Chapter 8: Necao & the Persian Wars
Necao Wahemibre & Darius I
Darius I (522-486 B.C.)
From the death of Udjahorresne around 514 B.C., in the 8th
year of Darius I, until a few years before the end of Darius' reign in 486 B.C.,
there is an almost total absence of historical information forthcoming from
Meanwhile, preparations for the Greek war proceeded apace. As
Darius saw it,
Darius proceeded to intensify his war effort, conscripting
troops and replenishing military supplies to provision the anticipated
expedition. These oppressive actions and
the bleak prospect of further foreign wars led to a rebellion in
King Darius, son of Hystaspes, had been greatly incensed
against the Athenians because of their raid on Sardis, but when news reached
him of the battle fought at Marathon, his wrath was still more kindled, and he
pressed on all the more with preparations for war against Greece. He lost no
time in sending messengers to every city calling for the raising of an army,
requiring of each a far greater number of men than ever before, and ships of
war, food, horses, and transports besides. This levy kept
Darius' death in November 486 B.C. interrupted his plans to
quash the rebellion. The lot fell
instead to Xerxes, Darius' son and successor, who in due course invaded
The Revised History: (522-486
B.C.)
In the revised chronology Psamtik I ruled over the Persian
What evidence is there that Necao Wahemibre and Darius I were contemporaries and that Necao led a rebellion against Darius only a few years after his father's death? The answer will occupy this entire chapter. Ironically, much of the source material comes from Herodotus.
Canal Construction & Circumnavigation
Nile/Red Sea Canal
According to Herodotus in his chapter two Saite history:
Psammetichus had a son Necos, who became king of
It is intriguing that the names of Necao and Darius are linked
together in connection with this monumental historical achievement, a water
link between the
That a canal joining the
Concerning the stelae, Olmstead remarks:
Five huge red-granite stelae to commemorate the vast
project greeted the eyes of the traveller at
intervals along the banks. On one side
the twice-repeated Darius holds within an Egyptian cartouche his cuneiform name
under the protection of the Ahuramazda symbol. In the three cuneiform languages he
declares: "I am a Persian. From Parsa I seized
On the stelae Darius calls himself "king of kings, son of
Hystaspes, great king"; but he also assumes Egyptian titles, including
"born of Neith, mistress of
Nowhere in the vicinity of Darius' canal is there evidence of the waterway constructed by Necao a century earlier, this in spite of the fact that the location fits the geographical details of Necao's canal as provided by Herodotus. Therefore scholars assume - though entirely without evidence - that Darius has merely cleared out the sand filled remains of Necao's earlier canal and claimed the result as his own achievement.
But the questions raised earlier remain. Why did Necao's canal remain all but completed for a hundred years? And how is it that the completion of this Egyptian canal could work to the benefit of an unnamed barbarian, so much so that in spite of the enormous loss of life and expenditure of time already incurred, Necao abruptly abandoned the undertaking? And why, in the immediate aftermath of this interruption in his canal building operation, did Necao prepare for war? These questions deserve an answer.
The reader can anticipate our response to the first of these
questions. In the revised history Darius
and Necao are contemporaries. There were
not two canals built in the same location a century apart. There was a single canal, the construction of
which was ordered by Darius I in anticipation of his wars with
According to Herodotus Necao ceased construction on the canal
for fear that "he was toiling beforehand for the barbarian". There is no ambiguity in Herodotus’ use of
the term "barbarian". By
this term he refers to foreigners unfamiliar with the Egyptian language. Many times in his Histories he uses the
identical word in reference to the Persians.
And in the revised history, with Necao Wahemibre assuming the Egyptian
throne at the precise moment when Darius I is mobilizing his empire to fight
with
The canal was constructed by order of Darius, whose vested
interest in such a venture is undeniable.
His war with
Necao recognized that the completion of the canal would only
intensify the suffering of the Egyptians.
Already, if Herodotus can be believed, a hundred thousand lives had been
sacrificed in this Persian cause.
Additional life had been lost in the battle at
When work on the canal stopped Necao was in effect declaring
Egyptian independence. Retaliation from the Persians could be expected
soon.
A single problem in the comments by Herodotus requires
explanation. According to him Necao left
the canal incomplete. And in our
interpretation of the probable sequence of events Necao's act of defiance led
within a year to a full-blown rebellion.
Darius died before the rebellion could be quashed. There is no room in this historical construct
for Darius to complete the canal. Yet
Herodotus says specifically that "the canal was finished by Darius the
Persian." And Darius himself, on
the memorial stelae erected at strategic points along the canal, declared:
"Afterward this canal was dug as I commanded and ships passed from
In spite of apparent statements to the contrary by Herodotus and Darius we maintain the claim that the canal was left incomplete until some indeterminate time after the Egyptian rebellion, precisely when we cannot say. The canal stelae were likely inscribed before the anticipated completion of the canal, being erected at each successive stage as construction was completed. And Herodotus is here either mistaken or misinterpreted. He is apparently heir to two traditions - one that claimed that Necao built the canal but stopped short of completion, and another, lacking this qualification, which claimed that Darius built the canal. The second tradition is technically true. It is the back-to-back statement of the two traditions which gives rise to the impression that Darius completed the unfinished work of Necao. Herodotus does not actually say that Darius "finished" the work of Necao. That is the translator’s interpretation.
The claim that Herodotus is misrepresented is not without support. Other classical scholars preserve traditions of Darius' canal construction. Aristotle (Mete. I. 14 (352b)), Diodorus Siculus (I.33.9ff.), Strabo (17.1.25 (C804)) and Pliny (HN 6.165 ff.) are unanimous is claiming that the canal was left unfinished by Darius.[7] The matter must be left at that.
We will discuss Necao's rebellion in more detail later. While we are on the subject of his canal construction we should pause briefly to comment on a second notable pioneering effort credited to him by Herodotus, the first circumnavigation of the African continent.
Circumnavigation of
Later in chapter four Herodotus again mentions the canal, this time in the context of a naval expedition, the first documented circumnavigation of the African continent.
It is certain that
Necao's Suez-canal prototype might, in and of itself, be
considered the achievement of a lifetime.
To follow it up with an east-west 15,000-mile journey from the
If an Egyptian king, at any period, organized and dispatched an expedition, he did so for specific practical ends to meet specific practical needs. Disinterested inquiry or plain curiosity were always amongst the least evident of Egyptian habits of mind. What possible end could an Egyptian king have thought an enterprise of this sort might have served? To anyone familiar with Pharaonic ways of doing things the reply immediately prompted is an emphatic 'None at all!'. Given the context of Egyptian thought, economic life, and military interests, it is impossible for one to imagine what stimulus could have motivated Necho in such a scheme and if we cannot provide a reason which is sound within Egyptian terms of reference, then we have good reason to doubt the historicity of the entire episode.[9]
Lloyd's remarks might be justifiable in the context of the traditional history where there exists no discernible reason for this naval activity. But in the revised history it is not at all "impossible for one to imagine what stimulus could have motivated Necho in such a scheme."
In the first place we argue that Necao was here motivated by
the identical cause that prompted his canal construction. He dispatched the expedition in search of an
alternate route to the
In giving the names of those who are said to have
circumnavigated Libya Poseidonius says that Herodotus
believes that certain men commissioned by Darius accomplished the
circumnavigation of
It is typically argued that Strabo was wrong. The authors of the Loeb Classical Library edition of Strabo are sufficiently convinced of that fact that they replace Darius name in the translation with that of Neco, adding in a footnote:
All scholars agree that Strabo or Poseidonius
made a mistake in giving the name of Darius here. It was Neco who ordered the
circumnavigation of
But Strabo has made no mistake. Neither can we accuse Poseidonius
of error. Necao, at the time of the
expedition, was a vassal of
It is obvious what motivated Darius to initiate the naval
expedition. The oceanic route to the
But Herodotus seems to suggest that Necao dispatched the
Phoenician sailors after he had "abandoned the digging of the canal from
the
The reduction of Saite dynasty dates by 121 years, which produces an overlap between the last few years at the end of the reign of Darius I and the first few years of the reign of Wahemibre Necao, has once again solved rather than created problems. We are now able to explain the otherwise inexplicable dual traditions crediting Darius I and Necao with the identical activities of canal construction and circumnavigation. We have at hand the identity of the "barbarian" mentioned by Herodotus; an explanation of how an Egyptian king can be described as "toiling on behalf of" this barbarian, and a reason why building a canal should be deemed so offensive that it is abruptly terminated only marginally short of completion. We also know why the work stoppage was followed immediately by war. Is it merely coincidence that the first years of Necao fall precisely at the time of Darius’ wars, a correspondence in time essential to all of the explanations provided? A more detailed analysis of Necao's rebellion will only increase the conviction that we are on the right track.
Triremes & Rebellion
Triremes on the
Immediately following the work stoppage on the canal Necao
redirected the war effort. Instead of working to assist
Necos then ceased from making the canal and engaged rather
in warlike preparation; some of his ships of war (lit. triremes) were built on
the northern sea, and some in the
We should probably understand this shipbuilding activity as a
continuation of an effort already underway, since we know from previous
discussion that Darius had requisitioned warships from unspecified locations
within his empire in preparation for his anticipated war with
Some have questioned the fact that Necao would build triremes
for use on the
Whether we take the view that the word 'triremes' reflects
the use of Greek triremes, or the view that they are Phoenician, or whether we
adopt the minimalist interpretation that the term is anachronistic and simply
reflects the introduction of the most up-to-date ramming war-galleys available,
we are still confronted with the situation that Necho has considered it worth
his while to place a squadron of the most advanced warships of his time in an
area where, to an Egyptological or Classical eye, they appear completely
superfluous. Yet such vessels were
expensive, particularly in high-quality timber resources with which
Lloyd recalls the argument, proposed by another scholar, that
Necho's action reflected a concern over possible expansionist policies of the
Chaldaean Empire and that therefore the "the ships were intended to meet a
possible attack by naval forces operating against the east coast of
This seems extremely improbable. Given all available
precedents as well as the prevailing military and naval situation, this would
surely have seemed to Necho the remotest of all possibilities - so remote, in
fact, that omitting to station a fleet in the
Elsewhere indeed. The
solution lies in correctly placing the Saite dynasty a century forward in
time. The Chaldaeans
were not a naval threat to
Even Herodotus' use of the term trireme, as Lloyd himself admits,
is a possible anachronism from the point of view of the traditional
history. A strong case can be made that
triremes did not exist when Wahemibre Necao ruled
There is no time and no need to reproduce the argument
regarding the trireme, since the possibility of anachronistic use remains to
negate its value. But the fact remains
that the earliest literary references to the existence of the trireme are all
from Persian times, and classical scholars are almost unanimous in their
opinion that the trireme replaced the fifty-oar galley only in the 5th
century. According to A.R. Burn, arguably the foremost 20th century authority on
the Greek wars with
Thycydides (i. 14) says that
'triremes in large numbers were' [first] 'acquired by the Sicilian tyrants and
by Kerkyra, not long before the Persian wars and the
death of Darius' [486]; 'these were the last significant navies to arise in
Greece before Xerxes' invasion. For the
fleets of Aigina and
We remind the reader that 490-480 B.C. is precisely the time of Necao's reign in the revised history. His construction of triremes in large numbers is not anachronistic. It is the accepted Saite dynasty chronology that is in error.
The Egyptian Rebellion
We are not told by Herodotus precisely how much time was consumed in Necao's "preparations for war" before the actual physical confrontation occurred. We assume less than a year. Since the Egyptian revolt against Darius, based on the data supplied by Herodotus, took place late in the year 487 B.C., about a year before Darius' death in November, 486 B.C., we can reasonably date the cessation of work on the canal, and thus the beginning of the rebellion, to the year 488 B.C., the 34th year of Darius.
Figure 31: Timeline – 1st Egyptian Rebellion
A single line of text in Herodotus describes the entire
military enterprise of Wahemibre Necao.
In the aftermath of the cessation of work on the Nile/Red Sea canal,
having mobilized his army and sufficiently prepared his navy, Necao "used
these ships at need, and with his land army met and defeated the Syrians at Magdolus, taking the great Syrian city of
In the traditional history these two land battles must suffice to represent the entire military life of pharaoh Necho, who ruled Egypt from 610-595 B.C., who supposedly served as a powerful ally of Assyria in its attempt to defend then recover Harran for the Assyrian king Ashuruballit, who killed Josiah, king of Judah when he attempted to intervene, and who, for a decade, proved to be a foil in Nebuchadrezzar's attempts to dominate the Hatti lands. Is there any hint of the activity of this late 7th century king in the actions mentioned in this single line of text from Herodotus? We think not.
Magdolus (Migdol) is a fortress
location on the northeast corner of the Egyptian delta! Cadytis,
less clearly identified, is probably another troop location in the vicinity of
Historians typically emend the Herodotus reference in an
attempt to salvage some reminiscence of Neco's wars with
The battle was really fought at
As for Cadytis, these same authors note that it is
only mentioned here and in iii.5.1
where H(erodotus) describes it as 'about the size of
There is no need to emend Magdolus
to
The brief record of Necao's military action preserved by Herodotus is completely consistent with the 5th century context in which the Saite dynasty king falls in the revised history. Not a single detail in Herodotus remains unexplained. The absence of additional information about his life is precisely what is expected. Within a few years Xerxes put down the rebellion. The name of Necao was obliterated from the few monuments he had erected, probably by Xerxes (certainly not by his successor Psamtik II as Egyptologists claim). We can only speculate as to the fate of the Egyptian king. He clearly survived the reprisal by Xerxes early in 484 B.C., since he lived into his sixteenth year (474 B.C.). Whether he fled the country and lived in exile, was taken captive and later released, or was defeated in battle and immediately restored to office, with increased restriction, is not known.
The problem is not so simple for the traditional history, where hardly a single detail in Herodotus suits the 7th century context in which Necao is placed. On the understanding inherent in the traditional history that Wahemibre Necao was the 7th century pharaoh Necho, arguably a powerful ruler who engaged in extensive wars in Asia throughout the length of his reign, the question has legitimately been raised: Where are the monuments bearing witness to this alleged sixteen year reign of Wahemibre Necao?
Books on Egyptian history tell an extensive story of
Necho(ii)'s wars against Nebuchadnezzar, but this story is based on the rich
material of the Scriptures; his other activities are described with the help of
information gleaned from Herodotus.
Egyptian inscriptions have been searched for mention of a pharaoh named
Neco and of his campaigns. Egyptian
archaeology could not supply the story of the long war. The only extant inscription of any historical
value that is related to Pharaoh Necho is supposed to be the Serapeum stele,
which records the burial of an Apis by His Majesty Nekau-Wehemibre.
... Historiography is content with this single monumental relic of the rich
past of Pharaoh Neco. It is strange
indeed that in the annals of Egypt no account has been found of the long war
between Nekau-Wehemibre and Nebuchadnezzar; no record
of the civic activities of Nekau-Wehemibre is extant;
no law published in his day has been found; no temple built by him has been
unearthed; no written scroll discovered; no mummy or coffin. Judged by the Egyptian material, he must have
been a ruler of few achievements. But
then how could he have been a match for Nebuchadnezzar for almost a
generation? How could he have succeeded
in making the Palestinian kings, Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, and Zedekiah, believe
that he would be able to free
Immanuel Velikovsky, whom we have quoted above, wonders why the only monumental inscription of note that mentions the name of Wahemibre Necao "is an epitaph on the tomb of a bull."[17] And the problem is not only the silence concerning Necao's military achievements. If Herodotus is correct in ascribing to Necao the construction of the first canal joining the Mediterranean and the Red Sea, the building of a large fleet of war ships on the pattern of the Greek triremes, and the pioneering circumnavigation of Africa, achievements any one of which would merit widespread publication by pharaohs who preceded him, the silence of the monuments is overwhelming. Unless, of course, Necao was not the 7th century opponent of Nebuchadrezzar and does not deserve credit for the naval achievements. If he was a puppet king, and the initiative for the canal and the circumnavigation and the construction of triremes was a Persian overlord, specifically Darius, then the silence of Wahemibre Necao is to be expected. Why boast about activities performed under duress, by order of a higher authority?
Necao was not the opponent of Nebuchadrezzar; he was a vassal
king of the Persian
Apis Bulls of the 1st Persian Domination
Documentation for the Apis bulls that died during the first
Persian domination (525-404 B.C.) is curiously lacking. According to current scholarship there are at
most five deaths attested for the entire 120-year period. The Egyptologist Didier Devauchelle enumerated
the dates most recently. According to
this noted authority on the Serapeum stelae, the five bulls died in the 6th
year of Cambyses (524 B.C.), the 4th (517 B.C.), 31st (490 B.C.) and 34th (487
B.C.) years of Darius I and the 11th year of Darius II (412 B.C.).[18] We have previously
examined the data related to the bull that died in the 6th year of Cambyses and
concluded that this was the same bull which died in the 20th year of
Louvre #357 - 4th Year (Darius
I)
According to the Serapeum stela Louvre #357[20] an Apis bull died in the 4th year of a king Darius at the age of slightly over eight years. The bull was born in the 5th year of a king whose name is obscured on the badly damaged stela. On the assumption that the Darius in question was Darius I, the unnamed king is typically identified as Cambyses, and the bull's birth date is fixed in the year 525 B.C., Cambyses' fifth year. Its death is dated to 518 B.C., the 4th year of Darius I. Two problems result from this data that have served to generate a vast quantity of literature, namely 1) the inescapable conclusion that the birth of the second bull precedes the death of its predecessor by a year and three months (an unprecedented phenomenon and apparently in conflict with the basic theology of the Memphis cult) and 2) the time span between the birth and death of the bull amounts to only seven years 3 months, not the eight years 3 months that are named on the stela.
At first glance there is no need for further discussion of the matter. Our reason for reviewing the Apis bull records from the 27th dynasty is to determine if a conflict exists with the documented Apis deaths from the 26th dynasty. In this case there can be no conflict, whether or not this bull is correctly attributed to the reign of Darius I. The record of Apis deaths from the Saite period is missing precisely in the several decades between the 20th year and the 53rd years of Psamtik I. If an Apis bull died in 518 B.C., in the 4th year of Darius, thus the 26th year of Psamtik I, then the official stela bearing Psamtik's name, assuming one was made, has either not been discovered or has not survived.
It is for other reasons that we given an opinion on when this bull died. On the one hand the stela we are discussing was found in the tomb of the Amasis bull in the Greater Vaults of the Serapeum. At least four other stelae were found by Mariette in the same general area bearing either the identical date of death or the date of the funeral of this same bull. Scholars therefore believe, and with good reason, that this bull must have been buried in the vicinity of the Amasis crypt. Most associate this bull with Mariette’s chamber B'. If we are to adequately discuss the Serapeum evidence related to the 1st Persian Apis bulls that occupy the same general area, this bull must be included in the discussion.
On the other hand, we must provide an explanation for the data on one of the four associated stelae mentioned in the previous paragraph. Scholars have long been aware of the existence of the stela Louvre #366, commissioned by an official named Ptahhotep, a devotee of the bull deceased in the 4th year of Darius.[21] The stela bears the identical year, month and day of death as does Louvre #357. There is no doubt that Ptahhotep is worshipping the bull in question. But the Ptahhotep stela includes a lengthy genealogy, wherein this dignitary traces his ancestry back at least 11 generations. In the 8th generation back he mentions a Neferibre, in the 9th a Wahibre, the latter name enclosed in a cartouche. There can be little doubt that Ptahhotep is a 9th generation descendant of Wahibre Psamtik, i.e. Psamtik I. What are we to make of this evidence?
Three options were afforded scholars when it came to dating the bull deceased in the 4th year of Darius. The bull died in either the 4th year of Darius I (518 B.C.), Darius II (419 B.C.), or Darius III (332 B.C.) The stela of Ptahhotep must have played a part in the rejection of two of these possibilities.[22] According to the traditional history Psamtik I reigned from 664-610 B.C. He was therefore born around 690 B.C. at the earliest. On the assumption of twenty years per generation a 9th generation descendant would be born in 510 B.C. The possibility that Ptahhotep was alive in 332 B.C. can be rejected out of hand. Even the Darius II date would seem to be precluded, though lengthening the years per generation figure to twenty-five would date the birth of Ptahhotep around 465 B.C., leaving the second option a definite possibility. The fact that the stelae related to this bull were all found near the chambers that Mariette associated with Darius II would further support this identification. But to my knowledge scholars have never considered identifying Louvre #357 with a bull deceased in the 4th year of Darius II. The reason is obvious. Darius II was preceded on the Persian throne by Artaxerxes I who reigned for 43 years. In the traditional history the bull deceased in the 4th year of Darius II could not be born in the 5th year of the king preceding and live only 8 years. Thus there was only one possible dating of the Darius bull. The reference must be to Darius I, this in spite of an obvious conflict with the Ptahhotep stela. For Ptahhotep to erect a stela in 518 B.C. he must have been born at the latest around 550 B.C. and the years per generation figure must be around 15-16 years. While possibly correct, there is no evidence supporting such early marriages among the rank and file of the Serapeum devotees.
In the revised history the Darius I date is ruled out entirely. Psamtik I reigned from 543-489 B.C. He was born at the earliest around 570 B.C. On the assumption of twenty years per generation Ptahhotep was born around 390 B.C. In 332 B.C. he would be 68. Increasing the age per generation figure to 22 years would lower his age in 332 B.C. to 50. These numbers are quite realistic. The Darius III date is a definite option.
The association with Darius II is tolerable, but like the
Darius I option in the traditional history it demands that the age per
generation figure be lowered significantly, in this case as low as 15
years.. Even at that Ptahhotep
would be a youth of 16 when his stela was erected. Possible, but highly unlikely, though in the
revised history there can be no objection on other grounds. It is conceivable that a bull deceased in 419
B.C. could be born 8 years earlier in 427 B.C. and have its date of birth cited
as the 5th year of some Egyptian king.
We have argued many times that Artaxerxes was an absentee landlord, and
Amasis was but one of many dignitaries administering parts of
In view of these numbers we reject entirely the opinion of the current generation of scholars who identify the bull deceased in the 4th year of Darius with the first Persian king by that name. The other two options must remain open, the greater probability resting with the association with Darius III. It is altogether conceivable that a bull born in the 5th year of Artaxerxes III (340 B.C.) was deceased in the 4th year of Darius III (332 B.C.).[24]
This takes us back to our other consideration, the identification of the burial site of this bull. The Darius year 4 stelae were found in the vicinity of the Darius I and II chambers in the Greater Vaults, and scholars accordingly, on the assumption that this was a bull deceased under Darius I, have associated this bull with Mariette’s chamber B'. We have no argument with the association; only with the dating of the bull. In fact, on the assumption that this bull died in the 4th year of Darius II, we are more in agreement with Mariette than is the traditional history, since Mariette assigned this tomb to the reign of Darius II. And the fact that several of the Darius year 4 stelae were found in the tomb of Amasis is equally comprehensible from the point of view of the revised history. The 4th year of Darius II was the 31st year of Amasis. The Darius year 4 bull was also an Amasis bull.
On the assumption that this bull was deceased in the 4th year of Darius III, its burial in chambers alongside bulls deceased in the middle decades of the 5th century is less comprehensible, but still within reason. The priests might well have decided to group together the bulls of the 1st and 2nd Persian dominations. Rather than inter this bull in sequence perhaps 20 meters further west along the southern corridor, they filled an existing gap in the sequence of Saite/Persian tombs.
It is time to move on and consider the bulls deceased later in reign of Darius I.
Bulls deceased in the 31st and
34th year of Darius I
The stela of the 4th year of Darius does serve to introduce a
chronological problem that deserves to be noted. It is clear from our initial discussion in
this chapter that Devauchelle dates the 4th year of Darius I in the year 517
B.C. , while in our subsequent references to the same bull we use the date 518
B.C. This single year difference, which
also applies to the remaining bulls which supposedly died under Darius I, is
but the proverbial "tip of an iceberg", reminding us that there exist
problems related to the dating of Persian kings in this so-called "first
Persian domination". These problems
will be discussed on an ad hoc basis. In
the case of Darius I the major problem is deciding when precisely his reign began. The issue has generated copious amounts of
literature and its analysis lies far beyond the scope of this revision. Sufficient to say that we follow throughout
this chapter the dating scheme espoused by Leo Depuydt, published in a recent
edition of the Journal of Egyptian Archaeology (1995).[25] According to Depuydt, who represents the majority
of Egyptologists, the 4th year of Darius I occupied the time span from
Table 15: Apis Bull Deaths (1st Persian Domination)
|
King Name |
Year of Reign |
Absolute Date |
|
Cambyses |
6th |
524 B.C. |
|
Darius I |
4th? |
518 B.C.? |
|
Darius I |
31st |
491 B.C. |
|
Darius I |
34th? |
488 B.C.? |
|
Darius II |
11th? |
412 B.C.? |
According to Devauchelle two other Apis deaths took place in the reign of Darius I, one in his 31st and one in his 34th year. We dispute this claim. We argue instead that only one bull died. The death occurred in the 31st year of Darius, the burial took place three years later. Explanation is clearly needed. Because the matter is critical to this revision the discussion will be thorough.
One Apis or Two?
The first edition of the classic Porter & Moss Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts lists for the reign of Darius I a single stela dated to his 31st year (Louvre #362) and approximately forty stelae attributed to his 34th year.[26] That same bibliography carefully avoids identifying either of these years as the year of an Apis' death. At least for the year 34 bull the reason is clear - none of the stelae specifically states that an Apis died that year!
Of the forty odd stelae listed for the 34th year of Darius I only eight actually contain the year date. A few others name Darius but give no year. At least thirty of the stelae specify neither the king's name nor the year they were erected. However, when Emile Chassinat published this Darius group of stelae in three editions of the Recueil de traveaux at the turn of the 20th century, each was assigned an editorial date - the 34th year of Darius I.[27] Chassinat did not equivocate. On other Serapeum stelae published by the same scholar in this same journal, where the date is uncertain that fact is recorded. No reason is given for Chassinat's confidence regarding the undated stelae, though he probably depends on records supplied by Mariette in his 19th century excavation of the Serapeum. How Mariette arrived at his conclusions is not always clear. Probably, in most instances, the undated stelae were found in close physical proximity to those that are dated and/or they are stylistically similar to those monuments.[28] In the absence of evidence to the contrary we must assume that all these stelae are in some way connected with an event that took place in Darius' 34th year, which we identify as the funeral of an Apis bull. We do not imply that they were all deposited at the identical time, only that they relate to the same bull. Depending on where the stelae were erected, and when they were ultimately consigned to the Serapeum vaults, some may have originated at the time of the bull's death in the 31st year (but were undated), others to the funeral in the 34th year. A few may have been erected above ground in the interim between the bull's death and its funeral, and some, perhaps, in the decades immediately following Darius 34th year. As we will soon see, this was not a normal funeral.
By the time of the 2nd edition of the Porter and Moss Bibliography the list of year 31 hieroglyphic monuments had increased by one and the year 34 stelae had increased in number to 59, now divided by the Bibliography into three groups - 17 dated stelae, 3 stelae from the "time (of) Darius I, probably year 34", and 39 stelae "probably (from the) time (of) Darius I, year 34".[29]
Most recently Devauchelle has added two hieroglyphic and 3 demotic inscriptions to the list of year 31 monuments and 4 demotic inscriptions bearing the date of Darius year 34. He suggests that by now the Serapeum list for this period is likely complete.[30]
Our analysis of these stelae is largely restricted to the early group edited by Chassinat, since these are representative of the entire collection and are readily accessible, at least in transcription. The question that concerns us most is whether these stelae represent the death (and burial) of one Apis bull or two. Scholars are divided on the issue, most accepting the year 34 death while remaining uncommitted on the earlier. The discussion below suggests otherwise. It is the Apis deceased in the year 31 that is certain; the Apis buried in Darius' 34th year is the same bull.
The fact of a single Apis is supported by several considerations:
In the first place there is no room in the Serapeum for an additional bull from the reign of Darius I. Mariette has identified only a single chamber in the greater vaults of the Serapeum belonging to an Apis deceased under Darius I, and two with bulls deceased under Darius II. Scholars assume that Mariette has confused Darius I and II, and they have assigned all three bulls, Mariette’s Apis nos. XLIII, XLIV, and XLV, to the year 34 of Darius I, the year 4 of Darius I, and the year 31 of Darius I, respectively. Porter and Moss are careful to describe the year 31 bull ambiguously as a bull deceased "between years 4 and 34 of Darius I". Clearly they entertain doubts as to the date.
This arrangement leaves out of the picture entirely the bull from the 11th year of Darius II, and ignores Mariette's claim that two bulls from the reign of Darius II belong in these tombs. Where did the priests entomb the bull from the 11th year of Darius II? And where is the second Darius II bull? We are short at least two burial chambers.[31]
A second argument relates to the longevity of the bulls in question. Apis bulls typically live between 15 and 20 years. The assumption that an Apis died in year 31 and that his replacement died in year 34 creates two related problems. The three-year life span of the bull that lived from years 31 to 34 is too short, and the twenty-seven years for the bull that died in year 31 (on the assumption that this bull was born in the 4th year of Darius I) is too long. Both eventualities are possible, but highly improbable. The life span of 27 years would qualify the one bull as the longest-lived bull on record. The abbreviated 3 years life of the second bull would identify its life as one of the shortest. No wonder that the editors of the Porter & Moss Bibliography would rather see the year 31 date lowered somewhat, providing a solution to both problems. But Devauchelle is adamant that the year 31 date is correct.[32]
How are these difficulties to be resolved?
A Single Apis Deceased in Year
31
The controversy can be avoided by a simple expedient, suggested by the nature and quantity of the stelae themselves and by the history of the period as summarized in the preceding sections of this chapter.
We agree with Devauchelle that an Apis died in the year 31. We disagree that its replacement died prematurely in the 34th year. As we will soon see, the replacement bull lived a full eighteen years, equalling its life expectancy. Making this change at least solves the problem of the premature death. The unlikely lifespan of 27 years for the preceding Apis must be explained otherwise. We have already begun the explanation. We have identified the Darius 4th year bull as belonging to the time of either Darius II or Darius III. We assume that the replacement for the bull deceased in Cambyses’ 6th year lived an average lifespan of around 16 years. This would date the death of this bull around the 14th year of Darius I (508 B.C.) and would imply that its successor, the bull which died in Darius 31st year, also lived an average number of years. Alternatively, on the assumption that the Ptahhotep genealogy is flawed and we maintain the traditional dating of the Darius 4th year bull, one might examine the possibility of other dating conventions, an approach already anticipated by Devauchelle himself, who has experimented with alternative ways of numbering the years of Darius I, and has dated the 4th year of that king as early as 519 B.C. and as late as 514 B.C.[33] The matter does not concern this revision.
There remains for us to justify our specific claim that the Apis which died in the 31st year of Darius was not buried until the 34th year of that same king. The argument is necessarily long.
We begin by noting that among the forty odd stelae edited by Chassinat, none provides details about the Apis' birth and coronation, and only a single stela provides any reliable historical detail concerning its death. Louvre #326 preserves in the dateline some details about the funeral. "Darius year 34. (In the) 6th month, day 11 the god was conducted in peace to the beautiful west". It continues by describing the titles and name of the donor. The stela says nothing about the date of death of the bull. There remains therefore the possibility that the bull had died several years earlier? What is needed is evidence which will turn that possibility into a probability.
In the absence of a stela inscription that explicitly states that the year 34 funeral celebrates the life of a bull deceased three years prior, we itemize below a succession of factual statements, situational anomalies and stela inscriptions that can only be explained if that hypothesis is correct. Let the reader decide if we are right.
1) The dateline of Louvre #326 is highly unusual for a private stela erected at a typical funeral. Such monuments are often undated, though a significant number do include the year date of the funeral and a small fraction of these retain the month. The day of the funeral is a feature typically included only on the official stela, which is conspicuously absent for this supposedly short-lived bull.[34] The mention of the day of the funeral on this stela is at least suggestive that something unusual is happening. The fact that at least two other stelae, discovered or edited after Chassinat's publications, bear the identical dateline, only serves to underscore the unusual nature of this event.[35]
2) The fact of delayed funerals has already been argued by Egyptologists. We need go no further afield than the Apis bull of Cambyses 6th year. In order to solve the dating problems related to its successor, the bull that died in the 4th year of Darius, Posener long ago argued that the funeral of the first bull, which presumably died in the fifth year of Cambyses, was delayed until Cambyses' 6th year. Many, if not the majority of scholars, accept Posener’s solution. It is argued that this delay was due to the confusion surrounding the invasion of Cambyses in 525 B.C.[36] While we dispute this argument, we note for the record that scholars at least admit the possibility of a delayed funeral as proposed in this revision. If the delay could happen once, it could happen twice. Besides, as we will show momentarily, there is no doubt that the burial in Darius' 34th year was delayed by at least a month, and probably much longer.
3) The delayed funeral of the bull deceased in Darius' 31st year can be attributed to two causes, the first related to the political circumstances prevailing at the time of death. The 31st year of Darius I is the Julian year 491 B.C. Within Egypt mobilization was well underway for the Persian assault on Greece. Marathon was only a year away. Egyptians by the thousands had almost certainly been conscripted and had already left for the war. Meanwhile the Nile/Red Sea canal construction was ongoing. Time pressures had perhaps led to an accelerated effort. Hundreds of thousands of Egyptians were labouring intensively to build Darius' canal; tens of thousands were dying in the attempt, this according to Herodotus. In the midst of this turmoil an Apis bull died in Memphis. It was not a suitable time for a funeral, typically a time of national mourning, but at the same time a celebration. We can at least understand why the funeral might be delayed.
4) While the political situation might be a partial explanation for a delayed funeral, it remains - as does Posener's proposed solution to the dating problems related to the Cambyses' bull - purely speculative. In the case of the bull deceased in 491 B.C. there exists a more practical and verifiable explanation. When the bull died in 491 B.C. its tomb was not ready. Its burial had to be delayed. The fact is manifest from several considerations. All, save one, are discussed in the various arguments that follow. Only one is considered here. Again we look to the revised history. In that history the year 491 B.C. is the 53rd year of Psamtik I. Scholars have long been aware from the inscription on the stela Louvre #239 that a collapse of major proportions occurred in the "lesser vaults" of the Serapeum in the 52nd year of Psamtik I. We have already discussed this event, which must be dated to the year 492 B.C., less than a year prior to the Apis' death in Darius' 31st year.[37] Scholars are unanimous in the belief that the construction of the "greater vaults" began immediately following Psamtik's 52nd year. The Apis death occurred at a most inopportune time. Not only was the tomb not ready, but the labour force necessary to construct an entirely new vault, complete with entrance corridor, was otherwise occupied with the canal and with the war.
5) Assuming that the delayed burial can be attributed to the named causes, how do we explain the timing of the actual burial three years removed. Two explanations are forthcoming, corresponding to the two factors that contributed to the delay. On the one hand three years is a reasonable estimate of the time required to complete the construction of new vaults, complete with corridors, descent ramps and stairs, and at minimum a single burial chamber, especially in view of the labour shortage. Since details are lacking on how much of the "greater vaults" was constructed at this time no more can be said. The political situation is another matter entirely. If the delay was in part attributable to the chaotic conditions prevailing in the years immediately following 491 B.C., then the 34th year of Darius was the earliest suitable time for the burial, even if the vault was completed earlier. The year 34 of Darius 1 falls in the Julian year 488 B.C. It was the year when Wahemibre Necao ventured to declare Egyptian independence from Persia, halted the hated canal construction, and revolted against the oppressive conscription and excessive taxation of Darius I. The Egyptian rebellion had begun. It was an opportune time for a celebration, in this case a funeral celebration.
6) The historical situation outlined above provides an explanation for three related anomalies not highlighted in our previous discussion. The first concerns the number of stelae erected and raises the question: How do we explain the production of sixty stelae in the 34th year of Darius I? Typically a single stela marks the death of an Apis. Infrequently there exist upward of a half dozen accompanying monuments. The most notable exceptions are the 21st year of Psamtik I and this 34th year of Darius I. The first of these exceptions, the over 160 stelae commemorating the bull which died in Psamtik's 20th year, has been explained as the result of the arrival of Cambyses in Egypt, marking the end of the "exile", a cause célčbre for rejoicing. We noted at the time that no explanation was forthcoming from adherents of the traditional history to explain what was happening. Neither has any attempt been made to explain the unusual response to the assumed death in Darius' 34th year. But an explanation is demanded. In the revised history one is readily available. The year 488 B.C. marked the calm before the storm in the Egyptian quest for national liberation. Excitement was the rule of the day, but anxiety also prevailed at the prospect of retaliation by the Persians. Both were equally good reasons to seek the attention of the god. We can readily understand why, in anticipation of the inevitable encounter with the Persians, there should be erected multiple stelae either in gratitude for the deliverance already received or invoking the protective assistance of Osiris/Ptah. The votive stela admirably served both purposes.
7) The second anomaly concerns the bull to whom such overwhelming devotion was shown. On the assumption that two Apis bulls died in the years 31 and 34 of Darius I, the first having lived for 27 years and the second for 3 years, we should question why the longer lived bull was practically ignored by devotees of the cult, while the neophyte was overwhelmed with attention. No explanation is forthcoming from historians. The question is not even asked by Egyptologists. But the question is valid and our historical reconstruction provides the answer. There was no neophyte bull. It was the death of the elderly "year 31" bull (elderly, though probably not 27 years old) that was being remembered in the 34th year of Darius I.
8) A third anomaly exists in connection with the hypothetical bull whose premature death in the 34th year was so widely celebrated. We have previously remarked how the death in year 31, in the days of Chassinat, was attested by a single monument, Louvre #362. This monument actually dates from the Ptolemaic era but memorializes the bull which died several hundred years earlier in the 31st year of Darius I.[38] Considering the two hundred year delay in inscribing this monument we can understand why Egyptologists at the time of Chassinat entertained doubts about the reliability of the year 31 death (and still do). Only subsequently have additional inscriptions surfaced to settle the question for Egyptologists such as Devauchelle. But Louvre #362 raises an entirely different question for this revision, one ignored by scholars. How does it happen that two hundred years after the event the Ptolemies still remembered the bull deceased in Darius' 31st year, a bull seemingly ignored by its Egyptian contemporaries, and in so doing completely ignored the bull deceased in Darius' 34th year, a bull excessively memorialized by the earlier generation of Egyptians? Something is very wrong. But the answer is manifest if our hypothesis is correct. The bull that died in the year 31 was the same bull memorialized in the year 34. The Ptolemies are merely continuing the tradition, begun in the year 34 (or earlier), of publicly memorializing the year 31 bull. It was clearly an important time in Egyptian history, remembered and perhaps celebrated for decades.
9) If we are correct, and an Apis died early in Darius 31st year, necessitating prolonged and intensive construction within the Serapeum, there ought to be some inscriptional verification of this unusual activity. The evidence is forthcoming from three stelae. The first two must be examined together. The third deserves separate treatment. And following the examination of these three stelae we rest our case.
RB 18403 & SIM 4039
The first two stelae were published much later than the Chassinat group. The first, RB 18403 was only recently discovered; the second, excavated by Mariette but ignored by Chassinat, was published a half century later by Jean Vercoutter in his Textes Biographiques du Serapeum de Memphis (1962).[39]
The first stela was recovered in the long delayed re-excavation of the greater vaults of the Serapeum, which led in 1985 to the discovery of a horde of inscribed monuments, including around 80 stelae or stela fragments. Several relate to the years 31 and 34 of Darius. One is particularly noteworthy. According to Devauchelle, who has edited the finds on behalf of the excavators, "RB no 18403, written in demotic, is dated in the year 31, 3rd month of Akhat, of pharaoh Darius (I)."[40] The stela thus dates from the third month of the year. Since this is the earliest date recorded on the corpus of year 31 documents, Devauchelle is of the opinion that the date corresponds to the time of death of the earlier bull. This date becomes important when we examine the second stela.
SIM 4039, edited by Vercoutter, refers instead to the year 34 bull. It has a dateline identical to Louvre #326 examined earlier. The following translation is based on Vercoutter:
Year 34, 2nd month of Peret [6th month], day 11 of the king of Upper and Lower Egypt Darius, who has done that which pleases the living Apis in order that he [the Apis] (might) give to him [Darius] life and stability. (On this day) the god was conducted in peace to the beautiful west. Indeed, his majesty directed that his tomb be constructed in order to provide a place for the sarcophagus. The corridor that led there was opened from the end of the corridor that had been made by the forefathers. All the funerary equipment for the god was provided. (The passage) having been obstructed, one sought out the sand/gravel (or else “one carried away the sand/gravel”) of the (or else “in order that”) ... this god in the year ... 3rd month ... ((lacuna of nearly 2 lines - the end of line 4, all line 5, and the beginning of line 6)) ... until there came the day when the great living god ascended to heaven [i.e. died] one gave (or else “one caused) ... ((lacuna of nearly one line)) ...one has never done (such a thing) ... previously
Several features of this inscription deserve mention:
1) This not an "official" stela, an opinion expressed by the editors of the latest edition of the Porter & Moss Bibliography. According to Vercoutter the official inscriptions served only as a model for this text. Neither is it the typical biographical inscription. No genealogy is preserved, though the entire back (verso) of the stela is damaged and no attempt was made by Vercoutter to translate. The mere existence of this type of monument hints at the unusual circumstances that encouraged its production.
2) The stela is apparently intended to describe the construction of the tomb of the deceased Apis, a project described as one of unprecedented proportions ("one has never done (such a thing) ... previously") It is clear from the extant portion of the badly damaged text that the construction involved a new corridor extending the Serapeum beyond "the end of the corridor which had been made by the forefathers". This cannot merely refer to a lengthening of a pre-existing corridor in order to reach an appropriate location at which to excavate a new burial chamber. Such constructions were commonplace, required each time an Apis died. They were hardly labour intensive and they would not warrant special mention, much less a costly monument. Something entirely new is taking place here, a tomb construction of sufficient magnitude to warrant the time and expense consumed by this public proclamation. Keeping in mind the revised historical context in which we place this bull it seems fair to ask: Is this stela not describing the beginning of work on the "greater vaults" of the Serapeum in the year 491 B.C.? The Darius I burial chamber (chamber A') is the first one encountered when entering the “greater vaults” constructed after the “cave in” of Psamtik’s 52nd year. The location is right. And it can be argued that the time is right.
3) The text provides an important date in addition to that of the funeral. Unfortunately all that remains is the number of the month. It is the third month. The season and the year are obscured. The most natural reading of the text would identify this as the date of the bull's death, which normally precedes the date of the funeral by seventy days. But a funeral on the 11th day of the 6th month would imply a death on the 2nd day of the 4th month (4th month of Akhat) At minimum the 3rd month recorded on SIM 4039 would be a month too early, and accordingly the stela must be interpreted as saying that the funeral was delayed by a month, something Vercoutter was loathe to accept. And yet a further problem is evident. Vercoutter notes that the lacuna obscuring the year date preceding the mention of the 3rd month is too small to have contained the number 34 (“la lacuna etant trop courte pour contenir les sept signes du chiffre 34".) To circumvent the problem he suggests supplying a word, rather than a number, to fill the gap. He assumes that the hieroglyphs for the word tn ("this") should replace the lacuna. He also suggests that the 3rd month of “this (34th) year” must describe the beginning of the tomb construction described in the text, not the date of the bull’s death. This implies that the tomb construction was begun a month before the bull died, not a typical sequence of events. Vercoutter then speculates that the bull was sick and that the illness provided advance warning that a burial chamber would soon be needed. All of this argument assumes as a given that whatever happened in the 3rd month happened in the same year as the funeral, the 34th year of Darius.
But we know differently. The first stela we examined, RB 18403, suggested that an Apis bull died in the 3rd month of Akhat in the 31st year of Darius. We have hypothesized that this year 31 bull was not buried until the 34th year. It follows that the mention of the 3rd month on stela SIM 4039 is also a reference to the death three years earlier.
There was no need for Vercoutter to speculate on the missing year number. An actual number (not the word “this”) typically follows the year indicator in dated Serapeum stelae. The seven hieroglyphs denoting the number 34 might not fit in the lacuna, but the four required for the year 31 could fit. The resulting date might well refer to the death of the bull in the 3rd month of Akhat in the 31st year of Darius, the exact time suggested by stela RB18403 as interpreted by Devauchelle[41]
Alternatively the date might refer to the onset of construction on the "greater vault" described in the stela. But if so, the construction must have begun in the 3rd month of the 31st year, the death of the bull coming a month later. At least in the revised history there is no need to assume the illness of a bull to explain the onset of construction. The "lesser vaults" were damaged in Darius' 30th year; construction on the new Serapeum vault would have begun early in Psamtik's 53rd year (= Darius' 31st year) without need of an impending death for motivation.
It is time to look at our final stela.
The General Ahmose
The third and final stela mentioned earlier remains to be examined. The Serapeum stela of the general Ahmose is well known, having been published by Chassinat and many others throughout the 20th century.[42] This general, named after Ahmose, the great 18th dynasty liberator of Egypt, describes his exhaustive efforts to honor the memory of a deceased Apis bull, including the requisitioning of contributions from high-ranking Egyptians throughout the country. The stela is undated and Chassinat omits any editorial comment, but scholars are unanimous in dating it to the reign of Darius I. Posener, who provides a transcription and translation[43], suggests that it can belong either to the years 4 or 34. Most scholars adopt the later date. In the words of Olmstead:
At the burial of the Apis bull, presumably that of 488 B.C., the general Ahmose (Amasis) conducted the divinity to the hall of embalming and then, accompanied by archers and chosen soldiers, to his place in the necropolis. Ahmose passed all the nights watching and without sleeping, seeking to do every good thing. He placed respect for the god in the hearts of the people as well as of the foreigners of all the foreign lands who were in Egypt. He also sent messengers to the governors of the cities and nomes of Upper and Lower Egypt, and they brought their gifts to the hall of embalming.[44]
The interpretation of this monument has suffered from the assumption, entirely unwarranted, that the death and burial of this bull are separated by the traditional 70 days. Let the reader decide if the activities of Ahmose can be confined to a two-month period:
The one honored by the Apis-Osiris, the unique companion, the chief of soldiers, Ahmose, son of Paiouenhor, born of Takapenekhbit. He says: (Whereas this god was conducted (lit. taken out) in peace toward the beautiful west, after all the rites in the hall of embalming (lit. W'b-t) had been accomplished for him, while he [Ahmose] remained (constantly) in front of him [the bull], overseeing the soldiers and directing the company and the special guard (lit. the elite soldiers) in order to ensure that this god should attain its place in the necropolis.) "I am a servant acting on behalf of your ka. I have passed all my nights, watching and not sleeping, looking to do for you every useful thing. I have placed respect for (or awe of) you in the heart(s) of all Egyptians (lit. all the world) and (in the hearts) of the foreigners of all foreign countries who are in Egypt by what I have done in the hall of embalming. I sent (lit. I have caused to leave) the emissaries to Upper Egypt and likewise some to Lower Egypt to summon (lit. to cause to come) all the governors of the towns and the nomes with their gifts for the house of embalming." Also the divine fathers and the prophets of the temple of Ptah say: "O Apis-Osiris, may you grant (lit. hear) the prayers of the one who has made (for you) every useful thing, the chief of soldiers, Ahmose. He has provided protection (lit. he has mounted a guard) around you. He has come in person bearing money, gold and royal linen, spices (lit. resin), all types of precious stone, and every (other) good thing. Reward him (lit. make for him a recompense) in proportion to what he has done for you. Prolong his years and make his name endure forever, and grant that this stela be established firmly in the necropolis in order that his name be remembered eternally.
We highlight the following features of this inscription:
1) The chief boast of Ahmose is that he has spent considerable time guarding the deceased Apis, who is being kept in the "embalming hall" (W'b-t = Ouabet) awaiting burial. Unlike petitioners on other votive stela Ahmose is not at all concerned with the burial ceremony, or its concomitant rites, mentioning it only in passing. We do not understand the parenthetical introduction following the words "he says" as referring to Ahmose leading a funeral procession. He is instead describing his management of the armed guard that surrounded the Ouabet, during the time the preparatory "rites" were being conducted by the priests. This activity is otherwise unknown and unprecedented. Why the necessity of an armed guard of elite soldiers surrounding a funeral parlour? And how long did this protective surveillance last?
2) The reason for the guard seems clear from the inscription. An unusual abundance of treasure was being brought into the Ouabet, ostensibly to mummify and regale the deceased Apis. But this cannot represent the whole truth. The operation of the Serapeum was costly. Priests required an income. Labour must be paid. The construction of new vaults required greater than usual expenditure of funds. That fact alone demanded an unusual fund raising effort. Enter Ahmose, who sent far and wide, requisitioning contributions, no doubt exercising royal privilege and the threat of royal sanction. But the incoming wealth needed protecting, initially against thieves, but in the later stages perhaps also against the Persians. After Marathon Darius was in search of money to fund his war machine. The mounting treasure of the Serapeum must have been tempting for Persian officials.
3) How much time is assumed by the activities described in the Ahmose inscription? Surely time enough to organize the effort, time to send emissaries as far afield as Thebes, five hundred miles south, time for the governors to solicit, gather, and inventory the requested contributions, and time for the return journey to Memphis. A few months? A few years? If we believe Ahmose we should also allow time for his reputation to grow, for he claims that by the time the stela was inscribed, i.e. by the time of the funeral, his reputation had spread to every Egyptian and every resident foreigner, this on account of his successful efforts on behalf of the deceased bull.
It does not require much imagination to see how the activities of Ahmose, prolonged over the better part of three years, both justify his boast and at minimum corroborate our delayed burial hypothesis. Or is it merely coincidence that this stela appears at this time in history to conveniently illustrate the uniqueness of the 34th year burial?
This concludes a lengthy digression related to the Apis bull that died in the 31st year of Darius. Our purpose was clear stated at the outset, namely, to establish a correspondence between the 26th and 27th dynasty Apis bull records. From the gist of our argument, particularly our insistence that a single bull died in the 31st year of Darius I, and our constant repetition of the dates involved, the reader has by now picked up on the fact that the Saite dynasty bull of Psamtik’s 53rd year and 27th dynasty bull deceased in the 31st year of Darius died in same year and are undoubtedly the same bull. It was the Julian year 491 B.C.
The argument must rest at this point. In view of the lack of convincing evidence to the contrary we proceed on the assumption that there was no Apis deceased in the 34th year of Darius I.
Figure 32: Timeline - Apis Bull Deceased in the 31st Year of Darius I
Louvre #328 - 11th Year (Darius
II)
The final Apis bull from the first Persian period is dated tentatively to the 11th year of Darius II. The stela attesting its existence, Louvre #328 is highly controversial and will be examined in chapter 10. Devauchelle mentions this Apis death only as a possibility (peut-etre un en l'an 11 de Darius II)[45], but those expressed doubts are not warranted. Since this bull's death does not conflict with the revised history, we have included it in tables 14 and 16 without further discussion, for later reference.
We have now discussed all of the Apis bulls known to have died during the Persian occupation of Egypt, and have found no conflict with the Saite dynasty evidence. Our objective has been met. For the record however, we summarize in Table 15 the Serapeum data related to the Saite dynasty, accepted by a majority of scholars since the days of Breasted at the turn of the 20th century.
Table 16 Apis Bull Deaths (Saite Dynasty - Absolute Dates)
|
King Name |
Year of Reign |
Traditional Date |
Revised Date |
|
Psamtik I |
20th |
635 B.C. |
524 B.C. |
|
Psamtik I |
53rd |
612 B.C. |
491 B.C. |
|
Necao |
16th |
595 B.C. |
474 B.C. |
|
Apries |
12th |
578 B.C. |
457 B.C. |
|
Amasis |
5th |
566 B.C. |
445 B.C. |
|
Amasis |
23rd |
548 B.C. |
427 B.C. |
Finally, we merge the data from tables 14 and 15 into a single listing (see table 16 below), setting aside the fictional bull from the 34th year of Darius I. The result speaks for itself, but we add a few comments to highlight several features.
The Serapeum stela Louvre #193 describes the death of a bull deceased in the 16th year of Wahemibre Necao. The bull was born on the 19th day of the 6th month of the 53rd year of Psamtik I.[46] This must be the successor of the bull which died in the 31st year of Darius I (= Psamtik's 53rd year). There is therefore no conflict with the data presented earlier.. If we have correctly interpreted Vercoutter's stela SIM 4039 then the death of the earlier bull occurred in the 3rd month of the 31st year of Darius I. We should not be surprised that three months passed between the death of one bull and the birth of its successor. These were trying times. Egyptologists have argued in other situations that the interlude can extend to several years.[47]
Table 17: Apis Bull Deaths (Dynasties 27 and 26 Compared)
|
King Name |
Year of Reign |
Absolute Date |
King Name |
Year of Reign |
Absolute Date |
|
Cambyses |
6th |
524 B.C. |
Psamtik I |
20th |
524 B.C. |
|
Darius I |
4th? |
518 B.C.? |
|
|
|
|
Darius I |
31st |
491 B.C . |
Psamtik II |
53rd |
491 B.C. |
|
|
|
|
Necao |
16th |
474 B.C. |
|
|
|
|
Apries |
12th |
457 B.C. |
|
|
|
|
Amasis |
5th |
445 B.C. |
|
|
|
|
Amasis |
23rd |
427 B.C. |
|
Darius II |
11th? |
412 B.C.? |
|
|
|
While we cannot weight the year 31 synchronism too heavily in our argument - since many aspects of its defense have assumed the accuracy of the revised history it would be used to prove - the same cannot be said for the balance of the Apis record. The extensive amount of time in the Persian period during which there exists no record of the death of an Apis bull is an embarrassment to the traditional history. From the 34th year of Darius I to the 11th year of Darius II (if indeed the 11th year date is reliable), thus for at least 75 years, there is not a scrap of evidence attesting the activity of the Memphis Apis cult. On the assumption that the Apis bulls lived an average 15 years, we should reasonably have expected four bulls to have lived within that time frame. That observation has been noted by many scholars, Devauchelle most recently. His explanation is unconvincing.
One notices the lack of evidence concerning the three or four Apis (bulls) which lived at the end of the first Persian domination; that is perhaps due to the hazards of conservation of ancient monuments.[48]
Any argument involving "chance" omissions from the monumental record is particularly weak in the case of the Serapeum monuments, where stelae have remained relatively undisturbed for several millenia till removed by Mariette and subsequent excavators. The likelihood of a continuous sequence of Apis death records haphazardly disappearing or lost in transit to France is slim to none. Therefore the fact that the Saite dynasty Apis deaths fill the gap in the Persian period sequence with the expected four bulls, after a consistent 121-year reduction in their dates, is persuasive testimony to the reliability of the revised chronology.
On this note we might well close our discussion of the overlapping reigns of Darius I and Wahemibre Necao. But we have omitted one item of interest in our discussion of the Apis bull stelae dated to the 34th year of Darius. We return to the subject briefly, focussing attention on the inscriptions. Most contain nothing more than the donor's name and family connections. But names tell a tale.
Basiliphorous & "Beautiful" Names
Basiliphorous Names
The practice of naming a child after a reigning or deceased monarch is not strictly a twentieth century practice, it is a timeless phenomenon and particularly noticeable in ancient Egypt, where the name was typically compounded with other terms, forming a so-called basiliphorous name. Such name are particularly abundance during the 25th Saite dynasty where we frequently encounter officials named Psamtik-sa-Neith, Psamtik-menekh, Neferibre-meri-Ptah, Wahibre-seneb, etc. employing either the throne name or the personal name of an Egyptian king, usually but not necessarily a Saite dynasty king. The king's name is frequently enclosed in a cartouche.
According to the argument advanced over a century ago by Wiedeman[49] the use of a cartouche in a private name proves that the person in question must either be a contemporary of the sovereign named or have been born under his reign. While this theory has been contested, and there are notable exceptions, the presence of a cartouche name in an inscription should at least be considered as a factor when dating a particular monument. We have already used this principle in our assessment of the genealogy of Ptahhotep discussed earlier.
Considering the prevalence of basiliphorous names in the Saite era it is rather curious to note that, in the opinion of Egyptologists, very few Egyptians chose to name their children after Necao Wahemibre. In fact, the claim is made that Necao was held in low esteem by his generation, a fact that needs to be explained if, according to the theory espoused in the earlier sections of this chapter, Necao was a liberator of the country. The solution to the problem comes from the Egyptologists themselves. We quote Spalinger who gives a synopsis of the situation. Speaking from the perspective of the traditional history he remarks:
With his north-eastern frontier so constantly threatened, and with a series of defeats to his name, it is no wonder that Necho was vilified by the Egyptians themselves. Although the exact significance of this fact has eluded many, in my opinion Necho's failures abroad must account for the low esteem to which he fell at home. Not only did many private individuals change their names which had been compounded with his, but the name Necho itself was ignored until the Persian Period.[50]
In a footnote, after citing sources for the alleged treatment of Necho's name, Spalinger adds as a criticism that "None of these scholars have explained the reason for such an act."[51] The silence of the scholars is understandable. As advocates of the traditional history they have no answer. In the revised chronology, with Necao correctly positioned in the Persian period, there are readily available explanations. The Persians undoubtedly defaced many of the public monuments bearing the name of Necao after the suppression of the rebellion by Xerxes. The change in private name was either an accommodation to the fact that Necao’s name became, in the aftermath of the rebellion, anathema to the ruling Persians, or that, in subsequent decades, Psamtik II became even more celebrated than his father. Most of the changes referred to by Spalinger are alterations of Wahemibre (Necao's prenomen) to Neferibre (Psamtik II's prenomen) in basiliphorous names. The change involves the alteration of a single hieroglyph.
Having said this, we should note that Necao's name never did fall into disuse. The admission that the name of Necho reappeared in the Persian period, a difficulty that needs to be explained in the traditional history, is tantamount to saying that it's use was never actually discontinued. Necao's reign lay entirely within the Persian period; the appearance of his name at that time is precisely what is expected.
This mention of the name of Necao in the Persian period redirects our attention back to the Serapeum stelae dated to or identified with the 34th year of Darius I. If our revision is correct, and the 34th year of Darius falls only a year after the death of Psamtik I, we expect to find either Psamtik’s throne name Wahibre or his personal name Psamtik employed by individuals named in those stelae, since all of the named individuals must have been born during Psamtik's lengthy reign. As expected, various compounds of Psamtik's names occur far more frequently that of any other name in the stelae. In four of these monuments both Wahibre and Psamtik occur in various compounds (Louvre #325, 394, 398, 473). Names compounded with Wahibre occur separately on two stelae (Louvre #324, 445) and names compounded with Psamtik alone on another seven (Louvre #313, 219,291,366,391, 409, 413). In total thirteen (almost a third) of these stelae include one or both of Psamtik's cartouche names.[52] Four of these monuments are clearly dated to the 34th year of Darius (Louvre #325, 291, 394, 398). Additionally, and of particular significance, one bears the name of Wahibre in a cartouche (Louvre #473) and one the name of Psamtik in a cartouche (Louvre 313). According to Wiedemann's theory the cartouches in these two stelae should strengthen the argument that Psamtik I ruled Egypt in the several decades before the 34th year of Darius.
What do we make of the fact that stelae erected in the 34th year of Darius I (488 B.C.), and in the years immediately following, were dedicated by persons who, according to the accepted history, lived well over a century earlier, some bearing his name in a cartouche as if he were alive at the time the name was given? According to the traditional history Psamtik I ruled Egypt from 664-610 B.C. How do Egyptologists explain the names of Wahibre Psamtik occurring in basiliphorous names on monuments dating at minimum 120 years later?
For the most part scholars simply ignore the problem or at least minimalized the difficulty by interpreting the names Psamtik and Wahibre as the personal name and throne name respectively of Psamtik II and Apries, thereby decreasing the length of time between the lives of these kings and the 34th year of Darius. And on an ad hoc basis, where the stela itself is not dated, the editorial comment by Chassinat linking the stela to Darius' 34th year is simply ignored. But not all stelae can be dismissed so lightly and on the whole it is acknowledged that the Darius' stelae look very much as if they originate from a Saite dynasty context. Thus Devauchelle comments on how "it is often difficult to make a distinction between the stelae from the Serapeum of Memphis of the 26th dynasty and those from the 27th dynasty."[53]
Beautiful Names
A few comments must suffice to discuss the phenomena of the so-called "beautiful names", several of which occur in the Darius group of stelae. In Saite dynasty Egypt a tradition developed whereby adults assumed as an epithet a new name, usually compounded with the name of a reigning sovereign, and prefaced by the hieroglyphs rn.f nfr(.f) (lit. his beautiful name). In the opinion of Egyptologists the tradition was used sporadically in the post-Ramesside era, and underwent a resurgence under the Saites and the Persians. Its use is particularly noticeable under Psamtik II and Apries. The Egyptologist Herman de Meulenaere has recently documented almost eighty occurrences of this form of "Egyptian surname" from the late period.[54] A single example of this usage from the Darius year 34 collection warrants particular attention.
Stela Louvre #391 in the Darius group was erected by a religious official who bears numerous Memphite cultic titles and who refers to himself as Khnemibre-sa-Ptah rn.f nfr Necao ( lit. Khnemibre son of Ptah whose beautiful name is Necao). He names a Psamtik as one of his sons. Not only does this individual have both a basiliphorous and a beautiful name, but also both the names Khnemibre and Necao are contained in separate cartouches. According to Wiedemann’s theory and in keeping with the nature of each of these types of names, we should naturally understand that this official was born and named under a king Khnemibre and, as an adult living in the reign of Necao, that he adopted Necao as a beautiful name. At minimum we should understand that the "first name" should precede in time the "adoptive surname"(= beautiful name). And if Chassinat is correct in attributing this stela to Darius' 34th year, this stela uniquely corroborates the revised history, for only in that history is this situation possible. We have previously argued that there existed a king Khnemibre Arikakaman ruling in Nubia contemporary with the reign of Psamtik I in Egypt, both kings subservient to Darius and the Persians. It is no surprise therefore that a religious official, early in the reign of Darius, might name his son Khnemibre (perhaps he was Nubian). There is no problem in the fact that this Khnemibre should, decades later, adopt the personal name of Wahemibre Necao in the first year of Necao's reign (489 B.C.). Nor is it unlikely that this Khnemibre, alias Necao, would erect in the following year, Necao's 2nd, (= the 34th year of Darius) a stela that brought his family's welfare to the attention of Osiris/Ptah.[55] Absolutely nothing is out of place.
Not so if the traditional history is correct. In the first place Khnemibre must now be interpreted as the throne name of 'Ahmose-sa-Neith whose reign began in 570 B.C., twenty-five year after Necao's death in 595 B.C. Therefore Khnemibre-sa-Ptah must have received his "first name" several decades after he received his "beautiful name", a strange inversion of the natural order. To handle the problem conventions must be abandoned. Wiedemann’s theory must be discarded entirely. This is precisely the procedure followed by de Meulenaere when interpreting this particular stela, no.63 in his collection. Even so de Meulenaere, acknowledging the cartouche name of Necao, wants to date the stela "as soon as possible in the reign of Amasis".[56] But the problem is not restricted to an apparent inversion in the naming process. What about Chassinat's supplied date for the stela? De Meulenaere handles the problem expeditiously. He simply lists the date as "uncertain" and in a footnote adds the remark: "according to the editor 'Apis of the year XXXIV of Darius' ".
Postscript
We leave behind Darius I and Wahemibre Necao. Xerxes succeeded Darius I in the latter's 36th year, and reigned twenty years (485-465 B.C.). His first decade paralleled the last decade of Necao (489-474 B.C.). We are totally ignorant of what transpired in Egypt during those years. There is but a single curiosity confirming the synchronism of their respective reigns.
In the treasury building constructed by Darius I in Persepolis, the Persian capital, in the archives surrounding the courtyard on the east, south and north, were found the burned remains of the new state archive, unfortunately burned by the invading armies of Alexander the Great.
Today, only a few charred shreds of cloth remain of the precious documents; fifteen clay bullae alone retain the impression of the seals, a few of which might be attributed to Darius or Xerxes l. But the fire that destroyed papyri and parchments also unknowingly preserved more numerous if intrinsically less important documents written on unbaked tablets, baked hard by the flames. The vast majority has been found, as they were stored, in a single oversized chamber. This new archive begins with 492.[57]
On the west side of the same courtyard, in a great columned hall, were found the remnants of what Olmstead refers to as treasures of war. As the war effort prospered the exhibition room was filled, and a second exhibition room was built, probably by Xerxes.
To the west of the courtyard is a great room, roofed by means of nine rows of eleven columns each, which can be described only as an exhibition hall. Great masses of precious or rare objects which poured in as loot from the wars soon demanded a second addition to the treasury building, a second exhibition hall which covered virtually the whole northern face.[58]
The second exhibition hall on the northern face of the treasury had received from Alexander's army a fate similar to that of the archives. Items of obvious value had been removed and much of what remained had been destroyed.
For the most part it is impossible to determine which of the objects preserved were first installed in this reign. So thorough was the looting by Alexander that no large-sized work of art in a precious metal has survived. The many superb vessels of stone that bear the name of Xerxes were all deliberately smashed, though fortunately a good many can be fitted together again. Of the trophies from successful wars, some come from Egypt. A creamy alabaster bowl, banded in white and light grey, bears near the small handle the cartouches of Necho. Further names of the same monarch appear on the base of a blue paste statuette. Amasis is mentioned on an alabaster vase stand and on a composite alabaster vessel.[59]
We can only speculate on what treasures from the time of Necao were originally contained in Xerxes exhibition room. What remains helps to explain, at the very least, why so few objets d'art have been found in Egypt from Necao's reign. We assume that Xerxes removed everything of value from the country during his invasion of 484 B.C., particularly those "trophies" bearing the name of the upstart king who had dared to rebel against his father. But the few remaining objects raise an intriguing question for the proponents of the traditional history. Since Xerxes invaded Egypt for the first time in 484 B.C., how do we explain his possession of objects, especially the fragile alabaster vase, dating from over a century earlier? According to that history Wahemibre Necao ruled Egypt from 610-595 B.C. Why would Xerxes in 484 B.C. even care to possess a statue of a foreign king long since dead and forgotten. The preservation of alabaster objects from the reign of Amasis is also a problem, since they must have been preserved for at minimum forty years and have endured, along with those of Necao, the devastation assumed to have been wrought by Cambyses.
In the following chapter we turn our attention to Xerxes' second decade and the early years of Artaxerxes I, when the spirit of rebellion, temporarily suppressed following Necao's brief flirtation with freedom, rose to an unprecedented level. It is an interesting time.