DERECHOS RESERVADOS
2.2.3 DEFINICIÓN DE FALLAS
Genealogy, the study of family pedigrees, can provide a useful fix on
proposed chronological schemes for ancient Egypt. Obviously the pas- sage of time can be limited or, in certain instances, can be expanded, by the knowledge that an individual, his family, or a stated number of generations of a family, lived within a set period. It has been calcu- lated that a generation might comprise 25–35 years on average, but, in the surviving ancient Egyptian documentation, we are not neces-
sarily dealing in averages.1 Thus the possibility remains that in certain
cases an elderly father might produce a son who in turn might live to a great age and so throw any calculations off. A complex and inter- linked genealogy might overcome this possibility but such genealogies are rare.
The use of genealogies in chronological research is limited by sev- eral factors. The most important of these is the lack of documentation. This is especially true of those periods when the chronology is most uncertain. In other periods, abundant documentation can lead to con-
fusion as the same names are used repeatedly and identification of
different generations may be uncertain. The documentation normally only refers to the elite families although occasionally at such places as Kahun or Deir el-Medina, information on lower-ranking families is forthcoming. It is now clear that the Egyptians practised some form of ancestor worship and records were certainly kept by some families of their ancestral lines although such information was not necessarily
recorded on stone and thus has not survived to posterity.2 The census
records which survive give detailed information of families with both parents’ names. It is of course true that Egyptians, like all other peo- ple down to this day, could be tempted to falsify their genealogies or
1 D. Henige, “Generation-counting and late New Kingdom chronology”, JEA 67 (1981), 182–184.
2 M. L. Bierbrier, The Tomb-builders of the Pharaohs (London, 1982), 95–6; J. Keith- Bennett, “Anthropoid Busts II”, BES 3 (1981), 43–72.
at any rate to attach themselves erroneously to a good family line so particularly illustrious ancestries should be treated with caution. The genealogical information becomes fuller as time progresses and is espe- cially voluminous from the late NK to the LP. Some pedigrees are known extending up to 13 generations, but it is usually difficult to fix
these to a certain chronological range.3 At least two pedigrees claim a
genealogical link back to the MK. However, the inscription of Khnumibre' jumps abruptly from Dyn. 19 to Imhotep of Dyn. 3 and so cannot be
taken as a serious link.4 Similarly the inscription of 'Ankhefensakhmet
which names 60 generations, mostly holders of the high priesthood of Ptah, going back to the MK with the contemporary ruler for each, has
too many gaps and inconsistencies to be accepted at face value.5 It
seems to have been put together from various lists of high priests (prob- ably unrelated) and other ancillary material. It can only be used when independent information is available from other sources.
Another problem with genealogy is the lack of proper genealogical
terms in the Egyptian language. “Father” jt, “Mother” mwt, “Son” z#,
“Daughter” z#t, “Brother” sn, and “Sister” snt are used, but there are
no words for other relationships so “uncle” is “brother of my father”
or “nephew” is “son of my brother”.6 To avoid such long circumlo-
cutions, jt / mwt could be used for “father- / mother-in-law”, while sn might also mean “brother-in-law”, “nephew” or even” uncle”, or might conceivably be no relation at all but a good friend and contemporary. The term jt can also be used to specify an ancestor and not just a
father.7 One could disentangle the exact relationships if proper docu-
mentation were available for all problems, but it is usually not. With regard to maternal relationships, it is not always clear that the
wife of an official is the mother of his children unless specifically stated.
3 J.-C. Goyon, “Les cultes d’Abydos à la basse époque d’après une stèle du Musée de Lyon”, Kemi 18 (1968), 29–44; R. El-Sayed, “Deux statues inédites du Musée du Caire”, BIFAO 83 (1983), 135–143; L. M. Leahy & A. Leahy, “The Genealogy of a Priestly Family from Heliopolis”, JEA 72 (1986), 133–147.
4 Couyat & Montet, Ouâdi Hammâmât, Nos. 91–93; Wildung, Rolle, Doc. XVI.130, 83–84.
5 Borchardt, Mittel, 96–100; C. Maystre, Les grands prêtres de Ptah de Memphis (Freiburg & Göttingen, 1992), 93–97.
6 G. Robins, “The Relationships specified by Egyptian Kinship Terms of the Middle and New Kingdoms”, CdE 54 (1979), 197–217; M. L. Bierbrier, “Terms of Relationship at Deir el-Medina”, JEA 66 (1980), 100–107.
7 G. A. Gaballa, The Memphite Tomb-chapel of Mose (Warminster, 1977), 22; Allam,
genealogy and chronology 39 Such a relationship is usually assumed but may not be correct. The guardian Penbuy of Dyn. 19 is known to have had two wives— Amentetwosret and Iretnefer. A stela shows Penbuy, Iretnefer and his adult son Amenmose, but another shows him with Amentetwosret and an infant Amenmose. In the first stela, Amenmose must be shown with
his step-mother, but the stela gives no indication of this.8 The dissolu-
tion of marriages by death or divorce would not have been uncom- mon, yet plurality of marriages is rarely documented.
For genealogies to have a major impact on chronological problems, it is essential that there must be a clear and uncontroversial link of genealogy to some fixed chronological point, usually the reign of a
King. If links can be found with successive generations, the effectiveness
of the genealogy with regard to the order of succession and more impor- tantly the maximum passage of time becomes even more crucial. If the genealogy in question is that of the royal family itself, then the fixed links are self-evident. One important genealogy of this nature is that of Pasenhor of Dyn. 22 who traces his ancestry through 16 generations
including four kings.9
Very little documentation, let alone genealogical information, sur- vives from the development from writing ca. 3400 BC to the end of Dyn. 3. One key document, recently discovered at Abydos, is the dynas- tic seal of King Den of Dyn. 1 which lists his immediate predecessors:
Nar-mer, 'Aha, Djer, and Wadj. The genealogical content is provided
at the end with the name of the King’s mother as Merytneith.10 In
view of her appearance, it is highly probable that not only do we have a dynastic listing but also a genealogical listing —father-to-son. Unfor- tunately, the length of time per generation can only be estimated. A second seal of the last king of Dyn. 1 lists all his predecessors, but leaves out Merytneith. It would be optimistic to assume a straight father- to-son succession throughout the whole dynasty. No such documenta- tion survives for Dyns. 2–3 and here the order and genealogy of the kings remains uncertain.
8 M. L. Bierbrier, Hieroglyphic Texts from Egyptian stelae etc. 10 (London, 1982), pl. 72; M. L. Bierbrier & H. de Meulenaere, “Hymne à Taouêret sur une stèle de Deir el- Médineh,” in R. Holthoer & T. Linders, eds., Sundries in honour of Torgny Säve-Söderbergh (Uppsala, 1984), 23–29.
9 Kitchen, TIP1, 488, Table 19.
10 G. Dreyer, “Ein Siegel der frühzeitlichen Königsnekropole von Abydos”, MDAIK 43 (1987), 33–43; G. Dreyer, “Umm el-Qaab”, MDAIK 52 (1996), 72–73.
While the amount of information about private families increases from Dyn. 4, the tomb inscriptions do not normally name the parents of the deceased but more usually only his wife and children. Thus it
is extremely difficult to put together a lengthy and coherent genealogy
apart from those of the royal families of Dyns. 4–6. There too many gaps remain and many of the reconstructions are speculative. What is certain is that the genealogical succession to the throne when known did not run smoothly and did not follow in generation sequence in all cases so the king-lists alone do not reflect generations; for example,
Khephren succeeded his brother Ra'djedef in Dyn. 4 and Ra'neferef
was probably followed by his brother Neuserre' in Dyn. 5, while Nemtyemzaf I was followed by his brother Pepy II in Dyn. 6. Chronology here is indicated rather by the careers of these few officials who list the sovereigns that they served and so limit the time which has elapsed. Thus Sekhemkare' son of Khephren lived through the reigns from
Khephren of Dyn. 4 to Sahure' of Dyn. 5 while Ptahshepses was
brought up under Menkaure' and lived into the reign of Neuserre'. It has been suggested that Dyns. 3–4 and 4–5 were linked by marriages
of royal heiresses, but there is no proof of this.11
Unfortunately, genealogy is not much of an aid in determining the chronology of the FIP. The genealogies of the royal families are uncer- tain and those of the nomarchs do not extend for enough time or pre- sent enough fixed links to prove crucial. The list of previous nomarchs in the tomb of Ukhhotep of Meir is unfortunately not complete or tied
to any fixed points. Nor is it clear that the list is in any way genealogical.12
When adequate documentation occurs in the MK, there is still not enough material to present long coherent genealogies apart from the
royal family of Dyn. 12 itself.13 The papyri from Kahun allow a few
families to be reconstructed and the succession of office holders, in one
case father-to-son, confirms the dating order of some papyri.14However
these fragments are not crucial to the relative chronology of Dyn. 12
which can be fixed by other methods.
11 CAHI/2, 145–189; M. Verner, Forgotten Pharaohs, lost pyramids: Abusir (Prague, 1994), 134–155 on Ra'neferef.
12 A. Blackman, The Rock Tombs of Meir (London, 1915), III, 16–21. 13 Franke, Personendaten.
14 U. Luft, “Illahunstudien I: Zu der Chronologie und den Beamten in den Briefen aus Illahun”, Oikumene 3 (1982), 101–156.
genealogy and chronology 41 Similarly no consecutive genealogies can be found during the SIP. Some detailed genealogies of short-lived royal families can be put together, but the links between them remain tenuous and open to
different interpretations. It is possible that some kings indicated their
filiation in their royal names which would provide a genealogical sequence
but this view has perhaps been pushed too far.15 The later genealogies
which claim to reach back to the MK cannot be taken seriously and
seem merely to look to well-known historical figures without any genealog-
ical consistency.
The advent of the NK led to an increasing amount of genealogical material in the form of statues, stelae, tomb inscriptions and papyri,
both official and unofficial. The pedigrees of the royal families of Dyns.
18–19 can be constructed in some detail apart from the confusion which occurs at the end of the dynasties. The regnal years known from other sources fix a chronology which does not conflict with the royal
genealogies. The private genealogies and careers of officials again confirm
the standard chronology that there are not too many years missing
from the known regnal years. For example, 'Ahmose Penekheb served
from 'Ahmose I to Hatshepsut so guaranteeing that the reigns of
Amenhotep I and Thutmose I–II cannot extend over too long a period.16
Until recently no family could be traced which extended from Dyn. 18 to Dyn. 19 with the slight exception of the parents of Ramesses I who must have lived then but are only fixed in relation to their son and the dubious genealogy of the high priests of Ptah. New research has revealed that the high priest of Amun Wennefer lived at the end of Dyn. 18, certainly during the reign of Haremheb and possibly that of Tut'ankhamun. His younger son Amenmose is well attested in the reign of Ramesses II, being in charge of the Ramesseum probably from early in the reign when doubtless adult. The career of father and son prove that the contentious reigns of Haremheb and Sety I should not be unduly long but are still too imprecise to determine for certain a
long or short reign for Haremheb.17
From Dyn. 19 onwards much more genealogical information becomes
available concerning the royal court, the officials, and even humbler
15 Ryholt, Situation, esp. 207–289. 16 CAH II/1, 295.
17 F. Kampp-Seyfried, “Die Verfemung des Namens P#-rn-nfr”; D. Raue, “Ein Wesir Ramses’ II.”, in: Stationen, 303–319 and 341–345.
folk such as the workmen of Deir el-Medina. The royal inscriptions now name in detail the king’s sons, daughters and wives, while the tombs of the officials and workmen give the names of the parents, grandparents, in-laws, and other relations. This new information can be crucial in determining the length of uncertain periods or the max- imum extent possible of reign lengths. For example, some uncertainty remains at the end of Dyn. 19 and the beginning of Dyn. 20 when it has been speculated in the past that an interregnum took place. The maximum year dates are known: Ramesses II, 66 years, 2 months (his last); Merneptah, 10 years, Sety II 6 years (his last), but it is not clear if the reigns of Amenmesses, 3 years; Siptah 7 years; Twosre 8 years; and Sethnakhte of Dyn. 20, 2 years are consecutive or contemporary
with others.18 However, certain individuals are attested who survive
through this period into the reign of Ramesses III such as the vizier
Hori, a great-grandson of Ramesses II19 and the workman Nekhemmut
son of Khons who is attested under Ramesses II and was a foreman
in year 13 of Ramesses III.20 The scribe Kenherkhepeshef is appar-
ently attested at Deir el-Medina from year 30 of Ramesses II until the reign of Siptah, and his widow Naunakhte (who must have been a great deal younger than him) remarried, had eight children, and sur-
vived until the reign of Ramesses V.21In view of this evidence, it seems
logical that Merneptah could not have reigned much longer than ten years. It is highly probable that Amenmesse’s years are to be totally contained within those of Sety II and that Twosre backdated her reign to the death of Sety II, thus encompassing that of Siptah and so reign- ing two years not eight. In view of Sethnakhte’s recently discovered stela, he may well have dated his reign from the death of Siptah or shortly thereafter and so was contemporary and not consecutive with Twosre. More importantly, there can have been no interregnum and so the time elapsed from the death of Sety II to the accession of Ramesses III was probably not much more than ten years if that.
18 If the highest known regnal date is the last, then the reign could have been as much as 11 months shorter. For the latest views on Siptah’s reign see R. Drenkhahn,
Die Elephantine-Stele des Sethnacht und ihr historischer Hintergrund (Wiesbaden, 1980); Jansen,
Village Varia, 116.
19 H. de Meulenaere, “Le vizier ramesside Hori”, Annuaire de l’Institut de philologie et
d’histoire orientales et slaves20 (1968–72), 191–98.
20 Bierbrier, Kingdom, esp. 30–33, corrected in M. L. Bierbrier, “The Family of Sen- nedjem”, CdE 59 (1984), 199–213.
genealogy and chronology 43 A great deal of documentary evidence is available for the regnal
dates of Dyn. 20, and genealogical information confirms that few extra
years should be added to those known, certainly not more than a decade. The case of Naunakhte has already been mentioned, but other families from Deir el-Medina can be traced from Dyn. 19 to the begin- ning of Dyn. 21. The family of Sennedjem runs from Dyn. 19 to the beginning of Dyn. 21, notably Nekhemmut junior who is attested in
office from Ramesses IV to Ramesses IX. The family of Kaha can be
traced from early Dyn. 19 to Ramesses XI. More importantly, the
scribe Amennakhte was appointed to office in year 16 of Ramesses III
and survived until Ramesses VI. His son is attested from Ramesses III to Ramesses IX, while his grandson appears from Ramesses VI to Ramesses IX. Three further generations are known through to Smendes
of Dyn. 21.22 The genealogies thus confirm that the extent of Dyn. 20
is most likely correct, and there are no substantial gaps in chronology.
From Dyn. 22 onwards a large body of texts on statuary and coffins
record the genealogies of the royal families and the priestly class. Some of these extend back to Dyn. 21 and one even to Dyn. 19 although
that genealogy is doubtful.23 Although these genealogies are not pre-
cise enough to solve the various chronological cruxes of the period, they do link Dyn. 21 to Dyn. 26, and even with the provision of a genealogical jump or two, they limit the time period so that it is unlikely that the entire time span can extend further then has been postulated by Kitchen. It may be slightly abbreviated, but again the genealogies make clear that the time span cannot be radically less than the gen- erally accepted chronology of the period. For example, the fourth prophet of Amun Djedkhonsuiuefankh, a contemporary of Osorkon I, has a great-great-grandson the fourth prophet of Amun Nakhtefmut, who was a contemporary of Osorkon III and whose granddaughter married into the Besenmut family which is attested from Dyn. 22 to
Dyn. 26.24
22 Bierbrier, Kingdom, 19–44.
23 Bierbrier, Kingdom, 51–53, where the line between Ipuy under Merneptah and Ankhefenkhons under Osorkon I is doubtful.
24 For royal and priestly families of this period see Kitchen, TIP; Bierbrier, Kingdom, 45–108, with revisions in Bibliotheca Orientalis 36 (1978), 306–309; G. Vittmann, Priester
und Beamte im Theben der Spätzeit (Vienna, 1978); J. Taylor, “A priestly family of the 25th Dynasty,” CdE 59 (1984), 27–57; D. Aston & J. Taylor, “The Family of Takeloth III and the ‘Theban’ Twenty-third Dynasty,” in Leahy, Libya, 131–154.
From Dyn. 26, the chronology of Egypt becomes firmly fixed to that of Persia, Greece, and ultimately Rome. Genealogy thus becomes for the most part unnecessary to determine chronological conundrums. However, family information can still prove useful in resolving some minor points at issue. Unfortunately, much of the genealogical infor- mation is patchy and uncertain with the most information from Thebes which was no longer the centre of major activity. Genealogies and indi- vidual careers can be constructed from surviving papyri and have been useful in confirming the dates of some of the obscure rebel pharaohs
such as Harwennefer and 'Ankhwennefer.25 The survival of coherent
genealogical material from the Roman Period is severely limited and is no longer of any practical aid in settling minor matters of chronology which remain.
25 C. A. R. Andrews, Catalogue of Demotic Papyri in the British Museum IV. Ptolemaic Legal
Texts from the Theban Area (London, 1990), passim for genealogies; P. W. Pestman, “A family archive which changes history”, as well as, P. W. Pestman, “Haronnophris and Chaonnophris”, in: Hundred-Gated Thebes: Acts of a Colloquium on Thebes and the Theban
I. 5 METHODS OF DATING AND THE