Arriving in Persian times after the time when the head of gold (Dan. 2:31ff) - the Babylonian Empire - gave way to the chest of silver, in the days of the prophet Daniel and king Belshazar [5], it appears, we also have a change in writing technology. Clay tablets and stone were now often replaced by papyrus, leather and occasionally metal foils. These letter writing surfaces are easier to process for the scribe but archaeologically speaking, they are also part of the reason why in situ written source material of the Persian period is much scarcer than even during the age of the Assyrian empire just before. The consequence is that we do not know as much about the Persians as we would like to and today, for that reason, some scholars are reaching incongruous conclusions as a result. This situation also should prepare us to be very cautious in accepting historical explanations mostly based on archaeological excavation evidence. More often then not it is a difficult task to interpret such evidence correctly in the absence of anciently written guidelines and accurate points of references.

Below we discuss anciently written, contemporary letters which are among the only sources shedding light on the goings on during the time of the Persian Empire. As such, these source letters ought to help us understand a little better about people and their duties. As we witness today the difference between reading a picture based writing method, hieroglyphics, and telling the same history in alphabetic script, these letters stem from a time when hieroglyphics were still used in Egypt. We believe that the discrepancies we are discussing on this website are largely based on the differences between these two - hieroglyphic and alphabetic differences, where hieroglyphics, as a less understood or verifiable language, is the weaker component in our opinion. Hieroglyphics are less understood since we are trying to understand its meaning largely from late or later period lingual relationships and source information.

The Cowhide Letters

In 1932 the German archaeologist Ludwig Borchardt (1863-1938) was in Cairo, Egypt, when he was contacted by an antiquities dealer who offered to sell him a leather pouch full of leather scrolls written in Aramaic. The dealer did not seem to know where these scrolls originated from but there were 14 scrolls and a number of fragments in the bag. It was Eugen Mittwoch, a Hebrew-Aramaic scholar, who first read these scrolls. [Godfrey R. Driver, `Aramaic Documents of the 5th Century BC', (Oxford, 1954)]

From Arsham to Nehitur

"From Arsham ( Arsam) to Nehtihur ( Nekht-hor): And now previously, when the Egyptians rebelled, then Psamshek ( Psamtek) the previous pekida [governor] took strict care of our domestic staff and property which were [are] in Egypt, so that my estate suffered no sort of loss; he also sought out enough staff of craftsmen of various skills and other property and made them over to my estate ...

He then reprimands Nekht-hor.

"Do you show yourselves active and take strict care of our staff and property that my estate may suffer no sort of loss; also seek out enough staff of craftsmen of various races from elsewhere and bring them into my court and mark them with my brand and make them over to my estate, just as the previous pekidia [governors] used to do.
Thus let it be known to thee: if my staff [of serfs] or other property suffer any sort of loss and you [plural] do not seek out others from elsewhere and add them to my estate, you will be called strictly to account, and reprimanded. Artahay is aware of this order, Rast is the clerk." [G.R. Driver, Ibid., Letter VII, p. 28]

From Warfis to Nekht-hor

And now, Maspat my officer has sent word to me and said, saying: `A letter from Arsam was delivered in Babylon to Psamshek, son of Ahapi, to assign certain Cicilians, 5 [men], (to me)' and 5 Cicilians, all (told) [5] men, [were delivered] to me in Babylon.'
Afterwards (I) asked Nekht-hor for the Cicilians, 5 men, but he did not deliver them to me.
Now thus says Warfis:
`Behold! do thou look at Arsam's letter which they brought to Psamshek regarding the Cicilians whom they promised to me, 5 men, [and] do [thou] deliver to Maspat those 5 Cicilians apart from (those) who were delivered (to him) at Babylon, 5 men.'
Also he sent a complaint about thee, saying:
`Nekht-hor has taken and appropriated the wine which is in Pampris and the crop from the land, all (of it).'
Now restore the wine (and) the crop and anything else that thou hast taken, all (of it), to Maspat, (that) he may appropriate it to my estate lest, when thou comest here, thou art (required to) make good the loss of anything that thou hast taken and art called to account on this (matter).
Also Maspat has sent word, saying:
`He has beaten up my lady's domestic staff and taken property from them.'
Now (as for) thee - thou hast no business with my domestic staff; so restore to my staff whatever thou hast forcibly taken from them, so that Maspat may not again send a complaint." [Ibid., Letter VIII, p. 36]

Persian Exploits in Egypt

From these letters we learn how the Persians exploited Egypt leading eventually to military resistance by Inaros/Ramses XI, Amyrteos and Ramses III/Nectanebo. Inaros, very early in the courier of Arsames, succeeded in capturing Marea located near the site were later would be Alexandria. After capturing this town he had little trouble in bringing the rest of the country on his side. But his successes were not a result of his strength and he knew he would soon loose it again unless he could find some allies. He appealed to Athens who agreed to send a fleet of 200 ships to Egypt. No doubt the royal credentials of Inaros, and probable access to state funds to pay for this support, helped convince Athens that this might be a good decision. In the revised model we believe that Inaros, a contemporary of the Persian plenipotentiary Arsames, was none other than Ramses XI as we point it out in our discussion of the 21st Dynasty.

Arsames, Nekht-hor, Nekht-hor's son Psamtek, Ianaros and Amyrteous lived during the 5th century BC. Archaeologists found basalt slabs of Psamtek at Naucratis in Egypt which also had the name of one, Nekht-nebef engraved on it. Both then, Psamtek and Nekht-nebef were contemporaries. But it was Arsames who, next to the great King of Persia, employed these officials to make sure that he himself and his lord were receiving a steady stream of riches from Egypt. In doing so he employed coercion, confiscating properties under the slightest pretense and force, methods the ancients had long known and lived under. Nekht-hor, Nekht-nebef and Psamtek were powerful officials in their own homeland and wrote their name in cartouches but were not seated kings with a pedigree. Modern historians displaced them from their true time period and selected them to represent the 26th Dynasty, but the records of their wars, laws, overcoming the eleven rulers, tombs and mummies are non-existent. Modern historians continue to mix the facts about these individuals of the 4th century BC with those of the 26th Dynasty also known as the 19th Dynasty of Egypt. They are telling the story, first from the Egyptian monuments, and again from the Greek authors. Psamtek was not Psammetichus and Nekht-nebef was not Nectanebo I. They were perfunctories of the Persian crown.

We know more about the 18th Dynasty then we know about the 26th, even though it is much closer to us in time. May the reader be made aware of this confused period in history, records of which are sparse because they were not seated pharaohs.

The personalities of interest to us we meet then in the letters of Arsames and on Egyptian monuments. Here are the sources of our information:

Other historians have been speculating that `Arzu' described as `Arzu the Asiatic' was `Uzziah-Azariah', king of Judah who then supposedly ruled in Egypt between the 19th and 20th Dynasty without specifying if they mean he was physically present in Egypt or if he ruled through his proxies.
We have shown that this `Arzu' was the Persian satrap `Arsames' of whom there is no record that he ever set foot in Egypt. In our opinion this identification with a Judean king is once again a result of faulty chronology. It seems hard to proof that a Judean king of the later 8th century would have been such a conniving and hard driving overseer of a satrapy as Arsames was. We need only read the letters of `Arsames' to realize that they fit the overtones of Persian satraps. A comparison may be at hand with the Persian satraps Ariamnes [satrap of Cappadocia), Artaphernes, Mausolus, satrap of Caria in the 4th century BC, Hydarnes (the general who led the Persians at Thermopylae), Sisamnes, Pharnabazos, Tithrantes, Orontes of Daskylium and Tissaphernes, descendant of Hydarnes, of Sardis (413-395 BC). [See: Maspero, `History of Egypt', Vol. IX, p. 296 and other books] Darius, who with his son-in-law Cyrus took Babylon, had satraps by the name of Gobryas and Gadata, who would not materially assist him in the campaign. Aryandes, satrap under Darius I, was executed for overstepping his office. Hydarnes also became satrap of Media. From sources we know that he was still satrap in -499. According to Herodotus, his son Sisamnes (-480) was satrap of Aria and the younger Hydarnes (II) of the whole Greek side of Asia over the Lydian region. And true to the statement of Herodotus, Persian names express some bodily or mental excellence and end all with the letter `s' to the Greeks, however, according to others the ending `ek' as in `Toprak', `Marlik', `Psamshek' or `Psamtek' is a characteristic ending for Persian names. [According to Professor Martin Dickson, Princeton University; See A.H. Sayce, Notes on Assyrian & Egyptian History in PSBA, Vol. XXX, 1908, p. 13-(13)-19; He cites names like: Baleus, of which Xerxes, the Persian Khshayarsha, is given as an equivalent, Arma-mithres (Sos-armos), Belokhos, Balaios, Altadas (corruption of Askatades/Derkatades?), Mamitos, Sphairos (Sparetos, Sparthaios), Thinaios, Teutamos, Derkylos, Pyriatides] Seal impression evidence was found for another Persian period during excavations of building B at Tell el-`Umeiri. The seal was probably written in the Ammonite language reading `Shuba, Ammon'. Scholars believe these types of seals were used in the Persian province of Ammon in this case by the provincial governor or tax collector by the name of `Shuba'. [`Biblical Archaeology Review', Nov/Dec, 1993, p. 34]

This travesty of misidentification perpetrated by modern scholars cries out for correction.

Between about 1966 to 1975 numerous fragmentary Aramaic papyri and ostraca in Aramaic and Phoenician were found by Professor W.B. Emery, Dr. G.T. Martin and H.S. Smith on the Sacred Animal Necropolis site at North Saqqara. The papyri were numbered from 1 to 202 and the ostraca from I to XXVI. "Each text has in addition two other numbers... The first is the excavator's number: those papyri and ostraca found by Emery are numbered by the grid square of the excavation, those found by Martin according to the season when they were excavated; the papyri are additionally designated AP (Aramaic Papyrus). The second number, that given in square brackets after the excavator's number, represents the entry of the object in the consecutive register of the excavation kept for the Egyptian Antiquities Organization.
Papyrus 1 is therefore numbered `H5-AP44 [1951], H5 being the grid square of discovery; ostracon III is 71/2-290 [5558], 71/2." [J.B. Segal, H.S. Smith, Aramaic Texts From North Saqqara, Oxford, 1983]

The Aramaic papyri No. 1-63, 66-101, 107-110, 112-188 are fragments found in 1966-7 in a deposit of organic material in the large walled courtyard west of the rock-cut entrance to the catacombs of the Mothers of Apis and north of the Main Temple Enclosure. [W.B.Emery in JEA 53 (1967), 141-5] The Main Temple Enclosure comprised a central shrine, probably dedicated to Osiris the Baboon and Horus the Falcon. Decorated architectural elements from the temple-shrines show the cartouches of Nectanebo II (that is the conventional Nekhtharhebe/Nakhthorheb) ... .

Archaeology is of little help in dating these papyri; it shows that these accumulated archives may have been discarded and deposited at the site at any time between the 3rd and 4th century AD, and they may have been written at an earlier date. The texts are written by various hands. Most are in the style of Aramaic familiar from Elephantine and elsewhere in Egypt during the period of Persian domination.
An interesting feature of the papyri is the interchange between and , and and in Aramaic words. At first sight these phenomenon may argue for the period of Persian rule in Egypt when the two alternative forms of pronunciation were current side by side, before, that is, and became the invariable rule. But we may have here a particular local dialect.

Calendrical information might have given a clue to the dating of the papyri. Some Egyptian month names appear, ... however they do not appear in the same context ... A number of year dates are given without the name of the king. Two are of significance. At No. 30a, 1 there is an allusion to the 34th year and at No. 32, 1f. to the 37th and 38th years. If we assume - certainly rightly - that these are regnal years, they can apply to Psammetichus I (conv. 664-610 BC) or Amasis (conv. 570-526 BC) of the Saite Dynasty or to Artaxerxes I (465-424 BC) or Artaxerxes II (404-359 BC) among the Achaemenids. The 34th year - but not the 37th and 38th years - could apply to Darius I (522-486 BC). From the time of Artaxerxes I dates also the papyrus which aided scholars to determine that the fifth month (the month of Ab), of the 7th year of Artaxerxes was from July 23 to August 21 457 BC, the very time when the Persian decree to rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple in the days of Nehemiah, became effective soon after his arrival in the fall.

Of these kings the most likely is Artaxerxes I in the 5th century or Artaxerxes II largely in the 4th century. Two dates in other papyri mention a king by name - the 5th year of Darius and the 9th year of Darius. In both passages the name Darius is spelled in the longer form which would indicate a later, rather than an earlier usage. It is unlikely, then, that it refers to Darius I. If it refers to Darius II, the 5th year would be 419 BC, the year of the famous `Passover papyrus' from Elephantine; the 9th year would be 415 BC. [Ibid. p. 1-4]

But these texts feature a none royal name we already referred to above, Psamtik, not necessarily the Psamtek we mentioned earlier though. No doubt there were numerous period names in fashion at any given time in history. In addition reference is made to the "... Ionians and the Carians in the harbor of, presumably, Memphis. The recipient of the letter is instructed to prevent them from going out by blocking their passage(?); he is to detain those Ionians and Carians that he has seized and to withhold from them equipment and food."

a) H5-AP34 [1581] p. 45, 46; `... son of Psamtik';
b) H5-AP58 [2201], p. 64; `house of Psamtik';
c) H5-AP11 [1558], p. 76; `Psamtik son of SH';

1. "... also their ships
2. Ionians () and Carians (`krky' to be read Carians) that will say
3. these ... ; afterwards you will not permit to go out in a forward direction, but
4. ... of the barrier; they will be carrying bags of tanner's work that will come that
5. you will not permit passage; and the Ionians and Carians that you will seize keep with you
6. i(f) they will be able to flee in a forward direction. Let there be six chains there until from you
7. Now you appoint suitable men; between the gates let them guard strictly
8. equipment and food; they shall not permit the Ionians and Carians
9. when these are there; afterwards do not release for
10. complement of the ships, equipment and food
11. ... Egyptians, do thus when neither food nor ...
12. and from there also afterwards from the king was sent
13. and the reckoning between the gates of the sea when neither food nor
14. ... these will find from there suitable men
15. these ...; make for them most worthy men and put for them
16. n]ow when food and the complement of the ships for each
17. they will [...] to these rascals. Iddinmarduk wrote this."

[5] Many may not know that Daniel (ca. 623-532) became the most powerful Prime Minister in the days of King Nebuchadnezzar (605-562 BC) of Babylon and, later, in the days of the Medo-Persian King Darius the Mede (601-539-537), in the then known world. In the days of Darius, he was the head of the three top satraps, who governed the 120 satraps which oversaw affairs in the empire for the king. In the days of the long active Arsames (ca. 470-407 BC), things had changed considerably.