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 Egypt. In the last decade of his reign strained relations between Persia and Greece led to a military confrontation that climaxed in 490 B.C. when Darius launched, under command of his nephew, a failed attempt to conquer Greece. The aborted battle at Marathon only increased his desire for conquest. The war was not over, only delayed.

Meanwhile, preparations for the Greek war proceeded apace. As Darius saw it, Marathon was only a temporary setback to a hitherto successful policy of steady frontier advance. All that was needed, he thought, was a larger army under proper direction, and then, when the surviving city-states had been crushed, the whole Greek world would be incorporated within the ever-expanding Persian Empire.[1]

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 Egypt. According to Herodotus the revolt took place in the fourth year after Marathon, around 487 B.C.[2]

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 Asia in travail for three years, the best men being taken up with the war on Greece or preparations for it. And in the fourth year the Egyptians, brought into subjection by Cambyses, revolted against the Persians. Thereafter even greater preparations were made for war on both countries. Her.7.1

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 Egypt. Details of the Egyptian revolt and of its suppression by Xerxes are lacking in all sources. We know only that for over two years (487-484 B.C.) Egypt was in control of local authorities. It was a time of national rejoicing, remembered and celebrated for decades. But the revolt ultimately failed.

Egypt had been recovered by January 9, 484. Quarrying at the Hammamat gorge by the returned Atiyawahy and by Ariurta proves a certain amount of building at the royal command. But the property of numerous temples was confiscated and the treatment of the natives made harsher. Apparently Pherendates had perished in the revolt, for Xerxes placed Egypt under the rule of his brother Achaemenes as satrap.[3]

The Revised History: (522-486 B.C.)

In the revised chronology Psamtik I ruled over the Persian province of Egypt from 543-489 B.C. The latter half of his tenure thus overlapped most of the reign of Darius I. From the death of Udjahorresne around 514 B.C., in Psamtik's 30th year, until Psamtik's death in 489 B.C. (only three years before the death of Darius I) there is an almost total absence of historical information forthcoming from Egypt. This is not surprising. Psamtik was a pharaoh in name only; in truth he was nothing more than a Persian bureaucrat. Besides, he was old. We have argued that Psamtik was born some time before 564 B.C. when his father Necao I died during the invasion of Nebuchadrezzar. He must have been a young man in his late twenties or early thirties when installed in office by Cyrus in 543 B.C. He died in his 55th regnal year after 54 years regulating Egyptian affairs on behalf of three Persian kings. He must have been well over eighty years old at death. His son Wahemibre Necao ruled after him from 489-474 B.C. The rebellion against Darius (487-484 B.C.) must have occurred early in Necao's reign.[4]

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 Egypt. It was he who began the making of the canal into the Red Sea, which was finished by Darius the Persian. This is four days' voyage in length, and it was dug wide enough for two triremes to move in it rowed abreast. It is fed by the Nile, and is carried from a little above Bubastis by the Arabian town of Patumus; it issues into the Red Sea. The beginning of the digging was in the part of the Egyptian plain which is nearest to Arabia; the mountains that extend to Memphis (in which mountains are the stone quarries) come close to this plain; the canal is led along the lower slope of these mountains in a long reach from west to east; passing then into a ravine it bears southward out of the hill country towards the Arabian Gulf. Now the shortest and most direct passage from the northern to the southern or Red Sea is from the Casian promontory, which is the boundary between Egypt and Syria, to the Arabian Gulf, and this is a distance of one thousand furlongs, neither more nor less; this is the most direct way, but the canal is much longer, inasmuch as it is more crooked. In Necos' reign a hundred and twenty thousand Egyptians perished in the digging of it. During the course of excavations, Necos ceased from the work, being stayed by a prophetic utterance that he was toiling beforehand for the barbarian. The Egyptians call all men of other languages barbarians. Necos then ceased from making the canal and engaged rather in warlike preparation; some of his ships of war were built on the northern sea, and some in the Arabian Gulf, by the Red Sea coast: the landing -engines of these are still to be seen. He used these ships at need, and with his land army met and defeated the Syrians at Magdolus, taking the great Syrian city of Cadytis after the battle. He sent to Branchidae of Miletus and dedicated there to Apollo the garments in which he won these victories. Presently he died after a reign of sixteen years, and his son Psammis reigned in his stead. Her. 2.158-9

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 Mediterranean and the Red Sea for which both the initiative and the lion's share of the work appear to be credited to Wahemibre Necao. The fact that over a hundred thousand lives were lost, notwithstanding the probable hyperbole, suggests it was a lengthy and labour intensive effort. There can be little doubt that the construction was all but finished when abandoned by Necao. It is surprising therefore that this mammoth undertaking, so potentially advantageous for the Egyptian economy, and so near to completion, was ignored for 100 years till work resumed and the canal was completed under Darius I - this on the assumption that Necao ruled Egypt from 610-595 B.C., a century before Darius. This criticism is particularly incisive considering the explosion of commercial activity that took place in the lengthy and prosperous reign of Amasis. Why did Amasis not finish the canal? And who are the "barbarians" on account of whom Necao was loathe to complete this water bridge between the Nile and the Red Sea?

That a canal joining the Nile (and thus the Mediterranean) with the Red Sea, via the wadi Tumilat, was in fact completed under Darius I, is not in doubt. Excavations by the French in the late 19th century uncovered the outlines of the canal and, more importantly, the huge stelae erected by Darius to commemorate its construction.[5] The original waterway was a hundred and fifty feet wide and deep enough for the passage of sea going vessels. It could be traversed in four days.

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 Egypt. I commanded this canal to be dug from the river, Nile by name, which flows in Egypt, to the sea which goes from Parsa. Afterward this canal was dug as I commanded, and ships passed from Egypt through this canal to Parsa as was my will. On the reverse is the fuller Egyptian version. Under the Egyptian sun disk, ultimately the original of the Ahuramazda symbol depicted on the front, stand the two Niles in the traditional ritual of "binding the two lands." One tells Darius: "I have given you all the lands, all the Fenkhu (Phoenicians), all the foreign lands, all the bows"; the other "I have given you all mankind, all the men, all the peoples of the isles of the seas."[6]

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 Sais," the patron deity of the Egyptian capital during the Saite dynasty. What, if anything, should we read into this association of the Persian and Saite dynasties?

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 Greece, and which construction became the responsibility of Necao, son of the aging Psamtik I. This assumes, of course, that even before he became king in 489 B.C., Necao had taken over many of the official functions of his father. The canal construction, probably begun several years before Marathon, continued through the death of Psamtik I and into the second year of Necao (488 B.C.). Then it abruptly stopped. Necao, reflecting the national sentiment, determined to free the country from the destructive policies of Darius and the Persians. And therein lies the answer to the other two questions. The cessation of work on the canal was the beginning of a rebellion against Persia.

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 Greece, there can be no doubt that Darius is the "barbarian". The revised historical context settles the question.

The canal was constructed by order of Darius, whose vested interest in such a venture is undeniable. His war with Greece required naval vessels for the anticipated battle and ready access to provisions for the troops. Egypt was a major supplier of both. But part of the Persian navy and many of the potential sources of supply lay south and east of Egypt. A water bridge to the Red Sea was essential. It would give immediate access to supplies from Persian provinces bordering on the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean. It would facilitate the movement of ships constructed and troops conscripted elsewhere in the southern regions of the Persian Empire. And it would provide a faster and less physically demanding route to the Persian homeland.

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 Marathon and more deaths appeared inevitable as Darius pursued his ambition to annex Greece. To complete the canal would further a war effort which could only result in innumerable casualties, and all this for a "barbarian" whose repressive taxation and conscription was becoming intolerable.

When work on the canal stopped Necao was in effect declaring Egyptian independence. Retaliation from the Persians could be expected soon. Egypt had to ready itself for war. It is no surprise therefore that a work stoppage led immediately to a war effort. Herodotus captures the connection precisely. "Necos then ceased from making the canal and engaged rather in warlike preparation" The anticipated reaction from Persia would come from land and sea.

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 Egypt, through this canal to Parsua as was my will." How do we explain the apparent discrepancy?

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 Africa

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 Libya is surrounded by sea, except where it is joined to Asia, and the first to demonstrate this, so far as we know, was the Egyptian king Necos. For, when he abandoned the digging of the canal from the Nile to the Arabian Gulf, he dispatched certain Phoenicians on a voyage, and bade them sail so as to come home between the Pillars of Heracles to the sea on the north side of Libya and thus back to Egypt. The Phoenicians set out from the Red Sea and sailed the southern sea; as often as autumn came they went ashore and sowed the land in whatever part of Libya they had reached in their voyage and waited for the harvest; when they had gathered the crop, they sailed on. Thus two years passed, and in the third year they turned through the Pillars of Heracles and reached Egypt. They said what to me is unbelievable, though some may believe it; that as they sailed around Libya they had the sun on their right hand. Her. 4.42

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 Red Sea to the Nile delta around the tip of the African continent, appears to solidify Necao's reputation as a visionary and an achiever. So seemingly legendary are these exploits, in fact, that the credibility of Herodotus has been called into question, at least in the case of the circumnavigation. According to the Egyptologist Alan Lloyd "this remarkable narrative has excited, and will continue to excite, considerable discussion, some championing its historicity, others refusing to accept it.”[8] Lloyd, for one, believes Herodotus to be mistaken, believing the incident to be totally out of character for an Egyptian pharaoh in this time period. According to him "it is extremely unlikely that an Egyptian king would, or could, have acted as Necho is depicted as doing ... all the more unlikely since the Saites were distinctly prone to following well-worn paths." He goes on to say that

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 Mediterranean because he was ordered to do so. The initiative belonged to Darius, not Necao. The proof comes from Strabo who, writing centuries after Herodotus, not only credits Darius I with the idea, but also claims that this knowledge was derived circuitously from Herodotus:

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 Libya; and adds that Heracleides of Pontus in one of his Dialogues makes a certain Magus who had come to the court of Gelo assert that he had circumnavigated Libya.[10]

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 Africa, while Darius ordered that of Arabia."[11]

But Strabo has made no mistake. Neither can we accuse Poseidonius of error. Necao, at the time of the expedition, was a vassal of Persia and subject to directives forthcoming from that source. There is no fundamental conflict between Strabo's claim that the naval expedition was "commissioned" by Darius I, and the statement of Herodotus who says that the sailors were "dispatched" by Necao. Whether Poseidonius knew that Necao was acting under directives from Darius, and interpreted Herodotus accordingly, or whether some portion of the original Herodotus has been lost in transmission is impossible to say. We can note, however, that once again the names of Darius I and Wahemibre Necao have been confused in the historical record and apparently for the same reason as the confusion regarding the canal construction. The two kings were contemporaries and participants in the identical activities.

It is obvious what motivated Darius to initiate the naval expedition. The oceanic route to the Mediterranean was likely conceived for precisely the same reasons as the canal construction. Darius was in desperate need to establish a water bridge between Persia and the anticipated Mediterranean/Adriatic arena of his war with Greece. Supply links had to be created. Assuming that the expedition was planned before Necao's rebellion, a sea-route, assuming the sailors were able to discover one, would be an alternative to the canal route, and particularly valuable should the canal not be completed on schedule. It might also discover new sources of supply.

But Herodotus seems to suggest that Necao dispatched the Phoenician sailors after he had "abandoned the digging of the canal from the Nile to the Arabian Gulf.” It is possible, of course, that Herodotus is mistaken in the timing of the event and that the ships were dispatched before his revolt was underway, in which case there is no problem. But even assuming the accuracy of Herodotus there is no inherent difficulty. Necao was now at war with Persia and anticipating a Persian reprisal. Warships were necessary on two fronts - on the Red Sea to counter a Persian naval offensive via the Indian Ocean, and at the Nile Delta where numerous tributaries needed defending. Of the two locations the latter was by far the more susceptible to attack and the least defensible. With the canal construction abandoned Necao may have decided to proceed with the Darius initiative, both for supplies and as a possible means of transferring part of his Red Sea fleet to the Delta should need arise.

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 Red Sea

Immediately following the work stoppage on the canal Necao redirected the war effort. Instead of working to assist Persia against Greece, he prepared to drive the Persians from Egypt. According to Herodotus he immediately began building warships (triremes) both on the Mediterranean and on the Red Sea. We repeat the quote from Herodotus:

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 Arabian Gulf, by the Red Sea coast: the landing-engines of these are still to be seen. He used these ships at need, and with his land army met and defeated the Syrians at Magdolus, taking the great Syrian city of Cadytis after the battle. He sent to Branchidae of Miletus and dedicated there to Apollo the garments in which he won these victories. Presently he died after a reign of sixteen years, and his son Psammis reigned in his stead. Her. 2.159

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 Greece. The shipyards were already in place; the building already in progress. Necao merely allocated the production to a different cause.

Some have questioned the fact that Necao would build triremes for use on the Red Sea. Alan Lloyd, for example, arguing from the traditional history, can see no possible use for such warships in this region at this time.

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 Egypt was very ill endowed. They were also, in the light of current ambitions, worth their military weight in gold in the Mediterranean. Necho must have had what he thought was a very good reason for this move. What was it? [12]

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 Egypt". He appropriately rejects the suggestion. Neither Nabopolassar nor Nebuchadrezzar, Necao's contemporaries in the traditional history, is known to have engaged in naval warfare. And according to that same history, even a land force led by the Chaldaean king never seriously threatened Egypt under Wahemibre Necao. Concerning the possibility of a Babylonian naval attack Lloyd concludes:

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 Red Sea against the Chaldaeans could surely not have arisen even to the level of a calculated risk. The solution must lie elsewhere.[13]

Elsewhere indeed. The solution lies in correctly placing the Saite dynasty a century forward in time. The Chaldaeans were not a naval threat to Egypt, but Persia certainly was. Persian fleets manned by Phoenician sailors sailed both the Mediterranean Sea and the Indian Ocean. And the Persian navy employed by Darius I and Xerxes was famous for its widespread use of the Greek trireme.

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 Egypt according to the accepted chronology (610-595 B.C.) The trireme is a late sixth century innovation in naval warfare. Only in the fifth century was it widely used as a naval vessel, and that precisely in the time of Darius and Xerxes in their wars with the Greeks. Either the use of the term by Herodotus is anachronistic, or the dates for Necao should be lowered by a hundred years.

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 Persia, in his Persia & the Greeks (2nd, 1984):

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 Athens and others were small in numbers, and mostly of fifty-oared galleys at that.' Exactly at what point the simple fifty-oar gave place completely to the trireme as the standard ship of the line, and whether Thucydides can here be completely trusted (he is writing to prove that his was the biggest war ever fought), is a difficult problem. If his statement is completely accurate, there must have been prodigious building activity throughout Greece and the Levant, and not only at Athens, in 490-480.[14]

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 Cadytis after the battle".

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 Gaza (if not Gaza itself), several hundred miles further east from Migdol at the other end of the desert road linking southern Palestine with Egypt. Both locations were defensive strongholds, typically occupied by Egyptian troops. Necao is apparently at war with himself! Something is amiss.

Historians typically emend the Herodotus reference in an attempt to salvage some reminiscence of Neco's wars with Babylon from the description. How and Wells, in their influential Commentary on Herodotus illustrate the interpretive process. Concerning Magdolus they say:

The battle was really fought at Megiddo, where the coast-road comes out on the plain of Esdraelon; here Thothmes III had beaten the Syrian confederates nearly 1000 years before. H(erodotus) confuses this name with 'Migdol', the border fortress of Egypt on the north-east (cf. Exod. xiv.2; Jer. xliv.1)."

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 Sardis'. It has been identified with Jerusalem and its name explained as = 'the holy' (cf. the present Arab name 'El Kuds'); Necho perhaps took Jerusalem (2 Chron xxxvi.3). But it is clear from iii.5 that Cadytis was on the coast, at the south end of the road from Phoenicia to Egypt; and H(erodotus)'s comparison with Sardis, which may rest on his own observation, would certainly not suit Jerusalem in the days of humiliation after the return from the Exile. Gaza, on the other hand (certainly captured by Necho), was always an important station of the trade-route from Egypt to Syria and had special connexion with Arabia; cf. G.A. Smith, Hist. Geog. 182-3)."[15]

There is no need to emend Magdolus to Megiddo, or to find some etymological way to turn Cadytis into a major Palestinian city. Necao Wahemibre is not the seventh century pharaoh Necho, in spite of the similarity of name. He is the leader of the Egyptian rebellion against Persia in the year 487/6 B.C., and it is not at all surprising that his only military enterprise consisted in attacking Migdol and Gaza, garrison towns most likely defended by the relatively few troops remaining loyal to Persia (if not actual ethnic Persians). We can assume that the mercenaries in old Cairo (Egyptian Babylon), Elephantine and Tahpanhes have already sided with Necao and are party to the Egyptian rebellion.

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 Palestine from the yoke of the mightiest monarch Babylon had ever known?[16]

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 province of Egypt under Darius II. His dates were 489-474 B.C., not 610-595 B.C. The construction of the canal, the building of triremes, and the circumnavigation of Africa can all be connected with the military wars of Darius II against Greece, and Darius deserves the sole credit for these initiatives. Wahemibre Necao can be commended for a single achievement, of short duration but nevertheless notable - the brief liberation of Egypt from Persian domination. The Egyptians remembered the event for decades. The evidence is forthcoming from the Serapeum chambers of the Apis bulls.

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 Psamtik I.[19] Our attention now focuses on the other four bulls, with emphasis on the two deaths attributed to the 31st and 34th years of Darius I. This will be a lengthy digression. The reason should be apparent. If the 26th and 27th dynasties overlap throughout much of their length, as argued in the revised history, then we must verify that the Apis bull records of the two dynasties can be reconciled. We have made a good start by demonstrating the correspondence between the Cambyses and Psamtik bulls. We will examine the remaining deaths in chronological order.

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 Egypt for the Persians, many of whom were self-styled kings. And was 427 B.C. not the 23rd year of Amasis, the date when an Apis died and its replacement was likely born?[23]

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 Dec. 31, 519 B.C. through Dec. 20, 518 B.C. and is therefore essentially identical to the Julian year 518 B.C., not the 517 B.C. date which formed the basis of Devauchelle’s dating scheme. Accordingly, we must move back one full year the dates for the 27th dynasty Apis bulls deceased under Darius I as provided earlier by Devauchelle. The revised dates are reproduced below in table 14. We have already been using the 518 B.C. date in our discussion of the bull supposedly deceased in the 4th year of Darius I.

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