Chapter 11: A Second "Cambyses".

The Amyrtaeus Rebellion

Our revision of this phase of Egyptian history is all but complete. The last of the displaced dynasties, Manetho's 26th., ended with the death of Ahmose-sa-Neith late in 405 B.C. or early in 404 B.C., less than a year after the death of Darius II of Persia, and was followed immediately by the abbreviated reign of Amyrtaeus, whom we identify as the son of Pausiris, grandson of Apries, and great-grandson of Psamtik II. And since Manetho credits Amyrtaeus with six years of rule we should assign to his reign either the dates 405-399 B.C. or 404-398 B.C., depending on the year assigned to Amasis' death. The traditional history, following secondary evidence, limits the reign of Amyrtaeus to 5 years, and assigns to this king the years 404-399 B.C. If so Amyrtaeus ruled into his 6th year, agreeing with evidence we will examine momentarily. It hardly matters whether we assume the dates 405-399 or 404-399 for this king. For the moment we revert to the dates used by the traditional history.

There is universal agreement that Darius was succeeded in Persia by Artaxerxes II, who ruled an impressive 46 years

Both the revised and traditional histories agree that a third Egyptian rebellion began following the death of Darius II. In the traditional history the instigator must have been Amyrtaeus, and not only was the rebellion successful but its effects were long lasting. Egypt remained independent for over 60 years. In the revised history the rebellion began during the 44th year of Amasis and continued for five plus years through the reign of Amyrtaeus. It ended tragically in 399 B.C. We will take up that story momentarily.

The success of the rebellion can be attributed to exigencies outside of Egypt. The death of Darius had precipitated a power struggle between Artaxerxes and his brother, prince Cyrus, satrap of Anatolia, which lasted for several years, culminating in the battle of Cynaxa (401 B.C.) in which Cyrus was killed. Xenophon preserves a description of this contest in exhaustive detail in his classic Anabasis. In the course of his narrative Xenophon mentions a build-up of Persian military strength in Palestine, which might have been intended to strike at the rebellious Egyptian province, but he fails to discuss the Egyptian situation, and interpreters reason that the blow was never delivered. It is stated categorically in all popular histories of the period that Egypt's newly declared independence was uncontested, and that it endured for the next sixty years, through the reign of Amyrtaeus and through two subsequent dynasties of kings (Manetho's 29th and 30th). Only in 343 B.C. did Persia, under Artaxerxes III (Ochus), manage to recover its former possession, and that victory was short lived, for in 332 B.C. the armies of Alexander the Great invaded the Delta, ended Persian hegemony in Egypt, and paved the way for the rule of the Ptolemies.

While we have no fundamental disagreement with most of this 4th century Egyptian history, we do question the claim, based more on silence than on any positive evidence, that Artaxerxes passively accepted the loss of what was arguably his most wealthy province. Had we no other reason than historical precedent on which to base our claim - namely, the swift and brutal suppression by Xerxes of the 1st Egyptian rebellion (led by Wahemibre Necao) in 486 B.C., and the equally severe response by Artaxerxes I to the 2nd Egyptian rebellion (led by Inaros) in 456 B.C. - we should have expected Artaxerxes II to have swiftly moved to put down the Amyrtaeus rebellion. The military contest with prince Cyrus may have delayed the moment of retribution; but it surely did not exclude it. The battle of Cynaxa was won in 401 B.C. Diodorus tells us that sometime during the next year (400 B.C.), Teos, the admiral of Cyrus' Mediterranean fleet, attempted to flee from Artaxerxes. He sailed for safe harbour in Egypt. Instead of the anticipated welcome, Amyrtaeus killed him and captured the fleet of Persian ships. The fact is duly noted by historians and left without comment. But comment is imperative. Are we to believe that this insult upon injury was merely shrugged off by Persia? The fact that the end of the reign of Amyrtaeus is dated to the following year (399 B.C.) in the traditional history suggests that his demise was in some way related to the predicable Persian retaliation.

It is the argument of the revised history that the 3rd Egyptian rebellion, synchronous with the reign of Amyrtaeus, ended with the reign of Amyrtaeus in the year 399 B.C. At that time, we argue, Artaxerxes did in fact act to recover his Egyptian province. And his effort proved successful. We are not guessing. As we have noted earlier in this revision, the details are preserved by the Greek historian Ktesias.

The 399 B.C. Invasion of Egypt.

When we make the claim that the reign of Amyrtaeus, and the rebellion he initiated, ended in a military conflict with Persia, we are not in conflict with any documentary evidence. The entirety of his reign is all but unattested. As Gardiner notes in his Egypt of the Pharaohs:

Manetho allots to Amyrtaeus a reign of six years, which is probably correct since the Aramaic papyri from Elephantine include a promise of the repayment of a debt dating from his fifth year. Apart from a letter from the same source quoting his name in close proximity to that of Nepherites, his immediate successor, there exists no further reference to him, and he has left no monuments. We are in the dark alike as to how he came by his throne and as to how he lost it. (italics added)[1]

But we are not ignorant of how Amyrtaeus lost his throne, as Gardiner claims? Repeatedly we have mentioned the fact that an invasion of Egypt did occur shortly after the death of Ahmose-sa-Neith and that it was directed specifically against his successor Amyrtaeus. The invasion was duly recorded by Ktesias, a participant in the battle between Cyrus and Artaxerxes II, who wrote his history of the times less than a decade after the conclusion of that conflict. His remarks, preserved in the Photius fragment of the Persika and paraphrased earlier in this revision, have been taken out of context by later editors of Ktesias' work, and misplaced in the reign of Cambyses, son of Cyrus the Great, at the end of the 6th century. But they clearly belong to beginning of the 4th century. This invasion, led by a eunuch named Bagapates, must be dated to the year 399 B.C., since Amyrtaeus is a casualty of the conflict. Though his life was spared, his throne was lost.

We quote again the relevant section of the Persika:

This Bagapates conducted an expedition against Egypt and its king Amyrtaeus and he defeated Amyrtaeus thanks to the eunuch Combaphis, a powerful minister of the Pharaoh, who handed over the bridges and betrayed all the interests of Egypt in order to become the governor. He became the (governor) because Cambyses, after having conferred this charge via Izabates, cousin of Combaphis, confirmed it himself later by word of mouth. Having captured Amyrtaeus he did not deal with him harshly. He was content to exile him to Persia along with 6000 Egyptians chosen by him, and he (proceeded) to annex all Egypt. There fell in the battle 50,000 Egyptians and 7000 Persians.[2]

Whatever else is said about this section of the Persika, scholars are in agreement that the invasion, as described, does not agree with the details of the "invasion" of Egypt by Cambyses portrayed by Herodotus in his Cambyses narrative. It is argued that Ktesias has mistakenly named Amyrtaeus, rather than Psamtik III, as the victim of the assault; that Cambyses himself led the invasion, not a eunuch named Bagapates; that extensive loss of life on the part of both Egyptians and Persians alike is a distortion of the facts; and that an exile of thousands of Egyptians is otherwise unknown at the beginning of Cambyses' Egyptian reign. Nor is anything known concerning a powerful Egyptian dignitary named Combaphis living in the days of Cambyses and Darius I. It is therefore argued that the Ktesias invasion account, in its entirety, is a fabrication of a later age, when anti-Persian propaganda was commonplace.

We argue instead that the Ktesian narrative is substantially accurate, though admittedly misattributed. There is no need to speculate on the circumstances by which this vignette was mistakenly assigned a late 6th century context by later editors or compilers of the Ktesian fragments, whether by Photius himself or later editors of Photius. Some suggestions were made when the matter was treated at some length in chapter five, and that discussion will not be repeated here. Our purpose in the balance of this chapter is to demonstrate that only at the end of the 5th century, and only in the revised history of that time period, do we find conditions corresponding to the circumstances of this narrative, and a sequence of named individuals which are found both in Ktesias and in other Egyptian documents. To be specific, our intent is to establish that at this time in Egyptian history a political leader named Combaphis, whose name was typically shortened to Kbdj in demotic documents, assumed the status, if not the title, of pharaoh. Here, at the turn of the 4th century, and only in the revised history, do we find Darius (II), Amasis, Artaxerxes (II), Amyrtaeus, Combaphis/Kbdj, and Nepherites, the successor of Amyrtaeus, linked together in a variety of documents.

A Revised History of the End of the First Persian Domination

According to the revised history the reigns of Darius II (424-405 B.C.) and Amasis (449-405/4 B.C.) overlapped for two decades. The final year of Amasis (405/404 B.C.), his 44th, is singled out for special attention in several documents, as if to draw attention to its uniqueness. Whether Amasis withheld tribute from Persia in his final year, tantamount to declaring Egyptian independence, or whether the credit for the 3rd rebellion belongs to Amyrtaeus, who broke with Persia in his first year (Artaxerxes' 2nd) is for the most part immaterial. The fact that Artaxerxes' 2nd year is mentioned on a damaged monument excavated in the ruins of the palace of Apries (see below) may suggest a slight delay in the break from Persian rule, or it may simply indicate a delayed acceptance of that reality by a segment of the population. Regardless, we will continue to refer to the independence movement as the Amyrtaeus rebellion in keeping with historical precedent.

The years of the Amyrtaeus revolt are all but void of documentary evidence, precluding any certainty regarding its details. But the assumption can be made, based on the example of the Inaros rebellion a half century earlier, that Amyrtaeus was not the only participant. Our only comprehensive historical source document, the fragmentary account of Ktesias, suggests that Amyrtaeus was assisted in the rebellion by at least one powerful ally, whose name is preserved in various forms in at least five other monumental inscriptions or documentary sources. As we shall see, this Kbdj (=Combaphis) is at times referred to as a pharaoh, with name in cartouche, and elsewhere as a non-regal, but influential political figure. His status depends either on the documentary source (some apparently viewing his "reign" as legitimate, others as illegitimate) or on the time period being discussed (before or after his fifth year). The tenure of this Kbdj appears to be synchronous with the rule of Amyrtaeus and, if we correctly interpret the Ktesias fragment, his "rule" extended several years beyond the Bagapates invasion, that is, beyond the captivity and exile of Amyrtaeus. We suggest, therefore, that Kbdj remained in office, whether as a vizier, governor or pharaoh, for approximately 8 years, from 404-396 B.C. (see figure 37 below)

The fact that Manetho and the Demotic Chronicle cite Nepherites as the successor of Amyrtaeus is not in conflict with this view of history. Nepherites, who is every bit as unknown as Amyrtaeus, may have been related to Amyrtaeus, while Kbdj was not. Perhaps Nepherites was a nomarch already ruling some district of Egypt in conjunction with Amyrtaeus (see the discussion of the Ayn Manawir ostraca below) and the Persians merely elevated his status at the end of the rebellion. Whatever the reason, in the eyes of the Chronicler(s) his reign possessed a legitimacy that Kbdj lacked. Consequently, only the name of Nepherites is preserved. We believe it possible that Amyrtaeus, Nepherites and Kbdj governed separate regions of the country during the rebellion. The fact of localized rule during this time period has recently been argued strenuously by no less an authority than Andre Lemaire.[3]

If our reconstruction of the history of the Amyrtaeus rebellion is correct, then Egyptian independence from Persia was short-lived, lasting at most from 404-399 B.C., i.e. from the 1st into the 6th years of Artaxerxes II. Persia regained control of its Egyptian province in 399 B.C., early in the 6th year of Artaxerxes. It is not surprising, therefore, that a single inscription, found at Elephantine, is dated in the 7th year of Artaxerxes, attesting Persian sovereignty within Egypt at that late date. The date suits the revised chronology perfectly; it conflicts seriously with the traditional history.

Figure 37: Timeline – the 3rd Egyptian Rebellion

It is unknown how long Persia maintained its suzerainty over Egypt following the Bagapates invasion. The precise dates may never be known since the 29th dynasty pharaohs Nepherites and Achoris (Hakar) are not well attested. But since the Greek historians document an unsuccessful assault on Egypt by Artaxerxes II in 373 B.C., during the reign of Nekhtnebef, it must be assumed that at least by that date Egyptian independence had been finally established. The end of the first Persian domination must be dated sometime within the reign of Achoris (393-380 B.C.). For reference we summarize this history in table 18.

Before proceeding with our description of the invasion that ended the rebellion of Amyrtaeus we take a moment to introduce a series of inscriptions recently excavated in Ayn Manawir in Egypt. We have repeatedly argued the fact that Amyrtaeus was surnamed Psamtik, and that as successor to Amasis he alone deserves the title Psamtik III. We have also argued that Amyrtaeus, not Ankhkanre Psamtik, was on the throne when Egypt was devastated by an invasion led by a Persian named Cambyses. It would be unfair to proceed without some evidence that we are correct in our identification of Amyrtaeus.

Table 18: End of the First Persian Domination and Beyond

DARIUS II	424-405 B.C.
3rd EGYPTIAN REBELLION
Amasis 44th year	405/404 B.C.
Amyrtaeus as pharaoh	404-399 B.C.
Kbdj as governor (years 1-5)	404-399 B.C.
INVASION OF BAGAPATES
Kbdj as pharaoh (years 5-8)	399-396 B.C.
Nepherites I as pharaoh	399-393 B.C.
Psammuthis	393 B.C.
Achoris	393-380 B.C.
Nepherites II	380 B.C.
Nekhtnebef	380-363 B.C.
Teos	362-361 B.C.
Nekhthorheb	360-343 B.C.

The ‘Ayn Manawir Ostraca

The site of 'Ayn Manawir is located on the western outskirts of the Khargeh Oasis in the desert north-west of Thebes. During the 1992 and 1993 excavations of the temple at this site, the excavation team discovered, in addition to a considerable quantity of ceramic material, dozens of ostraca containing demotic inscriptions specifically dated to the later stages of the first Persian occupation and the early years of the 29th dynasty. In particular the ostraca bear year dates from the reigns of Artaxerxes I, Darius II, Artaxerxes II, Amyrtaeus and Nepherites I., this in the opinion of the scholars at the site.[4]

To be more specific the ostraca collection included 12 documents dated from years 22 through 40 of Artaxerxes I, 24 documents dated from years 2 through 18 of Darius II[5], a single document each from years 1 and 3 of an unknown king ('rt) which the excavators considered to be an abbreviation of the name of Artaxerxes II, a single document each from the 5th and 6th years of a king Psamtik, identified as the 28th dynasty king Amyrtaeus, and a single document each from the years 5 and 7 of Nepherites I. By assigning the documents to the named kings, it was determined that the temple compound was occupied continuously from 443 B.C. to 393 B.C. The documents as assigned provide an almost continuous record of occupation of the temple.[6] There are no individual photographs of the ostraca to allow us to check the identifications.

The discovery of such a large number of dated documents from the reigns of Artaxerxes I and Darius II was welcomed by the excavators. It was also somewhat of a surprise. These two reigns are noted for their lack of dated documents. Even more surprising were the two ostraca inscriptions dated to the 5th and 6th years of a king Psamtik. To maintain the assumption of continuity of occupation it was concluded that these two ostraca must belong to the reign of Amyrtaeus, the sole occupant of Manetho's 28th dynasty, who followed Darius II on the throne of Egypt. As such they provide the first known validation of the passage from Diodorus Siculus, quoted several times already in this revision, which refers to the successor of Darius II as "Psammetichus, king of the Egyptians, son of the famous Psammetichus (Diod 14.35.4) Accordingly, the excavators labeled the two ostraca as belonging to Psamtik V with the added qualification (= Amyrtaeus).

As for the Artaxerxes II ostraca, only one of which is clearly legible, the excavators can only suggest that "perhaps one can see there an abbreviated writing of Arta<xerxes>" That possibility certainly exists within the framework of the revised history, since we have already raised the possibility that the rebellion did not begin until the second year of this king, and have argued that a later date need indicate only “a delayed acceptance of that reality by a segment of the population.”[7] The same explanation must be given by the traditional history, which also believes that Egyptian independence had been declared in the 1st year of Artaxerxes.

For the revised history at least there exists an alternative explanation of the two Arta(xerxes) ostraca that bear the years dates 1 and 3. It is possible that the problematic king 'rt (and perhaps even the king identified as Nepherites) ruled in parts of Egypt during the Amyrtaeus rebellion, filling more completely the gap in the occupation record of the site. We have repeatedly argued that the 2nd and 3rd Egyptian rebellions were led by multiple nomarchs ruling the several districts of Egypt.

What is most significant among the Manawir documents are the two ostraca bearing the name of Psamtik, which provide confirmation of one critical aspect of our thesis. It is surely significant that the dates inscribed on them go no higher than the 6th year, the last known year of the reign of Amyrtaeus. If correctly identified as Amyrtaeus by the excavators, then according to the revised history Psamtik V must go the way of Psamtik IV, since Amyrtaeus Psamtik, as successor to Amasis, must necessarily take the place of Psamtik III.

Having outlined a revised view of Egyptian history following the death of Darius II, there remains the need to defend it. In particular one thing and one thing only needs to be proved, namely, the fact that a dignitary named Cambaphis/Kbdj ruled Egypt in the early years of the 4th century B.C., in the time frame noted., and that even modern day scholars, echoing the error of their ancient counterparts, have repeatedly confused this dignitary with Cambyses, son of Cyrus. With that we will rest our case.

The Governor/Pharaoh Kbdj

We have already constructed a rough chronology of the times using the combined evidence of the Hammamat inscriptions of the architect Khnemibre, the Photius fragment of the Ktesian history, and the brief reference of Diodorus Siculus, augmented by the testimony of Manetho and the evidence from ‘Ayn Manawir. . There remains for us to examine, albeit briefly, five other documents which bear on the life and times of Combaphis/Kbdj.

The Petition of Petesi

In chapter five we discussed at some length the important papyrus, known to historians as the Petition of Petesi, which preserves details of the family history of a priestly clan from el-Hibeh (Teuzoi) in middle Egypt. That document preserves biographical and other assorted materials from the Petesi family archives spanning one and one-half centuries, from the 4th year of Psamtik I through the 9th year of Darius I, encompassing five generations of the Petesi family - Petesi I, Essemteu I, Petesi II, Essemteu II, Petesi III. This at least was the interpretation given the document by the traditional history.

In our earlier discussion our attention was focussed on the time of the patriarch Petesi I. Here we are concerned with the time of the author of the document, the archivist himself, Petesi III. .

According to Griffiths[8], who provides the most comprehensive translation, Petesi III composed this lengthy document as a type of legal brief, in order to support his contention that his historical rights to a priesthood in Teuzoi were being denied him, and to document the persecution he was suffering for continuing to claim those rights. What concerns this revision is not the story itself, but the timeline which forms the basis for its interpretation.

In the estimation of Griffiths Petesi composed his argument in the 9th year of Darius I. He begins the document by describing his most recent tribulations. He then proceeded to document his right to the Teuzoi priesthood by providing a lengthy history of the Petesi family’s involvement with the temple complex in Teuzoi, from the 4th year of Psamtik I down to the 4th year of Kam’oze, the latter name understood by Griffith, and by all subsequent interpreters of this document, as an altered form of the name of Cambyses. There the story abruptly ends, though Griffiths thinks that an earlier brief, for which the historical section of the present document was a replacement, must have continued the story down to the 9th year of Darius. The Petition concludes by affixing copies of some of the documents alluded to in the earlier narrative, several of which we have examined in our earlier discussion of this papyrus.[9]

Here we are concerned primarily with the historical section, which not only continued the Petesi family history down to the 4th year of Kam’oze, but used as reference points in the discussion activities which lasted “until year 44 of Ahmosi” and “in year 3 of Kam’oze”. Earlier still we find reference to the 15th year of Amasis

Griffith's conclusions regarding the chronology of the critical introductory and historical sections of the papyrus, his sections A and B, can be summed up as follows:

Section A 1/1-5/12 A description of Petesi's troubles in year 9 of Darius I, (513 B.C.) when the Petition was composed.

Section B 5/13-21/4 A history of the Petesi family from c.a. 660 B.C. (the 4th year of Psamtik I) through 556 B.C. (the 15th year of Amasis) and perhaps a few years beyond. Section B 21/4-21/9 A few brief concluding statements summarizing events following the 15th year of Amasis, taking the narrative through the 44th year of Amasis and into the reign of Cambyses.

The narrative thus conceived is left without any conclusion.

In fairness to Griffith this interpretation of the papyrus was the only one available. The mention of the names Darius, Amasis and "Kam'oze" in the same document, in the interpretive framework of the traditional history, necessitated the identification of "Per'o Tariaush" (in the first line of section A) with Darius I, and "Kam'oze" (in lines 21/7 and 21/9) with Cambyses.

We propose instead the following chronology, based on the revised history.

Section A 1/1-5/12 Petesi, writing in the 4th year of Kam’oze, whom we identify as Combaphis/Kbdj (401 B.C.) describes his persecution by temple officials fifteen or twenty-five years earlier, in the 9th year of Darius II (426 or 416 B.C., depending on the dating system employed for the years of Darius II).

Section B 5/13-21/4 Petesi goes on to document the history of the Petesi family from 531 B.C. (the 4th year of Psamtik I) through 435 B.C. (the 15th year of Amasis) and perhaps a few years beyond. These remarks are intended to explain the cause of the persecution Petesi has just documented in section A.

Section B 21/4-21/9 Petesi concludes by summarizing events which followed the 9th year of Darius, taking the narrative through the 44th year of Amasis and down to the present, the 4th year of Combaphis/Kbdj. As we have previously noted, Combaphis was a contemporary of Amyrtaeus, and like Amyrtaeus he followed Amasis directly, first as governor, then as pharaoh. .

According to this interpretation "Kam'oze" is Combaphis/Kbdj, not Cambyses. Strictly speaking, the spelling it is not an accurate representation of either name.

It should be noted that only a minor interpretive change separates the two chronologies. In support of the revised version we note that the entirety of sections A and B give the appearance of a single narrative, in which the author, Petesi III, takes a nostalgic look back on his personal struggles with Persian authorities, conflicts which culminated in the persecution "in the ninth year of Per'o Tariaush." Thus his story begins at that point in time. But the injustices he suffered in the 9th year of Darius were not resolved. The section ends with Petesi "crying aloud unto the governor" (4/20) and spending many days "pleading and praying daily" (5/9) for a resolution to his complaints. It makes no sense for Griffith to consider this the end of the story. And the narrative certainly does not do so. The entire point of the section B narrative is to place these section A conflicts in context and to give some sense of their resolution, or lack thereof.

Griffiths and subsequent authors have failed to appreciate the purpose of the Petition. It is not, as Griffiths thinks, a legal document. It is rather, as might be expected from a priest, a form of petition or prayer to the god Amun, the patron deity of Teuzoi. In section A Petesi recounts to the god his earlier suffering in the 9th year of Darius and his unheeded pleas to the Persian authorities at that time. Having failed to convince Persia of the justness of his cause, Petesi pleads his case before the god Amun. Almost the entirety of section B. is conceived as a reminder to Amun of the prolonged suffering endured by the Petesi family in the years preceding the 9th year of Darius. Thus section B begins with the statement: "Oh may Amun prolong his existence to inform the governor of the events that happened." (5/13) And then Petesi proceeds to go back in time and document the extensive injustice suffered by his ancestors through the preceding century, a story which continues down to the few years preceding the 9th year of Darius, whence took place the persecution which prompted the narrative. The two sections A and B are a literary unit.

But like any good narrative, the story had to be brought to a fitting conclusion. Petesi is writing in the year 401/400 B.C., the 4th year of Kam'oze/Combaphis. The incidents about which he writes were largely concluded by 426 or 416 B.C. His problems have not been resolved entirely, but his primary antagonist in the earlier persecution, Kelkhons, has died in the interim. Petesi is resigned to his loss. When he concludes with these final remarks he is essentially finished his narrative. He has not recovered his priesthood, but there is a sense of closure. We reproduce his final words.

(But) its temple-place (is) (5) lying in ruins until now. After a few days [better: after some time] Khelkhons son of Hor went to (his) fathers; (6) Psammetkmenempe son of Hor did not come to Teuzoi until now, but what he did was to send men to fetch his property, (7) until year 44 of Ahmosi. In year 3 of Kam'oze Hor, son of Psammetkmenempe, the prophet of Amun, came to Teuzoi, and stood with the priests: but they spake not with him as to any man on earth, and they did not let rations (?) be taken to him. They went to (9) Pshenah son of Ienharou, the brother of Harkhebuesikem, and wrote him the title to the share of the prophet of Amun of Teuzoi in year 4 of Kam'oze. Petition 21/4-9 (italics added)

With that Petesi ends his narrative.

There remains for us to defend our interpretation. We observe the following:

1. Taking 21/4-9 as the conclusion of the narrative makes perfect sense. We have remarked on the inappropriateness of Griffith's assumption that the life history of Petesi III ends with the conclusion of section A, with matters completely unresolved and with no literary indication that the story is over. Not so with the conclusion in the 4th year of Kam'oze. The physical end of the narrative (sections A and B combined) seems to be the most obvious place to bring things to a chronological conclusion, however unsatisfactory the outcome. Besides, Petesi twice uses the phrase "until now" at the conclusion of section B. What else does this phrase imply if not that the "now" being referenced is the time when the narrative is being written.

2. The narrative itself contradicts Griffith's claim that section B in its entirety is merely a copy of a petition sent by Petesi to the Persian governor in the 9th year of Darius. This historical material contains no special pleading, no request for redress, no hint whatsoever that it was intended to be reviewed by governmental officials. This is particularly true for the concluding paragraph quoted above. And especially troublesome to Griffith himself is the absence of any record in the "Petition" of Petesi’s most recent actions vis-à-vis the Teuzoi priesthood. Griffith is compelled to assume, in remarks quoted earlier, that "if, as is probable, the original report continued the narrative down to the 9th year of Darius, this portion was omitted as being replaced and completed by A." But this is tantamount to saying that section B is not, in fact, a duplicate of the petition mentioned in section A and that the present ending was not necessarily a part of that document.

3. We note that section A begins by referring to the 9th year of pharaoh Darius. Amasis, on the other hand, is sometimes referred to as pharaoh and sometimes not. Ka'moze is twice mentioned, but in neither case is he afforded regal status. This ambivalence toward Amasis and apparent disrespect for the status of Kam'oze is consistent with the position of these dignitaries in the revised history. It cannot be explained in the framework of the traditional history. Amasis was indeed pharaoh, but only in a secondary sense. He was a puppet king under Artaxerxes I and then under Darius II. We have already observed in a previous chapter that he regarded himself, in some contexts, as no more than a palace official. And we have also observed, as we continue to argue in the following sections, that Combaphis/Kam'oze/Kbdj was, for his first five years at least, not regarded as a pharaoh. He may have been a nomarch, originally siding with Amyrtaeus, then betraying him. He may have been, as Ktesias claims, only a powerful minister under Amyrtaeus. Perhaps he was a Persian governor, who first sided with Amyrtaeus and the rebels in 404 B.C., then reverted in 399 B.C. to his former allegiance, when Bagapates threatened to end the rebellion. His name does not sound Egyptian.

4. If Kam'oze is Cambyses, and Petesi composed his narrative nine years into the reign of Darius I, we wonder why there is no mention of the invasion of Cambyses. Why the emphasis on the 44th year of Amasis, a year before the invasion, and on the years 3 and 4 of Cambyses, following the invasion, and yet no hint that in between circumstances within Egypt had changed dramatically. In the revised history the significance of the 44th year of Amasis and of the early years of Kam'oze have already been underscored. It is the time of the Amyrtaeus rebellion. Petesi has apparently been provided some solace at news of the death of one adversary (Kelkhons, son of Hor) and the lack of recognition given by the new regime to another nemesis (Hor, son of Psammetkmenempe, the prophet of Amun who in the 15th year of Amasis had taken from Petesi the share of the prophet of Amun of Teuzoi). Petesi rests his case and ends his narrative on this note.

5. The reference to years 3 and 4 of Cambyses are troubling for the traditional history, in and of themselves. We have previously observed that two systems of dating the years of this king have been recognized – one beginning with his coronation as king of Babylon and one beginning with his inauguration as king of Persia at the death of Cyrus. To our knowledge no other numeration systems were employed. But here the years of Cambyses are apparently numbered beginning with the death of Amasis, ignoring the reign of Ankhkanre Psamtik III, or at latest at the death of Psamtik III[10]. This situation is improbable to say the least.

Let the reader decide if the Petition best supports the traditional or the revised histories.

But the Petition is not the only document that refers to a dignitary named Kbdj governing Egypt shortly after the 44th year of Amasis. For additional insights we need to take a second look at the Demotic Chronicle.

The Demotic Chronicle

Details concerning the provenance and physical structure of the Demotic Chronicle were reviewed in chapter 2 and will not be repeated here. In the words of F. Ll. Griffith this papyrus, currently the property of the Bibliotheque Nationale, and "dating from the early years of Greek rule in Egypt", contains "two interesting paragraphs concerning the treatment of the temples by Cambyses,"[11] and for that reason is of concern to this revision. In spite of the fragmentary, at times undecipherable condition of the papyrus, Griffith provides a provisional translation. The frequently inserted interrogatives testify to the difficulty of the task:

The words [concerning?] property: they which are written in the writing of property in separation (?) from year [44?] of Per'o Ahmosi unto the day when [Cambyses? came] up to Egypt (or went up out of Egypt?). Thereupon (?) he died, before he reached his country. [Darius (?) was he who ruled?] the whole land (or the whole land mourned for him, i.e. Amasis) because of his beneficence of heart, as prince. He (Cambyses or Darius?) gave Egypt to his satrap in year 3, saying, 'let the writings of account (?) . . . the numbers (?) of the warriors . . . the scribes of Egypt be sent to me . . . together, that they may write the custom of Egypt established (?) for Per'o unto (?) year [44?] of Per'o Ahmose (as?) the custom, the custom [established (?) for Per'o unto (?) the temples, the custom which was brought hither (?) . . . unto year 19 . . . Egypt which were . . . the matters in which they were engaged, the divine endowments . . . the custom of Egypt. They wrote a copy [of it in (?) the writing of Ashur.

The second column (paragraph) is not so obscure as the first, and clearly describes Kabuze, Amasis' successor, as he acts to deprive all but a select few of the Egyptian temples of much of the income they enjoyed under Amasis.

The boats (or boards?), the fire-wood, the flax (?), the papyrus (?), which used to be given to the temples aforetime in the reign of Per'o Ahmosi, except the temple of Memfi, the temple of Uon (?) (Hermopolis in the Delta), and the temple of Pubasti (?) - to the temples, Kabuze (Cambyses) commanded, saying, 'Give them not unto them, from (?) the ... , but let places be given unto them in the groves (?) of the South Land (Upper Egypt), that they may procure boats (or boards) and firewood for themselves, and bring them to their gods."
The wood-produce (?) for the three temples (named) above; Kabuze commanded, saying, 'Let them be given to them in the manner of aforetime.' The cattle which used to be given to the temples, the temples of the gods, aforetime, in the reign of Per'o Ahmosi, except the three temples (named) above; Kabuze commanded saying, '[Their] half shall be given to them. ... etc. [12]

Though several details in these paragraphs are of concern, our focus is on the introductory sentences in the first column of text which provide the time frame. For comparison we repeat Griffiths translation side by side with that of Spiegelberg from his Die Sogenannte Demotische Chronik, the critical edition of the text:

Spiegelberg: The narrative which ... them, which is written in the ..., from the 44th year of pharaoh Amasis until the day in which Cambyses became lord of Egypt. He (Cambyses) died from ... yet before he had established his dominion. Then ... Darius .... of the ... land on account of his excellence of heart.[13]

Griffith: The words [concerning?] property: they which are written in the writing of property in separation (?) from year [44?] of Per'o Ahmosi unto the day when [Cambyses? came] up to Egypt (or went up out of Egypt?). Thereupon (?) he died, before he reached his country. [Darius (?) was he who ruled?] the whole land (or the whole land mourned for him, i.e. Amasis) because of his beneficence of heart, as prince.

It is clear from a comparison of the translations provided by these two demotic scholars that these paragraphs are concerned entirely with activities within Egypt in the time interval from the 44th years of pharaoh Amasis to the day when an official named Kabuze (Kbdj) "left or arrived in Egypt" (Griffith) or "became lord of Egypt" (Spiegelberg). The nature of these reforms, primarily concerned with temple economics, is immaterial. The point is that the time interval must have been of some considerable duration. The reforms were significant. It was apparently a unique time demanding radical departures from tradition.

What strikes the interpreter immediately is the difficulty of reconciling this text with the known sequence of events associated with the traditional history. In that history the 44th year of Amasis ended in 526 B.C. and the arrival of Cambyses is dated six months later in 525 B.C.[14] The interval, supposedly occupied by the brief reign of Psamtik III, lasted only 6 months. No legislation was enacted during that time; no temple customs were altered. There was no time. If Herodotus is correct the entire brief reign of Psamtik III was taken up in a single military venture. Then what is the Chronicle talking about when it states that the following two columns of text are concerned with matters which took place between the 44th year of Amasis and the day when Cambyses became lord of Egypt? This interval of time simply does not exist.

The problem, of course, is entirely a creation of an errant Egyptian chronology. In the revised history five years separated the 44th year of Amasis (405/4 B.C.) and the "going out and coming in" of Combaphis/Kbdj, when the Egyptian dignitary became "lord of Egypt" (399 B.C.) This interval, which we have already observed in the Ktesian history and in the Petition of Petesi, is precisely the time of the 3rd Egyptian rebellion. It was a unique time demanding unique reforms. Financing the rebellion was costly. The reduction of temple incomes might well be expected. And Kbdj, a powerful minister in league with Amyrtaeus, would be precisely the man to effect these reforms.

We should not be disconcerted that both Griffith and Spiegelberg see a possible mention of Darius in the following sentence. Both scholars rely on their particular view of history to assist in translating the obscured text. It is entirely possible that Darius is not actually mentioned. Griffith cannot read the name and Spiegelberg is unsure about the translation. The text is extremely fragmentary and the precise connection of Darius with the narrative is not clear. Since Darius II died less that a year before Amasis' 44th year, this portion of the text might simply be referencing the reforms of Kbdj back to the conditions that prevailed in the days of Darius. It is Darius II, not Darius I, whose actions are at issue. That suggestion finds support from the text itself. We note further down in the first paragraph a problematic reference to the year 19 of a king whose name is lost. Spiegelberg thinks this might be Darius, Griffith does not speculate. We tend to agree with Griffith but if Spiegelberg is correct the dateline must reference Darius II. In the revised history the 19th year of Darius II was his last year on the Persian throne. The text seems to be saying that certain conditions prevailed up to this year which were different from those which were introduced after the 44th year of Amasis. All of this accords precisely with the revised chronology at the time of the Amyrtaeus rebellion. One set of economic rules held until the death of Darius II in his 19th year; another from the time of 44th year of Amasis until Kamoze became lord of Egypt in 399 B.C.

The Chronicle is concerned primarily with the reforms of Kamoze/Kbdj during the Amyrtaeus rebellion. The entire text needs to be re-examined by demotic scholars in the framework of the revised history.

A final few remarks concerning the Chronicle must suffice. If appears that Kamoze (Kbdj) did not live long after becoming pharaoh in 399 B.C. According to Griffith the text goes on to say that “he died, before he reached his country” while Spiegelberg translates “He (Cambyses) died from ... yet before he had established his dominion.”

The premature death of Kabuze/Kbdj only a few years after assisting Bagapates in putting down the Amyrtaeus rebellion is precisely what is predicted in the revised history. As we shall soon see, he ruled only into his 8th year (496 B.C.), five years as "a powerful minister of Amyrtaeus," and three years as pharaoh. In our concluding section we even hazard a guess as to how he died.

In evaluating the Chronicle it must be considered significant that here, as in the Petition of Petesi, Amasis is referred to as pharaoh while Kbdj is not. We have consistently argued that for the duration of the Amyrtaeus rebellion Kbdj, though an active and powerful participant, took a back seat to the Saite prince Amyrtaeus. In the Assiout papyri, which we examine next, Kbdj assumes regal status, but only late in his 5th and through to his 8th year. Apparently it was the Bagapates invasion and the ensuing exile of Amyrtaeus which resulted in his elevation in office, precisely as stated in the Ktesian fragment.[15]

The Assiout Papyri

In his 1921 excavations of a large tomb in an animal necropolis at Assiout, Wainwright found a group of demotic papyri bundled together in a cache. According to the preliminary analysis of these documents by Henri Sottas[16] the six papyri originated from the end of the 6th century B.C.. All six bear dates which connect them with the final years of Amasis and the years of his successor, supposedly Cambyses. It is the dates rather than the contents of these documents which concerns us here.

At least one of the papyri (#4) refers to the years 41, 42, and 43 of an unnamed king who, according to Sottas, could only be Amasis, who is clearly named on another papyrus in the group. A second papyrus (#5) refers to year 6 of a pharaoh Kb(j) (whom Sottas identifies as Cambyses) and two others (#3 and #6) mention years 5 and 7 respectively of what is probably this same pharaoh. The identification of Kbdj as Cambyses prompts Sottas to comment on this unusual find. "Up to now," he remarks, "we possess no administrative or juridical document dated to Cambyses."[17]

The two primary documents in the group, papyri #1 and #2, are related to one another, and according to the editor, must be studied together. They deal with inheritance issues and involve members of the same extended family. The first is clearly dated to the year 8 of Kbdj and the second contains a reference to the year 28 of a king whose name is missing, but whom Sottas identifies as Amasis. Amasis is named several times in the 1st papyrus, Kbdj many times (with dates) in both.

This group of papyri present several serious anomalies which combine to challenge the chronological assessment provided them by Sottas and followed by all subsequent interpreters. We summarize:

1. It is observed by Sottas that in papyrus #1 all indications of royalty are denied to Amasis, while Kbdj is consistently referred to as pharaoh. He observes, correctly, that this is precisely the opposite of the characterization of these two dignitaries in the Demotic Chronicle where "Amasis is depicted as a king, while Cambyses and even Darius are named merely as individuals"[18].This disparate treatment should make us question not only the status of Kbdj but also that of Amasis. In the traditional history Amasis and Cambyses were uncontested rulers of all Egypt. Why would they not be identified as such in all documents which name them, especially in administrative/legal documents such as the Assiout papyri? In the revised history such ambivalence is to be expected. Amasis was subservient to Artaxerxes I and Darius II. Documents originating from a Persian context, as these six papyri certainly do, should reasonably ignore Amasis regal titles, while emphasizing the legitimacy of Kbdj whose assistance in suppressing the Amyrtaeus rebellion warranted his elevation to pharaonic status. On the other hand the pro-Egyptian Demotic Chronicle could be expected to acknowledge the reign of Amasis while denying legitimacy not only to Kbdj, the collaborator/traitor, but even to Darius II himself, assuming that king is even mentioned.[19]

2. The dates assigned to Kbdj in the Assiout papyri are a major problem for the traditional history. The fact that they number the years of Amasis through to the end of his reign all but demands that the years of Cambyses be numbered beginning with his conquest of Egypt. We have already noted that his years 5,6,7 and 8 occur in several of these documents. Papyrus 2, which is dated to his 8th year, also mentions his 2nd and 4th years. If Kbdj is indeed Cambyses, who ruled Egypt for less than four years (525-522 B.C.) there is no reasonable explanation for the excessively high dates, which have engendered a protracted debate ever since Wainwright's discovery. The fact that the 2nd and 8th years of Kbdj are contained on the same papyrus precludes the possibility of alternative dating schemes being employed. So extreme is the difficulty that Devauchelle, the influential French demoticist/Egyptologist has recently proposed a dating scheme wherein Cambyses' Egyptian years were numbered from 525 B.C. (his 1st year) through to 519 B.C. (his 8th year), the last four years credited to Cambyses even though he was dead.[20] At minimum this interpretation underscores the bankruptcy of the traditional chronology.

There is no need for this debate. The problem is resolved entirely if Kbdj is correctly identified as a contemporary of Amyrtaeus, the successor of Amasis at the end of the 5th century. If he participated in the rebellion, as suggested by Ktesias, and became pharaoh in 399 B.C., the fifth year of his ministry under Amyrtaeus, and then backdated his regnal years to 404 B.C., the 1st year of the rebellion, the problem is solved. He may actually have been a self-styled pharaoh at the beginning of the rebellion. But even if Kbdj was only a vizier of Amyrtaeus during the rebellion, the fact that a papyrus drafted in his 8th year (when he was certainly pharaoh) uses the pharaonic title when referring back to his 2nd and 4th years, is not a significant objection. The fact that a pharaoh is "called by the kingly title for immediate identification, even in referring back to his activities of earlier days" is a phenomena called prolepsis by K.A. Kitchen, who documents its use in other circumstances.[21]

3. It is noted by Sottas that the name of Cambyses (Kbdj) in these papyri shows "a novel orthography which resembles the form of the name in the Demotic Chronicle." In fact the two spellings are identical. If the name can be deemed a shortened form of Cambyses by scholars, then there should be no objection to our treating it as a shortened form of the name Combaphis. In that sense nothing in the name appears to favor either the traditional or the revised chronology of the times. But the name of Cambyses is documented on many monuments other than the Petition, the Demotic Chronicle and the Assiout papyri discussed in this section. And everywhere else it differs significantly from the three hieroglyphs used here and in the Chronicle. There is no hint of any abbreviation of his name in any other inscriptions which unambiguously refer to his reign. The situation of Combaphis is unique. His name is not preserved other than by Ktesias and by these few Chronicle and Assiout inscriptions, this on the assumption that we are correct. There is no need to explain the abbreviation. It can be argued that this was the only spelling used by this dignitary, i.e. that Combaphis is an epithet of Kbdj, not the reverse.

4. The fact that these six papyri were found together, and that the years 41-43 of Amasis and the years 2-8 of Kbdj appear severally in individual documents, suggests that they were all composed around the same time, i.e. in a very narrow time frame. Only the mention of the year 28 (of Amasis) on papyrus 2 is an anomaly. We suggest as a possibility only that the papyrus #2 reference is to the 28th year of Darius II in his extended dating system, which would equate to the year 407 B.C., that same as the 43rd year of Amasis. If so then the entire body of Assiout papyri can be encompassed in a twelve year time span, a much more likely scenario.

On that note we leave Assiout and journey to the palace of Apries in Memphis.

The Palace of Apries

As we observed in an earlier chapter the palace of Apries was not, in fact, a palace. It was a fortress, complete with moat for withstanding a prolonged assault. It is not surprising, therefore, that when excavated by Petrie at the turn of the 20th century, there were discovered in its ruins very few artifacts of any antiquity. This was not a place where antiques might be expected to survive. The few surviving items are, on that account, of considerable interest.

The things found in the palace were not numerous, but they were mostly of unusually fine quality, as we might expect, and they throw light on the length of use of the building after the time of Apries. Among some small pieces of late coloured sculpture, there was one with a fragment of a blank cartouche, on which had been painted the beginning of the name of Cambyses. The next dated object is the sling bullet of Khabbash who held Memphis 486-484 B.C. There was rough reconstruction after the XXVIth dynasty, as the slab of Tha-ast-en-amu, who appears to have been also called Aahmes-si-neit-rannu, was brought probably from his tomb. Of the time of Artaxerxes II, 402 B.C., there is a copy of a date on a document in Aramaic. Probably of the Persian age is the large quantity of scale armour... Then there is the bowl of Zeher, the last Pharaoh but one, 361-359 B.C., which shews that this was still the royal residence to the end of the kingdom. The moving of the court to Alexandria seems to have left the place deserted; no Ptolemaic pottery has been found in the palace, .... [22]

We have previously considered the sling bullet of Khabbash and the Persian armour. Such relics, if relics they be, are hardly out of place in a fortress. Nor is it surprising to find them in a facility which was still in use in the 4th century. The bullet may have been imbedded in a wall, or even intended for reuse. The armor may be 4th century military issue, dating from late in the 1st Persian domination (which we have extended into the reign of Achoris). The Artaxerxes II inscription and the bowl of Zeher also belong to the 4th century. But what of the cartouche of Cambyses and the slab of Thaastenamu. Both supposedly belong to the late 6th century? How do we explain their presence in a palace fortress still in use in the 4th century?

Petrie says nothing else about the cartouche. No photograph or drawing of it is included in the plates. The slab of Thaastenamu, an artisan employed by Amasis, or by a namesake of that king, is even more problematic on account of its bulk. How did it arrive in the 4th century context in which it was found? Sensing the problem, Petrie speculates that the monument was brought into the palace a century after its creation, "probably from his ( Thaastenamu's) tomb."

We argue instead that the abbreviated name of Cambyses is actually the name of Kbdj and that it is therefore perfectly at home in an early 4th century fortress. Since the name is enclosed in a cartouche, it must date from 399-396 B.C., when Kbdj adopted regal titles. The fragment must be preserved in the storage rooms of the British Museum. It would be interesting to verify that the name of Kbdj, not Cambyses, is attested on this object, though nothing conclusive could be argued from the fact. In either case an ad hoc explanation could be provided to explain its presence.

Not so with the slab of Thaastenamu, for the problem is not just how this late 6th century monument ended up in a 4th century fortress, but how to explain its inscription. Petrie delegated the translation of the artifacts from his excavations at Memphis to J..H. Walker. The comments of Walker regarding the large inscribed slab of Thaastenamu bear repeating.

On the right is a hand-copy of the photograph on Pl. XVII. The form of the man's name, Tha-ast-en-amu, in whose honour the inscription was written, is very interesting. Many instances are now known of this type of name, and it was evidently a favourite form of name at Memphis. In the different names one deity replaces another. In this man's name Isis is the goddess. In Memphis I. Pl. XXXII, Apis is the god in the name of Tha-hap-amu. It is interesting to note that the last name is spelt, in the last line on the back of the statue, Tha-hap-en-amu, corresponding exactly to the form Tha-ast-en-amu. It seems probable that the other name of Tha-ast-en-amu was Aahmes-si-neit. If this is so, it is placed in a most unusual manner, at the end of the opening phrase of his speech, after the cartouche of the king Khnum-ab-ra, whose name was also Aahmes-si-neit. It is hardly possible, however, to consider that this is meant for the king's name and not enclosed in a cartouche. It is less improbable, therefore, to consider that the name has been transferred from the usual place, immediately following the first name, to the place where the king' similar name would have occurred if the second cartouche had been written.

With this introduction Walker proceeds to translate the text:

(1) The hereditary prince, the royal treasurer, the confidential friend, the one who is in the palace, the king's reporter, the scribe of the royal archives in the royal presence, Tha-ast-en-amu. He says, I made for thee (read k for neb) the judgment (?) - hall of (2) the king of Upper and Lower Egypt Khnum-ab-ra. He was called Aahmes-si-neit. Thou (k for neb) madest me chief judge [lit. "over the listeners"] and possessor of the reward of merit in thy time (k for neb). I carried out all orders, and renewed thy works in (3) thy festival (?heb) of ... upon earth. I established thy name firmly on every place in the great hall. I built this palace, for the noblewoman Nebt-ankh, which the noble-woman Semset gave. (4) It was furnished with a lake, together with all beautiful gifts by the god, ... the years of the king of Upper and Lower Egypt Kheper-ka-ra living for ever, in whose time I worked these things for thee (k for neb)."[23]

The fact that Thaastenamu was named after Ahmose-sa-neith (Amasis) suggests that he was born in that king's reign. Apparently, if we correctly interpret the inscription, he supervised repairs or remodeling within the palace of Apries on orders from Amasis, probably late in that king's reign. But the end of the inscription suggests that further additions to the palace complex were added in the reign of "the king of Upper and Lower Egypt Kheper-ka-ra." The fact that the name of Kheperkara is followed by the epithet "living forever" suggests that he is alive and that the monumental slabs were inscribed in his reign. Therein lies the problem.

Other than the infamous Sesostris I, who lived a thousand years earlier than Amasis, there is only one other pharaoh known to bear the prenomen Kheperkara. The name belongs to Nekhtnebef, the first king of Manetho's 30th dynasty, whose dates are 380-363 B.C. Petrie is perplexed. He mentions the problem in passing and then leaves the matter. "It is not obvious at first whether the royal name kheper-ka-ra is that of Senusert I in remembrance, or whether it is of Nekht-neb-f in the XXXth dynasty."[24]