In the John Rylands library in Manchester reside a group of nine papyri dated to the seventh and sixth centuries B.C..  Their dates are determined by their connection to Saite dynasty kings from Psamtik 1 through Amasis.   In the revised chronology they date therefore from the late 6th through the 5th century.   The papyri are part of a single collection of a priestly family which settled at Teuzoi, a site on the east bank of the Nile south of Memphis, better known in antiquity as el-Hibeh.  Our attention focusses on a single one of these papyri.   In the words of the editor F. Ll. Griffith  "by far the most important of the papyri from El Hibeh is the great roll of the Petition or memorial of Peteesi, nearly 4 1/4 metres or 14 feet in length, and closely written over the whole of the recto and five-sixths of the verso."[5]   There are four principal divisions of this lengthy document.  Three are of interest.

        The first five columns describe the harsh treatment afforded a certain priest Petesi in the years immediately following the 9th year of Darius.  Griffith summarizes their content as:

Events of the 9th and following years of Darius, viz. Peteesi's unwilling evidence on the causes of the ruin of Teuzoi, his sufferings and imprisonment, followed by a murderous attack on him by the priests: his petition to the "Governor" or satrap (?) for protection, the revengeful burning of his house, the end being his return to Teuzoi, after more than a year's absence, under a guarantee of safety and protection, but without compensation for the injuries done to him or any attention to the rights which he claimed through his ancestors in the temple of Teuzoi. (italics mine) Petition 30

        This portion of the narrative, from the point of view of the present revision, raises but a single question.   Is this harsh treatment afforded Petesi taking place in the reign of Darius I or Darius II.   The question is not actually raised by Griffith.    Assuming a history in which Egypt is ruled sequentially by Amasis, Cambyses and Darius, it must be Darius I since the second part of the narrative mentions the 44th year of Amasis in some connection with an individual named Kamoze (kmdj?) who, in this context, can only refer to Cambyses.  We have the same problem occurring here as was seen in the Demotic Chronicle (cf. chapter 2).  This is not the place to pursue the matter.  We will return to the subject in chapter 11.   For the record it should be stated, however, that the incident took place in the reign of Darius II.

        This first portion of the narrative makes reference to a petition sent to the Governor or satrap by Petesi (III).  This petition apparently reviewed significant events in the Petesi family history which were considered crucial in establishing Petesi's right to the priesthood at Teuzoi, a central issue in his complaint.  The second or ensuing portion of the narrative appears to be nothing more or less than a copy of that petition.  This family history continues for sixteen columns, documenting events from the 4th year of Psamtik through the entire Saite dynasty to the 4th year of Kamoze.   It is highly entertaining reading.   It is also at times confusing.  There are many Petesi's and Essemteu's, an hereditary sequence of patronyms in the Petesi family.  We avoid the problem by restricting our discussion to the first generation, Petesi III's great-great-grandfather Petesi I.   Thus the petition of Petesi III begins:

To inform the governor of the events that happened unto my father (= forefather Petesi I):
In the 4th year of Per'o Psammetk the elder, Ptores was in the charge of Peteesi, son of 'Ankhsheshonk, the Master of Shipping, from the southern guard-house (?) of Memfi unto Suan.

        Petesi, son of Ankhsheshonk,  is not the patriarch Petesi I, and is mentioned in our discussion primarily because he features in secondary problem to be considered later.  The patriarch Petesi (I) , son of Ieturou,  appears immediately as the assistant of Petesi, son of  Ankhsheshonk, the master of shipping.    The master of shipping is old and asks Psamtik for relief, recommending his assistant Petesi (I) for the job.  Already,  in his duties under the shipping master, Petesi (I) has been able to increase food production and state revenue by fifty per-cent.

I have a colleague named Petessi son of Ieturou; he it is that administers (?) Ptores and fosters its silver and its boti-corn: and it hath come to pass that Ptores is very prosperous; its silver and its boti have made one into one-and-a-half.  Let him be brought before Per'o, let a good thing be said unto him before Per'o, let it be said unto him, Ptores is committed unto thee," it being committed unto me also ...  Petition 78-9

        In spite of his request for relief the master of shipping retained his job, but Petesi (I) assumed most of the work load, including the inspection of sites along the Nile from Memphis to Syene.  Petesi, the shipping master, went into semi-retirement in Hnes.

Peteesi son of Ieturou came southward, inspecting, from the southern guard-house unto Suan; (but) Peteesi son of 'Ankhsheshonk, the Master of the Shipping, settled in Hnes and report was rendered to him of everthing that happened in Ptores.

Peteesi son of Ieturou reached Teuzoi: he went to the temple and inspected every place that was in the temple of Teuzoi.  And behold he found the temple of Teuzoi to be in the style of a very large House, but that it was short of men: he found not a man in the temple except one aged priest and a (shrine)-opener.  And Peteesi son of Ieturou caused the priest to be brought, and said to him, 'Behold, since thou art not deficient in age, tell me, I pray, the manner in which this town hath been destroyed.' And the priest said unto him, 'The thing hath happened (in this wise?): No man was priest here except the priests of Amenra'senter; but your ancestors were priests here, and they made this fane glorious with all things: endowment-estates in abundance were appropriated to Amun of Teuzoi, and this House was spoken of as the first (?) seat of Amenra'senter.  When that evil time came the great fanes (ie. temples)  of Kemi (=Egypt) were made to pay taxes, and this town was burdened, and they departed away.  And behold, though discharge hath been made unto the great fanes of Kemi, they come to us saying, "Produce (your) taxes " until now (italics mine).  Petition 79,80

       If this is what the Petition says, then under no circumstance can it be squared with the traditional history, whereby Psamtik I, within a year of the battle between Urdamanie and Ashurbanipal, drove the Assyrians out of Egypt.  That circumstance would leave no time for the imposition of taxes on the temples of Upper Egypt.  Ashurbanipal's second invasion in 564 B.C.,  which must have resulted inter alia in the destruction of Teuzoi, occurred only months before the successful coup of Psamtik I.

        The narrative in the Petition produces the distinct impression that the "evil time" was of long duration.   An entire generation is missing from the record.   Peteesi appears ignorant of what has transpired in Teuzoi, though his ancestors were formerly priests there.  Where was he when these events transpired?  Why did he not learn the details from his father Essemteu?  In fact, where is Essemteu?   Later in the narrative Petesi meets an itinerant priest named Haruaz son of Peftu'ubasti, who claims that his father was also at one time a priest in Teuzoi.   He is young and anxious to marry a daughter of Peteesi.  All he can do to prove his heritage is produce documents which attest his father's priesthood.  "My father used to be priest here in Teuzoi, and I will show unto his Honour that he used to be priest here, I will bring the patents of my father before his Honour"  (Petition 83)  What happened to Peftu'ubasti, the father of Haruaz?  In the quoted portion of the narrative, the soletary aged priest holding the fort in Teuzoi, laments that all the priests in all the "great fanes (=temples) of Kemi (=Egypt)" departed away.  Where did they go?  Does the narrative not suggest some mass exodus or endemic slaughter?   If we are in the time of the Assyrian occupation and the priests have fled the scene only months before, why do they not simply return?

        Even the phrase "evil time" itself is problematic.  Griffiths, in a footnote, remarks:

The Coptic equivalent means "famine" but at this time the meaning may have been wider and the expression may refer to some of the disasters that had lately overtaken Egypt at the hands of invaders, which might well have produced famine also.  The exaction of tribute by the Assyrians probably involved the taxation of the temples.  Teuzoi, as devoted to Ammon, may have sided with the Ethiopians against Necos and his son Psammetichus, who were nominally supported by the Assyrians, and this may have led to the contribution from Teuzoi not being remitted.  But historical facts do not count for much in this part of the narrative (italics mine). Petition 80

        Petesis III discovered the sacred city of Teuzoi destroyed.  That destruction must have involved an associated loss of life   The destruction was followed by a prolonged period of famine and excessive taxation which combined to decimate the remaining population.   And the narrative is clear that Teuzoi was not alone in suffering this fate.  It is incomprehensible why Griffith would restrict his comments to that one locale.  Priests vacated "all the temples of Egypt."  The scene thus pictured suits the revised history;  it conflicts significantly with the current history.   Griffiths is uneasy about the translation.  He changes "famine" to "evil time" to fit his conception of history.  But he remains unconvinced.  The reliability of the narrative is finally called into question.

        We recall the warning of Jeremiah to the survivors of the Judaean disaster:

If you are determined to go to Egypt and you do go to settle there, then the sword you fear will overtake you there, and the famine you dread will follow you into Egypt, and there you will die.  Indeed all who are determined to go to Egypt to settle there will die by the sword, famine and plague...  Jer 42:15-17.

        The narrative continues.   During the next decade Petesi is busy restoring the fortunes of the temple of  Teuzoi.  He had to go far and wide to find the appropriate help.

Peteesi son of Ieturou came to Teuzoi, he caused the men to be brought who did handicraft, and gave them 200 pieces of refined(?) silver and 20 pieces of gold, he caused them to make them into cups of silver and gold for Amun, he caused them to make the shrine of Amun upon-the-great-place.  He caused the priests, the shrine-openers, and the other classes (?) of men who (are qualified to?) enter the temple to be brought to Teuzoi; (even) if there was a man among them who had gone as far as Ne he caused all to be brought.  He caused the endowment-estates which he found to have been appropriated to Amun to be given, and he caused 1000 aruras to be added to the endowment-estates of Amun.  He caused offerings and linen to be laid before Amun and before Usiri of Ieruoz(?).  He made Teuzoi glorious like one of the great fanes of Ptores.  He made his children priests of Amun of Teuzoi ...  Petition 81

"caused a tablet of stone of Ieb to be quarried and the blocks for two statues of temgy-stone, and caused them to be brought to Teuzoi.  He came north and reached Teuzoi, he caused the granite-workers, the engravers, the scribes of the House of Life, and the draughtsmen to be brought.  He caused the good deed that he had done in Teuzoi to be put upon the tablet ..." Petition 81-2

Psamtik's 34th Year

        The stone tablet erected by Petesi in the 14th year of Psamtik (tablet A) was maliciously destroyed in Psamtik's 31st year.   In that same 31st year the two sons of Haruaz, grandsons of Petesi, were murdered by the same delinquent priests who damaged the year 14 stela.  In the course of  pursuing the prosecution of these priests Petesi took time to order the construction of a replacement stela, altered slightly to include the priestly offices he had omitted from the original.    In the narrative this commissioning of a new stela (tablet B) preceded the burial of the two youths.  Since, according to Egyptian practice, burial took place seventy days following death, allowing time for mumification, we can assume the youths were buried that same 31st year.  It is surprising therefore to read Griffith's footnote to the passage which describes the erection of the replacement stela:

This is the inscription of Athyr of year 34 ...   The date is two and a half years after the outrage, and that although the inscription was engraved before the boys were buried.  Petition 91 n.9

         The first problem Griffith handled by assuming that the second stela was actually created in Petesi's 34th year, the year actually inscribed on the stela,  and that, therefore,  the burial of two boys had been delayed for 2 1/2 years!

        Regarding the second problem he could only lament:

But if these tablets are genuine and correctly copied it is a very serious matter to students of Egyptian history to find that the date on a tablet can have so little to do with the time of the events recorded upon it, as must be the case in B.  The date turns out to be merely the date when the inscription was engraved, and the events recorded on it had taken place at least sixteen, perhaps thirty, years before.  Petition 107

        There is, accordingly, no need to assume a delay of over two years in the burial of the sons of Haruaz.  The second stela was erected in the 31st year of Psamtik as anticipated by the narrative.  The date on stela B does not refer to the date of erection of that stela.

        Psamtik was not the only Pharaoh to variously date events in his reign.  Nothing is amiss.  The Petition history is vindicated.

Samtoutefnacht & The Nitocris Stela

        The second problem is related to an event which took place in Psamtik's 18th year.  In that year, according to the Petition,  Peteesi, son of Ankhsheshonk, the master of shipping died, and "Per'o made Semtutefnakhti Master of the Shipping, and Ptores was committed to him again even as it had been to his father"  (Petititon 85)   There is no question about the date.  On both of the stela inscriptions A and B discussed above,  which are dated in Psamtik's 14th (= 34th) year, Petessi son of Ankhsheshonk is still alive and functioning as the shipping master.   His death and the installation of Samtoutefnacht as Master of Shipping must certainly postdate Psamtik's 14th year.   It is not possible, therefore, to assume a dating error.   Herein lies the problem.

        There are few monuments extant from the reign of Psamtik I.  Thus the importance of a large red grantite stela, 6 foot high and 4 1/2  foot wide, found by Legrain at Karnak in 1897.  "It records the adoption of Nitocris, the daughter of Psamtik I, by a Shepnupet, daughter of Taharka, the Divine Votress or sacerdotal princess, at Thebes."  and functions as a formal "decreee of adoption and property-conveyance."   Its value for history lies in revealing "that Psamtik had gained full control of Thebes by his ninth year ..." (BAR 935-937)

        For reasons which will soon become apparent we question the dating of the Nitocris stela.   It is our opinion that the events it portrays took place in Psamtik's 30th year (514 B.C.) rather than his 9th year (535 B.C.).   The argument is not essential to the revised chronology, but since we are revising history, we should set the record straight in all respects.  Part of the proof of this claim is related to Samtoutefnacht.

        The introductory portion of the stela is missing.   The visible portion begins with the statement:

In the year 9, first month of the first season (first month), day 28, went forth his eldest daughter from the king's family apartments, clad in fine linen, and newly adorned with malachite.  The attendants conducting her were legion in number, and 8 marshals cleared the path, for beginning the goodly way to the harbor, to turn up-stream for Thebes.  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

        The revised dating of the Nitocris stela has been made not merely to defend the integrity of the Petition of Petesi.  There is a secondary purpose.     For were we to read on in the Nitocris inscription we would find among the list of celebrities greeting Nitocris on her arrival in Thebes, the 4th prophet of Amun, Mentuemhet.  It is imperative that the record be set straight on the life of this important dignitary.