The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt

by Toby Wilkinson

7. Papyrus Amherst, p. 2, lines 3–7.

  8. Papyrus BM 10052, p. 8, lines 19–20.

  9. Ibid., p. 5, lines 8–9.

  10. Late Ramesside Letters, no. 35 (translated by Edward Wente, Letters from Ancient Egypt, pp. 183–184).

  11. Late Ramesside Letters, no. 28.

  CHAPTER 19: A HOUSE DIVIDED

  The best introduction to the so-called Libyan Period in Egypt (traditionally the Twenty-second to Twenty-fourth dynasties) is Anthony Leahy, “The Libyan Period in Egypt,” together with the volume of essays Libya and Egypt, edited by the same author. A good introduction to the chronology and rulers of the Twenty-first Dynasty is Kenneth Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period (pp. 255–286), while his article “The Arrival of the Libyans in Late New Kingdom Egypt” discusses the background to Libyan settlement in Egypt during the late Ramesside Period.

  The extent of Libyan influence in the Twenty-first Dynasty is still hotly disputed. Karl Jansen-Winkeln, “Der Beginn der libyschen Herrschaft in Ägypten,” makes a strong case and his thesis has been largely followed here. However, the alternate view (that the Libyan character really becomes apparent only with the reign of Shoshenq I) is equally strongly held. For discussion of the arguments, see Anthony Leahy, “The Libyan Period in Egypt,” and John Taylor, “The Third Intermediate Period.” Despite their Egyptian names, there is strong circumstantial evidence to suggest that Paiankh and Herihor were both of Libyan origin. An inscription from the largely Libyan cemetery of the Third Intermediate Period at Herakleopolis has been plausibly connected with Paiankh, and he is known to have had a base in the town that was the heartland of Libyan settlement in Middle Egypt. At least two of Herihor’s sons were given Libyan names, and this would have been surprising at the time if there had been no Libyan blood in the family.

  A Libyan origin is also likely for the ruler of Lower Egypt at the end of Ramesses XI’s reign. The existence of a private statuette naming a “great chief of the Ma Nesbanebdjedet” (Jean Yoyotte, “Les principautés du Delta,” p. 127 and plate III) suggests that this name was common among the Libyan population of the delta, and thus helps to reinforce the Libyan identification of the king of the same name. Nesbanebdjedet, “the king, the ram lord of Djedet,” is more commonly known by the Greek form of his name, Smendes, but the original Egyptian version better conjures up the labored formulations beloved of the Libyan Twenty-first Dynasty kings. Likewise Pasebakhaenniut, which is usually rendered in its Greek form, Psusennes.

  For the undisputed Libyan character of the Twenty-second Dynasty, see, most recently, Eva Lange, “Legitimation und Herrschaft.” The importance of genealogies is analyzed by Lisa Montagno Leahy and Anthony Leahy, “The Genealogy of a Priestly Family from Heliopolis.” There are numerous examples of throne names being recycled for generations: Pasebakhaenniut I and Osorkon the Elder shared almost identical throne names; Shoshenq I copied the throne name of Nesbanebdjedet, and Takelot I, Takelot II, and Shoshenq IV followed suit; Osorkon II copied the throne-name of Amenemope, as did Padibastet I, Osorkon III, and Rudamun; Shoshenq III copied the throne name of Ramesses II, and Pamay followed suit; Peftjauawybast copied the throne name of Amenemnisu, but had to omit the epithet Heqawaset (“ruler of Thebes”) since he had abandoned the city in the face of Kushite expansion. For the change in the conception of the tomb, especially at Thebes, see Takao Kikuchi, “Die thebanische Nekropole der 21. Dynastie.”

  The classic publications of Djanet and its royal tombs are by the site’s principal excavator, Jean Yoyotte; especially useful are “Tanis” and “The Royal Necropolis of Tanis and Its Treasures.” For the career of Wendjebaendjedet, see Toby Wilkinson, Lives of the Ancient Egyptians (no. 84). For details about the systematic robbery of the Theban royal tombs in the early Twenty-first Dynasty, I am indebted to R. J. Demarée, “The Final Episode of the Deir el-Medina Community.” A further useful discussion of the subject is Nicholas Reeves and Richard Wilkinson, The Complete Valley of the Kings (pp. 190–207), who pay particular attention to the caches of royal mummies. The mummies reinterred in the tomb of a Seventeenth Dynasty queen were finally removed to the family vault of the Theban high priest Pinedjem II, high in the cliffs above Deir el-Bahri, in the reign of Shoshenq I.

  The notion of a “theocratic” government is analyzed in detail by Karl Jansen-Winkeln, “Die thebanische ‘Gottesstaat.’ ” For a key text that has been described as “the credo of the theocracy,” see Pascal Vernus, “Choix de textes” (no. 1, pp. 103–104). Jean-Marie Kruchten, Les annales des prêtres de Karnak, discusses the role of oracles and gives an account of the dispute between two factions of priests at Ipetsut in the time of Pinedjem II. The classic study of the role of women in the Theban priesthood is Saphinaz-Amal Naguib, Le clergé féminin d’Amon.

  For the Libyan fortresses in Middle Egypt and the defensive outlook of Twenty-first Dynasty society, John Taylor, “The Third Intermediate Period,” provides a useful starting point. The Theban revolt in the reign of Nesbanebdjedet is discussed by Aidan Dodson, “Third Intermediate Period.” The original source for this episode is the Banishment Stela, published by Jürgen von Beckerath, “Die ‘Stele der Verbannten,’ ” with further useful observations by Kenneth Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period (pp. 261–262). The fortresses built by Menkheperra were at Gesy (modern Qus), Inerty (Gebelein), and Djeba (Edfu).

  John Taylor, “The Third Intermediate Period,” discusses the decline of royal power in the Twenty-first Dynasty; and Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature (vol. 2, pp. 224–230), provides a convenient translation of the Report of Wenamun, while the journey itself is reconstructed and its implications commented upon by Bill Manley, The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Egypt (pp. 98–99). The text has traditionally been dated to the renaissance era of Ramesses XI’s reign, but recent scholarship has convincingly argued for a date after the death of Ramesses XI, in the reign of his immediate successor. See, above all, Karl Jansen-Winkeln, “Das Ende des Neuen Reiches,” together with Ad Thijs, “In Search of King Herihor” (p. 79). Thijs dates the text to the “reign” of the high priest Pinedjem I, arguing that he preceded Herihor as ruler of Thebes, but this particular point seems unlikely. For the likely marriage of Siamun’s daughter to Solomon, see Kenneth Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period (p. 280).

  1. Ramesses III, Deir el-Medina stela, line 3.

  2. Ibid., lines 3–4.

  3. Late Ramesside Letters, no. 28 (translation by Vivian Davies and Renée Friedman, Egypt, p. 149).

  4. Hymn to Amun—the “credo of the theocracy.”

  5. Menkheperra, Banishment Stela, line 6.

  6. Late Ramesside Letters, no. 21 (translation by Edward Wente, Letters from Ancient Egypt, p. 183).

  7. 1 Kings 9:16 (revised standard version).

  CHAPTER 20: A TARNISHED THRONE

  For the accession of Shoshenq I and the historical problems surrounding the reign of Pasebakhaenniut II, see Aidan Dodson, “The Transition Between the 21st and 22nd Dynasties Revisited.” It is noteworthy, and typical of the shifting sands of Third Intermediate Period history, that Dodson’s previous interpretation of events at the end of the Twenty-first Dynasty (presented in “Psusennes II and Shoshenq I”) has been completely overturned by a single new discovery, that of a hitherto unknown inscribed fragment from Ipetsut (Frédéric Payraudeau, “Des nouvelles annales sacerdotales”). For Shoshenq’s reign and accomplishments, see Anthony Leahy, “Abydos in the Libyan Period” (p. 174), and Kenneth Kitchen, “Sheshonq I.” Shoshenq had royal connections of his own, before his marriage to Pasebakhaenniut II’s daughter. His uncle, Osorkon the Elder (975–970), had ruled briefly as king at Djanet.

  The course of Shoshenq I’s Palestinian campaign has been reconstructed by Kenneth Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period (pp. 432–447), based upon the inscription on the so-called Bubastite Portal at Ipetsut, published by the Epigraphic Survey, Reliefs and Inscriptions at Karnak III. For a convenient cartographic representation of the campaign, see Bill
Manley, The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Egypt (pp. 102–103). The biblical account of “King Shishak” is difficult to reconcile with the Egyptian record of Shoshenq’s campaign on two scores. First, Jerusalem is absent from the Ipetsut list of captured and defeated towns—although a portion of the inscription is missing. Second, most of the conquests listed at Ipetsut are in Israel, not Judah. John Bimson, “Who Was King Shishak of Egypt?,” provides a useful discussion of the difficulties in accommodating the two sources. As a result of these discrepancies, there is a growing (if somewhat desperate) view that Shoshenq I must have mounted at least two campaigns in the Near East, one recorded at Ipetsut, the other in the Bible. Shoshenq I’s son and grandson were Osorkon I (925–890) and Takelot I (890–874), respectively.

  There is as yet no consensus on the precise relationship between the various dynasties and collateral branches of the royal family during the ninth and eighth centuries, although the weight of scholarly opinion seems to be forming around the broad picture suggested by David Aston and John Taylor, “The Family of Takeloth II,” and Karl Jansen-Winkeln, “Historische Probleme der 3. Zwischenzeit.” It should be noted that the existence of a “Theban Twenty-third Dynasty,” founded by Takelot II and running concurrently with the Twenty-second Dynasty at Bast, has been refuted by the doyen of Third Intermediate Period studies, Kenneth Kitchen (The Third Intermediate Period, pp. xxviii–xxxiv); but the theory makes best sense of the fragmentary and confusing evidence, and has been followed here. For detailed family trees and a discussion of the relationships between the various rulers and dynasties, The Complete Royal Families (pp. 210–231) by Aidan Dodson and Dyan Hilton is invaluable.

  The buildings of Osorkon II at Bast are published by Édouard Naville, The Festival Hall of Osorkon II, and discussed in summary by Charles van Siclen, “Tell Basta.” Pascal Vernus, “Choix de textes” (no. 8, p. 109), publishes the funeral lament for Osorkon II by one of his generals. For the kingship of Harsiese and the declaration of Theban independence during the reign of Osorkon II, see Karl Jansen-Winkeln, “Historische Probleme der 3. Zwischenzeit,” and David Aston, “Takeloth II.” Both articles are essential to an understanding of the complex chronology of events relating to Prince Osorkon; particularly useful is Karl Jansen-Winkeln’s table 1. The primary publication of the prince’s travails is Ricardo Caminos, The Chronicle of Prince Osorkon. Gerald Broekman, “The Chronicle of Prince Osorkon,” offers a recent analysis and commentary.

  The history of Nubia during the first part of the Third Intermediate Period remains extremely obscure. One of the best recent studies is John Darnell, The Inscription of Queen Katimala (especially pp. 55–63). For the tombs of the early chieftains at el-Kurru, see Timothy Kendall, “The Origin of the Napatan State”; Lisa Heidorn, “Historical Implications”; and a convenient summary by David O’Connor, Ancient Nubia (pp. 66–69). Kashta is attested in contemporary inscriptions as far north as Elephantine; if Amenirdis was installed as the future god’s wife of Amun not by her brother (Piankhi) but by her father (Kashta), as was the usual practice, Kashta’s authority must have extended as far as Thebes. Timothy Kendall, “Kings of the Sacred Mountain” and “Egypt and Nubia” (pp. 409–412), offers up-to-date discussions of the theology associated with the holy mountain of Gebel Barkal. Kendall’s suggestion (“Egypt and Nubia,” p. 412) that Theban émigrés may have helped to “convert” the Kushite rulers to fundamentalist Amunism seems unnecessary, given the evidence for militant religious fervor among the Nubian elite as early as the tenth century, as demonstrated by the Katimala inscription (John Darnell, The Inscription of Queen Katimala, pp. 62–63). Timothy Kendall, “Jebel Barkal,” discusses the history of the temples at this important site.

  For a long time, the name of Piankhi was rendered as “Piye,” but a recent analysis has suggested that “Piankhi” is more accurate. See Claude Rilly, “Une nouvelle interprétation du nom royal Piankhy.” For the likelihood of an agreement between Rudamun and Piankhi and friendly relations between the two dynasties, see David Aston and John Taylor, “The Family of Takeloth II.” Piankhi’s sister Amenirdis was subsequently adopted as Shepenwepet’s successor, thus ensuring that a Kushite would eventually become god’s wife of Amun.

  Iuput II’s writ, or at least his influence, seems to have stretched beyond the immediate vicinity of Taremu and as far as Per-Wadjet, in the western delta, judging from the bracelets bearing his name that have recently been excavated at the site. See Ulrich Hartung, “Recent Investigations.” The intense political fragmentation of Egypt by 730 and the difficulties of interpretation surrounding rulers such as Iuput II are discussed by Anthony Leahy, “Abydos in the Libyan Period” (Appendix, pp. 177–195), and Patricia and Jeffrey Spencer, “Notes on Late Libyan Egypt.” The classic study remains Jean Yoyotte, “Les principautés du Delta.” The best original source for the period, and for Piankhi’s campaign, is the king’s own victory stela, published in full by Nicolas Grimal, La stèle triomphale. The four kings shown doing obeisance at the top of the stela are Nimlot and Peftjauawybast from Upper Egypt, and Osorkon IV and Iuput II from Lower Egypt. At the time of Piankhi’s campaign, Shepenwepet I (the daughter of Prince Osorkon) may still have been the incumbent god’s wife of Amun at Thebes; sometime in the 750s, Kashta had installed his daughter (Amenirdis I) as the future god’s wife; Piankhi followed suit after his campaign of 728.

  For Piankhi’s palace at Napata, see Timothy Kendall, “The Napatan Palace.” The Kushites’ predilection for horses is discussed by László Török, “Iconography and Mentality” (pp. 195–197), while evidence that the predilection predates the rise of Piankhi’s dynasty is presented by Irene Liverani, “Hillat el-Arab.” A fragmentary victory relief of Piankhi at Gebel Barkal gives particular prominence to the horses he received in tribute from various Egyptian dynasts. See Timothy Kendall, “Kings of the Sacred Mountain” (p. 164, fig. 28).

  1. 1 Kings 14.

  2. 2 Chr. 12:4–5.

  3. 1 Kings 14:25–26.

  4. Chronicle of Prince Osorkon, Text A, line 24 (the translations of this text are by Ricardo A. Caminos, The Chronicle of Prince Osorkon).

  5. Ibid., line 30.

  6. Ibid., line 36.

  7. Ibid., line 36.

  8. Ibid., line 53.

  9. Ibid., line 53.

  10. Ibid., text B, line 7.

  11. Ibid., line 11.

  12. Priestly annals at Karnak, fragment 7, line 3.

  13. Piankhi, victory stela, line 19.

  14. Ibid., line 3.

  15. Ibid.

  16. Ibid., line 12.

  17. Ibid.

  18. Ibid., line 14.

  19. Ibid., line 32.

  20. Ibid., lines 62–67.

  21. Ibid., line 78.

  22. Ibid., line 85.

  23. Ibid., line 86.

  24. Ibid., line 106.

  25. Ibid., lines 113–114.

  26. Ibid., lines 127–128.

  CHAPTER 21: FORTUNE’S FICKLE WHEEL

  An invaluable starting point for the history of the Kushite Period in Egypt is the collection of contemporary texts, published in transliteration and translation by Tormod Eide et al. (eds.), Fontes Historiae Nubiorum. The faïence goblet of Bakenrenef is illustrated and discussed in detail by Günther Hölbl, Beziehungen der ägyptischen Kultur zu Altitalien (vol. 1, pp. 81–94, and vol. 2, plates 28–30). For the reign of Shabaqo and the imposition of Kushite rule in Lower Egypt, see the two articles “Shabaqa” and “Twenty-fifth Dynasty” by Kenneth Kitchen.

  The career of Harwa is charted by Toby Wilkinson, Lives of the Ancient Egyptians (no. 87); for details of Harwa’s tomb and the shabti with royal attributes, see Francesco Tiraditti, “Three Years of Research in the Tomb of Harwa.” The inscription on one of his statues is published by Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature (vol. 3, pp. 24–28). The persistence of political structures in the delta throughout the Kushite Period is discussed by Kenneth Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period (pp. 3
95–398). An important new study of the same phenomenon is Olivier Perdu, “La chefferie de Sébennytos.”

  For the general character of Kushite rule, see Jean Leclant, “Kuschitenherrschaft,” plus references. The archaizing trends in Kushite art are discussed by John Taylor, “The Third Intermediate Period” (pp. 350–352 and 354–362), and Gay Robins, The Art of Ancient Egypt (pp. 210–229). Barry Kemp, Ancient Egypt (1st ed., pp. 26–27), offers an incisive analysis of the Memphite Theology. The text itself (treated as a genuine work of the Old Kingdom or earlier) is published by Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature (vol. 1, pp. 51–57). For Kushite statuary, see Edna Russmann, Egyptian Sculpture (pp. 164–175), and Charles Bonnet and Dominique Valbelle, The Nubian Pharaohs. Anthony Leahy, “Royal Iconography and Dynastic Change,” examines one particular aspect of Kushite art, namely the cap crown. The reign of Taharqo is discussed by Jean Leclant, “Taharqa,” and Donald Redford, “Taharqa.” Taharqo’s Near Eastern campaigns, dated to around 670, can be deduced from donation lists in the temple at Kawa. For the importance of the king’s mother in African societies, see Jean Leclant, “Kuschitenherrschaft,” and E. Y. Kor-mysheva, “Remarks on the Position of the King’s Mother in Kush.”

  A convenient source for the history of the Assyrian Empire is John Haywood, The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Civilizations (pp. 38–39 and 46–47). Dan’el Kahn, “The Assyrian Invasions of Egypt,” offers a broad overview of relations between the two countries, with reference to ancient sources. For the diplomatic policy of Shabaqo toward Assyria, see Grant Frame, “The Inscription of Sargon II at Tang-i Var.” The Assyrian royal annals, included in James Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts, give a vivid, if heavily biased, eyewitness account of the invasions by Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal. For a reconstruction of the Battle of Eltekeh, based on contemporary accounts, see Kenneth Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period (pp. 384–385). An inscription of Esarhaddon that may relate to the plunder of Memphis and the seizure of Kushite royal crowns is published by W. G. Lambert, “Booty from Egypt?” The reference to a rebellion in the southern provinces after the Assyrian invasion of 667–666 is from an inscription of Montuemhat in the Mut temple at Ipetsut. For Taharqo’s battles against the Assyrians, see Charles Bonnet and Dominique Valbelle, The Nubian Pharaohs (pp. 142–149), while the same authors (pp. 150–154) discuss the brief reign of Tanutamun (including his dream stela) and Psamtek I’s takeover. Francis Breyer, Tanutamani, offers the fullest discussion yet of the last Kushite pharaoh. For the two obelisks seized by the Assyrians during the sack of Thebes in 664, see Christiane Desroches Noblecourt, “Deux grands obélisques.”