D.

KAHN

Trans 34, 2007
103









Note on the Time-Factor in Cambyses' Deeds
in Egypt as told by Herodotus



D. Kahn



Resume. L`objectiI de cet article est d`analyser le Iacteur-temps dans les
actions de Cambyse en Egypte (conqute, campagne contre les Ammoniens et
les Ethiopiens, meurtre d`un taureau Apis) pour montrer l`impossibilite du
recit d`Herodote III, 1-29 sur ce point.

It is the purpose oI this article to rethink several episodes in
Herodotus` Histories III 1-29 concerning Cambyses and his conquest oI
Egypt, his campaign against the Ammonians and the Ethiopians, and the
murder oI the Apis bull. Could Cambyses have succeeded in achieving all
these deeds in the time span, which the documents, dated to his reign in
Egypt, enable?


A. The year of Cambyses' Conquest of Egypt

Documents (Demotic and Hieroglyphic) containing regnal years oI
Cambyses are known Irom Egypt. His earliest regnal year mentioned in
these documents is his second regnal year and additional documents are
dated continuously up to his eighth year oI reign. Scholars have tried to
deal with these dates since Cambyses is assumed to have conquered Egypt
in his IiIth year (see next paragraph).
1


1
R. A. Parker, 'Persian and Egyptian Chronology, AJSL 58, 1941, pp. 285-301; W.
Barta, 'Zur Datierungpraxis in gypten unter Kambyses und Dareios I., ZS 119, 1992,
pp. 82-90; L. Depuydt, 'Egyptian Regnal Dating under Cambyses and the Date oI the
Persian Conquest, in P. der Manuelian ed., Studies in Honor of William Kellv Simpson
I, Boston 1996, pp. 179-190; P. W. Pestman Les papvrus demotiques de Tsenhor. les
archives privees dune femme egvptienne du temps de Darius I
er
, Leuven 1994, p. 177; D.
Devauchelle, 'Un probleme de chronologie sous Cambyse, Trans 15, 1998, pp. 9-17; J.
von Beckerath, 'Nochmals die Eroberung gyptens durch Kambyses, ZS 129, 2002,
D. KAHN

Trans 34, 2007
104

According to Manetho, Cambyses, King oI Persia (530-522 B.C.),
conquered Egypt in his IiIth regnal year.
2
However, it is not stated
according to which dating system this regnal year was counted. It might
have been counted according to the Persian/Babylonian practice as was the
custom in the Old Persian Empire, and thus begun in 29.3.525, lasting
until 17.4.524 B.C.
3
However, it must be remembered that Manetho was
an Egyptian priest and probably used Egyptian sources,
4
so that his IiIth
regnal year could have started on 2.1.525 lasting until 1.1.524.
5
Diodorus
Siculus complicated the matter even Iurther when he dated Cambyses`
campaign against Egypt to the third year oI the 63rd Olympiade (Diodorus
I.68.6). This year lasted between the summer oI 526 (approximately
August) and the summer oI 525 B.C.
6
Thus, iI we combine the
inIormation, given by the diIIerent sources, while not contesting its
veracity, Cambyses entered Egypt at 1.1.525 at the earliest according to
the Egyptian calendar (but still in his Iourth regnal year according to the
Babylonian calendar), or 29.3.525 according to the Babylonian calendar.
The latest date Ior Cambyses` invasion would be according to Diodorus
August 525.
7


pp. 1-5. Basically, I accept J. von Beckerath`s treatment oI the Persian dates. Many oI
the dates Irom the reign oI Cambyses are backdated Irom his regnal year 8 or Irom the
reign oI Darius I. CI. Depuydt, ibid., p. 182; von Beckerath, ibid., pp. 2-3; Devauchelle,
ibid., pp. 11-13, but note the reservations oI D. Devauchelle pertaining to Pap. CG 50059,
which is a legal document. He cannot accept that in a legal document dates could have
retroactively been changed Irom the reigns oI Amasis and Psammetichus III to the years
oI the new ruler, Cambyses. However, exactly the same practice can be detected in
Petiese`s petition (Pap. Dem. Rylands IX 21, l. 7 and l. 9), which was also intended Ior
legal procedure.
2
G. P. Verbrugghe and J. M. Wickersham, Berossos and Manetho, Introduced and
Translated. Native Traditions in Ancient Mesopotamia and Egvpt, Ann Arbor 1996, p.
149. Note that in the versions oI AIricanus, as preserved by Syncellus and Eusebius
(Armenian version and Syncellus) Cambyses conquered Egypt in his IiIth regnal year,
while in the version oI Eusebius, as preserved by Jerome, he conquered Egypt in his sixth
regnal year.
3
R. A. Parker and W. H. Dubberstein, Babvlonian Chronologv. 626 B.C.-A.D. 75,
Providence, Rhode Island 1956, p. 30. Cambyses` IiIth year was a leap year (with Adar
II added).
4
Verbrugghe-Wickersham, op. cit., pp. 103 II.
5
CI. Pestman, op. cit. (n. 1), p. 177; J. von Beckerath, Chronologie des Pharaonischen
gvpten, Mainz am Rhein 1997, p. 198, diverges by a day Irom P.W. Pestman's
calculations.
6
Von Beckerath, loc. cit. (n. 1), p. 4; contra Depuydt, loc. cit. (n. 1), p. 188.
7
The date oI I Peret in regnal year 2 in Pap Strasburg 2, which was attributed to
Psammetichus III (corresponding to May in the Julian Calendar) is not relevant, because
it was proven to belong to Psammetichus IV, who reigned at the end oI the reign oI
Darius I. See E. Cruz-Uribe, ""On the Existence oI Psammetichus IV", Serapis 5, 1980,
pp. 35-39; P. W. Pestman, "The Diospolis Parva Documents", in H.-J. Thissen and K.-T.
Zauzich eds, Grammata Demotica, Festschrift fr Erick Ldeckens, Wrzburg 1984, pp.
145-155. For an additional terminus ante quem Ior the summer oI 525 B.C. see B.
Meissner, "Der Datum der Einnahme gyptens durch Cambyses", ZS 29, 1891, pp.
123-124; Depuydt, loc. cit. (n. 1) , pp. 185-186.
D. KAHN

Trans 34, 2007
105
B. 1he terminus ante quem for Cambyses' reign in Egypt: Pap. Cairo
CC 5 and Serapeum Stela (Louvre IM 4187)

The earliest dated documents Irom the reign oI Cambyses in Egypt
(without backdating) can be Iound in Pap. Cairo CG 50060 Irom Asiut,
dealing with payments oI workers at the necropolis. It mentions several
dates in year 5 oI Cambyses starting with II Peret |1|6 (June |1|5 525
B.C.). The next clear date is II Peret 20 i.e. June 19 525.
8
These dates are
only two and a halI weeks to three weeks later than the date oI the birth oI
the Apis 'XLIV in year 5 oI Cambyses, I Peret, day 28 (29.5.525), which
was buried in the Iourth year oI Darius I (518 B.C.).
9
It seems that
although the date oI the birth oI the Apis is backdated Irom the reign oI
Darius I, it can be considered as the earliest known date oI Cambyses in
Egypt.

C. 1he Death of Apis XLII and the Murder of Apis XLIII

No two bulls were simultaneously recognized as Apis bulls and could
not live at the same time. The installation oI an Apis bull was always
celebrated aIter the death oI the previous bull.
10
Thus, Apis bull XLII, who
was buried in year 6, III Shemu 10 (6.11.524), must have died prior to
29.5.525, the birth oI Apis XLIV. There is no way to know how much
time elapsed between the death oI one bull and the installation oI the next
one.

According to Herodotus, Histories III 27-29, Cambyses murdered a
young Apis calI on the celebrations oI his appearance as Apis bull. The
body was buried in secrecy by the priests oI the Apis. Thus, this young
Apis could not have been the bull (Apis XLII) Irom year 27 oI Amasis
(544/543) that was buried in Cambyses` sixth regnal year, or the bull that
was born in Cambyses` IiIth regnal year and died in the Iourth year oI the
reign oI Darius (Apis XLIV). It must have been another Apis, which was
installed aIter the death oI Apis XLII, and beIore the birth oI the next Apis
(XLIV). The veracity oI the murder by Cambyses was debated in research
and no prooI could be Iound either to prove or to disprove Herodotus`
story. However, Ior the moment, 'I would personally rather believe that
Cambyses is to be presumed guilty until proven innocent, as L. Depuydt
has phrased it.
11



8
E. Jelinkova-Reymond, 'Paiement` du president de la necropole (P. Caire 50060),
BIFAO 55 (1955) 36; Depuydt, ibid., p. 186.
9
G. Posener, La premiere domination Perse en Egvpte, Cairo 1936, pp. 30-41; L.
Depuydt, "Murder in Memphis : The Story oI Cambyses` Mortal wounding oI the Apis
Bull (ca. 523 B.C.E.)", JNES 54/2, 1995, pp. 119-126 ; K. Jansen-Winkeln, "Die
Quellen zur Eroberung gyptens durch Kambyses", in T. A. Bacs ed., A Tribute to
Excelence . Studies Offered in Honor of Ern Gaal, Ulrich Luft and Las:lo Trk, Studia
Aegyptiaca XVII, Budapest 2002) , pp. 314-315 ; von Beckerath, loc. cit. (n. 1), p. 3.
10
Depuydt, ibid., p. 123.
11
Depuydt, ibid., p. 126.
D. KAHN

Trans 34, 2007
106
II accepting the story oI Herodotus about the murder oI the Apis
bull, one must conclude that Cambyses was in Egypt at the time oI the
murder, some days or more probably weeks beIore the birth oI the next
bull (XLIV) in 29.5.525 B.C.

D. Time span of Conquering Towns and quelling opposition

A potential conqueror oI Egypt Irom the East had several
geographical points where he could tip the scales in his Iavor to
subjugate Egypt. He could deIeat the whole Egyptian deIending armies at
the entrance oI Egypt. However, no instance oI deIeating the Egyptians at
the entrance oI Egypt (without the need to advance along the Nile up to
Memphis without a Iight) is known. A conqueror could deIeat most oI the
deIending army, leaving just a remnant to regroup in the Delta and Iight
several pitched battles,
12
or he could retreat to Memphis, the
administrative capital oI Egypt. He then would have to conquer Memphis.
This Ieat was achieved in many cases without the need Ior a prolonged
siege.
13
In the case oI Cambyses, he deIeated the Egyptian Iorces in the
vicinity oI Pelusium, aIter which they retreated to Memphis. Cambyses
then sent a Mytilenian ship to Memphis in order to demand its surrender.
The Mytilenian crew was massacred. Cambyses' inIantry then marched
Irom the border oI Egypt to Memphis (225 km.) during ca. 9 days.
14
No
opposition to the advancing army is mentioned. Cambyses conquered
Memphis aIter a siege oI some unspeciIied time (Herodotus III 11,13). On
the tenth day Irom the conquest oI Memphis Psammetichus III, called in
Herodotus Psamenitus, was removed outside oI the city gate to humiliate
him (Herodotus III 14). Cambyses then proceeded Irom Memphis to Sais
(Herodotus III 16 and the stela oI Udjahorresnet)
15
where he also remained
some time. Atrocities are known Ior Cambyses' campaign in several cities
in Egypt including Heliopolis, Sais, Thebes and possibly Elephantine Irom
later sources.
16
These deeds certainly lasted more than three weeks.





12
A. K. Grayson, Assvrian and Babvlonian Chronicles, TCS 5, Locust Valley 1975, p.
126, Chron. 14, l. 20.
13
Piankhy Stela, ll. 89-96. See N.-C. Grimal, La stele triomphale de Pi(ankh)v au musee
du Caire, MIFAO 105, Cairo, 1981, pp. 98-103, 228-229; Tanutamun Stela ll. 16-18.
See FHN I, pp. 200-201; Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal: see D. Kahn, "The Assyrian
Invasions oI Egypt (673-663 B.C.) and the Final Expulsion oI the Kushites", SAK 34,
2006, pp. 252, 258-259.
14
I. Ephal, 'On WarIare and Military Control in the Ancient Near Eastern Empires: A
Research Outline, in H. Tadmor and M. WeinIeld eds, Historv, Historiographv and
Interpretations, Jerusalem 1983, p. 99. 9 days at an average rate oI 25 km daily or 7.5
days at an average rate oI 30 km daily.
15
M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egvptian Literature III, Berkeley 1980, p. 38.
16
See the historical sources cited in Jansen-Winkeln, loc. cit. (n. 9), pp. 309-319 and
earlier bibliography there.
D. KAHN

Trans 34, 2007
107
Destination Km Marching days (25 km daily)
Pelusium to Memphis 225 9

Marching days (25 km daily) In Egypt
74 1850 km to and
Iro
Memphis to Aswan
and back

E. Cambyses' Failed Campaign against the Ammonians

The Egyptians celebrated the installation oI the Apis, upon the time
when Cambyses` armies just returned Irom two Iailed campaigns; the one
was held against the Ammonians in one oI the oases in the Western
desert.
17
The army marched seven days in the desert and arrived at the
town Oasis which was inhabited by people oI Samos Irom the Ischarion
tribe. They marched Iurther into the desert. Suddenly a southern wind rose
up and a sandstorm cought them and buried the entire army alive
(Herodotus III 26).
18


The minimum time span Ior military advance in Egypt can be
calculated as Iollows:
-From the border oI Egypt (vicinity oI Pelusium) to Memphis (225 km)
9 days
-Staying in Memphis aIter its conquest at least 10 days (Herodotus III
14)
-From Memphis to Thebes (700 km) 28 days
-From Thebes to Oasis 7 days (Herodotus III 26)
-From Oasis to when the sandstorm occurred X days
19

-Time Ior the rumors about the lost army to reach the king (in Thebes,
Memphis or somewhere on his campaign against Kush) Y days
-The unknown time between death oI the old Apis bull and the installation
oI the new Apis C days.

According to Herodotus III 26 which gives the inIormation about
the Ammonians, Cambyses entered Egypt 1044XY+C days beIore the
birth oI the new Apis and ( an additional unknown period oI time beIore
the death oI the Apis calI) the news already arrived to him. Cambyses,

17
E. Cruz-Uribe, "The Invasion oI Egypt by Cambyses", Trans 25, 2003, pp. 35-37.
18
Perhaps the trail leading South-West Irom Dakhla to GilI Kebir and beyond. See R.
Kuper, "The Abu Ballas Trail: Pharaonic Advances into the Libyan Desert", in Z.
Hawass, Egvptologv at the dawn of the twentv-first centurv. proceedings of the Eighth
International Congress of Egvptologists, vol. 2, Cairo 2000, p. 375. Note the presence oI
pottery at Abu Ballas Irom Prehistory to Ptolemaic times.
19
The period oI the southern sandstorms is between End oI February and April. E. Cruz-
Uribe, loc. cit. (n. 17), p. 37, states that the sandstorms are common during the winter
months and springtime. II so, this also will be a corroboration oI the season oI conquest.
D. KAHN

Trans 34, 2007
108
thus, entered Egypt in the Iirst week oI April at the latest, and probably at
least several weeks beIorehand. Herodotus' story about the campaign
against the Ammonians could have occurred within the known time Irame
oI Cambyses' activities in Egypt and could be based on historical Iacts.

F. Cambyses' Failed Campaign against the Ethiopians

Scholars are also divided in opinion on the historicity oI
Cambyses' campaign against the Ethiopians. Some claim it is pure
Iiction,
20
while others accept its historicity.
21
Accepting the campaign
against the "long-lived Ethiopians" as historical, one could calculate the
time needed to march to the point where the campaign ended in disaster
and the return to Memphis, in suIIicient time to experience the installation
oI the Apis calI, which was murdered (Herodotus III 25, 27 II.).

a. Sending spies to the long-lived Ethiopians
Cambyses called Ior the Ichtyophagoi (Iish-eaters) Irom
Elephantine to Sais (Herodotus III 19). They arrived at court, received
instructions and returned to Elephantine and Irom there to the long-lived
Ethiopians (Herodotus III 20). These spies were received in the Ethiopian
capital, were led around and Iinally were sent back to Egypt with the
message: "The king oI the Ethiopians advises the king oI the Persians to
bring overwhelming odds to attack the long-lived Ethiopians . "
(Herodotus III 21). They returned north to Sais, and reported the results oI
their mission to Cambyses.
The duration oI this mission can be roughly estimated. It is clear
that the spies and messengers oI the Great King to the king oI Ethiopia did
not use the swiIt communication system oI messengers which was used
within the empire Ior two reasons: a. the Ichtyophagoi were not trained
riders, and b. The Kingdom oI the Ethiopians was not within the Persian
Empire. Thus, the Ichtyophagoi could travel by Ioot or sail on the Nile.

20
T. Sve-Sderbergh, "Zu den thiopischen Episoden bei Herodot", Eranos 44, 1946,
pp. 77-80; I. HoIImann and A. Vorbichler, Der Aethiopenlogos bei Herodot, Wien 1979;
D. Fehling, Herodotus and his Sources. Citation, Invention and Narrative Art, Leeds
1989, index at p. 268; L. Trk, The Kingdom of Kush. Handbook of the Napatan-
Meroitic Civili:ation, Leiden 1997, p. 376
21
A. Klasens, "Egypte Onder Perzen en Grieken-Romeinen", JEOL 18 (1964) 344; A. B.
Lloyd, "Herodotus on Cambyses: Some Thoughts on Recent Work", in A. Kuhrt and H.
Sancisi-Weerdenburg eds, Achaemenid Historv III. Method and Theorv. Proceedings of
the London 1985 Achaemenid Historv Workshop, Leiden 1988, p. 64; P. Briant, From
Cvrus to Alexander. A Historv of the Persian Empire, Winona Lake, Indiana 2002, p. 55;
Cruz-Uribe, loc. cit. (n. 17) , pp. 34-35; C. Tuplin, "Darius' Suez Canal and Persian
Imperialism", in H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg and A. Kuhrt eds, Achaemenid Historv VI:
Asia Minor and Egvpt. Old Cultures in a New Empire. Proceedings of the Groningen
1988 Achaemenid Historv Workshop, Leiden 1991, pp. 261-264. See R. Morkot, "Nubia
and Achaemenid Persia: Sources and Problems", in ibid., p. 327.
D. KAHN

Trans 34, 2007
109
Sailing on the Nile was the Iastest to advance. The sailing speed will be
Iorwarded in order to approximately calculate the minimum time oI their
journey. The voyage Irom Memphis to Thebes lasted 9-16 days.
22
The
voyage Irom Napata to Thebes lasted about 38-39 days.
23
The voyage
Irom Meroe to Napata lasted according to the stela oI Irike-Ammanote 11
days.
24

The route Irom Sais to Elephantine and back was carried out Iour
times: once by Cambyses messengers to the Ichtyophagoi. The second
time was by the Ichtyophagoi who arrived at Cambyses' court to receive
orders and instructions; then they returned to Elephantine; and Iinally they
returned Irom Ethiopia and Irom Elephantine again traveled to the king's
court to deliver their report. The voyage between Elephantine and the
capital oI the Ethiopians, wherever that was, was carried out twice by the
Ichtyophagoi: to the capital and Irom the capital to Elephantine. Since it is
not clear iI the long lived Ethiopians were based in Napata, Meroe or
possibly even Punt on the Red Sea, the shortest possible travel time to
Napata will be given. Since the capital oI Kush was already in Meroe city,
the time to travel Irom Napata and Meroe will also be given.

The time span Ior the travels within Egypt lasted a minimum oI 13
days x 4 times 52 days. The minimum voyage time between Elephantine
and Napata lasted 68 days |(38-4) x 2|.
25
II they traveled to Meroe it took

22
The minimum time to travel the distance between Memphis and Thebes by boat (c.
700 km) is 16 days. CI. R. A. Caminos, 'The Nitocris Adoption Stela, JEA 50, 1964,
pp. 81-84 or possibly, even 9 days. CI. J. Degas, 'Navigation sur le Nil au Nouvel
Empire", in B. Menu ed., Les problemes institutionnels de leau en Egvpte ancienne et
dans lAntiquite mediterraneenne, BdE 110, Paris 1992, pp. 141-146.
23
Advancing upstream or downstream probably lasted a diIIerent time. CI. the campaign
oI Piankhy to conquer Egypt in his 20th regnal year. Piankhy departed Irom Napata on
1~ 9 (Piankhy Stela l. 29) and was present at the Opet Iestival on 2 19, the
Iirst day oI the Opet Iestival. See Grimal, op. cit. (n. 13), p. 44, n. 112; W. Murnane,
'OpetIest, in L IV, 1981, pp. 574-579. See also F. J. Yurco, 'Sennacherib`s Third
Campaign and the Coregency oI Shabaka and Shebitku, Serapis 6, 1980, p. 227, n. 50,
53. The distance between Thebes and Elephantine lasted 4 sailing days.
24
Inscription oI Irike-Ammanote Irom Years 1-2 (Kawa IX) ll. 35-37. See FHN II
(1996)405-406.
25
The time oI travel Irom Thebes to Napata minus the Iour days oI travel between
Thebes and Elephantine back and Iro.
D. KAHN

Trans 34, 2007
110
another 22 days. Traveling to the unknown location oI Punt would
have lasted several more marching days. Thus, Irom the decision by
Cambyses to send the Ichtyophagoi to the Ethiopians until their return a
minimum oI 120 days would have elapsed. Only then, would Cambyses
hear the report oI his spies.
b. The Expedition against the long-lived Ethiopians
"Cambyses was angry, and marched at once against the Ethiopians,
neither giving directions Ior any provision oI Iood nor considering that he
was about to lead his army to the ends oI the earth" (Herodotus III 25).
According to Herodotus, Cambyses immediately set oII against the
Ethiopians when he received the report oI his spies.
The Persian army marched Irom Memphis to Elephantine and
beyond. According to Herodotus' account, the advance was not on
riverboats, but by Ioot. BeIore his army had accomplished the IiIth part oI
their journey they had Iinished all their provisions, and aIter the Iood and
water ran out, they ate the beasts oI burden. Cambyses marched Iorward
until allegedly his soldiers began to eat one another (Herodotus III 25).
Then he decided to return to Egypt. He arrived at Thebes and proceeded to
Memphis, Irom where he sent the Greek troops home by ship and
encountered the Apis procession.
There is no consensus regarding the Iinal place his army marched
to take possession oI, nor is it clear where the "long-lived" Ethiopians"
dwelled. Their capital was believed to be Meroe, because oI the wrong
equation oI the "Table oI the Sun" with a temple Iound at Meroe (M 250)
and attributed to the sun cult. However, it is now clear that this temple has
nothing to do with the Table oI the Sun.
26
C. Tuplin even suggests that the
dwelling oI the long-lived Ethiopians who lived on the sea shores oI the
Southern Sea (Red Sea) might be Punt. This could explain that Cambyses'
army reached only a IiIth oI the way beIore running out oI supplies.
27

Can it be determined how Iar in Kush Cambyses' army penetrated?
Strabo XVII 1, 54 mentions that the army oI Petronius arrived at Primnis
(Qasr Ibrim? or more probably Amara),
28
having crossed the sandbanks at
which Cambyses' army had been overtaken by a windstorm
29
and buried in
the sand.
30
The mention oI the toponyms Forum Kambysu (Pliny, Natural

26
T. Eide et al. eds, Fontes Historiae Nubiorum. Textual sources for the Historv of the
Middle Nile Region between the Eighth Centurv BC and the Sixth Centurv AD. Vol. I:
From the Eighth to the Mid-Fifth Centurv BC, Bergen 1994, pp. 311, 329 (henceIorth
FHN I); S. Burstein, "Herodotus and the Emergence oI Meroe", in Graeco-Africana.
Studies in the Historv of Greek Relations with Egvpt and Nubia, New York et al. 1995, p.
157; Tuplin, loc. cit. (n. 21), p. 263.
27
Tuplin, ibid., p. 263.
28
R. Levrero, "La geographie de l'Egypte selon Herodote: les expeditions de Cambyse
contre les Ethiopiens et les Ammoniens", in Atti JI Congresso Interna:ionale di
Egittologia, vol. I, Turin 1992, p. 402.
29
Probably the Southern and South-western "Haboob" windstorms between May and
June.
30
The area oI Batn el Hagar? This area marks the geographical and political division
between Upper Nubia and Lower Nubia. See Trk, op. cit. (n. 20), p. 29.
D. KAHN

Trans 34, 2007
111
Historv VI 35 181)
31
and Kambysu Tamieion (magasins |Ptol. IV 7|)
32
in
the area oI the second or third cataract
33
asserts that Cambyses had some
hold in the area. This might also be corroborated by archaeology. The
Iortress oI Dorginarti, immediately downstream oI the rapids oI the
Second Cataract, has Saite and Persian remains.
34
It is, however, not
possible to show that the site was occupied during Cambyses' reign.
Diodorus I, 33.1, Strabo XVII 1, 5 and Josephus Flavius, Antiquitv of
the Jews II 249, claimed that Cambyses Iounded or renamed Meroe aIter
his sister, wiIe or mother. This inIormation cannot be corroborated, since
we do not know the names oI his sisters or mother.
35
There is also no
evidence that Cambyses ever arrived in Meroe or controlled it. II these
traditions mentioned by the above writers are based on a kernel oI truth,
could Cambyses have conducted a second successive campaign against
Kush?
36
Darius I did claim control over parts oI Kush, so did Xerxes.
37
It
is not known which Persian king conquered Kush, when and how Iar he
reached into mainland AIrica.
For calculation's sake, the distances between several key places will
be given. The average speed oI a marching army is 25 km a day
38
. The
return march must obviously have been slower, but we have no means to
estimate the speed oI advance, so the speed will be calculated at the same
speed as the march to Nubia. To the marching time should be added the
time required Ior the various military actions, such as marching to the
Western Delta (e.g. Sais), Iighting, siege (unspeciIied in the case oI
Memphis and not mentioned in other cases), negotiations (as in the siege
oI Memphis and ca. 120 days Ior the delegation to the Ethiopian king),
looting and resting days (at least 10 days aIter the conquest oI
Memphis).
39
Cambyses' army marched in Egypt a minimum oI 83 days
just to get to the borders oI Kush and return to Memphis.
In the Iollowing table I will give the distances and minimum
duration Ior several optional localities in Kush.


31
An itinerary oI the army oI Petronius is given through Pselcis (Dakka - opposite oI
Tacompsos), Primis (Qasr Ibrim), Bocchin (Bogghi Ballana?), Forum Cambusis
(Cambyses` Market, commonly identiIied with Faras|FHN III 879| or Abu Simbel |FHN
I 313|), Attena, and Stadasis (Saras between 2
nd
and Dal Cataract) (according to FHN
III: From the First to the Sixth Centurv AD, p. 879).
32
Could this toponym be identiIied with Tamania oI Juba, Tama oI Nero and Tmn

in
Meroitic? (CI. FHN III, ibid.).
33
Tuplin, loc. cit. (n. 21), p. 262; Cruz-Uribe, loc. cit. (n. 17) , pp. 34-35; Burstein, loc.
cit. (n. 26), p. 157; Morkot, loc. cit. (n. 21) , pp. 326-327; Levrero, loc. cit. (n. 28) , pp.
397-408.
34
L. A. Heidorn, "The Saite and Persian Period Forts at Dorginarti", in W. V. Davies ed.,
Egvpt and Africa. Nubia from Prehistorv to Islam, London 1993, pp. 205-219.
35
The Iirst mention oI Meroe in Napatan inscriptions derives Irom the stela oI year 2 oI
King Irike-Amannote, (Kawa IX) l. 5 (FHN II, p. 401).
36
Contradicting Herodotus III 97. See Burstein, loc. cit. (n. 26), p. 159. FHN I, pp. 313-
314.
37
Morkot, loc. cit. (n. 21) , pp. 324-325; FHN I, p. 315. For Xerxes' control over Nubia
see also Esther 1:1.
38
See however M. Gabrielli, in Dans les pas des Dix-Mille, Pallas 43, Toulouse 1995.
39
See Ephal, loc. cit. (n. 14), p. 99.
D. KAHN

Trans 34, 2007
112

Destination Km Number oI days
Aswan to Qasr Ibrim 500 to and Iro 20
Aswan to Faras 660 to and Iro 27
Aswan to Dorginarti 760 to and Iro 31
Aswan to Dal Cataract 1040 to and Iro 42
Aswan to Amara 1140 to and Iro 46

These days should be added to the 83 days that the army oI
Cambyses had to march in Egypt and the ten days oI rest in Memphis. The
mission oI delegation oI Ichtyophagoi to Ethiopia lasted a minimum oI
120 days. The Iailed campaign oI Cambyses lasted a minimum oI 113
days iI it reached only Qasr Ibrim and 135 days iI it met disaster at the
inhospitable area oI the Dal Cataract as can be deduced by Strabo 17.1.54.
The minimum length oI Cambyses' deeds in Egypt and Kush amounts to
ca. eight months at least.

Conclusion

Herodotus recounts several deeds oI Cambyses in Egypt. He
conquered Memphis and humiliated Egypt's King. He planned three
campaigns and carried out two oI them: a campaign against the
Ammonians in the Western Oasis and a campaign against the long-lived
Ethiopians. Both campaigns were disastrous Ior the Persian king. On his
return he killed the Apis calI, which was installed precisely at that
moment. Several classical sources date Cambyses' conquest oI Egypt to
his IiIth regnal year. The earliest date in the year is the Egyptian New
year, which occurred in 525 B.C. (Cambyses' IiIth Egyptian counted
regnal year) on 2.1.525 (note that according to the Achaemenid practice oI
Babylonian year counting the IiIth regnal year oI Cambyses began on
29.3.525). The installation oI the Apis bull, which was already born on
29.5.525, Iollowed the alleged murdered calI. Thus, all the above
mentioned exploits oI Cambyses have to Iit in a timeIrame oI less than six
months. A minimum estimate oI the length oI all the events as detailed
above cannot be shortened to less than eight months! ThereIore Herodotus'
account regarding the time-Iactor in Cambyses` deeds in Egypt cannot be
completely exact. How reliable it is cannot be evaluated in the present
state oI our documentation.