Seventh Dynasty of Egypt

The existence of a seventh dynasty could be attributable to an error in the epitome(s) employed by Africanus and Eusebius.

Following the decline of the Sixth Dynasty, the entirety of the First Intermediate Period represents a particularly challenging historical epoch. The few historical records are incomplete and scarce, which makes it challenging to draw definitive conclusions.

The original Aegyptiaca was epitomised, as was usual in antiquity. However, it is clear that the original text was either misunderstood, misinterpreted or altered by a copyist. Unfortunately, this copy was then used by later authors as if it were the original.

The text transmitted by Africanus and Eusebius

It is clear that the figures presented are the result of a misunderstanding by a copyist, or a corrupted Epitome. Eusebius copyist exchanged 75 years for 75 days (as preserved in the Armenian translation). Africanus '70 kings for 70 days' also suggests a corrupted Epitome. Often suggested as a metaphor for chaos, but the source would probably simply just have noted this. More likely the original Epitomes were both corrupted, corroborated by the different figures.

An important thing to consider is exactly when the error was made and what caused it. Was it already present in one of the epitomes of Manetho used by Africanus and Eusebius, or was it much later, when they in turn were themselves extracted, copied, and quoted? Manetho wrote in Greek, using the uncial (majuscule) script of his time, essentially in UPPERCASE letters, with no spaces between words (scriptio continua) and might have looked something like this:ΕΒΔΟΜΗΔΥΝΑΣΤΕΙΑΜΕΜΦΙΤΩΝΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΝΟΟΙΕΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣΑΝΗΜΕΡΑΣΟ Diacritical marks (accents and breathings) was invented around the time of Manetho, but only became systematic much later. It was not until the ninth century that minuscule script began to replace uncial as the standard. The same text might then appear as: ἙβδόμηδυναστείαμεμφιτῶνβασιλέωνΟοἳἐβασίλευσανἡμέραςΟ Word separation finally became more common around the same period, though it was not yet universal. By the later Middle Ages the text could look roughly like this: Ἑβδόμη δυναστεία Μεμφιτῶν βασιλέων Οʹ, οἳ ἐβασίλευσαν ἡμέρας Οʹ The printing press of the 15th-century made spaces and punctuation more widespread and easier to read. Errors could of course be made at any stage, but minuscule introduced its own difficulties - a different set of letters, ligatures, abbreviations, and a more cursive script that could increase visual ambiguity. At the same time, the older uncial script was far from straightforward, particularly when it came to unfamiliar Egyptian names. The likelihood of mistakes in Manetho’s own day was therefore not automatically much lower. Each generation of copying carries risks. I'm no expert, but it might be worthwhile to consider where in the long chain of transmission discrepancies are most likely to have occurred.

With that in mind, over copies of copies of copies written in different scripts and languages, it can of course be expected that errors creep in. So, is there a likely candidate where we can find an error? The number 70 was written Ο in the ancient Greek alphabetic system (and later as ο̅ or Οʹ). Five was written as E (or ϵ). It is not hard to imagine a faint or poorly copied middle bar of an Ε being misread as Ο, turning a “5” into a “70.” It could of course simply be poorly copied by a tired scribe or simply corrupted by damage to the papyrus. As seen in the Armenian translation of Eusebius (75 years instead of 75 days), translators tried to make logical sense of mathematically impossible data (since "75 days for 5 kings" is absurd), accidentally introducing a new error ("years" instead of "days") while trying to fix an old one.

The manuscript tradition is riddled with textual corruption, which far outweighs an "intentional symbolic metaphor" by Manetho himself. Most Egyptologists regard the Seventh Dynasty as unhistorical, or as a symbolic representation of a chaotic period. Eusebius already gives a different and slightly less extreme version (five kings for seventy-five days). Determining who was responsible, when it happened and exactly how it occurred is basically impossible.

The Abydos King List contains 17 cartouches between the last king of the Sixth Dynasty, Nemtiemsaf II, and Mentuhotep II of the Eleventh Dynasty, while the Turin King List contains a total of 29 kings. (Columns 5.7-5.13, 5.18-26, 6.1-9 and 6.12-6.15). Mentuhotep II is present in 6.16, while Nemtiemsaf II’s name is missing in 5.6, but inferred from the 90+x years in 5.5, which is attributable to his predecessor Pepi II. The Manethonian king lists account for four dynasties (7-10), yet the total number of kings is not consistent with the data presented in the New Kingdom lists. This discrepancy is a clear indication that the sources for the information must have been significantly disparate. Manetho probably described the political fragmentation that occurred at the end of the Old Kingdom, rather than the literal succession of seventy kings. However, much of the narrative context was lost in the epitome, resulting in an disparate dynastic account.

The Abydos King List is a broadly chronological compilation of kings, but it omits numerous kings. In contrast, the Turin King List, is the sole surviving example of a clearly chronological list of Egyptian kings. While the majority of the list aligns with other chronological evidence, there are some inconsistencies that make it difficult to verify its content, especially the many gaps. However, it is likely to remain the most reliable source of information on this topic. In all likelyhood, the Eighth Dynasty should be considered a direct continuation of the Sixth Dynasty.