See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/314193458

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE OLD KINGDOM IN EGYPT BASED ON THE ROYAL

ANNALS AND THE ROYAL CANON OF TURIN FROM THE FIRST TO THE
ELEVENTH DYNASTY OF EGYPT

Article · January 2000

CITATIONS READS

0 54

1 author:

Boris Banjevic
Infostan Beograd
5 PUBLICATIONS   7 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Middle age chronology View project

Ancient chronology View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Boris Banjevic on 03 March 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE OLD KINGDOM IN EGYPT

BASED ON THE ROYAL ANNALS AND THE ROYAL CANON
OF TURIN FROM THE FIRST TO THE ELEVENTH DYNASTY OF EGYPT

By BORIS BANJEVIĆ

Abstract: Every row of Annals is divided into fields or registers, of which one
corresponds to calendar year of the reign of some king. Based on the width of the field,
which is slightly different we can set Diophnat’s equations for the first five rows of
Annals. By this, we resolve the reign of the first three dynasties. From the sixth row,
fields are much broader and are not worth the previous criteria. Therefore, we have to use
‘Counting of Year’ from inscriptions and regnal years used in the Turin Canon for the
individual rulers. We used to, but rarely, years which gave Manetho in a slightly different
form, because we seized tens digits, where it was necessary. Using the astronomical data
for verification of the reigns of kings is useful. The main astronomical data is the position
of the North Pole in the time of Cheops which was 2573-2563 BC in the time of the
preparation of the building the pyramid. According to the dates of three Snofru’s
pyramids, we can conclude that the Fourth Dynasty began 2614 BC.

CRONOLOGY FROM THE FIRST TO THE FIFTH DYNASTY

Egyptians its history are not dated with determined age like are it Romans with
the erection of Rome 753 BC or Arabs with spinner prophet Mohammed from
Medina 622 AD. They gave list of the reigns, period of reign and events
engaged after their existence. Grossly rising as are king determined individual
events according to years of their reign, and for prior cycle had been more
complicated. One way of determination time of some event is knowledge the
accurate precedence kingship and number of their year action. If we know
calendar year when an event had happened, we can may by classical caption
attain year incomings over authority and backward calculate until beginning
dynasty.
A foremost that had tried to determine date uniting of Egypt and duration
Egyptian Dynasties had been Egyptian clergyman Manetho from Sebennytos
(ca. 280 BC) who had lived in the time of Ptolmey I Soter. His work was
introduced by Hebrew historic Josephus Africanus (ca. 160-ca. 240 AD) and
Eusebius (ca. 325 AD) with his Chronicle (Chronikon). There are two versions
according to Eusebius after dated. The first gave Syncellus (ca. 800 AD), the
second unknown writer from Armenia (Armenian Chronicle). There is
Barbarian version also. Manetho has divided history of Egypt into 31 Dynasties.
After the rule of Gods and Demigods, beginning with Menes up to the fifteenth
year before conquest of Alexander Great, collectively duration of its dynasties
sums 3555 years up to conquest of Alexander Great (346 BC). Therefore, Menes
put in 3901 BC1, В.В. Струве, 'Полинный манефоновскй список царей
1
According to my calculations for Eusebius, the sum is 5556 years from the First to Thirty one
Dynasty.
 2

Египта и хронологий новог царства', ВДИ 1946 (4), 25; W.G. Waddell,
’Manetho’, (Loeb Class. Lib. 1971), London.
From our interest is assigning accurate date, because of not only Egyptian
chronology, already that on it had based the whole chronology of the Ancient
East and Greece. For a period until 2064 BC that had astronomically
determined for the beginning of the Third Dynasty of Ur Babylon one may
establish the chronology for the Middle East on the grounds of the reign of the
king Pepi I from the Sixth Dynasty and Išar-damu from Ebla. This reign could
have been ca. 2300-2280/70 BC, because Pepi I reigned 2334-2284 BC2
We could take doctrine according to whom we will to adopt age, which had
Manetho from miscellaneous versions. Whether had, e.g., 65 year period of
one’s king reign then we will, in the case rate tenth, accept 64 year and X
months (X<=6) for accurate information plus either minus responsive number
of tenth years i.e. 34 years plus 6 months. Manetho had probable awry
surrounding year with months. This is widely accepted that from Greece copy
Manetho from writing count often error had been over rate tenth, and rate one
had chiefly been correctly either round. Semerkhet, the king of the First
Dynasty had confidently ruled between 8, 9 years, and Manetho assigned to him
18 years.

2
On the grounds on inscriptions found on pieces from Palatine G from Tell Mardikh (Ebla) may one
conclude that date of the destruction of the palace has been after this discovery (terminus post quem).
These pieces could have arrived intermediate via, like had case down inscription of Chephren. Pepi I
was surely a contemporary of king Ishar-damu of Ebla: the lid of an Egyptian alabaster vase marked
with the cartouche of Pepi I and commemorating his Sed-festival (2304 BC after astronomical dates
in our paper) was found in the royal palace G of Ebla. It was very probably sent by Pepi I to the last
king of Ebla on occasion of the ritual of renewal of kingship celebrated by king Išar-damu and his
queen Tabur-damu. It is generally agreed that Kish was indeed destroyed by Lugalzagesi prior to
Sargon's accession. But, it also means that the conflagration Palace G at Ebla preceded not only the
fall of Mari to Sargon but even that of Kiš. If we assume as the most of scientists that Lugalzagesi
began his reign in the same time as Sargon, Sargon has had enough time to conquer Kiš after 25 years
of his reign, after that he had reigned 31 years. Consequently, it appears that he had 15+6+25+31 = 77
of age. If we assume that Ur Zababa handed over his authority at the end of his reign to Lugalzagesi,
the last one should have reigned ca. 2286-2261 (after our Short Chronology) in M. G. Biga, ‘Inherited
Space -Third Millennium Political and Cultural Landscape’, in; E. Cancik-Kirsonbraum, N. Brisch,
and J. Eidem (ed.), In Constituent Confederate and Conquered Space, (Walter de Gruyter GmbH,
Berlin-Boston, 2014), 93. Assuming, with T. Jacobsen, that Lugalzagesi destroyed Kiš about the
middle of his reign, we could tentatively place this event ca. 2270 BC. This is the terminus ante quem
for the end of the Mardikh IIB12 period. Lugalzagesi was contemporary of Sargon before he had
fallen under his authority. It is very possible that Gutian period not lasted more than 91 years
(according to the reigns of Sumerian King List, which places Sargon at 2286-2231 BC according to
our Short chronology only 16 years before standard Short Chronology in 1531 BC., i.e. 1547 BC in
B. Banjević,’ Ancient Eclipses and the Fall of Babylon’, Akkadica 126 fasc. 2 (2005), 189.There is a
synchronism between two rulers of Gutians and Akkad, Šarkališari and Zarlagab and Elulu or
Elulumeš who is identified as the same ruler of Gutians (or Silulumeš in the Summerian King List) as
is the same ruler Elulu, king of Gutians after the dead of Šarkališari, B. Banjević, ‘Some
Astronomical Dates in Ancient Egypt and Babylon’ Publ. Astr. Obs. Belgrade No.65, (1999), 158.
 3

Besides Manetho who is unreliable source, we will use with the Turin Canon
(TK) from the time of the Nineteenth Dynasty where preserved names of most
kings with years of reign are. For the test of the names, we will use king’s lists
from Abydos (A), Karnak (K) and Sakkara (S). Only the Turin Canon gives
some reigns. An important authentic are the Palermo Stone (Annal) from the
Fifth Dynasty. The most known piece of these Annals is preserved in Palermo.
There have been various reconstructions of the Annals. We, here, propose new
method of the reconstruction of the Annal. Outside these two authentic sources
as a reliable source, we will use the Pyramid Texts. Since they are
contemporary sources of the Dynasties they could have used for calculating the
reigns of kings. We will use with astronomically data Egyptian as well as
radiocarbon method also.
From the astronomy is well known to be Egyptian’s New Year beginning at the
time when the spill of Nile coincidences with rising of Sun and star Sirius
(Sopde either Sothis). It was heliacal rise of the star Sirius. This rising of Sirius
was late yearly afterward for 1/4 day, which sums 365*4=1460 years as is
required to put through that Toth from Egyptian calendar had fallen over equal
day of the Julian calendar i.e. 19 July. Then 1461 Egyptian years was equal
1460 Julian years. This cycle is called Sothic cycle. At first, it was described by
Censorinus 139 AD.
Counting backwards, we get the three previous cycles 1321 BC, 2781 BC,2781
BC and 4241 BC, W.C. Hayes, ‘Chronology. Egypt-to end of Twentieth
Dynasty’, CAH, 1.1 (1970), 170-3. Several authors take 1456 years for the
cycle, and cycles 1317 BC, 2773 BC and 4229 BC as in W. A. Ward, ‘The
Present Status of Egyptian Chronology’ BASOR 288 (1992), 58. As the oldest
astronomical data taken so far was seventh year of king Sesostris III, 1872 BC,
but it almost have made the change of observatories in 1830. Memphis,
Heliopolis, and Elephantina vary with latitude, and that for every degree of
latitude southward shifting 4 years back, Krass have got 1830 BC instead of
1872 BC, Ward, BASOR 288, 60. Nowadays is still accepted 1872 BC, which
according to our calculations is more comfortable for the chronology of the
Twelfth Dynasty. That means that observations were in Memphis.
The Turin Canon gives sum of 955 years as a period of duration the first eight
dynasties, for the Eleventh Dynasty gives 143 years of reigning kings. Manetho
gives 2300 years for the period from The First to the Eleventh Dynasty, in
addition to adding that since the first ruler of the Twelfth Dynasty. For the
Ninth Dynasty he gives 409 years. Neither the Turin Canon nor any other data
do give us the interval, which was elapsed from the end of the Eight Dynasty to
the beginning of the Eleventh Dynasty. Because of that, interpretations about
this period are arbitrary. Several scientists bear doubt about the sum of 955
years from the Turin Canon, some give greater interval for the Ninth Dynasty.
Therefore, we differ Long, Middle and Short Chronology (in further text
 4

abbreviations LC, MC, SC). These are various interpretations for all three
chronologies (Table 1):

Dynasty Aldred3 Beckerath4 Hayes5 Bartha6 Malek7 Helck8

0.9 3060 3126

1. 3168 3032/2982 3100 3051 2950 2955
2. 2857 2853/2803 2890 2866 2780
3. 2705 2707/2653 2686 2715 2647 2635
4. 2630 2639/2589 2613 2641 2573 2570
5. 2524 2504/2454 2494 2521 2454 2450
6. 2400 2347/2297 2345 2359 2311 2290
7. 2250 2216/2166 2181 2193 2140 2155
8. 2244 2216/2166 2175 2187 2134 2149
9. 2213 2170/2120 2160 2171 2123 2134
10/11 2133 2119 2133 2122 2123 2134
12. 1991 1976 1991 1994 1980 1991

TABLE 1

Radiocarbon method is nowadays widely accepted as a method for

determination historical age. Because of efficiency of cosmic rays on vegetative
and animal organisms, we get radioactive isotope C14 that is decay and radiate.

3
C. Aldred, Akhenaton. King of Egypt.(Thames&Hudson, London 1988), 9-10.
4
J. Beckerath, Chronologie des Pharaonischen Ägypten, (Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von
Zabern, 1997), 183, 187-189.
5
W.C. Hayes, ‘Chronological Tables (A): Egypt’, Period’in (ed.) I. E. S. Edwards, C. J. Gadd and N.
G. L. Hammond (CAH 1.2, 1971), 994-996.
6
W. Bartha, ‘Die Chronologie der 1. bis 5. Dynastie nach Angaben des rekonstruierten
Annalensteins’, ZÄS 108 (1981), 33.
7
J. Malek, In the Shadow of the Pyramids (Cairo, 1986), 124
8
W. Helck, ‘Bemerkungen zum Annalenstein’, MDAIK 30 (1974), 31-35.
9
The first kingdoms in Egypt appeared ca. 3250(3200?) BC in the period known as Naqada III. There
were reigning some 25 sovereigns from various dynasties. We are interested in Dynasty 0 that ruled in
the Naqada IIIb1 period, ca. 3200(3150) BC. Since the second part of 0 dynasty ruled in Naqada IIIb2
(ca. 3200(3150?) BC) who are the direct predecessors of Narmer we count rulers: Iry-Hor, Ka,
Scorpion II and Narmer. It is believed that the Scorpion II once united Egypt, but only briefly. See in’
W. Kaiser, ’Zur Südausdehnung der vorgeschichtlichen Deltakulturen und zur frühen Entwicklung
Oberägyptens’, MDAIK 41 (1985), 87. Unification have also been during, 'Double Eagle', Ny-Hor?,
Hedjw-Hor?, Ny-Neith and Ka,. Although the probable grandfather of Narmer, Scorpio II boasted on
its decorative stick (it is usually worn as a symbol of official authority or mace-head) that he united
Egypt, there are not its archaeological remains in Delta or Memphite region or the southern Levant,
W. Kaiser, MDAIK 41, 87.
 5

The time of half-decay is 5568 years. According several measurements, we

obtain years for rulers in the interval of confidence level of 68℅ (F.A. Hassan
and S. W. Robinson, Antiquity 61(1987), 119-135:

Name Calibrated C14 68% conf. Dynasty

level
AHA 3023+/-102 3105-2937 I
WADJI 3006+/-85 3077-2936 I
DEN 2969+/-80 3045-2920 I
QA-A 2868+/-90 2941-2792 I
DJOSER 2680+/-104 2831-2595 III

TABLE 2

Result is highly reliable, because the probability of error is only 32% that a
reign is not in the confidence level. For Djoser result is less probable because
his reign is determined preciously by other sources. Klein, on the bases of
statistical analyses gives the beginning of the Sixth Dynasty in the interval
2623+/-43 BC., Л. Клейн, ’ К оценке прочности и надежности абсолутной
хронологии Египта’, ВДИ 1966 (4), 100; O. Neugebauer,’ Die
Bedeutungslösigkeit der “Sothisperiode” für die älteste Ägyptische
Chronologie’, Acta Or 17 (1939), 169-195. He demonstrated that the improving
of the civil calendar from 360 to 365 days was in the interval of about 200 years
from 2782 BC. Scharff and later Milojčić confirmed that this change had to be
in the 400 years interval, 2782+/-200 in the time of the Fourth Dynasty. This
fact gets us 2582 BC when it was the latest beginning of the Fourth Dynasty,
cit. Л. Клейн, ВДИ (4), 105. Now, we return to Royal Annals, at the first to
Palermo Stone. Egyptologists are considered it for the most original document
of the history of the first five dynasties, not only so why the events given year
after year, for the reason it originate from the time of the Fifth Dynasty, that is
the nearest to the events of the first dynasties, A.H. Gardiner, ‘Egypt of the
Pharaohs’ (Oxford, 1961), 6410. Palermo Stone is described in their works H.
Schäfer, Ein Bruchstück Altägyptischer Annalen, Abh. Kgl. Preuss. Ak. Wiss.
(Berlin, 1902) and H. Gauthier, ‘Quatre nouveaux fragments de la Pierre de
Palerme’ La Musée Egyptien, 3 (1915), while the size and arrangement were
determined by other authors, whereby for the period that is important to us give

10
There are other opinions. W. Helck , Geschichte des Alten Ägypten (Hand. der Or.) bt.1. 3
Ab. (Leiden/ Köln, 1968), 28 considers that origin of the Annals is copy from the reign of the
Twenty-fifth Dynasty based on inscription o recto side “In the commemoration to the
Memphite’s Theology”.
 6

different number of reigning years11. Sum of the reigning years for the first two
dynasties is given in K. Sethe, ‘Untersuchungen zum Geschichte und
Altertumskunde Ägyptens, vol. 1.’ (Hildesheim, reprint of 1960, 1902) assigned
555 years; E. Meyer, ’Ägyptische Chronologie’ (Berlin, 1904) gives 453 years;
G. Daressy,’ La Pierre de Palerme et la chronologie de l’Ancien Regime’,
BIFAO 12 (1916) gives 512 years; L. Borchardt,’Quellen und Forschungen zur
Zeitbestimmung der Ägyptischen Geschichte, 1- 2’ (Berlin 1917 and 1925), 544
years; R. A. Parker, Egypt in ‘Chronology, Encyclopedia Americana 10’,
(1957), 14B-C, 444 years; W. Helck, MDAIK 30 (1974), 31-35, 397 years; V.
Giustolisi,’ La pietra di Palermo e la cronologia dell’Antico Regno’,
Archeologica, I (1968), 5-14, 360 years; W. Bartha, ZÄS 108 (1981), 11-23,
336 years; L. Ignatjeva,’ New Data for early Egyptian Chronology’, DE 37,
(1997), 11-22, 524 years12. We notice that these analyses differ significantly.
W. C. Hayes, ‘Chronology. Egypt-to end of Twentieth Dynasty’ in CAH, 1.1
(1970), 175, gives 415 years based on the average which for Mesopotamia
given by M. B. Rowton, ‘Ancient Western Asia, Chronology’ in CAH, 1.1
(1970), 204 (n. 1). Rowton takes 185 years for 7 generations, which is average
of 27 years per generation. We have got 392 years for the first two dynasties
and 14 generations, because three obscure rulers Neferkare, Neferkasokar and
Hudjefa had ruled 12 years, which gives 26.8 years per generation. Hayes takes
average of 24.5 years for 17 rulers of the First and the Second Dynasty that
yields ca. 415 years. W. C. Hayes, CAH, 1.1 (1971), 994, have got for the Turin
Canon 940 years which points to the difference of 15 years according to the
Turin Canon (955 years and 10 days in col. 7.12, J. Malek,’ The original
version of the Royal Canon of Turin’, JEA 68 (1982), 9713. It should bear in
mind that this digit not at all a clear picture of the individual rule because they
differ from those in the Turin Canon. It is possible that lump sum from the First
to the Eight Dynasties was known to the composer of Canon. O’Mara, ‘The
Palermo’ omitted in the reconstruction the other fragments and awarded 400
years for the first to dynasties claiming Manetho referring to Manetho who is
unreliable in many cases. Ignjatjeva, DE 37, 21-22 is omitted two pieces from
11
All authors are cited in W. Helck,’Untersuchungen zu Manetho und den Ägyptischen
königslisten’, UGAÄ 18 (1956), 77 and W. Bartha, ZÄS 108 (1981), 11.
12
Helck assigned 240 years for the First Dynasty, 157 years for the Second Dynasty and 57 years to
the Third Dynasty. Sum is 397 years for two dynasties, but he shortened the Third Dynasty for 18
years, which does not correspond to Turin Canon, which assigns 75 years to the Third Dynasty.
Moreover, Helck claims Short chronology (see Table 1). There is a mathematical reconstruction of the
Palermo stone, but without the intent to engage in chronology only numbers and proportions of stone,
St.John, The Palermo Stone (An Arithmetical View)’ (London,1999).
13
There is unpublished reconstruction (2009) on the basis of the new fragments from museum in
Turin where papyrus is placed now <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turin_King_List#cite_note-
2>accessed 04.03.2014. On the discovered fragments, nothing is significant for the period we analyze.
There are some minor changes in names of the Seventh and the Eighth Dynasty, which will be pointed
to in the next pages.
 7

London and Cairo. She has believed in Manetho recently, so that her results are
unreliable.
The main part of the annals was discovered at the end of the last century. On the
recto side of the text starting from the first row on the right side written with
hieroglyphics and continues on verso side up to the tenth row. We present it as a
stele standing in the Temple is visible from the front and the back. We present
it, as a stele standing in the Temple is visible from the front and the back. Both
sides are divided into rows (registers) which are divided into rectangular boxes
with his hieroglyphic record. On the recto side, it is evident 6 rows. The fields
are separated with the symbol renpit for year. Between the rows are the names
of the kings followed the names of their mothers. Each field has a section below
the height of the Nile that was recorded for that year. It is important to note that
this is an Egyptian civil year in the calendar. In some areas, the registered serial
number of the corresponding rule of the king. In some fields were written
ceremonies, which are repeated at regular intervals. This helps us to reconstruct
the rule of the king. We are here to keep the schedule that gave Bartha, because
we believe that he is widely accepted. In this way, many years from right to left
starting with King Menes (Hor-Aha) on the recto side of the last in a series of
Niuserre-Ini in the tenth row on the back of the Palermo stone. We can see that
the number of events on the back of sharply increased. Our goal is to determine
the chronology of the first five dynasties based on the Annals and the Turin
Canon, and if we are missing information, or those suspected, we takes the
value recorded in the Pyramid Texts or in Manetho the already known method
(see 2 p.).
Fragments of Royal Annals are in Palermo (P), Cairo (K1-K5) at University
College in London (PL) where K2 and K4 belonged to another copy so it does
not take into account, Bartha, ZÄS 108, 22. Turin Canon is described later in the
works of Gardiner, Egypt and Malek, JEA 68. Fragments of Royal Annals are in
Palermo (P), Cairo (K1-K5) at University College London (PL) where K2 and
K4 belonged to another copy so it does not take into account, Bartha, ZÄS 108,
22. Gardiner gave the nomenclature for the Turin Canon. Each column is
labeled in Arabic, and the row in Roman numerals: VI.10 and I.22, likewise.
This will keep the nomenclature. In the Annals of the first letter indicates the
fragment, second letter row and the third column number, i.e. P2 2.1, K1 2.1
etc.
Any attempt to reconstruct Annals must include the average width of the fields
that represent the year. It is important for us, for example, shows up in rows 2
and 3 on the recto side of the field from right to left increases, and the Fourth
and Fifth row reduced. Field width is given by Breasted in cm, cit. in P. F.
O'Mara,’The Palermo Stone and the Archaic Kings of Egypt,’ (La Canada
1979), 116.
 8

Width and number of measure fields

Row Palermo Stone K1
1 1.637 19.65 12 1.330 15.96 12
2 2.177 23.95 11 2.186 24.04 11
3 1.782 21.39 12 1.821 23.67 13
4 1.507 21.10 14 1.460 18.98 13
5 1.900 17.10 9 1.890 17.01 9
6 4.36 and 5.60 3 none none

TABLE 3

Having second and fifth row twice measured for the second row we will take
the measure of the larger number of measurements, and the fifth row because
the first measure is measured on the basis of field. It should be borne in mind
that the six lines at P have only three fields where the two fields less in length.
As Kaiser pointed out various fields in the width of annual average was aimed
to the rule of the last king of this line concludes with the end of that row. In
doing so, took good care that the civil year is not divided into two parts and is a
register could contain two sections of the work in progress, divided by a straight
line lengthwise over the field, Bartha, ZÄS 108, 17. That line indicating the end
of the reign of one and the beginning of the reign of the second king 14. In the
second and third line is used to mark a special section for months. Months of the
year the rule changes were eventually transmitted row to the next row, but then
it would mean that the death of the king was following the Civil Year. This
system was applied to the fifth order. Starting from the sixth row fields spread
with the early Fourth dynasty so we must determine the basis of another
criterion15. Of great importance is the year of counting hetsep, Gardiner,’Egypt’
1970, 7016. The regnal years of the king were counted twice mostly. Usually,
taking an event 'years of counting cattle 2' indicating fourth year of the reign of
this king, who goes by the mid of the Second Dynasty. Before that, the only

14
In doing so, took good care that the civil year is not divided into two parts and is a register could
contain two sections, the end of the reign of one king and beginning of the reign of another, divided
by a straight line lengthwise over the field, Bartha, ZÄS 108, 17.
15
Kaiser, ZÄS 86, 53. This criterion is not suitable for recto side. From the sixth, row onwards
registers are much broader and we suggest a different analysis.
16
It was known as ‘the Year of the Nth Occasion of the Count’ or simply ‘the Year of the Nth
Occasion’, at the end of the Sixth Dynasty counting of years became annual with a simple meaning
‘Regnal Year N’, W.C. Hayes, in I. E. S. Edwards, C. J. Gadd and N. G. L. Hammond (eds) CAH 1.1,
1970, 176.
 9

label was 'Following of Horus’ that is inscribed every other year in the time of
the first two dynasties. Later, it began to be neglected. Festival of Sokaris or
Boat Festival (BF) is celebrated every six years. We can observe it in P 2.6, K1
2.4, P 3.6, P 4.5, P 4.11 and K5 3.4. I was supposed to be in P 3.12 but missing.
The height of Nile is noted only at the time of Hor Aha (Menes). During the
shift in power is always in the first half of the field, denoted date of departure
from the throne of the previous king in the number of months and days of the
calendar year. 'Year of Counting 1' could be 1st, 2nd or 3rd year of the reign of a
king. If the year counting, e.g. 5 then it could be 9th, 10th or 11th year of the
king’s reign. Therefore, we can count on a formula for Counting the Year N, the
year of the reign G of the king is:

G=2*N-1
G=2*N
G=2*N+1

The main problem in reconstructing the Annals is of the determination of the

true dimensions. We have to start from certain assumptions that are based on the
known reigns of kings recorded in the Turin Canon and by Manetho. Care
should be taken seriously with him in each case, which could be seen from the
following table (individual reigns have decimal point instead of year, month or
day in Annals):
We see that the sum of years, months and days Khasekhem rule Cheneres
Replaced the months and days in Sesochris, 8m 4d crossed in 48 years. It is
known that the first two kings are identical, O'Mara, ‘The Palermo Stone’, 176.

Manetho (MA) Reign Turin Canon

Chaires 17 Neferkare (7)
17
Nephercheres 25 Neferkasokar 8.3.x
Secochris 48 Hudjefa 3.8.418
Cheneres 30 Khasekhem 27g 2m 1d

TABLE 4

17
Nephercheres = Nepher(cheres) = Nepher(Chaires) = Chaires; Neferkare = Neferkasokar= Aka = Nefer(ka) =
Seneferka.
18
Lesser probably the third year because then Peribsen reigned for 8 years less that does not
fit into the formula Manetho, who is not reliable. 'Hudjefa' indicates an unknown name or gap
in the Turin Canon. Bartha, ZÄS 108, 15, credits him only 3 years.
 10

Probably Manetho’s data in the original version were accurate, but due to many
transcriptions made a lot of mistakes. This error proved to be the key to the
chronology of the period. A similar mistake is done by copyist of Turin Canon
when he wrote the kings of the Fourth Dynasty. From the time of the Fourth
Dynasty, there is an anomaly in writing down ‘Years of Counting’ that can
easily be seen in the line 6. The 7th and 8th years of counting of King Snofru
were his 15th and 16th years of reign. Manetho gives 29 years to the king Soris
(Snofru). The error was spotted for the king Cheops (Khufu). In the Pyramid
Texts states ‘Years of Counting 17’, this corresponds to the 34th year of the
reign (Stadelman, 1987, 239f). In Turin Canon says 24 years. Whether it comes
to number tens or Years of Counting is not known. This is the reason why
Stadelman found a total volume of all the kings of the fourth dynasty, built
during his lifetime. This impressive statistic gives some conclusions, which
agree with our analysis. There have been few attempts at a comprehensive
statistical analysis of the generation, construction and years of various royal
lists. The first attempt was made by Klein (1966) who made a statistical analysis
of the Egyptian dynasties. All intervals that he received for periods of ruling
dynasties confirm our results. Bartha has done a good reconstruction of the
Royal annals and the Turin canon, but wanting to assign line 6 the same width
fields, we have seen that it is not possible, cut the history of Egypt for 75 years,
which is awarded 0 Dynasty, Bartha, ZÄS 108, 22-23.
According to our research, the First dynasty began to rule 3092 BC according to
royal Annals, Turin Canon and astronomical dates from the Fourth Dynasty (see
the list of dynasties at the end of paper). It is highly probable that Turin Canon
had two rulers at the beginning of the second row (see p. 14).
Fields P 5.1 - P 5.6 belong to the rule of Nebka. In register, P 5.5 there marks
'Year of Counting 8', which could be 16th or 17th year of rule of king Nebka.
Fifth row belongs to the rule of Khasekhem the entire 26 years and 2 incomplete
(2N), Nebka 17 and 2N whole year. Before Khasekhem, we know about
'Hudjefa' and Neferkasokar who ruled a total of 12 years. There is an option to
shorten the distance from the beginning of the line to the observed field to move
aforementioned two kings in the fourth row, but this solution is given Bartha,
and it does not match the Turin Canon, where the sum of the dynasty in Turin
Canon is 955 (Col. 7.12). Bartha, ZÄS 108, 33, gets 880 years (see Table 1).

17G 9M 3M 26G 11M 1M 3G 7M 5M 7G 10M 2M

TABLE 5

Registers P 5.1 to P 5.6 belonged to 12th to 17th year of the King Nebka from
left to right. Our reconstruction begins on the left side of the fifth row and
going right to the end of the reign of Nebka. Bartha has moved to P 4 exactly
 11

12 years because he thought that years from the Turin Canon were too high.
Any arbitrary shortening history of the Egyptian dynasties compared to the
Turin Canon is impossible if there are other solutions that we could provide.
Based on the analysis of P and K5 we can conclude:
(1) Fragment K5 is located on the right side of Palermo, involves a 3 year of
Menes from the second row because the height of the Nile cannot see.
(2) Fragment includes 4 years of Dun whose name begins with K5, ends with
the name of the mother.
(3) The distance in years is using tags for Boat Festival at P 3.6 and K5 3.4
amounts 12 years. One festival cannot be seen in the middle between P and
K5. Based on the sum of the fields from the beginning of Palermo on the right
side of the fifth row to the field P 5.6, we see (that we see) that 57 the (17+ 1+
26+ 1 +3+ 1+ 7 +1) fields or years can set the Diophantine equation (see
Table 6). Solutions are integer. We use Table 9 for widths of the fields. On the
Palermo Stone can be seen that the distance of some vertical line fields in
certain lines equidistant from the right edge of the stone. Therefore, it is the
same distance, the solution that is obtained when in our equations of unknown
size, replace number fields. The coefficients are taken from Table 7. Denote
the number of fields in each row of A, B, C, D, E, starting from the First to
the Fifth row 19

Fields Equation Solution 1 Solution 2

P 2.1 i P 4.1 2.177*B=1.507*D B=48 D=69

P 3.5 i P 4.5 1.782*C=1.507*D C=59 D=70

P 1.2 i P 2.2 1.637*A=2.177*B A=49 B=37
P 5.6 i P 4.7 1.9*E=1.507*D E=57 D=72
P.5.3 i P4.4 1.507*D=1.9*E D=53 E=42

TABLE 6

Estimated error is  < 0.5 cm.

From the following table you can see some relationships.

19
That the Diophantine equation used is evident from the calculations that are performed by
the old Babylonians. How were calculated some amounts for a list of the Sumerian dynasty of
kings see in D. W. Young, of ’The Incredible Regnal Spans of Kish in the Sumerian King List’,
(1991), 23-35. Here are the used linear Diophantine equations because the goal is to
accommodate a certain number of fields in a row and the number of fields that integer. fields
can not be shared because it means the calendar year.
 12

Palermo Stone Middle Palermo Cairo fragment Sum of rows

R. Width Total No. Width Total No. Width Total No. Total No.
Field in cm F. Field in cm F. Field in cm F. Width F.
A. 1.637 124.41 76 1.637 22.92 14 1.33 69.16 52 216.49 142
B. 2.177 124.09 57 2.190 28.47 13 2.19 63.51 29 216.07 99
C. 1.782 119.39 67 1.820 25.48 14 1.82 70.98 39 215.85 120
D. 1.507 117.54 78 1.510 27.18 18 1.45 71.05 49 215.77 145
E. 1.900 117.80 57 1.890 28.35 15 1.89 69.93 37 216.08 114

TABLE 7

R=Row, No. F. = Number of fields per row,

Because tags for 'Followers of Horus' (FH) which occurs even year, and do
not get it as even from appendix third row, which you can see from the fig. 1
(recto), we need to repair the fourth row for one field. We are adding a field to
the beginning of the fourth row from the left side that in succession fifth line
from the right side have been adjust. In the fifth row there are two FH boxes
next to each other, which is why we had to add this one field on the fourth
row. A similar anomaly exists in the second row and we see at the end of the
reign of Hor Aha where it skips one field for FH. Therefore, we had to
calculate the medium between Palermo Stone and Cairo fragment (K1). At K1
in a similar manner, the boxes can be observed that are equidistant from the
left edge (see fig. 1). The boxes are counted from the right to the left side.

Fields Equation Solut. 1 Solut. 2

K1 1.1, K1 2.1, K13.1 1.33A=2.19B B=31 A=51
2.19B=1.82C B=31 C=38
K1 4.2, K1 5.2 1.46D=1.89E D=48 E=37

TABLE 8

The total sum for the rows are: A=142 fields, B=99 fields, C=120 fields,
D=144+1=145, E=114 for the total of 478 years for the first three dynasties,
219 for the First Dynasty, then 184 for the Second one and 75 years for the
Third one. The distance between the annals of the fifth row are set by
previous works. From the Turin Canon are known heirs of Nebka. Djoser
reigned 19+ X years, Djoser-Teti 6 +X, Khaba 6+ X and Huni 24+X, where X
is the unknown number of months and days. Daressy, BIFAO 12, 169, noted
 13

FH on K1.5, which would match with 19th year of Djoser. Fragment PL

contains 3rd year of the king Huni, where are two FH adjacent to each other.
In the second row can be seen mark for FH in the rule of the king Djer that
appears in Palermo. If we put 18 boxes according to label, BF then the field
width between P and Q1 increased to 2.35 cm on average, which does not fit
the hypothesis that the field width increases steadily from right to left 20. That
is why we added a field. In this way, we determine the path:

Row Field distance No. of fields

between P and
K1
B P 2.11-K1 2.1 13
C P 3.13-K1 3.1 16
D P 4.13-K1 4.2 20
E P 5.11-K1 5.2 16

TABLE 9

In the above analysis, we calculated the concluding field also. We found that the
average is 215.94 cm and a deviation of less than 5 mm from the average. This
solution completely satisfies all requirements. If we count by Egyptian
measures, it is 115.5 fingers or 215.76 cm. From a ruler of Horemheb it can be
seen which parts of the thumb used by Egyptians. There are fractions 1/2,
1/3,1/4,1/5,1/7,1/8,1/9,1/10, 1/11, 1/12, 1/13, 1/14, 1/15, 1/16. Length in table
10 is in cm. The measures in the Table 10 from Palermo Stone are in pink color.
1 Royal Cubit = 52.375 cm, 1 Finger=1.87 cm.

Row Width Egyptian with

A 1.33 7/10
A 1.64 7/8
B 2.18-2.19 7/6
C 1.78-1.82 15/16
D 1.46-1.51 4/5
E 1.89-1.90 1

TABLE 10

20
From the fragment, K5 might have been concluded that 1+11*2.26=0.57+14*1.782 i.e. 11 fields
from the second row corresponded to 14 fields of the third row. Fields are broadening towards the
beginning of the reign of Menes, on an average of 2.177.
 14

Bartha, as we have said, shortened history of Egypt for 75 years. Besides, its
reconstruction is, in our opinion, the best so far. Field widths from fourth row
are vague because we see three fields from which two are different widths.
Fourth line we will determine by the known years of counting and the Turin
Canon. The second and third row in the annals occupies the first dynasty. TK in
the second column, line 10 begins with Menes. Names in the annals are the
Horus name followed by the name from TK (some names differ slightly) and,
possibly name of the mother. The oldest kings had two names, Horus name and
personal name. From the fifth king Dena was introduced nisubit name. From the
Fifth Dynasty was introduced name Ra or Re. From the Twelfth Dynasty, titles
had five elements, from which are used in the literature two: throne name or
praenomen and personal name or nomen.

(B.0) Hor Narmer

The famous Narmer Palette, discovered by James E. Quibell in 1898 in

Hierakonpolis, shows Narmer displaying the insignia of both Upper and Lower
Egypt, giving rise to the theory that he unified the two kingdoms. Since its
discovery, it has been debated whether the Narmer Palette represents a historic
eventor was purely symbolic. In 1993, however, Günter Dreyer discovered in
Abydos a year label of Narmer depicting the same event as that on the Narmer
Palette, which clearly shows that the Narmer Palette depicts an actual historic
event. The mainstream Egyptological consensus identifying Narmer with Menes
is by no means universal. This has ramifications for the agreed history of
ancient Egypt. Some Egyptologists hold that Menes is the same person as Hor-
Aha and that he inherited an already-unified Egypt from Narmer; others hold
that Narmer began the process of unification but either did not succeed or
succeeded only partially, leaving it to Menes to complete. Arguments have been
made that Narmer is Menes because of his appearance on a mud seal impression
found in Abydos in conjunction with the game-board hieroglyph for men, which
appears to be a contemporary record of the otherwise unattested king. Two
necropolis mud sealings listing kings recently found in the tombs of Den and
Qa'a (both in Abydos) show Narmer as the founder of the First Dynasty, who
was then followed by Hor-Aha. The Qa'a sealing shows all eight kings of the
First Dynasty in the correct sequence beginning with Narmer. Menes is not
mentioned on either list of kings because at that time the name generally used
on the monuments was the Horus name, while Menes was a personal name. His
wife is thought to have been Neithhotep (literally: "Neith is satisfied"), a
princess of Lower Egypt. Inscriptions bearing her name were found in tombs
belonging to Narmer's immediate successors Hor-Aha and Djer, implying that
she was the mother of Hor-Aha.21

21
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narmer> accessed 06.06.2014.
 15

(B.1) Hor Aha (H; Menes (SB, M, PE); Meni (A,TK))

At the field P2.1 is registered šemsu hor ('Followers of Horus') (FH). The last
year of the reign in the register P 2.2 shows that he died after 6 months and 7
days from the beginning of the year. His rule is a maximum 46 years and 6m 7d
from the initial year we do not know. Manetho awarded him 62, 60 and 30 years
(MA / ME/Armenian version).22 It is very likely that Manetho assigned 62 years
to two rulers Narmer and Hor Aha.

(B.2) Atoti (Athothis (M), Iti (TK); Teti (A))

He ruled very short. In his year of rule is not written FH at P 2.3. At P 2.4
occurs ‘Followers of Horus’. It has not occurred in the year of the rule changes,
which can be seen in the K1 3.9 from Semerkhet’s reign and at the P 5.7 in the
reign of Djoser. He ruled 1g 1m 15d for 2 boxes make 2 years and one’s can see
6m+ 7 d+1 g+1m+15+4 m+13d (Helck, 1974)23.

(B.3) Djer (H; A, K1; Athothis (ME,PE,SB); Uenephes (M,SB);Iti (?) (TK); Iti
(H, A, K1))

H is a son of Hor Aha. We talk about 'The destruction of Satje' in his the 26th
year. He reigned for 51 years, and his name is on the K1.24 Mother's name is
Khentep. Manetho assigns 23 or 42 years to Uenephes or 27 and 57 years to
Athothis.25

(C.1) Wadji (H; Athothis (PE), Ita (A); Iti (TK))

22
Narmer ruled accordingly about 30 or 32 years because Menes reigned, in the second version of
Manetho (Armenian version), 30 years. There is a possibility that Manetho and the Turin Canon are
not registered Hor Narmer as found only one of his years without counting the number of years. It
would not be clear why the rule of Menes is 46 years 6 month and 7 days, and Manetho in all three
versions written the wrong year. It is less likely because Menes was the first known king to Greeks
(Herodotus mentions him). We suggest that Hor Narmer ruled ca. 16 years in united Egypt and Hor
Aha ca. 30 years because we did not find any hebsed Festival from him in literature. It is possible that
he did not reach to celebrate this festival because he had died in his 31 st reign of reign (only 6 months
and 7 days after his 30th year). There is another possibility that it was not found like one’s from Djer.
23
In Bartha, ZÄS 108, 18 assign only 1m 15d, but it does not suit the real situation.
24
According to Gardiner, ’Egypt’, 414; Helck ‘Geschichte’, 31 (n.3).
25
In Helck, UGAÄ 18, 74. He identifies Djer with Uenephes and Athothis, and Dun with Kenkenes
and Usaphais
 16

He ruled for 27 years. Manetho gives him the years of Athothis 27 or 57. This
part of the Annals is missing.26

(C.2) Den (H; Kenkenes (M,SB); Usaphais (M); Qenqeni (KA); Septi
(A,TK); Dun (K5,TK)

He had two hebsed (one in his 21st year), which is celebrated after 30 years of
rule (P 3.3). Celebration ‘Boat Festival’ (BF) can be seen on K5 3.4. It was
mentioned the war against the Semitic Bedouins in Wadi Tumilat (P 3.2) 'First
war with jwntjw'. His rule was analyzed by Newberry and Wainwright (1914,
148-155). He ruled for 41 years. Manetho gives for Kenkenes 31 and 39 years
for Usaphais he gives 20 years. Mother is called Merneith (P 3.1) (Helck
1968:33; Gardiner 1964, 414).

(C.3) Adjib (H; Miebidos (MA); Niebais (ME); Miabies (PE); Merbiapen
(A,S,TK))

It takes up two rows of column 4 of TK for a stated age (74), and he ruled for 13
years towards 19, which gives Pseudo-Eratosthenes (PE). He was celebrated
one hebsed probably like a prince. We do not see the whole rule in the annals.
Manetho awarded Miebis 26 years.

(C.4) Semerkhet (H, K1; Semempses (M); Pemphos (PE); Semsem (TK, K1, A)

He died a few days or months after the beginning of the year. He ruled for eight
years. Manetho awarded him 18 years of rule. Mother's name is Betesti.

(C.5) Qa-a (H; Bieneches (MA); Ubienthes (ME); Qebh (A, S, TK))

He is not seen in the Annals. He lived 63 years, according to TK, and certainly
celebrated one hebsed i.e. 30 years of the reign. Helck assigned 30 and 33 year

26
At TK 2.13 is Atoti (Iti), at TK 2.14 is Djer (Iti), at TK 2.15 is Wadji (Iti) (Malek 1982:97). Clay
seals prove that official Amka began his career under king Djer, as manager of the Hor-sekhenti-dju
estate. Under Djet, Amka became royal steward. In the early years of the king's successor Amka died
after he was appointed to regional responsibilities in the western Nile Delta.. Other senior officials
under the Djet were Sekhemkasedj and Setka. It was normally for an official to begin his carrier
in 20th years. If he began in the middle years of Djer, it would be as follows: 20+5+27+10
=62. It is a long life for an Egyptian of that period, T. Wilkinson. ’Early Dynastic
Egypt’,(London-New York, 1999), 146. If we assign only 10 years as Helck, MDAIK 30 (1974), 35 it
would shorten Amka’s life 17 years which is not so possible because he was appointed to regional
responsibilities. He could not have been so young for this duty.
 17

of reign (Helck 1956, 1979 (79 n. 1)). He reigned little more than 31 years.
Manetho awarded him 26 years.27
(D.1) Hetepsekhemwi (H; Boethos (MA); Bochos (ME); Baunetjer (S, TK);
Bedjau (A)

He starts the third row and the second dynasty. Hi is missing in the Annals.
According to TK lived 95 years. He reigned for 29 years. Manetho assign 38
years.28

(D.2) Nebre (H; Kaiechos (MA); Kaichoos (ME); Kakau (A, S, TK)

He ruled for 29 years by Manetho, which gives 39 years.

(D.3) Ninetjer (H, P; Binothris (MA); Biophis (ME); Baninetjer (A, TK);
Banetjer (S))

We could see at the P 4.3 'Year of Counting 4' which could be 9 year of reign
old.29 In the field at P 4.5, we could see the second celebration of ‘Boat Festival
(BF) (celebrated every six years). Similarly occurs at P 4.11. Daressy concluded
that the rule change occurred after the K1 4.9. He ruled for 47 years by Manetho
and lived 95 years according to TK. We can assign the same number of years as
Manetho. His name is in the fourth row of the P. Based on Manetho we can
approximately determine the other rule of the Second Dynasty because of these
rulers no data for years. We can see in K1 that the change of reign was in K1
4.11.

(D.4) Wadjnes (A, TK, S; Tlas (M); Sekhemib-Perenmaet (H), Peribsen)

He ruled for eight years, he lived 70 years according to TK, and according to
Manetho reigned for 17 years, which corresponds to if we deduct months from 8
years.30

(D.5) Peribsen (H; Sethenes (M), Sendi (A); Senedj (S, TK))

27
According to Bartha, ZÄS 108, 12. Helck, UGAÄ 18, 79 (n. 1). Helck states two hebsed of king Qa
in a grave in Abydos. Likewise is mentioned for Semerkhet, if we know that he ruled for 8 years.
Likewise is mentioned for Adjib. This is not always a sure indicator for the 30-year reign. According
to the theory, which was previously presented by Van der Meer, there was a custom. It was used for
For hebsed celebrated every 30 years to the reign of Piankhy (751-716) from the Nubian dynasty,
which celebrated hebsed about 721 BC however, this is not confirmed after Клейн, ВДИ 1966(4), 95.
28
D. Wildung, ‘Die Rolle Ägyptischer Könige im Bewusstsein ihrer Nachwelt. Teil 1: Posthume
Quellen über die Könige der ersten vier Dynastien’ (Münchener Ägyptologische Studien, Volume 17.
Deutscher Kunstverlag, München/Berlin, 1969) 31-33. He assigned him 25 or 29 years.
29
Daressy, BIFAO 12, 168.
30
According to Malek, 'In the Shadow’, 124 known as Peribsen.
 18

He had a title Hor-Set Peribsen wanting to emphasize his authority over Upper
and Lower Egypt, accepting the first cult of Seth based in Naqada in Upper
Egypt, and later cult of Hor with the center in the Delta. The rivalry between the
Lower and Upper Egypt continued and during his successors.31 As Sethenes
reigned longer than Tlas at first we could have identified Peribsen with
Sethenes. He ruled for 31 years according to 41 years of Manetho. Helck,
‘Geschichte’, 43, believes that in the time of Peribsen and Khasekhem in Lower
Egypt reigned 3 kings who are mentioned only in TK and Sakkara list.

(E.1) Neferkare (S); (Nephercheres (M); Neferka (TK); Chaires (M)

Neferkasokar (S; TP); Cheneres (M)

These kings are identical with Skanefer or Neferska. Baer puts it in the first
dynasty (cit. in J. E. Morby, Dynasties of the World (Oxford/New York, 1989),
3. It seems that in the TK was a duplication of names and years. A. It just means
that he ruled 8 years and 3 months.

(E.2) Hudjefa (S, TK; Sesochris (M))

He ruled 3 years 8 months and 4 days. At the place of the king list contains gaps
i.e. hudjefa.
moreover
(E.3) Khasekhemwy (H; Cheneres (M); Djadjay (A); Bebi (S); Bebti (TK)

At Abydos there is not grave of Khasekhem, and are thought to be identical.

Peribsen’s grave is there. Khasekhem may have changed his name to
Khasekhemwy after he reunited Upper and Lower Egypt after a civil war
between the followers of the gods Horus and Set. Others believe he defeated the
reigning king, Seth-Peribsen, after returning to Egypt from putting down a
revolt in Nubia. Moreover, way he ended the infighting of the Second dynasty
and reunited Egypt. Khasekhemwy is unique in Egyptian history as having both
the symbols of Horus and Set on his serekh. Some Egyptologists believe that
this was an attempt to unify the two factions; but after his death, Set was
dropped from the serekh permanently.32

31
One signboard from family of Sherry from the Fourth dynasty bears the inscription: 'The chief priest
Peribsen in the necropolis, in the post-mortal temple Sandy, and all it’s (i.e. Peribsen’s) places' Cerny,
cit. in Bartha, ZÄS 108, 19 (n. 28). O'Mara, ‘The Palermo Stone’, 168, notes the distinction between
web Peribsen’s priests and ka priests of Sandy.
32
Helck, ‘Geschichte’,:43, argues that the TK assigned Khasekhemwy years that were ruled by three-
contra king Sandy, Neferkare and Neferkasokar in the north of the country at the time Peribsen and
Khasekhem before the country united Khasekhemwy. With this, he has shortened the rule Huni to 8
years. It does not agree with TK that gives 24 years.
 19

(E.4)Nebka (Nebka, Neferkare (A), TK; Necherophes (MA); Necherochis

(ME); Momcheiri (PE); Sanakhte (H); Nebkare (S))

He is the most controversial figure of the Annals. The problem arose because
the statue of Khasekhemwy is in the field P 5.4 which belongs to Nebka. If we
accept the earlier opinion that his reign was shortly before Djoser how do we
explain 27 years in TK. There is a possibility that seems right to us that he
reigned before Huni because Sakkara list mentions Nebkare before Huni and
Abydos list Neferkare before Snofru33. It is also possible that this was Neferkare
II, but it is not probably. If we would accept the custom that it was highlighting
of its predecessor as in the K1 3.3, which looms name predecessor Adjib, from
where are the discrepancy between the 17th years of the Annals in comparison
with 19 years of TK. Obviously, in transcription occurred mistake at TK.

(∩∩ IIII∩ IIII∩

III.) II. III IIIII
23. 2. 17 19

If we have 57 fields till the end of the row, it is 17+ 1+ 11+ 1 +8+ 1+ 7 +1+12=
57. The consequences are confusing. We have 18 years of Khasekhemwy, 12
years for Hudjefa, 8 years for Neferkasokar, 7 years for Neferkare and 12 years
for Peribsen (i.e. 43 years for him). Is it possible that Neferkare ruled for 7 years
and Peribsen 43? Every other solution by broadening the Fifth row would
increase the years of Menes , Wadji, Hetepsekhemwy at the beginning of the
second, third and fourth rows. It would not be compatible with any source,
which we have, archaeological, Turin Canon and Manetho. It would discard all
years of the Turin Cannon; nevertheless, it would increase years of Manetho, for
which we think are suitable with an error for ten digits. There were not such a
quantity of inscriptions from the reigns of Wadji and Hetepsekhemwy,
especially from Neferkare, who is dubious figure. Archaeological conclusions
for Nebka have to reconsider in the light of Palermo Stone and Turin Canon. If
we shorten the length of Peribsen 12 years, which were added to the fifth row
this would shorten years of Aha for 10 years, years of Wadji 13 years and years
of Hetepsekhemwy 15 years. This would shorten reigns in TK 50 years. It is the
great discrepancy between Annals and TK. Both solutions are not compatible
nor with archaeological neither with historical documents. There is possibility
that seems good to us to assign 18 years of Nebka to Djoser and insert Nebka
before Huni. It could have been Kerpheres (26) of Manetho, likewise Neferkare
or Nephercheres. Cairo fragment is badly corrupted and we can only one

33
Archaeological proof is well described in T. Wilkinson, ‘Early Dynastic Egypt’ (London and New York,
1999), 101-103.
 20

vertical stroke for the change of reign in K1. 5.10. For the sake of our
chronology and the years in the Turin Canon, this would be the best solution.

He ruled for 18 years to 79 or 28 Manetho.

(E.5)Djoser (S; Tosorthros (MA); Sesorthos (ME); Stoichos (PE); Netjerykhet

(H); Djoser-za (A); Djoserit (TK))

Djoser is visible only for one-year rule only 19th in 5.1 K1, which is observed
by Daressy (Bartha 1981, 13) according to the vertical line that indicates a
change of government. He ruled for 20 years according to 19+X from TK.34

(E.6) Djoser-Teti (S, TK, Tyreis (MA); Gosormies (PE); Sekhemkhet (H); Teti
(A))

He ruled 7 years according to 6+X years at TK. We can see that change of reign
was in K1 5.11 for the end of reign.

(E.7) Khaba (H; Mesochris (MA); Mares (PE); Sedjes, Neferkare (A); Hudjefa
(TK))

He ruled 6 years according to 6+X years at TK. Beginning of his reign one can
see in K1 5.11.

(E.8) Huni (S, TK, Aches (MA); Sirius, Anoyphis, Chnubos (Gneuros) (PE);
Qahadjet (? H))

He is noted in the PL for the anomaly because two FH labeled to each other. He
ruled for 24 years. According to Dreyer, it was found an inscription with 11th
Year of Counting or 22nd year of reign. Aches (M) ruled 42 years probably
mistakenly transcribed as 24 years 42 years from Manetho.35

(F) Snofru (P; Soris (M); Saophis (PE); Nebmaet (H))

34
According to Malek, JEA 68, 106, older version of TK had at the beginning of each line phrase
irinefmensyt meaning, "he has ruled for the period of." According to this objection, Malek has
reconstructed original version of Turin Canon which each column has the 16 rows.
At the Palermo Stone ‘Year of Counting’ of the king's reign was counting first two years, after that
counting was biennial.
35
Dreyer is convinced that the notations concern the 22nd year of Huni's reign, while Turin Canon
assigned him a reign of 24 years, and none of the kings of the third dynasty, according to
archaeological resources reigned long, in Günter Dreyer, ‘Drei archaisch-hieratische
Gefässaufschriften mit Jahresnamen aus Elephantine.’ (eds) G. Dreyer, J. Osing, ‘Form und Maß -
Beiträge zur Literatur, Sprache und Kunst des Alten Ägypten.’ (Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden 1987), 98-
109.
 21

He was the first ruler of the 4th Dynasty, and he starts 6th row of Annals. Row
begins with an unfinished Huni year. At P 6.1 sees the ‘Year of Counting 7’. If
the ‘Year of Counting 8’ in the following field entered correctly then it was the
first year that is not counted twice. It is known from the pyramids in Maidum
that the 16th, 17th and 18th Years of Counting are recorded from one to another.
It is known for two 24 Year of Counting in the Red Pyramid. Also is known the
15th and 16th Years of Counting from the Red Pyramid. It is assumed that the
king did not record every second year from the 15th to the 17th Years of
Counting, but is known Year after 18th Year of Counting. If we take that 8th year
of counting was the 16th year of rule, because the first year started at 3rd year
based on the reconstruction of the fourth row in P remains 16 years, of which at
least 3 are not counted twice giving at least 45 years of rule. Based on the
analysis done by R. Krauss, ‘The Length of Sneferu’s Reign and How Long it
Took to Build the ‘Red Pyramid’, JEA 82, (1996), 49-50. Snofru began to build
a pyramid in Dahšur in the 23rd year of reign, and finished in 33rd year, therefore
he reigned for about 31 years. If we assume that at least 3 more years were
twice (between 9th and 14th years of counting) it would be 34 years, which is
much more realistic considering that the error in the TK tens digit. Manetho
awarded 29 years.36
The basis of our chronology is based not only on the Annals. It is based on the
amazing knowledge that the Egyptian priests had about the stars that were
suggested to the North Pole at this time. Then they were the stars of the
constellation Ursa Minor Fekda (γ UMa) and Megrez (δ UMa). Passage through
the meridian at lower culmination stars with an error that is available to the
human eye could be used to determine the North Pole. Therefore, the Great
Pyramid is determined the best North, not only because of its size, but also
because of the great preparation of its construction (10 years according to
Herodotus II 124). This agrees with the astronomical data from 2573 to 2563
BC. If we take the average value, we get 2568. BC which would mean years of
rule, but it must be repaired with a construction time of three pyramids of
Snofru that are well dated with years of counting. Error in such account is an
error observer and is about 3 '. It is about ±5 year’s error in calculation rule. So
we can assume that the Cheops reigned 2580-2557 BC, Snofru 2614-2580 BC.
To our knowledge, from the king Snofru to King Neferirkare we can safely
count that stars are not too distanced from the North Pole. As of the time of
Neferirkare, the error is 30' it is no longer relevant to mention a couple of stars
and the pyramids of the sixth dynasty cannot count on them. We have not been
able to find out that it was a pair of stars near the North Pole during the Sixth
Dynasty. It has no relevance to our chronology for the period of Snofru to
Neferirkare astronomically determined. With data from the Annals and the
36
R. Stadelman, ‘Beiträge zur Geschichte des Alten Reiches (Die Länge der Regierung des Snofru)’,
(1987), 239-40, has noticed 'Year of Counting 24' from Snofru at the Red pyramid in Dahšur.
 22

Turin Canon, we reconstructed during the reign of the third to fifth dynasty, B.
Banjević , ‘Orientation of the Pyramids and Chronology of the Old Kingdom in
Egypt’, DE 58 (2004), 20-21.
How is made red 6. Let us try to calculate the width of the field in the fingers.
We know that the two fields of width 5.604 or 3 fingers, a field width of 4:36 or
2 and 1/3 fingers. We know from the image that must be 55 fields up to this
field width 1.90 from the 5th row. That means that the total width is 102.54 cm
to this field (from left to right). Rest of the line is calculated by set a
Diophantine equation (must be obtained integer solutions):

(1) I=3 fingers=5.604 cm, J=4 fingers=7.742 cm, K=5 fingers=9.340 cm

(2) 215.76-104.5-2*4.36=102.54 (the remainder up to the end on the left)

(3) 5.604A+7.742B+9.340C=102.5 (acceptable error is  < 1 cm due to the

size of the fields)

(4) A+B+C =29-16=13

Based on this, we have two triple of solutions that satisfy the equation:

1. I=4 J=3 K=6

2. I=3 J=4 K=6

A set of triplets’ solutions must be harmonious as until now, so we can take the
second solution. In a similar way, we calculate widths of the fields from 7th to
10th row. As no field is visible or missing from these rows, we have to rely on
TK or Pyramid Texts. Cheops was already mentioned in connection with the
Great Pyramid. It was also stated the amount of stone that was spent for the
construction of various buildings kings of the 4th Dynasty as in Stadelman,
MDAIK 43, 229-240.

King Sum of build Turin Canon Average

material (m3) per year
HUNI 150000 24 8000
SNOFRU 3752500 24 156350
CHEOPS 2700000 23 117400
DJEDEFRE 230000 8 28500
CHEPHREN 2200000 (26) 84500
MYCERINOS 320000 18 18000

TABLE 11
 23

(G) Cheops (Suphis (M); Saophis (PE); Khufwey (L); Medjedu (H))

He ruled by TK 23 years and X months, but this is doubtful. There are at least
two reasons. There is ‘Year of Counting 17’ found in his Pyramid, Stadelman,
MDAIK 43, 239, corresponding to 33 or 34 years of his reign. The other reason
is quoting Herodotus (Her. II 124), who says that Cheops was building his
pyramid for 30 years. Let us take 34 years to 63 years or 27 years Manetho PE.
Mother's name is Meresankh that occurs as determinative in row 7 (Bartha, ZÄS
108, 21.

(H) Djedefre (Radjedef) (H, L, Ratoises (M); Rayosis (PE))

He ruled according TK 8 years. Manetho gave 25 years. His name is preserved
in the K3. (ibid, Bartha)

(I)Chephren (Suphis (II) (M); Moscheres (PE), Khaufre (L), Userib (H))

He ruled as we know by the age of two was found in the mastaba east of
Cheops, 7 and 13 years and counting 14 and 26 years of rule. Manetho gives 66
years. He ruled for 26 years in Hayes, CAH, 1.1, 174.

(J)Bicheris ((M; Biuris (PE); Baka (Baufre); Ka-Hor (? H))

That is the name of the little-known ruler, who began to build a pyramid in
Zawiet el-Aryan in Stadelman, MDAIK 43, 140. His name is Bakaa and Horus
name was Hor-ka. According to Manetho ruled for 22 years, but in such a short
time that started the pyramid is probably not ruled more than four years. With
this ruler ends 10th row of the Annals.

Total has 5 rows of 106 boxes or years of rule. Herodotus of Cheops and
Chephren gives 106 years (Her. II 124-127). He probably sum with three other
rulers.

King Reign
Snofru 34
Cheops 34
Djedefre 8
Chephren 26
Bicheris 4
Sum 1106

TABLE 12
 24

It does not apply the rule here that reign must fit in one line because of the large
fields. One has seen later on the other side of Palermo that the year of the king’s
death separates particularly from the one of the successor and make 2 fields.
Other rows are counted again with the application of Diophantine equations. Let
A, B, C and D the width in fingers.

(1) A=7, B=8, C=6

If we assume that width of the Annals is ca. 116 fingers (see p.13) then we can
set equations for other rows:

(2) 7I+8J+6K=116

(3) A+B+C=16 fields for one row

Based on that, we have one solution that satisfies the equation:

(4) I=6 J=7 K=3

So in each row from the eighth to the tenth is the 16 years of reign or the fields
of width 6, 7 and 8 fingers, which is satisfied by the Egyptian measures.
On the verso side the fields are rapidly increase37. It can be seen following
years. At P 2.1 is ‘Year of Counting 1’ of king and unfinished year of king
Menkaure.38 At K1 3.1 '1 is ‘Year after Counting 1', i.e. second year of the king
Userkaf. At P 3.2, there is 'Year of Counting 3 ' of King Userkaf, i.e. 6th year of
reign. At K1 4.1, there is 'Year of Counting 1' of King Sahure, i.e. his second
year of reign. At P 4.1 there is '1 Year after Counting 2', i.e. his 5th year of
Sahure’s reign. It is unclear ‘Year of Counting 1’ at P 5.1 of king Sahure. It is
probably his 14th year of reign. There is ‘Year of Counting 5’ at P 6.1 of the
king Neferirkare, i.e. his 10th year of reign.

Row 1 2 3 4 5 6 7-9
No. of fields 15 13 9 9 9 11 9

37
W. Kaiser, ’Einige Bemerkungen zur Ägyptischen Frühzeit, ZÄS 86, 53; Bartha, ZÄS 108, 15.
They find that no criterion can be applied to the recto side. Width of field is much greater than the
recto side, which is a consequence of the transfer of unfinished year of the reign in the next row as a
whole field.
38
ruled for 1 to 4 months after the king's stand in Abydos, in Stadelman, MDAIK 43, 175. The
error in the TK is probably due to overwriting years of Userkaf, which ruled by TK 7 years.
Heir of Shepseskaf is Thamphthis whose name is problematic for interpretation. Djedef-Ptah
could have been the ruler Thamphthis to whom TK awarded 2 years, also Manetho in Helck,
‘Geschichte’, 57.
 25

TABLE 13

Much of the Annals from the Fifth Dynasty are missing and we establish final 4
rows on the grounds beforehand. The last -name, which is appearing probably,
was Niuserre-Ini in the last years of his reign. Let us determine reigning years
of the Fifth Dynasty. According to previous analysis, there are 93 to 99 fields at
verso side. We will sum the results in the table 14 (N is the number of the
unfinished years, which are the whole fields):

Row King Annals TK in Result

years
1/2. Mycerinos 18 y+N+3m 24d 18 19
2. Shepseskaf 3 y+1N+8m 11d 4 4
2. Thamphtis 1 y+2N 2 2
3. Userkaf 7 y+2N 7 8
4/5. Sahure 11 y 9m 28d+1N 12 12
5/6. Neferirkare- 9y 2m 7d+1N (10) 10
Kakai
6. -Isi39 1N 7 4m
6. Neferefre 2y+2N 3 3
7-9. Niuserre-Ini27y 31+2 33
TABLE 14
Now we can calculate the years from the Annals and Turin Canon as well as the
result in table 15:

No. King Manetho Reign TK Result

K.1 Mycerinos Mencheres 63 18 19
K.2 Shepseskaf Sebercheres 9 4 4
K.3 Djedef-Ptah (?) Thampthis 2 2 2
L.1 Userkaf Usercheres 28 7 8

39 It seems that he ruled only few months because he had been owner of the unfinished platform for a
pyramid near Abusir in M. Verner, ‘Archaeological remarks on the 4th and 5th Dynasty Chronology’,
Archiv Orientalia 69, 399. He might have ruled before Neferirkare. The width is not making the
problem for the row, because we have only 9 fields, but in the next row, we have 11 fields. It would
not be the problem changing the sequence of those rulers. The similar case is in the Third Dynasty for
the reign of Nebka, but it would require different equations for the third row.
 26

L.2 Sahure Sephres 13 12g 12

L.3 Neferirkare- Nephercheres 20 (10) 10g
Kakai
L.4 -Isi Sisires 7 7g 4m
L.5 Neferefre Cheres 20 (3) 3g
L.6 Niuserre-Ini Rathures 44 (20)+11+ 33g
xg
L.7 Menkauhor- Mencheres 9 8g 9g
Akauhor
L.8 Djedkare-Isesi Tancheres 44 28g 38g
L.9 Unas Unas 33 30g 20g

TABLE 15

Niuserre-Ini recorded a hebsed in sunny temple at Abu Gurob; Djedkare-Isesi

was recorded ’Years of Counting 20’ or 39th year of reign. His reign is well
analyzed in my previous work such as of Neferefre and Neferirkare in B.
Banjevic, Orientation of the Pyramids and Chronology of the Old Kingdom in
Egypt, DE 58 (2004), 17

Now, we can define the rule from the First to the Fifth Dynasty.

King Year P y. m. d. Din. TK Maneth

o
Narmer 3094 30 (?) 0 none together
Aha 3064 16 6 7 I 62 30, 62
Teti 3047 1 10 11 I 2
Djer 3045 52 7+X 22 I 52 23,42
Wadji 2993 27 I 27 27,57
Den 2966 41 I 41 20, 31,
39
Adjib 2925 13 I 26 26
 27

Semerkhet 2912 8 I 18 18
Qa-a 2904 31 I 26 26
Sum I d. 221 254 252
Hetepsekhemwy 2873 29 II 29 38
Nebre 2844 29 II 29 39
Ninetjer 2815 47 II 47 47
Wadjnes 2768 9 II 7 17
Peribsen 2759 31 II 31 41
Neferkare (?) ? ? II 6 17
Neferkasokar 2728 8 3 II 8 25
Hudjefa 2720 3 8 4 II 4 48
Khasekhemwy 2716 27 2 1 II 27 30
Sum II d. 184 188 297(302
)
Djoser40 2689 17 11 23 III 1941 29
Djoser-Teti 2671 7 III 6 7, 19
Khaba 2664 6 III 6 17
Nebka(Nebkare, 2658 20 III 20 16,
Neferkare) 30,26
Huni 2638 24 III 24 42
Sum III d. 75 74 214,
198
Snofru 2614 34 IV 24 28
Cheops 2580 34 IV 23 63
Radjedef 2546 8 IV 8 25
Chephren 2538 26 IV 26 66
Bicheris 2512 4 IV 4 22
Mycerinus 2508 18 4 24 IV 18 63
Shepseskaf 2490 3 7 11 IV 4 7
Thamphthis 2486 3 IV 9, 48
Sum IV d. 130 (109) 277
Userkaf 2484 8 V 7 28
Sahure 2476 12 5 12 V 13 13
Neferirkare- 2464 10 6 23 V 10 20
Kakai
Shepseskare-Isi 2453 1-4 V 7 7
Neferefre 2453 3 V 3 20
Niuserre-Ini 2450 33 V 33 44
Menkauhor 2417 9 V 8 9
Djedkare-Isesi 2408 38 V 28 44
Unas 2370 20 V 30 33
Sum V d. 2350 134 (139) 248
Sum I-V d. 749 (767) 1294

40
It might have been assign to Djoser. See p. 19.
41
Reversed order with regard to Djoser.
 28

TABLE 16

CHRONOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH TOTHE EIGTH DYNASTY

Problem solving the First Intermediate Period is great because some authors put
the start of the Ninth and the Eleventh Dynasties at the same time as in Bartha,
ZÄS 108, 24, and some authors assign Ninth Dynasty 100 years as stated by
Manetho (ME) (cit. in Morby ‘Dynasties’, 1989, 4). In the second version,
Manetho awarded 409 years (MA). We found that it was a mistake. Some
authors assign period 20, 30, 40 and 49 years (Parker, Egypt in ‘Chronology’, 14
B-C.; Hayes, CAH, 1.1, 180, W. Schenkel, ‘Fruhmittelägyptische Studien’
(Bonn, 1962), 154-160. From TK is known that the period of the reign from The
Sixth to Eight Dynasties was 187g 6m 3d where was included 6 years of the
Seventh Dynasty. Userkare referred probably to TK, and is known for recording
on a monument of his time, was reigned a little more than 3 years. According to
Manetho Teti ruled for 30 years, and Pepi 53 years. It is known that he
celebrated hebsed in 37th year of his reign in Bartha, ZÄS 108, 25. It is known
for its 25 years of counting, corresponding to the 50th year of the reign see
Sakkara Stone forward). The Turin Canon gives the following information
according to the reconstruction of Bartha, ZÄS 108, 24, O'Mara 1997, 82). There
is a published work of Baud and Dobrev in 1995, about the Sakkara Stone, F.
 29

Raffaele, ‘Saqqara Stone: Sixth Dynasty Annals’,

<xoomer.virgilio.it/francescoraf/hesyra/ssannals.htm> accessed 4.06.2014.
Sakkara Stone is represented the Annals of the Sixth Dynasty.
According to the author Teti ruled without coregency 12-14 years, Userkare 3-4
years, Pepi I has recorded 25th year of reign, which must be on a biennial basis
according to the reconstruction of the Sakkara Stone. Merenre reigned 11-13
years based on the stored location of the annual block and certain Year of
Counting.
Another problem is the reign of Neferkare Pepi II. His reign is the longest in the
history of civilization. Therefore, we shall discuss it very carefully.Pepi II is
often mentioned as the longest reigning monarch in History, due to a Third
century BC account of Ancient Egypt by Manetho (in Eusebius of Caesarea),
which accords the king a reign of 94 years. He said in the passage of Pepi I that
we quoted:

The fourth king was Phiops, who became king at the age of six, and reigned
until 100 years [old].

Ancient sources upon which Manetho's estimate is based are long lost. They
could have resulted from a misreading on Manetho's behalf. I could not agree
with this assumption because German authors always shorten the Egyptian
history without any reasonable proof. The Turin Canon also attributes 94 years
of reign to Pepi II, but this document dates to the time of Ramesses II 1,000
years later and its accuracy for the reign length of the Old Kingdom king, Pepi
II, is uncertain. This conclusion in Wikipedia is the product of inexperience and
intention to announce every long life in Old Egypt as impossible. There are
inscriptions from the Old Egypt that point to longevity in that time. Yet, a one
hundred-and-ten year seems to be the ideal Egyptian life span. There are 27
places in documents where this figure crops up, and it had its widest acceptance
during the Nineteenth and Twentieth Dynasties. King Pepi II of the Sixth
Dynasty certainly came close, since we know of events that took place in the
94th year of his reign. Ptahhotep, who was vizier to King Djedkare Isesi of the
Fifth Dynasty, and two others individuals, are reputed to have lived to that age
as well. This is an excerpt from the Teaching of Pttahotep:

What I have done on earth is not little.

I took 110 years of life
by the grant of the king to me,
favor ahead of the ancestors,
from doing what is right for the king until the stage of revered status.

From <http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/literature/ptahhotep.html> accessed

23.06.2014.
 30

Old Kingdom nomarch during the reign of Pepi II was named Pepiankh. He is
referred to as Neferka in his tomb, where the following text is found:

I spent a lifetime until a hundred years among the living, in possession of my

faculties.

Read more:
<http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/oldage.htm#ixzz35SgwVEGK>
accessed 23.06.2014.
There are two kings in the Turin Canon, which according to their life spans
have been living for 95 years. At the beginning of the Second Dynasty, her
founder Hetepsekhemwy reigned for 29 years and was 95 of age (Col 2.5). His
rule was very well documented as I said before. The next ruler is his very well
known Ninetjer who almost certainly celebrated hebsed festival, although it was
not seen in the Annals because that part is missing. He was reigning for 47 years
as was stated by Manetho, without error, because his reign on the Cairo Stone
was finished
It is quite possible that more dated documents will be uncovered in the future
that will be close in time to 94th regnal year of Pepi II (47th year of the count).
Now, however, the oldest written source contemporary with Pepi II dates from
the Year after the 31st Count, 1st Month of Shemu, day 20, from Hatnub graffito
No.7 according to Spalinger, which implies, assuming a biennial cattle count
system, that this king had a reign of at least 62 years complete or partial years.
Therefore, some Egyptologists contend that Pepi II reigned no more than 64
years. These Egyptologists dispute a reign of 94 years for Pepi II and a shorter
reign of not much more than 64 years. This is based on the complete absence of
higher attested dates for Pepi beyond his Year after the 31st Count (Year 62 on a
biannual cattle count). A previous suggestion by Hans Goedicke that the Year of
the 33rd Count, appears for Pepi II in a royal decree for the mortuary cult of
Queen Udjebten was withdrawn by Goedicke himself in 1988 in favor of a
reading of the Year of the 24th Count instead, notes Spalinger. Goedicke writes
that Pepi II is attested by numerous year dates until the Year of his 31st count,
which strongly implies that this king died shortly after a reign of about 64 years.
Other scholars note, however, that the lack of contemporary sources dated after
his 62nd year on the throne does not preclude a much longer reign, in particular
since the end of Pepi II's reign was marked by a sharp decline in the fortunes of
the Old Kingdom pharaohs who succeeded him. Henige himself is somewhat
skeptical of the 94 year figure assigned to Pepi II and follows Naguib
Kanawati's 2003 suggestion that this king's reign was most probably was much
shorter than 94 years.42

King Col in TK Y. TK M. Day Abs. d. Annals

42
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepi_II_Neferkare> accessed 23.06.2014.
 31

Teti (Col. .10) 12 6 21 2350 12½

Userkare (Col 6.11) 3 2337 3½
Meryre Pepi I (Col.6.12) 20 2334 49½
Merenre Nemtyemsaf (Col 6.13) (1)4 4 2284 14
Neferkare Pepi II (Col 6.14) 9(4) 5 25 2270
Merenre Nemtyemsaf (Col 6.15) 1 1 2175
II
Netiqerti (Saptah)43 (Col 6.16) 1+6wzf 2174-2167
Menkare (Neferka in (Col 7.1) 7 2 2167
TK) 44
Neferkare (Col 7.2) together
(Nefer(ver) in TK)45

Ibi (Col. 7.3) 2 1 1 2160

Neferkaure (Col. 7.4) 4 2 2158
Neferkahor (Col. 7.5) 2 1 1 2154
Neferirkare (Col 7.6) 1 1/2 2152
Sum 187 6 3 2150

TABLE 17

Several authors, states about 50 years for the rule of Pepi I. Annals of the Sixth
Dynasty give every year of Pepi I, which are all counted biannually. Manetho
adds the Userkare and Pepi I as 53 years of Pepi I. Then we get to start the
Ninth Dynasty 2150 BC. Twelfth Dynasty began to rule in 1991 BC after
Middle chronology. Based on a research of G. Greenberg, ‘Manetho’s 7th and
8th Dynasties: A Puzzle Solved’, JSSE 25 (1995, published 1998), 50-55). After
Greenberg can be concluded that the Seventh Dynasty emerged as an error of
Manetho, which is the sum of 75 rulers of the first eight dynasties in the version
of Africanus. Rule of the Eight Dynasty is the summation rule of Pepi II and his
successors, which is 108 (107) in the version of Manetho and 39 years of Eight
Dynasty. Similarly, the sum is obtained from 146+39 = 185. At least, seven
Eighth Dynasty rulers are not in the Abydos list. 46Manetho kings gives 27 kings
as the sum the Eighth Dynasty that is the sum 22+5, actually the sum of the
Sixth and the Eight Dynasties. There was missing Userkare.
It is known that Neferkare Akhtoy, the third ruler of the Ninth Dynasty was a
contemporary of Prince Antef, father of Mentuhotep I, the first ruler of the
Twelfth Dynasty. Besides, from the latest reconstruction of TK the sixth ruler

43
After new reconstruction of names at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turin_King_List> accesed
06.06.2014, (2009), Col 6.16.It seems that one name is missing in the next row, Neferirkare in A 40.
There are no names from A43 to -A52 and A57 from Abydos list. The last king in the Eight Dynasty
in TK is Neferkare who is mentioned neither in the Abydos list nor in Malek(1982).
44
After a new reconstruction of names at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turin_King_List> accessed
06.06.2014, Col 7.1.
45
After new reconstruction of names at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turin_King_List (2009). In the
Col 7.2. Malek (1982) gives name neferver.
46
There were Wadjkare, Sekhemkare, Imhotep and Isu (LÄ 1980:540-56).There were probably,
Hotep, Khui, Iytjenu also, cit. in Baer, ‘Dynasties’, 4. Isu, Hotep and Khui were found on inscriptions
according to J. Baines and J. Malek, ‘Atlas of Ancient Egypt’ (Oxford, 1980), 170.
 32

Akhtoy was the son Neferkare. Manetho considers that Ninth Dynasty had four
rulers. The Turin Canon (TK-IV.18-V.9) gives 18 kings of Herakleopolis from
the Ninth and Tenth Dynasties who belonged to the dynasty Akhtoy (Kheti).
Two monuments reveal the true situation that prevailed in Egypt prior to the
conquest of Mentuhotep II. At the time Hornakhte of Dendera there was the 56
years of peace and stability, although it pointed to hostility between noma This
(Tinis 8th noma) from the north (10th Dynasty) and Dendera from the south
which belonged to Thebes (Eleventh Dynasty) already cit. in Bartha, ZÄS 108,
31 (n. 49). That means that the Ninth Dynasty began to rule before Hornakhte of
time Antef II who won Tinis and Abydos, and this could be the beginning of his
reign. In the 143 years of the reign of Eleventh Dynasty is included the rule of
Mentuhotep I, who was the prince at the time of the Ninth Dynasty. His title
was it-neteru or "father of the gods." His predecessor Antef, son of Iku and
Antef-aa are identical), and he is a Prince of the 4th Theban noma in Gardiner
‘Egypt’, 117. There has been more than 2 generations from the late Sixth to the
early Eleventh Dynasties. It is about 40 years. We know that Wahkare Akhtoy
lived at the time of Antef II and fought for taking over of Tinis noma. His squire
mentioned the fight of the family of Akhtoy (Khety) to the west of This (Hayes
CAH, 1.1, 180-181). The record from the grave in Moala cited 3 princes who
lived in the time of Neferkare (Ninth Dynasty) Hetep, Ankhtifi from
Hierakonpolis and Prince Antef of Thebe, Bartha 1981, 29. We said that Antef
father was Mentuhotep I. Probably Manetho rounded to 100 years period of
Ninth Dynasty and gave 43 years to the Twelfth Dynasty. According to TK we
can reconstruct the following kings of the Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh dynasty
after Hayes, CAH, 1.2, 996, Malek, JEA 68, 94. We have got to agree with the
first three generations from Abydos (Ninth Dynasty) and Princes or kings of
Thebes.
Ninth and Tenth Dynasties Eleventh Dynasty
Kings in Heracleopolis Princes and Kings in Theba
Meryibre Akhtoy I47 Ini Short(Middle)
Iku
Neferkare contemporary of Antefaa sin Iku =Antef (?)
Akhtoy II Mentuhotep I 2082 (2134)
Senen Kings of Theba
Akhtoy III son of Antef I 2078(2130)
Neferkare48
Mery(ib)re Akhtoy V Antef II49 2066 (2118)
Shed…
H… (Hotep ?)
Wahkare Akhtoy VI

47
He is mentioned in ‘Instructions for Merykare’ as the founder of the
dynasty<http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/merikare_papyrus.htm>accessed 06.06.2014.
48
Malek, JEA 68,:97,105; LÄ 540-556.
49
Abydos is conquered at his time, in W. C. Hayes, ‘Chronology. Egypt - to end of Twentieth
Dynasty’ (ed.) I. E. S. Edwards, C. J. Gadd and N. G. L. Hammond (CAH 1.1, 1970), 181; Bartha ZÄS
108, 31.
 33

(Se… re Akhtoy VII)50

Nebkaure Akthoy VIII
User(?)51
Meryhathor52
Neferkare
Mery(ib)re Akhtoy IX53( Antef III 2017 (2069)
(Merykare son) contemporary Mentuhotep II 2009(2061)
(Iti54) x month United kingdom 1980(2034)
Mentuhotep III 1958(2010)
Mentuhotep IV 1946(1998)
Twelfth Dynasty 1939 (1991/4)

TABLE 18

From Col 8.6 to Col 8.14, there were no informations about rulers outside of TK
and probably ruled briefly, Malek 1982, 97. There is evidence that King Iti sent
an expedition to Wadi Hamamat first year of IV ahet 2. Probably they are not all
belonged to the same dynasty since the 10th and the 11th kings of the dynasty are
not Akhtoy. The unification of Egypt under the 11th dynasty had to be between
14 and 39 Years Mentuhotep II, in Hayes CAH, 1.1, 181, which according to
our timeline must be 1994/1991 BC. Meyer was assigned in 2242 BC to the end
of the Eighth Dynasty and took 100 years for the Ninth Dynasty, but put 2141
BC for the Eleventh Dynasty, because at that time they did not know the exact
rule of 12th dynasty (about 2000 BC). He was taken for the First Intermmediate
Period about 140 years based on Turin Canon in Meyer, ‘Ägyptische’. We can
take that is not true Manetho’s fact that the Ninth Dynasty ruled for 100 years.
Then the union was in 1980th year 35th year of Mentuhotep II. There were 18
rulers of Herakleopolis (TK-IV 18 V 9) (Malek, JEA 68, 97 in Col. 8.15). As we
said, the date for the Eleventh Dynasty was determined astronomically. It
should be noted finally that the sum of 955 years from the First to the Eighth
dynasties of TK close to accurate, but the chronicler evidently ignorant mistakes
in individual rule and even the sum for the period from the Sixth to the Eighth
dynasties, which we have already analyzed. We have seen that in the Second
Dynasty had seven extra years as Manetho assigned Chaires or Neferkare (see
remark 17). We have got 952 years for the duration of the reign of the First to
the Eighth dynasties (3092-2150 BC), which is close to the age which had got
Hayes, CAH, 1.2, 994, i.e. 940 years, from ca. 3100-2160 BC, that was based on
the average for the first 17 generations of first two dynasties. We express our
50
A little piece of sign S is seen in Col 8.7.
51
After reconstruction of ibid. Hayes, 995, the next rulers were belonged to the late period of the
Tenth Dynasty.
52
He is mentioned on the alabaster vase from Het-Nub, The Middle Kingdom in Egypt: Internal
History From the Rise Of The Heracleopolitans to The Death of Ammenemes III in (ed.) I. E. S.
Edwards, C. J. Gadd and N. G. L. Hammond (CAH, 1.2, 1971), 466.
53
In Baer, ‘Dynasties’, 4. He was, perhaps, father of Merykare.
54
He is mentioned as the last king of Herakleopolis in Bunson ‘Dictionary of Ancient Egypt’, Oxford,
1995), 127.
 34

admiration for the Egyptian chronicler who was with so much accuracy
determined duration of the first eight dynasties. Margin of error of just 7 years
can be compared with the Babylonian and Assyrian lists of rulers that too with
great accuracy provide information about their rulers. Some chronicles of the
early Middle Ages were less accurate. Resources that could have a compiler of
the Annals of the Royal were certainly annually labels starting from Narmer to
the beginning of another dynasty. Since the beginning of the Third Dynasty, the
biennial counts can be seen in the Palermo stone. There is evidence of the
existence of the annual King Dena labels that correspond to years of Den from
Palermo Stone. At fragment K. 5.5, one can see two events: ‘Visit the royal
domain Semet-Netjer. The first celebration of hebsed Festival’ was in the 21st
year of his reign. The first event was recorded at the 56 th annual label. The
second event meant celebration of the 30th year of the reign that was a little
early. The second hebsed was noticed in the 30th year of the reign at P 3.3. This
event was recorded at the annual label 1, 5 and 32. At P 3.9 was recorded event
"habitation in Neni-nesu (Heracleopolis Magna) and Lake Heryshaf God"
(referring to the temple of God), in the 36th year of the reign of King Den. The
same event was recorded on the 45th annual label. Besides annual labels, there
were data on the level of the Nile, which vary from year to year and there is no
proof that they are fake. P. F. O'Mara, ‘Was There an Old Kingdom
Historiography? Is it Datable?’, Or 65, (1996), 107-108, strongly suggests that
the different handwriting on the two sides of the Palermo Stone showed that
there was an earlier version of the Annals and prior to the Fifth Dynasty,
probably from the time of Mycerinus. We think that the solution length of reign
of the period from the First to the Fifth dynasties obtained using Diophantine
equations from the time of the Third dynasty, because the fields in the Fourth
Dynasty rapidly expanding and continuing likewise until the end of the Annals.
Transcription could have been occurred errors, and the sequence of events from
the time of the First Dynasty is not reliable because they did not count regnal
years. From the Second Dynasty begins biennial counting years and one can
determined years in power. The total number of years of a king was
remembered and the sum of the rule of every dynasty, as one can see from the
Turin Canon. On the basis of this, we can say that the Royal Annals were the
most original record of the reigns of the First to the Fifth Dynasties. Subsequent
Annals of Sakkara is an attempt to present the rule of the kings of the Sixth
Dynasty. Inscriptions on monuments from the Middle Kingdom give us the
reigns of that period. The Turin Canon is, except the Royal Annals which part
was lost by the time it was created, used by some older versions as noted Malek
JEA 68, 94, 106. It can be inferred from the phrase irinefmensyt which means
"He ruled for a period of" that occurs at the beginning of each column from the
new reconstructed Turin Canon. Our reconstruction considered that the reigning
years from the dynasties between the Annals and the Turin Canon may vary
slightly due to the lack of counting years from the period of the Eighteenth
 35

Dynasty, but the sum total is very close to ours, which indicates that somewhere
was recorded the total amount from the First to the Eighth dynasties. Is it true it
was pointed with the astronomically determined data55. Significant differences
exist in the First, Second and Fourth Dynasties, which could be seen from Table
19. The problem arose because the Annals were damaged during the time of the
Eighteenth Dynasty, which was last in the Turin Canon. That's why we have
most years Turin Canon taken as correct.

Dynasty Time(Short Time Sum Annals Sum TK

Chronology)56 Astronomical dates other sources
I 2925/2900 3092 219 (244)
II 2755/2730 2873 184 (201)
III 2617/2592 2689 75 74
IV 2568/2543 2614 130 (109)
V 2460/2435 2484 134 (139)
VI 2330/2305 2350 177 (168)
VII 2173 6 6
VIII 2150 2167 17 14
Sum from 6th to 188
8th D.
Sum from 1th to 952 955
8th D.
IX (Short) 2118-1980 138
(Middle) 2150 30
X (Middle) 2120-2034 86
XI(Middle) 2130 139
XII (Short) 1939 180/3 213
(Middle) 1994/1 180
XIII (Middle)57 1760-1630 1803/01-1649/8 154 (130) (153M)

TABLE 19

Astronomical data are with a margin error of ±5 years according to the position
of stars.

55
B. Banjevic, Orientation of the Pyramids and Chronology of the Old Kingdom in Egypt, DE 58
(2004), 11-12.
56
R. Krauss, E. Hornung, D. A. Warburton, ‘Ancient Egyptian Chronology’ (Boston, 2006).
57
Ryholt, ‘The Political Situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period c. 1800-1550 B.’
(The Carsten Niebuhr Institute of Near Eastern studies, Kopenhagen, 1997).
 36

CONCLUSION

I have two solutions for the end of the Old Kingdom in Egypt. Middle
Chronology for the Twelfth Dynasty begins 1991(1994) BC. Krauss Short
Chronology begins in 1939 BC for the beginning of the Twelfth Dynasty. The
Nineteenth Dynasty began 2150 BC and finished 2034 BC that gives 112 years
(Manetho gave 184 that was too much according to astronomical date in may
first paper with only +-5 year margin for the positions of the stars). Several
Egyptologists came to the similar conclusion. Beginning of the Ninth dynasty
might have been shifted at most 7 years extra, previously giving only 4 months
for the reign of Šepseskare-Izi from the Fifth Dynasty, which gives beginning of
the Eleventh Dynasty very near to Ninety Dynasty from 2150 BC to 2143 BC.
The First Dynasty according to my reconstruction of Annals for astronomical
date gives 3092 BC. After Short Chronology of Krauss (id. Krauss) we have
2925/2900 BC. Every try to shorten the chronology of the First Dynasties
(German authors) is outdated. Radiocarbon method gave very close year to
Hayes and to my reconstruction of the Annals. Our paper in Accadica 126 has
given 1547 BC for the fall of Babylon according to 8 solar and lunar eclipses in
Ur, Assur, Babylon and Mari. These dates are compatible with Rynholt’s
analyses of the Second Intermediate Period (1803-1550 BC). According to the
old synchronism of Neferhotep (1741-1730) of Egyptian king 5th year found in
Byblos and Iantin (Ammu), who lived in the time of Zimrilim (1717-1703 BC
according to my chronology 16 years before 1531 BC, gave an accurate date for
the Middle Kingdom of Egypt . If we choose Low Chronology of Krauss (1939
BC for the Twelfth Dynasty) according to lunar dates it would shorten
Thirteenth Dynasty about 30 years which according to Rynholt brilliant work
(id. Ryholt) is not possible. According to Rynholt and Malek, JEA 68, 105, 58
rulers were ruled over Egypt (1803/1-1648 BC). It is not possible to shorten this
range of years by ca. 30 years as Krauss proposed 1759-1630 BC as a sum of
129 years. Turin Canon gives regnal years from 1803 BC to 1662 BC, from
Sobekhotep I to Sobekhotep VII, and a margin of 14-19 years for other 20 rulers
that are comfortable to us. Therefore, I think that the Middle Chronology is
better and this is my conclusion.

Abbreviations

A Abydos list
H Horus name
K1-K5 Cairo fragments
SB Sothis Book
 37

L Personal name of a king

M Manetho
MA Manetho Africanus
ME Manetho Eusebius
P Palermo Stone
PE Pseudo-Erathostenes
FH Following of Horus
PL Fragment from London
S Sakkara list and on P label for hebsed festival
BF Boat Festival
TK Turin Canon
 38

View publication stats