232

BOOK REVIEWS

only of what remains from these periods but also of what remains to be investigated. his paper is also noteworthy for its
references to unpublished surveys conducted by graduate students from the local Institute of Islamic Archaeology at al-Quds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, encompassing all periods of interest beginning with prehistoric
times and reaching all the way to the Ottoman period (p. xiii),
it is diicult to imagine how any single volume could possibly
fulill such an ambitious undertaking. While some of the papers
do present fairly comprehensive surveys of a particular period
or debatee.g., Maeirs paper on the Bronze Age, Gevas paper
on the Second Temple Period, Magnesss paper on Aelia Capitolina, and Schicks paper on the Mamluk and Ottoman periodsthe 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. 3366 in he History of Jerusalem:
he Biblical Period, ed. S. Aituv and A. Mazar. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi (Hebrew).
Schick, R.
2001
Arabic Studies of Mamluk Jerusalem: A Review
Article. Mamluk Studies Review 5: 15968.

Trouble in the West: Egypt and the Persian Empire, 525332

BCE, by Stephen Ruzicka. New York: Oxford University
Press, 2012. xxvi + 311 pp., 5 igures, 5 maps. Cloth. $74.00.
In this fascinating new study on the Achaemenid Empire,
Ruzicka ills a pressing need in the historiography of ancient
Egypt. he last comprehensive historical overview of the Egyptian Late Period (Dynasties 2630) appeared almost 60 years
ago (Kienitz 1953), and while more recent treatments of this era
have been quite useful (e.g., Myliwiec 2000; Vittmann 2003),
nothing has quite supplanted it as a general reference. his book
surveys Persias rapid conquest of Egypt under Cambyses in 526
b.c.e., its expulsion by Amyrtaeus in 405, and the repeated attempts to regain control that occupied it for much of the fourth
century. hroughout this protracted struggle, both sides forged
treaties with diferent states in the Aegean and Levant, and Ruzicka narrates these continually luctuating alliances with clarity
and perspicacity. As such, this book successfully contextualizes
the generally neglected Late Period of Egypt within the shiting

BASOR 371

geopolitical landscape of the era, and it should be required reading 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, hucydides, and Xenophon interested
in the events taking place outside of the Aegean.
Two general theses inform Ruzickas approach. First, he
frames the war as a broader ight between the West (Egypt)
and the East (Persia), each vying to control the Middle Territory (Syro-Palestine); in chapters 1 and 20, Ruzicka traces this
geographic struggle over the longue dure. Secondly, Ruzicka
argues that Egypt was Persias greatest economic and strategic interest in the West. Ater 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 secure the middle region of Syro-Palestine, gaining control over
Egypts traditional allies and trading partners, and prevent
Athens from supporting Egypt again, as they had during the
rebellion of Inaros in 459454. hus, 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 intervention in Greek afairs (p. 78); when formulating the Kings 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 ater over 40 relatively uneventful
years of peace under Amasis. Persia ruled Egypt for almost 125
years, but ater a series of rebellions, they spent the next 60 trying to recapture their former satrapy. In Ruzickas tragicomic
narrative, Persia is perpetually on the verge of invading Egypt
when unforeseen events frustrate the Great Kings intentions.
Ater Amyrtaeus led the irst successful revolt in 405, plans
for retaliation were put on hold because of the civil war between 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 1011). 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 commander 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 360359, a
rival faction acclaimed his cousin Nectanebo II as king back in
Egypt, aborting the military campaign as Tachos led 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. hus, when Cambyses launched
ambitious and ultimately disastrous campaigns toward Nubia, Siwa, and Carthage, he was not really interested in securing 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 predecessors (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 signiicance as home to the divinities Bastet and Sopdu (although
the latter was technically from nearby Sat el-Henna). Yet
Nectanebo II gave benefactions to many temples throughout
Egypt, so it is diicult to single out any city as especially sacred or psychologically signiicant, except perhaps his dynastic 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. xxixxv),
as most Persian evidence is administrative (i.e., the Persepolis
Fortiication 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 inding
reasonable conclusions to ot-debated subjects.
Despite its relatively short time span, the Achaemenid Empire is a vast subject, and few can hope to master all the requisite languages, which include Old Persian, Greek, Egyptian
(hieroglyphic and Demotic), and Aramaic. Since this book will
probably ind its greatest audience among Classicists or ancient 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 Ruzicka may have overlooked (some of which, admittedly, only
appeared in the last couple of years), that update, modify, or
further strengthen the authors 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 earlier 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. 1416: 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. 2728, 240, n. 4: Additional studies have provided further
support for the existence of Psammetichus IV and the chronology of his reign (Pestman 1984; Vleeming 1991: 34).

233

pp. 2932: 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. 24041, n. 8).
p. 40: More evidence regarding Amyrtaeus and his mercenary
soldiers comes from graiti they signed at the temple of Abydos (Yoyotte 2011: 26).
pp. 13648: Regarding the Nectanebid royal family, one should
consult a recent study that incorporated additional evidence
(Engsheden 2006). he latter article questions the basis for
the assumed co-regency between Nectanebo I and Tachos
(Ruzicka, pp. 136, 26667, nn. 67), and demonstrates that
Nectanebo II was actually a cousin () of Tachos, not
his nephew, and that Tjaihapimu was Tachos uncle, not his
brother (pp. 14748).
For the Egyptian dynastic squabbles during Tachos and
Nectanebos military campaigns, one should also mention the
prominent Egyptian oicial Onnophris (Wennefer), whose
titles indicate that he served under Tachos or Nectanebo II
(von Knel 1980). In the remarkable biography preserved in his
tomb at Saqqara (still only partially published), he mentions being arrested under suspicion of a conspiracy, to be questioned
by the controller of Egypt (Tjaihapimu). Cleared of guilt, Onnophris is dispatched by ship to assist his king (perhaps Tachos), 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 ater leeing Nectanebo II (Ruzicka, p. 149).
p. 197: he interpretation of Somtutefnakhts monument (the
so-called Naples Stela, more likely a statue base; see the
newer edition by Perdu 1985) requires additional comments. he 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 administration, particularly regarding agriculture (von Knel 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: 3940), and
later led back to his Egyptian home town of Herakleopolis
ater seeing his god Herishef in an oracular dream, sometime
around Alexanders 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. Engsheden 2006: 6870, with a slightly diferent 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 IIs 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 references to looting and destruction under Cambyses as antiPersian 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. JansenWinkeln 2002). he 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: 13132; Bolshakov 2010). A recently published biography of an Egyptian general from Busiris who served during the 30th Dynasty refers to damage that foreigners (i.e.,
Persians) inlicted against Abydos in Upper Egypt (Klotz
2010: 14748). Various considerations date this text to the
reign of Nectanebo I (Klotz 2010: 13739);2 thus, the destruction 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 reairmed
that there was indeed a signiicant codiication of laws under
Darius I (Agut-Labordre 2010; Lippert 2012).
p. 240, n. 5: In connection with the very reasonable idea that
Xerxes redirected Egyptian temple income to inance his
war eforts in the Aegean (compare the similar policy of the
Egyptian king Tachos; Ruzicka, p. 142), one should also consider the Satrap Stela of Ptolemy I, which ascribes precisely
such actions to a king Xerxes (cf. Klinkott 2007; Schfer
2009), even though scholars (including Ruzicka, p. 202) have
oten emended his name to Artaxerxes III.
p. 278, n. 18: As with Cambyses, Achaemenid historians consider 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 of 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 (hiers
1995: 498500, 51314). Another Memphite oicial boasts of restoring
statues and other sacred objects to the temple of Ptah under Darius I
(Jansen-Winkeln 1998: 16468).
2 Note also that the anonymous general claims to have repelled enemies from Egypt (Klotz 2010: 13940, 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

(hiers 2007: 4546, 105). In response to Ruzickas comment (Just where such sacred objects were [in the Persian
Empire] is not recorded) comes a remarkable, newly published decree of Ptolemy III from Akhmim, which explicitly 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 (Altenmller
2009: 34; El-Masry, Altenmller, and hissen 2012).
p. 279, n. 6: For the Satrap Stela, consult now the new authoritative edition by Schfer (2011).
p. 280, n. 15: he ethnicity of Chababash remains an open
question. Nonetheless, the suggested Libyan origin (Ruzicka, 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 (Hu
1994: 1059; 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 latters sojourn in Nubia; defecting kings and generals frequently provided such
information to their hosts during this period (e.g., Tachos
and hemistocles). Persia was their common enemy, and the
recent attacks on Egyptian temples would have easily outraged their Nubian neighbors and co-religionists. His name
(either Chababash or Chabash, as it is oten spelled in hieroglyphs: see Moje 2010) might even relect the ethnonym
Habeshat (the origin of the term Abyssinian), betraying
an origin farther south in Ethiopia or Eritrea. Moreover, as
Werner Hu 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-Labordre, D.
2010
Darius lgislateur et les sages de lgypte: Un addendum au Livre des ordonnances. Pp. 35358
in lites et pouvoir en gypte ancienne, ed. J.
C. Moreno Garcia. Cahiers de recherches de
lInstitut de papyrologie et dgyptologie de Lille
28. Villeneuve dAscq: Universit Charles de
Gaulle-Lille 3.
Altenmller, H.
2009
Bemerkungen zum Ostfeldzug Ptolemaios III. nach
Babylon und in die Susiana im Jahre 246/245. Pp.
2744 in Festschrit fr Gernot Wilhelm anllich
seines 65. Geburtstages am 28. Januar 2010, ed. J. C.
Fincke. Dresden: Islet.

2014

BOOK REVIEWS

Bolshakov, A.
2010
Persians and Egyptians: Cooperation in Vandalism? Pp. 4553 in Oferings to the Discerning Eye:
An Egyptological Medley in Honor of Jack A. Josephson, ed. S. H. DAuria. 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 lempire achmnide: Actes du colloque organis au Collge de France par la Chaire dhistoire
et civilisation du monde achmnide et de lempire
dAlexandre et la Rseau international dtudes
et de recherches achmnides (GDR 2538 CNRS),
910 novembre 2007. Persika 14. Paris: Editions de
Boccard.
Burkard, G.
1994
Medizin et Politik: Altgyptische Heilkunst am
persischen Knigshof. Studien zur altgyptischen
Kultur 21: 3557.
Colin, F.
2000
Les peuples libyens de la Cyrnaque lgypte:
Daprs les sources de lAntiquit classique. Mmoires
de la Classe des Lettres, 3e srie 25. Brussels: Acadmie royale de Belgique.
Engelmann, H., and Hallof, J.
1996
Der Sachmetpriester, ein frher Reprsentant der
Hygiene und des Seuchenschutzes. Studien zur
altgyptischen Kultur 23: 10346.
Engsheden, .
2006.
La parent des Nectanbo. Chronique dgypte 81:
6270.
Hu, W.
1994
Die Rtselhte Pharao Chababasch. Studi epigraici
e linguistici sul Vicino Oriente antico 11: 97112.
von Knel, F.
1980
Les msaventures du conjurateur de Serket Onnophris et de son tombeau. Bulletin de la Socit
franaise dgyptologie 8788: 3145.
1984
Les prtres-oub de Sekhmet et les conjurateurs de
Serket. Bibliothque de lcole des hautes tudes,
Sciences religieuses 87. Paris: Presses universitaires
de France.
Jansen-Winkeln, K.
1998
Drei Denkmler mit archaisierender Orthographie.
Orientalia 67: 155 72.
2002
Die Quellen zur Eroberung gyptens durch Kambyse. Pp. 30919 in A Tribute to Excellence: Studies
Ofered in Honor of Ern Gal, Ulrich Lut, Lszl
Trk, ed. T. A. Bcs. Studia Aegyptiaca 17. Budapest: Universit Etvs Lorand de Budapest.
Kahn, D.
2008
Inaros Rebellion against Artaxerxes I and the
Athenian Disaster in Egypt. Classical Quarterly 58:
42440.
Kahn, D., and Tammuz, O.
2008
Egypt is Difficult to Enter: Invading EgyptA
Game Plan (Seventh to Fourth Centuries bce).

235

Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 35: 3766.
Kienitz, F. K.
1953
Die politische Geschichte gyptens vom 7. bis zum 4.
Jahrhundert vor der Zeitwende. Berlin: AkademieVerlag.
Klinkott, H.
2007
Xerxes in gypten. Gedanken zum negativen Perserbild in der Satrapenstele. Pp. 3453 in gypten unter fremden Herrschern zwischen persischer
Satrapie und rmischer 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 lInstitut franais darchologie orientale
110: 12763.
Kuhlmann, K. P.
1998
Ptolemaishe Demise of a Spurious Queen (apropos JE 43610). Pp. 46972 in Stationen: Beitrge
zur Kulturgeschichte gyptens; Rainer Stadelmann
gewidmet, ed. H. Guksch and D. Polz. Mainz: von
Zabern.
Kuhrt, A.
2007
he Persian Empire. 2 vols. London: Routledge.
Ladynin, I. A.
2010
Nectanebo in Ethiopia: A Commentary to Diod.
XVI 51.1. Pp. 52734 in Between the Cataracts:
Proceedings of the 11th International Conference for
Nubian Studies, Warsaw University, 27 August2
October 2006, Vol. 2: Session Papers, ed. W. Godlewski and A. ajtar. 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 lempire achmnide. Paris: Colin.
Lippert, S.
2012
Law: Deinitions and Codiication. In UCLA Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, ed. W. Wendrich,
J. Dieleman, E. Frood, and J. Baines. http://www.
escholarship.org/uc/item/0mr4h4fv.
Liverani, M.
2000
he Libyan Caravan Road in Herodotus IV.18185.
Journal of the Economic and Social History of the
Orient 43: 496520.
el-Masry, Y.; Altenmller, H.; and hissen, H.-J.
2012
Das Synodaldekret von Alexandria aus dem Jahre
243 v. Chr. Studien zur altgyptischen Kultur Beihete 11. Hamburg: Buske.
Moje, J.
2010
Zu den Namensschreibungen des Lokalregenten
und Gegenknigs Chababasch. Gttinger Miszellen 226: 5562.
Myliwiec, K.
2000
he 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 Naples [premire partie]. Revue dgyptologie 36: 89113.
2010
Saites and Persians (664332). Pp. 14058 in A
Companion to Ancient Egypt, Vol. 1, ed. A. B. Lloyd.
Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Pestman, P. W.
1984
he Diospolis Parva Documents: Chronological
Problems Concerning Psammetichus III and IV.
Pp. 14555 in Grammata Demotika: Festschrit fr
Erich Lddeckens zum 15. Juni 1983, ed. H.-J. hissen and K.-T. Zauzich. Wurzburg: Zauzich.
Quack, J. F.
2011
Zum Datum der persischen Eroberung gyptens
unter Kambyses. Journal of Egyptian History 4:
22846.
Schfer, D.
2009
Persian FoesPtolemaic Friends? he Persians on
the Satrap Stela. Pp. 14352 in Organisation des
pouvoirs et contacts culturels dans les pays de lempire
achmnide: Actes du colloque organis au Collge
de France par la Chaire dhistoire et civilisation du
monde achmnide et de lempire dAlexandre et la
Rseau international dtudes et de recherches achmnides (GDR 2538 CNRS), 910 novembre 2007,
ed. P. Briant and M. Chauveau. Persika 14. Paris:
Editions de Boccard.
2011
Makedonische Pharaonen und hieroglyphische
Stelen: Historische Untersuchungen zur Satrapenstele und verwandten Denkmlern. Studia Hellenistica 50. Leuven: Peeters.
hiers, C.
1995
Civils et militaires dans les temples: Occupation
illicite et expulsion. Bulletin de lInstitut franais
darchologie orientale 95: 493516.
2007
Ptolme Philadelphe et les prtres dAtoum de
Tjkou: Nouvelle dition commente de la stle de
Pithom (CGC 22183). Orientalia Monspeliensia
17. Montpellier: Universit Paul-Valry Montpellier III.
Vittmann, G.
2003
gypten und die Fremden im ersten vorchristlichen
Jahrtausend. Kulturgeschichte der antiken Welt 97.
Mainz: von Zabern.
2011
gypten zur Zeit der Perserherrschat. Pp. 373
429 in Herodot und das Persische Weltreich: Akten
des 3. Internationalen Kolloquiums zum Thema
Vorderasien im Spannungsfeld klassischer und altorientalischer berlieferungen, Innsbruck, 24.28.
November 2008, ed. R. Rollinger, B. Truschnegg,
and R. Bichler. Classica et Orientalia 3. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.
Vleeming, S. P.
1991
he Gooseherds of Hou (Pap. Hou): A Dossier Relating to Various Agricultural Afairs from Provincial
Egypt of the Early Fith Century b.c. Studia Demotica 3. Leuven: Peeters.

BASOR 371

Winnicki, J. K.
2006
Der Libysche Stamm der Bakaler im pharaonischen,
persischen und ptolemischen gypten. Ancient
Society 36: 13542.
Yoyotte, J.
2010
La statue gyptienne de Darius. Pp. 25699 in Le Palais de Darius Suse: Une rsidence royale sur la route
de Perspolis Babylone, ed. J. Perrot. Paris: PUPS.
2011
Les fondements gopolitiques du pouvoir sate. Pp.
132 in La XXVIe dynastie, continuits et ruptures:
Actes du Colloque international organis les 26 et
27 novembre 2004 lUniversit Charles-de-Gaulle,
Lille 3: Promenade sate avec Jean Yoyotte, ed.
D. Devauchelle. Paris: Cyble.

Judah in the Neo-Babylonian Period: he Archaeology of Desolation, by Avraham Faust. Archaeology and Biblical Studies, Number 18. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012.
xiv + 302 pp., 17 igures, 2 tables, 5 graphs. Paper $35.95.
According to Faust, the books central aim is to reexamine 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 diicult 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. he criticism of the continuity school has arisen on account of their treatment of the biblical texts, their understanding of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, and their interpretation of
the archaeological data. Faust aims to examine new data and
to ofer new methods in examining older data. In scrutinizing 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 irst chapter, Faust surveys the large excavated sites in
Judah, usually designated tells, where an early sixth-century destruction 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 conquerors. 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 ith 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, speciically pointing
to the disappearance of the four-room house and the Judahitetype tomb.