Chapter 10: Amasis & the Greeks

Amasis & Apries

In the revised history Amasis' ruled Egypt from 449-405 B.C.. His reign must have followed on the heels of the Inaros' rebellion. It may even be a consequence of that conflict. In turn Amasis' death, which brought an end to the combined 26th/27th Saite/Persian dynasty, precedes immediately the 28th dynasty of Amyrtaeus, whom Diodorus Siculus refers to as "Psammetichus, king of the Egyptians, son of the famous Psammetichus." Clearly the beginning and end of the reign of Ahmose-sa-Neith are critical for our revision. If we are going to establish Amasis in his rightful historical context our attention must be directed to the years 449 B.C. and 405 B.C..

Two sources combine to describe the transition period between the reigns of Apries and Amasis in the traditional history. Most familiar but least reliable - since they antedate by one to four centuries the events they describe - are the histories of Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus, each of whom discusses in great detail the civil war which resulted in the dethronement and eventual death of Apries. Less well known, but much more important - since it is contemporary with the events it documents - is the hieroglyphic inscription of the so-called Elephantine stela, which describes two separate battles connected with the Apries-Amasis transition. Volumes have been written on the subject of the Amasis' succession based on these two disparate sources. Interpretive problems immediately surface.

If our revision is correct a third source must also contribute to the debate. The Inaros rebellion ended around the year 449 B.C. Thucydides describes the critical final years. Ktesias adds his own version of the same events. If we are on track then Thucydides and Ktesias should complement Herodotus and the Elephantine stela. As we shall soon see, the agreement is impressive.

The Inaros Rebellion according to Thucydides & Ktesias

Precisely when the Egyptian rebellion began is uncertain. Its conclusion is more precisely dated. Our knowledge is limited to the brief comments preserved in the narratives of Thucydides, Ktesias, and other Greek and Roman historians, remarks which are narrowly focussed on the part played by the Athenian naval forces in the conflict. If Thucydides is correct, Athens entered the war early in 459 B.C. and exited the conflict in 449 B.C. When last we examined the course of the war Megabyzus had arrived in Egypt to relieve the siege of Memphis, most likely late in the year 456 B.C. Inaros and the Greeks were driven back to the western Delta area of "Prosopitis", an "island", or land mass, enclosed by several Nile tributaries or channels. At that location and for several years the Persians laid seige to the combined forces of Inaros and the Athenians. In 454 B.C. the seige was successful. Inaros was captured and executed, the Athenian navy destroyed. Only a few Greeks escaped, seeking asylum in Cyrene.

Arriving by land he (Megabyzus) defeated the Egyptians and their allies in a battle, and drove the Hellenes out of Memphis, and at length shut them up in the island of Prosopitis, where he besieged them for a year and six months. At last, draining the canal of its waters, which he diverted into another channel, he left their ships high and dry and joined most of the island to the mainland, and then marched over on foot and captured it. Thus the enterprise of the Hellenes came to ruin after six years of war. Of all that large host a few travelling through Libya reached Cyrene in safety, but most of them perished. And thus Egypt returned to its subjection to the king, except Amyrtaeus, the king in the marshes, who they were unable to capture from the extent of the marsh; the marshmen being also the most warlike of the Egyptians. Inaros, the Libyan king, the sole author of the Egyptian revolt, was betrayed, taken, and crucified. (Thuc. 1.109-110)

An Athenian fleet sent to relieve the siege of Prosopitis arrived too late and was itself destroyed.

Meanwhile a relieving squadron of fifty vessels had sailed from Athens and the rest of the confederacy for Egypt. They put in to shore at the Mendesian mouth of the Nile, in total ignorance of what had occurred. Attacked on the land side by the troops, and from the sea by the Phoenician navy, most of the ships were destroyed; the few remaining being saved by retreat. Such was the end of the great expedition of the Athenians and their allies to Egypt. (Thuc. 1.110)

For several years Athens exited the Egyptian war, now led by Amyrtaeus. Athens was preoccupied with struggles closer to home, precursors of the Peloponnesian war which would erupt several decades later. After a few years of conflict a local peace was engaged, freeing the Athenians to meddle again in Mediterranean politics. Around 450 B.C. Athens renewed its challenge to Persia on two fronts - Cyprus and Egypt.

Released from Hellenic war, the Athenians made an expedition to Cyprus with two hundred vessels of their own and their allies, under the command of Cimon. Sixty of these were detached to Egypt at the instance of Amyrtaeus, the king in the marshes; the rest laid siege to Kitium, from which, however, they were compelled to retire by the death of Cimon and by scarcity of provisions. Sailing off Salamis in Cyprus, they fought with the Phoenicians, Cyprians, and Cilicians by land and sea, and being victorious on both elements departed home, and with them the returned squadron from Egypt. (Thuc. 1.112)

We are not told by Thucydides what transpired in Egypt in 450/49 B.C., only that Athenian assistance was requested by Amyrtaeus and that the fleet dispatched to Egypt returned to join the main Mediterranean fleet following that fleet's victories in Cyprus and Cilicia. The retreat from Egypt must be dated to 449 B.C..

Within a year of the return of the Athenian fleet a peace was negotiated between the Persians and the Greeks.

The treaty of peace, concluded probably early in 448, has been named after Callias... The treaty was concluded between Persia on the one hand and Athens and her Allies on the other. The terms are known to us only in a paraphrase of the main articles. 'All the Greek cities in Asia shall be autonomous. The Persian satraps shall not come within three day's journey of the coast, and no Persian warship shall sail the seas between Phaselis and Cyaniae. Athens shall not invade the territory of the great King.' By this treaty the Greeks in Asia were protected from Persia and the war with Persia was concluded ... Persian rule over Cyprus and Egypt was recognized and ensured against Athenian intervention; the sea power of Athens was recognized and her empire ... ensured against Persian intervention; and the seas were open to merchant vessels of both nations, which were now at peace. The treaty marked the end of the Greek war against Persia ... [1]

What was the nature of the expedition undertaken in 450/49 B.C. by the sixty vessels sent to assist Amyrtaeus? And who is Amyrtaeus, earlier an ally of Inaros, now his successor in the struggle to liberate Egypt?

Before answering these questions we need to revisit the earlier stages of the rebellion. Thus far we have depended on Thucydides. But Ktesias shows even more familiarity with the rebellion, and his version of events differs in some respects from that of Thucydides. For future reference we quote the relevant sections of the Persika:

(32) Egypt revolted. Inaros, a Libyan, and another Egyptian had stirred up this revolt (and) preparations were made for war. The Athenians themselves, at the request of Inaros, sent 40 vessels. Artaxerxes, inclined to participate in person in the war, was dissuaded by his friends, sending (instead) Achaemenes, his brother, at the head of an army of 400,000 infantry and 80 vessels. Inaros engaged the battle against Achaemenes and victory rested with the Egyptians. Achaemenes, wounded by Inaros, died and his remains were sent (in mockery) to Artaxerxes. Inaros (continued) to engage himself in (the) naval battle in which Chartimides - who commanded the forty vessels sent from Athens - distinguished himself. Fifty Persian ships were lost. Twenty were captured, along with their provisions, and thirty were sunk. (33) Afterward Megabyzus was sent against Inaros at the head of another army which added to what remained of the previous (force) 200,000 soldiers and 300 vessels, commanded by Oriscus. Thus, without including the fleet, the actual troop numbers amounted to 500,000 men. Indeed, when Achaemenes had fallen (earlier) there fell with him 100,000 men of the 400,000 which he commanded. Then a violent battle was engaged with considerable losses on both sides, but especially on the part of the Egyptians. Megabyzus wounded Inaros in the thigh and put him to flight (while) the Persians prevailed victoriously. Inaros escaped to Byblos, which is a well-fortified (lit. strong) Egyptian town, along with those Greeks who were not killed in the battle alongside Charitimides. (34) All Egypt, excepting Byblos, submitted to Megabyzus, and since the place (i.e. Byblos) seemed impregnable, Megabyzus came to terms with Inaros and the Greeks, who numbered more than 6,000: no harm would come to them at the hands of the king and the Greeks could return to their homeland whenever they wished. (35) He (Megabyzus) set up (S)arsamas as satrap of Egypt, and taking with him Inaros and the Greeks, he led (them) to Artaxerxes, whom he found in a great rage (directed) against Inaros because he had killed his brother Achaemenes. Megabyzus explained what had happened, stating that he had taken Byblos thanks to the guarantees given to Inaros and the Greeks. He entreated the king to protect them (lit. to leave them safe) and he obtained it (i.e the king's agreement). Finally it was announced to the army that Inaros and the Greeks would suffer no harm. Persika 32-35 (italics mine)[2]

Ktesias goes on to describe the machinations of the queen mother Arestis, the mother of Achaemenes, as she attempted to secure a more fitting punishment for those who had slain her son. Five years later she had her way. Inaros was crucified and 80 Greek officers were beheaded. The fate of the balance of the 6,000 Greeks can only be conjectured.

The two versions are in essential agreement as to the course of the rebellion. First there was a land and sea battle won by Inaros with Athenian help. Then followed a seige at Memphis (omitted by Ktesias) and "afterwards" a responsive land and sea invasion by Megabyzus, lost by the Greek/Egyptian coalition. Thucydides supplies the time frame; Ktesias the statistics which indicate the scale of the conflict.

At this point the two versions appear to differ. According to Thucydides, Inaros and the Greeks fled to an "island" location, a land mass separated from the mainland by a canal. According to Ktesias they fled to a well fortified town called Byblos. Some time passed - there is no reason to doubt the 1 1/2 years suggested by Thucydides - until the capture, or surrender, of Inaros and his Greek allies. In one version (Thucydides) Inaros is taken captive and subsequently killed; in the other (Ktesias) he willfully surrenders and only years later is martyred.

Are these versions really different?

It can be argued that the two Greek historians are accurately describing the same event. If the fortified city (Byblos) lies on an "island" (Prosopitis) there is no fundamental disagreement. It defies reason how an island location, otherwise unfortified, could be defended against a vastly superior naval and land force for more than a few days, if all that the attacking army needed to do was cross a canal. Ktesias must preserve the greater part of the truth. Inaros and his Greek allies must have found sanctuary in an established sea port. The island must have been home to a fortified town, known to Ktesias as Byblos. But if so, then where is Byblos, the sanctuary of Inaros and the Greeks?

The name Byblos is not Egyptian. It is, of course, the identical name given the Phoenician port city on the Mediterranean coast which served as a base for the Persian fleet. Perhaps the Egyptian site name was unknown to Ktesias who therefore refers to it as the (Egyptian) Byblos, an appropriate epithet since the Egyptian locale also served as a base for a foreign fleet. But the question remains, what is the Egyptian name of the island sanctuary to which the Athenians fled, accompanied by Inaros and his Egyptian troops. The answer is reasonably certain. Where else should the Athenian naval force seek sanctuary in the wake of heavy losses in the vicinity of Memphis, than its naval base of operations within Egypt during the preceding years of the rebellion. And that port city was arguably Naucratis, a town founded specifically by Inaros to service his Greek allies (see below for the argument). Located on the east bank of the Canopic branch of the Nile, north of the Rosetta tributary, it lies on an "island" bordered on the west and east by the Canopic and Rosetta branches and on the north by the Mediterranean. And it lay in the extreme north-west of the Delta, bordering Libya, whence escaped a number of the Greek defenders before the truce was negotiated.

Even the two versions of Inaros' fate can be reconciled. Thucydides was correct. Inaros was taken captive after a prolonged seige of the "island" base, and he was subsequently crucified. Ktesias provides more detail. Inaros was taken captive after a negotiated plea bargain, and his execution followed his capture by five years.

There remains for us only to identify Amyrtaeus, who survived the 454 B.C. siege of Naucratis and continued the rebellion for another five years. If our revision of Egyptian history is correct there can be little doubt that the name Amyrtaeus is an epithet for Apries. We cite the following reasons for this identification:

1) Ktesias specifically states that the rebellion was stirred up by "Inaros, a Libyan, and another Egyptian", whose name is not provided. It is known from Thucydides and others that Amyrtaeus fought with Inaros prior to his capture and alone for the remaining years of the rebellion. Scholars are in agreement that Amyrtaeus was the "other Egyptian" referred to by Ktesias. But we have previously argued that Apries was the acknowledged king of Egypt throughout the rebellion, and that his battles on land and sea against Tyre and Sidon must have been fought as an ally of Inaros. There is therefore a strong presumption that Apries was a co-leader of the rebellion. It follows that Apries = Amyrtaeus.

2) Apries and Amyrtaeus both ended their careers in 449 B.C.. As we will soon see, both were engaged that year in physical warfare against the Egyptian establishment in an attempt to regain power they had previously lost. Both battles were fought in the extreme north western delta and in both cases Apries and Amyrtaeus invited the assistance of the Greeks, who responded by sending a naval force. This coincidence of dates and circumstances is simply too remarkable to overlook. In and of itself it argues strongly, not only for the identification of Apries and Amyrtaeus, but also for the reliability of the revised history. The details are discussed below in our treatment of the Elephantine stela inscription.

3) The epithet Amyrtaeus (probably from mery-tauw = "beloved of the two lands") was commonly adopted by Egyptian kings. There is nothing which associates the name uniquely with Apries; but then there is nothing which precludes its use either. And there is at least some evidence that the name was commonly used by the descendants of Psamtik II. According to Herodotus, after the death of Amyrtaeus and Inaros, the Persians gave back "sovereign power to Thannyras son of Inaros, and also to Pausiris son of Amyrtaeus" this in spite of the fact that "none ever did the Persians more harm than Inaros and Amyrtaeus" (Her. 3.15.4) Scholars argue that the second Amyrtaeus, the successor of Darius II and sole occupant of Manetho's 28th dynasty (404-399 B.C.), must be the son of this Pausiris and therefore grandson of the Amyrtaeus who assisted Inaros in the Egyptian rebellion. And since the 28th dynasty Amyrtaeus is described by Diodorus as "Psammetichus, king of the Egyptians, son of the famous Psammetichus", he must trace his ancestry back to Psamtik II. For the traditional history to be true this connection with Psamtik II must look back in time almost two hundred years, an unlikely circumstance! But in the revised history the 28th dynasty Amyrtaeus must be the son of Pausiris, son of Amyrtaeus (=Apries), son of Psamtik II. Only seventy years, or four generations, separate the second Amyrtaeus from his great-grandfather Psamtik II. If two immediate descendants of Psamtik II bear the name Amyrtaeus we should not be surprised that Apries was one of them.

The Final Years of Apries According to Herodotus

If we are correct in our identifications, then power was wrested from Apries, alias Amyrtaeus, in 454 B.C.. In the eyes of the priesthood and the majority of Egyptians he remained the legitimate king, but in reality he was a fugitive, excluded from power, and confined to the extreme north-western delta following the battle of Prosopitis/Naucratis. It may even be that he left Egypt entirely and sought sanctuary in Libya or Cyrene awaiting further assistance from the Greeks to regain his capital. That assistance, as we have seen, was forthcoming only late in 450 B.C. or early in 449 B.C.. That year, according to the Elephantine stela, accompanied by a Greek expeditionary force, Apries attempted to regain a foothold in the western Delta, where a Persian appointee named Amasis now held power.

Prior to the discovery of the Elephantine stela (now commonly called the Amasis stela) the story of the "civil war" between Apries and Amasis was preserved only by Herodotus. Herodotus' version of events has been discounted by most scholars - since it conflicts in its broad details with the data of the Amasis stela - but it does preserve some interesting detail and needs to be examined.

According to Herodotus, near the end of his reign "Apries sent an army against Cyrene and there he met with a very great defeat." The failed expedition proved fatal. Its failure resulted in a loss of popular support. "For this the Egyptians held him (ie. Apries) to blame, suspecting that he had knowingly sent his men to certain destruction, so that after their slaughter he might rule more securely over the rest of his people. Thus inflamed, those who came home, supported by the friends of those who had perished in Cyrene, openly revolted from him." (Her. II.162). When Apries sent an official named Amasis to placate the angry returnees, those same troops crowned him as king.

When he heard of the revolt, Apries sent Amasis to win over the malcontents. When he met them and was endeavoring to persuade them, an Egyptian standing behind him put a helmet on his head, saying that he did so to make him king. This was not displeasing to 'Amasis, as the event showed, for being crowned by the rebels, he made ready to attack Apries. When the king heard of it, he sent Patarbemis, a man of repute and one of his advisers, to bring Amasis alive into his presence. (Her. II.162)

Needless to say the diplomatic initiative failed and served instead to intensify the popular sentiment against him. When Patarbemis[3] returned to Sais, having failed in his mission, he was unjustly treated by Apries, further angering the Egyptian malcontents. Apries prepared for war against his former subjects.

In this fresh misfortune, Apries armed his bodyguard for war and led them against the Egyptians. With him were thirty thousand Carians and Ionians; and his royal palace was in Sais, a great and magnificent building. So the forces of Apries marched against the Egyptian, and those of Amasis against the foreigners, until they met at Momemphis and prepared for a trial of strength. Her. II.163.

The ensuing battle was fought in neutral territory.

When Apries with his guard and Amasis with all the Egyptians came to the city of Momemphis, they fought; and though the foreigners behaved well, they were fewer by far in number, and for that reason were defeated. It is said that Apries believed that he could not be dispossessed of his kingdom even by a god, so firmly did he think himself established. And yet in this battle he was overthrown and afterwards taken captive to Sais, to the palace that once was his but now belonged to Amasis. There he was kept for a time and was treated well; but then the Egyptians found fault with the new king for keeping alive their worst enemy and his. So Amasis delivered him up to the people, and they strangled him and entombed him in the sepulcher of his forefathers. (Her. II.169)

So much for Herodotus, whose version of events is contradicted in several important details by the Elephantine (Amasis) stela discussed below. When the Amasis stela describes the same battle it is Amasis, not Apries, who is ensconced in Sais. Apries is the aggressor, leading an assault from without. Herodotus is apparently confused about who was challenging who for power. But he does preserve many essential features of the Amasis' succession, confirmed by the Amasis stela, and necessarily true if we have correctly positioned this battle in the early months of 449 B.C.. There was a battle between Apries/Amyrtaeus and the Egyptian establishment. Apries was assisted by a large contingent of Greek infantry. And the assault did take place in the northwestern Delta. These are precisely the actions of Amyrtaeus against the Persians in the early months of 449 B.C. in the tradition preserved by Thucydides.

Thucydides does not describe the activities of the 60 Greek vessels sent to assist Amyrtaeus in 450/49 B.C.. Nor does he mention the fate of Amyrtaeus. According to him the Athenians fleet exited Egypt soon after arriving and apparently without extensive losses. These facts are not in conflict with Herodotus who preserves only a summary account of the battle, and avoids any statistics regarding loss of life and property.. According to his History "though the foreigners behaved well, they were fewer by far in number, and for that reason were defeated." It is certainly possible that the Greeks aborted the battle soon after it began, when confronted by a much larger Egyptian force. The few thousands of troops carried by sixty ships, augmented by whatever army remained to Amyrtaeus, was hardly a match for the Egyptian/Persian alliance.

Herodotus has apparently confused the roles of the participants in the battle. Otherwise his story can be reconciled with the Thucydides version of the Amyrtaeus/Greek alliance of 449 B.C.. The pseudo-Herodotus is apparently privy to a tradition that the two kings Amasis and Apries contested for power, Apries supported by Greek soldiers and Amasis by native Egyptians. Since Apries was the recognized king it was natural for Herodotus to assume that he, not Amasis, resided in the capital city, and that Amasis was the challenger, invading from without the capital. His error is fortunately set right by details on the Elephantine stela to which we briefly direct our attention.

The Final Years of Apries According to the Elephantine Stela

Breasted refers to this stela as "perhaps the most important document of the Saitic period." Originally found as part of a doorway of a house in Cairo, and now located in the Cairo Museum, it is "unfortunately, so badly preserved that a consecutive translation is totally impossible".[4] In spite of the stated "impossibility", a complete translation was provided by Daressy[5], its first editor, and Breasted himself provides a fairly comprehensive treatment. Other noteworthy translations of selected portions of the text occurred throughout the last century, the most recent by Anthony Leahy[6], following Edel[7]. According to Leahy:

The Elephantine stela is the one extant Egyptian source to describe any facet of the civil war explicitly... It is self-evidently a partial, retrospective account from the victor's standpoint, which makes no reference to the manner in which he [Amasis] became king, but begins its narrative with Amasis already installed at Sais.... there is no justification for supposing that the dates given are not those of the events described.[8].

The text is composed in eighteen columns. Columns 1-13 and columns 14-18 bear different dates and clearly describe different battles, not separate phases of the same conflict. The dates are in fact the most controversial and contested aspect of the entire inscription. According to Daressy and Breasted the two inscriptions, and therefore the two incidents they describe, took place in Amasis' third year, the first in the tenth month and the second in the third month of that same year. In their opinion the two inscriptions describe different phases of the same battle. By the end of the 20th century opinion has radically changed. According to Edel and Leahy the first columns describe a conflict in Amasis' 1st year while the second inscription describes a distinct military encounter, unrelated to the earlier battle, and dated to Amasis' 4th year. We follow, for the most part, this recent interpretation. According to Leahy:

The extreme difficulties in recovering a full text from the very worn stone are reflected by the fact that Daressy's pioneering effort remains the only published copy of the whole inscription. Misreading of the dates on the stela has undermined most previous discussions, but Edel has now established the sense of a substantial part of the text and, most importantly, shown that the correct readings of the two dates on the stela are 'year 1" and 'year 4' respectively (collated). It is unusual in recording two events which, although related, took place nearly two and a half years apart. The essence of the two sections is as follows:

Year one, II šmw: Amasis, in his palace at Sais, was informed that Apries, accompanied by boats filled with Greeks (h'w-nbw) had reached Sht-mfkt (Kom Abu Billu?). Amasis set forth and routed the opposition at 'Im'w (Kom el-Hisn). Nothing is said of the fate of Apries, but measures were taken against his earlier base . Year four, III 'ht 8: an Asiatic (sttiw) invasion of Egypt by land and sea was defeated at an unspecified place, probably near the eastern frontier. Apries, who apparently accompanied the foreign force, did not survive and was honourably buried.[9]

Amasis 1st Year

Our primary interest is in the first of the two inscriptions. For reference we quote Breasted's partial translation, with commentary, correcting only the year date:

Year 1 [Petrie has year 3], second month of the third season (tenth month), under the majesty of King Amasis, beloved of Khnum, lord of the Cataract, and Hathor, residing in Zeme (D'-mw.t), given all life, stability, satisfaction, like Re, forever ....

There follows the statement that his majesty was in the palace-hall, deliberating the affairs of the land, when

one came to say to his majesty: "Apries (H''-yb-R'), he has sailed southward --- ships of [---] while Greeks without number are coursing through the Northland [-----] They are wasting all Egypt; they have reached Malachite-Field, and those who are of thy party flee because of them." Then his majesty caused the royal companions and [ --- ] to be called, and informed them of what had happened. He addressed them with reassuring exhortations (ll.5-7), and they replied with praise of Amasis, declaring that Apries had acted like a dog at a carcass (ll.7-10) Said his majesty: "Ye shall fight tomorrow! Every man (hr-nb) to the front!" His majesty mustered his infantry and his cavalry - - -. His majesty mounted upon his chariot; he took arrows and bow in his hand, he arrived ([spr-nf]) at [-], he reached Andropolis, the army jubilating and rejoicing on the road. The introduction to the battle is totally unintelligible. There follows (l. 12): His majesty fought like a lion, he made a slaughter among them, whose number was unknown. Numerous ships [took] ('w') them, falling into the water, whom they saw sink as do the fish. Amasis triumphed. BAR IV 1002-1005

The essential agreement between the Elephantine inscription and the narrative of Thucydides is remarkable. We highlight only a few features not clear from Breasted's translation:

1) The first inscription is dated to the tenth month of Amasis first year. We assume that the date records when the inscription was made, not when the battle occurred. The battle must therefore have taken place several months earlier, i.e. early in 449 B.C. If so then the Elephantine inscription records a correct version of the same battle of which Herodotus preserves a distorted version. According to Leahy "There can be no doubt that it is [the same as] those crucial, initial stages which Herodotus and Diodorus record, although the Greek accounts of the usurpation are not easily reconciled with that of the stela."[10]

2) The battle took place in the extreme north-western Delta, in the vicinity of Naucratis, precisely where we would expect if Apries/Amyrtaeus was confined to the marshes further to the north along the Canopic branch of the Nile. The early section of the inscription, much of which Breasted leaves untranslated, is described more fully in Darresy's edition. It states explicitly that the Greeks who are assisting Apries are based in the vicinity of Naucratis:

Apries has (left). He (leads) the vessels which (have departed). Greeks without number traverse the northland. It is as if they have no master to govern them. He [Apries] has summoned them and they have accepted. The king had assigned them a residence in the Pehu An: They infest all of Egypt. They have reached Sekhet-Mafek, everything that is in your territory (lit. in your waters) runs away from them.(italics mine)[11]

Daressy equates the Pehu An with Naucratis.[12]

3) If Daressy's translation is reliable then the Greeks who assisted Apries are there by special invitation. The stela considers the fact worth mentioning. The same emphasis is placed by Thucydides on the fact that the flotilla which arrived in Egypt to assist Amyrtaeus was responding to a invitation by the deposed Egyptian king.

4) The same passage which Breasted translated "Apries (H''-yb-R'), he has sailed southward --- ships of [---] while Greeks without number." and Daressy translates "Apries has (left). He (leads) the vessels which (have departed). Greeks without number ..." is now translated by Edel as "Apries - the island (sent out?) for him vessels completely filled with H'w-nbw (= Greek soldiers), without number."[13] Edel also sees reference to an "island" in the final line of the first inscription, in a statement which he translates: "Then his majesty encircled the island on all sides."[14] Edel attempted to identify this "island" with Cyprus, arguing that the Greek troops which Apries has called to assist him were based in that location and that Amasis in the later stages of the battle actually ventured to attack Cyprus. But the battle is clearly local. Leahy points out that the first reference to island (iw) has a possessive suffix (iw.f = his island) which Edel ignores. If the translation is correct then Apries is in possession of the island which serves as a base of operations for his Greek allies. In Leahy's opinion all that can be determined from the inscription is that Amasis, after defeating Apries (and the Greeks who assisted him), "took some sort of action against this island base."[15]

We recall our earlier argument that Naucratis was a fortified camp on the island of Prosopitis, lost to Inaros in 454 B.C.. It is probable that this is the "island" base from which Apries launched his assault against Amasis. We assume that in the early stages of this final phase of the Egyptian rebellion Amyrtaeus, assisted by the Greek vessels dispatched by Cimon, had succeeded in reclaiming the "island" and the city Naucratis. Then followed the abbreviated battle with Amasis and a retreat to the sanctuary of Naucratis, against which Amasis "took some sort of action.". If Thucydides is describing the same incident, we must assume that the Greek ships fled Naucratis, exited the Egyptian Delta and rejoined the main Greek fleet near Cyprus.

Amasis' 4th Year

It is the opinion of Leahy, following Edel, that after the battle of year 1, "Apries escaped and must have gone abroad", based on the fact that "only Amasis is attested in Egypt between then and year 4."[16] According to him the second section of the Elephantine stela describes an entirely different conflict. Where the first thirteen columns describe a civil war involving Greek troops, columns 14-18 describe an Asiatic invasion. "The stela distinguishes clearly between the opponents of Amasis. In year 1, they were h'w-nbw [Greeks] in kbnt boats, in year 4 they were sttiw [Asiatics] in 'h'w boats."

The observation that the final columns of the Amasis stela describe a foreign invasion actually originates with the Egyptologist Spalinger, who provides the most detailed argument:

But it is the entire narrative of this second section on the historical stela (cols. 14-18) which is most important. The enemy of Amasis is depicted in a different light than Apries. For one, the ships employed by Amasis' opponents are different: being simple 'h'w vessels instead of the kbnt boats which Apries' Greek mercenaries employed. Secondly, the enemy is not specified by name, as Apries is in the opening sections. In this latter passage, the text states that "...thousands are there, invading (thm) the land. They cover every road. Those who are in 'h'w vessels, they have taken up (?) ... in their hearts" (col. 14) The following description is very difficult to read, owing to the faulty text publication. However, after an oath before the battle, the Pharaoh urged his troops forward (col. 16: "then his majesty summoned his troops, shouting upwards ..."). It appears that a storm took place ... during which the enemy ships were defeated (col. 17: "their ships were overturned"). The use of the third person plural in this section (.sn: "they" or "their") by the scribe of the stela when depicting Amasis' enemy is quite different from the opening narrative; it definitely indicates that Apries is not the foe of Amasis. For in fact, the use of the verb thm, "to invade," "to overstep," and "to penetrate," would imply that an enemy whose origin lay outside Egypt invaded Amasis' territory. It may even be possible to read "the ruler of Asia" (hk' st[t]) in column seventeen of the stela; however, this is very speculative. (In any case, the title hk', if it is correctly read, cannot refer to Apries as the latter is in this stela either specifically named or given the epithet mh-ib.) Thus it is rather clear that the final columns of the historical stela refer to a war between Amasis and an unnamed foreign foe.[17]

It was the opinion of Spalinger, followed later by Edel, then by Leahy, that the unnamed foreign foe was Nebuchadrezzar, an opinion based entirely on the traditional history which synchronized the early years of Amasis and the Babylonian invasion predicted by the biblical prophets. It was also the opinion of these scholars that Apries had fled Egypt following the first battle, only to return in league with the Babylonians to wage war on Amasis. But there is no need and no warrant to conjecture an invasion from outside Egypt. Nor is there any reason to assume that Apries continued to be the opponent of Amasis. In the revised history the Persians are the rulers of Egypt. Amasis was a Persian appointee. His earlier fight against Apries and the Greeks must have been sanctioned by, if not ordered by, the Persian authority in Memphis. This second conflict must be between Amasis and the Persians, not between Amasis and the Babylonians. And Apries is not the opponent of Amasis. He is now an ally. Perhaps Amasis' conflict with the ruling Persians was precipitated by the favorable treatment he afforded the captive Apries, or by his refusal to turn Apries over to the Persians. In support of this conjecture we make the following observations:

1) Herodotus preserves the tradition that Apries was taken captive by Amasis and kept under house arrest for some time in Sais, apparently enjoying good favor with Amasis. There are several conflicting traditions concerning Apries' subsequent violent death, but unanimity in representing Amasis as a friend of his defeated political rival.

2) Amasis' treatment of Apries in the second battle described on the Elephantine stela is likewise entirely positive. He appears to be fighting with, not against, his former antagonist. We quote Breasted's partial translation in support of this claim:

Year 4 [ Breasted reads year 3] third month of the first season (third month), day 8, [came] one to say to his majesty: " The enemy infest the ways, there are thousands there, invading the land; they cover every road. As for those who are in the ships, [they bear hatred of thee in their hearts] without ceasing." Amasis then gave his troops instructions to scour "every road, not letting a day pass," without pressing the enemy (ll. 15,16); whereupon the army greatly rejoiced, and proceeded to their task (l. 16). The enemy's ships were taken (l. 17) and Apries was probably surprised and slain while taking his ease on one of the vessels. "He (Amasis) saw his favorite fallen in his --- which he had made before the water." Amasis had him buried as befitted a king, forgot the "abomination of the gods," which he had committed, and "he (Amasis) founded divine offerings in great multitude," for the mortuary observances of the fallen Apries. BAR 1006-7 (italics mine)

3) The reference to "the ruler of Asia" (hk' St(t)) in line seventeen of the Amasis stela (mentioned by Spalinger but in a section not quoted by Breasted) is arguably a reference to a Persian king, not a Babylonian monarch. This was the interpretation given the phrase "prince of Asia" in Samtoutefnakht's Naples' stela and at least one Egyptologist has argued for that meaning in the Elephantine inscription.[18]

4) It is generally assumed that Amasis won the battle, but there is no certainty of that fact. These five columns of text, affixed as a postscript to the description of an earlier conflict, hardly qualify as a suitable context in which to boast of victory over a powerful foreign army, whether Babylonian or Persian. The fact that Apries died in the conflict is at least suggestive of the fact that Amasis' brief attempt at rebellion, or resistance, ended in failure. It is not surprising that Amasis was left in office by the Persians. If Herodotus is to be believed, and if we are correct in our identification of Apries and Amyrtaeus, even Pausiris, a son of Apries/Amyrtaeus, was given a position of authority following Apries' death. The Persians were noted for their willingness to forgive defeated rebels, providing the loser was sufficiently humbled.

Postscript

According to Herodotus, corrected and informed by the Elephantine stela, Apries, son of Psamtik II, early in the year 570 B.C., fought a losing battle with Amasis in an attempt to regain his throne. He requested and received the help of Greek mercenaries, who manned sea-faring kbnt boats. The rebels controlled an island naval base in the extreme north-western Delta. From that base of operations the allies proceeded upriver toward Memphis. The ensuing battle was concluded quickly, with minimal losses, and the Greek army faded from the scene. Three years later Amasis and Apries appear to be united in conflict with a ruler of Asia, identified elsewhere as the king the Persia.

According to Thucydides, informed by Ktesias and others, Amyrtaeus, son (or descendant) of Psamtik II, early in the year 449 B.C., engaged an apparently losing battle with the Persian rulers of the Egyptian Delta in an attempt to regain territory lost earlier in the Egyptian rebellion. He requested and received the help of Greek mercenaries who manned sea-faring vessels. The rebels controlled an island naval base in the extreme north-western Delta. We can assume that from that base of operations the allies advanced up the Canopic branch of the Nile toward Memphis. Details of the encounter are not preserved, but within months of their arrival the Greek naval forces retreated from Egypt and rejoined the Athenian fleet in the Mediterranean. Within a year a peace was concluded between Athens and Persia, leaving the Egyptian rebels, whatever their fate in 449 B.C., to fend for themselves. If Amyrtaeus lived to continue his struggle to liberate Egypt he would necessarily have to rely solely on assistance from his fellow Egyptians.

It is curious, to say the least, that two apparently harmonious sets of circumstances prevailed in Egypt, involving the same family, but separated in time by precisely 121 years. But by now we are used to this curiosity.

Naucratis

The lengthy 44 year reign of Amasis is well documented. Many of his public officials left detailed inscriptions recording their activity, for the most part related to tax collecting and building. It was indeed a prosperous era and that prosperity was in large measure due to extensive foreign trade. Greek influence is particularly noticeable and Naucratis, the Greek cultural and trade center on the Canopic branch of the Nile was particularly prominent. It is unfortunate that not a single document in those many decades provides a synchronism with the outside world. Were we not informed otherwise by Egyptologists and historians, we might be tempted to believe that Amasis ruled in the latter half of the 5th century, when the Mediterranean was opened to Greek and Phoenician commerce by the peace of Callias.

According to Herodotus, one of the first official acts of Amasis was to set up a census bureau, undoubtedly with a view to taxation. This is not an unexpected move, since we argue that the primary focus of Amasis' tenure in office was the collection of tribute for his Persian overlords. To facilitate the collection of taxes, nomarchs, or local princes, were assigned limited authority. Among their ranks must be placed Pausiris and Thannyras, sons of Amyrtaeus and Inaros. Pedubast may still be alive and active. The country prospered.

It is said that in the reign of Amasis Egypt attained to its greatest prosperity, in respect of what the river did for the land and the land for its people; and that the whole sum of inhabited cities in the country was twenty thousand. It was Amasis also who made the law that every Egyptian should yearly declare his means of livelihood to the ruler of his province, and, failing so to do, or to prove that he had a just way of life, be punished with death. Her. II.177

The greater part of Egypt's prosperity did not derive, however, from taxation of income, but rather from duties applied to commercial imports. It was Amasis second official act to issue a directive insisting that all Mediterranean commerce with Egypt be channeled through the port at Naucratis, where goods were taxed at the exorbitant rate of 10%.

Amasis became a lover of the Greeks, and besides other services which he did to some of them he gave those who came to Egypt the city of Naucratis to dwell in, and to those who voyaged to the country without desire to settle there he gave lands where they might set altars and make holy places for their gods. ... Naucratis was in old time the only trading port in Egypt. Whosoever came to any other mouth of the Nile must swear that he had not come of his own will, and having so sworn must then take his ship and sail to the Canopic mouth; or, if he could not sail against contrary winds, he must carry his cargo in barges round the Delta till he came to Naucratis. In such honor was Naucratis held. Her. II.178-79

Scholars debate the reasons for Amasis' admiration for the Greeks and the prominence given to the port at Naucratis, but we know the answer. For the previous decade Egypt had looked to the Athenians based in Naucratis as their last hope for national independence. Those hopes soon faded but the veneration of the site and the admiration of the Greeks remained for centuries.

It is precisely in Amasis' reign that Naucratis assumed a prominent position in the monuments and the national literature, so much so that it is believed by many scholars that the city was actually founded by the Saite king. If so it is interesting to note that there exists no certain reference to the existence of Naucratis in the early part of the 1st Persian domination. Did the site flourish during the reign of Amasis (570-526 B.C. in the traditional history) then fade from prominence for almost a century, only to emerge from its dormancy late in the 4th century?

If the revised history is correct then Naucratis was not founded by Amasis as a means of controlling foreign commerce, but by Inaros as a base of operations for the Athenian fleet he had summoned to his aid during the initial phase of the Egyptian rebellion. It is probable that the Athenians first had to wrest control of the site from the ruling Persians. In fact, that is precisely the tradition passed down for centuries to the geographer Strabo. In his lengthy description of the various tributaries of the Nile River Delta he states:

Their mouths indeed afford entrance to boats, but are adapted, not to large boats, but to tenders only, because the mouths are shallow and marshy. It is chiefly, however, the Canopic mouth that they used as an emporium, since the harbours at Alexandria were kept closed, as I have said before. After the Bolbitine mouth one comes to a low and sandy promontory which projects rather far into the sea; it is called Agnu-Ceras. And then to the Watch-tower of Perseus and the Wall of the Milesians; for in the time of Psammitichus ... the Milesians, with thirty ships, put in at the Bolbitine mouth, and then, disembarking, fortified with a wall the above-mentioned settlement; but in time they sailed up into the Saitic Nome, defeated the city of Inaros in a naval fight, and founded Naucratis, not far above Schedia. After the Wall of the Milesians, as one proceeds towards the Sebennytic mouth, one comes to ... Strabo XVII.33

It is clear from this tradition that at some unspecified time after the Milesians founded their enclave on the Bolbitine branch of the Nile, migrant Greeks also founded Naucratis. The fact that force was required suggests that a naval force was involved. We need not trust every detail of this tradition - Strabo is four hundred years removed from the event he describes - but there is no reason to disregard its essential accuracy. Naucratis was established only after a military confrontation. And the founding of the city occurred in the time of Inaros. Needless to say Egyptologists dispute the fact, since Inaros postdates the time of Amasis by over a century. Alan Lloyd is typical of the prevailing interpretation of Strabo:

Further details are found in Strabo who tells us that in the reign of Psammetichus I Milesians came to Egypt with 30 ships and founded a settlement called "the Milesian Wall" on the Bolbitinic Mouth of the Nile. After an unspecified interval ... they moved up-stream, defeated someone call Inarus in a sea-battle - doubtless a Dodecarch - and then founded the city of Naucratis - the city which was for 300 years to be the centre of Greek trade and civilization in Egypt. The tradition of a battle with the local population before Naucratis could be founded is also found in Aristagoras of Miletus (FrgH 608, F. 8) who informs us that the Naucratites had to fight all Egyptian cities on their way upstream except Gynaecospolis which lay opposite Naucratis on the west bank of the Nile. Few would wish to accept this account in its entirety but it would surely be rash to deny that Aristagoras is preserving a tradition that the Greeks who founded Naucratis had had to fight. Indeed the statements of Strabo and Aristagoras fit very neatly together. Inarus is a name which, though thoroughly Egyptian, is associated with Libya whilst Gynaecospolis lies to the west of the westernmost branch of the Nile in an area whose Libyan affinities are strongly emphasized by Herodotus (II, 18) and whose northern part is actually described in Ptolemy as the Libyan Nome. We have, therefore, considerable justification in accepting that the arrival of the Milesians at Naucratis involved them somehow or other, in putting down trouble along the western frontier of the Delta. What was the date?[19]

Lloyd is almost entirely correct. We question only two aspects of his discussion. There is no need to defend Strabo's statement that the Greeks who conquered Naucratis came from Miletus, an association not preserved in Aristagoras. And we wonder why Lloyd misrepresents Strabo regarding the city's connection with Inaros. The Greek text does not say that the Milesians fought with Inaros. It states only that the defeated city was known as "the city of Inaros", and that its founding involved military conflict. As to the date when the port city was founded we observe that Lloyd ignores the obvious connection with the 5th century Inaros and seeks to establish a possible foundation date antedating the time of Amasis in the sixth century. He restricts to a footnote, with minimal comment, the fact that at least one scholar (Richter) "thinks that he (the Inaros mentioned by Strabo) must be the famous Inaros of the Athenian Expedition!"[20]

Were it not for the errant dating of the Saite dynasty there would have been no question that the Inarus of Strabo and the Inaros who led the Egyptian rebellion are one and the same person. The name is otherwise unknown in Egypt. Strabo is clearly referring to a man of sufficient notoriety that his identity requires no further explanation. And we have already argued that the city of Naucratis was founded in the time of Inaros and in a climate of conflict between the Egyptian rebel and the ruling Persians. It is not surprising that the site on which the city was built was obtained through military action.

If Strabo is correct, and Naucratis acquired its prominence (and very likely it's name) only in the mid 5th century B.C.; and if our revision is correct and Amasis' involvement with the city followed immediately the Inaros rebellion; then all chronological problems connected with the site disappear entirely. Strabo can be accepted at face value. The fact that the name is unknown in the preceding decades of the 1st Persian domination is precisely what is expected. The honour accorded the Greek seaport by subsequent generations of Egyptians is perfectly understandable. The fact that Greek vessels were denied access elsewhere into the Persian province, where they posed a military threat, and were restricted to that single remote location, also follows naturally. It is unfortunate that Amasis was removed from his rightful place in history as the successor of Inaros and Amyrtaeus, causing unnecessary confusion. But that historical error need not be maintained.

The Architect Khnemibre

We pass without comment from the beginning to the final years of the reign of Amasis, and from the Egyptian Delta to a remote mountainous region east of Thebes in Upper Egypt. There on the walls of the famous Hammamat quarry we find a perplexing series of graffiti inscribed by the chief architect of Egypt under the Amasis regime, himself a namesake of the king - Khnemibre. A sequence of eleven graffiti, all in the same vicinity, and most bearing dates of the ruling king, combine to suggest that this official exercised his duties under both Amasis and Darius I over a span of at minimum 35 years.[21] To be specific, one inscription records his activities in the quarry in the 44th year of Amasis, and the others in the years 26-30 of a king Darius. In the traditional history there is no question that the Darius named in the inscriptions is Darius I. The Amasis inscription must originate from the year 527 B.C.[22] and the Darius inscriptions from the years 496-492 B.C. Needless to say, if these inscriptions have been properly understood by scholars, and Khnemibre functioned under successive kings Amasis and Darius, then we are mistaken in our proposed revision of Egyptian history. All has been for naught. In the revised history Darius I died forty years before the reign of Amasis began. Darius II was a contemporary, but not a successor, of Amasis. How do we answer the critics?

We begin by quoting the year 44 inscription:

Year 44 of the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, lord of the two lands, Khnemibre, son of Ra Ahmose-sa-Neith, who lives eternally, beloved of Neith, mistress of Sais. The Horus "Who maintains justice", the Two Ladies "Son of Neith, regulator of the two lands", the Horus of gold "Chosen by the gods", the king of Upper and Lower Egypt Khnemibre, son of Ra Ahmose-sa-Neith, who lives eternally, loved by Neith, mistress of Sais. The chief of works of the South and North of Egypt, Ahmose-sa-Neith and his eldest son, whom he loves, the chief of works of the South and North of Egypt, Khnemibre, born of the lady Satnefertum, who lives before Min, Horus and Isis of Coptos for eternity.[23]

Lest the reader be confused by the repetition of names we point out that the first two sentences list the full five-fold titulary of Amasis, with duplication of his throne name Khnemibre and his personal name Ahmose-sa-Neith. The final sentence provides the name of Khnemibre, the chief of works (architect) who is responsible for this genealogical graffiti, and that of his father, also a chief of works, and also a namesake of the king, Ahmose-sa-Neith. The chief of works Khnemibre also includes the name of his mother Satnefertum.

Throughout this inscription the names Khnemibre and Ahmose, whether those of the king or those of the two chiefs of works, are consistently enclosed in a cartouche. The names are orthographically identical. It appears from this inscription that the architect Ahmose-sa-Neith, father of Khnemibre, is alive and well. It also appears that he has relinquished his active role to his son, a fact which suggests that he is old. If so Khnemibre, identified as his eldest son, must also be up in years, perhaps in his forties or even his fifties.

There is no need here to translate the inscriptions from the Darius years. The problem with their interpretation is related to their dates, not to their content. And that problem should be immediately apparent. It is assumed by Egyptologists that Khnemibre, son of Ahmose-sa-Neith, visited the Hammamat gorge in 527 B.C., recorded his visit in this brief inscription, then disappeared for thirty-one years, only to re-emerge from obscurity in 496 B.C., becoming a frequent visitor to the stone quarry for the next five years. Then silence again. The thirty-one-year interval is problematic enough to call into question this interpretation. The fact that the later activity took place when Khnemibre was seventy or eighty years old, based on the reasonable assumption that he was over forty in the year 44 of Amasis, is enough to discredit the interpretation entirely. To be fair to scholars who support this interpretation, there is no alternative. Restricted by a chronology that regards Darius I as the successor of Amasis this chronology is unavoidable. No alternative explanation is available. But no such restriction holds for the revised history.

For the revised history there exists a perfectly natural way of reading the Khnemibre inscriptions, though the explanation requires some fine tuning of our existing chronology. In the revised history the 44th year of Amasis is the year 406 B.C., this on the assumption that he began his reign in 449 B.C. and used a predating system. But Amasis was a Persian appointee, an interloper. Neither his dates nor his dating system have been precisely determined as they have for his predecessors. We have strong reasons for thinking that 448, not 449 B.C. was reckoned as his 1st year.[24] We proceed on the assumption that this was the case.

According to scholars Darius I died in the year 404 B.C., supposedly after 19 years as sole monarch of Persia in succession to Artaxerxes I. These at least are the data cited by Gardiner, whose dates (424-404 B.C.) we have been following for this king. This would lead us to conclude that Darius outlived Amasis by a single year. But we believe that the reverse situation held, and that Amasis outlived the Persian king by almost a full year. To date we have accepted without question Gardiner’s dates for this king. There was no need earlier to engage an argument. But those dates need to be modified slightly to 424-405 B.C., an alteration which will be defended momentarily. We assume that Darius died early in 405 B.C., his 19th year, while Amasis lived through to the end of that same year, and briefly into the next. His 44th year was his last.

When Darius died Egypt rebelled for a third and final time against Persian domination. The struggle for independence thus began with Amasis, now an old man in the last year of his life as a puppet king/Persian official. It continued under Amyrtaeus, son of Pausiris, son of Apries. We will document the struggle in more detail in the next chapter.

With these facts assumed, we propose that the Khnemibre inscriptions which refer to a king Darius belong to the five years immediately preceding, rather than the 26th-30th years following the 44th year of Amasis, and that the Darius in question is Darius II. If the visits were consecutive, a reasonable assumption, then these inscriptions must belong to the years 410-406 B.C. or at most a year or two earlier. In this scenario Khnemibre's visit to the quarry in the 44th year of Amasis (405 B.C.) was the last of a series of visits that began five (or six) years earlier. The visits continued in a unbroken sequence through the last five years of Darius' life and a single year beyond. While Darius was alive Khnemibre used the name of the Persian king in his graffiti datelines. In the single visit which followed Darius' death he used the name and year of Amasis, emphasizing the comprehensive rule of the Saite king, now free from Persian domination.

This scenario answers every problematic aspect of the Khnemibre inscriptions mentioned earlier. But it raises an immediate objection. The Darius inscriptions of the architect Khnemibre are dated to the 26th through the 30th years of the Persian king, while we have stated, with apparent agreement, that Darius II ruled for only nineteen years. If our proposed dates for the Darius inscriptions are correct (410-406 B.C.) then the inscriptions should have referred to the 14th through the 18th years of Darius, not the 26th through 30th. We have solved one problem only to create another, apparently more serious, problem. What is the solution?

Regnal Years of Darius II

When we began this revision we quoted the Egyptologist Alan Gardiner in his observation that "the forty years ending with the death of Darius II in 404 B.C. are a complete blank so far as Egypt is concerned". In fact, those comments are too narrowly construed. The truth is that almost nothing is known of the activities of the Persian kings Artaxerxes I and Darius II, whether within Egypt or elsewhere within the Persian Empire. Inscriptions from the final decades of Artaxerxes I, and the entirety of the reign of Darius II, are all but non-existent. If the reader were to examine any popular history of the Persian period he would be hard pressed to find the name of Darius II in the index, much less in the body of historical discussion. That is a problem that needs to be addressed by scholars. What happened to the documentation that names these kings? Did nothing survive or have the documents of Darius II been misattributed to the earlier Darius? And if so, why?

The fact that Darius II ruled the Persian Empire for upwards of twenty years is known from a single source - a king list attached to the so-called Canon of Ptolemy, a document postdating Darius' reign by several centuries. Two observations follow from this absence of firsthand evidence. The first relates to the absolute dates assigned to Darius II; the second to the schema he used to number his regnal years.

When assigning absolute dates to Darius II two problems confront scholars, namely: 1) when did his reign begin and end?; and 2) how did he number his years? Discussion of the matter lies well beyond the scope of this book. It is sufficient to note here that the nineteen years assigned Darius II by the Canon is consistent with the revised dates we have assigned this king (424-405 B.C.)[25] We will say no more concerning the dates for his tenure as king of Persia.

The numbering of Darius' years is more of a problem, but no more so than the problems related to the regnal years of Cambyses, a matter discussed earlier in this revision. At that time we noted that Egyptologists, in an attempt to explain certain anomalies related to the year numbers of Cambyses, proposed as a solution that the Persian king used several systems for numbering his years. Besides the obvious numeration beginning with his 1st year on the Persian throne, it was conjectured that Cambyses sometimes dated his years beginning with the death of Amasis (neglecting the regnal year of Psamtik III), and sometimes beginning with his military conquest of Egypt. We have already criticized these proposals as unwarranted and unsubstantiated. But these proposed alternative dating systems do serve to suggest that a similar solution might exist for our problem with the regnal years of Darius II. In fact a perfectly reasonably answer is immediately at hand, and it finds support, coincidentally, from the reign of Cambyses.

Cambyses' Alternative Dating System

What is not mentioned often in current literature is the known fact that Cambyses did in fact have an alternative schema for numbering his regnal years, though not the ones suggested by Egyptologists. In an early edition of the influential Zeitschrift fur Aegypische Sprache the Assyriologist E. Schrader discusses at length a cuneiform document originating from Babylon and dated to the 11th year of Cambyses.[26] Since Cambyses' tenure on the Persian throne lasted only slightly over 7 years, the problem with this document is obvious, and is sufficiently serious to have caused another Akkadian specialist, T. Pinches, to question the reliability of the Canon of Ptolemy, since the Canon credits Cambyses with only 7 regnal years. According to Pinches:

This date overthrowing the perfect agreement of Mr. Boscawen's list with the Canon of Ptolemy ... the author was at first reluctant to accept on account of the number being, as may be seen from the cuneiform text above, so badly written. Soon after the discovery of this tablet, however, another was discovered, bearing the date "11th Tebet, 8th year of Cambyses" making him to reign eight years and three months, instead of seven years and seven … months. This induced the author to test the whole list as given by Mr. Boscawen ... -- It is evident, therefore, that the Canon of Ptolemy, in the face of these unimpeachable witnesses, can not stand"[27]

There is no need to question the length of Cambyses’ reign provided by the Canon of Ptolemy. A solution to the problem proposed by Schrader is undoubtedly correct. He suggested that the years recorded on these documents refer to Cambyses' years as king of Babylon, not his years as king of Persia. It is known from other sources that Cyrus installed his son, the crown prince Cambyses, as ruler of the province of Babylon, this in the final years of his reign, and undoubtedly with intent to prepare Cambyses for his future responsibilities as head of state. The cuneiform documents that refer to Cambyses' 8th and 11th years, refer to him as "king of Babylon, king of (all) lands", but not specifically as king of Persia. Babylon was by far the dominant province within the Persian Empire, rivaling Persepolis as a national capital, and exempt from taxation as was Parsua. The title "king of (all) lands", used by Cambyses, was employed by Cyrus himself to speak of his universal reign. Clearly Cambyses conceives himself as the heir apparent of his father and views his tenure in Babylon as a form of joint rule with Cyrus. Accordingly, he legitimately numbers his years from the time of his elevation to that "kingship", at least three years before the death of Cyrus, a system he apparently continued to use even after ascending to the Persian throne.

We are therefore on firm ground when we suggest that a similar system of numbering regnal years was employed by Darius II, who was also installed as "king" of Babylon (by Artaxerxes I), the only other Persian crown prince so honoured. We don't know precisely when this "kingship" began, but there is no reason not to assign its beginning to the year 435, and to identify 434 B.C. as his first official year.. By that date Artaxerxes had ruled for 30 years and no doubt sensed that his days were numbered.

If Darius did date his regnal years in Babylon – a virtual certainty - then he probably continued this numeration into his sole reign, just as Cambyses did. It is even possible that this was the only dating system employed by this king, though officials in subject lands might have dated his years otherwise. There is simply not enough information to decide one way or the other.

If Darius dated his regnal years from the beginning of his "kingship" of Babylon then his 26th through 30th years would correspond to the years 409-405 B.C. and the problem with the Khnemibre inscriptions is completely solved. This assumed “co-regency” of Darius II and Artaxerxes I also provides a possible solution to the apparent documentary silence during Darius' reign. On the assumption that only Darius I had regnal years numbering above 20, it has been a habit of scholars for centuries to assign all Darius documents with year dates above 20, and any documents associated with them, to the reign of Darius I. Included here are inscriptions from the western oases of Egypt where Darius I is credited with considerable building activity at the el-Hibeh temple in the Khargeh oasis - work which arguably belongs to the reign of Darius II[28]. We wonder how much of the literature which should illuminate the reign of Darius II has been misattributed to Darius I, largely because of this anomaly in dating the years of the second Darius.

There remains to be examined only a single curiosity related to the Khnemibre inscriptions. The fact that the chiefs-of works Khnemibre and his father are namesakes of king Amasis, and that their names are orthographically identical to those of the king, including the use of the cartouche, suggests the possibility that the architect Ahmose-sa-Neith is the same person as the king Ahmose-sa-Neith, and that the architect Khnemibre was his son.

Khnemibre - son of Amasis?

In the traditional history the proposal that Amasis was a public official would be unthinkable. Amasis was a pharaoh, the uncontested ruler of all Egypt. He would not be referred to in a graffiti as the "chief of works" of Egypt. But in the revised history, where Amasis was but one among many native Egyptian functionaries in the Persian province, albeit a first among equals, the fact that one of his titles was "chief of works" is neither impossible nor improbable. It is interesting to observe that elsewhere Amasis does in fact refer to himself by purely secular titles. That fact was duly noted by the earlier generation of Egyptologists, though all but ignored by contemporary scholars. According to Breasted, writing at the turn of the 20th century:

There is contemporary evidence of the gradual rise of Amasis; for long after his assumption of the royal cartouche he continued to use his titles as noble and a powerful palace official. Thus he inscribed his mother's sarcophagus as follows: Revered by her husband, royal confidante of Wahibre (W'h-ib-R', Apries), Teperet. Her lifetime was 70 years, 4 months, 15 days. The name of her mother was Mer-Ptah-Si-Hapi. It was her son who made it for her, the wearer of the royal seal, sole companion, chief of the palace, prophet of Isis, master of the judgment-hall, Ahmose (Amasis), -Si-Neit. (italics mine) BAR IV 999

This inscription on the sarcophagus of Amasis' mother is not, as stated by Breasted, an indication of Amasis gradual rise to power. It is an admission by the king that he remained a public official within the Persian court well into his official reign. It is surely problematic for the traditional historian that Amasis refers to himself as the "bearer of the royal seal" and "chief of the palace", titles restricted elsewhere to officials of the ruling monarch. Amasis use of these titles is an admission that he was not the king par excellence within Egypt, and that, at a point of time well into his "reign", he served another master. In the revised history there is no problem with the sarcophagus inscription. Amasis, as token ruler of Egypt subservient to Persia, might well bear the official seal of his Persian overlords Artaxerxes I and Darius II. He also ruled the palace in their stead. But no explanation of these offices is available for the traditional history, and therefore the observation is made by Breasted without comment. This silence is unacceptable.

Based on titles alone there can be no objection to our proposal that the architect Ahmose-sa-Neith is king Amasis and that Khnemibre is his son. But there is a possible genealogical objection. In another graffiti Khnemibre provides a more elaborate genealogy, identifying himself as the last "chief of works" in a sequence of holders of that office, tracing his lineage backward a dozen generations. Specifically this graffiti identifies him as "chief of works of the South and the North Khnemibre, son of the chief of works of the South and the North Ahmose-sa-Neith, son of the chief of works of the South and the North Ankh-Psamtik, son of the chief of works Wahibre-Teni, son of the ..."[29] The names Khnemibre, Ahmose, Psamtik, and Wahibre are all enclosed in a cartouche.

There is no intrinsic problem with this genealogy. The father of Amasis is unknown to Egyptologists and may well be a chief of works named Ankh-Psamtik. Our objection arises as a result of our own hypothesis, previously stated (cf. chapter 7), that the genealogy of Amasis is actually provided by the Serapeum stela #410 (SIM 4032), where Ahmose-sa-Neith is identified as the son of Psamtik-sa-Neith, son of Henat, son of Udjahorresne. It was therefore our stated belief that the Saite dynasty king Amasis was the great grandson of Udjahorresne, the well-known Egyptian official who assisted Cambyses, then Darius, in establishing a presence within Egypt following the Egyptian exile. For convenience we reproduce that genealogy below.

Figure 35: Amasis’ Genealogy According to

Serapeum Stelae (Louvre 179 & 410)

In spite of obvious differences, there remains the possibility of reconciling the Hammamat and Serapeum genealogies. It may be that the office of chief of works was taken over by the family of Amasis from his wife Setnefertem's side of the family and that Khnemibre's second generation connection with Ankh-Psamtik is on his maternal side, i.e. that Ankh-Psamtik is Khnemibre's maternal grandfather.[30] This interpretation assumes that the Hammamat genealogy is loosely construed, a fact argued also by Posener, one of the early editors of these graffiti. Based on defects elsewhere in the lengthy pedigree of Khnemibre, Posener expresses the opinion that the chief-of-works took liberties with the truth (or with genealogical conventions) in order to establish an unwarranted connection between the Ahmose family and some of the notable "architects" from Egypt's remote past.[31]

Figure 36: Amasis’ Extended Genealogy According to

the Hammamat Inscription of the Chief-of-Works Khnemibre

We leave the matter there. If nothing else the possibility that Khnemibre, chief of works, is the son of king Amasis, has served to introduce evidence that Amasis was more a public official than a king, a fact we have consistently argued in this revision. The assumed family connection is not otherwise a critical feature of our argument. But if confirmed by subsequent discoveries, then our case is thereby strengthened.

More important for our revision (though still not critical) is our assumption that the genealogy of king Amasis is provided by the Serapeum stelae whose data is summarized in the family tree outlined on the previous pages (and earlier still in chapter seven). We close our discussion with a closer look at this genealogy.

Louvre #410 & the Ancestry of Amasis

Two Serapeum stela combine to illuminate the lineage of a family known to Egyptologists as the Henat family. Louvre #410 (SIM 4032), dedicated by a priest named Khnemibre, names Ahmose-sa-Neith as his brother, Psamtik-sa-Neith as his father, and traces his ancestry back through his grandfather Henat to a great-grandfather Udjahorresne. A second stela, Louvre #179 (SIM 4112), dedicated by another priest Wahibre-Mery-Neit, names a Psamtik-sa-Neith as his brother, Udjahorresne as his father, and Henat as his grand-father. These two stelae have been published with commentary by Vercoutter in his Textes Biographiques du Serapeum de Memphis (texts N & O).[32]

It is argued by Egyptologists, in particular by Anthes, one of the first editors of these genealogical stelae, that the priests Khnemibre and Wahibre-Mery-Neit are of the same generation and have Henat as a common grandfather.[33] From this Henat, son of Udjahorresne, the two branches of the family diverge. We have omitted from our family tree the branch containing the name of Wahibre-Mery-Neit The names of Udjahorresne, Henat, Psamtik-sa-Neit, and Khnemibre, are commonplace in this family.

We should state at the outset that neither of these two stela inscriptions is dated. We could, in fact, close our discussion on that note. There is absolutely no evidence, either within or without the inscription, to suggest that either stela originates other than at some time within the reign of Amasis, and probably early in that reign. As such it can be argued that the genealogy may well refer to the king Ahmose-sa-Neith. Since Khnemibre in Louvre #410 names Ahmose-sa-Neith as his brother, enclosing that name in a cartouche precisely as the king's name is written on the Hammamat graffiti of the "chief of works" Khnemibre, there is no substantial reason to object to the proposed identification, other than the fact that this Ahmose-sa-Neith is not specifically named as a king. His kingship is at least possible. But how probable?

We cite the following reasons for believing that Ahmose-sa-Neith, the brother of Khnemibre, must be the Saite dynasty king, and that Louvre #410 was erected early in Amasis' reign. We also argue that the stela was erected several decades following the reign of Darius I, not eight decades preceding as argued by the traditional history. Such a set of circumstances is only possible within the framework of the revised history.

1) In his Serapeum stela (Louvre #410) the priest Khnemibre refers to himself as "confidant of the king, the divine father, administrator (of the domains of the Red Sea), priest of Hery-Pe, Khnemibre, son of the lector priest and chief lector priest Psamtik-sa-Neit, who was son of the priest of the same order, Henat, born of the lady Setauretbint, deceased." The language of the text tells us that Khnemibre's father and grandfather are still alive. He further describes his family connections as follows:

His eldest son, his dearest, the confidant of the king and divine father, the administrator of the domaines (of the Red Sea) the ounro priest Hery-Pe, Udjahorresne, who was born of the lady Ouadjetemhat, deceased, his brother, the confidant of the king, the divine father, the administrator of the domains, the ounro priest, the Hery-Pe, Henat, his brother Psamtik-sa-Neit, his brother Ahmose-sa-Neit, his sister Setairetbint, deceased.

The fact that Khnemibre and several of his family members are entitled "confidant of the king", yet the king is never mentioned on the stela, is curious. Unless, of course, the king's name is present, though without any title. A corresponding enigma confronts the reader when two of Khnemibre's brothers are named without titles, an unusual feature which could be construed as evidence that their titles were well known and were considered unnecessary. It can be shown from elsewhere that a noble named Psamtik-sa-Neith, with name written precisely as in this inscription, was a distinguished functionary of king Amasis, entrusted with important constructions in Abydos and elsewhere.[34] If the stela was intended to be read by contemporaries of Khnemibre, to whom the names of Ahmose-sa-Neith and Psamtik-sa-Neith were familiar, then there was no need to supply titles. It is likely that the omission was deliberate, a means whereby Khnemibre might emphasize his intimacy with his brothers. He is clearly intent on communicating the fact that he, his brother Henat, and his son Udjahorresne, are "confidants" of the king.

2) The fact that the titles of Ahmose-sa-Neith are omitted, and that he appears in this inscription as yet another member of an aristocratic family, is perfectly consistent with our contention that king Amasis was really nothing more than an important dignitary. This argument is strengthened by the fact that the Khnemibre stela was apparently erected early in the king's reign, when Amasis was only beginning to emphasize his claim to "kingship". It is possible that around this same time Amasis erected the "memorial chapel" in honour of his grandfather Udjahorresne.

3) The fact that these stela were composed and erected early in Amasis reign is supported by details related to their provenance in the greater vault of the Serapeum. Mariette records the fact that the Wahibre-Mery-Neit stela was found in the sands of the corridor outside the crypt which enclosed the Apis which died in the 23rd year of Amasis. In the same location were discovered at least two other stela (SIM 4115 and SIM 4100), also edited by Vercoutter in his Textes Biographiques (texts B & C). These additional stelae are dated by Vercoutter, following Mariette, to the early part of Amasis' reign. The suggestion is made that were dedicated to the Apis bull which died in Amasis' 4th year. If so, then this should be the date assigned to Louvre #179 and by association to Louvre #410. But that conclusion appears to be qualified by the fact that stelae associated with different Apis bulls are sometimes deposited in the same general area of the Serapeum. The fact has confused scholars, and thus the necessity of the following remarks concerning the cult of the "living Apis".

4) All three of the stela found in the Serapeum corridor (SIM 4100, 4112, 4115) are dedicated to the "living Apis", a curiosity not fully appreciated by Egyptologists, who fail to properly distinguish the cults of the living and deceased Apis bulls. It is known from excavations at the site that the living Apis was domiciled in an elaborate enclosure near Memphis and worshipped in its own right.[35] Unlike stelae dedicated to a deceased bull, monuments erected in honour of the living Apis could originate at various times during the lifetime of the bull. Their construction was not limited to a narrow time frame between the death and burial of the animal. Nor can we assume, as was the case with the cult of the deceased Apis, that the stelae erected in honour of a particular living bull were all removed from the surface to the confines of the Serapeum at the time of the funeral of that bull. They may have remained above ground to inform devotees of the cult for decades after the subject bull's death. In view of this possibility we cannot state with certainty that several stelae appearing in the same location, such as the Serapeum corridor, all relate to the same Apis. But there is a presumption that they relate to Apis bulls from the same general time frame. And the named stelae in the Serapeum corridor all appear to originate from early in the reign of Amasis. It is not only their physical proximity at the time of discovery which suggests their correspondence in time.

5) If the reader wonders why we emphasize the fact that the Khnemibre and Wahibre-Mery-Neit stelae were erected early in Amasis reign he need only read the introductory comments of Vercoutter in his discussion of the two inscriptions. Commenting on the Khnemibre stela Vercoutter notes that "the individuals cited in the text are found on other Serapeum stelae dated from the reign of Darius I" and that, moreover, "the inscription resembles closely (est tres proche) that of the stele SIM 4109", (his text L) which is dated to the 34th year of Darius. He notes also, in remarks related to the Wahibre stela, that Mariette proposed an identification of this stela with the 34th year of Darius. As a result Vercoutter is compelled to date both the Khnemibre and Wahibre stelae well into the Persian period, rather than early in the reign of Amasis, this in spite of the fact that almost eighty years separate the early years of Amasis and the 34th year of Darius I in the traditional history. To his credit Vercoutter does not appear confident with this dating, in spite of his acceptance of it. When commenting on the Wahibre text he remarks:

It has been dated by Mariette himself from the year 34 of the reign of Darius, although no (other) indications confirm this attribution. One knows that at this same place have been found some stelae from the reign of Amasis. Nothing (specific) is opposed in principle to (the fact that ) this text goes back to the last pharaohs of the 26th dynasty. The names of the individuals who figure in the text are found in part on a small Serapeum stela (SIM 4193), but this monument is itself difficult to date. Although it may be very near, based on style, to stelae dated to the reign of Amasis, and its place of discovery connects it with another stela of the same pharaoh (SIM 4192), these two criteria are too imprecise to provide certainty: on the one hand several stelae dated from two different reigns have been found by Mariette at the same place; on the other hand the style at the end of the 26th dynasty is very near to that of the first Persian era.[36]

Vercoutter equivocates. On the one hand he acknowledges that there is considerable evidence connecting the relevant stelae to the beginning of the reign of Amasis. On the other hand there is a clear affinity with the time of the end of the reign of Darius I. In the traditional history these two dates are separated by eighty years. There is clearly a problem.

In the revised history the problem disappears entirely. The early years of Amasis do not precede the 34th year of Darius by 80 years, they follow that date by less than 40 years. Moreover, the presence of the names of Henat family members in the reign of Darius I is not at all a problem. It is precisely what is expected. We have observed that the parents and grandparents of the priest Khnemibre are still alive when his Serapeum stela was written. Many of these family members are extremely old. Even Khnemibre, the brother of the king, is not a young man. He has an adult son, whose mother (Khnemibre's wife) is deceased. Ahmose-sa-Neith may have been a younger member of the family, but even he was likely born late in the reign of Darius I. It is not surprising, therefore, that names from the Khnemibre stela occur in documents dated in or shortly after the 34th year of Darius I.

It is impossible that the names of the living relatives and ancestors of Amasis would appear in stelae originating from the 34th year of Darius I if the traditional chronology is correct. They would be 80 years in their graves by the year 488 B.C., the 34th year of Darius I. These Serapeum genealogical stelae absolutely contradict the belief that the reign of Amasis preceded the reign of Darius I.

We proceed on the assumption that Louvre #410 preserves the genealogy of the last "king" of the Saite dynasty. Let scholars prove otherwise. The fact that king Amasis had a son Khnemibre, named after himself, is also likely. And in the revised history we can trace the origins of the name Khnemibre back to the time of the great grandfather, Udjahorresne, the celebrated hero who assisted the nation in its recovery from the devastation wrought by Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon.

We have almost arrived at the close of our revision. With the death of Amasis and the revolt of his successor Amyrtaeus, Egyptian history will once again march in step with the times.

---

[1] N.G.L. Hammond, A History of Greece to 322 B.C. (1959) 3rd. p. 303, quoting Diodorus Siculus 12,4,5.

[2] Translated (with infrequent recourse to the Greek text provided) from the French version of R. Henry, Ctesias La Perse, L'Inde: Les Sommaires de Photius (1947) pp. 35-37.

[3] We wonder if the name preserves a memory of some action on the part of king Pedubast, also a participant in the Inaros rebellion. If so, the memory is significantly distorted.

[4] BAR IV 996 (p. 509)

[5] G. Daressy, "Stele De L'An III D'Amasis," RT 22 (1900) 1-9.

[6] Anthony Leahy, "The Earliest Dated Monument of Amasis and the End of the Reign of Apries," JEA 74 (1988) 183-199.

[7] Elmar Edel, "Amasis und Nebukadrezar II," GM 29 (1978) 13-20.

[8] Leahy, op.cit., pp. 189-190.

[9] Ibid., p. 190

[10] Ibid., p. 191

[11] Daressy, op.cit., p. 3. "Apries (l. 3) est (parti), il (guide) les vaisseaux qui (ont passe). Des Grecs dont on ne sait le nombre parcourent le Nord, c'est comme s'il n'y avait pas de maitre pour gouverner: il les a appeles, eux l'ont (accueilli). Le roi leur avait assigne une residence (l. 4) dans le Pehu An: ils infestent l'Egypte en son etendue, ils atteignent Sekhet-Mafek, tout ce qui est en ton eau s'enfuit d'eux."

[12] Ibid. pp. 7,8. "Si j'ai bien lu, leur residence devait etre dans le pehu an, c'est-a-dire le bas pays du troisieme nome de la Basse-Egypte, celui de l'Occident, (hireglyph for west), dont la capitale etait Andropolis, is est, des lors, fort probable qu'on veut partler de Naucratis, qui est a vingt kilometres de Kherbeta (Andropolis); mais cette hypothese ne va pas sans soulever plusieurs questions."

[13] Edel, op.cit., p. 19. "Der Apries - die Insel (=Cypern) setzt fur ihn Seeschiffe uber gefullt mit h'w-nbw (=griechischen Soldern), deren Zahl man nicht kennt."

[14] Ibid. "Dann liess Seine Majestat die Insel (=Cypern) auf jeder Seite einschliessen (?)".

[15] Leahy, op.cit., p. 193.

[16] Ibid.

[17] A.J. Spalinger, Acts of the First International Congress of Egyptologists (1979) p. 596.

[18] Spalinger, op.cit. p.603, n.34 cites Redford, Orientalia 39 (1970) 10-14 and Clere, RdE 6 (1951) 152-153 (the latter referring to the hk' S't = the king of Persia). These references have not been checked.

[19] A.B. Lloyd, Herodotus Book II (1975), pp. 24,25.

[20] Ibid., p. 24, n. 97.

[21] The entire groups of Khnemibre inscriptions is collected in G. Posener, La Premiere Domination Perse En Egypte (1936), pp. 88-116. All quotations of the inscriptions are taken from Posener.

[22] In the traditional history Amasis reigned for 44 years from 570-526 B.C., but because the Saite kings used a predating or non-accession year system, the year 570 was reckoned as his 1st and the year 526 as his 45th year. Thus 527 B.C. was the 44th year of this king. In a moment we will challenge the assumption of predating for this king and reckon his last year as his 44th.

[23] Ibid. p. 89.

[24] The reigns of all of the Saite kings up to but not including the reign of Amasis are precisely dated and linked together by a series of Serapeum stela. But we have already noted the fact that no stela exists to provided specific data for the Khababash bull nor for the hypothetical bull which succeeded it. These are the bulls which would have given precise information regarding the end of the reign of Apries and the beginning of the reign of Amasis. It follows therefore that we are not absolutely sure that the reign of Amasis began in 449 B.C. as opposed to a year earlier or a year later. Nor are we sure if Amasis continued the practice of predating used by the earlier Saite kings or whether he adopted the accession year system of his Persian overlords. When we argue that 448 B.C. was his 1st year it matters little if we assume his dates were 449-405 B.C. and that he used the Persian accession year system, or 448-405 B.C. with a non-accession year system. In either case we are confident that 448 B.C. was his 1st official year.

[25] It would even be possible to assign to Darius the years 423-425 B.C., 423 being his 1st and 425 his 19th year, depending on the system used by the authors of the Canon to number his years. It is admitted by scholars that the "predating of postdating" system adopted by the Canon is artificial and does not represent the system actually used by the Persians. There is therefore ambiguity regarding the reign length of Darius II. This ambiguity extends to the reign of his father Artaxerxes I. When we also take into account the several difficulties related to the precise date when Artaxerxes died and Darius assumed power there can be no strong objection to our earlier proposal that the dates for Darius should be emended slightly.

[26] E. Schrader, "Das elfte Jahr des Kambyses," ZAS 17 (1897) 39-45.

[27] Quoted by Schrader in op.cit. p. 41, n. 3. Pinches article can be found in the Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 2 (1878). The original has not been checked.

[28] See the discussion of the ‘Ayn Manawir ostraca in chapter 11. The ostraca found at that site dated the years of Darius II from the beginning of his tenure as king of Persia, but they were not official documents, and they were not inscribed by officials of the Persian government, as were the Knemibre inscriptions.

[29] Posener, La Premiere Domination Perse En Egypte, pp. 101-102.

[30] This assumes that Khnemibre’s claim to be the son of Ahmose-sa-Neith, … the son of Ankh-Psamtik”, is merely a circumlocution for the statement “grandson of Ankh-Psamtik”. This is not good grammar; but bad grammar happens. And elsewhere Khnemibre demonstrates an unwillingness to maintain genealogical conventions.

[31] Posener, op.cit. p. 98. Referring to the lengthy genealogy of his Inscription #14 Posener writes: "Le texte 14 contient la titulature detaillee et la genealogie de Khnemibre, la premiere presqu'identique a celle de la table d'offrandes 13. L'intention du chef des travaux etait de montrer sa parente avec les grands constructeurs du Nouvel Empire et de l'epoque ethiopienne. S'il s'agit la de traditions d'une vieille famille d'architectes, on les trouve dans l'inscription alterees par le temps et deformees par l'arbitraire de l'auteur qui semble avoir cherche avant tout a satisfaire sa vanite. C'est ainsi, semble-t-il, que doit s'expliquer la double serie d'erreurs que l'on constate dans le texte ..."

[32] Jean Vercoutter, Textes Biographiques du Serapeum de Memphis (1962), pp. 88-99.

[33] Rudolf Anthes, "Das Berliner Henat-Relief," ZAS 75 (1939) pp. 21-31.

[34] Cf. H. Ranke, "Eine spatsaitische Statue in Philadelphia," MDAIK 12 (1943) 107ff.

[35] Cf. the remarks by Mustafa El Amir, "The SHKOS of Apis At Memphis, " JEA ... (.....) 51-56. Unfortunately I have the article but failed to record the source. I believe it is from a fairly recent year of the JEA.

[36]Vercoutter ,op.cit.,p.93.