While Mentuemhet was reestablishing temple worship in the area of Thebes and Petesi was restoring Teuzoi in north central Egypt,  Petosiris, high priest of Thoth, was performing similar repairs in Hermopolis, roughly mid-way between the two centers, on the west bank of the Nile.  We must admit at the outset that our dating of his family tomb to the Saite period is conjectural, and the argument from its inscriptions is weakened on that account.   But if only to set the record straight, and provide direction for further research, the inscriptions from Petosiris' tomb need to be re-examined.  The brevity of our discussion belies the importance of the inscriptions, reflecting instead their uncertain dates.

The Dating of the Tomb.

        The tomb was discovered in 1919 and excavated by M Gustave Lefebvre, who pubished his results in a series of preliminary reports and finally in his comprehensive Tombeau de Petosiris in 1924.   From the outset he dated the tomb to the late 4th and early 3rd centuries.   It was his belief that Petosiris functioned as lesionis of the temple of Thoth for seven years during the second Persian occupation of Egypt (343-332 B.C.), and that he describes the desecration of Egypt that occurred during his term in office.  The tomb continued to be used by successive family members through the brief reign of Alexander and into the Ptolemaic period.

        We note, however, that the dating of the tomb is highly subjective.   Lefebvre notes in his initial preliminary report that the tomb contained no cartouche, no soverign's name, nor any other element which would allow him to propose, a priori, even an approximate date.[21]    Only on subjective grounds did he claim to arrive at his conclusions.  The style of writing is, according to him, of the late period (i.e. post 28th dynasty)  But he admits that the hieroglyphs bear only the vaguest resemblance to those of the Ptolemaic period.  The style of writing is pedantic, stylistically correct and conforms to the rules of Egyptian syntax.   Based on linguistic criteria alone he considered that the tomb must date to the earliest part of this late period, near the time of Nectanebo.   The artistic elements in the tomb, however, lead him to lower his dates toward the Ptolemaic period.    He saw in the several artistic representations many indications of Greek influence.  Notable among these were the long tunics worn by the men and robes reminiscent of those worn by Greek women.   But as he himself admits, these garments are not distinctive of the 4th century B.C.; similar garments could be seen by Lefebvre in the near east of the  twentieth century.   And the garments are not Greek; they reflect a Persian influence.    "Voici maintenant un manteau, grec d'origine, mais modifie sous une influence etrangere, persane ou asiatique, et qui ne s'est pas encore rencontre hors d'Egypte. [22]

        In the final analysis, while Lefebvre claims to date the tomb on the basis of the style of writing and foreign influence on the costumes of the artistic figures, his date is based primarily on the content of the inscriptions.   They speak of an invasion and destruction of Egypt by a foreign army, the subsequent occupation of the country by foreigners, and Petosiris' extensive repairs of the devastation caused by the foreigners.   Those descriptive elements do not fit the destruction of Egypt by Cambyses in 525 B.C., the only other dating possibility considered by Lefebvre.   Petosiris' father is depicted as living under an indigenous pharaoh, while Petosiris' term in office, in Lefebvre's understanding at least,  was contemporary with the last seven years of the foreign domination, clearly a chronological impossibility if the inscriptions  relate to the 120 year long first Persian occupation of Egypt.   That possibility was considered and immediately rejected.  Petosiris must belong to the second Persian domination.[23]

        But artistic considerations are notoriously suspect for dating purposes.   Persian costume and Persian influence did not change appreciably from the first to the second periods of Persian rule in Egypt.  And we know that the Saite dynasty, which in the revised history overlaps the first Persian domination, was characterized by considerable Greek influence.

The Tomb Inscriptions

      Lefebvre dependence on chronological assumptions was a mistake.   His erroneous dating also influenced his translations.   The tomb inscriptions speak frequently of a period of foreign rule over Egypt.   For Lefebvre this could only refer to the time of the second Persian domination  (343-332 B.C.).    In the same context in which Petosiris speaks ill of this calamitous era he applauds his seven years as lesionis of Thoth.   Therefore, Lefebvre reasoned, Petosiris must have been priest during the time of this foreign rule.  His translations reflect that understanding.  The only alternative, dating the priesthood of Petosiris subsequent to the brief Persian domination,  was rejected on other grounds.  In general most scholars have agreed with Lefebvre.  Olmstead is typical:

"Petosiris became head of the most important family at Hermopolis in 339, less than four years after the Persian reconquest.    He, too, made his peace with the powers that were, but writing during the reign of the Macedonian Philip Arrhidaeus he has much to say of Persian misrule." [24]

I built this tomb in this necropolis.
Beside the great souls who are there,
In order that my father's name be pronounced,
And that of my elder brother,
A man is revived when his name is pronounced![25]

I spent seven years as controller for this god,
Administering his endowment without fault being found,
While the Ruler-of-foreign-lands was Protector in Egypt,
And nothing was in its former place,
Since fighting had started inside Egypt,
The South being in turmoil, the North in revolt;
The people walked with [head turned back]
All temples were without their servants,
The priests fled, not knowing what was happening.

When I became controller for Thoth, lord of Khmun,
I put the temple of Thoth in its former condition,
I caused every rite to be as before,
Every priest (to serve) in his proper time.
I made great his priests,
Advanced his temple's hour-priests;
I promoted all his servants,
I gave rule to his attendants.
I did not reduce the offering in his temple,
I filled his granaries with barley and emmer,
His treasury with every good thing.
I increased what there had been before ...
I gave silver, gold, and all precious stone ...
I made splended what was found ruined anywhere
I restored what had decayed long ago,
and was no long in its place.

Now when I was before this goddess,
Heket, lady of Herwer,
At her beautiful feast of the year's last month,
I being controller of Thoth,
She went to a spot in the north of this town,
To "House of Heket," as it is called by all,
Which was ruined since time immemorial.
The water had carried it off every year,
Till its foundation plan was no longer seen,
It only was called "House of Heket,"
While no brick nor stone was there,
Then the goddess halted there.

        It is apparent from these few excerpts that the events described by Petosiris fit perfectly the circumstances which prevailed in the years immediately following Cyrus 543 B.C. conquest of Egypt.    There existed a tumultuous time during which both the north and south of Egypt were destroyed, men wandered about aimlessly (or were taken away captive?) while priests abandoned the temples.   There must have elapsed a considerable time to account for "years" of damage by water and ruins neglected "since time immemorial".   When Petosiris arrived on the scene following years of exile there was need to initiate the temple service from the ground up.   The majority of priests did not return.  Men of lower rank were elevated to the priesthood.  The temple cultus was reestablished "as had been before."

        There is but a single problem with this hypothetical reconstruction.   It does not entirely agree with the translation provided by Lefebvre, who dates the lesionis of Petosiris during, not following, the time of the devastation of Egypt.  Lefebvre's translation reflects his interpretation, not the reverse.  Recently Bernadette Menu reexamined the texts which mention the seven year lesionis of Petosiris and determined,  based on "the logical coherence and chronology of events", that the priesthood of Petosiris' took place after, not during the Persian domination.[26]   Her analysis and retranslation of lines 28-33, quoted earlier by Lichtheim (following Lefebvre), serve to establish a more reasonable sequence of events.

        Menu sees a three-fold division of lines 28-33, including the text following:

        1.  Petosiris states how he has exercised the office of lesonis of Thoth for seven years.  "I passed seven years as administrator of this god Thoth administering his goods without any fault being found in my administration."
        2.  Petosiris describes the lamentable state of the temple of Hermopolis during the period of trouble immediately preceding his nomination:

...whereas a king of a foreign land had exercised his protectorate over Egypt.  There remained nothing which was in its former place, since the struggles took place in the midst of Egypt.  The South was in turmoil and the north was in revolt, men walking about in disarray.  There remained no temple available for (the use of) its officiants.  The priests were far removed (from the sanctuaries) and were ignorant of what was transpiring.

I exercised the function of administrator of Thoth, lord of Khmunu, for seven years.  Men of a foreign land ruled Egypt.  I did everything well in his temple while men of a foreign land ruled Egypt.  No work had been done (in the temple) since the foreigners came and invaded Egypt.

        1. Petosiris describes his activity under Cyrus in the first Persian occupation:

I spent seven years as controller for this god,
Administering his endowment without fault being found,
While the Ruler-of-foreign-lands was Protector in Egypt,

And nothing was in its former place,
Since fighting had started inside Egypt,
The South being in turmoil, the North in revolt;
The people walked with [head turned back]
All temples were without their servants,
The priests fled, not knowing what was happening.

        With the tomb inscription wrongly assigned to the 4th century we can readily see the source of confusion .  There are two distinct groups of foreigners alluded to in the text.  No wonder Lefebvre was confused.  Menu as well.  The first group, whom we believe to be the Babylonians, invaded the country,  killed or exiled the priests, plundered and destroyed the temples, and left Egypt in a state of anarchy.  Their actions are viewed by Petosiris as entirely destructive.  No ruler of these foreign intruders is ever mentioned.   The second group of foreigners, whom we believe to be the Persians under Cyrus, "ruled Egypt" benevolently, and provided the context in which the  reforms of Petosiris might proceed.  With the activity of Petosiris viewed in the context of the revised chronology, Menu's argument with Lefebvre is moot.  Lefebvre's translation requires little emendation, only reinterpretation.   His tomb inscription 59 lines 2,3 is a case in point.

I exercised the function of administrator (lesionis) of Thoth, lord of Khumumu for seven year while men of a foreign land (the Persians) governed Egypt. I found the temple of Thoth [fallen in ruins ... I called the scribes] (who) were found (in) this temple; I gave them money and grain, filled their hands, in order to raise up again monuments in his temple - since for a long time no work had been done,, since foreigners (the Babylonians) came and invaded Egypt. (insertions and italics mine)[27]