GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1995-10 > 0814494343


From: Chris Bennett < >
Subject: Annotated Egyptian Descent Part 4 of 4
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 16:25:43 PST


>44. Neithiyti, b. 570 B.C. d after 529 B.C. m. ca 546/545 B.C. Kurush
> (Cyrus II), King of Persia 559 B.C., conquered Babylon and established as
> Babylonian King; d 530 B.C. Cyrus was of the Achaemenes dynasty. This dynasty
> founded in the year 668 B.C. by Achemenes, the first King of Persia. Cyrus'
> maternal grandfather was Astyages, King of Media 585-561 B.C., and his father
> was Kyaxares, King of Media 625-585 B.C.
>
>45. Atossa, b. 545 B.C.; Princess of Persia; d 480/465 (?) B.C. m.
> Darayavahush (Darius I), King of Persia 522-486 B.C.; d 486 B.C.

There is some doubt that Nitetis even existed. Herodotus reports that the
Egyptians called Cambyses son of Nitetis, but this name represents the goddess
Neith, and the title "son of Neith" was common among 26th dynasty pharaohs.
For this reason, Settipani now doubts the Nitetis connection. My own view is
that she did exist, because Herodotus also reports a number of highly
circumstantial stories about her told by the Persians. Herodotus also reports
that she was wife of Cambyses (in one place) and wife of Cyrus (shortly after);
further that she was presented as the daughter of the usurper Amasis but was
"really" the daughter of Apries. If she was in fact the daughter of Amasis
then any Egyptian ancestry through her stops there, because nothing is known of
her mother and virtually nothing of Amasis' ancestry, though it is possible
that Amasis did marry a daughter of Apries. However, the Egyptian kings had a
strong and explicitly attested tradition of not marrying their daughters abroad
- the only likely exception is the bride of Solomon, who had no descendants
known to me - so I think the most plausible theory is that Nitetis really was a
daughter of Apries married to Cyrus by Amasis.

However, it is exceedingly unlikely that she was the mother of Atossa. The
case presented by Settipani is entirely circumstantial. He establishes that
Atossa was most likely born around 545, that the period after Cyrus' conquest
of Lydia in 547 is the most likely time, politically speaking, for a diplomatic
marriage with Egypt, which allows Nitetis to be in her early 20s, and that
Cassandane may have been out of favour with Cyrus at about the time of his
marriage to Nitetis. This is all very well, but it discounts the evidence of
Herodotus about the marriages of Cambyses, which is dismissed as legendary for
no good reason. Herodotus says that Cambyses married his full sisters. One of
them died at his hands in Egypt; the other is Atossa, who went on to marry both
Smerdis and Darius I, becoming the mother of Xerxes. Atossa is unknown in
Persian sources and does not appear to have been Darius' favourite wife - that
was Artysone, another daughter of Cyrus - but as the mother of Xerxes she was
of very great interest to the Greeks (Aeschylus refers to her death in one of
his plays). It is hard to believe that Herodotus would not have known who her
mother was.

Settipani presents us with another line of argument against Nitetis being
Atossa's mother. Cyrus' principal wife was Cassandane, the mother of Cambyses,
who died in Babylon in 539, shortly after Cyrus conquered it. She was the
daughter of Pharnaspes. Diodorus has a corrupt ancestry of the kings of
Cappadocia which begins with a "Pharnaces" who married an Atossa, sister of
Cambyses I (hence the aunt of Cyrus). Settipani presents a good argument that
this genealogy is mostly correct (with a straightforward emendation and one
clear late interpolation), and that "Pharnaces" and his immediate descendants
can be identified with known individuals in the family of this same Pharnaspes,
with "Pharnaces" being Pharnaspes himself. But in this case Cassandane's
mother was probably Atossa, the aunt of Cyrus. Cyrus' daughter Atossa was
therefore almost certainly named after her maternal grandmother - and
Cassandane was indeed her mother, just as Herodotus says.

So, if we rule out Nitetis, are there any other prospects of a descent from
Egypt? There is only one that I know of, but it is very controversial and has
many gaps. One of the Ptolemaic high priests of Memphis, Pedubast III (121-76
BC), was the son of Psenptais II and a certain Berenike, who is described as
related (sister has been read, but this is disputed) to Ptolemy, "who men call
Alexander". This would appear to be Ptolemy X Alexander, but the man concerned
is not named as king. However, Ptolemy X was not king at the time of the
marriage, and the king at the time of Pedubast's death was Ptolemy XII Auletes,
son of Ptolemy IX Lathyrus, who was the brother and rival of Ptolemy X and who
probably regarded him as a usurper. Also, if Berenike was sister of Ptolemy X,
it is unclear why she was not named as either the sister of the (more
acceptable?) Ptolemy IX, or daughter of.their mutual father Ptolemy VIII
Physcon, who presumably negotiated the marriage. Since Pedubast's son
Psenptais III officiated at a coronation of Ptolemy XII in 76/75 BC, it is hard
to understand why the royal connections of his grandmother would be downplayed
in this fashion.

On the other hand, Berenike and Ptolemy-Alexander certainly sound like they are
Greek (though it has been noted that the names Berenike and Arsinoe, both
deified queens, are attested amongst Egyptians at this time), and Ptolemy VIII
and his successors did adopt a policy of rapprochement with the native Egyptian
establishment, of which the high priests of Memphis were the head. Marriage of
a royal daughter to the high priest of Memphis clearly fits in with such a
policy. The coronation of Ptolemy XII by Psenptais is a highly unusual event,
and probably represents a new settlement between the Ptolemies and the
Egyptians made possible by the death of Pedubast shortly before. The
immediately preceding political circumstances may have been sufficient strained
to require the head of the Egyptian community to downplay his Greek connections.

On the Ptolemaic side, there are two rulers whose maternity is unknown:
Ptolemy XII, and his daughter Cleopatra VII. In the case of Cleopatra, Bouche-
Leclerq long ago made the case that her mother was probably Ptolemy XII's
sister-wife Cleopatra V (and that "Cleopatra VI" did not exist); most recently
this has been accepted by Peter Green. Imputations of illegitimacy made
against her appear to be Roman propaganda, probably based on the much stronger
indications that Ptolemy XII had problems with his legitimacy. It is possible
that he was the son of Ptolemy IX by his sister-wife Cleopatra Selene, who did
have two sons whose exact fate is unknown, but the widespread description of
him as a bastard (genealogically, that is) makes most scholars think this is
unlikely. The question is, what made him illegitimate? Sullivan has suggested
that one explanation which would make Ptolemy XII acceptable to the Egyptian
establishment while illegitimate to the Greeks could be that Ptolemy XII was
the son of an Egyptian wife of Ptolemy IX -- and it is hard to imagine any
Egyptian wife being acceptable short of a daughter of the Memphite high priests.

If this is so, then Ptolemy's children (including Cleopatra) were descended
from the high priests of Memphis. There is, unfortunately, a small gap of some
4 centuries in our knowledge of this family, but based on known history it is
very reasonable to suppose that the Ptolemaic high priests were descended
somehow or other from the Libyan high priests, such as prince Shoshenq or
Takeloth (31 and 32 in the above genealogy). Ptolemy's descendants can be
traced only as far as Cleopatra's grandchildren, in the 1st century AD.
However, queen Zenobia of Palmyra in the 3rd century claimed to be descended
from Cleopatra. While this may well be hyperbole, there is nothing inherently
implausible in the claim. Zenobia appears to have descendants in 4th century
Rome, so it is not impossible that Cleopatra's genes entered later European
nobility through this path.

------------------------

Just a couple of observations on two later points:

>69. Vologaeses III (II), b. 80; King of Parthia 105-147/148; d around 148.
>
>70. Vologaeses IV (V), b. 115; King of Parthia 148-192; d 192.

It is now known, from an inscription discovered in Baghdad in 1984, that
Vologeses IV was the son of Mithridates IV (king or anti-king 128-147), and
that Mithidates king of Characene 131-150 was son of the Parthian king Pacorus
II (77-115), not of a mythical king "Phobas" as had previously been thought.
See J. Black, Sumer 43 (1984) 230. The parentage of Mithridates IV remains
unknown. Arsacid genealogy has been somewhat clarified by archaeology in
recent decades, but there's still quite a way to go.

>94. Leo VI Philosophos ("The Wise"), b. 866 1/10; Emperor of Byzantines 889
> 29/8-912 11/5; d 912 11/5; m. Zoe Tzautzina

As was pointed out in the original correspondence, there is considerable doubt
as to whether Leo VI was the son of Basil I or Michael III. Personally, I'm
inclined to favour Michael III, though I also think its possible that not even
Eudocia Ingerina knew the truth at the time. Settipani's position, which was
also stressed in corespondence, is that it doesn't really matter because a
Mamikonian connection is traceable in either case. I don't agree with this.
The connection through Basil I depends on a hypothesis advanced by Adontz in
the 1930s that Basil's paternal grandmother, the daughter of "Leo, an Armenian"
was in fact the daughter of the future Leo V. The chronology required to make
this happen is very tight. The table in Settipani's book has the daughter of
Leo V being born in 795, her son Constantine? being born 810 and Basil being
born c830. Given what we know of Leo V's career, this is the most we can
stretch it out

But there is good reason to believe that Leo had a first wife, known to us only
by the derogatory nickname "Barca." The future emperors Leo V, Michael I and
the anti-emperor Thomas the Slav were all officers of a general Bardanes Turcas
in the years after 802. In later histories it was said that there was a
prophecy that two of Turcas' officers would become emperors, so Turcas married
his daughters to them. It is known that Michael I's wife was a daughter of
Turcas, so the other can only have married Leo V. But his empress, Theodosia,
was not a daughter of Turcas, so he must have married Turcas' daughter after
802 and divorced her sometime before 813. If Leo's daughter was born after 802
it is extremely tight to make her the grandmother of a man born in c830. The
only ways to recover the ealier dating are (a) to challenge the existence of
"Barca" (which some do) or (b) to postulate an even earlier marriage or liaison
for Leo, for which there is absolutely no evidence.

On this point, see W. Treadgold, The Byzantine Revival 780-842, Stanford 1988.

This thread: