Both in the conventional and our revised model of ancient Egyptian history, Ramses II was followed by his 13th son Merenptah. To understand why we equate Ramses II with Pharaoh Necho of the 26th Dynasty we recommend to read the Ramses II file. Where we differ is that Merenptah was not followed by Seti II, but by Amasis. Because the reign of Ramses II was supposed to have lasted for some 67 years, conventional historians will state that Merenptah, by the time he began his rule, was already a grandfather. As we show, that the length of reign for Ramses II could be calculated two ways, the age of Merenptah at the time of his accession was nothing like being a grandfather though he was probably between 20-40 years of age at the start of his 8 year reign. Rather than having reigned for 67 years, Ramesses total life span was 67 years unless he counted his co-reign with his father not from birth but some later year. With this in mind Ramesses was then born sometime between 650-636 BC using a liberal, uncertain figure for 650. Since his reign ended in 569 BC, 569+67=636 BC, if he counted the length of his life before sole rule as co-regent to his father.

With the time of Ramses II and Hattusilis we enter the fully developed Iron Age. A letter written by Hattusilis II to Ramses II reads:
"What concerns the pure iron, about which thou hast written to me, there is no pure iron in Kiswadna in my storehouse which is closed. The time was unfavorable to make iron. But I ordered in writing to prepare iron." [10]
At the start of the 19th/26th dynasty, the Ethiopian source of iron was in the past. Now Greeks of Daphnae and later of Naucratis smelted iron ore to make ingots. From these ingots they made tools. During these times iron objects found in Egypt were mostly confined to Greek settlements. Poorer grade Egyptian iron was used to make chains, fences, buckles and such items. Ramses II said of himself "I am your wall of iron." [20]

"... [making offering] to Neith, the great, divine Mother ... for the soul of the noble Lord, hereditary prince ... of the King of the North ... [makes offering to Neith], the great Mother Divine, that she grant funerary meals, every perfect thing ... for the soul of the noble lord, hereditary prince, the carrier of the seal of the King of the North, a unique patron, chief commissioner of estates ... governor of the entrances [to Egypt] by land and by sea, Nekht-hor-heb, born of Nes-en-per-Mut."
"I was truly distinguished in manners, excellent of character, a functionary free of reproach, my heart was (always) harmonious, my thoughts without disguise and there was nothing in my breast to conceal ... son of Re, Aahmes, a thirty year festival on the Horus throne..." [40]

This inscription was a cornerstone in identifying Psamshek with Psammetichus. Why that is in error we shall now explain. First we must identify the significant subjects referred to:

1. `carrier of the royal seal' and the icon of `Osiris'
2. Nekhthorheb
3. King of the North
4. Aahmes

1. Who was `the carrier of the seal'? He was not Nekhthorheb for he was the one who had just died and for whom this funerary service and commemoration figure had been made. That it was a funerary occasion prompting this inscription is seen from the prayer for the soul of this "noble lord and hereditary prince", the icon of Osiris, the god of the dead, and the prayer for the meals of the dead.

2. Among the literature of the late period are also the letters of the administrator of Egypt in Persian times, Arsames. These letters were written in Aramaeic on cowhides just like some Dead Sea Scrolls and repeatedly admonish a man by the name of `Nekht-hor' to take better care of his estates. These letters display little personal respect for `Nekht-hor' who was a native Egyptian pekida or functionary to Arsames. Could it be that `Nekhthor' is short for `Nekht-hor-heb'? Conceding the unceremonial way of addressing `Nekhthor' we realize that Arsames just dropped the last part of his name the same way as he also dropped all customary salutation.

Arsames is last mentioned in an Elephantine letter written in 407 BC and must have died close to that year since the letter refers to his visit to King Darius in 410 BC. Darius II died in 404 BC. [50]

3. The reference to `the King of the North' refers to the Persian ruling monarch. The Persian kings make up the 27th Dynasty but Egyptian monuments name only Cambyses and Darius the Great, all other Persian kings are referred to in general terms. The name Aahmes is written in a cartouche and Tresson thought it made reference to King Amasis of the conventional 26th Dynasty who died just a few months before the arrival of Cambyses in Egypt. Since `Nekht-hor-heb' was thought to have been Nectanebo when Tresson wrote this, he had to assume that there were two by that name, the `Nekhthor' he was dealing with here and Nectanebo, 200 years apart. But how could Aahmes refer to Amasis when the `King of the North' is made reference to? Egypt had not yet made acquaintance with the Persian might in the days of Amasis of the 26th Dynasty. It should be obvious that Aahmes could not be Amasis.

4. In revised view Aahmes refers to someone else and we can determine who he really was. In the 5th century BC, Persian times for Egypt, there was "a general whose business it was to summon all the mayors of the country to bring gifts for the embalming of the Apis bull bore the same name as King Amasis and wrote it in a cartouche, although his stela alludes to the Persian invasion [occupation]." [60]

Similarly it appears that a red granite stela found by Georges Daressy sheds additional light on the activities of this general Aahmes. In the past this stela had been interpreted as relating to the conventional pharaohs Apries and Amasis, we place, however, the account of this stela into the middle of the 5th century BC. Tanis, Defenneh, Naukratis (Kum Ga`ef) were towns with Greek presence. In Kum el Hisn, about 6 miles south of Naukratis, archaeologists found numerous statuery of Ramses II.

From this we can say then that Aahmes/Amasis was not a member of any royal dynasty at all, he was a highly placed official. [70] Discussed is an inscribed dedicatory stone first translated as: "A royal offering give the Great God who dwells in temples. Give offerings the gods all of the West. Give offerings, funeral viands, bread, ducks, oxen, to him, (at) the opening of the year, new year's feast, the Uaka (the feasts of Thoth and Soxaris), the great festival, the opening of the doors of the temples, the feast of the apparition of the two gods, the feast of the 1st of the month (feast of the 15th of the month) every feast, every day, forever, as one devoted great God to Horus the good, in presence of the Great House, the Good God. Chnumabra/Amasis the devoted of Psamtik/Psammetichus."

These cartouches represent slight variants of Amasis and Psamtek. The author also states that Psamtek was the now deceased servant of Amasis and was only a namesake of the later Psamtek regarded as a king. It appears the appelation `Great House' for Amasis would make him Pharaoh Amasis. The inscription underscores the frequency of the name `Psamtek'.

How are we to understand a 26th Dynasty stela (Stela 192) mentioning a Psamtek born in the 26th year of Tirhaqa (690-664 BC) of the 25th Dynasty, the year of Tirhaqa's death?

We should realize that our `Psamtek' was not the only person who ever bore that name. Other considerations also have to fall into place to make a historically significant personality.

The time of Nekht-hor-heb is now firmly established. We have shown conclusively that he lived and worked in the days of the Persian satrap Arsames up until the time that Arsames died in about 407 BC. Just like Aahmes, Nekht-hor-heb also was a highly placed official during Persian times without a royal pedigree and no claim to the throne of Egypt.

In order to show that Nekht-nebef lived and acted a short time before Nekht-hore-heb but also in the days of Arsames, the Persian satrap of Babylon, we need to discuss the person of Psamshek, often called in modern history books `Psamtik'.

"I send thee much greetings of peace and prosperity. And now in regard to the grant which has been given by the king and by me to Ah-hapi my servant, who was an officer in my domains which are in Upper and Lower Egypt - Psamshek the son of Ah-hapi, who now has been made an officer [pakida] in his stead in my domains which are in Upper and Lower Egypt, has asked me for it.
Now in regard to that provision which has been given by the king and by me to Ah-hapi: - Psamshek his son shall be allowed to take up that grant there in Egypt." [80]

As we already learned from Allan Gardiner commenting on Amasis, the Egyptian general, high ranking Egyptian officials would write their names in cartouches even though they were not royalty or seated kings. As historians we do well to remind ourselves of this fact when considering the time under discussion. When it comes to Psamshek and Nekht-nebef, several basalt slabs were found and described bearing their name. We learn from these artifacts that both were contemporaries. Since Psamshek immediately preceded Nekht-hor-heb in his capacity, Nekht-nebef also was a high ranking official during the time of Arsames, the Persian satrap.

At present Egyptian history is written in two ways, 1. on the evidence of Egyptian monuments and 2. on the evidence found in the writings of the Greek and Hebrew authors for this time period. Telling it from these two sources is the cause for duplications of kings leading to situations were exacting historians will find it difficult to account for the great deeds some of these kings were supposed to have done. The reason is simple. The events are already written up in Egypt in the annals of Seti the Great who is Psammetichus of the Greek authors and Ramses the Great who is Pharaoh Necho - for we have shown here that the 19th is the same as the 26th Dynasty. But not all details between Seti the Great and Psammetichus can as yet be accounted for to our total satisfaction since they come from sources widely separated in space, time, language and the particular alphabetic and hieroglyphic writing being used.

Next we want to examine some similarities between Seti the Great and Psammetichus. But keep in mind that the life and deeds of Psamtek are still different from those of Psammetichus; the former occurs by name only in Egyptian and the latter in Greek sources, one was a highly placed official during Persian times, the other a king. One lived during the time of the 21st and the other during the 19th/26th Dynasty. Psamtek has not only been misidentified as to his official status but also misplaced in time period by modern historians because they have not put together the Psamtek whose name appears on the backside of the stone slab mentioning and showing Nekht-nebef and the Psamtek of the cowhide letters of Arsames. To get around this problem some suggest that there were three Psamtek's without giving valid reasons for doing so.

But in the following table we compare two widely separate sources and find no close matches but only general allusions. This is a first attempt to get a handle on their record, the Greek being finite in that it is unlikely that more evidence will be found from 1. Greek historical sources about Psammetichus and 2. the Egyptian record of Seti the Great may have a chance for more information, if additional inscriptions could be found.

"... for the Nile divides ... into 3 branches, of which one trends eastward and is known as the mouth of Pelusium, and another trends westward and is called the mouth of Canopus. There remains the third branch which, coming down from the southward toward the tip of the Delta, flows straight on and cuts it in two on its course toward the sea. This branch, issuing at what is called the mouth of Sebennytus, is neither the least in volume, nor the least famous of the three. In addition to these there are two other mouths, the Saitic and Mendesian, which split off from the Sebennytic and so run into the sea." [170]

Therefore, making Sais and Tanis into two separate places is very questionable. In conventional chronology Tanis was the capital in 19th Dynasty times dated to the 13th century BC, and so we read "Hebron had been built 7 years before Zoan", where Zoan is the Biblical Tanis. [Numbers 13:22]
In 26th Dynasty times according to conventional chronology Sais was the capital and by what name does the Bible call Egypt's capital in about 700 BC? It is still called `Zoan', Isaiah 19:11, 13; 30:4. Only about 100 years later Ezekiel wrote: "I will lay Pathros waste, set fire to Zoan and inflict punishment on Thebes. I will pour out my wrath on Pelusium, the stronghold of Egypt...."Ezekiel 30:14, 15. Here we learn that Tanis is mentioned in the Bible as the capital of Egypt when, according to both the conventional and revised plan, Sais was its capital. In Sais was a temple of Maat. As an aside, one of the priests officiating there had the name Maatysherit Sithator. Was there a temple to Maat at Tanis? A question not yet answered.
We have every reason to conclude that Sais and Tanis were the same city location and that is why no ruins were found at `Sa el Hagar', the Sais location of Lepsius and we read statements like "The Delta site of Sais (modern Sa el-Hagar) is heavily waterlogged and has never been properly investigated. Although it is thought to be the royal burial ground, it is strange that little evidence remains of the royal burials themselves apart from a few ushabtis, most of whose known provenances are other than Sais. The ten ushabtis in the name of Psammetichus are difficult to assign specifically to one or the other king of that name. There is also a splendid ushabti and a heart scarab of Necho II, three ushabtis of Apries and six of Amasis." 190]

What the author does not say is that, of course, the name Apries is not on these ushabties, but the name historians chose to represent Apries. Indeed the 26th Dynasty is constructed on a very shaky foundation because it never existed independent of the 19th Dynasty. [200] Summary: Two sessions at Sa el-Hagar, based on core samples and a small dig, have produced mainly: a) Confirmation of the existence of several phases of large Ramesside to Saite buildings existing under the koms and hills of Kom Rebwa. b) Discovery of an area of late Predynastic-Early Dynastic settlement and of Buto-Maadi cultural material on the western side of the `Great Pit', beginning at ca. 1.5-3 m below the lowest modern ground level.]

`nswt' king

the abreviated form for king

a) `hm' majesty
b) `ity' sovereign

c) `nb' lord
d) `pr-'z' great house (new kingdom type)

There is at least one instance known from Late Dynastic times were `king' was written this way intended to be a pun. [300]

Following are various ways of writing `king' and titles and official positions.

Hieroglyphics for Pharaoh

Wahibre is actually a corrupted form of his true name, Nekau-Wehemibre, mentioned in the Serapeum Stela. Historians conjectured that the Psamtik mentioned in the stela must be the equivalent to the Greek `Psammetichus', the Hebrew `Apries' [320] and `Psamshek' of the Aramaeic documents of the Persian period they disregarded. `Nekau-Wehemibre' must have had a father or grandfather by the name of Wehemibre, thus they conceived these men to have been the long sought after kings of the 26th Dynasty.
Wahibre was a man, whose only record of historical significance is some information found on the Serapeum Stela.

Historians have been satisfied with this single relic of the rich past of Pharaoh Necho. Nothing ever has been found and will be found telling us of the great events in the life of Nekau-Wehemibre; relating to us the story of his great war against Carchemish, the construction of a canal linking the Mediterranean with the Red Sea. We also notice no one ever found any laws attributable to him [but ordinances to levy taxes was well within the official duties of a functionary during Persian times], any temple constructions, no written scrolls, mummys or coffins. How he could have been a match for King Nebuchadnezzar marching a 4 division army to Carchemish no one has ever attempted to explain. It is as if historians regard this as a `do-not-touch' era of history.

A kneeling statue of Wahibre

From near Lake Mareotis in the north-west Delta comes a little statue of the 26th dynasty, dated to about 530 BC. Wahibre was in effect the governor of the Western Delta during the 26th or Saite (means from the town of Sais) dynasty. His importance can be judged from the resources to which he must have had access to be able to set up a statue like this. The statue was probably set up in a temple, perhaps near a shrine of Osiris, and Wahibre is demonstrating his piety, holding up a naos (shrine) of his god which he is presenting to the deity. He would thus expect to partake in the generosity and good fortune of the god. The statue exhibits many of the characteristic features of art of the Late Period (dynasties 25-30). Wahibre's face is rather bland and devoid of features. The stone is highly polished and yet sparsely decorated, which perhaps emphasises the contrast with the hardness of the stone.

That is all he was, a governor, not a king. Why is this Wahibre considered to be the same person as `Nekau Wehemibre', who was made into Psammetichus I? Nothing in the evidence presented would per force lead us to conclude that Wahibre was a seated king. Some also assign to him a reign, even if it includes a coreign, of some 54 years. This number `54' years comes from Herodotus and not from Egyptian inscriptions as far as we can tell and represents circular reasoning. Overall the conventional explanations for these potentates are full of circular reasoning and reading it can discourage any interested person.

Who was Neferibre?

Of Neferibre-nofer we know very little. He was a "magazine overseer". A building inscription reads:

"... Neferibre-nofer, to whom the Two Lands recount their hearts, and repeat to him all their thoughts; [who pleases] King Neferibre by doing that which is his desire, when he commands to protect their holy places, beautifying the Two Lands ..." . [400]

Was Neferibre really a king or just a highly placed official like so many other officials who liked to exaggerate their importance during Late Dynastic times? Yet, he was chosen to represent Psammetichus II (Psamtik II). Of Psamtik II it is said that he led a military campaign against the Kushite city of Napata in Nubia in 592 BC. The question may arise if this Psammetichus was not a king, how could he have led a military campaign against Napata? In revised view in 592 BC Ramses II/Necho I ruled in Egypt and at the most we would say that Psammetichus (II) could have been one of his regional officials. A now famous graffiti written in Greek on the left leg of the colossal, seated statue of Ramses II reads:

"When King Psammetichus came to Elephantine, this was written by those who sailed with Psammetichus the son of Theocles, and they came beyond Kerkis as far as the river permits. Those who spoke foreign tongues were led by Potasimto, the Egyptians by Amasis."

The fact is that we don't know when this graffiti was scratched into the statue of Ramses. Since it is written in past tense by someone who did not participate in this voyage, the graffiti originates from a period much later - by how much no one knows. Who was Theocles? Unfortunately nothing further is known about a Theocles from the 6th century BC. Who was Potasimto? This name is not known from any other source. Who was Amasis? If the Amasis referred to is general Amasis from the time of Merneptah he might be the best chronological anchor we have. In revised view general Amasis became Pharaoh Amasis at the time of the violent death of Merneptah/Apries. The graffiti then would refer to the time when Amasis was still general, either later in the reign of Ramses II, or, less likely but still possible, that this voyage took place during the reign of Merneptah/Apries. The graffiti does not help in the claim of conventional historians that Neferibre was Psammetichus II. It is wrong to equate any Psammetichus with Psamtik who was an Egyptian official who had to answer to the Persian plenipotentiary Arsames. The graffiti was probably not placed there any earlier than during Greek times as opposed to Persian times. Therefore it seems to be a fairly modern text and we do not regard this one isolated instance as of the kind to establish a chronology on.

Who was Haaibre

To make matters even more confused, `Haaibre' also has the name Wahibre and Uahabra. What is the difference between the two Wahibres? The first `Wahibre' is supposed to be Psamtik I, the second is supposed to be Apries. Near Sais were found three ushabtis of Apries and six of Amasis. But few know what if any inscriptions were found on these ushabtis. Most likely they were identified on grounds of typological characteristics. History books also will say that the name `Apries' was found on columns of some constructions as well as on a relatively short (5.47 meters) obelisk located on the `Piazza della Minerva' in Rome. Again, this is misleading since the name they find is not `Apries' but rather the person they decided to represent Apries, a decision which we find occasion to contest.

We meet Wahibre/Haaibre/Uahabra again among the stela found in the Serapeum, #190. The text of this stela was translated and so we read:

"Year 20, fourth month of the third season (twelfth month), day 21; under the majesty of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Wahibre (W' h-yb-R'); Son of Re, of his body, Psamtik (Psmtk) I; went forth the majesty of Apis, the Living Son, to heaven.
This god was conducted in peace to the Beautiful West in the year 21, second month of the first season (second month), (on) the twenty-fifth day."
Now, he was born in the year 26 of King Taharka; he was received into Memphis in the fourth month of the second season (eighth month), (on) the ninth day; which makes 21 years, 2 months [7 days]. [420]

All sorts of chronologies are using this information to fortify their scenario so one more won't hurt. When Wahibre/Haaibre lived we can't be sure of, Psamtek/Psamshek we place about in the middle of the 5th century BC based on the grain shipment in 445 BC. So how does this affect the information from the Serapeum? Auguste Mariette is supposed to have shipped to Paris 800 or more commemorative stela. Out of these 1 out of 5 stela are supposed to commemorate the Apis bull who died in the 20th year of Psamtik I, who is our Psamshek, administrator under Arsames. What 20 year old event could have been memorialized in such a marked way in the days of Psamshek? Even though Egypt was in the sphere of influence of the Persian monarch Artaxerxes who reigned from 465-425 BC, the rebellion of Inaros/Ramses XI took place between 463-454 BC. In 445 BC grain was sent from Egypt to Greece. If we assume that 463 BC was a memorable event, the start of the rebellion against the Persians or stated this way, the beginning of the `reign' of Ramses XI. 443 BC would have been the time for the erection of this particular stela perhaps to commemorate a folk hero as far as the Egyptians were concerned.

Who was Khnemibre

Khnemibre - Khnemibre - Supervisor of works in the entire land, has many rock inscriptions at Wady Hammamat ranging from the last year of Amasis to the 30th of Darius. His cartouche, crowned with a double plume shows that he named himself after the king Ahmose II/Amasis of the 26th Dynasty under whom he was born. His influence was great because no native kings ruled in Egypt and his cartouche was found on the walls of the apparent only building of some importance at Bahriya. In his profession he had easy access to skilled workmen in stone and no one looking over his shoulder to agrandize himself. [440]

Conclusion: The evidence is very strong in favor of `Nekht-nebef' and `Nekht-hor-heb' having been influential officials subject to the Persian satrap Arsames. They were no kings despite their names appearing in cartouches. The same is true for all other candidates discussed. The real personalities of the 26th are the 19th Dynasty kings.

The monuments of Seti the Great say nothing about his affairs involving Assyria and his support by Greek mercenaries just like Herodotus says nothing about Psammetichus' wars with Libya and Kush.

Who was Zed-Khonsu-ef-ankh

Zed-Khonsu-ef-ankh was the vizier or governor of Bahariya according to Ahmed Fakhry and Zahi Hawass. [500]

According to the report his name was found on the walls of the temples of `Aim-El-Meftela', "where he and his brother built chapels to 26th Dynasty Kings Apries and Ahmose II. This man showed himself equal in size to the king."

The last statement `equal in size to the king' is a clue that we are dealing here with late dynastic times. It may even help us realize that Zed thought himself at least equal in rank to the officials which are taking the place of Apries and Ahmose II in modern history books. When Zed-Khonsu-ef-ankh is said to have built temples to 26th Dynasty kings and then the names `Apries' and `Ahmose II (Khnemibre)' are mentioned, we must understand again that the names actually found are those of individuals interpreted to be kings Apries and Amose II. As we showed before once egyptologists agreed among each other whom to substitute for each king the popularly accepted 26th Dynasty names took the place of personalities which were officials, not kings, during Persian times.

The cartouche found on the wall of the chapel of `Ayn al-Muftillah' at the `Oasis of Bahariya' is that of Khnemibre who is interpreted to represent `Amasis'.

Non-Royal Potentates

The tomb of the 26th Dynasty governor of the Bahariya Oasis and the tomb of his wife have been found. "`Naassa' the wife of `Gad Khensu Eyuf Ankh' was found in a limestone coffin, with 100 gold amulets and other jewelry." [600]

To see a lime stone stela of the 26th dynasty personalities of Chaywet featuring some readable hieroglyphics, a painted funerary stela of Udjarnes and the limestone with pigment 18th Dynasty pyramidion of Hori see KMT, Vol. 12, Fall 2001, p. 26.

[010] B. Meissner, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Vol. LXXII (1918), p. 61; Jeremiah 15:12; Ezekiel 27:12.
[020] A.Erman & A.M.Blackman, `The Literature of the Ancient Egyptians', (London, 1927), p. 268; Cf. A.Alt, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, LXXXVI (1933), p. 40; See also Jeremiah 1:18, Ezekiel 4:3.
[030] Josephus, `Antiquities', Bk. X, ch. I, Sec. 4.
[040] Paul Tresson, `Sur deux monuments égyptiens inédits', Kêmi, IV (1931, published 1933).
[050] Pritchard, J.B., `Ancient Near Eastern Texts', Vol. I, pp. 278-282.
[060] Alan H. Gardiner (1879-1963), `Egypt of the Pharaohs', p. 366; G. Posener, `La premiére domination perse en Egypte', Cairo, 1936) p. 41ff.
[070] See also PSBA, Feb 1887, p. 98-100.
[080] Aramaeic Letters of Arsames.
[090] A. Rowe, `Topography and History of Beth-shan', Phil., 1930, pp. 2, 26, 39.
[100] Herodotus, `History', Book I, Se. 105.
[110] Reeves, `AE- The Great Discoveries', p. 68. Archaeological evidence from Naucratis, `Neqrash', as the local fellahîn call it.
[120] Gardner/Francis Llewllyn Griffith (1862-1934), `Naucratis', Appendix, p. 82.
[130] See A. Montgomery `The Stratigraphy of the 19th Dynasty in Asia Minor'.
[140] Mazar, `Archaeology of the Land of the Bible'.
[150] A. Rowe, `Topography and History of Beth-Shean'.
[160] Penny Wilson, `Sais: Surveying the Royal City' in Egyptian Archaeology, No. 12, 1998, p. 3-6. Contrast the Sais report with that from Tanis in the same issue by Philippe Brissaud, `An enigma at Tanis', p. 33-36.
[170] Herodotus, Bk II, Sec. 17.
[180] Strabo, `Geography', XVII, I, 20.
[190] P. Clayton, `Chronicle of the Pharaohs', p. 197.
[200] See also Fieldwork, 2000-01 in The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Vol. 87, 2001, p. 1-22.
[300] See KMT, Fall 2000, p. 28.
[320] According to reports the tomb of a "mayor" was found in the desert town of Bawiti located about 100 miles (~180 km) west of the Nile by Sako [Latitude 28 degrees, longitude 29 degrees] in the oasis of Bahiya or Bahariya. His name was `Ghad Khensu Eyuf' and he belongs, according to conventional views, to the time of Pharaoh Apries (conventionally 598-570 BC, revised 579 coreg. 569-558 BC). Wahibre is the conventional, Hebrew Pharaoh Apries, known to the Greeks as Psammetichus. According to Dr. Hawass, Eyuf dared to represent himself in temples in the same style as kings. Archaeologists found "unique statues, colorful wall reliefs, pottery and jewellry". As a surprise they also found large quantities of a yellow powder determined to be hematite, a valuable iron ore. Archaeologists also found 102 mummies in 7 tombs about 10 kilometers away from Eyuf's tomb, judged to belong to the later Greco/Roman period. Eyuf had built a temple called `Apries' in the oasis according to Dr. Hawass. We assume that the hieroglyphics read not `Apries' but rather `Wahibre' who is said to have been `Apries' since it is unlikely that the Egyptians would write a Greek name.
[350] Breasted, `Records', Vol. IV, Sec. 977-979.
[400] Breasted, `Records', Vol. IV, Sec. 981.
[420] Breasted, `Records', Vol. IV, Sec. 960-962.
[440] Ahmed Fakhri, `Bahriya and Farafra', p. 64-65, Fig. 23, 24, 66; There is something about his cartouche which makes it different from known royal name rings.
[500] See, `Egypt Revealed' Fall 2000, p. 28.
[600] A gold signet ring was described by F. Lt. Griffith, Note on an Egyptian Gold Signet-Ring in PSBA, Jan 1905, p. 38. The text was translated as, "The nomarch(?) of the Hermonithe nome, Divine Father of Amonre, king's son(?), prophet, Opener to the Holder of the hep(?), the abh, Yerhararau." A common name during the time of the 26th dynasty according to the author.