Inaros

Very few Bible scholars believe now in the historicity of the book of Esther, but what is really incomprehensible is that their conclusion is based only on the following prejudice: this story looks like a fairy tale, consequently, it is a fairy tale! There is no chronological investigation despite the fact that chronology is the backbone of history and there has been no historical research among archaeological witnesses despite the fact that apart from ancient texts there is no witness. Worse still, to establish their chronology, historians have blind faith in the Babylonian king lists which are nevertheless false (reporting no usurpation and no co-regency). Additionally, in order to establish historical truth, they regularly quote the official propaganda of the time which is very often misleading. Yet it is easy to check in the tablets of Persepolis that Mordecai was an eminent royal scribe called Marduka who worked with Tatennai, the governor beyond the River, under the direction of Uštanu, the satrap of Babylon, during the years 17 to 32 of Darius. Similarly, the narrative of Herodotus regarding Amestris (a name meaning ‘vigorous woman’ in Old Persian), Xerxes' unique wife and only queen known in Persia, corresponds in many ways to Esther (‘star’ in Old Persian”) despite the unfavourable and biased description of the Persian queen.
https://www.lulu.com/shop/gerard-gertoux/queen-esther-wife-of-xerxes-chronological-historical-and-archaeological-evidence/paperback/product-15egvzwr.html

As for the overall historicity of the book —despite widespread dismissal from skeptics— there is likewise a remarkable body of evidence for it, including the historical identity of Queen Esther herself. For more on this, read a thorough investigation by Gerard Gertoux (The Armstrong Institute of Biblical Archaeology https://armstronginstitute.org/674).

The pivotal date of 465 BCE for the death of Xerxes has been accepted by historians for many years without notable controversy. However, according to Thucydides, a historian renowned for his high chronological accuracy, Themistocles met Artaxerxes, who had succeeded Xerxes, his father, just after the fall of Nexos (The Peloponnesian War I:98;137) which occured after the fall of Skyros dated at the beginning of the archonship of Phaedo in 476 BCE, according to Plutarch (Life of Theseus §§35,36). Thus, the meeting with Themistocles would have occurred soon after 475/474, not 465/464.
The present Achaemenid chronology comes mainly from official Babylonian king lists which ignore coregents and usurpers. This official version is contradicted by contracts dated in "year, month, day" proving the existence of frequent co-regencies and usurpers. In addition, according to the astronomical tablet referenced BM 32234 the death of Xerxes is dated 14/V/21 between two lunar eclipses, one dated 14/III/21 (26 June 475 BCE), which was total, and a second dated 14/VIII/21 (20 December 475 BCE), which was partial. Thus the death of Xerxes has to be dated 24 August 475 BCE. Likewise, the death of Artaxerxes I is fixed precisely by Thucydides (The Peloponnesian War IV:50-52) just before a partial solar eclipse (21 March 424 BCE) which would imply an absurd co-regency of Darius II with a dead king for at least one year! In fact, Plutarch and Justinus have effectively described a long co-regency of Artaxerxes but with his first son Darius B (434-426), not Darius II, and afterward two shorts reigns: Xerxes II for 2 months then Sogdianus for 7 months, which occurred before the reign of Darius II.
The arrangement of the intercalary months in a chronology without co-regency has several anomalies especially the presence of two months Ulul in a single cycle. By contrast, in a chronology with co-regency, and thus two distinct cycles, the abnormal intercalary month in year 30 of Darius (Persepolis) corresponds to another cycle ending in year 4 of Xerxes. The titular of Xerxes (496-475) in Egypt and the data of Diodorus confirm the co-regency of 10 years with Darius (522-486), likewise Elephantine papyri with many double dates with civil and lunar calendars.
Lunar dates were supposed to come from a Babylonian calendar, but this is impossible because the city of Elephantine, in the far south of Egypt, was largely administered by Egyptian officials who used a civil calendar to date their documents. Parker (1950) assumed that the Egyptian lunar calendar began with the 1st invisibility (day after the new moon and just before the new crescent). As lunar day 1, called psdntyw "shining ones", has played a major role in Egyptian religious celebrations, it is regularly quoted in ancient documents, which sometimes also date it in the civil calendar. In the papyrus Louvre 7848 containing a double date, lunar and civil, in the year 44 of Amasis, the first date (II Shemu 13) is lunar and the second (I Shemu 15) is civil and as the civil date fell on 21 September 558 BCE the lunar date fell on 9 (= 21 – 12) September 558 BCE which was a full moon day according to astronomy, not 1st invisibility "shining ones"! The lunar calendar at Elephantine with its system of double dates used by Persians officials and Jewish scribes from 500 to 400 BCE confirms that the Egyptian lunar day 1 was a full moon.

This monograph is based on the article: Dating the Reigns of Xerxes and Artaxerxes, published in: Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Series Archaeologica 40, 2018, pp. 179-206 (https://www.academia.edu/37218165/). A summary of this article has been published in the journal: NABU 2019-4, p. 179 (https://www.academia.edu/42902553/), which summarizes the main arguments establishing the reign of Xerxes over the period 496-475 BCE (10-year co-regency with the reign of Darius I) instead of 486-465 BCE (conventional chronology). The revision of the Achaemenid chronology radically changes the interpretation of the articles devoted to Esther. Indeed, most academic studies consider that Esther's story has no historical foundation and that this book is a fiction. However, Amestris (510-426), wife of Xerxes and mother of Artaxerxes I, was the mother of Darius A (488-475), crown prince in 475 BCE, of Artaxerxes (485-425) who became king of Persia (475-424) and of Hystaspes II (486-425?) who became satrapist of Bactria (475-425?). She was queen consort at the side of Artaxerxes I (Nehemiah 2:6; Life of Themistocles 29:6). Ctesias sometimes portrayed her as a sensitive and peaceful queen (Persica F13§34,42,44) and Plato as a wise ruler (First Alcibiad 123b-124b). She is the only queen to have received a royal tomb in the Acropolis of Susa (a unique case in history). The head of Queen Amestris in lapis lazuli, found in Persepolis and dated to the 5th century BCE, can be seen in the National Museum of Iran (ref 1274-7719). On a seal dated 5th century BCE (AO 22359), Queen Amestris stands before Atossa (who was the wife of Darius and the mother of Xerxes), she was seen sitting on a throne when she married Xerxes in 489 BCE, the exact date of Esther's marriage according to the Bible (Est 2:1-18). She also appears as a crowned queen on a gold ring (British Museum ANE 124005). His bronze "bathtub" coffin, found in the Acropolis of Susa (http://www.achemenet.com/fr/visit/?/suse/tombe), is exactly oriented towards Jerusalem (azimuth 264° west from north), which is in harmony with the biblical text (1Ki 8:44; Dan 6:10). According to the size of her skeleton, Queen Esther was about 1.60 m tall and the golden crown (Louvre Sb 2760) she wore around her head had a diameter of 20.2 cm. This prestigious Persian crown was also worn by King Darius III at the Battle of Issus. Finally, before the reign of Xerxes, there were no Jewish officials in the Persian administration, but after his reign there were hundreds. Conclusion: Amestris, Amā-strī "vigorous woman" in old Persian, was an authentic Jewish queen named Amā-stara "star (Esther) woman", the name Esther being the Persian form (Stara) of the Babylonian name Ishtar (the goddess "Star") which gave the Greek word aster "star".

The Egyptian priest Kalasiris of Heliodoros’ Aithiopika is one of the most complex characters in the ancient Greek novels. While many studies have been devoted to him from the fields of classics and ancient philosophy, no in-depth analysis of Kalasiris has been pursued from the field of Egyptology so far. In this paper I analyze two passages of the Aithiopika: Kalasiris’ description of the two types of Egyptian wisdom in 3.16.3–4, and the necromantic ritual of the old woman of Bessa in 6.14–15. I compare the presentation of Egyptian magic and necromancy in these passages with two descriptions of necromancy in Demotic literature: the reanimations of the scribe of the divine book in the beginning of the Fight for the Armor of Inaros, and of the wife and son of Naneferkaptah in Setne I. By means of this comparison I demonstrate that the difference in Kalasiris’ dichotomy between the two types of Egyptian wisdom does not reside in the magical practices themselves, but in the degree of initiation of their practitioners and the nature of their motivations.

Inaros, son of Psammetichus, an Egyptian ruler of Libyan descent, rebelled against his overlord Artaxerxes I. The purpose of this paper is to re-evaluate the conven-
tionally accepted dates of this event. It is commonly held that Inaros rebelled on hearing about the death of Xerxes, King of Persia in 465/4 B.C. The ensuing struggle between Persia and Egypt, supported by Athenian allies, is commonly dated between 460/59 and 454 B.C. This reconstruction of dates and events is based on acceptance of the version given by Thucydides, his interpretation of the political situation in Greece and his chronological order of events. The reconstruction of the rebellion of Inaros here will be based on Diodorus Siculus, Thucydides and Ctesias, but also on Aramaic and Egyptian documents from Egypt written in demotic script.

This article provides a brief summary of archaeological fieldwork conducted by the University of Vienna Middle Egypt Project at el-Sheikh Fadl Umm Raqaba with a special focus on one particular Late Period tomb, A2 T1. Having been discovered by Flinders Petrie in the early 20th century, this rock-cut tomb is of special interest because of a lengthy Aramaic dipinto inscription with a literary text telling the tale of the Egyptian rebel Inaros who fought against the Assyrian occupation during the 7th century BCE.
The tomb was fully excavated for the first time by the Austrian mission in 2016 and 2017. Significant and substantial new evidence was uncovered including large quantities of human remains and artefacts that provide insights into the ancient occupation of the tomb as well as its dating. Importantly, the Aramaic inscription and the underlying original painted decoration of the tomb were subject to intensive new study that included first-hand confirmation of the reading of the rebel’s name as ynḥrw being the Aramaic form of the Egyptian name ’ir.t-ḥr-r.r=w (Greek Ináros). Further, the inscription and decorations were recorded with the assistance of Multispectral
Imaging (MSI) technology which enabled to counterbalance degeneration and modern graffiti to enhance better reading.
The first results of this new archaeological work would suggest that the tomb itself probably dates somewhat later than had been previously suggested, which, nevertheless, opens up new possibilities to explain the significance and provide an interpretation for this unusual inscription as well as for the tomb, the site and the region surrounding el-Sheikh Fadl.