Ryholt - New Light on the Legendary King Nechepsos of Egypt

THE JOURNAL OF

Egyptian Archaeology VOLUME 97 2011

PUBLISHED BY

THE EGYPT EXPLORATION SOCIETY 3 DOUGHTY MEWS, LONDON WC1N 2PG ISSN 0307–5133

The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology All rights reserved ISSN 0307-5133 website: http://www.ees.ac.uk/publications/journal-egyptian-archaeology.html

Published annually by The Egypt Exploration Society 3 Doughty Mews London WC1N 2PG Registered Charity No. 212384 A limited Company registered in England, No. 25816

Printed in Great Britain by Commercial Colour Press Plc Angard House, 185 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]

NEW LIGHT ON THE LEGENDARY KING NECHEPSOS OF EGYPT * By KIM RYHOLT This paper identifies several indigenous Egyptian attestations of King Nechepsos, previously well known from Classical sources. The name may be understood as ‘Necho the Wise’, and refers to Necho II of the Twenty-sixth Dynasty. His association with astrology may be related to an eclipse near the beginning of that king’s historical reign. This paper further identifies the sage Petosiris known from Greek texts as the well-attested sage Petesis. The divine instructors of Nechepsos and Petosiris are identified as Imhotep and Amenhotep son of Hapu.

The Tebtunis temple library is a treasure trove of Ancient Egyptian literature and still has many surprises in store.1 One of the more recent is the discovery of the royal name Nechepsos in two unpublished demotic texts. The legendary king Nechepsos was renowned for his astrological and medical interests, the two leading sciences of the time. Although he is mentioned in many Greek and Latin texts, his name has until now not been identified in any Egyptian text.2 It is now possible to settle the question of his identity 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 Papyrus Carlsberg 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. 1 Surveys of the Tebtunis temple library are presented in K. Ryholt, ‘On the Contents and Nature of the Tebtunis Temple Library: A Status Report’, in S. Lippert and M. Schentuleit (eds), Tebtynis und Soknopaiu Nesos: Leben im römerzeitlichen Fajum. Akten des Internationalen Symposions vom 11. bis 13. Dezember 2003 in Sommerhausen bei Würzburg (Wiesbaden, 2005), 141–70 (general survey); A. von Lieven, ‘Religiöse Texte aus der Tempelbibliothek von Tebtynis: Gattungen und Funktionen’, in Lippert and Schentuleit (eds), Tebtynis und Soknopaiu Nesos, 57–70 (religious texts); J. F. Quack, ‘Die hieratischen und hieroglyphischen Papyri aus Tebtynis: Ein Überblick’, in K. Ryholt (ed.), The Carlsberg Papyri, VII: Hieratic Texts from the Collection (CNI 30; Copenhagen, 2006), 1–7 (hieratic and hieroglyphic texts). 2 For Nechepsos and Petosiris in the ancient astrological literature, see W. Kroll, ‘Nechepso’, in G. Wissowa (ed.), Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Neue Bearbeitung, XVI/2 (Stuttgart, 1935), 2160–7; W. Gundel and H. G. Gundel, Astrologumena: Die astrologische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte (Sudhoffs Archiv, Beiheft 6; Wiesbaden, 1966), 27–36; G. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria (Oxford, 1972), 436–7, nn. 500–06; and D. Pingree, ‘Petosiris, pseudo-’, Dictionary of Scientific Biography 10 (1974), 547–9. Quotations and references to their lost works are collected in E. Riess, Nechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magica (Bonn, 1890); id., ‘Nechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magica’, Philologus, Supplementband 6 (1891–93), 325–94; and C. Darmstadt, De Nechepsonis-Petosiridis Isagoge quaestiones selectae (Leipzig, 1916). Most of the texts cited have since been re-edited and there is a need for an up-to-date resorting and study of the material. An updated list of the Greco-Roman fragments will be published in S. Heilen, ‘Some Metrical Fragments from Nechepsos and Petosiris’, forthcoming in the proceedings of the international conference La poésie astrologique dans l’Antiquité. Another new discussion of the Nechepsos tradition may be found in I. Moyer, Egypt and the Limits of Hellenism (Cambridge, 2011). The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 97 (2011), 61–72 ISSN 0307-5133

62

KIM RYHOLT

JEA 97

library. I had identified five fragments of a difficult 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 Erzählung preserved 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, Günter 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.3 The Egyptian sources

The Egyptian sources that explicitly mention Nechepsos thus consist of six papyri, preserving four demotic texts, and the menat: 1. Introduction to an astrological manual. P. CtYBR 422 verso and P. Lund 2058 verso; both from the Tebtunis temple library, the first/second century ad.4 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 by none other than Imhotep. The text is presented by Petesis to king Nechepsos. 2. Astrological manual concerning eclipse omina. P. Vienna D 6286;5 Soknopaiou Nesos, second century ad. The text mentions Nechepsos in passing (Text A, IV.10), apparently as a source from which information had been extracted. Only the final S of 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. 3. Magical manual. P. Mag. LL; assumed to come from Thebes, second/third century ad.6 Citing the effectiveness 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.26 = PDM xiv.334). Again only the final S is preserved, this time followed by the divine determinative. The editors, Griffith 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. 3

Pers. comm., e-mail dated November 17, 2008. 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 77 (2002), 89, n. 59, and K. Ryholt, The Carlsberg Papyri, VI: The Petese Stories, II (CNI 29; Copenhagen, 2003), 2, 3, 13–16; see also K. Ryholt, ‘The Life of Imhotep?’, in G. Widmer and D. Devauchelle (eds), Actes, 10e congrès international des études démotiques (BdE 147; Cairo, 2009), 313, n. 30. The Lund fragment is briefly cited in K. Ryholt, The Carlsberg Papyri, X: Narrative Literature from the Tebtunis Temple Library (CNI 35; Copenhagen, in press), 13, 135–6, n. 100. 5 R. A. Parker, A Vienna Demotic Papyrus on Eclipse- and Lunar-Omina (BES 2; Providence, 1959), 20–1, pl. 3. 6 F. L. Griffith and H. Thompson, The Demotic Magical Papyrus of London and Leiden (London, 1904–09), I, 86–7, and II, pl. xi. 4

2011

NEW LIGHT ON THE LEGENDARY KING NECHEPSOS

63

4. Narrative, the so-called Neue demotische Erzählung. a) P. Berlin P. 13588; cartonnage from Abusir el-Melek, first century bc.7 b) P. Carlsberg 710 recto; Tebtunis temple library, first/second century ad.8 The two papyri preserve different episodes of what was probably a substantial narrative. In the episode preserved in the Berlin papyrus, the young protagonist claims to be a priest of Amun-Re and Harsaphes and, having tried in vain to secure the income for these two positions at the temples, he is presenting his case before pharaoh. He does not fail to mention that he wrote out mortuary texts for the deceased predecessor of the king, a Psammetichus, obviously assuming that this will benefit his case. Pharaoh apparently asks for proof, and the texts in question are presented to him. It is particularly noteworthy that the death of the king in question is explicitly associated with an eclipse. The Tebtunis papyrus is much more damaged and preserves the very end of one episode and beginning of another. Its principal significance is that it provides us with the identity of the ruling pharaoh who is Nechepsos. 5. A faience menat. Ex Stroganoff collection, uncertain provenance and date. Apparently contains only the royal name.9 Etymology

The royal name, which occurs in Greek and Latin in the two main forms Nechepso and Nechepsos, has been variously interpreted over the years. For Petrie it was derived from Nekauba and, although this identification was soon described as problematic, it was nonetheless widely accepted for lack of something better.10 Much more recently John Ray suggested that Nechepsos was not based directly on Ny-kAw-bA, but rather on 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’.11 Rolf Krauss and Donald Redford have both rejected this equation on phonetic grounds. Redford argues that ‘the contemporary vocalization of sr in Greek and Coptic shows a retained r’, but it should be noted that the spelling sr in demotic is an archaism. The ordinary demotic spelling is isw, as noted by Krauss, which becomes esoou S, esau AF, and eswou B (Crum, CD, 61a). As for the vocalization of this word with the definite article, it so happens that ‘the ram’ was a relatively common name and, as expected, it is written pesoou and pesau in Coptic and 4IWSZSY and 4IWEZY in Greek (Crum, CD, 61a). While Krauss and Redford reject Ray’s interpretation, they agree that the name Nechepso(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 actually preserved in the title nsw, even when not written out, Fecht suggests in a contribution to Krauss’ paper that the element -sō must have been derived from the abbreviated as which the scribe misunderstood as the homonymous writing of the title 12 word ‘reed’. This interpretation has, in turn, been refuted by Brunsch who notes that 7

W. Erichsen, Eine neue demotische Erzählung (Abhandlungen der geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse, Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Jahrgang 1956, Nr. 2; Wiesbaden, 1956), 49–81. 8 Ryholt, Carlsberg Papyri X, 131–41. 9 For references, see discussion below. 10 Cf. discussion below. 11 J. D. Ray, ‘Pharaoh Nechepso’, JEA 60 (1974), 255–6. 12 R. Krauss, ‘Sō", König von Ägypten: Ein Deutungsvorschlag’, BN 11 (1980), 29–31, and more fully R. Krauss, with a contribution by G. Fecht, ‘Necho II. alias Nechepso’, GM 42 (1981), 49–60; cf. also R. Krauss, ‘Manethos

64

KIM RYHOLT

JEA 97

the proposed misunderstanding is unlikely since feminine sw.t would not be preceded by the masculine article pA.13 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 which most scribes would have been familiar. The interpretation is also rejected by Redford who rightly points out that one would expect the title ‘the king’ to be rendered pr-aA rather than pA nsw. While Brunsch concludes that Ray’s interpretation thus remained the most likely, Redford has another solution; to him the final element -pso ‘can only be understood as pA %Aw(w), “the Saite”, which would yield a “Necho the Saite” ’.14 Incidentally, both Krauss and Redford equate the element -so in Nechepsos with the Biblical So, i.e. the ‘So, king of Egypt’ mentioned in II Kings 17:4.15 The new discovery of the royal name Nechepsos in demotic texts enables us to finally settle the question of the etymology. In the best preserved occurrence of the full name and title, which is found in P. Carlsberg 710, it is written:

Fig. 1. The writing of pr-aA N-kA.w pA SS in P. Carlsberg 710, 2.

The text reproduced in the facsimile clearly reads pr-aA N-kA.w pA SS, ‘Pharaoh Nechepsos’. The meaning of the name Nechepsos, as it is here written, turns out to be somewhat unexpected. The word SS with the animal determinative is not recorded in Erichsen, Demotisches Glossar (Copenhagen, 1954), but can be identified with old  SsA (Wb. IV, 543.5–6) and Coptic ¥o¥ (Crum, CD, 605a), which is the designation of the hartebeest, a kind of antelope. Accordingly the royal name might then be translated ‘Necho the hartebeest’. However, this is not exactly the epithet one would have imagined for a king who was long remembered as a sage, and indeed there is reason to believe that the orthography employed in the Tebtunis papyri represents a false etymology. As already noted, the origin of SS can be traced back some centuries . This word is homonymous with  , ‘wise’ (Wb. IV, 543–4), to  and it would seem rather more plausible in view of the king’s later reputation that the original name was ‘Necho the wise’. At the same time it is possible to offer a relatively uncomplicated explanation for the false etymology since the word SsA, ‘wise’, had become extinct by the Greco-Roman Period, while the homonymous SsA, ‘hartebeest’, was still in use.

Ägyptische Geschichte: Eine ptolemäische oder römische Kompilation?’, in E. Czerny, I. Hein, H. Hunger, D. Melman, and A. Schwab (eds), Timelines: Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak (OLA 149; Leuven, 2006), III, 233. 13 W. Brunsch, ‘Noch einmal zu 2IGI][’, BN 15 (1981), 7–8; cf. also B. U. Schipper, ‘Wer war “So", König von Agypten” (2 Kön 17,4)?’, BN 92 (1998), 71–84. 14 D. B. Redford, ‘A Note on II Kings, 17, 4’, JSSEA 11 (1981), 75–6. 15 Redford’s 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 171 (1963), 64–6; cf. also id., ‘727 vor Christus’, WZKM 69 (1977), 5–8; this interpretation was immediately endorsed by W. F. Albright, ‘The Elimination of King “So” ’, BASOR 171 (1963), 66, and other scholars. According to K. A. Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650 BC) (3rd edn; Warminster, 1996), 551, the name So rather refers to king Osorkon IV; cf. most recently Schipper, BN 92 (1998), 71–84.

2011

NEW LIGHT ON THE LEGENDARY KING NECHEPSOS

65

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 musical instrument closely associated with cult. It was briefly described by E. Brugsch and A. Wiedemann in the 1880s when it formed part of the Stroganoff collection (inv. 84) in Aachen.16 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 gehört’. 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 ägyptischen Namen des ersten Necho (…) vor uns haben. Die Sylbe ba wäre dann bei der Transcription unterdrückt worden, was bei den Griechen sich durch die Aehnlichkeit des bekannten Herrschernamens Necho leicht erklären lassen würde’. which In 1905 the royal name was re-interpreted by Petrie who rendered it he read as ‘Ne.kau.ba’ and interpreted as the royal name Nechepsos rather than Necho I.17 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 1914.18 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 from (and I assume that the Tebtunis temple library, it seems quite likely that the sign Wiedemann’s 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 time without 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.19 16 The object is briefly described in E. Brugsch, Sammlung ägyptischer Altertümer des Grafen Gregor Stroganoff (Aachen, 1880). The hieroglyphic text is published by A. Wiedemann, ‘Inschriften aus der Saitischen Periode’, RT 8 (1886), 64; cf. also id., Ägyptische Geschichte: Supplement (Gotha, 1888), 67. 17 W. M. F. Petrie, A History of Egypt (London, 1905), III, 318. 18 H. Gauthier, Le livre des rois d’Égypte, III (Cairo, 1914), 414 n. 1. 19 For the many variant and corrupt forms in which the original 2IGI][Z has been transmitted in the astrological tradition, see Krauss, GM 42 (1981), 54 n. 1. The variants in the various copies of Manetho are listed in F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, III/C (Leiden, 1958), 48–9, 110–11.

66

KIM RYHOLT

JEA 97

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 Manetho’s 2IGI][Zb which represents a no less than perfect transcription of Egyptian Ny-kA.w PA-SS. In Coptic pA SS is rendered pšoš (pšoš) or pšwš (pšōš), the latter being identical to the Greek -][b (psōs). 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.20 On this basis he has often been regarded as a distinct, proto-Saite king. There may, however, be reason to doubt 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.21 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 the former recently discussed by Olivier Perdu.22 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.23 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 Erzählung. 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 effectively excludes the possibility of a distinct king Nechepsos in the position ascribed to him in Manetho’s work, just as it rules out an identification with Necho I.

20

Cf. conveniently W. G. Waddell, Manetho (Cambridge ma, 1940), 169–73, 248–9. The date of the menat and the exact reading of its inscription still remain to be established. 22 O. Perdu, ‘De Stéphinatès à Néchao ou les débuts de la XXVIe dynastie’, Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 146/4 (2002), 1215–44. 23 K. A. Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (2nd edn; Warminster, 1986), § 117, 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. 21

2011

NEW LIGHT ON THE LEGENDARY KING NECHEPSOS

67

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).24 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.25 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 1).26 Table 1 Epithets of Necho I and Necho II in later literary tradition King

Epithet

Necho I

Necho Merneith

‘Necho beloved of Neith’

Necho II

Nechepsōs (Necho Psōs)

‘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.27 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.28 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 Manetho’s king list would record Nechepsos separately and prior to Necho I. Here I can only offer 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 24

The texts in question are the Inaros Epic, where the name occurs repeatedly, and several other stories including The Struggle for Inaros’ Armour (VII.21); cf. discussion in Ryholt, Carlsberg Papyri X, 121. 25 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, 2004), 485–6. 26 The same conclusion concerning the identity of Nechepsos was reached by Krauss, GM 42 (1981), 49–60, without knowledge of the correct etymology of the name. While his own interpretation of the name must be rejected, it does not affect the validity of his arguments in favour of the identification of the king. 27 This argument was already stressed by Krauss, GM 42 (1981), 50, 52, with further references. 28 Sothis Book nos 50–1. Nechepsos is again listed as no. 80 in the Sothis Book where the list of Saite rulers corresponds to that found in the copies by Africanus and Eusebius.

68

KIM RYHOLT

JEA 97

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 22, 610 bc. 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 23 January and 19 November.29 Necho II and the eclipse

The identification of Necho II as the ruling king in the Neue demotische Erzählung 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 30 September, 610 bc. However, as observed by Mark Smith, the earliest historically attested date in the reign of Necho II corresponds to 31 August, 610 bc, and hence ‘this eclipse did not take place until well after the death of Psammetichus I’.30 The date provided by the Yale and Lund text, if correctly understood and reliable, pushes the accession of Necho II even further back to 22 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 18 June, 595 bc, 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 of his 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 18 June, 595 bc, was only visible in the southern Pacific and not in Egypt.31 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 22 March, 610 bc.32 This leads to a curious situation since the accession of Necho II apparently only happened three full months later on June 22. There are several ways one may account for these circumstances: a) The information provided by the Neue demotische Erzählung is 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. 29 Cf. L. Depuydt, ‘Saite and Persian Egypt, 664 bc–332 bc’, in E. Hornung, R. Krauss, and D. Warburton (eds), Ancient Egyptian Chronology (HdO I/83; Leiden, 2006), 274. 30 M. Smith, ‘Did Psammetichus I Die Abroad?’, OLP 22 (1991), 105. 31 Nasa Eclipse Website < http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcat5/SE-0599--0500.html > (see under ‘-594 Jun 18’). 32 Smith, OLP 22 (1991), 105–9.

2011

NEW LIGHT ON THE LEGENDARY KING NECHEPSOS

69

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’.33 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 different mortuary texts written in both hieratic and demotic.34 Hence all that the Neue demotische Erzählung states 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 II’s 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,35 and the majority of the ones mentioned in the demotic manual on eclipse omina in Vienna are also negative.36 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

33 R. Krauss, ‘Dates relating to a Seasonal Phenomena and Miscellaneous Astronomical Dates’, in Hornung, Krauss, and Warburton (eds), Ancient Egyptian Chronology, 377–8. 34 Compare e.g. the texts edited by F.-R. Herbin, Books of Breathing (CBD 4; London, 2008), with those edited by M. Stadler, ‘Funf neue funeräre Kurztexte’, in F. Hoffmann and H. J. Thissen (eds), Res severa verum gaudium: Festschrift für Karl-Theodor Zauzich zum 65. Geburtstag am 8. Juni 2004 (StudDem 6; Leuven, 2004), 67–93. 35 This was kindly pointed out to me by Stephan Heilen. 36 Cf. Parker, A Vienna Demotic Papyrus on Eclipse- and Lunar-Omina.

70

KIM RYHOLT

JEA 97

of Egypt in 601 bc, 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 suffered a damnatio memoriae after his death.37 This is called into doubt by more recent studies,38 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 difficult 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 bc),39 or with another like-named individual buried in a tomb at Atfih (second century bc) which has astronomical ceilings.40 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,41 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, in fact, 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 version Nechepso (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. 37 Cf. J. Yoyotte, Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible, VI (Paris, 1960), cols 370–1; see also A. Spalinger, ‘Psammetichus II’, LÄ IV (1982), 1171; cf. also M. Depauw and W. Clarysse, ‘When a Pharaoh Becomes Magic’, CdE 77 (2002), 64. 38 R. Gozzoli, ‘The Statue BM EA 37891 and the Erasure of Necho II’s Names’, JEA 86 (2000), 67–80. 39 Cf. B. Bohleke, ‘In Terms of Fate: A Survey of the Indigenous Egyptian Contribution to Ancient Astrology in light of Papyrus CtYBR inv. 1132(B)’, SAK 23 (1996), 18 n. 43. Excellent photographs of the tomb have recently been republished by N. Cherpion, J.-P. Corteggiani, and J.-F. Gout, Le tombeau de Pétosiris à Touna el-Gebel (BG 27; Cairo, 2007). 40 L. Depuydt, ‘A Demotic Table of Terms’, Enchoria 21 (1994), 6. 41 For the traditions concerning the sage Petesis and his association with astrology, see Quack, CdE 77, 76–92; Ryholt, Carlsberg Papyri VI: Petese Stories II, 13–16.

2011

NEW LIGHT ON THE LEGENDARY KING NECHEPSOS

71

The divine instructors of Nechepsos and Petosiris

Finally, the identity of the divine instructors of Nechepsos and Petosiris should be mentioned. According to P. Louvre 2342 bis (P. Salt), Necheus and Petosiris received instruction from Asclepius and Hermes.42 It was already recognized long ago that Necheus here must be identical with the king otherwise referred to as Nechepsos, and this originally led to the suggestion that the text should simply be emended.43 It is now clear that the text is correct as it stands, since Necheus is simply a variant orthography of 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 with the text preserved in the Yale and Lund papyri, where Petesis deciphers a book on astrology composed by ‘Imhotep the Great, the son of Ptah’ and communicates his results to King Nechepsos. The identity of Hermes is less straightforward. Wildung, in his study of Imhotep and the passage in question, made no attempt to identify him. Much more recently, Joachim Quack has equated him with Thoth.44 There is, however, an alternative to this interpretation. A key to his identity is, I believe, provided by Clement of Alexandria (late second century ad), Stromateis I 21, 314.1,45 and Cyril, Contra Julianum VI 812.46 These authors both state that the Egyptians sometimes elevated mortals to the status of gods and they refer specifically — clearly as the two most prominent examples — to ‘Asclepius the Memphite’ and ‘Hermes the Theban’. Here again we find Asclepius and Hermes coupled together and, significantly, the latter is associated with Thebes. Accordingly, the Hermes in question can hardly be any other than the deified Amenhotep son of Hapu. Amenhotep was the most renowned deified individual in Thebes. Moreover, he and Imhotep were frequently coupled in Egyptian texts from the Ptolemaic period onwards; they even had a joint cult at Deir el-Bahri as healing gods.47 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’. 42

Riess, Philologus Supplement 6, 331; the sentence concerning Asclepius/Imhotep is cited by Wildung, Imhotep and Amenhotep (MÄS 36; Munich, 1977), 92–3. 43 Riess, Philologus Supplement 6, 331, Fr. 6, line 3. 44 Quack, CdE 77, 90. 45 Cf. Wildung, Imhotep, 98; T. Hopfner, Fontes historiae religionis Aegypticae (Bonn, 1922–25), 369. 46 Cf. Wildung, Imhotep, 107; Hopfner, Fontes, 656. 47 See the recent study by Adam Łajtar, Deir el-Bahari in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods (JJP, Supplement 4; Warsaw, 2006).

72

KIM RYHOLT

JEA 97

e) Nechepsos refers to Necho II. f) the accession date of Nechepsos may have been II Peret 1, i.e. 22 June, 610 bc. g) the deceased king Psammetichus of the Neue demotische Erzählung, who died in association with an eclipse, was Psammetichus I. h) Necho II’s 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.