Sources of Egyptian History
The ancient Egyptian sources from which modern knowledge of the facts of Egyptian history is derived are abundant and varied. This is in marked contrast to Chinese history, for which suprisingly little direct evidence is available, as all the classical works were burned by order of the First Emperor in the year BC 213. The study of Chinese history and literature, although a fascinating one, is beset with difficulties, as there are no monumental stelae or tombs, to which when unearthed we can appeal, as in Egypt, to prove the antiquity of the Chinese people.
The pharaohs were in the habit of inscribing on the walls of the temples they erected to the gods long accounts of their deeds. In order to be able to give a full account of their campaigns the kings were accompanied by scribes specially detailed to write down the history of these campaigns. Their accounts were then copied on the temple walls. Great paintings illustrating the principal events of a campaign covered the space not occupied by the inscriptions, in that part of the temple allotted to the annals. These inscriptions were divided into two parts—the date, on which followed, as a rule, a laudatory hymn to the king, and the account of the campaign. These texts give a chronological account of the campaigns of the king, often going into the details of the march and of the various battles. Among the most interesting of these inscriptions is a copy of the treaty of peace and alliance between Ramses II and Chetasar, king of the Cheta, which was originally engraved on a silver plate, and from this was copied on the outer wall of the temple of Karnak, where it has been completely preserved.
Of importance are further royal decrees, which are frequently found inscribed on stelae and temple walls. Reports of buildings erected by the kings, and of expeditions undertaken at their command, are not unfrequent; several of the latter the reader will meet with later on. The most important report of all is that which Ramses III (about 1180 to 1148 BC) gave of his reign, and which is preserved in the so-called Papyrus Harris I; it is a comprehensive account of Ramses's architectural enterprises, his expeditions, and his gifts to the temples; in addition it gives a brief review of the state of Egypt immediately before the reign of the king's father, Setnecht. Lists of conquered nations are also of frequent occurrence, but often possess very little value.
Of great importance are the tombs of the nobles. These tombs had attached to them funereal chapels, the walls of which were covered with paintings and inscriptions, giving a brief biographical sketch of the individual buried in the tomb, enumerating his titles, his possessions, and all his exploits. These inscriptions are of great value. To them is owed much that is known of the Egyptian civilization, and often all the historical knowledge of entire epochs.
The first two books of the Bible, Genesis and Exodus, frequently mention Egypt, but they are concerned only with the fate of the Hebrews who dwelt in Egypt, and do not go into Egyptian history. In the books of the Kings and in Chronicles frequent allusions are made to Egyptian history, and what is found here is confirmed by the monuments. The prophets, especially Ezekiel and Jeremias, frequently allude to contemporaneous Egyptian history.
Of greater importance are the Assyrian inscriptions. These inscriptions shed light on a period of Egyptian history of which we know nothing from the national monuments. I refer to the period of the Assyrian invasions in the seventh century BC. The Assyrian kings whose inscriptions are of importance in this connection are Tiglathpilesar III, Sargon II, Sanherib, and Assurbanipal. Next in importance are the inscriptions of King Nebuchadnezzar II, of Babylon, who invaded Egypt in the sixth century BC.
Of the host of classical writers who wrote on Egypt, the book that long stood unchallenged as a source of Egyptian history was the "Historic" of Herodotus of Halicarnassus. He visited Egypt about 450 BC, at a time when it was under Persian rule, and probably never got farther south than Memphis. What he saw he described accurately, and that part of his history which relates to the times of the last Psametichs and the Persian rulers of the land is perfectly reliable. His book is the book of a tourist, and all his faults are the faults of a tourist who travels in a strange and wonderful land without any knowledge of the language, and having but a short time to "do" the sights.
The study of the monuments, however, revealed great errors in this work, and proved it to be utterly untrustworthy as a history. Herodotus's great fault was that he believed all the stories his guides told him, some of which are so improbable that it is surprising to find that so intelligent a man was should have believed them at all. One reason why the book is in great part unreliable is because the Greeks, believing the Egyptians possessed of a deep and mysterious learning, and having some dim tradition of the fact that their arts and sciences were originally derived from Egypt, though they had already far surpassed their teachers, sought to derive their entire civilization — their religion and philosophy, which were purely native, as well as art and science, which had indeed received their first impulse from Egypt — from the mystic lore of that most ancient land. The Egyptian priests with whom the Greek tourists came into contact naturally strengthened them in this belief, and gave themselves a very mysterious air, thus still more increasing their reputations for learning.
The most important of the classic writers is Manetho of Sebennythos. He lived in the third century before the common era, and his book was written about 271 BC, as tradition asserts at the instance of Ptolemy Philadelphus. Manetho was a high priest and temple scribe of Sebennythos, and was thus familiar with the Egyptian language. He was also an able classical scholar. Thus he was fitted for the work of writing an Egyptian history as perhaps no other man then living, his learning giving him access alike to the native monuments and the classic authors, the errors of which latter he attacked. The chief value of the work lay in the fact that, being based on the native sources, it must have been quite reliable. Manetho divided all the kings from Menes to Alexander the Great into thirty-one dynasties, stating from what part of Egypt the various dynasties came. On what his division is based cannot be said. It is important to note that the Turin Papyrus makes a somewhat different division from his. He also divided Egyptian history into three periods: I. Old Empire (Dynasties I to XI); II. Middle Empire (Dynasties XII to XIX); III. New Empire (Dynasties XX to XXX). Modern scholarship retains his terms, but makes a somewhat different division.
Unfortunately, this important work is lost, and only fragmentary extracts of it have been preserved. The historians who made these extracts were not guided by a modern scientific spirit, but took only what happened to suit their immediate purpose, and the extracts frequently conflict with one another in important details. These copyists were Josephus, the Jewish historian, Africanus and Eusebius. Of course, it is impossible to form a just estimate of a work preserved in so fragmentary a condition.
Diodorus Siculus, who visited Egypt about 57 BC, wrote an account of the country. His work is, however, but little more trustworthy than that of Herodotus. Diodorus seems to have had all of Herodotus's faults but none of his virtues. Manetho he does not seem to have known; at all events he does not refer to his book. Strabo and Pliny both touch Egyptian history incidentally, but are not trustworthy. Plutarch, who lived in the second century AD, wrote a fair work on Egyptian religion, under the title of "Peri Isidos kai Osiridos." Horapollon Nilous wrote between the years 379 and 395 AD, a work under the title "Hieroglyphica," in which he gives mostly correct explanations of such hieroglyphics as frequently occur in Ptolemaic inscriptions. He knew, however, merely the ideographic and not the phonetic value of these hieroglyphs.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
