4th Dynasty

(2575-2465)

Except for two kings, the chronology of the 4th Dynasty is fairly well known. The first problematic king is listed between Khefren and Mykerinos as Bakare in several kinglists. The Turin King-list is damaged at this point, but it does insert a king between Khefren and Mykerinos. It is possible that a hieratic inscription found in or near the unfinished pyramid of Zawiyet el-Aryan is to be read as Baka. If this is the case, then not only do we appear to have evidence of the existence of this ephemeral king, we also have a monument that was constructed by him. It would then also be possible for this Baka(re) to have been a son of Djedefre's. The second problematic king is the last of the dynasty. He is only known through Manetho by the name of Thamphthis. The Turin King-list is again damaged at this point, but it does have sufficient place between Shepseskaf and Userkaf for one king. No inscriptions or monuments from the end of the 4th Dynasty can be linked with this name.

Another problem surrounding the chronology of this dynasty is the discrepancy between the king-lists and Manetho. The king-lists place the kings in the order that can be seen in the list above, whereas Manetho apparently first lists the kings that have been attested by great monuments, resulting in the following order: Soris (Snofru), Suphis (Kheops), Suphis (Khefren), Menkheres (Mykerinos), Ratoises (Djededre), Bikheris (Bakare), Sebercheres (Shepseskaf) and Thamphthis. Archaeological evidence, however, appears to support the order in the king-lists rather than Manetho's version. This discrepancy can not be explained.

The fact that Djedefre was succeeded by Khefren, his brother, and not by his son and the fact that Djedefre built his pyramid at Abu Rawash in stead of Giza, has often been interpreted as evidence of dynastic struggle between Kheops' many descendants. Romantic as it may be, this interpretation is not supported by any hard evidence. The apparently bizare succession order that gave rise to this theory, becomes even more incomprehensive if the king Bakare listed by the king-lists was indeed a son of Djedefre. It would be quite strange for Khefren to have eliminated Djedefre, but leave his heirs alive and with the opportunity to claim the throne. Khefren's marriage to Meresankh III, an adoptive daughter of Djedefre, too does not support the theory of a dynastic fued. But perhaps we simply don't know enough of the complex family structure of the 4th Dynasty or of its succession rules at this time, to be able to understand its chronology.