidos, successor to Uenephes. One of these annals indicates clearly a divided rule, with different kings reigning contemporaneously.
	... the "Appearance of the King of Upper Egypt and the Appearance of the King of Lower Egypt ..."

The evidences for a divided rule in Egypt, not long after the unification by Mena, are so convincing they lead to an admission of the evidence even by some who retain the concept of sequential dynasties. Emery says

" But it was a dual monarchy and, so soon after the unification, the individuality of the two states of the North and South was more marked than in later times. In fact there appear to have been two separate administrations...." W.B.Emery, Archaic Egypt, Harmondsworth,1961. p 105

Figure 2 illustrates Courville's re-aligning of the dynasties to accommodate the information listed.

Dynasty III as an offshoot of Dynasty I

	Khasekhem belonged to the line of Thinite kings of Upper Egypt. His statues show him wearing the White Crown of Upper Egypt. Why is he not included in Manetho's king list?
	In the tomb inscription of Uadji (Uenephes of Manetho) at Sakkara the name Sekhem Ka appears repeatedly in a context that indicates he was either the king himself or an important personage in the government. The name appears so frequently it must be suspected that the tomb is his and not that of Uadji. But it is highly unlikely that a nobleman would have a tomb superior to his king's.
	This tomb is in northern Egypt, while Uadji ruled in southern Egypt. It seems that Sekhem Ka must also come from southern Egypt. What circumstances led to a tomb being built in northern Egypt by a king and his official from the south? A logical answer is that Sekhem Ka was a king of the first dynasty, and is the same person as Kha-Sekhem, who was the founder of the third dynasty.
	The obvious conclusion is that Sekhem Ka was the king of the tomb inscription, and Uadji, whose name appears to be secondary, was at the time only the coregent and heir apparent.
	Uadji's predecessor in Manetho's list was Kenkenes. If the conclusions drawn are correct then Kenkenes, Sekhem Ka, Kha-Sekhem and Kha-sekhemui are names of the one person., Kenkenes being a Greek transcription of the Egyptian name.

The Significance of the Insignia of Egyptian Kings
Most of the Egyptian kings appear to have had five names. These were

	The Horus name
	The Nebti name
	The Golden Horus name
	The Suten Bat name
	The son of Re name

Each name was associated with symbols related to one of the Egyptian gods or to some religious concept. The Horus name has the hawk, representing the god Horus, the Nebti name has the vulture, symbol of the goddess of the city of Nekhebit and the son of Re name has the symbol of the sun for the sun god Re.
The sheaf of the Suten Bat name is read 'King of the South' and the hornet as 'King of the North', so by using the Suten Bat name the king was saying he was king of upper and lower Egypt. The same concept is found in the Horus name, where the falcon wears the crown which is a composite of the crowns of the king of the North and the king of the South.

The use of these names and insignia by most of the kings of Egypt has been taken in general to mean that the bearer was the sole ruler of Egypt, and that he was the exclusive ruler over both territories. This interpretation was one of the factors which led early scholars to regard as fact the sequence arrangement of Manetho's dynasties, based on the reasoning that two contemporary kings could not both be kings of the North and of the South.

And yet it is apparent, for example, that Manetho's Dynasty XXI at Tanis was contemporary wiith another line of kings at Thebes, both lines using the insignia as kings of the South and of the North. There is also recognition of contemporainity of Dynasty XIV with late dynasty XIII and with the Hyksos dynasties XV and XVI, a situation not at all apparent from Manetho's list.

If Courville's chronology is to have any credibility, then these insignia were never intended to mean that the bearer ruled exclusively over all of Egypt. The misinterpretation of the use of the titles lies in a failure to see that these various names and the associated insignia had their origin in the religious concepts of the Egyptians.

The insignia of the sheaf and the hornet, or as some say, the sedge and the bee, were used by Mena, and by the subsequent kings of Dynasty I. The insigne of the hawk wearing the crowns of both the north and the south was first used by Djoser, second king of Dynasty III. By Courville's chronology, his reign followed shortly the religious war between the North and the South. It is reasonable to suppose that the insigne was designed to mean only a recognition by the bearer that the worship of both Set and Horus was acceptable. As the worship of still other gods was introduced, the insigne would simply mean that the king recognized these gods also, or that he claimed to hold his position by permission of these various gods.

The Chronology of Manetho's First Dynasty.

Evidence Demanding a Drastic Reduction in the Time Period of Dynasty IV

	In his tomb, Ra-skhem-kha left a list of the kings with whom he professes to have been connected. These kings were Khafra, Menkaure and Shepseskaf of Dynasty IV and Userkaf and Sahura of Dynasty V. By Manetho's list taken sequentially and not counting Khafra and Saharu, the first and last kings he served, this amounts to 154 years. Allowing 20 years for Ra-skhem-kha to reach sufficient maturity for service, and a brief period for service for the first and last kings, he would have to have attained an age of about 180 years.
	The obvious solution is that these kings did not reign sequentially. If they did, we have a major anomaly.

	Mertitefs was the queen of Sneferu, last king of Dynasty III. She lived to be a favourite of Khufu and of Khafra, second and third kings of Dynasty IV. By sequential interpretation of Manetho's list, there are 92 years between Sneferu's and Khafra's reigns. She must have reached maturity during Sneferu's reign to become his wife. She would have to have been about 110 years old when Khufu died. It is improbable that a woman 110 years old would be a favourite of the young king Khafra. The more probable explanation is that the reign of Khafra overlapped the long reign of Khufu by many years.

	In the magician's tale related to Khufu, he is told of triplets which will be born during his reign. Their names correspond with the names of the first three kings of Dynasty V. He is told that his son will reign after him, then his grandson, but that then one of the triplets will reign by usurpation.
	The impossible part of the tale lies in the long period of time between Khufu and the first king of Dynasty V, taking Manetho's list as sequential. The triplets would have to have lived more than 200 years. Alone this tale could be written off as just a tale, but when the evidences concerning Ra-skhem-kha and Mertitefs are examined alongside the tale, it becomes another significant piece of evidence against interpreting Manetho sequentially.