Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 7.djvu/766

742 742 EGYPT [lIISTOKY. noinc, SMcceeded by the command of mercenaries and by alliances with the Tanite family in establishing a new royal line, Dynasty XXIL, which is remarkable for its foreign names. The royal names Sheshonk, Osorkon, Takelot are all either Assyrian or Babylonian. Still more striking is the name Nsmrut, or Nimrod, borne by non-kingly members of the family. Probably it came from the further East. Sheshonk I., the Shishak of the Bible, may have gained the royal power peaceably. His son Osorkon married the daughter of the last king of the Tanito Dynasty, to whom Sheshonk succeeded. He seems early to have entertained the design of restoring the Egyptian rule in the East, for he received Jeroboam when he fled from Solomon. The revolt of the Ten Tribes enabled him to carry out this pro ject, and late in his reign he marched against Uehoboam, and returned with the treasures of the Temple and the palace. A remarkable sculpture at the temple of El-Karnak gives a list of 130 names of towns and peoples conquered by Shishak in this expedition. Long as is the list, it is not like the rolls of the conquerors of the Empire. The items are far less important, and the llagarenes recur several times, as if to record the subjugation of a series of small Bedawee tribes. Cities of Judah and Israel appear in the list, but the towns in the kingdom of Jeroboam seem to be Levite and Canaanite, and it is probable that the Israelite king was not averse to their overthrow. With this occurrence we gain the first good chronological footing in Egyptian history. The Hebrew chronology is indeed not as yet fixed. The Assyrian monuments seem to in dicate a reduction of at least twenty-three years in the ordinary dates. The invasion of Shishak is ordinarily dated B.C. 971, but may thus have to be lowered to about p,.c. 948; and as it probably took place in about the twentieth year of the Egyptian king s reign, his accession may be dated approximately B.C. 967. The government of Egypt under the kings of Dynasty XXTi. underwent an important change. They made the high-priesthood of Amen-ra an office of a prince of the family, usually the eldest son, and gave high governments to other princes. Thus the power of the Pharaoh ultimately became merely nominal, and Egypt resolved itself into an aggregate of principalities. A further cause of decay was the import ance of the Libyan mercenaries which each of the princes commanded. Under a new dynasty, XXIII., said to be of Tanites, but probably kindred to the Bubastites, Egypt was, for a time at least, reunited under a single rule, but towards its close the process of disintegration had already again set in, and the country was divided among nearly twenty princes, at least four of whom took the royal insiguia (Maspero, Hist. Anc., 378 seqq.). Among these small princes but one was capable of attempt ing to reunite Egypt under his rule. This was Tafnekht, Tncphachthos, prince of Sais, who reduced great part of the country, and would probably have achieved complete success, had not the yet unconquered princes called in the priest-king of Napata, Piankhi Meriamen. While Egypt had declined, Ethiopia had constantly risen, and at this time part of the Theba is owed it allegiance. Piankhi, the descendant of the priest-kings of Thebes, was not unwilling to recover his ancient dominions. In one brilliant campaign he defeated Tafnekht and his allies, captured their strong holds, and obtained the sovereignty of Egypt, leaving the small princes to rule as his vassals. The ancient Empire was thus in part restored, but as it was ruled from Ethiopia, and the little princes constantly strove for independence, it had no real durability. Piankhi was succeeded by Kashta, who was probably an Ethiopian, owing his throne to his intermarriage with a princess of the Theban line. Bokenranf, or Bocchoris, son and successor of Tafnekht, no doubt seizing this occasion, was able to carry out the pro ject of his father and make himself king of Egypt. After a short reign marked by energy and prudence he perished in a fresh Ethiopian invasion. Shabak, or Sabakon, con quered Egypt, and having taken Bokenranf in his capital, Sais, put him to a cruel death. It was no longer an Egyptian prince who ruled at Napata; all the circumstances we know of Shabak and his dynasty indicate an Ethiopian line, governing Egypt as a conquered country, not as their ancient territory. Still Shabak s connection with the priestly line was not forgotten. His sister,Queen Ameniritis, governed Thebes, and the power of the local rulers was limited, not destroyed. Hoshea, king of Israel, sent presents to Shabak, 1 who was subsequently drawn into a confederacy of Syrian and other princes against Sargon king of Assyria, but, as in all these wars, the Ethiopian king was a tardy ally. His capital lay too far south, and in crossing the eastern border of Egypt he left the ill-affected princes of the Delta in the line of his communications. He therefore came into the field too late, and it was but little east of Egypt that he met ths Assyrians and experienced a disastrous defeat at Eaphia. He lost great part of Egypt, in which the small princes again established themselves, now as vassals of Assyria. Shabak only retaining Ethiopia and part of Upper Egypt. Shabatok, or Sebichus, was the son and successor of Shabak. He made himself supreme king in Egypt, but appears to have lost Ethiopia to Tahraka. Towards the close of his reign the Egyptian dynasts joined in an alliance against Sennacherib, who had recently succeeded Sargon. The confederates were defeated, or made their submission one by one. The Egyptian princes lost a battle in southern Palestine, in the territory of their ally Hezekiah, who was the last in the East to submit. But the Egyptians again advanced, encouraged by Tahraka, king of Ethiopia, who marched to their support. No battle was fought. The Assyrians moved against the Egyptians, but in one night the invading anny perished, and Sennacherib fled to Nineveh. The tradition of the Egyptians agrees with Biblical history in relating the destruction of the Assyrians as miraculous ; and it should bs noted that for the rest of his reign Sen nacherib never ventured agnin to invade Palestine. During this interval of respiteTuhraka entered Egypt, slew Shabatok, and made himself master of the whole country (B.C. 692). After twenty years of what seems to have been a peace ful reign, the Assyrian war began afresh, Esarhaddon, son and successor of Sennacherib, resolving on the subjugation of Egypt. Tahraka was vanquished and fled to Napata, and Memphis and Thebes were taken. The country was divided between twenty princes, with Neku I. of Sais as their chief. The fortresses were garrisoned with Assyrian troops (B.C. 672). In a few years, however, Tahraka returned, defeated the Assyrians, and captured Memphis. In com memoration of the earlier subjugation or of this one, the Ethiopian kingputs the name of Egypt among those of con quered nations not only at Napata but also at Thebes (Maspero, Hist. Anc., 427; Brugsch. Hist., 1 cd., 244, 245). Soon after Esarhaddon abdicated in favour of his son Asshur-bani-pal, who speedily invaded and reconquered Egypt, driving out Tahraka and restoring the tributary princes. As soon, however, as he had left, a conspiracy broke out, and these chiefs sent emissaries to Tahraka. They were overcome by the Assyrians, and Neku and two others sent in chains to Nineveh, before Tahraka could come to their aid. But he again reconquered Thebes and Memphis. Asshur-bani-pal now made a politic use of the Egyptian party, treated Neku with honour, and sent him back to Egypt as ruler of Sais, giving a second principality to his son Psametik. Neku returned to find that Tahraka 1 &quot;With this transaction Shabak s record at El-Kamak of the tributes of Syria has been connected (llaspero, Hist. Aiic., 390).