NA TURE 



581 



THURSDAY, APRIL 18, 1901. 



EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 

 A Self -verifying Chronological History of Ancient Egypt. 



A Book of Startling Discoveries. By Orlando P. 



Schmidt. Pp. 569. (Cincinnati : O. G. C. Shaw, 1900.) 

 'IP HE portly volume before us professes to deal with 

 the " chronological history " of Egypt, and to treat 

 the subject in such a lucid manner that every part of it 

 explains itself and " proves " itself. The author is candid, 

 and advertises his work in the freest possible manner, 

 and he appears to be thoroughly convinced of the supreme 

 value of his labours. According to him, the field of« 

 Egyptian history was hastily explored, " usually at odd 

 times" — whatever that may mean — but armed with his 

 " key," which a " fortuitous discovery " had placed in his 

 hands, he "entered a lost world, all recollection of which 

 had died out, and there made a series of discoveries, and 

 gathered together a great mass of new historical facts, the 

 startling and far-reaching importance of which it would 

 be almost impossible to estimate." He admits that he* 

 once held many of the opinions common to modern 

 Egyptologists in general, but his " native common sense 

 recoiled from" the errors and superstitions regarding 

 the Egyptians which were current among so-called 

 "scientists"; though of certain errors and superstitions 

 he once found it impossible to free his mind, and ap- 

 parently this is still the case. He wrote his book whilst 

 "the researches were being made," and his "point of 

 view was constantly changing," and his "horizon was 

 constantly widening." Among Egyptologists, the author 

 thinks " superficial skepticism " has taken the place of 

 " scientific criticism," and this had led many of them " to 

 belittle and misrepresent the civilisation of Egypt prior 

 to the beginning of the Fourth Dynasty," and they 

 tell us "flat footed" (whatever this word may mean here) 

 " that the first three dynasties of Manetho were mythical." 

 Mr. Schmidt thinks that the names of Noah, Shem, Ham 

 and Japheth are Egyptian and not Hebrew words, and 

 he says that " scientists " will have to account for the re- 

 markable coincidence between the date of the Hyksos 

 expulsion and that of Jacob's birth. 



The merest glance at the book shows that Mr. Schmidt 

 has built his book up entirely, in our opinion, from the 

 works of Egyptologists, and yet he does not wish to 

 "weaken the effect of the facts presented" by encum- 

 bering the text with a mass of miscellaneous citations 

 from so-called " authorities," an ingenious way of avoiding 

 the publication of his vast indebtedness. He is not con- 

 tent with setting Egyptian chronology on a firm base, but 

 he wishes to take a prominent position as an exponent of 

 the vexed Mycenaean question, for he tells us quite gravely 

 that the " lonians {la-nim) were settled in the Grecian 

 Archipelago and on the adjoining shores of Greece and 

 Asia Minor as far back as the reign of Teta, or 3146 B.C." ! 

 It has been necessary to select the above statements from 

 Mr. Schmidt's preface so that the reader may know the 

 manner and style of the book which he has to deal with ; 

 but before we attempt to summarise the general contents 

 we must point out that the industrious author of this re- 

 markable compilation seems to have been mistaken on 

 NO. 1642, VOL. 63] 



certain important points. To begin with, all the evidence 

 which has been derived from prehistoric sites in Egypt 

 during the last six years proves conclusively that the first 

 three dynasties are historical facts, and no competent 

 Egyptologist ever doubted the existence of the kings who 

 belonged to them. It is clear, from the remarks which 

 Mr. Schmidt makes in his preface, that he does not know 

 enough Egyptology to decide what authority to follow. 

 Egyptologists have for a generation or more declared the 

 great antiquity of Egyptian civilisation, and it is only the 

 semi-religious and pseudo-scientific writers on Egyptian 

 history who have been too biased to see the light ; the 

 writings of some of the latter must form the slain enemies 

 whom Mr. Schmidt sets out to slay again. Had Mr. 

 Schmidt read M. J. de Morgan's " Recherches Prehis- 

 toriques," which were published in 1896 and 1897, he would 

 have seen that Egyptian civilisation must be thousands 

 of years older than he supposes ; and it is possible that he 

 would have kept his work in manuscript. Sir Norman 

 Lockyer has proclaimed, in his " Dawn of Astronomy," 

 with no uncertain voice the great antiquity of Egyptian 

 civilisation, and, what is more, his facts have never yet 

 been controverted ; but we see no mention of the results 

 achieved by de Morgan and Lockyer, or even any indica- 

 tion that they are known to him in Mr. Schmidt's book. 

 We have no wish to belittle the work of any pioneer in 

 archaeology, but when we see Mr. Schmidt solemnly 

 quoting Canon Rawlinson's old publications on Egyptian 

 chronology we feel sure that he does not know how to 

 select his authorities ; and if he refers to excellent and, 

 according to their bias, honest men like Canon Rawlinson 

 as " authorities," it proves conclusively that he does not 

 know what an Egyptologist is. 



Mr. Schmidt divides his book into two parts, which are 

 preceded by a preface, from which we have already 

 quoted, and by an introduction ; in the first part, he deals 

 with the Sothiac {sic) system of chronology and the lists 

 of Manetho, the Twelve Months, the Signs of the Zodiac, 

 the formation of the Solar System, the present state of 

 Egyptian chronology, the Sothiac {sic) year, Manetho, 

 the chronological numbers in Josephus, &c. In each of 

 these sections he lays down the law in an arbitrary 

 manner, and he incorporates in his paragraphs a number 

 of remarks which appear to us as irrelevant. In the 

 second part, he discusses one dynasty after the other, and 

 accepts what suits his own views in the writings of ancient 

 and modern authors, and rejects as worthless what he 

 cannot explain in their works. We have read the book 

 with some care, but have not yet found the "startling 

 discoveries " which Mr. Schmidt professes to have made, 

 and we have failed to see how his chronological history 

 is " self-verifying." We are familiar with the Sothic 

 year, and the manner in which it has been applied to the 

 elucidation of Egyptian chronology ; but as different in- 

 vestigators, though using the same data concerning the 

 rising of Sothis, arrive at different results, we feel that its 

 correct application is not in all cases sufficiently under- 

 stood. No one doubts that the Egyptians were astro- 

 nomers of no mean order, and in recent years Sir Norman 

 Lockyer has shown us what an integral part of their 

 religious system the knowledge required for orienting 

 temples was ; but more would be known of their astrono- 

 mical knowledge if the astronomical texts could be fully 



C C 



