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.