Abstract
The historical presence of Iran in Egypt and the establishment of relations between these two significant powers trace back to the Achaemenid period. The Achaemenid Empire, recognized as one of history’s largest empires, spanned territories from West Asia to Northeast Africa. This article examines historical narratives and archaeological data pertaining to Cambyses and his activities in Egypt. Historical and archaeological studies concerning Cambyses and his presence in Egypt offer a complex picture of the cultural and political interactions during the Achaemenid era. Relations between Iran and Egypt during the Achaemenid period, particularly under Cambyses’ rule, hold immense historical significance. This research aims to analyze Cambyses’ actions in Egypt by re-examining historical accounts and investigating archaeological evidence. The research methodology involves a comparative analysis of narratives by Greek historians, inscriptions, architectural works, and archaeological data. The findings suggest that historical narratives portray Cambyses as a ruthless figure, inattentive to Egyptian cultural and religious matters, while archaeological evidence, particularly the Udjahorresnet inscription, presents a contrasting image of him as a prudent ruler who respected Egyptian cultural and religious traditions, as well as their social and economic life. By critically analyzing historical narratives and archaeological data, this research seeks to provide a more balanced picture of Cambyses and his impact on Egypt, emphasizing the importance of examining these cultural and historical interactions.
Keywords: Achaemenids, Cambyses, Egypt, Historical Narratives, Archaeological Data.
Introduction
The Achaemenid presence in Egypt is a significant and noteworthy period in ancient history. This interaction led to the expansion of the Achaemenid Empire and its dominance over one of the great civilizations of the ancient world. It also had profound effects on Egypt’s culture, economy, and political structure. This article examines various aspects of this period, aiming to re-examine historical narratives and archaeological evidence from the time of Cambyses in Egypt. Given the scope and importance of the Achaemenid Empire, control over Egypt was a strategic, economic, and political objective for the empire, and Cambyses’ conquest marks a turning point in Achaemenid history and Iranian-Egyptian relations. This research utilizes a variety of sources, including accounts from classical historians like Herodotus and archaeological findings, to examine and compare different perspectives on Cambyses and his policies in Egypt.
This research employs a descriptive-analytical method with a critical and interdisciplinary approach to examine the subject. The sources used include accounts from classical historians such as Herodotus, archaeological findings, and previous research on Iranian-Egyptian relations. The method of analysis is based on comparing and analyzing different perspectives, critically interpreting sources, focusing on new archaeological data, and examining the Egyptian viewpoint to provide a more comprehensive and balanced picture of the Cambyses era in Egypt.
 
Discussion
The beginning of relations between Iran and Egypt during the Achaemenid period dates back to the time of Cyrus the Great (550-530 BC). The conquests of Cyrus the Great led to the formation of an alliance between the major powers of that time, including Lydia, Babylon, and Egypt. Under the pressure of this alliance, the conquest of the aforementioned lands was clearly on Cyrus’ agenda, and he even commissioned his son, Cambyses, to prepare for the military campaign to Egypt (Montazeri, 1391: 250-252). Regarding the establishment of relations between Cyrus and Amasis (570-526 BC), the Pharaoh of Egypt, there are conflicting accounts. Herodotus, as one of the most important historical sources of this time, in his narratives, explains the reasons for the war between Cambyses and Egypt and says that the disagreement over marriage between the Persian court and the Amasis court was one of these reasons (Herodotus, III. 1).
With the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses, the twenty-sixth dynasty of the Pharaohs of Egypt fell, and the Iranians established the twenty-seventh dynasty of the Pharaohs of Egypt (525-404 BC) (Dandamayev, 1381a: 154; Dandamayev, 1381b: 110; Azari, 1351: 140). After the conquest of Memphis, the western neighbors of Egypt, namely Libya, Barqa, and Cyrene, also declared their allegiance. To strengthen the southern borders of Egypt, Cambyses established friendly relations with the kings of Napatan, who ruled over the south of Aswan, and also managed to conquer the Al-Kharga oasis (Herodotus, III. 10-26). After learning about a rebellion that had formed in Persia against his power, Cambyses entrusted the city of Egypt to Ariandes and left Egypt, but died on the way (Herodotus, III. 10-26; IV. 166; Kent, 1953: 120; BD1. 11; Sharp, 1346: 29). In any case, the conquest of Egypt under the command of Cambyses is considered not only a military act but also a turning point in the history of the Achaemenids.
There are two categories of documents for analyzing the actions of Cambyses (530-522 BC) in Egypt: archaeological documents and historical accounts. In the following, Cambyses’ actions in Egypt will be analyzed based on these two categories of documents. Historical narratives about Cambyses and his actions in Egypt, especially regarding the killing of the Apis bull and the accusation of his madness, originate from classical sources such as Herodotus and other Greek historians. These narratives are often in contradiction with archaeological data and represent cultural and ideological differences between Greek and Egyptian sources.
In ancient Egypt, the Apis bull was a symbol of the Gods, especially the god of life, and was considered a sacred creature. One of the important events that contributed to shaping a negative image of Cambyses in ancient historiography is the story of killing the Apis bull and attributing madness to him. Herodotus provides an account in this regard that shows Cambyses’ change in behavior and mental state after the conquest of Egypt. According to Herodotus, after returning from the military campaign to Ethiopia, Cambyses went mad upon seeing the joy of the Egyptians in honor of Apis; because he thought that this joy was due to his failure in the military campaign to Ethiopia. Following this idea, he disrespected the Egyptian gods and their religious customs, killed the Apis bull, and harassed the priests and people of Egypt, and Herodotus attributes these events to his spiritual change (Herodotus, III. 27-30). Strabo (Book Seventeen, chapter 1, paragraphs 27 and 46) and Justin (Justin, I. 9), also emphasizing Cambyses’ madness, attribute the order to destroy temples and disrespect Egyptian gods to him. Other classical historians, following Herodotus, have also attributed the killing of the Apis bull to Cambyses. Pliny and Plutarch also refer to a series of violent and irrational behaviors of Cambyses, which have contributed to a negative and frightening image of him (Pliny, Book 26; Plutarch, Moralia).
However, historical accounts about Cambyses are always in conflict with Egyptian archaeological documents. A review of three ancient documents, including the inscriptions of the burial of the Apis bull in Serapeum, the cemetery of the Apis bulls (Brosius, 1400: 78), shows that this sacred bull was buried in 524 BC. with special ceremonies, and Cambyses respected his funeral. The inscriptions explicitly state that the Apis bull died of natural causes, not because of Cambyses’ violence, and this is one of the pieces of evidence that challenges the story of the Apis bull’s murder and Cambyses’ madness. The summary of three Egyptian documents regarding the death and burial of the Apis bull is as follows:
Tombstone of the Apis Bull (524 BC): This tombstone shows that the Apis bull was buried in November 524 BC. during the reign of Cambyses. The text of the inscription refers to the magnificent funeral ceremony, the embalming hall, and the precious gifts that were provided for the Apis bull. Also, Cambyses is mentioned as the king of Egypt, and his orders to carry out the funeral ceremony are mentioned (Posener, 1936: no. 3). Inscription on the stone coffin of the Apis bull: This inscription also introduces Cambyses as the king of upper and lower Egypt and attributes the construction of a large stone coffin made of granite as a memorial to the Apis-Osiris bull. In this inscription, long life, power, and health are wished for Cambyses, and it is emphasized that he will remain the king of Egypt forever (Posener, 1936: no. 4). Stone carving of the burial of the Apis bull (518 BC): This stone carving is related to the burial of another Apis bull in the fourth year of the reign of Darius I (518 BC). The text of the inscription shows that Darius, like Cambyses, held a magnificent funeral ceremony for the Apis bull and made a valuable coffin for him. In this text, the commemoration of the Apis bull by Darius and the value of the gifts presented to him are mentioned. It also mentions the birth of the previous Apis bull during the reign of Cambyses (Posener, 1936: no. 5; Brosius, 1400: 131-132).
Based on these three texts, the Apis bull died naturally one year after the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses. Also, the new Apis bull was born in May 525 BC and died in the fourth year of the reign of Darius I, that is, in 518 BC (Brosius, 1400: 78). Various researchers also believe, according to the existing documents, that Cambyses not only did not disrespect the beliefs and customs of the Egyptians but also held a magnificent funeral ceremony for the Apis bull and played a role in this ceremony as the king of Egypt, and they reject Herodotus’s claims about Cambyses’ disrespect for the Apis bull and hiding his funeral ceremony (Atkinson, 1956: 170; Posener, 1936: 30-33, 171-175; Olmsted, 1383: 123-124; Brosius, 1400: 79; Brian, 1379: 1/157-158; Girshman, 1384: 181; Ghaemmaqami, 1348: 131; Kurt, 1389: 51; Cook, 1388: 100-101; Dandamaev, 1381b: 116; Bershani, 1385: 379; Azari, 1351: 139).
In addition to the Apis bull affair, other accusations have been made against Cambyses, including disrespect for the tomb and body of Amasis and disrespect for Egyptian temples and reduction of their income. Given the review of the existing evidence, it must be said that many of these accusations are baseless and stem from the hostility and prejudice of Greek historians.
The Ujahorresnet inscription is one of the most important sources for understanding Cambyses’ policies in Egypt. Ujahorresnet, an Egyptian physician and admiral, praises Cambyses in this inscription and introduces him as a fair king and supporter of Egyptian temples and customs. This inscription shows that Cambyses cooperated with the local elites of Egypt and attached importance to preserving Egyptian traditions.
The analysis of Cambyses’ hieroglyphic inscription on a royal seal shows that Cambyses respected the Egyptian gods and introduced himself as the legal king of Egypt. This inscription introduces Cambyses as the “king of upper and lower Egypt” who is devoted to the goddess Wadjet, and thus presents himself as a legitimate successor to the Pharaohs.
Other Egyptian archaeological documents show that Cambyses followed the customs of the previous twenty-sixth dynasty. Despite evidence of temple destruction, Cambyses ordered reparations and the restoration of economic activity. He also established three garrisons to protect Egypt.
In conclusion, it must be said that the image presented of Cambyses in Greek sources, especially the works of Herodotus and other Greek historians, has been greatly influenced by the prejudices, animosities, and biased views of these historians. Relying on oral and often hostile sources, they introduced Cambyses as an autocratic and mad king who disrespected Egyptian customs and traditions. In contrast, archaeological evidence includes the inscriptions of the tomb of the Apis bull, the inscription of Ujahorresnet, architectural works, and burial objects, which often reflect more objective and tangible realities, and present a different image of Cambyses and his management in Egypt. This evidence shows that Cambyses, by adopting a policy of tolerance and interaction regarding maintaining the economic and social stability of Egypt, interacting with local elites, and respecting Egyptian traditions and religious customs, tried to preserve the culture and traditions of Egypt and tried to introduce himself as a legitimate successor to the Pharaohs. Therefore, to better understand the period of Cambyses’ rule in Egypt, it is necessary to examine historical narratives with caution and accuracy and to pay attention to archaeological evidence as complementary and often more reliable sources.
 
Conclusion
The present study, aimed at examining the cultural and artistic interactions between Iran and Egypt during the Achaemenid period, undertook a comparative analysis of historical narratives and archaeological evidence related to Cambyses’ presence in Egypt. The findings of this research indicate that the image of Cambyses presented in Greek sources, particularly the works of Herodotus, was largely influenced by the prejudices, animosities, and biased viewpoints of Greek historians. Relying on oral and often hostile sources, these historians portrayed Cambyses as an autocratic, insane, and disrespectful king towards Egyptian customs and traditions.
In contrast, archaeological evidence, including the inscriptions from the tomb of the Apis bull, the Udjahorresnet inscription, architectural works, and funerary objects, which often reflect more objective and tangible realities, presents a different picture of Cambyses and his management in Egypt. This evidence suggests that Cambyses, by adopting a policy of tolerance and engagement in maintaining the economic and social stability of Egypt, interacting with local elites, and respecting Egyptian traditions and religious customs, sought to preserve the culture and traditions of Egypt and endeavored to present himself as a legitimate successor to the Pharaohs.
These contradictions demonstrate that historical narratives cannot be regarded as entirely impartial and accurate sources and require careful and critical examination, considering the political, social, and cultural contexts of their time. In particular, Herodotus’s accounts, heavily reliant on hostile oral sources and influenced by anti-Iranian distortions, provide a completely negative and potentially inaccurate image of Cambyses. Therefore, to better understand the period of Cambyses’ rule in Egypt, it is essential to examine historical narratives, especially those of Herodotus, with caution and precision and to consider archaeological evidence as complementary and often more reliable sources. By combining and analyzing these two categories of sources, a more comprehensive and realistic understanding of Cambyses’ character and actions in Egypt can be achieved, and one-sided and prejudice-based judgments can be avoided.