Chapter 9: Psamtik II & the Inaros Rebellion
Xerxes & Samtoutefnakht
Xerxes
Xerxes reigned from 486-465 B.C. The first half of his reign
bode ill for
The Egyptian rebellion, according to the revised history, was led by Wahemibre Necao. It's failure can be dated with some precision to the early months of 484 B.C.. Xerxes immediately proceeded with plans to conquer Greece in order to avenge his father's humiliating loss at Marathon. This time the planning was meticulous. Several years passed.
By the autumn of 481 preparations for the expedition against Greece were complete, and all the various troops called up assembled in Cappadocia and wintered in Lydia. Every people in the Empire furnished its contingent. At the head came the Persians and Medes, armed with the lance, bow, and sword...[1]
If the land army was impressive the naval force was overwhelming, a veritable armada.
The fleet was of the greatest importance, for the army depended on it entirely for supplies, and would have died of hunger if it had to live on the country. The 1,207 warships composing it were manned by Phoenicians, Egyptians and Greek subjects of Persia, and there were a few Persian, Median, or Sacian marines on board each. In addition to this fighting fleet there were 3,000 transports.[2]
The Persian assault on Greece in 480 B.C. is legendary. Its failure is well documented by the Greek historians. At Thermopylae a massively outnumbered Spartan force, led by Leonidas, briefly held the Persians at bay, then succumbed to treachery. The Persian army marched on toward Athens. The victory was fleeting.
They (the Spartans) did not prevent the Persians from marching on Athens, whose citadel, with its temple of the owl-eyed Athene, was fired to avenge the burning of Sardes. Meanwhile the Persian fleet had arrived, diminished in numbers by a storm off the coast of Asia Minor and a three days' battle near the northern point of Euboea. It met the enemy at Salamis, and Xerxes, looking on at the battle from afar, where he sat on his throne, witnessed the utter failure of his undertaking. The Great King decided to return to Asia, leaving his cousin Mardonius at the head of the army, which was stationed in Thessaly. The last force remaining on Greek soil was defeated at Plataea in the spring of 479; the death of Mardonius, killed while charging the enemy, decided the outcome of the battle. From this moment the Persians retreated, and Athens, by her successes, seized the hegemony of the sea.[3]
For the balance of his reign Xerxes attention was focused on his eastern provinces.
Figure 33: Timeline – First Half of 5th Century B.C. (Revised History)
In Egypt Necao lived out his reign in obscurity (489-474 B.C.), no doubt grieved that the triremes he had built, and the canal he had constructed (assuming the canal was completed by Xerxes), were employed as he had feared, if not by the barbarian (Darius I) then by his son (Xerxes). Necao was succeeded by his son Psamtik II, who ruled six years (474-468 B.C.). The reign of Psamtik II lay entirely within the second half of the reign of Xerxes. His life, albeit brief, was not uneventful.
Is there any evidence of Saite dynasty involvement in the wars of Xerxes? Does inscriptional evidence exist which confirms that Psamtik II was on the throne around the beginning of the second quarter of the 5th century B.C.? And what of the documented activities of Psamtik II? Do they suit the 6th century context in which he is placed by the traditional history (595-589 B.C.) , or do they better fit the 5th century milieu provided by the revised history?
We postpone briefly the questions regarding Psamtik II. The Egyptian involvement in the battle of Salamis, for which we depend entirely on the Greek historians, has at least one curious, though admittedly tenuous, mention in the Egyptian monuments.
Samtoutefnakht Again.
The Petition of Petesi, examined briefly in chapter 5, documents
the death of Petesi, son of Ankhsheshonk, the master of shipping in central
By the 9th year of Darius, the 30th year of Psamtik I (514 B.C.), Samtoutefnakht had acquired additional titles and increased status. He was by then a general, a prince, and an intimate confidant of the king. On the stela inscription describing the arrival of Psamtik's daughter Nitocris in Thebes, where she assumed sacerdotal duties as the adoptive daughter of the incumbent god's wife, we read:
The vessels bearing her were very numerous, the crews were mighty men, and they were deeply laden [to the decks] with every good thing of the king's palace. The commander thereof was the sole companion, nomarch of Heracleopolis, commander in chief of the army, chief of the harbor, Somtous-Tefnakhte. BAR 944
What is not readily apparent in the Petition record, and only hinted at in the adoption stele inscription, is that Samtoutefnakht was an aristocrat, distantly related to a royal family. Early in the 20th century (1918) Daressy published the inscriptions from two statues of Samtoutefnakht, one recently discovered at Ehnasya, the other part of the Cairo Museum collection, apparently originating from Sais.[5] On the first statue the shipping master identifies himself as "the prince, governor, administrator of the south, Samtoutefnakht, son of the royal prince (lit. "son of the royal son) ...", an intriguing set of titles which unfortunately end in a lacunae (son (s') might have read daughter (s't)). On the second statue he refers to himself as "prince, governor, intimate acquaintance of the king who loves him, advisor to the king in every circumstance" and separately as "his true servant, who occupies his heart, the prince, governor, chief of personnel for the royal fleet Samtoutefnakht." The second statue bears also the cartouche names of Psamtik I.
Though only one statue bears the name of Psamtik I, Daressy is of the opinion that both belong to that king's reign and both relate to the same person.
The titles are not the same on the two monuments but the name of the person is so infrequent that I do not think one can help believing that the statues have been made for the same Egyptian even though they originated, the one from Heracleopolis, the other probably from Sais.[6]
Scholars are unanimous in identifying the Samtoutefnakht of these statues with the shipping master mentioned in the Nitocris adoption stela and the Petition of Petesi. If so he is the (grand)son of Petesi, and (great)-grandson of Ankhsheshonk.[7]
More recently two additional statue inscriptions of the same individual have been published, one stela found near Ashmun el-Romman in 1950 and another near Balkim in 1968. Bakry, who published these finds, also reedited the inscription from a naophorous statue found in 1905 near Wagh el-Birkeh, Cairo, published early in the 20th century by Spiegelberg.[8] Many new titles emerge in these inscriptions. Samtoutefnakht is "ruler of the east", "one clad in royal linen", "controller of the palace", and "overseer of the prophets of (H)arsaphes". In all three he is a prince (rp't), a mayor (h'ty-') and the governor of the south ('imy-r rs). There are further allusions to his royal ancestry. In the el-Birkeh inscription he refers to himself as one "born of the body of the king's daughter, of his body".
Most recently K.A. Kitchen has noted the existence of at least two additional statue inscriptions wherein "Somtutefnakht claims a royal princess (s't-new n ht.f) as his mother..."[9]
The facts which emerge from a consideration of all documents related to Samtoutefnakht are these:
1) Samtoutefnakht was a very young man when appointed to replace Petesi, son of Ankhsheshonk, the master of shipping in Psamtik's 18th year. This follows from the Petition of Petesi. When Petesi, son of Ankhsheshonk had requested help in Psamtik's 4th year, using old age as his reason, help was denied. Instead another Petesi, son of Essemteu, a nephew of the shipping master, was appointed to relieve the work load. Clearly the shipping master's "son" was not yet old enough to succeed to the office. Since Petesi was extremely old, it is all but certain that this young man was a grandson, not a son. The use of "son" in the sense of "grandson" or even "descendent" is commonly employed in the Petition. The suggestion that he was only in his late teens will be defended later.
2) When the Ehnasya inscription refers to Samtoutefnakht as the "son of the royal prince (lit. "son of the royal son) ...", it is likely that the original reading was "son of the royal daughter". According to Daressy the inscription has a lacuna following the hieroglyph s' (= son) where we might expect the "t" which turns s' into s't (= daughter). The altered reading is clearly suggested by the three other stelae which identify Samtoutefnakht as "son of a king's daughter".
3) The statement that Samtoutefnakht was a "son of a king's daughter", if taken literally, would imply either that Petesi, son of Ankhsheshonk was married to this princess (if he was Samtoutefnakht's father), that he was a king himself (if he was the maternal grandfather of Samtoutefnakht), or that he was Samtoutefnakht's paternal grandfather. There are good grounds for rejecting the first two possibilities. But the phrase may only imply that Samtoutefnakht was a descendant of a king's daughter, in which case Petesi may be either a maternal or paternal grandfather.[10]
4) The royal family to which Samtoutefnakht is distantly related must be that of the 23rd dynasty king Peftjauawybast, whose dates are about 619-609 B.C. in the revised history. This king was ruling in Heracleopolis at the time of Piankhi’s invasion. This hypothetical genealogy follows primarily from the strong connections with Heracleopolis in all of the inscriptions of Samtoutefnakht. Even the name of Ankhsheshonk suggests connections with the 22nd/23rd dynasties. If we are correct then Samtoutefnakht is either three or four generations removed from Peftjauawybast.
It is curious that Samtoutefnakht does not mention the names of his parents on his statue inscriptions.[11] The limited space available is sufficient explanation, but another possible explanation is to be found on the one inscription of Samtoutefnakht yet to be discussed.
Stela of
According to the Egyptologist Alan Gardiner:
A stela preserved in Naples, but originally found at Pompeii, contains the 'biography' of a Samtowetefnakhte who held important priestly offices in the XVIth nome of Upper Egypt; his name and the prayers which he addresses to Arsaphes, the ram-headed deity of Heracleopolis, show him to have belong to a family mentioned several times already.[12]
The so-called Stela of Naples, well known and much discussed by scholars, was apparently carried off from Egypt to Italy by an early Roman emperor, and erected at Pompeii to adorn the premises of the temple of Isis. Due in part to its accessibility and prominence it was one of the earliest Egyptian monuments translated following the decipherment of the hieroglyphic script. It begins by listing the titles and genealogical connections of the author:
The devotee of Harsaphes, king of the two lands, regent of (all) lands, lord of Heracleopolis. The hereditary prince, noble lord, bearer of the seal of the king of the North, unique friend, prophet of Horus, master of Hebnou, prophet of the gods of the Onyx nome, prophet of Samtou of the mound of Hehou, mouth of the god, chief of the (sea-)shore, director of the priests of Sekhmet in all Egypt, Samtoutefnakht, son of the master of the granary (lit. of grains), prophet of Amon-Re, lord of Pershat (?), Djesamtoufankh and the mistress of the house Ankhit. He says: O Lord of the gods, Harsaphes, king of the two lands, regent of (all) lands, whose assent into the sky produces illumination for the (entire) land, whose right eye is the sun and whose left eye is the moon, whose soul is light and whose nostrils exhale the North wind causing everything to live.[13]
When Gardiner notes that this author belongs to "a family mentioned several times already" he refers, of course, to the family of Samtoutefnakht, the master of shipping from the early days of Psamtik I. It is Gardiner's opinion, shared by the majority of scholars, that this second Samtoutefnakht, the author of the Naples stela, lived at the end of the 4th century B.C., almost 300 years after his namesake in the traditional history. The fact that he bears the same name as his predecessor, and like his forebear is the hereditary prince (rp'(t)) and noble lord/mayor (h'ty-') in Heracleopolis are assumed to prove only a family connection between this Samtoutefnakht and the 26th dynasty noble. Both individuals call themselves "unique friend" of the pharaoh, appear to function in an administrative capacity within the palace, and have a special reverence for the god (H)Arsaphes, but absolutely no consideration has ever been given to the possibility that the two individuals are one and the same person. The reason is apparent on reading the balance of the inscription. We quote Gardiner's translation:
I am thy servant and my heart is loyal to you. I filled my heart with thee and did not cultivate any town except thy town. I refrained not from exalting it to everyone, my heart seeking after right in thy house both day and night. Thou didst unto me things better than it a million times. Thou enlargedst my steps in the palace, the heart of thy goodly god being pleased with what I said. Thou didst raise me out of millions when thou turnedst thy back to Egypt and placedst the love of me in the heart of the Prince of Asia, his courtiers thanking god for me. He made for me the post of overseer of the priests of Sakhme (i.e. as physician) in place of my mother’s brother the overseer of the priests of Sakhme for Upper and Lower Egypt Nekhtheneb. Thou didst protect me in the fighting of the Greeks when thou repelledst Asia and they slew millions beside me, and none raised his arm against me. My eyes followed Thy Majesty in my sleep, thou saying to me ‘Hie thee to Heracleopolis, behold I am with thee’. I traversed foreign countries alone and I crossed the sea and feared not, remembering thee. I disobeyed not what thou saidst and I reached Hieracleopolis and not a hair was taken from my head.[14]
It is admitted by scholars that this second Samtoutefnakht was elevated to power by a native pharaoh, that Egypt in his days had been overrun by a foreign country ruled by a "Prince of Asia", that Samtoutefnakht had participated in a war between this Prince of Asia and the Greeks, that he had survived the war and found his way back to Egypt. From the outset it was clear to interpreters that these circumstances in no way fit the 7th century context of Psamtik I. The king of Asia was identified (correctly as it turns out) as a Persian king ruling Egypt, and the search was on for an appropriate context for this second Samtoutefnakht. Again we quote Gardiner:
This narrative illustrates once again the high repute in which Egyptian physicians were held, but loses half its value because there is no certain indication of its date. Scholars have differed upon this point, Erman arguing in favour of the time of Marathon, whereas Tresson, the last editor, identifies the battle between Greeks and Persians as that won by Alexander at Gaugamela. These are extreme differences, but there are others: between them it is impossible to decide.[15]
This is not the place to review the arguments behind the divergent conclusions of Erman and Tresson. In fact both use almost precisely the same set of criteria on which to base their results. But it should be apparent by now that we favor Erman's 5th century placement. According to the German scholar Samtoutefnakht was born under Amasis around 540 B.C., was elevated to a position of authority under Darius I, fought in the battle of Marathon in 490 B.C., and returned to Egypt during the Egyptian rebellion which followed soon after (which Erman dated to the years between 486-483 B.C.)[16]
We argue instead that Samtoutefnakht was born around 542 B.C., that he became shipping master in 526 B.C. around the age of sixteen, rose in the ranks under Psamtik I and Darius I, was ultimately conscripted into the armies of Darius I and Xerxes, fought at Marathon and again at Salamis or (more likely) with Mardonius in Thessaly, and returned home across the Aegean, through Asia Minor, before finding safe passage to Egypt via the Mediterranean. All the elements essential to Erman's placement of Samtoutefnakht are present in the revised history of this time period. Not a single essential feature is missing. Erman's only problem - since he believed that Samtoutefnakht returned to a liberated country - was to find a suitable time frame where that condition prevailed. He therefore dated the return of Samtoutefnakht to the time of the first Egyptian rebellion. But there is no need to assume Persian loss of control of its Egyptian province. Following Salamis Xerxes' influence in Egypt decreased substantially. This greater independence of Psamtik II is reflected in the proliferation of his monuments. Samtoutefnakht could have returned at any time following 480 B.C.. He would have been in his early sixties. If Erman is correct, and Samtoutefnakht returned to Egypt after the battle of Marathon, the point of the argument remains unchanged. If the Samtoutefnakht of the Naples stela is the same as the shipping master of the Nitocris adoption stela and the Petition of Petesi, then that fact alone serves to confirm the essential accuracy of the revised history.[17]
If our argument is valid then we now know the names of the father and mother of Samtoutefnakht, the shipping master. In the Naples stela he identifies his mother as Ankhit, mistress of the house (= palace) and his father as the master of the granary, prophet of Amon-Re and lord of Pershat, Djesamtoufankh. There is no compelling reason why Ankhit could not have been a king's daughter. But it is more likely, for reasons already suggested, that she was not. The figure of Djesamtoufankh is more interesting. The fact that he was master of the granary - an important office at any time but especially so in the early stages of recovery from the invasion of Nebuchadrezzar - at least agrees with our identification of his son Samtoutefnakht as the shipping master appointed by Psamtik I. Even more interesting is his title "lord of Pershat". The toponym "Pershat" is otherwise unknown in Egyptian inscriptions. Interpreters assume that the name refers to some geographical location in the Delta, an otherwise unidentified nome. Djesamtoufankh is therefore a nomarch. But this seems unlikely. Pershat is arguably a reference to Persia and one could possibly imply from this title that Djesamtoufankh was a Persian official who has married Ankhit and adopted an Egyptian name. If so, then Petesi, son of Ankhsheshonk must be the maternal grandfather of Samtoutefnakht, since there is nothing in the Petition to suggest that Petesi was a Persian.
If Djesamtoufankh was a Persian then that fact might explain the reluctance of Samtoutefnakht to name his father on his monuments early in his career, emphasizing instead his descent from Egyptian royalty on his mother's side. Only in old age did he proudly acknowledge his roots. It is an interesting possibility but remains but one of several possible interpretations of the data.
We close this discussion by repeating the words of Gardiner, quoted earlier. The Naples inscription unfortunately "loses half its value because there is no certain indication of its date." We await the excavation of some monument which establish conclusively the genealogy of Samtoutefnakht, the master of shipping.
A 5th Century Psamtik II
So much for Saite dynasty involvement in the wars of Xerxes. We return briefly to answer the other two questions asked earlier. Does inscriptional evidence exist which confirms that Psamtik II was on the throne around the beginning of the second quarter of the 5th century B.C.? And what of the documented activities of Psamtik II? Do they suit the 6th century context in which he is placed by the traditional history (595-589 B.C.) , or do they better fit the 5th century milieu provided by the revised history? Here we examine a single documentary source related to the first question, the Diospolis Parva documents. We also mention in passing, in response to the second question, the lone reference to Psamtik II in the Saite History of the pseudo-Herodotus The second question also finds an answer, albeit indirectly, in the sections that follow, in our discussion of the offspring of this short reigned but long lived king.
The Meeting in Khor
There is no conflict between the few documented activities of Psamtik II and the 5th century Persian context assigned to him in the revised history. Herodotus has almost nothing to say about this king, crediting his reign with but a single activity.
Psammis reigned over Egypt for six years only; he invaded Ethiopia, and immediately thereafter died, and Apries his son reigned in his stead. (Her. II 161)
This expedition to Nubia is well documented, illustrating once again the general reliability of the sources used by the Pseudo Herodotus to compose his Saite History. The expedition took place in Psamtik's 3rd year and its success was broadcast to the nation on a series of large stela discovered at Karnak and Shellal.[18] Testimony is also afforded by graffiti left by the leaders of the army at Abu Simbal. We assume that the invasion was sanctioned by Xerxes, possibly in response to the withholding of tribute by the Nubian kings. We recall from chapter seven the boast of Xerxes to suzerainty over Nubia and the claim by Herodotus (Her. VII 69) that the Ethiopians sent a contingent to the armies of Xerxes. The loss of Nubia would not be tolerated.
The Petition of Petesi mentions as well that in the 4th year of Psamtik II priests from nomes throughout Egypt were summoned to a meeting in Khor (Palestine) for some unspecified reason.
And in the 4th year of Per'o Psammetk Nefrebre messages were sent to the great temples of Upper and Lower Egypt, saying, 'Per'o goeth to the land of Khor: let the priests come with the bouquets (?) of the gods of Kemi to take them to the land of Khor with Per'o.' And a message was sent to Teuzoi, saying, 'Let a priest come with the bouquet of Amun to go to the land of Khor with Per'o.' And the priests assembled and agreed in saying to Peteesi son of Essemteu, 'Thou art he that art meet to go to the land of Khor with Per'o: there is no man [here] in this city who can go to the land of Khor except thee. Behold, thou art a scribe of the House of Life: there is not a thing that they shall ask thee to which there is not a suitable answer (?) For thou art the prophet of Amun, and the prophets of the great gods of Kemi are they who are going to the land of Khor with Per'o.' Petititon 14:16-22
It is apparent that Petesi is being summoned to represent the affairs of Teuzoi at a meeting in Palestine, attended by the pharaoh himself and priests from throughout Egypt. While such a meeting can be explained in a Persian context, where the satrap, station in Khor, is conducting business related to taxation of the Egyptian province, such an event is absolutely out of place in the early 6th century context occupied by Psamtik II in the traditional history. His 4th year in that history is 592 B.C.. At that time Zedekiah ruled Palestine as a vassal of Nebuchadrezzar. There is no rational explanation for a visit then by Egyptian authorities. Either the Petition is in error or Psamtik II does not belong in that time frame.
The Diospolis Parva Documents
According to the traditional history, based largely on
Herodotus, the Saite Dynasty ended in 525 B.C. when Cambyses arrived in
Since the beginning of the 20th century it has been claimed by scholars that three demotic papyri, P. Loeb 41 & 43 and P. Strassburg 2, all dated in the 1st or 2nd year of a king Psamtik, belong to this abbreviated reign of Psamtik III. These three papyri are part of a group referred to collectively as the Diospolis Parva documents.
In 1902 Spiegelberg published three early demotic texts from the Strasbourg papyrus collection: P. Strasb. 2,4,5. These texts clearly belong together because they deal with goose-herds of the temple of Amun, living in that part of the domain of Amun which is situated in the district of Diospolis Parva .... Some thirty years later, Spiegelberg published a group of demotic papyri from the papyrus collection of Munchen. Of these papyri, the early-demotic P. Loeb 41 and 43-50 (and perhaps also P. Loeb 51 ... have so many similarities to the Strasbourg papyri that it has been suggested that all these papyri were found on the same spot and actually belong together, mainly because goose-herds of the temple of Amun frequently occur in both groups of text.[19]
The majority of the dated Diospolis Parva documents originate from the latter part of the reign of Darius I. Several of them (P. Loeb 46,47,48 and P. Strassburg 4,5) are specifically dated to that king's 34th and 35th years (488 & 487 B.C.). The three papyri bearing Psamtik's name are thus almost four decades earlier than the balance of the collection. For the better part of the last century the attribution of these three documents remained unchallenged. These three papyri are constantly cited in secondary literature as the only known demotic documents dating from the reign of Psamtik III. That situation changed abruptly in 1980 when the American Egyptologist Eugene Cruz-Uribe speculated on the possibility of an alternative identification for two of the documents. P. Loeb 43 might still belong to the reign of Psamtik III, since it bears similarities to documents from the late Saite or early Persian period, but not the other two papyri.[20]
According to Cruz-Uribe, P. Loeb 41, for paleographic reasons, should be dated instead to the reign of Psamtik II (or possibly even Psamtik I). In particular he noted similarities between P. Loeb 41 and the demotic papyrus P. Berlin 13571, a document clearly dated to the 5th year of a king Psamtik, especially in its writing of the king's name. Since Psamtik III did not live past his second year, the Berlin papyrus is generally credited to the reign of Psamtik II, and thus also P. Loeb 41 in the estimation of Cruz-Uribe.
It is in his identification of the Psamtik named in P. Strassbourg 2 that Cruz-Uribe broke radically with tradition. Noting similarities between this papyrus and P. Strassbourg 5, a papyrus bearing the year date "34th year of Darius (I)", he reached the conclusion that the Psamtik document must be dated very soon after Darius' 34th year. His analysis begins by noting paleographical similarities between the two documents and then proceeds to argue on the basis of the internal content:
Another factor which suggests a close affinity between P. Strassburg 2 and 5 is the content of the documents. In both contracts Party A is "the Goose Herder of the Estate of Amun, "P'-ti-Imn-sm'-t'wy, son of P'-whr". Griffith in his inventory of early demotic documents states that since P'-ti-Imn-sm'-t'wy is seen in both documents, he must have had a career as goose herder which spanned at least 40 years. This fact, while not impossible, is suspicious since unmentioned by Griffith is the fact that the man who received the payment in each document is one D-hr. That we have the same two parties in two documents separated by forty years makes this author feel uncomfortable. If on the other hand, one takes into consideration all the similarities between P. Strassburg 2 and the documents dated to the latter part of the reign of Darius I, we may date P. Strassburg 2 on paleographic grounds to sometime soon after the reign of Darius I. In this manner the paleographical and contextual difficulties would be lessened.[21]
According to Cruz-Uribe the only possible time when a king Psamtik might have reigned in the years "soon after the reign of Darius I" was the brief duration of the Egyptian rebellion which began late in Darius' reign and was subdued by Xerxes in 484 B.C. He proposes therefore that this rebellion was led by a king Psamtik, and since this Psamtik postdates the reign of Psamtik III by forty years, he is numbered as Psamtik IV. "On the basis of the evidence I would conclude that a Pharaoh Psammetichus IV did exist and ruled Egypt following a revolt against the Persians in 486 BC and ruled until the reconquest of Egypt by Xerxes in January of 484 BC".
A new pharaoh is born!
In a later responsive article, the demotic specialist P.W. Pestman expanded on the analysis of Cruz-Uribe, essentially agreeing with his conclusions, though disagreeing with some of his paleographical arguments. Pestman differs from Cruz-Uribe in only one significant point - he not only dates P. Strassburg 2 within the reign of the hypothetical Psamik IV, but P. Loeb 41 and P. Loeb 43 as well.
Summing up, we may state that although it is not entirely impossible that the Psammetichus documents were written under Psammetichus III in 525 B.C., it is much more likely that they were written in the same period as the Darius documents. In this case we must accept, with Cruz-Uribe, the existence of a Psammetichus IV.[22]
In the revised history Psamtik II "ruled" Egypt from 474-468 B.C. His first and second years are only a dozen years removed from the dates assumed by Cruz-Uribe and Pestman for their Psamtik IV. There can be no objection to dating the three critical Diospolis Parva papyri to this slightly later date. We argue that Psamtik IV does not exist. His assumed existence is a case of mistaken identity, forced on the two named scholars by the errant placement of the Saite dynasty in the traditional history. With the dates for the Saite dynasty lowered by 121 years Psamtik II emerges naturally as the solution to the dilemma posed by the papyri P. Loeb 41, 43 and P. Strassburg 2. Already in his analysis Cruz Uribe had correctly compared P. Loeb 41 with P. Berlin 13571, dated to the 5th year of Psamtik II. He was not wrong; it does belong in that king's reign. Neither was Pestman wrong when he dated that same document to the reign of Psamtik IV. It is the Saite dynasty dates which continue to confound the scholars. With the equation Psamtik IV = Psamtik II the problem is solved.
It is important to note, before we leave the goose-herders behind, that this removal of P.Loeb 41, 43 and P. Strassburg 2 from the list of documents attesting the reign of Psamtik III leaves precious little documentation for that king, and almost nothing which connects him with the end of the reign of Ahmose-sa-Neith. The only remaining link with those years is about to be severed.
We now turn our attention to several of the sons and daughters of this same Psamtik II. Everything which connects them to the 5th century confirms the revised dating of their father.
As we will soon see, they are interesting in their own right.
Ankhnesneferibre & Psamtik
III
In the first year of his reign Psamtik II followed the example
of his grandfather Psamtik I and installed his daughter as the adoptive
daughter of the incumbent god's wife in
Year 1, third month of Shomu, day 29 under the majesty of the Horus Menekh-ib, the Two Ladies User-aa, the Horus of God Snefer-tawy, the king of Upper and Lower Egypt Neferibre, the son of Re Psammetichus, given life. On this day arrival of the king's daughter Ankhnesneferibre in Thebes. Her mother, the god's wife Nitocris, may she live, 'came forth' to see her beauty. They went together to the temple of Amun. Then there was brought the diving image (?) from the temple of Amun to the place where they were (?) in order to make her titulary as follows: great songstress of the residence of Amun, the one who carries the flowers in the chapel, chief of the enclosure of Amun, first prophet of Amun, king's daughter Ankhnesneferibre. She met her father, Amun-Re, lord of the thrones of the two lands, foremost in Karnak. Year 7, first month of Akhet, day 23. This god, the good god, lord of the two lands, Psammetichus went to the sky, he was united with the sun disk, the limbs of the god being merged with him who created him. Then his son was caused to appear on his throne, the Horus Wah-ib, the Two Ladies Neb-khepesh, the Horus of Gold, Sewadjtawy, the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Haaibre, the son of Re, Wahibre, may he live. Year 4, fourth month of Shomu, day 4 of this king. The god's wife Nitocris, justified, went to the sky, she was united with the sun disk, the limbs of the god (i.e. Nitocris) being merged with him who made her. Her daughter, the first prophet Ankhnesneferibre, did for her everything which is done for every beneficent king. ... There was made her titulary as noblewoman, great of kindness, great of praises, lady of grace, sweet of love, mistress of all women, "god's wife", divine adoratress Heqat-neferu-mut, hand of the god Ankhnesneferibre, may she live, king's daughter of the lord of the two lands Psammetichus.[23]
In the traditional history Psamtik II reigned from 595-589 B.C. Haaibre Wahibre (Apries), his son and successor, reigned from 589-570 B.C.. According to this inscription therefore, Ankhnesneferibre was adopted as the heir apparent to Nitocris in 595 B.C. (1st year of Psamtik II) and became the god's wife herself when Nitocris died in 586 B.C. (4th year of Apries). Three problems immediately surface when these dates are considered. The first two deserve mention in view of their connection with matters previously considered. The third brings into view again the person of Psamtik III.
The Titularies
of Ankhnesneferibre & Psamtik II
It is important to note that the new god's wife, in addition to titles descriptive of her religious and political offices, - great songstress of the residence of Amun, the one who carries the flowers in the chapel, chief of the enclosure of Amun, first prophet of Amun - assumed as well a number of epithets - noblewoman, great of kindness, great of praises, lady of grace, sweet of love, mistress of all women, god's wife - and a "prenomen" Heqat-neferu-mut to accompany her "nomen" Ankhnesneferibre. Both names are written in cartouches. It is clear from the inscription that this employment of a double cartouche, a convention typically restricted to the reigning monarch, intends to communicate her usurpation of royal powers. But Ankhnesneferibre is supposedly a princess and a god's wife, not a queen. She is clearly breaking with tradition, apparently deliberately. Earlier in the stela, when she records her personal name, only the Neferibre portion is contained in a cartouche. At the end, with the addition of the second cartouche name, the entire nomen is encircled. The Egyptologist Anthony Leahy, the most recent interpreter of the monument, notes how "Significantly, at this point in the text, her whole name - and not just her father's component of it - was for the first time written in a cartouche, thus completing her transference to regal status."[24]
We notice as well a second anomaly related to the name of the new god's wife. According to the inscription, Psamtik's daughter bore the name Ankhnesneferibre when she was given up for adoption in her father's first year. But the name is basiliphorous, incorporating Psamtik's prenomen Neferibre, a name which the new king had only just received as his throne name. If convention has been followed in the naming process then one of two possible explanations must prevail. Either a) Ankhnesneferibre was born the same year she was given up for adoption to Nitocris (i.e. she was an infant) or b) she possessed an entirely different birth name and was given the new name Ankhnesneferibre only after the coronation of her father, only months before her journey to Thebes as the adoptive daughter of Nitocris. Leahy seriously considered both possibilities before siding with the second explanation. But a straightforward reading of the text gives no support to either alternative. It is clearly a problem for the traditional history.
We propose a third explanation, namely, that the original name of Psamtik II was Neferibre, not Psamtik. The assumption that the king's "prenomen", a name typically prefixed by the hieroglyphs translated "king of Upper and Lower Egypt" (the so-called nsw bity formula), was necessarily the king's throne name, is based on precedents established in the days of the national pharaohs. Such conventional niceties were not necessarily followed by the Saite kings. In the Ankhnesneferibre stele itself there is supportive evidence for this conjecture.
We have observed that Ankhnesneferibre felt no qualms about adopting the dual cartouches of royalty, to a degree a break with convention. But there is even more compelling evidence from the stele that our explanation is reasonable. In the incised area above the inscription are several scenes of note. The one on the upper left depicts a king Wahibre facing the gods Amun and Mut. Above the king is the inscription "The king of Upper and Lower Egypt Wahibre". Since the stela was erected in the reign of Haaibre Wahibre (Apries) we can safely assume that Apries is the king portrayed in the scene. Leahy agrees. But Wahibre is the nomen, not the prenomen of Apries. It is his personal name.
If the nsw bity hieroglyphs can prefix a king's birth name once, especially in so prominent a position on such an important public monument, then there can be no argument with the proposal that these hieroglyphs may introduce the original name of Psamtik II. That fact would serve to explain at least one other widely observed anomaly connected with the reign of Psamtik II, namely, the relative abundance of inscriptions bearing his name. Given that Psamtik II reigned only slightly less than six years, it is surprising to scholars that there are more documents bearing the name "Neferibre",. either singly or in basiliphorous compounds, than the combined documents attesting the 54 year reign of Psamtik I and the 16 year reign of Necao Wahemibre. The problem is solved if we assume that Psamtik II bore the name Neferibre (in a cartouche) while still a prince functioning in some administrative or military capacity under Necao and even under Psamtik I. We can assume he was not a youth when he took office. His grandfather Psamtik I was born - according to the revised history - before the invasion of Nebuchadrezzar in 564 B.C.., thus around 570 B.C. as we assumed in an earlier argument. Assuming twenty-five years for a generation, we might tentatively date Necao's birth in c.a. 545 B.C. and Neferibre's birth in c.a. 520 B.C. Neferibre the prince would then be politically active from c.a. 494-474 B.C., through the tumultuous last years of Psamtik I, the Egyptian rebellion of 488-484 B.C., the years of Xerxes battles with Greece and the final decade of Necao's life. He may well have become a national hero through his exploits during those years. Thus his prominence in the monuments.
Ankhnesneferibre was likely born around 494 B.C., was named after her father, and was around twenty years of age in 474 B.C. when Psamtik became king and sent her to Thebes as the adoptive daughter of Nitocris. There is no need to question the origins of the name Ankhnesneferibre. She had borne the name since birth several decades before her father became king.
This mention of Nitocris brings to mind the second major problem with the dates on the Ankhnesneferibre enthronement stela.
The Aged Nitocris
In the traditional history Nitocris became the adoptive daughter of Shepenwepet II in the 9th year of Psamtik I, 656 B.C. She died in office in the 4th year of Apries, 586 B.C. When scholars note the fact that she served the god Amon either as adoptive daughter or as the god's wife for a total of 70 years they are impressed, but not stupefied. After all, they say, she was the daughter of Psamtik I who ruled Egypt for 54 years. She came by her longevity naturally.
But there is a considerable difference between 54 years and 70 years in office. To be fair to the scholars, they have clearly felt uncomfortable about the situation. Were that not the case we would not continually read claims that Nitocris was in her early teens, or perhaps still in puberty, when taken to Thebes by Psamtik I. The image of a 90 year old functioning god's wife is just too difficult to imagine.
There is no need to dwell on this problem. A solution has already been proposed. Although the revised history lowered Saite dynasty dates by a uniform 121 years, leaving unchanged the time span between the 9th year of Psamtik I (now 535 B.C.) and the 4th year of Apries (now 465 B.C.) we have previously suggested that the 9th year of Psamtik in the Nitocris Adoption stela should be read as the 9th year of Darius I (513 B.C.). The suggestion was not critical to the argument of this revision; it served only to answer a criticism concerning the integrity of the Petesi family records.[25] But the proposal also solves this second problem. If Nitocris began her career in 513 B.C. and died in 465 B.C. then her term of office reduces from 70 years to 48 years, admittedly still a lengthy tenure in office, but a far more palatable number.
Which brings us to our final problem with the Ankhnesneferibre inscription, this time with her lengthy tenure in office.
The Aged Ankhnesneferibre
The incised area above the inscription on the Ankhnesneferibre monument contains a second scene in addition to that of Wahibre honoring the gods Amun and Mut. Again we quote Leahy:
On the right, the god's wife Ankhnesneferibre, wearing the characteristic two-feathered crown, uraeus and a voluminous garment, shakes sistra before Amun and Khonsu. Behind her is a slightly smaller figure, in short kilt and diaphanous longer overskirt, acting as fanbearer and identified as her chief steward Sheshonq.[26]
Since the stela commemorates the initiation of Ankhnesneferibre in the 4th year of Apries (465 B.C.) it must date from that year or at most a few year later. This is also the year of Xerxes death and the beginning of a second Egyptian rebellion against Persia. We are therefore not surprised to see Psamtik's daughter assuming royal status in competition with her brother Apries. As we will soon see, she is likely not the only sibling of Psamtik II contesting for power. But our concern here is with her lengthy tenure, not with her political status.
When the Ankhnesneferibre statue was discovered in 1904 it immediately raised questions, for the god's wife was already a well recognized figure. Several decades earlier Mariette had conducted an extensive survey of the temples at Karnak. Included among the scenes published from the small temple situated north of the hypostyle hall of Amun’s temple (Mariette's temple J) were several depictions of the god's wife Ankhnesneferibre in close association with a king Ankhkanre Psamtik. In these scenes the god's wife is pictured as a young woman followed by the diminutive figure of her chief steward (mr pr wr) Sheshonk.
The identity of Ankhkanre was immediately recognized by Mariette, based on the combined testimony of Herodotus (who supplied the historical context) and Udjahorresne (who supplied the king's prenomen). The inscriptions, Mariette reasoned, must date to the year 525 B.C.. The young king Psamtik had only ruled for six months. His dates were considered certain.
At the time of that initial publication Mariette possessed no genealogical information related to the god's wife Ankhnesneferibre. Only after Legrain's discovery of the enthronement stela in 1904 was it revealed that she was the daughter of Psamtik II and that she had assumed office in her father's 1st year, 595 B.C.. In an article published subsequent to Legrain's discovery Mariette remarked:
We find Ankhnasnofiribri still living under Psamtik III, more than seventy years after she arrived in Thebes in the 1st year of Psamtik II. In taking princesses very young one was able to prepare them more readily for their role, and one had the (increased) likelihood of avoiding frequent changes.[27]
It appeared to be of no consequence to Mariette that Ankhnesneferibre was depicted in the Karnak temple scene as the same young woman who appeared on Legrain's statue, and that she was followed by what appears to be the same diminutive high steward Sheshonk as was the case sixty years earlier. If Mariette was concerned about the similarities he said nothing. After all, the stela was clearly dated and the dates of Ankhkanre Psamtik were likewise unimpeachable. All that scholars could do was attempt to explain the situation.
The same year that Legrain discovered the Ankhnesneferibre monument he also came across another important inscription, this time a door portal originating from the chapel of Osiris Pameres in Karnak. A scene inscribed on the door frontal pictured Ankhkanre Psamtik and Ankhnesneferibre in adjoining panels, to the left Ankhkanre Psamtik in front of Amon and Tafnut, and to the right Ankhnesneferibre shaking her sistrum before Amon and Khonsu. She is followed by the high steward "Sheshonk, son of the steward of the divine adoratress, Pedineit". The Osiris chapel inscription is clearly contemporary with that from Mariette's Karnak temple J. Legrain has nothing to add to the comments of Mariette regarding Ankhnesneferibre's extreme longevity. His remarks center instead on the steward Sheshonk, questioning his relationship to the god's wife and noting that this steward, visible in the enthronement stela in 586 B.C. and on the Karnak and Osiris chapel inscriptions of 525 B.C., must have experienced the same remarkable long life as his mistress. "The temple J (inscription) and that of Osiris Pameres show him to us in the same role more than sixty years later."[28]
Very little has changed since the discoveries of Legrain which began the 20th century. In the middle of the last century a proposal was made that the Sheshonks at either end of the tenure of Ankhnesneferibre were different, the first being a son of Harsiese, the second a son of Pedineit.[29] Even assuming the validity of that questionable proposal, the fundamental problem - the lengthy tenure of Ankhnesneferibre - remains. Speculation abounds concerning the age of Psamtik's daughter when she was adopted by Nitocris. As was the case with Nitocris, scholars have attempted to reduce as much as possible her age at the time of her adoption. We have already noted how Leahy even considered the possibility that she was brought to Thebes while less than a year old. That proposal was not simply an attempt to explain her basiliphorous name, and it underscores the perceived difficulty with the extreme longevity of the god's wife. Scholars clearly sense the problem of the Karnak and Osiris temple inscriptions, though they seem reluctant to articulate their thoughts.
If Ankhnesneferibre was a young woman when she was adopted by Nitocris in 595 B.C. then she must have been around ninety years old in the days of Psamtik III in 525 B.C. (and she is still, apparently, alive and active). It seems fair to enquire as to the precise relationship which held between this ninety year old god's wife and Ankhkanre Psamtik?. A king and his wife, or a king and his sister, often appear in concert with one another on Egyptian monuments, but not a young king and some ninety year old distant relative, whom the artisan has decided to portray as a twenty year old woman. We recall that Psamtik III in the traditional history is the son of Ahmose-sa-Neith who is an interloper. The family of Psamtik II and the family of Amasis are at most distantly related. What possible reason would prompt this young king, during his brief six months of reign, with the Persian Empire on his doorstep threatening to overrun his kingdom, to have his artisans portray him hand in hand (so to speak) with the elderly god's wife on the walls of Theban temples? We should either question the sanity of Psamtik III or the interpretation of the scholars. We adopt the second alternative.
Enough is enough. Ankhnesneferibre did not live to the ripe old age of ninety and counting. The inscriptions on the walls of the Theban temples were made at most several decades after the enthronement of the god's wife, and probably much less, possibly only a few years later. That would be the natural interpretation of these monuments had it not been for the misinterpretation of the Udjahorresne inscription and the faulty history of the Pseudo-Herodotus which resulted in the mistaken belief that this king succeeded Ahmose-sa-Neith and was therefore his son.
The Sheshonk in all these inscriptions is the son of Pedineit (Sheshonk B). The other high steward, Sheshonk, son of Harsiese (Sheshonk A), either held office early in the reign of Psamtik I, as argued by Miriam Lichtheim[30], or late in the reign of Amasis. It has been recognized for some time that a daughter of Amasis named Nitocris became the adoptive daughter of Ankhnesneferibre in Amasis' first year. The probability is great that she succeeded Ankhnesneferibre when the god's wife died, probably mid-way in Amasis' reign. If so, and if our earlier reasoning concerning her date of birth is correct, the life of Ankhnesneferibre spanned the years c.a. 494-427 B.C. She was therefore around 67 years old when she died. Scholars should re-examine the relevant inscriptions of the high stewards, relieved of the necessity of maintaining the fiction of Ankhnesneferibre's long life, in order to establish the time of Sheshonk, son of Harsiese. The problem in its entirety is a by-product of the errant traditional history which insists on identifying Ankhkanre Psamtik as the son of Ahmose-sa-Neith and dating his reign to the year 525 B.C.
But if Ankhkanre Psamtik is not the successor of Ahmose-sa-Neith, then who is he?
Psamtik III
There is not a single inscription which records the genealogical connections of Ankhkanre Psamtik. There does exist a Serapeum stela (IM 4034), edited by Vercoutter[31], erected by a Psamtik, son of a king Khnemibre, the latter apparently alive at the time the inscription was made. The stela is often cited as one of the few inscriptions bearing the name of Psamtik III. But this text proves nothing. Assuming that this king Khnemibre is Ahmose-sa-Neith, there is no indication that his son Psamtik ever became a king. As we have already seen, the name Psamtik is ubiquitous in the Saite/Persian dynasty. That Ahmose had a son by that name is hardly surprising. But the son's name in IM 4034 is not enclosed in a cartouche. There is absolutely nothing in that document indicating that he succeeded his father and nothing to suggest his identification with Ankhkanre Psamtik.
In our earlier reassessment of the only three demotic documents ascribed by scholars to the hypothetical Psamtik III, we concluded that they belong to the reign of Psamtik II. The Serapeum stela IM 4034 and the Karnak temple inscriptions, as we have just argued, do not prove that Ankhkanre lived after Ahmose-sa-Neith; scholars assume that fact as the basis for their interpretation. The name of Ankhkanre Psamtik is otherwise attested on only a few scattered artifacts and statue fragments. None of these provide any chronological information. How then do we assign dates to this enigmatic king?
Our only clue to the dates of Ankhkanre Psamtik comes from the Karnak and Osiris temple inscriptions. They picture a young man the same age as Ankhnesneferibre and of equal rank. This king must have reigned sometime shortly after 465 B.C., during the second Egyptian rebellion. He may well have been another son of Psamtik II. Ankhnesneferibre is possibly his sister. She may also be his wife.
Twentieth century Egyptologists are of the opinion that the god's wives remained celibate throughout their tenure in office. Nineteenth century Egyptologists believed otherwise, frequently identifying the spouse of the divine adoratress on an ad hoc basis. We will not engage that debate. There is no need. We have already noted that Ankhnesneferibre was not a typical god's wife. Scholars often remark on how she was the first to adopt, while still an heiress, the office of high priest. We have observed how her titulary reveals political aspirations quite atypical for a god's wife. And finally, we have pointed out that her enthronement coincided with the outbreak of a second and prolonged Egyptian rebellion against Persian rule. It should not surprise anyone that the god's wife, soon after her enthronement, during the initial stages of the rebellion, should marry and share power with her husband Psamtik. Nor should we be alarmed that Psamtik, whether or not married to Ankhnesneferibre, and whether or not from the royal line, claimed the status of a king in the vicinity of Thebes while the revolt of Inaros escalated in the north.[32] As to Psamtik's genealogical connections we can only speculate. At least two other participants in the decades long rebellion were probably sons of Psamtik II. That yet another son of that same king should exercise limited rule in Thebes is not entirely out of the question.
Inaros & His Contemporaries
The Rebellion
Xerxes died in 466 B.C., assassinated in his bedchamber by a group of conspirators. A struggle for power ensued in the Persian capital. Darius, the eldest son of Xerxes and legitimate heir, ruled briefly but was slain by his 18 year old brother Artaxerxes who proceeded to solidify his hold on power and ultimately ruled Persia for a remarkable 41 years (465-424 B.C.) For the duration of his lengthy reign Artaxerxes held a firm grip on the Empire he inherited. The only noteworthy exception was Egypt.
Psamtik II died in 468 B.C., two years before the death of Xerxes. He was succeeded by a son named Ha’a’ibre Wahibre, known to the Greeks as Apries. Ankhnesneferibre and possibly Ankhkanre Psamtik were also his offspring. But there were others. One son may have borne the name Inaros.
The succession struggles which followed Xerxes death provided the context for a renewed attempt at independence in the remote Egyptian province. Rebellion broke out once again. This time the leader was a charismatic Egyptian named Inaros. His exploits are legendary.
Little else would be known about Egypt in the fifth century but for the Greek historians, and in them only an account of her relations with the Athenians. Following the disturbances which arose after the murder of Xerxes and the accession of Artaxerxes I (465 B.C.) serious trouble sprang up in the north-western Delta. Here a certain Inaros, the son of Psammetichus - both names are Egyptian, but Thucydides (i.104) calls him a king of the Libyans - revolted and established his headquarters at the fortress of Marea not far from the later Alexandrea. The first clash with the Persians took place at Papremis, an uncertainly identified place somewhere in the west; the force under the satrap Achaemenes, the brother of Xerxes, was defeated and he was killed; the remnant of his army retreated to Memphis and entrenched themselves there. Inaros was now in complete possession of the Delta, but apparently made no claim to the kingship. The inevitable relief from Persia was long in coming, but in expectation of it Inaros called for help upon the Athenians, at that time successfully warring against the Persians in Cyprus. With their aid two-thirds of Memphis or the 'White Wall', as Thucydides correctly termed it, was taken , but the rest held out until the Persian general Megabyzus drove off the besiegers, who in their turn found themselves confined within the marshes called Prosopitis. It was not until 454 B.C. that Megabyzus gained the upper hand; few of the Athenians escaped and a number of ships arriving too late to be of assistance were annihilated: Inaros himself was betrayed into Persian hands and was crucified. This, however, was not quite the end of the revolt. A chieftain named Amyrtaeus - again the name is pure Egyptian - remained undefeated in the extreme western part of the Delta. He once more summoned the Athenians to his support and a number of their ships actually started, but the death in Cyprus of the Greek commander Cimon caused them to turn back. Shortly afterwards peace was declared between Athens and Persia and the interference of the former in Egyptian affairs came to an end (449-448 B.C.)[33]
This second Egyptian rebellion, in its various stages, lasted about fifteen years. Only highlights are preserved in Thucydides. It began around 465 B.C., soon after the death of Xerxes, which would be the 4th year of Apries in the revised history. It ended with the peace of Callius in 449 B.C., the 20th and final year of Apries, and the 1st year of Amasis. Clearly Apries must have been a participant in the rebellion which occupied almost the whole of his reign. Unfortunately he was not the focus of attention in the early years. Thucydides, the earliest informant on the course of the conflict, is preoccupied with the actions of Inaros, the rebel leader, who may, like Apries, have been a son of Psamtik II.[34] It is not our intent here to discuss the vagaries of the war. Our purpose is to demonstrate that the key figures in this conflict are contemporaries of Apries, and therefore that the Saite dynasty has been correctly positioned in the 5th century by the revised chronology. We focus our attention on only four of the rebel leaders - Apries, Khababash, Inaros, and Pedubast. At another time and in another place we will return to these critical years and examine in more detail the course of the war.
Figure 34: The 2nd Egyptian Rebellion (465-449 B.C.)
Apries
Herodotus describes in great detail one part played by Apries in the revolt led by Inaros. Unfortunately the events he describes took place after the defeat and capture of the rebel leader, and are confined to the final days of the lengthy rebellion. There is, therefore, no mention of Inaros, and battles between Apries and Amasis that are the focus of attention of Herodotus have been misinterpreted by historians.
Rightly understood, the entire narrative of Herodotus describes an attempt by Apries to regain control of the western Delta with the assistance of an Athenian naval force. It is the opinion of the classical Greek historians that an event of this sort concludes the Egyptian rebellion. We date the action therefore around 449 B.C. It goes without saying that the traditional history has removed this incident from its legitimate 5th century context and positioned it 121 years earlier, in the 6th century. The matter is left for discussion later, when our attention is focused on the life of Amasis. Here we are content to examine the Egyptian rebellion in its earlier stages.
The intense desire to liberate the country from Persian domination, which had resulted in the earlier short-lived Egyptian rebellion led by Necao Wahemibre, had only intensified in the harsh environment created by Xerxes. Early in Apries reign, either immediately after he succeeded his father Psamtik II in 468 B.C. or soon after Xerxes death in 465 B.C. he set about fortifying the Memphite capital. It is possible that the construction was sanctioned by the Persians, who sensed the growing unrest within the country and ordered the fortification of existing strongholds as a precaution. Alternatively, Apries may have begun strengthening his defensive fortifications in the years immediately preceding the outbreak of hostilities in anticipation of the need for a sanctuary. Regardless, when Petrie excavated the large mound at the north end of Memphis in 1909 he discovered it to be the site of what he called "the royal palace of Apries". But a palace it was not.
According to Petrie the building "occupied the north-west corner of the great fortified camp of about thirty acres, at the north end of the ruins of Memphis."
The walls are all of black mud brick, with stone linings around the lower part of the halls, stone floors to the halls, and stone doorways and stairways. The walls are from 10 to 22 feet in thickness, generally being about 14 feet. They vary in age, some being patched on the top with later brickwork, some being built up from the floor of Apries, while many extend down far into the mound, covered with plaster, and evidently have served for previous palaces.[35]
The original building on this site may have been a palace, but the modifications introduced by Apries turned it into a fortress within the fortified camp of Memphis. Apries was anticipating war. He even encircled his "palace fortress" with a moat.
In the reconstruction of Apries a new approach to the palace was laid out, through a mass of building rather more to the east. A gateway in the wall, seen at the foot of Plate I, is exactly opposite the end of the "new broadway". Between them, isolating the palace, is a fosse about twenty feet deep, though the bottom of it is far above the level of the fields. This was doubtless crossed by a draw-bridge. Each side of the fosse has been partly built up as a berm, so that the space of 33 feet wide is narrowed to 9 feet between these berms.[36]
The critic will argue that Apries was at war with Nebuchadrezzar and anticipated an invasion. Apries' dates in the traditional history are 589-570 B.C. Nebuchadrezzar controlled the eastern Mediterranean. During the first three years of Apries reign the siege and destruction of Jerusalem was underway. Egypt was indeed threatened with a fate similar to that endured by Judah, and we have argued at length that the threat did materialize. But the palace of Apries contains no indications of being overrun by the Babylonians. It does contain proof positive that it was occupied by the Persians, and arguably soon after its construction:
The things found in the palace were not numerous, but they were mostly of unusually fine quality, as we might expect, and they throw light on the length of use of the building after the time of Apries. Among the small pieces of late colored sculpture, there was one with a fragment of a blank cartouche, on which had been painted the beginning of the name of Cambyses. The next dated object is the sling bullet of Khabbash who held Memphis 486-484 B.C. There was rough reconstruction after the XXVIth dynasty, as the slab of Tha-ast-en-amu, who appears to been also called Aahmes-si-neit-rannu, was brought probably from his tomb. Of the time of Artaxerxes II, 402 B.C., there is a copy of a date on a document in Aramaic. Probably of Persian age is the large quantity of scale armour. Herodotos mentions the Persians wearing "sleeved breastplates with iron scales like those of a fish"; and, much later Ammianus describes that "they had plates of iron closely fitting over every limb", they "were covered from head to foot with thin plates of iron like the feathers of a bird", "this armour of theirs being singularly adapted to all the inflections of the body" and "all the troops were clothed in steel, in such a way that their bodies were covered with strong plates, so that the hard joints of the armour fitted every limb of their bodies".[37]
Khababash, we will argue momentarily, began his reign around the year 458 B.C. The slab of Thaastenamu will be examined in the next chapter. It proves conclusively that Amasis reigned only shortly before the rise of the 29th dynasty. The abbreviated name of Cambyses can only belong to the same Kbdj we have mentioned many times earlier. He was Amasis immediate successor. The contents of the palace suggest that it was built in the 5th century, not the 6th, and only shortly before the time of Khababash.
We can assume, both from the presence of a "sling bullet of Khabbash" and the profusion of Persian armour in the palace fortress, that the facility had been built before Inaros' clash with the Persians at Papremis, the arrival of the Athenian naval force, and the retreat of the remnant of the Persian army to Memphis, whence they held out for about three years. Apries’ fortress had become a Persian sanctuary. The battle of Papremis is typically dated around 460 B.C. The arrival of the Athenian naval force to assist Inaros probably dates to 459 B.C. The Persian relief forces, led by Megabyzus did not arrive till around 456 B.C. Khababash must have been part of the combined Egyptian/Athenian force besieging the Persians in the palace of Apries sometime during the years 459-456 B.C.
The evidence that Apries was involved in the earlier stages of the rebellion is slight, but needs to be noted. Later we will argue that the apparent oversight is the result of mistaken identity. The Greek historians refer to Apries by another name.
Immediately before, or perhaps during the assault on the Memphite garrison, the rebellion spread to the south of Egypt. The inscription on a statue of Nesuhor, governor of the southlands under Apries, records a military encounter between troops under Nesuhor's command and the mercenary troops occupying Elephantine. Needless to say the inscription has been variously interpreted, and is assigned to the 6th century by all historians. It begins with a statement of Nesuhor's credentials. He identifies himself as one
whom his majesty appointed to a very great office, the office of his eldest son, governor of the Door of the Southern Countries, to repel the countries that rebel against him. When he hath spread the fear of him in the southern countries, they flee into their valleys for fear of him. Who did not relax [vigilance in] seeking benefits for his lord; honoured of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Apries (H''-ib-R'), favoured by the son of Re, Wahibre (W'h-yb-R'), Nesuhor, whose beautiful name is Ib-Psamtik-menekh ("The-Heart-of-Psamtik-is-Excellent"), son of Ifrer (Ywfrr), born of the mistress, Tesenethor (T'-sn.t-Hr), triumphant. BAR IV 990
Then, following a lengthy expression of devotion to Khnum, the god of Elephantine, Nesuhor describes the immediate cause of his gratitude:
For ye rescued me from an evil plight, from the mercenaries [Libyans], Greeks, Asiatics, and foreigners, who had it in their hearts to --, and who had it in their hearts to go to Shas-heret (S'ys-hr.t). His majesty feared because of the evil which they did (or "might do") I re-established their heart in reason by advice, not permitting them to go to Nubia (Tk'-pd.t), (but) bringing them to the place where his majesty was; and his majesty executed their [punishment].(italicized insert mine) BAR IV 994
The earliest interpretations of this monument in the late 19th century viewed the conflict as a mutiny of Egyptian mercenaries stationed on the southern frontier. The mutiny was quashed by Nesuhor. That interpretation was modified slightly by Petrie who interpreted the actions of Nesuhor as part of a Nubian war initiated by Apries. Noting the presence of cartouches of Apries near the first cataract he remarks:
This was apparently in his (Apries') Nubian war, which is undated, but is described on the statue of his general, Nes'hor, who records that he overcame the Amu, Hanebu, and Sati, who probably belonged to the Egyptian mercenaries of the southern frontier... [38]
These interpretations are mistaken. The century is wrong. It was not a rebellion. There was probably no military engagement. From the language of the inscription it appears that Nesuhor was sent to Elephantine in his capacity as the southern governor either to convince the Elephantine troops to join the rebellion or, failing that, to engage them in battle. The text is somewhat fragmented and the translation can be improved, but it gives the appearance of a successful diplomatic mission, not an armed conflict. The Elephantine troops appear to have surrendered, deciding to side with the rebels, and were escorted south to join Apries. What Petrie calls “their [punishment]” was probably “their [reward]”.
Only one other historical reference alludes to Apries' involvement in the early stages of the rebellion. Herodotus preserves the memory:
He was more fortunate than any former king (save only his great-grandfather Psammetichus) during his rule of twenty-five years, in which he sent an army against Sidon and did battle by sea with the king of Tyre. (Her. II 161)
It appears that Herodotus is describing the land and sea stages of a single military encounter, most likely connected with the beginning stages of Inaros' revolt as documented by Thucydides:
Meanwhile Inaros, son of Psammetichus, a Libyan king of the Libyans on the Egyptian border, having his headquarters at Marea, the town above Pharos, caused a revolt of almost the whole of Egypt from King Artaxerxes, and placing himself at its head, invited the Athenians to his assistance. Abandoning a Cyprian expedition upon which they happened to be engaged, with two hundred ships of their own and their allies, they arrived in Egypt and sailed from the sea into the Nile, and making themselves masters of the river and two-thirds of Memphis, addressed themselves to the attack of the remaining third, which is called White Castle. Within it were Persians and Medes who had taken refuge there, and Egyptians who had not joined the rebellion. [Thuc. 105]
When Thucydides refers to the Athenians "making themselves masters of the river" it is implied, though not expressly stated, that a naval battle was engaged between Persian and Athenian navies on one or several of the Nile tributaries. It can be assumed that the Egyptians assisted by supplying troops and whatever ships remained under Egyptian control. The Persians, driven from Papremis by Inaros, were still a considerable threat. Thucydides makes no reference to the Persian navy, but we can assume that one was present and that it engaged the Athenian expeditionary force till driven off or defeated. The surviving Persian land force was driven upriver to Memphis. Since the Persian navy consisted almost entirely of Phoenician ships, both Tyrian and Sidonian, this may be the land/sea battle alluded to by Apries. The battle took place in Egypt, not Phoenicia.
If that interpretation fails then we must assume that ground troops and ships were sent later (perhaps during the lengthy siege of Memphis) to destroy the Persian naval base of operations at Tyre and Sidon. Regardless of the timing, there is no difficulty imagining either the motivation or the possibility of the military actions described by Herodotus, at least within the context of the revised history.
Not so in the traditional history. Nebuchadrezzar began his assault on Tyre in the immediate aftermath of the fall of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. The assault lasted thirteen years, ending around 573 B.C. We wonder why Apries would immediately engage in war a country already devastated and all but abandoned. But that is precisely what is argued by Egyptologists. Petrie reasons that "some time between 574 B.C. and 569 B.C., after Tyre had been crushed by Babylon, Egypt again tried for a footing [in Syria], defeated the remains of the Phoenician fleet and its Cypriote allies, and captured Sidon."[39] Let the reader judge the merits of this proposal.
Khababash
We admit that the "sling bullet of Khabbash"
found by Petrie in Apries' "palace" cannot, in and of itself, support
the conclusion we have drawn from it, namely, that Khababash participated in
the three year assault on the confined Persian/Egyptian troops in
Almost nothing is known of this ephemeral king. Two documents must suffice to date his reign. One we have already examined. The sarcophagus in the Serapeum vault bears an inscription dated in the 3rd month of this kings 2nd year.
Second Regnal-year, third Month of Akhet under the Majesty of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, H-b-š (sic), may he live forever! Beloved of Apis-Osiris, Lord (?) of Kem.[40]
No data is supplied to identify this date as pertaining to the death or funeral of the bull in question. On the assumption that Khababash participated in the assault on the palace of Apries during the years 459-456 we might assume this Apis was the same bull which died in the 12th year of Apries, an event we have previously dated to the year 457 B.C. In that case the reign of Khababash must have begun in either 459 or 458, depending how he numbered his years. But that bull is ruled out by three considerations.
In the first place the Apries bull died in the 8th month and its funeral was held in the 10th month of that king’s 12th year. Khababash dated his stela in the 3nd month. Besides, the Apries bull had its own crypt in the Serapeum, identified by Mariette as his chamber X. And finally, the Apries bull was 17 years old when it died, while according to the Egyptologist Battiscombe Gunn, who examined the Khababash bull’s coffin, “The sarcophagus is so much smaller than the others that it must have been made for an Apis who died while yet a calf.”[41]
This effectively rules out from consideration the bull deceased in Apries’ 12th year. But its successor is another question.
Following the Apries bull, the next registered death of an Apis in the Saite period was the bull that died in the 23rd year of Amasis. That bull was born on the 7th day of the 1st month of the 5th year of Amasis. When we made a listing earlier of the Saite dynasty bulls and included a bull born in the 12th year of Apries and deceased in the 5th year of Amasis we were following the suggestion of Egyptologists, who merely hypothesize the existence of this bull. There is no evidence that such a bull existed. No stelae bearing these dates has ever been found and no Serapeum crypt exists to prove this bull ever lived. It is entirely possible that no bull lived in this time interval. It is also possible that the time period was occupied by several bulls. This was the time of the Inaros rebellion. There was constant warfare during these troubled times. Who knows what effect this conflict had on the operations of the Serapeum cult?
It is our opinion that the Khababash bull succeeded the bull deceased in the year 457 B.C. If it died as a calf, as its coffin suggests, that death might have taken place the next year or possibly early in the year following, thus in 456 or 455 B.C. Its successor, if there was an immediate successor, would have then lived ten or eleven years and died early in 445 B.C. One Apis bull is therefore added to the record.
In defense of the existence of this hypothetical bull we make the following observations. If the Khababash bull did die in 456, in that kings 2nd year, then the reign of Khababash must have begun in 457 or 458 B.C. Either of these dates accords with our earlier suggestion that this king participated in the assault on the palace of Apries (459-456 B.C.), then underway. The fact that the Serapeum is not far removed from the scene of the battle suggests that perhaps the premature death of the Apis was in some way connected with the ongoing conflict. We assume it was a casualty of the war.
The question may well be raised why this fledgling bull was buried by Khababash and not by Apries. The answer is perhaps found in the historical circumstance attending its death, and possibly also its age. Apries was preoccupied with an armed assault on Memphis and with sundry details related to the ongoing rebellion. There was little free time to attend to religious matters, and the death of an Apis, newly installed, for whom devotees had not had sufficient time to develop any great affection, did not attract the usual fanfare. But fortunately one donator did respond to the recent death of the Apis. And by even greater fortune his stela has survived and is dated – to the 14th year of Ha’a’ibre Wahibre (Apries). The stela is badly damaged and only a few lines of text are legible, so we are not sure if the occasion was the death or the funeral of the young bull. Probability suggests it was the funeral. It was, perhaps, the third month of the year, as stated by the Khababash coffin inscription. The death may have occurred late the year before (456 B.C.) or early in the first month of Apries’ 14th year (455 B.C.). Regardless, this lone stela is confirmation, in and of itself, that our reasoning regarding the Khababash bull, and the beginning of the reign of Khababash, is correct.[42]
But these are not the only considerations which argue for our dating of this enigmatic king. We have already briefly discussed the sarcophagus that bears his name. The fact that it is contained in the "greater vaults" tells us that Khababash postdates the time of Psamtik I. Its proximity to the tomb of Amasis and its location between Mariette’s chambers B', and C' assigned to the reign of Darius II, further date the Apis death to the middle of the 5th century. And if the Khababash bull does not represent one of the bulls deceased between the 12th year of Apries and the 5th year of Amasis, then where are the coffins of those interim bulls?
With the reign of Khababash dated around the year 458/457 B.C. all the known Serapeum evidence related to this king is accounted for. We have not chosen this year merely to suit the argument of this revision. It is the date demanded by the evidence at hand. It is therefore all the more significant that this date is supported by the only other document which makes historical reference to this king, the so-called Satrap stela. We follow Gardiner's description of this important monument:
Another knotty problem is raised by a certain Khababash who assumed the title of a Pharaoh. An Apis sarcophagus of his second year is known, and the marriage contract of a petty Theban priest is dated in his first year. More interesting, however, is the information about him disclosed by a stela of 311 B.C., when the later Ptolemy I Soter was as yet only the satrap of Egypt. In form this inscription is a eulogy of Ptolemy's great achievements, but its evident purpose was to record his restitution to the priests of Buto of a tract of country which, after having belonged to them from time immemorial, had been taken from them by Xerxes, who is described as an enemy and malefactor. Khababash, having listened to the priests' plea and having been reminded that the god Horus had expelled Xerxes and his son from Egypt by way of punishment, granted the petition, as was likewise done later by Ptolemy. There are here two clues to the historical position of Khababash: first he was clearly posterior to Xerxes, and secondly he is said to have made his decision after having explored the Delta mouths through which the 'Asiatics', i.e. the Persians, might be expected to attack Egypt.[43]
Gardiner's two clues clinch the argument for our placement of Khababash. The year 458 B.C. is posterior to Xerxes, who died in 466 B.C. It follows immediately on the heels of the expulsion of Artaxerxes, Xerxes' son, from Egypt. Retaliation could be expected any moment both to put down the rebellion and rescue the besieged garrison in Memphis. A Persian naval response via the Delta "mouths" would be the most probable route. Without doubt defensive preparations were made by Inaros and company. An inspection of the possible invasion routes would be an absolute necessity.
On the basis of these "clues" Egyptologists ought to have reasoned that Khababash belonged in the time of Inaros, and only shortly after the battle of Papremis. But the Greek historians say nothing about Khababash and even Inaros is never called a king in the existing histories. Nineteenth century scholars therefore dated Khababash earlier in the 5th century, ignoring the fact that, according to the Satrap stela, he post-dated the time of Xerxes. Instead they identified him as the leader of the 487-484 B.C. rebellion. Twentieth century scholars have placed him in the 30th dynasty immediately preceding the arrival of Alexander the Great. These later scholars follow yet a third clue mentioned by Gardiner, who continues his earlier discussion by adding:
There is a third clue in the fact that the above mentioned marriage contract was signed by the same notary as signed another document of 324 B.C.[44]
We waste no time on Gardiner's third clue. It is of
questionable value, relying more on the authority of Spiegelberg (the renowned “expert”
on the demotic script who first noted the "identity" of signatures)
than the inherent strength of the argument. Both documents are signed by P'-di-Hr-p'-r', son of p'-h'-s. But paleography is highly
subjective and in view of the practice of patronymy, so widespread in the late
period
We return to the Satrap stela for one final comment. An important detail emerges from the portion of the text which discusses the expulsion of Xerxes and his son from Egypt. We quote one of the earliest translations, that of Mahaffy in his History of Egypt Under the Ptolemaic Dynasty:
"They spake before his Holiness (i.e. Khababasha): The king our Lord Horus, son of Isis, son of Osiris, the ruler of rulers, the king of the kings of Upper Egypt, the king of the kings of Lower Egypt, the avenger of his father, the lord of Pe, being the beginning of the gods hereafter, not a king after him, cast out the miscreant Xerxes with his eldest son, making himself known in the town of Neith, Sais, on this day beside the holy mother.[46]
The priests who are quoted are contemporaries of Khababash, to
whom they direct this eulogy of the god Horus. They describe the expulsion of
the Persians as an event which has just recently occurred. They also address
Horus as the king of the kings (plural)
of
Inaros
Establishing a link between Inaros and the Saite dynasty is more difficult than was the case for Khababash. The reason is simple. Inaros is known only via the accounts of his rebellion preserved by the Greek historians Thucydides, Ktesias, Diodorus Siculus, and others. His name is otherwise unknown. Not a single Egyptian monument attests his existence. The same can be said for a certain Amyrtaeus who is known to have assisted Inaros later in his rebellion, and who continued the revolt after the Persians captured Inaros. We do wonder at this apparent lack of documentation. It is a problem that needs to be addressed, but this is not the appropriate time. The present discussion is concerned only with establishing a connection between Inaros and the Saite dynasty which would confirm our 5th century dating of the dynasty. The evidence is necessarily indirect.
For well over a century the scholarly world has been aware of
a cycle of stories concerned with the contemporaries and immediate successors
of Inaros. The documents are written entirely in Coptic on papyri and were
probably composed in the Ptolemaic era.
This cycle of stories, bearing such exotic names as Inaros and the
Griffon, Contest for the Benefice of Amun, Contest for the Breastplate (or Armour) of Inaros, and the Egyptians and Amazons are
virtually inaccessible to the average reader.
None exists in English translation, some are unpublished, and the early
publications of the two Contest stories, the German translations of Spiegelberg
and Krall, are difficult to find. K.A. Kitchen
provides a summary of these stories in an excursus in his popular Third Intermediate Period in Egypt.[49] But Kitchen's discussion suffers from his
mistaken supposition that much of the background is borrowed from the period of
Assyrian occupation of
There are certainly many mythological and legendary accretions
present in this cycle of stories, but we argue that the underlying historical
stratum is factual. Inaros and the
Griffon tells the story of Inaros fighting a griffon from the
All of these stories purport to originate from a single period in history, the time immediately following the death of Inaros. There is no question that this is the famed leader of the 5th century rebellion. Even Kitchen agrees. But King Pedubast is the central figure, having had the good fortune to live through the foreign invasion and outlive Inaros. In consequence the group of stories bears his name: The Cycle of Pedubast.
In the Contest for the Armour of Inaros King Pedubast remains in the background. The fight is between Pamy the younger, son of Inaros, chief of the army, and Wertepamunniut, son of Ankhhor, apparently from a family antagonistic to Inaros. We recall that many Egyptians and Egyptian mercenaries sided with the Persians when Inaros began his rebellion and they resisted the siege by Inaros and the Athenians for three years. Perhaps the origins of the animosity between the two families can be traced to this source. The details of the fight between Pamy and Wertepamunniut are otherwise of no interest to this revision.
This Pedubast cycle provides a means whereby we can establish a possible connection between the 5th century rebel leader Inaros and the Saite dynasty. The reasoning is necessarily circuitous. Since Inaros and Pedubast are contemporaries according to the Pedubast cycle of stories, then we can argue the case for Inaros by arguing the case for Pedubast. In the paragraphs that conclude this chapter, we attempt to show that a king Pedubast did in fact reign in the mid 5th century B.C.. He must therefore be the Pedubast who was contemporary with Inaros in the Pedubast cycle. And as the argument goes, his reign overlaps the early years of Amasis.
A 5th Century Pedubast
(Contemporary of Amasis)
Three king Pedubasts are attested on Egyptian monuments, bearing the distinct prenomen Usimare Setepenamun, Sehetepibenre, and Seheribre. In 1956 the Egyptologist Jean Yoyotte expressed the opinion, with appropriate argument, that Seheribre Pedubast ruled in Egypt during the first Persian domination, a short time after the reign of Darius I.[51] That opinion was shared by K.A. Kitchen, based on the same criteria, as recently as 1986.[52] We therefore rest our case, based on the opinion of these noted authorities, that a king Pedubast ruled Egypt around the time of Inaros in the mid 5th century. But we are not here to prove the case for the underlying historicity of the Pedubast cycle of narratives. We look for evidence that connects this king with the Saite dynasty, specifically with Amasis.
That evidence is provided by Yoyotte himself, in a 1972 reevaluation of the subject. By this time he has changed his mind on the date of Seheribre Pedubast, expressing a preference for a slightly different date (un peu differente), one closer to the reign of Amasis. Clearly in the interim between his initial and revised dating of this king Yoyotte has unearthed new evidence. To understand what caused his change of mind we need to briefly examine the primary inscriptional evidence on which his oroginal opinion was based. The details can be confusing. The reader will have to proceed slowly.
Four separate instances of the name of king Seheribre Pedubast are known, but only one is of significant historical value. It occurs on a seal impression on a group of three demotic papyri found by Petrie in the rubbish of the Meydum pyramid at the turn of the 20th century. A seal similar to that which made this impression has also been found. The sealed papyrus was in fine condition, written at the behest of the official named Psamtik on the seal, who refers to himself as the mr htm of a king Seheribre. The substance of the letter, which concerned the assessment of land near Heracleopolis, is of minimal interest. The letter is dated to the 6th day of the 4th month of the 1st year of a king who is not named in the body of the letter. As mentioned, it is written in a demotic script.
F. Ll. Griffith, an associate of Petrie and a demotic specialist, examined the papyrus and concluded that it belonged to the first Persian domination, probably to the time of Darius I. It could not predate the time of Amasis since the demotic script, in the consensus view of scholars, was only introduced into Egypt during Amasis' reign.
This left Petrie with an interpretive problem. The sealed letter gave the impression that its dateline referred to the reign of the king Seheribre (Pedubast) named on the seal. Seheribre was therefore a living king. But the inscription was written in demotic script, an innovation attributed by Egyptologists to the time of Amasis. To date this document to the time of Amasis was out of the question for traditionalists such as Petrie. Amasis was the sole ruler of all of Egypt. And no such king was otherwise attested in the Persian period.. The only kings Pedubast known to Egyptologists at the time reigned either in the 23rd dynasty (8th century) or at the time of Ashurbanipal's dominion over Egypt (7th century). Petrie solved his problem by identifying Psamtik as a necropolis official charged with the task of attending to the tomb of king Seheribre, and he argued that the deceased king had reigned shortly before the 26th dynasty. Yoyotte quotes Petrie's expressed opinion:
... a seal found upon a papyrus document in demotic, which Mr. Griffith would date to Darius and not before Amasis [...]. The official title mer sahu, keeper of the seal, is known in connexion with tombs in demotic period, so it does not imply that the king was living at the time the seal was being used. And this prayer [...] is like that offered to gods on other seals [...]. It seems therefore that this belonged to the keeper of the tomb of a king Seher-ab-ra.[53]
The dateline must therefore belong to the first year of an otherwise indeterminate king.
When Yoyotte briefly addressed the issue of the dates of king Seheribre Pedubast in 1956, he immediately rejected Petrie's argument.[54] He argued that the title mr htm means precisely what it says, "keeper of the seal" and that the dignitary who typically bore that title had no necessary connection with the necropolis. The Medum papyrus must be understood as dating from the 1st year of a living king Seheribre, and since it originated from the Persian period it must belong to the earliest known time in that period when an Egyptian king was on the throne. He therefore dated the king and the document to the time of the first Egyptian rebellion, 487-484 B.C.. His reasoning was absolutely sound. Our dating of this king to the second Egyptian rebellion is equally plausible.
In 1972 Yoyotte returned to the subject for a more in depth analysis. This time he focused on the unique structure and wording of the inscription on the Medum seal, which reads: "Protection of Seheribre, the keeper of the seal (mr htm) Psamtik". The layout of the inscription is uniquely composed in four columns incorporating 1) the hieroglyph meaning "protection"; 2) the cartouche prenomen of the king surmounted by two plumes; 3) the title of the official; and 4) the name of the official. One of the other previously mentioned items bearing the name of Seheribre, unfortunately lacking any historical context, is a seal with this identical structure. Only the name of the official is different. It reads: "Protection of Seheribre, the mr htm Harouodj".
Yoyotte goes on to document another eight seals with precisely this wording and artistic layout, though the names and titles of the officials all vary. But without exception these other seals bear the king’s name Khnemibre , the prenomen of Ahmose-sa-Neith. Based on the design of these eight seals, a design apparently unique to the time of Amasis, Yoyotte expressed the opinion that the king Sehibre mentioned on the other two seals must date very close to the time of Amasis. The time of the Egyptian rebellion was forty years distant from Amasis' death. That was too far removed. A perusal of the known history of the early years of Darius I suggested the only possible alternative dating, that of the uprising against the satrap Aryandes in the autumn of 522 B.C. which supposedly lasted until 520 B.C. Accordingly Yoyotte assumes that Seheribre Pedubast claimed sovereignty during this brief uprising, only four years removed from the death of Amasis.
But Yoyotte also has a problem. The uprising in the early years of Darius reign was not a rebellion by the Egyptians against Persian rule. If anything it pitted the Persian satrap Aryandes against Darius. It is not worth our while to discuss the matter further. There is absolutely no suggestion in the literature on the subject that any Egyptian king challenged Persian rule during this brief time period. And besides, if the king Seheribre reigned for only one or two years in some restricted area of the Delta we wonder how he managed to have two different officials, Psamtik and Harouodj, occupying the identical office (mr htm) at the same time.
Let us set the matter straight. Four facts emerge from the documents related to Seheribre Pedubast
1) The demotic period in Egypt did not begin with the reign of Amasis. It began at the beginning of the first Persian domination. With the dynasties displaced, and the 26th dynasty wrongly positioned anterior to the 27th Persian period, scholars are confused regarding the origins of the demotic script. The issue needs to be addressed in a separate analysis.
2) The letter written by Psamtik, the mr htm of Seheribre, dates from the middle of the first Persian domination, the time of Inaros, a fact memorialized in the many narratives of the Pedubast cycle. There is no need to hypothesize the existence of another king by this name ruling earlier in the Persian period, whether in the fourth year of Darius I or during the rebellion which ended Darius' reign. Both Griffith and Yoyotte (in his earlier analysis) were close to the truth.
3) The reign of Seheribre Pedubast began roughly a decade before the reign of Amasis. According to the Pedubast Cycle he outlived Inaros. His death must therefore have preceded the beginning of Amasis' reign by at most a few years. He may even have ruled through the early years of Amasis. Yoyotte's later analysis of the Seheribre and Khnemibre seals is therefore also correct.
4) The possibility that Seheribre dates from within the Saite dynasty ought to have been seriously considered from the outset, were it not for the difficulty of explaining his historical position. All of the Saite kings bore names with the identical format x + ib + Re and are all written with the god's name in honorific position: Re + x + ib. The fact that the name Seher-ib-re has the identical structure as Wah-ib-re, Wahem-ib-re, Haa-ib-re, Nefer-ib-re, and Khnem-ib-re has not been overlooked by scholars. Its resemblance to Saite names was a factor in Yoyotte's argument. Unfortunately Yoyotte's options were limited by his reliance on an errant chronology for the Saite dynasty. It is the displaced dynasties that continue to confound the scholars.
The confusion continues into the reign of Amasis.