Chapter 7: Udjahorresne - Statue & Tomb
The Udjahorresne Statue Inscription: The Preamble
Udjahorresne has appeared several times already in this
revision, identified as a high official under Cambyses and Darius I who had
previously held the office of navy commander under Amasis and Psamtik III. We
have claimed, without supporting argument, that scholars have wrongly maligned
him, falsely accused of collaborating with the enemy. His statuette, which
found its way to
This statue inscription of Udjahorresne, for the reason cited, is highly significant both for the traditional history and for the current revision. Suffice to say that were it not for the badly misinterpreted text of this monument, and particularly its alleged references to Amasis and Psamtik III, the current revision might be unnecessary. Egyptian history might already be differently structured with Amasis positioned at the end of the 5th century. The inscription begins:
The one distinguished in the service of the great Neith, mother of the god, and in the service of the gods of Sais, the eminent one, the royal chancellor, the unique companion, highly esteemed by the king who loves him, the inspector of scribes of the d'd'.t, the chief of the great scribes of the prison (?), the director of the palace, the head of the royal navy under the king of Upper and Lower Egypt Khnemibre (Amasis), the chief of the royal navy under the king of Upper and Lower Egypt Ankhkare (Psamtik III) Udjahorresne, son of the director of the palace, hrj-p priest, rnp priest, hpt-wd'.t priest, prophet of Neith who is at the head of the Saite nome Peftouoneith, ...[1]
In these introductory curriculum vitae, Udjahorresne cites
among his credentials his status as admiral of the fleet under Khnemibre and
Ankhkare, universally recognized as "throne names" respectively of
Ahmose-sa-Neith (Amasis) and Psamtik III. Since the inscription goes on to
describe Udjahorresne's activities under Cambyses and Darius I, it gives every
appearance of discrediting the current thesis. For it goes without saying that
if Amasis reigned in 449-405 B.C. the commander of his naval vessels could
hardly have welcomed Cambyses and Darius into
How do we explain the dilemma?
If there is a solution, then clearly it must be found in an alternative identification of Khnemibre and Ankhkare. There is no possibility of redating the stela. We would not want to do that in any case, since the Udjahorresne inscription, properly interpreted, is not a witness against the revised history; it is one of its most powerful advocates.
The solution is not complex. There are clues in the inscription, providing we let the text speak for itself, and don't force it to agree with a preconceived history. We begin with the following observations:
1) The preamble in which Udjahorresne sets forth his
credentials is a statement of what Udjahorresne is at the time of writing of
the inscription. He is stating what he is, not what he was. That is, after all, the plain reading of the
text, and it is the manner in which such lists of titles are typically
read. When Posener argues that
Udjahorresne held all these titles before the arrival of Cambyses, forfeiting
only the admiralty at that time[2]; and when Lloyd argues
that Udjahorresne held only the admiralty before the Persians came and that the
other titles were substitutes for the loss of that office[3];
they are both speculating. The casual
reader can do better than these experts.
All we can claim with confidence is what the text actually says, namely,
that at the time of writing Udjahorresne held all the titles listed. Nothing is said about what titles, if any, he
held before Cambyses arrived in
2) The text does not say that Udjahorresne was head of the royal navy. This might seem surprising in view of the translation provided above. But the translation is not ours. We are merely following expert opinion. The hieroglyphic text actually reads "commander of the royal kbnt boats" (imy-r kbnwt nsw). But the kbnt boat is not a warship. Historically the term referred to a large sea vessel, usually a cargo ship propelled both by sail and oar, thus particularly suited for long voyages. It was not designed specifically for warfare.[4] Remarks by the Egyptologist Alan Lloyd underscore the problematic nature of this title of Udjahorresne:
The title imy-r kbnt does not occur
before the Saite Period. In the
Lloyd admits that imy-r kbnwt nsw is not the usual way to describe the admiral of the fleet. Therefore there must be something in the historical circumstances of the Saite period in which the title arises, and in the nature of the kbnt boat itself, which gives rise to the new title. Lloyd is correct, thus far. But he goes on to suggest that the new thing which produced the new title was a change in the structure of the kbnt boat, or at least the use of that archaic term to describe a highly efficient warship patterned after the Greek trireme, a warship of innovative design making its first appearance within Egypt during the Saite dynasty. But in spite of Lloyd's argument, there is absolutely no evidence that during the Saite dynasty the old name was assigned to the trireme, or that the kbnt boat was structurally modified for military purposes.[6]
3) Khnemibre is indeed the throne name (prenomen) of Amasis,
but he is not typically known by that name in the monuments. Where Amasis'
throne name is recorded in inscriptions it is almost always accompanied by his
personal name (nomen) in a double cartouche. More often than not only the
personal name 'Ahmose-sa-Neith is employed. Ankhkare, on the other hand, is not
even the throne name of Psamtik III, or of any other Egyptian pharaoh, in spite
of all scholarly opinion. We do not
question the existence of a Saite dynasty prince or king named Ankhkanre
Psamtik. In a later chapter we will note
his connection with the time of Psamtik II and Apries. But his throne name is Ankhkanre, not
Ankhkare. The minor change in
orthography may or may not be important.
The meaning of the name in each case is the same. But the fact is that there is not a single
occurrence within
Based on the assumption that Khnemibre and Ankhkare are kings
under whom Udjahorresne functioned in the capacity of "commander of the
kbnt boats", apparently with the sanction of or perhaps by order of
Cambyses and Darius I, we should seek their identity outside of
Napatan and Meroitic kingdoms
Nubian History
When Taharka died in 664 B.C. (543 B.C. in the revised
history) he was entombed at Nuri, five miles upriver from
Between the years 1920-22[10]
Reisner excavated other cemeteries at Begarawiyeh, ancient
It was Reisner’s understanding that these 33 Meroitic kings began ruling in the years almost immediately following the Napatan kings, i.e., in 300 B.C., and that they ruled continuously into the fourth century A.D.[11] There was only one minor adjustment to be made. One cemetery remained unaccounted for.
A burial ground near Gebel Barkal, not far from
At Gebel Barkal there are two groups of pyramids. In the
largest tomb of the older group (Barkal, Pyramid XI) Reisner places a nameless
king who, he suggests, intervened between Nastasen, last king buried at Nuri,
and Arikakaman, first king buried at
Reisner called these two independent groups of kings his
“first and second Meroitic kingdoms at
But this contrived chronology is unreliable for many reasons. We note specifically that
1) Reisner begins his Napatan kingdom with dates for Taharka which we consider to be seriously in error;
2) Reisner’s assigned reign lengths are arbitrary and several have subsequently been proved incorrect;
3) many aspects of kingship in Ethiopia, such as the practice of brother to brother succession and of overlapping reigns were not fully understood before the excavations at Kawa shortly after Reisner’s death[13]; and
4) Reisner himself noted that the cemeteries at Napata, Meroe and Barkal contain too many kings to fit in the historical time frame allowed, an important consideration which suggests the possibility that the Meroitic and Napatan kingdoms overlapped one another for a much longer period of time than suggested by Reisner.
This final problem is exacerbated in the revised chronology, which lowers the dates of Taharka and his immediate successors by over a century while leaving unchanged the known historical conclusion of the Meroitic kingdom.
With these considerations in view we argue for changes to Reisner’s chronological scheme. However, before we make changes to a long-standing tradition, we make one preliminary enquiry. Since Udjahorresne served under Cambyses and Darius I, whose reigns must have been coterminous with one or more of Reisner's Napatan kings, we wonder whether there exists any evidence of Persian involvement in Ethiopian affairs which might guide our suggested revision and provide a context for Udjahorresne’s "naval command"? We answer our own query.
Persian Suzerainty over
It is clear from two strands of evidence that Cambyses invaded
Wainwright summarizes the Persian references:
At
While we can reasonably infer from these references that
Persian suzerainty over
By the first century B.C. Cambyses had become so intimately
connected with
This evidence of Persian activity in
Dows Dunham - a colleague of Reisner during most of the Nubian
excavations - only shortly after Reisner’s death in 1942 modified some aspects,
though not the underlying chronological structure, of Reisner's Nubian history.
He argued that already very early in the 25th dynasty period
It is, I believe, clear that the Kings of Kush,
fairly soon after they had lost control over
The shift of capital from
Reisner has named the period between the close of the 25th
Dynasty and the death of Nastasen the
According to Dunham's hypothesis
Dunham’s modest changes have not blunted the criticism raised earlier. There are still too many kings in Reisner's scheme, reign lengths remain arbitrary and at times excessively long, and Cambyses and the Persians are still out of the picture. Change is necessary, and any change must begin with the reduction of Reisner’s dates by 121 years. Table 13 below lists the kings of Reisner’s Napatan kingdom and the initial kings of his Meroitic kingdom, alongside of the revised dates that result from the 121-year reduction introduced by the revised history. This should provide the stage on which further changes can be imposed. It is surprising how little will need to be changed.
With reference to table 13 we make the following observations:
1) Reisner has divided both the Napatan and Meroitic kingdoms into subgroups of kings having greater than usual affinity with one another. This division into groups suggests the existence of some discontinuity between one group of kings and the next. Reisner provides no explanation of the cause of these alleged breaks in the tradition. He simply notes their existence. We can do no more than place his remarks on record. According to Reisner
all the royal tombs at Nuri are constructed on the same general plan ... nevertheless, certain differences in form, construction, and material arrest the attention. An examination of these differences results in the division of the pyramids into four groups which are indicated ... by the letters a,b,c and d. This grouping is borne out by the objects found in and about the pyramids as well as by other evidences, and thus becomes a matter of prime importance for the chronological order of the pyramids.[17]
Table 13: Napatan & Meroitic Kingdoms According to Reisner/Dunham[18]
|
Napatan Kings |
Reisner Dates |
Revised Dates |
Napatan Kings |
Reisner Dates |
Revised Dates |
|
Group a |
|
|
Group d |
|
|
|
Taharka |
688-663 B.C. |
570-543 B.C. |
Malewiayaman |
453-423 |
332-302 |
|
Tanuatamon |
663-653 |
543-532 |
Talakhaman |
423-418 |
302-297 |
|
Atlanersa |
653-643 |
532-522 |
Aman-nete-yerike |
418-398 |
297-277 |
|
Senkamenseken |
643-623 |
522-502 |
Baskakeren |
398-397 |
277-276 |
|
|
|
|
Harsiotef |
397-362 |
276-241 |
|
Group b |
|
|
(Piankhalara) |
362-342 |
241-221 (omit) |
|
Anlamani |
623-593 B.C. |
502-472 B.C. |
Akhratan |
342-328 |
221-207 |
|
Aspalta |
593-568 |
472-447 |
Nastasen |
328-308 |
207-187 |
|
Amtalqa |
568-553 |
447-432 |
|
|
|
|
Melanaqan |
553-538 |
432-417 |
Barkal Kings: |
|
|
|
Nalma'aye |
538-533 |
417-412 |
1st Meroitic |
308-283 |
187-162 |
|
|
|
|
Kingdom @ |
275-225 |
154-104 |
|
Group c |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Netaklabataman |
533-513 |
412-392 |
Meroitic Kings: |
|
|
|
Karkaman |
513-503 |
392-382 |
Group a |
|
|
|
Astabarqaman |
503-478 |
382-357 |
Arikakaman |
300-280 |
179-159 |
|
Sa'asheriqa |
478-458 |
357-337 |
Yesruaman |
280-265 |
159-144 |
|
Nasakhma |
458-453 |
337-322 |
Kaltaly |
265-255 |
144-134 |
The relative ordering of three of these groups is certain. According to Reisner “the presence of the pyramid of Tirhaqa in group a, of that of Aspalta in group b, and of those of Harsiotef, Piankhalara, and Nastasen in group d, leaves no room for doubt as to the order of these three groups.”[19] The placement of group c between groups b and d was based on more subjective considerations.
2) Reisner arbitrarily assigned reign lengths in multiples of five years - as much as thirty-five years for Harsiotef and thirty years for Anlamani and Malewiayaman; as little as five years in the case of Nalma'aye, Nasakhma and Talakhaman. Eight kings are said to have ruled for twenty or twenty-five years. There is no justification for many of these large numbers.[20] These excessively large reign lengths will arguably result in increased error the further we progress into the Napatan kingdom. In the earlier period Reisner's dates should provide a workable framework in which to incorporate further changes.
3) Several of the kings listed can be safely omitted from the
table. We cannot be certain that
Tanuatamon ruled in
4) Dunham’s suggestion that the Napatan kings completely
transferred capitals from
The stage is set to propose three alterations to the existing structure of Ethiopian history. We begin by reversing the order of Reisner’s’ groups c and d. We have already noted that while the relative order of groups a, b, and d is firmly established, the placement of group c by Reisner was not so clearly defined. We continue by reducing the reign lengths of the kings in each group, a reduction which has the effect of moving back the absolute dates of the individual kings, the size of the displacement increasing the further removed those kings are from the beginning of the dynasty. These two alterations are inconsequential for the argument that follows. They are included to be referenced in later chapters of this revision.
The third change is the only one critical for what follows. In order to harmonize the Persian and classical sources with Nubian history it is necessary to assume the beg