Chapter 1 : Nebuchadrezzar's Wars

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 Italy during the imperial Roman period and is now housed in the Vatican, contains the only inscriptional evidence, apart from Herodotus, of a chronological link between Cambyses and Amasis and Psamtik III.

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 Egypt in 525 B.C. and 522 B.C. respectively.

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 Egypt. In the end we will determine that he held none, but that conclusion does not follow from this inscription.

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 New Kingdom the expression for Admiral of the Fleet was (hieroglyphic text omitted) imy-r 'h'w n nsw. Why should such a consciously archaizing body of men as the Saite rulers introduce or countenance such a novel term? The answer must be that something completely new had appeared which needed a novel expression to describe it.[5]

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 Egypt proper of the cartouche name Ankhkare, with orthography identical to that employed by Udjahorresne, throughout the several millenia of Egyptian dynastic history. Only in Nubia does that spelling of the royal name occur, and there at least five kings bear the name.

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 Egypt. The small hint provided by the spelling of Ankhkare directs our attention to Nubia.

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 Napata, five hundred miles south of Thebes. G.A. Reisner excavated the cemetery in 1916-17.[7] It contained the pyramid tombs of Taharka and nineteen of his successors. Using an ingenious comparative method, Reisner managed to give chronological order to the twenty kings. Taking account of changes over time in style and workmanship in tomb construction, noting similar changes in quality and character of the few funerary artifacts left by the tomb robbers, following the natural lines of expansion as the cemetery filled up - with later tombs located at less favourable sites - and, finally, utilizing inscriptional information from the tombs and elsewhere, Reisner not only placed the kings in succession but managed to assign a reign length to each king. Then, beginning with the “known” dates for Taharka, he affixed absolute dates for the rulers of his “Napatan kingdom”, from Taharka (688-663 B.C.)[8] down to Nastasen (328-308 B.C.). He acknowledged a large margin of error in these dates[9], though his successors have written them in stone. These Napatan kings ruled over lands that extended at least as far south as Meroe, and northward beyond the 1st cataract. The capital, according to Reisner, remained at Napata throughout the period in question.

Between the years 1920-22[10] Reisner excavated other cemeteries at Begarawiyeh, ancient Meroe, four hundred miles upriver (south) from Napata. They were found to contain royal burials. The Meroitic South cemetery contained the tombs of three kings, Arikakaman, Yesruwaman, and Kaltaly, as well as six queens. Several hundred yards to the north, the Meroitic North cemetery held an additional 30 kings and 6 queens, successors of the South cemetery group.

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 Napata, contains, inter alia, two groups of pyramids tombs (known as the Barkal Pyramids) succinctly described by Dunham as follows:

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 Meroe South Cemetery. Since there was no room at Nuri for further royal pyramid construction after Nastasen, owing to the unsuitable quality of the underlying rock which precluded excavation of the necessary subterranean chambers, the earlier Barkal group may well represent a king of the Napatan clan, and a few of his descendants, who refused to abandon the old burial tradition, and who set up a short-lived kingdom at Napata in rivalry with the branch of the family represented by Arikakaman and his successors. The second group at Barkal Reisner assigned to a line of l9 local rulers of Napata who reigned there independently of the main line at Meroe during the 1st century B.C. ...[p. 386-7]

Reisner called these two independent groups of kings his “first and second Meroitic kingdoms at Napata”.[12] According to him the first group ruled from 308-225 B.C. with a brief interregnum (283-275 B.C.) following the initial king, and the second ruled from 100-22 B.C. An Ethiopian chronology was thus established consisting of a Napatan dynasty lasting till 308 B.C., ending with Nastasen, followed immediately by the first group of Barkal kings in Napata and, after a brief pause, by the kings of a Meroitic kingdom who, with the two exceptions noted, governed the whole of Ethiopia for the balance of the pre-Christian era and beyond into the 4th century A.D. This chronology has prevailed to the present.

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 Ethiopia and the Emergence of Meroe

It is clear from two strands of evidence that Cambyses invaded Ethiopia soon after his arrival in Egypt. In the first place, his successors Darius and Xerxes claim Ethiopia as a vassal state, a fact that can be most easily explained if Cambyses conquered Ethiopia. Secondly, classical authors state explicitly that Cambyses was militarily active as far south as Meroe.

Wainwright summarizes the Persian references:

At Persepolis, Darius includes Ethiopia (Kusa) as part of ‘the kingdom which I hold’ and again at Hamada. At Naqs-i-Rustam he includes the Ethiopians as well as the Egyptians among those who ‘bore tribute to me’ and again at Susa. Another inscription of his at Susa says that the ivory used in decorating the palace there ‘was brought from Ethiopia’ among other countries, and the great tribute procession at Persepolis includes Ethiopians who bring a giraffe. Herodotus says (vii, 69) that the Ethiopians sent a contingent to the armies of Xerxes, the successor of Darius, and at Persepolis Xerxes not only lists the Egyptians but also the Ethiopians among ‘the countries of which I was king. Thus, we have evidence of Ethiopian subservience to Persia during some forty-five years which would not have been the case if at least some part of the country had not been conquered.[14]

While we can reasonably infer from these references that Persian suzerainty over Ethiopia originated with Cambyses, the case is strengthened by historical traditions preserved by several classical authors. Again we look to Wainwright for the details:

By the first century B.C. Cambyses had become so intimately connected with Meroe that Diodorus (l:33) says that he founded the city and called it after his mother, while Strabo (17:1:5) merely says that it was he who gave it its name. Strabo, however, adds that he did this because his sister Meroe or as some say, his wife, died there. Later again, about A.D. 90, Josephus says that Cambyses changed the name of the city from Saba to Meroe after the name of his own sister. (Antiquities of the Jews, 2:10) This idea of the founding or naming of the city by Cambyses seems clearly to have grown out of the knowledge that Meroe rose to power at about the time of the Persian invasion.[15]

This evidence of Persian activity in Nubia finds no place in Reisner’s chronology. According to him the successors of Taharka ruled from Napata with no apparent interference from Persia. Meroe does not come into prominence until the death of Nastasen in 300 B.C., when Arikakaman became its first resident king. Something is amiss.

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 Meroe emerged as an important provincial center rivalling but subservient to Napata. According to him Meroe was at this time controlled "by people of the same stock, whether governors appointed by the ruling family at Napata or nominally independent cousins of the same racial origin." Following the close of the 25th dynasty, "with loss of control over Egypt and the resultant falling off in the lucrative traffic with that country, the economic basis of prosperity began to shift and the city of Meroe assumed a growing importance"[16]

It is, I believe, clear that the Kings of Kush, fairly soon after they had lost control over Egypt, began to make Meroe their habitual residence. Very probably the centre of administration followed economic pressure and Meroe became the political capital of the country at this time. But Napata, the traditional centre of Amon-worship, remained the religious capital long after the government had moved to a more convenient location. The king, according to custom, was buried in the royal cemetery at Nuri ...DHK 386

The shift of capital from Napata to Meroe, according to Dunham, came about gradually, but was essentially completed by the time of Malenaqen, whose dates are 553-538 B.C. in Reisner's chronology. During the whole of this transition period there existed in Napata and Meroe two rival clans or families, the dominant Napatan kings ruling in Napata, and their non-royal brethren who governed Meroe. Reisner's artificial Napatan kingdom/Meroitic kingdom distinctions thus become blurred, though his chronology remains unchanged. Dunham's comments on the matter are worth quoting:

Reisner has named the period between the close of the 25th Dynasty and the death of Nastasen the Napatan Kingdom, because these kings had their tombs at Nuri and he assumed that Napata was the seat of government. I believe this assumption to be incorrect and that we are not justified in making so clear-cut a distinction between two kingdoms. While there was undoubtedly a shift of the capital from Napata to Meroe, I am convinced that the change was a gradual one, and that in everything but the burial place of the kings and the observances of the Amon cult, it took place much earlier than was formerly supposed. The ruling class was divided into two clans or families, one with headquarters at Napata and the other living at Meroe. They were closely related and shared a common culture. The Napatan group was the dominant one during the early period, and from it sprang the kings buried at El Kurruw and Nuri. ... During this early period the Meroitic group were not royal, and they were buried in unpretentious graves in the West Cemetery close to the city. At the same time there resided at Meroe a considerable group of people of the Napatan family, representatives of the politically dominant group, many of them no doubt holding positions of authority in the provincial city on behalf of the central government. They buried their dead in the more isolated South Cemetery. When the growing economic importance of Meroe induced the kings to spend an increasing part of their time there, and eventually to govern from that city, they doubtless began also to marry women from the Meroitic aristocracy in addition to wives from their own Napatan clan. ... If, as I believe, the South Cemetery was that of the Napatan residents at Meroe, it would be the logical place to build their tombs once the traditional pull back to Nuri had become sufficiently weakened to be no longer compelling. On this assumption, therefore, I suggest that the three kings buried in the South Cemetery were of Napatan origin. DHK 386

According to Dunham's hypothesis Meroe was the de facto capital of Nubia by the time of Nalmaye, the seventh king after Taharka. Nalmaye’s dates in Reisner’s scheme were 538-533 B.C. This conceptual change in the importance of the two prominent Nubian cities brought about a semblance of correspondence between Nubian history and the Greek historians. By the time of Cambyses, according to Dunham's interpretation of the data, Meroe was indeed the Nubian capital. Reisner’s chronology, meanwhile, remained intact. Dunham's changes related only to the location from which the Napatan kings ruled, not to the time in which they lived.

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 @ Napata

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 Nubia. According to our revision Cyrus expelled him from Lower Egypt in 543 B.C. and, depending on the date when Mentuemhet began his restoration in Thebes, he may have ruled in Thebes or in upper Nubia for the balance of his life. It is important to note that his tomb is located in the Barkal cemetery, not at Nuri with the rest of the successors of Taharka. Apparently he does not belong in the lineage of Taharka.[21] Since his inclusion has depressed dates of subsequent kings by ten years, all following reign lengths can be increased by that amount. Reisner’s inclusion of Piankalara is another error that can be immediately corrected by simply omitting him from the list and increasing subsequent dates by a further twenty years. His very existence is questioned, though he is usually identified as the occupant of a tomb built on the outskirts of the El Kurruw cemetery along with the ancestors of Taharka. Though not buried in the Nuri cemetery, Reisner included him among his Napatan kings based solely on a questionable interpretation of a stela inscription of Nastasen.

4) Dunham’s suggestion that the Napatan kings completely transferred capitals from Napata to Meroe only shortly before the reign of Nalmaye no longer harmonizes the Nubian chronology with the tradition associating Cambyses with the rise of Meroe. In the revised chronology Nalmaye lived a century after Cambyses. Instead, the reduction of dates produced in table 13 places Cambyses’ arrival in Egypt coincident with the reign of Senkamenseken. It might even have brought that reign to its end. If the classicists are correct we should look for the emergence of an independent Meroitic kingdom around the time of Anlamani, the successor of Senkamenseken.

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 beginning of the Meroitic kingdom around the time of Cambyses. Dunham apparently felt the need to do so and interpreted the data to identify that beginning with the reign of Nalmaye. With the 121 year reduction in dates an alternative interpretation is needed which explains the emergence of Meroe as a capital city in the days of Anlamani.

Since Reisner himself acknowledges that the kings buried in the South cemetery of Meroe, his Meroitic Kingdom Group a, are the first kings of the independent Meroitic kingdom, it follows that they must have ruled shortly after the arrival of Cambyses in Egypt, that is, near the beginning, not at the end, of the sequence of Napatan kings. Accordingly we move this group of three kings backward in time and identify them as contemporaries of Reisner's NK Group b. Table 14 incorporates all three changes. There follows a brief apologetic, which will lead us back to Udjahorresne.

Table 14: Revised Ethiopian History

Kings Resident in Napata

Kings Resident in Meroe

NK Group a (570-525 B.C.)

Taharka

Atlanersa

Senkamenseken

ARRIVAL OF CAMBYSES

NK Group b (525-472 B.C.)

MK Group a (525-472 B.C.)

Anlamani

Arikakaman

Aspalta

Yesruaman

Amtalqa

Kaltali

Meleneqan

Nalmaye

INVASION OF PSAMTIK II

NK Group d (472-400 B.C.)

Malewiyaman

Talakhaman

Aman-nete-yerike (Neferkara)

Baskakeren

Harsiotef

Akhratan

Nastasen

INVASION OF KBDJ

NK Group c (400-350? B.C.)

The following brief remarks must suffice to explain and defend this revision:

1) We omit Reisner's arbitrary assignment of individual king dates, choosing rather to assign dates to each dynastic group. The combined reign lengths of the kings in each of these groups is approximately one-half that of the combined numbers ultimately assigned by Reisner to those same kings, but agrees almost exactly with his minimum figures.[22]

2) We acknowledge the reasonableness of Dunham's argument that a significant movement south occurred either during or immediately prior to the reign of Nalmaye. Accordingly we move the capital of Reisners NKd kings at this time from Napata to Meroe.

3) We attempt to explain the breaks in tradition assumed by Reisner when he introduced his various dynastic groups. The first such break (following the 121 year reduction in dates), the one that distinguished NKa from NKb, falls so near the date of Cambyses arrival in Egypt, that there can be no doubt as to its cause. The 45 years thus allotted to the NKa kings Taharka, Atlanera and Senkamenseken, made up of 27 years for Taharka and approximately nine each for the latter two kings, is not entirely out of line, since Reisner estimates 10 years each as a minimum figure. It is not implied here that Cambyses actually set foot in Napata or Meroe. The Nubians may have capitulated at the mere threat of an armed intrusion. But Anlamani and Arikakaman must certainly have become vassals of the Persian king. There is a hint in the only extant historical inscription of Anlamani, that the relationship was fraught with tension, and that Anlamani later attacked a garrison of Persians, with some success.[23]

4) The assigned date of 472 B.C. for the break between NKb and NKd is deliberately chosen to correspond with an invasion of Ethiopia that is known to have taken place in the 3rd year of Psamtik II. We can only hypothesize that this invasion, which likely caused extensive damage to Napata, also drove Nalmaye south to seek a new capital. (The matter will be discussed further in chapter nine) Perhaps he, in turn, displaced the dynasty of independent kings at Meroe (MK a). If so, it must be assumed that the remaining kings of the Meroitic kingdom, those buried in Meroe's north cemetery, regained power after NKc. Other scenarios are possible. Much of this is, of course, only conjecture, but having read Dunham's explanation of the emergence of the Meroitic capital we recognize that conjecture and speculation are the operative words when it comes to Nubian history. There is very little hard evidence. The fact of an invasion of Nubia by Psamtik II in his 3rd year (472 B.C.) is incontrovertible. The fact that Aman-nete-yerike, the third king following Psamtik's invasion, chose Psamtik's throne name Neferkara as his own, is also certain. Beyond that, we can only say that we are for the most part following Reisner's scheme, assuming reign lengths within the range of possibilities that he established.

5) The cause of the break in tradition following Nastasen, the last of the Napatan group d kings, may be related to another invasion originating in Egypt, this time by Kbdj, the eunuch who functioned in an administrative capacity under Amyrtaeus, who betrayed his master, joined Bagapates, and invaded Egypt around 400 B.C. This individual has twice already been confused with Cambyses by modern scholars. The matter will be taken up again in chapter eleven.

6) The placement of the Meroitic south cemetery kings (MKa) as contemporaries of Anlamani and his immediate successors is not based solely on the classical evidence. The only extant inscription of any of these three kings outside of Meroe is the usurpation by Yesruaman of the inscription on the bases of two monumental lion statues excavated from the Barkal temple B1100. These statues were made originally by Amenhotep III of the Egyptian 18th dynasty and were apparently brought to Barkal by Piankhi. At the very least these cartouche names are indicative of the power and far ranging authority of this Meroitic king. Reisner interprets the inscriptions as evidence that Yesruawamen ruled briefly at Napata[24], but that is surely reading too much into one inscription. What they do argue, however, is an early date for Yesruamen. This statue inscription surely precedes the destruction of Napata and transfer of the Napatan capital in 472 B.C. Thereafter Barkal ceased functioning as a cult center.

Regarding this last observation mention should be made of the existence of inscriptions of Napatan group b kings at Meroe. Dunham informs us, based on Garstang's excavations at Meroe, that “Taharka seems to have erected at least one building there” and that “four generations later the name of Anlamani occurs frequently on inscriptions..., as do also those of his immediate successors Aspalta, Amtalqa and Malenaqan.” Elsewhere he suggests that this inscriptional material was associated with extensive building activity. He notes that Meroe “appears to have been very large” and “contained at least one building associated with Tirhaqa, several others in which the names of Aspalta, Amtalqa, and Malenaqan were of frequent occurrence, and considerable evidence of occupation by later Napatan and Meroitic rulers”.

Taharka’s building at Meroe is not surprising. He was denied access to Egypt and lived out his life in Napata. That he should direct his attention southward to Meroe is not surprising. But how do we explain the flurry of activity, which appears to occur in Meroe beginning with the reign of Anlamani? It is important to note that the inscriptions that document the presence of Anlamani and his immediate successors at Meroe are coterminous with the inscriptions of Yesruwamen on the lion statues at Napata. What are we to make of this?

We do not agree with Dunham that the inscriptions of Anlamani and his immediate successors at Meroe indicate that they had taken up permanent residence there, any more than we agree with Reisner that Yesruamen’s inscriptions prove that he ruled in Napata. According to our revised chronology the kings of NKb and MKa were both vassals of Persia. Commercial and diplomatic interaction between the two groups would be imperative under a Persian administration, and is particularly understandable if we adopt Dunham's hypothesis that the two groups were related. The inscriptions merely illustrate the extent of the interchange between the two capitals.

We can further anticipate that Cambyses would have a governor domiciled in the area to regulate Persian interests. And the transport of “tribute” down the Nile would require a fleet of transport ships and an official to supervise the enterprise.

Enter Udjahorresne.

The final and most significant argument in favor of the revised placement of Napatan and Meroitic dynastic groups NKb and MKa is the resulting agreement with the state of affairs known to exist in Egypt at this time. At the very least the revised Nubian chronology provides a probable explanation for the troublesome detail on the Udjahorresne stela that prompted this lengthy digression. On the assumption that tribute from Ethiopia was transported to Egypt under command of a Persian appointee named Udjahorresne, and that the mode of transportation was the kbnt boat, we are now able to explain how Udjahorresne was able to describe himself as “the head of the royal navy (kbnt boats) under the king of Upper and Lower Egypt Khnemibre, (and) the chief of the royal navy (kbnt boats) under the king of Upper and Lower Egypt Ankhkare”. For the reader is by now anticipating, and is therefore not surprised to learn, that the throne name of Anlamani is Ankhkare, and the throne name of Arikakaman is Khnemibre.

The critic will no doubt cry foul and claim that we have manipulated chronology to suit our purposes. But in fact we have merely followed expert opinion. Ankhkare (Anlamani), who identifies himself as "king of Upper and Lower Egypt" as in the Udjahorresne statue inscription, was already at hand once Reisner's dates were reduced by 121 years. Anlamani's dates were only marginally reduced and that within limits established by Reisner himself, as explained above.

The case for Arikakaman is no less defensible. Several thousand years ago classical historians argued the fact that the Meroitic kingdom began around the time of Cambyses. Dows Dunham has echoed the opinion in the twentieth century. The unique burial location of the three Meroitic south cemetery kings clearly established them as the first reigning Meroitic kings, a fact conceded by Reisner. And the first of these kings was Arikakaman. The conclusion follows naturally that Arikakaman (Khnemibre) was ruling Meroe around 525 B.C. Is it only coincidence that this king, the only viable candidate for the Meroitic throne at this time, bore the throne name Khnemibre[25], and, like Anlamani, referred to himself as “the king of Upper and Lower Egypt”?[26]

Udjahorresne Statue Inscription: The Biography

Udjahorresne: Liberator or Collaborator?

Udjahorresne has been widely condemned as a collaborator, in spite of the self- adulating tones of his inscription. On the mistaken assumption that he was in command of the defeated naval branch of the armies of Amasis and Psamtik III, and has defected to the enemy, the balance of his inscription has been badly misinterpreted. After his introductory recitation of titles he continues.

The Great King of All Foreign Lands, Cambyses, came to Egypt, the foreigners of all foreign lands with him. In its entirety did he gain mastery of this land, they setting themselves down therein. He was the Great Ruler of Egypt, and the Great Chief of All Foreign Lands, His Majesty handing over to me the office of Chief Physician, having caused me to be beside him as a Companion and Controller of the Palace when I had made his royal titulary in his name of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt Mesuti-re (sc. Offspring of Re)... I made supplication in the presence of the Majesty of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt Cambyses, concerning all the foreigners who had settled in the temple of Neith to drive them therefrom so as to cause the temple of Neith to be in all its beneficial powers as in its primal condition, so that His Majesty commanded that all the foreigners who had settled in the temple of Neith be expelled, that all their houses be demolished and all their abominations which were in their temple ... and his Majesty commanded that the temple of Neith be purified and that its people be restored to it ... the priesthood of the temple. His Majesty commanded that offerings should be given to Neith, the Great One, the Mother of the God, and to the great gods who are in Sais as it was earlier. His Majesty commanded that all their festivals should be [organized] and their feasts of manifestation, as was done earlier. This did His Majesty do because I had caused His Majesty to recognize the greatness of Sais. (lines 11-30)[27]

Udjahorresne describes Cambyses travelling about purifying temples, installing priests, and re-instituting temple offerings and festivals. The Persian king thus portrayed bears no resemblance to the vicious madman described by Herodotus. Neither can the special treatment afforded Udjahorresne by Cambyses be construed as that of a benevolent conqueror toward a naval commander who has just opposed him in battle. The scene described by Udjahorresne perplexes interpreters. It sounds as if he is sincerely welcoming Cambyses. His words do not suit the historical situation in which the narrative is placed. But they fit precisely the conditions we expect at the end of a prolonged period of exile during which destroyed and abandoned temples have sat vacant, temple services in abeyance, and temple enclaves turned into shelters for intruders. Udjahorresne is not a turncoat; he is an exile returning home in triumph and placing himself at the service of Persian masters who are not the cause, but the cure for the country's ills.

The portion of the inscription quoted above informs us that Cambyses, immediately following his arrival in Egypt, proceeded to consolidate Persian control of the country. There is not the slightest hint in the language that this “gaining mastery of the land" of Egypt involved armed conflict, though that possibility is not precluded. We cannot rule out the fact that there may have been some challenge to Persian authority that motivated the expedition to Egypt. But there is no suggestion in the inscription that Cambyses is here conquering Egypt for the first time. We have documented elsewhere that Cambyses dated his rule in Egypt from the moment he inherited the Persian throne at the death of Cyrus.[28] And according to Udjahorresne, when Cambyses arrived, he was already "the Great Ruler of Egypt, and the Great Chief of All Foreign Lands".

Udjahorresne apparently came to Egypt with Cambyses, as part of his entourage. If we may hazard a guess, albeit an informed guess, he was probably among those driven from Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar forty years earlier. If so, he is old, probably in his sixties, and, as we discover we when examine his tomb, he died not long after his statue was erected.

In this scenario it is likely that the largely mercenary army that arrived with Cambyses, augmented by Persian forces already resident in Egypt, advanced immediately to Upper Egypt, and then further south into Nubia. If these armed forces encountered opposition it was of little consequence. Whether Senkamenseken or Anlamani ruled in Napata we cannot say, but the likelihood is that only token resistance was rendered, and that Cambyses immediately claimed Nubia as a Persian province. Tribute was established and the machinery set up for its collection. Whether Cambyses advanced as far as Meroe, how Khnemibre came to power, and precisely the relationship between Khnemibre (Arikakaman) and Ankhkare (Anlamani), are all questions about which we can only speculate. But that both kings were required to send annual tribute to the south and thence to Persia, and that this tribute was continued through the reigns of Darius and Xerxes, has already been established by both Persian and classical evidence. And the Nile galleys used to transport this tribute were ultimately placed under the control of Udjahorresne.

Udjahorresne's entitlement as head of the kbnt boats under Ankhkare and Khnemibre was likely conferred only shortly before his stela was erected, during the early years of the reign of Darius, as were most of his other titles (since many of his religious benefices awaited the reestablishment of the temple rituals, a process barely underway in the few years of Cambyses sojourn in Egypt). The only task specifically assigned to Udjahorresne by Cambyses, in the years immediately following his arrival in Egypt, was that of "superintendent of schools".

Udjahorresne the Educator

Early in the reign of Cambyses, Udjahorresne was given the rank of “physician”. It was not uniquely a medical office. It seems to have had to do with “educating” the children of the nobility. In the inscription quoted earlier only the title appears. The job description follows later in the biography, following the death of Cambyses and the arrival of Darius. At that time, for reasons unknown, Udjahorresne was in Persia with Darius, but was sent back to Egypt:

The Majesty of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt Darius, may he live for ever, commanded me to return to Egypt, while His Majesty was in Elam when he was Great Chief of All Foreign Lands and Great Ruler of Egypt, in order to restore the House of Life ... after the ruin. As the Lord of the Two Lands had commanded, the foreigners brought me from land to land and caused me to reach Egypt. In accordance with that which His Majesty had commanded me did I act, having provided them with all their students who were the sons of men of quality, without there being children of people of low rank amongst them. Under the direction of every scholar did I place them ... all their works. His Majesty commanded that there be given to them every good thing in order that they might do all their works. With all their beneficial things did I equip them, and with all their requirements as indicated in the writings as it had been before. The reason why His Majesty did this was because he knew the usefulness of this craft for causing the sick to live and in order to cause to endure the names of all the gods, their temples, their offerings, and the conduct of their festivals forever. (lines 43-45)[29] (italics added)

From Elam Udjahorresne was sent back to Egypt, in his capacity as "physician" to set up a training school for potential temple (and political) appointees. There is no apparent reason for the prominence and urgency of this activity in the traditional historical context in which Udjahorresne's career is placed. Even the most exaggerated description of Cambyses eccentric behaviour did not suggest any mass killing of the priestly class that would explain the need to retrain a new generation of temple officiates. Only in the revised history does the desperate need for re-education seem perfectly in context.

What is equally intriguing about the inscription just quoted is the almost innocuous reference to “the ruin” (w’s). It deserves a closer look.

The Destruction

What is the ruin to which Udjahorresne refers? In the traditional history it is necessarily an allusion to the calamitous results of the recent Persian invasion. But we have already stylized the arrival of Cambyses as that of a saviour, not a destroyer. His army was not in armed conflict with the Egyptians. The Persians were welcomed as deliverers, not despised as tyrants. The only other possible antecedent for w’s is the invasion of Nebuchadnezzar. Some confirmation that this is the actual referent is provided elsewhere in the inscription where the same event is described in other words. Several lines earlier than the quoted passage Udjahorresne boasts: “I was a man good in his city, saving its people from the monstrous calamity (nšn) when it happened in the entire land, the like of which had not happened in this land” and in the same section he adds: “I did for them [the inhabitants of Sais] everything beneficial as a father would have done for his son, when the cataclysm (nšn) befell in this nome in the midst of the monstrous cataclysm [nšn] which happened in the entire land.”(lines 39-42)[30]

Everyone admits that Udjahorresne is referring to “an all-embracing national catastrophe”. What surprises most scholars is the hostile tone of the reference, it being accepted that the Persians wrought the catastrophe. How do we explain Udjahorresne welcoming the Persian rulers, participating in their coronations, inviting their assistance in establishing the cult centers, all the while publicizing the extent of the havoc they have wrought?

Perhaps sensing this incongruity the many interpreters of Udjahorresne rationalize. Recognizing that the extent of Persian destruction was not so great as that attributed to Cambyses by later generations, and that, therefore, Udjahorresne must be stretching the truth, they have strained to reinterpret the nšn. For Posener the destruction becomes merely a “political disruption”[31]; for Lloyd nšn refers to the "manifestation of daemonic and destructive power" unleashed by daemonic forces resulting from a foreign presence on the throne of Egypt.[32] But regardless of the nuance, it remains for all interpreters a reference to the Persian invasion.

But that is clearly not what Udjahorresne is referring to. Let the reader decide if “a monstrous calamity which befell the entire land, the like of which had never happened before” can be a reference to the brief religious and political disruption which resulted from the arrival of the Persians in 525 B.C. Foreigners had arrived before. Pharaohs had died ignominiously in battle before. We need look back only 150 years to the time of the Assyrian occupation to see atrocities incomparably more severe than those credited to Cambyses by Herodotus. If we are to interpret nšn as a political and religious disruption, then we must admit that the disruption was of unprecedented proportions. This accords well with the view espoused by the current revision, which argues that there has just ended a forty year hiatus in the organized political and religious life of the nation, and that for at least half of that time there was no resident pharaoh in Egypt. We can understand completely Udjahorresne referring to such a circumstance as an unprecedented political and religious nšn.

But political and religious upheaval is not all that Udjahorresne is alluding to. He clearly speaks of physical devastation and extensive human suffering. We suggest that this is the nuance foremost in his mind. Three times already in this study we have encountered the term nšn; all three times it included extensive physical destruction as one of its components. In the Chronicle of Prince Osorkon it was employed to describe the physical and political chaos that prevailed in Egypt in the aftermath of the cosmic upheaval in the days of Takeloth II, following the day when "the sky did not swallow the moon". In the inscriptions of Mentuemhet and Petosiris it was used, as it is by Udjahorresne, to describe the calamitous results of Nebuchadrezzar's invasion. We do not deny the cosmic and political/religious aspects of the term. We argue only that the nšn has a physical dimension that must not be overlooked.

In the same breath in which he mentions the nšn, Udjahorresne recalls his heroic attempts to rescue his countrymen:

I defended the weak against the powerful, saved the fearful when the mischance occurred, did everything possible for them (his countrymen) when it (the nšn) happened.” (line 34).[33]

This is not Udjahorresne the admiral speaking of his naval defence of Egypt. This is Udjahorresne the citizen of Sais speaking of his actions as a young man when Sais and the balance of Egypt fell to the angry hordes of Babylon, and wrought destruction the likes of which had never been seen before. There is no incongruity in his speaking ill of Babylon in the same breath in which he speaks well of the Persians. Babylon & Persia were mortal enemies.

It is clear from the inscription that Udjahorresne considers his actions worthy of praise. Twice he has fought on behalf of his country - once physically as a young man against the mercenary soldiers of Nebuchadrezzar's army; and once politically as an elder statesman in the employ of the Persian rulers of Egypt. As we will soon see his exploits became the subject of legends for later generations, who viewed him as a national hero and cult figure, the subject of veneration bordering on worship. Hardly the response accorded a traitor or a turncoat.

Udjahorresne's Tomb

The Discovery

Excavations at the southwest edge of the pyramid fields at Abusir conducted in 1988/89 by the Czechoslovak Instititute of Egyptology unearthed the tomb of Udjahorresne. In the words of Miroslav Verner, the director of the expedition, "the discovery of the large shaft tomb ... was as surprising as the identification of the tomb-owner."[34] The tomb contained the damaged remains of two sarcophagi.

The lower portion of the burial chamber is completely filled by a rectangular, box-shaped and only summarily dressed outer sarcophagus of white limestone. A single horizontal line of a roughly cut hieroglyphic inscription running on all four sides of the sarcophagus contains religious formulas and the name and titulary of the tomb-owner. Inside the box-shaped sarcophagus lies another one that has an anthropoid form and is of basalt. The finely dressed surface of the inner sarcophagus is densely covered with hieroglyphic inscriptions containing, beside the religious formulas, the name and titles of the tomb-owner and his father and mother. VEA 162-3

The inclusion of the names of the parents of Udjahorresne left no doubt as to his identity.

The central pit containing the sarcophagus chamber, the tomb proper, was surrounded by a massive enclosure wall. In the 1993 excavations outside this wall there were discovered foundation deposits under the northwest, northeast, and southwest corners that included faience tablets inscribed with the cartouche names of Amasis. Both his prenomen (Khnemibre) and nomen ('Ahmose-sa-Neith) are included front and back on some tablets.[35]

There is no question but that the wall was built by Amasis, or minimally, that its construction began in the reign of that king.

This association of the names of Amasis and Udjahorresne appears initially to settle the question regarding Amasis' placement in history, and to nullify all previous arguments to the contrary. Otherwise, on the assumption that the current revision is valid, how can we account for the tablets of a late 5th century king (449-405 B.C.) appearing in foundation deposits of an enclosure wall surrounding the tomb of a man who died in the last decades of the 6th century B.C. (c.a. 514 B.C.)?[36]

The answer is transparent, and once presented serves to explain many anomalies in the Czechoslovakian excavations, for even before the foundation deposits were found, Verner had remarked on the fact that the excavation of this tomb had "raised more questions than it answered." (VEA 167) The number of questions only multiplied with the excavation of the Amasis tablets.

Primary Burial, Secondary Burial or Cenotaph

The first problem concerned the contents of the inner sarcophagus, or rather, the lack of contents:

Unfortunately, the tomb-robbers damaged both sarcophagi. Through the massive lid (510x290x110 cm.) of the outer sarcophagus a hole was cut. The inner and much harder basalt sarcophagus was first "softened" by means of fire and then the feet of its lid were broken into pieces. Yet, the hole cut by the tomb-robbers into the interior of the anthropoid sarcophagus is very small (28x40 cm.) and it is therefore very improbable that a mummy could have been taken out without being completely destroyed. Moreover, neither in the empty sarcophagus nor around it were any fragments of mummy wrappings or skeletal remains found. These and still other archaeological observations seem to indicate that the inner sarcophagus never contained a burial. This surprising find contrasts with the intact triple sealing around the undamaged major portion of the inner sarcophagus: Three thin horizontal layers of pink gypsum were spread on the limestone chips pressed between the basalt sarcophagus and the inner walls of the limestone sarcophagus. Also, the find of the empty sarcophagus seems to be supported by the absence of canopic jars, which were found neither in the narrow niches in the south, west and north wall of the burial chamber nor in any other place uncovered so far in the underground of the tomb. VEA 164-6

Already at the end of the first season in the tomb, Verner was speculating on the possibility that the existing sarcophagi were later replacements of an original burial looted by thieves, or alternatively, that the site was merely a cenotaph commemorating the life of Udjahorresne:

In spite of the find of the double sarcophagus in the burial chamber, it was not yet proved that Udjahorresne was really buried in the tomb. Does it mean that somebody replaced still in ancient times his burial damaged apparently very early by the robbers? Or does the tomb at Abusir represent Udjahorresnet's cenotaph? A definite answer can only be found in further excavation of the shaft tomb. VEA 167

Verner preferred the cenotaph theory, and persisted in that belief in spite of the later discovery of the Amasis tablets which, in the context of the traditional history, made that theory less likely. A second Egyptologist on the excavation team, Ladislav Bareš, argued instead that the mummy was indeed removed through the tiny opening in the sarcophagus cover and that the burial must be original. But even this theory had its drawbacks. This time the anomalies related to the inscriptions.

Tomb Inscriptions

Among the inscriptions on the walls of the tomb and the sides of the inner sarcophagus were several in which Udjahorresne cites his titulary. Here, as in his statue inscription, he boasts that he is "the chief physician of Upper and Lower Egypt" and "the overseer of the royal navy." (VEA 166) Both of these titles were problematic for the excavators. For Bareš the reference to Udjahorresne as "chief physician" was particularly disconcerting. He comments:

Till now there is not a single hint to the possibility that Udjahorresnet may have obtained this title sooner, i.e. during Dyn. 26. It may be noted that even the military and administrative titles which Udjahorresnet has certainly held only in the time of Dyn. 26 and not later appear several times on the walls of the sarcophagus chamber and on the inner sarcophagus. Contrary to the inscription on Udjahorresnet's statue, however, they are not accompanied here by any mention pertaining to the period of their use. BFD 8 n.37

The concern of Bareš can be understood as part of his attempt to trace the probable sequence of events that led to Udjahorresne's interment. To comprehend the problem we must understand that tombs like Udjahorresne's are not particularly complicated constructions and were normally completed in a year or two at best. Tomb construction and the preparation of the sarcophagi would be completed and the tomb sealed within that time, all in anticipation of death. The enclosure wall would be constructed last. Some opening into the tomb would necessarily be left in order to inter the mummified body after death. In the case of Udjahorresne's tomb a vertical shaft 2 1/2 m. square and 17 m deep had been dug immediately outside the eastern section of the enclosure wall. At the bottom the shaft turned a right angle and ran horizontally under the wall and into the tomb.

The tomb construction followed the usual plan, but according to the inscriptions the typical construction time line could not have been followed. Herein lay the problem for Bareš.

In the first place the foundation deposits clearly argued that the wall construction began under Amasis and therefore, in all probability, should have been completed during the time of the 26th dynasty. Additionally, the walls of the sarcophagus chamber and the inner sarcophagus were covered by titles that Udjahorresne held only in the time of the 26th dynasty, at least according to the chronology adopted by the traditional history. Udjahorresne’s naval command is cited as a case in point. In this instance the Egyptologists agreed that Udjahorresne was referring to a naval command he held at the time of writing, obviating the need to include the name of Khnemibre (Amasis). All things considered, for Bareš there was no doubt that the tomb construction and sarcophagus inscriptions began together in the last years of Amasis’ reign, approximately 527/6 B.C.

The wall that surrounded the tomb was apparently built in the time of Amasis. In the deposits, only the names of Amasis appear. Usually the foundation deposits have been laid during the foundation ceremonies, i.e. before the building activities began. We may thus admit that the building of Udjahorresnet's tomb started sometime under Amasis. BFD 7

But admitting that the tomb construction began under Amasis is not sufficient. It should also have been completed under Amasis. After all, the enclosure walls were typically the final step in the construction process. Yet the tomb could not have been finished within the reign of Amasis. The title "chief physician", inscribed on the tomb walls and sarcophagus was obtained at the earliest under Cambyses, and Bareš, noting the problem, admits that "a slight discrepancy does, therefore, appear between the possible dating of the foundation deposits and the inscribed pieces from inside the tomb."(BFD 8) If the tomb was finished and sealed under Amasis, the sarcophagus was apparently not left in the tomb awaiting the death of Udjahorresne. The title of chief physician clearly indicated that the inner sarcophagus was not completed till later in Udjahorresne's career. What to do?

Bareš quickly reviewed the only two possible solutions. He first suggested the possibility that the tomb was completed on schedule, under Amasis, and that the sarcophagus was inserted later, being moved through the vertical and horizontal shafts. The idea was quickly rejected. The title "chief physician" was also inscribed on the tomb walls, and moving the massive sarcophagus through the vertical and horizontal shafts was out of the question. Bareš appropriately concluded: "such a possibility is hardly conceivable and in fact nothing speaks in favour of it" (BFD 8)

The only possible alternative was to assume that the tomb and sarcophagus constructions were begun in Amasis reign, then left incomplete for a dozen years, only to be completed at the death of Udjahorresne around 514 B.C.

We may suppose, therefore, that Udjahorresnet started to build his tomb and, perhaps, also prepare his anthropoid inner sarcophagus in the last years of Amasis. Very probably, any work on either the tomb itself or the inner sarcophagus had to be stopped in the early years of the Persian dominion and was resumed only later. Perhaps due to the death of Udjahorresne, all works in his tomb were interrupted shortly before finishing it. (BFD 8)

This scenario, of course, is possible. But how likely? Udjahorresne was able to undertake extensive repairs and restoration to the temples of Sais in the days of Cambyses. Why was he unable to complete his own tomb? The unfinished tomb also raises the question of the purpose of the shaft entrance outside the eastern enclosure wall. If the tomb were to remain open until the time of Udjahorresne's death there would be no need for such an entrance. Perhaps anticipating this criticism Bareš notes that "the eastern portion of the enclosure wall seems to have been finished first, while the western portion of this wall has remained open to enable further building works inside the tomb." (BFD 8 n.35)

The matter must be left there, with Verner and Bareš arguing their respective points of view. The debate is pointless. The confusion is caused by a faulty Egyptian chronology for the Saite dynasty, which mistakenly believes that Amasis predeceased Udjahorresne by a dozen years. With Amasis properly positioned at the end of the 5th century, the problem of the tomb inscriptions and the empty sarcophagus disappear. The matter will be discussed momentarily. But first a few remarks concerning several questions not raised by the excavators.

The first question concerns the enclosure wall constructed by Amasis. It is highly unusual, to say the least, to find an Egyptian king participating in the tomb construction of a subordinate. Why did Amasis build the wall? Even if we accept that Udjahorresne was a naval commander, which we definitely do not, his office was not sufficiently important to warrant this special attention. A family connection would explain the involvement of Amasis, but should be ruled out entirely by the absence of the king’s name in the tomb inscriptions. If he were related to Amasis, why does Udjahorresne not mention the fact at every available opportunity? But neither on his statue, nor on the walls of his tomb, nor on his sarcophagus, is there any hint of a genealogical connection with the royal family.

Additional and related questions can also be directed toward the inscriptions of Udjahorresne. Assuming that Udjahorresne was merely a particular favorite of Amasis, and that on that account alone he constructed an enclosure wall for Udjahorresne's tomb, we ask why Udjahorresne acknowledges no debt of gratitude in his tomb inscription? Why is Amasis not mentioned in Udjahorresne's tomb? The absence of his name demands an explanation. Udjahorresne repeats his title "overseer of the royal navy" from the statue inscription but this time fails to even acknowledge Khnemibre as the king. Why? Here was the perfect opportunity to boast of his favored status with royalty. But Udhahorresne is silent.

In the revised history these question are easily answered. Udjahorresne did not mention Amasis because he had never heard of Amasis, whose birth followed Udjahorresne's death by forty years. He expressed no gratitude for Amasis' constructing the enclosure walls of his tomb because those enclosure walls were built over sixty years after his death. The name of Khnemibre used on the statue of Udjahorresne was omitted in the tomb inscription because the name was not particularly important to Udjahorresne. As we have just determined, Khnemibre was a subordinate of Udjahorresne, a foreign king whose tribute he was commissioned to collect.

There is only one scenario that adequately explains the empty sarcophagus and the anomalies in the inscriptions. We return to Verner's secondary burial and cenotaph theories. In the traditional history, with Udjahorresne following Amasis, Bareš could argue against Verner for a primary burial. In the revised history, with Amasis following Udjahorresne by half a century, the secondary burial and cenotaph theories are not only probable, but necessary.

Udjahorresne the Cult Hero

We have observed already from Udjahorresne's statue inscription that he appeared there as a hero, not as a villain. When Verner argued his secondary burial and cenotaph hypotheses he was not basing his assumption alone on the empty inner sarcophagus. Adjacent to the enclosure wall the excavators found artifacts, including at least one burial, all dated later than the time of Udjahorresne, which suggested that the tomb site had become in antiquity a place for the worship or veneration of Udjahorresne. Even Bareš acknowledges that …

People burying their dead near to the tomb of Udjahorresnet certainly had to have some special motive to use this place, rather remote in comparison with the surroundings of Dyn. 5 pyramids or Old Kingdom tombs covering the desert slopes between Abusir and North Saqqara. A tiny part of a wooden anthropoid coffin was unearthed in 1990 on the bottom of an otherwise empty grave pit to the east of Udjahorresnet's enclosure wall. Another burial pit, in which only remnants of three thick ropes of twisted papyrus were found lying across the bottom, has been revealed this season near to the mouth of a small shaft in front of the east enclosure wall. All these burials seem to prove the assumption that Udjahorresnet was in some form venerated among the local inhabitants. (BFD 7)

The existence of a funerary cult for Udjahorresne also has support far afield from his Abusir tomb. Reviewing the evidence Bareš notes that..

the famous statue of Udjahorresnet, now kept in the Vatican, was certainly intended to have been exhibited in a temple area. The same can perhaps be said about another (in fact, much later) statue of this dignitary found at Mitrahina and showing that the cult of Udjahorresnet was in some form living even 177 years after his death, i.e. shortly before the arrival of Alexander the Great into Egypt or, perhaps, as late as in the first years of the Greek supremacy over Egypt. Another fragment with Udjahorresnet's name, said to have been found in the Memphite region as well, comes very probably from another statue exhibited also in a temple. The funerary cult of Udjahorresnet seems, therefore, to have been attested in both Sais and Memphis, perhaps the most important religious centres in Egypt during his life.[37]

This peripheral evidence at minimum supports Verner’s argument that the Udjahorresne tomb may have been a cenotaph or a secondary burial site. If the latter it may well have evolved into a funerary cult. The enclosure wall possibly served to support a platform that contained a funerary chapel. The remains at the site are insufficient to prove the fact, and knowledge of shaft tombs such as Udjahorresne's is deficient; but the possibility remains.[38] Some such theory is necessary to explain the anomalies at the site, and particularly the enclosure wall constructed by Amasis.

On the assumption that Verner is correct and that Udjahorresne's tomb is either a secondary burial or a cenotaph we can proceed to account for the evidence. Udjahorresne died about 514 B.C. On the secondary burial hypothesis, we assume he was buried elsewhere, perhaps in Sais, perhaps Memphis. The original burial was disturbed; the mummy destroyed. A replacement sarcophagus was constructed and deposited in the shaft tomb at Abusir in the process of being constructed for Udjahorresne by Amasis. This tomb was later violated by thieves who cut a hole in the inner sarcophagus sufficient to determine that it contained no mummy and no treasure. The thieves left empty handed.

The cenotaph hypothesis would be similar save for the original burial. Udjahorresne perhaps died on a journey abroad, possibly in Elam or in Babylon to which we have already conjectured he had been deported in 564 B.C. by Nebuchadrezzar and where most of his family possibly still resided. Having acquired the status of cult hero through his exploits under Nebuchadrezzar, Cambyses and Darius, a tomb cenotaph was created by Amasis, only shortly after the beginning of his reign in 449 B.C.

We repeat the claim without laboriously reviewing the evidence that every anomaly discussed by the excavators disappears entirely with Amasis rightly positioned following the death of Udjahorresne Only one query lingers, namely, the one raised independently above. What prompted Amasis to establish a funerary cult or cult worship center for Udjahorresne? If Udjahorresne was not Amasis' naval commander then what relationship actually held between the king and the "chief physician" that would lead Amasis to construct the Abusir shaft tomb? We return to our hypothesis that Amasis and Udjahorresne were related. That assumption was immediately ruled out earlier on the basis of the traditional history. Udjahorresne, following Amasis in time, would have mentioned his relationship with the king. But in the revised history no such problem exists. If Amasis was a descendant of Udjahorresne, then the latter's ignorance of a genealogical connection with royalty is understandable.

We argue therefore that Udjahorresne was an ancestor of Amasis, that they were in fact close relatives. Specifically, we argue that Udjahorresne was the patriarch of Amasis' family. He was not Amasis' naval commander; he was his great-grandfather. If so it is not at all surprising that Amasis would single out his great-grandfather, the defender of Egypt against Nebuchadrezzar and the hero of the Persian liberation, as an object for national veneration, even sixty years after his death.

Henat Family Tree

Numerous articles have been written discussing and debating the family relationships of the Saite dynasty kings. It is known that Amasis was an interloper, not the son of Apries who preceded him. The names of several of his wives are known. His mother's name is known as well. The claim is made that we do not know his father.[39] But in fact the genealogy of Amasis is described in great detail in several influential Egyptological journals dating back to the mid-twentieth century. It is generally referred to as the Henat family tree, but would more appropriately be called the Udjahorresne or Amasis genealogy in view of the greater notoriety of these two dignitaries. We reproduce the genealogy in figure 27 precisely as depicted in articles by Anthes[40] and Jelinkova[41], omitting several questionable secondary connections.

Figure 30: Amasis’ Family Tree (the Henat Genealogy)

We note the prominence of the name of Udjahorresne in this family. We also note that the parents of the patriarch are not known. But he is almost certainly the owner of the statue and the tomb. There is no mistaking Ahmose-sa-Neith (Amasis). His brothers Psamtik-sa-Neith and Khnemibre will be discussed in chapter 10 when we examine this genealogy more fully. We are not discouraged when Egyptologists claim that this extended family lived earlier and that the Ahmose-sa-Neith named therein is not Amasis. The same confusion of Darius I and II that caused problems with the Demotic Chronicle and the Petition of Petesi has caused this genealogy to be misattributed. The confusion will be corrected later.

It is time to set matters straight regarding Udjahorresne. He was not Amasis' naval commander; he was his great-grandfather and he died probably forty years before Amasis was born. Udjahorresne was not a traitor collaborating with Persian victors; he was a liberator, returning triumphantly with the entourage of Cambyses after four decades in captivity. He cannot be claimed as proof positive that the Saite dynasty ended in 525 B.C.; rather, his statue and tomb together argue persuasively that the great disruption caused by Nebuchadrezzar was at that time just ending and the Saite dynasty was barely beginning.

Though our argument proceeds, in truth the argument is over. The two pillars supporting the Saite dynasty in its wrongful place have turned out to be illusions. Taharka did not die in 664 B.C. ending the 25th dynasty and passing the reigns of government to Psamtik I. Takeloth III died that year and was succeeded by his nephew Rudamon who, if anything, was a patriarch of the emerging 25th dynasty. Amasis did not die in 526 B.C. yielding power to Psamtik III and thence to the Persians. The Saite dynasty was then in its infancy; the great-grandfather of Amasis was just arriving in the newly liberated province of Persia.

It is strange how dynasties displaced by 121 years can turn history on its heels.