8. Babylonia (900-539) & Egypt (1000-525) BOT612: Old Testament Backgrounds.

8. Babylonia (900-539) & Egypt 8. Babylonia (900-539) & Egypt (1000-525)(1000-525)

BOT612: Old Testament BOT612: Old Testament BackgroundsBackgrounds

A Period of Weakness (1000-748 BCE)A Period of Weakness (1000-748 BCE) • "The first important Babylonian king of the "The first important Babylonian king of the

millennium, Nabu-apla-iddina (ca. 887-885 b.millennium, Nabu-apla-iddina (ca. 887-885 b.c.), had a treaty with his Assyrian counterparc.), had a treaty with his Assyrian counterparts. His reign is a highlight in a bleak period of ts. His reign is a highlight in a bleak period of Babylonian history. The country's borders weBabylonian history. The country's borders were secure, internal stability prevailed, and enere secure, internal stability prevailed, and energy was devoted to reconstruction and restorargy was devoted to reconstruction and restoration. For example, thanks to the discovery of tion. For example, thanks to the discovery of a text of Nabu-apla-iddina's inscribed on a stoa text of Nabu-apla-iddina's inscribed on a stone tablet, we know that the king sponsored thne tablet, we know that the king sponsored the rebuilding of the temple of the sun-god (Shae rebuilding of the temple of the sun-god (Shamash) at Sippar."mash) at Sippar."

A Period of Weakness (1000-748 BCE)A Period of Weakness (1000-748 BCE) • When Nabu-apla-iddina died, his successor, When Nabu-apla-iddina died, his successor,

Marduk-zakir-shumi I (ca. 854-819 BCE), renMarduk-zakir-shumi I (ca. 854-819 BCE), renewed the old treaty with Assyria, which was newed the old treaty with Assyria, which was now ruled by Shalmaneser III (858-824 BCE). . ow ruled by Shalmaneser III (858-824 BCE). . . . The renewal of the treaty proved advantag. . The renewal of the treaty proved advantageous for Marduk-zakir-shumi; when his broteous for Marduk-zakir-shumi; when his brother led a rebellion and seized some of Babyloher led a rebellion and seized some of Babylonia for himself, Marduk-zakir-shumi called unia for himself, Marduk-zakir-shumi called upon Shalmaneser to intervene, invoking the trpon Shalmaneser to intervene, invoking the treaty between them. . . . After this incident, Baeaty between them. . . . After this incident, Babylonia continued to enjoy peace with Assyria bylonia continued to enjoy peace with Assyria and general prosperity."and general prosperity."

A Period of Weakness (1000-748 BCE)A Period of Weakness (1000-748 BCE) • "When Shalmaneser was getting very old, a "When Shalmaneser was getting very old, a

major rebellion broke out in Assyria and contmajor rebellion broke out in Assyria and continued for some years. It appears that one of Sinued for some years. It appears that one of Shalmaneser's sons, Shamshi-Adad, sought anhalmaneser's sons, Shamshi-Adad, sought and gained Babylonian support . . . the Babylond gained Babylonian support . . . the Babylonian king used the occasion to demote the Assyian king used the occasion to demote the Assyrian to a lower status so that in the treaty he arian to a lower status so that in the treaty he appears as the lesser party. When the rebellion ppears as the lesser party. When the rebellion had been suppressed and Shamshi-Adad, the had been suppressed and Shamshi-Adad, the fifth king of that name, had been crowned, he fifth king of that name, had been crowned, he invaded Babylonia, presumably out of revenginvaded Babylonia, presumably out of revenge for the humiliating treaty imposed upon hie for the humiliating treaty imposed upon him. This is the firstm. This is the first

A Period of Weakness (1000-748 BCE)A Period of Weakness (1000-748 BCE) time for almost a century that there was open time for almost a century that there was open conflict between the two states. Shamshi-Adaconflict between the two states. Shamshi-Adad V led three expeditions into Babylonia, captd V led three expeditions into Babylonia, capturing major Babylonian cities, including Baburing major Babylonian cities, including Babylon, and Babylonia was forced to pay tributylon, and Babylonia was forced to pay tribute."e."

• ""The Assyrian Adad-narari III (810-783 b.c.) The Assyrian Adad-narari III (810-783 b.c.) continued the aggressive stance toward Babylcontinued the aggressive stance toward Babylonia, although it is unknown how many camponia, although it is unknown how many campaigns he sent there. A treaty favorable toward aigns he sent there. A treaty favorable toward Assyria was imposed upon Babylonia, which Assyria was imposed upon Babylonia, which again had to pay tribute. Fortunately for Babagain had to pay tribute. Fortunately for Babylonia, this reign marked the end of aylonia, this reign marked the end of a

A Period of Weakness (1000-748 BCE)A Period of Weakness (1000-748 BCE) • troublesome time with Assyria. By the end of troublesome time with Assyria. By the end of

Adad-narari's reign, Assyria was once again Adad-narari's reign, Assyria was once again hard pressed by another power, this time Urahard pressed by another power, this time Urartu, and had no time to meddle in Babylonia. rtu, and had no time to meddle in Babylonia. Thus for the first half of the 8th century b.c., Thus for the first half of the 8th century b.c., Babylonia, free of foreign invasion, seemed to Babylonia, free of foreign invasion, seemed to be in a position to enjoy peaceful pursuits.be in a position to enjoy peaceful pursuits.""

Under Assyrian Rule (742-627 BCE) Under Assyrian Rule (742-627 BCE)

• "Babylonia's fate was closely linked to that of "Babylonia's fate was closely linked to that of Assyria throughout this era, particularly so in Assyria throughout this era, particularly so in the Sargonid age in Assyria. When Tiglath-pilthe Sargonid age in Assyria. When Tiglath-pileser III (744-727 b.c.) took the Assyrian throneser III (744-727 b.c.) took the Assyrian throne, Nabu-nasir (747-734 b.c.) had barely begun e, Nabu-nasir (747-734 b.c.) had barely begun his rule at Babylon, a rule that held great prohis rule at Babylon, a rule that held great promise for Babylonia: the borders were secure, mise for Babylonia: the borders were secure, the state was stable internally, the king encouthe state was stable internally, the king encouraged literary and scientific projects (includinraged literary and scientific projects (including astronomical observations and chronicle wrg astronomical observations and chronicle writing), and Tiglath-pileser III concluded a treaiting), and Tiglath-pileser III concluded a treaty with Nabu-nasir."ty with Nabu-nasir."

Under Assyrian Rule (742-627 BCE) Under Assyrian Rule (742-627 BCE)

• "The death of Nabu-nasir brought an abrupt "The death of Nabu-nasir brought an abrupt end to Babylonia's fortunes. Mukin-zer, the leend to Babylonia's fortunes. Mukin-zer, the leader of a tribe of Chaldeans in S Babylonia, aader of a tribe of Chaldeans in S Babylonia, attempted to seize the Babylonian throne, forcittempted to seize the Babylonian throne, forcing Tiglath-pileser III to respond by invading ng Tiglath-pileser III to respond by invading Babylonia, pushing Mukin-zer and his forces Babylonia, pushing Mukin-zer and his forces back south, and having himself crowned as kiback south, and having himself crowned as king of Babylonia. Thus, for the first time, Assyng of Babylonia. Thus, for the first time, Assyria and Babylonia were a united kingdom, rulria and Babylonia were a united kingdom, ruled by an Assyrian monarch."ed by an Assyrian monarch."

Under Assyrian Rule (742-627 BCE) Under Assyrian Rule (742-627 BCE) • ""To understand subsequent events in Babylonian hiTo understand subsequent events in Babylonian hi

story, it is necessary to look briefly at the various grstory, it is necessary to look briefly at the various groups now present in the Babylonian plain, for the Baoups now present in the Babylonian plain, for the Babylonian population was quite heterogeneous. Essentbylonian population was quite heterogeneous. Essentially there were four elements: "native" Babylonianially there were four elements: "native" Babylonians, Elamites, Arameans, and Chaldeans. . . . The most s, Elamites, Arameans, and Chaldeans. . . . The most active of all anti-Assyrian agitators in Babylonia at tactive of all anti-Assyrian agitators in Babylonia at this time was Merodach-Baladan II. He was the leadehis time was Merodach-Baladan II. He was the leader of a Chaldean tribe called Yakin and first took an r of a Chaldean tribe called Yakin and first took an active military role toward the end of Tiglath-pileser active military role toward the end of Tiglath-pileser III's reign. When Sargon II (721-705 b.c.) ascended tIII's reign. When Sargon II (721-705 b.c.) ascended the Assyrian throne, Merodach-baladan had himself he Assyrian throne, Merodach-baladan had himself crowned king at Babylon. The Assyrian tried unsucccrowned king at Babylon. The Assyrian tried unsuccessfully to depose Merodach-baladan, who ruled Baessfully to depose Merodach-baladan, who ruled Babyloniabylonia

Under Assyrian Rule (742-627 BCE) Under Assyrian Rule (742-627 BCE) for the next decade. But in 710 b.c., Sargon finally dfor the next decade. But in 710 b.c., Sargon finally defeated the Chaldeans, and Merodach-baladan took efeated the Chaldeans, and Merodach-baladan took refuge in the S marshes."refuge in the S marshes."

• ""Babylonia, as represented by Merodach-balBabylonia, as represented by Merodach-baladan and other leaders, staunchly resisted Seadan and other leaders, staunchly resisted Sennacherib. Merodach-baladan actually regainnnacherib. Merodach-baladan actually regained the throne at Babylon briefly in 703 b.c., foed the throne at Babylon briefly in 703 b.c., forcing the Assyrian to turn from other concernrcing the Assyrian to turn from other concerns (Palestine) and invade Babylonia. Merodachs (Palestine) and invade Babylonia. Merodach-baladan again fled south to the marshes, but -baladan again fled south to the marshes, but over the next few years he stirred up oppositiover the next few years he stirred up opposition to the Assyrian occupation. Sennacherib aton to the Assyrian occupation. Sennacherib attempted to ruletempted to rule

Under Assyrian Rule (742-627 BCE) Under Assyrian Rule (742-627 BCE) Babylonia through puppet kings while he led the Babylonia through puppet kings while he led the Assyrian army in an abortive attempt to capture Assyrian army in an abortive attempt to capture Merodach-baladan. The critical point in this phaMerodach-baladan. The critical point in this phase of Assyro-Babylonian affairs was the entry of se of Assyro-Babylonian affairs was the entry of Elam into the fray. The Elamites invaded BabyloElam into the fray. The Elamites invaded Babylonia, captured Sennacherib's son and heir (who hania, captured Sennacherib's son and heir (who had been crowned king of Babylonia), and carried hd been crowned king of Babylonia), and carried him off to exile and death.im off to exile and death.""

• "Sennacherib was enraged by this, regarding it a"Sennacherib was enraged by this, regarding it as Babylonian treachery. He launched vicious cams Babylonian treachery. He launched vicious campaigns first against Elam and then against Babylpaigns first against Elam and then against Babylonia, finally capturing Babylon itself in 689 b.c." onia, finally capturing Babylon itself in 689 b.c."

Under Assyrian Rule (742-627 BCE) Under Assyrian Rule (742-627 BCE) • "The next Assyrian king, Esarhaddon (680-669 b.c.), "The next Assyrian king, Esarhaddon (680-669 b.c.),

set himself the task of reconciliation with and reconsset himself the task of reconciliation with and reconstruction of Babylonia. This was a wise policy and wotruction of Babylonia. This was a wise policy and won for him a reign untroubled on the S border."n for him a reign untroubled on the S border."

• "Esarhaddon had decided that when he died his kin"Esarhaddon had decided that when he died his kingdom would be divided between two of his sons, and gdom would be divided between two of his sons, and thus Ashurbanipal (668-627 b.c.) came to rule over thus Ashurbanipal (668-627 b.c.) came to rule over Assyria and Shamash-shuma-ukin (667-648 b.c.) to rAssyria and Shamash-shuma-ukin (667-648 b.c.) to rule over Babylonia. . . . Increasing unease broke into ule over Babylonia. . . . Increasing unease broke into open battle in 652 b.c. and continued for four years, open battle in 652 b.c. and continued for four years, to 648 b.c. Assyria quickly gained the upper hand, ato 648 b.c. Assyria quickly gained the upper hand, and, after a long siege, Babylon fell and Shamash-shund, after a long siege, Babylon fell and Shamash-shuma-ukin perished in his burning palace."ma-ukin perished in his burning palace."

Imperial Beginnings (626-605 BCE) Imperial Beginnings (626-605 BCE) • ""Out of the ashes of a Babylonia scorched by the AssOut of the ashes of a Babylonia scorched by the Ass

yrians in 689 and 648 b.c. rose a new dynasty destineyrians in 689 and 648 b.c. rose a new dynasty destined to establish both an independent Babylonia and Bad to establish both an independent Babylonia and Babylonian rule over the former Assyrian empire. The bylonian rule over the former Assyrian empire. The founder of this dynasty was Nabopolassar (625-605 founder of this dynasty was Nabopolassar (625-605 b.c.), a Chaldean who was crowned king at Babylon b.c.), a Chaldean who was crowned king at Babylon after defeating an Assyrian army in Babylonia. No dafter defeating an Assyrian army in Babylonia. No details of Nabopolassar's background are known; nor etails of Nabopolassar's background are known; nor is there much firm evidence about the situation befois there much firm evidence about the situation before the events leading up to his coronation. It is apparre the events leading up to his coronation. It is apparent, however, that the Babylonians were actively rebent, however, that the Babylonians were actively rebelling against the Assyrians and trying to expel them elling against the Assyrians and trying to expel them from their land. Nabopolassar became the champion from their land. Nabopolassar became the champion of this freedom fight, and in 626 b.c. heof this freedom fight, and in 626 b.c. he

Imperial Beginnings (626-605 BCE)Imperial Beginnings (626-605 BCE)led Babylonian troops to lay siege to Nippur, led Babylonian troops to lay siege to Nippur, which contained an Assyrian garrison. The siwhich contained an Assyrian garrison. The siege was lengthy and the people so impoverishege was lengthy and the people so impoverished that some of them, as we know from contred that some of them, as we know from contracts discovered at Nippur, were forced to sell acts discovered at Nippur, were forced to sell their children into slavery so that they could btheir children into slavery so that they could buy food. Eventually the siege was lifted when uy food. Eventually the siege was lifted when an Assyrian army arrived and pursued the Baan Assyrian army arrived and pursued the Babylonian troops as far as Babylon."bylonian troops as far as Babylon."

Imperial Beginnings (626-605 BCE)Imperial Beginnings (626-605 BCE)• "During the early years of Nabopolassar's rei"During the early years of Nabopolassar's rei

gn, the Babylonian offensive went from succesgn, the Babylonian offensive went from success to success, and Assyria gradually withdrew ts to success, and Assyria gradually withdrew to the north. When Nabopolassar pushed up to o the north. When Nabopolassar pushed up to the Upper Euphrates region, Egypt became althe Upper Euphrates region, Egypt became alarmed and sent aid to Assyria (616 b.c.). Such armed and sent aid to Assyria (616 b.c.). Such an alliance had never existed before and is a san alliance had never existed before and is a symbol of the momentous changes occurring in ymbol of the momentous changes occurring in ancient Near Eastern politics. About the same ancient Near Eastern politics. About the same time that Egypt aligned itself with Assyria, thtime that Egypt aligned itself with Assyria, the Medes allied themselves with the Babyloniae Medes allied themselves with the Babylonians. The Medes had long been established in Wns. The Medes had long been established in W

Imperial Beginnings (626-605 BCE)Imperial Beginnings (626-605 BCE)Iran and more recently had spread their control wesIran and more recently had spread their control westward into eastern and central Anatolia. For the nextward into eastern and central Anatolia. For the next four years the Medes and Babylonians pounded awt four years the Medes and Babylonians pounded away at Assyrian holdings and at the Assyrian heartlanay at Assyrian holdings and at the Assyrian heartland itself. In 614 Asshur was captured. Then, in 612 thd itself. In 614 Asshur was captured. Then, in 612 the allies laid siege to Nineveh. The siege lasted all sume allies laid siege to Nineveh. The siege lasted all summer before the city fell. A remnant of Assyrians escamer before the city fell. A remnant of Assyrians escaped W to Harran, where a mini-Assyrian dynasty wped W to Harran, where a mini-Assyrian dynasty was established. Nabopolassar, supported by the Medas established. Nabopolassar, supported by the Medes, attacked Harran in 610 and forced the combined es, attacked Harran in 610 and forced the combined armies of Assyria and Egypt to flee to Syria. In 609 tarmies of Assyria and Egypt to flee to Syria. In 609 this army returned and made a vain attempt to dislohis army returned and made a vain attempt to dislodge the Babylonians and Medes from Harran."dge the Babylonians and Medes from Harran."

Imperial Beginnings (626-605 BCE)Imperial Beginnings (626-605 BCE)• "The decisive battle between the two sides ca"The decisive battle between the two sides ca

me in 605 at Carchemish. Egypt now stood alme in 605 at Carchemish. Egypt now stood alone, for nothing is ever heard again of an Assone, for nothing is ever heard again of an Assyrian army. By this time the Babylonian army yrian army. By this time the Babylonian army was being led in alternate years by the king Nwas being led in alternate years by the king Nabopolassar and his son and heir Nebuchadneabopolassar and his son and heir Nebuchadnezzar. In 605 the son was in charge of the expezzar. In 605 the son was in charge of the expedition. Nebuchadnezzar led a surprise attack dition. Nebuchadnezzar led a surprise attack on the Egyptian army at Carchemish. The Egon the Egyptian army at Carchemish. The Egyptians were caught inside the walls but manayptians were caught inside the walls but managed to break out and avoid being sealed in by ged to break out and avoid being sealed in by a siege. The fighting was fierce, and the Egypta siege. The fighting was fierce, and the Egyptians eventuallyians eventually

Imperial Beginnings (626-605 BCE)Imperial Beginnings (626-605 BCE)

broke and ran with the Babylonians in hot pubroke and ran with the Babylonians in hot pursuit, slaying every man they could catch. Thirsuit, slaying every man they could catch. This was the ultimate victory for Babylonia. Assys was the ultimate victory for Babylonia. Assyria was destroyed, and Egypt had lost any creria was destroyed, and Egypt had lost any credibility in Asia. Eventually the Babylonians wdibility in Asia. Eventually the Babylonians would follow this up by campaigning to and claiould follow this up by campaigning to and claiming all of Syria-Palestine. But there was a sliming all of Syria-Palestine. But there was a slight delay. News arrived after the Battle of Caght delay. News arrived after the Battle of Carchemish that Nabopolossar had died. Nebucrchemish that Nabopolossar had died. Nebuchadnezzar returned swiftly to Babylon, where hadnezzar returned swiftly to Babylon, where he was crowned king." he was crowned king."

Nabopolassar CylindarNabopolassar Cylindar

The Empire (604-556 BCE) The Empire (604-556 BCE) • "No sooner were the coronation ceremonies "No sooner were the coronation ceremonies

over for Nebuchadnezzar II (604-562 BCE) , over for Nebuchadnezzar II (604-562 BCE) , after the death of his father, then he hastened after the death of his father, then he hastened back to Syria to resume his campaigning. He back to Syria to resume his campaigning. He had defeated the Egyptians at Carchemish in had defeated the Egyptians at Carchemish in 605 b.c., but this did not automatically bring 605 b.c., but this did not automatically bring Syria-Palestine under Babylonian control. In Syria-Palestine under Babylonian control. In the following years he led a series of the following years he led a series of expeditions W of the Euphrates. Sometimes expeditions W of the Euphrates. Sometimes local rulers acknowledged him as lord and local rulers acknowledged him as lord and paid tribute without question; at other times, paid tribute without question; at other times, they resisted and the Babylonian army laid they resisted and the Babylonian army laid siege to their cities."siege to their cities."

The Empire (604-556 BCE) The Empire (604-556 BCE) • "By 601 Nebuchadnezzar felt his hold over "By 601 Nebuchadnezzar felt his hold over

Syria-Palestine was strong enough to permit a Syria-Palestine was strong enough to permit a campaign against Egypt. This was a mistake. campaign against Egypt. This was a mistake. A pitched battle between the two forces in A pitched battle between the two forces in Egypt resulted in a stalemate, and Egypt resulted in a stalemate, and Nebuchadnezzar, choosing discretion, led his Nebuchadnezzar, choosing discretion, led his army back to Babylon. After a year spent army back to Babylon. After a year spent repairing the damage to his army and repairing the damage to his army and equipment, he resumed his Syrian campaigns. equipment, he resumed his Syrian campaigns. This was urgent, for the Babylonian This was urgent, for the Babylonian humiliation in Egypt had encouraged W humiliation in Egypt had encouraged W states to rebel."states to rebel."

The Empire (604-556 BCE) The Empire (604-556 BCE) • "Jerusalem during this period was torn betwe"Jerusalem during this period was torn betwe

en two factions, one pro-Egyptian and one pren two factions, one pro-Egyptian and one pro-Babylonian. The king, Jehoiakim, and his so-Babylonian. The king, Jehoiakim, and his supporters were in favor of siding with the Egupporters were in favor of siding with the Egyptians, but the prophet Jeremiah preferred typtians, but the prophet Jeremiah preferred the Babylonians. Although Jehoiakim had paihe Babylonians. Although Jehoiakim had paid tribute to Babylonia after the Battle of Carcd tribute to Babylonia after the Battle of Carchemish, Babylonia's ignominious withdrawal hemish, Babylonia's ignominious withdrawal from Egypt in 601 led him to renounce his allfrom Egypt in 601 led him to renounce his allegiance to Babylonia and throw in his lot with egiance to Babylonia and throw in his lot with Egypt. Nebuchadnezzar could not let this key Egypt. Nebuchadnezzar could not let this key center fall away, and so in 597 he besieged ancenter fall away, and so in 597 he besieged andd

The Empire (604-556 BCE) The Empire (604-556 BCE) captured Jerusalem. He appointed a new kincaptured Jerusalem. He appointed a new king, Zedekiah, and imposed a heavy tribute. Jehg, Zedekiah, and imposed a heavy tribute. Jehoiakin, son of Jehoiakim who had died, his faoiakin, son of Jehoiakim who had died, his family, and many leading citizens were taken as mily, and many leading citizens were taken as captives to Babylon . . . ."captives to Babylon . . . ."

• In the years after 597, Zedekiah allowed himsIn the years after 597, Zedekiah allowed himself gradually to be persuaded by those who faelf gradually to be persuaded by those who favored Egypt. Eventually, with a promise of Evored Egypt. Eventually, with a promise of Egyptian support, he abandoned allegiance to gyptian support, he abandoned allegiance to Babylonia, refusing to pay tribute. In 587 NebBabylonia, refusing to pay tribute. In 587 Nebuchadnezzar again invaded Judah, capturing uchadnezzar again invaded Judah, capturing various cities as he marched on Jerusalem. Tvarious cities as he marched on Jerusalem. These Judean citieshese Judean cities

The Empire (604-556 BCE) The Empire (604-556 BCE) were not plundered but were treated mercifully were not plundered but were treated mercifully in a deliberate attempt to weaken the resolve of in a deliberate attempt to weaken the resolve of Jerusalem's defenders. Therefore, when Jerusalem's defenders. Therefore, when Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Jerusalem, Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Jerusalem, Jeremiah and his supporters pointed to the Jeremiah and his supporters pointed to the lenient treatment of other cities and vainly urged lenient treatment of other cities and vainly urged capitulation. Meanwhile, the Egyptian army capitulation. Meanwhile, the Egyptian army moved into Judah and tried, unsuccessfully, to moved into Judah and tried, unsuccessfully, to lift the Babylonian siege. Then the Babylonians lift the Babylonian siege. Then the Babylonians captured Jerusalem. The city was plundered and captured Jerusalem. The city was plundered and destroyed, its leaders were executed, and most of destroyed, its leaders were executed, and most of the remaining population were carried off in the remaining population were carried off in exile to Babylonia."exile to Babylonia."

Blake’s Nebuchadnezzar

BabylonBabylon

BabylonBabylon

BabylonBabylon

BabylonBabylon

BabylonBabylonBabylonBabylon

BabylonBabylon

BabylonBabylon

BabylonBabylon

BabylonBabylon

BabylonBabylon

BabylonBabylon

BabylonBabylon

BabylonBabylon

BabylonBabylon

The Empire (604-556 BCE) The Empire (604-556 BCE) • "After his death he was succeeded by some re"After his death he was succeeded by some re

latively unimportant monarchs, including Evilatively unimportant monarchs, including Evil-Merodach and Nergal-Sharezzer. If the kingl-Merodach and Nergal-Sharezzer. If the kingdom was still strong, it was nevertheless no lodom was still strong, it was nevertheless no longer expanding."nger expanding."

Nabonidus & the Fall of Babylon (666-539 BCE)Nabonidus & the Fall of Babylon (666-539 BCE) • "Nabonidus . . . . While forces portending "Nabonidus . . . . While forces portending

doom to Babylonia gathered on the horizons, doom to Babylonia gathered on the horizons, he found time to promote a religious change, he found time to promote a religious change, to undertake major building operations, and to undertake major building operations, and even to live in the desert for ten years. He did even to live in the desert for ten years. He did not, however, ignore the external dangers to not, however, ignore the external dangers to Babylonia's security - far from it. When at Babylonia's security - far from it. When at last the Persian army invaded Babylonia, he last the Persian army invaded Babylonia, he fought valiantly but in vain to repel them."fought valiantly but in vain to repel them."

Nabonidus & the Fall of Babylon (666-539 BCE)Nabonidus & the Fall of Babylon (666-539 BCE) • "Nabonidus' religious changes provide a key to "Nabonidus' religious changes provide a key to

his other actions. He was not in the direct line fhis other actions. He was not in the direct line for the throne (one Babylonian text called him a or the throne (one Babylonian text called him a "usurper", and it is unknown how he became k"usurper", and it is unknown how he became king. When Nabonidus came to power, he promoing. When Nabonidus came to power, he promoted the cult of the moon and sought out similar ted the cult of the moon and sought out similar cults in Babylonia. Thus he favored the Babylocults in Babylonia. Thus he favored the Babylonian deity Sin, god of the moon and the city Ur. nian deity Sin, god of the moon and the city Ur. He had little interest in Babylon's god, MarduHe had little interest in Babylon's god, Marduk. This brought down upon his head the wrath k. This brought down upon his head the wrath of the Marduk priests and supporters who, amof the Marduk priests and supporters who, among other things, wrote literary works condemong other things, wrote literary works condemning Nabonidus for his sacrilege."ning Nabonidus for his sacrilege."

Nabonidus & the Fall of Babylon (666-539 BCE)Nabonidus & the Fall of Babylon (666-539 BCE) • "A second unique feature of this king's reign "A second unique feature of this king's reign

was his ten-year self-imposed exile in Tema, awas his ten-year self-imposed exile in Tema, an oasis in the Arabian desert. While he lived tn oasis in the Arabian desert. While he lived there his son, Belshazzar, managed affairs at Bhere his son, Belshazzar, managed affairs at Babylon. . . . It is a fact that pre-Islamic Arabs iabylon. . . . It is a fact that pre-Islamic Arabs in the Arabian peninsula revered the moon-gon the Arabian peninsula revered the moon-god, and this may have been an important motivd, and this may have been an important motivation for Nabonidus, given his intense interest ation for Nabonidus, given his intense interest in this cult. But this would not exclude one or in this cult. But this would not exclude one or more other reasons, such as an attempt to regmore other reasons, such as an attempt to regain his health, for the long exile."ain his health, for the long exile."

Nabonidus & the Fall of Babylon (666-539 BCE)Nabonidus & the Fall of Babylon (666-539 BCE) • "The third area of special interest in this "The third area of special interest in this

reign was the manner in which Nabonidus reign was the manner in which Nabonidus conducted his building operations. It was, of conducted his building operations. It was, of course, usual for a Babylonian king to erect course, usual for a Babylonian king to erect or restore monumental buildings, as or restore monumental buildings, as Nabonidus did. What was unusual was the Nabonidus did. What was unusual was the zeal with which he sought out ancient statues zeal with which he sought out ancient statues and inscriptions of his predecessors when and inscriptions of his predecessors when digging in the foundations of old buildings. digging in the foundations of old buildings. This characteristic has won for Nabonidus the This characteristic has won for Nabonidus the epithet "the world's first archaeologist" epithet "the world's first archaeologist" among modern scholars."among modern scholars."

Nabonidus & the Fall of Babylon (666-539 BCE)Nabonidus & the Fall of Babylon (666-539 BCE) • "The Persians under Cyrus the Great had bee"The Persians under Cyrus the Great had bee

n gathering around the borders of the Babylon gathering around the borders of the Babylonian empire, preparing for a major assault wnian empire, preparing for a major assault which took place in 539 b.c. The Persians came hich took place in 539 b.c. The Persians came down the Diyala river, and Nabonidus, at the down the Diyala river, and Nabonidus, at the head of his army, met and fought with them ahead of his army, met and fought with them at Opis near modern Baghdad. Nabonidus was t Opis near modern Baghdad. Nabonidus was defeated. The Persians then marched on Babydefeated. The Persians then marched on Babylon where, according to a native source, the Blon where, according to a native source, the Babylonians opened the gates and with rejoicinabylonians opened the gates and with rejoicing welcomed Cyrus as a deliverer from the "tyg welcomed Cyrus as a deliverer from the "tyrant" Nabonidus."rant" Nabonidus."

Belshazzar (556-539 BCE)Belshazzar (556-539 BCE) • "Son of Nabonidus (556-539 b.c.), the last "Son of Nabonidus (556-539 b.c.), the last

king of Babylonia prior to the Persian king of Babylonia prior to the Persian conquest, Belshazzar ruled as co-regent for at conquest, Belshazzar ruled as co-regent for at least three years while his father was in least three years while his father was in Arabia. This arrangement in itself is Arabia. This arrangement in itself is important, since it has no parallel in any important, since it has no parallel in any other period of Mesopotamian history. There other period of Mesopotamian history. There is no direct evidence that he altered is no direct evidence that he altered conditions in southern Mesopotamia in any conditions in southern Mesopotamia in any way during his father's absence."way during his father's absence."

Belshazzar (556-539 BCE)Belshazzar (556-539 BCE)• "He appears to have had ample authority to g"He appears to have had ample authority to g

ive orders to temple officials in Uruk and Sipive orders to temple officials in Uruk and Sippar and could even lease out temple land. His par and could even lease out temple land. His name disappears from the contract tablets in name disappears from the contract tablets in Nabonidus' thirteenth year; it has been suggeNabonidus' thirteenth year; it has been suggested that this coincides with Nabonidus' retursted that this coincides with Nabonidus' return to Babylonia from Tema."n to Babylonia from Tema."

• Belshazzar commanded Babylonian troops in Belshazzar commanded Babylonian troops in the vicinity of Sippar when Cyrus of Persia cothe vicinity of Sippar when Cyrus of Persia conquered Anatolia (545 b.c.). Nothing is known nquered Anatolia (545 b.c.). Nothing is known of his activities after 543 b.c."of his activities after 543 b.c."

Egypt: Third Intermediate Period (Dynasty 21-Egypt: Third Intermediate Period (Dynasty 21-

26)26) • "The era immediately succeeding that of the "The era immediately succeeding that of the

New Kingdom (NK) witnessed varied developNew Kingdom (NK) witnessed varied developments in society, culture, and economy (Kitchments in society, culture, and economy (Kitchen 1973). Notwithstanding the apparent paucien 1973). Notwithstanding the apparent paucity of royal inscriptions, much has been revealty of royal inscriptions, much has been revealed by recent research concentrated on this hited by recent research concentrated on this hitherto presumed Dark Age of Egypt. However, herto presumed Dark Age of Egypt. However, the paramount and consistent trend in the dythe paramount and consistent trend in the dynasties following the fall of the NK is one of pnasties following the fall of the NK is one of political decentralization and corresponding laolitical decentralization and corresponding lack of a firm unified monarchy (Yoyotte 1961). ck of a firm unified monarchy (Yoyotte 1961). Foreigners, too, made an impact on the NileForeigners, too, made an impact on the Nile

Egypt: Third Intermediate Period (Dynasty 21-Egypt: Third Intermediate Period (Dynasty 21-26)26)

valley, and not one but three different contenvalley, and not one but three different contenders for the prize of Egypt left their mark. Firders for the prize of Egypt left their mark. First, there were the Libyans, who had already sst, there were the Libyans, who had already settled in the north during the reign of Ramessettled in the north during the reign of Ramesses III; then Egypt was faced with a southern ies III; then Egypt was faced with a southern incursion, that of the Kishites; finally, the migncursion, that of the Kishites; finally, the mighty Assyrians attempted to conquer the land. hty Assyrians attempted to conquer the land. As a result, the political history of this time is As a result, the political history of this time is difficult to view as a whole if only because Egdifficult to view as a whole if only because Egypt was not unified as before."ypt was not unified as before."

Egypt: Third Intermediate Period (Dynasty 21-Egypt: Third Intermediate Period (Dynasty 21-26)26)

• ""For the sake of simplicity and ease of For the sake of simplicity and ease of comprehension, modern scholarship now uses comprehension, modern scholarship now uses the term "Third Intermediate Period" to the term "Third Intermediate Period" to cover Dynasties 21–25 (ca. 1069–664 b.c.). cover Dynasties 21–25 (ca. 1069–664 b.c.). This, in turn, was followed by the Saite This, in turn, was followed by the Saite Period, Dyn. 26 (664–525 b.c.), an era of Period, Dyn. 26 (664–525 b.c.), an era of unity. However, it should be stressed that the unity. However, it should be stressed that the 3d Intermediate Period is purely a global 3d Intermediate Period is purely a global designation, revealing little about the 400-designation, revealing little about the 400-year span of Egyptian history, a time that year span of Egyptian history, a time that witnessed the emergence of a society quite witnessed the emergence of a society quite different than any preceding."different than any preceding."

Egypt in Dynasty 21 (ca. 1069–945 Egypt in Dynasty 21 (ca. 1069–945 BCE)BCE)

• ""The last years of Pharaoh Ramesses XI saw a sThe last years of Pharaoh Ramesses XI saw a subtle alteration in the power structure of Egypt. ubtle alteration in the power structure of Egypt. The famous report of Wenamun (ca. 1076 BCE) The famous report of Wenamun (ca. 1076 BCE) alludes in fairly direct language to the dual contralludes in fairly direct language to the dual control of Egypt: in the south, control had effectively ol of Egypt: in the south, control had effectively passed to the high priest of Amun, Herihor, whilpassed to the high priest of Amun, Herihor, while the north was under the e the north was under the de factode facto jurisdiction of jurisdiction of Smendes from his capital at the seaport of Tanis Smendes from his capital at the seaport of Tanis in the East Delta. At the death of the last Ramessin the East Delta. At the death of the last Ramesside ruler, the two offices passed smoothly to, respide ruler, the two offices passed smoothly to, respectively, the then incumbent high priest of Amun ectively, the then incumbent high priest of Amun Pinudjem and to Pharaoh Smendes himself."Pinudjem and to Pharaoh Smendes himself."


• ""Pinudjem I renewed the burials of his royal Pinudjem I renewed the burials of his royal ancestors in the Valley of the Kings, albeit witancestors in the Valley of the Kings, albeit with some possible mistakes in attribution. He alh some possible mistakes in attribution. He also had himself proclaimed pharaoh in his own so had himself proclaimed pharaoh in his own right, the first clear-cut evidence of this practiright, the first clear-cut evidence of this practice from the temple of Khonsu at Thebes. In thce from the temple of Khonsu at Thebes. In the 16th regnal year of Smendes (ca. 1057 b.c.), e 16th regnal year of Smendes (ca. 1057 b.c.), Pinudjem became the first pharaoh of the souPinudjem became the first pharaoh of the south, while his son Masaharta took the position th, while his son Masaharta took the position of “high priest of Amun.” Although this was nof “high priest of Amun.” Although this was not the start of a civil war, it essentially created ot the start of a civil war, it essentially created a separate and continuing dynasty in addition a separate and continuing dynasty in addition to the royal line of Tanis.to the royal line of Tanis.""


• ". . . ". . . there are no regnal years associated with Pinuthere are no regnal years associated with Pinudjem as king, a point worth stressing as it indicates tdjem as king, a point worth stressing as it indicates that Smendes still was superior, if only in form.hat Smendes still was superior, if only in form.""

• ""With the deaths of Smendes and his short-livWith the deaths of Smendes and his short-lived son, the Tanite line then passed on to the eed son, the Tanite line then passed on to the energetic Psusennes I (ca. 1039–991 b.c.). Althnergetic Psusennes I (ca. 1039–991 b.c.). Although the southern line of high priests never aough the southern line of high priests never again rose to claim royalty after Pinudjem I’s gain rose to claim royalty after Pinudjem I’s death seven years later, Psusennes himself toodeath seven years later, Psusennes himself took the title of high priest of Amun (this time in k the title of high priest of Amun (this time in Tanis). He copied the policy of his southern coTanis). He copied the policy of his southern contemporaries byntemporaries by


securing his control over various priestly officsecuring his control over various priestly offices. Indeed, unlike the administrative setup of es. Indeed, unlike the administrative setup of the NK, Dyn. 21 and its successors reveal the ithe NK, Dyn. 21 and its successors reveal the intimate family relationships that existed betwntimate family relationships that existed between the kings and the religious benefices in theen the kings and the religious benefices in the land."e land."

• ""Very little is known concerning the south of Very little is known concerning the south of Egypt during the reign of Psusennes and his sEgypt during the reign of Psusennes and his successors. The line of Menkheperre continued uccessors. The line of Menkheperre continued to hold the office of High Priest of Amun, but to hold the office of High Priest of Amun, but none of his descendants ever took the kingshinone of his descendants ever took the kingship."p."


• The next three Tanite kings, although of relatiThe next three Tanite kings, although of relatively small importance, present interesting aspvely small importance, present interesting aspects. During the reigns of the first two, Ameneects. During the reigns of the first two, Amenemope and Osorkor(n), now named “The Eldemope and Osorkor(n), now named “The Elder,” close connections appear to have been forgr,” close connections appear to have been forged between the Tanite court and Hadad the Eed between the Tanite court and Hadad the Edomite (1 Kgs 11:14–22), a political refugee frdomite (1 Kgs 11:14–22), a political refugee from the north. It was probably during these twom the north. It was probably during these two reigns that Hadad came to Tanis and secureo reigns that Hadad came to Tanis and secured for himself a place in exile after the victoriod for himself a place in exile after the victorious armies of King David had taken control of us armies of King David had taken control of his kingdom. This passive support of an enemhis kingdom. This passive support of an enemy of the Israelitey of the Israelite


Kingdom was to have repercussions toward the close Kingdom was to have repercussions toward the close of Dyn. 21. Such brief indications of international mof Dyn. 21. Such brief indications of international maneuverings clearly indicate that the paucity of our saneuverings clearly indicate that the paucity of our sources for this period does not necessarily indicate tources for this period does not necessarily indicate that the Tanite kings eschewed foreign affairs.hat the Tanite kings eschewed foreign affairs.""

• ""The second pharaoh, Osorkor(n) (ca. 984–97The second pharaoh, Osorkor(n) (ca. 984–978 b.c.), bears a good Libyan name and there is 8 b.c.), bears a good Libyan name and there is little doubt . . . that he was not related to the plittle doubt . . . that he was not related to the previous pharaoh. Quite the contrary, Osorkorrevious pharaoh. Quite the contrary, Osorkor(n) was descended from an important Libyan (n) was descended from an important Libyan (or Meshwesh, as they called themselves) trib(or Meshwesh, as they called themselves) tribe that had settled in the northe that had settled in the north


in Dyn. 20. His father was a tribal emir of great impin Dyn. 20. His father was a tribal emir of great importance and he himself was the uncle of the future foortance and he himself was the uncle of the future founder of Dyn. 22.under of Dyn. 22.""

• ""Siamun (ca. 978–959 b.c.) continued to support the Siamun (ca. 978–959 b.c.) continued to support the refugee Hadad at his court. However, when the aged refugee Hadad at his court. However, when the aged king David of Israel died, he took the opportunity to king David of Israel died, he took the opportunity to support fully Hadad’s return to Edom and at the sasupport fully Hadad’s return to Edom and at the same time moved his army north into Philistia (Malamme time moved his army north into Philistia (Malamat 1963: 12–16; Kitchen 1973: 280–83). This campaiat 1963: 12–16; Kitchen 1973: 280–83). This campaign, although minor in comparison to those of the Ngn, although minor in comparison to those of the NK, nevertheless indicates that Tanis regarded her noK, nevertheless indicates that Tanis regarded her northern neighbor, the kingdom of Israel, with a jaundrthern neighbor, the kingdom of Israel, with a jaundiced if not jealous eye. Precisely at David’s death aniced if not jealous eye. Precisely at David’s death and coinciding with the problems of royald coinciding with the problems of royal


succession in Israel, Siamun moved on Gezer and seisuccession in Israel, Siamun moved on Gezer and seized it. Unfortunately for the Egyptian, events in Israzed it. Unfortunately for the Egyptian, events in Israel had also sped swiftly and Solomon quickly took coel had also sped swiftly and Solomon quickly took control of his father’s kingdom. As a result, the Tanite ntrol of his father’s kingdom. As a result, the Tanite monarch made an about-face and, under the guise of monarch made an about-face and, under the guise of a diplomatic marriage agreement, “gave” the captura diplomatic marriage agreement, “gave” the captured city of Gezer to Solomon as a dowry with his daued city of Gezer to Solomon as a dowry with his daughter, thereby cementing an alliance with his powerfghter, thereby cementing an alliance with his powerful neighbor.ul neighbor.""

• ""The last pharaoh of Dyn. 21 (Psusennes II: ca. 959–The last pharaoh of Dyn. 21 (Psusennes II: ca. 959–945 b.c.) rounded out the domination of Tanis."945 b.c.) rounded out the domination of Tanis."

The Libyan Era (Unity): Dyn 22The Libyan Era (Unity): Dyn 22

• ""Owing to the complexities of the period duriOwing to the complexities of the period during which the Libyans dominated Egypt, it is bng which the Libyans dominated Egypt, it is best to divide it into a time of comparative unitest to divide it into a time of comparative unity (ca. 945–850 b.c.), followed by a gradual disiy (ca. 945–850 b.c.), followed by a gradual disintegration leading to the fragmented political ntegration leading to the fragmented political structure so well evident (c. 750 b.c.) just befostructure so well evident (c. 750 b.c.) just before Assyria and the Kushites became interestere Assyria and the Kushites became interested in the Nile Valley."d in the Nile Valley."


• Sheshonk I (ca. 945–924 BCE)Sheshonk I (ca. 945–924 BCE)::– ""He followed the practice of his less successful preHe followed the practice of his less successful pre

decessors of Dyn. 21 in cementing control over the decessors of Dyn. 21 in cementing control over the Theban hierarchy through appointments of his reTheban hierarchy through appointments of his relatives."latives."

– Sheshonk’s well-known campaign into Asia, for eSheshonk’s well-known campaign into Asia, for example, was not one of conquest. Quite the contraxample, was not one of conquest. Quite the contrary, he seized upon an opportune time to damage try, he seized upon an opportune time to damage the power of his immediate neighbor to the north he power of his immediate neighbor to the north by marching into Palestine a few years after the dby marching into Palestine a few years after the death of Solomon. Recent work has revealed that reath of Solomon. Recent work has revealed that rather than attempt to annex property, Sheshonk pather than attempt to annex property, Sheshonk preferred to despoil the territories of Israel and Jureferred to despoil the territories of Israel and Judah, which had thedah, which had the


added advantage of providing needed booty in order tadded advantage of providing needed booty in order to pay his army. Certainly the campaign was a success o pay his army. Certainly the campaign was a success if the limited nature of the strategy is seen and undersif the limited nature of the strategy is seen and understood (Redford 1973: 7–13). Unlike Siamun before hitood (Redford 1973: 7–13). Unlike Siamun before him, who had to contend with a united kingdom of Israem, who had to contend with a united kingdom of Israel, the split between the north and south after the deatl, the split between the north and south after the death of Solomon lent itself to an effective war of attrition. h of Solomon lent itself to an effective war of attrition. Significantly, Sheshonk did not return to Palestine, evSignificantly, Sheshonk did not return to Palestine, even though the state of Judah was weakened from the aen though the state of Judah was weakened from the attack as well as from the desertion of Israel. Hence, onttack as well as from the desertion of Israel. Hence, one might also interpret Sheshonk’s action as an attempe might also interpret Sheshonk’s action as an attempt to break Israel’s commercial monopoly in the north t to break Israel’s commercial monopoly in the north which had grown considerably at the expense of a weawhich had grown considerably at the expense of a weak Tanite line."k Tanite line."

The Libyan Era (Unity): Dyn 22The Libyan Era (Unity): Dyn 22 • ""It is therefore wrong to view the policy of SheshoIt is therefore wrong to view the policy of Shesho

nk and his immediate successors, Osorkon I (ca. 9nk and his immediate successors, Osorkon I (ca. 924–889 b.c.) and Takelot I (ca. 889–874 b.c.), as an 24–889 b.c.) and Takelot I (ca. 889–874 b.c.), as an attempt to revive the glory and power of the NK. attempt to revive the glory and power of the NK. While it is true that the former (Sheshonk I’s son) While it is true that the former (Sheshonk I’s son) did involve himself to the north in Judah, this was did involve himself to the north in Judah, this was a minor foray (2 Chr 14:9–15) and probably intena minor foray (2 Chr 14:9–15) and probably intended solely for added booty. Close connections were ded solely for added booty. Close connections were also maintained with Byblos, the age-old ally of Egalso maintained with Byblos, the age-old ally of Egypt in the Levant. At home, Osorkon I is presumeypt in the Levant. At home, Osorkon I is presumed to have provided the major temples of Egypt (Thd to have provided the major temples of Egypt (Thebes and those in the north) with a great deal of webes and those in the north) with a great deal of wealth, or so says a lengthy inscription from Bubastiealth, or so says a lengthy inscription from Bubastis.s.""


• ""With Osorkon II (ca. 874–850 b.c.) we come With Osorkon II (ca. 874–850 b.c.) we come to the last significant king of Dyn. 22. His reigto the last significant king of Dyn. 22. His reign is noteworthy for a great amount of temple n is noteworthy for a great amount of temple building, especially at his capital, Tanis."building, especially at his capital, Tanis."

• ". . . Osorkon himself, despite his constructio". . . Osorkon himself, despite his construction projects, his close connections with Byblos an projects, his close connections with Byblos and his abortive attempt to stave off the Assyrind his abortive attempt to stave off the Assyrians at Qarqar (853 b.c.), he was unable to halans at Qarqar (853 b.c.), he was unable to halt the internal developments within Egypt. Altt the internal developments within Egypt. Although he passed the throne to his son Takelot hough he passed the throne to his son Takelot II, with his death the land split into warring cII, with his death the land split into warring camps." amps."

The Libyan Era (Anarchy): Dyn 23The Libyan Era (Anarchy): Dyn 23 • ""Within the next twenty or so years, Egypt was witnWithin the next twenty or so years, Egypt was witn

ess to the complete fragmentation of political power ess to the complete fragmentation of political power so evident in the numerous small principalities that tso evident in the numerous small principalities that the Assyrians later faced. At this time one of the ostehe Assyrians later faced. At this time one of the ostensible causes was the attempt of Pharaoh Takelot II nsible causes was the attempt of Pharaoh Takelot II (ca. 850–825 b.c.) to secure his son, a certain Osorko(ca. 850–825 b.c.) to secure his son, a certain Osorkon, the position of high priest of Amun-Re in Thebes.n, the position of high priest of Amun-Re in Thebes. . . . Basically, the king attempted to control the sout . . . Basically, the king attempted to control the south by placing his son, Osorkon, as pontiff. This time th by placing his son, Osorkon, as pontiff. This time the resistance was too great. For ten years the politiche resistance was too great. For ten years the political and military fortunes of this man waxed and waneal and military fortunes of this man waxed and waned, until he reconciled with his opponents and then std, until he reconciled with his opponents and then studiously followed a policy of realism.udiously followed a policy of realism.""

The Libyan Era (Anarchy): Dyn 23The Libyan Era (Anarchy): Dyn 23• ""With Sheshonk III (ca. 825–773 b.c.), we reaWith Sheshonk III (ca. 825–773 b.c.), we rea

ch the end of a united kingdom. Although the ch the end of a united kingdom. Although the south, particularly Thebes, went its own way, south, particularly Thebes, went its own way, a second dynasty established itself at Leontopa second dynasty established itself at Leontopolis in the East Delta. Indeed, the country can olis in the East Delta. Indeed, the country can be envisaged at this time as being peppered wibe envisaged at this time as being peppered with pro-Bubastite (Dyn. 22) and pro-Leontopolth pro-Bubastite (Dyn. 22) and pro-Leontopolite (Dyn. 23) rulers, all small Libyan potentatite (Dyn. 23) rulers, all small Libyan potentates. This political fragmentation is confusing aes. This political fragmentation is confusing as both lines followed their own system of regns both lines followed their own system of regnal dating.al dating.""

The Libyan Era (Anarchy): Dyn 23The Libyan Era (Anarchy): Dyn 23• ""For the next eighty years or so the Egyptian state bFor the next eighty years or so the Egyptian state b

ecame a country with numerous Libyan principalitieecame a country with numerous Libyan principalities, each quasi-independent of any royal control. The ss, each quasi-independent of any royal control. The split between Dyn. 22 and 23 merely hastened the breplit between Dyn. 22 and 23 merely hastened the breakup of the country."akup of the country."

• "This period of extreme political fragmentation did "This period of extreme political fragmentation did not end abruptly. A series of internal struggles was tnot end abruptly. A series of internal struggles was to be compounded by external threats from both the o be compounded by external threats from both the south and the north, until a new and unified Egypt csouth and the north, until a new and unified Egypt could be forged. One such long-range trend was the could be forged. One such long-range trend was the consolidation of the kingdom of the West Delta. By yeonsolidation of the kingdom of the West Delta. By year 36 of Sheshonk V (of Bubastis) a certain Tefnakht ar 36 of Sheshonk V (of Bubastis) a certain Tefnakht of Sais claimed to be Great Chief of the Libu and twof Sais claimed to be Great Chief of the Libu and two years later absorbed the remainingo years later absorbed the remaining

The Libyan Era (Anarchy): Dyn 23The Libyan Era (Anarchy): Dyn 23western principalities into his realm. His later western principalities into his realm. His later contemporary, Osorkon IV, ruled as the nomicontemporary, Osorkon IV, ruled as the nominal head of Dyn. 22, while the contender of Dnal head of Dyn. 22, while the contender of Dyn. 23 faced more serious problems from the syn. 23 faced more serious problems from the south. Indeed, it is the south and particularly touth. Indeed, it is the south and particularly the kingdom of Kush that performs the main rhe kingdom of Kush that performs the main role in the next act of Egypt." ole in the next act of Egypt."

Kushite Era (ca. 747–664 BCE)Kushite Era (ca. 747–664 BCE)• ""The Kushites did not begin with their surprise The Kushites did not begin with their surprise

move northward into Egypt. One must remembemove northward into Egypt. One must remember that, after the fall of the NK, the south was sever that, after the fall of the NK, the south was severed from Egyptian control. A new power had emred from Egyptian control. A new power had emerged which, although native, was very Egyptianierged which, although native, was very Egyptianized and had absorbed much of NK Amun religiozed and had absorbed much of NK Amun religion. This new expansive commercial kingdom had in. This new expansive commercial kingdom had its capital at the Fourth Cataract at Gebel Barkal ts capital at the Fourth Cataract at Gebel Barkal (Napata) and held territory even farther south. B(Napata) and held territory even farther south. By the middle of the 8th century b.c., this new staty the middle of the 8th century b.c., this new state began a series of northern campaigns that was e began a series of northern campaigns that was to head it into the hornets’ nest of divided Egypt.to head it into the hornets’ nest of divided Egypt.""

Kushite Era (ca. 747–664 BCE)Kushite Era (ca. 747–664 BCE)• ""Under the first known king, Kashta, both Lower NUnder the first known king, Kashta, both Lower N

ubia and Thebes were taken. This move downstream ubia and Thebes were taken. This move downstream (i.e., northward) was not lost upon the nominal ruler (i.e., northward) was not lost upon the nominal ruler of Thebes, a Dyn. 23 ruler. However, the Kushites poof Thebes, a Dyn. 23 ruler. However, the Kushites possessed a unity sorely lacking in Egypt, and a religiossessed a unity sorely lacking in Egypt, and a religious fervor for their god Amun which seems to have eus fervor for their god Amun which seems to have enabled them to withstand adversity."nabled them to withstand adversity."

• ""Following Kashta’s death, his son Piankhy (or Piye Following Kashta’s death, his son Piankhy (or Piye as perhaps he should be called) was the effective ruleas perhaps he should be called) was the effective ruler of a kingdom that included part of Upper Egypt (Tr of a kingdom that included part of Upper Egypt (Thebes to Elephantine) and all of Nubia, in addition thebes to Elephantine) and all of Nubia, in addition to core territory with a capital at Napata. It was in hio core territory with a capital at Napata. It was in his 20th regnal year that Piye heard of ans 20th regnal year that Piye heard of an

Kushite Era (ca. 747–664 BCE)Kushite Era (ca. 747–664 BCE)ominous development—the Chief of the West Delta, ominous development—the Chief of the West Delta, a certain Tefnakht, had not merely laid claim to his fa certain Tefnakht, had not merely laid claim to his father’s territory (with its capital at Sais), but had mather’s territory (with its capital at Sais), but had moved southward and found allies eastward. In other oved southward and found allies eastward. In other words, a rival to the Kushite king now existed."words, a rival to the Kushite king now existed."

• ". . . whenever the Kushite met the Libyan allies of T". . . whenever the Kushite met the Libyan allies of Tefnakht or even those cities loyal to the new ruler, he efnakht or even those cities loyal to the new ruler, he was victorious, even under siege conditions (as, for ewas victorious, even under siege conditions (as, for example, at Hermopolis and Memphis). . . . However, xample, at Hermopolis and Memphis). . . . However, Piye failed to achieve his ultimate desire: despite the Piye failed to achieve his ultimate desire: despite the fact that Tefnakht was pushed out of Middle Egypt fact that Tefnakht was pushed out of Middle Egypt and lost Memphis as well, the Kushites were unable and lost Memphis as well, the Kushites were unable to penetrate far into histo penetrate far into his

Kushite Era (ca. 747–664 BCE)Kushite Era (ca. 747–664 BCE)

• kingdom of the west. . . . Piye first received thkingdom of the west. . . . Piye first received the submission of his opponents in Memphis afte submission of his opponents in Memphis after Tefnakht had fled home. The latter eventuer Tefnakht had fled home. The latter eventually sent a messenger to sue for peace, but this ally sent a messenger to sue for peace, but this was only a token submission: Tefnakht remaiwas only a token submission: Tefnakht remained in complete control over his small kingdoned in complete control over his small kingdom, and when the Kushites withdrew southwarm, and when the Kushites withdrew southward, he was now slow in claiming royalty for hid, he was now slow in claiming royalty for himself."mself."

Kushite Era (ca. 747–664 BCE)Kushite Era (ca. 747–664 BCE)• ". . . ". . . Tefnakht, who capitalized on the absence Tefnakht, who capitalized on the absence

of any Kushites in the north by proclaiming hof any Kushites in the north by proclaiming himself pharaoh and effective founder of Dyn. imself pharaoh and effective founder of Dyn. 24. Since no military or administrative netwo24. Since no military or administrative network was established by the victorious Kushites, rk was established by the victorious Kushites, one wonders if their main purpose was simply one wonders if their main purpose was simply to prevent any major kingdom coming to powto prevent any major kingdom coming to power in Egypt that would threaten their control er in Egypt that would threaten their control of Upper Egypt."of Upper Egypt."

• "Piye’s successor and brother, Shabako (ca. 7"Piye’s successor and brother, Shabako (ca. 715–700 b.c.), was forced to repeat the military 15–700 b.c.), was forced to repeat the military actions of his predecessor, although after conactions of his predecessor, although after conquering the north, he remained inquering the north, he remained in

Kushite Era (ca. 747–664 BCE)Kushite Era (ca. 747–664 BCE)Egypt. Dyn. 24 was itself extinguished with thEgypt. Dyn. 24 was itself extinguished with the last pharaoh, Bakenranef (Bocchoris), dying e last pharaoh, Bakenranef (Bocchoris), dying in opposition. The new Kushite capital was plin opposition. The new Kushite capital was placed at Memphis and it is from this time that aced at Memphis and it is from this time that a marked intellectual influence can be seen on a marked intellectual influence can be seen on the Kushites."the Kushites."

• ""There is little doubt that the Kushites and laThere is little doubt that the Kushites and later their successors of Dyn. 26 copied the artister their successors of Dyn. 26 copied the artistic style of the Old Kingdom (OK), but this wtic style of the Old Kingdom (OK), but this was probably in part due to the proximity of pras probably in part due to the proximity of private tombs at Memphis and Sakkara. The Kivate tombs at Memphis and Sakkara. The Kushite move from Thebes as theirushite move from Thebes as their

Kushite Era (ca. 747–664 BCE)Kushite Era (ca. 747–664 BCE)outlying capital in Egypt to Memphis meant a outlying capital in Egypt to Memphis meant a switch from NK traditions (for example, the cswitch from NK traditions (for example, the cult of Amun-Re) to those of the OK."ult of Amun-Re) to those of the OK."

• ""Despite the apparent unity under the 25th DDespite the apparent unity under the 25th Dyn. kings, the fabric of Egyptian society remaiyn. kings, the fabric of Egyptian society remained complex. The local Libyan princes were sned complex. The local Libyan princes were suppressed but their lineages were alive; resistuppressed but their lineages were alive; resistance was quashed but nationalism persisted. ance was quashed but nationalism persisted. Hence, Shabako and his successors, Shebitku Hence, Shabako and his successors, Shebitku (ca. 702–690 b.c.), Taharqa (690–664 b.c.), an(ca. 702–690 b.c.), Taharqa (690–664 b.c.), and Tanwetamani (Tanutamun) (664–656 b.c. in d Tanwetamani (Tanutamun) (664–656 b.c. in Egypt), always faced the same problem: their Egypt), always faced the same problem: their administration wasadministration was

Kushite Era (ca. 747–664 BCE)Kushite Era (ca. 747–664 BCE)

strained, stretching from Napata at the Fourtstrained, stretching from Napata at the Fourth Cataract up to the Mediterranean, and they h Cataract up to the Mediterranean, and they continued to depend heavily upon local suppocontinued to depend heavily upon local support, whether it be from an Egyptian prince or a rt, whether it be from an Egyptian prince or a Libyan.Libyan.""

Assyrians and Kushites Assyrians and Kushites • ""Over a period of expansion lasting three Over a period of expansion lasting three

centuries, Assyria had moved from an insular centuries, Assyria had moved from an insular state to a far-ranging one. Her battles against state to a far-ranging one. Her battles against the Arameans had formed the nucleus of the the Arameans had formed the nucleus of the greatest army that the world had seen: the greatest army that the world had seen: the north Syrian states had fallen, one by one, in north Syrian states had fallen, one by one, in the 9th and 8th centuries b.c., the Lebanon was the 9th and 8th centuries b.c., the Lebanon was taken, Phoenicia made into a client, and the taken, Phoenicia made into a client, and the kingdom of Israel crushed in 722 b.c. kingdom of Israel crushed in 722 b.c. Confrontation with Egypt was inevitable. Confrontation with Egypt was inevitable. Sargon II (722–705 b.c.) was the first Neo-Sargon II (722–705 b.c.) was the first Neo-Assyrian ruler to encounter Egyptian or Assyrian ruler to encounter Egyptian or Kushite armies. His claim was not on EgyptKushite armies. His claim was not on Egypt

Assyrians and KushitesAssyrians and Kushitesherself; rather, Sargon intended to control thherself; rather, Sargon intended to control the sea trade of the East Mediterranean througe sea trade of the East Mediterranean through the subjugation of the small kingdom of Judh the subjugation of the small kingdom of Judah, Egypt’s northern neighbor, and the captuah, Egypt’s northern neighbor, and the capture of Philistia. However, such a policy automare of Philistia. However, such a policy automatically carried the seeds of further warfare sintically carried the seeds of further warfare since Judah, Philistia, or even a Phoenician city, ce Judah, Philistia, or even a Phoenician city, could always appeal to Egypt for aid."could always appeal to Egypt for aid."

• ""In ca. 726 b.c. Hoshea of Israel had sought In ca. 726 b.c. Hoshea of Israel had sought military support against the Assyrians who wmilitary support against the Assyrians who were besieging his country. The king wrote toere besieging his country. The king wrote to

Assyrians and KushitesAssyrians and Kushitesa certain “So, King of Egypt,” for aid (2 Kgs 17:a certain “So, King of Egypt,” for aid (2 Kgs 17:4) and it has been argued that the local Egyptian 4) and it has been argued that the local Egyptian ruler was Osorkon IV, the last nominal pharaoh ruler was Osorkon IV, the last nominal pharaoh of Dyn. 22. In 720 b.c. Sargon of Assyria marcheof Dyn. 22. In 720 b.c. Sargon of Assyria marched into Philistia, Egypt’s closest neighbor to the nod into Philistia, Egypt’s closest neighbor to the north. At this time the king of Gaza received logistirth. At this time the king of Gaza received logistic support from one of the generals in the Delta. Tc support from one of the generals in the Delta. The upshot of the affair was that Gaza fell and Rahe upshot of the affair was that Gaza fell and Raphia, the final post leading from Palestine, was taphia, the final post leading from Palestine, was taken. However, it must be noted that Sargon’s poliken. However, it must be noted that Sargon’s policy was circumscribed: he set up a trade post but cy was circumscribed: he set up a trade post but made no pretense of invading Egypt."made no pretense of invading Egypt."

Assyrians and KushitesAssyrians and Kushites• "With Shabako’s triumph, Dyn. 25 now controlle"With Shabako’s triumph, Dyn. 25 now controlle

d the north more or less completely. However, reld the north more or less completely. However, relations with Assyria could not be ignored by him. ations with Assyria could not be ignored by him. By 713/12 b.c. another minor affair, again close tBy 713/12 b.c. another minor affair, again close to the southern border of Philistia, broke out. This o the southern border of Philistia, broke out. This time the city of Ashdod rebelled and the local rultime the city of Ashdod rebelled and the local ruler, Yamani, fled to Egypt. He was ungraciously rer, Yamani, fled to Egypt. He was ungraciously returned by Shabako, whom the Assyrians designeturned by Shabako, whom the Assyrians designated king of Egypt, adding that the territories noated king of Egypt, adding that the territories now belonged to Kush. Hence, despite a change of pw belonged to Kush. Hence, despite a change of political climate in the Nile Valley, relations betweolitical climate in the Nile Valley, relations between Assyria and Egypt remained ostensibly cordiaen Assyria and Egypt remained ostensibly cordial.l.""

Assyrians and KushitesAssyrians and Kushites• ""The famous 701 b.c. clash with Sennacherib The famous 701 b.c. clash with Sennacherib

(705–689 BCE) indicates just how extended th(705–689 BCE) indicates just how extended the interests of Assyria had become. The Assyrie interests of Assyria had become. The Assyrian king tried to crush totally the rump kingdoan king tried to crush totally the rump kingdom of Judah, now under the leadership of Hezem of Judah, now under the leadership of Hezekiah. The latter sought active support from Ekiah. The latter sought active support from Egypt, or from the Kushites. An army composegypt, or from the Kushites. An army composed of Egyptians, Kushites, and Libyans was sed of Egyptians, Kushites, and Libyans was sent north to meet the Assyrians, but failed and nt north to meet the Assyrians, but failed and retreated after losing the battle of Eltekeh. Thretreated after losing the battle of Eltekeh. The Bible (2 Kgs 18:13–19:37), as well as Assyriae Bible (2 Kgs 18:13–19:37), as well as Assyrian sources (n sources (ANETANET 287–88), 287–88),

Assyrians and KushitesAssyrians and Kushitesprovide independent accounts of this conflict: the provide independent accounts of this conflict: the Kushites may have been led by Taharqa, who waKushites may have been led by Taharqa, who was not yet pharaoh; the Judeans resisted the siege s not yet pharaoh; the Judeans resisted the siege of Jerusalem; and the Assyrians failed to achieve of Jerusalem; and the Assyrians failed to achieve their desired goals. Henceforth, Sennacherib staytheir desired goals. Henceforth, Sennacherib stayed out of Judean politics, preferring to concentraed out of Judean politics, preferring to concentrate his energies elsewhere, and the Kushites, althote his energies elsewhere, and the Kushites, although defeated, had time to regroup for further waugh defeated, had time to regroup for further war. In a nutshell, the battle of Eltekeh reveals the fr. In a nutshell, the battle of Eltekeh reveals the foreign policies of this region for the next half-cenoreign policies of this region for the next half-century or so: Egypt would support Judah and any ltury or so: Egypt would support Judah and any local city against the superpower of Assyria, despiocal city against the superpower of Assyria, despite the latter’s overwhelming strength and militarte the latter’s overwhelming strength and military capability."y capability."

Assyrians and KushitesAssyrians and Kushites

• ""Late in the 670s, he fought with his enemy in Late in the 670s, he fought with his enemy in Asia. His opponent, Esarhaddon, finally manaAsia. His opponent, Esarhaddon, finally managed to defeat the Kushite king and drive him ged to defeat the Kushite king and drive him out of Memphis ca. 671 b.c. This apparent sucout of Memphis ca. 671 b.c. This apparent success ought to have resolved for the Assyrians tcess ought to have resolved for the Assyrians their perennial difficulties with Egypt. Neverthheir perennial difficulties with Egypt. Nevertheless, they found themselves in the same situateless, they found themselves in the same situation as Kush herself following Piye’s invasion ion as Kush herself following Piye’s invasion almost a half-century earlier, viz., the land waalmost a half-century earlier, viz., the land was divided into small principalities each led by s divided into small principalities each led by a warrior class."a warrior class."

Assyrians and KushitesAssyrians and Kushites• ""It comes as no surprise that Egypt (or Kush) reIt comes as no surprise that Egypt (or Kush) re

volted when the Assyrians left and a second camvolted when the Assyrians left and a second campaign was undertaken in 669 b.c., the date of the paign was undertaken in 669 b.c., the date of the death of Esarhaddon. Taharqa’s support came frdeath of Esarhaddon. Taharqa’s support came from the native Egyptians or their Libyan leaders, om the native Egyptians or their Libyan leaders, but so did Esarhaddon’s. It was clear that whoevbut so did Esarhaddon’s. It was clear that whoever wrested effective control of the land would be er wrested effective control of the land would be the accepted pharaoh. Assurbanipal, Esarhaddothe accepted pharaoh. Assurbanipal, Esarhaddon’s successor, attempted twice. In 668/67 b.c. and n’s successor, attempted twice. In 668/67 b.c. and 664 b.c. the Assyrians marched to the Nile, first t664 b.c. the Assyrians marched to the Nile, first taking Memphis and then even Thebes. Significanaking Memphis and then even Thebes. Significantly, in the interim there was another revolt and ttly, in the interim there was another revolt and the Kushites regained their former territories."he Kushites regained their former territories."

Saite Period (664–525 BCE) Saite Period (664–525 BCE) • ""The following period properly speaking beloThe following period properly speaking belo

ngs to the rule of a united Egypt led by the phngs to the rule of a united Egypt led by the pharaohs of Sais. It should be added by way of caraohs of Sais. It should be added by way of clarification that Psammetichus remembered hlarification that Psammetichus remembered his alliance with Assyria and that he and his sois alliance with Assyria and that he and his son, Necho II, aided the tottering Assyrian Empn, Necho II, aided the tottering Assyrian Empire in the last decades of the 7th century b.c., tire in the last decades of the 7th century b.c., thereby proving their allegiance. In Egypt itselhereby proving their allegiance. In Egypt itself, Psammetichus carefully quashed his Delta rf, Psammetichus carefully quashed his Delta rivals and took first Memphis and then, after sivals and took first Memphis and then, after some diplomatic wrangling, Thebes.ome diplomatic wrangling, Thebes.""

Saite Period (664–525 BCE)Saite Period (664–525 BCE)

• ""The reign of Psammetichus I (664–610 b.c.) The reign of Psammetichus I (664–610 b.c.) set the paradigm for the new united dynasty. set the paradigm for the new united dynasty. He carefully built up his power in the Delta, oHe carefully built up his power in the Delta, outwitting his local rivals until the only oppositutwitting his local rivals until the only opposition remaining was that of Thebes.ion remaining was that of Thebes. . . . . . . PsammPsammetichus accomplished the annexation of the soetichus accomplished the annexation of the south by 656 b.c. Noteworthy in the first decadeuth by 656 b.c. Noteworthy in the first decades of his rule is the king’s reliance upon the mils of his rule is the king’s reliance upon the military."itary."


• ""Necho II (610–595 b.c.) succeeded his father Necho II (610–595 b.c.) succeeded his father to the throne of Egypt and reigned during one to the throne of Egypt and reigned during one of the momentous periods of world history. Alof the momentous periods of world history. Already late in the life of his father, the Assyriaready late in the life of his father, the Assyrian Empire had begun to break up at the death n Empire had begun to break up at the death of Assurbanipal (629 b.c.). Egypt, which may of Assurbanipal (629 b.c.). Egypt, which may well have been promised support and territorwell have been promised support and territory from the Assyrians, sided with them against y from the Assyrians, sided with them against the new opposition of the Babylonians and Mthe new opposition of the Babylonians and Medes."edes."

Saite Period (664–525 BCE)Saite Period (664–525 BCE)• "In a famous encounter with the resurrected "In a famous encounter with the resurrected

kingdom of Judea, now led by Josiah, Necho kingdom of Judea, now led by Josiah, Necho (biblical Neco; 1 Kgs 24:29) smashed his oppo(biblical Neco; 1 Kgs 24:29) smashed his opponents at Megiddo before traveling north. Allienents at Megiddo before traveling north. Allied to Assuruballit of Assyria, Necho fought agd to Assuruballit of Assyria, Necho fought against Nabopolassar, the king of Babylonia. In ainst Nabopolassar, the king of Babylonia. In the next few years, Assyria fell, but the Egyptithe next few years, Assyria fell, but the Egyptians maintained a presence in Lebanon until Nans maintained a presence in Lebanon until Nabopolassar’s son, Nebuchadnezzar, defeated abopolassar’s son, Nebuchadnezzar, defeated Necho at Carchemish in 605 b.c. Necho was aNecho at Carchemish in 605 b.c. Necho was able to keep the Babylonians out of Egypt, beinble to keep the Babylonians out of Egypt, being justg just


sufficiently powerful to prevent an invasion in sufficiently powerful to prevent an invasion in 601 b.c. The result of these sudden political an601 b.c. The result of these sudden political and military alterations was that Egypt lost whad military alterations was that Egypt lost whatever power she had accrued in Asia during ttever power she had accrued in Asia during the reign of Psammetichus I. Indeed, despite lahe reign of Psammetichus I. Indeed, despite later support for the kingdom of Judah, the bester support for the kingdom of Judah, the best that Necho and later Psammetichus II could t that Necho and later Psammetichus II could do was to stave off invasion by a triumphant do was to stave off invasion by a triumphant Babylonia.Babylonia.""


• ""Internally, Necho is best known for his atteInternally, Necho is best known for his attempt to build a canal between the Red Sea and mpt to build a canal between the Red Sea and the Nile, a “proto-Suez Canal,” one may say. the Nile, a “proto-Suez Canal,” one may say. This probably successful enterprise highlights This probably successful enterprise highlights the direct continuation of his father’s policy. the direct continuation of his father’s policy. Owing to the importance of the kingdoms of Owing to the importance of the kingdoms of Lydia and Cyprus during this period, the SaitLydia and Cyprus during this period, the Saite rulers found it politically beneficial to mainte rulers found it politically beneficial to maintain a strong commercial and military presencain a strong commercial and military presence in the East Mediterranean."e in the East Mediterranean."

Saite Period (664–525 BCE)Saite Period (664–525 BCE)• "In similar fashion, Necho supported the circ"In similar fashion, Necho supported the circ

umnavigation of Africa, an event well known umnavigation of Africa, an event well known to the Greeks, who later kept record of this asto the Greeks, who later kept record of this astounding maneuver. With Babylonia now fulltounding maneuver. With Babylonia now fully in control of the Lebanon, Necho’s maritime y in control of the Lebanon, Necho’s maritime strategy had the added advantage of not involstrategy had the added advantage of not involving him in fruitless land wars."ving him in fruitless land wars."

• "Necho’s son, Psammetichus II (595–589 b."Necho’s son, Psammetichus II (595–589 b.c.), did not rule long. Nevertheless, he followec.), did not rule long. Nevertheless, he followed an interesting foreign policy with respect to d an interesting foreign policy with respect to the north and south. Although avoiding direct the north and south. Although avoiding direct involvement with Babylonia, he activelyinvolvement with Babylonia, he actively


supported the state of Judah against Nebuchasupported the state of Judah against Nebuchadnezzar just as earlier the Libyans and Kushidnezzar just as earlier the Libyans and Kushites maneuvered in Palestine against the Assyrtes maneuvered in Palestine against the Assyrians. It is probable that the Egyptians reckoneians. It is probable that the Egyptians reckoned correctly with their Judean allies by not oved correctly with their Judean allies by not overtly committing themselves to a policy antagortly committing themselves to a policy antagonistic to Babylon: Judah under her last king nistic to Babylon: Judah under her last king Zedekiah was, after all, nothing more than a rZedekiah was, after all, nothing more than a rump state with no outlet to the sea."ump state with no outlet to the sea."

Saite Period (664–525 BCE)Saite Period (664–525 BCE)• "In year 3 of Psammetichus II’s reign, a com"In year 3 of Psammetichus II’s reign, a com

bined Egyptian-Greek army, led by Egyptianbined Egyptian-Greek army, led by Egyptians, traveled south into the heartland of Nubia. s, traveled south into the heartland of Nubia. This military campaign was successful and we This military campaign was successful and we possess important hieroglyphic records of the possess important hieroglyphic records of the encounter which indicate that Napata (Gebel encounter which indicate that Napata (Gebel Barkal) was taken."Barkal) was taken."

• "Psammetichus II died and was succeeded by "Psammetichus II died and was succeeded by his son Apries, who ruled until 570 b.c. This phis son Apries, who ruled until 570 b.c. This pharaoh continued to play an important role in haraoh continued to play an important role in the political affairs of the east by movingthe political affairs of the east by moving


against the Phoenician cities of Tyre and Sidoagainst the Phoenician cities of Tyre and Sidon in an effort to prohibit their control by Nebn in an effort to prohibit their control by Nebuchadnezzar. Although inheriting the continuuchadnezzar. Although inheriting the continual war with Babylon, for almost all of his reigal war with Babylon, for almost all of his reign Apries was able to keep the enemy at bay. Hn Apries was able to keep the enemy at bay. His dependence upon Greek mercenaries was ciis dependence upon Greek mercenaries was cited by later historians, such as Herodotus, as ted by later historians, such as Herodotus, as proof of his philohellenic policy."proof of his philohellenic policy."

Saite Period (664–525 BCE)Saite Period (664–525 BCE)• ""Unfortunately for Egypt, the Babylonians wUnfortunately for Egypt, the Babylonians w

ere overrun by the more vigorous Medes and ere overrun by the more vigorous Medes and Persians, led by Cyrus. With the fall of BabylPersians, led by Cyrus. With the fall of Babylon (ca. 546 b.c.), most of the Near East becamon (ca. 546 b.c.), most of the Near East became part of the second World Empire, i.e., Achae part of the second World Empire, i.e., Achaemenid Persia. Cyrus then marched against Lemenid Persia. Cyrus then marched against Lydia and took it. Therefore, at the death of Aydia and took it. Therefore, at the death of Amasis in 526 b.c. little remained independent masis in 526 b.c. little remained independent of Persia in the Near East outside of the Nile of Persia in the Near East outside of the Nile Valley. In fact, under Cyrus’ successor, CambValley. In fact, under Cyrus’ successor, Cambyses, plans were already under way for an attyses, plans were already under way for an attack on Egypt. ack on Egypt.


• Cambyses found natives who would support hCambyses found natives who would support him, and within a year, purposely not long afteim, and within a year, purposely not long after the accession of the new pharaoh Psammeticr the accession of the new pharaoh Psammetichus III, the Persians moved southwest and cohus III, the Persians moved southwest and conquered Egypt.nquered Egypt.""

Date post:	26-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	oscar-malone
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

8. Babylonia (900-539) & Egypt (1000-525) BOT612: Old Testament Backgrounds.

Documents