Ahmed Kamāl
1903
translated by Jason Colavito
2025
|
NOTE |
Ahmed Kamāl (1849-1923) (also transliterated as Ahmad Kamal) was the first major Egyptian-born Egyptologist and served as curator at the Cairo Museum. In 1903, he attempted to analyze the names of the Egyptian pharaohs given in four medieval Arabic-language histories: the Meadows of Gold of al-Masʿūdī (c. 950), the anonymous Akhbār al-zamān (c. 1000), the Wonders of Egypt of Murtaḍā ibn al-ʻAfīf (c. 1200), and the Description of Egypt by al-Maqrizi (c. 1440), particularly his king list. The last three of those texts all derive their accounts from the same lost early medieval source and are nearly word-for-word identical, give or take some copyists’ errors. Kamal followed Baron Carra de Vaux, the French translator of the Akhbār al-zamān, and French archaeologist Gaston Maspero, in his review of Carra de Vaux’s work, in attempting to identify how a lost Greek list of pharaonic names became corrupted into the medieval Arabic list. In this, he anticipated M. A. Murray’s 1924 conclusions by two decades. His ideas run from the plausible to the highly improbable, but taken on the whole, he correctly understood the list to have a Greek Christian antecedent.
Unfortunately, Kamal followed the French tradition of playing loosely with quotations and the academic tradition of mixing and matching languages without bothering to translate. For this translation, I have attempted to make something readable of a somewhat messy article. I have dropped the hieroglyphics and most of the Greek and Arabic words and have instead rendered the text all in English. He included several very long charts of names. I transcribed some of these, but for the list of kings’ names, you will need to make due with the French because I was not going to type out 125 names. In the text of the article, I have made only a minimal effort to be consistent with the spelling of the names of kings and authors since Kamal was not consistent, and the underlying source texts transliterate Arabic in many different forms. Where Kamal has quoted extensively from Murtaḍā ibn al-ʻAfīf, I have used the standard translation of John Davies, except where Kamal has deviated from the actual language used. I have also added some explanatory footnotes where Kamal’s text was either unclear or erroneous. |
NOTES ON THE RECTIFICATION OF THE ARABIC NAMES
OF THE ANCIENT KINGS OF EGYPT
ACCOMPANIED BY AN EXPLANATORY NOTE ON SOME CUSTOMS
The distortion of the names of the ancient kings of Egypt by Arab chroniclers prompted me to undertake the task of identifying these names with those given by classical authors or recorded in monuments.
In this study, I present the classification of kings by Arab authors, the derivation of certain names, and the corruption of others. Mr. Maspero preceded me in this work; he demonstrated for some kings the manner in which their names were distorted.
I will take this opportunity to also research the origins of certain practices still in use today, a study in which Mr. Berthelot preceded me by providing an explanation for certain acts of conjuring among the ancient Egyptians, which the people considered magical. The Arab chroniclers have shared with us the sources from which they drew their information.
Masudi borrowed at least half of it from the books of ancient priests, from Egyptian books, or from Coptic papers, from their traditions or beliefs, and the rest from the country’s official archives.
Over many years, Maqrizi collected a wealth of useful notes from rare works. However, Murtadi, of whom only one French translation exists, did not mention any of the works from which he borrowed his history, The Wonders of Egypt.
To understand the real sources from which these writers drew the materials for their annals, it is therefore necessary to conduct meticulous research in the Manethoan lists, in the inscriptions on monuments, in the books of kings by Lepsius, Brugsch, and Bouriant, as well as in Arabic and classical authors. This is what I did; I obtained the following result:
Maqrizi gives us a large series of kings, borrowed, according to my findings, from the list in the Armenian Eusebius, one of Manetho’s compilers. This series includes thirty-four kings constituting the last nine dynasties, from King Smendes to Nectanebo II.
The identification of these kings is given in a list appended to this work.
Some kings’ names were taken by Arab chroniclers from classical authors, such as Menāūs, which is the exact transcription of Diodorus’s Mnevis [1], the first pharaoh known from monuments; others have been faithfully given according to their Egyptian origin, such as Marcora and Camos; the names of the rest of the kings have been transcribed according to tradition.
It is this last part that seems very difficult to me because most of the names mentioned there are distorted and do not correspond to those on the monuments. It is only by comparing historical facts and rarely by assonance that I have been able to recognize some of them; the others, which are unrecognizable, seem to derive from narratives that are the least Egyptian in appearance and flow directly from the religious ideas and customs of Pharaonic Egypt.
Mr. Maspero says on this subject that Egyptian traditions reached Arab writers through a series of intermediary works: books written in Greek in which the peculiarities and fabulous history of Egypt were recounted and Coptic translations of Greek books in which the original texts were enriched with new legends and miracles. I can only agree with the opinion of this learned Egyptologist, because in the Arab annals we find some stories and some distorted names which came either from some religious source or from an Egyptian source. This case occurs:
1. Regarding the name of the first Egyptian king: he is called Naqrāūs, and this name is taken from Naracho, mentioned in Byzantine history, as we will see later.
2. Regarding the account of Charoba, given by Murtadi, it was taken from an Egyptian source, but distorted (see this account under the name Teotis).
In this study, I present the classification of kings by Arab authors, the derivation of certain names, and the corruption of others. Mr. Maspero preceded me in this work; he demonstrated for some kings the manner in which their names were distorted.
I will take this opportunity to also research the origins of certain practices still in use today, a study in which Mr. Berthelot preceded me by providing an explanation for certain acts of conjuring among the ancient Egyptians, which the people considered magical. The Arab chroniclers have shared with us the sources from which they drew their information.
Masudi borrowed at least half of it from the books of ancient priests, from Egyptian books, or from Coptic papers, from their traditions or beliefs, and the rest from the country’s official archives.
Over many years, Maqrizi collected a wealth of useful notes from rare works. However, Murtadi, of whom only one French translation exists, did not mention any of the works from which he borrowed his history, The Wonders of Egypt.
To understand the real sources from which these writers drew the materials for their annals, it is therefore necessary to conduct meticulous research in the Manethoan lists, in the inscriptions on monuments, in the books of kings by Lepsius, Brugsch, and Bouriant, as well as in Arabic and classical authors. This is what I did; I obtained the following result:
Maqrizi gives us a large series of kings, borrowed, according to my findings, from the list in the Armenian Eusebius, one of Manetho’s compilers. This series includes thirty-four kings constituting the last nine dynasties, from King Smendes to Nectanebo II.
The identification of these kings is given in a list appended to this work.
Some kings’ names were taken by Arab chroniclers from classical authors, such as Menāūs, which is the exact transcription of Diodorus’s Mnevis [1], the first pharaoh known from monuments; others have been faithfully given according to their Egyptian origin, such as Marcora and Camos; the names of the rest of the kings have been transcribed according to tradition.
It is this last part that seems very difficult to me because most of the names mentioned there are distorted and do not correspond to those on the monuments. It is only by comparing historical facts and rarely by assonance that I have been able to recognize some of them; the others, which are unrecognizable, seem to derive from narratives that are the least Egyptian in appearance and flow directly from the religious ideas and customs of Pharaonic Egypt.
Mr. Maspero says on this subject that Egyptian traditions reached Arab writers through a series of intermediary works: books written in Greek in which the peculiarities and fabulous history of Egypt were recounted and Coptic translations of Greek books in which the original texts were enriched with new legends and miracles. I can only agree with the opinion of this learned Egyptologist, because in the Arab annals we find some stories and some distorted names which came either from some religious source or from an Egyptian source. This case occurs:
1. Regarding the name of the first Egyptian king: he is called Naqrāūs, and this name is taken from Naracho, mentioned in Byzantine history, as we will see later.
2. Regarding the account of Charoba, given by Murtadi, it was taken from an Egyptian source, but distorted (see this account under the name Teotis).
THE LIST OF PHARAOHS IN THE ARAB CHRONICLES
Kings Reigning Before the Flood
1. Naqrāūs … or Craosh, son of Misraïm, son of Racaïl, son of Dawawil, son of Arian, son of Adam, founded Egypt and gave it the name of his son Misraïm. He divided it among his children, giving the western part to his eldest son Necaos and the eastern part to his son Chroub.
2. Necaosh … or Tegares, brother of the preceding.
3. Misraim … or Mesram.
4. Icam … one of the sons of Iriab. Murtadi calls him Aneam.
5. Iriac … also called Athim and Garia.
6. Logim the Young … one of the sons of Naqrāūs the Giant; Murtadi calls him Luchanam.
7. Khaslim … or Chaslim, one of the sons of the preceding.
8. Hosal … or Busal, or Harsal, Sumal, son of Logim, descendant of Naqrāūs. He had 20 children among whom he divided the land, and the next king was one of his sons.
9. Tadersan or Tadersan … (Murtadi calls him Tadusac) brother of the previous.
10. Nemerod … or Semrord or Semrod, son of Hosal.
11. Tomidon … nephew of the previous king (Murtadi calls him Iosedon).
12. Sheriac or Seriac … son of Tomidon, son of Taderson, son of Hosal, who was succeeded by his son named...
13. Shahluq … father of…
14. Sūrīd … father of Hargib, brother of Hawit and uncle of Croes.
15. Hargib … also called Hardjib, Hudjit, Hudjib (cf. Carra de Vaux, Abrégé des Merveilles, p. 28, note 2).
16. Menaos … or Mencaosh, father of...
17. Afros, Afraus … or Eeros (cf. Carra de Vaux, Abrégé des Merveilles, p. 23). After this, this succession from father to son, according to Murtaḍā ibn al-ʻAfīf (trans. P. Vattier, p. 108), was interrupted, which obliged the Egyptians to choose a certain man from the royal household, named Ermelinos, and after him Pharaan, who gave his name to the Pharaohs.
18. Armalinos … who was succeeded by his cousin named...
19. Frân … son of Miswar
Kings Who Reigned After the Deluge
20. Besar … or Masar, son of Ham, son of Noah, who lived in Memphis, the first city populated after the deluge. He was succeeded by his son.
1. Naqrāūs … or Craosh, son of Misraïm, son of Racaïl, son of Dawawil, son of Arian, son of Adam, founded Egypt and gave it the name of his son Misraïm. He divided it among his children, giving the western part to his eldest son Necaos and the eastern part to his son Chroub.
2. Necaosh … or Tegares, brother of the preceding.
3. Misraim … or Mesram.
4. Icam … one of the sons of Iriab. Murtadi calls him Aneam.
5. Iriac … also called Athim and Garia.
6. Logim the Young … one of the sons of Naqrāūs the Giant; Murtadi calls him Luchanam.
7. Khaslim … or Chaslim, one of the sons of the preceding.
8. Hosal … or Busal, or Harsal, Sumal, son of Logim, descendant of Naqrāūs. He had 20 children among whom he divided the land, and the next king was one of his sons.
9. Tadersan or Tadersan … (Murtadi calls him Tadusac) brother of the previous.
10. Nemerod … or Semrord or Semrod, son of Hosal.
11. Tomidon … nephew of the previous king (Murtadi calls him Iosedon).
12. Sheriac or Seriac … son of Tomidon, son of Taderson, son of Hosal, who was succeeded by his son named...
13. Shahluq … father of…
14. Sūrīd … father of Hargib, brother of Hawit and uncle of Croes.
15. Hargib … also called Hardjib, Hudjit, Hudjib (cf. Carra de Vaux, Abrégé des Merveilles, p. 28, note 2).
16. Menaos … or Mencaosh, father of...
17. Afros, Afraus … or Eeros (cf. Carra de Vaux, Abrégé des Merveilles, p. 23). After this, this succession from father to son, according to Murtaḍā ibn al-ʻAfīf (trans. P. Vattier, p. 108), was interrupted, which obliged the Egyptians to choose a certain man from the royal household, named Ermelinos, and after him Pharaan, who gave his name to the Pharaohs.
18. Armalinos … who was succeeded by his cousin named...
19. Frân … son of Miswar
Kings Who Reigned After the Deluge
20. Besar … or Masar, son of Ham, son of Noah, who lived in Memphis, the first city populated after the deluge. He was succeeded by his son.
No. 1.
NAQRĀŪS, or simply Craos, according to Murtadi, is the first king of Egypt, named Nαραχώ = Naracho among the Byzantines. [2] Maspero says he is of Egyptian-Greek origin and compares him to Nakhèros, Nakhûr, and Narakhôs. A Nakhèros plays a role in the Alexandrian romance of Moses, and a Nakhar or Narakho is indicated by Christian chronologists as the successor of Sesostris. Naqrāūs the Giant, fleeing the hegemony of the children of Ain, had colonized the valley with seventy or so horsemen descended from Arbak, and he had ruled there.
Nos. 21 and 22.
No. 21. MISRAIM is the name for Egypt in Hebrew, MUZUR in Assyrian. Maqrizi reports a curious tradition that demonstrates, based on purely legendary data, the opinion held from time immemorial regarding the antiquity of the four cities: Coptos, Hermopolis, Athribis, and Sais. Misraim, who, after the Flood, chose the entire land of Egypt as his home and that of his descendants, left a son named Coptim, who had four children: Coptarim, Ashmun, Atrib, and Sa.
He divided Egypt between them into four equal parts. Coptim had the country that extends from Aswan to the city of Coptos. He gave to Ashmun the whole part between the city of Coptos and that of Menuf. Atrib had as his share the belly of Egypt, which is what we call the Delta, and Sa had the whole country between the province of Behera and Barbary inclusive. Each of them built in his states a city to which he gave his name. Murtadi tells us this fact not very differently. This is how he explains it: At Philemon's request, Noah married his grandson Misraïm to the daughter of the former. She had a son whom she called Masar. At the wish of his grandfather, Philemon, Noah let this son go to Egypt. There, he married a woman of the race of priests; He had a son whom he named Coptim and who became the father of the Copts. He then married another woman and had sons Coptarim, Ashmun and Atrib. They populated the land of Egypt and their cities were called by their respective names.
This tradition, apart from the slight difference between Maqrizi and Murtadi, which stems from spelling mistakes and omissions, seems to confirm the opinion that the four cities are, in fact, among the oldest known to us from monuments dating back to the first dynasties.
The Arab tradition is not the only one of its kind, for Mr. de Rougé noted, during his research on the first six dynasties, that, according to Genesis 10:13, Misraïm had four sons who left a genuine mark on Egypt. They are:
Ludim = who personifies the Egyptians.
Ananim = representing the tribe of Anu, founders of Heliopolis and Hermonthis.
Patrosim = city of Phtah (Memphis).
Naphtohim = city of Phtah (Memphis).
Furthermore, we know that kings gave their names to cities such as Memphis, Sa-Snefru, Menât-Xonfu Pa-Sahurà, and many others. This is a very ancient custom that still exists today.
Therefore, there is reason to attach importance to this legendary fact recorded in Arab narratives, because the four kings, previously believed to be mythical, probably existed, like many other previously unknown kings, and built these four cities, which date back to the most remote antiquity.
No. 14
SŪRĪD = Khufu, Cheops, Suphit, Sephuris, Khembes, Khemmes,
HAWIT = Khafra, Khafre, Khabrun, Suphis II.
CRORES = Menkeri, Menkheres, Mykerinos (Masar among modern Copts).
Sūrīd, according to many Arab writers, having experienced the arrival of the flood through a dream, built the pyramids of Giza. This event is recounted to us in Arabic narratives: “One night, a sphere descended in a dream in the form of a woman to Sūrīd, son of Sahlūq: the earth immediately turned upside down with its inhabitants, and the sun was eclipsed. The college of priests, presided over by Philemon, consulted the stars and, based on their conjunctions, predicted a flood of water that would partially destroy mankind, followed by a deluge of fire that would wipe out the universe forever. Sūrīd then built the three pyramids of Giza to store there, protected from the flood, the talismans invented until then and the books containing the annals of the past and the laws of all the sciences: there was a wealth there that cannot be estimated.”
This king is very well known for his gigantic work, which is among the seven wonders of the world. His name has come down to us in several forms that are similar to each other. Thus, we see him named on monuments Khufu; by Herodotus, Cheops; by Manetho, Suphis or Sephuris, and by Arab writers, Sūrīd. The identity between the three names Khufu, Cheops, and Suphis seems acceptable to us, because in their syllables the usual correspondence was philologically admitted. On the contrary, in the other two names, Sephuris or Suphis and Sūrīd, the two final syllables -phis and -rid differ; but this error can be attributed to the copyists. It is therefore not surprising to see the name of the same king deformed from generation to generation in the way we have just indicated. The only reason that must be taken into account for affirming the accuracy of this substitution is that all the monuments and chronologists attribute to the king named Khufu, Cheops, Suphis, Sūrīd, etc., the construction of the great pyramid of Giza. It is by this simple fact, unanimously adopted, that we can without any hesitation admit the identity of Sūrīd with Suphis or Sephuris.
As for the two cataclysms mentioned in Sūrīd’s dream, I believe they are based on two known facts: One is the flood reported by the Holy Scriptures as a phenomenon that inundated the world, and the other is the destruction of mankind by the sun, regarded as an element of fire, an account of which has been preserved for us in the tomb of Seti I.
As for the other two kings, Hawit and Crores, Maqrizi tells us that Sūrīd built the eastern pyramid for himself, the western pyramid for his brother Hawit, and the painted pyramid for the latter’s son, called Crores.
Sūrīd was buried in the eastern pyramid, Hawit in the western one, and Crores in the one whose base is made of syenite and the top of limestone.
This tradition is accurate except for the construction of the three pyramids, which is attributed entirely to Sūrīd alone.
On the other hand, Herodotus (II, 129) says that Chephren was the brother of Cheops, which corresponds exactly to the account of the Arab annalists; but Diodorus (I, 64) tells the story differently: he names his son Chephren as Cheops’s successor, which also agrees with the Westcar papyrus. If we discuss the two names philologically, we will see:
1. That Hawit, although distorted by the annalists, contains the elements of Chephren except for the last syllable. This can be broken down as follows:
Ha = Kha, wi = f.
2. That Crores also contains some elements of Menkaure. Moreover, the Arab compilers who spoke of the pyramids of Giza never attributed their construction to other kings. It is therefore likely that the three kings Sūrīd, Hawit and Crores are Khufu, Khafre and Menkaure.
No. 16.
MENAUS I, son of Hargib = Manuel.
No. 34.
MENAUS II, brother of Adim = Menes.
No. 35.
HERMES = Athohes.
Maqrizi reports two kings named Menaus: the first was attributed by M. Carra to Manuel or Menes, while the second remains unidentified.
I think the Arab compilers made a mistake with this name; for Maqrizi, after listing all the names of the kings, observed that these names seemed uncertain to him because some of them appear to be duplicates. It follows that Menaus was mentioned twice, or at least misrepresented. As for Menaus II, I readily identify him with Menes because his legend, recorded in Maqrizi’s work, agrees with that given by classical authors. This is how Maqrizi explains: “Menaus was a priest, scholar, and virtuous. He built several buildings in the mountains and deserts to store his riches. He built a city in the Western Desert and was considered the first ox worshipper in Egypt.”
After his death, his son Hermes was his successor. If we compare these features with the classical legend, we will see:
1. That the Arabs took Menaus from the Greek name Mnevis, given by Diodorus to Menes (1.94).
2. That the founding of a city in the Western Desert likely refers to Memphis, founded by Menes I.
3. That Menaus, the first worshipper of oxen in Egypt, is in exact agreement with the tradition of Aelian (Ancient History, XI, 10), who attributes the institution of the cult of Hapi to Menes.
4. That his son Hermes was his successor is further proof, because Hermes in Greek is the A-Thoh of the Egyptians, and Menes’s successor was his son Athothes I. It follows, therefore, that Menaus is Menes and that his son Hermes is Athothes I.
No. 52.
CALCALI (Murtadi), CALCANI (Maqrizi), CALI (Masudi) = Qentenis = Qenqoni
Kenkenes, cited by most compilers of Manetho’s lists as the third king of the 2nd Dynasty [3], seems to be identical with Calcani, who appears in almost all the works of the Arab annalists.
Maspero compares him to Qenqoni, which means crusher, a name, he says, given allegorically to demonstrate the acts of violence that a king, according to ancient Egyptian custom, was required to use in combat.
Calcani, according to Maqrizi, was a king who worshipped idols and was the first to invent alchemy; many extraordinary wonders earned him the title “Wise of Kings.”
The connection between Calcani and Kenkenes is a fact that can be easily accepted, just as the invention of alchemy, attributed to Calcani, seems to be of the same nature as that of the treatise on anatomy, to Athothis, father of Tenkenis [4], according to Manetho. (CORY, Ancient Fragments, p. 96).
No. 41.
MARGUREH = Merikare [5]
This king is known to us from the Turin Papyrus, where he appears among the series of kings who can be classified as part of the 14th Dynasty. Maqrizi reports that he was a wise man, a priest, and that he was the first to tame and ride lions. He founded cities, he says, erected temples and statues, and was placed in a coffin after his death and buried in the Western Desert.
No. 17.
ECROS, AFROS, AFRAUS = Okheras.
Mr. Carra de Vaux identified King Afros with Quaphres, one of the rare pharaohs mentioned under the name Hophra in the Bible, but this data is rejected because the identification table appended to this work clearly shows that Waphres of the Arab chroniclers remains the same among classical authors. I had thought that another equivalent for Afros should be sought, such as, for example, Quah-Ab-ra, whose cartouche has come down to us via the Turin papyrus (Frag. no. 27).
But I saw that this king is not so well known from the monuments from which the Arab copyists transcribed his name for any assimilation with him to be irrefutable. Another means of identification therefore had to be found. However, Murtadi gives Ecros as Afros. This mention agrees perfectly with that of Syncellus and Sothis, wjo give us the name Οχύρźα = Okhêràs; according to the first chronicler, he was the sixth king of the 20th dynasty; he reigned for 14 years.
This information is, I believe, acceptable for the reasons I provide below:
1. There is resonance between Okhêràs and the Ecros of Murtadi, except for the transcription.
2. K, c, or q, replace f, as we have shown in the transcription rules, and Maqrizi had simply made a spelling error in giving Afros for Ecros, which has come down to us from a Greek transcription.
No. 18.
ARMALINOS = Armaïs.
The identification of this king has already been made by M. Maspero in the Journal des Savants (March 1899, no. 159). Here is what he says: “The Armālīnūs of the Akhbār is also, I believe, one of these compounds, and the classical legend knew an Arminos of analogous assonance, to which it attributed a reform of the calendar. The two are probably, like Armittos, variants of of Armaios and Armais, the Pharaoh Harmhabi [i.e., Horemheb]. The ending -es, so frequent in Greek transcriptions, is found less frequently than the terminal -os in the Akhbār: it is nevertheless found there, rendered by -is according to the laws of iotacism, and several of the words which are thus indicated let themselves be interpreted without too much difficulty.”
No. 32.
MENCAOSH (MANQĀŪS) - Menes (?)
Mr. Maspero says, regarding this king, that we should perhaps see in this an expansion of the theme of Menes. I share this opinion with our learned Egyptologist, because the Arabic legend of Manqāūs appears to be equivalent to that of Menes. I point out here, in support of this hypothesis, a few passages from Maqrizi which show that this assimilation has its justification.
This author reports that Manqāūs built a temple for the figures of the planets eight leagues from Memphis, dug vaults and caverns in the western mountain where he deposited his riches for four years. He had oxen buried there. The traces of these oxen remained visible for a long time between Memphis and the west. Finally, he erected a temple to the Moon, founded Memphis, and subdivided the country into 130 nomes. These passages, compared with the legends of Menes, highlight:
1. That the temple of the planetary figures is that of Memphis, built by Menes for Ptah.
2. That the vaults and caverns intended to house the mummies of the oxen correspond to the Serapeum of Saqqara where the Apis oxen, whose cult was instituted by Menes, were buried.
3. That the founding of Memphis by this king corresponds exactly to the classical legend, attributing the founding of this city to Menes.
We know, on the one hand, that the kings given by the Arab chroniclers as builders of the pyramids are not numerous enough to suggest that there would be confusion in identifying them with those in Manetho’s lists and the monuments; on the other hand, in Murtadi the position occupied by Saiouph is noted before those of the kings to whom the construction of the pyramids of Giza is attributed. Therefore, taking these two observations into account, there is reason to compare Saiouph to Snefru for the following reasons, which I believe to be admissible, if not tenable:
1. There is assonance between Saiouph and Snefru.
2. The radical signs in both names are identical.
3. The softening of an R or an N occurs frequently, as in Memphis, where the Egyptian name Manf becomes the Greek μέμφι, transcribed in Arabic as مافه.
Furthermore, we know from monuments that Snefru built the pyramids of Dahshur and Meidum, and from Arab authors that Saiouph, the Egyptian priest, made his home in the sea pyramid, which pyramid was a temple of the stars containing a figure of the sun and another of the moon, both of which spoke. The anterior or southern pyramid was the tomb of the kings to which Sūrīd was transported. Within it were many admirable things: statues, books, and, among other things, the laughing statue, made of a precious green stone. They had locked all these treasures away for fear of flooding or deluge.
This tradition probably alludes to the pyramid of Meidum discovered by Maspero in 1882, who found it violated in antiquity and who attributes it to Snefru. The author of The Wonders of Egypt called it maritime because, at the time of the flood, the plateau on which it was built was surrounded by the waters of the Nile. Similarly, he calls the king a priest, which poses no objection to our data, because the pharaohs occupied the highest rank in the priesthood. As for the speaking figures, they are the statue of Sekhet, whose headdress is a solar disk, and that of Sawek, the goddess of books, whose headdress is a star. The latter, who presided over the foundations of monuments, was venerated in Memphis as early as the Fourth Dynasty.
As for the third laughing statue, which was made of a green precious stone, I believe it to be that of the king, as well as another statue made of basalt.
No. 45
QLIMON = PHILEMON
Mr. Carra de Vaux cites this name under that of Filamun or Félimon, which corresponds either to Philemon or to Philammon, whose elements are purely Greco-Roman (see what has been said about this priest under the name of Sūrīd).
No. 88.
COMIS, COMES = KAMOS (17th dynasty)
Kamos was one of the Theban kings who waged war against the Hyksos after being driven out of Memphis by Alisphragmonthosis and driven back to Avaris. We know something of his genealogy, but nothing of his annals. His name has come down to us in the Arabic chronicles correctly.
This is how we read in MAQRIZI: Comis قوميس and in MASUDI: Comes قومس, with a transcription that corresponds exactly to his Egyptian name, Kamos.
No. 74.
ATFIN, QATFIR (Atfir), PETEPHRES, PETERES, PA DOU RA, (the gift of the Sun), POTIPHAR, Potiphar (Bible, Gen. 37:36).
Atfin or Qatfir is the master of Joseph in the Arabic annals. He was one of the great lords and chief of Pharaoh's guards. The Quran calls him Aziz. His name has come down to us in several forms that are similar to each other, with the exception of the Arabic forms Atfin, Atfir, or Qatfir whose first syllable varies. This probably comes from the error of the Arab copyists who did not know Greek well enough to transcribe exactly Peteres, Petephres, Potiphar. (See his story in Maqrizi).
No. 63.
RAYAN = Xayan, NEHRAOSH (Nahrāūs) = Neraus.
Arab chroniclers report that Rayan was the Pharaoh of Joseph; but Maqrizi gives more details by citing that Joseph had lived under the reign of two Pharaohs: the first is called Rayan by the Arabs and Nahrāūs by the Copts; the second is called Darimos (Dārim). Now, for the first Pharaoh, we have from the monuments the proof that he was really the Pharaoh of Joseph: we know the important discovery of the lower part of a statue belonging to the Hyksos. This fragment, found at Bubaste, by Naville and currently exhibited at the Cairo Museum, provides us with the two cartouches of an unknown king. These cartouches Xayan and Ne-ra-ous correspond to the names of the Pharaoh above given by Maqrizi. The small difference between Xayan and Rayan is insignificant because we know that this name has come down to us third or fourth hand, and that the striking identity that we notice between Nahrāūs and Ne-Ra-Ous, helps us to overlook this spelling mistake.
As for the second Pharaoh Darimos, we know from Manetho that the Hyksos kings formed three dynasties (XV, XVI, XVII), each consisting of several kings, a small number of whom are known to us. It is possible that King Darimos was part of the series of kings that remains unknown. Joseph having lived 120 years (Gen. 50:26), an age that no pharaoh reached, this confirms the tradition mentioned above by Maqrizi.
No. 69-70.
TOTIS = Thutmose I.
GORIAC, CHAROBA, HORIA = Hatshepsut.
These two names can be identified with those of Thutmose I and his daughter Hatshepsut, firstly by the striking assonance between Totis and Thutmose and secondly by the concordance of the historical facts attributed to the queen by Arab storytellers and monuments. Murtaḍā ibn al-ʻAfīf reports that Totis was the first to be called Pharaoh in Egypt because he was cruel and bloodthirsty and had many people killed, even those closest to him and those of his household, because he envied them, fearing that the crown would be taken from his daughter after his death; for he had no other children.
The monuments tell us in fact that King Thutmose I had only two children by Queen Ahmose, one of whom called Uzmes [6] did not live long; the second Amenmose reached adolescence and had hardly been associated with the crown when he died. Now, Thutmose I had no successor but another Thutmose, born of a certain Mutnofert, who was not of a sufficiently high race through his mother to inherit in the first line, and the seat of Horus this time fell to a woman, Hatshepsut, the eldest daughter of Ahmose.
Murtadi continues: “She was of a mild and good disposition, and a great wit. She always endeavored to prevent the shedding of blood, but could not prevail: wherefore she was at last afraid they would take away the Crown from him, seeing him extremely hated by all people, which made her resolve to dispatch him by poison, after he had reigned 70 years.”
Queen Hatshepsut, according to the monuments, must undoubtedly have been endowed with admirable intelligence and a gentle character: for she did not like war, and yet she knew how to rule with such a firm hand that neither Egypt nor foreign vassals seriously attempted to evade her authority.
“When Totis died,” relates Murtadi, “the people could not agree on who should be elevated to the throne in his place, for it was necessary to choose one of the descendants of Abrib (= Amenophis I?) because they had reigned long ago”; but the people rallied to the advice of a vizier, and most of the great men of Egypt followed him, so that Charoba was accepted, and this vizier made her queen.
If we consult the monuments, we will see that these disturbances had their reasons for being. Etiquette demanded, in fact, after the death of Thutmose I that a male be at the head of the government; It was Thutmose II, the king's brother, then a teenager, who superseded Hatshepsut to take office, but she wanted to have sole control of affairs, and this must certainly have given rise to troubles which were probably finally repressed, and, on the advice of the vizier, Hatshepsut was elected queen of Egypt.
Murtadi adds that after this, she sat on the royal throne, bestowed great bounty upon the people, and promised many blessings. She honored the soldiers, made them considerable gifts, and doubled their pay.
She similarly honored the priests and the chief men of the people, held the magicians in high esteem, raised their rank, and had the temples rebuilt and enlarged. She then served as Queen of Egypt for several years.
Let us return to the monuments that assure us that her reign was indeed prosperous, either because she truly understood matters of administration and politics, or because she had a fortunate hand in the choice of her ministers; internally, she very actively pushed construction, not only at Deir-el-Bahari, but at Karnak and throughout Thebes under the direction of Sanmut. As for the duration of her reign, we can only say that we know it have lasted at least 16 years, but it is very likely that new monuments will be found giving a longer duration for this reign.
During her reign, says Murtadi, “Gebirus the Metapheguian came to give her a visit: he encamped in the Land of Balca, and had a brother named Gebrim, taking his name from him: they were two Giants of the remnant of the ’Adites.”
“When Gebirus sat down on the ground upon the sand, those who were in the midst of the sea saw him. He had a kive 30 cubits about, which being filled full of meat for him he eat up all; then they filled it with wine, and he drank it off. He happened to have the plague in his body, which put him to great pain, increasing every day; whereupon his physicians advised him to send some of his people about the country to find out for him a soil, whereof the air and waters were agreeable to his temperament. These gave him an account of the country of Egypt, which obliged him to come thither…”
This translation reminds us of the incident involving Parihu, chief of Punt, depicted on the wall of Deir el-Bahari, by order of Queen Hatshepsut. He is accompanied by his wife Ati and his daughter. Both of them, especially the mother, suffer from a type of elephantiasis and, as a result, have a fatty swelling so that the lines of their bodies are lost beneath the masses of quivering flesh.
Charoba (Hatshepsut), says the Arab legend, died from a snake bite on the heel. Her successor “had caused to be prepared for her there a tomb, embellished with all sorts of ornaments; and had appointed for Inhabitants of the city a great number of priests, and artisans, and doctors, and military persons. That city continued in a flourishing condition and populous, till it was ruined by Nebuchadnezzar upon the conquest of Egypt.”
We know that the queen had the beautiful temple of Deir el-Bahari built, which is perched on a mountain whose opposite slope leads to the Valley of the Kings. She had embellished its walls with scenes of the countryside from the land of Punt and a sacred garden where aromatic trees from the said region were planted. The Arab legend probably alludes to the beautiful funerary chapel of Deir-el-Bahari and to the whole of Thebes where the queen had built large buildings which were enough, according to Egyptian custom, to attribute to her the foundation of the city. It remained in fact flourishing until the conquest of Nebuchadnezzar who exterminated the multitude of its inhabitants and ruined the city after having entered it through several breaches made in its walls.
No. 75.
DALIC = Thothmes III.
“The Egyptians,” says Murtadi, “took as king, replacing Queen Charoba, her first cousin Dalic” (who chronologically corresponds to Thutmose III, identified with Manetho’s Misphragmothosis). [7]
“He had great wit, prudence, good conduct and physical beauty. […] He reigned for seventy years after having built a wall which served as a fortification to repel the attacks of the enemies against Egypt and which was called Haït-el-Aguz.
“It is known that his cousin, Queen Hatshepsut, associated him more frequently with the external acts of the Government; he did not become absolute sovereign until the age of about 25. His portrait, his conduct, his wars and the numerous constructions that history recognizes are there to testify to his prudence and his beauty.” [8]
As for the wall, of which traces are still seen throughout Egyptian territory and whose author remains unknown until now, it could be the work of Thutmose III, if the substitution of Dalic is acceptable.
This wall was examined and measured in several locations by Ahmad Effendi Nagib, curator-inspector at the Museum.
In Mangabad, for example, it is five meters high and varies in width from three to four and a half meters.
South of Minieh, it is over one meter high.
This wall, which is built with long mud bricks, follows the sandy areas throughout the country, except for the mountains; it was built to prevent sand from invading the cultivated land. For this reason, it has been restored several times, as can be seen from the various courses of masonry.
This therefore destroys the Arab tradition according to which this wall was built to repel the invasion of enemies.
No. 79.
MARINOS, MARINA = Maris.
Is Marinos a Greco-Roman name or a variant of the Egyptian Mares, Maris, “friend of Ra”? The name Mares was highly prized by chronologists; Eratosthenes included it in his Canon three times, with spelling variations: Mares, Maris, and Meuris; an imaginary successor to Amasis was called Maros or Mendes, and Merri, Merris, or Mevrine was a daughter of the so-called Pharaoh Palmanothes, a contemporary of Moses. Maspero believes that this latter Pharaoh is a copyist's error for Pamanothes, Phamanothes, from the known name Amenothes, Amenhotpus [i.e. Amenhotep]. The contemporary Pharaoh of Moses would have been, according to Artapan, the Amenhotep of the Colossus of Memnon, Amenhotep III.
Maqrizi says that twenty-seven Coptic kings reigned in Egypt 620 years after Dalūka. These kings, occupying pages 143-144 of his history, have been identified by us with the lists of Manetho and classified below in the order adopted by the author, which agrees with the list in the Armenian Eusebius.
NAQRĀŪS, or simply Craos, according to Murtadi, is the first king of Egypt, named Nαραχώ = Naracho among the Byzantines. [2] Maspero says he is of Egyptian-Greek origin and compares him to Nakhèros, Nakhûr, and Narakhôs. A Nakhèros plays a role in the Alexandrian romance of Moses, and a Nakhar or Narakho is indicated by Christian chronologists as the successor of Sesostris. Naqrāūs the Giant, fleeing the hegemony of the children of Ain, had colonized the valley with seventy or so horsemen descended from Arbak, and he had ruled there.
Nos. 21 and 22.
No. 21. MISRAIM is the name for Egypt in Hebrew, MUZUR in Assyrian. Maqrizi reports a curious tradition that demonstrates, based on purely legendary data, the opinion held from time immemorial regarding the antiquity of the four cities: Coptos, Hermopolis, Athribis, and Sais. Misraim, who, after the Flood, chose the entire land of Egypt as his home and that of his descendants, left a son named Coptim, who had four children: Coptarim, Ashmun, Atrib, and Sa.
He divided Egypt between them into four equal parts. Coptim had the country that extends from Aswan to the city of Coptos. He gave to Ashmun the whole part between the city of Coptos and that of Menuf. Atrib had as his share the belly of Egypt, which is what we call the Delta, and Sa had the whole country between the province of Behera and Barbary inclusive. Each of them built in his states a city to which he gave his name. Murtadi tells us this fact not very differently. This is how he explains it: At Philemon's request, Noah married his grandson Misraïm to the daughter of the former. She had a son whom she called Masar. At the wish of his grandfather, Philemon, Noah let this son go to Egypt. There, he married a woman of the race of priests; He had a son whom he named Coptim and who became the father of the Copts. He then married another woman and had sons Coptarim, Ashmun and Atrib. They populated the land of Egypt and their cities were called by their respective names.
This tradition, apart from the slight difference between Maqrizi and Murtadi, which stems from spelling mistakes and omissions, seems to confirm the opinion that the four cities are, in fact, among the oldest known to us from monuments dating back to the first dynasties.
The Arab tradition is not the only one of its kind, for Mr. de Rougé noted, during his research on the first six dynasties, that, according to Genesis 10:13, Misraïm had four sons who left a genuine mark on Egypt. They are:
Ludim = who personifies the Egyptians.
Ananim = representing the tribe of Anu, founders of Heliopolis and Hermonthis.
Patrosim = city of Phtah (Memphis).
Naphtohim = city of Phtah (Memphis).
Furthermore, we know that kings gave their names to cities such as Memphis, Sa-Snefru, Menât-Xonfu Pa-Sahurà, and many others. This is a very ancient custom that still exists today.
Therefore, there is reason to attach importance to this legendary fact recorded in Arab narratives, because the four kings, previously believed to be mythical, probably existed, like many other previously unknown kings, and built these four cities, which date back to the most remote antiquity.
No. 14
SŪRĪD = Khufu, Cheops, Suphit, Sephuris, Khembes, Khemmes,
HAWIT = Khafra, Khafre, Khabrun, Suphis II.
CRORES = Menkeri, Menkheres, Mykerinos (Masar among modern Copts).
Sūrīd, according to many Arab writers, having experienced the arrival of the flood through a dream, built the pyramids of Giza. This event is recounted to us in Arabic narratives: “One night, a sphere descended in a dream in the form of a woman to Sūrīd, son of Sahlūq: the earth immediately turned upside down with its inhabitants, and the sun was eclipsed. The college of priests, presided over by Philemon, consulted the stars and, based on their conjunctions, predicted a flood of water that would partially destroy mankind, followed by a deluge of fire that would wipe out the universe forever. Sūrīd then built the three pyramids of Giza to store there, protected from the flood, the talismans invented until then and the books containing the annals of the past and the laws of all the sciences: there was a wealth there that cannot be estimated.”
This king is very well known for his gigantic work, which is among the seven wonders of the world. His name has come down to us in several forms that are similar to each other. Thus, we see him named on monuments Khufu; by Herodotus, Cheops; by Manetho, Suphis or Sephuris, and by Arab writers, Sūrīd. The identity between the three names Khufu, Cheops, and Suphis seems acceptable to us, because in their syllables the usual correspondence was philologically admitted. On the contrary, in the other two names, Sephuris or Suphis and Sūrīd, the two final syllables -phis and -rid differ; but this error can be attributed to the copyists. It is therefore not surprising to see the name of the same king deformed from generation to generation in the way we have just indicated. The only reason that must be taken into account for affirming the accuracy of this substitution is that all the monuments and chronologists attribute to the king named Khufu, Cheops, Suphis, Sūrīd, etc., the construction of the great pyramid of Giza. It is by this simple fact, unanimously adopted, that we can without any hesitation admit the identity of Sūrīd with Suphis or Sephuris.
As for the two cataclysms mentioned in Sūrīd’s dream, I believe they are based on two known facts: One is the flood reported by the Holy Scriptures as a phenomenon that inundated the world, and the other is the destruction of mankind by the sun, regarded as an element of fire, an account of which has been preserved for us in the tomb of Seti I.
As for the other two kings, Hawit and Crores, Maqrizi tells us that Sūrīd built the eastern pyramid for himself, the western pyramid for his brother Hawit, and the painted pyramid for the latter’s son, called Crores.
Sūrīd was buried in the eastern pyramid, Hawit in the western one, and Crores in the one whose base is made of syenite and the top of limestone.
This tradition is accurate except for the construction of the three pyramids, which is attributed entirely to Sūrīd alone.
On the other hand, Herodotus (II, 129) says that Chephren was the brother of Cheops, which corresponds exactly to the account of the Arab annalists; but Diodorus (I, 64) tells the story differently: he names his son Chephren as Cheops’s successor, which also agrees with the Westcar papyrus. If we discuss the two names philologically, we will see:
1. That Hawit, although distorted by the annalists, contains the elements of Chephren except for the last syllable. This can be broken down as follows:
Ha = Kha, wi = f.
2. That Crores also contains some elements of Menkaure. Moreover, the Arab compilers who spoke of the pyramids of Giza never attributed their construction to other kings. It is therefore likely that the three kings Sūrīd, Hawit and Crores are Khufu, Khafre and Menkaure.
No. 16.
MENAUS I, son of Hargib = Manuel.
No. 34.
MENAUS II, brother of Adim = Menes.
No. 35.
HERMES = Athohes.
Maqrizi reports two kings named Menaus: the first was attributed by M. Carra to Manuel or Menes, while the second remains unidentified.
I think the Arab compilers made a mistake with this name; for Maqrizi, after listing all the names of the kings, observed that these names seemed uncertain to him because some of them appear to be duplicates. It follows that Menaus was mentioned twice, or at least misrepresented. As for Menaus II, I readily identify him with Menes because his legend, recorded in Maqrizi’s work, agrees with that given by classical authors. This is how Maqrizi explains: “Menaus was a priest, scholar, and virtuous. He built several buildings in the mountains and deserts to store his riches. He built a city in the Western Desert and was considered the first ox worshipper in Egypt.”
After his death, his son Hermes was his successor. If we compare these features with the classical legend, we will see:
1. That the Arabs took Menaus from the Greek name Mnevis, given by Diodorus to Menes (1.94).
2. That the founding of a city in the Western Desert likely refers to Memphis, founded by Menes I.
3. That Menaus, the first worshipper of oxen in Egypt, is in exact agreement with the tradition of Aelian (Ancient History, XI, 10), who attributes the institution of the cult of Hapi to Menes.
4. That his son Hermes was his successor is further proof, because Hermes in Greek is the A-Thoh of the Egyptians, and Menes’s successor was his son Athothes I. It follows, therefore, that Menaus is Menes and that his son Hermes is Athothes I.
No. 52.
CALCALI (Murtadi), CALCANI (Maqrizi), CALI (Masudi) = Qentenis = Qenqoni
Kenkenes, cited by most compilers of Manetho’s lists as the third king of the 2nd Dynasty [3], seems to be identical with Calcani, who appears in almost all the works of the Arab annalists.
Maspero compares him to Qenqoni, which means crusher, a name, he says, given allegorically to demonstrate the acts of violence that a king, according to ancient Egyptian custom, was required to use in combat.
Calcani, according to Maqrizi, was a king who worshipped idols and was the first to invent alchemy; many extraordinary wonders earned him the title “Wise of Kings.”
The connection between Calcani and Kenkenes is a fact that can be easily accepted, just as the invention of alchemy, attributed to Calcani, seems to be of the same nature as that of the treatise on anatomy, to Athothis, father of Tenkenis [4], according to Manetho. (CORY, Ancient Fragments, p. 96).
No. 41.
MARGUREH = Merikare [5]
This king is known to us from the Turin Papyrus, where he appears among the series of kings who can be classified as part of the 14th Dynasty. Maqrizi reports that he was a wise man, a priest, and that he was the first to tame and ride lions. He founded cities, he says, erected temples and statues, and was placed in a coffin after his death and buried in the Western Desert.
No. 17.
ECROS, AFROS, AFRAUS = Okheras.
Mr. Carra de Vaux identified King Afros with Quaphres, one of the rare pharaohs mentioned under the name Hophra in the Bible, but this data is rejected because the identification table appended to this work clearly shows that Waphres of the Arab chroniclers remains the same among classical authors. I had thought that another equivalent for Afros should be sought, such as, for example, Quah-Ab-ra, whose cartouche has come down to us via the Turin papyrus (Frag. no. 27).
But I saw that this king is not so well known from the monuments from which the Arab copyists transcribed his name for any assimilation with him to be irrefutable. Another means of identification therefore had to be found. However, Murtadi gives Ecros as Afros. This mention agrees perfectly with that of Syncellus and Sothis, wjo give us the name Οχύρźα = Okhêràs; according to the first chronicler, he was the sixth king of the 20th dynasty; he reigned for 14 years.
This information is, I believe, acceptable for the reasons I provide below:
1. There is resonance between Okhêràs and the Ecros of Murtadi, except for the transcription.
2. K, c, or q, replace f, as we have shown in the transcription rules, and Maqrizi had simply made a spelling error in giving Afros for Ecros, which has come down to us from a Greek transcription.
No. 18.
ARMALINOS = Armaïs.
The identification of this king has already been made by M. Maspero in the Journal des Savants (March 1899, no. 159). Here is what he says: “The Armālīnūs of the Akhbār is also, I believe, one of these compounds, and the classical legend knew an Arminos of analogous assonance, to which it attributed a reform of the calendar. The two are probably, like Armittos, variants of of Armaios and Armais, the Pharaoh Harmhabi [i.e., Horemheb]. The ending -es, so frequent in Greek transcriptions, is found less frequently than the terminal -os in the Akhbār: it is nevertheless found there, rendered by -is according to the laws of iotacism, and several of the words which are thus indicated let themselves be interpreted without too much difficulty.”
No. 32.
MENCAOSH (MANQĀŪS) - Menes (?)
Mr. Maspero says, regarding this king, that we should perhaps see in this an expansion of the theme of Menes. I share this opinion with our learned Egyptologist, because the Arabic legend of Manqāūs appears to be equivalent to that of Menes. I point out here, in support of this hypothesis, a few passages from Maqrizi which show that this assimilation has its justification.
This author reports that Manqāūs built a temple for the figures of the planets eight leagues from Memphis, dug vaults and caverns in the western mountain where he deposited his riches for four years. He had oxen buried there. The traces of these oxen remained visible for a long time between Memphis and the west. Finally, he erected a temple to the Moon, founded Memphis, and subdivided the country into 130 nomes. These passages, compared with the legends of Menes, highlight:
1. That the temple of the planetary figures is that of Memphis, built by Menes for Ptah.
2. That the vaults and caverns intended to house the mummies of the oxen correspond to the Serapeum of Saqqara where the Apis oxen, whose cult was instituted by Menes, were buried.
3. That the founding of Memphis by this king corresponds exactly to the classical legend, attributing the founding of this city to Menes.
We know, on the one hand, that the kings given by the Arab chroniclers as builders of the pyramids are not numerous enough to suggest that there would be confusion in identifying them with those in Manetho’s lists and the monuments; on the other hand, in Murtadi the position occupied by Saiouph is noted before those of the kings to whom the construction of the pyramids of Giza is attributed. Therefore, taking these two observations into account, there is reason to compare Saiouph to Snefru for the following reasons, which I believe to be admissible, if not tenable:
1. There is assonance between Saiouph and Snefru.
2. The radical signs in both names are identical.
3. The softening of an R or an N occurs frequently, as in Memphis, where the Egyptian name Manf becomes the Greek μέμφι, transcribed in Arabic as مافه.
Furthermore, we know from monuments that Snefru built the pyramids of Dahshur and Meidum, and from Arab authors that Saiouph, the Egyptian priest, made his home in the sea pyramid, which pyramid was a temple of the stars containing a figure of the sun and another of the moon, both of which spoke. The anterior or southern pyramid was the tomb of the kings to which Sūrīd was transported. Within it were many admirable things: statues, books, and, among other things, the laughing statue, made of a precious green stone. They had locked all these treasures away for fear of flooding or deluge.
This tradition probably alludes to the pyramid of Meidum discovered by Maspero in 1882, who found it violated in antiquity and who attributes it to Snefru. The author of The Wonders of Egypt called it maritime because, at the time of the flood, the plateau on which it was built was surrounded by the waters of the Nile. Similarly, he calls the king a priest, which poses no objection to our data, because the pharaohs occupied the highest rank in the priesthood. As for the speaking figures, they are the statue of Sekhet, whose headdress is a solar disk, and that of Sawek, the goddess of books, whose headdress is a star. The latter, who presided over the foundations of monuments, was venerated in Memphis as early as the Fourth Dynasty.
As for the third laughing statue, which was made of a green precious stone, I believe it to be that of the king, as well as another statue made of basalt.
No. 45
QLIMON = PHILEMON
Mr. Carra de Vaux cites this name under that of Filamun or Félimon, which corresponds either to Philemon or to Philammon, whose elements are purely Greco-Roman (see what has been said about this priest under the name of Sūrīd).
No. 88.
COMIS, COMES = KAMOS (17th dynasty)
Kamos was one of the Theban kings who waged war against the Hyksos after being driven out of Memphis by Alisphragmonthosis and driven back to Avaris. We know something of his genealogy, but nothing of his annals. His name has come down to us in the Arabic chronicles correctly.
This is how we read in MAQRIZI: Comis قوميس and in MASUDI: Comes قومس, with a transcription that corresponds exactly to his Egyptian name, Kamos.
No. 74.
ATFIN, QATFIR (Atfir), PETEPHRES, PETERES, PA DOU RA, (the gift of the Sun), POTIPHAR, Potiphar (Bible, Gen. 37:36).
Atfin or Qatfir is the master of Joseph in the Arabic annals. He was one of the great lords and chief of Pharaoh's guards. The Quran calls him Aziz. His name has come down to us in several forms that are similar to each other, with the exception of the Arabic forms Atfin, Atfir, or Qatfir whose first syllable varies. This probably comes from the error of the Arab copyists who did not know Greek well enough to transcribe exactly Peteres, Petephres, Potiphar. (See his story in Maqrizi).
No. 63.
RAYAN = Xayan, NEHRAOSH (Nahrāūs) = Neraus.
Arab chroniclers report that Rayan was the Pharaoh of Joseph; but Maqrizi gives more details by citing that Joseph had lived under the reign of two Pharaohs: the first is called Rayan by the Arabs and Nahrāūs by the Copts; the second is called Darimos (Dārim). Now, for the first Pharaoh, we have from the monuments the proof that he was really the Pharaoh of Joseph: we know the important discovery of the lower part of a statue belonging to the Hyksos. This fragment, found at Bubaste, by Naville and currently exhibited at the Cairo Museum, provides us with the two cartouches of an unknown king. These cartouches Xayan and Ne-ra-ous correspond to the names of the Pharaoh above given by Maqrizi. The small difference between Xayan and Rayan is insignificant because we know that this name has come down to us third or fourth hand, and that the striking identity that we notice between Nahrāūs and Ne-Ra-Ous, helps us to overlook this spelling mistake.
As for the second Pharaoh Darimos, we know from Manetho that the Hyksos kings formed three dynasties (XV, XVI, XVII), each consisting of several kings, a small number of whom are known to us. It is possible that King Darimos was part of the series of kings that remains unknown. Joseph having lived 120 years (Gen. 50:26), an age that no pharaoh reached, this confirms the tradition mentioned above by Maqrizi.
No. 69-70.
TOTIS = Thutmose I.
GORIAC, CHAROBA, HORIA = Hatshepsut.
These two names can be identified with those of Thutmose I and his daughter Hatshepsut, firstly by the striking assonance between Totis and Thutmose and secondly by the concordance of the historical facts attributed to the queen by Arab storytellers and monuments. Murtaḍā ibn al-ʻAfīf reports that Totis was the first to be called Pharaoh in Egypt because he was cruel and bloodthirsty and had many people killed, even those closest to him and those of his household, because he envied them, fearing that the crown would be taken from his daughter after his death; for he had no other children.
The monuments tell us in fact that King Thutmose I had only two children by Queen Ahmose, one of whom called Uzmes [6] did not live long; the second Amenmose reached adolescence and had hardly been associated with the crown when he died. Now, Thutmose I had no successor but another Thutmose, born of a certain Mutnofert, who was not of a sufficiently high race through his mother to inherit in the first line, and the seat of Horus this time fell to a woman, Hatshepsut, the eldest daughter of Ahmose.
Murtadi continues: “She was of a mild and good disposition, and a great wit. She always endeavored to prevent the shedding of blood, but could not prevail: wherefore she was at last afraid they would take away the Crown from him, seeing him extremely hated by all people, which made her resolve to dispatch him by poison, after he had reigned 70 years.”
Queen Hatshepsut, according to the monuments, must undoubtedly have been endowed with admirable intelligence and a gentle character: for she did not like war, and yet she knew how to rule with such a firm hand that neither Egypt nor foreign vassals seriously attempted to evade her authority.
“When Totis died,” relates Murtadi, “the people could not agree on who should be elevated to the throne in his place, for it was necessary to choose one of the descendants of Abrib (= Amenophis I?) because they had reigned long ago”; but the people rallied to the advice of a vizier, and most of the great men of Egypt followed him, so that Charoba was accepted, and this vizier made her queen.
If we consult the monuments, we will see that these disturbances had their reasons for being. Etiquette demanded, in fact, after the death of Thutmose I that a male be at the head of the government; It was Thutmose II, the king's brother, then a teenager, who superseded Hatshepsut to take office, but she wanted to have sole control of affairs, and this must certainly have given rise to troubles which were probably finally repressed, and, on the advice of the vizier, Hatshepsut was elected queen of Egypt.
Murtadi adds that after this, she sat on the royal throne, bestowed great bounty upon the people, and promised many blessings. She honored the soldiers, made them considerable gifts, and doubled their pay.
She similarly honored the priests and the chief men of the people, held the magicians in high esteem, raised their rank, and had the temples rebuilt and enlarged. She then served as Queen of Egypt for several years.
Let us return to the monuments that assure us that her reign was indeed prosperous, either because she truly understood matters of administration and politics, or because she had a fortunate hand in the choice of her ministers; internally, she very actively pushed construction, not only at Deir-el-Bahari, but at Karnak and throughout Thebes under the direction of Sanmut. As for the duration of her reign, we can only say that we know it have lasted at least 16 years, but it is very likely that new monuments will be found giving a longer duration for this reign.
During her reign, says Murtadi, “Gebirus the Metapheguian came to give her a visit: he encamped in the Land of Balca, and had a brother named Gebrim, taking his name from him: they were two Giants of the remnant of the ’Adites.”
“When Gebirus sat down on the ground upon the sand, those who were in the midst of the sea saw him. He had a kive 30 cubits about, which being filled full of meat for him he eat up all; then they filled it with wine, and he drank it off. He happened to have the plague in his body, which put him to great pain, increasing every day; whereupon his physicians advised him to send some of his people about the country to find out for him a soil, whereof the air and waters were agreeable to his temperament. These gave him an account of the country of Egypt, which obliged him to come thither…”
This translation reminds us of the incident involving Parihu, chief of Punt, depicted on the wall of Deir el-Bahari, by order of Queen Hatshepsut. He is accompanied by his wife Ati and his daughter. Both of them, especially the mother, suffer from a type of elephantiasis and, as a result, have a fatty swelling so that the lines of their bodies are lost beneath the masses of quivering flesh.
Charoba (Hatshepsut), says the Arab legend, died from a snake bite on the heel. Her successor “had caused to be prepared for her there a tomb, embellished with all sorts of ornaments; and had appointed for Inhabitants of the city a great number of priests, and artisans, and doctors, and military persons. That city continued in a flourishing condition and populous, till it was ruined by Nebuchadnezzar upon the conquest of Egypt.”
We know that the queen had the beautiful temple of Deir el-Bahari built, which is perched on a mountain whose opposite slope leads to the Valley of the Kings. She had embellished its walls with scenes of the countryside from the land of Punt and a sacred garden where aromatic trees from the said region were planted. The Arab legend probably alludes to the beautiful funerary chapel of Deir-el-Bahari and to the whole of Thebes where the queen had built large buildings which were enough, according to Egyptian custom, to attribute to her the foundation of the city. It remained in fact flourishing until the conquest of Nebuchadnezzar who exterminated the multitude of its inhabitants and ruined the city after having entered it through several breaches made in its walls.
No. 75.
DALIC = Thothmes III.
“The Egyptians,” says Murtadi, “took as king, replacing Queen Charoba, her first cousin Dalic” (who chronologically corresponds to Thutmose III, identified with Manetho’s Misphragmothosis). [7]
“He had great wit, prudence, good conduct and physical beauty. […] He reigned for seventy years after having built a wall which served as a fortification to repel the attacks of the enemies against Egypt and which was called Haït-el-Aguz.
“It is known that his cousin, Queen Hatshepsut, associated him more frequently with the external acts of the Government; he did not become absolute sovereign until the age of about 25. His portrait, his conduct, his wars and the numerous constructions that history recognizes are there to testify to his prudence and his beauty.” [8]
As for the wall, of which traces are still seen throughout Egyptian territory and whose author remains unknown until now, it could be the work of Thutmose III, if the substitution of Dalic is acceptable.
This wall was examined and measured in several locations by Ahmad Effendi Nagib, curator-inspector at the Museum.
In Mangabad, for example, it is five meters high and varies in width from three to four and a half meters.
South of Minieh, it is over one meter high.
This wall, which is built with long mud bricks, follows the sandy areas throughout the country, except for the mountains; it was built to prevent sand from invading the cultivated land. For this reason, it has been restored several times, as can be seen from the various courses of masonry.
This therefore destroys the Arab tradition according to which this wall was built to repel the invasion of enemies.
No. 79.
MARINOS, MARINA = Maris.
Is Marinos a Greco-Roman name or a variant of the Egyptian Mares, Maris, “friend of Ra”? The name Mares was highly prized by chronologists; Eratosthenes included it in his Canon three times, with spelling variations: Mares, Maris, and Meuris; an imaginary successor to Amasis was called Maros or Mendes, and Merri, Merris, or Mevrine was a daughter of the so-called Pharaoh Palmanothes, a contemporary of Moses. Maspero believes that this latter Pharaoh is a copyist's error for Pamanothes, Phamanothes, from the known name Amenothes, Amenhotpus [i.e. Amenhotep]. The contemporary Pharaoh of Moses would have been, according to Artapan, the Amenhotep of the Colossus of Memnon, Amenhotep III.
Maqrizi says that twenty-seven Coptic kings reigned in Egypt 620 years after Dalūka. These kings, occupying pages 143-144 of his history, have been identified by us with the lists of Manetho and classified below in the order adopted by the author, which agrees with the list in the Armenian Eusebius.
RULES OF TRANSCRIPTION ADOPTED FOR THE ARABIC AUTHORS
Aeas for is…………… ex. Menaos = Mnévis.
The softening of an R or N » Manf, Mafa = Memphis.
The softening of an es = os » Mounatos = Mouthès.
N for M and Rés for Ras…………… » Nepherkhérés = Mefekhras.
Ph » P » Mous » Mers…………… » Psamous = Phsamers.
N » M…………… » Mafertas = Nephérites.
J » B » R » N…………… » Sajacor = Sabacon.
H » C…………… » Tarahos = Taracos.
J » N…………… » Iakho = Nekhavo.
C » F…………… » Climon = Philemon.
The softening of an R or N » Manf, Mafa = Memphis.
The softening of an es = os » Mounatos = Mouthès.
N for M and Rés for Ras…………… » Nepherkhérés = Mefekhras.
Ph » P » Mous » Mers…………… » Psamous = Phsamers.
N » M…………… » Mafertas = Nephérites.
J » B » R » N…………… » Sajacor = Sabacon.
H » C…………… » Tarahos = Taracos.
J » N…………… » Iakho = Nekhavo.
C » F…………… » Climon = Philemon.
Among the effects of the magic of the Egyptian priests of which traces still seem to remain today, we can cite the following fact, explained by Murtaḍā ibn al-ʻAfīf.
“… then the King (when he had any affair) assembled the priests without the city Memphis, and the people met together in the streets of the said city. then they made their entrance one after another in order, the drum beating before them to bring the people together; and every one made some miraculous discovery of his magic and wisdom. one had, to their thinking who looked on him, his face surrounded with a light like that of the sun, so that none could look earnestly upon him.
“Another seemed clad with a robe beset with precious stones of diverse colors, green, red or yellow, or wrought with gold. Another came mounted on a Lion, compassed with serpents like girdles. Another came in covered with a canopy or pavilion of light. Another appeared surrounded with fire, turning about him so as that no body durst come near him. Another was seen with dreadful birds perching about his head, and shaking their wings like black eagles and vultures. Another made appear before him in the air dreadful and terrible persons, and winged serpents. In fine, every one did what was taught him by the star he served; yet all was but apparition and illusion without any reality: insomuch that when they came up to the king they spoke thus to him; ‘You imagined that it was so or so, but the truth is that it was such or such a thing.’”
Did not these magical traits recall the marvelous actions performed during the Dorah (religious procession or tour), suppressed for some years? We know that the fakirs, doubtless excited by ambition and the desire to make a great reputation for sanctity, indulge in strange, bizarre, childish, incomprehensible acts: some, holding a red-hot iron or a burning coal between their teeth, turn on their heels with frightening rapidity, others agitate themselves in horrible convulsions where sharp instruments are driven into their ears or other parts of the body, until they succumb from fatigue and pain.
There are four major sects of fakirs in Egypt. The Rifaïeh, who are distinguished by black banners and turbans and to whom a host of marvelous deeds are attributed, are subdivided into several orders:
1. The Ilwanieh, who enjoy the privilege of driving iron spikes into their eyes or any other part of their body without experiencing any pain; they pass swords through their bodies and pierce their cheeks with needles without any trace of injury being visible. They also wear large stones on their chests and perform many other miracles.
2. The Saûdich have green banners and green or dark blue turbans as their insignia. They have the privilege of handling poisonous snakes without danger, and some even feed on them.
The Sheikh of the Saâdieh has the prerogative of being the main actor in the very strange ceremony called Dosah, where he mounts a horse and gallops over the bodies that throw themselves out of piety under the horse's feet, never receiving any harm.
The second order is that of the Sudieh, with white banners and turbans. They are fishermen, carrying green, red, yellow, white, etc. nets on long poles in the procession.
The third order is that of the Ahmadieh, with red banners and turbans, which are subdivided into the Bayumieh, Shaarawieh, Shinawieh, etc. These latter have a custom of having a donkey play a singular role in the ceremony of their patron saint's feast day: the donkey enters the mosque alone and goes straight to the saint's tomb, where it stops. The crowd then gathers around it, and everyone plucks a piece of its hair, which acquires the virtue of a talisman.
Finally, the fourth order is that of the Burhamieh, carrying green banners and turbans. There are still other sects of these faquirs, but almost all of them fall into one or other of the categories of these four orders.
Their miracles are numerous: among others, we can cite those who eat insects, nopal, glass, and fire; those who walk surrounded by flames under their clothes; those who have the gift of assimilating themselves to a ferocious beast; those who devour rats and rabbits alive; and those who cause incense or gunpowder to erupt from their mouths, which detonates in the fire.
The procession moves in good order, so that the sects file past one after the other, drums beating, flags waving, and prayers recited, until they arrive at the public square designated for their meeting. If the procession is on the occasion of a saint's birthday, a large pole must be erected three or four days beforehand in that square in front of the mosque where the saint’s dome stands. This pole is decorated with several lamps, and each sect must recite the final prayer while going around it.
On the occasion of the Carpet [9], the procession accompanies it in the same order to the Mosque of Saidna Al Hossein for assembly and sewing, or to Cairo’s train station for shipment to the Hejaz.
It was customary, at least under the Ptolemies, for the king to assemble the priests of all the temples in council to deliberate on political matters, and the decrees of Rosetta and Canopus, to name only the most famous, were promulgated after these synods.
We don’t know how they got there, but we know, both from written texts and from bas-reliefs, what costumes they wore and what order they observed in certain solemn processions.
The singer led the way with a musical instrument, followed by the horoscope holder holding a clock and a palm branch, the hierogrammatist wearing his feathers, adorned with his palette and his papyrus roll, the stolist holding the cubit and the purification vessel; the prophet walked behind these priests, he was recognizable by the sacred seal and was followed by the bread bearers (Clement of Alexandria 6).
The characters listed here all belong to the same clergy. When the clergy of all the gods were gathered, the chief priests of each nome marched in groups according to their geographical rank. Their insignia were those of their gods, and some of them are recognized in the description of the Akhbār al-zamān. Thus, the dome, or more precisely the ball of fire or jewels, is the Egyptian solar disk; the green stone is the ring with a mafak setting, that is, malachite, which the Egyptians loved so much, and so on.
Here again, this piece of the old document is accurate and comes from an ancient source; the predominance of magical theories has distorted the meaning and transformed the setting of the scene.
Before finishing this study, I will cite a fact reported by Masudi, astonishing not in itself, but because it was known to this author. This fact is as follows: Masudi says: “The Berbah of Said, that is, the temples of Upper Egypt and other provinces, still exist. One sees there different figures which, when represented on certain objects, actually execute the influences fixed and determined by the Egyptians according to their knowledge of the general laws of nature. God knows the truth.”
Indeed, temples, tombs, and funerary stelae depict scenes of daily life depicted in sculpture or painting. These scenes depict the deceased sitting or standing, alone or accompanied by their loved ones, before a table of offerings laden with food; they are sometimes followed by depictions of domains such as fields, boats, harvests, livestock breeding, and birds, as well as other decorative images such as hunting, fishing, ceremonial outings, etc.
According to Egyptian theology, these images of offerings and other scenes became real and relatable to the deceased through the magical power of a process called Makheru.
We will conclude our final topic by comparing current customs relating to the distribution of alms to the dead with those of similar ancient Egyptian customs. It is known that during the Old Kingdom, offerings were engraved on stelae with a false door in the middle so that the soul could enter and exit whenever it wished to enter its mummy, and, upon its destruction, into one of the statues or statuettes placed next to the deceased. The mummy or statue, called a Ka, meaning double, was revived following the ritual of funerary sacrifice and enjoyed life by taking possession of the offerings. Later, the door was no longer depicted, and the funerary stele became a simple stone or wooden tablet bearing an inscription praying to one of the funerary deities, such as Osiris, Anubis, Ptah-Sokar-Osiris, Osiris-Xent-Amenti, Isis, Nephthys, etc., to deliver the offerings to the deceased, representing the latter in possession of the consignment placed before him. Nowadays, everywhere, and especially in Egypt, epitaphs have replaced commemorative steles. In the Christian era, a cross was engraved on them, accompanied by prayers in the name of the deceased; in the Islamic era, these were replaced by one or more verses from the Quran or a poetic piece in which the deceased was wished salvation and peace.
The same goes for the naos, which housed Egyptian deities; it was replaced in the Christian era by the rounded church porch or one topped with a triangular pediment. Under the porch, either the image of the deceased or a saint, or a mystical decoration, a rosette, or a series of geometric ornaments, was engraved.
In the Muslim era, this porch was replaced by another, the shape of which did not vary from the previous one and which also featured some fantastical ornaments.
It can be seen placed in all mosques to indicate the qibla and to receive the imam at prayer time.
In addition, during funeral festivals, the relatives of the dead make, in place of the old offerings, alms in cash and in kind such as cakes, bread, fresh or dried fruit, etc., etc. Religion recommends giving alms to the poor and to anyone who asks for them so that God may grant peace to the dead. We are therefore led to conclude that the funerary customs in force in modern Egypt have their origins in antiquity.
“… then the King (when he had any affair) assembled the priests without the city Memphis, and the people met together in the streets of the said city. then they made their entrance one after another in order, the drum beating before them to bring the people together; and every one made some miraculous discovery of his magic and wisdom. one had, to their thinking who looked on him, his face surrounded with a light like that of the sun, so that none could look earnestly upon him.
“Another seemed clad with a robe beset with precious stones of diverse colors, green, red or yellow, or wrought with gold. Another came mounted on a Lion, compassed with serpents like girdles. Another came in covered with a canopy or pavilion of light. Another appeared surrounded with fire, turning about him so as that no body durst come near him. Another was seen with dreadful birds perching about his head, and shaking their wings like black eagles and vultures. Another made appear before him in the air dreadful and terrible persons, and winged serpents. In fine, every one did what was taught him by the star he served; yet all was but apparition and illusion without any reality: insomuch that when they came up to the king they spoke thus to him; ‘You imagined that it was so or so, but the truth is that it was such or such a thing.’”
Did not these magical traits recall the marvelous actions performed during the Dorah (religious procession or tour), suppressed for some years? We know that the fakirs, doubtless excited by ambition and the desire to make a great reputation for sanctity, indulge in strange, bizarre, childish, incomprehensible acts: some, holding a red-hot iron or a burning coal between their teeth, turn on their heels with frightening rapidity, others agitate themselves in horrible convulsions where sharp instruments are driven into their ears or other parts of the body, until they succumb from fatigue and pain.
There are four major sects of fakirs in Egypt. The Rifaïeh, who are distinguished by black banners and turbans and to whom a host of marvelous deeds are attributed, are subdivided into several orders:
1. The Ilwanieh, who enjoy the privilege of driving iron spikes into their eyes or any other part of their body without experiencing any pain; they pass swords through their bodies and pierce their cheeks with needles without any trace of injury being visible. They also wear large stones on their chests and perform many other miracles.
2. The Saûdich have green banners and green or dark blue turbans as their insignia. They have the privilege of handling poisonous snakes without danger, and some even feed on them.
The Sheikh of the Saâdieh has the prerogative of being the main actor in the very strange ceremony called Dosah, where he mounts a horse and gallops over the bodies that throw themselves out of piety under the horse's feet, never receiving any harm.
The second order is that of the Sudieh, with white banners and turbans. They are fishermen, carrying green, red, yellow, white, etc. nets on long poles in the procession.
The third order is that of the Ahmadieh, with red banners and turbans, which are subdivided into the Bayumieh, Shaarawieh, Shinawieh, etc. These latter have a custom of having a donkey play a singular role in the ceremony of their patron saint's feast day: the donkey enters the mosque alone and goes straight to the saint's tomb, where it stops. The crowd then gathers around it, and everyone plucks a piece of its hair, which acquires the virtue of a talisman.
Finally, the fourth order is that of the Burhamieh, carrying green banners and turbans. There are still other sects of these faquirs, but almost all of them fall into one or other of the categories of these four orders.
Their miracles are numerous: among others, we can cite those who eat insects, nopal, glass, and fire; those who walk surrounded by flames under their clothes; those who have the gift of assimilating themselves to a ferocious beast; those who devour rats and rabbits alive; and those who cause incense or gunpowder to erupt from their mouths, which detonates in the fire.
The procession moves in good order, so that the sects file past one after the other, drums beating, flags waving, and prayers recited, until they arrive at the public square designated for their meeting. If the procession is on the occasion of a saint's birthday, a large pole must be erected three or four days beforehand in that square in front of the mosque where the saint’s dome stands. This pole is decorated with several lamps, and each sect must recite the final prayer while going around it.
On the occasion of the Carpet [9], the procession accompanies it in the same order to the Mosque of Saidna Al Hossein for assembly and sewing, or to Cairo’s train station for shipment to the Hejaz.
It was customary, at least under the Ptolemies, for the king to assemble the priests of all the temples in council to deliberate on political matters, and the decrees of Rosetta and Canopus, to name only the most famous, were promulgated after these synods.
We don’t know how they got there, but we know, both from written texts and from bas-reliefs, what costumes they wore and what order they observed in certain solemn processions.
The singer led the way with a musical instrument, followed by the horoscope holder holding a clock and a palm branch, the hierogrammatist wearing his feathers, adorned with his palette and his papyrus roll, the stolist holding the cubit and the purification vessel; the prophet walked behind these priests, he was recognizable by the sacred seal and was followed by the bread bearers (Clement of Alexandria 6).
The characters listed here all belong to the same clergy. When the clergy of all the gods were gathered, the chief priests of each nome marched in groups according to their geographical rank. Their insignia were those of their gods, and some of them are recognized in the description of the Akhbār al-zamān. Thus, the dome, or more precisely the ball of fire or jewels, is the Egyptian solar disk; the green stone is the ring with a mafak setting, that is, malachite, which the Egyptians loved so much, and so on.
Here again, this piece of the old document is accurate and comes from an ancient source; the predominance of magical theories has distorted the meaning and transformed the setting of the scene.
Before finishing this study, I will cite a fact reported by Masudi, astonishing not in itself, but because it was known to this author. This fact is as follows: Masudi says: “The Berbah of Said, that is, the temples of Upper Egypt and other provinces, still exist. One sees there different figures which, when represented on certain objects, actually execute the influences fixed and determined by the Egyptians according to their knowledge of the general laws of nature. God knows the truth.”
Indeed, temples, tombs, and funerary stelae depict scenes of daily life depicted in sculpture or painting. These scenes depict the deceased sitting or standing, alone or accompanied by their loved ones, before a table of offerings laden with food; they are sometimes followed by depictions of domains such as fields, boats, harvests, livestock breeding, and birds, as well as other decorative images such as hunting, fishing, ceremonial outings, etc.
According to Egyptian theology, these images of offerings and other scenes became real and relatable to the deceased through the magical power of a process called Makheru.
We will conclude our final topic by comparing current customs relating to the distribution of alms to the dead with those of similar ancient Egyptian customs. It is known that during the Old Kingdom, offerings were engraved on stelae with a false door in the middle so that the soul could enter and exit whenever it wished to enter its mummy, and, upon its destruction, into one of the statues or statuettes placed next to the deceased. The mummy or statue, called a Ka, meaning double, was revived following the ritual of funerary sacrifice and enjoyed life by taking possession of the offerings. Later, the door was no longer depicted, and the funerary stele became a simple stone or wooden tablet bearing an inscription praying to one of the funerary deities, such as Osiris, Anubis, Ptah-Sokar-Osiris, Osiris-Xent-Amenti, Isis, Nephthys, etc., to deliver the offerings to the deceased, representing the latter in possession of the consignment placed before him. Nowadays, everywhere, and especially in Egypt, epitaphs have replaced commemorative steles. In the Christian era, a cross was engraved on them, accompanied by prayers in the name of the deceased; in the Islamic era, these were replaced by one or more verses from the Quran or a poetic piece in which the deceased was wished salvation and peace.
The same goes for the naos, which housed Egyptian deities; it was replaced in the Christian era by the rounded church porch or one topped with a triangular pediment. Under the porch, either the image of the deceased or a saint, or a mystical decoration, a rosette, or a series of geometric ornaments, was engraved.
In the Muslim era, this porch was replaced by another, the shape of which did not vary from the previous one and which also featured some fantastical ornaments.
It can be seen placed in all mosques to indicate the qibla and to receive the imam at prayer time.
In addition, during funeral festivals, the relatives of the dead make, in place of the old offerings, alms in cash and in kind such as cakes, bread, fresh or dried fruit, etc., etc. Religion recommends giving alms to the poor and to anyone who asks for them so that God may grant peace to the dead. We are therefore led to conclude that the funerary customs in force in modern Egypt have their origins in antiquity.
AHMAD KAMAL,
Assistant Curator at the Cairo Museum.
Assistant Curator at the Cairo Museum.
NOTES
[1] Diodorus 1.21 and 1.94; however, Diodorus gives Mnevis as a sacred bull, not a king in 1.21, suggesting that the royal name “Mneves” of 1.94, elsewhere given as “Menas” (1.43, 45), is an error.
[2] John Malalas, Chronicle 2.6; however his Naracho lived at the time of Abraham and was not the first pharaoh. A more plausible origin can be found in the Greek Nacheros or Nachro, which Louis Ginzberg suggested could be a Greek corruption of the Hebrew word nekar, or “foreigner,” a fitting title for the first king, who came to Egypt from Mesopotamia and was one of the ancient giants. In this reading, a Greek author might have mistaken a description for a name.
[3] Sic. Eusebius and Syncellus both say Manetho gives him as the third king of the first postdiluvian human dynasty.
[4] Sic. Cory gives “Kenkenis,” as do his sources, Syncellus and Euesbius.
[5] The author provides only a cartouche, which seems to belong to Merikare. However, he was actually a pharaoh of the tenth dynasty.
[6] Presumably Wadjmose, but Thutmose I had five children.
[7] Murtadi’s text, in the surviving French translation, states that the authorities differ and some say “Dalic” is actually “Dalica,” a woman. Murtadi then treats Dalica as a queen for the remainder of the passage. The bit about the wall does not appear in the original text.
[8] It is unclear why these paragraphs are in quotation marks, as no source is given, and they are not Murtadi’s words, which ended with “seventy years.”
[9] Mahmal, or the Procession of the Sacred Carpet, where the Egyptian government produced an annual covering for the Kaaba and transported it by litter (mahmal) to Mecca (in the Hejaz region of Arabia). Egypt stopped sending the covering to Mecca in 1926 and ended the annual parade in Cairo in 1952.
[1] Diodorus 1.21 and 1.94; however, Diodorus gives Mnevis as a sacred bull, not a king in 1.21, suggesting that the royal name “Mneves” of 1.94, elsewhere given as “Menas” (1.43, 45), is an error.
[2] John Malalas, Chronicle 2.6; however his Naracho lived at the time of Abraham and was not the first pharaoh. A more plausible origin can be found in the Greek Nacheros or Nachro, which Louis Ginzberg suggested could be a Greek corruption of the Hebrew word nekar, or “foreigner,” a fitting title for the first king, who came to Egypt from Mesopotamia and was one of the ancient giants. In this reading, a Greek author might have mistaken a description for a name.
[3] Sic. Eusebius and Syncellus both say Manetho gives him as the third king of the first postdiluvian human dynasty.
[4] Sic. Cory gives “Kenkenis,” as do his sources, Syncellus and Euesbius.
[5] The author provides only a cartouche, which seems to belong to Merikare. However, he was actually a pharaoh of the tenth dynasty.
[6] Presumably Wadjmose, but Thutmose I had five children.
[7] Murtadi’s text, in the surviving French translation, states that the authorities differ and some say “Dalic” is actually “Dalica,” a woman. Murtadi then treats Dalica as a queen for the remainder of the passage. The bit about the wall does not appear in the original text.
[8] It is unclear why these paragraphs are in quotation marks, as no source is given, and they are not Murtadi’s words, which ended with “seventy years.”
[9] Mahmal, or the Procession of the Sacred Carpet, where the Egyptian government produced an annual covering for the Kaaba and transported it by litter (mahmal) to Mecca (in the Hejaz region of Arabia). Egypt stopped sending the covering to Mecca in 1926 and ended the annual parade in Cairo in 1952.
|
Source: Ahmad Kamal, “Notes sur la rectification des noms Arabes des anciens rois d’Égypte accompagnée d’une notice explicative de quelques coutumes,” Bulletin de l’Institut Égyptien 4 (1903), 89-127.
|
