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 |