A Saite/Persian Dynasty
Displaced Dynasties
Resolving the Conflict
Convincing eyewitness testimony argues that
A Shift of 121 Years
We
look for a place in history to move the forty-four year rule of
Ahmose-sa-Neith? In Gardiners epic
history Egypt of the Pharaohs, in his discussion of Persian rule in
Egypt, we read the following innocuous but inviting comment: “The forty years
ending with the death of Darius II in 404 B.C. are a complete blank so far as
Egypt is concerned, and it is only amid the stirring events attending the
accession of Artaxerxes II that she re-enters upon the Middle Eastern stage”[1]
Following this lead and with due caution we venture to move Amasis forward 121
years, overlapping the 27th dynasty, to fill the void noted by Gardiner. His dates are uniformly lowered from 570-526
B.C. to 449-405 B.C. The earlier Saite
kings and Taharka dutifully follow, drawing dynasties 22 through 24 in their
wake. The revision is essentially
complete. If simplicity is the hallmark
of a good theory, we are on the right track.
This
displacement of the Saite dynasty into the 5th century is neither impulsive nor
arbitrary. The lack of Egyptian
monuments from the first Persian occupation already argues convincingly that
something is wrong with the traditional history of this period. From Cambyses to Darius II only scraps of
inscriptional material are forthcoming from
Most
conspicuous by their absence are records of the day-to-day operations of the
dominant religious institutions of the country.
Where are the Apis bull records of the Memphite priests from this
century? What happened to the cult of
Amon in
We
wonder additionally whether all building activity ceased for this extended
period of time. We should conclude from
the lack of contradictory evidence that for an entire century in
It is admitted by scholars that Xerxes,
Artaxerxes I, and Darius II never visited
The
Greek historians provide tantalizing hints that the 26th dynasty
pharaohs were alive and well and ruling within
If indeed Saite dynasty rule is coterminous with the Persian occupation
we should anticipate, as was the case during the Assyrian domination of the
country a century earlier, that multiple individuals
acted as administrators over various regions of
We argue in the following chapters that the prolonged historical vacuum
in the 5th century is a result of a chronological error rather than an absence
of political activity? What else but silence should result when the majority of
the legitimate occupants of this century have been mistakenly moved
elsewhere? When we move the Saite
dynasty forward in time to overlap the first Persian occupation of
Revised Saite Dynasty Dates
Ignoring
for the time being the temporal shifts of the earlier 25th dynasty Ethiopian
kings and the occupants of dynasties 22-24, we pause to consider the
implications of the proposed change in Saite dynasty dates. The charm of this proposed chronological
revision lies in the ease with which existing history can be modified. First we subtract 121 years from all Saite
dynasty dates listed earlier in table 1.
Then we introduce divisions necessary if the invasion and exile are
historical realities. The result is
shown below in table 2.
Table 2:
Revised Saite Dynasty Dates
|
25th (Ethiopian) dynasty (earlier kings omitted) |
|
Taharka (in |
|
INVASION OF NEBUCHADREZZAR 564 B.C. |
|
Taharka (in |
|
26th (Saite) dynasty begins (139 years) |
|
Wahibre Psamtik (under Cyrus and Cambyses) 543-525 B.C. |
|
ARRIVAL OF CAMBYSES 525 B.C. |
|
Wahibre Psamtik (under Cambyses & Darius 1) 525-489 B.C. |
|
Wahemibre Necao (Necho) 489-474 B.C. |
|
Neferibre Psamtik (Psamtik II) 474-468 B.C. |
|
Ha’a’ibre Wahibre (Apries) 468-449 B.C. |
|
Khnemibre ‘Ahmose-sa-Neith (Amasis) 449-405 B.C. |
|
Ankhkanre Psamtik (Psamtik III) 405-404 B.C.[5] |
Since the Saite kings now occupy the same time
frame typically assigned to the 27th dynasty kings, whose dates are well known,
we reproduce for the record the dates of the Persian kings. (see
below in table 3
Table 3:
Dates for 1st Persian Occupation of
|
27th (Persian) dynasty |
|
INVASION OF CAMBYSES 525 B.C. |
|
Cambyses 525—522 B.C. |
|
Darius I (son of Hystaspes) 522-486 B.C. |
|
Xerxes 486-466 B.C. |
|
Artaxerxes (Longimanus) 465-424 B.C. |
|
Darius II (son of Xerxes) 424-404 B.C. |
We have no quarrel with these dates for the
27th dynasty kings. They are essentially
correct. With one notable exception.
The
error in Table 3 relates to the founding of the dynasty, and thus to the
initial row(s). In the traditional history the 27th dynasty began with the
conquest of
When
Cambyses arrived in
Table 4: Revised Dates
for the 1st Persian Occupation of
|
27th (Persian) dynasty (extended) |
|
Cyrus 543-530 B.C. |
|
Cambyses 530—522 B.C. |
|
Darius I (son of Hystaspes) 522-486 B.C. |
|
Xerxes 486-466 B.C. |
|
Artaxerxes (Longimanus) 465-424 B.C. |
|
Darius II (son of Xerxes) 424-404 B.C. |
This phase of our revision is essentially complete. By lowering Saite dynasty dates 121 years we
have uprooted that 139 year long dynasty from its traditional 7th/6th century
placement, dragging it to a new location overlapping the 1st Persian
domination, the latter extended appropriately.
The 25th and earlier dynasties follow in its train. The result is depicted visually in figure 10.
Figure 10: Timeline – The Saite Dynasty Displaced 121 Years
Reflections on the Revised
Chronology
From a literary perspective this summary of the revised
history is unfortunate. The element of surprise is forfeit; the mystery
gone. There was no other choice. Over three hundred years of Egyptian history
must move as a unit or remain where it is.
The only significant questions, the size and direction of the movement,
are necessarily stated at the outset.
How else do we prove history wrong but to establish it in its proper place. There are
advantages, however, to the present approach.
What is lost in intrigue is gained in clarity. The most casual reader will immediately know
what needs to be proved. A glance at the
charts is all that is required. When we
summarize below the consequences of the proposed revision we are merely
examining the tables and figures and stating the obvious.
The list
that follows is suggestive of what needs to be proved. It serves additionally as a table of contents
for the book. The reader should be ever
mindful that it is Egyptian chronology that is in error, not the chronologies
of
Figure 11:
Invasion of Nebuchadrezzar (Revised Chronology)
Without
the charts we will quickly lose our way.
There remains for us to prove that:
1.
Taharka of the 25th dynasty is not the same as Tarqu of the Assyrian
annals. They are separated in time by a
full century. Gardiner’s confidence
notwithstanding, Taharka’s dates are not certain; they
are in error by 121 years! The history
of the early 7th century needs to be rewritten, if only to dislodge the
Ethiopian dynasty from an historical context in which it plays no part. Tirhakah of the Hebrew Bible and Tarqu of the
Assyrian annals need to be identified. [Chapter 3]
2. The
Egyptian Pharaoh Necho who killed Josiah and who for years contested with
3.
Taharka was not driven out of
4. Psamtik I was not the ultimate authority in
5.
When Cambyses came to
6. The kings Khnemibre and Ankhkare, whose ships were regulated by
Udjahorresne, cannot have been Amasis and Psamtik III who lived a century
later. They were definitely not kings of
7. Necao was not the military genius who allied
8. The civil war
between Wahibre (Apries) and Amasis, which supposedly preceded the invasion of
Nebuchadnezzar and is depicted in a stela from
9. The
source of wealth in the time of Amasis can be traced to the rise of
10.
Psamtik, the successor of Amasis according to Herodotus, is not Ankhkare of the
Udjahorresne stela, nor the Ankhkanre of the monuments. According to our revised dates, that honour
must be given to Amyrtaeus Psamtik, the sole king of Manetho’s 28th
dynasty. Activities within this king’s
reign help to explain how the Saite dynasty became displaced in history. Greek historians and the authors of the
Demotic Chronicle contribute to an understanding of the end of both the 26th
Saite dynasty and the first Persian domination. [Chapter 11]
These are by no
means the only subjects to be considered in the balance of this book. But they are critical aspects of the problem
and they afford the context in which other matters may be introduced. We will treat them in the order in which they
are listed. But first
a word about Herodotus, and then another word about the Demotic Chronicle.
Herodotus or
Pseudo-Herodotus?
When
Heinrich Brugsch wrote his Egypt Under the Pharaohs
in the late 19th century he restricted his comments on dynasties 26 through 30
to a few pages. The editors explain:
With
the Twenty-fifth Dynasty Dr. Brugsch's history practically ends, for it was his
special object to write the story of the
At the
outset of the 26th dynasty inscriptional evidence within
There
is no great surprise that the production of monuments all but ceased. The exile marked the end of an artistic
tradition stretching backward a thousand years.
The artisans were gone, their skills employed in the service of
Secular History Based on Herodotus
The
traditional history of the Saite dynasty is derived almost entirely from
Herodotus.
But
the history that emerges in the textbooks is heavily edited. Herodotus makes factual statements; modern
historians adapt those facts to an assumed 7th/6th century context. Change the context and the facts would be
interpreted differently. There is
nothing in Herodotus, apart from his description of the Persian invasion that
brought the Saite dynasty to a close, which places it unequivocally in the 7th
and 6th centuries. Herodotus is ignorant
of any connection between Psamtik I and the Assyrians. He knows nothing of Necho's wars with
Nabopolassar and Nebuchadrezzar. The invasion of
The
Histories of Herodotus
The Histories
was originally an oral discourse, delivered in open forums as entertainment for
Greek speaking audiences in and around
The
existing written version has been divided by contemporary historians into seven
divisions or "books", which are themselves subdivided into sections
for reference purposes. Much of Book II
- which deals exclusively with
The
conflict is confined to the initial sections of chapter three (III: 1-30) where
Herodotus describes in great detail the expedition of Cambyses against
In the
final sections of chapter one Herodotus documents the death of Cyrus and the
ascendancy of Cambyses. The few verses
that begin chapter two introduce the so-called “Egyptian digression”.
After the death of Cyrus Cambyses inherited his
throne. He was the son of Cyrus and Cassandane
daughter of Pharnaspes, for whom, when she died before him, Cyrus himself
mourned deeply and bade all his subjects mourn also. Cambyses was the son of this woman and
Cyrus. He considered the Ionians and
Aeolians as slaves inherited from his father, and prepared an expedition
against
Abruptly at this point Herodotus digresses. He begins talking about Psammetichus. "Now before Psammetichus became king of
In the
final chapter of this revision we will explain the origins of the Cambyses
narrative. The intent here is to discuss
its authorship.
Authorship of Herodotus II & III: 1-30
We
have registered the complaint that Herodotus is almost singularly responsible
for the belief that Amasis and Psamtik III were contemporaries of
Cambyses. On that account alone we
would have argued with the content of the Cambyses expedition narrative. But the careful reader will recognize by now
that we also have a fundamental problem with the Saite history of chapter two -
not with its content, but with its authorship.
The problem is created by the revised chronology. With the removal of Amasis to the end of the
fifth century the critic will be quick to complain. How is it possible for Herodotus, who died
before the end of the 5th century (ca. 425 B.C.), and who supposedly derived
his information while visiting Egypt two decades earlier (ca. 450 B.C.), to
describe in chapter 2 the prosperous reign of Amasis, which only began in 449
B.C. and did not end until 405 B.C. The
question applies equally to the Cambyses narrative in chapter 3, which
describes the death of both Amasis and Psamtik III. Herodotus could have authored neither the
Saite history nor the Cambyses narrative unless he lived and wrote this portion
of his history after the deaths of Amasis and Psamtik III, that is, after 404
B.C.
In
fact we have only one problem with a common solution. Both the difficulty with the content of the
Cambyses expedition story and the alleged anachronism in the Saite history require much the same solution, namely, the assumption that
the whole of Herodotus II and the early sections of Herodotus III are not the
work of the 5th century historian. In
fact, we argue that the entire treatment of Egyptian geography, culture, and
history in Herodotus II was the creation of some later author, a
pseudo-Herodotus, who inserted his work into the existing dialogue of
Herodotus, supplying the Cambyses material in order to blend his work with the
existing Persian history. We will not
attempt to identify this author, nor the specific time when the alleged
pseudepigraph was written, though it clearly predates Diodorus Siculus, the 1st
century B.C. Roman historian who refers to several of the Egyptian sections and
attributes them to Herodotus. The
intrusive Egyptian material dates probably to the middle of the Seleucid
era. Beyond that we cannot say.
While
we cannot identify the pseudo-Herodotus, we can argue for his existence. The arguments have been known for well over a
century.
The Uniqueness of Herodotus II
The
whole of chapter two of Herodotus differs markedly in tone and construction
from the balance of the Histories.
Its uniqueness has been the subject of much discussion. A. Bauer in his Die Entstehung
des Herodotischen Geschichtswerkes
(1878) argued the thesis that it was written last, late in the life of
Herodotus, basing his belief in part on its distinctly anti-Hellenic tone. W.W. How and J.
Wells dedicated a section of their classic Commentary on Herodotus to
this "Peculiar tone of Book II" in which they discuss Bauer's thesis,
adding their own observations:
But if the tone of Bk. II is really different from that of the rest of H(erodotus)'s work, this fact may well be connected with another obvious difficulty as to it. It is hard to conceive an author possessed of the literary skill and sense of form which H (erodotus) undoubtedly had, deliberately composing it in its present place or its present scale (italics mine).[7]
When we suggest that some later author incorporated chapter two into an existing history we are not introducing any novel thesis. Bauer's claim that the Egyptian material is different in tone from the earlier Herodotus can be construed as an argument that its author was not Herodotus. And it is a very small step from arguing with Bauer, How, and Wells, that the Egyptian material was inserted late by Herodotus, to arguing that it was inserted late by someone else. “If, on the other hand, we suppose that it was written by itself when the rest of the history was practically finished, and then introduced into its present place later, both the difference of tone and the difference of scale explain themselves. It seems not unlikely, therefore, that Bk. II is the latest part of the work of H(erodotus)."[8]
As we
have already noted, this insertion of newly created material into an existing
work is standard procedure in early oral tradition. Historical works such as Herodotus, and
Hecataeus, on whom Herodotus depended for much of his information, were not
composed in a single sitting. They grew
over time as refinements were made to existing works. It is not known when the entire discourse of
Herodotus achieved its final form and was put into writing. Traditionalists make the assumption that its
final editing antedated the death of Herodotus around 430 B.C. and that the
text as presently received is essentially what Herodotus wrote. But there is no evidence that this was the
case. Many oral traditions are not put
into writing in the author’s lifetime.
Many pass for centuries before being committed to writing. And bogus additions to the works of famous
authors are commonplace.[9]
When was Herodotus written and what was the original content of the Histories? The earliest extant written manuscripts of the text are from the 9th to 11th centuries A.D., fifteen centuries after the death of the alleged author. The possibility certainly exists that the Saite history in chapter two and the early sections of chapter three were not part of the original oral tradition or the first written text. We know for certain that a history of Herodotus was known to Ktesias and Thucidydes early in the 4th century B.C. They are both highly critical of its contents. Neither appears to be aware of the second book. Ktesias has a different version of the arrival of Cambyses, one that includes no mention of Amasis or Psamtik. His version of events, discussed later in this book, has not received due attention.
Chapter
2 of Herodotus is arguably late and intrusive.
We rest on the authority of How
& Wells, whose influential commentary has not been superseded after
more than a century. The chapter 3
Cambyses story is also late. It results
from a confusion to be detailed in chapter 11.
Thus the entirety of II:1-III:30
is the product of a secondary author.
Further discussion on the nature of this late redaction is beyond the
bounds of the present revision. We
expect, however, that a different author would reveal his presence otherwise
than by changes of style and content. In
fact, that is the case.
The Character of the Pseudo-Herodotus
The
5th century Greek historian has received bad press. Herodotus was criticized by his near
contemporaries Thucydides and Ktesias as being more concerned with storytelling
than with strict accuracy.
"Herodotus was one among many who had more of story and song about
them than truth, a storyteller whose main object was to entertain and profit there
from"[10]
But in spite of the criticism, there is little evidence in the Histories
that Herodotus was deliberately fraudulent.
He might be mistaken in his facts, but he did not misrepresent
himself. That is, except in the Egyptian
narrative. Reading any article critical
of Herodotus, one is immediately struck by the fact that the criticisms are
almost entirely concerned with chapters two and the beginning of chapter three.
A
recent article has revived the debate that has raged for the past two centuries
concerning the integrity of Herodotus vis-à-vis his discussion of things
Egyptian. The object of contention is
the claim by Herodotus to have derived his material first hand from his travels
through
At
the turn of the century (20th century), the face value of Herodotus' travel in
The
problem with Herodotus' statements about
We
come, therefore, to Herodotus' Egyptian priests. Apart from his own experience,
Herodotus claims that most of his knowledge of
Herodotus acknowledges the fact that Egyptians detested Greeks,
"yet Herodotus tells us that the priests counselled and tutored him on
Egyptian mores and history, and even on Egyptian religion." Armayor goes on to ask how the Greek speaking
Herodotus engaged in length conversation with these native Egyptians?
Perhaps
we should also remember the matter of interpreters. Herodotus did not talk to native Egyptian
priests without them, and yet he does not mention either interpreters
themselves in this connection, or the lack of a need for them.[13]
Alan Lloyd,
in his classic treatment of Herodotus Book II, produces a lengthy list
of problematic features of the Egyptian history. While remaining positive regarding the
reliability of book two he does observe that from an historical point of view
some things in Herodotus book two “are profoundly disturbing."[14] Additionally Lloyd refers to a more negative
appraisal by Heidel a half-century earlier:
Herodotus'
account of Egyptian history, in Heidel's view, cannot possibly derive from
Egyptian priests. It is a garbled rehash of what Hecataeus had derived from
them and whenever Herodotus mentions hiereus
[priests] as sources he means his predecessor.
In other words, Herodotus is a barefaced liar![15]
The
conclusion reached by Armayor was essentially the same as that determined by
Heidel in 1935 and by A.H. Sayce at the turn of the twentieth century. The author of the Egyptian material lied
about his travels to
What
conclusions shall we draw? Herodotus may
indeed have gone to
The problem that bothered these critics is not just what Herodotus said
about Egyptian blacks and priests, nor his complete misrepresentation of the
backwardness of the country. It was a
combination of things he said which any casual visitor to
Armayor
fills two pages itemizing the multiple misrepresentations and oversights of the
author of the Egyptian discourse, arguing in conclusion that "if we cannot
believe that he (Herodotus) saw the
The
reputation of Herodotus needs to be rescued.
The criticisms directed toward the Egyptian sections should not be
reflective on the character of the 5th century historian. He was not their author. Part of the re-thinking suggested by Armayor
needs to focus on the question of the authenticity of Herodotus book II.
The Saite History (Herodotus II.147-182)
We
return momentarily to the exception that proves the rule - the Saite
history. For all the inaccuracy
elsewhere in the Egyptian narrative, sections 147-182, the Saite history, are remarkably
reliable. The inclusion of a listing of
all the Saite kings in their correct order, referenced to reign
lengths that are essentially correct, suggests that the author had access to
some reliable sources. Whatever
distortions are found earlier in chapter two, and later in the Cambyses
narrative, a remarkable precision suddenly and surprisingly appears in the
Saite history discussions concerning Psammetichus - Herodotus' version of
Psamtik's name - and of the descendants of Psammetichus. The author himself admits to having other
sources for this portion of his Egyptian history. "Thus far I have recorded what the
Egyptians themselves say. I will now
relate what is recorded alike by Egyptians and foreigners to have happened in
that land, and I will add thereto something of what I
myself have seen." (Her. II
147. 1) What follows is reasonably accurate history, save for the
additions that the author claims to have made based on his own
observations. Even details of the reign
of Amasis, though embellished with copious amounts of here-say, are probably
reliable. Gardiner claims that
"When Herodotus's account of Amasis (570-526 B.C.) is shorn of its lively
and picturesque gossip, what is left is likely to be sound history."[18] On balance Herodotus II 147-182 is reliably
accurate and it is probably fair to say that this revision gives more credit to
the Saite history of Herodotus than is accorded it by modern historians. It will be used throughout the following chapters
to argue a 5th century context for the Saite kings. But how do we explain this remarkably
accurate history and our reliance on it in spite of what has been argued about
the unreliability of the pseudo-Herodotus.
On the
assumption that the Egyptian narrative was composed centuries after the fact,
we can assume, with reason, that when the pseudo-Herodotus acknowledges his
reliance on "what is recorded alike by Egyptians and foreigners to have
happened in that land", he refers to existing written histories of
In the
balance of this revision we continue to refer to the entirety of the Histories
as the work of Herodotus, this for convenience sake. But in view of what has been argued above we
state categorically that the Egyptian discourse is not the product of the 5th
century Herodotus. Armayor appropriately
refers to the Greek historian as "a literary genius of wide and varied
Greek learning". On the contrary
the pseudo-Herodotus, a 3rd or 2nd century pretender, who depended on
Hecataeus, Manetho, and others for his Egyptian material, and likely never
travelled far from
The Demotic Chronicle
Amasis
died in 405 B.C. The Pseudo-Herodotus preserves a tradition that he was
succeeded by a son Psamtik who lived and ruled briefly. Though we question Psamtik's connection with
Cambyses in the existing narrative of Herodotus chapter three, it can be argued
that Herodotus preserves the memory of an actual historical incident. The
event, to be described later in this revision, dates from ca. 404 B.C., not
from 525 B.C. From other sources we know
that at the death of Darius II in 404 B.C.
The
subject will be taken up again in the concluding chapter, but the reader may
begin to see here the source of the faulty Cambyses narrative. If Amasis was
followed by a king named Amyrtaeus with personal name Psamtik, and if this king
was attacked by a Persian named Cambyses, a namesake of the earlier Persian
king, with disastrous results for
Following the revolt of
Table 5: Kings of
Dynasties 28 – 30
|
DYNASTY 28: |
|
|
Amyrtaeus |
404-399 B.C. |
|
DYNASTY 29: |
|
|
Nepherites |
399-393 B.C. |
|
Achoris |
393-380 B.C. |
|
Nepherites |
380 B.C. |
|
DYNASTY 30: |
|
|
Nekhtnebef |
380-363 B.C. |
|
Teos |
362-361 B.C. |
|
Nekhthorheb |
360-343 B.C. |
In
Following
Alexander’s death in 323 B.C. control over
We
noted in the previous section that the history of
But
there is one important Egyptian literary source which deals with the political
history of these last independent Egyptian dynasties, the so-called Demotic
Chronicle. This papyrus, now number 215 in the Bibliotheque Nationale in
The
Demotic Chronicle was written in the Ptolemaic era, presumably in the 2nd
century B.C., a short time after Manetho.
But the events that concern its authors occur in the 4th century. Those authors appear to be very familiar with
happenings in
The
recto of this papyrus names all the kings from Amyrtaeus to Teos in their
correct order. The authors were knowledgeable about their subject matter.
Careful examination of details in the text has led scholars to conclude that
its history is reliable.[21]
The
verso of the Chronicle is most relevant for this revision. It contains a number
of distinct texts, two of which are of particular interest. The first is a
brief chronicle describing in unflattering tones the lack of moral character of
Pharaoh Amasis. Spiegelberg calls it an historical narrative and entitles it
"The Narrative of King Amasis and the Sailor". The story depicts the
Saite king as a drunken sot. The details are unimportant. It is clearly written
by authors antagonistic to Amasis. It brings to mind Herodotus II. 172 where we
are told that "at first he (Amasis) was contemned and held in but little
regard by the Egyptians, as having been but a common man and of no high
family".
The
existence of this narrative raises a question: Why would a Saite king who
supposedly lived and ruled in the mid-6th century be singled out for ridicule
by authors whose preoccupation elsewhere is with happenings in the 4th century?
How is it that he is even remembered? Only if the present revision is correct,
and Amasis ruled from 449-405 B.C. as the last of the puppet kings of the first
Persian domination, is this disdain comprehensible. We also understand why the life and work of
Amasis have not been forgotten.
A
separate group of related documents on the verso equally concern Amasis. One
clearly mentions Amasis 44th year as a significant date for the beginning or
ending of some activity. The existing translations claim that Cambyses is also
mentioned. Gardiner alludes to this text as the source of our knowledge about
"Cambyses withdrawal of grants to the Egyptian temples and about Darius's
command that the laws of the country should be recorded in writing"[22] He further claims, on the basis of this
section of the Demotic Chronicle, that the laws implemented by Darius were
created in an assembly of the wisest soldiers, priests and scribes of Egypt
gathered together at the behest of Darius, at which assembly "they were to
set forth in writing the complete law of Egypt down to year 44 of Amasis, a
task which kept them busy until his (Darius's) own nineteenth year."[23]
It goes without saying that if Darius I is
named in the document and if Darius requested any activity referenced to year
44 of Amasis then Amasis must precede Darius I in time and the present revision
should stop. How do we respond to these statements by a noted Egyptologist?
If
nothing else the comments by Gardiner serve to highlight a problem that will
manifest itself repeatedly in the course of this examination of Egyptian
history. Statements are made by scholars which, taken at face value, appear to
undermine the current reinterpretation of history. Closer scrutiny shows the statements
themselves to be at fault. They either
misrepresent or misinterpret the data.
There is no deliberate attempt to deceive. In most cases, as here, they result from an
attempt to interpret a text in the light of an existing but erroneous view of
history. Corrupt history begets faulty
interpretation. The principle will
manifest itself repeatedly.
When
we examine the Chronicle text that deals with Amasis 44th year we find only a
questionable reference to Darius (Spiegelberg[24]
sees the name; Griffith[25]
questions whether it is present) and nothing to indicate whether the name
refers to Darius I, Darius II, or Darius III. There is also no certain
reference to Cambyses. A dignitary named Kbdj or Kbdje
seems to be in the process of emending legislation enacted in the reign of
Amasis (prior to his 44th year) or which has been in vogue since the 44th year
of Amasis. Kbdj is never called a
king. His title is omitted, while Amasis
is always Pharaoh Amasis. The text is
not well preserved. Lacunae abound. A second and related document in the same
group in the Chronicle concerns what adjustments Kbdj should make to the
procedures by which temples are furnished with their incomes. In the reign of Amasis it was done so; but
now it will be done thus.
In the traditional history Cambyses and Darius I succeeded Amasis, with
only the brief reign of Psamtik III intruding. At the end of the 5th century,
where we have relocated Amasis, we also have Darius and Amasis, but this time
the Persian king is Darius II, whose reign overlaps the last two decades of the
reign of Amasis. Is there also a Cambyses? The argument in the concluding
chapter of this revision is a resounding yes. In the Demotic Chronicle he is
called Kbdj, and an argument can be made that this Kbdj is not Cambyses, son of
Cyrus, but a contemporary of Amyrtaeus. When we examine the historical role of
this native Persian in our chapter eleven, the Demotic Chronicle, far from
being a threat to the current revision, will become one its staunchest allies.
But the matter must be put on hold till then.
Before
leaving the Demotic Chronicle it should be noted that the comments above should
in no wise be construed as defensive. The entire problem could have been
shrugged off by simply claiming that the Chronicle is in error. Since it is
recorded on a palimpset in the 2nd century it could be argued that the
Chronicle reflects a time when historical facts related to the Saite dynasty
are already in a state of confusion. Griffith himself suggests the possibility
of error. He has more problems with the
Chronicle than does the current revision, as he struggles to find agreement
between its problematic text and the assumed facts of the traditional
history. His confusion is evidenced from
his comments:
This
papyrus was written centuries after the events narrated took place, and its
statements may be very incorrect. It is much to be hoped that the question may
be definitely decided as to whether the passage represents an investigation by
Darius as to the income of the temple in the days of Amasis, and the items
lopped off by Cambyses, or an investigation ordered by Cambyses himself with a
view to the reductions named.[26]