1. Georges Radet, "La Premiere Incorporation De L'Egypte," Revue des Etudes Anciennes 11 (1909) 201-210.
2. Herodotus refers to them consistently as kings (basilea); Diodorus of Sicily, who uses Herodotus as his primary reference, refers to them additionally as commanders, generals or even governors.
3. We recall that Kawa inscription VI from year 8 of Taharka refers to the assignment as temple servants of the "wives of the chieftains of Lower Egypt." (Macadam, Temples of Kawa I, p. 36). In a footnote Macadam adds: "The Delta kinglets had been the enemies of Pi'ankhy, and were doubtless potential enemies of his (Taharka's) dynasty also..." (p. 40) This Kawa inscription is the basis of scholarly opinion that Taharka had invaded the Delta and captured and killed many of these "kinglets". If so, then Necao was arguably a victim. But it is more likely in view of the 563 B.C. date that Necao fled Nebuchadrezzar's invasion along with Taharka and was captured and killed by him.
4. Psamtik must have been a young child in 563 B.C. In the revised chronology he died in 489 B.C. If he was born ca. 575 B.C. then he died at the age of 86. There is no problem with this advanced age in the revised history. It accords well with the activities of his son Wahemibre Necao discussed in a later chapter of this revision.
5. F. Ll. Griffith, The Demotic Papyri in the John Rylands Library, Manchester , 1909, p. 60. A translation of the entire papyrus is provided by Griffith on pages 60-112 and quotations from this translation are subsequently noted simply as Petition (page no.).
6. The stela needs to be completely reappraised. Several of the key figures have been misidentified. Pediamennebnesttawy, the third prophet of Amon, is not Pediamennebnesttawy C, father of the third prophet Hor xvii, but instead Pediamennebnesttawy D, Hor's son (cf. the genealogy in R.A. Parker, A Saite Oracle Papyrus From Thebes, 1962, p. 23). Nesptah, chief of the prophets of Thebes and son of Mentuemhet, is arguably Nesptah C rather than Nesptah B, with whom he is usually identified (cf. the genealogy in Kitchen TIP 196). One of these sons with the title 4th prophet (probably Nesptah B) predeceased Mentuemhet according to two abnormal hieratic papyrii (Vienna 12.002 and 12.003). He died some time prior to year 17 of Psamtik. For details cf. Parker, op.cit. signature 33, p.24. We assume Mentuemhet took the title of 4th prophet at this time and passed it to his second son, the Nesptah of the Nitocris stela, at his death. The scholars have also incorrectly identified the god's wives alluded to, but not named, in the stela. Nitocris is being adopted by Amenirdis II, not Shepenupet II. The latter either died at the time of the invasion or while in exile in Nubia. The entire argument deserves a separate treatment. This is provided in appendix A.
7. Jean Leclant is a rare exception to the rule in his Montouemhat, Quatrieme Prophete D'Amon, (1961), p.236, though he cites in support H. von Zeissl, Aethiopen und Assyrer in Aegypten (1944), p.43f, and he notes (n.3) that some doubts had been expressed previously by G. Steindorff, Beitrage zur Assyriologie, I (1890), p. 355 and G. Reisner, The Harvard Theological Review, XIII (1920), p.36.
8. Sufficient here to remark that not a single author, following the traditional history, has dated Mentuemhet's activity in the Saite period which supposedly followed Ashurbanipal's 664/3 B.C. invasion., in spite of the evidence from the Petition of Petesi that repairs to at least one temple were underway at that time. The misdating of the Nitrocris stela is a contributing factor.
9. Leclant, Montouemhat, p. 236.
10. Ibid. cf. von Zeissl, Aethiopen und Assyrer, p.59.
11. Leclant, Montouemhat, p. 237.
12. Leclant, Montouemhat, document 12, p. 84.
13 Leclant, Monouemhat, document 1, p. 6-8.
14. The fact that Mentuemhet "repelled the wretches from the southern nomes" seems to indicate that he arrived early, while Babylonian troops remained in the Theban area. It must be admitted however, that these "wretches" could be any of the carpetbaggers who took advantage of the conditions of the exile to loot and pillage. When Udjahorresne arrived in Egypt in the days of Cambyses he had to evict intruders who had taken up residence in the temple of Neith in Sais.
15. At least under Cyrus there was security within the Persian empire. Under his successors the situation was more precarious as we learn from affairs in post-exilic Judah, where conflict was commonplace for the returnees, making it necessary for Nehemiah to post armed guards while rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem.
16. Cf. R.A. Parker, A Saite Oracle Papyrus From Thebes (1961), p. 6 who bases his remarks on the skin tone of Mentuemhet who is pictured in the vignette on the papyrus. He also cites comments by Serge Sauneron and Jean Yoyotte, "La campagne Nubienne de Psammetique II et sa signification historique," BIFAO 50 (1952), p. 201 n.5. This papyrus, dated in year 14 of Psamtik I, describes the installation Harsiese, son of Peftjau, as priest of Amon. In the revised history we interpret the installation as part of the work of Mentuemhet in renewing the Theban priesthood..
17. Edna R. Russmann, "Relief Decoration in the Tomb of Mentuemhat (TT34)," JARCE 31 (1994) p.1.
18. Ibid., p. 19
19. Ibid., p. 17-18.
20. Edna R. Russmann, "Mentuemhat's Kushite Wife (Further Remarks on the Decorationof the Tomb of Mentuemhat, 2)," JARCE 34 (1997), 21-22.
21. G. Lefebvre, "Le Tombeau de Petosiris: Preliminary Report," ASAE 20 (1920) p. 114. "Il ne renferme ni cartouche, ni nom de souverain, ni, d'une facon generale, d'element qui nous permette de proposer a priori meme une date approximative. Il faut donc proceder par deduction, et interroger les divers documents, epigraphiques et archeologiques, susceptible de nous fournir quelque indication."
22. Ibid., p. 116.
23. "Mais encore de quelle domination persane s'agit-il? De la premiere, qui dura cent bingt ans, couvrant tout the ve siecle, et se termina vers 404 par la verolte d'Amyrtee, - ou de la seconde, qui commenca en 342, a la chute de Nectanebo II, et prit fin en 332 apres les victoires d'Alexandre? Asssurement de la seconde, qui est la plus proche de l'epoque ptolemaique, au dela de laquelle is parait impossible de faire remonter la decoration du tombeau de Petosiris." Op.cit., p. 120.
24. A.T. Olmstead, A History of the Persian Empire (1948), p.441
25. Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature vol. III, p 45-48. All quotations of inscription 81 are taken from Lichtheim's translation, except where noted.
26. Bernadette Menu, "Le tombeau de Petosiris: Nouvel examen," BIFAO 94 (1994) p. 323.
27. Ibid., p.321-2. For the complete text of inscription
59 and related inscriptions 61, 62, 81 and others from the south wall,
cf. Lefebvre, Le Tombeau de Petosiris, Premiere Partie, p.79ff.