Talk:Book of Sothis

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egyptological subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient EgyptTemplate:WikiProject Ancient EgyptAncient Egypt articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ancient Egypt to-do list:

Needed articles.

We should have an article on every pyramid and every nome in Ancient Egypt. I'm sure the rest of us can think of other articles we should have.

Cleanup.

To start with, most of the general history articles badly need attention. And I'm told that at least some of the dynasty articles need work. Any other candidates?

Standardize the Chronology.

A boring task, but the benefit of doing it is that you can set the dates !(e.g., why say Khufu lived 2589-2566? As long as you keep the length of his reign correct, or cite a respected source, you can date it 2590-2567 or 2585-2563)

Stub sorting

Anyone? I consider this probably the most unimportant of tasks on Wikipedia, but if you believe it needs to be done . . .

Data sorting.

This is a project I'd like to take on some day, & could be applied to more of Wikipedia than just Ancient Egypt. Take one of the standard authorities of history or culture -- Herotodus, the Elder Pliny, the writings of Breasted or Kenneth Kitchen, & see if you can't smoothly merge quotations or information into relevant articles. Probably a good exercise for someone who owns one of those impressive texts, yet can't get access to a research library.

Unsourced[edit]

Not only is this article un-sourced, it is highly subjective (POV).

All we have of Manetho's writing is fragments quoted from him primarily by four ancient historians: Flavius Josephus, George Syncellus, Sextus Julius Africanus, and Eusebius.

The problem with declaring a document to be a fraud because it used a certain word earlier than the earliest known use of that word is - we have lost more than 90% of the books from antiquity, and we can't possibly be certain that we KNOW the earliest use of a certain word.

The current stub smells of provincialism.

It would be far better to re-write this article so that it says, The Book of Sothis is suspect for the given reasons. But it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand because it contains one anachronistic Greek word.Cadwallader (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point. I was merely trying to reflect what I could find in RSS about the Book of Sothis. I agree that the linguistic argument is fairly weak. The main reason I would consider Sothis not by Manetho, is not that it uses a supposedly suspect Greek title, but because its fanciful list of Pharoahs is completely different from Manetho's. The bonafide Manetho's pharoah-list has been shown to correspond approximately with archaeology, whereas this one is completely jumbled up. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

https://pharaoh.se/

"Also called the Sothic Cycle, attributed to Manetho but most likely a forgery used/composed by Panodorus of Alexandria. The sequence of kings is clearly not presented in chronological order."

...

"The Book of Sothis is a pseudo-Manetho text, written by an author using Manetho’s name as a pseudonym on his own work. The quoted letter To the great King Ptolemy Philadelphus Augustus from Manetho is clearly a forgery and can not have been written by Manetho, as the title "Augustus", originates with the Roman emperors 200 years after Manetho lived. In a best case scenario, the Book of Sothis might be sourced from a severely corrupted version of an epitome of Aegyptiaca, as there are some portions that do follow Manetho, but not in the correct order." 2601:58B:E7F:8410:F4BB:D31F:B4B1:8DDF (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1-6 Early Kings like Menes. Unclear.

7,8,9 Serapis before Sesonkhosis(Sesotris) and Amenemes(Amenhemet); Middle kingdom; this is a followup on Manethos Osarsiph story[Osiris-Apis], looking for Serapis (who should instead be Ahmose Sapair).

10-17 is the cool part; contains the family trees of Ramose[Armiÿses](son of Ahmose Ankh, son of Ahmose Sapair, son of Ahmose) and Hatshepsut(daughter of Queen Ahmose, daughter of Siamun, son of Kamose)

18-25 is a list of the Ramses rulers from Pi-Ramese (Mestraim)

26-86 Clearly follows Manetho, but with minor changes. (Thutmose I/2 reversed, 47-Ramses inserted inappropriately, Kertos inserted, Twosret twice, etc..). 31 Kertos is a followup on Plato's Kleito, which is a corruption of Maatkare; who is merged/conflated with Aahotep I via the Artemidos Speios.

18th dynasty family tree[edit]

The book of Sothis is a chronological mess; It is probably a kinglist from Pi-ramese [Mestraim is Ramses-Mesir, read as a theophoric name]. It seems to list both pharoahs and non-pharoah royals; And it lists Ahmose I twice.

That being said, it does contain a family tree of Ramose and Hatshepsut via parallel branches of Ahmose and Kamose:
[1]https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Manetho/Appendices/4*.html
10. Amasis, 2 years. Ahmose
11. Acesephthrês, 13 years. Ahmose Sapair Ac(Iah) Se-p(hth)-re [Note: pa-re read as ptah-re]
12. Anchoreus, 9 years. Ahmose Ankh (Similar to Anhur, who carries an ankh)
13. Armiÿses, 4 years. Ramose
____________________
14. Chamoïs, 12 years. Kamose
15. Miamûs, 14 years. Siamun
16. Amesêsis, 65 years. Queen Ahmose
17. Usês, 50 years. Hatshepsut (Coptic: asthesis(ⲁⲥⲑⲏⲥⲓⲥ) - understanding, insight, knowledge)
2601:58B:E7F:8410:486F:7B47:9612:D023 (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Background Info[edit]

https://www.late-antique-historiography.ugent.be/database/works/155
Although Syncellus believed this to be one of the works of Manetho (third century B.C.), the Book of Sothis as probably composed shortly before the age of Panodorus (beginning of the fifth century: see Adler 1983: 58; Fowden 1986: 29-31). Indeed, the letter opening the list is clearly a forgery: it contains anachronisms (e.g. Ptolemy is called Σεβαστῷ, 'Augustus'), and presents a Hermetic nature, see Adler (1983: 428, n. 42) and Lang (BNJ 609 F 25). In spite of these elements, some scholars consider the letter to be based on good sources: Laqueur (1928: 1061); Waddell (1940: XI); Verbrugge - Wickersham (1996: 96); contra Lang (BNJ 609 T 11a). Panodorus corrected and integrated the Book of Sothis (Kees 1927: 1235). The listed kings cannot be divided into dynasties because of their unchronological disposition (Waddel 1940: 234-235, n. 1). John Malalas, Chronicle 2.3 mentions a Sotates, which could refer to the book of Sothis. 150.195.199.99 (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]