"Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will give Pharaoh-hophra king of Egypt into the hands of his enemies ... as I gave Zedekiah king of Judah into the hand of ... his enemy." Jeremiah 44:30.

Since we date Necho II/Ramses II from 605-569 followed by Merneptah/Hophra how could Jeremiah refer to Hophra who was no primary king at the time of the fall of Jerusalem?

Young's Concordance states it this way:

"Pharaoh Hophra, priest of the sun. A king of Egypt whose overthrow by Nebuchadnezzar was foretold by Jeremiah the prophet. BC 570. Herodotus reports his death by a rival king [or a general], Amasis."

Perhaps one full year or else a number of months close to a year before Merneptah became ruler, Jeremiah must have penned the above words in Jeremiah 44:30. By that time it must have been clear to him that Hophra/Apries/Merenptah was the new king in waiting and projected the demise of this new king and compared it to the demise of Zedekiah some 17 years before. It stands to reason as the end of the life of Ramses II was approaching people may have been aware that whatever was the illness afflicting Ramses would in time be the cause of his death and a new ruler was chosen for a smooth transition - this new ruler was Hophra/Apries/Merenptah.

Since the campaign against Kadesh is dated to the 5th year of Ramses II, counting from his date as sole ruler after the death of his father, but the overall length of his reign would often include the coreign with Seti perhaps in classical, oriental fashion of exaggerating, and an effort to impress. In other words, he could date his regnal years in two different ways, a method not unknown from ancient times.

The Papyrus Anastasis III dates from the 3rd year of Merneptah and describes the Egyptians as possessing strategic places in the highlands of southern Palestine; it also tells of the arrival of a military commander at `Sile', coming from "the Wells of Merenptah-hotphima'e which are in the hills." [150]

This 3rd year of his sole rule would be about 566 BC, Egypt was at this time not challenged from the northern countries. Nebuchadnezzar was getting close toward the end of his life. It is entirely possible that Egyptian troops felt save in setting themselves up in the region.

The evidence for Merneptah's Palestinian ventures come from Karnak where Frank Yurko found the cartouche of Amenmesse (Amasis II, about 558-525 BC) superimposed over that of Ramses II and his again superimposed by Seti II (Psammetichus II, for 6 months in 525 BC ) The battle scene of Kadesh/Carchemish carved by the artists of Ramses II also was replaced by those of Merneptah/Hophra against Ashkelon by plastering over those of Ramses II and carving his own there. But the most telling detail of the covered up battle scene of Ramses II are the remaining wavy lines indicating water which Amasis and Seti II did not destroy in their changeover. These wavy lines represent the river against whose shoreline the Egyptian troops were pushed which was a significant barrier to their escape. It hardly fits the description of the Orontes but is well suited for the wide Euphrates river. These recurring wavy line patterns representing water in the `kadesh' scenes of Ramses II in our opinion stand for a larger body of water than the Orontes ever had. That is why it impressed the Egyptians so much to keep representing it. [220]

As can be imagined F. Yurko's article was not without a challenger. Anson Rainey wanted to call the inhabitants defending Ashkelon Canaanites instead of Israelites. In Yurko's reply he defends his identification of the defenders as more likely to be Israelites. We would remind the reader that during all of the reign of Pharaoh Merneptah Israel was in Exile in Babylon and their land was occupied largely by a mix of Arabs, Syrians and many other peoples, they were neither Canaanites nor Israelites. Their appearance is a typical appearance which fit many populations at this time in the Middle Eastern countries. The men have beards, they wear head bands and clothing reaching to their feet held together with a girdle. The hair do is similar to the style shown on the king of Hatti, Hattsulis/Nebuchadnezzar.

The lingering question we may have is, if these changes in the cartouches from Merneptah to Amenmesse to Seti II was really instigated by these kings, why are they so faint and not deeper carvings? Could these be just changes made by others at later times without the involvement of these rulers at all? Perhaps we should allow the possibility that Yurko's claim of these changes made by these kings is not unfalsifiable. On the other hand, it was not the kings themselves who took hammer and chisels into their hand. Reliefs such as these were made by workmen who may have just been too disinterested to do a more permanent job. If they are contemporary changes they may represent chronological interdependencies, if not, chronological conclusions should perhaps not be based on them.

The other observation we should mention is that the nomen of Amenmesse shown in the article by Frank Yurko does not feature the double sign but instead employs . Similarly in the case of the nomen of Seti II the changeover leaves out the commonly seen . The particular kings may still be meant since it is not uncommon that cartouches use some variant glyphs or even leave out a glyph.(?) On the other hand could it also open up the possiblity that other individuals are meant.(?)

---

Question: If Merneptah was Hophra wouldn't that bring disorder into the intricately laid out pottery schemes and excavation layers in Palestine?

Answer: Yes, it would. But as we try to bring out elsewhere, we regard much of the Canaanite period as belonging to Israel. Everything has to be moved forward in time and some layers may need to be revised. Basically, the archaeology of Palestine is a maze and we acknowledge it is not a pleasant task to wade through it all this late in the history of the study of archaeology but we believe it could be done. Already there were heard voices pointing out that the so-called Philistine centers or cities do not seem to have the mass of the type of pottery ascribed to them as one would expect. We believe much of the Philistine pottery belongs to Greek/Seti the Great times and that the Mycenaean Age ran concurrently with the Geometric Age and even outexisted it. [See `The Greek Age in the Shadows of Egyptian Chronology'.]

---

The Libyan Conflict

According to estimates Cyrene was supposed to have been founded by Greek speaking settlers ca. 630 BC. The archaeology of this area is written up mostly by Italian and French archaeologists. But the 4th century history of this region is rarely even mentioned owing to the preponderance of ruins from the later periods. While the architectural and cultic aspects are frequently discussed its military history of the 4th century is rarely referred to.

The rule of Hophra was overshadowed with his conflict with the Libyans. We read, "When the Lybians began their attacks on Egypt from the west, they did not confine themselves to the route along the coast which was fortified and garrisoned by Ramses II, but proceeded over the routes in the interior. ... The enemy started by cutting off the oasis of Farafra and reached the `Mountains of the Oasis', as it is mentioned in the text of the campaign." [280]

However there were two Libyan peoples by this time, 1) those of Greek descent and 2) native Libyans. According to Herodotus the native Libyans sided with Merneptah/Apries for their land was being taken by foreigners but at some point also sided with the Cyrenians.

"During the time of Battus, the founder of Cyrene, who ruled there for forty years, and of his son Arcesilaus, who ruled for sixteen, the number of people in the town remained equal to that of the original settlers, but under the rule of its third king - known as Battus the Fortunate - an oracle delivered at Delphi was the cause of a great rush amongst the Greeks generally to join the colony. For the people of Cyrene themselves were offering land to new settlers, and the oracle declared that whoever came to delightful Libya after the land was parceled out should one day regret it.

In this way the population of the place greatly increased, and it began to encroach upon the territory of its neighbors. Its expansion continued, until the Libyans under their king, Adicran, in resentment at their loss of territory and the domineering attitude of Cyrene, dispatched an embassy to Egypt and put themselves at the disposal of the Egyptian king Apries, who collected a strong force and sent it against Cyrene." [315]

The relationship between the native Libyans and the Cyrenes was both, one of allegiance and one of resentment, for Herodotus states that the native Libyans and the Greek immigrants were also allied together. We read a few sentences later, that, after the quarrel between Arcesilaus and his brothers "... they (the brothers of Arcesilaus) persuaded the Libyans to withdraw their allegiance from Cyrene." [320]

Therefore the allegiance between the Libyans and Cyrenians was in effect during the heat of the conflict between themselves and Merneptah/Apries and when we read the inscriptions of Merneptah his Libyan enemies must have included both and he did not differentiate between them exactly. This information then seems to support the history as presented by Velikovsky on the conflict between Merneptah and the Libyans being that of Apries against the Greek immigrants of Cyrenaica and their Libyan allies.

And so we read in the records of Merneptah about the Libyans acting together with the Cyrenians in this more recently discovered inscription:

"Regnal year 5, second month of summer, one came to say to His
Majesty: `The vile chief of the Libyans ... and every foreign
land which is with him are penetrating to transgress the
boundaries of Egypt.' Then His Majesty ordered [his] army to
rise up against them."

The great Karnak inscription enumerates Mernaptah's enemies probably headed by the Lybien chief Meryey, the son of Dedy:

"Akwash, Tursha, Luku, the Sherden and the Shekelesh, the Northerners coming from every land." [385]

The Europeans coming from Sardinia were recognized in these names:
Etruscans (Teresh)
Sardinians (Sherden, Sardan) later explained as people from Sardis
Lycians (Luka)
Sicilians (Shekelesh)

All these came into Cyrenaica (eastern Lybia) and participated in the invasion of Egypt by the Aryan peoples of the 13th century according to conventional chronology. This was a sensation in the 1860's when first read. The participation of Europeans in these wars was a strange and remarkable fact. It became a matter of major importance for the entire field of Hellenic studies. Greek sources knew nothing of an invasion of Egypt by the Hellenic or any other people in the 13th century. So how are we going to explain the presence of these people in the 13th century in Libya? How can we understand Herodotus, who inferred that

... but little by little they came to see the necessity of revising their accepted notions. The earlier skepticism was forgotten and out of repetition grew conviction, and now the books dealing with the Helladic or Hellenistic ages contain records of "the first appearance of European peoples" in the documents of world history.

In the usual bombastic style the Athribis stele records that

"the families of Libya are scattered upon the dykes like mice, and
the pharaoh is seizing among them like a hawk." [533]

"Deliver him [the chief of Libya] into the hand of Merneptah, that
he may make him disgorge what he has swallowed, like a crocodile."

"Every old man says to his son: Alas for Libya."

"The wretched fallen chief of Libya fled by favor of night alone."

"Apries sent a great host against Cyrene and suffered a great defeat." [670]

All this took place in the 6th century and it was caused by the migration of Greeks to eastern Libya also called Cyrene. These migrations triggered hostilities:

"During the lifetime of Battus, the founder of Cyrene... an oracle delivered at Delphi was the cause of a great rush among the Greeks generally to join the colony [in Cyrene]. For the people of Cyrene themselves were offering land to new settlers, and the oracle declared that whoever came to delightful Libya after the land was parceled out should one day regret it.
In this way the population of the place greatly increased , and it began to encroach upon the territory of its neighbors. Its expansion continued, until the Libyans under their king, Adrican, in resentment at their loss of territory and the domineering attitude of Cyrene dispatched an embassy to Egypt and put themselves at the disposal of the Egyptian king Apries..."

Soon the new settlers came into a conflict with the neighboring population and Egypt became involved in the conflict.

"Apries, who collected a strong force sent it against Cyrene. The Cyreneans took the field and, marching to the `Well of Thestis in Irsa', engaged and defeated the Egyptian army. This severe defeat - so severe that few of them returned home alive - was doubtless due to the fact that the Egyptians had had no previous experience of Greek fighting and were not prepared to treat it seriously. Apries' subjects blamed him personally for this disastrous campaign...

Merneptah-Apries memorialized his victories in the early stages of the Libyan campaign in a number of inscriptions, of which five still exist. But the wretched ending he would not and could not supply. But Herodotus described it. The Egyptian army on the Libyan front mutinied. Apries sent Amasis (Ahmose), the general, to win over the rebels. Instead, Amasis himself was persuaded by the army to become king. Apries sent his vizier to arrest Amasis, and through him Amasis replied that he would come with his men. Apries cut off the nose and ears of his vizier for bringing this message. Because of this deed the people of the capital became hostile to the king, Apries had to fight his own army, and he could not depend on his own bodyguard of Carians and Ionians, descendants of the mercenaries settled in Egypt by Seti, also known as Psammetich, and Ramses II, also known as Necho.

"Apries armed his mercenaries (a body of 30,000 Carians and Ionians,
who were with him at Sais, where his palace was - a large and noteworthy
building), and advanced to the attack, the Egyptians under Amasis marching
to meet them. The two forces encountered one another at Momemphis, and
prepared for the coming battle." [840]

This battle took place at Memphis and Apries was defeated. This was the end of the long war. The Libyan campaign was ill fated for Merneptah-Apries.

Amasis captured Apries and kept him in his palace; but the people clamored for his life and he was strangled by the mob. [845]

Jeremiah's prophecy in Jeremiah 44:30 that Pharaoh Hophra would be given into the hands of his enemies, as Zedekiah, king of Judah, was given into the hands of his enemy, was fulfilled.

Amasis, who had not ill treated his prisoner of royal clothes and his crown, paid him royal honor after his death; the body was embalmed and placed in a burial vault.

In the skull of the mummy of Merneptah is a round hole made by a sharp, pointed instrument. To explain this injury it was thought that a surgical operation had been performed on Merneptah's head during his lifetime, or that it was made after his death. But this hole is apparently the result of the mortal wound at the hands of his assassins.
[870]

The mystery over the presence of the north Mediterranean immigrants in eastern Libya has been explained. They were the new settlers of Cyrene, who came from all parts of the Greek world.

The notion that white Aryan people were present in Libya and Egypt in the 13th century BC is false. It was the 6th century. From the battle of Kadesh/Carchemish to the end of Merneptah/Apries less than 50 years passed. Merneptah's general Amasis was king for an unconfirmed 40 or 43 years from about 568 to 525 BC. Part of these years may have been as general under his king. He was followed by Psammetich II who reigned only for 6 months.

143 years later the 20th Dynasty came to power under Nectanebo I/Ramses III. During these 143 years, in 525 BC, Egypt was conquered by Cambyses, a Persian king, atrocities were committed against the Egyptian king and the population and Egypt was from now on administered by Persian satraps. Little else is known about Amasis except that he admired the Greeks and opened for them the swampy seacoast where Alexandria was built eventually.

"One comes and goes with singing, and there is no lamentation of mourning people. The towns are settled again anew; as for the one that ploweth his harvest, he shall eat it. Re has turned himself to Egypt; he was born, destined to be the protector, the King Merneptah ... the Sun, driving away the storm which was Egypt, allowing Egypt to see the rays of the sun, removing the mountain of copper from the neck of the people... `The kings are overthrown, saying: SALEM! Not one holds up his head among the Nine Bows. Wasted is Tehenu, Kheta is pacified, plundered is Pekanan, with every evil, carried off is Askalon, seized upon is Gezer, Yenoam is made as a thing not existing.
Israel [-s-r-'-r] is desolated, his seed is not, Palestine has become a widow for Egypt. All lands are united, they are pacified, everyone that is turbulent is bound by King Merneptah, life like Re, every day."

We agree that Israel is referenced here. Ramses II could claim Israel after his archers had killed King Josiah on his first campaign against Carchemish.

The spirit in which this stele was written makes it clear the author is looking back at difficult times for Egypt. They were subjugated, probably even forced to produce certain quantities of goods like copper. We ask, which difficulties were there in 1200 BC, during the 19th dynasty, for Egypt? It becomes apparent that the difficulties arose because of warfare. But warfare on Israel in 1200 BC? What was the reason for the assertion that this stele is a document concerning the Exodus of the Israelites from Palestine as some historians argued? Was it because he was a pharaoh who despoiled Palestine? History does not know of any such event, it only knows of a disaster which overtook the Egyptians. If the vague line means that the Israelites were vanquished by Merneptah, then it would be proof against and not for the identification of Merneptah with the pharaoh of the Exodus.

Another chronological problem used against the Velikovskian revision is that `since the stele deals with the defeat of the Libyans in Merneptah's 5th year, it cannot be dated earlier than 564 BC by Velikovsky. This is 23 years after the fall of Jerusalem, and one may question whether the event would be celebrated at this late date.' [1010]

In our response we like to point out that in our opinion if Merneptah can recall a time for Egypt were an oppressive `mountain of copper' had to be paid in tribute and which he wanted `removed from the neck of the people', why not recalling events from 23 years before? Who was the `mountain of copper' paid too? The Babylonians, or the Assyrians? How far back does Merneptah look in his stele?

Grain or Seed?

Other historians like Peter James want to translate "...his seed is not" as referring to `grain' suggesting it refers to a dry season in the days of King David [2.Samuel 21:1]. In doing so he does not mention that foreign enemies [i.e. Merneptah invading Israel and destroying the fields - a decidedly Hyksos tactic- not a New Kingdom one] were not on the mind of David as to the cause of the famine but the deeds of King Saul were.

A) The phrase in question occurs also in the annals of Pharaoh Ramses III.

"Live the Good God, Montu, when he goes forth, beautiful upon the steed, charging into hundreds of thousands, mighty in valor, stretching the [bow] and shooting the arrows wither he will, fighting ..... piercing with sharp horns, overthrowing the Temeh, slain in their places in heaps before his horses, causing that they cease their opposition in their land, whose sword has overthrown their seed by the might of his father, Amon, in all lands together, Lord of the Two Lands, Ramses III." [1050]

"... I laid low the land of Temeh, their seed is not." [1055]

B) References to `seed' occur also in numerous biblical passages some of which we shall just present without quoting from them. Gen. 3:15; 9:9; 13:15; 16:10; Many more are found.

The important point to remember is that seed often refers to generations of people as the Egyptian inscriptions of Ramses III and Bible passages show. In reading grain Peter James ignores the Jeremiah textual parallels, Egyptian parallels and the prevalent oriental penchant for flowery speech and drawing from images of nature in describing events. It was the devastation caused by the Babylonian invasion of Israel, a neighboring country which never waged war with Egypt, that prompted the author of the Israel stele to comment as he did. We must remember this was in the middle of their 70 year captivity which lasted from 606-536 BC. The land formerly inhabited by the Israelites was still referred to as `Israel', even though other peoples were living in its borders at the time. The end of their 70 year captivity did not come until 536 BC. In revised view Merneptah/Hophra/Apries reigned from 569-558 BC.

Other textual hints placing Ramses III into late period times.

The city of Pekanon is not included in the detailed list of cities in the book of Joshua. Why? Because it belongs into the time of king Pekah of Israel (752-732 BC) and yet its name is found in the stele.

The stele compares the secure position of Egypt with the desolation in Palestine. It is the same idea expressed in:

"...against the Philistines, before that Pharaoh
smote Gaza...Baldness is come upon Gaza, Ashkelon
is cut off with the remnant of their valley..."

"... carried off is Askelon, seized upon is Gezer."

---

That the Israel Stele is not mere poetic propaganda seems to be underscored by the Amada inscription calling Merenptah "the reducer of Gezer". [1130] Similarly the destruction of the Palestinian countryside and cities was then not the work of the Egyptian army, who must have regarded these towns as their traditional outposts since Amarna times, but must have been the work of the Hittite/Babylonians.

"And the elders of the Jews builded ... And the children of Israel, the priests and the Levites and the rest of the children of the captivity, kept the dedication .... And the children of Israel, which were come again out of captivity..." Ezra 6:14, 16, 21.

"And the king [Nebuchadnezzar] spake unto Ashpenaz the master of the eunuchs ... bring certain of the children of Israel ..." Daniel 1:3.

"Croesus ... began the war. When he reached the river Halys, he
crossed it by the existing bridges ... When the army was over the
river and had reached the district called Pteria in Cappadocia
(Pteria is the strongest place here and lies more or less in line
with Sinope on the Black Sea), Croesus encamped and began to
devastate the crops of the Syrians land. He captured the town,
enslaved the inhabitants, and took all of the neighboring settlements." [1210]

"The identification had already been made by Texier in 1834."

"Clear signs of disaster have been found everywhere in the royal
citadel. Not a single building was spared and the surface of the
streets and open squares was found covered with thick layers of
charred wood and mud bricks reddened by fire." [1230]

After this conquest Croesus reigned supreme in Anatolia only a few months longer. Cyrus, emerging from Anshan in Media (Fars), invaded Asia Minor and in the same year, 546 BC, he took Sardis and carried Croesus away to accompany him on his further war exploits as a prisoner. Only 14 years later, in 539 BC Babylon fell after a night of visions and feasting, in the palace built by Nebuchadnezzar for his descendants for eternity.[1250]

So a lot of history happened in such a short time span. If this account does not get the blood of historians pumped up, I don't know what would.

During this time the age of Croesus ended, Amasis ruled over Egypt just a little longer - the Persian period for Egypt began just a few months after the death of Amasis.

Amasis, Seti II and the End of the 19th Dynasty

Seti II, Userkheperure-setepenre, is conventionally dated from about 1199-1193 BC. We presented already the account of the reign of Merneptah and how Amasis became king and not Seti II, son of Merneptah. For some 40-43 years Amasis reigned. After he passed away Seti II had some influence for about 6 months before the Persians invaded Egypt. It appears that Set II is often confused with Sethos of the three brothers. The monumental evidence on Seti II is practically non-existent.

For this reason his period offers a pluthora of theoretical suppositions about the dynastic sequence and all those rulers of whom we have only a vague understanding tend to be pressed into his time. Historians than shore up their favorite scenarios as best they can by making many think they know what they are talking about. What are the sources for the ancestors of the Pharaohs of the 20th Dynasty which are supposed to have succeeded the 19th Dynasty? The only ancestor of Ramses III attested to is his father Setnakht. No link can be made between the 19th and 20th Dynasty from inscriptions of this king. What about the (offline) small temple of Seti II at Karnak? A description of the art work inside is sometimes interpreted that Bay was an official of Seti II or was it Sethos of the three brothers? Next historians interpreted that either Setnakht or Ramses III changed the figure of Bay into that of a crown prince to support the claims of the 20th Dynasty kings to be legitimate successors of Seti II. One document we find sometimes cited is a list of ancestors found at Medinet Habu of the time of Ramses III where it is said that Seti II was the immediate ancestor of Setnakht.

In 1912 there appeared an article describing two bronze swords which were found in Egypt. It was thought one was found at `Zagazig' (Bubastis) and judged to be of northern-European manufacture, the other was reportedly found at Tell-Firaun in the Delta and bears the cartouche of Sethos II just underneath the handle. Straight edged swords (`sf't') were not part of the equipment of Egyptian soldiers and are therefore regarded imports. But we showed already a sword with the cartouche of Merneptah on its blade. In our opinion these swords testify to the closeness of the Greek period to these kings. The source of fine fighting hardware was certainly known and available to them.

Which Seti was the one who overwrote monumental inscriptions by Ramses II?

How many Seti's were there? Convention has a Seti III, which we believe was king who reigned for six months at the end of the 19th Dynasty and who made those changes on the monuments of Ramses II. In revised view the 6 month `reign' of Seti II/III came to an end in 525 BC as a result of the Persian invasion. Setnakht/Achoris ruled from 393-380 BC. We see that over 130 years intervened between these two rulers. Not only does chancellor Bay belong to the time of the three brothers, the confusion between Sethos of the three brothers, Seti I and Seti II is what distorts the true time of these rulers. The personalities which belong into the time of the three brothers are: Ramses-Siptah, Merneptah-Siptah, Twosert (Tausert), Sethos/Seti, Armais/Horemheb, chancellor Bey or Bay. We are talking about the years between 722-688 BC.

The reliefs on the walls of the Second Court of the Temple of Medinet Habu are usually interpreted to represent the procession of royal statues. The sequence of the name standards of this procession are then interpreted to reflect actual dynastic sequences. We are not aware that such sequences have been found on other monuments. According to the description the sequence is as follows:

1. Merenptah, 2. Sethos II, 3. Setnakht, 4. Amenmesse, 5. Siptah, 6. Queen Twosre, (7. missing is the usurper Irsu, who ruled 20 years).

Interpreters then reason that "The position of Amenmesse is still somewhat problematic but there is little doubt that he has to be intercalated between Merenptah and Sethos II in view of the evidence afforded by the succession of the contemporary viziers. Pinhasy and Pensakhmet were the incumbents in years 7 and 8 of Merenptah. The Praemhab of years 5 and 6 of Sethos II was replaced by Hori later in year 1 of Siptah and the latter continued to hold office into the earlier 20th Dynasty. Between Pinhasy and Praemhab, the vizierate for a time at least must have been in the hands of that Amenmose who was discharged by the `Mose' of Papyrus Salt 124. As Cerny has pointed out, this dismissal could only have been affected by a Pharaoh, and the Mose in question is almost certainly Amenmesse." [1310]

Intercalating Amenmesse, where does that leave the supposed sequence found at Medinet Habu? Does that mean that the sequence at Medinet Habu may be based on other criteria then dynastic sequence? Could these names just represent Ramses III most favorite predecessors? Perhaps rulers from whose time period rich treasures were given to him by those who opened their graves? From the El Amarna literature we know that rich presents could get the attention of kings and anyone else without fail.

---

1) a) Seti II - User-kheperu-Ra mer Amen, Userkhepereru-setepenre; Siptah - Akhenre-setepenre.
b) Others theorize that Ramses-Siptah changed his name to Merneptah-Siptah.

Comparing the Ending of the 19th Dynasty and 26th Dynasty
See also `Harmhab' and `Seti'

The Persian period in Egypt, just like the conquest by the Assyrians, arrived suddenly. Cambyses and his sizeable army came, devastated and brought the pharaonic royal house to an end. He did not arrive with quantities of pottery and Persian implements for archaeologists to find today spread out over all of Egypt. Archaeologically speaking then, looking for a Persian period layer during excavations is a rare find. When Persian era artifacts are found most likely this would be from late Persian times. Sir Flinders Petrie remarks in his `Naukratis':

"Roughly speaking, I should suppose level 220 is of about 650 BC, 250 of 600 BC, 285 of 550 BC, and 330 of 520 BC. The data for such an estimate are that the town and temple was probably founded by Psamtik I., judging by the history of the site in general and the earlieness of some of the dedicatory pottery; that the Polemarchos vase can hardly be put later than 600 BC; that the terra-cotta archaic heads are not likely as late as 550 BC; that the glazed figures are akin to those of the scarab factory destroyed in 570 BC, and hence are not later than about 550 BC; that the Phanes vase is about 530 BC; and that the brilliant incised ware with black figures on a buff ground is far from being the latest black figured, and would not be likely to be after the Persian conquest 520 BC, and as nothing later is found, it probably closes the series of dedications in the troubles of the Persian war. Having these probable indications, which are in good agreement with the interval of the strata, we can hardly do wrong in accepting the scale above." [1405]

Unlike the Greeks, the Persians were not known for producing vast quantities of pottery for sale abroad. Any pottery or artifact attributed to them ought to be carefully examined. No doubt interpreting were strata began and/or ended was hardly a very scientific procedure.

The Persian presence in Egypt was largely confined to "... three garrisons were maintained in Egypt at that time, one in the city of Elephantine against the Ethiopians, another in the Pelusiac Daphnae, against the Syrians and Arabians, and a third, against the Libyans, in Marea. (The very same posts are to this day occupied by the Persians, whose forces are in garrison both in Daphnae and in Elephantine.)" [1410]

But the conquerors probably did not set up an effective system of collecting annual tribute until about 470 BC when Arsames began to organize matters. Even then goods largely went one way, out of Egypt to Persia with little exchange. Persian garrisons also were in coastal northern Palestine, the Negev - the approaches toward Egypt. From there they kept a careful eye on the goings on inside their tribute producing state.