Chapter 1: The Berlin Chronology of the Second Millenium B.C.

Limitations of the Berlin Chronology

Margin of Error

In chapter two of the book Piankhi the Chameleon, and again throughout the third book in our Displaced Dynasties series, we utilized the chronological data contained on a unique monument displayed in the Berlin Museum, referred to simply as the Berlin stela of Ashakhet (see figure 1). On four rows of this massive stele, each containing 15 separate genealogical entries, a Memphite priest of Ptah by the name of Ashakhet traced his priestly ancestry back sixty generations, spanning almost a thousand years, presumably utilizing the archives of the cult of Ptah in Memphis. Each of the genealogical entries consists of a standardized sketch of a priest with accompanying text, an entry sometimes containing the priest’s name, and less frequently the name of a pharaoh reigning at the time of the priest’s term in office. The names of the pharaohs, where present, enabled us earlier to utilize this monument for chronological purposes. We repeat the process one last time in order to sketch an outline of the chronology of the second millennium B.C.

Our earlier analysis of the first two rows of the Berlin monument was based on four assumptions, each one critical for the interpretation of the document. In the first place we determined that the author of the inscription, the high priest Ashakhet, lived in the late 7^th century. Thus the first entry in the genealogy, section 1.1 on the extreme right of the uppermost row, was dated to the year 635 B.C., when Ashakhet himself served as high priest. We also assumed, based on both internal and external data, that each generation of the genealogy should be allotted 16 years, and that the high priests served their respective pharaohs around the age of 35 years. Finally, we accepted the data preserved by Ashakhet as reliable, a fact confirmed by comparing the results of our analysis with a chronology independently established on other considerations. The ends justified the means. Our assumptions proved to be valid.

We did pause in our earlier analysis to defend the unusually low estimate of 16 years per generation of service for the priestly cult of Ptah. Not only was that small number necessary in order to harmonize the data of the Berlin monument with the historical situation otherwise determined; it was demanded by internal considerations. In particular we noted the fact that the six generations at the beginning (extreme right) of the second row, those belonging to the four priests who served Ramses II during his long reign (2.2-2.5) and the two who served Seti I, the father of Ramses II (2.6-2.7), must have spanned the combined 85 years assigned to these kings in the traditional Egyptian chronology. In fact, they suggested to us that the duration of Seti’s reign needed to be increased by at least a decade. In no way could the number 16 be reduced; nor could it be increased by any significant amount and still accommodate these six entries.

In Piankhi the Chameleon and The Genealogy of Ashakhet our attention was directed only to the first row and slightly over one-half of the second row of the Berlin stela, generations numbered consecutively from 1.1 to 2.10 , thus around twenty-five of the sixty generations of ancestors preserved by Ashakhet. Over this time span even a slight increase in the figure of sixteen years per generation would not have significantly affected our overall argument. The number sixteen was maintained as much for ease of computation as for accuracy. For example, had we assumed a figure of 16.25 years per generation instead of 16 years, a number still sufficiently small to explain the Seti I/Ramses II data, dates would have been moved back only six years in the 400 years represented by the twenty five generations. Our argument in these earlier books would have remained essentially the same. Thus the number 16 was maintained throughout.

It follows from this discussion that any error in the years per generation number would necessarily be cumulative, and over the entirety of the sixty generations (960 years) represented by the four rows of data, might become significant. The same quarter of a year increase hypothesized above would amount to 15 years cumulative error at the extreme upper limit of the document. We must be cognizant of this potential error. It must be taken into account as we move backward in time into the second millennium.

Figure 1: The Berlin Stele

Eighteenth Dynasty Beginning

Our interest in this book lies in the final two rows of the Berlin stela, entries which begin several generations into the 18^th dynasty. When last we examined the Berlin genealogy, we determined that the 18th dynasty began near the end of the second millennium. That date is easily determined from the Berlin stela since the entry in position 3.4 includes a reference to Nebpetire Ahmose I (called Amasis by the Greek historians), the founder of the dynasty. A strict application of our interpretive rules enables us to conclude that the priest Menet mentioned in this entry was born around the year 1096 B.C. and served Amasis around the year 1061 B.C. Since the Hyksos king Apophis, from whom Ahmose usurped the throne, is mentioned in position 3.5 (dated 1077 B.C.), we assume that the transition into the 18^th dynasty took place sometime between 1077 and 1061 B.C. Thus we begin our analysis of the 2^nd millennium with the assumption that the 18^th dynasty began around the year 1070 B.C. If the figure of 16 years per generation is in error and were to be increased slightly, that 1070 date for the beginning of the 18^th dynasty would necessarily have to be moved back in time – 8.5 years for every quarter year increase in the length of a priestly generation. For the time being however, we avoid making any correction to the dates provided by the Berlin stele. Any changes will be made on an ad hoc basis at the appropriate time in order to harmonize the Berlin chronology with the chronology of the second millennium determined from other sources, primarily that supplied by Jewish historians. The changes will be slight.

In table 1 below we apply our basic principles to the entries in the final two rows of the Berlin stele, creating a rough chronology of the second half of the second millennium.

Before we begin to analyze this chronology we should one last time defend the assumption of 16 years per generation, this time using the sparse data contained on rows three and four. A glance at table 1 informs us that two unnamed priests served the king Hakare (Sesostris III) in generations 4.1 and 4.3, and thus presumably in the intervening generation. On the assumption of 16 years per generation this would suggest that Sesostris reigned at minimum 32 years. But Egyptologists are adamant that this famous king died in his 33^rd year. The minimum 32 years is therefore also a maximum number, or nearly so. At most we can justify increasing the sixteen years per generation figure by a quarter of a year and still argue that the data on the stele is historically accurate.

Position Number	High Priest/Prophet Named	Name of King Served	Approximate Date of Birth	Approximate Date of H.P./Prophet
3.1	Ty	not named	1048 B.C.	1013 B.C.
3.2	Pa'emrud	Djeserkare (Amenhotep 1) (Amenhotep I)	1064 B.C.	1029 B.C.
3.3	Ty	not named	1080 B.C.	1045 B.C.
3.4	Menet	Nebpetire (Ahmose 1) (Ahmose I)	1096 B.C.	1061 B.C.
3.5		'Ipp (Apophis)	1112 B.C.	1077 B.C.
3.6		Srk (Salatis??)	1128 B.C.	1093 B.C.
3.7		not named	1144 B.C.	1109 B.C.
3.8		not named	1160 B.C.	1125 B.C.
3.9		not named	1176 B.C.	1141 B.C.
3.10		not named	1192 B.C.	1157 B.C.
3.11		not named	1208 B.C.	1173 B.C.
3.12		' '-qn	1224 B.C.	1189 B.C.
3.13		'Iby	1240 B.C.	1205 B.C.
3.14		not named	1256 B.C.	1221 B.C.
3.15		not named	1272 B.C.	1237 B.C.
4.1		H'-k'-R' (Sesostris III)	1288 B.C.	1253 B.C.
4.2		not named	1304 B.C.	1269 B.C.
4.3		H'-k'-R' (Sesostris III)	1320 B.C.	1285 B.C.
4.4		Nwb-k'-w-R') Amenemhet II)	1336 B.C.	1301 B.C.
4.5		Hpr-k'-R' (Sesostris I)	1352 B.C.	1317 B.C.
4.6		S-htp-'b-R' (Amenemhet I)	1368 B.C.	1333 B.C.
4.7		Skr-m-hb	1384 B.C.	1349 B.C.
4.8		not named	1400 B.C.	1365 B.C.
4.9		not named	1416 B.C.	1381 B.C.
4.10		not named	1432 B.C.	1397 B.C.
4.11		not named	1448 B.C.	1413 B.C.
4.12		not named	1464 B.C.	1429 B.C.
4.13		Nb-hrw-R' (Mentuhotep)	1480 B.C.	1445 B.C.
4.14		not named	1496 B.C.	1461 B.C.
4.15		not named	1512 B.C.	1477 B.C.

Table 1: The Berlin Genealogy Chronology

Dates for Mentuhotep II and Amenemhet I

Several aspects of the Berlin data as outlined in table 1 are deserving of comment.

1) Two dynasties prior to the 18th are clearly cited in the genealogy. The 11th dynasty is represented by the single reference to Neb-herew-Re Mentuhotep in position 4.13, and the 12th dynasty is represented by four kings, Amenemhet 1 through Sesostris III, in positions 4.1 through 4.5. These entries for the 11^th and 12^th dynasties, and the earlier third row entries for the 18^th dynasty beginning with Nebhepetre (Ahmose 1) in position 3.4, are separated by multiple generations which omit king names, suggestive of the fact that during these intervals Egypt may have been ruled by multiple kings. The gap between the 11^th and 18^th dynasties, wherein several foreign rulers are named, is at least consistent with the view of the traditional history, which believes that Egypt was ruled by foreign invaders prior to the beginning of the 18^th dynasty, foreigners referred to as the Hyksos.

2) According to the Berlin genealogy the 11th and 12th dynasties were separated by a full century, this in contrast to the traditional history which claims that the two dynasties ruled in succession. Needless to say this aspect of the genealogy has "raised the eyebrows" of most Egyptologists, and needs to be discussed in some detail.

3) The priest who served the 11^th dynasty king Nebherewre Mentuhotep was born around the year 1480 and served the king around the year 1445 B.C., this assuming a strict application of the 16 years per generation figure by which we have interpreted the Berlin genealogy. While we continue to maintain the general viability of this number, we have already argued the case that even a small error may have produced a significant discrepancy in dates as far back as the time of Mentuhotep, only two generations removed from the beginning of the document. Thus the date 1445 for Mentuhotep may be as much as fifteen years too late, perhaps even a few years more. It follows that the date may be moved back as early as 1460 B.C. or slightly earlier. The precise date must ultimately be decided on other considerations. For the time being we adopt this slight adjustment to the Berlin data.

4) If a priest of Ptah served king Nebherewre Mentuhotep around the year 1460 B.C. then Nebherewre must have died a few years later. This conclusion follows from the known history of the life of this king. In a later chapter we will discuss the fact, accepted by all Egyptologists, that Mentuhotep began his reign as king of Upper Egypt, Thebes being his primary residence. The delta area, including Memphis, was at the time under the domination of pharaohs of the 10^th Heracleopolitan dynasty. By degrees Mentuhotep extended his rule northward, drove the Heracleopolitans from central Egypt around his twentieth year, and over the course of the next several decades assumed sovereignty over the whole of the delta. Only the final decade of his life could it be said that Mentuhotep was pharaoh of all of Egypt. Only then could he be recognized as such by priest of the cult of Ptah in Memphis.

5) If Mentuhotep ruled for 51 years, as claimed by a majority of scholars, and if his reign ended several years after the 1460 adjusted date provided by the Berlin chronology, then the dates for Mentuhotep must be 1509-1458 B.C.

6) A strict reading of the Berlin data suggests that Sehetepibre Amenemhet I, the founder of the 12^th dynasty, was on the throne in 1333 B.C. Sufficient to say that this date may need to be moved back a decade, as was done for the dates of Mentuhotep II. But this is only the beginning of the chronological problems associated with this king. We have already mentioned the fact that the traditional history places the 12^th dynasty in immediate succession to the 11^th, whereas the Berlin stela appears to assume an interval of at least 100 years between the two. The traditional history also assigns to Amenemhet a reign length of precisely 30 years. The Berlin genealogy instead credits this king with a single genealogical entry, suggestive of the fact that his reign was of considerably shorter duration. Clearly some extended discussion is in order. The entire matter will occupy an entire chapter later in this book. For the time being we simply assign to this king, and thus to the beginning of this dynasty, the years 1345-1315 B.C. These dates cannot be far from correct, the 1333 B.C. date from our table 1 falling roughly in the middle of the reign.

Figure 2: Provisional dates for Mentuhotep II and Amenemhet I

Revised Chronology for Dynasties 9-12

Thus far we have restricted our discussion to two pharaohs named in the Berlin stele, Mentuhotep II and Amenemhet I. We will say no more about Amenemhet I at this time. The 12^th dynasty is best discussed in historical sequence and will be left to a later chapter. Sufficient to say that Amenemhet I was the founder of the dynasty. Its length will be determined in later discussion.

As for Mentuhotep II and the 11^th dynasty we add only the following detail at this time. It is well known that this king was succeeded by a son, also named Mentuhotep, whose reign lasted for 12 years. His dates, accordingly, must be 458-446 B.C. According to some sources the reign of this Mentuhotep III ended the dynasty. According to others an enigmatic fourth Mentuhotep ruled for several years afterward. In due time we will determine that the reign of Mentuhotep IV is an illusion. Following the death of Mentuhotep III civil strife erupted throughout Egypt and a prolonged period of chaos prevailed. If Mentuhotep IV, a son of Mentuhotep III, attempted to bring order out of chaos he certainly failed, and may have died in the upheaval. Egypt entered a prolonged period of anarchy which may have lasted fully a hundred years. An entire chapter will be devoted to its description. It is a well documented time of trouble.

Thus in our figure 3 which follows we end the 11^th dynasty with the reign of Mentuhotep III.

According to the influential Cambridge Ancient History, whose chronological data we follow consistently in the following arguments, Mentuhotep III was preceded by a sequence of three kings by the name of Inyotef and they in turn were the successors of another king Mentuhotep, the first of that name. This sequence of four kings ruled Upper Egypt for a combined 73 years. Assuming that the Cambridge History is correct in the relative placement of these kings (though not in their absolute chronology) we should assign to the 11^th dynasty the dates 1582-1446.

That same Cambridge history affirms that Lower Egypt was ruled for much of the duration of the 11^th dynasty by two dynasties of kings with residence in Heracleopolis in middle Egypt – hence their designation as the 9^th and 10^th Heracleopolitan dynasties. The kings of these two dynasties combined are credited with ruling Lower Egypt for a total of 128 years, their reign ending effectively when Mentuhotep overtook their capital in his 29^th year (1481 B.C. in the revised history). If Egyptologists can be trusted as to the length of the combined 9^th and 10^th dynasties we can confidently assign the dates 1609-1481 to the Heracleopolitan era.

We summarize this data in figure 3 below.

Figure 3: Revised Chronology for Dynasties 9-12

Revised Chronology 1900-1446

There remains for us to outline a revised Egyptian chronology back to the beginning of the 2^nd millennium.

According to the traditional history the reign of Mentuhotep II began in the year 2060 B.C., once again using as our source the Cambridge Ancient History. The dates provided by other scholars seldom differ from this number by more than a dozen years. It follows that dates for the reign of Mentuhotep II, and by extension for the reigns of his near contemporaries, can be obtained by simply subtracting 551 years from the traditional dates for these kings. The procedure can be exten