232 BOOK REVIEWS
only of what remains from these periods but also of what re-
mains to be investigated. This paper is also noteworthy for its
references to unpublished surveys conducted by graduate stu-
dents from the local Institute of Islamic Archaeology at al-Quds
University.
Jerusalem is a complex and demanding subject. Although
the title and editorial overview promise more than the volume
delivers, i.e., “a balanced view of the scholarly discussions, en-
compassing all periods of interest beginning with prehistoric
times and reaching all the way to the Ottoman period” (p. xiii),
it is difficult to imagine how any single volume could possibly
fulfill such an ambitious undertaking. While some of the papers
do present fairly comprehensive surveys of a particular period
or debate—e.g., Maeir’s paper on the Bronze Age, Geva’s paper
on the Second Temple Period, Magness’s paper on Aelia Capi-
tolina, and Schick’s paper on the Mamluk and Ottoman peri-
ods—the majority of the papers are special-issue papers that
will be applauded for their unique contributions to the body of
scholarly literature about Jerusalem.
Jane Cahill West
Houston, Texas
jcahill@hal-pc.org
references
Maeir, A. M.
2000 Jerusalem before King David: An Archaeological
Survey from Protohistoric Times to the End of the
Iron Age I. Pp. 33–66 in The History of Jerusalem:
The Biblical Period, ed. S. Aḥituv and A. Mazar. Je-
rusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi (Hebrew).
Schick, R.
2001 Arabic Studies of Mamluk Jerusalem: A Review
Article. Mamluk Studies Review 5: 159–68.
Trouble in the West: Egypt and the Persian Empire, 525–332
BCE, by Stephen Ruzicka. New York: Oxford University
Press, 2012. xxvi + 311 pp., 5 figures, 5 maps. Cloth. $74.00.
In this fascinating new study on the Achaemenid Empire,
Ruzicka fills a pressing need in the historiography of ancient
Egypt. The last comprehensive historical overview of the Egyp-
tian Late Period (Dynasties 26–30) appeared almost 60 years
ago (Kienitz 1953), and while more recent treatments of this era
have been quite useful (e.g., Myśliwiec 2000; Vittmann 2003),
nothing has quite supplanted it as a general reference. This book
surveys Persia’s rapid conquest of Egypt under Cambyses in 526
b.c.e., its expulsion by Amyrtaeus in 405, and the repeated at-
tempts to regain control that occupied it for much of the fourth
century. Throughout this protracted struggle, both sides forged
treaties with different states in the Aegean and Levant, and Ru­
zicka narrates these continually fluctuating alliances with clarity
and perspicacity. As such, this book successfully contextualizes
the generally neglected Late Period of Egypt within the shifting
BASOR 371
geopolitical landscape of the era, and it should be required read-
ing for all interested in Pharaonic and Ptolemaic Egypt, not to
mention the Achaemenid Empire. At the same time, this lucid
overview of the Persian War should prove a useful companion
for readers of Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon interested
in the events taking place outside of the Aegean.
Two general theses inform Ruzicka’s approach. First, he
frames the war as a broader fight between the West (Egypt)
and the East (Persia), each vying to control the Middle Terri-
tory (Syro-Palestine); in chapters 1 and 20, Ruzicka traces this
geographic struggle over the longue durée. Secondly, Ruzicka
argues that Egypt was Persia’s greatest economic and strate-
gic interest in the West. After losing the satrapy around 400
b.c.e., Persian military and diplomatic activities in the eastern
Mediterranean were ultimately motivated by their attempts to
­recapture Egypt. To achieve this goal, they would have to se-
cure the middle region of Syro-Palestine, gaining control over
Egypt’s traditional allies and trading partners, and prevent
Athens from supporting Egypt again, as they had during the
rebellion of Inaros in 459–454. Thus, for Ruzicka, Artaxerxes II
allied with Sparta during the Corinthian War so that “he might
be able to compel Athens and other Greeks to agree to a general
peace and thereby deprive Egypt of opportunities for interven-
tion in Greek affairs” (p. 78); when formulating the King’s Peace
of 387, Artaxerxes aimed to “clear the way for the recovery of
Cyprus, the necessary preliminary to staging any new Persian
campaign against Egypt” (p. 81). Of course, numerous strategic
considerations would have motivated the Persians’ activities in
the region, but by keeping the focus on Egypt, Ruzicka sheds
new light on the grand strategy of the Achaemenid Empire.
Cambyses invaded Egypt with little resistance, perhaps in
part because the new king Psamtek III and the Egyptian army
were lacking in experience after over 40 relatively uneventful
years of peace under Amasis. Persia ruled Egypt for almost 125
years, but after a series of rebellions, they spent the next 60 try-
ing to recapture their former satrapy. In Ruzicka’s tragicomic
narrative, Persia is perpetually on the verge of invading Egypt
when unforeseen events frustrate the Great Kings’ intentions.
After Amyrtaeus led the first successful revolt in 405, plans
for retaliation were put on hold because of the civil war be-
tween Artaxerxes II and Cyrus the Younger (chapter 4). Later,
Artaxerxes II enlisted the Athenian general Iphicrates in 379
to prepare Phoenician troops to invade Egypt, but despite six
years of costly training exercises, the massive expedition of 373
barely penetrated the coast, apparently due to adverse seasonal
winds (chapters 10–11). Datames, satrap of Cappadocia and
a renowned general, was preparing for yet another campaign
against Egypt around 372, but dynastic struggles following the
death of Artaxerxes II sparked a minor civil war, and the com-
mander was forced to return to Anatolia to protect his position
(chapter 12). Ironically, Egypt failed to capitalize on Persian
weakness for similar reasons. Just as king Tachos was leading
an international coalition into Persian territory in 360–359, a
rival faction acclaimed his cousin Nectanebo II as king back in
Egypt, aborting the military campaign as Tachos fled to Persia
for safety.
While Ruzicka generally does an excellent job reading
between the lines to uncover the strategic and economic
2014 BOOK REVIEWS
considerations underlying Persian and Greek policies, he
occasionally relies on ideological or religious explanations
when dealing with Egypt. Thus, when Cambyses launched
ambitious and ultimately disastrous campaigns toward Nu-
bia, Siwa, and Carthage, he was not really interested in secur-
ing control over North African caravan routes or the western
Mediterranean (cf. Liverani 2000), but merely trying “to show
that he was following in the steps of his Egyptian royal pre-
decessors” (p. 21). Similarly, Artaxerxes III targeted the city
of Bubastis not only because it was “strategically located” (p.
188), but because of its “special sanctity and symbolic signifi-
cance” as home to the divinities Bastet and Sopdu (although
the latter was technically from nearby Saft el-Henna). Yet
Nectanebo II gave benefactions to many temples throughout
Egypt, so it is difficult to single out any city as especially sa-
cred or psychologically significant, except perhaps his dynas-
tic home of Sebennytos.
While Egyptian and Achaemenid historiography has seen
great advances in recent decades, Ruzicka relies heavily on
Classical sources out of necessity (surveyed on pp. xxi–xxv),
as most Persian evidence is administrative (i.e., the Persepolis
Fortification Tablets), and Egyptian texts are restricted to either
papyri (Demotic, Aramaic) or private biographies composed
in hieroglyphs. Ruzicka, a Classicist, has done an excellent job
of navigating the thorny debates of Egyptology, incorporating
many of the most recent and pertinent references, and finding
reasonable conclusions to oft-debated subjects.
Despite its relatively short time span, the Achaemenid Em-
pire is a vast subject, and few can hope to master all the req-
uisite languages, which include Old Persian, Greek, Egyptian
(hieroglyphic and Demotic), and Aramaic. Since this book will
probably find its greatest audience among Classicists or an-
cient Near Eastern scholars, and since the present reviewer is
primarily a historian of ancient Egypt, the following remarks
will point out some additional Egyptological publications Ru-
zicka may have overlooked (some of which, admittedly, only
appeared in the last couple of years), that update, modify, or
further strengthen the author’s statements.
In terms of general bibliography, a recent volume of the
Achaemenid conference series Persika was largely devoted to
Egypt (Briant and Chauveau 2009). In addition, several very
detailed overviews of Persians in Egypt bring many new ideas
and recently discovered evidence to old discussions from ear-
lier surveys (Yoyotte 2010; 2011; Vittmann 2011; Perdu 2010).
For translations and recent bibliography of the primary textual
sources, Ruzicka might have relied on the useful compendium
by Kuhrt (2007), or the recent study on Greek perspectives by
Lenfant (2011).
pp. 14–16: For the challenges facing Egyptian invaders, with
special attention to this period, one might consult another
recent comparative study, by Kahn and Tammuz (2008).
p. 17: A recent study has pushed the date of the Persian invasion
of Egypt back one year from 525 to 526 b.c.e. (Quack 2011).
pp. 27–28, 240, n. 4: Additional studies have provided further
support for the existence of Psammetichus IV and the chro-
nology of his reign (Pestman 1984; Vleeming 1991: 3–4).
233
pp. 29–32: For the Inaros episode, one might compare a recent
study by Kahn (2008). Various factors indicate that Inaros
was ethnically Libyan (Colin 2000: 93, n. 252; Winnicki
2006), so perhaps he was not descended from the Psamteks
of Dynasty 26 (so Ruzicka, pp. 240–41, n. 8).
p. 40: More evidence regarding Amyrtaeus and his mercenary
soldiers comes from graffiti they signed at the temple of Aby-
dos (Yoyotte 2011: 26).
pp. 136–48: Regarding the Nectanebid royal family, one should
consult a recent study that incorporated additional evidence
(Engsheden 2006). The latter article questions the basis for
the assumed co-regency between Nectanebo I and Tachos
(Ruzicka, pp. 136, 266–67, nn. 6–7), and demonstrates that
Nectanebo II was actually a cousin (ἀνεφιός) of Tachos, not
his nephew, and that Tjaihapimu was Tachos’ uncle, not his
brother (pp. 147–48).
For the Egyptian dynastic squabbles during Tachos and
Nectanebo’s military campaigns, one should also mention the
prominent Egyptian official Onnophris (Wennefer), whose
titles indicate that he served under Tachos or Nectanebo II
(von Känel 1980). In the remarkable biography preserved in his
tomb at Saqqara (still only partially published), he mentions be-
ing arrested under suspicion of a conspiracy, to be questioned
by the “controller of Egypt” (Tjaihapimu). Cleared of guilt, On-
nophris is dispatched by ship to assist his king (perhaps Ta-
chos), mentioned as being in a damaged toponym which could
be restored as “Su[sa],” perhaps corroborating Greek accounts
that Tachos sought refuge with Artaxerxes III after fleeing Nec-
tanebo II (Ruzicka, p. 149).
p. 197: The interpretation of Somtutefnakht’s monument (the
so-called “Naples Stela,” more likely a statue base; see the
newer edition by Perdu 1985) requires additional com-
ments. The title “Chief Priest of Sakhmet” was not limited to
Memphis and its temples, but related to medicine, science,
and other academic pursuits; holders of this title usually
occupied prominent positions in the Egyptian administra-
tion, particularly regarding agriculture (von Känel 1984;
Engelmann and Hallof 1996). Moreover, the inscription
says nothing about Artaxerxes III supporting local Egyptian
cults. Instead, it reports that Somtutefnakht was taken to
the Achaemenid court in Persia, most likely because of his
advanced medical knowledge (Burkard 1994: 39–40), and
later fled back to his Egyptian home town of Herakleopolis
after seeing his god Herishef in an oracular dream, sometime
around Alexander’s conquest.
p. 209: Regarding continuity between the Nectanebid Dynasty
and the Ptolemies (p. 209), there is no positive evidence that
the Delta general Nekhtnebef (“Nectnef ”) served under
Ptolemy I; rather, the titles and epithets on his sarcophagus
appear to refer to the situation prior to the Egyptian invasion
of Artaxerxes III, at the end of the 30th Dynasty (cf. Eng-
sheden 2006: 68–70, with a slightly different interpretation).
In addition to his administrative connection to Pelusium
and the Eastern Delta, Nekhtnebef also held the curious
title “priest of Ptah who is in Punt,” which may allude to
Nectanebo II’s exile in Nubia.
234 BOOK REVIEWS
  Moreover, newer evidence has shown that Ptolemy I did
not marry a daughter of Nectanebo II (cf. Kuhlmann 1998).
p. 235, n. 17: Achaemenid historians generally dismiss all ref-
erences to looting and destruction under Cambyses as anti-
Persian propaganda. Yet historical sources are in accord
concerning his hostility toward Egyptian temples,1 and there
are few positive reasons to doubt this reputation (cf. Jansen-
Winkeln 2002). The monuments of Amasis were particularly
vulnerable; despite his vast building program spanning four
decades, few of his monuments remain standing today, and
agents carefully excised his name from all temple blocks,
statues, and other monuments throughout Egypt (Klotz
2010: 131–32; Bolshakov 2010). A recently published biog-
raphy of an Egyptian general from Busiris who served dur-
ing the 30th Dynasty refers to damage that “foreigners” (i.e.,
Persians) inflicted against Abydos in Upper Egypt (Klotz
2010: 147–48). Various considerations date this text to the
reign of Nectanebo I (Klotz 2010: 137–39);2 thus, the de-
struction must have taken place under Cambyses or Xerxes,
well before the invasion of Artaxerxes III.
p. 238, n. 43: For various reasons, scholars have previously
hesitated to identify a true legal tradition in pre-Hellenistic
Egypt, but the distinction proposed here between ““laws”
in a conventional sense” and “regulations” seems to split
hairs needlessly. More recently, specialists have reaffirmed
that there was indeed a significant codification of laws under
Darius I (Agut-Labordère 2010; Lippert 2012).
p. 240, n. 5: In connection with the very reasonable idea that
Xerxes redirected Egyptian temple income to finance his
war efforts in the Aegean (compare the similar policy of the
Egyptian king Tachos; Ruzicka, p. 142), one should also con-
sider the Satrap Stela of Ptolemy I, which ascribes precisely
such actions to a king “Xerxes” (cf. Klinkott 2007; Schäfer
2009), even though scholars (including Ruzicka, p. 202) have
often emended his name to “Artaxerxes III.”
p. 278, n. 18: As with Cambyses, Achaemenid historians con-
sider reports of Egyptian temple statues deported under
Artaxerxes III to be retroactive, Ptolemaic propaganda.
Personally, however, this reviewer agrees with Ruzicka, who
noted: “it seems unlikely that Ptolemy could simply have
passed off loot taken during the campaign as the sacred
objects removed by the Persians.” In this connection, one
might cite the Pithom Stela, which recounts how Ptolemy
II brought back to Memphis numerous divine statues found
during his campaigns abroad and invited priests from all
1  Udjahorresnet records that Persian or mercenary soldiers had
profaned the temples of Sais during their invasion, and it was only
his personal pleas that convinced Cambyses to relocate them (Thiers
1995: 498–500, 513–14). Another Memphite official boasts of restoring
statues and other sacred objects to the temple of Ptah under Darius I
(Jansen-Winkeln 1998: 164–68).
2  Note also that the anonymous general claims to have repelled ene-
mies from Egypt (Klotz 2010: 139–40, col. 2). While this expression
might be formulaic for a royal inscription, on a private monument it
should refer to a real event, perhaps the failed Persian invasion of 373
b.c.e. (Ruzicka, chapter 11).
BASOR 371
over Egypt to identify and reclaim their local cult objects
(Thiers 2007: 45–46, 105). In response to Ruzicka’s com-
ment (“Just where such sacred objects were [in the Persian
Empire] is not recorded”) comes a remarkable, newly pub-
lished decree of Ptolemy III from Akhmim, which explic-
itly reports that the looted statues had moved to Assyria,
Syria, Cilicia, Persia, and Susa “at the time of the violation
of temples by the wretched Asiatics of Persia” (Altenmüller
2009: 34; El-Masry, Altenmüller, and Thissen 2012).
p. 279, n. 6: For the Satrap Stela, consult now the new authori-
tative edition by Schäfer (2011).
p. 280, n. 15: The ethnicity of Chababash remains an open
question. Nonetheless, the suggested Libyan origin (Ru­
zicka, p. 203) seems less plausible than the hypothesis that
he was a Nubian ruler who seized an opportunity to expel
Persians following the withdrawal of Artaxerxes III (Huß
1994: 105–9; Ladynin 2010: 532), much like Tanutamani
at the end of the 25th Dynasty (cf. Ruzicka, p. 8). Ruzicka
questions whether Chababash could have ruled all Egypt
as a Nubian, i.e., whether he would have been considered
legitimate, but he may have received tactical and strategic
advice from Nectanebo II during the latter’s sojourn in Nu-
bia; defecting kings and generals frequently provided such
information to their hosts during this period (e.g., Tachos
and Themistocles). Persia was their common enemy, and the
recent attacks on Egyptian temples would have easily out-
raged their Nubian neighbors and co-religionists. His name
(either “Chababash” or “Chabash,” as it is often spelled in hi-
eroglyphs: see Moje 2010) might even reflect the ethnonym
“Habeshat” (the origin of the term “Abyssinian”), betraying
an origin farther south in Ethiopia or Eritrea. Moreover, as
Werner Huß remarked, the Satrap Stela portrays Chababash
as completely unfamiliar with the region surrounding Buto,
hardly conceivable if he were a prominent Libyan dynast of
the Western Delta.
David Klotz
Yale University
david.klotz@yale.edu
REFERENCES
Agut-Labordère, D.
2010 Darius législateur et les sages de l’Égypte: Un ad-
dendum au Livre des ordonnances. Pp. 353–58
in Élites et pouvoir en Égypte ancienne, ed. J.
C. Moreno Garcia. Cahiers de recherches de
l’Institut de papyrologie et d’égyptologie de Lille
28. Villeneuve d’Ascq: Université Charles de
Gaulle-Lille 3.
Altenmüller, H.
2009 Bemerkungen zum Ostfeldzug Ptolemaios’ III. nach
Babylon und in die Susiana im Jahre 246/245. Pp.
27–44 in Festschrift für Gernot Wilhelm anläßlich
seines 65. Geburtstages am 28. Januar 2010, ed. J. C.
Fincke. Dresden: Islet.
2014 BOOK REVIEWS
Bolshakov, A.
2010 Persians and Egyptians: Cooperation in Vandal-
ism? Pp. 45–53 in Offerings to the Discerning Eye:
An Egyptological Medley in Honor of Jack A. Joseph-
son, ed. S. H. D’Auria. Culture and History of the
Ancient Near East 38. Leiden: Brill.
Briant, P., and Chauveau, M., eds.
2009 Organisation des pouvoirs et contacts culturels dans
les pays de l’empire achéménide: Actes du colloque or-
ganisé au Collège de France par la “Chaire d’histoire
et civilisation du monde achéménide et de l’empire
d’Alexandre” et la “Réseau international d’études
et de recherches achéménides” (GDR 2538 CNRS),
9–10 novembre 2007. Persika 14. Paris: Editions de
Boccard.
Burkard, G.
1994 Medizin et Politik: Altägyptische Heilkunst am
persischen Königshof. Studien zur altägyptischen
Kultur 21: 35–57.
Colin, F.
2000 Les peuples libyens de la Cyrénaïque à l’Égypte:
D’après les sources de l’Antiquité classique. Mémoires
de la Classe des Lettres, 3e série 25. Brussels: Aca-
démie royale de Belgique.
Engelmann, H., and Hallof, J.
1996 Der Sachmetpriester, ein früher Repräsentant der
Hygiene und des Seuchenschutzes. Studien zur
­altägyptischen Kultur 23: 103–46.
Engsheden, Å.
2006. La parenté des Nectanébo. Chronique d’Égypte 81:
62–70.
Huß, W.
1994 Die Rätselhäfte Pharao Chababasch. Studi epigrafici
e linguistici sul Vicino Oriente antico 11: 97–112.
von Känel, F.
1980 Les mésaventures du conjurateur de Serket On-
nophris et de son tombeau. Bulletin de la Société
française d’égyptologie 87–88: 31–45.
1984 Les prêtres-ouâb de Sekhmet et les conjurateurs de
Serket. Bibliothèque de l’École des hautes études,
Sciences religieuses 87. Paris: Presses universitaires
de France.
Jansen-Winkeln, K.
1998 Drei Denkmäler mit archaisierender Orthographie.
Orientalia 67: 155 –72.
2002 Die Quellen zur Eroberung Ägyptens durch Kam-
byse. Pp. 309–19 in A Tribute to Excellence: Studies
Offered in Honor of Ernö Gaál, Ulrich Luft, László
Török, ed. T. A. Bács. Studia Aegyptiaca 17. Buda-
pest: Université Eötvös Lorand de Budapest.
Kahn, D.
2008 Inaros’ Rebellion against Artaxerxes I and the
Athenian Disaster in Egypt. Classical Quarterly 58:
424–40.
Kahn, D., and Tammuz, O.
2008 Egypt is Difficult to Enter: Invading Egypt—A
Game Plan (Seventh to Fourth Centuries bce).
235
Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian An-
tiquities 35: 37–66.
Kienitz, F. K.
1953 Die politische Geschichte Ägyptens vom 7. bis zum 4.
Jahrhundert vor der Zeitwende. Berlin: Akademie-
Verlag.
Klinkott, H.
2007 Xerxes in Ägypten. Gedanken zum negativen Per­
serbild in der Satrapenstele. Pp. 34–53 in Ägyp-
ten unter fremden Herrschern zwischen persischer
­S atrapie und römischer Provinz, ed. S. Pfeiffer.
­Oikumene 3. Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Antike.
Klotz, D.
2010 Two Studies on the Late Period Temples at Abydos.
Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale
110: 127–63.
Kuhlmann, K. P.
1998 Ptolemais—The Demise of a Spurious Queen (ap-
ropos JE 43610). Pp. 469–72 in Stationen: Beiträge
zur Kulturgeschichte Ägyptens; Rainer Stadelmann
gewidmet, ed. H. Guksch and D. Polz. Mainz: von
Zabern.
Kuhrt, A.
2007 The Persian Empire. 2 vols. London: Routledge.
Ladynin, I. A.
2010 Nectanebo in Ethiopia: A Commentary to Diod.
XVI 51.1. Pp. 527–34 in Between the Cataracts:
Proceedings of the 11th International Conference for
Nubian Studies, Warsaw University, 27 August–2
October 2006, Vol. 2: Session Papers, ed. W. God­
lewski and A. Łajtar. Polish Archaeology in the
Mediterranean, Supplement 2.2. Warsaw: Warsaw
University.
Lenfant, D.
2011 Les Perses vus par les Grecs: Lire les sources classiques
sur l’empire achéménide. Paris: Colin.
Lippert, S.
2012 Law: Definitions and Codification. In UCLA En-
cyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, ed. W. Wendrich,
J. Dieleman, E. Frood, and J. Baines. http://www.
escholarship.org/uc/item/0mr4h4fv.
Liverani, M.
2000 The Libyan Caravan Road in Herodotus IV.181–85.
Journal of the Economic and Social History of the
Orient 43: 496–520.
el-Masry, Y.; Altenmüller, H.; and Thissen, H.-J.
2012 Das Synodaldekret von Alexandria aus dem Jahre
243 v. Chr. Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur Bei-
hefte 11. Hamburg: Buske.
Moje, J.
2010 Zu den Namensschreibungen des Lokalregenten
und “Gegenkönigs” Chababasch. Göttinger Miszel-
len 226: 55–62.
Myśliwiec, K.
2000 The Twilight of Ancient Egypt: First Millennium
b.c.e. Trans. D. Lorton, from German. Ithaca:
­Cornell University.
236 BOOK REVIEWS
Perdu, O.
1985 Le monument de Samtoutefnakht à Naples [pre-
mière partie]. Revue d’Égyptologie 36: 89–113.
2010 Saites and Persians (664–332). Pp. 140–58 in A
Companion to Ancient Egypt, Vol. 1, ed. A. B. Lloyd.
Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Pestman, P. W.
1984 The Diospolis Parva Documents: Chronological
Problems Concerning Psammetichus III and IV.
Pp. 145–55 in Grammata Demotika: Festschrift für
Erich Lüddeckens zum 15. Juni 1983, ed. H.-J. This-
sen and K.-T. Zauzich. Wurzburg: Zauzich.
Quack, J. F.
2011 Zum Datum der persischen Eroberung Ägyptens
unter Kambyses. Journal of Egyptian History 4:
228–46.
Schäfer, D.
2009 Persian Foes—Ptolemaic Friends? The Persians on
the Satrap Stela. Pp. 143–52 in Organisation des
pouvoirs et contacts culturels dans les pays de l’empire
achéménide: Actes du colloque organisé au Collège
de France par la “Chaire d’histoire et civilisation du
monde achéménide et de l’empire d’Alexandre” et la
“Réseau international d’études et de recherches aché-
ménides” (GDR 2538 CNRS), 9–10 novembre 2007,
ed. P. Briant and M. Chauveau. Persika 14. Paris:
Editions de Boccard.
2011 Makedonische Pharaonen und hieroglyphische
­Stelen: Historische Untersuchungen zur Satrapen-
stele und verwandten Denkmälern. Studia Hellenis-
tica 50. Leuven: Peeters.
Thiers, C.
1995 Civils et militaires dans les temples: Occupation
illicite et expulsion. Bulletin de l’Institut français
d’archéologie orientale 95: 493–516.
2007 Ptolémée Philadelphe et les prêtres d’Atoum de
Tjékou: Nouvelle édition commentée de la “stèle de
Pithom” (CGC 22183). Orientalia Monspeliensia
17. Montpellier: Université Paul-Valéry Montpel-
lier III.
Vittmann, G.
2003 Ägypten und die Fremden im ersten vorchristlichen
Jahrtausend. Kulturgeschichte der antiken Welt 97.
Mainz: von Zabern.
2011 Ägypten zur Zeit der Perserherrschaft. Pp. 373–
429 in Herodot und das Persische Weltreich: Akten
des 3. Internationalen Kolloquiums zum Thema
“Vorderasien im Spannungsfeld klassischer und alt­
orientalischer Überlieferungen,” Innsbruck, 24.–28.
November 2008, ed. R. Rollinger, B. Truschnegg,
and R. Bichler. Classica et Orientalia 3. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.
Vleeming, S. P.
1991 The Gooseherds of Hou (Pap. Hou): A Dossier Relat-
ing to Various Agricultural Affairs from Provincial
Egypt of the Early Fifth Century b.c. Studia Demot-
ica 3. Leuven: Peeters.
BASOR 371
Winnicki, J. K.
2006 Der Libysche Stamm der Bakaler im pharaonischen,
persischen und ptolemäischen Ägypten. Ancient
Society 36: 135–42.
Yoyotte, J.
2010 La statue égyptienne de Darius. Pp. 256–99 in Le Pal-
ais de Darius à Suse: Une résidence royale sur la route
de Persépolis à Babylone, ed. J. Perrot. Paris: PUPS.
2011 Les fondements géopolitiques du pouvoir saïte. Pp.
1–32 in La XXVIe dynastie, continuités et r­ uptures:
Actes du Colloque international organisé les 26 et
27 novembre 2004 à l’Université Charles-de-Gaulle,
Lille 3: Promenade saïte avec Jean Yoyotte, ed.
D. Devauchelle. Paris: Cybèle.
Judah in the Neo-Babylonian Period: The Archaeology of Des-
olation, by Avraham Faust. Archaeology and Biblical Stud-
ies, Number 18. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012.
xiv + 302 pp., 17 figures, 2 tables, 5 graphs. Paper $35.95.
According to Faust, the “book’s central aim is to reexam-
ine the archaeological reality in the Neo-Babylonian period,
mainly in the territories of the former (Iron Age) kingdom of
Judah” (p. 10). He considers this a “troubled period,” not only
because it is brief, which makes it difficult to isolate particular
features of the period, but also because biblical scholars of the
“continuity school” insist on a continuity between the Iron
Age and Neo-Babylonian period, thus rejecting the traditional
view of the devastation of Judah as a result of the events of 586
b.c.e. The criticism of the continuity school has arisen on ac-
count of their treatment of the biblical texts, their understand-
ing of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, and their interpretation of
the archaeological data. Faust aims to examine new data and
to offer new methods in examining older data. In scrutiniz-
ing the evidence from Judah in the sixth century b.c.e., he
intends to give particular regard to the archaeological aspect
of the debate.
In the first chapter, Faust surveys the large excavated sites in
Judah, usually designated tells, where an early sixth-century de-
struction layer or at least abandonment was found in practically
all sites and attributed to the Babylonians. Even the continuity
school agrees concerning the fate of the urban centers, but they
suggest that the rural sector went unharmed by the conquer-
ors. In chapter 2, rural Judah is examined, and Faust concludes
that only 7 out of 50 late Iron Age sites showed continuity. In
chapter 3, he concludes that since Greek pottery dated to the
sixth century is missing from this region, this is further proof of
the Babylonian desolation and decline of the land, as imported
pottery is present both in the seventh and fifth centuries and is
widely circulated around the rest of the Mediterranean in the
sixth century. Chapter 4 examines social and cultural changes
from the Iron Age to the Persian period, specifically pointing
to the disappearance of the four-room house and the Judahite-
type tomb.