Ryholt - New Light on the Legendary King Nechepsos of Egypt

7/29/2019 Ryholt - New Light on the Legendary King Nechepsos of Egypt

1/14

THE JOURNAL OF

EgyptianArchaeology

VOLUME 97

2011

PUBLISHED BY

THE EGYPT EXPLORATION SOCIETY

3 DOUGHTY MEWS, LONDON WC1N 2PG

ISSN 03075133


2/14

The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology

All rights reserved

ISSN -

website: http://www.ees.ac.uk/publications/journal-egyptian-archaeology.html

Published annually by

The Egypt Exploration Society

Doughty Mews

London WC1N 2PG

Registered Charity No.

A limited Company registered in England, No.

Printed in Great Britain by

Commercial Colour Press Plc

Angard House, Forest Road

Hainault

Essex IG6 3HX

Editorial Team

Roland Enmarch, Editor-in-Chief

Violaine Chauvet, Editor

Mark Collier, Editor

Chris Eyre, Editor

Cary Martin, Editor

Ian Shaw, Editor

Glenn Godenho, Editorial Assistant

editorial email address: [email protected]


3/14

The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology (), ISSN -

NEW LIGHT ON THE LEGENDARY

KING NECHEPSOS OF EGYPT *

ByKIM RYHOLT

This paper identifies several indigenous Egyptian attestations of King Nechepsos, previously wellknown from Classical sources. The name may be understood as Necho the Wise, and refers toNecho II of the Twenty-sixth Dynasty. His association with astrology may be related to an eclipse

near the beginning of that kings historical reign. This paper further identifies the sage Petosirisknown from Greek texts as the well-attested sage Petesis. The divine instructors of Nechepsos andPetosiris are identified as Imhotep and Amenhotep son of Hapu.

T Tebtunis temple library is a treasure trove of Ancient Egyptian literature andstill has many surprises in store. One of the more recent is the discovery of the royalname Nechepsos in two unpublished demotic texts. The legendary king Nechepsoswas renowned for his astrological and medical interests, the two leading sciences of thetime. Although he is mentioned in many Greek and Latin texts, his name has until nownot been identified in any Egyptian text. It is now possible to settle the question of hisidentity with certainty. The two texts also shed light on the reason for his association

with astrology.Discovery

The discovery of Nechepsos was made during the preparation of a forthcoming PapyrusCarlsberg volume devoted to demotic narrative literature from the Tebtunis temple

* I would like to thank Stephan Heilen, Cary Martin, and Ian Moyer for their comments on the present paper.I am, as so often before, also grateful to Cary Martin for checking my English.

Surveys of the Tebtunis temple library are presented in K. Ryholt, On the Contents and Nature of theTebtunis Temple Library: A Status Report, in S. Lippert and M. Schentuleit (eds), Tebtynis und SoknopaiuNesos: Leben im rmerzeitlichen Fajum. Akten des Internationalen Symposions vom . bis . Dezember in

Sommerhausen bei Wrzburg(Wiesbaden, ), (general survey); A. von Lieven, Religise Texte aus

der Tempelbibliothek von Tebtynis: Gattungen und Funktionen, in Lippert and Schentuleit (eds), Tebtynisund Soknopaiu Nesos, (religious texts); J. F. Quack, Die hieratischen und hieroglyphischen Papyri ausTebtynis: Ein berblick, in K. Ryholt (ed.), The Carlsberg Papyri, VII: Hieratic Texts from the Collection (CNI; Copenhagen, ), (hieratic and hieroglyphic texts).

For Nechepsos and Petosiris in the ancient astrological literature, see W. Kroll, Nechepso, in G. Wissowa(ed.), Paulys Real-Encyclopdie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Neue Bearbeitung, XVI/ (Stuttgart, ),; W. Gundel and H. G. Gundel,Astrologumena: Die astrologische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte(Sudhos Archiv, Beiheft ; Wiesbaden, ), ; G. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria (Oxford, ), ,nn.; and D. Pingree, Petosiris, pseudo-, Dictionary of Scientific Biography (), . Quotationsand references to their lost works are collected in E. Riess, Nechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magica (Bonn,); id., Nechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magica, Philologus, Supplementband (), ; andC. Darmstadt, De Nechepsonis-Petosiridis Isagoge quaestiones selectae (Leipzig, ). Most of the texts cited havesince been re-edited and there is a need for an up-to-date resorting and study of the material. An updated listof the Greco-Roman fragments will be published in S. Heilen, Some Metrical Fragments from Nechepsos andPetosiris, forthcoming in the proceedings of the international conference La posie astrologique dans lAntiquit.Another new discussion of the Nechepsos tradition may be found in I. Moyer, Egypt and the Limits of Hellenism(Cambridge, ).


4/14

KIM RYHOLT JEA

library. I had identified five fragments of a dicult narrative that I was somewhat

hesitant to include until I noted that the text mentioned Nechepsos, i.e. NAw-kAw pA SS.

By a curious coincidence I had, just a week earlier, come across a very small fragment

at the Lund University Library in Sweden that was evidently also from the temple

library and which mentioned a royal name ending with the word SS. Although this

fragment is little more than a scrap, it was soon possible to identify it as a parallel to a

much better preserved and similarly unpublished papyrus at the Beinecke Rare Books

Library, Yale University, that I had been interested in for some years and had cited in

relation to my work on the Petese stories. Finally, the presence of certain key words in

the Carlsberg Papyrus led to the realization that the text belonged to the same story as

the so-called Neue demotische Erzhlungpreserved in a papyrus in Berlin.

In addition to these four papyri, the name also seems to be attested on a menat of

uncertain date and provenance. Moreover, since the presentation of the original version

of this paper, Gnter Vittmann has brought to my attention two further references that

can also be associated with king Nechepsos now that the Egyptian form of his name is

known, namely a demotic magical papyrus and a manual on eclipses.

The Egyptian sources

The Egyptian sources that explicitly mention Nechepsos thus consist of six papyri,

preserving four demotic texts, and the menat:

. Introduction to an astrological manual. P. CtYBR verso and P. Lund

verso; both from the Tebtunis temple library, the first/second century . It is told

how a block of stone fell out of a wall and revealed a papyrus. Only the well-known sage

Petesis can decipher the text which turns out to be an astrological treatise written bynone other than Imhotep. The text is presented by Petesis to king Nechepsos.

. Astrological manual concerning eclipse omina. P. Vienna D ; Soknopaiou

Nesos, second century . The text mentions Nechepsos in passing (Text A, IV.),

apparently as a source from which information had been extracted. Only the final Sof

the royal name and the animal determinative is preserved, but the latter is unique in the

context of a royal name and hence rules out any other interpretation.

. Magical manual. P. Mag. LL; assumed to come from Thebes, second/third century

. Citing the eectiveness of a spell on honour and praise, it is stated that this feat

of a scribe (i.e. magic) is that of king [Nechepso]s; there is no better than it (recto,

XI. = PDM xiv.). Again only the final Sis preserved, this time followed by thedivine determinative. The editors, Grith and Thompson, took the name to be that

of Darius I, which cannot be entirely ruled out, but the presence of Nechepsos would

seem to suit the Egyptian tradition much better.

Pers. comm., e-mail dated November , . Joachim Quack and I are preparing a joint edition of the two unpublished texts. The Yale papyrus is briefly

mentioned by J. Quack, Die Spur des Magiers Petese, CdE (), , n. , and K. Ryholt, The Carlsberg

Papyri, VI: The Petese Stories, II (CNI ; Copenhagen, ), , , ; see also K. Ryholt, The Life of

Imhotep?, in G. Widmer and D. Devauchelle (eds), Actes, e congrs international des tudes dmotiques (BdE

; Cairo, ), , n.. The Lund fragment is briefly cited in K. Ryholt, The Carlsberg Papyri, X: Narrative

Literature from the Tebtunis Temple Library (CNI ; Copenhagen, in press), , , n.. R. A. Parker, A Vienna Demotic Papyrus on Eclipse- and Lunar-Omina (BES ; Providence, ), ,

pl. . F. L. Grith and H. Thompson, The Demotic Magical Papyrus of London and Leiden (London, ), I,

, and II, pl. xi.


5/14

NEW LIGHT ON THE LEGENDARY KING NECHEPSOS

. Narrative, the so-called Neue demotische Erzhlung. a) P. Berlin P. ; cartonnagefrom Abusir el-Melek, first century . b) P. Carlsberg recto; Tebtunis templelibrary, first/second century . The two papyri preserve dierent episodes of whatwas probably a substantial narrative. In the episode preserved in the Berlin papyrus, theyoung protagonist claims to be a priest of Amun-Re and Harsaphes and, having triedin vain to secure the income for these two positions at the temples, he is presenting hiscase before pharaoh. He does not fail to mention that he wrote out mortuary texts forthe deceased predecessor of the king, a Psammetichus, obviously assuming that thiswill benefit his case. Pharaoh apparently asks for proof, and the texts in question arepresented to him. It is particularly noteworthy that the death of the king in question isexplicitly associated with an eclipse. The Tebtunis papyrus is much more damaged andpreserves the very end of one episode and beginning of another. Its principal significanceis that it provides us with the identity of the ruling pharaoh who is Nechepsos. . A faience menat. Ex Strogano collection, uncertain provenance and date.Apparently contains only the royal name.

Etymology

The royal name, which occurs in Greek and Latin in the two main forms Nechepsoand Nechepsos, has been variously interpreted over the years. For Petrie it was derivedfrom Nekauba and, although this identification was soon described as problematic, itwas nonetheless widely accepted for lack of something better. Much more recentlyJohn Ray suggested that Nechepsos was not based directly on Ny-kAw-bA, but ratheron a later misinterpretation of this name as Ny-kAw-sr to which the definite article

was added, thus becoming Ny-kAw-pA-sr, Necho the Ram.

Rolf Krauss and DonaldRedford have both rejected this equation on phonetic grounds. Redford argues that thecontemporary vocalization of srin Greek and Coptic shows a retained r, but it shouldbe noted that the spelling sr in demotic is an archaism. The ordinary demotic spellingis isw, as noted by Krauss, which becomes esoouS, esauAF, and eswouB (Crum, CD,a). As for the vocalization of this word with the definite article, it so happens thatthe ram was a relatively common name and, as expected, it is written pesoou andpesau in Coptic and 4IWSZSY and 4IWEZY in Greek (Crum, CD, a).

While Krauss and Redford reject Rays interpretation, they agree that the nameNechepso(s) consists of the royal name Necho to which some epithet or title has

been appended. Krauss suggests that the latter element should be understood as pA(n)sw, i.e. Necho the king. To account for the fact that the consonant n is actuallypreserved in the title nsw, even when not written out, Fecht suggests in a contributionto Krauss paper that the element -s must have been derived from the abbreviatedwriting of the title

as which the scribe misunderstood as the homonymousword reed. This interpretation has, in turn, been refuted by Brunsch who notes that

W. Erichsen, Eine neue demotische Erzhlung(Abhandlungen der geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse,Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Jahrgang , Nr. ; Wiesbaden, ), .

Ryholt, Carlsberg PapyriX, . For references, see discussion below. Cf. discussion below. J. D. Ray, Pharaoh Nechepso,JEA (), . R. Krauss, S", Knig von gypten: Ein Deutungsvorschlag, BN (),, and more fully R. Krauss,

with a contribution by G. Fecht, Necho II. alias Nechepso, GM (), ; cf. also R. Krauss, Manethos


6/14

KIM RYHOLT JEA

the proposed misunderstanding is unlikely since feminine sw.t would not be precededby the masculine articlepA. This would hardly have been overlooked by the scribe,and it may be added that the royal title nsw, although archaic, is a word with whichmost scribes would have been familiar. The interpretation is also rejected by Redfordwho rightly points out that one would expect the title the king to be rendered pr-aArather thanpA nsw. While Brunsch concludes that Rays interpretation thus remainedthe most likely, Redford has another solution; to him the final element -pso can onlybe understood as pA %Aw(w), the Saite, which would yield a Necho the Saite .Incidentally, both Krauss and Redford equate the element -so in Nechepsos with theBiblical So, i.e. the So, king of Egypt mentioned in II Kings :.

The new discovery of the royal name Nechepsos in demotic texts enables us to finallysettle the question of the etymology. In the best preserved occurrence of the full nameand title, which is found in P. Carlsberg , it is written:

gyptische Geschichte: Eine ptolemische oder rmische Kompilation?, in E. Czerny, I. Hein, H. Hunger,D. Melman, and A. Schwab (eds), Timelines: Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak (OLA ; Leuven, ),III, .

W. Brunsch, Noch einmal zu 2IGI][, BN (), ; cf. also B. U. Schipper, Wer war So", Knig vonAgypten ( Kn ,)?, BN (), .

D. B. Redford, A Note on II Kings, , ,JSSEA (), . Redfords proposed explanation of the Biblical So as Sais is not new. He seems to have overlooked that

precisely this interpretation had already been suggested by H. Goedicke, The End of So, King of Egypt ,BASOR (), ; cf. also id., vor Christus, WZKM (), ; this interpretation wasimmediately endorsed by W. F. Albright, The Elimination of King So , BASOR (), , and otherscholars. According to K. A. Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (BC) (rd edn; Warminster,), , the name So rather refers to king Osorkon IV; cf. most recently Schipper, BN (), .

F. . The writing ofpr-aA N-kA.w pA SSin P. Carlsberg , .

The text reproduced in the facsimile clearly reads pr-aA N-kA.w pA SS, PharaohNechepsos. The meaning of the name Nechepsos, as it is here written, turns out tobe somewhat unexpected. The word SSwith the animal determinative is not recordedin Erichsen, Demotisches Glossar(Copenhagen, ), but can be identified with old SsA (Wb. IV, .) and Coptic o (Crum, CD, a), which is thedesignation of the hartebeest, a kind of antelope. Accordingly the royal name mightthen be translated Necho the hartebeest. However, this is not exactly the epithet onewould have imagined for a king who was long remembered as a sage, and indeed thereis reason to believe that the orthography employed in the Tebtunis papyri representsa false etymology. As already noted, the origin of SScan be traced back some centuriesto. This word is homonymous with, wise (Wb. IV, ),and it would seem rather more plausible in view of the kings later reputation that theoriginal name was Necho the wise. At the same time it is possible to oer a relativelyuncomplicated explanation for the false etymology since the word SsA, wise, hadbecome extinct by the Greco-Roman Period, while the homonymous SsA, hartebeest,

was still in use.


7/14


In addition to the demotic papyri, there is perhaps one further object that preserves

the name of Nechepsos. The object is the above-mentioned menat, a type of musicalinstrument closely associated with cult. It was briefly described by E. Brugsch and

A. Wiedemann in the s when it formed part of the Stroganocollection (inv. ) in

Aachen. The menat is inscribed on both sides with a short inscription which was read

by Wiedemann. Apart from the fact that it was made of emaillierter

Ton, by which faience must be meant, no further description is provided. Brugsch

interpreted the royal name as a variant writing of Necho and therefore dated the object

to the Saite period. The same date was advocated more forcefully by Wiedemann: Aus

dem Styl des Exemplares geht mit Sicherheit hervor, dass dasselbe in die saitische

Epoche gehrt. Unfortunately he does not state on what criteria his dating is based

and, since the present whereabouts of the object is unknown and no illustration or

even an indication of its size has been published, its date must be regarded as highly

uncertain.

Wiedemann read the inscription Ne-ba-ka-u and suggested dass wir hier den

gyptischen Namen des ersten Necho () vor uns haben. Die Sylbe ba wre dannbei der Transcription unterdrckt worden, was bei den Griechen sich durch die

Aehnlichkeit des bekannten Herrschernamens Necho leicht erklren lassen wrde.

In the royal name was re-interpreted by Petrie who rendered itwhichhe read as Ne.kau.ba and interpreted as the royal name Nechepsos rather than

Necho I. It is somewhat surprising that this proposal has received general acceptance

since the ram-headed sign whether in the form used by Wiedemann or Petrie does

not in fact have the phonetic value bA, as already pointed out by Gauthier in .

Moreover, the phonetic equation between ny-kA.w-bA and Nechepsos would be by no

means straightforward.

Nevertheless, by a curious coincidence the identification of the royal name on the

menat with that of Nechepsos may well be correct. In light of the two papyri fromthe Tebtunis temple library, it seems quite likely that the sign (and I assume thatWiedemanns reading is superior to that of Petrie since he actually saw the object) is

in fact a mistake for , SsA. This would, again, yield Necho the wise, but this timewithout the definite article, thus lending the name an archaic air since royal names were

traditionally composed in the classical Middle Egyptian which omits the article.

The Greek version of the name

The copies of Manetho by Africanus and Eusebius agree in rendering the name of

Nechepsos as 2IGI][Zb. In the astrological tradition the name is mostly rendered as

2IGI][Z without the final -b. The latter being the more common form, it has been

regarded as the more reliable writing and hence the king is mostly known as Nechepso.

The object is briefly described in E. Brugsch, Sammlung gyptischer Altertmer des Grafen Gregor Strogano(Aachen, ). The hieroglyphic text is published by A. Wiedemann, Inschriften aus der Saitischen Periode,

RT (), ; cf. also id.,gyptische Geschichte: Supplement (Gotha, ), . W. M. F. Petrie,A History of Egypt (London, ), III, . H. Gauthier, Le livre des rois dgypte, III (Cairo, ), n.. For the many variant and corrupt forms in which the original2IGI][Z has been transmitted in the astrological

tradition, see Krauss, GM (), n.. The variants in the various copies of Manetho are listed in F. Jacoby,Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, III/C (Leiden, ), , .


8/14

KIM RYHOLT JEA

It is, however, a well-known rule of historical method that sources that share the same

origin or tradition cannot be used to verify one another. The better orthography is

plainly Manethos 2IGI][Zb which represents a no less than perfect transcription of

Egyptian Ny-kA.w PA-SS. In CopticpA SSis rendered po (po) or pw (p), the

latter being identical to the Greek -][b (pss). The reason for the omission of the final

-b in the Greek tradition is presumably that it was incorrectly regarded as a nominative

ending at some early stage.

Identity

The next question that poses itself is whether there was a king Necho the wise as

distinct from Necho I and Necho II. If we turn to Manetho, as preserved in the copies

by Africanus and Eusebius, we find Nechepsos listed as the direct predecessor of

Necho I of the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty with a reign of six years. On this basis he has

often been regarded as a distinct, proto-Saite king. There may, however, be reason todoubt Manetho (or the preserved copies of his work) on this point. Although it cannot

be excluded that there were three Saite rulers with the name Necho, it might be prudent

to attach some importance to the fact that not a single contemporary source attests to

the existence of a third Necho, or the name Nechepsos; the latter is only found in

much later sources. Moreover, it would be quite exceptional for an epithet of the type

discussed here to be added to the name of a ruling king. These circumstances indicate

that the epithet the wise was a later invention, and I am therefore more inclined to

regard Necho the wise as a name applied to either Necho I or Necho II.

A possible archaeological argument in favour of the removal of a distinct king

Nechepsos between Tefnakhte II and Necho I is provided by a donation stele of theformer recently discussed by Olivier Perdu. Perdu notes that this stele is very similar

to a donation stele from the second regnal year of Necho I, and argues on this basis

that they are unlikely to be separated by many years. The attribution to Nechepsos of

a six-year reign between Tefnakhte II and Necho I would separate the two stelae at the

very minimum by seven years. However, when Nechepsos is identified with Necho I

or Necho II, the two donation stelae could have been produced within just one or two

years since Necho I might then be seen as the direct successor of Tefnakhte II.

The crucial source for the identity and date of Nechepsos is, however, the so-called

Neue demotische Erzhlung. This narrative is set in the reign of Nechepsos and at one

point the protagonist describes his involvement in the burial of a king Psammetichus.The reign of the first king Psammetichus thus provides a terminus post quem for the reign

of Nechepsos. This eectively excludes the possibility of a distinct king Nechepsos in

the position ascribed to him in Manethos work, just as it rules out an identification

with Necho I.

Cf. conveniently W. G. Waddell, Manetho (Cambridge , ), , . The date of the menat and the exact reading of its inscription still remain to be established. O. Perdu, De Stphinats Nchao ou les dbuts de la XXVIe dynastie, Comptes Rendus de lAcadmie des

Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres/ (), . K. A. Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (nd edn; Warminster, ), , has cautiously

suggested that the reign of Nechepsos might even be increased to sixteen years, but the present discovery, and the

contribution by Perdu, render this somewhat unlikely.


9/14


It is also significant that the royal name Necho is found in combination with two

epithets in demotic literature; Necho the wise (PA-SS) and Necho beloved of Neith

(Mr-N.t). One of the texts in which the latter is attested in the still unpublished

Inaros Epic from which it emerges that he is identical with Necho I. Again we do not

seem to be dealing with a historical epithet, but one that was invented in later times. In

this case the epithet points to the origin of this early Saite ruler, Neith being the main

deity of Sais. The reason for the invention of epithets for both the kings named Necho

was, one might assume, an attempt to distinguish the two Saite rulers. Hence, since

Necho beloved of Neith evidently refers to Necho I, it would again stand to reason

that Necho the wise Nechepsos refers to Necho II (see table ).

TEpithets of Necho I and Necho II in later literary tradition

King Epithet

Necho I Necho Merneith Necho beloved of Neith

Necho II Nechepss (Necho Pss) Necho the wise

A further indication of the identification of Nechepsos with Necho II is provided

by the version of Eusebius king-list preserved in Hieronymus and Chronicon paschale.

Here it is added specifically that Necho II was also known as Nechepsos. The comment

was presumably based on the same source as that used by the so-called Sothis Book

which places Nechepsos immediately before Psammuthis or Psammetichus II, i.e. in

the position of Necho II. Finally, it may be noted that both Nechepsos and Necho II

are attributed a reign of six years.

With the identification of Nechepsos with Necho II, it remains to be answered why

Manethos king list would record Nechepsos separately and prior to Necho I. Here I

can only oer the suggestion that Manetho or a later editor of the list came across the

name Nechepsos and, not realizing his true identity, was unsure where he belonged.

Since the name Necho associated him with the Saite dynasty, it might have made sense

to place him among the obscure early rulers. There would have been little other choice

unless he wanted to squeeze Nechepsos in arbitrarily between the well-attested kings

of the Saite dynasty proper.

The accession date of Necho II

The introduction to the astrological text preserved in the Yale and Lund papyri mentions

that an event referred to as the festival of pharaoh (pA Hb n pr-aA) fell on the first day

The texts in question are the Inaros Epic, where the name occurs repeatedly, and several other stories

including The Struggle for Inaros Armour(VII.); cf. discussion in Ryholt, Carlsberg PapyriX, . For the role of Necho I in the Inaros stories, see K. Ryholt, The Assyrian Invasion of Egypt in Egyptian

Literary Tradition, in J. G. Dercksen (ed.), Assyria and Beyond: Studies Presented to Mogens Trolle Larsen

(Leiden, ), . The same conclusion concerning the identity of Nechepsos was reached by Krauss, GM (), ,

without knowledge of the correct etymology of the name. While his own interpretation of the name must be

rejected, it does not aect the validity of his arguments in favour of the identification of the king. This argument was already stressed by Krauss, GM (), , , with further references. Sothis Book nos . Nechepsos is again listed as no. in the Sothis Book where the list of Saite rulers

corresponds to that found in the copies by Africanus and Eusebius.


10/14

KIM RYHOLT JEA

of the second month of Peret. Assuming this to be the accession date of the king,

rather than his birthday, and that the historical year of his accession has been correctly

calculated, this corresponds to June , . This new chronological information

is most welcome since the exact date has not previously been known. While it cannot

be taken for granted that the date of the event in question is historically reliable, it is

compatible with the sources presently available which places the accession somewhere

between January and November.

Necho II and the eclipse

The identification of Necho II as the ruling king in the Neue demotische Erzhlung

further sheds light on the date and nature of the eclipse mentioned in that narrative.

More specifically, it is stated that a king named Psammetichus died in association with

an eclipse. This eclipse was long equated with the solar eclipse of September, .

However, as observed by Mark Smith, the earliest historically attested date in the reignof Necho II corresponds to August, , and hence this eclipse did not take

place until well after the death of Psammetichus I. The date provided by the Yale

and Lund text, if correctly understood and reliable, pushes the accession of Necho II

even further back to June, more than three full months before the solar eclipse.

Searching for other solar eclipses that might be associated with a coronation on the

first day of the second month of Peret, we see that the date would correspond to June,

, if it pertained to Psammetichus II, the successor of Necho II. By a curious

coincidence there was in fact a historical solar eclipse on this day. In principle we might

therefore entertain the possibility that an eclipse was originally associated with the

reign of Necho II, but that it somehow came to be connected with the accession ofhis successor rather than his own, and in fact marking the end of his reign rather than

its beginning. However, according to the NASA website, the solar eclipse on June,

, was only visible in the southern Pacific and not in Egypt.

This seems to rule out the possibility of a historical solar eclipse, and Mark Smith

has argued convincingly on philological grounds that we are rather dealing with a

lunar eclipse. The only lunar eclipse that can be associated with the final regnal year

and death of Psammetichus I is that which took place on March, . This

leads to a curious situation since the accession of Necho II apparently only happened

three full months later on June . There are several ways one may account for these

circumstances:a) The information provided by the Neue demotische Erzhlungis unreliable.

b) The date provided by the Yale and Lund text is unreliable.

c) One or both of the two texts have been misinterpreted.

d) There was in fact a historical interregnum or some other event which delayed

the formal accession of Necho II.

Cf. L. Depuydt, Saite and Persian Egypt, , in E. Hornung, R. Krauss, and D. Warburton

(eds),Ancient Egyptian Chronology (HdO I/; Leiden, ), . M. Smith, Did Psammetichus I Die Abroad?, OLP (), . Nasa Eclipse Website < http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcat/SE---.html > (see under - Jun ). Smith, OLP (), .


11/14


e) It took time to organize the celebrations, and the date reflects the actual date of

the event that was not fictionally backdated to correspond to the death of the

predecessor.

Concerning the first suggestion, Krauss has recently voiced his scepticism towards

the historical nature of the eclipse, noting that an eclipse that is reported in a fictitious

tale cannot be deemed historical. I share his sentiment that such material should be

treated with due circumspection, but there are many examples of reliable historical

information in the extant narrative literature. His main argument against its historicity

is that the context of the eclipse is fictitious, insofar as it would date the Book of

Breathing a creation of the Ptolemaic period to the time immediately after the

death of Psammetichus. Here, however, it is important to recognize that one cannot

speak of a Book of Breathing that was a creation of the Ptolemaic Period. The Book

of Breathing is a generic title just as is Coming forth by Day and it designates a

number of very dierent mortuary texts written in both hieratic and demotic. Henceall that the Neue demotische Erzhlungstates is that the priest in question copied out

mortuary texts for the deceased King Psammetichus, making use of the most common

contemporary term for such compositions.

Why Necho the Wise and the association with astrology?

How did Necho II gain the epithet the wise and how did he come to be associated

with astrology in particular? The latter is perhaps the more simple to answer. It can

hardly be attributed to mere chance that a king who become so closely associated

with astrology in later tradition also happens to be the one king whose accession was

associated with such an ominous event as an eclipse. It would rather stand to reason

that the later tradition was directly related to that event. If we are dealing with an

historical event, it is even possible that the eclipse was exploited in the contemporary

portrayal of Necho IIs kingship; eclipses were regarded as omina and it would have

been an obvious strategy to proclaim it as a beneficent omen in favour of the new king

and as divine endorsement. It may, however, be noted that in Greek literature eclipse

omina are negative, and the majority of the ones mentioned in the demotic manual on

eclipse omina in Vienna are also negative.

Concerning the epithet the wise, it is very likely connected to the later tradition

which portrays Necho II or Nechepsos as a king who was personally occupied with

astrology and who communicated on this subject with Petesis and Petosiris, who may

in fact be one and the same individual (see below). It may perhaps also be relevant that

he chose for himself the Horus name Wise of Mind (siA-ib). Other factors that might

have played a role are the traditions about how he withstood the Babylonian invasion

R. Krauss, Dates relating to a Seasonal Phenomena and Miscellaneous Astronomical Dates, in Hornung,

Krauss, and Warburton (eds),Ancient Egyptian Chronology, . Compare e.g. the texts edited by F.-R. Herbin, Books of Breathing (CBD ; London, ), with those

edited by M. Stadler, Funf neue funerre Kurztexte, in F. Homann and H. J. Thissen (eds), Res severa verum

gaudium: Festschrift fr Karl-Theodor Zauzich zum . Geburtstag am . Juni (StudDem ; Leuven, ),

. This was kindly pointed out to me by Stephan Heilen. Cf. Parker,A Vienna Demotic Papyrus on Eclipse- and Lunar-Omina.


12/14

KIM RYHOLT JEA

of Egypt in , and how he successfully sent out an expedition to circumnavigate

Africa.

In the present context it may be relevant to note that Necho II was earlier believed to

have suered a damnatio memoriae after his death. This is called into doubt by morerecent studies, and the later traditions about the king indicate that even if there was a

short-lived damnatio, it had little impact on his later reputation.

Petosiris or Petesis?

Having so far discussed the identity of Nechepsos and the traditions concerning

Necho II, one of the new demotic texts touches upon the identity of another prominent

individual. In the Greek literary tradition, Nechepsos is frequently associated with a

certain Petosiris whose identity has also been dicult to establish. There have been

attempts to identify him with the like-named high-priest with the famous tomb in

Hermopolis (late fourth/early third century ),

or with another like-named individualburied in a tomb at Atfih (second century ) which has astronomical ceilings. There

is, however, little positive evidence to connect either of these two men with Petosiris

other than the fact that they have an exceptionally common name.

While Nechepsos is in close communication with a certain Petosiris about astrological

matters in the Greek literary tradition, we find the king in a very similar situation in

the text preserved in the Yale and Lund papyri. Here, however, the individual is named

Petesis. The latter is a well-attested sage in the literary tradition, where he is even

regarded as the Egyptian instructor of Plato concerning astrology, and the similarity

of the situations is all the more remarkable since the names Petesis and Petosiris are

very similar in the demotic script. The only sign that separates the two names is, infact, the divine determinative. Since this sign may be added to the name of a deified

individual, as Alexandra von Lieven has pointed out to me on the basis of her studies

on deification, the name of the sage Petesis would become indistinguishable from that

of Petosiris. Indeed, unless compelled to do otherwise by specific circumstances, the

name Petesis with the divine determinative would certainly be read Petosiris even by

modern scholars.

It is therefore quite possible that the name Petosiris is simply a false reading of the

name Petesis, and that all references to the former grew out of the tradition concerning

the latter. By the same token, there was never actually a king named Nechepsos; this

too was a later name attached to the sage King Necho II, and the fact that the versionNechepso (without the final -s) dominates indicates that it was no longer generally

known that it derived from the royal name Necho with the epithet Psos.

Cf. J. Yoyotte, Supplment au Dictionnaire de la Bible, VI (Paris, ), cols ; see also A. Spalinger,Psammetichus II, L IV (), ; cf. also M. Depauw and W. Clarysse, When a Pharaoh Becomes Magic,CdE (), .

R. Gozzoli, The Statue BM EA and the Erasure of Necho IIs Names,JEA (), . Cf. B. Bohleke, In Terms of Fate: A Survey of the Indigenous Egyptian Contribution to Ancient Astrology

in light of Papyrus CtYBR inv. (B), SAK (), n.. Excellent photographs of the tomb haverecently been republished by N. Cherpion, J.-P. Corteggiani, and J.-F. Gout, Le tombeau de Ptosiris Tounael-Gebel(BG ; Cairo, ).

L. Depuydt, A Demotic Table of Terms, Enchoria (), . For the traditions concerning the sage Petesis and his association with astrology, see Quack, CdE, ;

Ryholt, Carlsberg PapyriVI: Petese Stories II, .


13/14


The divine instructors of Nechepsos and Petosiris

Finally, the identity of the divine instructors of Nechepsos and Petosiris should bementioned. According to P. Louvre bis (P. Salt), Necheus and Petosiris received

instruction from Asclepius and Hermes. It was already recognized long ago thatNecheus here must be identical with the king otherwise referred to as Nechepsos, andthis originally led to the suggestion that the text should simply be emended. It is nowclear that the text is correct as it stands, since Necheus is simply a variant orthographyof the royal name Necho without the epithet.

Concerning the identity of Asclepius, the text specifically states that he is Imouthes,son of Hephaistos, that is, Imhotep, son of Ptah. Here we find an obvious link withthe text preserved in the Yale and Lund papyri, where Petesis deciphers a book onastrology composed by Imhotep the Great, the son of Ptah and communicates hisresults to King Nechepsos.

The identity of Hermes is less straightforward. Wildung, in his study of Imhotepand the passage in question, made no attempt to identify him. Much more recently,Joachim Quack has equated him with Thoth. There is, however, an alternative to thisinterpretation. A key to his identity is, I believe, provided by Clement of Alexandria(late second century ), Stromateis I , ., and Cyril, Contra Julianum VI. These authors both state that the Egyptians sometimes elevated mortals tothe status of gods and they refer specifically clearly as the two most prominentexamples to Asclepius the Memphite and Hermes the Theban. Here again we findAsclepius and Hermes coupled together and, significantly, the latter is associated withThebes. Accordingly, the Hermes in question can hardly be any other than the deified

Amenhotep son of Hapu. Amenhotep was the most renowned deified individual inThebes. Moreover, he and Imhotep were frequently coupled in Egyptian texts fromthe Ptolemaic period onwards; they even had a joint cult at Deir el-Bahri as healinggods. It follows that the Hermes to which Papyrus Salt refers was the same person,namely Amenhotep son of Hapu.

Conclusions

In summary, it may be concluded that

a) the sage king Nechepsos is now known to be attested in several Egyptian literary

texts.b) Nechepsos is the superior form of the name, while Nechepso is a slight

corruption.

c) Nechepsos means Necho the wise.

d) there is no relation between Nechepsos and the Biblical So, King of Egypt.

Riess, Philologus Supplement, ; the sentence concerning Asclepius/Imhotep is cited by Wildung, Imhotepand Amenhotep (MS ; Munich, ), .

Riess, Philologus Supplement, , Fr. , line . Quack, CdE, . Cf. Wildung, Imhotep, ; T. Hopfner, Fontes historiae religionis Aegypticae (Bonn, ), . Cf. Wildung, Imhotep, ; Hopfner, Fontes, . See the recent study by Adam ajtar, Deir el-Bahari in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods (JJP, Supplement ;

Warsaw, ).


14/14

KIM RYHOLT JEA

e) Nechepsos refers to Necho II.

f) the accession date of Nechepsos may have been II Peret 1, i.e. 22 June, 610 .

g) the deceased king Psammetichus of the Neue demotische Erzhlung, who died in

association with an eclipse, was Psammetichus I.

h) Necho IIs association with astrology may be due to a historical eclipse which

marked the beginning of his reign.

i) the sage Petosiris known from Greek literary tradition might be identical with

the well-attested sage Petesis.

j) the divine instructors of Nechepsos and Petosiris were Imhotep and Amenhotep

son of Hapu.

Documents

Ryholt - New Light on the Legendary King Nechepsos of Egypt