The Amyrtaeus Rebellion

        Our revision of Egyptian history is all but complete.   The last of the displaced dynasties, Manetho's 26th., ended with the death of Ahmose-sa-Neith late in 405 B.C. or early in 404 B.C,  less than a year after the death of Darius II of Persia, and was followed immediately by the abbreviated reign of Amyrtaeus, whom we identify as the son of Pausiris, grandson of Apries, and great-grandson of Psamtik II.     And since Manetho credits Amyrtaeus with six years of rule we should assign to his reign either the dates 405-399 B.C. or 404-398 B.C., depending on the year assigned to Amasis' death.   The second set of dates is substantially the same as those assigned Amyrtaeus by the traditional history (404-399 B.C.).   For convenience we simply follow the traditional dates.

        According to the traditional history Darius II died in 404 B.C.(a year later than we have assigned to this same event).   He was succeeded in Persia by Artaxerxes II, who ruled an impressive 46 years (404-458 B.C.), and in Egypt - which chose this opportune time to assume independence - by Amyrtaeus.   The success of the Amyrtaeus rebellion can be attributed to exigencies outside of Egypt.   The death of Darius had precipitated a power struggle between Artaxerxes and his brother, prince Cyrus, satrap of Anatolia, which lasted for several years, culminating in the battle of Cynaxa (401 B.C.) in which Cyrus was killed.   A description of this contest is preserved in exhaustive detail by Xenophon in his classic Anabasis.  In the course of his narrative Xenophon mentions a build-up of Persian military strength in Palestine, which might have been intended to strike at the rebellious Egyptian province, but he fails to discuss the Egyptian situation, and interpreters reason that the blow was never delivered.   It is stated categorically in all popular histories of the period that Egypt's newly declared independence was uncontested at this time, and that it endured for the next sixty years, through the reign of Amyrtaeus and through two subsequent dynasties of kings (Manetho's 29th and 30th).   Only in 343 B.C. did Persia, under Artaxerxes III (Ochus), manage to recover its former possession, and that victory was short lived, for in 332 B.C. the armies of Alexander the Great invaded the Delta, ended Persian hegemony in Egypt, and paved the way for the rule of the Ptolemies.

        While we have no fundamental disagreement with most of this 4th century Egyptian history, we do question the claim, based more on silence than on any positive evidence, that Artaxerxes passively accepted the loss of what was arguably his most wealthy province.   Had we no other reason than historical precedent on which to base our claim - namely,  the swift and brutal suppression by Xerxes of the 1st Egyptian rebellion (led by Wahemibre Necao) in 486 B.C., and the equally severe response by Artaxerxes I to the 2nd Egyptian rebellion (led by Inaros) in 456 B.C. - we should have expected Artaxerxes II to have swiftly moved to put down the Amyrtaeus rebellion.   The military contest with prince Cyrus may have delayed the moment of retribution; but it surely did not exclude it.   The battle of Cynaxa was won in 401 B.C.   Diodorus tells us that sometime during the next year (400 B.C.) Teos, the admiral of Cyrus' Mediterranean fleet, attempted to flee from Artaxerxes and sailed for safe harbour in Egypt.   Instead of the anticipated welcome, he was killed by Amyrtaeus, who captured the fleet of Persian ships.   The fact is duly noted by historians and left without comment.    But comment is imperative.   Are we to believe that this insult upon injury was merely shrugged off by Persia?   The fact that the end of the reign of Amyrtaeus is dated to the following year (399 B.C.)  suggests that his demise was in some way related to the predicable Persian retaliation.

        It is the argument of the revised history that the 3rd Egyptian rebellion, synchronous with the reign of Amyrtaeus, ended in the year 399 B.C.    In that year, we argue, Artaxerxes did in fact act to recover his Egyptian province.   And his effort proved successful.  We are not guessing.   The details are preserved, as we have noted earlier in this revision, by the Greek historian Ktesias.
 

The 399 B.C. Invasion of Egypt.

        When we make the claim that the reign of Amyrtaeus, and the rebellion he initiated, ended in a military conflict with Persia, we are not in conflict with any documentary evidence.   The entirety of his reign is all but unattested.   As Gardiner notes in his Egypt of the Pharaohs:

Manetho allots to Amyrtaeus a reign of six years, which is probably correct since the Aramaic papyri from Elephantine include a promise of the repayment of a debt dating from his fifth year.  Apart from a letter from the same source quoting his name in close proximity to that of Nepherites, his immediate successor, there exists no further reference to him, and he has left no monuments.  We are in the dark alike as to how he came by his throne and as to how he lost it. (emphasis mine)[1]

        We quote the relevant section of the Persika:

This Bagapates conducted an expedition against Egypt and its king Amyrtaeus and he defeated Amyrtaeus thanks to the eunich Combaphis, a powerful minister of the Pharoah, who handed over the bridges and betrayed all the interests of Egypt in order to become the governor.  He became the (governor) because Cambyses, after having conferred this charge via Izabates, cousin of Combaphis, confirmed it himself later by word of mouth.   Having captured Amyrtaeus he did not deal with him harshly.  He was content to exile him to Persia along with 6000 Egyptians chosen by him, and he (proceded) to annex all Egypt.   There fell in the battle 50,000 Egyptians and 7000 Persians. [2]

        We argue instead that the Ktesian narrative is substantially accurate, though admittedly it has been misattributed to the beginning rather than the end of the first Persian occupation.   There is no need to speculate on the circumstances by which this vignette was mistakenly assigned a late 6th century context by later editors or compilers of the Ktesian fragments, whether by Photius himself or later editors of Photius.   Some suggestions were made when the matter was treated at some length in chapter five, and that discussion will not be repeated here.  Our purpose in the balance of this chapter is to demonstrate that only at the end of the 5th century, and only in the revised history of that time period, do we find conditions corresponding to the circumstances of this narrative, and a sequence of named individuals which are found both in Ktesias and in other Egyptian documents.    In brief, our objective is to establish that at this time in Egyptian history a  political leader named Combaphis, whose name was typically shortened to Kbdj in demotic documents, assumed the status, if not the title, of pharoah.   Here, at the turn of the 4th century, and only in the revised history, do we find Darius (II), Amasis, Artaxerxes (II), Amyrtaeus, Combaphis/Kbdj, and Nepherites, the successor of Amyrtaeus, linked together in a variety of documents.

A Revised History of the End of the First Persian Domination

        According to the revised history the reigns of Darius II (424-405 B.C.) and Amasis (449-405 B.C.) overlapped for two decades.  The final year of Amasis (405/404 B.C.), his 44th, coincided with the 1st year of Artaxerxes II, and in several documents appears to be singled out for special attention, possibly on account of its uniqueness.  Whether Amasis withheld tribute from Persia in this final year, tantamount to declaring the independance of Egypt, or whether the credit for the 3rd rebellion belongs to Amyrtaeus, who broke with Persia in his first or second year (Artaxerxes' 2nd or 3rd years) is for the most part immaterial.  But the fact that Artaxerxes' 2nd year is mentioned on a damaged monument excavated in the ruins of the palace of Apries (see below) seems to suggest a slight delay in the break from Persian rule.

        The years of the Amyrtaeus revolt are all but void of documentary evidence, precluding any certainty regarding its details.  But the assumption can be made, based on the example of the Inaros revolt a half century earlier,  that Amyrtaeus was not the only participant.   Our only comprehensive historical source document, the fragmentary account of Ktesias, suggests that Amyrtaeus was assisted in the rebellion by at least one powerful ally, whose name is preserved in various forms in at least five other monumental inscriptions or documentary sources.  As we shall see, this Kbdj (=Combaphis) is at times referred to as a pharoah, with name in cartouche, and elsewhere as a non-regal, but influential political figure.  His status depends either on the documentary source (some apparently viewing his "reign" as legitimate, others as illegitimate) or on the time period being discussed (before or after his fifth year).   The tenure of this Kbdj appears to be synchronous with the rule of Amyrtaeus and, if we correctly interpret the Ktesias fragment,  his "rule" extended several years beyond the Bagapates invasion, i.e. beyond the captivity and exile of Amyrtaeus.   We suggest, therefore, that Kbdj remained in office, whether as a vizier, governor or pharaoh,  for approximately 8 years, from 404-396 B.C.

        The fact that Manetho and the Demotic Chronicle cite Nepherites as the successor of Amyrtaeus is not in conflict with this view of history.   Nepherites, who is every bit as unknown as Amyrtaeus, may have been related to the latter, while Kbdj was not.   In the eyes of the Chronicler(s) his reign possessed a legitimacy that Kbdj lacked, and was therefore ignored.   It is possible that Nepherites and Kbdj governed separate regions of the country in the immediate aftermath of the rebellion.   The fact of localized rule during this time period has recently been argued strenuously by no less an authority than Andre Lemaire.[3]

        If our reconstruction of the history of the Amyrtaeus rebellion is correct, then Egyptian independance from Persia was short-lived, lasting only from ca. 403-399 B.C., i.e. from the 2nd through the 6th years of Artaxerxes II.   Persia regained control of its Egyptian province in 399 B.C., in the 6th years of Artaxerxes.   It is not surprising, therefore, that a single inscription, found at Elephantine, is dated in the 7th year of Artaxerxes, attesting Persian sovereignty within Egypt at that late date.   That date suits the revised chronology perfectly; it conflicts seriously with the traditional history.

        It is unknown how long Persia maintained its suzerainty over Egypt following the Bagapates invasion.  The precise dates may never be known since the 29th dynasty pharoahs Nepherites and Achoris (Hakar) are not well attested.   But since the Greek historians document an unsuccessful assault on Egypt by Artaxerxes II in 373 B.C., during the reign of Nekhtnebef, it must be assumed that at least by that date Egyptian independance had been finally established.   The end of the first Persian domination must be dated sometime within the reign of  Achoris (393-380 B.C.).

        The revised history of the period is summed up in the following table:
 
 

       Having outlined a revised view of Egyptian history following the death of Darius II, there remains the need to defend it.  In particular there is need to document the fact that a dignitary named Kbdj ruled Egypt in the early years of the 4th century B.C., in the time frame noted.