8. Babylonia (900-539)

1
8. Babylonia (900-539) Egypt (1000-525)

• BOT612 Old Testament Backgrounds

2
A Period of Weakness (1000-748 BCE)

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

3
A Period of Weakness (1000-748 BCE)

• When Nabu-apla-iddina died, his successor,
  Marduk-zakir-shumi I (ca. 854-819 BCE), renewed
  the old treaty with Assyria, which was now ruled
  by Shalmaneser III (858-824 BCE). . . . The
  renewal of the treaty proved advantageous for
  Marduk-zakir-shumi when his brother led a
  rebellion and seized some of Babylonia for
  himself, Marduk-zakir-shumi called upon
  Shalmaneser to intervene, invoking the treaty
  between them. . . . After this incident,
  Babylonia continued to enjoy peace with Assyria
  and general prosperity."

4
A Period of Weakness (1000-748 BCE)

• "When Shalmaneser was getting very old, a major
  rebellion broke out in Assyria and continued for
  some years. It appears that one of Shalmaneser's
  sons, Shamshi-Adad, sought and gained Babylonian
  support . . . the Babylonian king used the
  occasion to demote the Assyrian to a lower status
  so that in the treaty he appears as the lesser
  party. When the rebellion had been suppressed and
  Shamshi-Adad, the fifth king of that name, had
  been crowned, he invaded Babylonia, presumably
  out of revenge for the humiliating treaty imposed
  upon him. This is the first

5
A Period of Weakness (1000-748 BCE)

• time for almost a century that there was open
  conflict between the two states. Shamshi-Adad V
  led three expeditions into Babylonia, capturing
  major Babylonian cities, including Babylon, and
  Babylonia was forced to pay tribute."
• "The Assyrian Adad-narari III (810-783 b.c.)
  continued the aggressive stance toward Babylonia,
  although it is unknown how many campaigns he sent
  there. A treaty favorable toward Assyria was
  imposed upon Babylonia, which again had to pay
  tribute. Fortunately for Babylonia, this reign
  marked the end of a

6
A Period of Weakness (1000-748 BCE)

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

7
Under Assyrian Rule (742-627 BCE)

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

8
Under Assyrian Rule (742-627 BCE)

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

9
Under Assyrian Rule (742-627 BCE)

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

10
Under Assyrian Rule (742-627 BCE)

• for the next decade. But in 710 b.c., Sargon
  finally defeated the Chaldeans, and
  Merodach-baladan took refuge in the S marshes."
• "Babylonia, as represented by Merodach-baladan
  and other leaders, staunchly resisted
  Sennacherib. Merodach-baladan actually regained
  the throne at Babylon briefly in 703 b.c.,
  forcing the Assyrian to turn from other concerns
  (Palestine) and invade Babylonia.
  Merodach-baladan again fled south to the marshes,
  but over the next few years he stirred up
  opposition to the Assyrian occupation.
  Sennacherib attempted to rule

11
Under Assyrian Rule (742-627 BCE)

• Babylonia through puppet kings while he led the
  Assyrian army in an abortive attempt to capture
  Merodach-baladan. The critical point in this
  phase of Assyro-Babylonian affairs was the entry
  of Elam into the fray. The Elamites invaded
  Babylonia, captured Sennacherib's son and heir
  (who had been crowned king of Babylonia), and
  carried him off to exile and death."
• "Sennacherib was enraged by this, regarding it as
  Babylonian treachery. He launched vicious
  campaigns first against Elam and then against
  Babylonia, finally capturing Babylon itself in
  689 b.c."

12
Under Assyrian Rule (742-627 BCE)

• "The next Assyrian king, Esarhaddon (680-669
  b.c.), set himself the task of reconciliation
  with and reconstruction of Babylonia. This was a
  wise policy and won for him a reign untroubled on
  the S border."
• "Esarhaddon had decided that when he died his
  kingdom would be divided between two of his sons,
  and thus Ashurbanipal (668-627 b.c.) came to rule
  over Assyria and Shamash-shuma-ukin (667-648
  b.c.) to rule over Babylonia. . . . Increasing
  unease broke into open battle in 652 b.c. and
  continued for four years, to 648 b.c. Assyria
  quickly gained the upper hand, and, after a long
  siege, Babylon fell and Shamash-shuma-ukin
  perished in his burning palace."

13
Imperial Beginnings (626-605 BCE)

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

14
Imperial Beginnings (626-605 BCE)

• led Babylonian troops to lay siege to Nippur,
  which contained an Assyrian garrison. The siege
  was lengthy and the people so impoverished that
  some of them, as we know from contracts
  discovered at Nippur, were forced to sell their
  children into slavery so that they could buy
  food. Eventually the siege was lifted when an
  Assyrian army arrived and pursued the Babylonian
  troops as far as Babylon."

15
Imperial Beginnings (626-605 BCE)

• "During the early years of Nabopolassar's reign,
  the Babylonian offensive went from success to
  success, and Assyria gradually withdrew to the
  north. When Nabopolassar pushed up to the Upper
  Euphrates region, Egypt became alarmed and sent
  aid to Assyria (616 b.c.). Such an alliance had
  never existed before and is a symbol of the
  momentous changes occurring in ancient Near
  Eastern politics. About the same time that Egypt
  aligned itself with Assyria, the Medes allied
  themselves with the Babylonians. The Medes had
  long been established in W

16
Imperial Beginnings (626-605 BCE)

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

17
Imperial Beginnings (626-605 BCE)

• "The decisive battle between the two sides came
  in 605 at Carchemish. Egypt now stood alone, for
  nothing is ever heard again of an Assyrian army.
  By this time the Babylonian army was being led in
  alternate years by the king Nabopolassar and his
  son and heir Nebuchadnezzar. In 605 the son was
  in charge of the expedition. Nebuchadnezzar led a
  surprise attack on the Egyptian army at
  Carchemish. The Egyptians were caught inside the
  walls but managed to break out and avoid being
  sealed in by a siege. The fighting was fierce,
  and the Egyptians eventually

18
Imperial Beginnings (626-605 BCE)

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

19
Nabopolassar Cylindar
20
The Empire (604-556 BCE)

• "No sooner were the coronation ceremonies over
  for Nebuchadnezzar II (604-562 BCE) , after the
  death of his father, then he hastened back to
  Syria to resume his campaigning. He had defeated
  the Egyptians at Carchemish in 605 b.c., but this
  did not automatically bring Syria-Palestine under
  Babylonian control. In the following years he led
  a series of expeditions W of the Euphrates.
  Sometimes local rulers acknowledged him as lord
  and paid tribute without question at other
  times, they resisted and the Babylonian army laid
  siege to their cities."

21
The Empire (604-556 BCE)

• "By 601 Nebuchadnezzar felt his hold over
  Syria-Palestine was strong enough to permit a
  campaign against Egypt. This was a mistake. A
  pitched battle between the two forces in Egypt
  resulted in a stalemate, and Nebuchadnezzar,
  choosing discretion, led his army back to
  Babylon. After a year spent repairing the damage
  to his army and equipment, he resumed his Syrian
  campaigns. This was urgent, for the Babylonian
  humiliation in Egypt had encouraged W states to
  rebel."

22
The Empire (604-556 BCE)

• "Jerusalem during this period was torn between
  two factions, one pro-Egyptian and one
  pro-Babylonian. The king, Jehoiakim, and his
  supporters were in favor of siding with the
  Egyptians, but the prophet Jeremiah preferred the
  Babylonians. Although Jehoiakim had paid tribute
  to Babylonia after the Battle of Carchemish,
  Babylonia's ignominious withdrawal from Egypt in
  601 led him to renounce his allegiance to
  Babylonia and throw in his lot with Egypt.
  Nebuchadnezzar could not let this key center fall
  away, and so in 597 he besieged and

23
The Empire (604-556 BCE)

• captured Jerusalem. He appointed a new king,
  Zedekiah, and imposed a heavy tribute. Jehoiakin,
  son of Jehoiakim who had died, his family, and
  many leading citizens were taken as captives to
  Babylon . . . ."
• In the years after 597, Zedekiah allowed himself
  gradually to be persuaded by those who favored
  Egypt. Eventually, with a promise of Egyptian
  support, he abandoned allegiance to Babylonia,
  refusing to pay tribute. In 587 Nebuchadnezzar
  again invaded Judah, capturing various cities as
  he marched on Jerusalem. These Judean cities

24
The Empire (604-556 BCE)

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

25
Blakes Nebuchadnezzar
26
Babylon
27
Babylon
28
Babylon
29
Babylon
30
Babylon
Babylon
31
Babylon
32
Babylon
33
Babylon
34
Babylon
35
Babylon
36
Babylon
37
Babylon
38
Babylon
39
Babylon
40
(No Transcript)
41
The Empire (604-556 BCE)

• "After his death he was succeeded by some
  relatively unimportant monarchs, including
  Evil-Merodach and Nergal-Sharezzer. If the
  kingdom was still strong, it was nevertheless no
  longer expanding."

42
Nabonidus the Fall of Babylon (666-539 BCE)

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

43
Nabonidus the Fall of Babylon (666-539 BCE)

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

44
Nabonidus the Fall of Babylon (666-539 BCE)

• "A second unique feature of this king's reign was
  his ten-year self-imposed exile in Tema, an oasis
  in the Arabian desert. While he lived there his
  son, Belshazzar, managed affairs at Babylon. . .
  . It is a fact that pre-Islamic Arabs in the
  Arabian peninsula revered the moon-god, and this
  may have been an important motivation for
  Nabonidus, given his intense interest in this
  cult. But this would not exclude one or more
  other reasons, such as an attempt to regain his
  health, for the long exile."

45
Nabonidus the Fall of Babylon (666-539 BCE)

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

46
Nabonidus the Fall of Babylon (666-539 BCE)

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

47
Belshazzar (556-539 BCE)

• "Son of Nabonidus (556-539 b.c.), the last king
  of Babylonia prior to the Persian conquest,
  Belshazzar ruled as co-regent for at least three
  years while his father was in Arabia. This
  arrangement in itself is important, since it has
  no parallel in any other period of Mesopotamian
  history. There is no direct evidence that he
  altered conditions in southern Mesopotamia in any
  way during his father's absence."

48
Belshazzar (556-539 BCE)

• "He appears to have had ample authority to give
  orders to temple officials in Uruk and Sippar and
  could even lease out temple land. His name
  disappears from the contract tablets in
  Nabonidus' thirteenth year it has been suggested
  that this coincides with Nabonidus' return to
  Babylonia from Tema."
• Belshazzar commanded Babylonian troops in the
  vicinity of Sippar when Cyrus of Persia conquered
  Anatolia (545 b.c.). Nothing is known of his
  activities after 543 b.c."

49
Egypt Third Intermediate Period (Dynasty 21-26)

• "The era immediately succeeding that of the New
  Kingdom (NK) witnessed varied developments in
  society, culture, and economy (Kitchen 1973).
  Notwithstanding the apparent paucity of royal
  inscriptions, much has been revealed by recent
  research concentrated on this hitherto presumed
  Dark Age of Egypt. However, the paramount and
  consistent trend in the dynasties following the
  fall of the NK is one of political
  decentralization and corresponding lack of a firm
  unified monarchy (Yoyotte 1961). Foreigners, too,
  made an impact on the Nile

50
Egypt Third Intermediate Period (Dynasty 21-26)

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

51
Egypt Third Intermediate Period (Dynasty 21-26)

• "For the sake of simplicity and ease of
  comprehension, modern scholarship now uses the
  term "Third Intermediate Period" to cover
  Dynasties 2125 (ca. 1069664 b.c.). This, in
  turn, was followed by the Saite Period, Dyn. 26
  (664525 b.c.), an era of unity. However, it
  should be stressed that the 3d Intermediate
  Period is purely a global designation, revealing
  little about the 400-year span of Egyptian
  history, a time that witnessed the emergence of a
  society quite different than any preceding."

52
Egypt in Dynasty 21 (ca. 1069945 BCE)

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

53
Egypt in Dynasty 21 (ca. 1069945 BCE)

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

54
Egypt in Dynasty 21 (ca. 1069945 BCE)

• ". . . there are no regnal years associated with
  Pinudjem as king, a point worth stressing as it
  indicates that Smendes still was superior, if
  only in form."
• "With the deaths of Smendes and his short-lived
  son, the Tanite line then passed on to the
  energetic Psusennes I (ca. 1039991 b.c.).
  Although the southern line of high priests never
  again rose to claim royalty after Pinudjem Is
  death seven years later, Psusennes himself took
  the title of high priest of Amun (this time in
  Tanis). He copied the policy of his southern
  contemporaries by

55
Egypt in Dynasty 21 (ca. 1069945 BCE)

• securing his control over various priestly
  offices. Indeed, unlike the administrative setup
  of the NK, Dyn. 21 and its successors reveal the
  intimate family relationships that existed
  between the kings and the religious benefices in
  the land."
• "Very little is known concerning the south of
  Egypt during the reign of Psusennes and his
  successors. The line of Menkheperre continued to
  hold the office of High Priest of Amun, but none
  of his descendants ever took the kingship."

56
Egypt in Dynasty 21 (ca. 1069945 BCE)

• The next three Tanite kings, although of
  relatively small importance, present interesting
  aspects. During the reigns of the first two,
  Amenemope and Osorkor(n), now named The Elder,
  close connections appear to have been forged
  between the Tanite court and Hadad the Edomite (1
  Kgs 111422), a political refugee from the
  north. It was probably during these two reigns
  that Hadad came to Tanis and secured for himself
  a place in exile after the victorious armies of
  King David had taken control of his kingdom. This
  passive support of an enemy of the Israelite

57
Egypt in Dynasty 21 (ca. 1069945 BCE)

• Kingdom was to have repercussions toward the
  close of Dyn. 21. Such brief indications of
  international maneuverings clearly indicate that
  the paucity of our sources for this period does
  not necessarily indicate that the Tanite kings
  eschewed foreign affairs."
• "The second pharaoh, Osorkor(n) (ca. 984978
  b.c.), bears a good Libyan name and there is
  little doubt . . . that he was not related to the
  previous pharaoh. Quite the contrary, Osorkor(n)
  was descended from an important Libyan (or
  Meshwesh, as they called themselves) tribe that
  had settled in the north

58
Egypt in Dynasty 21 (ca. 1069945 BCE)

• in Dyn. 20. His father was a tribal emir of
  great importance and he himself was the uncle of
  the future founder of Dyn. 22."
• "Siamun (ca. 978959 b.c.) continued to support
  the refugee Hadad at his court. However, when the
  aged king David of Israel died, he took the
  opportunity to support fully Hadads return to
  Edom and at the same time moved his army north
  into Philistia (Malamat 1963 1216 Kitchen
  1973 28083). This campaign, although minor in
  comparison to those of the NK, nevertheless
  indicates that Tanis regarded her northern
  neighbor, the kingdom of Israel, with a jaundiced
  if not jealous eye. Precisely at Davids death
  and coinciding with the problems of royal

59
Egypt in Dynasty 21 (ca. 1069945 BCE)

• succession in Israel, Siamun moved on Gezer and
  seized it. Unfortunately for the Egyptian, events
  in Israel had also sped swiftly and Solomon
  quickly took control of his fathers kingdom. As
  a result, the Tanite monarch made an about-face
  and, under the guise of a diplomatic marriage
  agreement, gave the captured city of Gezer to
  Solomon as a dowry with his daughter, thereby
  cementing an alliance with his powerful
  neighbor."
• "The last pharaoh of Dyn. 21 (Psusennes II ca.
  959945 b.c.) rounded out the domination of
  Tanis."

60
The Libyan Era (Unity) Dyn 22

• "Owing to the complexities of the period during
  which the Libyans dominated Egypt, it is best to
  divide it into a time of comparative unity (ca.
  945850 b.c.), followed by a gradual
  disintegration leading to the fragmented
  political structure so well evident (c. 750 b.c.)
  just before Assyria and the Kushites became
  interested in the Nile Valley."

61
The Libyan Era (Unity) Dyn 22

• Sheshonk I (ca. 945924 BCE)
• "He followed the practice of his less successful
  predecessors of Dyn. 21 in cementing control over
  the Theban hierarchy through appointments of his
  relatives."
• Sheshonks well-known campaign into Asia, for
  example, was not one of conquest. Quite the
  contrary, he seized upon an opportune time to
  damage the power of his immediate neighbor to the
  north by marching into Palestine a few years
  after the death of Solomon. Recent work has
  revealed that rather than attempt to annex
  property, Sheshonk preferred to despoil the
  territories of Israel and Judah, which had the

62
The Libyan Era (Unity) Dyn 22

• added advantage of providing needed booty in
  order to pay his army. Certainly the campaign was
  a success if the limited nature of the strategy
  is seen and understood (Redford 1973 713).
  Unlike Siamun before him, who had to contend with
  a united kingdom of Israel, the split between the
  north and south after the death of Solomon lent
  itself to an effective war of attrition.
  Significantly, Sheshonk did not return to
  Palestine, even though the state of Judah was
  weakened from the attack as well as from the
  desertion of Israel. Hence, one might also
  interpret Sheshonks action as an attempt to
  break Israels commercial monopoly in the north
  which had grown considerably at the expense of a
  weak Tanite line."

63
The Libyan Era (Unity) Dyn 22

• "It is therefore wrong to view the policy of
  Sheshonk and his immediate successors, Osorkon I
  (ca. 924889 b.c.) and Takelot I (ca. 889874
  b.c.), as an attempt to revive the glory and
  power of the NK. While it is true that the former
  (Sheshonk Is son) did involve himself to the
  north in Judah, this was a minor foray (2 Chr
  14915) and probably intended solely for added
  booty. Close connections were also maintained
  with Byblos, the age-old ally of Egypt in the
  Levant. At home, Osorkon I is presumed to have
  provided the major temples of Egypt (Thebes and
  those in the north) with a great deal of wealth,
  or so says a lengthy inscription from Bubastis."

64
The Libyan Era (Unity) Dyn 22

• "With Osorkon II (ca. 874850 b.c.) we come to
  the last significant king of Dyn. 22. His reign
  is noteworthy for a great amount of temple
  building, especially at his capital, Tanis."
• ". . . Osorkon himself, despite his construction
  projects, his close connections with Byblos and
  his abortive attempt to stave off the Assyrians
  at Qarqar (853 b.c.), he was unable to halt the
  internal developments within Egypt. Although he
  passed the throne to his son Takelot II, with his
  death the land split into warring camps."

65
The Libyan Era (Anarchy) Dyn 23

• "Within the next twenty or so years, Egypt was
  witness to the complete fragmentation of
  political power so evident in the numerous small
  principalities that the Assyrians later faced. At
  this time one of the ostensible causes was the
  attempt of Pharaoh Takelot II (ca. 850825 b.c.)
  to secure his son, a certain Osorkon, the
  position of high priest of Amun-Re in Thebes. . .
  . Basically, the king attempted to control the
  south by placing his son, Osorkon, as pontiff.
  This time the resistance was too great. For ten
  years the political and military fortunes of this
  man waxed and waned, until he reconciled with his
  opponents and then studiously followed a policy
  of realism."

66
The Libyan Era (Anarchy) Dyn 23

• "With Sheshonk III (ca. 825773 b.c.), we reach
  the end of a united kingdom. Although the south,
  particularly Thebes, went its own way, a second
  dynasty established itself at Leontopolis in the
  East Delta. Indeed, the country can be envisaged
  at this time as being peppered with pro-Bubastite
  (Dyn. 22) and pro-Leontopolite (Dyn. 23) rulers,
  all small Libyan potentates. This political
  fragmentation is confusing as both lines followed
  their own system of regnal dating."

67
The Libyan Era (Anarchy) Dyn 23

• "For the next eighty years or so the Egyptian
  state became a country with numerous Libyan
  principalities, each quasi-independent of any
  royal control. The split between Dyn. 22 and 23
  merely hastened the breakup of the country."
• "This period of extreme political fragmentation
  did not end abruptly. A series of internal
  struggles was to be compounded by external
  threats from both the south and the north, until
  a new and unified Egypt could be forged. One such
  long-range trend was the consolidation of the
  kingdom of the West Delta. By year 36 of Sheshonk
  V (of Bubastis) a certain Tefnakht of Sais
  claimed to be Great Chief of the Libu and two
  years later absorbed the remaining

68
The Libyan Era (Anarchy) Dyn 23

• western principalities into his realm. His later
  contemporary, Osorkon IV, ruled as the nominal
  head of Dyn. 22, while the contender of Dyn. 23
  faced more serious problems from the south.
  Indeed, it is the south and particularly the
  kingdom of Kush that performs the main role in
  the next act of Egypt."

69
Kushite Era (ca. 747664 BCE)

• "The Kushites did not begin with their surprise
  move northward into Egypt. One must remember
  that, after the fall of the NK, the south was
  severed from Egyptian control. A new power had
  emerged which, although native, was very
  Egyptianized and had absorbed much of NK Amun
  religion. This new expansive commercial kingdom
  had its capital at the Fourth Cataract at Gebel
  Barkal (Napata) and held territory even farther
  south. By the middle of the 8th century b.c.,
  this new state began a series of northern
  campaigns that was to head it into the hornets
  nest of divided Egypt."

70
Kushite Era (ca. 747664 BCE)

• "Under the first known king, Kashta, both Lower
  Nubia and Thebes were taken. This move downstream
  (i.e., northward) was not lost upon the nominal
  ruler of Thebes, a Dyn. 23 ruler. However, the
  Kushites possessed a unity sorely lacking in
  Egypt, and a religious fervor for their god Amun
  which seems to have enabled them to withstand
  adversity."
• "Following Kashtas death, his son Piankhy (or
  Piye as perhaps he should be called) was the
  effective ruler of a kingdom that included part
  of Upper Egypt (Thebes to Elephantine) and all of
  Nubia, in addition to core territory with a
  capital at Napata. It was in his 20th regnal year
  that Piye heard of an

71
Kushite Era (ca. 747664 BCE)

• ominous developmentthe Chief of the West Delta,
  a certain Tefnakht, had not merely laid claim to
  his fathers territory (with its capital at
  Sais), but had moved southward and found allies
  eastward. In other words, a rival to the Kushite
  king now existed."
• ". . . whenever the Kushite met the Libyan allies
  of Tefnakht or even those cities loyal to the new
  ruler, he was victorious, even under siege
  conditions (as, for example, at Hermopolis and
  Memphis). . . . However, Piye failed to achieve
  his ultimate desire despite the fact that
  Tefnakht was pushed out of Middle Egypt and lost
  Memphis as well, the Kushites were unable to
  penetrate far into his

72
Kushite Era (ca. 747664 BCE)

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

73
Kushite Era (ca. 747664 BCE)

• ". . . Tefnakht, who capitalized on the absence
  of any Kushites in the north by proclaiming
  himself pharaoh and effective founder of Dyn. 24.
  Since no military or administrative network was
  established by the victorious Kushites, one
  wonders if their main purpose was simply to
  prevent any major kingdom coming to power in
  Egypt that would threaten their control of Upper
  Egypt."
• "Piyes successor and brother, Shabako (ca.
  715700 b.c.), was forced to repeat the military
  actions of his predecessor, although after
  conquering the north, he remained in

74
Kushite Era (ca. 747664 BCE)

• Egypt. Dyn. 24 was itself extinguished with the
  last pharaoh, Bakenranef (Bocchoris), dying in
  opposition. The new Kushite capital was placed at
  Memphis and it is from this time that a marked
  intellectual influence can be seen on the
  Kushites."
• "There is little doubt that the Kushites and
  later their successors of Dyn. 26 copied the
  artistic style of the Old Kingdom (OK), but this
  was probably in part due to the proximity of
  private tombs at Memphis and Sakkara. The Kushite
  move from Thebes as their

75
Kushite Era (ca. 747664 BCE)

• outlying capital in Egypt to Memphis meant a
  switch from NK traditions (for example, the cult
  of Amun-Re) to those of the OK."
• "Despite the apparent unity under the 25th Dyn.
  kings, the fabric of Egyptian society remained
  complex. The local Libyan princes were suppressed
  but their lineages were alive resistance was
  quashed but nationalism persisted. Hence, Shabako
  and his successors, Shebitku (ca. 702690 b.c.),
  Taharqa (690664 b.c.), and Tanwetamani
  (Tanutamun) (664656 b.c. in Egypt), always faced
  the same problem their administration was

76
Kushite Era (ca. 747664 BCE)

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

77
Assyrians and Kushites

• "Over a period of expansion lasting three
  centuries, Assyria had moved from an insular
  state to a far-ranging one. Her battles against
  the Arameans had formed the nucleus of the
  greatest army that the world had seen the north
  Syrian states had fallen, one by one, in the 9th
  and 8th centuries b.c., the Lebanon was taken,
  Phoenicia made into a client, and the kingdom of
  Israel crushed in 722 b.c. Confrontation with
  Egypt was inevitable. Sargon II (722705 b.c.)
  was the first Neo-Assyrian ruler to encounter
  Egyptian or Kushite armies. His claim was not on
  Egypt

78
Assyrians and Kushites

• herself rather, Sargon intended to control the
  sea trade of the East Mediterranean through the
  subjugation of the small kingdom of Judah,
  Egypts northern neighbor, and the capture of
  Philistia. However, such a policy automatically
  carried the seeds of further warfare since Judah,
  Philistia, or even a Phoenician city, could
  always appeal to Egypt for aid."
• "In ca. 726 b.c. Hoshea of Israel had sought
  military support against the Assyrians who were
  besieging his country. The king wrote to

79
Assyrians and Kushites

• a certain So, King of Egypt, for aid (2 Kgs
  174) and it has been argued that the local
  Egyptian ruler was Osorkon IV, the last nominal
  pharaoh of Dyn. 22. In 720 b.c. Sargon of Assyria
  marched into Philistia, Egypts closest neighbor
  to the north. At this time the king of Gaza
  received logistic support from one of the
  generals in the Delta. The upshot of the affair
  was that Gaza fell and Raphia, the final post
  leading from Palestine, was taken. However, it
  must be noted that Sargons policy was
  circumscribed he set up a trade post but made no
  pretense of invading Egypt."

80
Assyrians and Kushites

• "With Shabakos triumph, Dyn. 25 now controlled
  the north more or less completely. However,
  relations with Assyria could not be ignored by
  him. By 713/12 b.c. another minor affair, again
  close to the southern border of Philistia, broke
  out. This time the city of Ashdod rebelled and
  the local ruler, Yamani, fled to Egypt. He was
  ungraciously returned by Shabako, whom the
  Assyrians designated king of Egypt, adding that
  the territories now belonged to Kush. Hence,
  despite a change of political climate in the Nile
  Valley, relations between Assyria and Egypt
  remained ostensibly cordial."

81
Assyrians and Kushites

• "The famous 701 b.c. clash with Sennacherib
  (705689 BCE) indicates just how extended the
  interests of Assyria had become. The Assyrian
  king tried to crush totally the rump kingdom of
  Judah, now under the leadership of Hezekiah. The
  latter sought active support from Egypt, or from
  the Kushites. An army composed of Egyptians,
  Kushites, and Libyans was sent north to meet the
  Assyrians, but failed and retreated after losing
  the battle of Eltekeh. The Bible (2 Kgs
  18131937), as well as Assyrian sources (ANET
  28788),

82
Assyrians and Kushites

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

83
Assyrians and Kushites

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

84
Assyrians and Kushites

• "It comes as no surprise that Egypt (or Kush)
  revolted when the Assyrians left and a second
  campaign was undertaken in 669 b.c., the date of
  the death of Esarhaddon. Taharqas support came
  from the native Egyptians or their Libyan
  leaders, but so did Esarhaddons. It was clear
  that whoever wrested effective control of the
  land would be the accepted pharaoh. Assurbanipal,
  Esarhaddons successor, attempted twice. In
  668/67 b.c. and 664 b.c. the Assyrians marched to
  the Nile, first taking Memphis and then even
  Thebes. Significantly, in the interim there was
  another revolt and the Kushites regained their
  former territories."

85
Saite Period (664525 BCE)

• "The following period properly speaking belongs
  to the rule of a united Egypt led by the pharaohs
  of Sais. It should be added by way of
  clarification that Psammetichus remembered his
  alliance with Assyria and that he and his son,
  Necho II, aided the tottering Assyrian Empire in
  the last decades of the 7th century b.c., thereby
  proving their allegiance. In Egypt itself,
  Psammetichus carefully quashed his Delta rivals
  and took first Memphis and then, after some
  diplomatic wrangling, Thebes."

86
Saite Period (664525 BCE)

• "The reign of Psammetichus I (664610 b.c.) set
  the paradigm for the new united dynasty. He
  carefully built up his power in the Delta,
  outwitting his local rivals until the only
  opposition remaining was that of Thebes. . . .
  Psammetichus accomplished the annexation of the
  south by 656 b.c. Noteworthy in the first decades
  of his rule is the kings reliance upon the
  military."

87
Saite Period (664525 BCE)

• "Necho II (610595 b.c.) succeeded his father to
  the throne of Egypt and reigned during one of the
  momentous periods of world history. Already late
  in the life of his father, the Assyrian Empire
  had begun to break up at the death of
  Assurbanipal (629 b.c.). Egypt, which may well
  have been promised support and territory from the
  Assyrians, sided with them against the new
  opposition of the Babylonians and Medes."

88
Saite Period (664525 BCE)

• "In a famous encounter with the resurrected
  kingdom of Judea, now led by Josiah, Necho
  (biblical Neco 1 Kgs 2429) smashed his
  opponents at Megiddo before traveling north.
  Allied to Assuruballit of Assyria, Necho fought
  against Nabopolassar, the king of Babylonia. In
  the next few years, Assyria fell, but the
  Egyptians maintained a presence in Lebanon until
  Nabopolassars son, Nebuchadnezzar, defeated
  Necho at Carchemish in 605 b.c. Necho was able to
  keep the Babylonians out of Egypt, being just

89
Saite Period (664525 BCE)

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

90
Saite Period (664525 BCE)

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

91
Saite Period (664525 BCE)

• "In similar fashion, Necho supported the
  circumnavigation of Africa, an event well known
  to the Greeks, who later kept record of this
  astounding maneuver. With Babylonia now fully in
  control of the Lebanon, Nechos maritime strategy
  had the added advantage of not involving him in
  fruitless land wars."
• "Nechos son, Psammetichus II (595589 b.c.), did
  not rule long. Nevertheless, he followed an
  interesting foreign policy with respect to the
  north and south. Although avoiding direct
  involvement with Babylonia, he actively

92
Saite Period (664525 BCE)

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

93
Saite Period (664525 BCE)

• "In year 3 of Psammetichus IIs reign, a combined
  Egyptian-Greek army, led by Egyptians, traveled
  south into the heartland of Nubia. This military
  campaign was successful and we possess important
  hieroglyphic records of the encounter which
  indicate that Napata (Gebel Barkal) was taken."
• "Psammetichus II died and was succeeded by his
  son Apries, who ruled until 570 b.c. This pharaoh
  continued to play an important role in the
  political affairs of the east by moving

94
Saite Period (664525 BCE)

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

95
Saite Period (664525 BCE)

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

96
Saite Period (664525 BCE)

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