232 BOOK REVIEWS BASOR 371

only of what remains from these periods but also of what re-mains to be investigated. his paper is also noteworthy for its references to unpublished surveys conducted by graduate stu-dents from the local Institute of Islamic Archaeology at al-Quds University.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 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 Capi-tolina, and Schicks paper on the Mamluk and Ottoman peri-odsthe 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. Je-rusalem: 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 Egyp-tian 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 at-tempts 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 Ru-zicka 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

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, 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 Terri-tory (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 strate-gic 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 se-cure 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 interven-tion 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 try-ing 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 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 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 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 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

233BOOK REVIEWS2014

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 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 signii-cance 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 sa-cred or psychologically signiicant, 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. 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 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 ind 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 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 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. 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 chro-nology of his reign (Pestman 1984; Vleeming 1991: 34).

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 Aby-dos (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 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 ater leeing Nec-tanebo 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 com-ments. 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 administra-tion, 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. Eng-sheden 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 BASOR 371

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). 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 biog-raphy of an Egyptian general from Busiris who served dur-ing 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 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 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 con-sider 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 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 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 ene-mies 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).

over Egypt to identify and reclaim their local cult objects (hiers 2007: 4546, 105). In response to Ruzickas 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 (Altenmller 2009: 34; El-Masry, Altenmller, and hissen 2012).

p. 279, n. 6: For the Satrap Stela, consult now the new authori-tative edition by Schfer (2011).

p. 280, n. 15: he 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 (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 Nu-bia; 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 out-raged their Nubian neighbors and co-religionists. His name (either Chababash or Chabash, as it is oten spelled in hi-eroglyphs: 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 ad-

dendum 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.

235BOOK REVIEWS2014

Bolshakov, A.2010 Persians and Egyptians: Cooperation in Vandal-

ism? Pp. 4553 in Oferings to the Discerning Eye: An Egyptological Medley in Honor of Jack A. Joseph-son, 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 or-ganis 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: Aca-dmie 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 On-

nophris 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 Kam-

byse. 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. Buda-pest: 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).

Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian An-tiquities 35: 3766.

Kienitz, F. K.1953 Die politische Geschichte gyptens vom 7. bis zum 4.

Jahrhundert vor der Zeitwende. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.

Klinkott, H.2007 Xerxes in gypten. Gedanken zum negativen Per-

serbild in der Satrapenstele. Pp. 3453 in gyp-ten 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 (ap-

ropos 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. God-lewski 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 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 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 Bei-hete 11. Hamburg: Buske.

Moje, J.2010 Zu den Namensschreibungen des Lokalregenten

und Gegenknigs Chababasch. Gttinger Miszel-len 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 BASOR 371

Perdu, O.1985 Le monument de Samtoutefnakht Naples [pre-

mire 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. his-sen 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 ach-mnides (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 Satrapen-stele und verwandten Denkmlern. Studia Hellenis-tica 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 Montpel-lier 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. 373429 in Herodot und das Persische Weltreich: Akten des 3. Internationalen Kolloquiums zum Thema Vorderasien im Spannungsfeld klassischer und alt-orientalischer 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 Relat-

ing to Various Agricultural Afairs from Provincial Egypt of the Early Fith Century b.c. Studia Demot-ica 3. Leuven: Peeters.

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 Pal-

ais 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 Des-

olation, by Avraham Faust. Archaeology and Biblical Stud-

ies, 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 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 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 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 ofer 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 irst 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 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 Judahite-type tomb.