Comparing Royal Name Hieroglyphics

As we showed already, Ramses II was known to the Hebrews and Greeks as Pharaoh Necho, Merenptah was Hophra/Apries and Ramses III was known to the Greeks as Nectanebo (I). In the same way Seti the Great was Psammetichus and Setnakht Acoris, even though our evidence for Setnakht/Acoris is not as solid as to the kings mentioned before owing to the sparcity of records. Since the 20th and 30th Dynasty are composed of the same personalities, we shall compare some of their names to see what we might learn. In particular are we interested this time in Teos or Tacos/Tachos of the 30th Dynasty.

We want to compare the hieroglyphic signs of Teos/Tacos, actually `Djedhur', with those of Ramses IV, V and VI and note any similarities. There is only one glyph between Ramses IV and only two glyphs between Ramses V and `Djedhur' which are the same. The hunkered down figure holding the ankh sign is seen on many other name shields. Its philological value is not always clear and there are many variations often referring to a god. The wavy line pattern stands for the `n' sound.

Ramses IV ........ Ramses V ............ Ramses VI Cartouche for `Djedhor' `Irma-enre Djeho-setpenanhur' The cartouche of Ramses IV is also found on the shoulder of a kneeling statue made of dark green schist located in the British Museum and here shown in the lower drawing of his name. The Egyptian individual by the name of `Djedhur' or `Dj[ed]-he[r]-se[tep-en-Iniheret]' was chosen to represent `Teos/Tacos'. Partial glyphs of his name are shown on the left. We are interested to find out how `Djedhor' became `Teos' and a member of the 30th Dynasty. Was it on the strength of a vague similarity of the two names? As we already know, during Persian times it was not uncommon for influential officials to write their name in royal name circles or cartouches. In fact it was more often than not the chosen method of self-commemoration. And so is it that we call `Akheperenre' `Thutmoses II. and one of the `Menkheperres' Thutmoses III (`born of the god Thoth'). These kings then are known today by their Greek names. Names which bear little or no resemplance to their Egyptian names.

When archaeologists and influential Egyptologists began to thumb through the names of Egyptian personalities in trying to find out who this `Tachos' or `Teos' known from the Greek sources could have been. They decided on `Djedhur'. There is no corroberation by independent means to conclude that `Djedhur' was `Tachos'. He could have been the overseer of some nome at some period of time not known to us. During Persian times, as overseer he would be the boss, the state governor so to speak if in fact he was an overseer. He could also have been some other state official of whom nothing further is known. The origin of the two partial name fragments are unknown but thought to be Qantir. But we really don't know where they came from and who `Djedhur' was.

"Meanwhile Nectanebo had died in -361, and had been succeeded by Tachos/Teos. The new pharaoh deemed the occasion opportune to make a diversion against Persia and to further secure his own safety: he therefore offered his support to the satraps, who sent Rheomitres as a delegate to discuss the terms of an offensive and defensive alliance. Having inherited from Nectanebo a large fleet and a full treasury, Tachos entrusted to the ambassador 500 talents of silver, and gave him fifty ships, with which he cruised along the coast of Asia Minor toward Leukę. His accomplices were awaiting him there, rejoicing at the success of his mission, but he himself had no confidence in the final issue of the struggle, and merely sought how he might enter once more into favor with the Persian court; he therefore secured his safety by betraying his associates. He handed over the subsidies and the Egyptian squadron to Orontes, the satrap of Daskylium, and then seizing the insurgent chiefs sent them in chains to Susa. These acts of treachery changed the complexion of affairs; the league suddenly dissolved after the imprisonment of its leaders, and Artaxerxes re-established his authority over Asia-Minor. Egypt became once more the principal object of attack, and by the irony of fate Pharaoh had himself contributed to enrich the coffers and reinforce the fleet of his foes. In spite of this mischance, however, circumstances were so much in his favor that he ventured to consider whether it would be more advantageous to forestall the foe by attacking him, rather than passively to wait an onslaught behind his own lines. He had sought the friendship of Athens, and, though it had not been granted in explicit terms, the republic had, nevertheless, permitted Chabrias to resume his former post at his side. Chabrias exhorted him to execute his project, and as he had sufficient money to defray the expenses of a long campaign outside his own borders, the Athenian general instructed him how he might procure the necessary funds. He suggested to him that, as the Egyptian priests were wealthy, the sums of money annually assigned to them for the sacrifices and maintenance of the temples, would be better employed in the service of the state, and counseled him to reduce or even to suppress most of the sacerdotal colleges. The priests secured their safety by abandoning their personal property, and the king graciously deigned to accept their gifts, and then declared to them that in future, as along as the struggle against Persia continued, he should exact from them 9/10 of their sacred revenues. This tax would have sufficed for all requirements if it had been possible to collect it in full, but there is no doubt that very soon the priests must have discovered means of avoiding part of the payment, for it was necessary to resort to other expedients." [Maspero, `History of Egypt', Vol. IX]

Return to 21st Dynasty Main Menu