The Discovery

        Excavations at the south-west edge of the pyramid fields at Abusir conducted in 1988/89 by the Czechoslovak Instititute of Egyptology unearthed the tomb of Udjahorresne.  In the words of Miroslav Verner, the director of the expedition, "the discovery of the large shaft tomb ... was as surprising as the identification of the tomb-owner."[34]  The tomb contained the damaged remains of two sarcophogii.

The lower portion of the burial chamber is completely filled by a rectangular, box-shaped and only summarily dressed outer sarcophagus of white limestone.  A single horizontal line of a roughly cut hieroglyphic inscription running on all four sides of the sarcophagus contains religious formulas and the name and titulary of the tomb-owner.  Inside the box-shaped sarcophagus lies another one which has an anthropoid form and is of basalt.  The finely dressed surface of the inner sarcophagus is densely covered with hieroglyphic inscriptions containing, beside the religious formulas, the name and titles of the tomb-owner and his father and mother. EA 162-3

        The central pit containing the sarcophogus chamber, the tomb proper, was surrounded by a massive enclosure wall.  In the 1993 excavations outside this wall there were discovered foundation deposits  under the northwest, northeast, and southwest corners which included faience tablets inscribed with the cartouche names of Amasis.   Both his prenomen (Knemibre) and nomen ('Ahmose-sa-Neith) are included front and back on some tablets.[35]

        There is no question but that the wall was built by Amasis or minimally, that its construction began in the reign of that king.

        This association of the names of Amasis and Udjahorresne appears initially to settle the question regarding Amasis' placement in history, and to nullify all previous arguments to the contrary.  Otherwise, on the assumption that the current revision is valid, how can we account for the tablets of a late 5th century king (449-405 B.C.) appearing in foundation deposits of an enclosure wall surrounding the tomb of a man who died in the last decades of the 6th century B.C.(ca. 514 B.C.)?[36]

        The answer is transparent, and once presented serves to explain many anomalies in the Czekoslovakian excavations, for even before the foundation deposits were found, Verner had remarked on the fact that the excavation of this tomb had "raised more questions than it answered."(EA 167)  The number of questions only multiplied with the excavation of the Amasis tablets.

Primary Burial, Secondary Burial or Cenotaph

        The first problem concerned the contents of the inner sarcophogus, or rather, the lack of contents:

Unfortunately, the tomb-robbers damaged both sarcophogi.  Through the massive lid (510x290x110 cm.) of the outer sarcophagus a hole was cut.   The inner and much harder basalt sarcophagus was first "softened" by means of fire and then the feet of its lid were broken into pieces.  Yet, the hole cut by the tomb-robbers into the interior of the anthropoid sarcophagus is very small (28x40 cm.) and it is therefore very improbable that a mummy could have been taken out without being completely destroyed.  Moreover, neither in the empty sarcophagus nor around it were any fragments of mummy wrappings or skeletal remains found.  These and still other archaeological observations seem to indicate that the inner sarcophogus never contained a burial.  This surprising find contrasts with the intact triple sealing around the undamaged major portion of the inner sarcophagus:  Three thin horizontal layers of pink gypsum were spread on the limestone chips pressed between the basalt sarcophagus and the inner walls of the limestone sarcophagus.  Also, the find of the empty sarcophagus seems to be supported by the absence of canopic jars, which were found neither in the narrow niches in the south, west and north wall of the burial chamber nor in any other place uncovered so far in the underground of the tomb. EA 164-6

In spite of the find of the double sarcophagus in the burial chamber, it was not yet proved that Udjahrresnet was really buried in the tomb.  Does it mean that somebody replaced still in ancient times his burial damaged apparently very early by the robbers?  Or does the tomb at Abusir represent Udjahorresnet's cenotaph?  A definite answer can only be found in further excavation of the shaft tomb. EA 167

Tomb Inscriptions

      Among the inscriptions on the walls of the tomb and the sides of  inner sarcophogus were several in which Udjahorresne cites his titulary.  Here, as in his statue inscription, he boast that he is "the chief physician of Upper and Lower Egypt" and "the overseer of the royal navy" (EA166)   Both of these titles were problematic for the excavators.  For Bareš the reference to Udjahorresne as "chief physician" was particularly disconcerting.  He comments:

Till now there is not a single hint to the possibility that Udjahorresnet may have otained this title sooner, i.e. during Dyn. 26.  It may be noted that even the military and administrative titles which Udjahorresnet has certainly held only in the time of Dyn. 26 and not later appear several times on the walls of the sarcophogus chamber and on the inner sarchophogus.  Contrary to the inscription on Udjahorresnet's statue, however, they are not accompanied here by any mention pertaining to the period of their use. BFD 8 n.37

        The tomb construction followed the usual plan, but according to the inscriptions the typical construction time line could not have been followed.  Herein lay the problem for Bareš.

        In the first place the foundation deposits clearly argued that the wall construction began under Amasis and therefore, in all probability, should have been completed during the time of the 26th dynasty.   Aditionally,  the walls of the sarcophogus chamber and the inner sarcophogus were covered by titles that Udjahorresne held only in the time of the 26th dynasty, at least according to the chronology adopted by the traditional history.   Udjahorresnet's naval command is cited as a case in point.  In this instance the Egyptologists agreed that Udjahorresnet was referring to a naval command he held at the time of writing, obviating the need to include the name of Knemibre.  All things considered, for Bareš there was no doubt that the tomb construction and sarcophogus inscriptions began together in the last years of Amasis, thus ca. 527/6 B.C..

The wall which surrounded the tomb was apparently built in the time of Amasis.  In the deposits, only the names of Amsis appear.  Usually the foundation deposits have been laid during the foundation ceremonies, i.e. before the building activities began.  We may thus admit that the building of Udjahorresnet's tomb started sometime under Amasis. BFD 7

        Bareš quickly reviewed the only two possible solutions.  He first suggested the possibility that the tomb was completed on schedule, under Amasis,  and that the sarcophogus was inserted later, being moved through the vertical and horizontal shafts.   The idea was quickly rejected.   The title "chief physician" was also inscribed on the tomb walls, and moving the massive sarcophogus through the vertical and horizontal shafts was out of the question.  Bareš appropriately concluded: "such a possibility is hardly conceivable and in fact nothing speaks in favour of it" (BFD 8)

        The only possible alternative was to assume that the tomb and sarcophogus constructions were begun in Amasis reign, then left incomplete for a dozen years, only to be completed at the death of Udjahorresne in ca. 514 B.C..

We may suppose, therefore, that Udjahorresnet started to build his tomb and, perhaps, also prepare his anthropoid inner sarcophagus in the last years of Amasis.  Very probably, any work on either the tomb itself or the inner sarcophagus had to be stopped in the early years of the Persian dominion and was resumed only later.  Perhaps due to the death of Udjahorresne, all works in his tomb were interrupted shortly before finishing it. (BFD 8)

        The matter must be left there, with Verner and Bareš arguing their respective points of view.  The debate is pointless.   The confusion is caused by a faulty Egyptian chronology for the Saite dynasty, which mistakenly believes that Amasis predeceased Udjahorresne by a dozen years.  With Amasis properly positioned at the end of the 5th century, the problem of the tomb inscriptions and the empty sarcophogus disappear.   The matter will be discussed below.  But first a few remarks concerning several questions not raised by the excavators.

        The first question concerns the enclosure wall constructed by Amasis.   It is highly unusual, to say the least, to find an Egyptian king participating in the tomb construction of a subordinate.   Why did Amasis build the wall?  Even if we accept that Udjahorresne was a naval commander, which we definitely do not, his office was not sufficiently important to warrant this special attention.    A family connection might explain the matter, but should be ruled out entirely by the absence of Amasis name in the tomb inscriptions.  If Udjahorresne were related to Amasis, then why does he not mention the fact at every available opportunity.  But neither on his statue, nor on the walls of his tomb, nor on his sarcophogi is their any hint of a genealogical relationshiip with the royal family.

       Additional and related questions can also be directed toward the inscriptions of Udjahorresne.  Assuming that Udjahorresne was merely a particular favorite of Amasis, and that on that account alone he constructed an enclosure wall for Udjahorresne's tomb, we ask why Udjahorresne acknowledges no debt of gratitute in his tomb inscription?   Why is Amasis not mentioned in Udjahorresne's tomb?  The absence of his name demands an explanation.    Udjahorresne repeats his title "overseer of the royal navy" from the statue inscription but this time fails to acknowledge Knemibre as the king.   Why?    Here was the perfect opportunity to boast of his favored status with royalty.   But Udhahorresne is silent.

        In the revised history these question are easily answered.   Udjahorresne did not mention Amasis because he had never heard of Amasis, whose birth followed Udjahorresne's death by forty years.  He expressed no gratitude for Amasis' constructing the enclosure walls of his tomb because those enclosure wall were built over sixty years after his death.   The name of Knemibre is not particularly important, because Knemibre is a subordinate of Udjahorresne, a foreign kings whose tribute he was commissioned to collect.

        There is only one scenario that adequately explains the empty sarcophogus and the anomalies in the inscriptions.   We return to Verner's secondary burial and cenotaph theories.  In the traditional history, with Udjahorresne following Amasis, Bareš could argue against Verner for a primary burial.  In the revised history, with Amasis following Udjahorresne by half a century, the secondary burial and cenotaph theories are not only probable, but necessary.

Udjahorresne the Cult Hero

        We have observed already from Udjahorresne's statue inscription that he appeared there as a hero, not as a villain.  When Verner argued his secondary burial and cenotaph hypotheses he was not basing his assumption alone on the empty inner sarcophogus.    Adjacent to the enclosure wall the excavators found artifacts, including at least one burial, all dated later than the time of Udjahorresne, which suggested that the tomb site had become in antiquity a place for the worship or veneration of Udjahorresne.  Even Bareš acknowledges that :

People burying their dead near to the tomb of Udjahorresnet certainly had to have some special motive to use this place, rather remote in comparison with the surroundings of Dyn. 5 pyramids or Old Kingdom tombs covering the desert slopes between Abusir and North Saqqara.  A tiny part of a wooden anthropoid coffin was unearthed in 1990 on the bottom of an otherwise empty grave pit to the east of Udjahorresnet's enclosure wall.  Another burial pit, in which only remnants of three thick ropes of twisted papyrus were found lying across the bottom, has been revealed this season near to the mouth of a small shaft in front of the east enclosure wall.  All these burials seem to prove the assumption that Udjahorresnet was in some form venerated among the local inhabitants.  (BFD 7)

the famous statue of Udjahorresnet, now kept in the Vatican, was certainly intended to have been exhibited in a temple area.  The same can perhaps be said about another (in fact, much later) statue of this dignitary found at Mitrahina and showing that the cult of Udjahorresnet was in some form living even 177 years after his death, i.e. shortly before the arrival of Alexander the Great into Egypt or, perhaps, as late as in the first years of the Greek supremacy over Egypt.  Another fragment with Udjahorresnet's name, said to have been found in the Memphite regionas well, comes very probably from another statue exhibited also in a temple.  The funerary cult of Udjahorresnet seems, therefore, to have been attested in both Sais and Memphis, perhaps the most important religious centres in Egypt during his life.[37]

        On the assumption that Verner is correct and that Udjahorresne's tomb is either a secondary burial or a cenotaph we can proceed to account for the evidence.  Udjahorresne died about 514 B.C..  On the secondary burial hypothesis, we can assume he was buried elsewhere, perhaps Sais, perhaps Memphis.  The original burial was disturbed; the mummy destroyed.  A replacement sarcophogus was constructed and deposited in the shaft tomb at Abusir in the process of being constructed for Udjahorresne by Amasis. This tomb was later violated by thieves who cut a hole in the inner sarcophogus sufficient to determine that it contained no mummy and no treasure.  The thieves left empty handed.

        The cenotaph hypothesis would be similar save for the original burial.  Udjahorresne perhaps died on a journey abroad, possibly in Elam or in Babylon to which we have already conjectured he had been deported in 564 B.C. by Nebuchadrezzar and where most of his family possibly still resided.  Having acquired the status of cult hero through his exploits under Nebuchadrezzar, Cambyses and Darius, a tomb cenotaph was created by his great-grandson Amasis, only shortly after the beginning of his reign in 449 B.C.

        We repeat the claim without laboriously reviewing the evidence that every anomaly discussed by the excavators disappears entirely with Amasis rightly positioned following the death of Udjahorresne  Only one query lingers, namely, the one raised independently above.   What prompted Amasis to establish a funerary cult or cult worship center for Udjahorresne?    If Udjahorresne was not Amasis' naval commander then what relationship actually held between the king and the "chief physician" which would lead Amasis to construct the Abusir shaft tomb?   We return to our hypothesis that Amasis and Udjahorresne were related.  That assumption was immediately ruled out earlier on the basis of the traditional history.   Udjahorresne, following Amasis in time,  would have mentioned his relationship with the king.   But in the revised history no such problem exists.   If Amasis was a descendant of Udjahorresne, then the latter's ignorance of a genealogical connection with royalty is understandable.

        We argue therefore that Udjahorresne was an ancestor of Amasis,  that they were in fact close relatives.  Specifically, we argue that Udjahorresne was the patriarch of Amasis' family.  He was not Amasis' naval commander; he was his great-grandfather.  If so it is not at all surprising that Amasis would single out his great-grandfather, the defender of Egypt against Nebuchadrezzar and the hero of the Persian liberation, as an object for national veneration, even sixty years after his death.

Henat Family Tree

        Numerous articles have been written discussing and debating the familty relationships of the Saite dynasty kings.  It is known that Amasis was an interloper, not the son of  Apries who preceded him.    The names of several of his wives are known.  His mother's name is known as well.   The claim is made that we do not know his father.[39]   But in fact the genealogy of Amasis is described in great detail in several influential Egyptological journals dating back to the mid-twentieth century.  It is generally referred to as the Henat family tree, but would be more appropriately be called the Udjahorresne or Amasis genealogy in view of the greater notariety of these two notables  We reproduce the genealogy in figure 1 precisely as depicted in articles by Anthes [40] and Jelinkova [41], omitting several questionable secondary connections.

                                                                                          Figure 1

        We note the prominence of the name of Udjahorresne in this family.  We also note that the parents of the patriarch are not known.  But he is almost certainly the owner of the statue and the tomb.   There is no mistaking A'hmose-sa-Neith (Amasis).  His bothers Psamtik-sa-Neith and Knemibre will be discussed in chapter 10 when we examine details from the life of Amasis.  We are not discouraged when Egyptologists claim that this genealogy belongs earlier.  The same confusion of Darius I and II which caused problems with the Demotic Chronicle and the Petition of Petesi has caused this genealogy to be misattributed.  The confusion will be corrected later.

        It is time to set matters straight regarding Udjahorresne.   He was not Amasis' naval commander; he was his great-grandfather and he died probably forty years before Amasis was born.  Udjahorresne was not a traitor collaborating with Persian victors; he was a liberator, returning triumphantly with the entourage of Cambyses after four decades in captivity.  Udjahorresne cannot be claimed as proof positive that the Saite dynasty ended in 525 B.C.; his statue and tomb together argue persuasively that the great disruption caused by Nebuchadrezzar was at that time just ending and the Saite dynasty barely beginning.

        Though our argument proceeds, in truth the argument is over.  The two pillars supporting the Saite dynasty in its wrongful place have turned out to be illusions.   Taharka did not die in 664 B.C. ending the 25th dynasty and passing the reigns of government to Psamtik I; Takeloth III died that same year and was succeeded by his nephew Rudamon who, if anything, was a patriarch of the emerging 25th dynasty.  Amasis did not die in 526 B.C. yielding power to Psamtik III and thence to the Persians.   The Saite dynasty was then just in its infancy; Amasis great-grandfather was just arriving in the newly liberated province of Persia.

         It is strange how dynasties displaced by 121 years can turn history on its heels.