The conquest certainly brought its problems: a ‘‘great disorder’’ is described by Udjahorresnet, a contemporary witness; Amasis underwent a damnatio memoriae (De Meulenaere 1968: 184; Gozzoli 2000: 79); and his daughter Nitokris II was prevented from succeeding the Adoratrice Ankhnesneferibre, without any replacement, thereby marking a clean break in the line of princesses married to Amun of Thebes (De Meulenaere 1968: 187). Nevertheless, the country recovered a measure of calm, adapting to Persian control and the way in which it operated.
In taking Egypt the Great King intended to integrate it into his vast Empire in order to impose on it the provision of tribute and military contingents as and when the king required. Therefore, Egypt, in association with Libya, Cyrene, and Barca, became a single satrapy - the sixth in Herodotos’ inventory (3.91) - and one of the most profitable whose governance was entrusted to Achaemenid officials charged with the maintenance of order and respect for the obligations incumbent upon it (Ray 1988: 264-70). Installed at Memphis with his chancellery the satrap represented the Great King, while Persian officials assisted him at the head of the Egyptian provinces. To ensure their authority these agents could rely on Persian garrisons located in different parts of the territory, among which were Kheraha, near Memphis and the great Saite bases on the frontiers. Provided that Egypt accepted this control and its constraints, it could always count on a certain flexibility on the part of the occupying power. Her traditions and cults were respected, the clergy and the temples continuing to function in their normal way, without having to suffer too many changes except on the financial front (Ray 1988: 270-1; Chauveau & Thiers 2006: 382). As for the Pharaonic office, this was preserved, at least in theory. The Great King henceforth took on the attributes of Pharaoh in representations to fulfil religious requirements (Chauveau-Thiers 2006: 378-9), and, when he is mentioned, he was supplied, like Cambyses and Darius I, with a titulary formulated according to the Egyptian model with his personal name inscribed in hieroglyphs in a cartouche. In administration, the organization of which had not been disrupted (Chauveau-Thiers 2006: 380-1), a number of important posts continued to be occupied by Egyptians (Ray 1988: 272), notably in the fields of the economy or building, as is attested by the ‘‘Planner’’ (snty) Horudja or the ‘‘Director of Works’’ (imy-r kpt) Khnumibre. These concessions demonstrate a pragmatic approach to the occupation based on the principle that the best way to exploit the country’s riches was to avoid attacking its structures.
The Egyptian reaction to this policy is difficult to assess (Ray 1988: 275-6), but the duration of the first Persian domination - more than a century - itself suggests that it was not too bitterly resented. The country continued to develop, thanks to the efforts made to improve its agricultural productivity, notably in perfecting irrigation by means of underground conduits in the oases, and it is beyond doubt that representatives of the elite such as Udjahorresnet and the treasurer Ptahhotep collaborated closely with Persian power. On the other hand, the existence of an opposition is clear, and this became active when circumstances were favorable, but this seems to have been limited mainly to the western Delta, the very center of Saite power.
Figure 8.2 Statue of the Overseer of the Treasury Ptahhotep in Persian costume with Persian bracelet and torque and Egyptian pectoral. Schist, ht. 83 cm; possibly from Memphis. Photograph Courtesy of the Brooklyn Museum.
The most successful Achaemenid ruler of Egypt was Darius I (522-1-486-5), though his reign began on an inauspicious note with an uprising fomented by the actions of the satrap Aryandes (Salmon 1985: 148-51). This was terminated by Darius in person, and in dealing with the crisis the Great King showed a consideration for the country which would characterize his entire approach to Egypt, particularly in the religious sphere: under him an Apis bull was buried which died in Year 4 of his reign, and he continued to maintain the temples, whether in the valley at Busiris, Memphis, Hermopolis Magna, Thebes, and Elkab, or in the oasis of Kharga at Kasr el-Ghoueita (Onishi 2005: 127-31) and Hibis (Cruz-Uribe 1987: 230). In a Demotic papyrus we even encounter Darius encouraging ‘‘scholars’’ (rmt rh) in compiling the laws of Egypt (Devauchelle 1995a: 74-6; Agut-Labordere, forthcoming), a detail which Diodoros also mentions (1.95.4). The Great King’s interest in Egypt is even shown by a statue from Susa sculpted by Egyptian craftsmen which represents him in a standing position with a mixture of Pharaonic and Achaemenid iconographic elements (Yoyotte, forthcoming).
In Egypt, the name of Darius is also associated with a great engineering feat: the completion of the canal begun by Necho II between the Nile and the Red Sea. The goal was to improve communications with Persia and, beyond that, to facilitate the transportation of the products intended for it. Because of its importance the enterprise was commemorated by a series of monumental stelae along the waterway, three of which have been found near Tell el-Maskhuta, Kabret, and Suez. In the oasis of Kharga on the other hand, the works completed in two temples could be tied up with the development of a line of defence in the region against the Greeks of Cyrene.
Before its end the reign of Darius in Egypt was again troubled by revolt. It was doubtless taking advantage of the discontent generated by the increase in Persian demands for conscripts and involved at least the Delta. The Great King was preparing to intervene at the time of his death. This turbulent period is the time the appearance of a native king mentioned in the Demotic archives of Diospolis Parva, Psamtik IV, who was contemporary with the last year of Darius and the first of his successor (Pestman 1984: 147-8). We may guess that he was the instigator of the uprising, though nothing can be proved. Xerxes I (486-65) succeeded in re-establishing order but with a firmness that marked a clear hardening of Achaemenid control (Salmon 1985: 151-2). The new king intended to subjugate the country to his demands, particularly in fiscal matters, without having to worry about hostile reactions, but in this he failed. His assassination in 465 brought to a close a reign marked in Egypt, as elsewhere in the empire, by increasing opposition to Achaemenid rule, made all the more bitter because the Persians had been weakened by a series of reverses against the Athenians at Salamis, Plataea, and Eurymedon.
The reign of Artaxerxes I (465-424) is marked in Egypt by the most serious revolt yet under the leadership of the Libyan Inaros, son of Psamtik (Salmon 1985: 152-5), perhaps a descendant of the Saite Dynasty (Chauveau 2004: 44). This insurrection was made all the more serious because of the heavy military support which it received from Athens. Despite initial success the rebellion was successfully put down in 454 with catastrophic loss to the Athenians and the rebels. Inaros himself was captured and put to death five years later. Once this revolt had been put down, Egypt was entrusted to the satrap Sarsamas who remained confronted by a hotbed of rebellion in the north of the country. Sheltered in the marshy confines of the Delta, Amyrtaios of Sais continued the struggle with the Persians. In 450 he obtained the assistance of 200 Athenian ships but was quickly abandoned by them, a loss which probably precipitated his downfall. Between 449 and 430 his son Pausiris and Thannyras, the son of Inaros, both managed to exercise some semblance of authority in the north of the Delta, which the satrap tolerated insofar as neither of them really affected Persian hegemony; moreover, the danger that they represented was markedly reduced by the fact that they could no longer count on the support of the Athenians who had been at peace with the Great King since 449. The picture of inherent instability continued in the reign of Darius II (423-405/4) whose accession was quickly greeted by an uprising, but that was speedily put down in 422 (Salmon 1985: 155-7). Another revolt occurred in 414-13, but the spirit of insurrection continued to simmer until a little after 2 December 405, the beginning of Darius II’s last year of reign, when a full-scale rebellion broke out with the appearance of Amyrtaios II (404-400/399), probably a grandson of the previous Amyrtaios (Salmon 1985: 156; Lemaire 1995: 51-6). In fact, he claimed royal status, encouraged by the death of the Great King in the spring of 404 and the ensuing dynastic conflict. Manetho presents him as the sole ruler of the Twenty-eighth Dynasty and notes his connection with Sais through which, according to Diodoros (14.35.4), he had a link with the
Twenty-sixth Dynasty and we now know that, when he became king, he took the name Psamtik (Chauveau 1996: 44-7). This choice, particularly appropriate for a Saite, possibly reflected his anxiety to present himself as the counterpart Psamtik I whose exploits in freeing Egypt from foreign occupation he was repeating. During his penultimate year Amyrtaios’ authority was recognized as far as the south of the oasis of Kharga, but one year earlier it was not yet accepted at Elephantine where documents still referred to Artaxerxes II, and that was also the case even south of Kharga one year before (Lemaire 1995: 53; Chauveau 1996: 44). His five years in power have left hardly any traces in Egypt, but Diodoros (14.35.4-5) preserves a story that he eliminated the Egyptian Tamos, an admiral of Cyrus the Younger who had come to take refuge in Egypt after the defeat of his protector by Artaxerxes II at Kunaxa in 401.
World History
