Torok - Herodotus in Nubia-2014

Herodotus
in Nubia
LÁSZLÓ TÖRÖK
Herodotus in Nubia
Mnemosyne
supplements
history and archaeology

of classical antiquity
Edited by
Susan E. Alcock (Brown University)

Thomas Harrison (Liverpool)
Hans van Wees (London)
volume 368
The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/mns

Herodotus in Nubia
By
László Török
leiden | boston
Cover illustration: Portrait of Herodotus. Rome, Palazzo Massimo no. 124478. Marble, Roman copy of a
Greek original of the early 4th century bc. Photo © Museo Nazionale Romano.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Török, László, 1941- author.

Herodotus in Nubia / by László Török.
pages cm – (Mnemosyne, supplements ; volume 368)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-90-04-26913-2 (hardback) : alk. paper) – ISBN 978-90-04-27388-7 (e-book)
1. Herodotus–Knowledge–Nubia. 2. Nubia–History–Sources. I. Title. II. Series: Mnemosyne, bibliotheca
classica Batava. Supplementum ; v. 368.
DT159.6.N83T57 2014
939'.78–dc23
2014008121
This publication has been typeset in the multilingual “Brill” typeface. With over 5,100 characters covering
Latin, ipa, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities. For more
information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface.
issn 0169-8958
isbn 978-90-04-26913-2 (hardback)
isbn 978-90-04-27388-7 (e-book)
Copyright 2014 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Koninklijke Brill nv incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Global Oriental and Hotei Publishing.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without prior written permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill nv provided
that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive,
Suite 910, Danvers, ma 01923, usa. Fees are subject to change.
This book is printed on acid-free paper.

In memory of my wife Elizabeth
24 February 1943–8 August 2012
∵
Contents
Map of Egypt and Nubia ix

Political and Geographical Terms x
Abbreviations xii
1 Herodotus’ Nubia in Modern Scholarship 1

1 Images of Nubia in Herodotean Scholarship 1
2 Herodotus Halfway between Egyptology and Nubian Studies 7
3 Excursus 1: The Kingdom of Kush from the Eighth to the Fifth
Century bc. A Brief Overview 18
2 The Aithiopian Passages in English Translation 28
3 The Problem of the “Aithiopian Logos” 40

1 The Context of the Aithiopian Passages: Introductory Remarks 40
2 Was There an Unfinished Aithiopian Logos? 42
4 “Fiction” and “Reality” 54

1 On Sources 54
1.1 Excursus 2: Herodotus’ Priestly Informants and the Explanation
of the Nile Flood 63
2 Sesostris in Nubia 64
3 Excursus 3: A Note on Ancient Nubian Archives 71
4 Sabacos in Egypt 73
5 Psamtek II in Nubia 80
6 Aithiopians in the Siwa Oasis 82
7 Herodotus’ Two Aithiopias 1: Aithiopia South of Egypt. With Notes on
Oracles 84
8 Herodotus’ Two Aithiopias 2: The Land of the Long-Lived Aithiopians
on the Fringes of the Inhabited World 91
8.1 Excursus 4: Herodotus and Agatharchides 97
9 The Land of the Long-Lived Aithiopians Continued 103
10 The Gifts Presented to the King of Persia by the Aithiopians Living
South of Egypt 111
11 Two Aithiopian Passages in the Libyan Logos: The Autochthonous
Origin of the Aithiopians. The Aithiopian Trog[l]odytes 113
12 A Meditation on the Fringes 114
13 Aithiopian “Half-Men” in the Army of Xerxes I 116
viii contents
5 Herodotus in Nubia 118

1 Herodotus’ Sources on Kushite Kingship 118
2 “Reflections in a Distant Mirror” 126
Bibliography 137
General Index 153
Index Locorum 160
Map of Egypt and Nubia
Political and Geographical Terms
The political term Kush refers to the native kingdom emerging after the end of
the Egyptian New Kingdom occupation (c. 1069 bc) and existing in the Middle
Nile Region (between the First Cataract and the Khartoum area) as a political
unit until the ad fourth century.1 Between the end of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty
(the kings of which ruled over a double kingdom extending over Kush and
Egypt) and the third century bc, the Kingdom of Kush may also be called
Kingdom of Napata (after one of its centres); between the third century bc and
the ad fourth century it may be referred to as Kingdom of Meroe (after another
one of its centres).
In Greek texts in general and in Herodotus’ Histories in particular2 the King-
dom of Kush is called Αἰθιοπία, Aithiopia. In order to avoid confusion with
modern Abyssinia, the form Aithiopia is to be preferred to the generally used
writing Ethiopia.3 In Herodotus’ work Aithiopia is the name not only of the
“really existing” land south of Egypt’s southern border, but also that of the fab-
ulous land of the long-lived Aithiopians (Αἰθίοπες μακρόβιοι4). In the Histories
mention is also made of dark-skinned Eastern or Asiatic Aithiopians (3.94, 7.70)
living somewhere in Makran or Beluchistan.5 They do not belong to the topic
of the present study.
Geographically, and to an extent also politically, the term Aithiopia is inter-
changeable with the term Nubia.6 In a strict sense, Nubia7 designates Lower
Nubia between the First and Second Cataracts and Upper Nubia between the
Second and Fifth Cataracts. The term ancient Nubia is used as a general refer-
ence to the ancient polities and cultures in the Middle Nile Region.
The territory of ancient Nubia extends over the territory of two modern polit-
ical units, namely, Egypt (Lower Nubia from the First Cataract to Maharraqa, a
place now under the waters of Lake Nasser) and the Sudan (south of Mahar-
raqa). Discussing the Herodotean text, I shall use the term Aithiopia. Referring
1 Cf. Adams 1977; Török 1997a.

2 For the occurrences of Αἰθιοπία, Αἰθίοπες, Αἰθιοπίη, Αἰθιοπικός, Αἰθιοπίς, Αἰθίοψ in the Histories,
see J.E. Powell: A Lexicon to Herodotus. Cambridge 1938.
3 In quotations from the literature the form used by the actual author is preserved.
4 Herodotus 3.17, 3.23.2. Cf. H. Last: Αἰθίοπες μακρόβιοι. CQ 17 (1923) 35f. and Desanges 2008
173 f.
5 Cf. Karttunen 2002 466 f.; Asheri 2007c 415 f.
6 From the Nobiin ethnonym nob, “Nubian”? Cf. F. Breyer, MittSAG 20 (2009) 173–176.
7 For the natural, social, economic and cultural geography of Nubia, see Adams 1977.
political and geographical terms xi
to the actual land and polities behind Herodotus’ Aithiopia I shall use both the
terms Nubia and Kush.
Abbreviations
Periodicals, Series and Abbreviations Used in the Text and the

Footnotes
ANM Archéologie du Nil Moyen, Lille.

Annales Budapest Annales Universitatis Scientiarum Budapestinensis de Ro-
lando Eötvös Nominatae, Sectio Historica, Budapest.
ANRW W. Haase–H. Temporini (eds): Aufstieg und Niedergang der
römischen Welt. Berlin-New York.
Antichthon Antichthon. Journal of the Australian Society for Classical
Studies, Sydney.
AoF Altorientalische Forschungen, Berlin.
Arethusa Arethusa, Baltimore.
ASAE Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’ Égypte, Le Caire.
Athenaeum Athenaeum. Studi di letteratura e storia dell’antichità, Como.
ÄA Ägyptologische Abhandlungen, Wiesbaden.
ÄAT Ägypten und Altes Testament. Studien zu Geschichte, Kul-
tur und Religion Ägyptens und des Alten Testaments, Wies-
baden.
BdÉ Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale Bibliothèque d’Étu-
de, Le Caire.
Berlin Staatliche Museen zu Berlin-Preussischer Kulturbesitz
Ägyptisches Museum, Berlin.
BIFAO Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, Le
Caire.
BiGen Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale Bibliothèque Gén-
érale, Le Caire.
BiOr Bibliotheca Orientalis, Leiden.
BM The British Museum, London.
BzS Beiträge zur Sudanforschung, Wien.
Cairo Egyptian Museum, Cairo.
CAJ Cambridge Archaeological Journal, Cambridge.
CdÉ Chronique d’Égypte, Bruxelles.
CJ The Classical Journal, Ashland.
Copenhagen Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen.
CPh Classical Philology. A Journal Devoted to Research in Classical
Antiquity, Chicago.
abbreviations xiii
CRIPEL Cahier de Recherches de l’Institut de Papyrologie et d’Égypto-

logie de Lille, Lille.
CQ Classical Quarterly, Oxford.
d. died.
Dyn. Dynasty.
Eranos Eranos. Acta Philologica Suecana, Oslo.
EVO Egitto e Vicino Oriente. Rivista della Sezione orientalistica
dell’Istituto di storia antica dell’Università di Pisa, Pisa.
fl. floruit.
GM Göttinger Miszellen, Göttingen.
Hdt. Herodotus, The Histories.
Historia Historia. Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte. Revue d’Histoire
Ancienne, Stuttgart.
ICS Illinois Classical Studies, Champaign, Ill.
IFAO Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, Le Caire.
JARCE Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt, Boston.
JEA Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, London.
JESHO Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient,
London.
JHS The Journal of Hellenic Studies, London.
JSSEA Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities,
Toronto.
Kêmi Kêmi. Revue de philologie et d’archéologie égyptiennes et cop-
tes, Paris.
Khartoum Sudan National Museum, Khartoum.
Klio Klio. Beiträge zur Alten Geschichte, Berlin.
LAAA Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology, Liver-
pool.
Lalies Lalies. Actes des sessions de linguistique et de littérature,
Paris.
LCM Liverpool Classical Monthly, Liverpool.
MDAIK Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Abtei-
lung Kairo, Mainz.
MDATC Materiali e discussioni per l’analisi dei testi classici, Pisa.
Meroitica Meroitica. Schriften zur altsudanesischen Geschichte und
Archäologie, Berlin (vols. 1–14), Wiesbaden (vols 15–).
MFA Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.
MittSAG Der antike Sudan. Mitteilungen der Sudanarchäologischen
Gesellschaft zu Berlin e.V., Berlin.
OAth Opuscula Atheniensia. Annual of the Swedish Institute at Ath-
ens, Sävedalen.
xiv abbreviations
OBO Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Fribourg-Göttingen.

Or Orientalia, Roma.
PBA Proceedings of the British Academy, London.
RA Revue Archéologique, Paris.
REgypt Revue d’égyptologie, Paris, Leuven.
RHR Revue de l’histoire des religions, Paris.
Saeculum Saeculum. Jahrbuch für Universalgeschichte, Freiburg im
Breisgau.
SAK Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur, Hamburg.
SO Symbolae Osloenses. Norwegian Journal of Greek and Latin
Studies, Oslo.
SSEA Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities, Toronto.
StudAeg Studia Aegyptiaca, Budapest.
Sudan & Nubia Sudan & Nubia. The Sudan Archaeological Research Society
Bulletin, London.
temp. in the time of.
Trans Transeuphratène. Recherches pluridisciplinaires sur une pro-
vince de l’Empire achéménide, Pendé.
trans. translation, translated by.
TrGF Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta. Berlin 1971–.
Tyche Tyche. Beiträge zur Alten Geschichte, Papyrologie und Epi-
graphik, Wien.
ZÄS Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde, Leip-
zig, Berlin.
chapter 1
Herodotus’ Nubia in Modern Scholarship
1 Images of Nubia in Herodotean Scholarship
While the larger ethnographical logoi or excursuses had a well-defined

place in the scope of [Herodotus’] great history (…) the fringes were
just appendices. They were not necessary, but certainly entertaining. The
fringes were different, completely different, which fascinated Herodotus
and probably his readers, too.1
[D]arkness is not a subject for history.2
The little attention students of the work of the Father of History3 generally
pay to the Aithiopian passages is proportionate to the small volume—hardly
more than two thousand words—that these occupy in the Histories.4 Their
cavalier treatment is also influenced by the traditional belief that they reflect
“the tendency of Greek writers to treat Nubia as essentially an appendage of
Egypt, all the more so since most Greek accounts of Nubia took the form of
appendices to digressions on Egypt”.5
Be they conservative Quellenforscher or modern narratologists,6 students of
Herodotus do not feel obliged to inquire into the history and culture of ancient
Nubia because students of ancient Egypt encourage them to maintain that
modern Egyptology’s view of the Middle Nile Region does not greatly differ
1 Karttunen 2002 459.

2 H. Trevor-Roper: The Rise of Christian Europe. London 1965 9, quoted by Fernández-Armesto
2002 149.
3 Herodotus was called pater historiae first by Cicero, De legibus 1.1.5.
4 The standard Greek text of the Histories is to be found in C. Hude: Herodoti Historiae I–II.
Oxford3 1927 and H.B. Rosén: Herodoti Historiae I–II. Stuttgart-Leipzig 1987, 1995. In this
study I quote Tormod Eide’s English translation of the Aithiopian passages from Vol. I of
the Fontes Historiae Nubiorum (FHN); some passages are cited from the translation of de
Sélincourt–Marincola 2003.—Herodotus’ work came to be called History or Histories in late
antiquity. Herodotus uses ἱστορίη in the meaning “enquiries”, “researches”, “studies”. The Greek
term was restricted to the human past from the fourth century bc, see Asheri 2007a 8.
5 Burstein 1995 31.
6 Cf. H. White: Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-century Europe. Baltimore-
London 1973; id.: The Historical Text as Literary Artefact. in: R.H. Canary–H. Kozicki (eds): The
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi: 10.1163/9789004273887_002

2 chapter 1
from that of the ancient Greek writers. Alan Lloyd’s comment on Histories
2.30, a frequently quoted passage conveying Herodotus’ view that Aithiopian
culture had Egyptian origins (see here Chapter 2, Text 6; Chapter 4.7), presents
a pertinent summary of the twentieth-century Egyptological consensus:7
That the civilization of Ethiopia was an off-shoot of that of Pharaonic

Egypt is true (…) Egyptians were settled in the country as early as the
Old Kingdom and during the New Kingdom the whole country as far as
the Fourth Cataract became an Egyptian province and was thoroughly
Egyptianized. Even after the collapse of Egyptian authority at the end
of the 2nd Millennium her cultural influence continued and formed the
basis of the Meroitic Civilization which flourished during Herodotus’
lifetime.8
In Herodotean scholarship the interpretation of the Aithiopian passages

remains dependent on out-dated images of ancient Nubia presented in the
Egyptological literature published before the UNESCO International Campaign
to Save the Monuments of Nubia (1959–1969).9 While the discoveries made
during the Campaign brought forth the unfolding of Nubian Studies, a spe-
cial historical, archaeological, and culture-historical discipline,10 students of
Writing of History. Madison 1978 41–62; id.: Topics of Discourse: Essays in Cultural Criticism.
Baltimore 1978; id.: The Content of Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation.
Baltimore 1987.
7 For the consensus, see recently The Oxford History of Egypt: J. Taylor: The Third Interme-
diate Period (1069–664 BC). in: Shaw (ed.) 2000 330–368 356.
8 Lloyd 1976 132. See also Asheri 2007c 416, 420.—Lloyd’s extension of the Meroitic period
over the fifth century bc does not correspond with the Nubiological terminology, see
Political and Geographical Terms.
9 For the Campaign see, with further literature, W.Y. Adams: The Nubian Archaeologi-
cal Campaigns of 1959–1969: Myths and Realities, Success and Failures. in: Bonnet (ed.)
1992 3–27; A.J. Mills: The Archaeological Survey from Gemai to Dal. ibid. 29–31; T. Säve-
Söderbergh: The International Nubia Campaign: Two Perspectives. ibid. 33–42; F. Wen-
dorf: The Campaign for Nubian Prehistory. ibid. 43–54.
10 The history and archaeology of Nubia occurs from the 1960s in university curriculums as
part of the study of Egyptology, African studies, or social anthropology at several Euro-
pean and American universities. Encouraged by the success of international colloquiums
organised in connection with the UNESCO Salvage Campaign (see Actes du Symposium
International sur la Nubie. Le Caire 1969; E. Dinkler [ed.]: Kunst und Geschichte Nubiens
in christlicher Zeit. Recklinghausen 1970; L. Habachi [ed.]: Actes du IIe Symposium Inter-
national sur la Nubie. Le Caire 1981), an International Society for Nubian Studies was
herodotus’ nubia in modern scholarship 3
Herodotus continue to depend upon obsolete Egyptological commonplaces

when appending “source-critical” comments to the Aithiopian passages. As
an example of the discrepancy between Herodotean scholarship and Nubian
created in 1972. For the conferences organised by the Society see K. Michalowski (ed.):
Nubia Récentes recherches. Varsovie 1975; J. Leclant–J. Vercoutter: Études Nubiennes. Col-
loque de Chantilly 2–6 Juillet 1975 (BdÉ 77). Le Caire 1978; J.M. Plumley (ed.): Nubian Studies.
Warminster 1982; M. Krause (ed.): Nubische Studien. Mainz 1986; T. Hägg (ed.): Nubian Cul-
ture Past and Present (Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademiens Konferenser 17).
Stockholm 1987; Bonnet (ed.) 1992; Bonnet (ed.) 1994; Actes de la VIIIe Conférence Interna-
tionale des Études Nubiennes I. Communications principales. CRIPEL 17 (1995); Kendall (ed.)
2004; Caneva–Roccati (eds) 2006; Godlewski–Łajtar (eds) 2008; K. Godlewski–A. Łajtar
(eds): Between the Cataracts. Proceedings of the 11th Conference for Nubian Studies Warsaw
University, 27 August–2 September 2006. Part Two Session Papers. Warsaw 2010.—It was the
studies devoted to the monuments of the Meroitic period which were first recognized as
a special branch of studies. Conferences devoted to Meroitic studies are, similarly to the
conferences organised by the International Society for Nubian Studies, regularly held in
intervals of four years ever since the first one that was organised in 1971 by F. Hintze in
Berlin. For the International Conferences for Meroitic Studies, see Meroitica 1 (1973); 6
(1982); 7 (1984); 10 (1989); Wenig (ed.) 1999; D.A. Welsby (ed.): Recent Research in Kushite
History and Archaeology. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference for Meroitic Stud-
ies. London 1999.—Specialised periodicals and series devoted to Nubian archaeology and
history besides Sudan Notes and Records and Kush. Journal of the Sudan Antiquities Service
(Khartoum, 1953–) are the following: Meroitic Newsletter. Bulletin d’Informations Méroï-
tiques (Paris, 1968–); Meroitica. Schriften zur altsudanesischen Geschichte und Archäologie
(Berlin, 1973–); Nubian Letters (information bulletin with occasional preliminary reports,
The Hague 1983–); Beiträge zur Sudanforschung (Wien, 1986–); Archéologie du Nil Moyen
(Lille, 1986–); Nubica. Internationales Jahrbuch für Äthiopische, Meroitische und Nubische
Studien (1990–, 1 Köln; 2–3 Wiesbaden-Warszawa); Sudan & Nubia. The Sudan Archaeo-
logical Research Society Newsletter (London, 1992–); Mitteilungen der Sudanarchäologis-
chen Gesellschaft zu Berlin e.V. (1994–1999); Der antike Sudan. Mitteilungen der Sudan-
archäologischen Gesellschaft zu Berlin e.V. (1999–).—For the academic access to ancient
Nubia in the last quarter of the twentieth century, see the overviews in Adams 1977
and Török 1997a, and cf. B.G. Trigger: Paradigms in Sudan Archaeology. The International
Journal of African Historical Studies 27 (1994) 323–345; L. Török: Kush: An African State
in the First Millennium BC. PBA 87 (1995) 1–38; Török 2011c. For major exhibitions, see
Wenig 1978; D. Wildung (ed.): Sudan Ancient Kingdoms of the Nile. Paris-New York 1997;
C. Perez Die (ed.): Nubia. Los reinos del Nilo en Sudán. Barcelona 2003; D.A. Welsby–
J.R. Anderson: Sudan Ancient Treasures. An Exhibition of Recent Discoveries from the Sudan
National Museum. London 2004; Baud–Sackho-Auttissier–Labbé-Toutée 2010; K. Kröper–
S. Schoske–D. Wildung (eds): Königsstadt Naga. Naga—Royal City. Grabungen in der Wüste
des Sudan. Excavations in the Desert of the Sudan. München-Berlin 2011.—For an overview
4 chapter 1
Studies I quote a passage from David Asheri’s Commentary on Book III, one of
the most splendid recent works on the Histories:11
Most of the area [of Nubia] was known to the Egyptians, who dominated
it for 1,500 years, colonized it, and introduced their culture there (…)
In ancient Nubia, from the 8th cent. bc, flourished an indigenous king-
dom profoundly Egyptian in culture, with a religious centre in Napata,
beyond the Fourth Cataract; from the 6th cent. the political capital grad-
ually moved to Meroe, near modern Bagrawiya, about 160 km. south of
the Fifth Cataract (…) [The Kingdom of Meroe] was a typically Nilotic
culture, stretching along the two banks of the river as far as the desert
sand-dunes.12
This is very far from the general outline a student of ancient Nubia would fur-
nish today. Impressed by the seemingly thoroughly Egyptianized appearance
of Nubian culture, earlier students of Nubian history described the Egyptian-
Nubian nexus in the terms of conqueror and conquered, initiator and fol-
lower, model and imitation. In reality, however, the viceregal administration13
that was introduced in Nubia after the kings of the early Eighteenth Dynasty
expanded the limit of Egypt as far south as the region of the Fourth Cataract14
of the archaeological work conducted in the Middle Nile Region and a bibliography of
Nubian literature to 1967, see I. Hofmann: Die Kulturen des Niltals von Aswan bis Sennar
vom Mesolithikum bis zum Ende der christlichen Epoche (Monographien zur Völkerkunde
herausgegeben vom Hamburgischen Museum für Völkerkunde IV). Hamburg 1967. For a
comprehensive bibliography of Meroitic studies published before 1984 see Török 1988 291–
338; for further bibliographies, see the volumes of Beiträge zur Sudanforschung; Welsby
1996; Török 1997a; Edwards 2004; Török 2009, 2011a and cf. Fisher et al. (eds) 2012.
11 Cf. Mitchell 2008.
12 Asheri 2007c 416.
13 G.A. Reisner: The Viceroys of Ethiopia. JEA 6 (1920) 28–55, 73–88; L. Habachi: Königssohn
von Kusch. LÄ III (1979) 630–640; A. Gasse–V. Rondot: The Egyptian Conquest and Admin-
istration of Nubia during the New Kingdom: The Testimony of the Sehel Rock-inscriptions.
Sudan & Nubia 7 (2003) 40–46; El-Sayed Mahfouz: Les directeurs des déserts aurifères
d’ Amon. REgypt 56 (2005) 55–78. For further literature, see also Török 2009 171ff.
14 For the New Kingdom conquest of Nubia, see Trigger 1976; Zibelius-Chen 1988; Smith
1995; B.M. Bryan: The Eighteenth Dynasty before the Amarna Period (c. 1550–1352BC). in:
Shaw (ed.) 2000 218–271; Smith 2003; C. Bonnet: Le temple principal de la ville de Kerma et
son quartier religieux. Avec la collaboration de D. Valbelle, contribution de B. Privati. Paris
2004.
was not a colonial system excluding mutual benefit.15 Nubia was incorporated
into the Egyptian redistributive system in such a way that the conquered native
territorial political structures were integrated into the political and economic
administration of the province.16 The substructure of production and local
redistribution was to a considerable extent based on the social structure of the
indigenous chiefdoms existing in Nubia before the New Kingdom conquest.
Egyptianization remained selective in all segments of Nubian society.17
With the Egyptian withdrawal brought about by the decline of the late
Ramesside state in the first half of the eleventh century bc, the centralized
political and economic structure disappeared in Nubia. The former vicere-
gal domain disintegrated into smaller native polities. These were more or less
identical to the subordinate territorial units of viceregal Nubia, which, in turn,
had been organized on the basis of the pre-conquest native polities. The re-
integration of Nubia into one political entity in the course of the eighth cen-
tury bc18 was determined by the dysfunctions of the fragmented successor
polities and facilitated by the native elite’s experience of imperial administra-
tion. The successor polities inherited elements of a socio-economic structure
that functioned properly only on an imperial scale.
Modern students of the Egyptian-Nubian interface prefer to write about an
interaction between two rivals19 and give a description of acculturation pro-
cesses20 in Nubia as being characterized by an inner-directed use of Egyptian
15 Cf. R.J. Horvath: A Definition of Colonialism. Current Anthropology 1969 1–7; Frandsen
1979; T. Säve-Söderbergh in: Säve-Söderbergh–Troy 1991 10ff.; Smith 1995; B.J. Kemp: Why
Empires Rise. Review Feature, Askut in Nubia. CAJ 7 (1997) 125–131; Smith 2003.
16 For the issue cf. R.G. Morkot: Nubia in the New Kingdom: the Limits of Egyptian Con-
trol. in: W.V. Davies (ed.): Egypt and Africa. Nubia from Prehistory to Islam. London 1991
294–301; id.: The Economy of Nubia in the New Kingdom. in: Actes de la VIIIe Conférence
Internationale des Études Nubiennes I. Communications principales. CRIPEL 17 (1995) 175–
189; Morkot 2000 69 ff.; Török 2009 157–283.
17 Cf. Smith 1995, 2003; Török 2009 263ff.
18 For the different views on the genesis of the Kushite state, see, with the earlier literature,
Kendall 1999; id.: A Response to László Török’s “Long Chronology” of El Kurru. in: Wenig
(ed.) 1999 164–176; R.[G.] Morkot: The Origin of the “Napatan” State. ibid. 139–148; L. Török:
The Origin of the Napatan State: The Long Chronology of the El Kurru Cemetery. A
Contribution to T. Kendall’s Main Paper. ibid. 149–159; Morkot 2000; Morkot 2003; Edwards
2004; Török 2008; Török 2009 285–309; R.G. Morkot: Kings and Kingship in Anient Nubia.
in: Fisher et al. (eds) 2012 118–124.
19 O’Connor 1993.
20 For the interpretation of the archaeological evidence, cf. Török 1997a 108ff.; Kendall 1999;
Edwards 2004; Vincentelli 2006; Lohwasser 2010; Lohwasser 2012.
6 chapter 1
conceptions, forms, means, and modes of expression for the articulation and
maintenance of the native Nubian culture. The attitude of the native Nubian
Kingdom of Kush was the adaptation rather than the adoption of Egyptian cul-
ture.21
Asheri’s definition of Napata as the religious centre and first capital of the
Kingdom of Kush or the notion of a gradual shift of the political capital from
Napata to the city of Meroe goes back to late nineteenth–early twentieth-
century speculation.22 Launching a confused historical discourse, in 1952 G.A.
Wainwright23 dated the emergence of the city of Meroe as capital of Kush
with reference to Herodotus 2.29 and also assumed the historicity of Cambyses’
campaign (cf. 2.29–31, here Chapter 2, Text 6; Chapter 4.7).
Relying on the evidence of the Kushite royal inscriptions dating from the
seventh through fourth centuries bc24 and on modern settlement historical
research,25 more recent studies argue for a structure in which the territorial
units of administration were established around urban settlements functioning
as equal “capitals” of the Kingdom of Kush.26 Each of these “capitals” was cen-
tered on compounds formed by the temple of one of the Nubian Amun gods, a
royal residence, and stores serving redistribution. The principal administrative
centres of this type are attested at Meroe, Napata, Kawa, and Kerma.27 In the
seventh through fourth centuries bc the royal investiture was repeated in the
21 For the issue, see, with earlier literature, Török 2011a, 2011b.—See also the recent studies on
language and literacy: Rilly 2007; C. Rilly: Le méroitique et sa famille linguistique (Collection
Afrique et Language 14). Louvain-Paris 2010; Zibelius-Chen 2011. For a more conservative
discussion of the Egyptian-Nubian interface, see Kendall 2007.
22 Cf. I. Hofmann: Studien zum meroitischen Königtum. Bruxelles 1971 77; Adams 1977 305, 311;
I. Hofmann: Beiträge zur meroitischen Chronologie. St. Augustin bei Bonn 1978 41; F. Hintze:
The Meroitic Period. in: S. Hochfield–E. Riefstahl (eds): Africa in Antiquity. The Arts of
Ancient Nubia and the Sudan I. The Essays. Brooklyn 1978 89–105 94f.; Shinnie 1996 102,
etc.
23 Wainwright 1952.
24 For the inscriptions and their literature, see FHN I, II.
25 Cf. Baud 2008.
26 Cf. Török 1992; 1997a 420 ff.—This political structure is not to be confused with the “Su-
danic model” of the “segmentary state” as argued for by D.N. Edwards: Meroe in the
Savannah—Meroe as a Sudanic Kingdom? in: Wenig (ed.) 1999 312–320; cf. D. O’Connor–
A. Reid: Introduction. in: O’Connor–Reid (eds) 2003 1–21 16. Contra: Török 2008 162f.—For
recent settlement historical considerations, see Baud 2008.
27 For the evidence, see Török 2002 passim. For the Meroitic period, cf. L. Török: Economic
Offices and Officials in Meroitic Nubia. A Study in Territorial Administration of the Late
Meroitic Kingdom (StudAeg 5). Budapest 1979.
Amun temples of all these centres.28 The multiple coronation of the king seems
to preserve the memory of the unification of the land on the level of the myth of
the state (cf. Chapter 4.9), reflecting at the same time the governmental prac-
tice of an ambulatory kingship.29 Finally the vague notion of a “typically Nilotic
culture” does not describe at all the richness and complexity of Nubian culture
between the eighth century bc and Herodotus’ time. Altogether, what is a “typ-
ically Nilotic culture”? David Asheri’s description of the Kingdom of Meroe as
“stretching along the two banks of the river as far as the desert sand-dunes” is
similarly off the mark.
The last decades witnessed a spectacular renaissance of Herodotean schol-
arship.30 Weaknesses such as the ignorance of the assessment of lands and
peoples discussed or mentioned by Herodotus as paradigms, that is, not for
their own sake, continue nevertheless to represent blind spots in the image of
Herodotus’ world as it comes into sight in scholarly comments on the Histo-
ries. In this study Herodotus’ two Aithiopias are revisited with the intention to
confront them with the “real” world of ancient Nubia as it may be perceived in
the early 2000s. I do not intend, however, to present a source-critical study that
would attempt to exploit the Aithiopian passages in order to construe partisan
arguments for or against Herodotus’ trustworthiness (cf. Chapter 1.2).
2 Herodotus Halfway between Egyptology and Nubian Studies
Herodotus’ generally acceptable record on Egypt and a forgivable lapse

concerning the [Ai]thiopians (…)31
28 For divergent interpretations of the evidence, see, e.g., S. Wenig: Kommentar zu Török:
Ambulatory Kingship and Settlement History. A Study on the Contribution of Archaeology
to Meroitic History. in: Bonnet (ed.) 1992 137–140; A. Lohwasser: Die Darstellung der
kuschitischen Krönung. in: D. Kurth (ed.): 3. Ägyptologische Tempeltagung. Systeme und
Programme der ägyptischen Tempeldekoration. Wiesbaden 1995 163–185; Lohwasser 2000;
2001.
29 L. Török: Ambulatory Kingship and Settlement History. A Study on the Contribution of
Archaeology to Meroitic History. in: Bonnet (ed.) 1992 111–126.
30 For the literature, see C. Dewald–J. Marincola: A Selective Introduction to Herodotean
Studies in: D. Boedeker–J. Peradotto (eds): Herodotus and the Invention of History (Arethusa
20). Buffalo 1987 9–40 and see the other studies in the same volume. See also F. Bubel:
Herodot-Bibliographie 1980–88. Hildesheim 1991; Harrison 2000; Thomas 2000; Luraghi
2001a; Bakker–de Jong–van Wees (eds) 2002; Karageorghis–Taifacos (eds) 2004; Dewald–
Marincola 2006; Asheri–Lloyd–Corcella 2007 xvi–xliii; Rollinger et al. (eds) 2011, etc.
31 Lateiner 1989 268.
8 chapter 1
Preceding the first enlargement of the original Aswan Dam,32 in the first
systematic record of the monuments and archaeological sites of Lower Nubia,33
the archaeologist Arthur Weigall added the following remark to his description
of the Eighteenth Dynasty temple at Amada:34
On the roof of the temple there are a few Coptic inscriptions of no interest.
There is here an interesting forgery probably dating from the Middle Ages.
It is a Greek inscription reading “Herodotus of Halicarnassus beheld and
admired” and near it in a later style of writing is “No he did not”.35
It was with reference to Weigall that some years later also Henri Gauthier’s
detailed publication of the reliefs and inscriptions of the temple mentioned
the Herodotus graffito as a “fameuse inscription grecque, datant du moyen âge,
et relative à une prétendue visite à Amada d’ Hérodote d’ Halicarnasse”.36 Nei-
ther Weigall nor Gauthier did provide a facsimile or photograph of the two
inscriptions, however. Their text is known only from Weigall’s English transla-
tion. No doubt, the inscription with Herodotus’ name followed the Ptolemaic-
and Roman-period visitor-inscription type containing the visitor’s name and
the statement εἶδον καὶ ἐθαύμασα, “I beheld and I admired”. Hundreds of inscrip-
tions of this type are known from the syringai,37 i.e., the monumental tombs of
the Valley of the Kings at Thebes West, which belonged to the greatest tourist
32 Built 1898–1902, first enlarged 1908–1910. Cf. Adams 1977 71.

33 Between the First Cataract and the Sudan frontier, 1907–1911. Cf. Weigall 1907; G.A. Reisner:
The Archaeological Survey of Nubia Report for 1907–1908 I. Archaeological Report. Cairo
1910; C.M. Firth: The Archaeological Survey of Nubia. Report for 1908–1909. Cairo 1912; id.:
The Archaeological Survey of Nubia. Report for 1909–1910. Cairo 1915; id.: The Archaeological
Survey of Nubia. Report for 1910–1911. Cairo 1927.
34 PM VII 65–73; Weigall 1907 102–107; Gauthier 1913; L. Borchardt: Ägyptische Tempel mit
Umgang. Kairo 1938 41–44; P. Barguet–H. El-Achirie–M. Dewachter et al.: Le temple d’Ama-
da. Le Caire 1967; Arnold 1992 82; Török 2009 223ff.
35 Weigall 1907 106 (my italics).
36 Gauthier 1913 xxx.—The graffiti are not visible in the photographs taken in 1908–1910 by
the members of the Prussian Nubia expedition under the direction of H. Schäfer and
H. Junker. For their photographs documenting inscriptions on the roof of the Amada
temple, see H. Beinlich: Die Photos der preussischen Expedition 1908–1910 nach Nubien.
Photos 600–799 (Studien zu den Ritualszenen altägyptischer Tempel 17). Dettelbach 2012,
photos 734–738.
37 Greek name for the royal tombs given on account of their resemblance to the syrinx or
Pan flute.
attractions of Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt.38 The visit to the royal tombs of
the Valley of the Kings was obligatory for the nineteenth-century tourist as
well.
The dating of the Amada graffiti to the Middle Ages remains of course a
conjecture. I prefer to date a hoax of this type to the nineteenth century,
picturing a party of high-spirited scholars visiting the monuments of Egypt
and Nubia or else some well-educated young gentlemen on their Grand Tour
travelling along the Nile with the respectful expectation that they find remains
of things described by Herodotus, Strabo, Diodorus, Pliny and other ancient
writers,39 but at the same time gaily mocking their guides’ priggish habit of
elevating the value of a site or monument by directly associating it with some
famous personality of antiquity.
Also another intention may be attributed to the hypothetical hoaxer(s).
The southernmost place in Egypt that Herodotus claims to have visited is Ele-
phantine.40 Amada lies further 200km south of Elephantine in a region where
Herodotus certainly did not go. The sarcasm of a faked exchange between the
Father of History recording his visit to Amada and his admiration of its tem-
ple and the anonymous author of the other graffito who sneeringly denies that
he could ever go there implies that the actual writer(s) of the two inscriptions
was (were) well aware of the perennial debate around Herodotus’ trustworthi-
ness. However frivolously, the author(s) of the graffiti addressed the principal
dilemma that dominated the Nachleben of the Histories from antiquity to the
late twentieth century.41
38 Cf. J. Baillet: Insciptions grecques et latines des Tombeaux des Rois ou Syringes I–III. Le Caire
1920–1927; A. Bataille: Les Memnonia: Recherches de papyrologie et d’épigraphie grecque
sur la nécropole de la Thèbes d’Égypte aux époques hellénistiques et romaine. Le Caire
1952. For the visitors of the Theban tombs in the Graeco-Roman period, see recently
A. Łajtar: The Theban Region under the Roman Empire. in: Riggs (ed.) 2012 171–188
183 ff.
39 For the intellectual background of the early travellers, cf. B.J. Peterson: Swedish Travellers
in Egypt during the Period 1700–1850. OAth 7 (1967) 14–16; F.W. Hinkel: Otto Friedrich
von Richters Reise in Unternubien im Jahre 1815. AoF 19 (1992) 230–246; Török 1997a
7 ff.; P. Usick: William John Bankes’ Collection of Drawings and Manuscripts Relating to
Ancient Nubia. London 1998; D. Manley–P. Ree: Henry Salt Artist, Diplomat, Egyptologist.
London 2001; P. Usick: Adventures in Egypt and Nubia. The Travels of William John Bankes
(1788–1855). London 2002; Reid 2002 21 ff.; Török 2011c; H. Goren: Dead Sea Level. Science,
Exploration and Imperial Interests in the Near East. New York 2011.
40 2.29. For the place of Egypt’s southern border in Herodotus’ time, see Török 2009 364ff.
41 Momigliano 1958/1966; J.A.S. Evans: Father of History or Father of Lies: The Reputation of
Herodotus. CJ 64 (1968) 11–17.
10 chapter 1
The debate about the veracity of the Histories started with Thucydides,42
Ctesias,43 Hecataeus of Abdera44 and Manetho45 and was continued by Cic-
ero,46 Diodorus,47 Plutarch,48 Aelius Aristides,49 Aelius Harpocration,50 Liban-
ius51 and many others.52 It was vehemently revived by early nineteenth-century
scholars,53 among them authorities such as (Sir) John Gardner Wilkinson,
the leading British Egyptologist of his generation,54 or the eminent classicist
George Rawlinson. The mention of these two scholars is of course intentional
here. Wilkinson visited Nubia several times. In the event, in 1821–1822 he thor-
oughly studied the temple of Amada.55 In his Manners and Customs of the
Ancient Egyptians he made critical remarks on Herodotus’ credibility.56 It was
in collaboration with Gardner Wilkinson that George Rawlinson published
a commented English translation of the Histories between 1858 and 1861.57
42 Thucydides 1.21.1; 1.22.4; 2.41.4.

43 FGrHist 688 T 8, cf. Hornblower 2006 310; Asheri 2007a 51.
44 In Diodorus 1.69.7.
45 FGrHist 3a 3C T 7a.
46 Cicero, De Divinatione 2.56.116.
47 Diodorus 1.69.7, cf. Hornblower 2006 313.
48 Plutarch, De malignitate Herodoti, cf. Hornblower 2006 316; Baragwanath 2008 9–22.
49 Aelius Aristides, Or. 36.41–52.
50 Cf. Cameron 2004 156.
51 R. Foerster (ed.): Libanii opera. Leipzig 1903–1927, cf. A. Momigliano: The Classical Foun-
dations of Modern Historiography. Los Angeles 1990 39f.
52 See Momigliano 1958/1966 and cf. A.K. Riemann: Das herodotische Geschichtswerk in der
Antike. Diss. München 1967 (non vidi, quoted by Asheri 2007a 50ff.); Kaiser 1968 224f.
53 For the reception of Herodotus in the fifteenth to nineteenth centuries, see, e.g., H. Steph-
ano: Apologia pro Herodoto, sive Herodoti Historia fabulositatis accusata. in: Herodoti
Halicarnassei Hisoriae Libri IX et de vita Homeri libellus; Illi ex interpretatione Laurentio
Vallae adscripta, hic ex interpretatione Conradi Heresbachij: utraque ab Henrico Stephano
recognita. Francofurti 1620 17–67; S. Kipf: Herodot als Schulautor. Köln 1999; Asheri 2007a
53 f.; A. Olivieri: Erodoto nel Rinascimento: L’umano e la storia. Roma 2004, all with further
literature.
54 On Wilkinson, see J. Thompson: Sir John Gardner Wilkinson and His Circle. Austin 1992;
Reid 2002 42 ff.
55 Cf. G. Wilkinson: Modern Egypt and Thebes II. London 1843 321f.; PM VII 65ff. Wilkinson’s
largely unpublished Nubian drawings and notes are kept in the Bodleian Library, Oxford:
drawings MS. Wilkinson dep. a. 14, fol. 28–30, 55–56; dep. a. 16, fol. 22v; journals and
sketchbooks MS. Wilkinson dep. d. 9, 29, 43, 47, 60.
56 G. Wilkinson: Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians. London 1837–1841 II 353.
57 G. Rawlinson, in collaboration with Sir Henry Rawlinson and Sir John Gardner Wilkinson:
The History of Herodotus. London 1858–1861 (see esp. ad 2.28).
Both of them are feasible candidates for the authorship of the Amada inscrip-
tions.
Before the 1970s, Herodotus’ work was studied mainly as a historical source.
In the late nineteenth century and the larger part of the twentieth, the great
majority of the students of the Histories, partisans as well as deniers of Hero-
dotus’ trustworthiness, approached it with the methods of traditional Quellen-
forschung.58 In the late nineteenth–early twentieth centuries, source-critical
studies received a new impetus from archaeology, the increasingly refined
methods of which enabled the archaeologist to answer historical questions.59
With the spectacular development of Egyptology, the students of Book II, the
Egyptian logos,60 were supplied with a rapidly growing evidence to sustain the
confrontation of Herodotus’ Egypt with the land on the Nile “as it must have
existed in reality”. Besides contributions to mainstream Quellenkritik, however,
from the 1930s there appeared sporadic studies discussing aspects of the wider
intellectual context of the Egyptian and Aithiopian information embedded in
the Histories. I refer here first of all to pioneering works published by Hadas,61
Säve-Söderbergh,62 Lesky,63 and Herminghausen.64
Herodotus’ “dual identity, father of history and father of lies”,65 divided
nineteenth- and twentieth-century writers into two uncompromising camps.
Scepticism ranged from doubts concerning the reality of individual data or
stories in the Histories to a complete denial of the reliability of the Father of
History. At the turn of the nineteenth century, the eminent Egyptologist Fran-
cis Llewellyn Griffith doubted if Herodotus went at all to Egypt.66 Eighty years
later, Kimball Armayor would have similar doubts.67 Detlev Fehling argues even
more radically in his emblematic Die Quellenangaben bei Herodot.68 Maintain-
ing that Herodotus’ source-citations are nothing other than pure inventions,
58 Cf. Jacoby 1913 419–467; Herminghausen 1964.

59 Cf. B.G. Trigger: A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge 1989 148ff.
60 For the term λόγος, “oral report”, “story”, “prose text”, see Chapter 3.1 and cf. de Jong 2002
255. For the definition of logos as a self-contained story, cf. Jacoby 1913 330f.
61 M. Hadas: Utopian Sources in Herodotus. CPh 30 (1935) 113–121.
62 T. Säve-Söderbergh: Zu den äthiopischen Episoden bei Herodot. Eranos 44 (1946) 68–80.
63 Lesky 1959.
64 Herminghausen 1964.
65 Kwintner 1994.
66 F.Ll. Griffith in: D.G. Hogarth (ed.): Authority and Archaeology, Sacred and Profane. London
1899 187, quoted by Armayor 1978 59. But see also F.Ll. Griffith: Stories of the High Priests of
Memphis. The Sethon of Herodotus and The Demotic Tales of Khamuas. Oxford 1900.
67 Armayor 1978.
68 Fehling 1971. English edn.: Fehling 1989.
12 chapter 1
devices of a writer of fiction, Fehling concludes that most of Herodotus’ trav-

els are fictitious: While it cannot be entirely excluded that Herodotus visited
Lower Egypt,69 he certainly did not go to Upper Egypt:70
A man who gives a wildly wrong length of time for the route from Heliopo-
lis to Thebes, who declares that Egypt becomes broader again after four
days’ travel up river from Heliopolis (2.8.3), whose measurement for the
narrowest part of the Nile valley would make it over fifty percent wider
than the actual breadth of long stretches of the valley, who thinks Ele-
phantine is a city and not an island and imagines that the city of Syene71
is further away, and who, on the other hand, does not offer a single correct
detail on any locality whatsoever and says not a word about the mon-
uments of Thebes—this man has never been in Upper Egypt, even if a
conceivable explanation can be found for every statement he makes.72
While we must agree with Fehling that in fact Herodotus did not go to Elephan-
tine, it can hardly be denied that Herodotus (like Hecataeus of Miletus before
him73) went indeed to Egypt74 some time in the later reign of Artaxerxes I
(465–424bc), more precisely after the defeat of the Inaros revolt (c. 463/2–
449bc).75 Yet while Fehling’s criticism of the methods and views of traditional
69 Cf. also Armayor 1985.

70 Although Herodotus does not present any description of Thebes, the manner in which
he mentions parts of the Karnak Amun temple or the scene of his encounter with the
Theban priests in 2.143, where he is shown the statues of 341 generations of high priests,
makes it rather probable that he visited the place. Cf. Lloyd 1988a 107ff.; on genealogical
representations of Egyptian priests in the Persian period, see Moyer 2002 78ff.; Vittmann
2011 389 f.
71 Modern Aswan.
72 Fehling 1989 241 f., also quoted by Tormod Eide in his fine introduction to Herodotus’
Aithiopian passages in FHN I 302–307.
73 Cf. Hdt. 2.142 f.; Lloyd 1988a 107 ff.; S. West: Herodotus’ Portrait of Hecataeus. JHS 111 (1991)
174–190.
74 See recently Moyer 2002, and cf. C. Darbo-Peschansky: Le discours du particulier: Essai
sur l’ enquête hérodotienne. Paris 1987; Asheri 2007a 1ff.—Herodotus cannot be labelled
a “travel writer”, however (cf. C. Blanton: Travel Writing. The Self and the World. New
York-London 2002 1 ff.), see Dorati 2011 273ff.—For (failed) attempts at the reconstruction
of his travels, see, e.g., Jacoby 1913 248; G. Schepens: L’“autopsie” dans la méthode des
historiens grecs du Ve siècle avant J.-C. Bruxelles 1980 52f.; and cf. Dorati 2011 274f.
75 Cf. D. Sansone: The Date of Herodotus’ Publication. ICS 10 (1985) 1–9; J.A.S. Evans: Hero-
dotus 9.73.3 and the Publication Date of the Histories. CPh 82 (1987) 226–228; Moyer
Quellenforschung cannot be fully substantiated,76 one cannot fail to notice

that Egyptological research continues to present newer and newer arguments
for critics who question the quality of the information that was available to
Herodotus in Egypt or dispute the accuracy of his personal observations. For
example, recent scientific study of human remains resulted in a picture of med-
ical conditions in post-pharaonic Egypt that radically contradicts Herodotus’
assertion, viz., “next to the Libyans they (the Egyptians) are the healthiest
people in the world” (2.77).77 In fact, the historian’s statement “is impossi-
ble to reconcile with evidence from antiquity or any other known historical
period”.78
Fehling’s interpretation of the Histories as a literary work and his study of
the rules that he identifies as characteristic Herodotean devices, namely, the
“principle of citing the obvious source” and the “principle of respect for party
bias”, contributed to the growing criticism of traditional Quellenforschung.79 As
early as 1978 Armayor prompted an intertextual approach:
Even if Herodotus did go to Egypt, we cannot go on indefinitely trying

to account for what he found there on the basis of a simple-minded and
confused autopsy. It is difficult to imagine a literary genius of wide and
varied Greek learning confused enough to set down in full earnest the
impressions of Egypt that we find here. And if he was not in earnest, we
cannot go on treating his stories as serious evidence of fifth-century Egypt.
Herodotus drew heavily on previous Greek traditions of the country when
he came to build his narrative, and we must look to those traditions to
account for it.80
Meanwhile, the traditional source-critical analysis of the Egyptian logos arrived

at its peak in a series of masterly studies published by Alan Lloyd,81 with the
2002 79.—Herodotus on Inaros: 3.12, 15. Cf. M. Chauveau: Inarôs, prince des rebelles. in:
F. Hoffmann–H.J. Thissen (eds): Res severa verum gaudium. Festschrift für Karl Theodor
Zauzich zum 65. Geburtstag am 8. Juni 2004 (Studia Demotica 6). Leuven 2004 39–46;
Vittmann 2011 400.
76 Cf. Moyer 2002 72ff.
77 Trans. de Sélincourt–Marincola 2003 125.
78 W. Scheidel: Age and Health. in: Riggs (ed.) 2012 305–316 313; cf. id.: Death on the Nile:
Disease and Demography of Roman Egypt. Leiden-Boston-Köln 2001.
79 Cf. Luraghi 2001b.
80 Armayor 1978 71.
81 Lloyd 1975; 1976; 1988a. See also Lloyd 1988b; 1990; 2002; 2004; 2007.
14 chapter 1
three volumes of his Herodotus Book II. Commentary (1975–1988)—which also

serve as the basis of his commentaries on Book II in the magnificent volume
he published in 2007 in the company of David Asheri (Books I, III) and Aldo
Corcella (Book IV)—among them.82 The views of the sceptics were rebutted
in vociferous studies such as Kendrick Pritchett’s Liar School of Herodotus.83
Still, the attraction of Quellenforschung was gradually fading away, and two new
images of the author of the Histories began to take shape, viz., Herodotus the
literary artist,84 and Herodotus the earliest exemplar of an Annales-style85 his-
torian.86 From the 1970s new developments in the study of the ideological back-
grounds of ancient historiography and in cultural studies—especially in the
anthropological and sociological reassessment of early classical culture87 and
in the study of orality88—brought about a further shift of focus in Herodotean
scholarship. From a difficult subject of source criticism the Histories were
turned into a literary work89 through investigations into topics such as Homer’s
influence on Herodotus;90 Herodotus’ relation to orality and oral informants;91
82 English edition of commentaries published first in Italian, see D. Asheri: Erodoto. Le Storie.
Libro I. La Lidia e la Persia. Milano 1989; Libro III. La Persia. Milano 1991; A. Corcella:
Libro IV. La Sizilia e la Libia. Milano 1993; G. Nenci: Libro VI. La Battaglione di Maratone.
Milano 1999; A. Massaracchia: Libro VIII. La Battaglia di Salamina. Milano 1977; Libro IX.
La Sconfitta dei Persiani. Milano 1979.
83 Pritchett 1993. See also H. Erbse: Fiktion und Wahrheit im Werke Herodots. in: Nachrichten
der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen Philosophisch-historische Klasse 1991. Göttin-
gen 1991 131–150; id.: Studien zum Verständnis Herodots. Berlin-New York 1992.
84 Cf. R.V. Munson: Telling Wonders: Ethnographic and Political Discourse in the Work of
Herodotus. Ann Arbor 2001; Dewald 2002; Gray 2002; de Jong 2002; I.J.F. de Jong: Herodotus.
in: R. Nünlist–A.M. Bowie (eds): Narrators, Narratees, and Narratives in Ancient Greek
Literature I. Leiden-Boston 2004 101–114; Dewald–Marincola 2006; Marincola 2006, etc.
See also Emily Baragwanath’s excellent study of Herodotus’ representation of human
motivation: Baragwanath 2008.
85 Harrison 2000 3, with reference to Immerwahr 1966 2.
86 For the views on the historian, see Harrison 2000 2ff.
87 Cf. Hartog 1988, but see also Moyer 2002.
88 J. Vansina: De la tradition orale. Essai de méthode historique. Tervuren 1961; id.: Oral Tra-
dition as History. Madison 1985. Cf. also M. Schuster: Zur Konstruktion von Geschichte
in Kulturen ohne Schrift. in: J. von Ungern-Sternberg–H. Reinau (eds): Vergangenheit in
mündlicher Überlieferung. Stuttgart 1988 55–71.
89 Dewald–Marincola (eds) 2006 Preface xiii; Dewald–Marincola 2006.
90 Cf. Marincola 2006; Baragwanath 2008 35 ff.
91 Cf. Murray 2001; Fowler 2001; Luraghi 2001b; C. Dewald: Humour and Danger in Herodotus.
in: Dewald–Marincola (eds) 2006 145–164; Fowler 2006; Griffiths 2006; Luraghi 2006.
the impact of poetry,92 prose,93 and tragedy94 on his work; or his use of written
sources.95
As a tradition, studies on the Histories comment on the Aithiopian passages
from the viewpoint of the Egyptian logos, the study of which is considered,
again as a tradition, to be the special task of Egyptologists. Der Äthiopenlo-
gos bei Herodot, published in 1979 by Inge Hofmann and Anton Vorbichler,96
represents a welcome breach with this practice. Hofmann and Vorbichler inter-
preted Chapters 17–26 of Book III taking into consideration the archaeological
research conducted in Nubia up to the mid-1970s. Response arrived, however,
mainly to their rather eccentric interpretation of the supposed “mythological
genre” of the narrative in 2.17–26.97
In 1981 Stanley Burstein98 confronted more recent archaeological work at
the city of Meroe with the curious “source-critical” identification of “the Table
of the Sun” (3.18, see here Chapter 4.8) suggested before World War I by the orig-
inal excavators of the site99 and uncritically repeated ever since.100 Burstein’s
denial of the historicity of the Table of the Sun found no way into Herodotean
studies. As for Nubian Studies, Herodotus either continued to be quoted with
old-fashioned “source-critical” piety or was passionately refuted as a historical
source. As a rather unfortunate compromise, in studies published in the late
1980s on the textual sources relating to the political history of ancient Nubia101
and the history of the Meroitic period,102 the present writer took a critical view
of both Lloyd’s acceptance of the Aithiopian passages and Hofmann and Vor-
bichler’s hypercritical attitude. As it will be shown in later chapters of this book,
I was decidedly wrong in some of my conclusions. Others sounded somewhat
better:
92 Marincola 2006.
93 Fowler 2006.
94 Griffin 2006.
95 Cf. Fowler 2001; Giangiulio 2001; van Wees 2002 332; Hornblower 2002 374f.; Osborne 2002
510 ff.; Luraghi 2006.
96 Hofmann–Vorbichler 1979.
97 For critical remarks, see Desanges 1992 366.
98 S.M. Burstein: Herodotus and the Emergence of Meroe. in: Burstein 1995 155–164 (origi-
nally published: JSSEA 11 [1981]).
99 J. Garstang–A.H. Sayce–F.Ll. Griffith: Meroe City of the Ethiopians. Oxford 1911 25–27.
100 E.g., A.J. Arkell: A History of the Sudan. From the Earliest Times to 1821. London 1955 (2nd
rev. edn. 1961) 150; Shinnie 1967 15 f.; Lloyd 1976 124; Adams 1977 294.
101 Török 1986 15 ff., 188 ff.
102 Török 1988 125–129.
16 chapter 1
[D]er Rahmen, in den Herodot gelegentlich reale Informationen über

Kusch einfügte, eine politisch-moralisch akzentuierte Ideologie des ägyp-
tischen Königtums war, die er in Ägypten von seinen priesterlichen Infor-
manten kennengelernt hatte. Es lässt sich nicht feststellen (…) ob er im
Äthiopenlogos die ägyptische Königsideologie deshalb mit den ethni-
schen Vorstellugen der Äthiopen verbunden hat, weil er in Ägypten im
Zusammenhang mit der alten Königsideologie auch vom Lob der from-
men äthiopischen Könige der 25. Dynastie gehört hatte.103
In a paper presented in 1992 at the Seventh International Congress for Meroitic

Studies104 Burstein warned the students of ancient Nubia once more against
extreme expectations concerning the source value of the Aithiopian passages:
[C]lassical sources must be considered to be of limited value as evidence

for the reconstruction of the internal history of Nubia in the early first
millennium B.C. The relatively late date of the beginning of significant
Greek contact with Nubia, the predominantly military character of that
contact,105 and the Egyptocentric orientation of Greek historiography on
Aithiopia all combined to focus the interest of Greek historians on the
recovery of the history of relations between Egypt and Nubia rather than
the development of the Napatan state.106 Herodotus’ post-dating of the
Egyptianization of “Napatan” culture to the reign of Psamtek I (Herodotus
2.30.4–5) is indicative of the true state of his knowledge of the internal
history of Napata.107
The response arriving from Herodotean studies to the commentaries on the

Aithiopian passages included into Volume I (1994) of the Fontes Historiae
103 Török 1988 125 f.

104 S.M. Burstein: The Origins of the Napatan State in Classical Sources. in: Wenig (ed.) 1999
118–126. It was, however, a revised version of this paper that was first published: Burstein
1995 29–39.
105 Burstein formed his view of Meroe’s cultural contacts with post-pharaonic Egypt on the
basis of a now completely obsolete periodisation of Hellenizing art in Meroe in which
hardly any genre or monument was dated before the Roman period. For the literature on
the more recent assessment of Hellenizing art in Meroe and its chronology between the
third century bc and the ad second-third century, see Török 2011a.
106 Burstein 1995 36.
107 Burstein 1995 39 note 36.
Nubiorum108 was less than slight.109 Similar to the publication in 1997 of the
large-scale excavations conducted before World War I at the city of Meroe,110
the commentaries published in FHN I, too, are ignored not only in Alan Lloyd’s
more recent studies, in which he summarizes earlier research on the Egyptian
logos and the Aithiopian passages,111 but also in David Asheri’s commentaries
on Book III.112 Besides Nubian bibliographies compiled before 1983, Asheri
refers to a random selection of general histories113 and to some papers dis-
cussing detail problems.114 Referring to textual evidence from Kush, Asheri
quotes E.A.W. Budge’s The Egyptian Sudan, Its History and Monuments pub-
lished in 1907. Actually, Budge published English translations of the hiero-
glyphic inscriptions of the kings of Kush known at that time in another book.115
As to his biased general history quoted by Asheri, it became obsolete in 1949 at
the latest116 when M.F.L. Macadam published his magisterial monograph117 on
the hieroglyphic inscriptions discovered in 1929–1931 in the Amun temple at
Kawa.118
Generations of Quellenforscher turned with great confidence to the Histories
as a historical source. They were prepared to identify realistic historical infor-
mation not only in the logoi about the Persian expansion but also in accounts of
peripheral regions and peoples like Aithiopia and the Aithiopians. The recog-
nition of Herodotus’ fine perception of Greek history119 was extended over
108 FHN I 312–331, Nos 56–66.

109 But see the positive reaction of, e.g., J.G. Manning, Bryn Mawr Classical Review 1996. 04. 03.
110 Török 1997b.
111 Lloyd 2002, 2004, 2007.
112 Asheri 2007c.
113 Shinnie 1967; 1978; O’Connor 1993; Shinnie 1996; Welsby 1996.
114 Asheri 2007c 417 lists Török 1998 (with wrong page numbers) as an overview of recent
research, but does not use the up-to-date bibliography presented, and commented on, in
it.
115 E.A.W. Budge: Annals of Nubian Kings. London 1912.
116 Cf. Leclant–Yoyotte 1949; Leclant–Yoyotte 1952.
117 Macadam 1949. For the history of the academic access to the hieroglyphic Egyptian doc-
uments from Kush, see J. Leclant: Les textes d’ époque éthiopienne. in: Textes et lan-
gages de l’ Égypte pharaonique II. Le Caire 1973 123–135; Grimal 1981a, 1981b; FHN I, II;
C. Peust: Das Napatanische. Ein ägyptischer Dialekt aus dem Nubien des späten ersten
vorchristlichen Jahrtausends. Texte, Glossar, Grammatik. Göttingen 1999; Zibelius-Chen
2011; and cf. F. Breyer: Die meroitische Sprachforschung. Gegenwärtiger Stand und rich-
tungsweisende Ansätze. MittSAG 23 (2012) 117–149.
118 For the temple, see Macadam 1955.
119 Cf. Forsdyke 2002.
18 chapter 1
narratives such as the passage on the long-lived Aithiopians, their customs and
traditions and the marvels of their land (3.17–26, here Chapter 2, Text 7, cf.
Chapters 4.8–9). The present examination of the “historicity” of the Aithiopian
passages follows the path of traditional Quellenforschung only insofar as I
attempt to apply source criticism against the background of an early twenty-
first-century perception of ancient Nubia. While presenting my source-critical
considerations, however, I shall try not to lose sight of the Histories as a text, the
interpretation of which can only gain by forming a more reliable idea of the
relationship between the Nubian information that Herodotus could actually
acquire and the two Aithiopias which he fashioned with (or without) their use.
3 Excursus 1: The Kingdom of Kush from the Eighth to the Fifth

Century bc. A Brief Overview
In this chapter an outline of the political history of the Kingdom of Kush from
the early Twenty-Fifth Dynasty period to the fifth century bc will be added to
the brief remarks made in Chapter 1.1 on the Egyptian domination in Nubia and
the emergence of the post-New Kingdom native Kingdom of Kush.
From the reign of Sheshonq III (825–773bc) of the Twenty-Second Dynasty
(945–715bc) an increasing number of local rulers (first of all Lower Egyptian
ones) became autonomous in Egypt and adopted the title of king. By the middle
of the eighth century bc Egypt was politically in a state of extreme fragmen-
tation. Unlike the First and Second Intermediate Periods, however, this time
the political fragmentation of Egypt was not described as a fall into Chaos.
The essentially important political fiction of an undivided kingdom was main-
tained with the help of the ideology of Amun’s direct regency.120 Posteriority
remembered the Third Intermediate Period as a polyarchy based on dynastic
relationships and concordats121 (Herodotus’ δυώδεκα βασιλέας, “rule of twelve
kings”, “dodecarchy”, 2.147–148, 151–152122). Besides Amun’s direct regency, this
seems to have been the result of the successful economic-governmental func-
tioning of the smaller units that resolved the collapsed central administration
of the late New Kingdom. With a civil war starting in Year 15 (c. 836bc) of
Takelot II (850–825bc) of the Twenty-Second Dynasty,123 however, the political
120 Cf. Römer 1994 78ff.

121 Assmann 1996 319ff.
122 Cf. Kitchen 1996 § 358; Lloyd 2007 347.
123 Cf. D.A. Aston: Takeloth II—A King of the “Theban Twenty-Third Dynasty”? JEA 75 (1989)
139–153.
disintegration of Egypt took a decisive turn.124 The war resulted in the expul-
sion of the Twenty-Second Dynasty from Thebes and the emergence of the
Theban Twenty-Third Dynasty (c. 818–715bc).
By the middle of the eighth century bc Kush was powerful enough to get
involved in the efforts made at the reunification of the politically fragmented
Egypt of the Third Intermediate Period.125 Encouraged by the Theban high
priesthood and probably with the consent of the Twenty-Third Dynasty, some
time in the second quarter of the eighth century bc King Kashta of Kush
(c. 775–755bc) appeared in Upper Egypt.126 The reigning Theban God’s Wife of
Amun adopted his daughter into the office of the God’s Wife of Amun Elect.127
The institution of the Divine Adoratrice, or God’s Wife of Amun of Thebes,
emerged from the function of the New Kingdom great royal wife as priestess
of the royal cult and vehicle for legitimate succession in her double quality as
mother and wife of the king, who, in turn, was regarded son of the god and at
the same time son of his bodily father. The adoption was an important vehicle
of the royal legitimacy of the Divine Adoratrice’s father.128 A peaceful overture
is also suggested by the fact that in the second half of the eighth and the first
half of the seventh centuries bc the descendants of Osorkon III, Takelot III, and
Rudamun of the Twenty-Third Dynasty continued to enjoy a high social status
in Thebes and were buried there.129
Kashta’s son and successor Piankhy declared himself ruler of Egypt in his
early reign and carried out military actions against Lower Egyptian polities hos-
tile to Thebes.130 It remains unknown if, and to what extent, Piankhy realized
124 Cf. H. Jacquet-Gordon, review of the first (1972) edn. of Kitchen 1996. BiOr 32 (1975)
358–360.
125 Cf. Taylor 2000.
126 He appears on the dedication stela fragment Cairo JE 41013 found at Elephantine as
Nsw-bıʾty Ny-Mꜣꜥt-Rꜥ Sꜣ-Rꜥ Nb-Tꜣwy Kꜣ-š-ṯ, “The King-of-Upper-and-Lower-Egypt, He-who-
belongs-to-Re’s Order, Son-of-Re, Lord-of-Two-Lands, Kashta”. Trans. R.H. Pierce in: FHN I
No. 4.
127 For the evidence, see FHN I Nos (3), 4; Ayad 2009 11 ff.; and cf. G.P.F. Broekman: Once Again
the Piankhy-blocks from the Temple of Mut at Karnak. CdÉ 87 (2012) 233–258.
128 See, with literature, Troy 1986 103ff. For the political significance of the God’s Wife of
Amun, see M. Gitton–J. Leclant: Gottesgemahlin. LÄ II (1977) 792–812; E. Graefe: Unter-
suchungen zur Verwaltung und Geschichte der Gottesgemahlin des Amun vom Beginn des
Neuen Reiches bis zur Spätzeit. Wiesbaden 1981; Ayad 2009.
129 For the evidence, see D.A. Aston–J.H. Taylor: The Family of Takeloth III and the “Theban
Twenty-third Dynasty”. in: Leahy (ed.) 1990 131–154.
130 For the evidence, see FHN I Nos 8, 10; Török 1997a 144ff.
20 chapter 1
the threat represented by the advance of the Assyrians towards Lower Egypt.
It had to be realized to its full extent by his successors. Let us see the develop-
ments in some detail.
In 745bc Tiglath-Pileser III usurped the throne of Assyria. In the course of
the subsequent decade he incorporated much of Syria into the Assyrian empire
and occupied territories in Israel.131 In 732bc he conquered Gaza, where he
appointed the chief of an Arab tribe as “vassal gatekeeper over Egypt”.132 Tef-
nakht, an ambitious Lower Egyptian local ruler, first “chief of the Me(shwesh)”
(c. 740–735bc), later133 king of Sais (c. 735–720 bc),134 viewed the Assyrian
advance from a close distance. He recognized it as a parallel to the Kushite
advance from the south and thus one of the principal factors that determined
his own policy of expansion.135
Tefnakht extended his control first over the western Delta and the area of
Memphis, then made advances towards Upper Egypt. In his Year 19 (c. 736bc)
Piankhy received the news at Napata that Tefnakht and his allies had besieged
Heracleopolis,136 the city of Piankhy’s ally Peftjauawybast; and then he also
learnt that Nimlot of Hermopolis,137 another ally of his, had defected to Tef-
nakht.138 The ensuing events are recorded in Piankhy’s Great Triumphal Stela
erected in his Year 21 (c. 734bc) in the great Amun temple at Napata.139 First the
king sent his troops stationed in Upper Egypt north to recapture Hermopolis
and also dispatched an army from Kush; then, after defeats suffered at Hera-
cleopolis, he decided to lead an army to Egypt himself. He left Napata in his Year
20 (c. 735bc) after the celebration of the rites of the New Year and arrived three
months later at Thebes to celebrate there the Opet Festival.140 As a result of
131 M. Liverani: The Growth of the Assyrian Empire in the Habur/Middle Euphrates Area: A
New Paradigm. State Archives of Assyria Bulletin 2 (1988) 81–98; J.N. Postgate: The Land
of Assur and the Yoke of Assur. World Archaeology 23 (1991–1992) 247–263; A.K. Grayson:
Assyrian Rule of Conquered Territory. in: J.M. Sasson (ed.): Civilizations of the Ancient Near
East. New York 1995 959–968.
132 Onasch 1994 5 f.
133 After the end of the campaign of Piankhy, cf. Kahn 2006b 60.
134 For Tefnakht, see Kitchen 1996 362ff.
135 Redford 1992 346 ff.
136 Modern Ihnasiya el-Medina.
137 Modern el-Ashmunein.
138 Cf. Kahn 1998.
139 Cairo JE 48862, 47086–47089, Grimal 1981a; FHN I No. 9; cf. also J. Assmann: Die Piye
(Pianchy) Stele: Erzählung als Medium politischer Repräsentation. in: H. Roeder (ed.): Das
Erzählen in frühen Hochkulturen I. Der Fall Ägypten. München 2009 221–236.
140 Cf. W.J. Murnane: Opetfest. LÄ IV (1981) 574–579.
the subsequent military campaign, the local rulers accepted Piankhy’s author-
ity over Egypt. After the campaign Piankhy withdrew to Napata, his Nubian
capital (cf. Chapter 4.4), where he died in c. 721bc.
The conquest of Samaria around 720bc141 and subsequent interventions in
Transjordania represented a momentous step in the Assyrian advance towards
the Egyptian Delta. Conflicts with Lower Egyptian local rulers and the Assyrian
advance made it a necessity to transfer to the north the capital and royal
residence of the vast double kingdom of Kush and Egypt, which extended from
Memphis to remote Napata, i.e., from the Nile Delta to the Fifth Cataract.
To judge by his titulary,142 Piankhy’s successor Shabaqo (c. 721–707/706bc)
decided at his accession on an Egypto-centric policy and set up his court
at Memphis, Egypt’s ancient capital.143 Shabaqo’s successors, Shebitqo and
Taharqo, would similarly rule their double kingdom from Memphis.144
It would be ahistorical to suppose that the Kushites had, but missed, the
option of a brutally consequent unification of Egypt with the removal of all
local rulers. Anyway, the inherent dangers of the political fragmentation
became manifest in Shebitqo’s reign when the integrity of the central gov-
ernment received the first blows from the Assyrians. In support of Judah and
an anti-Assyrian coalition of Phoenician and Philistine cities formed in 704–
703bc, Shebitqo decided to meet the army of Sennacherib. Though in 701bc
Sennacherib’s forces at Eltekeh beat the Egyptian-Kushite army,145 Sennacherib
nevertheless retreated first to Philistia and then to Assyria, while Shebitqo’s
army returned to Egypt. The battle at Eltekeh could thus be interpreted as a
victory for the double kingdom.
Taharqo’s donation lists146 record the arrival in Nubia of precious Asiatic
goods in Years 8 and 10, which attests to trade contacts and possibly military
141 Cf. Onasch 1994 5 ff.

142 Horus-, Nebty- and Golden Horus names uniformly Sb(ꜣ)q-tꜣwy, “He-Who-blesses-Two-
lands”, in the style of Old- and Middle Kingdom titularies; Throne name Nfr-kꜣ-Rꜥ, “Re-
is-One-whose-ka-is-beautiful” (cf. Pepy II, Dyn. 6; Rameses IX, Dyn. 20; and Amenemnisu,
Dyn. 21). FHN I No. (12).
143 The adoption of the Throne name of Pepy II indicates that Shabaqo’s titulary was com-
posed at Memphis.—For Shabaqo’s motive in restoring Memphis as Egypt’s capital: Ass-
mann 2011 274 f.—For Memphis as Egypt’s capital in the Old Kingdom, cf. Zivie 1982.
144 A recent study argues for the sequence Shebitqo-Shabaqo, see M. Bányai: Ein Vorschlag
zur Chronologie der 25. Dynastie in Ägypten. Journal of Egyptian History 6 (2013) 46–129.
145 Kitchen 1996 385 note 815; Redford 1992 353, 356.
146 Macadam 1949, inscriptions Kawa III, Copenhagen Æ.I.N. 1707 and Kawa VI, Khartoum
2679 (for the latter, see also FHN I No. 24).
22 chapter 1
undertakings in the Levant around 683–681bc. The first blow that shattered the
image of imperial prosperity arrived in Year 17, 674bc, with the first attempt of
Esarhaddon of Assyria (681–669bc) at the conquest of Egypt.147 Esarhaddon’s
first invasion could be fended off, however, in March 673bc at the northeastern
frontier. Taharqo regained control over Philistia.
A new Assyrian invasion force arrived in March/April 671bc.148 After battles
fought in June/July at the frontier (?) in which, according to the Senjirli Stela,149
Taharqo was also wounded, the Assyrians took Memphis from where Taharqo
fled, probably to the south. Adopting the title of king of Egypt,150 Esarhaddon
appointed local kings, deputies and plenipotentiaries, in part Assyrian and in
part Egyptian, in the occupied Lower Egyptian area.151 The Assyrian vassals
included almost all of the Lower Egyptian local dynasts.152
Esarhaddon set out with his army for Egypt again in 669 bc,153 but he died
en route.154 He was probably going to react to the eventual reestablishment
of Taharqo in Lower Egypt and Memphis.155 Esarhaddon’s successor Ashur-
banipal (669–627bc) invaded Egypt in 667/666bc with devastating results.156
Taharqo’s Egypto-Kushite army was defeated,157 whereupon the king aban-
doned his troops and fleet and fled from Memphis to Thebes. Pursuing him
to Thebes the Assyrians did not encounter serious resistance and Taharqo was
forced to retreat still farther south. Returning to Nineveh, Ashurbanipal left
behind his vassals, among them Nekau I in Sais and Memphis and his son
Psamtek (the later Psamtek I) in Athribis,158 under the supervision of strong
Assyrian army contingents. It may have been the manner in which they were
handled by the Assyrian troops that made the vassal rulers of Sais, Mendes and
147 For the events between 673–663bc, see Kahn 2004; 2006a.
148 Esarhaddon Chronicle No. 14, Onasch 1994 21.
149 Berlin Vorderasiatisches Museum VA 2708, D.D. Luckenbill: Ancient Records of Assyria and
Babylonia II. Chicago 1927 224 ff.
150 EN.KUR.KUR = nb tꜣwy, for the evidence, see Onasch 1994 35.
151 Tablet BM 121029, Onasch 1994 34. See also the Ashurbanipal Annals, Prism E III.6ff.; ibid.
94 f.
152 See Ashurbanipal Annals, Prisms A and C, Onasch 1994 36ff.
153 For the events after 673bc, see Kahn 2006a.
154 Babylonian Chronicle No. 1, col. IV.30 f., Onasch 1994 18.
155 We only know that Taharqo’s authority was acknowledged in Memphis in 667bc, see Kahn
2006a 257 f.
156 For the complex evidence of the Ashurbanipal Annals, see Onasch 1994 61ff.
157 Onasch 1994 38, 149.
158 Modern Tell Atrib.
Pelusium to change their opportunistic minds. In 665 bc they made new over-
tures to Taharqo who remained, however, in Kush, where he died in 664 bc.159
After receiving an oracular decree in the course of a temple incubatio
announcing his divine birth as son of Amun and his legitimate kingship in Kush
and Egypt (cf. Chapter 4.4), in 664bc Taharqo’s successor Tanwetamani sailed
with his army north to Thebes.160 Receiving legitimation from Amun of Karnak,
Tanwetamani set about to reconquer Egypt from the Assyrians and their vas-
sals. He reached Memphis without meeting opposition in Upper Egypt, which
seems to reflect the strong support he received from the Divine Adoratrice and
the Kushite dignitaries installed by his predecessors in Thebes. The seizure of
Memphis and then the defeat of Sais crushed the resistance of some of the Delta
dynasts while others withdrew into their fortresses, which apparently had not
been attacked by Tanwetamani.
Receiving the formal surrender of a fraction of the local dynasts, Tanweta-
mani reinstalled them in their ancestral territories under the condition that
his overlordship remained acknowledged.161 In 664/663bc the news of Tanwe-
tamani’s reoccupation of Memphis and the death of the Assyrian regent Nekau
of Sais prompted Ashurbanipal to start an expedition to Egypt.162 On Ashur-
banipal’s arrival at the Egyptian border Tanwetamani fled to Thebes. The Delta
dynasts hastened to renew their status as Assyrian vassals. Ashurbanipal’s army
pursued Tanwetamani and laid siege to Thebes, from where Tanwetamani with-
drew to Kush. The restoration of the dynasties of Nimlot in Hermopolis and
Peftjauawybast in Heracleopolis indicates that the government established by
the Assyrians after the horrible sack and burning of Thebes163 was built on the
basis of the power distribution prevailing in Piankhy’s reign.164 Psamtek I of
Sais was recognised by the Assyrians as sole king of Egypt. During the course
of the next nine years he was able to enforce the definitive submission of the
rest of the northern dynasts and expel the Assyrian troops stationed in Egypt
with the help of Gyges of Lydia.165 In 656bc, he finally was able to arrange for
159 Cf. Onasch 1994 151 f.

160 Cf. Breyer 2003.
161 Tanwetamani’s Dream Stela, Cairo JE 48863, Grimal 1981b Pls I–IV; FHN I No. 29.
162 For the evidence, see Onasch 1994 120 ff., 156ff.; Kahn 2006a 264f.
163 With the sack and burning of Thebes the inconceivable happened: Nahum 1–3. The enor-
mous shock caused by the experience of the vulnerability of Thebes greatly contributed
to the eclipse of the ideology of Amun’s direct kingship in Egypt, cf. Assmann 1996 373.
164 For the political geography of Egypt following Tanwetamani’s withdrawal, see Kitchen
1996 395 ff.
165 For the evidence, see Onasch 1994 158.
24 chapter 1
the adoption of his daughter Neith-iqeret (Nitocris) as God’s Wife of Amun

Elect by the then reigning Kushite Divine Adoratrice Shepenwepet II (Piankhy’s
daughter) and the God’s Wife of Amun Elect Amonirdis II (Taharqo’s daugh-
ter).166
Egyptian policy turned hostile towards Kush in the early reign of Psamtek II
(595–589bc), whose army attacked the Nubian kingdom in 593bc (see Chap-
ter 4.5 below). At this time King Aspelta occupied the throne of Kush.167 Psam-
tek commemorated his campaign in stelae erected at Tanis in Lower Egypt,
Karnak in Upper Egypt, and Shellal close to the traditional border between
Kush and Egypt.168 The Karnak and Shellal stelae name ḫꜣst Pr-nbs, the “hill-
country of Pnubs (Kerma)” as the place where the Egyptian army won its final
victory over the army of the king of Kush. According to the Tanis stela, the
Egyptian army reached Trgb where “the residence of the kwr [i.e., the king of
Kush169] is situated”, then marched to the town of Tꜣ dhnt where the Kushite
army was massacred.
Most writers on the campaign locate these place-names in the region of
Napata-Sanam primarily because they associate the damaged royal statues
found in two cachettes at the great Amun temple of Napata with the destruc-
tion of Napata by Psamtek’s army. I have argued earlier that Psamtek’s army
reached only Sai (Tanis stela) or Kerma (Shellal and Karnak stelae).170 Charles
Bonnet and Dominique Valbelle see in the recently discovered statue cachette
at Dokki Gel (Kerma) an argument for the destruction by Psamtek II’s army of
the Amun sanctuaries both at Dokki Gel and Napata.171 In any case, Psamtek’s
army, if it reached Napata, must have taken the desert road leading from the
Third to the Fourth Cataract region since, unlike Dokki Gel and Napata, the
temples of Kawa escaped damages. Behind the legend of Cambyses’ (525–
522bc) invasion of Nubia (here Chapter 2, Text 7, cf. Chapters 4.8, 9)—which is
166 R.A. Caminos: The Nitocris Adoption Stela. JEA 50 (1964) 71–101. For a new translation, see
Manuelian 1994 297 ff. See also Ayad 2009 22 ff.
167 For Aspelta’s monuments, see with further literature FHN I Nos (35)-40; Török 1997a 365ff.;
Bonnet–Valbelle 2005; Valbelle 2012.
168 Tanis: Cairo JE 67095, Karnak: PM II 37 (135), Sauneron–Yoyotte 1952; Shellal (set up now
at New Kalabsha): FHN I No. 41. Cf. Manuelian 1994 333ff.
169 kwr is an early form of the Meroitic word qore, “ruler”, see F.Ll. Griffith: Meroitic Inscriptions
II. Napata to Philae and Miscellaneous. London 1912 72 (Index s.v.). The word appears
first around 1000 bc in the form kꜣwꜣr in the Onomasticon of Amenemope, cf. Rilly 2007
16.
170 FHN I 284 ff.
171 Bonnet–Valbelle 2005 164ff.
also reflected in the later classical tradition according to which the Persian ruler
conquered Meroe and gave the city its name172—we may suppose the memory
of Psamtek II’s Nubian expedition.173
Lower Nubia inevitably suffered serious damages during the conflict. The
negative change in the Egyptian attitude towards Kush as a part of Egyptian
history and as a neighbour was demonstrated not only by the military action,
but also by the subsequent destruction of the names and special royal insignia
of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty kings in their inscriptions and representations in
Egypt.174 The systematic damnatio memoriae intended not only the erasure
of the political memory of the Kushite rulers of Egypt. It also aimed at the
destruction of their existence in the other world. In general terms, it was a
manifestation of a complete dissociation as well as a declaration of a state
of hostility. It also may have been directed against the political ambitions
of the Theban Amun priesthood, which preserved a positive memory of the
Kushites175 (cf. Chapter 5).
Except for names and titularies, no textual evidence is known from the
reigns of the ten rulers who followed Aspelta on the throne of Kush.176 Yet
neither the archaeological evidence associated with them177 nor their titularies
give the impression of isolation or economic, political and cultural decline.
Their pyramid tombs display an adherence to early post-Twenty-Fifth-Dynasty
mortuary religion and burial customs. Political continuity is also indicated by
the homogeneity of the royal necropolis. The royal titularies emphasize the
concept of dynastic continuity from the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty.178 The general
lack of Horus,179 Nebty, and Golden Horus names shows the influence of the
172 FGrH 3C1, 673 F 63; Lucius Ampelius, Liber memorialis 13: Burstein 1995 163 note 20.
173 Burstein 1995 155 ff.—The possibility of an actual military conflict in Cambyses’ reign is
suggested by Morkot 1991 327.
174 The names of the Nubian rulers of Egypt were erased from the walls of the temples
and from their other monuments. The special Nubian regalia, such as the double uraeus
distinguishing the Nubian diadem from the traditional Egyptian diadem or the royal
necklace with pendants in the form of the head of the Nubian Amun, were chiselled out
from the statues and reliefs representing the kings of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty. Cf. Yoyotte
1951; Sauneron–Yoyotte 1952 157ff.; Russmann 1974 Appendix I No. 1, Appendix II Nos 5, 10,
13; Török 1987 7.
175 For the background, cf. Kienitz 1953 49 ff.; Lloyd 1982b.
176 For the evidence, see FHN I Nos (44)–(47), (49), (52)–(55); FHN II No. (67).
177 Cf. Dunham 1955; Török 1997a 375; 1997b 25 ff., 235ff.
178 See the throne names of Analma'aye, FHN I No. (46), Amaniastabarqo, ibid. No. (52),
Si'aspiqo, ibid. No. (53).
179 Except for Amaniastabarqo, FHN I No. (52).
26 chapter 1
reduced Egyptian titularies occurring with Psamtek III, the last Twenty-Sixth
Dynasty king, and with most Persian kings of the Twenty-Seventh Dynasty,180
rather than an independent departure from the five-part titulary in an attempt
to create a non-Egyptian type of titularies and introduce titles indicating native
traditions of rulership.
According to Herodotus (3.97, here Chapter 2, Text 8, cf. Chapter 4.10), the
Kushites living south of the Egyptian border sent gifts to the king of Persia.
While the Persian evidence depicts a vassal obliged to pay tribute, the reality
was probably commercial/gift exchange, coloured of course by the actual Per-
sian domination extending over Lower Nubia. In 7.69 (here Chapter II, Text 12,
cf. Chapter 4.13) the historian gives a description of Aithiopian warriors orig-
inating from the southern confines of Kush fighting in Xerxes I’s army. The
Persian side of the gift exchange is represented by pottery finds. For instance,
an Attic black sherd dated to the last quarter of the sixth century bc181 indicates
contact with Darius I’s Egyptian court. “Kushiya” appears among the coun-
tries that provided ivory for Darius’ palace at Susa and also figures as one of
the “tribute”-bringers depicted in the reliefs from the Apadana at Persepo-
lis (cf. Chapter 4.13). The Kingdom of Kush also appears in the lists of sub-
jects of Darius and Xerxes I.182 A fine Attic plastic rhyton made and signed
around 470bc by the potter Sotades and found under pyramid Beg. S. 24 at
the city of Meroe183 was produced—similarly to other vessels by Sotades—
for a Persian clientele184 and may be interpreted as a diplomatic gift sent to
the king of Kush by Xerxes I’s Egyptian satrap.185 While Kush does not seem to
have exploited the Egyptian revolt that occurred between Cambyses’ death in
522bc and 519/8bc, the subsequent anti-Persian revolts between c. 486–484bc
180 von Beckerath 1984 112 ff.

181 Bradley 1984 199.
182 Posener 1936 70, 187; J. Yoyotte: Une statue de Darius découverte à Suse: les inscrip-
tions hieroglyphiques. Darius et l’ Égypte. Journal Asiatique 260 (1972) 259. For Kushites
as throne-bearers of the Persian king: Walser 1966 51ff. Kushite tribute-bringers before
Xerxes: ibid. 100 ff., Pls 30, 81, 82.
183 MFA 21.2286; Dunham 1963 383, figs 212–215. For its dating to around 470bc, as opposed to
earlier datings to around 400 bc, see K. de Vries: Attic Pottery in the Achaemenid Empire.
AJA 81 (1977) 544–548 546; J.-Gy. Szilágyi in Török 1989 118 Cat. 1.
184 L. Kahil: Un nouveau vase plastique du potier Sotades au Musée du Louvre. RA 1972
271–284.
185 For the First Persian Period (525–404bc) in Egypt, see Posener 1936; Kienitz 1953; J. Ray:
Egypt: 525–404BC. in: CAH IV 254–286; and cf. G. Burkard: Literarische Tradition und
historische Realität. Die persische Eroberung Ägyptens am Beispiel Elephantine. ZÄS 121
(1994) 93–106; and cf. also Lloyd 1994.
(under Xerxes I), between c. 463/2–449 (revolt of Inaros under Artaxerxes I),
and between c. 414/3–404bc (under Darius II186) considerably changed the
perspectives of Kushite contacts with Egypt.187 The conflicts in Egypt were con-
sidered a chance for the Kushite reoccupation of the region between the First
and Second Cataracts. The reconquest was probably accomplished during the
revolt of Inaros, as it is also indicated by the archaeological evidence dating
to this period the withdrawal of the Egyptian forces from the Lower Nubian
fortress of Dorginarti.188
186 For Darius II in the Egyptian evidence, see Vittmann 2011 401–405.
187 For the Kushite-Egyptian contacts in the fifth and fourth centuries bc, see Morkot 1991.
188 The mud-brick fortress on the island of Dorginarti at the northern end of the Second
Cataract, about halfway between Wadi Halfa and Mirgissa, though dated traditionally to
the Middle and/or the New Kingdom (see Heidorn 1991 205), was usually left unmen-
tioned in the discussion of the Egyptian military presence in Nubia. Reluctance to clas-
sify Dorginarti with its irregular triangular ground plan and rectangular gate towers and
bastions as a Middle/New Kingdom fortress was fully justified by Lisa Heidorn’s reex-
amination of the archaeological evidence from the salvage excavation conducted at the
site by Richard Holton Pierce in 1964. Heidorn argued that the pottery and small finds
from Dorginarti belong to Egyptian and Nubian types occurring in Third Intermediate
Period through Twenty-Seventh Dynasty (First Persian Period, 525–404bc) assemblages.
Heidorn concluded that “the fortress was occupied from the mid-seventh century bc to
the end of the fifth; however, a late eighth-century to early seventh-century bc date for
the original occupation (…) is not precluded” (Heidorn 1991 205). Albeit identifying var-
ious finds datable to the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty period, Heidorn nevertheless discussed
Dorginarti only within the context of an “at least nominal northern control [of Lower
Nubia] from the beginning of the Saite period down through sometime in the fifth cen-
tury” (Heidorn 1991 206). For Dorginarti and related problems, see recently L. Heidorn:
Dorginarti: Fortress at the Mouth of the Rapids. in: Jesse–Vogel (eds) 2013 293–307; Török
2013.
chapter 2
The Aithiopian Passages in English Translation
[I]n no case is the past remembered “for its own sake”.1
In this study thirteen passages dealing with Aithiopia are discussed. They are
dispersed in Books II (seven passages), III (three passages), IV (two passages)
and VII (one passage). Further passages in Books II, III, IV, VII, and IX with men-
tions of Αἰθίοπες,2 Αἰθιοπίη,3 Αἰθιοπικός,4 Αἰθιοπίς,5 or Αἰθίοψ6 are disregarded
here since they are irrelevant for the present investigation and/or repeat infor-
mation which occurs in a more complete form in the passages given below.
In the following I give the text of the Aithiopian passages in Tormod Eide’s
English translation as published in Volume I of the Fontes Historiae Nubiorum.
In three cases I shall briefly quote from Aubrey de Sélincourt’s translation,
revised by John Marincola, and in one case I also include an emendation
suggested by Stanley Burstein. For the sake of easier reference I shall use “Text”
as an auxiliary term when referring to the individual Aithiopian passages (Texts
1–12; note that passages 2.137 and 2.139 constitute together one narrative [Text
2] which is interrupted by a digression on a not-Aithiopian topic, viz., the
temple of Bubastis in the eastern Delta7).
Text 1. Aithiopia Ruled by Sesostris, 2.110

Remark in the history of Egypt to the reign of Amasis.8
Sesostris was the only Egyptian king to rule Aithiopia.9
1 Assmann 1990b 9.
2 2.22, 2.42, 2.100, 2.104, 3.94, 3.101, 7.9, 7.18, 7.69, 7.70, 9.32.
3 2.11m, 2.12, 2.28, 2.146, 7.90.
4 2.86, 2.127, 2.134, 2.176.
5 2.106.
6 2.140, 3.30.
7 Cf. Lloyd 2007 340 f. and see L. Habachi: Tell Basta. Le Caire 1957; A. El-Sawi: Excavations at
Tell Basta. Report of Seasons 1967–1971 and Catalogue of Finds. Prague 1979; C. van Sieclen: Tell
Basta. in: Bard (ed.) 1999 776–778.
8 Amasis (= Ahmose II, 570–526bc) was the penultimate ruler of the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty who
died one year before the Persian conquest of Egypt.

the aithiopian passages in english translation 29
Text 2. On King Sabacos, 2.137,10 139

The history of the reign of Sabacos is part of the history of Egypt to the reign of
Amasis.
137 After him [Asychis] (I was told) a blind man from the city of Anysis
became king; his name was Anysis. During his reign the Aithiopians and
their king Sabacos invaded Egypt with a great force. This blind man then
fled into the marshes, and the Aithiopian reigned over Egypt for fifty years,
during which time he performed the following: When some Egyptian
committed a crime, he did not want to have any of them killed, but judged
each according to the gravity of his crime, ordering the offender to heap
up dykes in front of his home city. And in this way the level of the cities
rose even higher. For they were first raised by the men who dug the canals
during the reign of Sesostris, then again in the time of the Aithiopian, and
thus became very elevated.11 (…)12
139 It was a dream which finally caused the departure, or rather, the
flight, of the Aithiopian Sabacos from Egypt. He dreamt that a man stood
by his bed and advised him to assemble all the priests in Egypt and cut
them in half, and he is supposed to have said that he believed the dream
to have been sent by the gods, to provoke him to sacrilege and involve him
in some disaster at the hands of either gods or men. He refused, therefore,
to do what was advised; on the contrary, he preferred to leave Egypt, as the
destined period of his rule had now come to an end—for before he left
Aithiopia, he had received a prophecy from the Aithiopian oracle that he
was fated to govern Egypt for fifty years. The fifty years were now up; and
that fact, added to the disquieting effect of his dream, caused him to leave
Egypt on his own accord.13
Text 3. On the End of Aithiopian Rule Over Egypt, 2.15214

The end of Sabacos’ reign is reported in the history of Egypt to the reign of Amasis.
10 FHN I No. 60.

11 Trans. T. Eide, FHN I 317 f., No. 60.
12 Here follows a long digression, occupying the second half of Chapter 137 and the whole
of Chapter 138, on the city of Bubastis where “the level of the buildings everywhere else
has been raised, but the temple (…) [in the centre of the city] allowed to remain in its
original position, the result is that one can look down and get a fine view of it from all
round” (trans. de Sélincourt–Marincola 2003 152).
14 FHN I No. 63.
30 chapter 2
This Psammetichus had earlier fled the Aithiopian Sabacos, who had
killed his father Necos. When the Aithiopian withdrew as a result of
the dream he had had,15 the Egyptians from the nome of Sais recalled
Psammetichus, who at that time was in exile in Syria.16
Text 4. On the Nubian Expedition of Psamtek II, 2.16117

The Aithiopian campaign of Psammis (Psamtek II) is mentioned in the history of
Egypt to the reign of Amasis.
Psammis reigned over Egypt for only six years. He made a campaign into
Aithiopia, died immediately afterwards, and was succeeded by his son
Apries.18
Text 5. Aithiopia and the Siwa Oracle, 2.4219

The ethnographical digression about relations between the Egyptians, Aithiopi-
ans and Ammonians is inserted in the discourse on the customs of the Egyptians.
The Thebans and those who by their example abstain from [sacrificing]
sheep, say that this law was laid down for them as the result of the
following: Heracles desperately wanted to see Zeus, who did not want to
be seen by him. Finally, however, since Heracles insisted, Zeus contrived
the following: He flayed a ram, cut off the ram’s head and held it out in
front of him having covered himself with the fleece, and thus showed
himself to Heracles. This is the reason why the Egyptians make Zeus’
image with a ram’s head, and from the Egyptians this custom spread to the
Ammonians, who are colonists of Egyptians and Aithiopians and speak a
language which lies between those of the two peoples.20
Text 6. On the Nile between Elephantine and the Land of the Deserters, 2.29–
3121
The geography of Nubia from Elephantine above the First Cataract to the city of
Meroe and from Meroe to the region where the Egyptian Deserters were settled is
15 Cf. Text 7, 2.139.

16 Trans. T. Eide, FHN I 321, No. 63.
17 FHN I No. 64.
19 FHN I No. 59.
21 FHN I No. 56.
followed by a discourse on the customs and traditions of the inhabitants of the

city of Meroe and the history of the Deserters’ settlement in Aithiopia.
29 From no one else was I able to learn anything [about the sources of
the Nile], but this much in addition I learned by pressing my inquiries
as far as possible: on the one hand I went as an observer all the way to
the city of Elephantine, on the other I then investigated through hearsay
(ἀκοή) the region beyond. As one goes further up river from the city of
Elephantine the country rises, so there it is necessary to proceed with the
boat securely bound on both sides just like an ox. If the boat is torn away,
it rushes off borne by the force of the current. It takes four days to sail
through this region, and the Nile is here sinuous like the Meander. The
distance one has to sail in this way is twelve schoinoi. Thereupon you will
arrive at a smooth plain, where the Nile flows around an island; its name is
Takompso. From Elephantine on, the country is inhabited by Aithiopians,
and so is half of the island, while the other half is inhabited by Egyptians.
Next to the island there is a great lake around which nomad Aithiopians
live. When you have sailed through this lake you reach the course of the
Nile which flows into it. Then you disembark and travel along the river for
forty days, for sharp rocks emerge in the Nile and there are many sunken
rocks through which it is impossible to sail. After you have completed
the journey through this region during these forty days, you embark onto
another boat and sail for twelve days. Thereupon you arrive at a great city
with the name of Meroe. This city is said to be the capital of all the other
Aithiopians. The people there worship Zeus and Dionysos alone of the
gods, and honour them greatly. They also have an oracle of Zeus. They
go to war whenever this god bids them through oracles, and wherever he
bids them.
30 From this city you will arrive at the Deserters (Automoloi) sailing
again as long as it took to get from Elephantine to the capital of the
Aithiopians. These Deserters are called Asmach, a word that translated
into the Greek language means “they who stand at the king’s left hand”.
The defection to the Aithiopians by these 240 000 men of the Egyptian
warrior class took place for the following reason: During the reign of
Psammetichus garrisons were established in the city of Elephantine on
the Aithiopian frontier, and in Pelousian Daphnai another on the Arab
and the Assyrian frontier, and in Marea on the Libyan frontier yet another.
Even in my time, under the Persians, the garrisons are just as they were
in Psammetichus’ time; for the Persians have military posts both in Ele-
phantine and in Daphnai. These Egyptians, then, had been on guard for
32 chapter 2
three years without anybody relieving them; so after deliberation they all
by common consent defected from Psammetichus and went to Aithiopia.
When Psammetichus learnt this, he pursued them. Having overtaken
them he begged them with many words and would not let them aban-
don their paternal gods, their children and wives. It is said that one of
them pointed to his penis and said that where it was, there too they would
have children and wives. When these men arrived in Aithiopia, they gave
themselves over to the king of the Aithiopians. He rewarded them in the
following manner: Some Aithiopians had a disagreement with the king,
so he ordered the Deserters to remove them and inhabit their land. Once
they had settled among the Aithiopians, the Aithiopians learnt Egyptian
customs and have become more civilized.
31 So the Nile is known for the distance of four months of travel by boat
and on land, not counting its course in Egypt; for that is how many months
will be found to be used by someone who calculates the time it takes to
travel from Elephantine to these Deserters. The river flows from west and
the setting sun. From that point no one can offer a clear report, for there
the land is a desert by reason of the intense heat.22
Text 7. Cambyses’ ill-planned and unsuccessful campaign against the long-lived

Aithiopians, 3.17–2623
Cambyses makes plans for three military campaigns against Carthage, the
Ammonians, and the long-lived Aithiopians. The history of the campaign against
the long-lived Aithiopians starts with the sending of spies to Aithiopia to collect
what information they could, especially about the Table of the Sun. Digressions
follow about the Table of the Sun and the refusal of the Phoenicians to take part in
the planned expedition against Carthage and about the submission of Cyprus to
Cambyses. Next, a long discourse tells what the spies learnt about the customs of
the long-lived Aithiopians and the marvels of their land and describes the spies’
negotiations with their king. The spies return to Egypt to make their report, where-
upon Cambyses begins his march against Aithiopia. Arriving at Thebes he sends
50,000 men against the Ammonians. The remaining forces continue their march
towards the interior of Aithiopia without sufficient provisions. The campaign ends
with a catastrophic failure before the army could complete one fifth of the jour-
ney.

23 FHN I No. 65.
17 Thereupon Cambyses determined to launch three campaigns, one

against the Carthaginians, another against the Ammonians, and a third
against the long-lived Aithiopians, who inhabit the part of Libya that bor-
ders on the Southern Ocean. While he was making these plans he decided
to send the navy against the Carthaginians, a part of his land forces against
the Ammonians, and against the Aithiopians, in the first instance, spies
to see if the Sun’s Table said to be among these Aithiopians really existed,
and also to look into matters in general, under the pretext of bringing gifts
to their king.
18 This is roughly what is told about the Table of the Sun: on the
outskirts of the city there is a meadow full of boiled meat from every kind
of quadruped. During the night those of the citizens who at any moment
are in office take care to place the meat there; during the day anybody
who so wishes may go there and eat. The natives say that it is the earth
itself that produces the meat each time. This, then, is what is told about
the so-called Table of the Sun.
19 As soon as Cambyses had decided to send the spies, he summoned
from Elephantine, the city of the Fish-eaters, men who knew the Aithi-
opian language. While they went to find these men, he ordered the navy to
sail against Carthage.24 The Phoenicians, however, refused to go, because
of the close bond which connected Phoenicia and Carthage, and the
wickedness of making war against their own children. In this way, with
the Phoenicians out of it and the remainder of the naval force too weak to
undertake the campaign alone, the Carthaginians escaped Persian dom-
ination. Cambyses did not think fit to bring pressure to bear, because
the Phoenicians had taken service under him of their own free will,
and his whole naval power was dependent on them. The Cyprians, too,
had given their services to Persia and took part in the Egyptian cam-
paign.25
20 After the Fish-eaters had come to Cambyses from Elephantine, he
sent them to the Aithiopians, having instructed them what they were to
say. They brought as gifts a purple robe, a necklace of gold, bracelets, an
alabaster jar of myrrh, and a jar of Phoenician wine. The Aithiopians to
whom Cambyses sent them are said to be the tallest and most handsome
of all men. They are also said to have customs which set them apart from

34 chapter 2
other peoples, especially the following concerning the royalty: the man
among the citizens whom they find to be the tallest and to have strength
in proportion to his height they find fit to be king.
21 So when the Fish-eaters reached these people, they offered their
gifts to their king and said the following, “Cambyses, King of the Persians,
wishing to become your friend and protector (ξεῖνός26), sent us with
orders to enter into negotiations with you and offers you these gifts
which he too takes special pleasure in using himself.” The Aithiopian, who
had learnt that they came as spies, spoke to them in this vein, “Neither
did the King of the Persians send you as bringers of gifts because he
considers it important to become my friend (ξεῖνός); nor are you telling
the truth—for you have come as spies against my kingdom—nor is he
a just man. For if he had been just, he would not have coveted another
country than his own, nor would he reduce to slavery men who have done
him no wrong. Now give him this bow and tell him this, ‘The King of the
Aithiopians has a piece of advice for the King of the Persians. When the
Persians can draw bows that are of this size as easily as this, then let him
march against the long-lived Aithiopians with a superior force; but he
should be grateful to the gods that up to now they have not put it in the
minds of the children of the Aithiopians to acquire other land than their
own.’”
22 Having said this he unstrung the bow and handed it to them. He
then took the purple robe and asked them what it was and how it was
made. When the Fish-eaters had told him the truth about the purple
and the dyeing, he said that they were deceptive and that their clothes
were deceptive too. Secondly, he asked them about the gold objects, the
necklace and the bracelets. When the Fish-eaters explained their use as
ornaments, the king laughed; and, thinking they were fetters, said that
they themselves had stronger ones than those. Thirdly, he asked about the
myrrh. When they told him how it was produced and used for anointing,
he made the same comment as about the robe. When he came to the
wine and was told how it was produced, he was quite enthusiastic about
the drink and went on to ask what kind of food the king ate and what
was the longest a Persian could live. They told him that the king ate
bread, explaining all about wheat and that the maximum lifetime laid
down for a man was eighty years. To this the Aithiopian replied that
it was no wonder they lived so short a time since they fed on manure;
26 Xeinos, “official friend”, see Chapter 4.9.

they would not even have been able to live that long if they had not
restored themselves with this drink—and he drew the attention of the
Fish-eaters to the wine, for in that respect his people were inferior to the
Persians.
23 When the Fish-eaters in turn asked the King about the Aithiopians’
lifespan and food habits, he answered that most of them attained 120
years, that some surpassed even that, and that their food was boiled
meat and their drink milk. When the spies expressed amazement at the
number of years, he took them to a fountain with water which made
people who bathed there glisten all the more, as if it had been a fountain
of oil, and there was a smell from it as if from violets. The water of this
fountain was so thin (lit. ἀσθενής, “weak”), the spies said, that virtually
nothing would be able to float on it, neither wood nor things lighter
than wood, everything sank to the bottom. This water, if it really was as
described, could be the cause of their longevity, since they use it regularly.
When they left the fountain, he led them to a men’s prison where all were
bound in fetters of gold; for among these Aithiopians copper is the rarest
and most precious of all things. After having visited the prison, they also
visited the so called Table of the Sun.
24 Thereupon they finally visited the coffins of the Aithiopians, which
are said to be made of a transparent material (ὕαλος)27 in the follow-
ing manner: When they have dried the body, whether in the manner of
the Egyptians or in some other way, they cover it with gypsum and dec-
orate it all over with paint, imitating as far as possible the appearance
of the deceased; then they place around it a hollow block made of the
transparent material (this they dig up from the ground in great quan-
tity, and it is easy to work). Inside the block the corpse can be clearly
seen, while causing no disagreeable smell or any other unpleasantness,
and it leaves everything visible, just as the corpse is. The closest relatives
keep the block in their houses for a year, bringing it all the first-fruit offer-
ings and sacrifices; thereafter they take it away and set it up outside the
city.
25 After having visited everything, the spies departed home. When
they had given their report, Cambyses became angry and immediately
undertook a campaign against the Aithiopians, without either giving any
orders for supply of food nor himself realizing that he was about to make
27 Hyalos is the word used for alabaster, crystal, amber, and (first in Plato) for glass (note by
T. Eide, FHN I 327 n. 93).
36 chapter 2
a campaign to the farthest part of the world. Being a madman and not in
his senses he undertook the campaign as soon as he heard the report of
the Fish-eaters, ordering the Greeks who were present to remain there,
but bringing all his infantry with him. When, during the march, he came
to Thebes, he detached about 50,000 men from his army; and these he
commanded to enslave the Ammonians and set fire to the oracle of Zeus,
while he himself led the rest of his army against the Aithiopians. Before
the army had completed one fifth of the journey all that they had by way of
food was used up, and after the food there was a shortage of pack animals
too because they were being eaten. If then Cambyses on learning this
had changed his mind and led his army back, he would have been a wise
man in spite of his initial mistake; but in fact he paid no attention and
continued his march forward. As long as the soldiers could get anything
from the ground, they survived by feeding on grass; but when they came
to the sand, some of them committed an outrageous act: they chose by lot
one man out of ten and ate him. When Cambyses learnt this, the fear of
cannibalism made him abandon the campaign against the Aithiopians.
He marched back and arrived at Thebes having lost a great part of his
army. From Thebes he went down to Memphis, dismissed the Greeks and
sent them off by sea.28
26 So ended the expedition against Aithiopia (…)
Text 8. The gifts delivered to the king of Persia by the Aithiopians along the
Egyptian borders, 3.9729
The tribute paid to Persia by the Aithiopians living south of the Egyptian border is
recorded in the history of the reign of Darius.
Now the following were not required to deliver any tribute, but did bring
gifts: the Aithiopians along the Egyptian borders, whom Cambyses sub-
dued when he marched against the long-lived Aithiopians, (…) who30
live around the holy Nysa and celebrate the festivals for Dionysos. [These
Aithiopians and their neighbours have the same kind of semen as the
28 Trans. T. Eide, FHN I 326 ff., No. 65.

29 FHN I No. 57.
30 The relative pronoun can hardly refer to “the long-lived Aithiopians”. Stein 1893, followed
by Legrand 1939, suggested that a mention of the people referred to here has been lost (cf.
below “These two peoples together”). Rosén 1987 does not suppose a lacuna, but puts a
stop before the pronoun (note by T. Eide, FHN I 313 n. 84).
Callantian Indians, and they have subterranean dwellings.31] These two

peoples together used to deliver every second year, and still deliver in
my time, two choinikes of unrefined gold, two hundred logs of ebony, five
Aithiopian boys, and twenty great elephant tusks.32
An alternative emendation is suggested by Stanley Burstein,33 who translates

3.97 as follows:
The Aithiopians, those who are neighbours of Egypt, whom Cambyses

subdued while marching against the Long-lived Aithiopians and […] (sc.
those) who dwell near holy Nysa and conduct festivals in honour of
Dionysus. Both these bring as presents every third year, and they continue
to do so up to my time, two choinikes of unrefined gold, two hundred logs
of ebony, five Aithiopian boys and twenty elephant tusks.
In this study Burstein’s emendation is preferred to the emendation on which

Eide’s translation is based (see Chapter 4.10).
Text 9. On the Autochthonous Origin of the Aithiopians, 4.19734

The ethnographical remark on the autochthonous origin of the Aithiopians is
inserted in the discourse on the Libyan tribes and their customs.
These are the Libyans35 that I am able to mention by name; most of them
do not care anything about the king of the Medes (Persians) now, nor
did they then. I have one more piece of information on this land: four
peoples share it, not more, as far as I know, and two of the peoples are
autochthonous, the two others not; the Libyans and the Aithiopians are
autochthonous, the former inhabit the northern, the latter the south-
ern part of Libya; the Phoenicians and the Greeks, however, are immi-
grants.36
31 Interpolation considered as an intrusion in the editions of Stein 1893 and Legrand 1939
but accepted by Tormod Eide in FHN I 312 f. and in the translation of the Histories by de
Sélincourt–Marincola 2003 214.
33 Burstein 1995 159.
34 FHN I No. 61.
35 By “Libya” ancient authors generally mean the whole of Africa west of the Nile. For a full
survey of Herodotus’ uses of the terms “Libya” and “Libyans”, see Honigmann 1926.
38 chapter 2
Text 10. On the Aithiopian Trog[l]odytes,37 4.18338

The ethnographical remark on the Aithiopian tribe of the Trog[l]odytes is inserted
in the discourse on the Libyan tribes and their customs.
The Aithiopian Trog[l]odytes are the swiftest runners of all men of whom
tales reach our ears. The food of the Trog[l]odytes is snakes and lizards
and similar reptiles. They use a language that does not resemble any other;
rather they utter shrill sounds like bats.39
Text 11. On Aithiopia and the Aithiopians, 3.11440

A brief ethnographical description of Aithiopia, the furthest inhabited country at
the southwestern confines of the inhabited world and its inhabitants is inserted in
the history of Darius’ reign as part of a digression about the lands that lie at the
ends of the earth.
To the southwest41 Aithiopia extends toward the setting sun, the furthest
inhabited country. This country produces much gold, huge elephants, all
kinds of wild trees, and ebony; and the men there are very tall, handsome,
and long-lived.42
Text 12. Aithiopians in Xerxes’ Army, 7.6943

The ethnographical description of the Aithiopian warriors serving in Xerxes’ army
and of their customs occurs in the catalogue of the peoples in Xerxes’ army, which
is inserted in the history of Xerxes’ campaigns against the Greeks.
The Aithiopians had leopard and lion skins fastened to themselves; they
had bows made of palm wood, of great length, not less than four cubits,
and in addition small reed arrows, with tips made of sharpened stone
instead of iron, from the kind of stone they also use to engrave seals. They
also had spears with horns of gazelles sharpened to a point as spearheads,
and they had clubs with knobs. They go into battle with one half of their
37 The original form of the ethnonym was probably Trogodytai, see Chapter 4.11.
38 FHN I No. 66.
40 FHN I No. 62.
41 Literally “as noon inclines”, an expression of time here used locally, “where the south turns
(toward the west)” (note by T. Eide, FHN I 320 n. 89).
43 FHN I No. 58.
body smeared with chalk, the other half with ochre. The Arabians and the
Aithiopians who live beyond Egypt were under the command of Arsames,
son of Darius and Artystone, daughter of Cyrus, Darius’ favourite wife, of
whom he had a statue made of hammered gold.44

chapter 3
The Problem of the “Aithiopian Logos”
It would (…) be quite mistaken to think of Herodotus simply as a latter-day

Homer composing a prose epic.1
1 The Context of the Aithiopian Passages: Introductory Remarks
Before going down to the discussion of the actual contexts in which we encoun-
ter the Aithiopian passages, we have first to deal with some terms to be used
below, viz., λόγος, logos, “(oral) report”, “story”, “prose text” and προσθήκη/παρεν-
θήκη, “digression”/“insertion”. Herodotus uses logos to refer to the whole of his
work as well as to smaller narrative units in it2 while representing himself as a
narrator and at the same time a histōr (ἵστωρ)3 who is retelling stories heard
from others. He frequently separates the retold logoi (or the narrative units
he creates from reshaped logoi4) by simple narrative devices (“the Ammonians
say”; “it is said”) or more complex framing sentences.5
Neither Jacoby, who suggests in his monumental Realencyclopädie article
a fluid general definition for logos as an Erzählung von oder über etwas,6 nor
the majority of the later generations of Herodotean scholars make a clear ter-
1 Lloyd 2007 236.

2 Murray 2001 24f.; cf. Dewald 2002 274f.
3 The term ἵστωρ is attested in archaic poetry and in legal documents with the meaning “judge”,
“adjudicator”, “witness”, see Bakker 2002 14 with note 32. Although it is not used in the
Histories, Dewald 2002 273ff. convincingly argues that this critical role is an organic part
of Herodotus’ authorial persona. According to Dewald 2002 273, in the Histories’ proem the
initial “I” articulates the narrative structure of the work “as a binary one: material initially
received from others is told and to a certain extent arranged and critiqued by Herodotus
himself (…) The histōr’s ‘I’ (…) criticizes bits of information as data, but it also communicates,
supplements, and ultimately interprets the narrated content of the logoi”.—For Herodotus’
use of ἵστωρ, ἱστορεῖν, ἱστορία, cf. J.E. Powell: Lexicon Herodoteum. Cambridge 1938; Press
1982/2003 20 ff.
4 Cf. Dewald 2002 276 with note 20.
5 R.V. Munson: Transitions in Herodotus. Diss. Univ. of Pennsylvania 1983. Non vidi, quoted in
Dewald 2002 276; Gray 2002 302 f.
6 Jacoby 1913 282. See also the definition offered by Wolf Aly (Aly 1921) and his followers (e.g.,
Thomson 1935), according to whom the logoi are folktales in prose.

the problem of the “aithiopian logos” 41
minological distinction between longer narrative units such as the Egyptian

logos and shorter ones,7 which they term “short story”,8 “novella”,9 or “minor
logos”.10 Yet Jacoby also offers a more specific definition when arguing that the
logoi about foreign lands and peoples share the same quadripartite structure.
Namely, they uniformly consist of the following four components: a) account
of the land and its geographical situation, b) account of the form of life and
the laws and customs (νόμοι) of its inhabitants, c) account of the great accom-
plishments (ἔργα μεγάλα) and marvels (θώματα) of its natural and/or human
world11 that evoke the interest of the foreign (i.e., Greek) observer, and finally
d) account of its political history.12 According to Irene de Jong’s acute remark,
however, as long as an in-depth study of the term logos is missing its use remains
problematic.13 We shall see in the following chapters of this book that even the
longer Aithiopian passages, viz., Book II Chapters 29–31 (here Chapter 2, Text 6)
and Book III Chapters 17–26 (here Chapter 2, Text 7) fail to satisfy Jacoby’s cri-
teria.
Herodotus states that “I need not apologize for the digressions (προσθήκας)
—it has been my habit throughout this logos” (4.30).14 He uses the terms
προσθήκη, “addition”, “digression” (4.30), or παρενθήκη, “insertion” (7.171) for
what the literature uses to refer to as “digression”, “Exkurs”.15 Jacoby remarks
at one place that the Histories consist mainly of Exkurse and Exkurse within
Exkurse.16 It would be difficult to reconcile such a description with another
suggestion of Jacoby’s according to which there are the following types of
Exkurse in the Histories: 1) “not real” digressions, which only insert material
that could not be placed in the “main story”;17 2) short “real digressions” that
cause no or little disruption;18 and 3) digressions that add important material,
7 E.g., Thomson 1935: all types of narrative are logoi.

8 E.g., Gray 2002.
9 Cf. Cobet 1971 82.
10 Minor logoi: Immerwahr 1966.
11 Cf. Lloyd 1975 141 ff.
12 Jacoby 1913 331.
13 De Jong 2002 255.
14 Slightly modified trans. after de Sélincourt–Marincola 2003 250.
15 On Plutarch’s negative opinion of Herodotus’ “out of place” digressions, see Baragwanath
2008 12 f., 28.
16 Jacoby 1913 256.—For some scholars the logos on the land, history and customs of Egypt
in Chapters 2.1–182 represent nothing but a lengthy digression, see Harrison 2002 555.
17 Jacoby 1913 381.
18 Jacoby 1913 384.
42 chapter 3
which Herodotus could not present “in its proper place”.19 The study of the
digressions thus classified does not support their evaluation as “additional
material” inserted in the main narrative, however. The explanation of such a
procedure on the basis of the speculation that “his advancing age (…) urged
(Herodotus) to give his knowledge an existence independent of his own, then
omitting any piece of it meant consigning it to oblivion”20 is not convincing,
either. Not denying that there are indeed some digressions of the “additional
material” kind, one cannot fail to notice that the overwhelming majority of the
digressions is inserted in a calculated manner in places where they support
the articulation of Herodotus’ worldview. Nevertheless, it is not necessary to
go as far as Immerwahr’s radical suggestion according to which there is no
hierarchy of major and minor units in the Histories: According to Immerwahr,
nothing should be termed digression as it would indicate unimportance.21 The
recent consensus about the genre of digression is summarized thus by John
Marincola:
[j]ust as Homer by means of flashbacks and anticipations (what narratol-

ogists term analepses and prolepses) fills out the story beyond the tem-
poral boundaries of his main narrative, so Herodotus frequently employs
digressions (temporal and spatial) to give necessary or important back-
ground or supplementary information.22
The division between narratives like 3.17–26 and the Herodotean digression
as characterized by Marincola remains rather imprecise, however. Instead of
insisting on superfluous terminological distinctions, it is advisable to use both
logos and “digression” as auxiliary terms.
2 Was There an Unfinished Aithiopian Logos?
As we have seen in Chapter 3.1, Jacoby defines the logoi about foreign lands
and peoples as stories consisting de rigueur of four components, viz., accounts
of the land and its geographical situation, the form of life and the laws and
customs of its inhabitants, the “great accomplishments” and “marvels” of its
19 Jacoby 1913 386.

20 Rösler 2002 83.
21 Immerwahr 1966 11 ff.; cf. Erbse 1961; Kaiser 1968 210 note 1; Gray 2002 302f.
22 Marincola 2006 14, cf. van Wees 2002 321; de Jong 2002.
natural and/or human world, and finally an account of its political history.23
Accordingly, he classifies Chapters 3.17–26 (here Chapter II, Text 7) together
with the logoi about Lydia (1.6–94), Babylon (1.192–200), the Massagetae (1.201–
216), Egypt (2.1–3.16), India (3.98–105), Scythia (4.5–82), Libya (4.168–199), and
Thrace (5.3–9).
Several writers accept Jacoby’s definition and refer with him to the narra-
tive in Chapters 3.17–26 as “Aithiopian logos”.24 Jacoby characterizes it as fol-
lows:
[während im] allerdings sehr kurzen λόγος über die Äthiopen (…) die
historischen Fakta ganz dürftig [sind], das ethnographische Material ver-
hältnismässig reichhaltig ist. Letzteres wird nämlich an drei verschiede-
nen Stellen eingelegt; das Hauptstück über die νόμοι [customs] III 20 an
der gleichen Stelle, wo sonst diese Exkurse stehen; das eine grosse θαυμά-
σιον [marvel], die ἡλίου τράπεζα [the Table of the Sun], als Motivierung der
Aussendung von κατόπται [spies] (III 17–18); der Rest wird auf den Dia-
log zwischen Äthiopenkönig und den von Xerxes [correctly: Cambyses!]
zu ihm gesandten Ichthyophagen verteilt (III 21–24).25
Several questions remain open here. Is the “in any case very short” narrative
a standard logos conforming in structure and contents with the logoi listed
above, or should it be defined in a different way? Is it possible that Herodotus
planned a self-contained Aithiopian logos which he did not complete? If so,
should the Aithiopian passages be interpreted as dispersed fragments of an
unaccomplished logos? In order to answer these questions, we have to con-
sider the Aithiopian passages within their narrative context. An introductory
overview is presented in the table below:
23 Jacoby 1913 341 ff., esp. 347. We read, however, on p. 342 that “Man kann sich garnicht
vorstellen, wie z. B. die kurze Beschreibung Thrakiens oder die von Aethiopien als beson-
dere λόγοι hätten existieren können”.
24 E.g., Hofmann–Vorbichler 1979; FHN I 323 ff.; Dorati 2011, etc.
25 Jacoby 1913 347.
44 chapter 3
Text King/period Narrative context
Text 1 Hdt. 2.110 Sesostris Dyn. 12 Sesostris legend 2.102–110 in:

Aithiopia ruled by Sesostris Egyptian history to the reign of
Amasis 2.99–182
Text 2 Hdt. 2.137, 139 Sabacos (Shabaqo) Dyn. 25 reign of Anysis 2.137–140 in:
Sabacos as ruler of Egypt Egyptian history to the reign of
Amasis 2.99–182
Text 3 Hdt. 2.152 Psammetichus (Psamtek I) reign of Psamtek I 2.151–157 in:

End of Sabacos’ rule over Egypt Dyn. 26 Egyptian history to the reign of
Amasis 2.99–182
Text 4 Hdt. 2.161 Psammis (Psamtek II) Dyn. 26, reign of Psamtek II 2.159–161
Psammis’ Nubian expedition 593bc26 in: Egyptian history to the
reign of Amasis 2.99–182
Text 5 Hdt. 2.42 Cambyses First Persian Period customs of the Egyptians
Aithiopia and the Siwa oracle (Dyn. 27) 2.35–98 in: accession of
Cambyses, his campaigns
against Egypt and Aithiopia
2.1–3.38
Text 6 Hdt. 2.29–31 Cambyses First Persian Period geography of Egypt and
The Nile between Elephantine (Dyn. 27) Aithiopia 2.2–34
and the land of the Deserters
Text 7 Hdt. 3.17–26 Cambyses First Persian Period Cambyses’ campaigns against
Cambyses in Nubia; the land (Dyn. 27) Aithiopia and the Ammonians
and customs of the long-lived 3.17–26 in: campaigns against
Aithiopians Egypt and Aithiopia 2.1–3.38
Text 8 Hdt. 3.97 Darius I First Persian Period reign of Darius 3.89–7.3
The gifts delivered by the (Dyn. 27)
Aithiopians to the king of Persia
26 For the date of the expedition, see FHN I No. 41.

Text King/period Narrative context
Text 9 Hdt. 4.197 Darius I First Persian Period Libyan tribes and their
The autochthonous origin of (Dyn. 27) customs 4.168–199 in: reign of
the Aithiopians Darius 3.89–7.3
Text 10 Hdt. 4.183 Darius I First Persian Period Libyan tribes and their
The Aithiopian Trog[l]odytes (Dyn. 27) customs 4.168–199 in: reign of
Darius 3.89–7.3
Text 11 Hdt. 3.114 Darius I First Persian Period meditation on the fringes of
Aithiopia on the fringes of the (Dyn. 27) the inhabited world 3.106– 117
inhabited world in: reign of Darius 3.89– 7.3
Text 12 Hdt. 7.69 Xerxes I First Persian Period catalogue of Xerxes’ forces
Aithiopians in Xerxes’ army (Dyn. 27) 7.61–99 in: Xerxes’ campaigns
against the Greeks 7.4–9.122
In 2.110 (Text 1) Herodotus states that the Egyptian king, Sesostris, also ruled
over Aithiopia. In 2.137+139 (Text 2) and 2.152 (Text 3) the historian speaks
somewhat longer about the Aithiopian Sabacos’ Egyptian regency. The name
Sabacos is a rendering of Egyptian Šꜣ-bꜣ-kꜣ, Nubian Shabaqo.27 Shabaqo was
king of Kush and, as second ruler of the Egyptian Twenty-Fifth Dynasty, pha-
raoh of Egypt.28 Passage 2.161 (Text 4) mentions the Nubian campaign29 of
Psammis, the historical King Psamtek II of the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty,30 as part
of the account of his reign. In 3.97 (Text 8) Herodotus records the gifts, i.e.,
the tribute sent to the king of Persia by two groups of Aithiopians, namely,
the Aithiopians living in Lower Nubia under the domination of Egypt’s Persian
rulers, and the independent Aithiopians living south of Lower Nubia (see Chap-
ter 4.10). The Aithiopian tribute is one of the items in the list of the revenues
deriving from the provinces of the Persian Empire (3.89–97).
27 In this study I use the reconstructed Nubian form of Twenty-Fifth Dynasty royal names,
cf. Rilly 2007 21.
28 FHN I Nos (12), (13).
29 FHN I Nos (36), 41–43.
30 Cf. Lloyd 2007 360 ff.
46 chapter 3
The perspective of Texts 1–4 is Egyptian. They are organic parts of the polit-
ical history of Egypt from Min (Menes), the first human king of Egypt, to
the reign of Amasis (2.99–182). While in 2.161 (Text 4) the historian speaks
about Psamtek II’s Aithiopian campaign, he does not connect it in any way to
Aithiopian history. The topic as well as the perspective of Text 8 is Persian. It
is fitted in the monumental account of Darius I’s reign (3.89–7.3). Chapter 7.69
(Text 12) contains information about Aithiopians fighting in Xerxes I’s army.
Here the topic of the larger narrative context—Xerxes’ campaigns against the
Greeks—is Persian.
Three passages occur in various ethnographic discourses. 4.197 (Text 9) is a
very brief digression inserted into the account of the Libyan tribes and their
customs (4.168–199), being itself a long digression placed in the history of the
reign and campaigns of Darius. 4.197 (Text 9) contains a brief remark about
the autochthonous origin of the Aithiopians, repeating one of the stereotypes
used by Herodotus to explain why peoples came to be where they lived.31
The context of 4.183 (Text 10) is the same. It presents a short remark on the
customs of the Aithiopian Trog[l]odytes, one of the (mostly fabulous) tribes
described by Herodotus as living west of the Nile. 3.114 (Text 11) contains a
brief ethnographical note on the long-lived Aithiopians defining them as a peo-
ple living at the southwestern confines of the inhabited world. It appears in
the history of Darius’ reign as part of a digression in which Herodotus sets
forth his thoughts about the lands that lie at the ends of the earth (3.106–
117).
The perspective of the ethnographical passage 2.42 (Text 5) is different. As
a short digression on religious relations between the Egyptians, Aithiopians,
and Ammonians,32 it is fitted in the description of the gods, cults, and religious
traditions of Egypt (2.37–76), i.e., in the account of the customs of the Egyptians
(2.35–98), which is part of the narrative on Cambyses’ accession, his campaigns
against Egypt and Aithiopia, and his madness (2.1–3.38).
Among the Aithiopian passages there are two longer accounts. 2.29–31 (Text
6) describes the land of Aithiopia and provides information about some cus-
toms and traditions of the Aithiopians. Since the Nile arrives in Egypt from
Aithiopia, the description of the land of Aithiopia continues the account of
the φύσις χώρης, the “physical features of the land” (2.5) of Egypt (2.2–34). At
the end of the description of Egypt from the Delta to Elephantine there stands
31 Either they were autochthonous, or they arrived there “a long time ago”, see Cobet 2002
404.
32 I.e., the inhabitants of the Oasis of Siwa, the site of the oracle of Zeus Ammon. Cf. Lloyd
1976 195 ff. and see Chapter 4.6.
a digression about the source of the Nile (see below). The Aithiopian passage
starts with two much quoted sentences (2.29), providing a transition between
the two accounts and at the same time separating them:
On this subject [i.e., the springs of the Nile] I could get no further infor-
mation from anybody. As far as Elephantine I speak as an eyewitness, but
further south from hearsay.33
In the geographical description of Egypt there appear digressions at three

places, viz., in 2.15–18, 2.20–23, and 2.28. Each digression presents important
additions to the φύσις χώρης. In the first, Herodotus argues against the Ionians’
definition of Egypt and expounds his own view,34 which he also supports by
quoting an oracle delivered by the Ammon of Siwa (2.18, cf. Chapter 4.6). In
the second, he discusses various Greek views on the causes of the inundation
and argues against all of them.35 In the third digression, Herodotus presents a
discussion of what he has heard about the dual source of the Nile from a priest
“who kept the register of the treasures of Athene in the Egyptian city of Sais”.36
The priest told him the following:
[B]etween Syene, near Thebes, and Elephantine there were two moun-
tains of conical shape called Crophi and Mophi; and that the springs of
the Nile, which were of fathomless depth, flowed out from between them.
Half of the water flowed northwards towards Egypt and half southwards
towards Ethiopia.37
The priest also related the experiment of King Psammetichus (Psamtek I)

to prove that these springs are bottomless.38 Herodotus expected a scien-
tific explanation from a learned priest. He received instead a theological one,
which he understood as a joke. The historian was not prepared to perceive
the meaning of the Egyptian religious tradition according to which there were
Nile sources at several sacred sites, viz., the dual source between Syene and

34 Cf. Lloyd 1976 78ff.
35 Cf. Lloyd 1976 98 ff.
36 Trans. de Sélincourt–Marincola 2003 105. Probably a scribe of the temple of Neith is meant,
cf. K. Sabri Kolta: Die Gleichsetzung ägyptischer und griechischer Götter bei Herodot. PhD
thesis Tübingen 1968 96 ff.; Lloyd 2007 257.
38 Cf. S. Sauneron: A propos d’ Éléphantine. BIFAO 58 (1959) 35–38 35 f.
48 chapter 3
Elephantine and the sources at Gebel es-Silsileh, Memphis,39 Old Cairo/Baby-

lon and Roda, all contributing to the flood.40
Let us make here a short digression. In Chapter 92 of Book II Herodotus says
the following about the beginning of the inundation:
When the Nile begins to rise, the hollows and marshy ground close beside
it are the first to fill, the water from the river seeping through the banks,
and no sooner are these low-lying bits of ground formed into lakes than
they are found to contain a multitude of small fish.41
With reference to the (supposed) irrelevance of this passage, Sourdille argued42

that Herodotus could not have been in Egypt at the beginning of the inun-
dation. On this point also Lloyd is hesitant.43 More recently Marc Gabolde
published a fascinating paper44 in which he discusses a relief from the Great
Hypostyle Hall at Karnak. It represents Rameses II adoring the Theban triad
while the inundation is issuing from “beneath the soles” of the enthroned
Amun of Thebes.45 Gabolde shows that the tradition of the “local inundation”
at Thebes and related traditions (e.g., the inundation issuing from a deity’s foot-
steps) originate from the actual experience of the process of inundation on the
convex floodplain of the Nile, where the first (local) stage of the inundation was
marked by the rising of the groundwater to the surface in the lower-lying plains
between the higher river banks and the desert margins.46 While Herodotus
should not be criticized on this point, it remains unresolved whether in the
issue of filtration47 he relied on autopsy or—what appears more probable—
hearsay.
39 Pliny, NH 5.55.
40 For the Egyptian tradition concerning Ḳrtj, the dual source, cf. J. Yoyotte: Nil. in: G. Posener
et al.: Knaurs Lexikon der Ägyptischen Kultur. München-Zürich 1960 181–184 184; Bonneau
1964; K.W. Butzer: Nilquellen. LÄ IV (1981) 506–507; H. Beinlich: Die “Osirisreliquien”: Zum
Motiv der Körperzergliederung in der altägyptischen Religion. Wiesbaden 1979 11; for Crophi
(Κρῶφι or Χρωφί) and Mophi (Μῶφι or Μωφί), cf. Locher 1999 104ff.
42 Sourdille 1910 7.
43 Cf. Lloyd 1976 379f.; 2007 306; but see also Bonneau 1964 63ff., 171ff.
44 Gabolde 1995.
45 Gabolde 1995 figs 1, 2.
46 K.W. Butzer: Early Hydraulic Civilization in Egypt. A Study in Cultural Ecology. Chicago-
London 1976 12 ff., fig. 1.
47 Cf. Bonneau 1964 63ff.
3.17–26 (Text 7), the second of the two longer Aithiopian passages, presents a
description of the city of Meroe, the capital of the long-lived Aithiopians and its
marvels, furthermore an account of Aithiopian kingship and the customs and
traditions of the long-lived Aithiopians. After an introduction on Cambyses’
initiative to send expeditions against the Carthaginians, the Ammonians, and
the Aithiopians, the narrative about Aithiopia starts with a digression (3.18)
on Cambyses’ decision to send spies to Aithiopia in order “to see if the Sun’s
Table said to be among these Aithiopians really existed”. In 3.20 Herodotus
relates that the Aithiopians “are said to be the tallest and most handsome of all
men” and “they are also said to have customs which set them apart from other
peoples”. Chapters 21–24 relate the encounter of the king of the Aithiopians
with the spies of Cambyses. We learn about the lifespan of the Aithiopians, their
food and drink, and further the miraculous fountain that is the cause of their
longevity. Herodotus also speaks about their prison with fetters in gold and
about their transparent coffins. Chapters 25–26 give an account of Cambyses’
failed Aithiopian campaign (see Chapters 4.8, 9).
As to the types of information they convey, Texts 1–5 and 8–12 may give the
impression of being fragments of an independent logos. Considering them and
the rest of the Aithiopian passages within the actual narrative contexts in which
they are inserted, however, we have the strong impression that Herodotus
collected these particular pieces of information (be they “realistic” or not)
originally in order to use them in support of other narratives and not for a
self-contained Aithiopian logos.48 The absolutely insubstantial information
48 Here a terminological compromise may be put forward. Namely, it was not necessarily
the availability or the absence of “standard” types of information that played the decisive
role in the composition of a logos. We read in 1.184 that “[t]here have been many kings of
Babylon who helped to fortify the city and adorn its temples, and I will tell their story in my
History of Assyria” (trans. de Sélincourt–Marincola 2003 80). But there is no Assyrian logos
in the Histories, even though we find ample material dispersed in Books I, III and IV that
would support the hypothesis that Herodotus may have had the intention to write one (cf.
Asheri 2007b 203f. on 1.181–184). In Asheri’s view “the first six books [of the Histories] cre-
ate the impression that a number of pre-existing ethnographic, geographical, historical,
and constitutional logoi were later integrated into the work: independent logoi, so it seems,
originally conceived of as short monographs (…) The transformation of independent logoi
into digressions dependent on a unified narrative must have required a considerable
amount of effort in the reworking and integrating into one whole of contents, thought,
and style, obliterating in the process traces of the separate compositions. In Herodotus’
work this process of reworking is incomplete” (Asheri 2007a 12f.). The Aithiopian pas-
sages clearly suggest that here Asheri goes too far with his generalizing assumption of
pre-existing and laboriously united logoi.
50 chapter 3
about political history contained in the Aithiopian passages does not stand
comparison with the density of information provided in the accounts of Lydia,
Egypt, or the Medo-Persian kingdom, logoi that also present king-lists.49 As an
imaginary whole, the Aithiopian passages cannot be compared, either, to the
logoi of great complexity and central in their aims to the overall message of the
Histories but containing no (Indians, 3.98–101; Scythians, 4.59–82; Thracians,
5.3–8) or little reference to political history, and which name, if at all, only one
or two rulers (Babylon, 1.184–187; Massagetae, 1.205, 213; Libya, 4.145–167).
If an Aithiopian passage has an actual historical dimension at all, this dimen-
sion is not Aithiopian. In Chapter 4 below we shall discuss the contents of the
individual Aithiopian passages in greater detail. One of the lessons to be drawn
from that survey will be that in the case of Aithiopia Herodotus did not get
access to information that would have been enough and adequate for a self-
contained logos. In the long passage on Aithiopia south of the Egyptian border
(2.29–31, Text 6) the account of the Deserters is tied to Psammetichus, i.e.,
Psamtek I, without relating this king to Aithiopian history, who is otherwise
part of the abstract grid of chronological data in Book II. The case of 2.161 (Text
4) is similar, and so is the account of the land of the long-lived Aithiopians (3.17–
26, Text 7). These accounts are part of the history of Cambyses’ campaigns, but
are in no relation to an eventual history of the long-lived Aithiopians. They are
utopian, without time dimension.
The chronological range of the Aithiopian passages is also significant. It
is worth recalling here Justus Cobet’s reconstruction of the abstract grid that
integrates Herodotus’ indications of historical time. Cobet’s grid
is based on the following indications of time: 1. absolute figures indicating

intervals: 1.1. es eme, to Herodotus’ lifetime; 1.2. of regnal years, adding up
to the time span of a particular dynasty. 2. intervals of time measured by
counting generations; 2.1. as a mere indication of their number; 2.2. as a
list of names. 3. synchronisms: 3.1. between specific historical events; 3.2.
between actors; 3.3. between generations.50
The length of Sabacos’ reign hides in itself an indication according to Cobet’s

category 1.2. Herodotus is unaware of the fact, however, that his informant
was not speaking about the length of Sabacos’ reign but about the sum of the
lengths of the regencies of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty kings residing in Egypt (see
49 Lloyd 1975 173ff.

50 Cobet 2002 393.
Chapter 4.4 below), i.e., about the length of the reign of a dynasty according to
the Egyptian historical tradition (for Manetho, see Chapter 4.4). The Sabacos
story is an organic part of the history of Egypt. Beyond stating that Sabacos
conquered Egypt from Aithiopia, Herodotus does not connect him to either of
his two Aithiopias (cf. Chapters 4.7–9).
Let us return for a moment to the table presented above (pp. 44 f). The
Aithiopian passages constitute five chronological units (whereas there may be
overlaps between certain units). The first unit contains a single one-sentence
passage: Text 1 (2.110) refers laconically to Sesostris’ rule over Nubia. The ref-
erence is part of the historical section of the Egyptian logos, more closely the
account of the reign of Sesostris. The Sesostris of Herodotus51 may be identical
with both Senusret I and III and stands for the whole Twelfth Dynasty (1985–
1773bc). The two passages in the second unit, viz., Texts 2 (2.137, 139) and 3
(2.152), refer to King Sabacos, who stands for the whole Twenty-Fifth Dynasty
(755–656bc52). The third unit (Texts 3, 2.152; 4, 2.161; 6, 2.29–31) contains refer-
ences to the regencies of the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty pharaohs Psamtek I (664–
610bc) and Psamtek II (595–589bc). The fourth unit (Texts 5, 2.42; 6, 2.29–31;
7, 3.17–26; 8, 3.97; 12, 7.69) contains passages referring to the reign of the first
rulers of the Twenty-Seventh Dynasty (i.e., the First Persian Period53), namely,
Cambyses (525–522bc),54 Darius I (522–486bc)55 and Xerxes I (486–465 bc).56
A fifth unit (Texts 9, 4.197; 10, 4.183; 11, 3.114) is constituted by passages with refer-
ences to what one may term as “the recent past” or rather the personal memory
of Herodotus’ own generation.57
Apart from the mention of a Middle Kingdom pharaoh also ruling over
Nubia, the Aithiopian passages relate thus to the periods of the Twenty-Fifth,
Twenty-Sixth, and early Twenty-Seventh Dynasties and to Herodotus’ own
51 For the Egyptian Sesostris tradition, see Sethe 1900; Malaise 1966.
52 For the dating of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty, see Kahn 2001. For the chronology of the
Egyptian rulers before and after the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty, see Shaw (ed.) 2000 479–483.
53 For the First Persian Period, see Posener 1936; Kienitz 1953; E. Bresciani: La satrapia
d’Egitto. Studi classici e orientali 7 (1958) 153–187; J.D. Ray: Egypt: 525–404B.C. in: J. Board-
man et al. (eds): The Cambridge Ancient History IV. Persia, Greece and the Western Mediter-
ranean c. 525–479 B.C. (2nd edn.) Cambridge 1988 254–286; Lloyd 2000 383ff.; Vittmann
2011 377 ff.
54 For Cambyses in the Egyptian evidence, see E. Cruz-Uribe: The Invasion of Egypt by
Cambyses. Trans 25 (2003) 9–60 (non vidi); Vittmann 2011 377–382.
55 For Darius I in the Egyptian evidence, see Vittmann 2011 382–388.
56 For Xerxes I in the Egyptian evidence, see Vittmann 2011 395–398.
57 Cf. Cobet 2002 398 f.
52 chapter 3
time, i.e., the period c. between 450 and the early 420s bc58 (covering roughly
the reign of Artaxerxes I, 465–424bc59). Within the enormous dimensions of
time embraced by the Histories, the Aithiopian passages are anchored in a
diminutive—c. three and a half centuries long—section of history between
the mid-eighth and the late fifth centuries bc. Even within this short period,
Herodotus perceives the historical time of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty only vagu-
ely. He has a somewhat clearer picture only of the period starting with the reign
of his Psammetichus, i.e., Psamtek I.60
Uniting as an experiment the Aithiopian passages into a hypothetical Aithi-
opian logos, we would find that the history of Aithiopia—as far as this “recon-
structed” narrative has a historical dimension at all—has only Egyptian refer-
ence points. Nevertheless, there is no indication whatsoever that Herodotus
would also have intended to project his tripartite chronological structure of
Egyptian history61 (from Min to Moeris; from Sesostris to Sethos [= Shebitqo62];
the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty) also on Aithiopia, while he does recount the his-
tory of several other non-Greek peoples in the framework of threefold parti-
tions,63 carefully coordinating them with the overall chronological structure of
his universal history.64 A similar structure is also prevailing in Greek history
(most ancient period down to Heracles; a long Heraclid period; a better known
archaic period).65
It may thus be concluded that Herodotus did not collect material for, and/or
compose an Aithiopian logos dealing with the historical kingdom of Kush
lying south of Egypt’s southern border, whose kings also ruled over Egypt for
a period of time some centuries before Herodotus’ day. Instead, he described
two Aithiopias, a “really existing” one identical to Lower Nubia under the
domination of the Saite Twenty-Sixth Dynasty and then under the rule of
Egypt’s Persian conquerors (Text 6); and a utopian one, the Aithiopia lying on
58 The latest datable reference made in the Histories is to the first two years of the Pelopon-
nesian War, 431–430 bc. Herodotus died sometime between 421 and 415. Cf. J. Marincola:
Introduction in: de Sélincourt–Marincola 2003 ix–xiii; Asheri 2007a 2.
59 For Artaxerxes I in the Egyptian evidence, see Vittmann 2011 398–400.
60 Cf. Vannicelli 2001 232.
61 I.e., the history of Egypt under the Human Kings. For the chronology containing the Divine
and the Human Kings, see Lloyd 1975 185 ff.; 2007 344ff.
62 For Sethos, see Chapter 5.1.
63 See Vannicelli 2001 230ff.
64 Asheri 2007a 32 fig. 1. For the chronology of Herodotus, see Asheri 2007a 30ff. and cf.
H. Strasburger: Herodots Zeitrechnung. Historia 5 (1956) 129–161.
65 Cf. Vannicelli 2001 230.
the fringes of the inhabited world (Text 7). The latter he described as the home
of the long-lived Aithiopians, a fabulous people without history: the peoples
living on the fringes, i.e., the “ethnē, tribes or nations (…) have no history and
time makes no difference for their culture and way of life”.66
Before going too far with our negative conclusions, however, we have to
remember that Herodotus also inserted “realistic” information into the account
of the land of the long-lived Aithiopians, or, more precisely, he did insert in it
information that his informants may have regarded, and/or modern Herodo-
tean studies may regard as “realistic”. Therefore, in the next chapter an attempt
will be made at the identification of the “realistic” elements occurring in the
Aithiopian passages.
66 Cobet 2002 402f.; cf. the accounts of the Massagetae (1.201–204, 215, 216), the Indians
(3.98–105), and the Libyans (4.168–199).
chapter 4
“Fiction” and “Reality”
It would be hard to think of any historical writer in antiquity who does

not, either explicitly or implicitly, allow himself to go beyond the estab-
lished facts of a situation and indulge in imaginative reconstruction of
one kind or another.1
My business is to record what people say, but I am by no means bound to

believe it.2
1 On Sources
Up to this point, it is my own autopsy [ὄψις], judgement [γνώμη], and

[personal] inquiry [ἱστορίη] that have spoken these things. Henceforth I
will go on recording Egyptian stories as I have heard them [ἀκοή]; they
will be supplemented by a certain amount of my autopsy.3
Having thus defined the methods he had followed in the account of the customs
of the Egyptians (2.35–98), and indicating at the same time the method he is
going to employ in the subsequent section of his Egyptian logos, the historian
moves to the account of Egypt’s history from Min to Sethos. He names his
source4 for the history of Egypt: “the priests told me”,5 namely, the priests of
the temple of Ptah at Memphis.6
1 J. Percival: Truth in the Greek and Roman Historians. Lecture delivered at the ARLT Summer
School, Cardiff 1991 5. Quoted by Grant 1995 95.
2 Hdt. 7.152, trans. de Sélincourt–Marincola 2003 468.
3 2.99, Luraghi 2006 77, trans. N. Luraghi.—Marincola has shown (Marincola 1987) that out
of a total of 21 autopsy statements in the Histories, 15 come from Book II alone. Luraghi
2001b 151 f. also points out that it is in Book II that Herodotus’ γνώμη is the most promi-
nent and his ἀκοή statements are the most precise. Carolyn Dewald has also shown, how-
ever, that on 41 occasions Herodotus denies the truth of what he reports, see Dewald 1987
151.
4 For inquiry, informants, information, see Fowler 2006 36ff.
5 Ibid.
6 Lloyd 1975 89 ff.; 1988 5 ff.

“fiction” and “reality” 55
In Egypt the historian received information from Αἰγύπτιοι, “Egyptians”.

Besides them, he also refers to ὁἱ ἄλλοι ἄνθρωποι, “other people”. The latter are
probably Greeks,7 first of all Greeks at Naucratis8 who were associated with the
temple called Hellenion, a sanctuary controlled by a particular political group
including “the Ionians of Chios, Theos, Phocaea, and Clazomenae, (…) the
Dorians of Rhodes, Cnidos, Halicarnassus and Phaselis, and (…) the Aeolians
of Mytilene (…) who have the right of appointing the officers in charge of
the port”9 (cf. 2.178–180).10 It is to be noted, however, that also the general
term “Egyptians” may include Greeks, not only native Egyptians. Herodotus
relies first of all upon priests, but also quotes informants whose identity is
undefined and who may as well be laymen.11 The informants are frequently
described as “learned men” (λογιώτατοι),12 the most learned among them being
the Heliopolitans (2.3).13 The historian refers furthermore to the inhabitants
of Chemmis14 (2.91), an interpreter at the pyramids (2.125), people in charge
of the Labyrinth15 (2.148), and people living around Lake Moeris16 (2.150).17
They are not individuals: “The way information is attributed to groups and/or
divided among them is clearly artificial”.18 As Nino Luraghi aptly summarizes
the problem, “[w]ith his ἀκοή statements Herodotus is not quoting sources, as a
modern historian does, but is simply referring to what he holds to be the social
and/or ethnic dimension of the knowledge he is drawing from”.19 Marco Dorati
argues that in the Histories
7 Lloyd 1975 116 ff.

8 For the role of Naucratis in Greek-Egyptian cultural interaction in the sixth and fifth
centuries bc, see Boardman 1994 160 ff.
9 2.178, trans. de Sélincourt–Marincola 2003 168.
10 Murray 2001 28 f.; cf. Lloyd 2007 373ff.
11 Lloyd 1975 114.
12 Cf. Lloyd 1976 16 f.
13 For Herodotus on the quality of his Egyptian informants, see Lateiner 1989 85, 107.
14 Egyptian ḫnty Mnw, modern Akhmim: Lloyd 2007 303.
15 Amenemhat III’s mortuary temple complex at Hawara in the south-eastern Fayum, cf.
Diodorus 1.61, 66.3–6; Strabo 17.1.37, 42; Pliny, NH 36.13 (19); Pomponius Mela 1.9.56. For
the monument, see W.M.F. Petrie–G.A. Wainwright–E. Mackay: The Labyrinth, Gerzeh,
and Mazghuneh. London 1912; K. Michałowski: The Labyrinth Enigma: Archaeological
Suggestions. JEA 54 (1968) 219–222; A.B. Lloyd: The Egyptian Labyrinth. JEA 56 (1970)
81–100; Arnold 1994 21 f.
16 The (in antiquity much larger) Birket el-Qarun in the Fayum.
17 Cf. Lloyd 1975 89 ff.
18 Fowler 2006 146.
19 Luraghi 2001b 148. See also Luraghi 2006 82ff.
56 chapter 4
it is possible not only that the removed observer is not Herodotus, but
rather an informant of his, but also that there is no individual observer
at all: an ethnographical “script” is not necessarily merely a “thing seen”
minus its witness, but rather a synthesis of various viewpoints, observa-
tions and intellectual operations, through which a virtual event occurring
before a virtual observer is shaped, at the discourse level, on the basis
of “historical” events and real observers.20 (…) Herodotus’ ethnographi-
cal discourse (…) alternates among the “autobiographical” stance of the
traveller, that of a narrator relating by hearsay, and that of an invisible or
“virtual” observer.21
It will be argued in Chapters 4.2–4, 7–8 and 5.1 that among the information
obtained by Herodotus from the priests of Ptah at Memphis there were pieces
about the period of the Nubian pharaohs and about certain features of their
kingship. An indication for this may also be found in the opening sentence of
Chapter 2.100 of the Histories:
[T]he priests read to me from a written record the names of three hun-
dred and thirty monarchs, in the same number generations, all of them
Egyptians except eighteen, who were Ethiopians, and one other, who was
an Egyptian woman.22
The case of his information about other Aithiopian matters is more compli-
cated. In 2.29 (here Chapter 2, Text 6) Herodotus declares, “as far as Elephan-
tine I speak as an eye-witness, but further south from hearsay”. As opposed to
the majority of his source-citations,23 here the historian does not specify the
nationality, occupation, or social milieu of the alleged informants who pro-
vided him with oral information about the region south of Elephantine. But
there may be little doubt about their identity. In the preceding as well as in the
subsequent chapters of Book II there appear only “Egyptian” informants. Con-
sequently, if he collected information about the regions south of Elephantine,
it could only be from native and/or Graeco-Egyptian informants.
20 Dorati 2011 289.

21 Dorati 2011 291.
22 Trans. de Sélincourt–Marincola 2003 133 (my italics).—The Egyptian woman: Nitocris, cf.
Lloyd 2007 312.
23 Cf. G. Shrimpton: History and Memory in Ancient Greece. Montreal-London 1997 229–265.
In general, the “local dimension is crucial to Herodotus’ source references,

being their most essential feature”:24
[t]he collective akoē statements sketch a map of knowledge, based on

the principle that the locals are the most competent informants about
themselves and their own land.25
In contrast to this, the ethnographic information occurring in the Aithiopian

passages derives from unspecified second-hand hearsay and not from genuine
“locals”. Herodotus refrains here from a deceptive use of the device of “citing
the obvious source”. He does not pretend, as it would be expected by Fehling
(cf. Chapter 1.2), that he had an epichoric informant.26 The best explanation for
this unusual attitude is that he did not meet Aithiopian informants at all—even
if he went to Elephantine. But he did not go to Elephantine (cf. Chapter 1.2), a
fact of which he cannot be expected to speak.
“Personal enquiry”, ἱστορία/ἱστορίη, refers as a rule to hearsay evidence.27 It
does not necessarily mean, however, that Herodotus’ informants themselves
would have relied exclusively on oral tradition. As quoted above, Chapter 100
of Book II relates how the priests of Ptah are reading a written king-list28 to
Herodotus who is acquiring hearsay information in this way. This particular
passage inevitably raises the question: what kind of knowledge could the his-
torian’s priestly informants have possessed? Alan Lloyd presents a detailed dis-
cussion of the types of information Herodotus received from Egyptian priests,29
concluding that several things they told the historian are “profoundly disturb-
ing”. Earlier literature30 explained the discrepancy between what Herodotus
says about Egypt and what “must have been there” with reference to the low
social status of the tourist guides and Egyptian priests whom a foreign traveller
24 Luraghi 2001b 144.

25 Luraghi 2006 83f.
26 Cf. Hornblower 2002 378f.
27 Lloyd 1988b 24.
28 Cf. the Turin Canon or Turin King-list, a papyrus dating to the reign of Rameses II and orig-
inally containing between 254 and 307 names, Redford 1986 1ff.; K.S.B. Ryholt: The Political
Situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period c. 800–1550 B.C. Copenhagen 1997
9 ff.; Moyer 2002 75f. Moyer 2002 76 note 29 suggests that, adding Manetho’s 39 kings from
Rameses II to the end of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty, the list read to Herodotus could have
included between 293 and 346 names.
29 Lloyd 1975 91 ff.
30 But see also Asheri 2007a 17.
58 chapter 4
could interview. Lloyd is doubtless right when suggesting that Herodotus may
well have met high-standing Egyptian priests, too,31 but I cannot agree with his
next general conclusion that one could hardly receive anything but poor qual-
ity information from Egyptian priests, be they low-standing or high-standing. In
Lloyd’s view the modern concept “of what Egyptian priests, of any grade, were
likely to know” is completely mistaken because “there is no reason to believe that
the average priest—wēb or even prophet32—would know a great deal of the past
of his people”.33 This is a radical underestimation of what the actual priests who
were reading the written king-list to Herodotus and their learned colleagues in
other great temples of the land might actually have known34—I mean of course
a knowledge of “history”35 and “past” in their terms,36 that is, in terms that are
very far from our own terms.37
31 Cf. Harrison 2003.

32 For the hierarchy and organization of the Egyptian priesthood, cf. S. Sauneron: Les prêtres
de l’ ancienne Égypte. Paris 1957; B.E. Shafer: Temples, Priests, and Rituals: An Overview. in:
Shafer (ed.) 1997 1–30 9 ff.; Clarysse 2010 287 ff.; Spencer 2010.
33 Lloyd 1975 95 (my italics).
34 Cf. Tait 2003 29 and see Moyer 2002.
35 Wilkinson’s evaluation of early annals such as the Fifth Dynasty Palermo Stone (“the
events recorded in the annals are not those of particular interest to modern historians […]
few, if any ‘political’ events are recorded”) cannot be automatically extended to all later
“historical” documents. Cf. T.A.H. Wilkinson: Royal Annals of Ancient Egypt. The Palermo
Stone and Its Associated Fragments. London-New York 2000 62.
36 See A. Loprieno: The “King’s Novel”. in: Loprieno (ed.) 1996 277–295; C.J. Eyre: Is Egyp-
tian Historical Literature “Historical” or “Literary”? ibid. 415–433; for the Kushite texts,
see Török 2002 342 ff.—The better quality of the chronology beginning with the Twenty-
Sixth Dynasty, i.e., the period close to Herodotus’ time, as opposed to the first half of
Egyptian history, may also be explained with reference to the concept of time in Egyp-
tian historical memory. Cf. J. Assmann: Die Entdeckung der Vergangenheit. Innovation
und Restauration in der ägyptischen Literaturgeschichte. in: H.U. Gumbrecht–U. Link-
Heer (eds): Epochenschwellen und Epochenstrukturen im Diskurs der Sprach- und Liter-
aturgeschichte. Frankfurt am Main 1985 484–499, and see recently Assmann 2011 passim
and esp. 135 ff.
37 Cf. Assmann 1990b; Harrison 2003 3.—On “plausible Egyptian cultural representations
that Herodotus may have gathered from Egyptian priests”, see Moyer 2002 (the quotation
is from p. 88). Moyer continues thus: “We must (…) modify the recent popular image of
Herodotus the ethnographer, who does not discover, but rather creates through opposi-
tional categories or ‘grids’ βάρβαροι useful to his overall project, in order to recognize the
agency of the Egyptian priests and other non-Greek ‘informants’”.
In Chapter 2.100 of the Histories the scene is the library38 of the Ptah temple
at Memphis; it is its learned keepers, the priests of the House of Life,39 who are
reciting the text containing the king-list. The corpus of the literary, “historical”,
ritual, theological, scientific, etc. texts found in Egypt,40 a great part of which
had actually been held, copied, edited, excerpted in temple libraries—and
were explained to those who could not read them—gives a good idea of the
richness and topical range of a library like the House of Life in the sanctuary
of Ptah at Memphis. When imagining Herodotus’ visit at the Ptah temple and
his encounter with its learned priests, we have to bear in mind the highly
significant fact that, unlike the libraries of other great Egyptian sanctuaries,
the temple archives of Memphis survived the invasions of Piankhy (c. 735bc),
Esarhaddon (671bc), Cambyses (525bc), and Inaros (around 459 bc) without
losses.41
It would thus seem that the correct explanation for what Quellenkritik inter-
prets as weaknesses of Herodotus’ history of Egypt does not lie in the intellec-
tual quality and knowledge of the priests whom the historian had the oppor-
tunity to consult.42 It lies rather in factors such as the special tendency and
limitations of Herodotus’ own curiosity and the natural limitations of his per-
ception of what he may have been told about matters of Egyptian kingship43 or
religion.44
According to another conclusion of Lloyd (which actually contradicts his
above-quoted verdict on the knowledge of the Egyptian priests) “an authentic
image of Egyptian kingship was getting through to Herodotus”.45 This seems
far too optimistic to me (cf. Chapter 5.1). Lloyd also points out, “the divin-
ity of Pharaoh did not impress itself on Greek observers in practical contexts
and was very far from being evident”.46 John Tait’s well-meaning hypothesis,
38 Cf. V. Wessetzky: Bibliothek. LÄ I (1975) 783–785; G. Burkard: Bibliotheken im Alten Ägyp-

ten: Überlegungen zu Methodik ihres Nachweises und Übersicht zum Stand der For-
schung. Bibliothek. Forschung und Praxis 4 (1980) 79–115; Quirke 1996b passim and 394ff.
39 Cf. Quirke 1996b 397 f.
40 See Quirke 1996b passim.
41 For the evidence, see Redford 1986 320 f.
42 Cf. Tait 2003 29.
43 See below on Sesostris and Sabacos.
44 Harrison 2000 182ff.—Lloyd (2002 432) notes that “although [Herodotus] knew a great
deal of correct or largely correct detail, particularly on cult practice, he lacks any grasp
of the concepts underpinning belief or ritual”.—Herodotus does not understand Persian
religion: Murray 2002 35 f.
45 Lloyd 2002 425 (my italics).
46 Lloyd 2002 427.
60 chapter 4
according to which “Herodotus may have been deliberately discreet about what
he was told about Egyptian religion by the priests,”47 may indeed be argued
for on the basis of passages where Herodotus actually signals deliberate omis-
sion,48 but this cannot be generalized. There is also the problem of the constant
re-creation and re-invention of orally transmitted personal and social memo-
ries that occurs with every retelling, a topic intensely studied more recently by
cognitive scientists.49 Last but not least, the explanation for the “weaknesses”
of the Egyptian logos lies in the difficulties of storing the information that
Herodotus received. Thucydides plainly says that it was difficult for his infor-
mants as well as for himself “to remember what was said”.50
I started this chapter quoting the first sentence of Chapter 99, Book II. The
sentence introduces Herodotus’ history of Egypt from Min to Amasis. The rest
of Chapter 99 is devoted to the little what Herodotus could learn about Min.51
The history of Egypt continues in Chapter 100 with the above-quoted remark
about the priests of Ptah reciting for Herodotus the names of the three hundred
and thirty monarchs, “in the same number of generations”, ruling over Egypt
between Min and Sethos (that is, Shebitqo52). The history of Egypt is related
according to Herodotus’ tripartite chronological scheme, i.e., 1) from Min to
Moeris, 2) from Sesostris to Sethos, and 3) from the first to the last ruler of the
Twenty-Sixth Dynasty. The second part is separated from the third by a remark
similar in content to the one made in Chapter 100 about the royal names recited
from a written record. This time the scene is the great Amun temple at Thebes,
and the informants are the priests of Amun:53
Up to this point I have relied on the accounts given me by the Egyptians

and their priests. They declare that three hundred and forty-one gener-
ations separate the first king of Egypt from (…) the priest of Hephaestus
47 Tait 2003 29 (my italics).

48 Harrison 2000 184–186 lists eleven passages of this kind, and classifies them as 1. omission
of stories explaining religious iconography (2.46, 2.48, 2.51); 2. omission of stories explain-
ing particular ritual practices (2.47, 2.48, 2.61, 2.62, 2.81, 2.171); 3. omission of mention of
Osiris’ name (2.61, 2.86, 2.132, 2.170).
49 Cf. A. Baddeley: The Psychology of Memory. London 1992; J. Goody: The Power of the Written
Tradition. Washington 2000; Fernández-Armesto 2002 154ff.—See also Assmann 1992;
Forsdyke 2006 226; Dorati 2011, etc.
50 Thucydides 1.22 (my italics); cf. Hornblower 2002 375.
51 Cf. also Hdt. 2.4.
52 Cf. Chapters 4.2, 5.1.
53 For the context, see Lloyd 2007 344 ff.
[= Sethos, i.e., Shebitqo] and that there was a king and a high priest
corresponding to each generation. Now to reckon three generations as a
hundred years, three hundred generations make ten thousand years, and
the remaining forty-one generations make 1340 years more; thus one gets
a total of 11,340 years[.]54
Herodotus’ emphatic praise of his Egyptian informants in Chapter 77 of Book II

is not a mere literary device employed to impress and manipulate his lis-
tener/reader. It is a rare early reference to the significance of written historical
records:
The Egyptians who live in the cultivated parts of the country, by their
practice of keeping records of the past, have made themselves much the
most learned of any nation of which I have had experience.55
In an age when it was created only to serve as aide-mémoire,56 Herodotus was

impressed again and again by the written evidence referred to by his Egyptian
informants and began to realize its importance as a fine source of informa-
tion. While it was only some decades later that Plato fully appreciated the fact
that Egyptian memory owed its remarkable depth to the preservation of writ-
ten records that go back to the beginnings of man’s history,57 the encounters
with the Egyptian king-lists at Memphis and Thebes shaped Herodotus’ out-
look even more profoundly because these records revealed to him the dimen-
sions of the past. His calculation of 11,340 years is of course erroneous. Near
Eastern king-lists, also including the Egyptian king-lists shown to Herodotus,
contained reign-lengths, which precluded the misleading equation of reign and
generation. When choosing to conform to the Greek concept of ἀρχαιολογία,
i.e., early history, however, Herodotus chose to omit reign-lengths, reducing his
chronologies to genealogical data58 and thus multiplying the length of Egyp-
tian history.
54 2.142, trans. de Sélincourt–Marincola 2003 153 f.

55 Trans. de Sélincourt–Marincola 2003 125. Cf. Vannicelli 2001 214.
56 R. Thomas: Oral Tradition and Written Record in Classical Athens. Cambridge 1989 15–94;
ead.: Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece. Cambridge 1992 74ff.
57 Tim. 23.4; discussed by Luraghi 2001b 154.—I cannot fully agree with Asheri’s circular
argument (Asheri 2007a 19) that the importance of written sources for Herodotus should
not be overestimated, for the attribution of oral statements to written texts does not agree
with the methods of early Greek ethnography and history.
58 Vannicelli 2001 235.
62 chapter 4
The account of Herodotus’ visit at Thebes continues with a confrontation

of the dimensions of human history as seen by Herodotus’ Greek predecessors
and contemporaries with the dimensions of history as revealed to Herodotus
by the Egyptian priests. It is Hecataeus of Miletus, the man who made the first
stealthy steps towards separating history from myth some fifty years before
Herodotus, who personifies here the Greek historians:
When the logos-maker [λογοποιός]59 Hecataeus was in Thebes, the priests

of Zeus [= Amun], after listening to him trace his family back to a god
in the sixteenth generation, did to him precisely what they did to me—
though, unlike Hecataeus, I kept clear of personal genealogies. They took
me into the great hall of the temple, and showed me the wooden stat-
ues60 there, which they counted; and the number was just what I have
said, for each high priest has a statue of himself erected before he dies. As
they showed them to me, and counted them up, beginning with the statue
of the high priest who had last died, and going on from him right through
the whole number, they assured me that each had been the son of the one
who preceded him. When Hecataeus traced his genealogy and connected
himself with a god sixteen generations back, the priests refused to believe
him, and denied that any man had ever had a divine ancestor. They coun-
tered his claim by tracing the descent of their own high priests, pointing
out that each of the statues represented a “piromis” (a word which means
something like “gentleman”61) who was the son of another “piromis”, and
made no attempts to connect them with either a god or a hero. Such,
then, were the beings represented by the statues; they were far from being
gods—they were men.62
Returning to the Aithiopian information provided by Herodotus’ sources (I

do not mean here the pieces deriving from the Greek tradition or Persian
sources), it is to be repeated that its character indicates first of all native priestly
informants. On the following pages I shall try to find an answer to the question:
59 de Sélincourt–Marincola 2003 154 have “historian”.

60 κολοσσοὺς ξυλίνους. Undue generalization, the majority of the statuary was of stone, as
it is also indicated by the statue cachette discovered in the Amun temple at Karnak,
cf. C. Traunecker–J.-C. Golvin: Karnak: Résurrection d’un site. Fribourg 1984; J.A. Joseph-
son–M.M. Eldamaty: Catalogue Général of Egyptian Antiquities in the Cairo Museum, Nos
48601–48649: Statues of the XXVth and XXVIth Dynasties. Cairo 1999.
61 Piromis derives actually from Egyptian pꜣ rmṯ, “the man”, cf. Lloyd 2007 345.
What was the priests’ source for the particular pieces of information that found
their way into the Aithiopian passages of the Histories?
1.1 Excursus 2: Herodotus’ Priestly Informants and the Explanation of

the Nile Flood
Herodotus was upset about the general ignorance of the causes of the Nile
flood:63
About why the Nile behaves precisely as it does I could get no information
from the priests or anybody else. What I particularly wished to know
was why the water begins to rise at the summer solstice, continues to
do so for a hundred days, and then falls again at the end of that period,
so that it remains low throughout the winter until the summer solstice
comes round again in the following year. Nobody in Egypt could give
me any explanation of this, in spite of my constant attempts to find
out what was the peculiar property which made the Nile behave in the
opposite way to other rivers and why—another point on which I hoped
for information—it was the only river to cause no breezes. Certain Greeks
(…) have tried to account for the flooding of the Nile in three different
ways. Two of the explanations are not worth dwelling upon (…) The third
theory is much the most plausible, but at the same time furthest from the
truth[.]64
Herodotus made his attempts at getting information about the issue at some
place in Lower Egypt.65 His informants reinforced him in his conviction that
there is no rainfall, frost, or snow in Aithiopia. Consequently, rainfall or snow
cannot cause the inundation of the Nile (2.20–22).66 They were not aware
that, resurrecting the traditional Egyptian association of the rain with the
inundation of the “heavenly Nile”,67 some learned priests of the Saite period
brought rainfall into a connection with the inundation of the river Nile. An
inscription from Tanis68 attributes the flood to the benevolence of the goddess
63 Cf. Bonneau 1964 188 ff.; Kaiser 1968 205 f.

64 2.19–20, trans. de Sélincourt–Marincola 2003 102f.
65 Sourdille 1910 15 ff.; Lloyd 2007 254. For the Greek theories on the causes of the Nile flood
and for its actual meteorological causes, see Bonneau 1964 135ff.; Lloyd 1976 91ff.
66 Cf. Bonneau 1964 161 ff.
67 S. Sauneron: Un thème littéraire de l’ Antiquité classique: Le Nil et la pluie. BIFAO 51 (1952)
41–48.
68 W.M.F. Petrie: Tanis II. London 1888 Pl. XLII/15; Bonneau 1964 195f.
64 chapter 4
Neith who saved the army of Psamtek I from destruction in this way. Long
before the Tanis inscription, however, the causal connections between divine
intervention on behalf of the ruler, the ruler’s creative power, rainfall, and
inundation were already described in a text composed by the learned priests
of Amun of Kawa in remote Nubia. One of King Taharqo’s hieroglyphic stelae
erected in the temple of Amun at Kawa69 records the “four goodly wonders”
that were the consequences of an exceptionally high Nile in the king’s sixth
regnal year, c. 685bc,70 namely, a good cultivation everywhere, the destruction
of rodents and vermin, the warding-off of locusts, and the prevention of the
south wind blighting the crops. The extraordinary inundation is brought into
connection with the rainfall as follows:
[T]he sky (even) rained in Bow-land (Nubia);

and adorned the hills.
Every man of Bow-land was inundated with an abundance of every-
thing,
Black(-land) (Egypt) was in beautiful festival,
and they thanked god for His Majesty.71
The “four goodly wonders” are embedded into the conceptual framework of
a manifestation of the king’s legitimacy. The flood and its consequences are
termed “wonder”, bjꜣjt. Wonders of this sort72 demonstrate the creative power
conferred by the gods upon the king.
2 Sesostris in Nubia
Herodotus opens Chapter 2.110 of the Histories with a remark about Sesostris as
“the only Egyptian king to rule Aithiopia” (Text 1). He proceeds then to tell about
the statues Sesostris erected to himself, his wife, and four sons73 in front of the
69 Copenhagen Æ.I.N. 1712; FHN I No. 22. Cf. also Vikentieff 1930 63.
70 It is the most completely preserved version of the account of the exceptionally high
Nile in Year 6. Three other versions were inscribed on stelae erected at Coptos, Matanah
(Vikentieff 1930), and Tanis (Leclant–Yoyotte 1949 31f.).
71 FHN I 151, trans. R.H. Pierce.
72 Cf. Grimal 1986 264ff., 506 ff.
73 Lloyd 1988a 36 f. speculates that Herodotus’ statues are actually identical with the colossi
of Rameses II erected at the south gate of the temenos of the Ptah temple. For the colossi,
among them a recarved statue of Senusret I, cf. Arnold 1992 193ff.
temple of Hephaestus (= Ptah) at Memphis,74 and relates how the (high) priest
of Hephaestus would prevent Darius from erecting his own statue in front of
Sesostris’ statues, reminding him that “his deeds had not been as great as the
deeds of Sesostris the Egyptian”,75 whereupon Darius honourably refrains from
his intention.76
Alan Lloyd argues77 that the main features of the “Sesostris legend”78 (2.102–
110) derive from the combination of two different traditions,79 viz., the histori-
cal memory of the Egyptian conquest of Lower Nubia in the Middle Kingdom
(2055–1650bc) and the ensuing establishment of its military defence and civil
government under the Twelfth Dynasty ruler Senusret III (1870–1831bc),80 on
the one hand, and the “nationalist propaganda” unfolding in Late Period Egypt,
on the other.81 Herodotus’ Sesostris reflects indeed the traditional pharaonic
image of ideal regency. Egyptian historical memory concentrated the glories
of the Middle Kingdom in general and the Nubian conquests of the Twelfth
Dynasty in particular in the persons of Senusret I (1956–1911bc)82 and his third
successor Senusret III.83 The Sesostris appearing in Herodotus’ Egyptian logos
is their mixture, complemented by features of the great New Kingdom ruler
Rameses II.84
In reality, Sesostris’ originals, Senusret I and Senusret III, were not the only
Egyptian kings to rule parts or the whole of Nubia. After a series of shorter
74 Lloyd 1988a 36 f. For recent archaeological work at the temple, see literature in Arnold 1994
198.
76 For the integration of Cambyses and Darius I into Egyptian kingship ideology, see the evi-
dence discussed in Vittmann 2011 377ff.—For the temple-building activities of Cambyses
and Darius I, see M. Cool Root: The King and Kingship in Achaemenid Art. Leiden 1979
(non vidi); Arnold 1999 92. For the positive image of Darius I as lawgiver in the Egyptian
tradition cf. Vittmann 2011 387f.—For Xerxes I as godless ruler in the Egyptian evidence:
Vittmann 2011 396 f.
77 Lloyd 1988a 36; 2007 320.
78 For the Sesostris tradition in the Histories, cf. C. Obsomer: Les campagnes de Sésostris dans
Hérodote: essai d’interprétation du texte grec à la lumière des réalités égyptiennes. Bruxelles
1989. See also Malaise 1966.
79 Kemp 1983 130ff.; Callender 2000 160 ff.
80 For the evidence, see Callender 2000 165 ff.; Török 2009 79ff.
81 Lloyd 1982a.
82 W.K. Simpson: Sesostris I. LÄ V (1984) 889–899.
83 W.K. Simpson: Sesostris III. LÄ V (1984) 903–906.
84 Cf. Sethe 1900; Malaise 1966; L. Kákosy: Sésostris et Sérapis. StudAeg 2 (1976) 185–187; Lloyd
1982a; Lloyd 1988a 37; de Sélincourt–Marincola 2003 640 note 57; Assmann 2011 264f.
66 chapter 4
or longer periods of Egyptian occupation in Lower Nubia during the Old and
the Middle Kingdoms, Nubia to the Fourth Cataract came under Egyptian
domination in the fifteenth century85 and remained so to the end of the New
Kingdom in the eleventh century bc.86 Lower Nubia came under Egyptian
domination again in 593bc and remained so until the middle of the fifth
century bc, that is, to Herodotus’ own time (cf. Chapters 1.3, 4.2). Turning
Sesostris’ conquest into a unique achievement, the intention of Herodotus (or
his source) was to create a contrast to Cambyses who would disastrously fail in
his attempt to conquer Nubia (3.25–26, here Chapter 2, Text 7, cf. Chapter 4.9).
Such a use of the memory of great rulers and the glories of the past cannot
be described simply as calculated “political propaganda”.87 It is a regular fea-
ture of the cultural behaviour termed archaism,88 i.e., the revival of concepts
and expressive means from earlier periods of history in the arts, religion, lan-
guage, writing, and official titularies. The aim was the re-formulation of polit-
ical and social self-identity.89 Egyptian archaism is described conventionally
as being characterized by an indiscriminate reuse of concepts and forms from
any period of the past without creating contexts in which reference to a single
particular period or historical figure would predominate.90 As opposed to the
conventional view, however, the cultural behaviour of archaizing was a norma-
tive procedure in which the historical past was mythologized and at the same
time pragmatically included into the context of the historical present.91
Archaism was not an exclusive feature of the Late Period. It occurred in
earlier periods of Egyptian history as well. New beginnings after ruptures in
political and/or cultural continuity were supported by references to the past
85 For the process of the conquest, see Trigger 1976; B.M. Bryan: The Eighteenth Dynasty
before the Amarna Period (c. 1550–1352BC). in: Shaw (ed.) 2000 218–271 232ff.; Török 2009
157 ff.
86 There is a vast literature on the Egyptian domination in Nubia, from which I list here
seven studies of particular importance, viz., Säve-Söderbergh 1941; Trigger 1976; Kemp
1978; Zibelius-Chen 1988; M. Liverani: Prestige and Interest. Padova 1990; Smith 1995; Smith
2003.—For the Lower Nubian region, see Török 2009.
87 The term is all too anachronistic.
88 For the term cf. H. Brunner: Zum Verständnis der archaisierenden Tendenzen in der
Spätzeit. Saeculum 21 (1970) 151–162; id.: Archaismus. LÄ I (1973) 386–395; Manuelian 1994
xxxv ff.
89 See recently Assmann 2011 261 ff.
90 For a review of other earlier interpretations of the archaizing spirit, see Manuelian 1994
xxxv ff.
91 Cf. Assmann 1996 375ff. and esp. 379; A. Loprieno: La pensée et l’écriture. Pour une analyse
sémiotique de la culture égyptienne. Paris 2001 92; Assmann 2011 272ff.
or by its more systematic textual and/or visual “re-establishment”. Dynasty

founders and rulers ascending the throne after catastrophes proclaimed eras
of wḥm msw.t, “repeating the birth”,92 or to use a more familiar term, “renais-
sance”.93 The Twelfth Dynasty revived the artistic forms of the Fifth and Sixth
Dynasties, founded cults for their rulers, and canonized the literature of the
Old Kingdom.94 In turn, the period of Rameses II discovered the art of the
Twelfth Dynasty as a suitable medium for the visual articulation of the break
with Amarna.95
We do not need to remain at these generalities when trying to locate the
source of Nubia’s association with the memory of the great Sesostris. Archaism
is one of the most symptomatic features of the culture of the Twenty-Fifth and
Twenty-Sixth Dynasties, i.e., the periods of Egypt’s Nubian pharaohs Piankhy
(755 [?]–721bc96), Shabaqo (722/21–707bc), Shebitqo (707/6–690bc), Taharqo
(690–664bc) and Tanwetamani (664–656bc97) and of the Saite Twenty-Sixth
Dynasty (664–525bc) which reunified Egypt after the Assyrian conquest and
Tanwetamani’s withdrawal to Nubia.98 We are concerned here especially with
92 For the term “pharaonic renaissance”, see, e.g., F. Tiradritti (ed.): Egyptian Renaissance.
Archaism and the Sense of History in Ancient Egypt [catalogue of the exhibition in the
Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest, August 8–November 9 2008]. Budapest 2008, esp. E. Pi-
schikova: The Pharaonic Renaissance (25th and 26th Dynasties) ibid. 81–89.
93 They also included the notion of “repeating the birth” into their royal titularies, cf. Blumen-
thal 1970 438; W. Barta: Untersuchungen zur Göttlichkeit des regierenden Königs. München
1975 59; Grimal 1986 586 f.; Assmann 1992 32 f.; Kitchen 1996 §§2, 14.
94 Cf. Redford 1986 151 ff.; Assmann 1992 32 f.
95 Cf. J. van Dijk: The Amarna Period and the Later New Kingdom (c. 1352–1069BC). in: Shaw
(ed.) 2000 272–313 299 f.; Assmann 2011 264ff. See also the fascinating case of the New
Kingdom reuse of a Middle Kingdom tomb at Assiut as “eine Art Schrein des kulturellen
Gedächtnisses” (Assmann 2011 265), U. Verhoeven: Von der ‘Loyalistischen Lehre’ zur
‘Lehre des Kairsu’. ZÄS 136 (2009) 87–98.
96 I give here the regnal years of Piankhy, Shabaqo, and Shebitqo according to Kahn 2001;
cf. D. Kahn: Divided Kingdom, Co-regency or Sole Rule in the Kingdom(s) of Egypt-and-
Kush. Ägypten und Levante 16 (2006) 275–291; id.: Was There a Co-regency in the 25th
Dynasty? MittSAG 17 (2006) 135–141.
97 For the counting of his regnal years, cf. Chapter 4.4. For his reign and monuments, see
Breyer 2003.
98 In twentieth-century Egyptology, the notion of archaism was associated with the Twenty-
Sixth Dynasty. For the “discovery” of Kushite archaism, cf. B.V. Bothmer: The Signs of Age.
Bulletin of the Museum of Fine Arts 49 (1951) 69–74 (= Bothmer 2004 25–38); ESLP; Russ-
mann 1974; B.V. Bothmer: Egyptian Antecedents of Roman Republican Verism. Quaderni
de “La ricerca scientifica” 116 (1984) 47–65 (= Bothmer 2004 407–431); Török 1997a 189–
196.
68 chapter 4
the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty period and the myth of the state99 created in the time
of the Nubian pharaohs ruling over the double kingdom of Egypt and Kush.
To reinforce its legitimacy in Egypt, Piankhy’s dynasty emulated the great
pharaohs of the past by starting monumental temple construction works
throughout Egypt, first of all at Thebes and Memphis, recreating thus the
ideal relationship between the ruler and the gods and restoring the holiness
of Egypt’s ancient religious centres.100 One of the most important monuments
of Twenty-Fifth Dynasty archaism, the Memphite Theology of Creation, writ-
ten under Shabaqo,101 identifies the Nubian dynasty with Horus, vanquisher
of Seth.102 Memphis appears in it as the “primeval hill”, i.e., the original place of
creation and Egypt’s first capital founded by Horus himself.103 The Memphite
Theology of Creation declared thus that by setting about to reunify the land, the
Twenty-Fifth Dynasty was re-enacting the original creation of Egypt. For the
visual propagation of the Nubian dynasts’ creative mission, the experts turned
to the mythical depths of historical memory. They revived forms and expres-
sive means from the Old and Middle Kingdoms, the monuments of which were
omnipresent in the visual world of Memphis.104
Formulating the myth of the state and the governmental structure in the
Nubian half of their double kingdom, the rulers of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty
restored cults that had been implanted in Nubia by the Twelfth Dynasty
99 Cf. Chapter 4.9.

100 Assmann 1996 431.
101 For the Memphite Theology of Creation inscribed on the Shabako/Shabaqo Stone BM 498,
see A. Erman: Ein Denkmal memphitischer Theologie. Berlin 1911; H. Junker: Die Götterlehre
von Memphis. Berlin 1940; M. Lichtheim: Ancient Egyptian Literature I. The Old and Middle
Kingdoms. Berkeley-Los Angeles 1973 51–57. For its dating, see F. Junge: Zur Fehldatierung
des sog. Denkmals memphitischer Theologie oder Der Beitrag der ägyptischen Theologie
zur Geistesgeschichte der Spätzeit. MDAIK 29 (1973) 195–204; and cf. J. Assmann: Rezep-
tion und Auslegung in Ägypten. Das “Denkmal memphitischer Theologie” als Auslegung
der heliopolitanischen Kosmogonie. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 153 (1997) 125–138; Ass-
mann 2011 274 ff.
102 Cf. H. te Velde: Seth, God of Confusion: A Study of His Role in Egyptian Mythology and
Religion. Leiden 1977.
103 Memphis as Egypt’s “most ancient and royal city”: Diodorus 15.43. For the history of
Memphis cf. H. Kees: Memphis. RE XV.1 (1931) 660–688; Zivie 1982. For the importance
of Memphis and of the priests of the city in the Egyptian state in the first millennium bc,
cf. also Redford 1986 297 ff.
104 Cf. W.M.F. Petrie: Memphis I–V. London 1909–1915; R. Anthes: Mit Rahineh 1955. Philadel-
phia 1959; id.: Mit Rahineh 1956. Philadelphia 1965; Zivie 1982; D.G. Jeffreys: The Survey of
Memphis I. London 1985.
conquerors and later were adopted as traditional local cults by the New King-
dom conquerors. The cults of, e.g., the local Horus gods,105 of the god Ded-
wen,106 and the deified Senusret III had special features due to their origins
in, or long coexistence with, native Nubian cults.107 Their Twenty-Fifth Dynasty
revival was well aware of these features.108 The cult of Senusret III in the Nubian
kingdom of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty was built on a local cult tradition estab-
lished originally in the Second Cataract region, i.e., at the southern confines
of the Twelfth Dynasty conquest. In the frontier region, which was dominated
by a chain of seventeen formidable forts,109 Senusret III erected monumental
inscriptions presenting him as an ideal ruler,110 and temple cults of the dei-
fied Senusret III were established at several places. Four centuries later, the
New Kingdom Egyptian overlords expanding the southern frontier of Egyptian
Nubia to the Fourth Cataract region revived Senusret III’s cult in Nubia. They
established cults of the deified Middle Kingdom conqueror at Ellesiya, Qasr
Ibrim, Gebel Agg, Buhen, Uronarti, Semna, Kumma, and Gebel Dosha.111 With
the Egyptian withdrawal in the eleventh century bc the Nubian cult of Senus-
ret III did not come to an end at all of these places: it survived at Semna West
in the Thutmoside temple dedicated to Dedwen and the deified Senusret III.112
105 The local cults of the “Horus gods of Tꜣ-sty (Nubia)” emerged in the course of the Middle
Kingdom occupation. From the early Eighteenth Dynasty onwards we meet the cults of
Horus “Lord of Bꜣkj (Kuban)”, Horus “Lord of M ıʾꜥm (Aniba)”, Horus “Lord of Bhn (Buhen)”,
and, somewhat later, Horus “Lord of M-ḥꜣ (Abu Simbel)”, cf. Säve-Söderbergh 1941 201f.
106 Dedwen appears as “Lord of Tꜣ-sty (Nubia)” ever since the Pyramid Texts and it is supposed
that the Nubian Horus gods derived from him, cf. Säve-Söderbergh 1941 201.
107 For a detailed survey of the evidence, see Török 2009 211ff.; for the cult of the deified
Senusret III cf. also K. El-Enany: Le “dieu” nubien Sésostris III. BIFAO 104 (2004) 207–213.
108 For example, in the abacus text program of the court of Piankhy’s Amun temple at Napata
(Dunham 1970 fig. 40; Török 2002 59 ff.) it was the invocation of the deified Senusret III
and Dedwen that symbolized the integration of Lower Nubia into the sacred geography of
Piankhy’s double, Nubian and Egyptian, kingdom.
109 For the forts, cf. B.B. Williams: Nubian Forts. in: Bard (ed.) 1999 574–579.
110 Cf. C.J. Eyre: The Semna Stelae: Quotation, Genre, and Functions of Literature. in: S. Isra-
elit-Groll (ed.): Studies in Egyptology Presented to Miriam Lichtheim. Jerusalem 1990 136–
165.
111 For the evidence, see Török 2009 211 ff.
112 For the temple building, see Dunham–Janssen 1960 12 f., 32ff.; P. Wolf: Die archäologischen
Quellen der Taharqozeit im nubischen Niltal. Unpubl. PhD dissertation, Berlin 1990 31ff.,
112 ff. The temple was dismantled and is now rebuilt in Khartoum in the garden of the
Sudan National Museum.—For a dating of the inscription and the relief of Queen Kadi-
malo to the post-New Kingdom/pre-Twenty-Fifth Dynasty period and their interpretation,
70 chapter 4
The much-discussed inscription and relief113 of the enigmatic Queen Kadimalo

on the temple front may be interpreted as an indication of the continuity of
the cult of Senusret III between the Egyptian withdrawal and the emergence
of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty. Taharqo restored the temple building and built
next to it a brick temple dedicated to the deified Middle Kingdom pharaoh.
In the new temple Taharqo also sponsored a fine stand for the barque of the
deified Senusret III.114 Most significantly, Taharqo refers to Senusret III in the
inscription of the stand as his father, revealing thus that the very pharaoh of
Egypt who completed Lower Nubia’s conquest was worshiped in the Semna
West temple as a source of the royal legitimacy of a Nubian king who became
ruler of Egypt.115
Several Kushite rulers laid special emphasis on their association with the
great pharaohs of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom by adopting elements of their
royal titularies. In the eighth century bc Kashta adopted the Throne name Ny-
Mꜣꜥt-Rꜥ, “He-who-belongs-to-Re’s Order”, of Amenemhat III.116 Piankhy adopted
Mentuhotep III’s Throne name Snfr-Rꜥ, “Whom-Re-Makes-Beautiful”.117 In the
seventh century bc Aspelta assumed the Throne name Mry-kꜣ-Rꜥ “Re-is-One-
whose-ka-is-loved”,118 a name appearing in the titulary of several Middle King-
dom rulers.119 In the fifth century bc Malowiebamani120 adopted Senusret I’s
Throne name Ḫpr-kꜣ-Rꜥ, “Re-is-One-whose-ka-is-manifest”.121
The iconographical program of the “Taharqo Shrine”, a chapel associated
with royal investiture in the Amun temple at Kawa,122 is composed of reliefs
depicting the legitimation of King Taharqo by three divine families, viz., Amun
of Kawa with Satis and two forms of Anukis, Amun of Thebes with Mut and
Khonsu, and Ptah-Nun “the great” with Sekhmet and Nefertum. The presence
see FHN I No. 1; Darnell 2006; for the discussion about Darnell’s interpretation: Török 2008;
Török 2009 284–318; and see the review of Darnell’s book by K. Zibelius-Chen, BiOr 64
(2007) 377–387.
113 Darnell 2006 does not discuss the iconography of the relief.
114 PM VII 149.
115 Senusret III is referred to in the inscription with his Throne name ḫꜥ-kꜣw-Rꜥ, see Dunham–
Janssen 1960 12, 33, Pls 36–38.
116 FHN I No. (3).
117 FHN I No. (5), cf. von Beckerath 1984 64.
118 kꜣ: “life force”, “spirit”, “soul”, cf. J. Assmann: Tod und Jenseits im Alten Ägypten. München
2001 116 ff.
119 FHN I No. (35); Valbelle 2012 22 ff.
120 FHN I No. (55).
121 Cf. Török 2002 339 f. Table A.
122 Macadam 1955 99, Pls XVII/b, XXIII/a, XXVII/a, LX/a; Török 2002 89ff., 113ff., 118ff.
of Ptah of Memphis as Taharqo’s father, i.e., one of the sources of his rulership
and divine nature, in the Kawa program points toward the intellectual milieu
in which the Memphite Theology of Creation was conceived. It is in this latter
discourse on the creation of the world that we read about the identity of Ptah
with Nun, the god of primeval water.123 The influence of the Memphite cult
of Ptah on the concept of the legitimacy of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty kings as
rulers of Kush is obvious.124
In the background of Herodotus’ mention of Sesostris as “the only Egyptian
king to rule Aithiopia,” one may thus discern a tradition that combined the
Kushite dynasty’s attitude towards the great rulers of the past with the revival
of the New Kingdom cult of the Twelfth Dynasty conqueror as a Nubian “local
god”. More about Herodotus’ Twenty-Fifth Dynasty will be said in Chapter 4.4.
3 Excursus 3: A Note on Ancient Nubian Archives
The Nubian tradition of assuming names from titularies of earlier rulers as

an expression of the new ruler’s political program (cf. Chapter 4.2) could not
have been activated without archives containing written records collected and
preserved for many centuries. The titles “reused” by the priests when they
designed the names of a new ruler derived from archival material that included
not only a collection of titularies, but also some information about the “history”
of their earlier owners.125 However indirectly, the preserved royal titularies
give a good general idea of the chronological and topical range of the textual
material that was once held in the archives of the great Kushite temples.
The Kushite five-part royal titulary was modelled on the traditional titulary
of the Egyptian pharaoh. From time immemorial, the Egyptian royal titulary
was the most general and concentrated manifestation of royal power.126 Like in
123 The Memphite Theology of Creation, lines 50 f. Cf. R. Grieshammer: Nun. LÄ IV (1981)
534–535.
124 For the Nubian evidence, see Török 2002 89 ff.
125 No guess can be made concerning the origins and character of these materials. For Egyp-
tian king-lists, see Redford 1986 1–64. See also Assmann 1990b 10ff. For the factors motivat-
ing historical memory cf. also D. Wildung: Die Rolle ägyptischer Könige im Bewusstsein ihrer
Nachwelt I. Berlin 1969; L. Kákosy: Urzeitmythen und Historiographie im alten Ägypten.
in: Selected Papers (1956–73). (StudAeg 8). Budapest 1981 93–104.
126 For the Egyptian royal titulary, cf. Blumenthal 1970; Grimal 1986; von Beckerath 1984
1–40; P. Kaplony: Königstitulatur. LÄ III (1979) 641–659; M.-A. Bonhême: Les noms royaux
dans l’Égypte de la troisième période intermédiaire. Le Caire 1987; Baines 1995b 125–128;
72 chapter 4
Egypt, the Kushite titulary presented a general statement on the most impor-
tant concepts connected to the institution of kingship, and at the same time
hinted at the religious policy and political goals to be realized by the ruler.127 It
consisted 1) of the Horus name referring to the king as incarnation of Horus; 2)
the Nebty- or Two Ladies name referring originally to the tutelary goddesses of
the two parts of Egypt, in Kush to territorial kingship; 3) the Ḥr-nb or Golden
Horus name (originally referring probably to the radiant sunlit sky, its special
significance in Kush is obscure); 4) the nswt-bıʾty or Throne name; and finally
5) the sꜣ-Rꜥ or private/birth name presenting the ruler as son of the sun-god Re.
In Egypt the royal titulary was composed by expert lector-priests;128 in Kush by
prophets of Amun129 affiliated with the great Amun temple at Napata.130 Many
of the Kushite titularies included Egyptian titles selected from a large corpus of
models ranging in time from the Old Kingdom to contemporary titularies.
According to the Stela of King Nastasene from Year 8131 (fourth century bc),
the creation of the titulary was the very first act of the enthronement rites. It
was performed before the king would be initiated into his royal office during
the course of a royal oracle:
I reached the Great House. They [made obeisance] to me, (to wit) all the
notables and priests of Amun. They blessed me, (to wit) every mouth. I
had (everyone) go up and opened the great portals. They made for me
[…] to make my titulary […], making ʾIpt-swt and the House of Gold132
great.133
It may be presumed that the titulary was widely published, accompanying or

substituting royal representations. As a genre of royal literature, it was probably
R. Gundlach: Der Pharao und sein Staat. Die Grundlegung der ägyptischen Königsideologie
im 4. und 3. Jahrtausend. Darmstadt 1998 17–23, etc.
127 For the Kushite royal titularies, see D. Dunham–M.F.L. Macadam: Names and Relation-
ships of the Royal Family of Napata. JEA 35 (1949) 139–149; FHN I–III passim. For the
titularies and their models, see Török 1997a 200–206; for the models of the names, see
in greater detail FHN I–III passim.
128 Cf. the Udjahorresnet Inscription, Vatican Museum 158 (113), Lichtheim 1980 36ff.
129 In the Stela of King Nastasene from Year 8 (see next note): ḥm-nṯr.
130 Stela of King Nastasene from Year 8, Berlin 2268, Urk. III.2 137–152; FHN II No. 84, lines 13–
15.
131 See the previous notes.
132 ʾIpt-swt (= Karnak) and Pr-nbw, “the House of Gold”: names of the great Amun temple at
Napata.
133 FHN II 478, trans. R.H. Pierce.
also ceremonially recited by itself or more probably as part of a eulogy. The

temple scriptoria-cum-archives in Twenty-Fifth-Dynasty and Napatan-period
Kush were modelled on the Egyptian New Kingdom/Late Period “House of Life”
(cf. Chapter 4.1). The principal temples functioned as “national archives” of
historical memory.
The texts from Napata and Kawa display features that indicate the existence
of local literary traditions.134 Besides the monumental inscriptions exhibited
in the same temple,135 the temples possessed other texts as well that could be
used in the composition of the royal and temple inscriptions. The topical range
of these texts is indicated by the quotations we find inserted in the preserved
inscriptions. Besides quotations from literary and non-literary texts imported
from Egypt,136 we find citations from Kushite royal inscriptions erected in
far-away temples.137
4 Sabacos in Egypt
In the history of Egypt to the reign of Amasis (2.99–182) there are two pas-
sages, namely, 2.137+139 (here Chapter 2, Text 2) and 2.152 (here Chapter 2,
Text 3) dealing with the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty. Chapters 2.137+ 139 relate that
the rule of King Anysis “from the city of Anysis”138—a blind man, direct suc-
cessor to King Asychis—ended with an invasion of the Aithiopians led by their
king Sabacos/Sabacon (Σαβακῶν). To escape from Sabacos’ army, Anysis fled
“into the marshes” (ἐς τὰ ἓλεα) where he lived on the island of Elbo (2.140). As
promised him by an oracle that he received in Aithiopia before he had launched
his Egyptian campaign, Sabacos reigned for fifty years over Egypt. Fulfilling
the time foretold for his rule, he had a dream in which he received a bewil-
dering counsel (for the dream, see further below). Sabacos did not follow it,
for he believed that the gods sent the dream “to provoke him to sacrilege and
involve him in some disaster at the hands of either gods or men”. He with-
drew instead voluntarily to Aithiopia. “After the departure of the Aithiopian”,
134 Cf. Török 2002 413ff.

135 A significant Egyptian example is worth quoting here. Namely, according to Josephus,
Contra Apionem 1.14, 73 and Syncellus (see Waddell [ed.] 1940 208), Manetho used temple
stelae as sources for his work. See also Redford 1986 65ff.
136 For examples, see Doll 1982.
137 For the issue, see Török 2002 335 ff.
138 Lloyd 2007 339 suggests that the city of Anysis may be identical with Heracleopolis Parva,
Egyptian Nnıʾ-nsw.
74 chapter 4
adds Herodotus, “the blind Anysis returned from the marsh-country (…) and
resumed the government of Egypt”.139
Herodotus returns to the history of Sabacos’ regency in a brief digression in
Chapter 152 of Book II (here Chapter 2, Text 3). The framing narrative (2.151–153)
relates the dramatic vagaries140 in the rise of Psammetichus, i.e., Psamtek I of
the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty (664–610bc).141 The actual topic of Chapter 152 is the
second of Psammetichus’ exiles, but the historian also recalls there his first exile
to Assyria,142 where he “had (…) fled the Aithiopian Sabacos, who had killed
his father Necos,” and tells about the end of the exile “when the Aithiopian
withdrew as a result of the dream he had had [and] the Egyptians from the
nome of Sais” called him back to Egypt.
Kitchen143 and Lloyd144 suggest that King Asychis (2.136), while standing for
the entire Twenty-Second Dynasty,145 is actually identical with Sheshonq I146
(945–924bc). Dan’el Kahn does not exclude the possibility that he is identi-
cal with Sheshonq V (767–730bc).147 His successor Anysis was equated rather
improbably148 with Osorkon IV (730–715bc) of the Twenty-Third Dynasty149 or
with Bakenranef/Bocchoris (720–715bc), the only ruler of the Twenty-Fourth
Dynasty.150 It was also suggested that Anysis stands for the entire Twenty-Third
Dynasty. It is worth noting here that blindness was considered a divine punish-
ment in pharaonic Egypt.151 E.g., in 2.111 Herodotus’ King Pheros (from Egyptian
pr-ꜥꜣ, “pharaoh”)152 is blind for ten years as a punishment for his godless rage
against an excessive Nile flood.153

140 Lloyd 1975 145.
141 Cf. Lloyd 1988b 50 f.; 2007 353.
142 Herodotus has erroneously ἐς Συρίην, cf. Kitchen 1996 353 note 883; Lloyd 2007 353.
143 Kitchen 1996 301.
144 Lloyd 1988a 88 ff.
145 Lloyd 1988a 90 f.; 2007 339.
146 Lloyd 2007 338 suggests that the name Ἅσυχιν derives from Egyptian Ššnk.
147 Kahn 2003 50.
148 Kahn 2003 51f.
149 Kitchen 1996 583.
150 Lloyd 1988a 91 f.
151 Cf. H. de Meulenaere: La légende de Phéros d’ après Hérodote (II, 111). CdÉ 28 (1953)
248–260.
152 According to Herodotus, Pheros was the son of Sesostris. For the folkloristic motifs in 2.111,
see Lloyd 1988a 39.
153 Cf. Harrison 2000 239 with note 37.
Since Σαβακῶν is a good rendering of Egyptian Šꜣ-bꜣ-kꜣ, Sabacos/Sabacon is

considered to be identical with King Shabaqo154 who would, however, stand
for the entire Twenty-Fifth Dynasty.155 According to Lloyd, Sabacos’ fifty years
correspond roughly to the duration of the “permanent Ethiopian presence
in Egypt”,156 i.e., the total of the reigns of Shabaqo, Shebitqo, and Taharqo.
Manetho157 includes into his history only these three kings (his Sabacon, Sebi-
chos and Taracos), assigning to them a total of 40 or 44 regnal years. In reality,
the three Nubians’ regency totals c. 58 years. Jürgen von Beckerath158 explains
Manetho’s omission of Piankhy suggesting that he included only those Kushites
who were accepted in the whole of Egypt, a notion which seems unrealistic not
only from the viewpoint of modern Egyptology. The passages on the dodecarchy
(2.147–148, 151–152; see here Chapter 1.3159) actually introduce the account of
Psamtek I’s reign. The notion of the “reign of the twelve kings” derives from
the memory of the fragmented Egypt of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty and Assyrian
periods.160 Manetho’s (or his source’s) criteria as to the composition of a selec-
tive Twenty-Fifth Dynasty king-list remain obscure. So much is probable that
his omission of Tanwetamani corresponds to the Saite tradition.161 Psamtek I
reckoned his regnal years directly from Taharqo’s death (664bc) because he
did not recognize Tanwetamani’s reign (which was thus considered to run con-
currently with his162).
Kitchen163 and Lloyd164 associate the Aithiopian conquest related in 2.137
with “Pir’u king of Musri”, i.e., “Pharaoh king of Egypt” mentioned in Assyrian
154 Lloyd 2007 339.

155 Cf. K. von Fritz: Die griechische Geschichtsschreibung I. Von den Anfängen bis Thukydides.
Berlin 1967 174; Lloyd 1988a 92; 2007 339.
156 Lloyd 1988a 91.
157 Manetho, Ἀιγυπτιακά. Loeb edn. W.G. Waddell: Manetho. London 1948.
158 von Beckerath 1997 91.
159 Cf. Lloyd 1988b 39. See also A. Leahy: Abydos in the Libyan Period. in: Leahy (ed.) 1990
155–200.
160 Cf. Lloyd 1988a 119ff.
161 Manetho’s list contains nine Twenty-Sixth Dynasty kings, from these only six are actual
kings of the dynasty. They are also mentioned by Herodotus (here in parentheses): Psam-
metychos (Psammetichus = Psamtek I), Nechao (Necos = Nekau II), Psammuthis (Psam-
mis = Psamtek II), Uaphres (Apries = Apries/Haaribra), Amosis (Amasis = Ahmose II),
Psammecherites (Psammenitos = Psamtek III). Cf. von Beckerath 1997 85.
162 Cf. Kitchen 1996 § 138; FHN I No. (28).
163 Kitchen 1996 §§ 115, 340 f.
164 Lloyd 2007 339.
76 chapter 4
sources,165 which they identify with Shabaqo. Students of the period also argue
that parts of Middle and Lower Egypt that were controlled by Piankhy from
his Year 21 onwards had been lost after Piankhy withdrew to Nubia. Indeed,
Memphis came under the control of the local rulers of Sais, Tefnakht, and his
successor Bakenranef/Bocchoris. It is assumed166 that, in the course of a “re-
conquest” of Lower Egypt, Shabaqo eliminated Bakenranef/Bocchoris167 and
perhaps other dissenting local rulers in his second regnal year.168 Accordingly,
Herodotus’ Sabacos would have conquered Egypt in c. 720 bc.
To praise Sabacos’ judiciousness, Herodotus (or his source) makes him fol-
low Sesostris’ juridical practice of compelling the criminal offender, instead
of death penalty, “to heap up dykes in front of his home city.” According to
Herodotus, “in this way the level of the cities rose even higher”. While present-
ing thus an aetiological explanation of the genesis of tell169 settlements, the
passage places Sabacos beside the great pharaohs of the past who were vener-
ated as builders of dykes and diggers of canals (for Sesostris, see 2.108).170 He is
their equal also as a lawgiver.171
In the dream172 that Sabacos sees at the end of his fifty-year rule in Egypt,
he is advised by a man who “stood by his bed” to “assemble all the priests
in Egypt and cut them in half”, obviously to prolong his regency.173 Dreams
were interpreted in Egypt as a basic means by which the gods communicated
with men. Oracular dreams could also be elicited in the course of a temple
incubatio.174 Nubian royal inscriptions written in hieroglyphic Egyptian and
165 Cf. Kitchen 1996 § 340.

166 J. Leclant: Schabaka. LÄ V (1983) 499–513; Kitchen 1996 §340, etc.
167 For Bakenranef’s regency, see Redford 1992 346 ff.; Kitchen 1996 §§337f.—According to
Manetho, Shabaqo captured and burnt him alive. Cf. A. Leahy: Death by Fire in Ancient
Egypt. JESHO 27 (1984) 199–206.
168 For the evidence, see Kitchen 1996 §§ 342 f.; FHN I No. 14.
169 Arabic for settlement mound formed through centuries of human occupation.
170 Lloyd 1988a 94.
171 For the king as lawgiver, see Grimal 1986 345 ff. E.g., in the second half of the seventh
century bc the Kushite king Atlanersa assumes Rameses II’s Golden Horus name Smn-hpw,
“Who-establishes-the-laws”, cf. FHN I No. (30).
172 For the various kinds of dreams appearing in the Histories, see Asheri 2007a 42f.
173 Cf. S. West: And it Came to Pass that Pharaoh Dreamed. Notes on Herodotus 2.139, 141. CQ
37 (1987) 262–271; Harrison 2000 103 f.
174 Cf. J. Ray: The Archive of Hor. London 1976 135; P. Vernus: Traum. LÄ VI (1985) 745–749 747;
K. Zibelius-Chen: Kategorien und Rolle des Traumes in Ägypten. SAK 15 (1988) 277–293
290.
dating from the period between the seventh and fourth centuries bc amply
attest that oracles, also including dream oracles, played a central role in the
Kushite royal investiture175 (cf. Chapters 4.7, 9, 5.1). As an initial episode of
the investiture, the divine acceptance of the heir apparent could be declared
by a dream or even a series of dreams. The legitimacy of Tanwetamani176
(the last ruler of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty) and King Harsiyotef177 (of the
fourth century bc) was similarly declared by dreams that demanded expert
interpretation. In the late fourth century bc King Nastasene received several
legitimating dream oracles.178
Tanwetamani’s Dream Stela recounts the procedure as follows:
In regnal year 1, when he was made to appear as king (…),

His Majesty saw a dream in the night,
two serpents, one on his right, the other on his left.
Up woke His Majesty but did not find them.
His Majesty said,
“Why has this happened to me?”
Then reply was made to him, saying,
“South-land [Kush] is yours already, (now) seize for yourself North-land
[Egypt].
The Two-Ladies [i.e., the crown179] are apparent on your head,
and the land shall be given to you in its breadth and its length.”180
While Sabacos’ dream reflects good quality information concerning Nubian

(rather than Egyptian!) oracular practice, it is highly unlikely that the coun-
sel itself in the form as the historian rendered it would have had any Nubian or
Egyptian reference. An actual analogue of the ominous advice is to be found in
Book VII Chapter 39, where Herodotus relates how the godless tyrant Xerxes
gave orders to cut Pythius’ eldest son in half181 “and put the two halves one
175 For the evidence, see Török 1997a 217ff.

176 Tanwetamani’s Dream Stela, Cairo JE 48863, lines 3–6, FHN I No. 29.
177 Harsiyotef Annals, Cairo JE 48864, Grimal 1981b Pls X–XXV, FHN II No. 78, lines 4–10.
178 Stela of Nastasene from Year 8, Berlin 2268, FHN II No. 84. See also the comments on the
text, FHN II 497 f.
179 For the Kushite royal headdress, see Russmann 1974; Török 1987; Leahy 1992.
180 FHN I 196 f. No. 29, lines 3–5, trans. R.H. Pierce. Cf. Breyer 2003.
181 The passage is sometimes referred to in the literature in association with 3.35, where Cam-
byses shoots in the heart of the son of his favourite, Prexaspes, and orders “his body to be
cut open and the wound examined; and when the arrow was found to have pierced the
78 chapter 4
on each side of the road, for the army to march out between them”.182 Though
for the ritual significance of cutting a man or an animal in half Hofmann and
Vorbichler183 present geographically as well as chronologically varied evidence
that ranges from Greek mythology to modern beliefs, there may be no doubt
that in 2.139 as well as in 7.39 Herodotus actually means a Persian purification
(lustratio) ritual.184 Consequently, Sabacos’ refusal to follow the counsel con-
veys an anti-Persian moral judgment.185
We have to return for a moment to Sabacos’ identity and the dating of his
arrival in Egypt. Dan’el Kahn suggests in his above-quoted study186 that the his-
torical interpretation of 2.137+139 hinges on the statement according to which
the Aithiopian conqueror left Egypt of his own accord. Kahn argues that the
only Nubian ruler of Egypt meeting this criterion is Piankhy, who withdrew
to his southern capital after his great Egyptian campaign. In contrast to him,
Shabaqo and Shebitqo ruled until their death from the Egyptian capital, Mem-
phis. In turn, Taharqo fled the Assyrians twice and was unable to return to
Egypt after his second flight. His successor Tanwetamani was expelled twice
by the Assyrians and died in Nubia years after his second flight. Suggesting that
2.137–140 “preserves one historical consecutive narrative with known historical
figures and not a symbolic composition of all or some Delta dynasts (…) versus
all or some Kushite rulers”,187 Kahn concludes that the narrative’s chief protag-
onists are Piankhy and his adversary, the Lower Egyptian local ruler Tefnakht
(cf. Chapter 1.3). Kahn quotes lines 129–130 of Piankhy’s Great Triumphal Stela
(ibid.) where it is related that taking flight from Piankhy Tefnakht hid “in the
heart, he was delighted, and said with a laugh to the boy’s father: ‘There’s proof for you,
Prexaspes, that I am sane and the Persians mad. Now tell me if you ever saw anyone else
shoot so straight’”. Trans. de Sélincourt–Marincola 2003 185. This is an act of madness,
however, which has nothing to do with the motif of lustratio.
182 Trans. de Sélincourt–Marincola 2003 431. For the Pythius story, see Baragwanath 2008
269 ff. Curiously, Baragwanath does not consider the possibility that the act of cutting the
body of Pythius’ son in half and the army marching out between the two halves of the body
may have any other significance than narratological.
183 Hofmann–Vorbichler 1979 81 ff.
184 Cf. J.A.S. Evans: The Story of Pythios. LCM 13 (1988) 139; A. Keaveney: Persian Behaviour and
Misbehaviour: Some Herodotean Examples. Athenaeum 74 (1996) 23–48; Harrison 2002
576. For ancient Near Eastern lustratio rituals, see also O. Masson: A propos d’un rituel
hittite pour la lustration d’ une armée. RHR 137 (1950) 5–25.
185 For human sacrifice in Herodotus, cf. How–Wells 1912 ad 3.11; Baragwanath 2008 111f.
186 Kahn 2003.
187 Kahn 2003 54.
islands of the sea” (ıʾww wꜣḏ wr) where wꜣḏ wr would refer to some western Delta
marshes188 and not the Mediterranean.189
For Sabacos’ identification with Piankhy would thus speak the obvious
resemblance of Anysis’ career to Tefnakht’s fate. The possibility, however, that
the story combines episodes from and aspects of the reigns of several Twenty-
Fifth Dynasty rulers, including Piankhy, cannot be easily discarded. A good
argument for the identification of Herodotus’ Sabacos with the entire dynasty
may be found in 2.152 (here Chapter 2, Text 3) where it is reported that Saba-
cos killed Psammetichus’ father, Necos. The death of the original Necos, i.e.,
Nekau I, father of Psamtek I, Assyrian vassal ruling in Sais and Memphis
between 672–664bc,190 occurred in the course of Tanwetamani’s Lower Egyp-
tian campaign in the year 664bc (see Chapter 1.3 above), that is, more than
forty years after Shabaqo’s death.
Herodotus’ information about Sabacos’ personality and reign derives from a
combination of the traditional Egyptian image of ideal regency with the image
of the ideal Kushite ruler as it took shape in the period of the Twenty-Fifth
Dynasty rather than from annalistic data concerning Shabaqo’s reign. Like-
wise, the motif (and not the contents) of Sabacos’ dream derives from priestly
information that reflects Nubian rather than kindred Egyptian oracular tradi-
tions. The association of the dream oracle with the legitimation of Sabacos’
royal office speaks for the knowledge of specific information about the role that
oracles played in the investiture of the Kushite ruler (see also Chapters 4.7, 9,
5.1).
Let us return for a moment to Herodotus’ Psammetichus, the historical
Psamtek I. In 2.152 the circumstances under which his second exile ended are
rendered in an apologetic manner. In reality, Psamtek I was put on his throne
by the Assyrians as a vassal ruler.191 The combination of the history of the Egyp-
tian reign of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty with the history of the Saite dynasty
188 Kahn 2003 57 refers to E. Feucht: Fisch und Vogelfang im wꜣḏ-wr des Jenseits. in: Shirun-
Grumach (ed.) 1997 37–44 38.—Lloyd 1988a 99 suggests that the island of Anysis “which
he had built up of earth and ashes” (trans. de Sélincourt–Marincola 2003 152) derives from
a myth of the death and resurrection of the “king-demiurge”, a myth that “had long since
faded into a folk-tale”. According to Kahn 2003 58 the name Elbo consists of the Egyptian
words ıʾw, “island”, and lbw/rbw, Libyan.
189 wꜣḏ wr, “Great Green”, “sea”, may equally refer to the Mediterranean, the Red Sea, or the
Lake Moeris, cf. R. Hannig–P. Vomberg: Wortschatz der Pharaonen in Sachgruppen. Mainz
1999 292.
190 Kitchen 1996 §§ 117, 138, 256.
191 Cf. Kitchen 1996 §§ 360 ff.
80 chapter 4
in the same narrative indicates that the pro-Twenty-Fifth Dynasty discourse

on which Texts 1–3 were partly based was re-edited under the Twenty-Sixth
Dynasty. The re-edition has a surprising feature. Namely, the idealizing picture
of the Saite dynasty was not contrasted in it with the denigration of the Nubian
monarchs, as it might be expected after the damnatio memoriae of the Twenty-
Fifth Dynasty, i.e., the systematic erasure of the political memory of the Kushite
rulers of Egypt that was carried out as a political program under the Saites and
especially in the reign of Psamtek II (see Chapter 1.3). Psamtek I occurs in a
Nubian context also in 2.30 (here Chapter 2, Text 6, cf. Chapter 4.7). We shall
return in Chapter 5.1 to the issue of the positive features in the Egyptian mem-
ory of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty.
5 Psamtek II in Nubia
In Chapters 2.147–182 Herodotus presents an account of the Saite Twenty-Sixth

Dynasty (c. 664–525bc). As an introduction he remarks about his sources that
[s]o far the Egyptians themselves have been my authority, but in what
follows I shall relate what other people, too, are willing to accept in the
history of this country, with a few points added from my own observation
(ὄψις).192
Chapters 2.160–161 relate two episodes from the reign of Psammis, i.e., Psam-
tek II (595–589bc). In the first, longer, episode (2.160) an Elean delegation
receives advice from the Egyptians on how to organize fairly the Olympic
games.193 In the brief single-sentence second episode (2.161, here Chapter 2,
Text 4) Psamtek II sends a military expedition to Nubia. Unlike the first, the
second episode contains authentic information194 about the campaign that
resulted in the Saite occupation of Lower Nubia (cf. Chapter 1.3).
Immediately after the fall of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty, the relations between
Egypt and Kush were structured in the interest of the international trade that

193 Cf. Lloyd 2007 360. The moralizing episode has nothing to do with Psamtek II. In Alan
Griffiths’ view, Herodotus knew nothing about his Psammis, and used the tale to lend
him some identity, having perhaps the Sicilian Psaumis in mind, who was celebrated in
Pindar’s Olympian Odes. See Griffiths 2006 133.
194 Though Psamtek II reigned in fact not “for only six years” but for five full years and started
his sixth regnal year, this is not a serious fault. Cf. von Beckerath 1997 86ff.; Lloyd 2007 360f.
was greatly encouraged by Psamtek I195 and his successor, Nekau II (610–
595bc). The latter sent a riverine expedition from Elephantine against the
nomadic Trog[l]odytes, inhabitants of the desert between the Lower Nubian
Nile and the Red Sea, which indicates efforts aimed at the control of the com-
mercial road along the Middle Nile (cf. Chapter 4.11).196 We have no information
about the actual items of the Nubian export to Egypt. It may be hypothesized
that besides Nubian gold it included exotic wares from the interior of Africa.
The high quality of the imports and/or diplomatic gifts arriving from Egypt in
the Kingdom of Kush can be assessed on the basis of metal,197 calcite,198 and
faience199 vessels and faience amulets200 recovered from royal and elite tombs
at Nuri and Begarawiya West and Begarawiya South at the city of Meroe.
During the revolt of Inaros between c. 463/2 and 449 bc,201 i.e., more or less
in Herodotus’ own time,202 Lower Nubia returned under Kushite supremacy
from the Egyptian rule that had been established there by Psamtek II and
maintained by Cambyses, Darius I and Xerxes. Herodotus, however, although
he visited Egypt shortly after Inaros’ rebellion (cf. Chapters 1.3, 4.2), was not
aware of the change in the status of Lower Nubia. His remark that Psammis died
soon after the expedition is similarly erroneous. Lloyd203 makes the important
observation that a similar error occurs in the Demotic Papyrus Rylands IX
dating from 513bc, where it is said that Psamtek II died immediately after
his 592bc Asiatic campaign.204 Consequently, Herodotus’ dating of Psammis’
death seems to derive from an Egyptian, not a Greek source.
195 Cf. Diodorus 1.66.8, 67.9; Lloyd 1983 282ff., 329.

196 C. Müller: Drei Stelenfragmente. in: W. Kaiser et al.: Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine.
Fünfter Grabungsbericht. MDAIK 31 (1975) 80–84 83f.; F. Junge: Elephantine XI. Funde und
Bauteile. Mainz 1987 66 f.; K. Jansen-Winkeln: Zur Schiffsliste aus Elephantine. GM 109
(1989) 31.
197 E.g., Dunham 1963 figs 18/e (Beg. W. 832); Dunham 1955 fig. 55, Wenig 1978 Cat. 111 (gold
vase inscribed for Aspelta’s funerary equipment, from Nu. 8).
198 Griffith 1923 Pl. XVI; Dunham 1963 fig. Q.
199 E.g., Griffith 1923 Pls XXXI–XXXII.
200 See especially the pataikos types associated with the cult of Horus-the-Saviour and the
Memphite cult of Ptah-Sokaris, Griffith 1923 Pl. XXVI/33; Dunham 1955, 1963 passim and
cf. C. Andrews: Amulets of Ancient Egypt. London 1994 38f.
201 Török 2009 364ff.
202 According to Cobet 2002 398 f. with “up to my own time” Herodotus refers to the personal
memory of his own generation, i.e., the period c. between 450 and the early 420s.
203 Lloyd 1988a 168 f.
204 14–17, Griffith 1909 III 92 ff.
82 chapter 4
6 Aithiopians in the Siwa Oasis
Into his account of the customs of the Egyptians (2.35–98) Herodotus inserts
a digression (2.42, here Chapter 2, Text 5) about the relations between the
Egyptians, the Aithiopians, and the Ammonians. The latter are the inhabitants
of the Siwa Oasis. Chapter 2, Text 5 presents the more informative section of
the digression. The less informative part of the digression will also be briefly
touched upon in the following.
According to Herodotus, the Ammonians are colonists of Egyptians and
Aithiopians and their language “lies between those of the two peoples”. Hero-
dotus associates the oracle of Ammon of Siwa with both this mixed population
and the Theban Amun oracle. In 2.42 the historian relates that the Thebans
hold rams sacred and do not sacrifice them. Nevertheless, once a year at the fes-
tival of Zeus, i.e., Amun, they cut a single ram into pieces, flay it, put its fleece on
the image of the god and then bring an image of Heracles (i.e., probably Khonsu,
son of Amun-Re205) near to it. They conclude the festival burying the remnants
of the sacrificed ram in a sacred coffer (ἐν ἱρῇ θήκῃ; de Sélincourt and Marin-
cola translate “bury the carcase in a sacred sepulchre”206). In Lloyd’s view,207
besides recording an existing ritual performed at the Theban Opet festival,208
Herodotus presents here an aetiological explanation for the ritual of sacrificing
a ram and putting its fleece on the god’s cult statue in order to endow it with
the power of the sacred animal. The historian adds, “This is the reason why the
Egyptians make Zeus’ image with a ram’s head”. He also repeats in 4.181 that the
temple of the Ammonians “derived from that of the Theban Zeus (…) [where-
fore] the image of Zeus in both temples has a ram’s face”.209
Until the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty, Siwa was under the rule of an independent
Libyan tribal chief, but Egyptian priests imported the cult of Amun of Thebes
to the oasis probably as early as the New Kingdom. The famous Ammoneion of
Aghurmi, i.e., the temple of Zeus Ammon of Siwa, was built by King Ahmose II
(Amasis) (570–526bc) of the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty. Architectural features of
205 J.G. Griffiths: The Orders of Gods in Greece and Egypt (According to Herodotus). JHS 75
(1955) 21–23.
207 Lloyd 1976 192ff.; 2007 268.
208 For a reconstruction of the Opet festival as celebrated from the time of Rameses II
onwards, see L. Bell: The New Kingdom “Divine” Temple: The Example of Luxor. in: Shafer
(ed.) 1997 127–184, 281–302 162 ff.
the temple indicate that Greek masons participated in its construction.210

Herodotus repeatedly mentions the oracle of Zeus Ammon of Aghurmi (1.46,
2.18, 2.32, 2.55). Features of Zeus Ammon of Cyrene may be identified in the
god’s figure as well as in his cult. It is in accordance with modern Egyptology’s
knowledge of Amun’s ram aspect that Herodotus stresses the Theban connec-
tions of a ram-headed Zeus Ammon. It is irrelevant here that no ram-headed
representation of the Ammon of Aghurmi is known, since a ram-headed Amun
was actually worshiped some hundred meters from Aghurmi in the temple of
Umm Ubaydah, which was linked with Aghurmi by a processional avenue.211
The Egyptian Amun is frequently represented with human body and ram’s
head. The Nubian Amun gods212 also appear with human body and ram’s
head or in the form of a ram or a criosphinx. The local Amun cults of Kush
derived partly from pre-Twenty-Fifth Dynasty or even native pre-New Kingdom
ram cults.213 The question must remain open, however, whether Herodotus’
informant associated the Ammon of Siwa with Aithiopian colonists because
he actually knew about the Nubian ram gods.
Lloyd lists factors apparently in favour of the (partially) Nubian origin of the
Siwa cult214 and also joins Leclant and Yoyotte in their assumption that Nubian
immigrants played a role in its import.215 An actual Nubian presence in the
Oasis remains to be proved, however.
210 Cf. PM VII 313; Kuhlmann 1988; Arnold 1999 90; K.-P. Kuhlmann: Siwa Oasis, Late Period
and Graeco-Roman Sites. in: Bard (ed.) 1999 738–744; S. Schmidt: Ammon. in: Beck–
Bol–Bückling (eds) 2005 187–194; K.-C. Bruhn: “Kein Tempel der Pracht”. Architektur und
Geschichte des Tempels aus der Zeit Amasis auf Agurmi, Oase Siwa. Wiesbaden 2010.
211 Kuhlmann 1988 123ff.
212 For the presumed origins of the ram form of the Egyptian Amun in native Nubian ram
cults of the C-Group and Kerma cultures, see G. Maspero: Histoire ancienne des peuples de
l’ orient classique II. Paris 1899 169; D. Wildung: Der widdergestaltige Amun–Ikonographie
eines Götterbildes. Unpubl. paper submitted at the International Congress of Orientalists,
Paris 1973; cf. id.: Sesostris und Amenemhet. Ägypten im Mittleren Reich. München 1984
182; P. Behrens: Widder. LÄ VI (1986) 1243–1245; C. Bonnet: Kerma. Territoire et métropole.
Paris 1986 45 f.; C. Bonnet (ed.): Kerma, royaume de Nubie. Genève 1990 90f.; Pamminger
1992. See also E. Kormysheva: On the Origin and Evolution of the Amun Cult in Nubia. in:
Kendall (ed.) 2004 109–133.
213 Though the term “Nubian ram gods” is used with great confidence in the literature, in fact,
we know next to nothing about them. It remains unknown whether the pre-New Kingdom
ram gods presumably worshiped at Kawa and Napata were independent of each other or
were rather local forms of a more “universal” deity. Cf. Hornung 1971 219ff.
214 Lloyd 1976 196.
215 Leclant–Yoyotte 1952 28 note 6; Lloyd 2007 268. I cannot share Lloyd’s view that “the ethnic
mix would inevitably create a heterogeneous linguistic environment” (ibid.).
84 chapter 4
7 Herodotus’ Two Aithiopias 1: Aithiopia South of Egypt. With Notes

on Oracles
In 2.29–31 (here Chapter 2, Text 6) Herodotus describes the geography of Nubia

first from Elephantine above the First Cataract to the city of Meroe, then from
Meroe to the region where the Egyptian Deserters (αὐτομόλοι) were settled.
At the same time, the passage is part of the account of the Upper Nile and
the sources of the river (2.28–34). The geographical section is followed by a
discourse on the customs and traditions of the inhabitants of Meroe and the
story of the Deserters’ settlement in Aithiopia.
The description of the First Cataract region contains errors that indicate
a source of general nature such as a traveller’s itinerary excerpted and/or
commented on in a superficial manner at some point of Herodotus’ stay in
Egypt. He introduces the description noting that as far as Elephantine he
speaks as an eyewitness, “but further south from hearsay (ἀκοή)”, that is, he
reports what oral informants told him. But the historian does not pretend
that he could present collective akoē statements received from locals “who
are the most competent informants about themselves and their own land”,216
since he did not go to Nubia and did not meet Nubian informants, either (see
Chapters 1.2, 4.1).
The historian describes correctly the difficulties of sailing through the First
Cataract. The distance of twelve miles between Elephantine and Takompso,
i.e., the Nile valley stretch that would appear in later sources as Δωδεκάσχοι-
νος, “The Land of Twelve Miles”,217 is similarly correct.218 Yet Herodotus con-
fuses Takompso (the Tj-km-sꜣ, Tꜣ-q-mꜣ-p-s of Egyptian texts219) at the south-
ern end of the Dodekaschoinos with Philae at its northern end. Together with
other settlements of the Cataract region, it was Philae, not Takompso, that
was said in antiquity to be inhabited by a mixed Egyptian-Aithiopian popu-
lation.220
The “great lake” is not real.221 The Aithiopian nomads said to live around it
are probably identical with the Blemmyans/Bedja living between the Nile and
the Red Sea.222 According to the third-century-bc author Eratosthenes,
216 Luraghi 2006 83f.

217 For the geographical position of the Dodekaschoinos, cf. Locher 1999 230ff.
218 As opposed to my overcriticism in FHN I 310.
219 Locher 1999 259 ff.
220 Cf. Strabo 1.2.32, 17.1.49, FHN III No. 188.
221 Lloyd 2007 259 f.: “exaggerated”.
222 For a mention of Blemmyans in 513bc, see the Demotic Papyrus Rylands IX, 5/2–5, Griffith
along the Nile and towards the Red Sea [live] the Megabaroi and the
Blemmyes, who are subject to the Aithiopians but are neighbours of the
Egyptians[.]223
The Blemmyans were indeed “visible” both from Lower Nubia and Upper Egypt.
They were viewed with little sympathy and understanding.224
Lloyd argues that Herodotus’ itinerary consisting of four days’ boat voyage
from Elephantine to Takompso, plus a journey of forty days by land along the
Nile, plus another twelve days’ boat journey to the city of Meroe is realistic.225
It is to be noted, however, that it is not identical with the traditional short
itinerary consisting of a boat voyage to Korosko whence the journey continued
along the desert road to a point at modern Abu Hamed, a site situated between
the Fourth and Fifth Cataracts. From there, the city of Meroe could be reached
by boat in the period of high Nile.
In Chapter 29 of Book II Herodotus presents a brief description of the
“great city with the name of Meroe”. This is the earliest mention of the city
of Meroe in a classical source. The earliest occurrence of Bꜣ-r-wꜣ, Meroe, in a
Kushite text written in hieroglyphic Egyptian is in one of the inscriptions of
King Irike-Amannote dating from the late fifth century bc.226 By Herodotus’
time, however, Meroe had functioned as a royal residence already for several
1909 I–II Pl. XXVII, III 225; FHN I No. 50. For the history of the Blemmyans, see Updegraff
1978; 1988; L. Török: A Contribution to Post-Meroitic Chronology: The Blemmyes in Lower
Nubia. (Meroitic Newsletter 24). Paris 1985; id.: Additional Remarks to Updegraff 1988. in:
ANRW II.10.1 (1988) 97–106.
223 Eratosthenes in Strabo 17.1.2, FHN II No. 109, trans. T. Hägg.
224 The glimpse presented of them in a passage of the Papyrus Dodgson (second century bc,
C.J. Martin: The Child Born in Elephantine: Papyrus Dodgson Revisited. Acta Demotica.
Acts of the Fifth International Conference for Demotists 1993. EVO 17 [1994] 199–212) is far
from characteristic of the interethnical contacts in the region. The passage records a
trial against persons disturbing the peace on the island of Philae. A certain Petra son of
Pshenpoêr was found guilty by an oracle for having desecrated offering wine dedicated to
Osiris in a drinking party, in which Blemmyans had also participated. The case indicates a
rather intimate relationship between Blemmyans and Egyptians, who could get access to
Osiris’ wine. It would be mistaken, however, to extend the amicable closeness prevailing
in the anecdotical episode to the whole of the coexistence of Egyptians, Aithiopians
and Blemmyes (cf. E. Bresciani: Il papiro Dodgson e il hp (n) wpj.t. EVO 11 [1988] 55–70;
Updegraff 1988 60).
225 Lloyd 2007 260.
226 Kawa, Temple T, Inscription of Irike-Amanote from Years 1–2 col. 5, FHN II No. 71; Török 2009
367 ff.
86 chapter 4
centuries (cf. Chapter 1.1). Its history goes back to pre-Twenty-Fifth Dynasty
times.227 There are calibrated carbon dates between 900–750bc from mudbrick
buildings discovered recently under the Meroitic-period palace M 750.228
The historian relates next that “the people there [i.e., in the city of Meroe]
worship Zeus (= Amun) and Dionysus (= Osiris) alone of the gods” and that
“they also have an oracle of Zeus”. He also adds, the Aithiopians “go to war
whenever this god (Zeus) bids them through oracles, and wherever he bids
them”. The exclusive reference to the worship of Zeus (= Amun) and Dionysus
(= Osiris), who are the “most obvious” gods of post-New Kingdom Egypt, is
characteristic for the scantiness of the “realistic” information Herodotus could
obtain about the city of Meroe. Students of Herodotus make nevertheless
attempts to interpret it as a sophisticated allusion to the hierarchy of the gods in
Nubian religion, maintaining, “Amun (Zeus) was the major god in Nubia from
the New Kingdom”.229 Indeed, an Amun temple was standing in the centre
of the town already by the reign of Taharqo.230 So far, there is no textual or
archaeological evidence for an Osiris temple. But a fair number of shrines of
other deities have been excavated at the city of Meroe.231
Sabacos’ reaction to his oracular dream in 2.137+ 139 (here Chapter 2, Text
2, cf. Chapter 4.4) presents a paradigm of the pharaoh’s traditional attitude
towards oracles, reproducing thus an important feature of the god-fearing ideal
ruler’s portrait. In difficult periods of Egyptian history, portraits of this type
would occur again and again. Suffice it to mention here the pharaoh of the
Demotic Inaros (Petubastis) cycle232 who is characterized as “a lover of peace
227 For the publication of John Garstang’s 1909–1914 excavations at Meroe City, see Török
1997b. See also K.A. Grzymski: Meroe Reports I. The Meroe Expedition. (SSEA Publications
XVII). Mississauga 2003. For a discussion of more recent fieldwork at the site, see M. Baud:
Les trois Méroé: la ville, la région, l’ empire. in: Baud–Sackho-Autissier–Labbé-Toutée
(eds) 2010 52–66; Török 2011a 113–188.
228 See K. Grzymski: La fondation de Méroé-Ville: nouvelles données. in: Baud–Sackho-
Autissier–Labbé-Toutée 2010 65–66. Cf. Török 1997b 1, 104.
229 Lloyd 2007 260, referring to Shinnie 1967 141.
230 Török 1997b 25 ff., 116 ff.
231 Török 1997b passim, P.L. Shinnie–J.R. Anderson (eds): The Capital of Kush 2. Meroe Excava-
tions 1973–1984 (Meroitica 20). Wiesbaden 2004; P. Wolf: Temples in the Meroitic South—
Some Aspects of Typology, Cult and Function. in: Caneva–Roccati (eds) 2006 239–262,
etc.
232 Cf. W. Helck: Petubastis-Erzählung. LÄ IV (1982) 998–999; F. Hoffmann: Der Kampf um
den Panzer des Inaros: Studien zum Papyrus Krall und seiner Stellung innerhalb des Inaros-
Petubastis-Zyklus. Wien 1996.
whose actions are governed by the oracle of Amun”.233 Oracles play a significant
role throughout the Histories,234 so also in the Egyptian logos.235 Herodotus’
reference to the Amun oracle in Meroe, however, is not a simple repetition or
variant of what he says elsewhere about Egyptian or other oracles.236 While
there is no realistic information behind the reduction of Meroe’s sacred land-
scape to the cults of Zeus and Dionysus, the remark about the oracle of Zeus is
more substantial. A superficial comparison of Egyptian Third Intermediate and
Late Period oracular traditions and practices with Kushite oracular traditions
and practices of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty and Napatan periods would hardly
discover any significant difference. A more careful analysis of the inscriptions
of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty and Napatan-period kings results, however, in a
more complex picture of the special role that oracles of the Amun gods (also
including the Amun worshiped at the city of Meroe) were playing in the legit-
imation and investiture of the king of Kush as well as in royal decisions and
jurisdiction.237
Three types of oracles are recorded in Kushite royal documents, viz., 1) dream
oracle, 2) oracular election of the king and proclamation of his legitimacy by
the god’s processional cult image, 3) Königsorakel received by the king in the
intimacy of the god’s inner sanctuary.238 Two inscriptions erected by Taharqo in
the Amun temple at Kawa in the 680s bc239 present a dynastic legend relating
that the power of Taharqo’s ancestor Alara, the first Kushite ruler known by
name, was based on a covenant between Alara and Amun.240 The narrative
context in which the covenant appears suggests that it was also the ultimate
source of the legitimacy and power of Taharqo and his dynasty. Amun’s epithets
occurring in the two Kawa inscriptions indicate the legend’s conceptual setting
233 Murray 1970 156.

234 Cf. Asheri 2007a 41 f.
235 Kirchberg 1964; Asheri 1993; Harrison 2000 122–157; Saïd 2002; Griffin 2006.
236 Cf. H. Klees: Die Eigenart des griechischen Glaubens an Orakel und Seher. Ein Vergleich
zwischen griechischer und nichtgriechischer Mantik bei Herodot. Stuttgart 1965.
237 Cf. Kákosy 1982; Römer 1994 135–283; Török 1997a 241ff.
238 In more detail, see Török 1997a 241 ff.
239 Khartoum 2678, FHN I No. 21, lines 20 ff.; Khartoum 2679, FHN I No. 24, lines 22ff. For the
reading of Alara’s title in the text, cf. J.J. Clère: review of Macadam 1949. BiOr 5 (1951) 179;
A.K. Vinogradov: “[…] Their Brother, the Chieftain, the Son of Reꜥ, Alara […]”? CRIPEL 20
81–94 1999 91; id.: Epitet, imya, titul v pismennuh pamyatnikah Kusha. Moscow 2006 16ff.;
Török 2009 317 f.
240 For the concept of covenant in the “theologization of history”, see Assmann 1989; 1990b
18 ff.
88 chapter 4
in the Third Intermediate Period Theology of Will241 and, more closely, in

Theban concepts associated with the legitimating power of the God’s Wife of
Amun.242 The inscriptions refer to Alara’s coming to power with the word bıʾꜣt,
“wonder”. In contemporary texts bıʾꜣt is frequently used to refer to an oracular
decision proclaimed by a god during the course of the barque procession of his
cult image. Through the oracle, the god “elects” a king and bestows royal power
upon him.243 In the second half of the fifth century bc King Irike-Amannote,244
in the last third of the fourth century bc King Nastasene,245 would recall Alara’s
memory in the same sense.
In the late seventh century bc, Aspelta as crown prince entered the precincts
of the temple of Amun of Napata at Napata in the company of the “king’s
brothers”, i.e., the sons of his predecessor(s). The barque of the god emerged
from the sanctuary whereupon the priests
placed the king’s brothers before this god, (but) he did not take one of
them. Placing a second time the king’s brother, the son of Amun, the child
of Mut, Lady of Heaven, the Son of Re: Aspelta, may he live for ever. Then
this god, Amun-Re, Lord of the Thrones of Two-lands, said: “It is he that is
the king, your lord”.246
The oracular “election” of Aspelta recalls the scene in which Amun of Karnak is
selecting out the future Thutmose III from the midst of his entourage.247 After
the public proclamation of his legitimacy, Aspelta is conducted into the inner
sanctuary where the god receives him without attendants. The earliest occur-
rence of such a Königsorakel rite is in Piankhy’s Great Triumphal Stela (cf. Chap-
ters 1.3, 4.4) in the account of the king’s mystic encounter with Re of Heliopo-
lis. It represents the culmination of his accession to the throne of Egypt.248
241 Cf. Assmann 1989 72ff.

242 FHN I 144 f., 175 f.
243 E. Graefe: Untersuchungen zur Wortfamilie bıʾꜣ. Köln 1971 137ff.; and Römer 1994 142ff.; on
Alara’s legitimation: 148 f.
244 FHN II No. 71, line 54.
245 FHN II No. 84, line 16.
246 Election Stela of Aspelta, Cairo JE 48866, Grimal 1981b Pls V–VII; FHN I No. 37, lines 18f.,
trans. R.H. Pierce.
247 Urk. IV.3 158; Roeder 1960 202f.—For the oracular legitimation of the king by his divine
father Amun in the New Kingdom, cf. Kuhlmann 1988 158f.
248 FHN I No. 9, lines 103ff. Cf. J.-C. Goyon: La confirmation du pouvoir royal au Nouvel An
(Brooklyn Museum Papyrus 47.218.50). Le Caire 1972 268f.
Returning to Aspelta’s investiture, in the rite following his Königsorakel Amun

of Napata grants him universal regency. This rite is followed by a verbal utter-
ance of the god that was apparently put down in the form of an oracular
decree.249
The rites of the oracular legitimation of the kings of Kush and their mystic
encounter with the god were repeated in the Amun temples of Kawa and Kerma
(Pnubs), the next stations of his coronation journey (cf. Chapter 1.1).250 Oracles
as means of the direct communication between the god and the ruler also
occur in other contexts. In the first half of the fourth century bc, two oracular
messages sent by Amun commanded King Harsiyotef to carry out restoration
work in the precincts of the great Amun temple at Napata.251 Confirming
Herodotus’ account recording that the Aithiopians “go to war whenever this
god (Zeus) bids them through oracles, and wherever he bids them”, Harsiyotef
also declares:
Thirty-fifth regnal year, first month of Winter, 5th day (…) I sent to him,
Amun of Napata, my good father, saying: “Shall I send my army against
the desert land Mekhty?” He sent to me, Amun of Napata, saying, “Let it
be sent!”252
It is to be added that, in proportion to their actual power, the kings tried to exert
strict control over the Amun oracles, as it is demonstrated by the account of the
terrible punishment for a priestly plot that was directed under Aspelta’s reign
at the manipulation of the oracle of Amun.253
Returning to the geographical description of Aithiopia, the reader of the
Histories misses here information about the regions lying beyond the city of
Meroe. The actual geographical account consists eventually of one single sen-
249 FHN I No. 37, line 27.

250 For the evidence, see Török 1997a 225ff.
251 FHN II No. 78, lines 119–130. For the interpretation of the passage, see my comments, FHN
II 463.
252 FHN II No. 78, lines 110–114, trans. R.H. Pierce.
253 Banishment Stela of Aspelta, Cairo JE 48865, Grimal 1981b Pls VIII–IX FHN I No. 38.—For
the relationship between the ruler, his family, and the Amun temples, cf. King Anlamani’s
Enthronement Stela, Copenhagen Æ.I.N. 1709, FHN I No. 34; the Adoption (or Dedication)
Stela of Aspelta, Louvre C 257, FHN I No. 39, Valbelle 2012 9ff.; and see the Aspelta stela
fragments discovered in 1999 and 2007 at Dokki Gel (Kerma): Valbelle 2012 21ff. For a
recent discussion of the text of Louvre C 257, see A.K. Vinogradov: The Golden Cage: What
is the “Dedication Stele” Dedicated To? MittSAG 23 (2012) 105–116.
90 chapter 4
tence: “from this city [Meroe] you will arrive at the Deserters as long as it
took to get from Elephantine to the capital of the Aithiopians”.254 This sen-
tence is followed by a long digression (Chapter 30 of Book II) presenting an
account of the settlement in Aithiopia of the Egyptian “Deserters,” also called
Automoloi (αὐτομόλοι) or Asmach (ἀσμάχ). According to Herodotus, they were
the descendants of the 240,000 men who deserted from the garrison of Ele-
phantine under Psammetichus (the historical Psamtek I) and were settled at
a distance of 56 travel days from the city of Meroe in the southern part of
Aithiopia. While the number 240,000 seems to be in the style of Herodotus’
invented quantities,255 the mention of garrisons and military posts established
in Egypt by Psamtek I and still existing in Herodotus’ own time, namely, “in
the city of Elephantine on the Aithiopian frontier, and in Pelousian Daphnai
(…) on the Arab and the Assyrian frontier, and in Marea on the Libyan fron-
tier”, is realistic.256 Henri de Meulenaere suggests that the king in the story is
identical with Tanwetamani rather than Psamtek I, and the episode is a para-
phrase of the withdrawal of Tanwetamani’s forces from Upper Egypt after his
final defeat by the Assyrians257 in 663bc.258 Lloyd259 interprets the story as the
account of a historical mutiny of the machimoi,260 the Egyptian warrior class of
Libyan origin (cf. 2.141, 164–168).261 According to Meulenaere262 and Lloyd,263
the name “Asmach” derives from Egyptian smḥy, “left”. Such a derivation is sup-
ported by the word’s military connotation as explained by Herodotus: Asmach
“translated into the Greek language means ‘they who stand at the king’s left
hand’”.264
254 FHN I No. 56, trans. T. Eide.

255 Fehling 1989 232.
256 According to Lloyd 2007 261, Marea was not garrisoned in Herodotus’ time because the
Cyrenaica was under Persian control. But so also was Elephantine.
257 Cf. Kitchen 1996 § 355.
258 Meulenaere 1951 43.
259 Lloyd 1988a 116 f.; Lloyd 2000 373.
260 Greek name of the Meshwesh or Ma, Libyans settled in Egypt during the New Kingdom.
For the machimoi, see Kienitz 1953 36 f.; Lloyd 1983 309f.; Taylor 2000 349f.
261 The Deserters would appear in later classical literature under the names Automoles (Mela,
3.85), Sembritae (Strabo 16.4.8, 17.1.2, Pliny, NH 6.191) and Machloiones (Hesychius s.v.). Cf.
Lloyd 1976 128.
262 Meulenaere 1951 42.
263 Lloyd 2007 260.
264 Lloyd 1976 129 refers to J.G. Griffiths: Three Notes on Herodotus, Book II. ASAE 53 (1956)
139 ff.
In his commentary on 2.30 Lloyd makes an attempt at the placing of the

Deserters in Kushite history.265 Referring to military campaigns recorded in
inscriptions of Anlamani266 (late seventh century bc), Aspelta267 (late
seventh–early sixth century bc), Irike-Amannote268 (late fifth–early fourth
century bc), Harsiyotef269 (first half-middle of the fourth century bc), and Nas-
tasene270 (last third of the fourth century bc), Lloyd makes the suggestion that
“this evidence makes it quite clear that conditions beyond the First Cataract
were unstable enough to satisfy Herodotus’ description”.271 Actually, the afore-
mentioned inscriptions record a variety of conflicts within and without the
frontiers of the Kingdom of Kush, mainly “historical”, but also including more
or less fictive ones that belong to the traditional symbolic repertory of royal
legitimation and triumph.272 Recurrent conflicts, mostly at the peripheries of
the kingdom, occurred between the central power and nomadic groups liv-
ing within the borders of the kingdom, while others were the consequences of
the continuous struggle with Egypt and/or local dissidents for the control over
Lower Nubia between the First and Second Cataracts.273 The general impres-
sion given by the evidence is not that of a kingdom existing in a constant state
of instability. Quite the contrary. What the inscriptions portray is a success-
fully functioning central power renewed practically as well as symbolically with
every new reign.
8 Herodotus’ Two Aithiopias 2: The Land of the Long-Lived

Aithiopians on the Fringes of the Inhabited World
Herodotus concludes in 2.31 that the Nile is known “for the distance of four
months of travel by boat and on land, not counting its course in Egypt”. The land
265 Lloyd 1976 131f.

266 Enthronement Stela of Anlamani, Copenhagen Æ.I.N. 1709, FHN I No. 34. For Anlamani’s
reign cf. FHN I No. (33).
267 Banishment Stela of Aspelta, FHN I No. 38. For Aspelta’s reign cf. FHN I No. (36).
268 Inscription in the hypostyle hall of the Amun temple at Kawa, FHN II No. 71. For Irike-
Amannote’s reign, cf. FHN I No. (70).
269 Harsiyotef Annals, Cairo JE 48864, FHN II No. 78. For Harsiyotef’s reign, cf. FHN I No. (77).
270 Nastasene Stela from Year 8, Berlin 2268, FHN II No. 84. For Nastasene’s reign, cf. FHN II
No. (83).
271 Lloyd 1976 132.
272 For the Kushite army and warfare cf. Welsby 1996 39ff.
273 For the evidence and its interpretation, see Török 2009 passim.
92 chapter 4
of the Deserters constitutes the most remote point about which the historian
could collect information. From that point on no one knows the course of the
Nile, “for there the land is a desert by reason of the intense heat”. Accordingly,
the Aithiopia south of Egypt ends at the fringes of the earth. There is nothing
beyond it but the “true desert”, which, so says Herodotus, surrounds the inhab-
ited world.274
Herodotus’ “other Aithiopia” displays several features of the Aithiopia of
Greek literary tradition. The Aithiopians, i.e., the black people (αἴθιοψ, “face
burned”) of the Homeric poems are divided into two groups living near to the
rising and to the setting of the sun, respectively. They are “the most distant of
men” (ἔσχατοι ἀνδρῶν275). Their land is located “at the boundaries of earth”.276
Ionian geography located them more precisely in Africa and India, in the region
extending from Nubia to the Atlantic coast (Hdt. 7.69–70).277
Homeric Greece had no eyewitness information about the regions south of
the First Cataract, though it was not very long ago that Nubia ceased to be dom-
inated by New Kingdom Egypt—and New Kingdom Egypt was by no means
unknown to the Greek world.278 The Homeric tradition of far-off Aithiopia
arose from the desire to separate the inhabited world from the boundless (ἀπεί-
ρων) cosmos. According to archaic cosmology,279 the continents of Europe,
Asia, and Africa are surrounded by Ocean,280 a “river”281 without another bank
on its farther side. In the south, Ocean washes the shores of Aithiopia.282
The properties of the land of Aithiopia correspond with the virtues of its
inhabitants. The Aithiopia of early Greek poetry is blessed with perfect climate
and paradisial prosperity. Accordingly, its inhabitants are pious, noble-minded,
and blameless (ἀμύμων), whereby they deserve the visits of the gods283 who
274 Cf. H. Edelmann: Ἐρημίη und ἔρημος bei Herodot. Klio 52 (1970) 79–86; Romm 1992 35ff.;
Karttunen 2002 465.
275 Od. 1.23.—Cf. Bichler 2000 29 ff.
276 Homeric geography places it occasionally somewhat more realistically in the African
regions south of Egypt: Od. 4.84.
277 Cf. Asheri 2007c 415 f.
278 Cf. D. Panagiotopoulos: Chronik einer Begegnung. Ägypten und die Ägäis in der Bronze-
zeit. in: Beck–Bol–Bückling (eds) 2005 34–49; W. Koenigs: Bauen in Stein. ibid. 55–64;
R.S. Bianchi: Der archaische griechische Kouros und der ägyptische kanonische Bildnisty-
pus der schreitenden männlichen Figur. ibid. 65–73.
279 Which, as to this particular aspect, is decidedly refuted by Herodotus in 2.23, 4.8 and 4.36.
280 F. Gisinger: Okeanos. RE XXXIV (1937) 2308–2310; Romm 1992 12ff.
281 For the ποταμός Οκεανοἴο, see Romm 1992 15 f.
282 Romm 1992 9 ff.
283 Il. 23.205–207; Od. 1.22–24, 5.282, 287.—According to Od. 4.84 Menelaos visits the
from time to time retreat to them in order to escape from the sufferings of the
quarrelling mankind and enjoy unlimited feasting.
I have argued on the previous pages of this study that Herodotus collected
the information presented in the Aithiopian passages in order to enrich or
support the narratives in which they are inserted, rather than to be used for
the composition of a self-contained Aithiopian logos. Accordingly, the sense of
3.17–25 (here Chapter 2, Text 7) is didactic. Its purpose is to build up a contrast
between a ruthless, mad conqueror and a morally superior peripheral people,
viz., a contrast between the Persian Cambyses and Homer’s noble savages,
representatives of the ἔσχατοι ἀνδρῶν.284 The Aithiopia described in Chapters
3.17–25 of the Histories is a moral and political utopia,285 an ideal counterpart
of the oikumene’s troubles.286
In Herminghausen’s view Chapters 3.17–25 can be regarded as a unitary
whole.287 Marco Dorati contests this interpretation. While I agree with most
of Dorati’s points, I have considerations against his conclusion according to
which the report of the envoys sent by Cambyses to the king of the long-lived
Aithiopians would be
completed by formally independent pieces of information, which are

however tightly connected to the main narrative and hardly conceivable
as fragments of autonomous knowledge. Should we substract the contri-
bution of the supposed independent voices, the narrative could no longer
stand. What is difficult to accept is therefore not the content of the vari-
ous voices or of the supposed autonomous fragments, but the manner in
which they are interconnected.288
Aithiopians on his return voyage from Troy. The combination of the “most distant” with
the accessible receives its meaning, however, only in Herodotus’ work, cf. Romm 1992
50.
284 Od. 1.23, see also Il. 13.6; Aeschylus, frgm. 329 M; Hdt. 4.23 (Scythians), 4.26 (Issedones).
285 H. Braunert: Utopia, Antworten griechischen Denkens auf die Herausforderung durch soziale
Verhältnisse. Kiel 1969; J. Ferguson: Utopias of the Classical World. London 1975; D. Daw-
son: Cities of the Gods. Communist Utopias in Greek Thought. Oxford 1992; C. Carsana–
M.T. Schettino (eds): Utopia e utopie nel pensiero storico antico. Roma 2008.
286 Romm 1992 49 ff.—For a comprehensive treatment of the Aithiopia/Nubia tradition of
antiquity, see the pioneering work by F.M. Snowden: Blacks in Antiquity. Ethiopians in the
Greco-Roman Experience. Cambridge, Mass. 1970 and cf. Lesky 1959; H. Schwabl: Das Bild
der fremden Welt bei den frühen Griechen. in: Schwabl (ed.) 1961 3–23.
287 Herminghausen 1964 71 ff.
288 Dorati 2011 299.
94 chapter 4
Chapters 17–25 of Book III—the “Aithiopian logos” of Jacoby and other schol-
ars (see Chapters 3.1, 2)—are part of Cambyses’ biography. Their traditional
interpretation is summarized thus by David Asheri:
This famous ‘Ethiopian’ logos is a historical and ethnographical digres-

sion perfectly integrated in the main narrative. It starts from the historical
events of the three main campaigns lost by Cambyses (ch. 17), and con-
nects with the story of the sacrilegious acts performed by the mad Persian
king. The logos, therefore, has a crucial role in the Herodotean “biography”
of Cambyses. The account of the Ethiopian campaign occupies only the
last chapter, ch. 25; the other chapters contain an ethnographic account,
mostly fictitious or idealized for didactic purposes (…) The logos mixes a
Greek traditional utopia with information of varying value gathered in
Egypt from Greek-speaking informers tendentiously hostile to Camby-
ses.289
Hofmann and Vorbichler suggest a radically different interpretation accord-

ing to which the “Aithiopian logos” contains a Mysteriengeschehen of Iranian
origins,290 while Fehling classifies it as an “ethnographic lore (…) transformed
into historical events”. Fehling suggests, moreover, “this story had never had any
independent existence in such a form; and hence any possibility of a Greek
source for it is ruled out as well.” Accordingly, he concludes that the author of
the narrative is Herodotus himself.291
Though Asheri’s interpretation of the sources and purpose of 3.17–25 is to be
preferred to Hofmann and Vorblicher’s or Fehling’s definitions, the individual
pieces of information appearing in the narrative still deserve a discussion that
is prepared to bring into question the relevant Nubian evidence.
According to Suzanne Saïd,292 Cambyses’ biography is divided into two
parts. The first (3.1–38), which prepares the second, relates Cambyses’ fateful
change from a humane king293 to a madman who, disrespecting the traditions
of both the Persians and the Egyptians, burns the corpse of King Amasis,
launches an unjust campaign against the Aithiopians, and sins against the
gods and his own kin. The second part (3.61–66) relates the ensuing awful
289 Asheri 2007c 415.

290 Hofmann–Vorbichler 1979 172ff.
291 Fehling 1989 191f.
292 Saïd 2002 130.
293 Remember his noble behaviour towards the defeated Psammenitus, i.e., Psamtek III (526–
525 bc, cf. Lloyd 1975 189 ff.) in Chapter 14 of Book III.
punishment. One cannot fail to realize the dramatic quality of this biography.
The vividness of the narrative “converting the listener [and the reader] into a
spectator”294 is indebted to tragedy, as also indicated by Cambyses’ speech on
his deathbed (3.65–66)295 in which he admits his crime and “understands and
accepts his death”.296
In the Aithiopian passage, too, speech/conversation and narrator-text are in
calculated dramatic interaction, even though this passage is “only” a purposeful
interruption, a didactic digression in the tragic narrative of Cambyses’ life.
It functions as a warning that forecasts the catastrophic consequence of the
Persian’s misdeeds. The conversations between Cambyses’ spies and the king of
the long-lived Aithiopians297 are pro and con speeches. Jasper Griffin associates
Herodotus’ contrasting speeches with the technique of Homer, concluding that
it is “his moral concerns which resemble those of tragedy”.298 This is doubtless
true, but I would not rule out technical associations, either.299
The Aithiopian account spans from the headline “Cambyses determined to
launch three campaigns, one against the Carthaginians, another against the
Ammonians, and a third against the long-lived Aithiopians”300 to the conclu-
sion301 “So ended the expedition against Aithiopia”.302 Since the account of
the campaigns is a continuation of the history of Egypt’s conquest by Cam-
byses, it is likely that it (also) draws from Egyptian sources, both native and
Greek.303
294 Saïd 2002 117.

295 Cf. Flower 2006 282.
296 Griffin 2006 52.
297 With reference to F. Hintze: Studien zur meroitischen Chronologie. Berlin 1959 22ff., Asheri
2007c 420 suggests that in Cambyses’ time the King of Meroe was Amani-nataki-lebte.
The filiation of Amani-nataki-lebte is unknown and his Throne- and Son-of-Re names
are known only from his pyramid burial Nu. 10 at Nuri, which was dated by its excavator
G.A. Reisner on a typological basis to the second half of the sixth century bc, cf. Dunham
1955 3 (dating also adopted by Török 1997a 202; Hornung–Krauss–Warburton [eds] 2006
496 Table IV.3). The dating is hypothetical, however, and the supposed synchronism of
Amani-nataki-lebte’s approximately dated regency with the three years of Cambyses’
regency between 525 and 522 bc remains undemonstrated.
298 Griffin 2006 54.
299 Cf. Grant 1995 28.
300 3.17, FHN I 325, trans. T. Eide.
301 For headlines and conclusions, see de Jong 2002 259ff.
303 So also Asheri 2007c 415.
96 chapter 4
In the anti-Persian context of Chapters 2.1–3.66, Cambyses’ intention to con-

quer lands west and south of Egypt represents a step towards his nemesis.
In the terms of her myth of the state,304 Egypt’s expansion was both deter-
mined and justified by the concept of universal regency, which made it the
duty of the ruler to extend mꜣꜥt, Equity, and destroy ıʾsft, Chaos.305 The con-
stant, unlimited growth of Egypt stops only at the ends of the earth. What
is traditionally the fulfilment of the legitimate pharaoh’s duty of expanding
Egypt’s borders (see Chapter 4.2 on Sesostris) becomes here a manifestation
of the usurper’s hubris, “a story of reckless daring and its disastrous conse-
quences”:306 Cambyses is not a legitimate pharaoh. Accordingly, the unjust-
ness of his military plans, especially the Aithiopian venture, is revealed from
the very outset by his treacherous course of action. Namely, he sends spies
to Aithiopia purportedly as envoys delivering diplomatic gifts to the king, but
actually to “look in matters in general” and to see if it is true “what is told”
about the famous Table of the Sun, which “is said” (λεγομένην εἶναι)307 to be
there.
Cambyses recruits his spies from Elephantine. The First Cataract region and
the adjacent Lower Nubian area between the Nile and the Red Sea were multi-
ethnic and multilingual. Cambyses’ spies belong to the people of ἰχθυοφάγοι,
Fish-eaters,308 who know the Aithiopian language. Alongside the Trog[l]o-
dytes, the Fish-eaters occur as speakers of Egyptian and Aithiopian in other
sources as well.309 Interpreters are traditionally associated with espionage:
on the whole, their trade has negative connotations.310 Before the Fish-eaters
arrive at Cambyses’ residence in Sais—where they would receive their man-
date and return to the south of Egypt in order to travel then to Aithiopia—
two digressions are inserted. The second digression (3.19) about the immediate
304 For Egyptian kingship, see above all Assmann 1990a; 1991; 1996; 2000a; O’Connor–Silver-
man (eds) 1995; Morris 2010; and cf. J. Assmann: Politische Theologie zwischen Ägypten
und Israel. München 1992. For expansionism, cf. Kemp 1978; Frandsen 1979; Zibelius-Chen
1988; Smith 2003, etc.
305 Cf. Grimal 1986 53 ff., 683ff.; Zibelius-Chen 1988 198ff.; Assmann 1990a; Smith 2003 167ff.
306 Romm 1992 89.
307 For the impersonal nature of λέγειν, see Dorati 2011 295f.
308 A fabulous people mentioned later by Strabo, 2.5.33, FHN III No. 189, and in the ad fourth
century by Epiphanius of Salamis, De XII gemmis, 19–21, ibid. No. 305.
309 E.g., U. Wilcken: Urkunden der Ptolemäerzeit II. Berlin-Leipzig 1927 227 (Apollonios, a
Trog[l]odyte); Desanges 1978 230; O. Longo: I mangiatori di pesci: regime alimentare e
quadro culturale. MDATC 18 (1987) 9–53; Asheri 2007c 418f.
310 For the traditional association of interpreters with espionage, see Asheri 2007c 419.
failure of the campaign against Carthage does not concern us here.311 The first
digression (3.18) is about the properties of the Table of the Sun:312
This is roughly what is told about the Table of the Sun: On the outskirts
of the city [of Meroe] there is a meadow full of boiled meat from every
kind of quadruped. During the night those of the citizens who at any
moment are in office take care to place the meat there [de Sélincourt and
Marincola translate ‘it is the duty of the magistrates to put the meat here
at night’313]; during the day anybody who so wishes may go there and eat.
The natives say that it is the earth itself that produces the meat each time.
This, then, is what is told about the so-called Table of the Sun.314
The “archaeological” identification of the Sun’s Table with various temples dis-
covered at the city of Meroe315 is entirely without foundation (cf. Chapter 1.2).
3.18 actually records two contrasting traditions: in the first the meats are placed
by the magistrates of the city of Meroe, in the second the earth itself produces
them. The source of the first tradition is not specified: it “is told”. Herodotus
ascribes the second tradition to the locals: φάναι δὲ τοὺς ἐπιχωρίους, “the natives
say”. But we are certainly not mistaken if we identify here a Greek motif, namely,
the banquets of the Aithiopians at which the Olympian gods participate. The
first tradition is probably nothing else than Herodotus’ retrospective “ratio-
nal” explanation for what “the natives say”.316 In a later chapter (3.23) the
spies/envoys would actually visit the Table of the Sun, but Herodotus does not
say what they are seeing there.
8.1 Excursus 4: Herodotus and Agatharchides

Chapter 3.20 relates how the Fish-eaters arrive in the land of the long-lived
Aithiopians and how they present Cambyses’ gifts to their king (for the discus-
sion of the gifts, see Chapter 4.9). The catalogue of the presents is followed by
a brief ethnographical description of the νόμοι, customs and laws, of the long-
lived Aithiopians. Herodotus reports (Chapter 2, Text 7) that they
311 The historian uses here information gathered from Greek (?) informants in Egypt. Cf. 3.5;
Asheri 2007c 401 f.
312 For a fine narratological discussion of the passage, see Dorati 2011 293ff.
314 FHN I 326, trans. T. Eide.
315 See recently de Sélincourt–Marincola 2003 645 note 9, referring to Shinnie 1978 223.
316 Karttunen 2002 462, 467.
98 chapter 4
are said to be the tallest and most handsome of all men. They are also said
to have customs which set them apart from other peoples, especially the
following concerning the royalty: the man among the citizens whom they
find to be the tallest and to have strength in proportion to his height they
find fit to be king.317
The Aithiopia tradition used here and in the Sabacos story (2.137+ 139, Chap-
ter 2, Text 2, cf. Chapter 4.4) would appear in a more explicit form in Agath-
archides of Cnidus’ (born around 200bc)318 On Affairs in Asia:319
Of the customs among the Aithiopians not a few appear to be very differ-
ent from those of other peoples, especially as regards the election of kings.
The priests first select the best candidates from among themselves, and
from among these selected men the multitude then chooses as king him
whom the god seizes320 while being carried about in a procession in a tra-
ditional manner. They then immediately prostrate themselves before this
man and honour him as a god, in the belief that the rule has been placed in
his hands through the providence of the divinity (…) The strangest thing,
however, is the circumstances that surround the death of their kings. In
Meroe the priests who busy themselves with the worshiping and honour-
ing the gods, the highest and most powerful class in the society, send a
message to the king whenever it occurs to them, ordering him to die. This
is an oracle sent them by the gods, they pretend (…) In former times the
kings were subject to the priests, without being vanquished by arms or any
force at all, but overpowered in their minds by just this kind of supersti-
tion. At the time of Ptolemy [II], however, Ergamenes, king of the Aithiopi-
ans, who had received instruction in Greek philosophy, was the first who
dared disdain this command. With the determination worthy of a king he
came with an armed force to the forbidden place where the golden temple
of the Aithiopians was situated and slaughtered all the priests, abolished
this tradition, and instituted practices at his own discretion.321

318 For the life and works of Agatharchides, see F. Schwartz: Agatharchides (3). RE I (1894)
739–741; Burstein 1989.
319 Known from Diodorus’ excerpts, Diodorus 3.2.1–7.3, FHN II No. 142.
320 The verb λαμβάνειν is the common Greek word for “take hold of” or “grasp”; in the actual
context, however, its meaning is probably “take possession of” in a religious sense, see
T. Eide in: FHN II 646 note 307.
321 FHN II 646 f., trans. T. Eide.
For a Greek reader of Herodotus or of Agatharchides the election motif may

have appeared familiar if s/he was aware of the tradition, according to which
kingship in Macedonia was reserved for the Argead Dynasty descending from
Zeus and Heracles. In the “selection” of the king—the result of which depended
on the actual military and political situation—the military, the members of the
royal family, and the assembly of the nobility equally participated. The con-
cluding acclamation of the army was “a normal, ritual part of the process”.322
Both Herodotus and Agatharchides emphasize, however, that the long-lived
Aithiopians have customs that set them apart from other peoples. The author
of the Histories sees the Egyptians in the same light. According to Chapter 35
of Book II, the customs of the Egyptians are the reverse of all other peoples’
customs:
Not only is the Egyptian climate peculiar to that country, and the Nile
different in its behaviour from other rivers elsewhere, but the Egyptians
themselves in their manners and customs seem to have reversed the
ordinary practices of mankind.323
The oppositions pointed out by Herodotus between the Egyptians and other
peoples have a geographical explanation, in which the historian conforms to
contemporary writers.324 The case of the long-lived Aithiopians is of a different
nature. Their customs as described in the Histories demonstrate moral supe-
riority over the Persians (i.e., over the illegitimate ruler Cambyses).325 Agath-
archides then radically turns the tables when he qualifies the Aithiopian cus-
toms as δεισιδαιμονία, “superstition” that, thanks to Ergamenes’ Greek education,
is superseded by λογισμός, “reason”.326
In a thought-provoking comment on Herodotus’ description of Egyptian ora-
cles in Chapter 2.83, Alan Lloyd interprets Agatharchides’ account of Aithiopian
kingship as a historical source.327 He suggests that the process leading to the
322 E.N. Borza: Response (to N.G.L. Hammond: The Macedonian Imprint on the Hellenistic
World, 12–23) in: Green (ed.) 1993 23–35 27; for a similar tradition of the Ptolemies, cf.
Lloyd 2000 408; W. Huss: Ägypten in hellenistischer Zeit 332–30 v. Chr. München 2001 81ff.
323 Trans. de Sélincourt–Marincola 2003 109. Cf. Lloyd 1975 141ff.
324 Rood 2006 301 f., cf. Thomas 2000 42 ff., 130f.
325 For Herodotus’ Scythians in Book IV of the Histories as an idealized “other” contrasted to
the Greek world, see Hartog 1988.
326 Cf. Dihle 1961 223ff.
327 Lloyd 1976 346.
100 chapter 4
unfolding of the theocratic state of the Twenty-First Dynasty, in which the

oracle of Amun of Thebes “became in a very real sense the ruler of a large part
of Egypt”, was carried to a “logical conclusion in Ethiopia where the oracle of
Amun at Meroe decided when and where to go to war (…) while at Napata
(…) it not only appointed the kings (…) but even decided when they should
commit suicide to make way for younger men until Ergamenes put a stop to
the practice”.
The vision of such a monumental arch spanning from Herodotus’ utopian
kingship of Aithiopia via Twenty-First Dynasty theocracy328 to Agatharchides’
utopian kingship is doubtless impressive. It is supported, however, only by
a biased Egyptological hypothesis, suggested first by George Andrew Reisner
in the early twentieth century329 and resurrected in Nubian Studies in the
1990s. Namely, relying on the Reisnerian hypothesis, it is argued330 that the
“Egyptianization” process in pre-Twenty-Fifth Dynasty Kush started with the
(supposed!) arrival of rebellious Amun priests fleeing from Thebes to escape
persecution from Crown Prince Osorkon of the Twenty-Second Dynasty.331 On
the same basis, students of Nubian history also argue in an even more radical
form for the thesis of a not-inner-directed “Egyptianization”:
The Egyptianizing kingdom of Kush was almost certainly a continuum

of Egyptian history (…) the Kushite state was a deliberate creation of
the Amun priesthood of Thebes, partly to seek security from Tanite or
328 Cf. J. Assmann: Re und Amun. Die Krise des polytheistischen Weltbildes in Ägypten der 18.-20.
Dynastie (OBO 51). Göttingen 1983; Römer 1994.
329 George Andrew Reisner, one of the greatest early twentieth century pioneers of Nubian
Studies, created the methodology for survey and rescue archaeology, brought a new
standard to the study of stratification, and established the framework of the cultural
typology of the Middle Nile Region on the basis of his Lower Nubian excavations. His
subsequent investigation of the Kushite royal necropoleis at el Kurru, Nuri, Gebel Barkal
and Begarawiya North (and the royal/élite cemeteries of Begrawiya West and South), and
finally of the temples of Napata (Gebel Barkal), led him to suggest a detailed chronology
for the Kingdom of Kush. He reconstructed the history of the Middle Nile Region in terms
of archaeological cultures identified with different peoples, connecting the “progressive”
periods to the influx or domination of the superior Hamitic race and describing the
periods which he interpreted as political and cultural decline as periods of immigration
of Negroid peoples from the south. Cf. Török 1997a 14f.
330 Kendall 1999 5, 57.
331 Prince Osorkon was appointed High Priest of Amun of Thebes around 840bc. For his
chronology and the events of his period, see R.A. Caminos: The Chronicle of Prince Osorkon.
Rome 1958; Kitchen 1996 330 ff.; Leahy (ed.) 1990.
Herakleopolitan interference and partly to regain religious control over

Nubia and to restore the long lost symbiosis of cult and kingship that had
typified the New Kingdom and which gave the Theban establishment its
raison d’être.332
The archaeological evidence, including the material from the pre-Twenty-Fifth-

Dynasty section of the Kushite royal cemetery of el Kurru,333 contradicts the
Reisnerian hypothesis. Actually, it indicates a slow, inner-directed process of
transformation leading from a complex (?) native chiefdom to an organically
“Egyptianized” kingdom. It would be a misleading simplification to describe
this process that started several generations before Kashta’s contact with Egypt
as a direct “Egyptianization” of native mortuary religion, burial and tomb types.
In reality, it was a more comprehensive process in which native conceptions
were continuously amalgamated with, rather than replaced by, Egyptian ideas
(see also Chapter 1.1).334
We have to return for a moment to Agatharchides’ Ergamenes. As an ethnog-
rapher, Agatharchides focused his interest on the problem of how it is possible
for people to maintain traditions and customs, which cannot be explained on
the basis of common sense and which, though they have a negative impact on
human actions, are nevertheless retained merely because they are in accor-
dance with certain religious concepts. The Ergamenes story demonstrates a
blatant case in point. At the same time, it also presents an example of the supe-
riority of Greek philosophy over such traditions. The principal message of the
story is the victory of reason over superstition.335
The Ergamenes story is introduced with a fairly realistic description of the
oracular confirmation of royal legitimacy. The motif of election may also have
appeared familiar to the Greek reader who was aware of the aforementioned
Macedonian tradition. It is also a feature of Greek kingship that “the good king
is a philosopher”.336 Agatharchides’s Ergamenes is identical with the historical
332 Kendall 2002 5.

333 See especially D. Dunham: El Kurru. Boston 1950, and cf. Chapter 1.3. See also Vincentelli
2006; Lohwasser 2010; Lohwasser 2012.—For recent archaeological work in the region of
el Kurru, see G. Emberling et al.: New Excavations at El-Kurru: Beyond the Napatan Royal
Cemetery. Sudan & Nubia 17 (2013) 42–60.
334 For the literature on the “Egyptianization” of the pre-Twenty-Fifth-Dynasty Upper Nubian
polity, see Török 2008.
335 Dihle 1961 223ff.
336 J. Bingen: Ptolemy I and the Quest for Legitimacy. in: Bingen 2007 15–30 17.
102 chapter 4
King Arkamaniqo,337 ruler of the Kingdom of Meroe in the second quarter of

the third century bc.338 Arkamaniqo is frequently described in the literature339
as a sort of “heretic” king à la Ekhnaton, who, by means of a royal coup d’ état,
put a violent end to the rule of the priests of Amun of Napata, separating thus
church and state and also removing the centre of the kingdom geographically
from their sphere by transferring the “capital” from Napata to Meroe (cf. Chap-
ter 1.1). The interpretation of Agatharchides’ story as a royal revolt against the
authority of Amun’s priesthood is certainly wrong if one realizes the unbroken
continuity of Kushite kingship ideology with the cult of Amun of Thebes and a
series of local Amun gods, among them Amun of Napata, at its centre.340 It also
appears unlikely if one takes due notice of the continuity of Napata as one of
the principal royal seats of the land before, during, and after the reign of Arka-
maniqo.341
The Ergamanes story reflects another kind of discontinuity. It is the coming
to power of a new dynasty.342 While Arkamaniqo did not “transfer the capital”,
he did transfer the royal burial ground from the neighbourhood of Napata,
i.e., from the area that was traditionally connected with the founders of the
Kingdom of Kush who originated there, to the neighbourhood of Meroe City.343
His actual tomb, Begarawiya South 6,344 which is situated on the lower edge
of the hillock occupied by Begarawiya South Cemetery, a necropolis at Meroe
City where aristocrats and royal wives had been buried since the reigns of
Kashta and Piankhy (cf. Chapter 1.3), can most likely be interpreted as his
interment in the cemetery of his non-ruling ancestors. Otherwise, the burial
of a ruler in a low-lying, peripheral part of a non-royal cemetery would be
more than unusual: indeed, Arkamaniqo’s second successor345 opened a new
337 F. Hintze: Die Inschriften des Löwentempels von Musawwarat es Sufra (Abhandlungen der
Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin Klasse für Sprachen, Literatur und Kunst
Jahrgang 1962 Nr. 1). Berlin 1962 16 f.
338 L. Török in FHN II 566 f.
339 For a survey, see S.M. Burstein: The Hellenistic Fringe: The Case of Meroe. in: Green (ed.)
1993 38–54 47 ff. (= Burstein 1995 105–123 111 ff.).
340 Cf. Török 1997a 263ff.; Török 2002 passim.
341 Cf. Török 2002 306 ff.
342 Török 1992.
343 For the royal burials at Napata, see Dunham 1955 (Nuri), Dunham 1957 (Barkal); at Meroe
City: Dunham 1957 (Begarawiya North), Dunham 1963 (Begarawiya South).
344 Dunham 1957 27ff.
345 His direct successor Amanislo was buried next to him in the pyramid tomb Beg. S. 5
situated in an even less prominent part of the hillock, see Dunham 1957 37.
royal burial ground (Begarawiya North) on the top of another hillock next to
Begarawiya South.346
Albeit transferring them into the realm of the Herodotean motif of the mas-
sacre of the priests, Agatharchides’ Ergamenes story hints at the violent cir-
cumstances in which the new dynasty emerged. The historical Arkamaniqo’s
remarkable Throne name lends further support to the above-sketched inter-
pretation. He adopted the Throne name H̱ nm-ıʾb-Rꜥ, “The-heart-of-Re-rejoices,”
of Amasis of the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty. Amasis did not hide the fact from his
contemporaries that he violently deposed his predecessor.347 Imitating Ama-
sis’ Throne name as the only one among the Egyptian and Meroitic rulers,348
Arkamaniqo directly associated himself with an Egyptian king who was known
to posterity as a usurper.349 Significantly, Amasis’ most important features in
Herodotus’ description, viz., a usurper in the beginning, later a “lover of the
Greeks” (2.178), may also be extracted from Agatharchides’ Ergamenes-portrait.
While other elements of the Ergamenes story come in fact from different sto-
ries of Herodotus, this parallelism is more likely historical, a parallelism that
was felt and brought to expression by Arkamaniqo himself. The model of Arka-
maniqo’s Throne name, the change of the royal burial ground connected to his
reign, and the elements of the classical Egypt- and Aithiopia-traditions asso-
ciated with him all fit into the homogeneous picture of a dynastic change of
epochal importance.
9 The Land of the Long-Lived Aithiopians Continued
The physical perfection of Herodotus’ long-lived Aithiopians is the adoption

of a utopian topos. The motif of the election of the man among the citizens
who is found to be the tallest and having strength in proportion to his height
is similarly utopian. Classical authors describe several parallels for the “demo-
cratic” election of the king on grounds of virtue, wealth, skill in husbandry,
346 For the development of the burial ground at Begarawiya South, cf. I. Hofmann: Beiträge
zur meroitischen Chronologie. St. Augustin bei Bonn 1978; Török 2011a 109ff.
347 For his stela from Year 1 see H. de Meulenaere: Amasis. LÄ I (1973) 181–182.
348 Unless the epithet Stp-nṯrw, “Chosen-of-the-Gods”, in the Throne name of Arkamaniqo’s
fifth successor, Adikhalamani, repeats Amasis’ Golden Horus name: in this case, we would
have good reason to suppose that Amasis’ titulary (and additional information) could
be found in some archives in Meroe. Cf. FHN II 590; for the archives in Kush, see my
discussion of the royal titularies in Török 2002a 335 ff. and see here Chapter 4.3.
349 Meulenaere 1951 85 ff.
104 chapter 4
etc.350 Without presenting a conclusion concerning Herodotus’ sources, Asheri

draws a parallel between Agatharchides’ election procedure, which includes a
pre-election made by the priests and its subsequent divine confirmation, on
the one hand, and, on the other, the testimony of the Kushite royal inscrip-
tions which describe a kind of pre-election of one of the “royal brothers” by
certain groups of the people and its subsequent oracular confirmation by
Amun.351
As it is reconstructed on the basis of the epigraphical evidence, the investi-
ture of the king of Kush started with the announcement of the death of the pre-
decessor. It found the future king in the company of the “king’s brothers”. The
inscriptions introduce them and other persons (viz., the army, the chief officials
of the government, and the priesthood) as groups involved in the investiture
rites and not as individuals. Playing the role of the chorus in the enthrone-
ment drama and then acting as a medium of divine will, they represent the
whole of mankind. First they articulate humankind’s terrified reaction to Chaos
that immediately encroaches at the death of the ruler, give expression to the
despair of the herd without a herdsman, and then, assuming the role of the
medium of divine will, they declare the predestination/charisma of the heir
apparent and announce the global consensus concerning the heir apparent’s
succession.
King Aspelta’s Election Stela was quoted above (Chapter 4.7) in connection
with the episode of the oracular “election” of the new ruler. Let us now have
a glance at the preceding episodes of the investiture rites. The inscription
starts with the dating and Aspelta’s full titulary. These sections are followed
by a variation on the traditional “king’s novel”352 opening formula: “Now His
Majesty’s entire army was in the town named Pure-mountain”.353 The text sets
forth with the account of a council of the army commanders and the kingdom’s
high officials. The council discusses the threat of Chaos and annihilation to
which the world is delivered by the death of Aspelta’s predecessor. It decides
that it is only Amun-Re of Napata who can find the new king, for
It has been the work of Re since heaven came into being,

and (ever) since crowning the king came into being.
350 E.g., Diodorus 3.5.1, Strabo 17.2.3; cf. Murray 1970 153ff.; Asheri 2007c 420.
351 Asheri 2007c 420.
352 On the genre of the Egyptian king’s novel, see A. Loprieno: The “King’s Novel”. in: Loprieno
(ed.) 1996 277–295. On Kushite examples of the king’s novel, see Török 2002 342–448,
esp. 342–367.
353 Ḏw-wꜥb, “Pure-mountain”, name of the sacred mountain of Gebel Barkal and of Napata.
He has (always) given it to his son whom he loves

because the king among the living is the image of Re.354
The dramatically construed council scene355 contains a series of speeches pre-

senting a summary of the principal concepts of the Kushite myth of the state.356
The participants in the council, representing both the government of the king-
dom and, symbolically, the whole of mankind, proceed then to the temple
where they pray to the god for an oracular decision.357 First the “king’s broth-
ers” are placed before Amun, who does not “take one of them”. Then Aspelta
is placed before the god who accepts him as his son and recognizes his king-
ship. Next, Aspelta receives a royal oracle and a divine decree of legitimation.
The proclamation of the divine decree occurs publicly in front of the assem-
bled court and priesthood. After this, the following rites are performed: Aspelta
prays for kingship, he receives a Königsorakel, recites another prayer, and finally
is mystically initiated into kingship in the intimacy of Amun’s inner sanctu-
ary.
Returning to Herodotus’ narrative, Chapters 3.21–23 of the Histories relate
the dialogue between the king of the long-lived Aithiopians and the spies
posing as Cambyses’ envoys. The dialogue opens with the speech of the spies,
quoted by Herodotus in first-person plural. The “envoys” announce that the
king of the Persians wishes to become the friend and protector of the king of
the long-lived Aithiopians. They reveal that Cambyses ordered them to enter
354 FHN I No. 37, lines 8–9, transl. R.H. Pierce.

355 U. Verhoeven: Amun zwischen 25 Männern und zwei Frauen. Bemerkungen zur Inthroni-
sationsstele des Aspelta. in: W. Clarysse–A. Schoors–H. Willems (eds): Egyptian Religion.
The Last Thousand Years. Studies Dedicated to the Memory of Jan Quaegebeur. Leuven 1998
1487–1501 1414 suggests that, as opposed to my remark in FHN I 247, the rendering of the
council scene does not point towards a performance, since “… dieser Teil [gleicht] eher
einer Lagebesprechung oder eben Debatte, die den Entschluss für eine bestimmte Strate-
gie, besonders im militärischen Bereich, dient. Bemerkenswert ist (…) die Anonymität
und Egalität der Beteiligten”. I cannot see a contradiction between the contents of the
passage and its dramatic form.
356 For the Kushite myth of the state, see Török 1995a; 1995b; 1997a 255–299; 1999; 2002
331–448; for alternative views, see the literature referred to in the next note and cf. also
K. Jansen-Winkeln: Alara und Taharka: zur Geschichte des nubischen Königshauses. Or
72 (2003) 141–158; Morkot 2003.
357 For the interpretation of the election rite as an actual election from among candidates of
equal chances, see Lohwasser 2000; 2001 249 ff. and cf. also E.Y. Kormysheva: The Officials
at the Court of Meroitic Kings and Their Role in King’s Election. in: Sesto congresso
internazionale di Egittologia Atti II. Torino 1992 253–257.
106 chapter 4
into negotiations with him and deliver his presents, “which he [Cambyses]
too takes special pleasure in using himself”. For “protector” Herodotus uses
here ξεῖνός, a technical term of the Greek institution of “official friendship” or
“guestfriendship”.358
In answer, the king of the Aithiopians unmasks them in a speech, quoted by
Herodotus in first-person singular, as spies, and their lord as an unjust man who
in truth sent them not as bringers of gifts and who does not want to become his
friend, but is actually planning to conquer his land (3.21). Herodotus gives in
the mouth of the king of the long-lived Aithiopians one of his most important
moral comments on expansionism in general and Persian expansionism in
particular:359
Neither did the King of the Persians send you as bringers of gifts because
he considers it important to become my friend (ξεῖνός); nor are you telling
the truth—for you have come as spies against my kingdom—nor is he
a just man. For if he had been just, he would not have coveted another
country than his own, nor would he reduce to slavery men who have done
him no wrong.360
Asheri’s suggestion that the central topic of Book III is the conflict between
falsehood and truth and that the narrative also incorporates the knowledge of
the mazdaic dualism of Ormuz and Ahriman is supported by the presence of
other materials of Persian origin in the Histories361 as well as by the connections
between Herodotus’ account of Darius’ accession and Darius’Behistun (Bisitun)
Inscription,362 a propaganda text363 leaving the following admonition to poster-
ity:
358 For xeinos, see D. Kienast: Presbeia. RE Suppl. XIII (1973) 499–628 581ff.; F. Gschnitzer:
Proxenos. ibid. XIII 629–730 661 ff.; for προξενία, “guestfriendship”, see C. Marek: Die Prox-
enie. Frankfurt 1984.
359 Cf. also V. Hunter: Past and Process in Herodotus and Thucydides. Princeton 1982 178ff.;
Bichler 2004 96 f.
360 3.21, Chapter 2, Text 7.
361 Cf. Flower 2006.
362 For the editions of, and literature on the great trilingual rock inscription near the village
of Behistun, about 33 km east of Kermanshah in Media, see D. Asheri: Appendix I. in:
Asheri–Lloyd–Corcella 2007 529 f.; for Maria Brosius’ English translation of the inscription,
see Brosius 2007.
363 Asheri 2007c 385ff., 458 f.
Darius the king says: “You who shall be king hereafter, protect yourself vig-
orously from the Lie. The man who follows the Lie, punish him severely,
if you shall think thus: ‘Let my country be secure’ ”.364
Returning to the dialogue between Cambyses’ spies and the king of the long-
lived Aithiopians, the latter continues his speech as follows:
“Now give him [Cambyses] this bow and tell him this, ‘The King of the
Aithiopians has a piece of advice for the King of the Persians. When the
Persians can draw bows that are of this size as easily as this, then let him
march against the long-lived Aithiopians with a superior force; but he
should be grateful to the gods that up to now they have not put it in the
minds of the children of the Aithiopians to acquire other land than their
own’”.365
The motif of the bow—the difficult task and its solution by the hero—belongs
to the repertory of mythical tales and also occurs in the Homeric poems (for
instance, Telemachos cannot draw Odysseus’ bow366). Next, the king inspects
the presents sent by Cambyses, namely, a purple robe, a necklace and bracelets
of gold, an alabaster jar of myrrh, and a jar of Phoenician wine. Learning the
truth about the dyeing of the purple robe, a symbol of monarchy (cf. 3.139),
the king is reported to declare that the Persians are as deceptive as their
clothes367—obviously, he is aware that accepting the robe he also would accept
Cambyses’ overlordship.368 In the necklace and bracelets he sees symbols of
slavery. While the myrrh receives the same comment as the purple robe, the
Phoenician wine is received more enthusiastically. But it gives the king the
opportunity to ask about the diet and the drinks of the king of Persia and about
what was the longest a Persian could live. Learning that the maximum life-
time was eighty years in Persia, the Aithiopian replies that this is so because
the Persians feed on manure (κόπρος). He reveals that most of the Aithiopi-
ans attain one hundred and twenty years because they eat boiled meat and
364 Column IV § 55, Brosius 2007 535.

365 3.21, Chapter 2, Text 7.
366 Od. 21.118 ff., cf. Hofmann–Vorbichler 1979 68 ff.
367 Shown in the earlier part of his career as a Zoroastrian abhorring lie, the master of the
spies posing as envoys is unmasked as a liar, who is then enraged, and made mad, by the
Aithiopian’s reaction and perhaps by the ambiguous nature of the marvels of the land of
the Aithiopians. Cf. Baragwanath 2008 113 ff.
368 Cf. Asheri 2007c 422.
108 chapter 4
drink milk and the water of a miraculous fountain, which is the cause of their
longevity.369
After visiting this actual fountain, the king takes the spies to a men’s prison
where “all were bound in fetters of gold”, demonstrating thus the little value
gold has in utopia. The abundance of gold is a feature of the fringes,370 simi-
larly to the Table of the Sun that the king and Cambyses’ spies visit next (see
Chapter 4.8). Finally, Chapter 3.24 relates their visit at the transparent coffins of
the Aithiopians. The description of the latter reflects in part Herodotus’ knowl-
edge of Egyptian mummification, cartonnage-making, and mortuary offerings
(cf. 2.85–88), and is in part fantastic.
The mocking of the king of the Aithiopians is directed against civilization
in which man has to fabricate everything he needs. Civilization is shown as
inferior to the natural way of life of the peripheral peoples. The only exception
is palm wine, which peoples of the fringes drink moderately (according to the
Greek tradition, it is excess that has catastrophic effects, as Herodotus stresses
again and again371). Cambyses himself is accused of being driven “to frenzy and
madness” by wine (3.34). On the whole, the king’s comments on Cambyses’ gifts
convey Herodotus’ criticism.372
The encounter of the spies with the king of the long-lived Aithiopians closes
in Chapter 3.24 with the remark:
The closest relatives [of the dead] keep the block [i.e., the transparent
coffin] in their houses for a year, bringing it all the first-fruit offerings and
sacrifices; thereafter they take it away and set it up outside the city.373
It is not entirely irrelevant to quote here some later evidence on a much-

discussed aspect of the treatment of the mummy in its coffin in late Ptolemaic
and Roman Egypt.374 There are good reasons for believing that in the period
369 Possibly a Homeric motif, cf. Od. 3.1–2; Asheri 2007c 423.
370 Cf. 3.106: India; 3.116: Scythia; 4.195: Libya.
371 1.106; 1.207; 1.211 ff.; 2.121; 3.4; 6.84.
372 “In fact what is under attack here are the most basic underpinnings of Mediterranean
technology and material culture (…) The most esteemed products of a sophisticated,
manufacturing-based society suddenly lose their value when viewed through the eyes of
Naturvölker, for whom the raw materials supplied by nature are sufficient to meet every
need”: Romm 1992 57.
374 I am following here the discussion of the problem in my Transfigurations of Hellenism.
Aspects of Late Antique Art in Egypt AD 250–700 (Probleme der Ägyptologie 23). Leiden-
between the first century bc and the ad third century mummies with or with-
out painted portraits or portrait masks were kept at home, where they were
displayed in the portico or the court or the domestic shrine where they were
venerated by the family for a period of time (several years?) before they would
have been buried in a family or a communal vault.375 As Silius Italicus (d. ad 101)
says in his Punica,
[t]he Egyptians enclose their dead, standing in an upright position, in a

coffin of stone, and worship it; and they admit a bloodless spectre to their
banquets.376
While Silius is mistaken as to the material of the coffins, the essence of his
testimony is also supported by Lucian (ad second century) who writes in his
De luctu that the Egyptian “after drying the dead man makes him his guest at
table”.377 Besides Diodorus378 and Cicero,379 also the Life of Antony (attributed
perhaps wrongly to Athanasius)380 may be quoted here according to which the
saint forbade his pupils to bring his body back to the valley after his death “in
order to place it in a house”.
Instead of a stone coffin, as Silius erroneously writes, the mummy may in fact
have been displayed in an aedicula-like wooden “shrine sarcophagus”381 the
Boston 2005 296 ff.—For the evidence of Teles of Megara (third century bc), Diodorus 1.91,
Cicero, Tusculanae disputationes 1.108.2 (first century bc), Pomponius Mela 1.9.27 (ad first
century), see D. Montserrat: Death and Funerals in the Roman Fayum. in: Bierbrier (ed.)
1997 33–44; B. Gessler-Löhr: Mummies and Mummification. in: Riggs (ed.) 2012 664–683
666. For later Roman evidence, see below.
375 Borg 1996 196ff.; Borg 1997; Parlasca 1999 26.
376 Silius Italicus, Punica 13.475, ed. and trans. J.D. Duff, Loeb edn. vol. II. Cambridge Mass.-
London 1961, quoted by Borg 1997 26.
377 Lucian, De luctu 21, ed. and trans. A.M. Harmon, Loeb edn. vol. IV. Cambridge Mass.-
London 1961, quoted by Borg 1997 26.
378 Diodorus 1.92.6.
379 Cicero, Tusc. 1.108.
380 Cf. F. Dunand–R. Lichtenberg: Pratiques et croyances funéraires en Égypte romaine. in:
ANRW II.18.5 (1995) 3216–3315, 3276 with note 271.—For the issue of authorship, see
G.J.M. Bartelink: Athanase: Vie d’Antoine. Paris 1994 27ff.; D. Brakke: Athanasius and
Asceticism. Baltimore 1998 15 with note 31; T.D. Barnes: Athanasius. in: G.W. Bowersock–
P. Brown–O. Grabar (eds): Late Antiquity. A Guide to the Postclassical World. Cambridge
Mass.-London 1999 320–321.
381 E.g., coffin of Padichons from Abusir el-Melek, Berlin 17039, Seipel (ed.) 1998 88ff. Cat. 15,
ad first century.
110 chapter 4
doors of which were opened during mortuary repasts or other commemorative

rites held in the context of domestic cult.382 The representation of a “shrine
sarcophagus” of this type may be found in one of the pronaos reliefs of the late
fourth–early third-century-bc Petosiris tomb at Tuna el-Gebel.383 Illusionistic
paintings on ad third-century mummy shrouds from Antinoopolis represent
the deceased standing “in the door” of a coffin.384
Chapter 3.25 relates the terrible punishment of the unjust conqueror. Armies
starving on account of the hubris of Persian kings also appear elsewhere in the
Histories: in 4.131 the army of Dareios, and in 8.115 the army of Xerxes perishes
in this manner. Cambyses’ Aithiopian campaign is not historical.385 Neverthe-
less, as ruler of Egypt he was in fact present in Aithiopia: Lower Nubia was
conquered by Psamtek II in 593bc and it remained under Egyptian domina-
tion during the Saite period as well as in the reigns of Cambyses, Darius I and
Xerxes. It returned under Kushite supremacy only some time during the revolt
of Inaros (between c. 463/2–449bc, cf. Chapter 4.5).
Chapter 3.25 gives a horrifying and powerfully unambiguous answer to the
moral problem of unjust expansionism. As to further associations of the disas-
ter of the Persian army, it is worth noting that, ever since Homer’s Laestrygo-
nians and Cyclopes,386 the Greek tradition brought the motif of cannibalism
into connection with the fringes. It is in this context that cannibalism repeat-
edly occurs in the Histories, too.387 But do we correctly understand that it
is the moral criticism attributed to the king of the Aithiopians that conveys
alone the central message of Chapters 3.17–26 of the Histories? As it seems,
the message is double-faced. According to Thomas Harrison’s acute observa-
tion, the story implies equally strongly that expansionist states cannot be held
back:
382 Riggs 2005 149 ff. does not consider the “shrine sarcophaguses” from the aspect of the
domestic cult of the dead.
383 N. Cherpion–J.-P. Corteggiani–J.-Fr. Gout: Le tombeau de Pétosiris à Touna el-Gebel. Relevé
photographique (BiGen 27). Le Caire 2007 scene 68 c.
384 Paris, Musée du Louvre, Département des Antiquités Egyptiennes AF 6486 (shroud of a
boy), AF 6484, 6487 (shrouds of women): Parlasca–Seemann (eds) 1999 Cats 199, 200.
385 Although it is considered historical by, e.g., Kienitz 1953 55; 130ff.; Welsby 1996 65f.—For
the scholarly debate on its alleged historicity, which frequently operates with selected
evidence and outdated interpretation, see the somewhat hesitating comments in Asheri
2007c 425 f.
386 Burkert 1990 9; Blok 2002 239; Karttunen 2002 461ff.
387 Massagetae: 1.216; Indian Padaei: 3.99–100; Issedones: 4.26. Cf. Blok 2002 239; Karttunen
2002 461 ff.
It might be better if peoples were able to remain apart in peace, but

contact is inevitable—and, just as inevitably, contact leads to war.388
10 The Gifts Presented to the King of Persia by the Aithiopians Living

South of Egypt
In Chapters 89–96 of Book III Herodotus presents catalogues of the twenty

ἀρχαί or satrapies set up by Darius I and lists the tributes delivered by them. In
Chapter 97 of Book III (here Chapter 2, Text 8, with Burstein’s emendation389)
the historian enumerates the peoples upon which no regular tax was imposed
but which were compelled to deliver gifts. Herodotus names here the Aithiopi-
ans with the remark that Cambyses subdued them when he marched against
the long-lived Aithiopians (cf. Chapter 4.9). Even if he was probably unaware of
this, he conveyed here information concerning Lower Nubia, because the trib-
ute list could include only the region between the First and Second Cataracts,
which was taken from the Kingdom of Kush under the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty
and was first under Egyptian, then Persian domination until Herodotus’ own
time (Chapters 1.2, 3, 4.5). The historian also includes in his list the Aithiopi-
ans who live around the holy mountain of Nysa, further the Colchians and the
neighbouring tribes, and finally the Arabians. Under Cambyses the Aithiopi-
388 Harrison 2002 556.

389 The following should be remarked on the traditional emendation adopted by de Sélin-
court and Marincola. Several modern editors of the Histories, including Stein 1893 and
Legrand 1939, consider the sentence an intrusion about the black colour of the Callan-
tians’ and the Aithiopians’ semen (which is the same as the colour of their skin). The
word “sperm” (σπέρμα) for semen may also have the meaning “seed grain”, while the sub-
terranean dwellings apply to the Aithiopian Trog[l]odytes (4.183, here Chapter 2, Text 10,
see Chapter 4.11). The Callantian Indians appear in Chapter 38 of Book III as cannibals
eating their parents. There may be little doubt that they are a fabulous people living on
the fringes of the inhabited world (the Kallatiai already occur in Hecataeus, FGrHist 1
F 298). 3.38 relates a contest between them and some Greeks in Darius I’s court in Susa
in which they dispute the value of each other’s nomoi, in particular the tradition concern-
ing the dead bodies of their fathers. From the contest the Herodotean lesson is drawn that
“each group regards its own customs as by far the best”, which function within the given
community as a natural law. Indeed, “One can see (…) what custom can do, and Pindar,
in my opinion, was right when he called it ‘king of all’” (Hdt. 3.38, trans. de Sélincourt–
Marincola 2003 187.—Cf. Cartledge–Greenwood 2002 366; for the Pindar fragment, see
Immerwahr 1966 319 ff.; de Sélincourt–Marincola 2003 646 note 16 and cf. Baragwanath
2008 115 ff.)
112 chapter 4
ans delivered every second year, “and still deliver in my [Herodotus’] time two
choinikes of unrefined gold,390 two hundred logs of ebony, five Aithiopian boys,
and twenty great elephant tusks”.
Herodotus’ catalogue of the satrapies corresponds with Persian dahyāva,
“lists of peoples”, and with Persian catalogues of “lands inhabited by peoples”.391
His sequence is hellenocentric as to the order of the satrapies, i.e., it is manip-
ulated; but half of his provinces correspond to the historical satrapies, as they
are known from later evidence, while it is only around one third of the dahyāva
that can be identified in the same sources.
Classical literature variously locates the sacred mountain of Nysa392 in
Aithiopia, Libya, India, Thrace, or on one of the Greek islands. Here and in
2.146 Herodotus sites it “in Aithiopia above Egypt”, i.e., at a “furthest place”.393
According to Stanley Burstein’s emendation of 3.97, the gifts sent to the king
of Persia represent in reality the tribute of two groups of Aithiopians, namely,
the Aithiopians living in Lower Nubia under the domination of Egypt’s Persian
rulers, and the independent Aithiopians living south of Lower Nubia, i.e., in the
Kingdom of Kush. Such an interpretation of the passage is also supported by
the location of Nysa in 2.146 as well as the composition of the gifts. It is impor-
tant to note, however, that the original Persian source presented an official list
of the taxes of the Aithiopians of Lower Nubia under Persian domination in
combination with a list of the gifts of the king of Kush. It cannot be exactly
decided which items of the list represent the tributes of the Lower Nubians
and which items may be identified as actual gifts of the king of Kush. Be that
as it may, it has to be noted that if the elephant tusks were to be delivered by
the Lower Nubian Aithiopians, they had to be acquired from the king of Kush,
since after the early New Kingdom elephants could no longer be hunted in
Lower Nubia.394 While gold dust may have been a Lower Nubian tribute, the
ebony logs and the Aithiopian boys came more likely from the king of Kush. We
may conclude that Herodotus combines here the Aithiopians of Lower Nubia
with the Aithiopians of the Greek utopian tradition in a way that leaves no
390 I.e., gold-dust: the choinix was a Greek dry measure, particularly for corn; the Attic choinix
was the equivalent of 1.1 litre (note by T. Eide, FHN I 313 n. 86).
391 For a comparative list of the satrapies and peoples in the Histories and in the Persian
inscriptions, see Appendix II in: Asheri 2007c 538–542.
392 The interpretation by Desanges 1978 233 note 93 of the name as a rendering of ancient
Egyptian Tꜣ-nḥsy, “Bow-land”, i.e., Nubia, is without foundation.
393 Cf. J. Bergman: Ich bin Isis. Studien zum memphitischen Hintergrund der griechischen
Isisaretalogien. Uppsala 1968 35 f.
394 Cf. Zibelius-Chen 1988 112 ff.; Morkot 1998.
doubt that he ignored the really existing Kingdom of Kush and received only
second-hand information about the contents of the Persian list of taxes and
gifts.
11 Two Aithiopian Passages in the Libyan Logos: The Autochthonous

Origin of the Aithiopians. The Aithiopian Trog[l]odytes
The Aithiopian passages discussed in this chapter are inserted in the account
of the Libyan tribes and their customs (4.168–199). Like other ancient writers,
Herodotus uses the geographical term “Libya” to describe the whole of Africa
west of the Nile.395 In 4.197 (here Chapter 2, Text 9), however, it is Aithiopia that
denotes the entire territory of Africa beyond Elephantine. In this context, the
Aithiopians are a peripheral ethnē who inhabit the second circle of the world,
i.e., the region of the fabulous peoples, and have nothing to do with the “really
existing” Aithiopians living along the borders of Egypt (cf. Chapter 4.7). The
third circle is the unknown world.
The inhabitants of the second circle “can only be known through indirect
information”396 (cf. Chapter 4.1). According to Justus Cobet,
If ethnē have a history of their own at all, it is stories about beginnings.

There are two stereotypes which explain why people came to be where
they lived. Either they have always been there as “autochthonous”, Urein-
wohner, or they came there a long time ago.397
The information about the Aithiopians in 4.197 conforms with Cobet’s first-
named stereotype. In turn, Chapter 183 of Book IV (here Chapter 2, Text 10)
presents a typical example of the combination of classical stereotypes con-
cerning fabulous peoples living in the second circle of the world with features
that students of the Histories are inclined to interpret as deriving from realistic
ethnographical information.
The original form of the Greek ethnonym τρωγλοδύται was probably τρωγο-
δύται: τρωγλοδύται, “who enter into holes”, i.e., the “cave-dwellers”, was a popular
etymology.398 In Egyptian texts the Trog[l]odytes of the Greek authors appear
395 Honigmann 1926; T. Eide in: FHN I 319 note 88.

396 Fehling 1989 101.
397 Cobet 2002 404.
398 Cf. Agatharchides of Cnidus, fragments 62a–65, Burstein 1989 108ff.; K. Jahn: Trogodytai.
RE II.7 (1948) 2497–2500; FHN I 331; Corcella 2007 706.
114 chapter 4
under the name ʾIwntyw.399 We know that Nekau II of the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty
sent a military expedition to Lower Nubia in order to secure the commercial
road along the Nile (Chapter 4.5). The inscription commemorating this under-
taking400 is too fragmentary to give a precise idea of the geographical range
of the expedition, in which vessels transporting horses for manoeuvres on land
were sent upstream, too. The latter detail indicates that the campaign could not
go farther south than the Second Cataract. This would conform with the texts of
later authors who locate the Trog[l]odytes between the Nile and the Red Sea.401
The apparently purely fabulous catalogue of the characteristics of the
Aithiopian Trog[l]odytes as they are presented in the Histories is sometimes
believed to include realistic features. Aldo Corcella suggested recently that
the Trog[l]odytes were ancestors of the “modern melanodermic farmers of the
oases and of the Tebu of the Tibesti”, i.e., the “Rock People” living today in north-
ern Chad around the Tibesti mountains and in southern Libya, north-eastern
Niger and southwestern Sudan. According to Corcella, the “Rock People” are “to
this day (…) famously good runners”.402 Corcella also suggests that the compari-
son of the Trog[l]odytes’ voices with the squeaking of bats “can find a confirma-
tion in the unusual sounds of the language of the Tebu”.403 He hastens to add
a more probable explanation too, however, reminding his reader “the Greeks
normally likened foreign languages to the sounds of birds”.404
12 A Meditation on the Fringes
Herodotus devotes eleven chapters of Book III (3.106–116) to his account of

the remotest regions of the inhabited world. He introduces it with a sentence
399 For the ancient sources on the Trog[l]odytes, see Desanges 2008 39ff., comments on Pliny,
NH 6.163–197.
400 C. Müller: Drei Stelenfragmente. in: W. Kaiser et al.: Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine.
Fünfter Grabungsbericht. MDAIK 31 (1975) 80–84 83f.; F. Junge: Elephantine XI. Funde und
Bauteile. Mainz 1987 66 f.; K. Jansen-Winkeln: Zur Schiffsliste aus Elephantine. GM 109
(1989) 31.
401 Cf. Eratosthenes in Strabo 17.1.2, FHN II No. 109; Agatharchides in Diodorus 3.33.2, ibid.
No. 147; J. Desanges: Les sources de Pline dans sa description de la Trogloditique et de
l’ Éthiopie (NH 6, 163–197). in: Pline l’ Ancien, témoin de son temps. Salamanca-Nantes 1987
277–292.
402 Corcella 2007 706, with reference to J. Tschudi: Pitture rupestri del Tassili degli Azer (Sahara
Algerino). Firenze 1955 31; J. Chapelle: Nomades noirs du Sahara. Paris 1982 33ff.
403 Corcella 2007 706.
404 Corcella 2007 706f., cf. Hdt. 2.57.
that forecasts the principal message of these chapters, namely that there exists
an equal distribution of good and evil and there is a global balance in the
world:405
It would seem that the remotest parts of the world have the finest prod-
ucts, whereas Greece has far the best and most temperate climate.406
The account continues with an overview of the marvels to be found on the

fringes of the inhabited world, discussing first India (3.106), then the Arabians
at the southern (3.107–113) and the Aithiopians at the southwestern extreme
(3.114, here Chapter 2, Text 11), the European regions at the western extreme
(3.115), and finally the European regions at the northern fringe (3.116). Using
the technique of “ring composition”,407 the account concludes with a sentence
referring back to the opening sentence:408
In any case it does seem to be true that the countries which lie on
the circumference of the inhabited world produce the things which we
believe to be most rare and beautiful.409
The significance of the global balance is viewed in the Histories mainly from
two central positions, viz., from Greece and Persia. The Greek attitude does not
concern us here. As to the Persians, they consider their geographical position
as the basis of their cultural and political superiority and believe that the infe-
riority of the peoples living on the fringes is a consequence of their opposite
geographical position. The Histories offer several powerful examples of how the
hubris of the Persians is punished. The account of Cambyses’ failed Aithiopian
campaign in 3.17–26 (Chapters 4.8, 9) presents an especially impressive exam-
ple.410
Excerpting partly 3.17–26, in 3.114 (here Chapter 2, Text 11) the historian
gives a brief list of the marvels of Aithiopia extending “toward the setting sun,
the furthest inhabited country”. To the marvels introduced in 3.17, viz., the
405 Cf. Rood 2006 297; Asheri 2007c 500.

406 3.106, trans. de Sélincourt–Marincola 2003 216 f.
407 I. Beck: Die Ringkomposition bei Herodot und ihre Bedeutung für die Beweistechnik. Hildes-
heim-New York 1971; Bakker 2006 93; Asheri 2007c 505.
408 Cf. Rood 2006 297 f.; Asheri 2007c 505.
410 Cf. Romm 1992 55 ff.
116 chapter 4
physical perfection and long lifespan of the Aithiopians, and the abundance
of gold in their land, Herodotus adds here “huge elephants, all kinds of wild
trees, and ebony”. The wild trees belong to the paradisiac landscape of utopian
peripheries. Elephant ivory and ebony occur in the catalogue of the Aithiopian
tribute sent to the kings of Persia (3.97, here Chapter 2, Text 8, cf. Chapter 4.10).
Their mention in Text 11 derives from the same source. Egyptians considered
ebony one of the most important Nubian imports ever since the Old Kingdom.
Ebony would still appear among the tributes of several Lower Nubian regions
in Ptolemy VI’s Nubian nome list inscribed in the Philae Isis temple,411 and
centuries later Diodorus412 and Strabo413 list the ebony tree with the most
common trees growing in the Meroitic kingdom, such as the date palm, persea,
and carob tree.
13 Aithiopian “Half-Men” in the Army of Xerxes I
We have discussed Herodotus’ catalogue of the satrapies and tributes of the

Persian Empire in Chapter 4.10. In Chapters 62–95 of his Book VII the historian
complements it with a catalogue of the ethnic contingents in Xerxes I’s army.
Both catalogues may be compared to a series of lists of lands and peoples
appearing in Persian royal inscriptions from the reigns of Darius and Xerxes I
as well as to representations of the peoples of the Persian Empire from the
Apadana414 and the “Hall of a Hundred Columns” at Persepolis and Darius’
tomb at Naqsh-i Rustem.415
Chapter 69 of Book VII (here Chapter 2, Text 12) is inserted into the account
of Xerxes I’s review of the Persian army at Doriscus in Thrace (7.61–99).416 It
describes the costume and weapons of the Aithiopians fighting in the Persian
army. They are wearing leopard and lion skins, their weapons are bows of palm
wood, reed arrows with tips made of stone instead of iron, spears with horns of
gazelles sharpened to a point as spearheads, and clubs with knobs. The histo-
rian adds, “They go into battle with one half of their body smeared with chalk,
411 Zibelius-Chen 1988 93f.

412 Diodorus 1.3.
413 Strabo 17.2, FHN III No. 187.
414 Walser 1966.
415 Cf. Asheri 2007c 538–542, Appendix II. List of Satrapies and Peoples in Herodotus and in
the Persian Inscriptions (with a bibliography).
416 Cf. Dorati 2011 286 ff.
the other half with ochre”.417 The description is in the present tense, which is
“expressing an actual, ethnographical reality”.418
Dominique Zahan found African ethnographic parallels for the arrows with
stone tips as well as for the strange custom of painting the warrior’s body half
white and half ochre before he would go to battle.419 If there were indeed
Aithiopian warriors in the Persian army who corresponded to Herodotus’ de-
scription, they could have been recruited only at the southern confines of the
Kingdom of Kush. If so, the king of Kush presented the exotic warriors to the
Persian satrap of Egypt in the framework of the traditional diplomatic gift
exchange between two neighbours (cf. Chapter 4.10).

418 Dorati 2011 287.
419 D. Zahan: Couleurs et peintures corporelles en Afrique Noire. Le problème du “half-man”.
Diogène 90 (1975) 115–135.
chapter 5
Herodotus in Nubia
1 Herodotus’ Sources on Kushite Kingship
That this was what really happened I myself learnt from the priests of
Hephaestus at Memphis, though the Greeks have various improbable
versions of the story[.]1
[The] question (…) is (…) about what became of the recollections that
must have existed in the form of individual remembrances and collec-
tive traditions (…) in Egypt (…) [I]t is much easier to explain the survival
of these memories until the Hellenistic period than their complete dis-
appearance. Herodotus and demotic literature abound with tales, anec-
dotes, and fables that must have lived on in oral tradition for centuries or
even a millennium.2
According to Chapter 41 of Book II of the Histories,
All Egyptians use bulls and bull-calves for sacrifice, if they have passed
the test for ‘cleanness’; but they are forbidden to sacrifice heifers, on the
ground that they are sacred to Isis (…) This is the reason why no Egyptian,
man or woman, will kiss a Greek, or use a Greek knife, spit, or cauldron,
or even eat the flesh of a bull known to be clean, if it has been cut with a
Greek knife.3
It is far from certain, however, that the taboo appearing in this passage rep-
resents in fact a timeless feature of Egyptian (ritual) purity. At the zenith of
New Kingdom Egypt’s power, Rameses II’s Marriage Stela describes Egyptian
and Hittite soldiers eating and drinking together, because “they were like broth-
ers”.4 It would thus seem that the origins of the taboo related by Herodotus were
1 Hdt. 2.2, trans. de Sélincourt–Marincola 2003 96.

2 Assmann 1997 41 f., with reference to E. Brunner-Traut: Altägyptische Tiergeschichte und Fabel,
Gestalt und Strahlkraft. Darmstadt 1984.
3 de Sélincourt–Marincola 2003 111.
4 C. Kuentz: “La stèle du mariage” de Ramses II. ASAE 25 (1925) 181–238 218.

herodotus in nubia 119
more recent. Jan Assmann made the acute observation5 that its only parallel is
to be found in the text of Piankhy’s Great Triumphal Stela (cf. Chapters 1.3, 4.4).
Lines 147–152 of the stela inscription recount the homage paid to Piankhy by the
“rulers of the South”, Nimlot and Peftjauawybast, and the “rulers of the North”,
Osorkon IV and Iuput II. Only Nimlot is allowed to enter Piankhy’s residence.
The other three are excluded, because they are ritually impure:6
[T]hose two rulers of the South and the two rulers of the North
came wearing their uraei7
to kiss the ground to the might of His Majesty.
Now these kings and counts of North-land came to behold His Majesty’s
beauty,
their legs being the legs of women.
They could not enter the royal residence
because they were uncircumcised and fish-eaters,
and this is an abomination to the royal residence.
But King Nimlot entered the royal residence
because he was clean and did not eat fish.8
It is worth noting here that, under special circumstances, the Nubian ruler
demanded actual priestly purity from certain groups of his subjects. At an
earlier stage of the campaign recorded in the stela, sending his army north to
Egypt to recapture the rebel Nimlot’s capital,9 Piankhy orders the soldiers to
purify themselves as a preparation for battle. Thereby he elevates the campaign
to the level of a holy war:
When you reach Dominion (Thebes) opposite Karnak,

enter into the water, purify yourselves in the river,
and wear the best linen.10
5 Assmann 2000a 226.

6 For the context of Piankhy’s concept of purity, cf. Morris 2010 210ff.; Spencer 2010 260f.
7 I.e., diadems. Cf. Russmann 1974; Török 1987; Leahy 1992.
8 Great Triumphal Stela, lines 147–152, FHN I 110 f., trans. R.H. Pierce.—For the fish taboo,
see I. Gamer-Wallert: Fische und Fischkulte im alten Ägypten (ÄA 21). Wiesbaden 1970 81ff.
Cf. also P.J. Frandsen: Tabu. LÄ VI (1986) 135–142.
9 Hermopolis.
10 wnḫ tp-š (?) “wear the best linen”: Lichtheim 1980 69, with reference to priestly clothing. Cf.
R. Grieshammer: Reinheit, kultische. LÄ V (1983) 212–213. Reading the passage similarly to
Lichtheim, Grimal 1981a 26 translates “habillez-vous de lin pur”. I prefer Lichtheim’s and
120 chapter 5
Lay down (your) weapons! Loosen (your) arrow(s)!

Don’t boast of being a possessor of strength;
for there is no strength for the mighty without him (Amun) (…)
(So) sprinkle yourselves with the water of the cups of his altar!
Kiss the ground before him!
Say to him, ‘Give us the way,
that we may fight in the shadow of your strong arm’.11
Piankhy’s demands repeat prescriptions concerning the Egyptian priests’ phys-

ical and ritual cleanness. The wꜥb (“clean”) priest must be circumcised, cleanly
shaven, dressed in linen, cannot eat pork or fish, cannot wear leather or wool,
and before entering the temple has to purify himself with water from the sacred
lake (or the Nile).12
In Chapters 4.2–13 of this book we have confronted the Aithiopian passages
with the “really existing” ancient Nubia, as it may be perceived today (cf. Chap-
ters 1.1–3). Although the confrontation did not result in a radical revision of the
consensus concerning the limited Nubiological Quellenwert of the Histories (cf.
Chapter 1.2), some information turned out more credible than believed so far.
Chapter 2.100 of the Histories implies that one of Herodotus’ principal sources
for his history of Egypt (2.99–182) was provided by the learned priests of the
Memphite Ptah sanctuary.13 Information deriving from the source(s) to which
Herodotus got access through them could be pointed out in the accounts of
Sesostris’ (2.110, here Chapter 2, Text 1, cf. Chapters 4.2, 3) and Sabacos’ reigns
(2.137+139, here Chapter 2, Text 2 and 2.152, here Text 3, cf. Chapter 4.4) and
in the long passages describing Herodotus’ two Aithiopias (2.29–31, here Chap-
ter 2, Text 6, and 3.17–25, here Text 7; cf. Chapters 4.7–9).
To the information received from the priests of Ptah Herodotus added fur-
ther “realistic” information deriving from other sources. Except for the informa-
tion provided by the priests of the Theban Amun sanctuary (cf. Chapter 4.1),
these sources cannot be pinpointed. In any case, the unidentified sources of
the information occurring in 2.161 (Chapter 2, Text 4) and 2.42 (Chapter 2, Text
5) were Egyptian. The sources in the background of 3.97 (Chapter 2, Text 8)
and 7.69 (Chapter 2, Text 12) were Persian, but Herodotus came across them
Grimal’s reading and translation of this sentence to the reading wnḫ-ṯn m tp-mr, “dress
yourselves” put forward by Pierce in FHN I 71 line 12.
11 FHN I 71 f., lines 12–14, trans. R.H. Pierce.
12 Clarysse 2010 277.
13 Cf. Lloyd 1975 90.
in Egypt. The information appearing in 4.197 (Chapter 2, Text 9), 4.183 (Chap-
ter 2, Text 10), and 3.114 (Chapter 2, Text 11) derives from the Greek tradi-
tion.
In Chapter 100 of Book II Herodotus makes the important remark that
the priests of Ptah read to him “from a written record the names of three
hundred and thirty monarchs”14 (cf. Chapter 4.1). On the basis of what we have
learnt about the relationship of “fiction” and “reality” in Herodotus’ Aithiopian
passages, I have ventured a hypothesis concerning the nature of the actual
written documents—probably papyri (cf. Chapter 4.1)—that the priests of Ptah
studied when they tried to inform their learned Greek visitor on matters of
Egypt’s remote past.15 It may be argued that the specific information relating
to Kushite kingship that appears in 2.29–31, 2.110, 2.137+ 139, 2.152, and 3.17–25
derives from (a) text(s) containing (elements of) an eulogistic discourse16 on
the Nubian dynasty’s myth of the state (cf. Chapter 4.9). The composition of
the supposed discourse may be placed in the intellectual milieu in which the
Memphite Theology of Creation (Chapter 4.2) was conceived, and it can be dated
to the period in which the capital of the double kingdom of the Twenty-Fifth
Dynasty pharaohs Shabaqo, Shebitqo, and Taharqo was at Memphis. Judging
by the topical and chronological range of the references made to the role that
the Amun oracles play in the Kushite investiture rites, it may also be supposed
that sometime after the late seventh century bc the Memphite discourse on
Twenty-Fifth-Dynasty kingship was re-edited and complemented with more
recent information (Chapters 4.1, 4, 5.1).
Although it appears in the history of Egypt, the association of Sesostris17
with Nubia in 2.110 (here Chapter 2, Text 1, cf. Chapters 4.2, 3 above) reflects
the Nubian revival of the cult of Senusret III occurring under the Twenty-Fifth
Dynasty and especially in the reign of Taharqo. The emulation of great Mid-
dle Kingdom rulers in general and of Senusret III in particular constituted a
significant aspect of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty image of the ideal ruler, and it
supported the Nubian pharaohs’ royal legitimacy in Nubia as well as in Egypt.
Passages in the account of Sabacos’ reign in 2.137+ 139 (here Chapter 2, Text 2)
where Sabacos imitates Sesostris in compelling the criminal offender instead
of death penalty “to heap up dykes in front of his home city”, derive probably
from the same Memphite source.
14 Trans. de Sélincourt–Marincola 2003 133 (my italics).

15 Cf. Lloyd 2007 312.
16 Cf. J. Assmann: Eulogie, Königs-. LÄ II (1977) 40–46; Redford 1986 127ff.
17 Cf. Sethe 1900; Malaise 1966; Lloyd 1982a; Assmann 2011 261f.
122 chapter 5
In Chapter 139 of Book II (here Chapter 2, Text 2) the gods warn Sabacos
through a dream that a catastrophe is about to bring him down if he trans-
gresses the limits of moral. The Histories abound with stories about oracles.18 As
a narrative device, Sabacos’ dream oracle belongs to the current mechanisms
of decision-making in the Histories.19 Herodotus’ references to Aithiopian ora-
cles or to oracles received by Aithiopians cannot be dismissed, however, as
mere narrative devices or as repetitions of what the historian could easily learn
about Greek or Egyptian oracles. Just as Herodotus’ information about Kushite
kingship is more substantial than his knowledge of Egyptian kingship, his infor-
mation about the functional context of Kushite oracles is of a better quality
than his knowledge of Egyptian Orakelwesen20 (cf. 2.8321). While Herodotus
purposefully interweaves the story of the dream with the horrible Persian lus-
tratio motif (which also occurs in the Pythius story in 7.39, cf. Chapter 4.4), the
dream oracle itself indicates again the same Memphite source(s). Information
about the special significance of the Kushite oracles in the legitimation, investi-
ture, and political decisions of the Nubian rulers is also present in 2.29–31 (here
Chapter 2, Text 6, cf. Chapter 4.7) and 3.17–26 (here Chapter 2, Text 7, cf. Chap-
ters 4.8, 9).
Albeit obviously simplified and distorted by (a) re-edition(s) of the original
discourse (cf. Chapters 4.1, 4), the image of Kushite kingship as it transpires
in the Aithiopian passages, first of all in 2.29–31 (Text 6), 2.137+ 139 (Text 2),
2.152 (Text 3), and 3.17–25 (Text 7), is far more substantial than the portrait that
Herodotus draws of the ideal pharaoh of Egypt. The difference becomes quite
clear if we confront Herodotus’ image of Kushite kingship with Alan Lloyd’s
survey of Herodotus’ references to the Egyptian pharaoh’s campaigns/con-
quests, diplomatic activities, temple-building actions, and ambition to excel;
his benevolence, piety, justice, arrogance, vengefulness, and ruthlessness; his
acting as guardian of moral order or appearance as trickster.22 Without excep-
tion, the characteristics of the Egyptian pharaoh are topoi. Many of them are
obviously Greek, not Egyptian topoi. Moreover, most of them are familiar from
descriptions of other peoples, confirming us in our impression that Herodotus
possessed little specific information about Egyptian kingship.
18 Cf. Kirchberg 1964; Asheri 1993; Saïd 2002; Griffin 2006.

19 Cf. Asheri 2007a 41.
20 For the Egyptian Orakelwesen, see Kákosy 1982; Kuhlmann 1988; Römer 1994 135–462.
21 Cf. Lloyd 1976 346 ff.
22 Lloyd 2002 423f.—For Egyptian kingship, see O’Connor–Silverman (eds) 1995; C. Ziegler
(ed.): The Pharaohs. New York 2002; B. Haring: Administration and Law. in: Lloyd (ed.) 2010
218–236 219 ff.; Morris 2010.
The preservation in the Ptah temple at Memphis of (a) text(s) conveying

the idealizing memory of the foreign rulers of Egypt and presenting them
as monarchs whose legitimacy derived from the great pharaohs of the past
such as Sesostris (i.e., Senusret I and III) may seem rather unexpected. It
is not less surprising that the priests of Ptah would make a Greek traveller
acquainted with a sympathetic image of a foreign conqueror. Yet the actual
case is rather special. Egyptian historical memory preserved an ambiguous
image of the Kushite dynasty: the Nubian rulers were remembered both as
invaders and legitimate kings who reunited Egypt, restored the temples of her
gods, and were then overthrown by a cruel conqueror. Though after 593bc the
official propaganda of the Saite Twenty-Sixth Dynasty resurrected the nega-
tive Nubia-topoi of Egyptian New Kingdom imperialism and the image of the
Nubian as enemy of the gods reappeared in texts inscribed on some temple
walls,23 such a manipulation of historical memory was not effectual in all of
the great sanctuaries of the land. After Tanwetamani’s withdrawal, high dig-
nitaries of Nubian origin continued to be active in Thebes. The Theban priest-
hood maintained contacts with the kings and temples of Nubia24 and preserved
the memory of the Nubian pharaohs as Amun’s pious sons and benefactors of
Thebes.
The preservation of elements of a positive Nubia tradition was not restricted
to Upper Egypt. Alan Lloyd points out that Herodotus’ description of King
Sethos of Egypt as “high priest of Hephaestus (= Ptah of Memphis)” in 2.141
is part of a “pro-Nubian strand in Egyptian tradition (…) and may also reflect
the (…) interest shown by the Nubians in the shrine of Ptah/Hephaestus at
Memphis”25 (for this interest, see Chapter 4.3). Sethos, high priest of Hep-
haestus, is doubtless identical with the Nubian King Shebitqo.26 According
23 For the evidence, see Yoyotte 1951; Sauneron–Yoyotte 1952.

24 As it is indicated, e.g., by the texts on the sarcophagi of Kings Anlamani (late seventh cen-
tury bc, Khartoum 1868) and Aspelta (late seventh–early sixth century bc, MFA 23.729),
R.A. Parker–J. Leclant–J.-C. Goyon: The Edifice of Taharqa by the Sacred Lake of Karnak.
Providence-London 1979 Pls 31–33; Dunham 1955 figs 58–68; Doll 1982. For further texts,
see J.W. Yellin: An Astronomical Text from Begrawiyeh South 503. Meroitica 7 (1984) 577–
582.
25 Lloyd 2007 343.
26 Cf. Lloyd 1988a 100: Sethos is a corruption of Šꜣ-bꜣ-tꜣ-kꜣ. For the name Šbtk, Šꜣ-bꜣ-tꜣ-kꜣ
in hieroglyphic inscriptions, cf. von Beckerath 1984 XXV/5; Zibelius-Chen 2011 218.—
Zibelius-Chen 2011 219 suggests that the name consists of Meroitic sb, “prince”, “lord”
and tk(e), “to love”, “to respect” and it may have the meaning “the one whom the prince
124 chapter 5
to 2.141 he was the successor of Anysis, but Herodotus discusses his reign
as a sequel to the Sabacos story. His chronological position is also fixed in
2.142:
the Egyptians and their priests (…) declare that three hundred and forty-
one generations separate the first king of Egypt from the last I have
mentioned—the priest of Hephaestus—and that there was a king and
a high priest corresponding to each generation.27
Similarly to his historical model, Sethos defends Egypt against the Assyrian
invader, Sennacherib (cf. Chapter 1.3). Receiving the news of Sennacherib’s
advance,
not knowing what else to do (…) [Sethos] entered the shrine [of Ptah]
and, before the image of the god, complained bitterly of the peril which
threatened him. In the midst of his lamentations he fell asleep, and
dreamt that the god stood by him and urged him not to lose heart; for
if he marched boldly out to meet the Arabian army, he would come to no
harm, as the god himself would send him helpers.28
Once again, the motif of dream oracle appears in association with a ruler who
is modelled on one of the kings of the Nubian Twenty-Fifth Dynasty29 (cf.
Chapter 4.7).
The idealization of the Nubian pharaohs’ memory turned into a practical
political tool after 525bc when Egypt came under Persian rule30 and Nubia
was considered a likely supporter of the restoration of the pharaonic state.
The ardour of the confrontation of the tyranny and godlessness of the Persian
conqueror31 with the legitimacy and piousness of the Nubian kings may have
loves” or “the one who loves/respects the prince” and refers to Shebitqo’s predecessor,
Shabaqo.
27 de Sélincourt–Marincola 2003 153 f.
29 For the Egyptian New Kingdom conception of divine intervention in grand history and in
private life, cf. Assmann 1990b 14 ff.
30 Posener 1936; A. Kuhrt: The Ancient Near East: c. 3000–330BC II. London-New York 1995
623 ff.; ead.: The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period II. Lon-
don-New York 2007 104 ff.
31 The conqueror’s “nationalist” portrait did not closely correspond to reality, however. See
been further intensified by the indignation and jealousy felt by Egyptian priests
when they saw the lavishness as the conqueror rewarded certain Lower Egyp-
tian sanctuaries for their pro-Persian gestures.32
We read about the Nile flood in a Nineteenth- or Twentieth-Dynasty hier-
atic ostracon text that “the water that comes forth, there is Amun in it in
the land of Kush”.33 The special association of Amun with the inundation
in the Luxor temple34 derives from the association of Amun of Napata with
the Nile flood and with fertility.35 The survival of the notion of Nubia as the
home of Amun of Napata and the land from where the inundation arrives was
indebted not only to the theological literature created in Egypt’s great sanc-
tuaries36 but also to the “nationalist” trend37 unfolding in Late Period Egypt
in times of foreign rule (Assyrians, Persians). The question, why should Egyp-
tian priests evoke to Herodotus the memory of a past conqueror of Egypt as a
contrast to the present conqueror of their land, may be easily answered: haters
of Egypt’s Persian conquerors were talking to a Greek traveller who did not
conceal from them that he is a determined critic of Persian expansion and
despotism.38
the next note. On the period and on Cambyses’ actual relations with the Egyptian temples,
see K. Jansen-Winkeln: Die Quellen zur Eroberung Ägyptens durch Kambyses in: Bács
(ed.) 2002 309–319; Vittmann 2011 374 f.
32 Lloyd 1982a; 1983 294 ff. On Udjahorresnet, who designed Cambyses’ Egyptian royal titu-
lary and advised the conqueror about religious matters, see Lloyd 1982b; W. Huss: Ägyp-
tische Kollaborateure in persischer Zeit. Tyche 12 (1997) 131–143; Vittmann 2011 377ff.,
388 ff.
33 Ostracon DeM 1072. G. Posener: Catalogue des ostraca hiératiques litteraires de Deir el
Médineh I. Le Caire 1938 no. 1072; Zibelius-Chen 1994 4 f.; 1996 198f. See also the evidence
cited in Pamminger 1992 136 note 280.
34 Pamminger 1992 105 ff.
35 Leclant 1965 241 ff.; Pamminger 1992 113ff.; Zibelius-Chen 1994 5; 1996 198f.
36 For a general survey of the evidence, see L. Kákosy: Nubien als mythisches Land im
Altertum. Annales Budapest 8 (1966) 3–10.
37 Cf. Lloyd 1982a.
38 Cf. Harrison 2002; Flower 2006.
126 chapter 5
2 “Reflections in a Distant Mirror”39
We know that there is truth; but we cannot exactly decide where it lies.40
In his Realencyclopädie article41 Felix Jacoby paints the portrait of an intellec-

tual who starts his work as a geographer/ethnographer in Hecataeus of Miletus’
tradition42 and develops into a historian (more than that, into the actual beget-
ter of the genre of history) when he realizes Persia’s influence on the fate of the
Greek city-states and of other lands. At the same time, however, Jacoby char-
acterizes his Herodotus as a collector of accounts of widely different origins
and aims which he pastes together loosely, without having a unified design.43
Such a charge of incoherence was already voiced, and denied, in antiquity:
suffice it to repeat here the lucid comment made by Dionysius of Halicarnas-
sus (fl. c. 20bc) that Herodotus “having chosen a number of subjects which
are in no way alike has made them into one harmonious body”.44 Jacoby’s
criticism of the inconsistency of the Histories is generally rejected in modern
Herodotean studies.45 Today there is a more or less complete agreement that
Herodotus selected the narrative units46 of his Histories consciously47 and, in
order to articulate persuasively his views, he integrated them into a planned
39 I have borrowed the expression “Distant Mirror” from the title of Barbara W. Tuchman’s
splendid monograph: A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century. New York 1978.
40 Thomas Babington Macaulay on the Histories. in: Edinburgh Review (May 1828), quoted
after A. Budd (ed.): The Modern Historiography Reader: Western Sources. London-New York
2009 130.
41 Jacoby 1913.
42 Cf. Bertelli 2001; Fowler 2001 101 ff.; Dihle 2005 23 (somewhat exaggerating Hecataeus’
impact).—For the relationship of Herodotus with Hecataeus, cf. Moyer 2002 71ff.
43 Jacoby 1913 361.
44 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Letter to Gnaeus Pompeius 3, Loeb edn. (ed. S. Usher). Cam-
bridge, Mass.-London 1985 352 ff., also quoted in Irene de Jong’s masterful study of the
narrative units and narrative unity of the Histories: de Jong 2002 245. I give de Jong’s English
translation.
45 For the early responses, see O. Regenbogen: Herodot und sein Werk. Die Antike 6 (1930)
202–248; W. Schadewaldt: Herodot als erster Historiker. Die Antike 10 (1934) 144–168;
M. Pohlenz: Herodot, der erste Geschichtsschreiber des Abendlandes. Leipzig 1937 (reprint
edn. Stuttgart 1961).
46 For the definition of narrative as the account of an event and its consequence(s), see
M.J. Toolan: Narrative. A Critical Introduction. London-New York 1988 7.
47 Dewald 2002 274ff.; see also Marincola 1987.
construction.48 It is also argued that Herodotus describes the customs of the

peoples from the perspective of the student of political history, not from that of
the ethnographical writer.49
In 1.5 Herodotus concludes the account of the mythical stories about the
origins of the conflict between Europe and Asia with this sentence: “I have no
intention of passing judgement on [their] truth or falsity”.50 In 3.122 he introduces
his second Samian logos about the end of Polycrates and the killing of Oroetes,
satrap of Sardis in the same spirit: “Both stories are told to account for Poly-
crates’ death and the reader may take his choice between them”.51 Michael Grant’s
summary comment on the attitude conveyed by these key sentences cannot be
accepted when the reader of the Histories poses the question: What was the his-
torian’s goal? Grant holds namely that
Herodotus [incorporated] in his History a great many stories that are

most unlikely to be true, a fact of which he was perfectly well aware. He
maintained that the decision to believe or disbelieve them rested with his
readers, but he ambivalently continued to include such tales, as a modern
historian would not.52
Why should such tales be included at all? Are they really told for mere enter-
taining, as Grant and others are suggesting?53 Sharing the view of these schol-
ars, some students of the Histories enthusiastically contrast Herodotus with
Thucydides,54 the second “Father of History”, quoting a famous passage of the
latter’s History of the Peloponnesian War in order to point out basic differences
between the goals of the two authors and prove the superiority of Thyucydides’
method over that of Herodotus:
48 Immerwahr 1966; Bornitz 1968; Fornara 1971; Cobet 1971; van Wees 2002 (esp. 324); Barag-
wanath 2008, etc.
49 Thomas 2006; Forsdyke 2006 225ff. For Herodotus’ interest in the Egypt of his day, cf.
Moyer 2002.
52 Grant 1995 95, referring to Hdt. 1.5 and 3.122.
53 Karttunen 2002 459.
54 Bury writes that Thucydides’ work marks “the longest and most decisive step that has ever
been taken by a single man towards making history what it is today”. J.B. Bury: Ancient
Greek Historians. New York 1908 (reprint edn. 1958) 147; also quoted by Grant 1995 9. Cf.
also Press 1982/2003 20 ff., with note 48.
128 chapter 5
I have described nothing but what I either saw myself, or learned from
others of whom I made the most careful and particular enquiry. The task
was a laborious one, because eyewitnesses of the same occurrences gave
different accounts of them, as they remembered or were interested in the
actions of one side or the other. And very likely the strictly historical char-
acter of my narrative may be disappointing to the ear. But if he who desires
to have before his eyes a true picture of the events which have happened,
and of the like events which may be expected to happen hereafter in the
order of human things, shall pronounce what I have written useful, then I
shall be satisfied. My history is an everlasting possession, not a prize com-
position which is heard and forgotten.55
Grant concludes from the comparison of Herodotus’ and Thucydides’ methods:

“Unlike Herodotus, whose didactic efforts had been only sporadic, Thucydides,
at every juncture, intended to be instructive”.56 This is an artificial antithesis,
however. Admittedly, the proem of the Histories names goals that sound less
“academic” than Thucydides’ confession and betray Herodotus’ debt to a wide
range of traditional genres such as oral story-telling, genealogy, ethnography,
geography, medical writings, poetry, and tragedy.57 Still, his intent was not all
that far from Thucydides’ goal: while intending to relate human achievments
“so that they may not become forgotten in time, and great and marvelous
deeds—some displayed by Greeks, some by barbarians—may not be without
their glory; and especially to show why the two peoples fought with each
other”58 he presented “[a] picture of the events which have happened, and
of the like events which may be expected to happen hereafter in the order
of human things” in which reality, fiction, description, interpretation, and
instruction are interwoven in a most remarkable manner.
55 Thucydides 1.22, trans. B. Jowett: Thucydides I. Oxford 1900 (2nd edn.). For other transla-
tions, cf. K. Caroll: Review of S. Lattimore (trans.): Thucydides: The Peloponnesian War.
Indianapolis[-Cambridge] 1998. Bryn Mawr Classical Review 1999. 06. 18; T. Rood: Review
of D. Lateiner: Thucydides: The History of the Peloponnesian War. Translated by R. Craw-
ley and revised by D. Lateiner. New York 2006. Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2007. 08. 14. On
Thucydides’ proem, cf. R. Nicolai: Thucydides’ Archaeology: Between Epic and Oral Tra-
ditions. in: Luraghi (ed.) 2001 263–285 264 ff.
56 Grant 1995 8. See also, e.g., Bakker 2002 32; Rösler 2002 79; Raaflaub 2002 153f., 179.
57 See D. Lateiner: The Empirical Element in the Methods of Early Greek Medical Writers
and Herodotus: A Shared Epistemological Response. Antichthon 20 (1986) 1–20; Murray
2001; Boedeker 2002; Slings 2002; Saïd 2002; Osborne 2002; Marincola 2006; Fowler 2006;
Griffin 2006; Griffiths 2006 and cf. Kaiser 1968 213 ff., etc.
According to Alan Lloyd’s fine definition of Herodotus’ view of human expe-

rience,
[t]he Herodotean world had two interpenetrating aspects, the cosmic and
the human. The former was conceptualized as a cosmic order, both moral
and physical (δίκη), in which the most important notion was the concept
of boundaries by which all things and all beings were allotted their proper
place (…) the most prominent offence (…) is hybris, the transgression of
boundaries (…) any success or happiness (…) is ultimately the gift of the
gods and can be taken away as and when they will. The concept of fate
does not, however, in any way impair man’s responsibility as a moral agent
(…) Herodotus perceives human history as a series of demonstrations of
these principles (…) Herodotus’ perception of his role and obligations as
a historian is inseparably linked with these ideas (…) It also emerges that
he is concerned with explaining why things have happened.59
Herodotus proceeds in the execution of this program examining three top-

ics that have a special significance to him, viz., “the origins of communities
and customs, the rise and fall of powers, and the causes of wars”.60 He finds
the explanation for Persian expansionism in two principles, namely, in “the
inevitable need of states to expand or be absorbed by another expanding
power”, and in the fact that “infertile lands (…) give rise to tough and war-
like people who are easily able to conquer ‘soft’ people who live in more hos-
pitable lands”.61 It is somewhat misleading when Dewald poses the question if
Herodotus intended
his work to be at base a constructed and thus implicitly persuasive form of

narrative, with all the (rhetorical) possibilities for invention that entails?
Or was it instead his intent to produce a neutral, impartial, and, as much
as possible, transparent account of past human social realities? Unlike
Thucydides (1.21–22), Herodotus does not tell us.62
Actually, we may find an answer to Dewald’s question in the proem of the

Histories63 for, as Hans van Wees argues, it
59 Lloyd 1988b 29.

60 van Wees 2002 324.
61 Forsdyke 2006 228.—See also Kuhrt 2002 480.
62 Dewald 2002 268.
63 For the authenticity of the proem, see Asheri 2007a 1.
130 chapter 5
implies that [Herodotus’] work of history was compiled for posterity,

not just for the entertainment or education of contemporary audiences
(…) He sought to create ‘a possession for all time’ (…) although presum-
ably he would have rejected Thucydides’ opinion that this mission was
incompatible with storytelling and ‘competition for an immediate audi-
ence’.64
It is to be added with Emily Baragwanath that
Herodotus sought to communicate not only what happened (…) but

also the background of thoughts and perceptions that both shaped those
events and became critical to their fair interpretation in retrospect (…)
His ascriptions of motives seem in keeping with the ‘open’ ending of
the work as a whole (…) Herodotus’ is a Janus-faced view, directed not
only backwards in time to past events, but forward, to readers of the
future.65
The point must be reiterated here that there is hardly any narrative in the
Histories that would be known with absolute certainty to have been included by
Herodotus for the purpose of pure entertaining. At best, we cannot perceive his
actual intention. This is also true for the Aithiopian passages, and their eventual
utopian features of course do not contradict this, either. Following Herodotean
scholars who propose, in however different manners, to identify a unifying
subject and a unifying structure in the Histories,66 in this book I approached
the Aithiopian passages on the assumption that all of them bear a (not always
obvious) relation to the intention of the actual narrative context in which we
find them being inserted. I have found confirmed that, be it of whatever origin
or “reality”, Herodotus placed his pieces of Aithiopian information with clear
conceptual intents.
I have also argued in this study that the Aithiopian information available
to Herodotus was inadequate for a self-contained Aithiopian logos, thus he
could not present a consciously composed, independent narrative that would
systematically discuss interpenetrating topics (Chapters 3.1, 2). Instead, the
Aithiopian passages complement or support accounts of the land, origins,
64 van Wees 2002 322.

65 Baragwanath 2008 323.
66 Immerwahr 1966; Bornitz 1968; Fornara 1971; Cobet 1971; I.J.F. de Jong: Aspects narra-
tologiques des Histoires d’ Hérodote. Lalies 19 (1999) 217–275, etc.
customs, and history of other peoples, first of all the Egyptians. They function as
flexible and expedient particles of Herodotus’ worldview. The reason for which
the historian gave a special emphasis to one or two Aithiopian passages—first
of all to the account of the dialogue between the spies of Cambyses and the king
of the long-lived Aithiopians, in which the latter pronounces one of the central
messages of the Histories (3.21, here Chapter 2, Text 7, cf. Chapters 4.8–9)—lies
probably in the perennial impact of the Homeric image of the land of the
blameless Aithiopians (see Chapter 4.8 above).
Chapters 17–26 of Book III (here Chapter 2, Text 7) containing the most com-
plex one among the Aithiopian passages are structured by two interrelated
antitheses.67 The first is the antithesis of an empire that cannot exist with-
out expansion to a “primitive people” (ἔθνη) that do not form an empire. The
second is the antithesis of the frailty of Mediterranean civilization to the uncor-
rupted way of life of the long-lived Aithiopians.68 By means of these antithe-
ses, the narrative demonstrates the striking contrast between the mad Per-
sian conqueror and a morally superior peripheral people embodying Homer’s
“most distant of men” (Chapter 4.8).69 The land of the long-lived Aithiopi-
ans represents an ideal counterpart70 to the oikumene’s troubles: it is a moral
and political utopia. Cambyses’ failure to conquer it presents a paradigm for
the conqueror’s hubris, his progress toward nemesis, and his horrible punish-
ment.
According to David Asheri “[t]he leitmotif of Book III is, essentially, the
metaphysical and moral conflict between falsehood and truth (…) as if it were
the philosophical pivot of the whole story”.71 Asheri also argues that there is “an
evident substratum” of oriental material in this book, the complexity of which
implies that in composing his sophisticated examples of the conflict between
falsehood and truth Herodotus relied not only on the Ionian philosophical
tradition and/or the sophistic movement,72 but was also aware of “the mazdaic
dualism of Ormuz and Ahriman, of the principles of Good and Evil, True and
False, in eternal conflict in the souls of humans”.73
67 Cf. Cobet 2002 405.

68 Cf. also Burkert 1990 10.
69 Od. 1.23, see also Il. 13.6; Aeschylus, frgm. 329 M; Hdt. 4.23 (Scythians), 4.26 (Issedones).
70 Romm 1992 49 ff.
71 Asheri 2007c 391f.
72 Cf. Thomas 2000 221ff., 260 ff., Thomas 2006 67ff.; Scullion 2006 202ff.; but see also Barag-
wanath 2008 20 ff., 55 ff.
73 Asheri 2007c 392; see also Baragwanath 2008 112 ff.
132 chapter 5
Half of the Aithiopian passages appear in the context of the Egyptian logos.
If the common topic of the narratives of Book III is the conflict between false-
hood and truth, the account of Egyptian history in Book II is underpinned by
Herodotus’ interpretation of the Greek moral universe. Alan Lloyd identifies a
series of deeply impressive narratives presented by Herodotus
to illustrate and confirm fundamental Greek perceptions of the way the

world works: the punishment of Pheros (2.111), the moral disquisition at
2.120,74 the concept of divine punishment at 2.139 [here Chapter 2, Text
2], (…) the fall of Apries from unparalleled good fortune (2.162, 169),
Psammenitus’ recognition of the pathos that can arise from the tran-
sitory nature of human well-being (3.14), and, most telling of all, the
quintessentially Greek moral thinking driving the narrative of the rela-
tionship between Amasis and Polycrates and the latter’s disastrous end
(3.39–43).75
This list is incomplete without the account of the land of the long-lived Aithi-
opians and Cambyses’ failure to conquer it. Sara Forsdyke rightly points out
that it is part and parcel of Herodotus’ “critical examination of Greek under-
standings of Self and Other” and of his systematic analysis of politics.76 Details
such as the election of the tallest and best-looking man have Greek, not Nubian
origins. It also appears in portraits of heroes from other regions.77 From the spe-
cial aspect of the present investigation, however, the most significant feature of
this narrative is that Herodotus inserted into it realistic information about Per-
sian as well as Kushite conceptions. He used information about the “election”
of the king of Kush and the complex role that the oracle of Zeus (Amun) plays
in it with the intention to support a discourse composed mainly from Greek
elements and addressed to a Greek audience.
So much for the manner in which Herodotus approached his general goal in
his brief and fragmentary accounts of Aithiopia. Concluding our survey, let us
return for a moment to the problem of the goal itself. In his Histories Herodotus
described (of course partly inventing it) a universal historical space.78 In time,
74 I.e., the Egyptian priests on Helen.

75 Lloyd 2002 425 f.
76 Forsdyke 2006 224 ff. See also Lloyd 2002 417 on Herodotus’ definition of “self” and “alien”
by the representation of the confrontation between Greece and the Persian Empire.
77 E.g., see the size of Orestes (1.68), Perseus (2.91), Heracles (4.82), Philippos (9.72, 83) and
Xerxes (7.187). Cf. also Hofmann–Vorbichler 1979 47f.
78 Mitchell 2008, in her review of Asheri–Lloyd–Corcella 2007.
he went back to the oldest gods beyond Min, the first human king of Egypt (2.43,
145).79 In space, his investigations extended to the boundaries of the known
world:
His record of the achievements of mankind (…) included all of mankind

and all of the past (…) [H]is accounts of Egyptians, Scythians, and many
other peoples did (…) take the form of digressions—but in substance they
were an integral part of what the Histories were intended to be: a universal
history of the human race.80
A universal history of the human race: but it was not an end in itself. Herodotus
set himself the task to find and describe the universal law that determines
the course of history, similarly as Anaximander treated the natural world, or
Solon the life of human society.81 He also set himself the tasks to locate Greek
culture and experience within his universal historical space,82 explain why
individuals and communities rise and fall, demonstrate “the value of political
freedom”,83 and warn the Athenians against developing an expansionist policy
and committing transgressions such as may follow from the fatal error of
underestimating the Persian Empire.84
Accordingly, the moral criticism of expansionism voiced by the king of the
long-lived Aithiopians (3.21, here Chapter 2, Text 7) has to be considered one of
the central messages of the Histories. In the speech of Artabanus addressed to
Xerxes (7.18) Herodotus reiterates the Aithiopian’s message about “the recur-
rent model of failed expansionism”:85
Sire, like other men I have seen in my time powerful kingdoms struck
down by weaker ones, and I could not but remember the fate of Cyrus’
campaign against the Massagetae and Cambyses’ invasion of Aithiopia
(…) My memory of these disasters forced me to believe that the world
would call you happy only if you lived in peace.86
79 Cf. Kaiser 1968 210 ff.

80 van Wees 2002 321.
81 Ritoók 2006 429.
82 Mitchell 2008; cf. Cartledge–Greenwood 2002.
83 Forsdyke 2002 549.
84 Ritoók 2006 passim; cf. Flower 2006.
85 Asheri 2007a 36.
134 chapter 5
The disapproval of expansionism voiced by the Aithiopian king also cor-

responds to the words said to Cyrus by the herald of Tomyris, queen of the
Massagetae (“Rule your own people, and try to bear the sight of me ruling mine”,
1.20687) and the words said to Darius by Idanthyrsus, king of the Scythians
(“your claim to be my master is easily answered—be damned to you”, 4.12788).
Yet, in a however indirect manner, the account of the land of the long-lived
Aithiopians also conveys the historian’s perception of the ominous fact that
expansionist states cannot be held back, for
[c]losely related to tyranny is the problem that ancient monarchies have

with unlimited and insatiable territorial expansionism[.]89
Earlier in this chapter I have cited Bury and Grant on the differences between
Thucydides’ and Herodotus’ work. Thucydides’ claim of the superiority of his
method over Herodotus is part of the competition between history and (epic)
poetry, while the contrast between the two Fathers of History as formulated
by nineteenth- and twentieth-century historians is still part of the debate on
how Ranke’s wie es eigentlich gewesen (“how things really were”) should be
interpreted.90 Yet “serious Greek historical writing was about contemporary
history (…) [for] the past cannot yield nothing more than paradigmatic support
for the conclusions one has drawn from the present; the past (…) may still be
treated in the timeless fashion of myth”:91
One might almost say that in ancient Greece there were no historians in
the sense in which there were artists and philosophers; there were no

89 Asheri 2007c 390.
90 L. von Ranke: Geschichte der lateinischen und germanischen Völker (Leipzig-Berlin 1824)
in: Sämtliche Werke 33–34. Leipzig 1885 7. According to K. Repgen: Über Rankes Diktum
von 1824: “Bloss sagen, wie es eigentlich gewesen”. Historisches Jahrbuch 102 (1982) 439–
449 Ranke quoted Thucydides 2.48.3. But see R.S. Stroud: “Wie es eigentlich gewesen”
and Thucydides 2.48.3. Hermes 115 (1987) 379–382.—Cf. also M.-J. Zemlin: “Zeigen, wie
es eigentlich gewesen”. Zur Deutung eines berühmten Rankeswortes. Geschichte in Wis-
senschaft und Unterricht 37 (1986) 333–350.—For Ranke’s relation to the scholarly appa-
ratus at the time of his famous dictum, see A. Grafton: The Footnote: A Curious History.
Cambridge, Mass. 1997 62 ff.
91 Finley 1975 31.
people who devoted their lives to the study of history; the historian was
only the autobiographer of his generation[.]92
Moses Finley argues93 that the demands powerfully declared by Lucian of

Samosata, who wrote the following around ad165, were still measuring history
against poetry rather than forecasting the modern requirements of objectivity
and accuracy:
This, then, is the sort of man a historian should be: fearless, incorruptible,
free, a friend of free expression and the truth, intent, as the comic poet
says, on calling a fig a fig and a trough a trough, giving nothing to hatred
or to friendship, sparing no one, showing neither pity nor shame nor
obsequiousness, an impartial judge, well disposed to all men up to the
point of not giving one side more than its due, in his books a stranger
and a man without a country, independent, subject to no sovereign, not
reckoning what this or that man will think, but stating the facts.94
Notwithstanding Finley’s warning, late adherents of strict empirical historicism

not only see Herodotus’ imperfections to have been improved in Thucydides’
work but also maintain Ranke’s goal “not to judge the past or to interpret his-
tory through an ethical or moral lens, but ‘to show how, essentially, things
happened’” and place their work in a process of development from the require-
ments declared by Lucian to a historicism increasingly supported by “material
history”, the multidisciplinary research of material objects. Herodotus would
hardly agree with the view that “there is one past and thus one history”. He
sensed the “epistemological fragility” of history.95 Throughout his work he pre-
sented again and again not one but many histories. Provided that s/he realizes
the perils of dogmatism, the modern historian must be ready to consider if, and
how far, historiography is “an inter-textual, linguistic construct”96 and become
thus aware of the danger imminent in the emergence of politically motivated
92 R.G. Collingwood: The Idea of History. Oxford 1946 26 f., quoted by Finley 1975 31.
93 Lucian’s How to Write History is “nothing but a concoction of the rules and maxims
which had become the commonplaces of a rhetorical education, a shallow and essentially
worthless pot-boiler”: Finley 1975 12 (= Myth, Memory and History. History and Theory 4
[1965] 282–302 283).
94 Lucian, de hist. conscr. (How to Write History) 41, eds T.G. Page et al., trans. K. Kilburn, Loeb
edn. Cambridge, Mass.-London 1959.
95 Quotings from Jenkins 1993 13ff.
96 Jenkins 1993 8f.
136 chapter 5
attempts at the stopping of (national) histories. Keith Jenkins may well have
foreseen them when he warned his reader: “[I]f you think that the idea of stop-
ping history (historians) is absurd it really isn’t: stopping history is not only part
of Orwell’s 1984 for example, but a part of European experience in the 1930s—
the more immediate time and place that made Orwell consider it”.97 Part of
European experience in the 1930s—but are we not witnessing that, in some
parts of Europe, historians are tempted anew into writing one but not many his-
tories?
97 Jenkins 1993 13.

Bibliography
Adams, W.Y. (1977). Nubia Corridor to Africa. London.

Aly, W. (1921/1969). Volksmärchen, Sage und Novelle bei Herodot und seinen Zeitgenossen.
2nd edn. with additions by L. Huber. Göttingen (1st edn. 1921).
Apelt, D. (1990). Bemerkungen zur Thronfolge in der 25. Dynastie. Meroitica 12 23–31.
Armayor, A.K. (1978). Did Herodotus Ever Go to Egypt? JARCE 15 59–73.
Armayor, A.K. (1985). Herodotus’ Autopsy of the Fayoum: Lake Moeris and the Labyrinth
of Egypt. Amsterdam.
Armayor, A.K. (2004). Herodotus, Hecataeus and the Persian Wars. in: Karageorghis–
Taifacos (eds) 2004 321–335.
Arnold, D. (1992). Die Tempel Ägyptens. Götterwohnungen, Kultstätten, Baudenkmäler.
Zürich.
Arnold, D. (1994). Lexikon der ägyptischen Baukunst. Zürich.
Arnold, D. (1999). Temples of the Last Pharaohs. New York-Oxford.
Asheri, D. (1993). Erodoto e Bacide. in: M. Sordi (ed.): La profecia nel mondo antico.
Milano 63–76.
Asheri, D. (2007a). General Introduction. in: Asheri–Lloyd–Corcella 2007 1–56.
Asheri, D. (2007b). Book I. in: Asheri–Lloyd–Corcella 2007 59–218.
Asheri, D. (2007c). Book III. in: Asheri–Lloyd–Corcella 2007 379–527.
Asheri, D.–A.B. Lloyd–A. Corcella (2007). A Commentary on Herodotus Books I–IV. Ed.
by O. Murray and A. Moreno, with a Contribution by M. Brosius. Oxford.
Assmann, J. (1989). State and Religion in New Kingdom Egypt. in: Religion and Philoso-
phy in Ancient Egypt (Yale Egyptological Studies 3). New Haven 55–88.
Assmann, J. (1990a). Maꜥat. Gerechtigkeit und Unsterblichkeit im alten Ägypten. Mün-
chen.
Assmann, J. (1990b). Guilt and Remembrance: On the Theologization of History in the
Ancient Near East. History and Memory 2/1 5–33.
Assmann, J. (1991). Stein und Zeit, Mensch und Gesellschaft im alten Ägypten. München.
Assmann, J. (1992). Das kulturelle Gedächtnis. Schrift, Erinnerung, und politische Iden-
tität in frühen Hochkulturen. München.
Assmann, J. (1996). Ägypten. Eine Sinngeschichte. München-Wien.
Assmann, J. (1997). Moses the Egyptian. The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism.
Cambridge, Mass.-London.
Assmann, J. (2000a). Herrschaft und Heil. Politische Theologie in Altägypten, Israel und
Europa. München-Wien.
Assmann, J. (2000b). Weisheit und Mysterium. Das Bild der Griechen von Ägypten. Mün-
chen.
Assmann, J. (2011). Steinzeit und Sternzeit. Altägyptische Zeitkonzepte. München.
138 bibliography
Ayad, M.F. (2009). God’s Wife, God’s Servant—The God’s Wife of Amun (c. 740–525BC).
London.
Bakker, E.J. (2002). The Making of History: Herodotus’Historiēs Apodexis. in: Bakker–de
Jong–van Wees (eds) 2002 3–32.
Bakker, E.J. (2006). The Syntax of Historiē: How Herodotus Writes. in: Dewald–Marin-
cola (eds) 2006 92–102.
Bakker, E.J.–I.J.F. de Jong–H. van Wees (eds) (2002). Brill’s Companion to Herodotus.
Leiden-Boston-Köln.
Baragwanath, E. (2008). Motivation and Narrative in Herodotus. Oxford.
Barchiesi, A.–W. Scheidel (eds) (2010). The Oxford Handbook of Roman Studies. Oxford.
Bard, K.A. (compiled and edited with the editing assistance of S. Blake Shubert) (1999).
Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt. London-New York.
Baud, M. (2008). The Meroitic Royal City of Muweis: First Steps Into An Urban Settle-
ment of Riverine Upper Nubia. Sudan & Nubia 12 52–63.
Baud, M.–A. Sackho-Autissier–S. Labbé-Toutée (eds) (2010). Méroé. Un empire sur le Nil.
Paris.
Bács, T.A. (ed.) (2002). A Tribute to Excellence. Studies Offered in Honor of Ernő Gaál,
Ulrich Luft, László Török (StudAeg 17). Budapest.
Beck, H.–P.C. Bol–M. Bückling (eds) (2005). Ägypten Griechenland Rom. Abwehr und
Berührung [catalogue of the exhibition in the Städelsches Kunstinstitut und Städtis-
che Galerie, Frankfurt am Main, November 26 2005—February 26 2006]. Frankfurt.
von Beckerath, J. (1984). Handbuch der ägyptischen Königsnamen (Münchner Ägyptolo-
gische Studien 20). München-Berlin.
von Beckerath, J. (1997). Chronologie des pharaonischen Ägyptens. Die Zeitbestimmung
der ägyptischen Geschichte von der Vorzeit bis 332 v. Chr. (Münchner Ägyptologische
Studien 46). Mainz.
Bertelli, L. (2001). Hecataeus: From Genealogy to Historiography. in: Luraghi (ed.) 2001
67–94.
Bichler, R. (2000). Herodots Welt. Berlin.
Bichler, R. (2004). Herodotus’ Ethnography. Examples and Principles. in: Karageorghis–
Taifacos (eds) 2004 91–112.
Bierbrier, M. (ed.) (1997). Portraits and Masks. Burial Customs in Roman Egypt. London.
Bingen, J. (2007). Hellenistic Egypt. Edinburgh.
Blok, J. (2002). Women in Herodotus’Histories. in: Bakker–de Jong–van Wees (eds) 2002
225–242.
Blumenthal, E. (1970). Untersuchungen zum ägyptischen Königtum des Mittleren Rei-
ches. I. Die Phraseologie. Berlin.
Boardman, J. (1994). The Diffusion of Classical Art in Antiquity. London.
Boedeker, D. (2002). Epic Heritage and Mythical Patterns in Herodotus. in: Bakker–de
Jong–van Wees (eds) 2002 97–116.
bibliography 139
Bonneau, D. (1964). La crue du Nil, divinité égyptienne à travers mille ans d’histoire
(Études et commentaires 52). Paris.
Bonnet, C. (ed.) (1992). Études nubiennes. Conférence de Genève. Actes du VIIe Congrès
international d’études nubiennes 3–8 septembre 1990 I. Communications principales.
Genève.
Bonnet, C. (ed.) (1994). Études nubiennes. Conférence de Genève II. Communications.
Genève.
Bonnet, C.–D. Valbelle (2005). Des pharaons venus d’Afrique. La cachette de Kerma.
Paris.
Borg, B. (1996). Mumienporträts. Chronologie und kultureller Kontext. Mainz.
Borg, B. (1997). The Dead as a Guest at Table? Continuity and Change in the Egyptian
Cult of the Dead. in: Bierbrier (ed.) 1997 26–32.
Bornitz, H.-F. (1968). Herodot-Studien. Beiträge zum Verständnis der Einheit des Ge-
schichtswerkes. Berlin.
Bothmer, B.V. (2004). Egyptian Art. Selected Writings. Edited by M.E. Cody with the
Assistance of P.E. Stanwick and M. Hill. Oxford.
Braun, T. (2004). Spines of Winged Snakes. in: Karageorghis–Taifacos (eds) 2004 265–
285.
Breyer, F. (2003). Tanutamani. Die Traumstele und ihr Umfeld (ÄAT 57). Wiesbaden.
Brosius, M. (2007). The [Bisitun] Inscription Translated. in: Asheri–Lloyd–Corcella
2007 529–537.
Burkert, W. (1990). Herodot als Historiker fremder Religionen. in: Nenci (ed.) 1990 1–32.
Burstein, S.M. (trans., ed.) (1989). Agatharchides of Cnidus On the Erythraean Sea. Lon-
don.
Burstein, S.M. (1995). Graeco-Africana. Studies in the History of Greek Relations with
Egypt and Nubia. New Rochelle-Athens-Moscow.
Burstein, S.M. (1996). Images of Egypt in Greek Historiography. in: Loprieno (ed.) 1996
591–604.
[CAH IV] J. Boardman et al. (eds): The Cambridge Ancient History IV. 2nd edn. Cam-
bridge 1988.
Callender, G. (2000). The Middle Kingdom Renaissance (c. 2055–1650BC). in: Shaw (ed.)
2000 148–183.
Cameron, Alan (2004). Greek Mythography in the Roman World. Oxford.
Caneva, I.–A. Roccati (eds) (2006). Acta Nubica. Proceedings of the X International
Conference on Nubian Studies Rome 9–14 September 2002. Rome.
Cartledge, P.–E. Greenwood (2002). Herodotus as a Critic: Truth, Fiction, Polarity. in:
Bakker–de Jong–van Wees (eds) 2002 351–371.
Clarysse, W. (2010). Egyptian Temples and Priests: Graeco-Roman. in: Lloyd (ed.) 2010
274–290.
Cobet, J. (1971). Herodots Exkurse und die Frage der Einheit seines Werkes. Wiesbaden.
140 bibliography
Cobet, J. (2002). The Organization of Time in the Histories. in: Bakker–de Jong–van
Wees (eds) 2002 387–412.
Corcella, A. (2007). Book IV. in: Asheri–Lloyd–Corcella 2007 543–721.
Darnell, J.C. (2006). The Inscription of Queen Katimala at Semna. Textual Evidence for
the Origins of the Napatan State. New Haven.
Desanges, J. (1978). Recherches sur l’activité des mediterranéens aux confins de l’Afrique.
Rome.
Desanges, J. (1992). Bilan des recherches sur les sources grecques et latines de l’histoire
de la Nubie antique dans les trente dernières années. in: C. Bonnet (ed.): Études nubi-
ennes. Conférence de Genève. Actes du VIIe Congrès international d’études nubiennes
3–8 septembre 1990 I. Communications principales. Genève 363–378.
Desanges, J. (2008). Pline l’ancien. Histoire Naturelle Livre VI 4e partie (L’Asie africaine
sauf l’Égypte, les dimensions et les climats du monde habité). Texte établi, traduit et
commenté par J. Desanges. Paris.
Dewald, C. (1987). Narrative Surface and Authorial Voice in Herodotus’ Histories. Are-
thusa 20 147–170.
Dewald, C. (2002). “I Didn’t Give My Own Genealogy”: Herodotus and the Authorial
Persona. in: Bakker–de Jong–van Wees (eds) 2002 267–289.
Dewald, C. (2003). Review of Luraghi (ed.) 2001. Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2003. 03. 25.
Dewald, C.–J. Marincola (2006). Introduction. in: Dewald–Marincola (eds) 2006 1–12.
Dewald, C.–J. Marincola (eds) (2006). The Cambridge Companion to Herodotus. Cam-
bridge.
Dihle, A. (1961). Zur hellenistischen Ethnographie. in: Schwabl (ed.) 1961 207–232.
Dihle, A. (2005). Das Bild Ägyptens bei den Griechen archaisch-klassischer Zeit. in:
Beck–Bol–Bückling (eds) 2005 20–33.
Doll, S. (1982). Identification and Significance of the Texts and Decoration on the
Sarcophagi of Anlamani and Aspelta. Meroitica 6 276–280.
Dorati, M. (2011). Travel Writing, Ethnographical Writing, and the Representation of the
Edges of the World in Herodotus. in: Rollinger et al. (eds) 2011 273–312.
Dunham, D. (1955). Nuri. Boston.
Dunham, D. (1957). Royal Tombs at Meroe and Barkal. Boston.
Dunham, D. (1963). The West and South Cemeteries at Meroe. Boston.
Dunham, D. (1967). Second Cataract Forts II. Uronarti Shalfak Mirgissa. Boston.
Dunham, D. (1970). The Barkal Temples, Excavated by George Andrew Reisner. Boston.
Dunham, D.–J.M.A. Janssen (1960). Second Cataract Forts I. Semna Kumma. Boston.
Edwards, D.N. (2004). The Nubian Past. An Archaeology of the Sudan. London-New York.
Erbse, H. (1961). Tradition und Form im Werke Herodots. Gymnasium 68 239–257.
[ESLP] B.V. Bothmer–H.W. Müller—H. de Meulenaere: Egyptian Sculpture of the Late
Period: 700B.C. to A.D. 100. Ed. E. Riefstahl. Brooklyn 1960, 2nd edn. 1969, reprint with
corrections 1970.
bibliography 141
Fehling, D. (1971). Die Quellenangaben bei Herodot. Studien zur Erzählkunst Herodots.
Berlin-New York.
Fehling, D. (1989). Herodotus and his ‘Sources’. Citation, Invention and Narrative Art.
Leeds.
F. Fernández-Armesto (2002). Epilogue: What is History Now? in: D. Cannadine (ed.):
What is History Now? London 148–161.
[FGrHist] F. Jacoby et al.: Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Berlin-Leiden
1923–1958, Leiden 1994–.
[FHN I] T. Eide–T. Hägg–R.H. Pierce–L. Török: Fontes Historiae Nubiorum. Textual
Sources for the History of the Middle Nile Region Between the Eighth Century BC
and the Sixth Century AD I. From the Eighth to the Mid-Fifth Century BC. Bergen
1994.
[FHN II] T. Eide–T. Hägg–R.H. Pierce–L. Török: Fontes Historiae Nubiorum. Textual
Sources for the History of the Middle Nile Region Between the Eighth Century BC and
the Sixth Century AD II. From the Mid-Fifth to the First Century BC. Bergen 1996.
[FHN III] T. Eide–T. Hägg–R.H. Pierce–L. Török: Fontes Historiae Nubiorum. Textual
Sources for the History of the Middle Nile Region Between the Eighth Century BC and
the Sixth Century AD III. From the First to the Sixth Century AD. Bergen 1998.
Finley, M.I. (1975). The Use and Abuse of History. London.
Fisher, M.M.–P. Lacovara–S. Ikram–S. D’Auria (eds) (2012). Ancient Nubia. African King-
doms on the Nile. Cairo-New York.
Flower, M. (2006). Herodotus and Persia. in: Dewald–Marincola (eds) 2006 274–289.
Fontes Historiae Nubiorum see FHN.
Fornara, C.W. (1971). Herodotus: An Interpretative Essay. Oxford.
Forsdyke, S. (2002). Greek History c. 525–480BC. in: Bakker–de Jong–van Wees (eds)
2002 521–549.
Forsdyke, S. (2006). Herodotus, Political History and Political Thought. in: Dewald–
Marincola (eds) 2006 224–241.
Fowler, R.L. (2001). Early Historiē and Literacy. in: Luraghi (ed.) 2001 95–115.
Fowler, R. (2006). Herodotus and His Prose Predecessors. in: Dewald–Marincola (eds)
2006 29–45.
Frandsen, J.P. (1979). Egyptian Imperialism. in: M.T. Larsen (ed.): Power and Propa-
ganda: A Symposium on Ancient Empires. Copenhagen 167–190.
Gabolde, M. (1995). L’inondation sous les pieds d’Amon. BIFAO 95 235–258.
Gauthier, H. (1913). Le temple d’Amada I. Temples immergés de la Nubie. Le Caire.
Giangiulio, M. (2001). Constructing the Past: Colonial Traditions and the Writing of
History. The Case of Cyrene. in: Luraghi (ed.) 2001 116–137.
Godlewski, K.–A. Łajtar (eds) (2008). Between the Cataracts. Proceedings of the 11th
Conference for Nubian Studies Warsaw University, 27 August–2 September 2006. Part
One. Main Papers. Warsaw.
142 bibliography
Grant, M. (1995). Greek and Roman Historians. Information and Misinformation.

London-New York.
Gray, V. (2002). Short Stories in Herodotus’Histories. in: Bakker–de Jong–van Wees (eds)
2002 291–317.
Green, P. (ed.) (1993). Hellenistic History and Culture. Berkeley-Los Angeles-Oxford.
Griffin, J. (2006). Herodotus and Tragedy. in: Dewald–Marincola (eds) 2006 46–59.
Griffith, F.Ll. (1909). Catalogue of the Demotic Papyri in the John Rylands Library Man-
chester I–II, III. Manchester.
Griffith, F.Ll. (1923). Oxford Excavations in Nubia XVIII–XXV. The Cemetery of Sanam.
LAAA 10 73–121.
Griffiths, A. (2006). Stories and Storytelling in the Histories. in: Dewald–Marincola (eds)
2006 130–144.
N.-C. Grimal (1981a). La stèle triomphale de Pi(‘ankh)y au Musée du Caire JE 48862 et
47086–47089. Le Caire.
N.-C. Grimal (1981b). Quatre stèles napatéennes au Musée du Caire JE 48863–48866. Le
Caire.
N.-C. Grimal (1986). Les termes de la propagande royale égyptienne de la XXe dynastie à
la conquête d’Alexandre. Paris.
Gundlach, R.–M. Kropp–A. Leibundgut (eds) (1996). Der Sudan in Vergangenheit und
Gegenwart (Sudan Past and Present). Frankfurt.
Harrison, T. (2000). Divinity and History. The Religion of Herodotus (Oxford Classical
Monographs). Oxford.
Harrison, T. (2002). The Persian Invasions. in: Bakker–de Jong–van Wees (eds) 2002
521–578.
Harrison, T. (2003). Upside Down and Back to Front: Herodotus and the Greek Encoun-
ter with Egypt. in: R. Matthews–C. Roemer (eds): Ancient Perspectives on Egypt.
London 145–156.
Hartog, F. (1988). The Mirror of Herodotus: The Representation of the Other in the Writing
of History. Trans. Janet Lloyd. Berkeley-Los Angeles-London (French original: Le
miroir d’Hérodote. Paris 1980).
Heidorn, L.A. (1991). The Saite and Persian Period Forts at Dorginarti. in: W.V. Davies
(ed.): Egypt and Africa. Nubia from Prehistory to Islam. London 205–219.
Herminghausen, D. (1964). Herodots Angaben über Äthiopien mit einer kritischen Unter-
suchung ihrer Quellen und ihrer Funktion im Zusammenhang mit den Angaben über
Ägypten. Diss. Hamburg.
Herodotus. The Histories. Translated by A. de Sélincourt. Revised with Introduction and
Notes by J. Marincola. London 2003.
Hofmann, I.–A. Vorbichler (1979). Der Äthiopenlogos bei Herodot (Veröffentlichungen
der Institute für Afrikanistik und Ägyptologie der Universität Wien 4, Beiträge zur
Afrikanistik 3). Wien.
bibliography 143
Honigmann, E. (1926). Libya. RE XIII.1 155–159.

Hornblower, S. (2002). Herodotus and his Sources of Information. in: Bakker–de Jong–
van Wees (eds) 2002 373–386.
Hornblower, S. (2006). Herodotus’ Influence in Antiquity. in: Dewald–Marincola (eds)
2006 306–318.
Hornung, E. (1971). Der Eine und die Vielen. Ägyptische Gottesvorstellungen. Darm-
stadt.
Hornung, E.–R. Krauss–D.A. Warburton (eds) (2006). Ancient Egyptian Chronology
(Handbook of Oriental Studies Section One. The Near and Middle East 83). Leiden-
Boston.
How, W.W.–J. Wells (1912). A Commentary on Herodotus. Oxford.
Immerwahr, H. (1966). Form and Thought in Herodotus. Cleveland.
Jacoby, F. (1913). Herodotos. RE Supplementband II. Stuttgart 205–520.
Jenkins, K. (2003). Re-thinking History. With a New Preface and Conversation with the
Author by A. Munslow. London-New York.
Jesse, F.–C. Vogel (eds) (2013). The Power of Walls—Fortifications in Ancient Northeast-
ern Africa. Proceedings of the International Workshop held at the University of Cologne
4th–7th August 2011. Köln.
de Jong, I.J.F. (2002). Narrative Unity and Units. in: Bakker–de Jong–van Wees (eds) 2002
245–266.
Kahn, D. (1998). Divine Intervention and the Surrender of Nimrod in the Pi(ankh)y Stela
(Lines 34–58). in: Shirun-Grumach (ed.) 1998 285–294.
Kahn, D. (2001). The Inscription of Sargon II at Tang-i Var and the Chronology of
Dynasty 25. Or 70 1–18.
Kahn, D. (2003). Piankhy’s Conquest of Egypt in Greek Sources: Herodotus II 137–140
Revisited. BzS 8 49–58.
Kahn, D. (2004). Taharqa, King of Kush and the Assyrians. JSSEA 31 109–128.
Kahn, D. (2006a). The Assyrian Invasions of Egypt (673–663B.C.) and the Final Expul-
sion of the Kushites. SAK 34 251–267.
Kahn, D. (2006b). Tefnakht’s “Letter of Submission” to Piankhy. BzS 9 45–61.
Kaiser, M. (1968). Herodots Begegnung mit Ägypten. Sitzungsberichte der Sächsischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse Band 113 Heft
5. Berlin 205–246.
Kákosy, L. (1982). Orakel. LÄ IV 600–606.
Karageorghis, V.–I. Taifacos (eds) (2004). The World of Herodotus. Proceedings of an
International Conference Held at the Foundation Anastasios G. Leventis, Nicosia, Sep-
tember 18–21, 2003 and Organized by the Foundation Anastasios G. Leventis and the
Faculty of Letters, University of Cyprus. Nicosia.
Karttunen, K. (2002). The Ethnography of the Fringes. in: Bakker–de Jong–van Wees
(eds) 2002 457–474.
144 bibliography
Kemp, B.J. (1978). Imperialism and Empire in New Kingdom Egypt (c. 1575–1087B.C.). in:
P.D.A. Garnsey–C.R. Whittaker (eds): Imperialism in the Ancient World. Cambridge
7–57.
Kemp, B.J. (1983). Old Kingdom, Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period
c. 2686–1552BC. in: Trigger et al. 1983 71–182.
Kendall, T. (1999). The Origin of the Napatan State: El Kurru and the Evidence for the
Royal Ancestors. in: Wenig (ed.) 1999 3–117.
Kendall, T. (2002). Napatan Temples: A Case Study from Gebel Barkal. The Mytholog-
ical Nubian Origin of Egyptian Kingship and the Formation of the Napatan State.
Unpubl. paper submitted at the Tenth International Conference of Nubian Studies
University of Rome September 9–14, 2002. Rome.
Kendall, T. (2007). Egypt and Nubia. in: T. Wilkinson (ed.): The Egyptian World. London-
New York 401–416.
Kendall, T. (ed.) (2004). Nubian Studies 1998. Proceedings of the Ninth Conference of
the International Society of Nubian Studies August 21–26, 1998 Boston, Massachusetts.
Boston.
Kienitz, F.K. (1953). Die politische Geschichte Ägyptens vom 7. bis zum 4. Jahrhundert vor
der Zeitwende. Berlin.
Kirchberg, J. (1964). Die Funktion der Orakel im Werke Herodots (Hypomnemata 11).
Göttingen.
Kitchen, K.A. (1996). The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650BC). (3rd enlarged
edn., 1st edn. 1972, 2nd edn. 1986). Warminster.
Kraus, C.S. (2010). Historiography and Biography. in: Barchiesi–Scheidel (eds) 2010
403–419.
Kuhlmann, K.-P. (1988). Das Ammoneion: Archäologie, Geschichte und Kultpraxis des
Orakels von Siwa. Mainz.
Kuhrt, A. (2002). Babylon. in: Bakker–de Jong–van Wees (eds) 2002 475–496.
Kwintner, M. (1994). Review of W.K. Pritchett: The Liar School of Herodotus. Amsterdam
1993. Bryn Mawr Classical Review 1994. 04. 10.
[LÄ] W. Helck–W. Westendorf (eds): Lexikon der Ägyptologie. Wiesbaden 1972–1991.
Lateiner, D. (1989). The Historical Method of Herodotus. Toronto-Buffalo-London.
Leahy, A. (1992). Royal Iconography and Dynastic Change, 750–525BC: The Blue and
Cap Crowns. JEA 78 223–240.
Leahy, A. (ed.) (1990). Libya and Egypt c. 1300–750BC. London.
Leclant, J. (1965). Recherches sur les monuments thébains de la XXVe dynastie dite éthiopi-
enne. Le Caire.
Leclant, J.–J. Yoyotte (1949). Nouveaux documents rélatifs à l’an VI de Taharqa. Kêmi 10
28–42.
Leclant, J.–J. Yoyotte (1952). Notes d’histoire et de civilisation éthiopiennes. A propos
d’un ouvrage récent. BIFAO 51 1–39.
bibliography 145
Lefkowitz, M. (1997). Not Out of Africa. How Afrocentrism Became an Excuse to Teach
Myth as History. Rev. edn. New York.
Legrand (1939). see Legrand 1932–1954.
Legrand, P.-E. (1932–1954). Hérodote. Histoires. Text établi et traduit par P.-E. Legrand.
Vol. 1. 1932; 2. 1936; 3. 1939; 4. 1945; 5. 1946; 6. 1948; 7. 1951; 8. 1953; 9. 1954. Paris.
Lesky, A. (1959). Aithiopika. Hermes 87 27–38.
Lichtheim, M. (1980). Ancient Egyptian Literature. A Book of Readings III. The Late
Period. Berkeley-Los Angeles-London.
Lloyd, A.B. (1970). The Egyptian Labyrinth. JEA 56 81–100.
Lloyd, A.B. (1975). Herodotus Book II. Introduction. Leiden.
Lloyd, A.B. (1976). Herodotus Book II. Commentary 1–98. Leiden.
Lloyd, A.B. (1982a). Nationalist Propaganda in Ptolemaic Egypt. Historia 3 33–53.
Lloyd, A.B. (1982b). The Inscription of Udjahorresnet. A Collaborator’s Testament. JEA
68 166–180.
Lloyd, A.B. (1983). The Late Period, 664–323BC. in: Trigger et al. 1983 279–348.
Lloyd, A.B. (1988a). Herodotus Book II. Commentary 99–182. Leiden-New York-
København-Köln.
Lloyd, A.B. (1988b). Herodotus’ Account of Pharaonic History. Historia 31 22–53.
Lloyd, A.B. (1990). Herodotus on Egyptians and Libyans. in: Nenci (ed.) 1990 215–
244.
Lloyd, A.B. (1994). Cambyses in Late Tradition. in: C. Eyre–A. Leahy–L. Montagno Leahy
(eds): The Unbroken Reed. Studies in Honour of A.F. Shore. London 195–204.
Lloyd, A.B. (2000). The Late Period (664–332BC). in: Shaw (ed.) 2000 369–394.
Lloyd, A.B. (2002). Egypt. in: Bakker–de Jong–van Wees (eds) 2002 415–435.
Lloyd, A.B. (2004). Herodotus on Egypt and Ethiopia. in: Karageorghis–Taifacos (eds)
2004 43–52.
Lloyd, A.B. (2007). Book II. in: Asheri–Lloyd–Corcella 2007 221–378.
Lloyd, A.B. (ed.) (2010). A Companion to Ancient Egypt. Malden.
Locher, J. (1999). Topographie und Geschichte der Region am ersten Nilkatarakt in grie-
chisch-römischer Zeit. Stuttgart-Leipzig.
Lohwasser, A. (2000). Die Auswahl des Königs in Kusch. BzS 7 (2000) 85–102.
Lohwasser, A. (2001). Die königlichen Frauen im antiken Reich von Kush. 25. Dynastie bis
zur Zeit des Nastasen (Meroitica 19). Wiesbaden.
Lohwasser, A. (2010). The Kushite Cemetery of Sanam. A Non-Royal Burial Ground of the
Nubian Capital, c. 800–600BC. London.
Lohwasser, A. (2012). Aspekte der napatanischen Gesellschaft. Archäologisches Inventar
und funeräre Praxis im Friedhof von Sanam—Perspektiven einer kulturhistorischen
Interpretation (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften Denkschriften der
Gesamtakademie 67. Contributions to the Archaeology of Egypt, Nubia and the Lev-
ant 1). Wien.
146 bibliography
Loprieno, A. (ed.) (1996). Ancient Egyptian Literature. History and Forms. Leiden-New
York-Köln.
Luraghi, N. (2001a). Introduction. in: Luraghi (ed.) 2001 1–15.
Luraghi, N. (2001b). Local Knowledge in Herodotus’ Histories. in: Luraghi (ed.) 2001
138–160.
Luraghi, N. (2006). Meta-historiē: Method and Genre in the Histories. in: Dewald–
Marincola (eds) 2006 76–91.
Luraghi, N. (ed.) (2001). The Historian’s Craft in the Age of Herodotus. Oxford.
Macadam, M.F.L. (1949). The Temples of Kawa I. The Inscriptions. London.
Macadam, M.F.L. (1955). The Temples of Kawa II. History and Archaeology of the Site.
London.
Malaise, M. (1966). Sésostris, pharaon de légende et d’histoire. CdÉ 41 244–272.
Der Manuelian, P. (1994). Living in the Past. Studies in Archaism of the Egyptian Twenty-
Sixth Dynasty. London-New York.
Marincola, J. (1987). Herodotean Narrative and the Narrator’s Presence. in: D. Boedeker–
J. Peradotto (eds): Herodotus and the Invention of History (Arethusa 20). Buffalo 121–
137.
Marincola, J. (2006). Herodotus and the Poetry of the Past. in: Dewald–Marincola (eds)
2006 13–28.
de Meulenaere, H. (1951). Herodotos over de 26ste Dynastie. Louvain.
Mitchell, L.G. (2008). Review of Asheri–Lloyd–Corcella 2007. Bryn Mawr Classical Re-
view 2008. 07. 35.
Momigliano, A. (1958/1966). The Place of Herodotus in the History of Historiography.
History 43 1–13 = in: Studies in Historiography. London 1966 127–142.
Morkot, R.[G.] (1991). Nubia and Achaemenid Persia: Sources and Problems. in: H.
Sancisi-Weerdenburg–A. Kuhrt (eds): Achaemenid History VI. Asia Minor and Egypt:
Old Cultures in a New Empire. Proceedings of the Groningen 1988 Achaemenid History
Workshop. Leiden 321–336.
Morkot, R.[G.] (1998). “There Are No Elephants in Dóngola”; Notes on Nubian Ivory.
CRIPEL 17 147–154.
Morkot, R.G. (2000). The Black Pharaohs. Egypt’s Nubian Rulers. London.
Morkot, R.G. (2003). On the Priestly Origin of the Napatan Kings: The Adaptation,
Demise and Resurrection of Ideas in Writing Nubian History. in: O’Connor–Reid
(eds) 2003 151–168.
Moyer, I.S. (2002). Herodotus and an Egyptian Mirage: The Genealogies of the Theban
Priests. JHS 122 70–90.
Murray, O. (1970). Hecataeus of Abdera and Pharaonic Kingship. JEA 56 141–171.
Murray, O. (2001). Herodotus and Oral History. in: Luraghi (ed.) 2001 16–44.
Myres, J.L. (1953). Herodotus. Father of History. Oxford.
Nenci, G. (ed.) (1990). Hérodote et les peuples non Grecs (Entretiens de la Fondation Hardt
35). Vandœuvres-Genève.
bibliography 147
O’Connor, D. (1993). Ancient Nubia. Egypt’s Rival in Africa. Philadelphia.

O’Connor, D.–A. Reid (eds) (2003). Ancient Egypt in Africa. London.
O’Connor, D.–D.P. Silverman (eds) (1995). Ancient Egyptian Kingship. Leiden-New York-
Köln.
Onasch, H.-U. (1994). Die assyrischen Eroberungen Ägyptens I. Kommentare und Anmer-
kungen. Wiesbaden.
Osborne, R. (2002). Archaic Greek History. in: Bakker–de Jong–van Wees (eds) 2002
497–520.
Pamminger, P. (1992). Amun und Luxor—Der Widder und das Kultbild. BzS 5 93–
140.
Parlasca, K. (1999). Bedeutung und Problematik der Mumienporträts und ihr kul-
turelles Umfeld. in: Parlasca–Seemann (eds) 1999 23–48.
Parlasca, K.–H. Seemann (eds) (1999). Augenblicke. Mumienportäts und ägyptische
Grabkunst aus römischer Zeit. München.
Pliny, NH VI. see Desanges 2008.
[PM II] B. Porter–R. Moss: Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic
Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings II. Theban Temples. Oxford 1972.
[PM VII] B. Porter–R. Moss: Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hiero-
glyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings VII. Nubia. The Deserts and Outside Egypt. Oxford
1952.
Posener, G. (1936). La Première Domination perse en Égypte. Le Caire.
Press, G.A. (1982/2003). The Development of the Idea of History in Antiquity (McGill-
Queen’s Studies in the History of Ideas. Ed. R.H. Popkin 2). Montreal & Kingston-
London-Ithaca (reprint edn. 2003).
Pritchett, W.K. (1993). The Liar School of Herodotus. Amsterdam.
Quirke, S.G. (1996a). Narrative Literature. in: Loprieno (ed.) 1996 263–276.
Quirke, S.G. (1996b). Archive. in: Loprieno (ed.) 1996 379–401.
Raaflaub, K.A. (2002). Philosophy, Science, Politics: Herodotus and the Intellectual
Trends of His Time. in: Bakker–de Jong–van Wees (eds) 2002 149–186.
[RE] Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Stuttgart.
Redford, D.B. (1986). Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals and Day-Books. A Contribution to the
Study of the Egyptian Sense of History. Mississauga.
Redford, D.B. (1992). Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton.
Reid, D.M. (2002). Whose Pharaohs? Archaeology, Museums, and Egyptian National
Identity from Napoleon to World War I. Cairo.
Riggs, C. (2005). The Beautiful Burial in Roman Egypt. Art, Identity, and Funerary Reli-
gion. Oxford.
Riggs, C. (ed.) (2012). The Oxford Handbook of Roman Egypt. Oxford.
Rilly, C. (2007). La langue du royaume de Méroé. Un panorama de la plus ancienne culture
écrite d’Afrique subsaharienne. Paris.
148 bibliography
Ritoók, Zs. (2006). “Az embernél nincs csodálatosabb” [“There is nothing more wonder-
ful than man”]. in: Gy. Németh–Zs. Ritoók–J. Sarkady–J.Gy. Szilágyi: Görög művelő-
déstörténet [The history of ancient Greek culture]. Budapest 405–450.
Roeder, G. (1960). Kulte, Orakel und Naturverehrung im Alten Ägypten. Zürich-Stuttgart.
Rollinger, R. (1993). Herodots Babylonischer Logos. Eine kritische Untersuchung der
Glaubwürdigkeitsdiskussion. Innsbruck.
Rollinger, R.–B. Truschnegg–R. Bichler (eds) (2011). Herodot und das Persische Weltreich.
Herodotus and the Persian Empire (Akten des 3. Internationalen Kolloquiums zum
Thema “Vorderasien im Spannungsfeld klassischer und altorientalischer Überliefer-
ungen” Innsbruck, 24.-28. November 2008) (R. Bichler–B. Jacobs–G.B. Lanfranchi et
al. [eds]: Classica et Orientalia 3). Wiesbaden.
Romm, J.S. (1992). The Edges of the Earth in Ancient Thought. Princeton.
Rood, T. (2006). Herodotus and Foreign Lands. in: Dewald-Marincola (eds) 2006 290–
305.
Rosén, H.B. (1987). Herodoti Historiae ed. H.B. Rosén I. Leipzig.
Römer, M. (1994). Gottes- und Priesterherrschaft in Ägypten am Ende des Neuen Reiches.
Ein religionsgeschichtliches Phänomen und seine sozialen Grundlagen. Wiesbaden.
Rösler, W. (2002). The Histories and Writing. in: Bakker–de Jong–van Wees (eds) 2002
79–94.
Russmann, E.[R.] (1974). The Representation of the King in the XXVth Dynasty. Bruxelles.
Saïd, S. (2002). Herodotus and Tragedy. in: Bakker–de Jong–van Wees (eds) 2002 117–147.
Sauneron, S.–J. Yoyotte (1952). Le campagne nubienne de Psammetique II et sa signifi-
cation historique. BIFAO 50 157–207.
Säve-Söderbergh, T. (1941). Ägypten und Nubien. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte altägyp-
tischer Aussenpolitik. Lund.
Säve-Söderbergh, T.–L. Troy (1991). New Kingdom Pharaonic Sites. The Finds and the
Sites (The Scandinavian Joint Expedition to Sudanese Nubia Publications 5:2, 5:3).
Uppsala.
Schwabl, H. (ed.) (1961). Grecs et Barbares (Entretiens de la Fondation Hardt 8).
Vandeuvres-Genève.
Scullion, S. (2006). Herodotus and Greek Religion. in: Dewald–Marincola (eds) 2006
192–208.
Seipel, W. (ed.) (1998). Bilder aus dem Wüstensand. Mumienporträts aus dem Ägyp-
tischen Museum Kairo. [Catalogue of the exhibition in the] Kunsthistorisches Mu-
seum Wien 20. Oktober 1998 bis 24. Jänner 1999. Wien.
Sethe, K. (1900). Sesostris. Leipzig.
de Sélincourt–Marincola (2003). see Herodotus.
Shafer, B.E. (ed.) (1997). Temples of Ancient Egypt. Ithaca-New York.
Shaw, I. (ed.) (2000). The Oxford History of Egypt. Oxford.
Shinnie, P.L. (1967). Meroe: A Civilization of the Sudan. London.
bibliography 149
Shinnie, P.L. (1978). The Nilotic Sudan and Ethiopia c. 660B.C. to c. A.D. 600. in: J. Fage
(ed.): The Cambridge History of Africa II. Cambridge 210–271.
Shinnie, P.L. (1996). Ancient Nubia. London-New York.
Shirun-Grumach, I. (ed.) (1998). Jerusalem Studies in Egyptology. Wiesbaden.
Slings, S.R. (2002). Oral Strategies in the Language of Herodotus. in: Bakker–de Jong–
van Wees (eds) 2002 53–78.
Smith, S.T. (1995). Askut in Nubia. The Economics and Ideology of Egyptian Imperialism
in the Second Millennium BC. London-New York.
Smith, S.T. (2003). Wretched Kush. Ethnic Identities and Boundaries in Egypt’s Nubian
Empire. London-New York.
Sourdille, C. (1910). La durée et l’entendue du voyage d’Hérodote en Égypte. Paris.
Spencer, N. (2010). Priests and Temples: Pharaonic. in: Lloyd (ed.) 2010 255–273.
Spiegelberg, W. (1926). Die Glaubwürdigkeit von Herodots Bericht über Ägypten im Lichte
der ägyptischen Denkmäler. Heidelberg [English edn. The Credibility of Herodotus’
Account of Egypt in the Light of the Egyptian Monuments. Trans. A.M. Blackman.
Oxford 1927].
Stein, H. (1893). Herodotus, erklärt von H. Stein II. Buch 3. Berlin.
Tait, J. (2003). The Wisdom of Egypt: Classical Views. in: P. Ucko–T. Champion (eds):
The Wisdom of Egypt: Changing Visions through the Ages. London 23–37.
Taylor, J. (2000). The Third Intermediate Period (1069–664BC). in: Shaw (ed.) 2000
330–368.
Thomas, R. (2000). Herodotus in Context: Ethnography, Science and the Art of Persuasion.
Cambridge.
Thomas, R. (2006). The Intellectual Milieu of Herodotus. in: Dewald–Marincola (eds)
2006 60–75.
Thomson, J.A.K. (1935). The Art of the Logos. London.
Török, L. (1986). Der meroitische Staat 1. Untersuchungen und Urkunden zur Geschichte
des Sudan im Altertum (Meroitica 9). Berlin.
Török, L. (1987). The Royal Crowns of Kush. A Study in Middle Nile Valley Regalia and
Iconography in the 1st Millennia B.C. and A.D. (Cambridge Monographs in African
Archaeology 18). Oxford.
Török, L. (1988). Geschichte Meroes. Ein Beitrag über die Quellenlage und den For-
schungsstand. in: ANRW II.10.1. Berlin-New York 107–341.
Török, L. (1989). Kush and the External World. Meroitica 10 49–215, 365–379.
Török, L. (1992). Amasis and Ergamenes. in: U. Luft (ed.): Intellectual Heritage of Egypt.
Studies Presented to László Kákosy (StudAeg 14). Budapest 555–561.
Török, L. (1995a). The Emergence of the Kingdom of Kush and Her Myth of the State
in the First Millennium BC. Actes de la VIIIe Conférence Internationale des Études
Nubiennes Lille 11–17 Septembre 1994 I. Communications principales (CRIPEL 17). Lille
203–228.
150 bibliography
Török, L. (1995b). The Birth of An Ancient African Kingdom. Kush and Her Myth of the
State in the First Millennium BC (CRIPEL Suppl. 4). Lille.
Török, L. (1997a). The Kingdom of Kush. Handbook of the Napatan-Meroitic Civilization
(Handbook of Oriental Studies Section One. The Near and Middle East 31). Leiden-New
York-Köln.
Török, L. (1997b). Meroe City An Ancient African Capital. John Garstang’s Excavations
in the Sudan. With contributions by I. Hofmann and I. Nagy I–II (Egypt Exploration
Society Occasional Publications 12). London.
Török, L. (1998). A Periphery on the Periphery of the Ancient World? Ancient Nubia in
Six New Books on the Middle Nile Region. SO 73 201–217.
Török, L. (1999). On the Foundations of Kingship Ideology in the Empire of Kush. A
Contribution to R. Morkot’s Main Paper. in: Wenig (ed.) 1999 273–287.
Török, L. (2002). The Image of the Ordered World in Ancient Nubian Art. The Construction
of the Kushite Mind (800BC–300AD) (Probleme der Ägyptologie 18). Leiden-Boston-
Köln.
Török, L. (2008). From Chiefdom to “Segmentary State”. Meroitic Studies: A Personal
View. in: Godlewski–Łajtar (eds) 2008 149–178.
Török, L. (2009). Between Two Worlds. The Frontier Region between Ancient Nubia and
Egypt 3700BC–500AD (Probleme der Ägyptologie 29). Leiden-Boston.
Török, L. (2011a). Hellenizing Art in Ancient Nubia 300BC–AD 250 and its Egyptian Mod-
els. A Study in “Acculturation” (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 53).
Leiden-Boston.
Török, L. (2011b). Adoption and Adaptation. The Sense of Culture Transfer between An-
cient Nubia and Egypt. Budapest.
Török, L. (2011c). A Periphery on the Periphery of the Ancient World. The Discovery
of Nubia in the Nineteenth Century. in: G. Klaniczay–M. Werner–O. Gecser (eds):
Multiple Antiquities—Multiple Modernities. Ancient Histories in Nineteenth Century
European Cultures. Frankfurt-New York 365–380.
Török, L. (2013). Egypt’s Southern Frontier Revisited. in: Jesse–Vogel (eds) 2013 53–
70.
Trigger, B.G. (1976). Nubia under the Pharaohs. London.
Trigger, B.G.–B.J. Kemp–D. O’Connor–A.B. Lloyd (1983). Ancient Egypt. A Social History.
Cambridge.
Troy, L. (1986). Patterns of Queenship in Ancient Egyptian Myth and History. Uppsala.
Updegraff, R.T. (1978). A Study of the Blemmyes. Ph.D. thesis Brandeis University. Uni-
versity Microfilms Ann Arbor.
Updegraff, R.T. (1988). The Blemmyes I: The Rise of the Blemmyes and the Roman
Withdrawal from Nubia under Diocletian. With Additional Remarks by L. Török. in:
ANRW II.10.1 44–97, 97–106.
[Urk. III] H. Schäfer: Urkunden der älteren Äthiopenkönige. Leipzig 1905.
bibliography 151
[Urk. IV] K. Sethe–W. Helck: Urkunden der 18. Dynastie. Leipzig-Berlin 1906–1958.
Valbelle, D. (2012). Les stèles de l’an 3 d’Aspelta. Avec une annexe de C. Rilly (BdÉ 154).
Le Caire.
Vannicelli, P. (2001). Herodotus’ Egypt and the Foundations of Universal History. in:
Luraghi (ed.) 2001 211–240.
Vikentieff, V. (1930). La haute crue du Nil et l’averse de l’an 6 du roi Taharqa. Le
Caire.
Vincentelli, I. (2006). Hillat El-Arab. The Joint Sudanese-Italian Expedition in the Nap-
atan Region, Sudan (Sudan Archaeological Research Society Publication Number 15).
London.
Vittmann, G. (2011). Ägypten zur Zeit der Perserherrschaft. in: Rollinger et al. (eds) 2011
373–429.
Wainwright, G.A. (1952). The Date of the Rise of Meroe. JEA 38 75–77.
Walser, G. (1966). Die Völkerschaften auf den Reliefs von Persepolis. Berlin.
Waters, K.H. (1985). Herodotos the Historian. His Problems, Methods, and Originality.
London-Norman, Oklahoma.
van Wees, H. (2002). Herodotus and the Past. in: Bakker–de Jong–van Wees (eds) 2002
321–349.
Weigall, A.E.P. (1907). A Report on the Antiquities of Lower Nubia (the First Cataract to
the Sudan Frontier) and Their Condition in 1906–1907. Oxford.
Welsby, D.A. (1996). The Kingdom of Kush. The Napatan and Meroitic Empires. Lon-
don.
Wenig, S. (1978). Africa in Antiquity. The Arts of Ancient Nubia and the Sudan II. The
Catalogue. Brooklyn.
Wenig, S. (ed.) (1999). Studien zum antiken Sudan. Akten der 7. Internationalen Tagung
für meroitistische Forschungen vom 14. bis 19. September 1992 in Gosen/bei Berlin
(Meroitica 15). Wiesbaden.
West, S. (2011). Herodotus’ Sources of Information on Persian Matters. in: Rollinger et
al. 2011 255–272.
Yoyotte, J. (1951). Le martelage des noms royaux éthiopiens par Psammetique II. REgypt
8 215–239.
Zibelius-Chen, K. (1988). Die ägyptische Expansion nach Nubien. Eine Darlegung der
Grundfaktoren. Wiesbaden.
Zibelius-Chen, K. (1994). Zur Entstehung des kuschitischen Reiches. Ein Beitrag zu
László Török’s Hauptreferat “The Genesis of the Kingdom of Kush and Her Myth
of the State in the First Millennium BC”. in: F. Geus (ed.): Nubia Thirty Years Later.
Pre-publication of Main Papers, Society for Nubian Studies Eighth International Con-
ference. Lille 1–18.
Zibelius-Chen, K. (1996). Das nachkoloniale Nubien: Politische Fragen der Entstehung
des kuschitischen Reiches. in: Gundlach et al. (eds) 1996 195–217.
152 bibliography
Zibelius-Chen, K. (2011). “Nubisches” Sprachmaterial in hieroglyphischen und hiera-

tischen Texten. Personennamen, Appellativa, Phrasen vom Neuen Reich bis in die nap-
atanische und meroitische Zeit (Meroitica 25). Wiesbaden.
Zivie, C. (1982). Memphis. LÄ IV (1982) 24–41.
General Index
Recurrent names as Africa, Aithiopia (Αἰθιοπία), Aithiopians (except for long-

lived Aithiopians), (Lower, Middle, and Upper) Egypt, Egyptians, Greece,
Greeks, Herodotus, (Kingdom of) Kush, (Kingdom of) Meroe, Middle Nile
Region, (Lower and Upper) Nubia, Persia, Persians are not listed. Greek names
and expressions and names transcribed from Egyptian are referred to accord-
ing to the order of the Latin alphabet.
Abu Hamed 85 Amun-Re 82, 88, 104–105

Abusir el-Melek 109 Anaximander 133
acculturation 5–6 Anlamani 91
Adikhalamani 103 Antinoopolis 110
Aeolians of Mytilene 55 Anukis 70
Agatharchides of Cnidus 98–103 Anysis (city) 29, 73
Aghurmi 82–83 Anysis (king) 29, 44, 73, 79, 124
Ahmose II 28, 75, 82 Apries 30, 75, 132
Ahriman 106, 131 Arabians 39, 111, 115
Αἰθίοπες μακρόβιοι x ἀρχαί see satrapies, Persian
Αἰθίοπες μακρόβιοι see also long-lived ἀρχαιολογία (early history) 61
Aithiopians archaism 66–71
Αἰθιοπικός x, 28 archives, Kushite 71–73
Αἰθιοπίς x, 28 Arkamaniqo (Ergamenes) 102
Αἰθίοψ x, 28, 92 Arsames 39
Akhmim (ḫnty Mnw) 55 Artabanus 133
ἀκοή (hearsay) 31, 54–67, 84 Artaxerxes I 12, 27, 52
ἀκοή see also hearsay Artystone 39
Alara 87–88 Ashurbanipal 22–23
Amada 8–11 ἀσμάχ (Egyptian smḥy, “left”) see Asmach;
Amani-nataki-lebte 95 Deserters
Amanislo 102 Asmach (Deserters) 31–32, 90
Amasis 22, 29–30, 44, 46, 60, 73, 94, 103 Aspelta 24, 25, 88–89, 91, 104–105
Amasis see also Ahmose II Assyria, Assyrians 20–24, 49, 74, 78, 79, 90, 125
ambulatory kingship 7 Asychis 29, 74
Amenemhat III 70 Athene 47
Amenemnisu 21 Athenians 133
Ammonians 30, 32–33, 36, 40, 44, 46, 49, Athribis (Tell Atrib) 22
82–83 autochthonous peoples 37, 46, 113
Ammon of Siwa 47 αὐτομόλοι 84
Amonirdis II 24 Automoloi (Deserters) 31–32, 90
Amun 18, 23, 24, 70, 82–83, 87, 89, 102, 125 αὐτομόλοι see also Automoloi, Deserters
Amun, Nubian cults 83, 125 autopsy 54–63
Amun of Thebes/Karnak 48, 88 autopsy see also ὄψις
154 general index
Babylon, Babylonians 43, 49, 50 Cyrenaica 90

Bagrawiya see Begarawiya Cyrus 39, 133, 134
Bakenranef 74, 76
Bꜣ-r-wꜣ (Egyptian [city of] Meroe) 85 dahyāva (Persian “lists of peoples”) 112
βάρβαροι (non-Greeks) 58 damnatio memoriae 25, 80
Bedja 84 Daphnai 31, 90
Begarawiya 4, 81, 100, 102, 103 Darius I 26, 38, 39, 44–45, 46, 51, 65, 81,
Beluchistan x 106–107, 110, 111–113, 116, 134
Birket el-Qarun see Moeris, Lake Darius II 27
Blemmyans 84–85 date palm 116
blindness 29, 74 death penalty 29, 121
Bocchoris see Bakenranef decree, divine 105
boundaries of earth see ends of the earth Dedwen 69
bow 34, 38, 107, 116 δεισιδαιμονία (superstition) 99
Bubastis 29 Delta (Nile-) 46
Buhen 69 Deserters 30–32, 44, 50, 84, 90–91
diadem, Egyptian 25
Callantian Indians 37, 111 diadem, Kushite 25
Cambyses 6, 24, 25, 32–37, 43, 44, 46, 49, 50, digression 40–42
51, 59, 77, 81, 93–97, 105–111, 115, 125, 131, 132, δίκη see cosmic order
133 Dionysus 37
cannibalism 36, 111 Dionysus (Osiris) 86, 87
carob tree 116 dodecarchy 18, 75
Carthago, Carthaginians 32, 33, 49, 95, 97 Δωδεκάσχοινος (the Land of the Twelve Miles)
cave-dwellers see Trog[l]odytes 84
C-Group culture 83 Dokki Gel (Kerma) 24
Chad 114 Dorginarti 27
Chemmis 55 Dorians of Cnidos 55
choinix (dry measure) 112 Dorians of Halicarnassus 55
chronology of the Aithiopian passages Dorians of Phaselis 55
50–53 Dorians of Rhodes 55
chronological structure of Egyptian history dramatic form 105
52 dream 29, 73–80, 122
clothing, priestly 119 dream oracle as mechanism of decision-
coffins (of the Meroites) 35, 108–110 making 122
Colchians 111 δυώδεκα βασιλέας (rule of twelve kings) 18
Coptos 64 Ḏw-wꜥb (“Pure-mountain”, Egyptian name of
cosmic order 129 the sacred mountain of Gebel Barkal and
cosmic order see also global balance of Napata) 104
cosmology 92
covenant 87 ebony 38, 111, 116
Crophi 47 Eighteenth Dynasty 4
customs 33–34, 46, 49, 54, 98–103, 111, 113 Ekhnaton 102
Cyclopes 110 Elbo 73, 79
Cyprus 33 elephant 38, 112, 116
general index 155
elephant ivory 111, 116 Harsiyotef 77, 89, 91

Elephantine 9, 12, 30, 31, 33, 44, 46, 47, 48, ḫꜣst Pr-nbs (the hill-country of Pnubs
56, 57, 84, 90, 96, 113 [Kerma]) 24
el Kurru 100, 101 Ἅσυχιν 74
Ellesiya 69 hearsay 54, 57
Eltekeh 21 Hecataeus of Miletus 12, 62, 126
ends of the earth 38, 52–53, 92–97, 112, Heliopolis, Heliopolitans 12, 55
114–116 ἡλίου τράπεζα see Table of the Sun
entertaining 127–130 Hephaestus (Ptah of Memphis) 60, 123, 124
ἔργα μεγάλα (great accomplishments) 41–53 Heracleopolis 20, 23
Ergamenes 98–103 Heracleopolis Parva 73
Esarhaddon 22, 59 Heracles 30, 82, 132
ἔσχατοι ἀνδρῶν (the most distant of men) 92, Hermopolis 20, 23
93 ἵστωρ 40
eulogy 73 historical memory, Kushite 71–73
expansion, expansionism 110–111, 131, ἱστορίη ([personal] inquiry, research, study)
133–134 1, 54–62
Hittites 118
Fayum 55 Homer 14, 40, 42, 93, 95, 110
Fifth Cataract x, 21, 85 Horus-the-Saviour 81
First Cataract x, 8, 27, 30, 84, 91, 92, 111 Horus gods, Nubian local 69
First Intermediate Period 18
First Persian Period 26, 27, 44, 45, 51 ἰχθυοφάγοι see Fish-eaters
Fish-eaters 33–36, 96, 97 Idanthyrsus 134
fish taboo 119 Inaros 12, 27, 59, 81
flood (Nile) see inundation (Nile) incubatio 76
fortress 27 India, Indians 43, 50, 53, 92, 108, 112, 115
Fourth Cataract 2, 4, 24, 69, 85 information, informants 54–73 passim, 84,
fringes of the world see ends of the earth 97, 130
furthest place see ends of the earth inundation (Nile) 47–48, 63–64, 74, 125
Ionians of Chios 55
Gaza 20 Ionians of Clazomenae 55
Gebel Agg 69 Ionians of Phocaea 55
Gebel Barkal 100 Ionians of Theos 55
Gebel Dosha 69 ʾIpt-swt (Egyptian name of Karnak and the
Gebel es-Silsileh 48 Amun temple at Napata) 72
gift exchange 26, 33–35, 36–37, 44, 45, 81, Irike-Amannote 85, 88, 91
111–113, 116–117 ıʾsft (Egyptian “chaos”) 96
global balance 115 Israel 20
γνώμη (judgement) 54–62 Issedones 93, 110, 131
γνώμη see also judgement Iuput II 119
God’s Wife of Amun 19 ʾIwntyw see Trog[l]odytes
gold 34, 35, 38, 108, 116
Gyges 23 judgement 54–62
judgement see also γνώμη
156 general index
kꜣ (Egyptian “life force”) 70 Maharraqa x

Kadimalo 69, 70 Makran x
Karnak 12, 62 Malowiebamani 70
Kashta 19, 70, 101, 102 Manetho 51, 57, 73, 75
κατόπται see spies Marea 31, 90
kꜣwꜣr (ruler) 24 marvels 49, 115–116
Karnak 48 Massagetae 43, 50, 53, 110, 133, 134
Kawa 6, 64, 70, 83, 87, 89, 91 Matanah 64
Kerma 6, 24 Meander (Maiandros) 31
Kerma culture 83 Megabaroi 85
Khartoum 69 Mekhty 89
Khonsu 70, 82 memory, personal, of Herodotus’ own
king-lists, Egyptian 56–73 generation 81
king-lists, Kushite 71–73 Memphis 20, 21, 22, 23, 36, 48, 54–59, 68, 76,
kingship, Egyptian 59, 79, 96, 122 78, 79, 118–125
kingship, Kushite 64–80, 98–103, 104–111, Memphis, Ptah temple 54, 56–60, 61, 64–65,
121–125 118–125
king’s novel 104 Memphite Theology of Creation 68, 71, 121
κολοσσοὺς ξυλίνους (wooden statues) 62 Mendes 22
Korosko 85 Menelaos 92
Ḳrtj 48 Mentuhotep III 70
Kumma 69 Meroe, city of 6, 15, 17, 26, 30, 31, 49, 81,
Kurru see el Kurru 84–91
kwr (king [of Kush]) 24 Meshwesh 20, 90
Middle Kingdom 27
Labyrinth (Amenemhat III’s mortuary temple, Min (Menes) 46, 52, 54, 60, 133
Hawara) 55 Mirgissa 27
Laestrygonians 110 Moeris (king) 52, 55, 60
Lake Nasser x Mophi 47
Libya, Libyans 33, 37, 38, 43, 45, 46, 50, 53, Mut 70
82, 90, 108, 112, 113, 114 myth of the state, Kushite 7
λογισμός (reason) 99
λογιώτατοι (learned men) 55 Napata 4, 6, 20, 21, 24, 69, 83, 88, 89, 102
λογοποιός (logos-maker) 62 Naqsh-i Rustem 116
λόγος (oral report, story, prose text) 11, narrative manners and techniques 40–53,
40–43, 49–53 126–136
logos, structure 40–53 narrative unity of the Histories 126–136
long-lived Aithiopians x, 18, 32–36, 38, 46, Nastasene 77, 88, 91
49, 50, 53, 91–97, 103–111, 131–134 Naucratis 55
lustratio 77–78, 122 nb tꜣwy (Lord-of-Two-lands) 22
Lydia 43, 50 Necos 30, 74, 79
Nefertum 70
mꜣꜥt (Egyptian “equity”) 96 Neith 47, 64
machimoi 90 Neith-Iqeret 24
Machloiones 90 Nekau I 22, 23, 79
general index 157
Nekau II 75, 81, 114 Petosiris 110

New Kingdom 2, 5, 18, 27 Petra son of Pshenpoêr 85
Nile 31, 32, 37, 44, 46, 47–48, 63–64, 81, Pheros (king of Egypt, from Egyptian pr-ꜥꜣ,
84–85, 91, 96, 114, 119–120 “pharaoh”) 74, 132
Nile, heavenly 63 Philae 84, 85, 116
Nimlot 20, 23, 119 Philippos 132
Nineveh 22 Philistia 21, 22
Nitocris (Egyptian queen [Sixth Dynasty]) Phoenicia, Phoenicians 21, 33, 37
56 Piankhy 19–21, 23, 24, 59, 67, 68, 70, 75, 76,
Nitocris see Neith-iqeret 78, 79, 88, 102, 119–120
nomads 31, 84 piromis (Egyptian pꜣ rmṯ, “man”) 62
νόμοι (laws and customs) 41–53 Pir’u 75
Nuri 81, 100 Plutarch 41
Nysa 37, 111–112 Pnubs see Kerma
poetry 15
Ocean (ποταμός Οκεανοἴο) 92 political history 41–53, 127 and passim
Odysseus 107 Polycrates 127, 132
Old Cairo/Babylon 48 Prexaspes 77–78
Old Kingdom 2 Pr-nbw (The House of Gold, Egyptian name of
omission, deliberate 60 the Amun temple at Napata) 72
Opet festival 82 priests 25, 29, 47, 54–73, 98–103, 118–125
ὄψις (autopsy) 54, 80 προσθήκη (digression) 40–42
oracle 29, 30, 71, 73–80, 82–83, 85, 86–89, προξενία (guestfriendship) 106
99–100, 104–105, 121–124, 132 Psammenitus 94, 132
oral informant 14 Psammetichus 30, 31–32, 44, 47, 50, 52, 74,
oral literature 14 79, 90
Orestes 132 Psammis 30, 44, 45, 80–81
Ormuz 106, 131 Psamtek I 16, 22, 23, 44, 47, 50, 51, 52, 64, 74,
Oroetes 127 75, 79, 81, 90
Osiris 85 Psamtek II 24, 25, 30, 44, 45, 46, 51, 75, 80–81,
Osorkon, crown prince 100 110
Osorkon III 19 Psamtek III 26, 75, 94
Osorkon IV 74, 119 Psaumis 80
Ptah-Nun 70
Padaei 110 Ptah-Sokaris 81
Padichons 109 Ptolemy II 98
παρενθήκη (insertion) 40–42 Ptolemy VI 116
pataikos 81 purity, ritual 118–120
pater historiae 1 Pythius 77, 78, 122
Peftjauawybast 20, 23, 119
Peloponnesian War 52 Qasr Ibrim 69
Pelusium 23 qore ([Meroitic] ruler) 24
Pepy II 21 Quellenforschung 11–14, 17–18
persea 116
Persepolis, Apadana 26, 116 Rameses II 48, 57, 82
158 general index
Rameses IX 21 Sheshonq III 18, 74

Red Sea 79, 81, 85, 96 Siwa Oasis 30, 44, 46, 82–83
renaissance (Egyptian wḥm msw.t, “repeating Solon 133
the birth”) 67 Sotades 26
revolts, anti-Persian 26–27 source, written 15
Rock People 114 σπέρμα (sperm) 111
Roda 48 spies 32–37, 43, 49, 96–97, 105–109, 131
royal inscriptions, Kushite 6, 17 Ššnk 74
royal investiture, Kushite 6–7, 77–80 state, Kushite 4–7
royal necklace, Kushite 25 statues see κολοσσοὺς ξυλίνους
royal titularies, Egyptian 26 Sudan 114
royal titularies, Kushite 25–26, 70, 71–73 Susa 26, 111
Rudamun 19 Syene (Aswan) 12, 47
Syria 20, 30
Sabacos 29–30, 44, 50, 51, 73–80, 86, 120, 121,
124 Table of the Sun 15, 32–33, 35, 43, 49, 96–97,
Šꜣ-bꜣ-kꜣ see Shabaqo 108
Šꜣ-bꜣ-tꜣ-kꜣ see Shebitqo taboo 118–120
sacrifice, human 78 Tꜣ dhnt 24
sacrifice, animal 82 Taharqo 21–23, 24, 64, 67, 70, 86, 87, 121
Sais 20, 22, 23, 30, 47, 74, 76, 79, 96 Takelot II 18
Saite period 27 Takelot III 19
Saite period see also Twenty-Sixth Dynasty Takompso 31, 84
Samaria 21 Tꜣ-nḥsy (“Bow-land”, Egyptian name of Nubia)
Sanam 24 112
Satis 70 Tanis 24, 63, 64
satrapies, Persian 111–113 Tanwetamani 23, 67, 75, 77, 90, 123
Scythia, Scythians 43, 50, 93, 99, 108, 131, 134 Taracos 75
Sebichos 75 Tebu 114
Second Cataract x, 27, 111 Tefnakht 20, 76, 78–79
Second Intermediate Period 18 Telemachos 107
Sekhmet 70 tell settlement 76
Sembritae 90 Thebes, Thebans 8–9, 12, 19, 22, 23, 32, 36,
Semna 69, 70 47, 60–63, 68, 82–83, 100, 119
Sennacherib 21, 124 Thebes, Amun temple and its priests 60–63,
Senusret I 51, 65–71, 123 68, 82–83, 100, 119–125
Senusret III 51, 65–71, 121, 123 theocracy, Twenty-First Dynasty 100
Sesostris 28, 29, 44, 45, 51, 52, 60, 64–71, 74, Third Cataract 24
76, 120, 121, 123 Third Intermediate Period 18, 19, 27
Sethos 52, 54, 60, 61, 123 θώματα (marvels) 41–53
Shabaqo 21, 44, 45, 67, 75–80, 121 θώματα see also marvels
Shebitqo 21, 52, 60, 61, 67, 75, 78, 121, 123 Thrace, Thracians 43, 50, 112
Shellal 24 Thucydides 127–128, 134, 135
Shepenwepet II 24 Thutmose III 88
Sheshonq I 74 Tibesti mountains 114
general index 159
Tiglath-Pileser III 20 Uronarti 69

Tomyris 134 utopia 93–97, 103–113, 131
tragedy 15, 95
trees 38, 116 visitor-inscription 8–9
Trgb 24
tribute 111–113, 116 Wadi Halfa 27
τρωγοδύται; τρωγλοδύται see wꜣḏ wr (Egyptian “Great Green”, name of the
Trog[l]odytes Mediterranean Sea, the Red Sea, and the
Trog[l]odytes 38, 46, 96, 111, 113–114 Lake Moeris) 79
Tuna el-Gebel 110 warriors, Kushite 26, 38–39, 116–117
Twelfth Dynasty 51, 65–71 wonder (Egyptian bjꜣjt) 64, 88
Twenty-Fifth Dynasty 18, 25, 27, 45, 50, 51, written sources 57–73, 118–125
52, 57, 67–71, 121–125
Twenty-Fourth Dynasty 74 ξεῖνός (friend, protector) 34, 106
Twenty-Second Dynasty 18–19, 74 Xerxes I 26, 27, 38, 45, 46, 51, 77, 81, 110, 116,
Twenty-Seventh Dynasty 26, 27, 51 132, 133
Twenty-Sixth Dynasty 28, 45, 51, 52, 58, 60,
67, 75, 80, 82, 111, 123 Zeus Ammon of Cyrene 83
Twenty-Third Dynasty 19, 74 Zeus Ammon of Siwa 82–83
tyranny 134 Zeus (Amun) 30, 36, 46, 62, 82–83, 86, 87, 89,
132
Udjahorresnet 125 Zoroastrians 107
universal historical space 132–133
Index Locorum
Aelius Aristides Epiphanius of Salamis

Or. De XII gemmis
36.41–52 10 19–21 96
Aeschylus Eratosthenes see Strabo

TrGF
F 329 M 93, 131 Hecataeus of Abdera see
Diodorus 1.69.7
Agatharchides of Cnidus
fragments 62a–65 Hecataeus of Miletus
113 FGrHist 1
in Diodorus 3.2.1–7.3 F 298 111
98
in Diodorus 3.33.2 Herodotus
114 proem 128, 129
Book I
Cicero 1.5 127
De Divinatione 1.6–94 43
2.56.116 10 1.46 83
De legibus 1.68 132
1.1.5 1 1.106 108
Tusc. 1.181–184 49
1.108 109 1.184 49
1.184–187 50
Ctesias of Cnidus 1.192–200 43
FGrHist 688 1.201–204 53
T8 10 1.201–216 43
1.205 50
Diodorus of Sicily 1.206 134
1.3 116 1.207 108
1.66.8 81 1.211 108
1.67.9 81 1.213 50
1.69.7 10 1.215 53
1.92.6 109 1.216 53, 110
3.5.1 104 Book II
15.43 68 2.1–3.16 43
2.1–3.38 46
Dionysius of Halicarnassus 2.1–3.66 96
Letter to Gnaeus Pompeius 2.2 118
3 126 2.2–34 46
2.3 55
2.4 60
index locorum 161
2.5 46 2.108 76
2.8.3 12 2.110 28, 44, 45, 51, 64, 80, 120, 121
2.11m 28 2.111 74, 132
2.12 28 2.120 132
2.15–28 47 2.121 108
2.18 47, 83 2.125 55
2.19–20 63 2.127 28
2.20–23 47 2.132 60
2.20–22 63 2.134 28
2.22 28 2.136 74
2.23 92 2.137 28, 29, 44, 45, 51, 73, 75, 78,
2.28 28, 47 80, 86, 98, 120, 121, 122
2.28–34 83 2.137–140 78
2.29 9, 47, 56, 83 2.139 28, 29, 44, 45, 51, 73, 78, 80,
2.29–31 6, 30–32, 41, 44, 46, 50, 51, 52, 86, 98, 120, 121, 122, 132
84, 120, 121, 122 2.140 28, 73
2.30 16, 80, 90, 91 2.141 90, 123, 124
2.31 91 2.142 61
2.32 83 2.143 12, 62
2.35 99 2.145 133
2.35–98 46, 54, 82 2.146 28, 112
2.37–76 46 2.147 80
2.41 118 2.147–148 18, 75
2.42 28, 30, 44, 46, 51, 82, 120 2.147–182 80
2.43 133 2.148 55
2.46 60 2.150 55
2.47 60 2.151–152 18, 75
2.48 60 2.151–153 74
2.51 60 2.152 29–30, 44, 45, 51, 73, 74, 79,
2.55 83 80, 120, 121
2.61 60 2.160–161 80
2.62 60 2.161 30, 44, 46, 50, 51, 80, 120
2.77 13, 61 2.162 132
2.81 60 2.164–168 90
2.83 99, 122 2.169 132
2.85–88 108 2.170 60
2.86 28, 60 2.171 60
2.91 55, 132 2.176 28
2.92 48 2.178 55, 103
2.99 54, 60 2.178–180 55
2.99–182 46, 73, 120 Book III
2.100 28, 56, 57, 59 3.1–38 94
2.102–110 65 3.4 108
2.104 28 3.5 97
2.106 28 3.11 78
162 index locorum
Book III (cont.) Book IV

3.14 94, 132 4.5–82 43
3.17 x, 94, 115 4.8 92
3.17–18 43 4.23 93, 131
3.17–25 93, 94, 120, 121 4.26 93, 110, 131
3.17–26 15, 18, 24, 32–36, 41, 42, 43, 4.30 41
44, 49, 50, 51, 53, 97, 110, 115, 4.36 92
131 4.59–82 50
3.18 15, 49, 97 4.82 132
3.19 96 4.127 134
3.20 49, 97 4.131 110
3.21 106, 107, 131, 133 4.145–167 50
3.21–23 105 4.168–199 43, 46, 53, 113
3.21–24 43, 49 4.183 38, 45, 46, 111, 113
3.23 x, 97 4.195 108
3.24 108 4.197 37, 45, 46, 113, 121
3.25 94, 110 Book V
3.25–26 49, 66 5.3–8 50
3.26 95 5.3–9 43
3.30 28 Book VI
3.34 108 6.84 108
3.35 77 Book VII
3.38 111 7.9 28
3.39–43 132 7.18 28, 133
3.61–66 94 7.39 77, 78, 122
3.65–66 94 7.61–99 116
3.89–96 111 7.62–95 116
3.89–97 45 7.69 28, 38–39, 45, 51, 116, 120
3.89–7.3 46 7.69–70 92
3.94 x, 28 7.70 x
3.97 36–37, 44, 51, 111, 116, 120 7.90 28
3.98–101 50 7.152 54
3.98–105 43, 53 7.171 41
3.99–100 110 7.187 132
3.101 28 Book VIII
3.106 108, 115 8.115 110
3.106–116 114 Book IX
3.106–117 46 9.32 28
3.107–113 115 9.72 132
3.114 38, 45, 46, 115, 121 9.83 132
3.115 115
3.116 108, 115 Hesychius
3.122 127 s.v. Machloiones
3.139 107 90
index locorum 163
Homer Mela, Pomponius

Iliad 3.85 90
13.6 93, 131
21.188 107 Plato
23.205–207 92 Tim.
Odyssey 23.4 61
1.22–24 92
1.23 92, 93, 131 Pliny
3.1–2 108 NH
4.84 92 5.55 48
6.163–197 114
Josephus 6.191 90
Contra Apionem
1.14 73 Silius Italicus
1.73 73 Punica
13.475 109
Lucian
De hist. conscr. Strabo
41 135 2.5.33 96
De luctu 16.4.8 90
21 109 17.1.2 85, 90, 114
17.2.3 104, 116
Lucius Ampelius
Liber memorialis Thucydides
13 25 1.21 10
1.21–22 129
Manetho (FGrHist 3a 3C) 1.22 10, 60, 128
T 7a 10 2.41.4 10
2.48.3 134

Torok - Herodotus in Nubia-2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Torok - Herodotus in Nubia-2014

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Torok - Herodotus in Nubia-2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Herodotus

history and archaeology

Susan E. Alcock (Brown University)

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/mns

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Török, László, 1941- author.

Copyright 2014 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands.

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Map of Egypt and Nubia ix

1 Herodotus’ Nubia in Modern Scholarship 1

2 The Aithiopian Passages in English Translation 28

3 The Problem of the “Aithiopian Logos” 40

4 “Fiction” and “Reality” 54

5 Herodotus in Nubia 118

1 Cf. Adams 1977; Török 1997a.

Periodicals, Series and Abbreviations Used in the Text and the

ANM Archéologie du Nil Moyen, Lille.

CRIPEL Cahier de Recherches de l’Institut de Papyrologie et d’Égypto-

OBO Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Fribourg-Göttingen.

Herodotus’ Nubia in Modern Scholarship

1 Images of Nubia in Herodotean Scholarship

While the larger ethnographical logoi or excursuses had a well-defined

[D]arkness is not a subject for history.2

1 Karttunen 2002 459.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi: 10.1163/9789004273887_002

That the civilization of Ethiopia was an off-shoot of that of Pharaonic

In Herodotean scholarship the interpretation of the Aithiopian passages

Herodotus continue to depend upon obsolete Egyptological commonplaces

2 Herodotus Halfway between Egyptology and Nubian Studies

Herodotus’ generally acceptable record on Egypt and a forgivable lapse

32 Built 1898–1902, first enlarged 1908–1910. Cf. Adams 1977 71.

42 Thucydides 1.21.1; 1.22.4; 2.41.4.

58 Cf. Jacoby 1913 419–467; Herminghausen 1964.

devices of a writer of fiction, Fehling concludes that most of Herodotus’ trav-

69 Cf. also Armayor 1985.

Quellenforschung cannot be fully substantiated,76 one cannot fail to notice

Even if Herodotus did go to Egypt, we cannot go on indefinitely trying

Meanwhile, the traditional source-critical analysis of the Egyptian logos arrived

three volumes of his Herodotus Book II. Commentary (1975–1988)—which also

[D]er Rahmen, in den Herodot gelegentlich reale Informationen über

In a paper presented in 1992 at the Seventh International Congress for Meroitic

[C]lassical sources must be considered to be of limited value as evidence

The response arriving from Herodotean studies to the commentaries on the

103 Török 1988 125 f.

108 FHN I 312–331, Nos 56–66.

3 Excursus 1: The Kingdom of Kush from the Eighth to the Fifth

120 Cf. Römer 1994 78ff.

141 Cf. Onasch 1994 5 ff.

159 Cf. Onasch 1994 151 f.

the adoption of his daughter Neith-iqeret (Nitocris) as God’s Wife of Amun

180 von Beckerath 1984 112 ff.

The Aithiopian Passages in English Translation

[I]n no case is the past remembered “for its own sake”.1

Text 1. Aithiopia Ruled by Sesostris, 2.110

Sesostris was the only Egyptian king to rule Aithiopia.9

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi: 10.1163/9789004273887_003

Text 2. On King Sabacos, 2.137,10 139

Text 3. On the End of Aithiopian Rule Over Egypt, 2.15214

10 FHN I No. 60.