THE GREAT EGYPTIAN REVOLUTION. 29 
the contents of the Berlin contracts of those two kings. Closer examination of the witness lists 
on those documents, etc., will probably confirm this result. 
We have of those two kings the following dates: 
Harmah-Harmats: 
Year 4, month 6 (?).—Pap. London, Revillout, Chrestomathie Démotique, 395, note; Revue Archéo- 
logique, 77, 328. 
Year 4, month 3, is now furnished by a papyrus in double execution, in Five Years’ Explorations 
at Thebes, by the Earl of Carnarvon, plates 35 and 38. 
Year 4, month 11.—Pap. Berlin, 3145, Revillout, Nouvelle Chrestomathie, 109; Spiegelberg, Pap. 
Demot. Berlin, 17, pl. 37. 
Year 6, month 10.—Pap. Berlin, formerly 143, 144, now 3142, Revillout, Nouvelle Chrest., 126: 
Spiegelberg, Pap. Demot. Berlin, p. 17, pl. 36. 
Khamah, Chamats: 
Year 7, month 1.—Pap. Berlin, formerly 146, now 3146; see Revillout, Revue Eg., SG eS 
Year 14, month 11 (?).—Pap. Marseille, Revillout, Chrestomathie, 395; Revue Arch., 77, 1. 1. 
We see this gives at least part of one year and four complete years for the first king, one 
year common to both kings, twelve complete years and over ten months of a year for the sec- 
ond, 7. e., a total of seventeen complete and two partial years. This minimal date comes very 
near the duration of the rebellion as furnished by the inscription of Edfu (p. 15): one year and 
part of a year under Philopator, then (counting year 18 of Philopator and 1 of Epiphanes as 
identical) eighteen years and part of a year under Epiphanes. ‘The text of Phile states more 
precisely that the incomplete last year of the rebel king comprised 10 months and 24 days. 
This allows the last-mentioned contract of Khamah-Chamais to be written in the month of the 
decisive battle which ended the native dynasty of the Thebais.'. We have thus, after the 
Edfu text, as maximum, nineteen complete and two incomplete years. ‘This agrees extremely 
well with the minimum years of the demotic documents and makes it probable that those two 
rulers represent the whole native dynasty of rebel kings in the southern part of Egypt. 
Modern historians, writing under the spell of Greek thinking, like Mahaffy and Bouché 
Leclercq, have found it inconceivable that the Thebais could be independent for such a long 
time. Thus Mahaffy (The Empire of the Ptolemtes, 313) eagerly grasped an hypothesis of J. 
Krall (Studien zur Geschichte des alten Aegyptens, II, 43)? that those kings of the Thebais were 
Ethiopian kings who had penetrated into Egypt during those troubled years and ‘‘counted their 
years as kings of Ethiopia, not of Upper Egypt,” so that ‘‘the long period of eighteen years of 
successful rebellion is not necessary.’ Bouché-Leclercq (Histoire des Lagides, 365) likewise 
mentions this theory with favor, but he finds it difficult to believe even in any fixed government 
of the insurgents: ‘‘C’est une exagération que de parler alors de Thébaide indépendante. Ces 
roitelets étaient des chefs de bande qui pouvaient inquiéter, mais non dominer la Haute Egypte.”’ 
The latter statement shows that the writer had not taken time to examine thoroughly the 
extracts from the demotic documents communicated by Revillout, a splendid illustration of the 



1Cp. also the second Philz text, line 12a, about some prominent part played by the son of the “‘pretender’’ in the final battle. 
So, the latter would not seem to have been a young man. 
* Similarly Revillout, Revue Egyptologique, v, 99, Mémoire sur les Blemmyes, etc. 
