Chapter 5: Repair & Restoration (543-525 B.C.)

Cyrus King of Egypt

In 550 B.C. Cyrus, king of Anshan, dethroned his maternal grandfather Astyages, son of Cyaxares, king of Media, uniting the adjoining kingdoms of Parsua and Media. Four years later, in 546 B.C., after a stalemate land battle near the Halys River in central Anatolia, Cyrus overran the Lydian capital at Sardis. Croesus, the Lydian king, was either captured or killed. Encouraged by his initial triumphs Cyrus laid plans to extend his fledgling Medo-Persian empire. He left to Harpagus, one of his generals, the task of defeating the Greek Ionian and Aeolian colonies of western Asia Minor. Meanwhile he laid plans for the ultimate conquest, the neo-Babylonian kingdom ruled by the eccentric Nabonidus. His was no idle dream, but a firm resolve backed by military and diplomatic skill that became the subject of legends for later generations. And he was ultimately successful. Within a decade of his initial success against Lydia, Cyrus ruled the Near East from the Aegean to India.

First on his agenda after his Lydian success were Egypt and Babylon. According to Herodotus:

"For Babylon was an obstacle (to his plans) as was the Bactrian nation and the Sacae and Egyptians; against these he purposed to lead his army personally and to send another commander against the Ionians." (Her. 1.153)

That these intentions were carried out is implied by Herodotus, who proceeds immediately in the narrative to describe the activities of Harpagus and then abruptly turns his attention to the conquest of Babylon. In the interim we can assume he conquered Egypt. There is a clear and systematic development in Herodotus, who describes the growth of the Persian Empire from west to east. We are not left to speculate on why Herodotus fails to describe the fall of Egypt. The rationale for its omission is spelled out.

Harpagus then made havoc of lower Asia; in the upper country Cyrus himself subdued every nation, leaving none untouched. Of the greater part of these I will say nothing, but will speak only of those which gave Cyrus most trouble and are worthiest to be described. When Cyrus had brought all the mainland under his sway, he attacked the Assyrians (=Babylonians). There are in Assyria many other great cities; but the most famous and the strongest was Babylon, where the royal dwelling had been set after the destruction of Ninus (=Nineveh) (Her. 1.177)(emphasis added)

There can be only one interpretation of Herodotus, namely, that Egypt was among the nations of the upper country subdued by Cyrus prior to his invasion of Babylon. Herodotus explains his failure to document the conquest. Apparently Egypt gave Cyrus no trouble and the (non-)event deserved no further comment. The Persian occupation of Egypt was unopposed. This is precisely what we expect if the revised history is correct. Egypt was a sparsely populated wasteland defended by a Babylonian army of occupation, part of which, if we are to believe Xenophon, had been sent across the Mediterranean to assist Croesus in his earlier battle with Cyrus. Many of these Egyptian mercenaries, whatever their nationality, remained permanently in Anatolia. Those left in Egypt would hardly be sufficient to contest the advance of the Persian army. Any native Egyptian conscripts are just as likely to have sided with Cyrus than to have opposed him. The invasion of Tanuatamon that immediately preceded the arrival of Cyrus informs us clearly that Egypt was not heavily defended.

But we do not have to depend on Herodotus for this conjecture. The change from Babylonian to Persian control of Egypt during the reign of Cyrus is explicitly stated by Xenophon.

Xenophon

Xenophon, an Athenian, was born around 444 B.C. As a youth he was a student of Socrates; rather late in life he joined the army. When Darius II died in 404 B.C. his son Artaxerxes II succeeded him. A second son, named Cyrus, satrap in Anatolia, challenged the appointment and led an army against Artaxerxes. Xenophon was persuaded to serve in the Greek contingent of Cyrus' army. At Cunaxa a battle was engaged, Cyrus was killed, and the remnant of the mercenary army of Cyrus was dispersed. Xenophon's reputation is founded largely on his detailed description of the laborious retreat of the defeated forces along the Tigris through Armenia to Trapezus on the Black Sea and back home. This classic story, The Anabasis, was but one in an extensive list of the literary works of Xenophon. We are here concerned rather with his account of the life of Cyrus - the Cyropaedia.

Twice in this lengthy biography of Cyrus, once in the opening and once in the concluding sections, Xenophon describes the extent of the Persian Empire. At the outset of the book the claim is made that

Cyrus, finding the nations in Asia also independent in exactly the same way, started out with a little band of Persians and became the leader of the Medes by their full consent and of the Hyrcanians by theirs; he then conquered Syria, Assyria, Arabia, Cappadocia, both Phrygias, Lydia, Caria, Phoenicia, and Babylonia; he ruled also over Bactria, India, and Cilicia; and he was likewise king of the Sacians, Paphlagonians, Magadidae, and very many other nations, of which one could not even tell the names; he brought under his sway the Asiatic Greeks also, and, descending to the sea, he added both Cyprus and Egypt to his empire. (Cyr. I.1.4)

Again at the end of the narrative Xenophon states:

Now, when the year had gone round, he collected his army together at Babylon, containing, it is said, about one hundred and twenty thousand horse, about two thousand scythe-bearing chariots and about six hundred thousand foot. And when these had been made ready for him, he started out on that expedition on which he is said to have subjugated all the nations that fill the earth from where one leaves Syria even to the Indian Ocean. His next expedition is said to have gone to Egypt and to have subjugated that country also. From that time on his empire was bounded on the east by the Indian Ocean, on the north by the Black Sea, on the west by Cyprus and Egypt, and on the south by Ethiopia. (Cyr. VIII.6.19,20)

The claim is made by scholars that these statements by Xenophon stand in conflict with the combined testimony of Herodotus and Ktesias, both of whom credit Cambyses, not Cyrus, with the conquest of Egypt. As a result, at least in respect to his remarks concerning Egypt, Xenophon is discredited. But we have already noted that Herodotus book one contains at minimum the suggestion that Cyrus conquered Egypt and we have previously argued that the Cambyses narrative in Herodotus chapter three is the product of a later age. We have also expressed the conviction, yet to be defended, that in fact Ktesias does not credit Cambyses with the conquest of Egypt, in spite of scholarly statements to the contrary. Ktesias has been misrepresented, as explained in the following chapter.

At the turn of the twentieth century Georges Radet expressed the opinion that scholars were overly dismissive of Xenophon's remarks vis-à-vis Egypt.[1] After all, he argued, "this summary of the enterprises of Cyrus and the listing of the limits of his Empire agree with all that we know of oriental history, except in one point". The exceptional point, of course, was Xenophon's claim of Persian suzerainty over Egypt. Radet, for one, was convinced that Xenophon must be taken seriously. He argued that since Egypt and Babylon were part of a coalition with Croesus of Lydia against Cyrus, it is incomprehensible that Cyrus would ignore Egypt in the sequel to the Lydian war. "L'abstention de Cyrus a l'egard d'Ahmasis est une anomalie qu'on peut difficilement s'expliquer." The solution for Radet - who believed, following the traditional history, that Amasis ruled Egypt at this time - was to assume that Amasis accepted a nominal submission to Persia in order to stave off an impending Persian military advance on the country. Tribute was paid, but the country remained essentially independent.

Radet's arguments are valid, but his conclusion must be modified. Xenophon speaks of an expedition to conquer Egypt. His statements imply a physical conquest of the country extending into Upper Egypt, as far as the border of Ethiopia. In the revised history we are at liberty to take Xenophon at face value. The introductory passage in the Cyropaedia suggests that Cyrus' conquest of Egypt followed his victories over the Asiatic Greeks. The second passage, rephrased, may well suggest that the Egyptian victory was among his first. Allowing three years for the military suppression of Asia Minor, Phoenicia, and Cyprus, we can reasonably date Cyrus' initial conquest of Egypt to 543 B.C.

In our brief discussion of Tanuatamon's 543 B.C. invasion of the Delta we observed that Lower Egypt was then controlled by local officials subservient to a the Babylonian occupation force. Of these princes only Pakruru was named. We must assume that Psamtik was among the otherwise anonymous officials who groveled before the Ethiopian king, or, following Herodotus, that he had been temporarily removed from power in Sais by the Babylonian authority (see below). With the arrival of the mercenary army of Cyrus later that same year Tanuatamon fled to Thebes and perhaps exited Egypt altogether. Psamtik was elevated above his peers to govern the newly constituted Persian province. Thus began the 26th Saite dynasty.

Rise of Psamtik I

Psamtik According to Herodotus

Very few details are known of the 54-year reign of Wahibre Psamtik I. That fact alone should cause historians to wonder. He must have been a great military leader to have succeeded in repelling the powerful army of Ashurbanipal in 664 B.C., an army that had no problem driving from Thebes the powerful Tanuatamon, whose army numbered in the "millions and hundreds of thousands". If Psamtik's dates are correct, and he reigned from 664-610 B.C., then he must have been at minimum eighty years old in the years 616-610 B.C. when, according to the Babylonian Chronicle, the Egyptian army, now allied with Assyria, was assisting its former enemy against the rising power of Nabopolassar's neo-Babylonian empire. We can only imagine what military exploits filled the historical interlude between these two extremes.

Unfortunately Psamtik's modesty must have rivaled his assumed military prowess. He left to posterity not a single inscription boasting of his military achievements. When we examine below the few existing monuments and historical anecdotes related to his reign we will find recorded the activities of a skilled diplomat rather than the conquests of an ambitious king.

All that is known of the rise of Psamtik comes from Herodotus (II.1.147-155). We are informed from the Histories that Psamtik's father Nikos was killed by the Ethiopian king Sabacos, that Psamtik subsequently sought refuge in Syria from whence he was later summoned by the inhabitants of Sais. At the time of his return Egypt was governed by twelve kings,[2] of whom only the name of Psamtik is preserved. These rival chieftains subsequently challenged Psamtik’s authority and he was driven from Sais into the marshes of the western Delta. From this temporary exile, and with the help of Ionian and Carian soldiers who by chance arrived on the Egyptian coast, Psamtik returned to defeat his deposers and claim for himself sole rule of the country.

From this lengthy tale, considerably embellished with folkloric anecdotes, the traditional history is able to salvage only the barest of detail in defense of its hypothetical reconstruction. The slaying of Nikos by Sabacos, years in advance of Psamtik's sole reign, Psamtik's subsequent refuge in Syria, and his secondary installation in Sais with subsequent banishment, are totally inconsistent with the historical situation which prevailed in the interval between Ashurbanipal’s invasions of 667 B.C. and 664 B.C. Contemporary historians reject them outright. The lack of any mention of the occupying Assyrian army is equally problematic. In but a single point can the reputation of Herodotus be partially rehabilitated. He claims that Psamtik came to power with the assistance of Ionian Greeks and Carians, and it is argued that this reflects a memory of the troops sent by Gyges, the Lydian king, to assist Psamtik in his successful coup. But we have already expressed our disdain for that highly questionable interpretation of the Assyrian annals. And we wonder why Herodotus refers specifically to Ionian and Carian, rather than Lydian troops.

In the revised history it is immediately apparent that Herodotus has access to reliable historical records. Nikos, the father of Psamtik, could well have died many years before Psamtik's sole reign. In fact, that must be the case in the revised chronology. It is admitted by scholars that several petty dynasts ruled in several regions of the Egyptian delta in the initial years of Taharka. And we have argued similarly that multiple kings ruled in Egypt throughout the tenure of the 25th dynasty kings. Nikos could conceivably be included among them as king of Sais. If so then it is probable that he died at the time of Nebuchadrezzar's invasion. Some confirmation of this fact is forthcoming later in this chapter, where we argue that Psamtik, at least once in his life, dated his reign from 563 B.C., rather than 543 B.C., a possible reference to the date of his father's death.

While Herodotus is undoubtedly in error in blaming Sabacos (Shabaka?) for the death of Nikos, he is not far wrong chronologically. Shabaka died around 585 B.C., only two decades before the invasion. It is possible that Taharka had something to do the death of Psamtik's father [3], in which case the reference is believable. It must be remembered that Shabaka is the only 25th dynasty pharaoh of whom Herodotus has any knowledge. If informed that an Ethiopian king killed Necao, we can understand why he might have supplied the name of Shabaka.

Psamtik's flight to Syria at the time of his father’s death is equally plausible, though we admit that Psamtik must have been a babe-in-arms at the time. His surviving family would be among thousands seeking sanctuary in neighboring countries from the Egyptian holocaust.[4]

There is no contradiction either in Psamtik's return from his Syrian exile or in his later flight from the Delta kings. The twenty-year rule of Babylon over Egypt (564-543 B.C.) must have witnessed considerable variation in administrative structure. Psamtik's return to Sais as a local administrator would pose no problem for Babylon so long as tribute was collected and routinely paid. Withholding those taxes might well have necessitated subsequent flight and temporary exile.

If Psamtik's elevation to power with the help of Ionian and Carian troops can be claimed as partial vindication of the traditional history it can, a fortiori, substantially argue the case for the revised history. We have already observed that Cyrus, following his victory over Croesus in 546 B.C., left his general Harpagus to complete the subjugation of the Ionians of western Anatolia[5]. Herodotus describes in great detail the ensuing fall of the Ionian and Aeolian city-states.[6] Then, moving south and east, Harpagus proceeded to invade Caria.

Harpagus, after subduing Ionia, made an expedition against the Carians, Caunians, and Lycians, taking with him Ionians and Aeolians. Now among these the Carians were a people who had come to the mainland from the islands (Her I.171)

This Carian expedition (Her. I.171-177) was followed by the conquest of the balance of the Anatolian states bordering on the Mediterranean eastward. While Harpagus was thus engaged in southeastern Asia Minor, Cyrus proceeded to conquer the nations of the upper country, which included Egypt according to the argument proposed in the previous section of this chapter. We repeat the summary statement of Herodotus quoted earlier:

Harpagus then made havoc of lower Asia; in the upper country Cyrus himself subdued every nation, leaving none untouched. Of the greater part of these I will say nothing, but will speak only of those which gave Cyrus most trouble and are worthiest to be described. When Cyrus had brought all the mainland under his sway, he attacked the Assyrians. (Her I.177-178)

According to Herodotus, only months before Cyrus "subdued every nation" in the upper country the Persian army was augmented by mercenary troops of the seafaring Ionians and Carians. The time was midway between the fall of Lydia in 546 B.C. and the fall of Babylon in 539 B.C. According to the revised history, informed by Herodotus, Psamtik I rose to power in Egypt with the assistance of Ionian and Carian mercenaries who just happened to arrive offshore in 543 B.C. Coincidence or history?

At minimum we are encouraged by the correspondence between Herodotus and the revised chronology.

Recovery and Restoration

With the arrival of Cyrus in Egypt, and the installation of Psamtik as a puppet king/governor, there began a prolonged period of restoration in Egypt. In the monuments left by those engaged in this recovery effort we find clear testimony to the widespread destruction wrought by Nebuchadrezzar and to the prolonged Babylonian occupation of the country that followed. The intent of the balance of this chapter is to document these eyewitness accounts. But there is a problem.

In the traditional history the reign of Psamtik I began immediately following the Assyrian invasions of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal. It follows therefore that monuments dated to the early years of Psamtik I should be expected to contain references to pervasive destruction and the occupation of Egypt by a foreign army. Unless we can somehow distinguish the Assyrian and Babylonian invasions we will not be able to use the invasion references to further our argument positively, though at minimum the critic must admit that devastation, destruction, and occupation did in fact precede the arrival of Psamtik I.

We begin therefore with a summary of the relevant years in the two histories (Tables 10 & 11 below). The reader not well versed in the history of this period is advised to have constant access to this table throughout the discussion that follows.

Table 10: End of the 25th Dynasty – Traditional History

671	Esarhaddon invaded Egypt and established twenty "kings" as local administrators, including Mantimanhe (Mentuemhet?) in Thebes.
667	Ashurbanipal invaded Egypt (1st invasion) to put down an insurrection fomented by Tarqu (Taharka?). There is no indication in the Assyrian annals that Thebes was invaded at this time, much less that the temples of the Nile valley were looted or destroyed. (Based entirely on one secondary source - the inscriptions of Mentuemhet - the claim is made by some scholars that the Assyrians did in fact decimate and plunder the south of Egypt, including Thebes, at this time If so, then Mentuemhet immediately set about restoring Upper Egypt.)
666	Several of the local kings/administrators planned yet another coup, sending representatives south to Taharka to seek his assistance. It appears that Taharka at this time resided in Thebes. The planned rebellion was discovered and the Assyrian reprisal was severe, but limited to the Delta. Niku, Sharruludari, and Pakruru were taken to Thebes. Taharka is not mentioned again in the Assyrian annals.
665	Niku was returned to Sais with increased authority and prestige.
664	Early in the year Urdamanie (Tanuatamon?) led an army from the south (Thebes?) to invade the Delta. Ashurbanipal responded (2nd invasion) and drove the intruder from the Delta, following him south to Thebes. Thebes (recently restored by Mentuemhet?) was (once again?) sacked and looted and Tanuatamon escaped into Nubia, only to return when the Assyrians lost control of Egypt later in the year. There is no record in the Assyrian annals of any destruction to cultic centers in central Egypt between Memphis and Thebes. Some scholars date these events to 663 B.C., rather than 664 B.C.
664/3	Late in the 664 B.C. or early the next year, according to the scholars, Psamtik son of Niku wrested control of the Delta from the lightly defended Assyrian garrison and began his lengthy reign of 54 years.
664/3- 656/5	Urdamanie (Tanuatamon?) continued to hold power in Thebes until shortly before Psamtik's 9th year, the time of the well-documented enthronement of Psamtik's daughter Nitocris as protégé of the god's wife in Thebes. During this time Psamtik is considered to be consolidating his authority in Lower Egypt.
656	Psamtik assumed control of Upper Egypt in his 9th year. It is not known what became of Tanuatamon.

Table 11: End of the 25th Dynasty – Revised History

564	Nebuchadrezzar invaded Lower Egypt late in Taharka's 6th year. Resulting death and deportation decimated the population. Temples were destroyed. Priests were murdered or exiled. Taharka was driven south into Thebes.
563	Cultic centers in Egypt from Memphis to Thebes were looted and plundered as Nebuchadrezzar moved south. The priesthood was all but annihilated. Thebes was attacked and destroyed. Taharka escaped into Nubia. Babylonian garrisons were established at Old Cairo (Egyptian Babylon) in Lower Egypt and in Syene/Elephantine in Upper Egypt. There may well have been additional troops stationed in Marea and Migdol in the western and eastern Delta respectively.
563-543	Egypt remained desolate with a sparse population, heavily taxed by the Babylonian authorities. Temple worship all but ceased, though a few priests survived the invasion. Limited activity is registered in the Serapeum. Details are lacking concerning the nature of the administrative structure of the occupation force, but from Herodotus and the Dream Stela of Tanuatamon there might well have been twelve "kings" (or mayors) functioning much as did the twenty "kings" in the days of Ashurbanipal. Many surviving Egyptians may have been conscripted into the Babylonian army garrisoned in Egypt. Some of these forces were sent to assist Croesus in Lydia in 546 B.C. They did not return.
543	Death and defection of Egyptian mercenaries in Anatolia had seriously weakened the Babylonian garrisons in Egypt. Additionally some troops may have been recalled to defend Babylon, leaving the local administrators/mayors with little military support. Taharka died early in this, his 27th year. Tanuatamon invaded Egypt and received a hero's welcome. The first phase of the exile had ended. Cyrus sent a Persian army to Egypt, augmented by a combined Ionian/Carian naval force. Tanuatamon retreated to the south, probably exiting Egypt entirely. Egypt became, throughout its length, a Persian province. Cyrus as governor set up Psamtik. From the outset Psamtik was a king, inheriting pharaonic titles from his father. He dated his rule from 543 B.C. A fort was built at Daphne and manned with Greek mercenaries. Old Cairo, Marea, and Elephantine were garrisoned.
543-525	Restoration work was underway. Temples were rebuilt and temple worship re-instituted. Petesi, Mentuemhet, and Petosiris were active in Teuzoi, Thebes, and Hermopolis Magna respectively, and their monuments provide vivid testimony to the extent of the destruction wrought by Nebuchadrezzar.

Petition of Petesi

In the John Rylands library in Manchester reside a group of nine papyri dated to the seventh and sixth centuries B.C. Their dates are determined by their connection to Saite dynasty kings from Psamtik 1 through Amasis. In the revised chronology they date therefore from the late 6th through the 5th century. The papyri are part of a single collection of a priestly family, which settled at Teuzoi, a site on the east bank of the Nile south of Memphis, better known in antiquity as el-Hibeh. Our attention focuses on a single one of these papyri. In the words of the editor F. Ll. Griffith "by far the most important of the papyri from El Hibeh is the great roll of the Petition or memorial of Petesi, nearly 4 1/4 metres or 14 feet in length, and closely written over the whole of the recto and five-sixths of the verso."[7] There are four principal divisions of this lengthy document. Three are of interest.

The first five columns describe the harsh treatment afforded a certain priest Petesi in the years immediately following the 9th year of Darius. Griffith summarizes their content as:

Events of the 9th and following years of Darius, viz. Petesi's unwilling evidence on the causes of the ruin of Teuzoi, his sufferings and imprisonment, followed by a murderous attack on him by the priests: his petition to the "Governor" or satrap (?) for protection, the revengeful burning of his house, the end being his return to Teuzoi, after more than a year's absence, under a guarantee of safety and protection, but without compensation for the injuries done to him or any attention to the rights which he claimed through his ancestors in the temple of Teuzoi. Petition 30

This portion of the narrative, from the point of view of the present revision, raises but a single question. Is this harsh treatment afforded Petesi taking place in the reign of Darius I or Darius II. The question is not actually raised by Griffith . Assuming a history in which Egypt is ruled sequentially by Amasis, Cambyses and Darius, it must be Darius I since the second part of the narrative mentions the 44th year of Amasis in some connection with an individual named Kamoze (kmdj?) who, in this context, can only refer to Cambyses. We have the same problem occurring here as was seen in the Demotic Chronicle (cf. chapter 2). This is not the place to pursue the matter. We will return to the subject in chapter 11. For the record it should be stated, however, that the incident took place in the reign of Darius II.

This first portion of the narrative makes reference to a petition sent to the Governor or satrap by Petesi (III). This petition apparently reviewed significant events in the Petesi family history that were considered crucial in establishing Petesi's right to the priesthood at Teuzoi, a central issue in his complaint. The second or ensuing portion of the narrative appears to be a copy of that petition. This family history continues for sixteen columns, documenting events from the 4th year of Psamtik through the entire Saite dynasty to the 4th year of Kamoze. It is highly entertaining reading. It is also at times confusing. There are many Petesi's and Essemteu's, a hereditary sequence of patronyms in the Petesi family. We avoid the problem by restricting our discussion to the first generation, that of Petesi I, the great-great-grandfather of Petesi III. Thus the petition of Petesi III begins:

To inform the governor of the events that happened unto my father (= forefather Petesi I): In the 4th year of Per'o Psammtek the elder, Ptores was in the charge of Peteesi, son of 'Ankhsheshonk, the Master of Shipping, from the southern guard-house (?) of Memfi unto Suan.

We have seen all these place names before. Psamtik 1 has appointed a certain Petesi, son of Ankhsheshonk, to regulate shipping between the two garrisons at Memphis (Memfi) and Syene ((As)suan/Elephantine). Ptores is the Pathros of Jeremiah, usually translated Upper Egypt. The 4th year of Psamtik in our reconstruction is 540 B.C. We are twenty-four years into the Egyptian exile.

Petesi, son of Ankhsheshonk, is not the patriarch Petesi I, and is mentioned in our discussion primarily because he features in secondary problem to be considered later. The patriarch Petesi (I), son of Ieturou, appears immediately as the assistant of Petesi, son of Ankhsheshonk, the master of shipping. The master of shipping is old and asks Psamtik for relief, recommending his assistant Petesi (I) for the job. Already, in his duties under the shipping master, Petesi (I) has been able to increase food production and state revenue by fifty percent.

I have a colleague named Peteesi son of Ieturou; he it is that administers (?) Ptores and fosters its silver and its boti-corn: and it hath come to pass that Ptores is very prosperous; its silver and its boti have made one into one-and-a-half. Let him be brought before Per'o, let a good thing be said unto him before Per'o, let it be said unto him, Ptores is committed unto thee," it being committed unto me also ... Petition 78-9

In spite of his request for relief the master of shipping retained his job, but Petesi (I) assumed most of the work load, including the inspection of sites along the Nile from Memphis to Syene. Petesi, the shipping master, went into semi-retirement in Hnes.

Peteesi son of Ieturou came southward, inspecting, from the southern guardhouse unto Suan; (but) Peteesi son of 'Ankhsheshonk, the Master of the Shipping, settled in Hnes and report was rendered to him of everything that happened in Ptores.

The narrative quickly focuses on Teuzoi, the ancestral home of Petesi (III).

Peteesi son of Ieturou reached Teuzoi: he went to the temple and inspected every place that was in the temple of Teuzoi. And behold he found the temple of Teuzoi to be in the style of a very large House, but that it was short of men: he found not a man in the temple except one aged priest and a (shrine)-opener. And Peteesi son of Ieturou caused the priest to be brought, and said to him, 'Behold, since thou art not deficient in age, tell me, I pray, the manner in which this town hath been destroyed.' And the priest said unto him, 'The thing hath happened (in this wise?): No man was priest here except the priests of Amenra'senter; but your ancestors were priests here, and they made this fane glorious with all things: endowment-estates in abundance were appropriated to Amun of Teuzoi, and this House was spoken of as the first (?) seat of Amenra'senter. When that evil time came the great fanes (i.e. temples) of Kemi (=Egypt) were made to pay taxes, and this town was burdened, and they departed away. And behold, though discharge hath been made unto the great fanes of Kemi, they come to us saying, "Produce (your) taxes " until now. Petition 79,80

Several things are clear from the narrative to date. Egypt has endured an "evil time" before which the temples were prosperous and for the most part exempt from taxes. During this "evil time" taxes were re-imposed. The priests "departed away." After this "evil time", and synchronous with the arrival of Psamtik I, the tax-exempt status of the temples was reintroduced. But by some oversight, or mischief, taxes continued to be levied on Teuzoi. The fact that Psamtik I initiated the taxation reforms is made clear on a stela inscription described later in the Petition: "His Majesty was comforting the land, suppressing the rebels (?) in it, provisioning all the temples of the South and North lands." (Petition 108)

If this is what the Petition says, then under no circumstance can it be squared with the traditional history, wherein Psamtik I, within a year of the battle between Urdamanie and Ashurbanipal, drove the Assyrians out of Egypt. That circumstance would leave no time for the imposition of taxes on the temples of Upper Egypt. Ashurbanipal's second invasion in 564 B.C., which must have resulted inter alia in the destruction of Teuzoi, occurred only months before the successful coup of Psamtik I.

The narrative in the Petition produces the distinct impression that the "evil time" was of long duration. An entire generation is missing from the record. Peteesi appears ignorant of what has transpired in Teuzoi, though his ancestors were formerly priests there. Where was he when these events transpired? Why did he not learn the details from his father Essemteu? In fact, where is Essemteu? Later in the narrative Petesi meets an itinerant priest named Haruaz son of Peftu'ubasti, who claims that his father was also at one time a priest in Teuzoi. He is young and anxious to marry a daughter of Peteesi. All he can do to prove his heritage is produce documents which attest his father's priesthood. "My father used to be priest here in Teuzoi, and I will show unto his Honour that he used to be priest here, I will bring the patents of my father before his Honour" (Petition 83) What happened to Peftu'ubasti, the father of Haruaz? In the quoted portion of the narrative, the solitary aged priest holding the fort in Teuzoi laments that all the priests in all the "great fanes (=temples) of Kemi (=Egypt)" departed away. Where did they go? Does the narrative not suggest some mass exodus or endemic slaughter? If we are in the time of the Assyrian occupation and the priests have fled the scene only months before, why do they not simply return?

Even the phrase "evil time" is problematic. Griffiths, in a footnote, remarks:

The Coptic equivalent means "famine" but at this time the meaning may have been wider and the expression may refer to some of the disasters that had lately overtaken Egypt at the hands of invaders, which might well have produced famine also. The exaction of tribute by the Assyrians probably involved the taxation of the temples. Teuzoi, as devoted to Ammon, may have sided with the Ethiopians against Necos and his son Psammetichus, who were nominally supported by the Assyrians, and this may have led to the contribution from Teuzoi not being remitted. But historical facts do not count for much in this part of the narrative. Petition 80

We understand why Griffith is compelled ultimately to discount the historicity of the Petesi narrative. It does not fit the circumstances of the 7th century context in which it is wrongly placed.

Petesi III discovered the sacred city of Teuzoi destroyed. That destruction must have involved an associated loss of life. It was followed by a prolonged period of famine and excessive taxation that combined to decimate the remaining population. And the narrative is clear that Teuzoi was not alone in suffering this fate. It is incomprehensible why Griffith would restrict his comments to that one locale. Priests vacated "all the temples of Egypt." The scene thus pictured suits the revised history; it conflicts significantly with the current history. Griffiths is uneasy about the translation. He changes "famine" to "evil time" to fit his conception of history. But he remains unconvinced. The reliability of the narrative is finally called into question.

We recall the warning of Jeremiah to the survivors of the Judaean disaster:

If you are determined to go to Egypt and you do go to settle there, then the sword you fear will overtake you there, and the famine you dread will follow you into Egypt, and there you will die. Indeed all who are determined to go to Egypt to settle there will die by the sword, famine and plague... Jer 42:15-17.

There is no need to emend "famine" to "evil time".

The narrative continues. During the next decade Petesi is busy restoring the fortunes of the temple of Teuzoi. He had to go far and wide to find the appropriate help.

Peteesi son of Ieturou came to Teuzoi, he caused the men to be brought who did handicraft, and gave them 200 pieces of refined(?) silver and 20 pieces of gold, he caused them to make them into cups of silver and gold for Amun, he caused them to make the shrine of Amun upon-the-great-place. He caused the priests, the shrine-openers, and the other classes (?) of men who (are qualified to?) enter the temple to be brought to Teuzoi; (even) if there was a man among them who had gone as far as No he caused all to be brought. He caused the endowment-estates which he found to have been appropriated to Amun to be given, and he caused 1000 aruras to be added to the endowment-estates of Amun. He caused offerings and linen to be laid before Amun and before Usiri of Ieruoz(?). He made Teuzoi glorious like one of the great fanes of Ptores. He made his children priests of Amun of Teuzoi ... Petition 81

By the 14th year of Psamtik (530 B.C.) the restoration is complete, and Petesi

"caused a tablet of stone of Ieb to be quarried and the blocks for two statues of temgy-stone, and caused them to be brought to Teuzoi. He came north and reached Teuzoi, he caused the granite-workers, the engravers, the scribes of the House of Life, and the draughtsmen to be brought. He caused the good deed that he had done in Teuzoi to be put upon the tablet..." Petition 81-2

We are nearing the end of the Egyptian exile. Restoration is underway elsewhere in Egypt that invites our attention. Mentuemhet is active in Thebes, but before moving to Thebes two further items from the Petition need to be mentioned.

Psamtik's 34th Year

The stone tablet erected by Petesi in the 14th year of Psamtik (tablet A) was maliciously destroyed in Psamtik's 31st year. In that same 31st year the two sons of Haruaz, grandsons of Petesi, were murdered by the same delinquent priests who damaged the year 14 stela. In the course of pursuing the prosecution of these priests Petesi took time to order the construction of a replacement stela, altered slightly to include the priestly offices he had omitted from the original. In the narrative this commissioning of a new stela (tablet B) preceded the burial of the two youths. Since, according to Egyptian practice, burial took place seventy days following death, allowing time for mummification, we can assume the youths were buried that same 31st year. It is surprising therefore to read Griffith's footnote to the passage which describes the erection of the replacement stela:

This is the inscription of Athyr of year 34 ... The date is two and a half years after the outrage, and that although the inscription was engraved before the boys were buried. Petition 91 n.9

What is happening? To understand Griffith's remarks we are forced to look at the third division of the Petition, heretofore ignored. That section records the content of the two stelae previously mentioned, those of the 14th and the 31st years, tablets A and B. The Petesi family records are thorough. Both stela inscriptions were meticulously copied and records preserved, rather fortunate since even the second stela was damaged later. The problem that confronted Griffith was two-fold. In the first place, the second stela inscription was dated to Psamtik's 34th year, not his 31st. But the narrative that gave rise to the footnote states that the two sons of Haruaz had yet to be buried at the time the stela was erected. In the second place, the two stelae were identical save, as the narrative stated, the addition of some previously omitted particulars regarding Petesi's former offices on the second stela. There was nothing inscribed on tablet B to indicate that it was a replacement and that the date recorded on it was unrelated to the circumstances it described. Both tablets are worded as if written in the year 14.

The first problem Griffith handled by assuming that the second stela was actually created in Petesi's 34th year, the year actually inscribed on the stela, and that, therefore, the burial of two boys had been delayed for 2 1/2 years!

Regarding the second problem he could only lament:

But if these tablets are genuine and correctly copied it is a very serious matter to students of Egyptian history to find that the date on a tablet can have so little to do with the time of the events recorded upon it, as must be the case in B. The date turns out to be merely the date when the inscription was engraved, and the events recorded on it had taken place at least sixteen, perhaps thirty, years before. Petition 107

Griffith's problems can be dealt with routinely in the revised chronology. When Psamtik was installed in office in 543 B.C., however that happened, he was succeeding no-one. Pharaonic rule in Egypt had been in abeyance for over twenty years. According to Manetho, Psamtik was the son of a king Necao. As previously argued, Necao must have perished in Nebuchadrezzar's assault or have been driven from Delta along with his infant son Psamtik. In either case we can assume he died in 563 B.C. It is entirely possible that Psamtik, at some time between his 14th and 31st year, decided to backdate the years of his reign, as sole surviving son, to the last year of his deceased father. On the second stela he recorded what was formerly his 14th year, as his 34th year. The two dates on the respective stelae are the same; they are merely calculated in different ways. Both refer to the 14th year of Psamtik. Griffith's fears are unfounded.

There is, accordingly, no need to assume a delay of over two years in the burial of the sons of Haruaz. The second stela was erected in the 31st year of Psamtik as anticipated by the narrative. The date on stela B does not refer to the date of erection of that stela.

Psamtik was not the only Pharaoh to variously date events in his reign. Nothing is amiss. The Petition history is vindicated.

Samtoutefnakht & The Nitocris Stela

The second problem is related to an event that took place in Psamtik's 18th year. In that year, according to the Petition, Peteesi, son of Ankhsheshonk, the master of shipping died, and "Per'o made Semtutefnakhti Master of the Shipping, and Ptores was committed to him again even as it had been to his father". (Petition 85) There is no question about the date. On both of the stela inscriptions A and B discussed above, which are dated in Psamtik's 14th (= 34th) year, Petesi son of Ankhsheshonk is still alive and functioning as the shipping master. His death and the installation of Samtoutefnakht as Master of Shipping must certainly postdate Psamtik's 14th year. It is not possible, therefore, to assume a dating error. Herein lies the problem.

There are few monuments extant from the reign of Psamtik I. Thus the importance of a large red granite stela, 6 foot high and 4 1/2 foot wide, found by Legrain at Karnak in 1897. "It records the adoption of Nitocris, the daughter of Psamtik I, by a Shepnupet, daughter of Taharka, the Divine Votress or sacerdotal princess, at Thebes." and functions as a formal "decree of adoption and property-conveyance." Its value for history lies in revealing "that Psamtik had gained full control of Thebes by his ninth year..." (BAR 935-937)

For reasons that will soon become apparent we question the dating of the Nitocris stela. It is our opinion that the events it portrays took place in Psamtik's 30th year (514 B.C.) rather than his 9th year (535 B.C.). The argument is not essential to the revised chronology, but since we are revising history, we should set the record straight in all respects. Part of the proof of this claim is related to Samtoutefnakht.

The introductory portion of the stela is missing. The visible portion begins with the statement:

In the year 9, first month of the first season (first month), day 28, went forth his eldest daughter from the king's family apartments, clad in fine linen, and newly adorned with malachite. The attendants conducting her were legion in number, and 8 marshals cleared the path, for beginning the goodly way to the harbor, to turn up-stream for Thebes. The vessels bearing her were very numerous, the crews were mighty men; and they were deeply laden [to the decks] with every good thing of the king's palace. The commander thereof was the sole companion, nomarch of Heracleopolis, commander in chief of the army, chief of the harbor, Somtous-Tefnakhte. ... BAR 944

The problem is readily apparent. Somtous-Tefnakhte of the Nitocris Stela is the same as Semtutefnakhti of the Petition and he is in office in the 9th year of an unnamed king. If this is Psamtik I then his installation as master of shipping must have occurred a decade earlier than indicated by the Petesi family records. It is assumed by scholars that the error lies in those family records, but in fact the error lies in the interpretation of the Nitocris stela.[8] There is nothing in that stela that clearly specifies whose 9th year is being discussed. No king's name is mentioned in the dateline. Psamtik's name occurs elsewhere in the inscription. The identification of the dateline with Psamtik is an inference made by the scholars, not one demanded by the inscription. In fairness to the interpreters there was no alternative. In the traditional history, where Psamtik was the uncontested ruler of Egypt, the dateline must relate to him. But that is not the case with the Saite dynasty correctly positioned in the first Persian domination. The dateline must refer to the years of Darius I (522-486 B.C.) not Psamtik I (543-489 B.C.). The 9th year of Darius, 514 B.C., is the 30th year of Psamtik I. Samtoutefnakht has been in office, as the Petition of Petesi claims, since Psamtik's 18th year (524 B.C.), that is, for over a decade. His titles have clearly expanded in the interim. The prosperity of Egypt has at least partially returned. The exile has ended.

The revised dating of the Nitocris stela has been made not merely to defend the integrity of the Petition of Petesi. There is a secondary purpose. For were we to read on in the Nitocris inscription we would find among the list of celebrities greeting Nitocris on her arrival in Thebes, the 4th prophet of Amun, Mentuemhet. It is imperative that the record be set straight on the life of this important dignitary.

Mentuemhet

Twice already Mentuemhet has appeared in this revision. In the traditional history he was identified as the Mantimanhe of the Assyrian annals, established as the nominal king of Thebes by Esarhaddon in 671 B.C. and affirmed in that office by 'Ashurbanipal in 667 B.C. In the Nitocris Adoption Stela he was present in Thebes to greet Nitocris, daughter of Psamtik I, in what was purported to be Psamtik's 9th year, 656 B.C. At that time he is identified as the 4th prophet of Amun. He has left to posterity a considerable number of monuments, primarily in the vicinity of Thebes, and lengthy and detailed wall inscriptions in his spacious tomb in the Asasif, east of Hatshepsut's temple at Deir el Bahari. Nowhere does he refer to the Assyrians, and nowhere does he consider himself a king. But he does refer to a recent disaster which has severely damaged the southland. And he describes in detail the length process of restoration and renewal which has consumed years of his life.

Assuming for the moment that Ashurbanipal's "king" and the 4th prophet are one and the same, and that the Nitocris stela refers to Psamtik's 9th year, then Mentuemhet's political life spanned at minimum the years from 671 B.C. to 655 B.C. He is associated with Taharka on several monuments, and the assumption is made that the majority of his restoration activity occurred prior to Taharka's death. The reason is obvious. For upwards of eight years after Taharka's death and Psamtik's assumption of power in Lower Egypt, Tanuatamon is assumed to have held power in Thebes. But in his many inscriptions Mentuemhet refers to himself as governor of Upper Egypt, and he appears to make decisions independent of any higher local authority. He certainly does not mention Tanuatamon. His apparent independence suits best the interval in which he is "king" of Thebes, i.e. between 671 B.C. and 664 B.C. And those dates can be narrowed even further. Since restoration assumes destruction, and since Thebes was definitely not violated by Esarhaddon in 671 B.C., Mentuemhet's renewal activity must be dated between the 667 B.C. and the 664/3 B.C. invasions of Ashurbanipal, dates accepted by the majority of authors.[9][7] The Egyptologist Henry Breasted summarizes the reconstruction activity of Mentuemhet.

The activity of Mentemhet in the building and restoration of the monuments under Taharka at Thebes renders his rule there notable. This work was all done before Taharka's death, and the renewal of so many costly cultus images of the gods, besides references to the purification of all the t